I misread and apologize. Conflating a lot of different arguments and I messed up. Sorry.
most disappointing Trek movie?
- Thread starter Khan 2.0
- Start date
I think he would have went through every one of his people until he found a viable donor. Nothing would stop him.
What really pulls me out is it wasn't so much that it was used as a cure. But that it literally resurrected Kirk from the dead. He was dead and gone.
Frankly I would have rather they not bothered with that whole death scene anyway. I couldn't believe they basically remade the scene and pulled a switcheroo. It really lost me after that.
To be clear, there is plenty I liked about STID. But the 3 things I mentioned are probably the 3 things I really disliked about the film. The rest of it I'd probably leave intact for the most part. So maybe 75 to 80% of the movie was fine for me.
But then I'm one of those few unusual folks that liked Beyond the best of the Abrams films. Oh, and TMP is my favorite overall Star Trek film and I liked Nemesis. So take what I say with a grain of salt I suppose
No worries. Be well.
Edit . . . Oh, yeah, the whole reason I weighed in here was to change my vote to GEN.
I didn't really have any big hopes for a Trek movie since III, (I thought each would be good to dece, and they were); but combining TOS w TNG coud have been epic. I just don't think it was, nor did I at the time.
Curiosity strikes me-did you have any expectations going in to GEN?
Fair enough and that matches my attitude as well. Kirk showing up felt very unimportant for what it was supposed to be. The Nexus just sucks.
Because it is a big-budget Summer movie. People aren't there to watch the crew stand around and talk.
Which is hilarious to me because the moments I remember of 09 and ID the most are the moments were the crew are standing around and talking. Good character moments.Because it is a big-budget Summer movie. People aren't there to watch the crew stand around and talk.
Having people stand around talking about blood for your big finale wouldn’t have went over well for most.
True enough. Not everyone is all about discussing blood like I am.
Something I've been thinking about for a while, but I haven't been able to assemble any kind of coherent theory around:
There is an idea, very prevalent among sf fans, that any number of things can be mashed up and produce something where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Thing is, for every Blade Runner (film noir v. sf) there's a dozen or more that just don't cut the mustard. My current thought is that any idea can be at least good, if not great, but it requires lots of time to develop, and lots of talent.
In context, Kirk was a classic hero, love it or hate it. TNG was not about classic heroism; it was, as you point out, more of a realistic portrayal. My sense is that the Creators were working on more of a TV schedule, and so instead of taking the time to develop Kirk's role so that he could have a hero's death, they wrote something that would easily fit into a TNG episode (cm/cf Tasha getting killed by a malevolent oil slick, Sarek dying from what amounts to dementia). Kirk deserved better, but he was never going to get it in TNG because Kirk himself was not cut from the same fabric as their people.
Personally, I think of his death as having occurred at the end on the Harriman/Enterprise-B section. That was a heroic moment, and we saw Kirk at his very best. I can feel how much he wanted to take the center seat when it's offered, and he still did the right thing.
So do I.
I always thought of that as the way Kirk would go out, saving the Enterprise. And it even was consistent with TFF when he said he would die alone. But Kirk cheats death one more time and manages to come back and things got twisted around.
I never had a problem with the idea of his dying on Veridian III. I can certainly seeing him giving his life to save a civilization he never met (that on oft-forgotten Veridian IV). I was just never fond of the method of his 'final' death--though I've learned to just accept it all these years later. He 'died' heroically the first time, it'd probably be too much to ask to do that again.
I kind of liked the Nexus as a plot device. I know some fans don't care for it but it was something different.
I have to admit I was a bit bummed that the Enterprise-D was destroyed. When I first saw the ship on "Encounter at Farpoint" I hated it. I thought it was all big and ugly. But it grew on me over the years and ironically when it was destroyed in Generations I was like "awe, that sucks". I kind of hoped when Picard left the Nexus that they'd manage to prevent the destruction of the Enterprise. It was nice to see it on the big screen at least.
I used to hate his death line, which is, "It was fun," more or less. Now, I think, yeah, that's what Trek was, fun. I need to watch the JJ films again. CBS Trek is mighty serious and portentious, and I might appreciate the JJs more now. They were so loud. Like physically loud. I am not of this culture, sigh. But they did try to be fun, I think.
That's why I actually like TFF. It's a space episode with goofy shit, a God alien, love between the characters . . . trying to make a philosophic point about the human condition . . . it's very TOS to me.
That's why I actually like TFF. It's a space episode with goofy shit, a God alien, love between the characters . . . trying to make a philosophic point about the human condition . . . it's very TOS to me.
Was including Khan a mistake? Sure. But you also have to look at it from the Hollywood focus group obsessed mindset. What is the most prolific things fans were saying after 2009?
"Will Khan be in the next movie?" - "Who should play reboot Khan?" - "I hope they don't put Khan in the next movie"
Positive or negative, all the Hollywood market researchers see is "Khan, Khan, Khan, Khan, Khan"
By that point, can you really blame them? There is almost no way studio executives would allow them to do anything BUT put Khan in the movie at that point. Do I agree with it? No, but I do understand it.
"Will Khan be in the next movie?" - "Who should play reboot Khan?" - "I hope they don't put Khan in the next movie"
Positive or negative, all the Hollywood market researchers see is "Khan, Khan, Khan, Khan, Khan"
By that point, can you really blame them? There is almost no way studio executives would allow them to do anything BUT put Khan in the movie at that point. Do I agree with it? No, but I do understand it.
Count me among those...is it really few?
Personally I read the return of Kirk novels, so I think of his death as not having happened yet (at least as of 2379/80).
No, I just have to look at it from the "audience member who wanted to watch a good movie" mindset.
It seems a lot of fans have a soft spot for TFF. I do too. I rank it 13/13 but I still like watching it from time to time. Frankly, if they ever were to fix the special effects I'd put it at 12/13 (moving Insurrection last--which while flawed at least looks competently made). What I really hate about the special effects of TFF is that they are so poor that they stand out. All the other 12 films have special effects that range from average to superior. But TFF stands out like a sore thumb on that front, being so inferior to the others that it actually stands out for it's crappiness.
I have the special edition DVD of TFF and otherwise like to watch it because like you noted, it does have some elements that remind me of the original series. A melodramatic villain (like Apollo for instance), it really captures the Kirk-Spock-McCoy friendship well, I really enjoyed Laurence Luckingbill's performance, and Goldsmith's score can't be beat. His TMP theme at the beginning actually sounded even better. Oh, and I really liked the forward observation room--if there was one set piece I wish they carried forward to TUC it was that one (though of course the bridge and transporter room were reused too).
I actually have this irrational hope that someday Paramount might update the special effects--I actually think there might be a market for that, and in this day an age an update could be done that looks well done for a minimal investment. I'm not even sure it would cost the million dollars Shatner had asked for prior to the release of the special edition DVD.
I've held off buying the Blu-Ray for TFF (and TMP because I continue to hope the Directors Edition of that film gets the Blu-Ray treatment--which I think actually will happen in that case). But that's only part of it because with my progressive scan on my DVD player the DVD actually looks pretty sharp. It was different with something like TNG series, where the Blu-Ray update actually resulted in a marked improvement.
But I think, as usual, only one bad Admiral remotely did (or was always nuts).
also Scotty opening the bay doors under great duress from Kirk, plus theres the introduction of the Klingon BoP, and of course Kirk is brought back to life like Spock was.. (and Kirks leather coat in the Kronos scenes was reminiscent of Shatners Trek III coat)
its like the events of ST09 fast tracked/mashed the events of Star Trek II and III into one movie (except the destruction of the Enterprise was saved for the start of the next one)
Last edited:
