I never said that Shinzon having the support of the military was a problem.
most disappointing Trek movie?
- Thread starter Khan 2.0
- Start date
I never said that Shinzon having the support of the military was a problem.
It solves all the problems of how rapidly his coup occurred. Wipe out the leadership, have support of the military are two basic elements of planning a coup. More than that, Shinzon also had a member of the Romulan senate on his side, which allowed him to consolidate power quickly. However, depending on other elements that were loyal to him (civil police, intelligence, media) his control could be limited, and his coup likely quickly dispersed.
To the detriment of the film. The reveal of an entire race enslaved by the Romulans and existing on Remus? A military coup led by a former slave who becomes ruler of the Romulan Star Empire? Either of those two concepts or both could have been the basis for a better story. Instead it's just rushed through to get to a very original story about a villain hatching a plot to destroy Earth.
The Romulan Star Empire getting taken over by a military coup and led by a former slave who then installs himself as Praetor is kind of a big deal, but it doesn't feel like a big deal. Like most of the TNG films, the story feels small. TOS film franchise and even two-parters like "The Best of the Both Worlds" felt more epic in scope.
Probably. Doesn't make the coup less believable just because there is a desire for a longer story or a different story than what we got.
Among other contributing factors, it does make it less believable. Maybe not for you, but for others. That's how opinions work.
Out of nowhere we get this sister planet Remus reveal. And that they have this massive slave labor race, the Remans. And this newly revealed slave race successfully pull off a coup and the Romulan Empire is overthrown. And a clone Picard, who they didn't just kill when he wasn't of any use anymore. And the revelation that Data has a brother. All in the first, what, 20 minutes? It was too much to introduce only to hit the reset button at the end. And we all know that if this movie had been successful we would have got Star Trek: The Search for Data.
Last edited:
Yes, that was too much. The coup? No.
It's a tie between Into Darkness and Nemesis for me. With the former edging out the latter due to bad acting by the main cast. Nemesis had bad lighting in the outdoor scenes and bad makeup, but that's minor by comparison to bad acting.
The 3 Kelvin reboot movies are basically just Michael Bay style soulless CGI action spectacles which don't feel like Trek movies. But other than those I'd say Star Trek: Insurrection with the only redeeming quality being the soundtrack. At least Generations showed the Enterprise B and had the big Enterprise-D crash sequence.
I'll never understand the "souless" argument. Kelvin Trek is that action/adventure platform in the 21st century with characters developing through the action.
I find The Motion Picture and Beyond to be "noble failures", and get better on rewatch.
First Contact and The Voyage Home are flawed but still very fun, without sacrificing the darker/serious undertones.
Generations and Into Darkness are not objectively awful films and seem watchable, but have too many subtle flaws and a tired laziness to them that they're ultimately a resounding "meh".
Insurrection and The Final Frontier both bombed badly because of the fatal flaw of cheap visual effects colliding with naff, self-indulgent stories (with lifeless scripts).
First Contact and The Voyage Home are flawed but still very fun, without sacrificing the darker/serious undertones.
Generations and Into Darkness are not objectively awful films and seem watchable, but have too many subtle flaws and a tired laziness to them that they're ultimately a resounding "meh".
Insurrection and The Final Frontier both bombed badly because of the fatal flaw of cheap visual effects colliding with naff, self-indulgent stories (with lifeless scripts).
Last edited:
2009 definitely is.
2013 arguably is (it also has no reason to cling to Earth...)
BEY cannot be. It was engaging, had some neat plot points, had the action at the start - which was admittedly confusing as there's no point of reference, but a rewatch solidifies that right enough (though the movie does explain it later on.) I like to believe people prefer a setup before the big battle scene, but we actually know who is being attacked by whom - which helps. People can say what they like about the 21st century for better or worse, BEY still took some chances with juggling things about and it (IMHO) was largely successful. Everything felt in place, even the song - for which the teaser led to thinking the wrong things but in the context of the movie I was floored by how tactfully done it was. That's not to say using modern music should be done for every movie (please, no!) but as a one-off where they put thought into it, it certainly won me over and unexpectedly so.
GEN is a missed opportunity and a bungle, but it did include some hefty themes as well as a glorious sendoff for the 1701-D model (and interior light sets).
INS also shoved in too much for its own sake and, indeed, does feel excessively self-indulgent and at the expense of the plot. Especially as some of it is shallow and glossed over, in a way that seasons 5 and 6 might be proud of.
TFF's effects were a mixed bag, but they wouldn't have been as noticeable if the story and its tone were better - effects can complement a story but will never suffice at being it alone.
I felt a lot of soul from Zachary Quinto's performance as Spock: In "Star Trek" I felt for his loneliness of being different as a child and why it angered him; I was moved by his feelings for Uhura and I had sorrow for the loss of his mother; the only person in his life who shared the difficulties of his life.
"Into Darkness" Spock had difficulties understanding friendship and the moral compass of it; when he's by Kirk in his near death scene Spock finally understood what it meant. I cried with him and I ROOTED FOR HIM TO GET KHAN and beat the living crap out of him!
I guess it depends on execution and relevance as well as relation to the anticipation of it....in this case, I'd have to say Insurrection.
While I have mentioned I like the movie, it is often overlooked or forgotten as it followed up the second most-watched Trek movie: First Contact.
My biggest gripe at the time is it bore little relation to the grander Trek universe...how can they not continue the Dominion story arc? It was ripe for an epic scale.
If anything, I was happy to finally see this style of scale in the Kelvin films.
RAMA
While I have mentioned I like the movie, it is often overlooked or forgotten as it followed up the second most-watched Trek movie: First Contact.
