most disappointing Trek movie?

[Jeyl]

There's a different between liking it and expecting future installments to be beholden to every detail.

Well, if that was entire point that Shapeshifter was trying to make, they should have made it. Unfortunately that's not what they said.

"If it were beholden to what has come before it would never do anything new."
​

"What has come before" can mean anything. From the tiniest detail on a computer screen to the longest running story arc that spanned multiple shows. Making a statement that is that broad with no examples to support it doesn't make for a good argument. Also, telling fans what to do with the things they like is never nice.

 

[fireproof78]

Also, telling fans what to do with the things they like is never nice.

Who is telling fans what to do?

 

[Jeyl]

Who is telling fans what to do?

Shapeshifter is.

"Trek fans should just accept that and move on."
"When Trek gets it right, rejoice and be glad! When they get it wrong, forget it and move on."

I also think it's rather telling that his enlightened lesson about canon issues comes from a moment where McCoy chastised Spock for having the audacity to experience the song in his own way. No one engaged Spock in a discussion about what the lyrics to the song meant, they only wanted him to experience it their way. It reeks of gatekeeping.

 

[fireproof78]

Shapeshifter is.

I also think it's rather telling that his enlightened lesson about canon issues comes from a moment where McCoy chastised Spock for having the audacity to experience the song in his own way. No one engaged Spock in a discussion about what the lyrics to the song meant, they only wanted him to experience it their way. It reeks of gatekeeping.

Missed that. But, I also think expecting films to be beholden isn't much better.

 

[Jeyl]

Missed that. But, I also think expecting films to be beholden isn't much better.

The simple act of being 'beholden' to a previous story isn't a bad thing in and of itself. It's how you execute it. Star Trek II was able to tell it's story while also acknowledging the events of 'Space Seed' where appropriate. Some are detailed while others left vague. Take Khan's wife for instance. Fans who watched Space Seed will know exactly who Khan is referring to, but not having her name spelled out or what her role in Space Seed was doesn't bring the film down either.

Star Trek III on the other hand is definitely lesser for how often it calls back to Star Trek II. Remember when Spock died? Here's the actual scene for this film's opening! Not enough? Let's re-enact it with Sarek word for word. Still not enough? Let's watch some clips of it in the very next scene. Enough? I think you can got room for one more. Let's end the movie with another re-enactment after Spock is brought back to life.

There's actually a moment in Star Trek III where if they actually had paid attention to Star Trek II we would have been spared one of the worst character moments in the original TOS run. I am of course referring to Saavik guilt tipping David over the Genesis Planet.

"How many have paid the price for your impatience? How many have died? How much damage have you done and what is yet to come?"
​

Anyone remember how the Genesis Torpedo was still in the experimental stages and that the creation of a habitable world was supposed to occur on a dead planet and not in a nebula? I think given a little more time and further experiments in it's intended environment would likely have yielded better results. And in regards to how many have died because of David's impatience? ZERO. It didn't matter what stages the Genesis Project was in. Khan was going to seek it out regardless the moment he learned about it.

 

[fireproof78]

The simple act of being 'beholden' to a previous story isn't a bad thing in and of itself.

It depends on the details being beholden to.

 

[DonIago]

There's actually a moment in Star Trek III where if they actually had paid attention to Star Trek II we would have been spared one of the worst character moments in the original TOS run. I am of course referring to Saavik guilt tipping David over the Genesis Planet.

"How many have paid the price for your impatience? How many have died? How much damage have you done and what is yet to come?"
​

Anyone remember how the Genesis Torpedo was still in the experimental stages and that the creation of a habitable world was supposed to occur on a dead planet and not in a nebula? I think given a little more time and further experiments in it's intended environment would likely have yielded better results. And in regards to how many have died because of David's impatience? ZERO. It didn't matter what stages the Genesis Project was in. Khan was going to seek it out regardless the moment he learned about it.

David said that protomatter was the only way to solve certain problems with Genesis, so it's entirely possible that if he hadn't used protomatter it never would have been considered viable to begin with, or at least never gotten to the point where Reliant was out surveying planets, or at least not at this point in time. That's what Saavik is referring to.

 

[Jeyl]

David said that protomatter was the only way to solve certain problems with Genesis, so it's entirely possible that if he hadn't used protomatter it never would have been considered viable to begin with, or at least never gotten to the point where Reliant was out surveying planets, or at least not at this point in time. That's what Saavik is referring to.

