Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Detective No. 27
Jun 7, 2006



It dawned on me that we don't have a Star Trek movie thread here. Star Trek might be the most successful case of a television making the transition to cinema. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is widely regarded as one of the greatest scifi movies of all time. There are currently 13 Star Trek movies. 2 of them are remakes of The Wrath of Khan. I've watched most of these movies over the past year or two. I'm no expert on these movies, so I'll just give my quick two cents of each one.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture
I've seen this one once, a few years ago. It was super ambitious. It came out on the heels of 2001 A Space Odyssey and really feels like it. I'm due for a rewatch. This was Star Trek's grand return from cancellation, so from what I understand, many of the slow, lingering shots of the Enterprise were welcomed. I'm due for a rewatch.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Wrath of Kahn lives up to it's legacy. I think I first saw this movie before I saw Space Seed, but it does a wonderful job of bringing the audience up to speed. Ricardo Maltoban's performance of Khan was fascinating. It's easy to not realize that Khan and Kirk never meet face to face through the entire movie.

Star Trek III: The Search For Spock
This is the first one considered to be "bad." I rewatched it a few months ago and liked it better than the first time I saw it. Christopher Lloyd plays a Klingon.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
I've probably seen this one the most. It's incredibly entertaining. A fish out of water story but with whales. You'd be a double dumbass to not like it.

At this point, the meme of "even Star Treks good, odd ones bad" begins to creep up. I don't think there's much truth to the meme. That said,

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
This one was alright. I enjoyed the finale a lot. Star Trek goes full JRPG when Kirk attacks and dethrones God.

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
I haven't seen this one in a few years, but I remember it being a strong finish. A Klingon secures his great grandson Worf a job in Starfleet. I'm also due for a rewatch of this one.

Star Trek: Generations
I started watching the TNG movies a couple months ago. The RLM Plinkett reviews led me to believe they were really bad. But years later, I would realize that RLM is pretty bad and the TNG movies and Star Wars Prequels are actually pretty good. Star Trek Generations acts as a bridge between The Original Series and The Next Generation. Like Wrath of Khan, it's a movie about coming to grips with aging, but unlike Wrath of Khan, where Kirk finds out he's got a son, Picard finds out his entire family is dead and he's realizing it might be too late to start a family of his own. I think the most fascinating parts of the movie was Data and his coming to grips with having emotions. Jokey Data is super irritating. Really bad. But that's great. Him seizing in total terror after going into combat was also really good.

Star Trek: First Contact
Another one that was much better than RLM makes it out to be. I'm still not keen on the idea of a Borg Queen, I think it robs the Borg of of their terror if there's one big bad to kill, but whatever, that's the movie they made, and it's an entertaining one. Picard grapples with PTSD. This one gets flack for Picard's inconsistent characterization between the series and movies, but I can't really find a problem with it. Why would anyone complain about seeing Patrick Stewart mow down cybermen with a Tommy Gun?

Star Trek: Insurrection
It's ok.

Star Trek: Nemesis
I haven't seen this one since I rented it from Blockbuster in 2001. From what I remember, it's pretty much a TNG remake of Wrath of Khan. It did so badly it killed plans for another movie.

Star Trek (2009)
Both Star Trek and Mortal Kombat released a new entry in their long running series that acted as a prequel, sequel, remake, and reboot at the same time. This was the first time I got to watch a Star Trek movie in a theater. "Not your father's Star Trek." It's fast, sleek, full of hot actors, and spawned countless of tiresome lensflare jokes. I rewatched it last month and it holds up. It's fine.

Star Trek Into Darkness
My rewatch from a few weeks ago confirmed to me it's the worst one. It's a super hollow remake of Wrath of Khan. I figured that having some distance between it's original release and now would make it more interesting, but it didn't happen. Even Nimoy had to Skype in, it was so bad. Even Star Trek Enterprise was able to use Peter Weller to greater effect than Into Darkness.

Star Trek Beyond
I saw it in theaters and thought it was decent, but not really trying. If it were an episode of the show, it would be a middling one. It didn't really feel ambitious in anyway. Probably executive meddled with. I've got the bluray sitting here behind me. I'll probably watch it this weekend if I got nothing else do to.


