Feel free to list and state your reasons
Which is your best Trek film and why?
- Thread starter Nyotarules
- Start date
It’s one of the three Kelvin movies. Most likely ‘09 or BEY depending on my mood.
Love the cast, the general aesthetic and for most of the time, the writing.
Love the cast, the general aesthetic and for most of the time, the writing.
TWoK. Its character dynamic is the bedrock upon which all cinematic Star Trek is founded thereafter. Each film franchise has its own style & vibe, but all of the following movies owe their DNA to that movie, even more than TMP (which is also a good standalone, but very different)
TWoK was a do-over. It course corrected the IP, & that redirection connected with audiences in such a way that cemented the franchise to survive decades more & was aspirational to every subsequent film.
Most reviews of it, at the time, were along the lines of "THIS is the Star Trek we wanted". TMP was by no means a box office failure, but it did not generate the audience reaction that TWOK did, much of which was due to the fresh take on the character relationships, their bonds, & the drama that tied them, which drove the stories
This stood in stark contrast to not only the more premise or concept driven original film, but the original series as well, and that dynamic has been the heart of the franchise ever since IMHO.
TWoK was a do-over. It course corrected the IP, & that redirection connected with audiences in such a way that cemented the franchise to survive decades more & was aspirational to every subsequent film.
Most reviews of it, at the time, were along the lines of "THIS is the Star Trek we wanted". TMP was by no means a box office failure, but it did not generate the audience reaction that TWOK did, much of which was due to the fresh take on the character relationships, their bonds, & the drama that tied them, which drove the stories
This stood in stark contrast to not only the more premise or concept driven original film, but the original series as well, and that dynamic has been the heart of the franchise ever since IMHO.
The Search For Spock ~ This is my favourite Trek film because all the crew really come across as being friends and I love that they all have something to do. Plus, Sarek and Rand are back and it features my favourite Saavik! I also love the expansion of the Trek setting - Spacedock, Excelsior, Grissom, the Merchantman, the Bird-of-Prey, the costumes, props & sets (particularly regarding the Vulcan part at the end), and some awesome and moving scenes (Sarek/Kirk mind meld, stealing the Enterprise, poor Grissom, the death of David, the BoP landing on Vulcan and the following fal-tor-pan ceremony.
I've seen TSFS so many times and I love it just as much with each rewatch
I've seen TSFS so many times and I love it just as much with each rewatch
I actually like pretty much all the Trek movies - but I think none of them are great. They all feel like "the tv show - the movie". Not like actual movies itself.
Trek lives from it's variety & ideas. The movies all feel a bit "same-y", like an event episode, where everyone got stuff to do, but at the end of the day the characters are still pretty static tv characters.
My personal favourite is "undiscovered country" - it's the ultimate version of the Klingons & the Klingon conflict, it's a good character piece, has lots of neat ideas, space stuff, adventure, exotic places, and the perfectly fitting theme of nostalgia vs a new future. I just love the whole package. Objectively "wrath of Khan" is a tighter movie though, and the absolute gold standard in what to do with tv characters on the silver screen.
Star Trek 09 is probably the best "movie" of them all, but for me a pretty bad "Star Trek" movie, if that makes sense. The same as I really like Will Smith's "I, robot" as a movie, but think it's a pretty bad adaptation of Isaac Asimov. It's a really strong entertaining piece itself, but just got the source material really wrong.
Trek lives from it's variety & ideas. The movies all feel a bit "same-y", like an event episode, where everyone got stuff to do, but at the end of the day the characters are still pretty static tv characters.
My personal favourite is "undiscovered country" - it's the ultimate version of the Klingons & the Klingon conflict, it's a good character piece, has lots of neat ideas, space stuff, adventure, exotic places, and the perfectly fitting theme of nostalgia vs a new future. I just love the whole package. Objectively "wrath of Khan" is a tighter movie though, and the absolute gold standard in what to do with tv characters on the silver screen.
Star Trek 09 is probably the best "movie" of them all, but for me a pretty bad "Star Trek" movie, if that makes sense. The same as I really like Will Smith's "I, robot" as a movie, but think it's a pretty bad adaptation of Isaac Asimov. It's a really strong entertaining piece itself, but just got the source material really wrong.
Last edited:
Copying what I wrote in the thread that spawned this....
Best purely Star Trek movie? The Motion Picture. For better or worse, it's the film that feels the most like a "Star Trek Movie."
Most entertaining film? A three-way tie between TWOK,TSFS,TVH. I love that trilogy.
Best 15 minutes ever put to film in the entire film franchise? The beginning of Star Trek '09. The opening scene with the Kelvin probably helped make more Star Trek fans than any other single scene in the entire franchise.
Best purely Star Trek movie? The Motion Picture. For better or worse, it's the film that feels the most like a "Star Trek Movie."
Most entertaining film? A three-way tie between TWOK,TSFS,TVH. I love that trilogy.