But is that still a viable reason to pin all the deaths that have occurred on him? If simply having the Genesis experiment 'exist' is reason enough to say all those moments of torture and death are on David, why doesn't anyone blame him or Carol in Star Trek II? Using Protomatter is an irrelevant point since Genesis still seemed viable before Saavik learned that from David later on.

The issue of Protomatter should have been restricted to just one thing. Explaining why the Genesis planet was unstable. That's it.

 

[DonIago]

My interpretation of David's line is that if he hadn't used protomatter then Genesis might never have gotten to the point where Reliant would have been surveying planets, which was what most immediately started the avalanche of events. It's possible that the use of protomatter is meant to explain why the Genesis planet is unstable and not broader issues, but that's not how I've interpreted it. Besides, Genesis was also detonated in a way it apparently was never intended to be.

I think everyone had their hands too full in TWOK to start playing the blame game, and at that point none of Our Heroes was known to have done anything as apparently unethical as using protomatter.

If that's how the line is meant to be interpreted, then while it's unfair to pin all the deaths on David, he does bear some responsibility. Of course, so does Kirk for putting Khan on CA5 in the first place, and the geneticists who augmented Khan, etc... Given the circumstances, and especially if one goes by the notion that Saavik is half-Romulan, then I don't blame her for being a bit peeved in the heat of the moment. It's not as though she attacks David or such.

 

[yotsuya]

I had to say Generations was the most disappointing. Why? Because it is the movie I had the highest hopes for and those hopes crashed and burned. I should have taken Patrick Stewarts comments at a con that spring more to heart. But to this point there had been better movies and worse movies like there were better episodes and worse episodes. Generations became only the second film that I will only watch when doing a complete rewatch. I was prepared for the excrement that is the first two Abrams films, so I had no expectations that they would be great. And to be fair, ST09 is just meh. I think there are some major flaws with it.

 

[ChallengerHK]

I used to whine about things they screwed up too. It kept me awake at times! But then I learned a lesson from McCoy in STV. Here are McCoy's words from that film paraphrased into the lesson:

It's a show you green blooded Vulcan. The Canon isn't important. What is important is you have a good time watching!

Let's say you have a friend, someone you've known for years, for decades even. Sometime during the first year of the relationship he tells you that he's an only child, and goes on at great length about how he wishes he had had a sibling. 30 or so years later, he tells you about his sister, and goes on at great length about the wonderful times they had playing together. Would you find this odd? Jarring? Would you think that he might need some psychiatric help?

Another element of this comes from a friend who once said to me "You talk about these people like they're real." My answer: "Presumably, unless you were a test tube baby, you had two grandfathers. I've never met them, don't know anything about them, and I wouldn't know them if I saw them. But I can tell you a lot about James T. Kirk, and I can make good guesses about a lot more. So, to me, James T. Kirk is far more real than your grandfather."

 

[Jeyl]

Given the circumstances, and especially if one goes by the notion that Saavik is half-Romulan, then I don't blame her for being a bit peeved in the heat of the moment. It's not as though she attacks David or such.

No, but she does put enough guilt on him that he feels the need to try and put things right. Like insisting he go after the Klingons instead of Saavik. Last I checked, Saavik is Vulcan who by default has 3x the strength of a Human, hasn't spent her career in a lab and has experience in facing potentially hostile forces (General Order 15). And who knows? If David didn't feel so freaking guilty over the Genesis Project not working, he probably wouldn't have coaxed Kruge into killing one of the hostages to prove him wrong.

And since we're condeming people for being responsible for the torture and murder of those around them simply by being associated with a project that the murderous psychopath wanted, I guess you could conclude that Saavik bears as much responsibility for David's death as the Klingons do. I guess Star Trek VI missed an opportunity for Kirk to hate on the Vulcans for his son's death as much as the Klingons.

 

[Vger23]

If you're talking purely about "which movie did I have huge expectations for, but felt underwhelmed seeing it?"...it would have to be Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. It was supposed to be this big, profound moment in Star Trek history...and it came off as a moderately budgeted whodunnit IN SPAAACE. The trailer made it look awesome, and it was just "kinda good." So that would be my biggest disappointment.

The other huge disappointment (not BAD MOVIE...just failing to meet high expectations) is STID. There was so much massive potential after the success of the first Kelvin film. STID came off as a pretty over-baked, convoluted mess compared to my expectations....It feels like an awesome amusement park ride where unfortunately a ride attendant is also assigned to punch you in the stomach repeatedly while you are going around and around on the ride trying to have fun.

 

[yotsuya]

I have lived Kirk's speech to Picard in that film, paraphrased. Replace "duty and honor" with "Teh Canon!", and that's me.