Only TOS and TNG got movies. I don't think it would have made much sense to make one for DS9 or Voyager. Netflix streaming has given DS9 a second wind in popularity, making people appreciate it more than ever. A coda movie or sequel show would have been great. But, with the passing of Aron Eisenberg and Rene Auberjonois last year, that ship has sailed. Check out the excellent DS9 documentary, What We Left Behind for a good pitch by the original team or writers for how a sequel series pilot would go.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jose Oquendo
Jun 20, 2004

At the end of 2018, a study was published by London Metropolitan University showing that certain bacteria, normally present only in intestinal tracts or feces, were found on McDonald's self-service screens.



Detective No. 27 posted:


Star Trek: The Motion Picture
I've seen this one once, a few years ago. It was super ambitious. It came out on the heels of 2001 A Space Odyssey and really feels like it. I'm due for a rewatch. This was Star Trek's grand return from cancellation, so from what I understand, many of the slow, lingering shots of the Enterprise were welcomed. I'm due for a rewatch.

Star Trek: TMP was released 11 years after 2001: A Space Odyssey. Not sure how that's 'on the heels.' TMP was really more of a response to Star Wars. The original plan was a new TV show to air on a new network run by Paramount (sound familiar). There were scripts (some of these were used in TNG), new characters were cast, etc. It was basically a done deal. Then Star Wars came out and made 1000 bajillion dollars so Paramount turned it into a feature film instead. Overall, the movie is sort of a mix of Star Trek, Star Wars, and 2001.

Detective No. 27
Jun 7, 2006



I knew I should have looked up the years but I figured it was close enough.

cebrail
May 9, 2014



Detective No. 27 posted:

Only TOS and TNG got movies. I don't think it would have made much sense to make one for DS9 or Voyager. Netflix streaming has given DS9 a second wind in popularity, making people appreciate it more than ever. A coda movie or sequel show would have been great. But, with the passing of Aron Eisenberg and Rene Auberjonois last year, that ship has sailed. Check out the excellent DS9 documentary, What We Left Behind for a good pitch by the original team or writers for how a sequel series pilot would go.

What they should have done is make 90s Star Trek movies with characters and storylines from both TNG and DS9 instead of just following the TOS formula but with TNG. There was no need to tie the movies to one particular show and they always had to shoe in some "we're putting the band back together" moment to get the entire TNG crew back on a ship.

Drunkboxer
Jun 30, 2007


I mostly agree with pretty much every take in the OP (except for V, which I still think is pretty bad). The only RLM review on Trek I saw was when the 2009 movie came out, and yeah they didn't really give the TNG movies enough credit. Especially First Contact which is a fan favorite. They also said in that review that the TNG episode Parallels was the worst episode of Star Trek ever and that's sort of a classic so I don't know if I really trust their opinion on Trek. It's also weird that everyone was framing the 2009 movie as a new direction when it was a soft reboot using the same characters and telling a story that was structurally Wrath of Khan again. It's a fine action movie but those Abrams movies are creatively bankrupt.

I did a letterboxd ranking of them pretty recently:

https://letterboxd.com/drunkboxer/l...k-films-ranked/

MikeJF
Dec 20, 2003






Jose Oquendo posted:

Star Trek: TMP was released 11 years after 2001: A Space Odyssey. Not sure how that's 'on the heels.' TMP was really more of a response to Star Wars. The original plan was a new TV show to air on a new network run by Paramount (sound familiar). There were scripts (some of these were used in TNG), new characters were cast, etc. It was basically a done deal. Then Star Wars came out and made 1000 bajillion dollars so Paramount turned it into a feature film instead. Overall, the movie is sort of a mix of Star Trek, Star Wars, and 2001.

TMP was commissioned by the studios as a response to Star Wars but the director and writers were aiming for 2001. The movie's a bit trapped between worlds as a result.

Regardless, of the movies it's the one that very much most benefits from watching on a large screen in a dark room with the bass turned up. It's a pity that the Director's Cut doesn't exist in HD, because watching it in anything less than the best definition possible is completely pointless. If they ever released trek movies in 4K this is the one I'd get.

