Which movie would you use to introduce someone with Star Trek?

[Smellmet]

In an ideal world I would agree, but sci-fi is my girlfriends equivalent of romcoms to me, and despite my utter love of TMP I just know she would have totally hated it. I've since shown her some of the best scenes from it (3 klingon cruisers, flyby) and she didn't really get why I loved them so much.

 

[Relayer1]

The Godfather.

Then, when it finished, I'd say 'Wasn't that fantastic. Shall I put some Trek on now ?'

 

[Vger23]

12 years ago, I started with TWOK and I'm now married to her and she's a big fan (sees movies on opening night with me, goes to conventions, watched DS9 all the way through).

I'd say start there. For an intro, TMP is a little too slow (although we did go back and watch and she really enjoyed it). TVH is a little too atypical. TUC is a little too pretentious. Go with the "Khan Trilogy" then back to TMP. Then go forward with the others.

Worked for me.

 

[wjaspers]

None of the above.

This friend has seen the JJ Abrams movies, but was curious about the other movies aswell.

If one has seen the JJ movies, there are no other movies. Simple as that.

 

[Greg Cox]

Most everyone I know who aren't Star Trek fans will watch Star Trek 4, it is a lighthearted place to start.

Agreed. In my experience, TVH is the most accessible film. It's a feel-good movie that appeals to everybody, not just veteran Trek fans.

Remember, we're not talking here about which movie is best, or has the best music. We're talking which movie works best for folks who don't have a lot of experience with Trek.

I love TUC, but it strikes me as an odd film to use as an introduction, since it's all about bringing the saga of the original crew to a close. Beginning with TUC is like starting with the final chapter and farewells . . . . .

 

[Stoek]

I'd say either TVH or FC. Both do very well with non Trekkies and manage to tell a complete story that is not overly dependent on having seen anything else of Trek.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm in minority, but still...
I think, the best beginning is The Motion Picture. The reasons, why:
1. Gene Roddenberry and his vision.
2. The best cinematography and the best music.
3. The best example of what is the Star Trek villian should be.
4. The best basis for discussions and questions to Trekkies

TMP is the best presentation for Star Trek world. This movie can lead to good discussion and arouse interest to other movies and shows.

The problem is, our hypothetical layman doesn't care about Roddenberry's "vision" or what a Star Trek villain should be. You want to show them what Star Trek is, not what it should be.

 

[JarodRussell]

I'm in minority, but still...
I think, the best beginning is The Motion Picture. The reasons, why:
1. Gene Roddenberry and his vision.
2. The best cinematography and the best music.
3. The best example of what is the Star Trek villian should be.
4. The best basis for discussions and questions to Trekkies

TMP is the best presentation for Star Trek world. This movie can lead to good discussion and arouse interest to other movies and shows.

The problem is, our hypothetical layman doesn't care about Roddenberry's "vision" or what a Star Trek villain should be. You want to show them what Star Trek is, not what it should be.

In that case, show them Starship Mine.

 

[Vger23]

I'm in minority, but still...
I think, the best beginning is The Motion Picture. The reasons, why:
1. Gene Roddenberry and his vision.
2. The best cinematography and the best music.
3. The best example of what is the Star Trek villian should be.
4. The best basis for discussions and questions to Trekkies

TMP is the best presentation for Star Trek world. This movie can lead to good discussion and arouse interest to other movies and shows.

The problem is, our hypothetical layman doesn't care about Roddenberry's "vision" or what a Star Trek villain should be. You want to show them what Star Trek is, not what it should be.

Absolutely true. Most people, at the intro point, aren't going to care about the vision or philosophy. In fact, that can be off-putting at first, because it comes off as pretentious and lame. Get them hooked on the characters and the fun first, then introduce them to Picard's ponderous speeches. Haha!

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm in minority, but still...
I think, the best beginning is The Motion Picture. The reasons, why:
1. Gene Roddenberry and his vision.
2. The best cinematography and the best music.
3. The best example of what is the Star Trek villian should be.
4. The best basis for discussions and questions to Trekkies

TMP is the best presentation for Star Trek world. This movie can lead to good discussion and arouse interest to other movies and shows.

The problem is, our hypothetical layman doesn't care about Roddenberry's "vision" or what a Star Trek villain should be. You want to show them what Star Trek is, not what it should be.

Absolutely true. Most people, at the intro point, aren't going to care about the vision or philosophy. In fact, that can be off-putting at first, because it comes off as pretentious and lame. Get them hooked on the characters and the fun first, then introduce them to Picard's ponderous speeches. Haha!

Exactly. You don't want to make watching Star Trek sound like eating spinach, that it's something you ought to do because it's good for you. "You need to watch it because of the vision and the philosophy and all that."