I used to whine about things they screwed up too. It kept me awake at times! But then I learned a lesson from McCoy in STV. Here are McCoy's words from that film paraphrased into the lesson:

It's a show you green blooded Vulcan. The Canon isn't important. What is important is you have a good time watching!

But yeah, every fan has to learn that lesson in their own time and continue a happy camper, or not, and become a bitter energy vampire whining about things they cannot control.

When Trek gets it right, rejoice and be glad! When they get it wrong, forget it and move on. You'll be a more happy fan that way. YMMV

Good luck, peace, and long life.

I like this post. Cool way to play with quotes.

I don't let small canon mistakes worry me. TOS has enough of those just within the series. I only worry about the big mistakes. And those are easy to discount because Star Trek takes place in a multiverse (starting with Mirror Mirror and then the JJ universe) so any production that can't bother to even do some minor research to make sure they follow canon as least as poorly as TOS did just gets shunted to a parallel universe and I can easily ignore it or enjoy it for the quality of story. I do my best to give every story a fair chance. Most succeed and a few fail.

 

[Jeyl]

When Trek gets it right, rejoice and be glad! When they get it wrong, forget it and move on.

'Forget and move on' can only go so far. Star Trek V is a super easy film to forget about because it does nothing enhance the overall story that's been going on since The Wrath of Khan and going form IV to VI feels way more natural. Same cannot be said about Star Trek Generations because so many things happen in that movie that you can't really ignore what happened in that movie going forward.

1. Kirk is dead.
2. Data now has an emotion chip
3. The Enteprise-D is destroyed
4. The Duras Sisters are dead

What's worse than a bad Star Trek movie? One that forces you to acknowledge everything that happened in it.

 

[shapeshifter]

@ChallengerHK, I have a sibling I didn't know I had until I was 20 years old! (long story but it is true)

As Kirk, Shatner was practically the father to me I never had. (until I found out things about him )

So, yeah, they've been real to me too.

All I am saying is, we either make our Star Trek a fun adventure that can last a lifetime, or burn out and be pissed off and bitter over minutia. I've chosen the former. Keep on Trekking!

 

[fireproof78]

Same cannot be said about Star Trek Generations because so many things happen in that movie that you can't really ignore what happened in that movie going forward.

There is a reason why I ignore the TNG films completely, why All Good Things is the wrap up to that crew, and why TUC is the wrap up to TOS (for the most part. Exceptions are made). There is no good in Generations to acknowledge no reason to have it be a part of the story. It is quite irrelevant. So, I ignore it. Even with First Contact it bears little influence on that film.

Acceptance and ignoring are useful tools.

All I am saying is, we either make our Star Trek a fun adventure that can last a lifetime, or burn out and be pissed off and bitter over minutia.

It's not a binary choice.

 

[ChallengerHK]

All I am saying is, we either make our Star Trek a fun adventure that can last a lifetime, or burn out and be pissed off and bitter over minutia. I've chosen the former. Keep on Trekking!

I do understand where you're coming from, and I may agree with you. I'm not sure yet. I think everything hinges on the word "minutia". That tends to indicate tiny details which ultimately make no difference. So if, for instance, if they were to tell me that Chekov's fake brother was retconned into being real, I'd be a lot more inclined to not care than if, at some future point, they say Kirk was an only child, which would be a major retcon.

 

[fireproof78]

What other option are there?

People find value in the details, both larger ones and smaller ones. For many, especially the Berman era, there was a huge amount of consistency in look, in feel, in the way technology was applied that was more consistent than even TOS or the TOS films. People enjoy studying deck plans, technical readouts and imaging what the world would be like. Minutia doesn't immediately mean I'll be bitter because it didn't adhere to it. So, there is the idea of "Hey, I love the adventure and the minutia."

 

[fireproof78]

The off topic drift was about things that don't work continuity wise.

I enjoy those things too. But I accept starship sizes can appear differently depending on the script or producer requirements.

Some fans, not so much.

Which is why I said it isn't binary. Creating an artificial choice of enjoy or not is rather odd, given that some people can find enjoyment in some things, while struggle with it in others. Taking Generations is a great example-it isn't just that minutia is causing consternation but the fact that the film leans so heavily in to it as a central through line of the film and still gets things wrong that makes it less palatable. As I said, this isn't an all or nothing thing, and fans can vary in what actually will break their suspension of disbelief, rather than just throwing up their hands at every apparent discontinuity. Otherwise, TWOK would not be so beloved.