Also, for anyone who hasn't seen it, the best version of the film is a 22 minute cut someone made to the Tron Legacy soundtrack. It's actually spectacularly good.

https://vimeo.com/217336882

MikeJF fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Aug 4, 2020

AntherUslessPoster
Feb 12, 2019





Detective No. 27 posted:

But years later, I would realize that RLM is pretty bad and the TNG movies and Star Wars Prequels are actually pretty good.

Thank you for saying it outloud in OP

Davros1
Jul 19, 2007

You've got to admit, you are kind of implausible




Detective No. 27 posted:


Star Trek III: The Search For Spock
This is the first one considered to be "bad." I rewatched it a few months ago and liked it better than the first time I saw it. Christopher Lloyd plays a Klingon.


John Larroquette also plays a Klingon!

Drone
Aug 22, 2003

Incredible machine.





The TNG movies with the exception of Nemesis are all on the good side of middling. They have their problems, but RLM likes to blow them out of proportion (like they do with everything to an extent).

Nemesis is by far the worst Trek film, though Into Darkness comes at least within swinging distance.

MikeJF
Dec 20, 2003






Detective No. 27 posted:

Star Trek Beyond
I saw it in theaters and thought it was decent, but not really trying. If it were an episode of the show, it would be a middling one. It didn't really feel ambitious in anyway. Probably executive meddled with. I've got the bluray sitting here behind me. I'll probably watch it this weekend if I got nothing else do to.

I honestly disagree there - it's clear that it was rushed and there's a few plot points that should've been better expanded and explained in another few script passes, but it genuinely tries to bring the feel of old Trek into the new Trek and I think it's one of the better movies, by far the best of the Kelvins. It's got wonder, exploration, the crew actually acting like a crew, and a surprising number of deep trek lore cuts.

feedmyleg
Dec 25, 2004

EVERY FAIRY TALE NEEDS ITS HERO.

Beyond is a film without a script where they made it up as they went along, and you can feel it. It has all the right elements at play (wonder, exploration, crew chemistry, lots and lots of heart) but it's sub-first draft writing, a movie penciled onto the back of a napkin. Nothing connects, there's no thematic throughlines, it has a bizarro structure and pacing, it unnecessarily splits characters up for a huge part of the film, and (unsurprisingly for Trek) the villain doesn't make a goddamn lick of sense. It doesn't so much feel like a film as it feels like a group of fans lovingly doing Trek improv or a tabletop RPG or whatever—some fun in the Trek universe, but a very poor story.

Still better than at least half of the other Trek movies, though.

feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Aug 4, 2020

Drunkboxer
Jun 30, 2007


Yeah, Beyond has a lot of problems and I felt pretty embarrassed watching it but I do kind of have positive feelings towards it because of how bad Into Darkness was. Also my brain's broken and even if I think it's the 3rd worst one I still kind of like it because its Trek. Nemesis and Into Darkness are the only ones I truly hate.

G-III
Mar 4, 2001



Star Trek IV is by far the best of the bunch. Nimoy's gambit to come back so he could direct a picture paid off as the movie is an example of the best of star trek. Great moral message all the while giving every actor a possibility to shine and add something to the movie. It also had the best music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd3NG2JX6lc

G-III fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Aug 4, 2020

F_Shit_Fitzgerald
Feb 2, 2017





Cool; this is my kind of thread! The original series movies were a huge part of my childhood; lots of fond memories of watching them as a kid. I didn't actually watch the TNG ones until much later, when I was an adult (and I generally wasn't missing much).

Detective No. 27 posted:

Star Trek: First Contact
Another one that was much better than RLM makes it out to be. I'm still not keen on the idea of a Borg Queen, I think it robs the Borg of of their terror if there's one big bad to kill, but whatever, that's the movie they made, and it's an entertaining one. Picard grapples with PTSD. This one gets flack for Picard's inconsistent characterization between the series and movies, but I can't really find a problem with it. Why would anyone complain about seeing Patrick Stewart mow down cybermen with a Tommy Gun?

It's a pet peeve of mine when fans say that movie Picard is out of step with series Picard. That's not true at all if you watch his entire Borg character arc. PTSD isn't a neat process that gets wrapped up and never heard from again; it's entirely true to life for there to be a regression.

piratepilates
Mar 28, 2004

So I will learn to live with it. Because I can live with it. I can live with it.