Best 15 minutes ever put to film in the entire film franchise? The beginning of Star Trek '09. The opening scene with the Kelvin probably helped make more Star Trek fans than any other single scene in the entire franchise.
For me, it's TUC due to the character work. Then ST 09 because of the characters again. Kelvin Kirk and Spock are among the most interesting characters Trek has put to screen for me, and very enjoyable.
The Search for Spock.
To me, it reveals the most about the TOS characters of all the movies.
I grew up with people thinking it was a "disappointment" after The Wrath of Khan, but over the years I've realized that if Wrath of Khan is about consequences, Search for Spock furthers that theme and reveals how connected the characters are as a family and expounds on what those consequences mean. That they are willing to throw everything away to save their friend, which to me is one of the best expressions of "love" (i.e., if you're religious, it's basically the Trekian version of the verse from Gospel of John 15:13 within a secular humanistic universe).
Also, one of my biggest problems with recent Trek media is how they go with things that think either will be referential or look cool without thinking about how what that cool shit means for the world-building beyond the moment, and it speaks to how thought out the decisions by Harve Bennett, Nimoy and everyone involved realized they basically had to "balance the equation on both sides." That if you bring back Spock, there had to be a cost and sacrifice, and that comes with the characters basically throwing everything they've worked for away, the Enterprise being destroyed, and Kirk losing his son. They save their friend from death, but it basically costs them everything.
In a lesser movie, McCoy's soliloquy about Kirk "turning death into a fighting chance to live" would be a "fuck yeah!!!" moment, but here it's played with almost a shell-shock ptsd where Kirk and everyone else is trying to rationalize how it's all worth it while they watch their beloved home burn up in the sky.
And the contrast between Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock is beautiful.
The resolution of Wrath of Khan is based in Spock's answer to the Kobayashi Maru "no-win" scenario. Spock basically decides that just because he can't win doesn't mean that he can't make Khan lose. His decision is based in a utilitarian choice that one person's life is worth an entire ship full of people.
The Search for Spock reverses that basic calculus. Instead of cold Vulcan logic, the human ability to go beyond logic and with notions of loyalty and dedication to do right by "family," even just the slight hope that your family might be given a peace through your sacrifice, is at the heart of the story. When Amanda confronts Spock with how this "illogical" decision is the only reason he still exists, I always love the hint of pride Amanda shows in how "illogical" humans can be in helping people.
To me, it reveals the most about the TOS characters of all the movies.
I grew up with people thinking it was a "disappointment" after The Wrath of Khan, but over the years I've realized that if Wrath of Khan is about consequences, Search for Spock furthers that theme and reveals how connected the characters are as a family and expounds on what those consequences mean. That they are willing to throw everything away to save their friend, which to me is one of the best expressions of "love" (i.e., if you're religious, it's basically the Trekian version of the verse from Gospel of John 15:13 within a secular humanistic universe).
Also, one of my biggest problems with recent Trek media is how they go with things that think either will be referential or look cool without thinking about how what that cool shit means for the world-building beyond the moment, and it speaks to how thought out the decisions by Harve Bennett, Nimoy and everyone involved realized they basically had to "balance the equation on both sides." That if you bring back Spock, there had to be a cost and sacrifice, and that comes with the characters basically throwing everything they've worked for away, the Enterprise being destroyed, and Kirk losing his son. They save their friend from death, but it basically costs them everything.
In a lesser movie, McCoy's soliloquy about Kirk "turning death into a fighting chance to live" would be a "fuck yeah!!!" moment, but here it's played with almost a shell-shock ptsd where Kirk and everyone else is trying to rationalize how it's all worth it while they watch their beloved home burn up in the sky.
And the contrast between Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock is beautiful.
The resolution of Wrath of Khan is based in Spock's answer to the Kobayashi Maru "no-win" scenario. Spock basically decides that just because he can't win doesn't mean that he can't make Khan lose. His decision is based in a utilitarian choice that one person's life is worth an entire ship full of people.
The Search for Spock reverses that basic calculus. Instead of cold Vulcan logic, the human ability to go beyond logic and with notions of loyalty and dedication to do right by "family," even just the slight hope that your family might be given a peace through your sacrifice, is at the heart of the story. When Amanda confronts Spock with how this "illogical" decision is the only reason he still exists, I always love the hint of pride Amanda shows in how "illogical" humans can be in helping people.
Our behavior is different. How often have you seen a headline like this?--TWO DIE ATTEMPTING RESCUE OF DROWNING CHILD. If a man gets lost in the mountains, hundreds will search and often two or three searchers are killed. But the next time somebody gets lost just as many volunteers turn out.
Poor arithmetic, but very human. It runs through all our folklore, all human religions, all our literature--a racial conviction that when one human needs rescue, others should not count the price.”
When The Martian came out, I remember a few reviews of the movie (and the underlying story it's based on) criticized it on the basis that the movie doesn't address arguments about whether it's "worth it" to spend billions of dollars in resources and risk multiple more lives to save one man on Mars, especially in a world where people suffer and die because of inequality.