Better to go with. "Trust me, you don't have to be a Trekkie to enjoy this one."

If later on they want to explore Star Trek in greater depth, that's great. But this isn't a college assignment; the idea isn't to be able to write an essay on the movie's themes afterwards!

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Can't go wrong with the "Genesis Trilogy" TWOK, TSFS, and TVH. FC and ST09 are also good introductions of Star Trek to non fans. Nothing too brow beating and compelling enough to get them involved.

I tried to get my friends in to Star Trek once, and chose TMP. They were bored and turned on reruns of Grey's Anatomy 40 minutes in to the film.

 

[Mage]

I'm in minority, but still...
I think, the best beginning is The Motion Picture. The reasons, why:
1. Gene Roddenberry and his vision.
2. The best cinematography and the best music.
3. The best example of what is the Star Trek villian should be.
4. The best basis for discussions and questions to Trekkies

TMP is the best presentation for Star Trek world. This movie can lead to good discussion and arouse interest to other movies and shows.

I'm a HUGE fan of TMP. But I don't feel the same way. For a hardcore Trekkie, it's perfect. For someone who doesn't know Trek, it's to much at all once. It's like introducing someone to Indian cuisine, and choosing the hottest, spiciest curry you can find. It's an overload.

I was introduced to Trek through TMP, and I can honoustly say that, even though I love it to death, had it been the first Trek I ever saw, I would have changed the channel.

 

[Mudd]

Either Abrams's first movie or TWOK - either way they're not likely to be bored, which is generally the trickiest thing about introducing someone to this franchise.

 

[RAMA]

ST09 and STII

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm in minority, but still...
I think, the best beginning is The Motion Picture. The reasons, why:
1. Gene Roddenberry and his vision.
2. The best cinematography and the best music.
3. The best example of what is the Star Trek villian should be.
4. The best basis for discussions and questions to Trekkies

TMP is the best presentation for Star Trek world. This movie can lead to good discussion and arouse interest to other movies and shows.

I'm a HUGE fan of TMP. But I don't feel the same way. For a hardcore Trekkie, it's perfect. For someone who doesn't know Trek, it's to much at all once. It's like introducing someone to Indian cuisine, and choosing the hottest, spiciest curry you can find. It's an overload.

I was introduced to Trek through TMP, and I can honoustly say that, even though I love it to death, had it been the first Trek I ever saw, I would have changed the channel.

There's also the fact that the whole first part of the movie is about getting the old gang together and reuniting Kirk with the Enterprise--all of which works if you already have an emotional connection to the characters and their history. But will mean nothing to newbies.

Ditto for all the scenes establishing that Spock is oddly aloof toward his old friends, even by Vulcan standards. Again, Spock's brusque manner upon meeting Kirk and McCoy registers if you're already familiar with the characters, but a newbie is likely to be puzzled when Kirk or McCoy or whomever are somewhat taken aback by Spock's attitude . . .

 

[JarodRussell]

There's also the fact that the whole first part of the movie is about getting the old gang together and reuniting Kirk with the Enterprise--all of which works if you already have an emotional connection to the characters and their history. But will mean nothing to newbies.

Isn't re-introducing the same as introducing for someone who hasn't seen anything of it?

Ditto for all the scenes establishing that Spock is oddly aloof toward his old friends, even by Vulcan standards. Again, Spock's brusque manner upon meeting Kirk and McCoy registers if you're already familiar with the characters, but a newbie is likely to be puzzled when Kirk or McCoy or whomever are somewhat taken aback by Spock's attitude...

But there are enough reaction shots to sell the idea that his behavior isn't what they expected.


It's not different from any standalone movie that has a character "return" to meet other characters who he has "history" with, and then they say "we go back a long way" and "man, you've changed".

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j_KhUHnsSc[/yt]

 

[Mudd]

Isn't re-introducing the same as introducing for someone who hasn't seen anything of it?

No.

Introducing characters generally requires that you give the audience a reason to give a damn about them. ST:TMP doesn't. It assumes familiarity.

 

[Pondwater]

The Voyage Home.

 

[JarodRussell]

Isn't re-introducing the same as introducing for someone who hasn't seen anything of it?

No.

Introducing characters generally requires that you give the audience a reason to give a damn about them. ST:TMP doesn't. It assumes familiarity.

That would be rather a fault of how TMP did it but not a fault of the principle.

 

[Mudd]

Isn't re-introducing the same as introducing for someone who hasn't seen anything of it?

No.

Introducing characters generally requires that you give the audience a reason to give a damn about them. ST:TMP doesn't. It assumes familiarity.

That would be rather a fault of how TMP did it but not a fault of the principle.

You didn't elucidate a principle; you asked what you mistakenly assumed to be a rhetorical question.