Did anyone earnestly enjoy Into Darkness? I havenít seen it since release, but I canít remember anything particularly noteworthy about it. Looking back, it seemed to be the worst parts of J. Jabramsí tendency to take existing material, shift around parts, and then zig where the original zagged (Kirk dies instead of Spock [but he lives anyway!], Khan is good instead of bad, etc.).

Iíve barely seen people discuss it since it came out, Iíve read plenty of discourse about the 09, about Beyond, about the TNG movies and the TOS movies, but ID is the one that seems to have sank like a dead mobster in the open waters of collective consciousness.

F_Shit_Fitzgerald
Feb 2, 2017





piratepilates posted:

Did anyone earnestly enjoy Into Darkness? I havenít seen it since release, but I canít remember anything particularly noteworthy about it. Looking back, it seemed to be the worst parts of J. Jabramsí tendency to take existing material, shift around parts, and then zig where the original zagged (Kirk dies instead of Spock [but he lives anyway!], Khan is good instead of bad, etc.).

Iíve barely seen people discuss it since it came out, Iíve read plenty of discourse about the 09, about Beyond, about the TNG movies and the TOS movies, but ID is the one that seems to have sank like a dead mobster in the open waters of collective consciousness.

People have discussed it, but usually to talk about how much it sucked and the fact that it cribbed so much from Wrath of Khan.

The plot point you mentioned was especially egregious. At least in Wrath of Khan there was a period where you weren't sure if Spock would even be coming back. It took two years and another movie for him to come back, and Kirk had to sacrifice his career, his ship and his son to do it. In Into Darkness, "magic blood" does it in, like, five minutes, which made the entire exercise pointless to begin with..

(Spoilers for people who might not have watched it yet.)

sean10mm
Jun 29, 2005

Only dead doggos
follow the stream.



TMP has very wonky pacing, but it also looks and sounds great and actually has some ambition. When I'm in the right mood it's pretty great but it's certainly very flawed.

I also think it's interesting how different Leonard Nimoy makes Spock SOUND in this movie, it's like he was trying to be more genuinely alien here than at any other point.

Wrath of Khan is basically the perfect Star Trek adventure story. The Search for Spock is a bit all over the place but still enjoyable. The Voyage Home is a lesser movie than Khan overall, but is kind of pitch perfect silly fun. V is a mess but less bad than you probably remember (though it is at least as cheap looking as you remember...) The Undiscovered Country puts a bow on the TOS movies nicely.

I like the old movies mostly.

Jose Oquendo
Jun 20, 2004

At the end of 2018, a study was published by London Metropolitan University showing that certain bacteria, normally present only in intestinal tracts or feces, were found on McDonald's self-service screens.



F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:

Cool; this is my kind of thread! The original series movies were a huge part of my childhood; lots of fond memories of watching them as a kid. I didn't actually watch the TNG ones until much later, when I was an adult (and I generally wasn't missing much).


It's a pet peeve of mine when fans say that movie Picard is out of step with series Picard. That's not true at all if you watch his entire Borg character arc. PTSD isn't a neat process that gets wrapped up and never heard from again; it's entirely true to life for there to be a regression.

It's not the PTSD that is the issue. It's the clear transformation from Picard the diplomat to Jean-Luc "Die Hard" Picard. It was something that Patrick Stewart specifically wanted. He wanted more action poo poo to do in the movies, which is why you get stuff like Picard driving a space ATV on a space desert. Which is fine, the guy can do what he wants, but it definitely goes contrary to the character.


The TOS movies are always weird for me to evaluate because several of them are bad as movies, but as pieces of Star Trek, they're ok. There's always something in them that's enjoyable. Like, 5 is straight up a bad movie, but the camping stuff is fun because you get that fun little slice of life with the trio. "What does God want with a starship" is a good line but that whole sequence on the planet is awful.