And the best response to those criticisms is that if you break things down to that sort of utilitarian logic, then why would we ever send firefighters into a burning building to save a baby? If we're just doing cold hard math about these things, their lives and the effect on their loved ones is not worth the risk.
To me (personal opinion), we send people in to that burning building because to be "human," in the fullest sense of the word, is that we can't (or at the very least "shouldn't") just stand there and do nothing because of bean-counter logic. To be human is to have empathy. At the heart of all evil in this world is selfishness. All "evil" is based on valuing your own pleasure and comfort over others, to the point that their suffering and loss doesn't matter. That's true whether it's murder, sexual assault, or robbery. And all expressions of love are expressed in sacrifice and empathy. There's no greater expression of caring about someone than to find a way to understand their problems, and care so much that you're willing to make sacrifices to help.
I actually completely agree that The Wrath of Khan is the bedrock the rest of the films followed forever after — I just think that’s been a problem, because they were never going to do it better than TWOK, and to this day they’re still trying.
EDIT: Although they weren’t made as such, to me the great Star Trek film trilogy isn’t TWOK/TSFS/TVH, it’s TMP/TWOK/TSFS. Aside from being the earliest and freshest, those three together fully define the “Big Friendship” arc of TOS, and each brings the series someplace it’s never been before. After that the films remain fun, but feel more formulaic and usually less “important”. 1-2-3 is an epic saga (just as 2-3-4 is meant to be).
Last edited:
The Undiscovered Country because it was the first film I remember seeing in the theater. I also loved the end scenes, the signatures, and the soundtrack.
No argument there. All good points.
It would be easy to be jaded about TWoK, for the fact that they've all been trying to live up to it since, with varying degrees of success, but I can't hold it against that movie for being good enough to set the standard.
I definitely can understand the notion to herald the first 3 as the defining trilogy. Despite it being a fun romp, I do recall being slightly disappointed with TVH, because it, & the 2 after, really didn't seem to be as epic as the others had been (though 6 certainly tries)
What the first 3 do well is to convey a grandeur befitting the graduation of the world of Star Trek from the small screen to the big screen.
Where TMP falls just short for me is in its repurposing of the Phase II script, that's original point was to be the intro for a new Star Trek (one that was a lot more like what TNG would become) As such, it's not specifically crafted for the TOS characters per say. It had to be reworked for them, & it's too dry for them IMHO.
It's the cerebral or more formal style & dynamic that would become TNG's Hallmark. Thank God the TOS actors knew their characters so well that they gave the audience portrayals which kept the film on track, because the production certainly didn't present them that way (like they'd later do in TWoK & thereafter)
At times, I'd wondered where all the personality of our characters had gone. It hadn't been written in, & was left to the actors to cook it in, despite that fact. The movie wasn't about them in any way, & it needed to be, in some degree IMHO
While I like TMP and its approach to the characters better than you do, I agree with you 100% about both the grandeur of the first three, and the disappointment about TVH (though everybody else seemed to love it). I’m more accepting of it all these years later, but I felt and basically still feel that when you clearly are making a connected trilogy, and your first two chapters are gigantic sturm und drang space opera, your grand finish ought not to be a jokey romp through San Francisco. But hey.No argument there. All good points.
It would be easy to be jaded about TWoK, for the fact that they've all been trying to live up to it since, with varying degrees of success, but I can't hold it against that movie for being good enough to set the standard.
I definitely can understand the notion to herald the first 3 as the defining trilogy. Despite it being a fun romp, I do recall being slightly disappointed with TVH, because it, & the 2 after, really didn't seem to be as epic as the others had been (though 6 certainly tries)
What the first 3 do well is to convey a grandeur befitting the graduation of the world of Star Trek from the small screen to the big screen.
Where TMP falls just short for me is in its repurposing of the Phase II script, that's original point was to be the intro for a new Star Trek (one that was a lot more like what TNG would become) As such, it's not specifically crafted for the TOS characters per say. It had to be reworked for them, & it's too dry for them IMHO.
It's the cerebral or more formal style & dynamic that would become TNG's Hallmark. Thank God the TOS actors knew their characters so well that they gave the audience portrayals which kept the film on track, because the production certainly didn't present them that way (like they'd later do in TWoK & thereafter)
At times, I'd wondered where all the personality of our characters had gone. It hadn't been written in, & was left to the actors to cook it in, despite that fact. The movie wasn't about them in any way, & it needed to be, in some degree IMHO
I don't think had a clear idea. They made each movie as it came.
That’s certainly true from The Final Frontier onward. I’ve always wished they could go back to that early feeling where each one was an event that left Star Trek in a different place, and you eagerly waited for the next couple of years to find out what happened next, but I guess the advent of TV Trek running concurrently made that impractical — especially once the TNG movies started happening side-by-side with DS9 and VOY. They could have tried something like that with the Kelvinverse movies, but they didn’t.
Similar threads