My biggest gripe at the time is it bore little relation to the grander Trek universe...how can they not continue the Dominion story arc? It was ripe for an epic scale.
If anything, I was happy to finally see this style of scale in the Kelvin films.
RAMA
At the time of release, The Voyage Home was a crushing disappointment to me after the greatness of TWOK and TSFS. I was never a fan of Star Trek's all-out comedies. Also the lack of James Horner's participation to finish up the loose trilogy was a nail in that coffin. While I don't dislike a single Trek film, this one remains my least favorite. Once the jokes got old, there is nothing exciting for me to revisit. The score is leaden, the pacing is slack, the actors hammy and Catherine Hicks is just grating. However, it's the original cast and the 23rd century stuff is outstanding.
Star Trek Insurrection came out on my birthday and I was hoping for a great time. It was "meh." However, when I'm in the mood for it, it's fine. Over time, I just seemed to put it into the "it's a nice little film" category. However, Picard and crew risking their careers to save 600 white farmers didn't age any better than the 1986 stuff in TVH.
Otherwise, I loved them all first run.
Star Trek Insurrection came out on my birthday and I was hoping for a great time. It was "meh." However, when I'm in the mood for it, it's fine. Over time, I just seemed to put it into the "it's a nice little film" category. However, Picard and crew risking their careers to save 600 white farmers didn't age any better than the 1986 stuff in TVH.
Otherwise, I loved them all first run.
I feel the same way about both films. It's no coincidence that they were both purposely designed to "lighten up the tone" after a preceding set of heavier films.
I think I have the bias of Voyage Home being the first Star Trek I ever saw. I was only seven years old at the time, but I was still totally captivated and enthralled by it. I would go on to watch the movies (From a rental store) in reverse order, and enjoying them in reverse order. My preference has continued to be Voyage Home - Search for Spock - Wrath of Khan
Saw Final Frontier in the theater, and being only 8 years old, it didn't bother me as much, while Undiscoverd Country scared the crap out of 10 year old me, specifically the floating blood (even though it was purple). I remembered constantly covering my eyes in the Battle of Khitomer, because I knew any moment the Enterprise would lose gravity and Klingons would beam aboard and start shooting, showing even more floating blood. Thankfully that never happened, but it was years before I could watch it again.
Since then, Undiscovered Country has taken the #3 spot in my preference list, while Motion Picture edged above Wrath of Khan. This may be my bias talking, having Voyage Home be my introduction,.. but for me it will always represent Star Trek at its best. It was both a great movie and a great Trek at the same time (most other movies fail at one of the two), AND it did not require a "bad guy" to defeat, and was one of the select few to not have any revenge plot. Seriously,... since Wrath of Khan, Paramount was obsessed with having revenge be an element in Star Trek, and it existed in every single movie since 1991 to today.
The idea of Voyage Home being a disappointment is hard for me to grasp, especially when you consider it was the most financially successful Star Trek film until 2009. For me, it SHOULD take the spot as the Gold Standard of Star Trek film over Wrath of Khan, because maybe then we would have gotten some more thought-provoking Trek, instead of constant attempts to make the next Khan.
Saw Final Frontier in the theater, and being only 8 years old, it didn't bother me as much, while Undiscoverd Country scared the crap out of 10 year old me, specifically the floating blood (even though it was purple). I remembered constantly covering my eyes in the Battle of Khitomer, because I knew any moment the Enterprise would lose gravity and Klingons would beam aboard and start shooting, showing even more floating blood. Thankfully that never happened, but it was years before I could watch it again.
Since then, Undiscovered Country has taken the #3 spot in my preference list, while Motion Picture edged above Wrath of Khan. This may be my bias talking, having Voyage Home be my introduction,.. but for me it will always represent Star Trek at its best. It was both a great movie and a great Trek at the same time (most other movies fail at one of the two), AND it did not require a "bad guy" to defeat, and was one of the select few to not have any revenge plot. Seriously,... since Wrath of Khan, Paramount was obsessed with having revenge be an element in Star Trek, and it existed in every single movie since 1991 to today.
The idea of Voyage Home being a disappointment is hard for me to grasp, especially when you consider it was the most financially successful Star Trek film until 2009. For me, it SHOULD take the spot as the Gold Standard of Star Trek film over Wrath of Khan, because maybe then we would have gotten some more thought-provoking Trek, instead of constant attempts to make the next Khan.
I can only go with movies I actually saw on the Big Screen and Into Darkness was my choice. It really started out as a great movie and then they decided to go reverse Wrath of Khan and I left the theater actually angry. At least Beyond made up for it but I really wanted to like Into Darkness more than I did.
The thing is,... there was nothing "Wrath of Khan" about it except for the reactor room scene, which was more of an homage than anything else. The only thing "Wrath" about it was the fact Khan and Carol were in it, but neither one of them were remotely similar to their movie counterparts. Khan was thankfully closer to his TV version (thank god, because Star Trek II, he was a moron). As for story elements, it bore closer resemblance to Search for Spock. Nemesis was much more of a Wrath of Khan ripoff than Into Darkness was.
With how much constant yammering about "will Khan be in the next movie?" there was after 2009 (positive or negative), can you really blame them for putting him in? Considering how corporate Hollywood thinks, they literally had no choice but to put Khan in the next movie. Not saying I agree with it, just that I understand it
I admit it has been a while since I've seen the movie (I do want to do a Kelvin, or just Trek overall, movie rewatch this year but it was the reactor scene that lost me on the whole movie. Also, I didn't want to see Khan again because they set up the entire universe to go into whatever direction they wanted. To go back to the Khan well just seemed like a lack of creativity.