Jose Oquendo fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Aug 4, 2020

Detective No. 27
Jun 7, 2006



I did try my best to give my own opinions on each movie without relying on the general consensus. The Kelvin trilogy was unique since I got to watch them all in real time with the rest of the forums. Beyond seems to have left the least impression on anyone. Into Darkness had all hype surrounding it, as well as Abram's outright lie about the Khan reveal. Beyond is enjoyable, no doubt, but it definitely felt like the Kelvin's equivalent to Insurrection.

I like the idea of a Star Trek movie with a completely new crew. It would be pretty bold and the lack any attachments to pre-existing characters would mean they could be riskier with character deaths.

Detective No. 27
Jun 7, 2006



Jose Oquendo posted:

It's not the PTSD that is the issue. It's the clear transformation from Picard the diplomat to Jean-Luc "Die Hard" Picard. It was something that Patrick Stewart specifically wanted. He wanted more action poo poo to do in the movies, which is why you get stuff like Picard driving a space ATV on a space desert. Which is fine, the guy can do what he wants, but it definitely goes contrary to the character.

There's that episode where Picard single handedly fights a crew trying to steal the Enterprise while it's about to get space bug bombed that I would exactly call a Die Hard episode of TNG.

feedmyleg
Dec 25, 2004

EVERY FAIRY TALE NEEDS ITS HERO.

So how exactly did TMP go so vastly over budget? I mean, watching it you see the dollars on screen when it comes to effects, and when it comes to Trumbull's work Wikipedia gets pretty detailed. But what work exactly had Abel and Associates pitched for, why couldn't they complete it, and why did the film change so much in production to require so many new shots to deliver?

Jose Oquendo
Jun 20, 2004

At the end of 2018, a study was published by London Metropolitan University showing that certain bacteria, normally present only in intestinal tracts or feces, were found on McDonald's self-service screens.



Detective No. 27 posted:

There's that episode where Picard single handedly fights a crew trying to steal the Enterprise while it's about to get space bug bombed that I would exactly call a Die Hard episode of TNG.

It's not the action stuff that's the problem. TNG did it other times as well. The 4 lights episode had Picard and Crusher, two old people, and Worf go on a black ops mission for some reason. The issue is the clear difference in characterization of Picard in Star Treks 8-10.

Detective No. 27
Jun 7, 2006



I don't find it that big of a deal. People can change a lot in the span of a few years, and strict devotion to canon stifles storytelling.

MikeJF
Dec 20, 2003






feedmyleg posted:

So how exactly did TMP go so vastly over budget? I mean, watching it you see the dollars on screen when it comes to effects, and when it comes to Trumbull's work Wikipedia gets pretty detailed. But what work exactly had Abel and Associates pitched for, why couldn't they complete it, and why did the film change so much in production to require so many new shots to deliver?

One of the biggest reasons it's so over budget is that they folded all of the Star Trek Phase 2 development work and pre-TMP attempts at films into the reported budget as part of Hollywood accounting. But with regards to the visual effects crisis, have you read the Memory Alpha writeup?. It more detailed on RA&A than Wiki, IIRC.

MikeJF fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Aug 4, 2020

mllaneza
Apr 28, 2007


Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1993-1952





piratepilates posted:

Did anyone earnestly enjoy Into Darkness? I havenít seen it since release, but I canít remember anything particularly noteworthy about it. Looking back, it seemed to be the worst parts of J. Jabramsí tendency to take existing material, shift around parts, and then zig where the original zagged (Kirk dies instead of Spock [but he lives anyway!], Khan is good instead of bad, etc.).

He should have zigged one more time and had Cumberbatch playing Joachim - pretending to be Khan - instead of Khan himself. Poor Joachim was the voice of reason in Khan's crew in WoK and he got dragged down to hell with the rest of them. Just have the reveal late. Oh, and lose the magic blood.

feedmyleg
Dec 25, 2004

EVERY FAIRY TALE NEEDS ITS HERO.

That's honestly where I thought it was going and was very disappointed when it turned out not to be the case.

F_Shit_Fitzgerald
Feb 2, 2017





Jose Oquendo posted:

It's not the PTSD that is the issue. It's the clear transformation from Picard the diplomat to Jean-Luc "Die Hard" Picard. It was something that Patrick Stewart specifically wanted. He wanted more action poo poo to do in the movies, which is why you get stuff like Picard driving a space ATV on a space desert. Which is fine, the guy can do what he wants, but it definitely goes contrary to the character.

