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

[Cyrus]

Here's the thing. "Trekkies United Against the New Star Trek!" makes a much better headline than "Wide Range of Opinions Exist Regarding Latest Trek Film," so naturally the media is jumping all over it. They're just trying to gin up controversy and make it sound like there's some huge backlash or uprising . . . because that makes a sexier story.

There are currently 374 Trekkies online on this board right now. That's over three times more than voted in that silly poll. So why is anyone paying attention to it?

Yes it was obvious from the start that the author of the original article was looking for an attention grabbing headline, and managed to round up the right people at the convention. "Trekkies think new movie is the worst Trek movie" was the best choice for that by far. The next best would have been "Trekkie think it's the best movie", though that would have been a distant second. "Trekkies think STiD is the 3rd best movie or 8th best movie" wouldn't have generated any attention.

Isn't this the same guy who included the "Abrams may quit the new Star Wars movie" tidbit in the middle of an article? He knew full well that would generate a lot of attention.

 

[Smellmet]

the Federation has tractor beams and antigravity. . . there would be no problem getting a ship built on Earth into space. . .

I was under the impression that they would simply fire up the thrusters and simply take off, after all in STID alone we see the Enterprise in flight within a planets atmosphere and do submarine duties...

 

[BillJ]

You don't WASTE energy. That is why you wouldn't be running a goddamn holodeck while 70,000 light years from home. Just cuz you HAVE a certain tech doesn't mean you always use it, or that it is wise to use it all the time (look at modern movies, they use CG like it is going out of style, but we got better results 15 years ago when there was a mix of techniques.)

Seems like you're bringing issues that you have had with other installments of the franchise into the argument. Star Trek: Voyager definitely isn't my favorite installment of the franchise but, once again, I don't think you're thinking it through from the angle of the universe the franchise created.

The thing about being 70,000 light-years from home is that you have to think about crew morale. No matter how nice the ship, the majority of those 150+ crew that never go on Away Team missions are going to go stir-crazy looking at the same gray corridors for seventy-years.

You don't expend all this energy to build the deadliest thing imagineable on the ground of your homeworld either.

Who said they use anti-matter planetside? You can easily do that as a final step before testing. Bringing it aboard after you've moved the ship to orbit and have a self-sufficient habitat to work in.

Now I'm guilty of everything I told the other guy was fruitless to get mixed up in. We are so talking past one another that I might as well be speaking Eurish and you Esperanto. There's no debate as you call it when there aren't parameters common to both parties, and in this instance, I don't see any.

I don't think we're talking past each other at all. You seem to hold it against this iteration of the franchise that they didn't use real-world theories on how best to build a large interstellar spacecraft. I look at it as a universe that has its own rules and figure that a society that can manipulate gravity and matter may be fine building a starship on the ground. It's a universe that has its own rules about a great many things that likely would be problematic, if not totally impossible in our world.

Does it go against Roddenberry's intent that the Enterprise be built in orbit? Sure. But I'm okay with a different interpretation. It's entertainment after all. YMMV.

 

[Nerys Myk]

the Federation has tractor beams and antigravity. . . there would be no problem getting a ship built on Earth into space. . .

I was under the impression that they would simply fire up the thrusters and simply take off, after all in STID alone we see the Enterprise in flight within a planets atmosphere and do submarine duties...

They could do it that way. But I think using anti grav and tractors is better and less disruptive.

 

[thumbtack]

Still reading reaction to this story from across the interwebs, it seems virtually NO ONE believes this to even be accurate or, at least, accurately representative of the fan base. Kind of a universal "WTF?" The only people who believe this are Devin Faraci and the sheep at IGN/The Guardian.

http://www.edrants.com/why-devin-faraci-is-unfit-to-practice-journalism/

The comments are hilarious, though...


"I demand to know the weight and marital status of the males who voted in that poll!"


I guess the British population detests us just as much as the American population does.


.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

My question is: Who the heck goes to CreationCons anymore. . .those are sooooooo 1990s. . . and they really weren't that great, even then. . . ~FS

The same kind of people that go to SDCC and Fan Expo-both of those conventions are just like Creation anyway, with little of what the old standard fan-run cons used to have (and that's why I prefer fan run ones like Anime North and Reversed Polarity that are held where I live in Toronto-they are real cons, or as close to my definition of 'real'.)

