The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

[tomalak301]

My rankings, which will probably say (According to this thread at least) that I'm wrong:

1. The Undiscovered Country
2. The Voyage Home
3. First Contact
4. The Wrath of Khan
5. Star Trek Into Darkness
6. Star Trek (2009)
7. Generations
8. Insurrection
9. The Search for Spock
10. The Final Frontier
11. The Motion Picture
12. Nemesis

If Galaxy Quest was a trek movie, it would probably go between Wrath of Khan and Into Darkness

 

[serenitytrek1]

After much reflection, I've drawn up my personal list.

Above average films - strengths:
1. TUC - characterization/plot (c/p)
2. TWOK - c/p
3. TMP - starship porn/music/science!
4. TSFS - c/p
5. TVH - c/p
6. First Contact - c/p

Below average films - weaknesses:
7. TFF - bad fx/science/humor but major bonus pts for soundtrack & "pain" scene
8. Generations - plot/Kirk's death
9. Insurrection - plot
10. Star Trek (2009) - bad science/Vulcan destruction/Kirk's leapfrog promotion
11. Nemesis - characterization/plot
12. STID - characterization/plot/bad science/Khan?!?

Honorable Mention (not ranked):
Galaxy Quest

Note: I am not a JJ hater, it just so happens that I find massive flaws in his films as well as the TNG films with the exception of First Contact. I truly hope he can turn the page with next film and produce something more original, thought-provoking, and entertaining.

I respect your opinion but my gosh, I SO DISAGREE.

 

[Kruezerman]

3. TMP - starship porn/music/science!

 

[PIKER]

10. Star Trek (2009) - bad science/Vulcan destruction/Kirk's leapfrog promotion
12. STID - characterization/plot/bad science/Khan?!?

So you're saying the other ten Star Trek films have good science?

Not necessarily, there are flaws in each film - especially TFF, but the most recent seem particularly egregious. I had hoped our progress in scientific understanding would be reflected in the newer movies. One example: it's perfectly logical to expect that in the future any massive vessels would be constructed in space. A movie made in the 70's respected its audience enough to incorporate this concept. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that a 21st-century Trek movie would show the Enterprise being constructed amidst the cornfields of Iowa! Ugh!!!

 

[RAMA]

After much reflection, I've drawn up my personal list.

Above average films - strengths:
1. TUC - characterization/plot (c/p)
2. TWOK - c/p
3. TMP - starship porn/music/science!
4. TSFS - c/p
5. TVH - c/p
6. First Contact - c/p

Below average films - weaknesses:
7. TFF - bad fx/science/humor but major bonus pts for soundtrack & "pain" scene
8. Generations - plot/Kirk's death
9. Insurrection - plot
10. Star Trek (2009) - bad science/Vulcan destruction/Kirk's leapfrog promotion
11. Nemesis - characterization/plot
12. STID - characterization/plot/bad science/Khan?!?

Honorable Mention (not ranked):
Galaxy Quest

Note: I am not a JJ hater, it just so happens that I find massive flaws in his films as well as the TNG films with the exception of First Contact. I truly hope he can turn the page with next film and produce something more original, thought-provoking, and entertaining.

You're in for a long road if you think scifi movies have to have a lot of accurate science in them and use that to rate quality in a movie. It's not as important in entertainment to be accurate, as Star Trek is often not, but what is more important is that some of the better movies use what we might call the standard "scientific method"(in the case of STTMP--which you label as scientific--it has precious little science in it, but it does have a police procedural feel, and it's speculations seem plausibly scientific even if they are not). If they are innacurate but seem internally consistent with their speculations I can suspend disbelief. By this gauge, the distance between STID and STTMP is really not that wide, and STID does far less of what many people thought Star Trek was doing too much of...technobabble! It is enough that they discuss something without explaining it in detail. The technobabble was taking casual fans out of the equation.

Frankly STID's stance on drones is far more thought provoking than just about any theme tackled in the previous ST movies, far more so than the after-the-fact and obvious fall of communism plot in STVI for example.

 

[BillJ]

One example: it's perfectly logical to expect that in the future any massive vessels would be constructed in space. A movie made in the 70's respected its audience enough to incorporate this concept. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that a 21st-century Trek movie would show the Enterprise being constructed amidst the cornfields of Iowa! Ugh!!!

Why is it so outlandish that a society that can manipulate matter and gravity would choose to build space vehicles on the ground?

From a personnel standpoint, you wouldn't have to waste power bringing workers to and from orbit nor would you have to build orbital habitats to support workers and materials.

Under our current understanding, it would make sense to mine asteroids and build in space. With Star Trek's science, you can build a starship anywhere you damn well please.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

One example: it's perfectly logical to expect that in the future any massive vessels would be constructed in space. A movie made in the 70's respected its audience enough to incorporate this concept. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that a 21st-century Trek movie would show the Enterprise being constructed amidst the cornfields of Iowa! Ugh!!!

If the SDF-1 can be constructed (in this case, refurbished) on the ground and then lift off, so can the Enterprise and other Starfleet vessels. Big fracking deal.

http://badassdigest.com/2013/08/11/the-star-trek-movies-as-ranked-by-star-trek-con-goers/7. Galaxy Quest (!!!)

Oh yes, Galaxy Quest.

The one movie (which, although I love it) makes Star Trek fans out to be massive fools and idiots who live in their parent's basements (never mind that most of the fandom has aged considerably and is now in their 60s at the most, the youngest of them now in their mid-40s like me). The movie that's basically a satire of Star Trek and is based on Star Trek, but is not Star Trek (at least for the purposes of this survey, it shouldn't be!) All because they don't like Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman and Lindehof. All because they have to be obdurate trolls stuck in the founding moment of Star Trek or whatever past moment's best for them. These people-these obnoxious Trekkies-are the ones deciding what's best for the rest of us?

