Jump to content


The Worst Star Trek Movie Is...


  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

Poll: The Worst Star Trek Movie (27 member(s) have cast votes)

What's your least favourite Star Trek movie and why?

  1. Star Trek I: The Motion Picture (4 votes [14.81%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.81%

  2. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1 votes [3.70%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.70%

  5. Voted Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (9 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  6. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  7. Star Trek: Generations (2 votes [7.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.41%

  8. Star Trek: First Contact (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  9. Star Trek: Insurrection (2 votes [7.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.41%

  10. Star Trek: Nemesis (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  11. Star Trek (2009) (3 votes [11.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.11%

  12. Star Trek Into Darkness (6 votes [22.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#101 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 04 September 2013 - 04:05 AM

Do you think that was a fundamental flaw of enterprise? looking backwards?



#102 Jay K

Jay K

    It's not a disease it's a hobby.

  • Members
  • 1,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England
  • Interests:Music, Star Trek, and gaming.

Posted 04 September 2013 - 06:19 AM

I won't type up a huge reply, so as not to go off-topic too much, but I'll say this: whilst I do enjoy Enterprise (not love, but definitely enjoy), YES - it being a prequel was a huge flaw in my honest opinion. Trek has always looked forward, and painted a nice, rosy future. Of course, there's war in there, because war is something that (sadly) we'll never escape. But it showed a grand, happy future, filled with delights from both technology, and other beings, etc (you know what I mean!).

Enterprise didn't, and neither do the new movies. Star Trek has always been a universe that I would happily move into. As depicted in Enterprise, and the JJ-verse though, no - I'd rather live in this universe. :)



#103 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 September 2013 - 02:07 PM

Been meaning to reply to you 1701 about favorite movies, no time yet.

 

But I wanted to share this from TrekMovie.com.  I have to say, when TrekMovie.com is posting critical articles about the film franchise that drives its very existence (the site was started in advance of ST09 to feed on hype), something may be wrong.  Before this movie came out they would barely tolerate any dissent in the comments, now they are posting it themselves.

 

http://trekmovie.com...-how-to-fix-it/

 

Just about every relevant thought on this forum is echoed concisely in this article; here is what I have largely said in this thread:

 

 

Now I have to be careful here because I may at some point contradict myself but I'm thinking all the time and I guess that's a consequence...

 

I don't think Star Trek is necessarily broken but I would say that it's in a state of identity crisis and I'm not really surprised, it's been revived in a medium it was never originally intended for, The movies Abrams have been faithfully done, but Star Trek is most definitely out of it's comfort zone. 

 

First of all I think Into Darkness is a BRILLIANT summer movie and providing you go into watching it with an open mind, its a brilliant Star Trek movie however, rather than doing something new, I felt they worried and chose to do something that works on many levels for newbies but fails at being original. It would be easy for me to dismiss Star Trek Into Darkness as nothing more than a ridiculous alternate universe Trek movie that is also a forgettable action movie that does little to advance the plots in Star Trek (2009) and somewhat comes across as sometimes lazy and downright fan-boy shit, rehashing old scenes and plots from a time when Star Trek was fresh out of the gate... To dismiss this movie that easily though would be unfair as Star Trek Into Darkness is a far more complex movie than any Trek movie before it.

 

In truth though it is all of the above and an example of the conflict Star Trek finds itself in regardless of the story. What was meant as an interesting parallel between Wrath of Khan and Into Darkness came off as a cheap imitation and a pointless fangasm that ultimately alienated many of them who have passionately loved the franchise, and truth be told why do Khan? Cumberbatch could have played Wendy from Starfleet accounting and we'd still all be in awe of his greatness. I can only assume that the writers were thinking "well if it worked for the Joker in Batman..."

 

Yet I can't ignore my own opinion that this is also one of the greatest Star Trek movies so far. When you put it up against Insurrection, Nemesis, The Final Frontier and The Motion Picture, this movie stands above them all and goes far beyond yet just another Trek movie, I mean this thing is vast, I loved it and I loved it more the 2nd and the 3rd time's I saw it. It really is just an incredible summer blockbuster and infectiously watchable providing you check your fan-boy in at the door. The scope and scale is vast and the story is quite simply relentless, it is entertaining to say the least. It is also a story that has a relevant meaning to it if you are inclined to find it. The parallels it draws between our world today can't be ignored and the acting is just superb. Cumberbatch adds some much needed weight to Khan and IMO does an honourable job at not taking anything from Montalban's performance as the super-human. Both Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto up their game and seem to have grown into not only playing these iconic roles with ease but also into fine actors. The film itself looks incredible, the colours are rich and vibrant. What Abrams has done is give Star Trek the much needed resources to make it look future-cool and yet keep it very close to the style of the original TV series. This is how I imagined Star Trek looking if it had had a $190 million budget.