 

[Agenda]

13. Into Darkness

Don't know if I'd rate it last, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who's not a fan. Thought I was going crazy there for a minute. Look, people can dismiss this as a general hatred of nuTrek all they like, but the fact that the first Abrams movie did much better in the rankings should tell you something.

 

[BillJ]

13. Into Darkness

Don't know if I'd rate it last, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who's not a fan. Thought I was going crazy there for a minute. Look, people can dismiss this as a general hatred of nuTrek all they like, but the fact that the first Abrams movie did much better in the rankings should tell you something.

I actually think Star Trek Into Darkness is a better movie than Star Trek 2009 and rank it third overall.

 

[RyanKCR]

If I ranked the films:

TMP
TWOK
TSFS
ID
Nem
TUC
FC
TVH
Gen
09
TFF
Ins

 

[Noname Given]

13. Into Darkness

Don't know if I'd rate it last, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who's not a fan. Thought I was going crazy there for a minute. Look, people can dismiss this as a general hatred of nuTrek all they like, but the fact that the first Abrams movie did much better in the rankings should tell you something.

What should it tell you? That Star trek fans who grew up watching the TNG era don't really like the different aesthetics of TOS, and think any new Star Trek should have the TNG 'We're always right/Rarely fight' aspect?

STiD was truer to the original 'Star Trek' (You remember that version of Star Trek - without which TNG, DS9, et al would have existed); then even the majority of TOS films. It's 'more' Trek (IMO) then anything done in the TNG era.

 

[M'Sharak]

13. Into Darkness

Don't know if I'd rate it last, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who's not a fan.

Why? What difference does it make? If you don't like something, then you don't like it, and that ought to be that. Should it really require anyone else's agreement to validate an opinion?

Thought I was going crazy there for a minute. Look, people can dismiss this as a general hatred of nuTrek all they like,

Why? What general hatred? It's just another movie that (for whatever reason) some people have decided they don't like.

... but the fact that the first Abrams movie did much better in the rankings should tell you something.

And what does it tell me? Go on - please 'splain it for everyone.

 

[F. King Daniel]

http://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/3787056?utm_hp_ref=entertainment

Simon Pegg has words for those one hundred convention goers:

... it absolutely isn't the worst "Star Trek" movie. It's asinine, you know? It's ridiculous. And frustrating, as well, because a lot of hard work and love went into that movie, and all J.J. wanted to do was make a film that people really enjoyed. So, to be subject to that level of sort of, like, crass fucking ire, I just say fuck you.

We love you, Simon Pegg

 

[JarodRussell]

LOL. So if Into Darkness wasn't the worst on that list, then The Final Frontier would be the worst, and Shatner would say "Fuck you?" to those who didn't like it? And if TFF wasn't the worst, then Insurrection would be the worst, so Johnathan Frakes would say "Fuck you?" in response?

Pegg, like the rest of the involved, have a pretty unprofessional attitude when it comes to criticism. So they didn't like your film, too bad. There are many films people don't like. There are probably also films Pegg doesn't like. I wonder if he wants to hear a Fuck you from those filmmakers just because his opinion differs. And when he took the job, he already knew how vocal and passionate the fanbase was. It's like moving into an apartment next to a railway and complaining about the noise.

Perhaps we should stop ranking films altogether because it might hurt the sensibilities of the people who got paid to make them.


As someone said somewhere before, they did rank Star Trek 2009 on #6/12 (13) films at that convention. Just like they ranked Frakes' First Contact #2 and Frakes' Insurrection #11. It's called taste.

 

[trevanian]

... but the fact that the first Abrams movie did much better in the rankings should tell you something.

And what does it tell me? Go on - please 'splain it for everyone.

I'd imagine it tells us the same thing about the reboot that QUANTUM told us about the Bond pics ... that most people found it disappointing after being impressed (or fooled) into thinking the film preceeding it was something special.

Even the box office was very similar, with QUANTUM generating close to CR's output, as was the case with the TREK films, and in both cases, the sequel films costing a decent chunk more.

 

[BillJ]

As someone said somewhere before, they did rank Star Trek 2009 on #6/12 (13) films at that convention. Just like they ranked Frakes' First Contact #2 and Frakes' Insurrection #11. It's called taste.