This is the same thing I was talking about to somebody else in another post this morning; he and these people speaking for me and the rest of us about the new movie. And the top best of the list is Galaxy Quest?

Again, I will say this, as loud as I can-STOP SPEAKING FOR ME AND THE REST OF US AS FANS.

 

[GameOn]

Not necessarily, there are flaws in each film - especially TFF, but the most recent seem particularly egregious. I had hoped our progress in scientific understanding would be reflected in the newer movies. One example: it's perfectly logical to expect that in the future any massive vessels would be constructed in space. A movie made in the 70's respected its audience enough to incorporate this concept. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that a 21st-century Trek movie would show the Enterprise being constructed amidst the cornfields of Iowa! Ugh!!!

I thought that was pretty dumb especially since we've seen ships being build in space already but it was way down on the long list of problems I had. My biggest being the supernova that threatens the galaxy and black holes that sends you back in time or destroy stuff depending on what the plot requires.

 

[BillJ]

My biggest being the supernova that threatens the galaxy and black holes that sends you back in time or destroy stuff depending on what the plot requires.

Star Trek's strong point has always been characterization, not science.

I mean, does anyone here actually believe that if you fly around the sun really fast that you can go backwards and forwards in time? Did anyone ever actually believe it?

 

[GameOn]

My biggest being the supernova that threatens the galaxy and black holes that sends you back in time or destroy stuff depending on what the plot requires.

Star Trek's strong point has always been characterization, not science.

I mean, does anyone here actually believe that if you fly around the sun really fast that you can go backwards and forwards in time? Did anyone ever actually believe it?

There's a difference between fictional science and technology that doesn't exist and science that we know TODAY is completely wrong. Even if the future science and technology wasn't exactly right Star Trek usually tried to present it in a believable way that was consistent with the rules of its own fictional universe. Without this Star Trek ceases to be science fiction and becomes space fantasy with space magic.

 

[trevanian]

time travel via close flyby of gravity well has been a 'hard sf' staple going back to Van Vogt's FAR CENTAURUS, so yeah, I can buy off on the slingshot thing for a TREK movie just fine.

Building starships on the ground ... no, never, and after years of posting and refuting and this and that I'm through arguing about it, because it is too much like dealing with flat-earthers. Have fun w/ your magic box tech.

 

[BillJ]

Without this Star Trek ceases to be science fiction and becomes space fantasy with space magic.

It's been space fantasy with space magic for a really long time now. When I want actual science fiction, I'll go read Baxter or Clarke.

 

[BillJ]

Building starships on the ground ... no, never, and after years of posting and refuting and this and that I'm through arguing about it, because it is too much like dealing with flat-earthers. Have fun w/ your magic box tech.

So you think that a society that is advanced as what we see in Trek is bound to build spacecraft in orbit even though they can control both gravity and matter transformation?

Seems to me that you've decided that there is only one way that a certain feat can be accomplished.

I've admitted that I can see it happening both ways depending on how you view the process. Seems the only "flat-earther" here is you.

 

[Greg Cox]

Without this Star Trek ceases to be science fiction and becomes space fantasy with space magic.

As when Gary Mitchell gained god-like powers by passing through the "Galactic Barrier" way back in the second pilot?

Nope, no space magic there!

Star Trek has never been hard-sf, and that's never hurt it one bit.

 

[BillJ]

Without this Star Trek ceases to be science fiction and becomes space fantasy with space magic.

As when Gary Mitchell gained god-like powers by passing through the "Galactic Barrier" way back in the second pilot?

Nope, no space magic there!

Star Trek has never been hard-sf, and that's never hurt it one bit.

Heretic!

 

[Nerys Myk]

Not necessarily, there are flaws in each film - especially TFF, but the most recent seem particularly egregious. I had hoped our progress in scientific understanding would be reflected in the newer movies. One example: it's perfectly logical to expect that in the future any massive vessels would be constructed in space. A movie made in the 70's respected its audience enough to incorporate this concept. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that a 21st-century Trek movie would show the Enterprise being constructed amidst the cornfields of Iowa! Ugh!!!

I thought that was pretty dumb especially since we've seen ships being build in space already but it was way down on the long list of problems I had. My biggest being the supernova that threatens the galaxy and black holes that sends you back in time or destroy stuff depending on what the plot requires.

Science says they can do both. In TOS the Enterprise was tossed into the past while trying to escape a "black star".

 

[GameOn]

Star Trek has never been hard-sf, and that's never hurt it one bit.

It's never been Harry Potter in space either.

 

[BillJ]

Star Trek has never been hard-sf, and that's never hurt it one bit.

It's never been Harry Potter in space either.

It has been from time to time.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Star Trek has never been hard-sf, and that's never hurt it one bit.

It's never been Harry Potter in space either.

Of course it has. The number of God like beings and psi-powered aliens encountered alone pushes it into Harry Potter territory. Toss in miracle tech like transporters you're a wave of a wand away.

 

[CaptPapa]

I can proudly say no one here agrees with this list.

So you speak for everyone on this forum?

I was going to say something like . . . I can proudly say you're wrong!.
But after thinking about it, maybe there's something to that. Would anyone on the forum agree, 100%, with the list? Probably not; I for one think Star Trek (2009) is ranked too high, and The Final Frontier is way too low. But to each their own and my opinion is worth nothing to anybody but me - my only problem is, like you, the poster claims to speak for all.