They are not better than the TNG movies.
Depends on what aspects you're judging them on. Considering the majority of the folks involved are not working actors, I think they do an exceptional job and continue to improve.
In terms of stories and being true to what Trek is, they do beat the TNG movies in that respect. None of the TNG movies truly captured the essence of the show, although first contact did show some glimmers here and there. For the most part the TNG movies were way off the mark. I still mourn the missed opportunites.
Here's one of the terms I'm sick of hearing from fans — "being true to what Trek is." What does that even really mean? What truly does make a story Trek? Action-adventure? Thoughtful drama? Biting social commentary? All those things or none of those things? STAR TREK is a format for telling a variety of stories. Really, it is an sort-of anthology with continuing characters, going from planet to planet, adventure to adventure.
Honestly, STAR TREK was much more fascinating in the early days of TOS when it wasn't stuck in the STAR TREK format, the STAR TREK formula. When it was willing to tell a variety of stories, some very reminiscent of THE OUTER LIMITS and THE TWILIGHT ZONE.
What fans are really talking about when they say "true to what Trek is" is that STAR TREK format, that STAR TREK formula. That cookie-cutter, predictable manner of storytelling. That comfort food of storytelling in its familiarity. Warm, delicious, and easily digestible. So when anything challenges that format or attempts to challenge the very fabric of STAR TREK's storytelling, fans react with a sour stomach. Things like ST '09, or even the TNG films (although it's debatable if it was well-done), that challenge that format are always seen as not being true to what Trek is.
Frankly, while I didn't care for the majority of the TNG films, at least two of the four attempted to actually have Picard actively try to solve the stories' problems rather than react to them like in the show. In other words, Picard took ACTION and wasn't REACTIVE. We see this in FIRST CONTACT and INSURRECTION.
While PHASE: II (and the majority of fan films) is great at recreating sets, costumes and giving us a somewhat enjoyable simulacrum of TOS, it is in no way challenging its viewers or their perceptions of STAR TREK storytelling. Melodrama is a substitute for solid dramatic storytelling. There is a lack of the nuances of dramatic storytelling with characters, particularly Kirk, being REACTIVE rather than ACTIVE participants in the stories. Kirk doesn't solve problems, he allows problems to work themselves out.
And while I know that some of their scripts come from Trek alum and professional writers, like David Gerrold, Jon Povill and Marc Scott Zicree, it seems that there's been no attempt to have those writers fix obvious flaws in story structure or make Kirk a more active participant in those stories, have him drive the action. PHASE: II tends to have Kirk take a backseat to the guest actors, such as Walter Koenig or George Takei, or to Mary Sue-type characters, such as Peter Kirk. (And Chekov is now skirting that Mary Sue trope in recent episodes.)
So fault the TNG movies for not being true to what Trek is, but at least they tried to correct the flaw of the TNG series by having Picard be a more active protagonist that drove the action in the stories rather than just going aimlessly from scene to scene.