I just think it's funny that that is the only poll I've seen that ranks Into Darkness dead last and them putting Galaxy Quest in there was simply a way to insult the film even more.

It really feels like a poll where the numbers were cooked. If there was actually a poll at all and the person responsible didn't just made it up because he/she has an ax to grind.

 

[ComicGuy89]

LOL. So if Into Darkness wasn't the worst on that list, then The Final Frontier would be the worst, and Shatner would say "Fuck you?" to those who didn't like it? And if TFF wasn't the worst, then Insurrection would be the worst, so Johnathan Frakes would say "Fuck you?" in response?

Pegg, like the rest of the involved, have a pretty unprofessional attitude when it comes to criticism. So they didn't like your film, too bad. There are many films people don't like. There are probably also films Pegg doesn't like. I wonder if he wants to hear a Fuck you from those filmmakers just because his opinion differs. And when he took the job, he already knew how vocal and passionate the fanbase was. It's like moving into an apartment next to a railway and complaining about the noise.

Perhaps we should stop ranking films altogether because it might hurt the sensibilities of the people who got paid to make them.


As someone said somewhere before, they did rank Star Trek 2009 on #6/12 (13) films at that convention. Just like they ranked Frakes' First Contact #2 and Frakes' Insurrection #11. It's called taste.

I don't think Pegg here is being any different than he usually is. The guy has a pretty foul mouth, and before he did Star Trek he used those same foul words against various odd-numbered Star Trek movies. What I'm getting at is that I don't think he's especially hurt or sensitive that a movie he starred in was shunned by this small group, rather, he's just rattling off as he usually does.

As someone said somewhere before, they did rank Star Trek 2009 on #6/12 (13) films at that convention. Just like they ranked Frakes' First Contact #2 and Frakes' Insurrection #11. It's called taste.

I just think it's funny that that is the only poll I've seen that ranks Into Darkness dead last and them putting Galaxy Quest in there was simply a way to insult the film even more.

It really feels like a poll where the numbers were cooked. If there was actually a poll at all and the person responsible didn't just made it up because he/she has an ax to grind.

It does feel that way. The problem with these polls is that you can't ever verify their authenticity, but you also have no proof to dismiss them as engineered.

 

[Kruezerman]

It's finally gotten to the point that the bullshit is getting called out. Taste has nothing to do with it.

 

[bbailey861]

http://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/3787056?utm_hp_ref=entertainment

Simon Pegg has words for those one hundred convention goers:

... it absolutely isn't the worst "Star Trek" movie. It's asinine, you know? It's ridiculous. And frustrating, as well, because a lot of hard work and love went into that movie, and all J.J. wanted to do was make a film that people really enjoyed. So, to be subject to that level of sort of, like, crass fucking ire, I just say fuck you.

We love you, Simon Pegg

Two thumbs up!!

 

[Noname Given]

It's finally gotten to the point that the bullshit is getting called out. Taste has nothing to do with it.

^^^
OMO - pretty much this. I give a pig thumbs out to Simon Pegg for calling this bullshit poll for what it is - bullshit.

 

[The Doctor]

13. Into Darkness

Don't know if I'd rate it last, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who's not a fan. Thought I was going crazy there for a minute. Look, people can dismiss this as a general hatred of nuTrek all they like, but the fact that the first Abrams movie did much better in the rankings should tell you something.

What should it tell you? That Star trek fans who grew up watching the TNG era don't really like the different aesthetics of TOS, and think any new Star Trek should have the TNG 'We're always right/Rarely fight' aspect?

STiD was truer to the original 'Star Trek' (You remember that version of Star Trek - without which TNG, DS9, et al would have existed); then even the majority of TOS films. It's 'more' Trek (IMO) then anything done in the TNG era.

Absolutely. JJ-Trek is very much derived from the source material and has (rightly, to my mind) ignored the 'evolved humanity' bullshit that pervaded TNG-Trek. TOS was conceived as an action-adventure series set in space and the JJ films fit into that concept quite nicely. I'm continually shocked at just how faithful they are to TOS, actually. Say what you will about plotholes and weird science errors, these movies are like a blast from the past: a sixties sensibility done with modern pacing and effects.