 

I can definitely see the writers intentions when they broke the story but ultimately it's misguided. There are far too many questions your left with in the end and far too many "Oh dear, WTF?" moments too and whilst it works on one level for people who don't care about Star Trek. It's irritating to be continually reminded of the fact that this Star Trek isn't for Star Trek fans... I mean why the hell can't Star Trek work for the ignorant but also be for it's fans? There are a shit load of us but by the use of the female characters Carol Marcus in her underwear for no reason other than to show of her very lovely boobies and Uhura's need to put her relationship issues with Spock in front of her starfleet duties, the ridiculous uses of iconic tech such as the transporters that make using ships obsolete and not explaining that the reason Khan could transport that distance was because of his Super-Human qualities, oh and don't get me started on Khan's super-blood and Spock Prime helping out whenever the crew can't figure it out for themselves... There are moments when any long-term or even casual Star Trek fan will sigh a huge groan of disappointment.

 

Ultimately Star Trek Into Darkness was not worth the 4 year wait and whereas Star Trek 2009 took bold steps forward with Kirk and Spock, Into Darkness may have made a giant leap back and thats not saying it's bad, its just not the movie I wanted to see after such an energetic and positive beginning in 2009.

 
My hope for Star Trek 3 is that the 5 year mission to seek out strange new worlds has begun. Whatever that next voyage may be, I hope it arrives sooner and brings with it the return of an original story, an array of merchandise, animated TV series and the sense that Star Trek isn't stumbling around grabbing at popular Aliens of the past, but a sense that here's new Trek, out with the old, in with the new. These are the guys now, lets see them on their own and really launching Star Trek for a new generation and on it's way lets see it destroy the intensely irrelevant mystery box Abrams hides everything in. Here's hoping for a movie that charts its own path without the aid of old Spock warning them of threats to come and lets have this crew having to overcome their own strange NEW lifeforms. 
 
So in summation, things could have been worse, much much worse so no matter how many repeat viewings you give it, Into Darkness will entertain you relentlessly but having said that, it may also be as fast forgetting about it in the end. As for the future of the Star Trek franchise? We all love Trek, we all have our favourite parts to it and however small this bump is, I think its hit a stumbling block with Into Darkness, not because it's a bad movie but because it didn't need to look at the past for it's plot so yes, a crisis of confidence but one that is easily overcome as long as the next step is one this new crew takes alone, without the burden of the past hanging over its shoulder. This was set up as a new universe, lets see it establish itself properly and ultimately when all the movies have been done that are going to be done, lets see it return to it's TV roots.

 

Hope that made sense
 



#104 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 05 September 2013 - 07:03 PM

I won't type up a huge reply, so as not to go off-topic too much, but I'll say this: whilst I do enjoy Enterprise (not love, but definitely enjoy), YES - it being a prequel was a huge flaw in my honest opinion. Trek has always looked forward, and painted a nice, rosy future. Of course, there's war in there, because war is something that (sadly) we'll never escape. But it showed a grand, happy future, filled with delights from both technology, and other beings, etc (you know what I mean!).

Enterprise didn't, and neither do the new movies. Star Trek has always been a universe that I would happily move into. As depicted in Enterprise, and the JJ-verse though, no - I'd rather live in this universe. :)

 

Yeah, I enjoy ENT as well, I have to say when its brought up that going backwards is a mistake, I think I agree. Maybe its part of the issue many fans have with the re-boot... the idea of a reboot is going backwards... a do-over... and I keep asking why we need a do over? why can't we move forward and tell new stories?

 

I guess some fans love that Nimoy keeps coming back, but I don't want him or the Shat back!



#105 FHC

FHC

    Owner

  • Owner
  • 4,495 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 September 2013 - 08:01 AM

Do you think that was a fundamental flaw of enterprise? looking backwards?

 

Scott, simple as that. Most of the cast really, but Scott was not right for that part.



#106 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:02 PM

Interesting FHC, why do you say that? what was he missing or what did he do that was so un-trek like?

 

I think of Stewarts Picard as the quintessential Captain, probably because he always came off as in control, and actually running a ship, which is typically the captains job. But I'd have to say Brook's Sisko was my fav,because his raw passion and emotion came through.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users