What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[cooleddie74]

TFF isn't...objectively great. But it has heart and Shatner understands how those characters interacted and behaved and directed the film in that manner so the interpersonal moments (mostly) work and in a few cases brilliantly. The effects are 1980s TV-level cheesy and largely don't work and the ShaKaRee entity isn't an effective villain because in part the effects fail the execution and the editing didn't help, neither. Laurence Luckinbill's Sybok, though, is a brillant performance and the best thing about the entire film other than one or two individual scenes.

I'll rewatch TFF in a heartbeat over NEM, STID or even INS, the last of which is in many respects a superior film.

 

[Lord Garth]

I don't have the blurays and will not buy them because 1) it's 2023 not the time to buy physical media 2) there are several releases of everything with different descriptions and I won't waste the time to sift through all of them to find the correct one. 3) even if I had the disks I don't have a desktop computer with a CD/DVD drive anymore with which to rip the files and save them to a convenient location 4)

Spoiler

I'm aware illegal downloads exist but they have the same problem of finding the right ones

I buy physical media for three reasons. It doesn't matter if it's 2023 or the 23rd Century.

1. Actor/Director/Etc Commentaries. They're very insightful most of the time.

2. I only trust Streaming Services up to a certain point. They can take a show or movie off that I like any time. If I have the physical media, then what they do doesn't affect what I have.

3. If I decide to cancel a Streaming Service for whatever reason, I potentially lose access to a series or film I can watch on it, if I don't have the physical media.

We're too dependent on computers. You strike me as an old-schooler. You should be agreeing with me.

 

[fireproof78]

The final frontier is not that bad, fight me

It's a solid film in some regards, and complete baffling in others. I think that's part of the charm of it, but there are some scenes that make no sense, including a lot of the comedy. When it is being dramatic, it works very well. But, when it elevates Captain Kirk at the expense of others it flounders.

I'd watch it before all the TNG movies, and TMP, and usually TWOK as a fun adventure. ST 09 and Beyond might surpass it in that way, but still an entertaining movie.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

It's a solid film in some regards, and complete baffling in others.

The opening title wiggled en route to the center of the screen. Were they Monty Python, I could understand that.

 

[cooleddie74]

Though the opening titles by Jerry Goldsmith have that interesting sound effect as the title appears that sounds like a jet engine revving up. The soundtrack of that film is fire.

 

[Citiprime]

The final frontier is not that bad, fight me

I think one thing that's really distracting about it is how BAAAADDDDDD the visual effects are. It is really noticeable that ILM is NOT in charge with this movie.

Beyond that, I think the premise is not a bad one. In fact, it really connects to TOS and its themes. But I think it's undermined by a few things.

1. The process by which people are converted seems too easy. I know Shatner supposedly based Sybok on televangelists and religious conversion, but I just feel like Kirk's senior staff, people who have shown they would follow Kirk into hell, wouldn't turn on him and Starfleet as easily as they do in the movie.

2. This is a massive event involving three major powers and yet it feels so small. It's like Starfleet is just the Enterprise, the Klingon Empire is just one rogue Bird-of-Prey, and the Romulans don't give a damn to even care.

3. The humor doesn't work. Shatner does well with some of the interactions (like the "row-row-your-boat" scene) but a lot of the "funny" moments just come off as stupid. All of the Enterprise falling apart jokes don't really work. And neither does Scotty bumping his head on pipes and Spock's rocket boots.

With all that being said, I do think it has one of the best scenes of any of the movies. The scenes where Sybok tries to convert McCoy, Spock, and Kirk are really good. I've always thought of it as a really significant aspect of understanding Kirk as a character that he REFUSES to release his pain, and argues that it defines who he is. In the end, the audience is left in the dark as to even what Kirk's pain is, but we do know that he values it.

And I've always been more in the Kirk camp of thinking that "closure" on pain is an illusion. People close on houses, not their emotions.

 

[Nyotarules]

TOS Space seed - would like to watch this from a 2023 production reboot, a professional officer running off to be with an ancient dictator who mistreats her would have to be retconned

 

[The Knappos]

The final frontier is not that bad, fight me

Can’t. I’ll happily second for you though

 

[fireproof78]

And I've always been more in the Kirk camp of thinking that "closure" on pain is an illusion. People close on houses, not their emotions.

I think this is came about due to well meaning individuals, even in my own industry, and philosophers, who wanted people to "forgive and forget" as a means of moving on. And, that's really not accurate, nor necessarily a healthy way to resolve pain. Much of our experiences and growth as individuals, and even the strengths that we posses, are exposed and built up by the encountering of painful circumstances that would not otherwise prompt us to rise to the occasion. To forget that is to forget some of the lessons that come with it. Or, avoid fear related items altogether, and so avoid much of life, rather that strength can come in facing and overcoming that fear.

I think Kirk's "I need my pain" is as much his integration of those hurts in to his experience as well as learning from those lessons. In the same way he needs both sides of himself ("The Enemy Within) he needs that pain; not as a closure; but as a reminder of his own potential in the face adversity.

 

[Nyotarules]

I think this is came about due to well meaning individuals, even in my own industry, and philosophers, who wanted people to "forgive and forget" as a means of moving on. And, that's really not accurate, nor necessarily a healthy way to resolve pain. Much of our experiences and growth as individuals, and even the strengths that we posses, are exposed and built up by the encountering of painful circumstances that would not otherwise prompt us to rise to the occasion. To forget that is to forget some of the lessons that come with it. Or, avoid fear related items altogether, and so avoid much of life, rather that strength can come in facing and overcoming that fear.

I think Kirk's "I need my pain" is as much his integration of those hurts in to his experience as well as learning from those lessons. In the same way he needs both sides of himself ("The Enemy Within) he needs that pain; not as a closure; but as a reminder of his own potential in the face adversity.

Interesting, it depends on ones definition of 'closure', to close does not meant to forget, for me its a form of acceptance of the situation, its like a wound that is healed over, that has stopped bleeding and hurting, the scar is there but it does not hold one body back.

 

[Annie McCoy]

The final frontier is not that bad, fight me

It’s literally such a comfort film. Do I care about the plot? No. Do I adore every interaction between the old men? Yes. But then again that’s my grading systems for most films and shows (super high level film analysis right there)

 

[fireproof78]

Interesting, it depends on ones definition of 'closure', to close does not meant to forget, for me its a form of acceptance of the situation, its like a wound that is healed over, that has stopped bleeding and hurting, the scar is there but it does not hold one body back.

I tend to agree, but more and more I see closure, especially in grief groups and such, meaning, "Forget about it."

Which always troubled me.

 

[Nyotarules]

(Watching this now) TOS This side of paradise had 150 colonists, that cannot be enough for genetic diversity. Were they planning to hook up with their first cousins?

 

[Arpy]

The next series should follow the (up until ENT) 90's model of new series and have, say, a trans captain, on a previously unseen kind of starship, with an entirely new name, in an entirely new region on "the far end" of Federation space, set shortly after PICARD. It should include a diverse cast, an (at this point) non-humanoid regular, be showrun by someone with diverse life experience, and include original timely storytelling by some of the best science fiction writers of today. The Federation should continue to be an aspirational if somewhat hazy society that we might envision for ourselves. The setting should include a general evolution of the sociopolitical factors previously established...come to think of it, a lot of that could go in a LEGACY series, leaving this new one to be about the strange new worlds yet to be discovered and the great next step in the larger human adventure just beginning.

No prequels, no post-apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic in name only distant sequels, no reboots of previously seen characters, and only a TNG-like smattering of previously seen aliens. Do new stuff. Even if it doesn't all work keep doing it until enough of it does.

 

[Shat Happens]

You should be agreeing with me.

I am. I miss my VHS player and the clickitty clackitty whirrry sounds it made when loading or ejecting a tape.

 

[Mytran]

(Watching this now) TOS This side of paradise had 150 colonists, that cannot be enough for genetic diversity. Were they planning to hook up with their first cousins?

Pulaski begs to differ! From Up The Long Ladder:

Thirty couples are enough to create a viable genetic base. But the broader the base the healthier and the safer the society. So it will be best if each woman, Bringloidi and Mariposan, had at least three children by three different men.

So multiple partners is preferable, but not essential

 

[Shawnster]

(Watching this now) TOS This side of paradise had 150 colonists, that cannot be enough for genetic diversity. Were they planning to hook up with their first cousins?

The original European colonies in North America were about that big. I believe the idea (and history) was they expected others to come join them in subsequent years. Initially growth would be through immigration.

 

[Forbin]

I don't get not wanting physical media. I love looking thru my colorful shelves full of DVDs and BDs for something to watch. Yes I have streaming services, and yes I DL video files of things I want if I can. But if those things come out on disk, I delete the files for space. The disks are never, ever, going to be recalled, pulled, cancelled, EMPed by a nuke, degaused by armed Sony stormtroopers...

 

[Ovation]

EMPed by a nuke,

Your player will, however (not to mention an EMP from a nuclear weapon makes my complete X-Files box set suddenly less important). You’re correct about the rest, however.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

Though the opening titles by Jerry Goldsmith have that interesting sound effect as the title appears that sounds like a jet engine revving up. The soundtrack of that film is fire.

Every time I'm in a hopeful mood (yesterday included) I start up my soundtrack flash drive, toggle down to TREK V, and play the ''A Busy Man'' melody. It's nowhere near a bad score, though ''Busy'' sticks with you more than the relatively generic combat symphonies.

The process by which people are converted seems too easy. I know Shatner supposedly based Sybok on televangelists and religious conversion, but I just feel like Kirk's senior staff, people who have shown they would follow Kirk into hell, wouldn't turn on him and Starfleet as easily as they do in the movie.

Of course Spock and Bones do not, and Scotty's too clumsy at the moment to do so.....though the writers might have considered doing it. Since Sulu, Uhura and Chekov betray or at least disobey Kirk, it would have worked better had we'd been given their hidden pains. They might have done so in the novel tie-in, but I can't recall.

I don't get not wanting physical media. I love looking thru my colorful shelves full of DVDs and BDs for something to watch. Yes I have streaming services, and yes I DL video files of things I want if I can. But if those things come out on disk, I delete the files for space. The disks are never, ever, going to be recalled, pulled, cancelled, EMPed by a nuke, degaused by armed Sony stormtroopers...

I discard a small fraction of truly terrible movie DVDs on occasion (the 21st-century RUNNING SCARED was mega-atrocious), though I keep the vast majority of the others. But if certain films are not as memorable, I often ditch the box and place it in a small sleeve. I never toss the classic boxes, or my guilty pleasures like the LOST HORIZON remake. Since I've collected a ton over 24 years I've found creative places to place these sleeves to save shelf-space. A standard DVD box can sometimes hold three more discs inside it. So I often combine a classic Blu-ray with an earlier edition DVD for the same title, especially if older special features differ. I've made DVD combos of LITTLE WOMEN, HAMLET, FRANKENSTEIN, 12 ANGRY MEN, etc., and it's a refreshing way to join similar films together, like AIRPLANE and ZERO HOUR. There are limitless combinations.....