The holodeck scene (and the ATV one in Nemesis) was over the top, but the reason Picard was so gung ho in that movie was that he had internalized (? not sure if that's the right word for it) the Borg attack on the Enterprise. To him, it was like his body being invaded by the Borg all over again, and that caused him the change from diplomat Picard to Die Hard Picard (in my opinion).

piratepilates
Mar 28, 2004

So I will learn to live with it. Because I can live with it. I can live with it.





That strikes me as a quirky part of the TNG movies vs the TOS movies. By the time the TNG movies were being made, they already had a handful of TV movies (i.e. 2 parters) with a variety of wacky plots.

Youíve got the one where Picard is on a commando mission and gets captured, the one where Picard is on an undercover Indiana Jones mission and gets captured, the one where theyíre just chilling with Mark Twain for a while, the one with the Klingon civil war, the one with the Romulan near-reunification, the one with Borg individualism or whatever(Iíll be honest, itís been a long, long time since Iíve seen descent).

Theyíve wrapped up 7 seasons of a show, AND 10 feature length episodes, AND an ending to the series that wraps up everything exactly the way you want. Then itís time to make the movies, starting with another ending to the show (Generations), and then proceeding through unused episode scripts.

Mr. Apollo
Nov 8, 2000



I remember when I first saw TMP as a little kid, the opening scene where the Klingons attack V'ger terrified me. The idea of space being so vast and empty and these 3 ships attacking this massive unknown entity with no possibility of help or rescue really scared me.

F_Shit_Fitzgerald
Feb 2, 2017





I want to like TMP. It has one of the best soundtracks of any of the movies and there are some cool parts in it. But the movie is so serious and antiseptic that not very much happens for long stretches of screen time, and I don't typically mind movies that take their time to tell a story (I'm a huge fan of 2001).

Plus, those footie pajama uniforms are....something.

AccountSupervisor
Aug 3, 2004

I am greatful for my loop pedal

piratepilates posted:

Did anyone earnestly enjoy Into Darkness? I haven’t seen it since release, but I can’t remember anything particularly noteworthy about it. Looking back, it seemed to be the worst parts of J. Jabrams’ tendency to take existing material, shift around parts, and then zig where the original zagged (Kirk dies instead of Spock [but he lives anyway!], Khan is good instead of bad, etc.).

I’ve barely seen people discuss it since it came out, I’ve read plenty of discourse about the 09, about Beyond, about the TNG movies and the TOS movies, but ID is the one that seems to have sank like a dead mobster in the open waters of collective consciousness.

*raises hand*

I enjoyed Into Darkness pretty much up until the 3rd act and then it nose dives pretty hard for me.

I mostly enjoyed for the action sequences, the occasional meditations on death and I thought the threat of a hyper militarized Starfleet was interesting.

The movie absolutely has issues but I still think its entertaining, I enjoy all of the cast and the story is interesting enough. Its clunky and unfocused and made some bizzare editing/structure choices, but its a good enough space romp that I genuinely enjoy it.

mllaneza posted:

He should have zigged one more time and had Cumberbatch playing Joachim - pretending to be Khan - instead of Khan himself. Poor Joachim was the voice of reason in Khan's crew in WoK and he got dragged down to hell with the rest of them. Just have the reveal late. Oh, and lose the magic blood.

Yeah I really think the movie would have benefited if Benedict was some other member of Kahns crew or a brother or something. It would have fit with the Kelvin timeline idea and allowed them to play around more.

Spocks speech could have easily been something like "He may not be Kahn, but if hes anything like him, you should be afraid."

AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Aug 4, 2020

Blood Boils
Dec 27, 2006

Its not an S, on my planet it means QUIPS


Hair Elf

I love into darkness, it's one of the best ones imo

It's at least as good as wrath, which is a bit overrated. Plus the brown face is a little yikes, is it not?

Son of Sam-I-Am
Feb 12, 2002






As the years go by I like Final Frontier more and Undiscovered Country less. FF is a mess, but it's an ambitious mess with one of the best scores, and the characters are at their best, including uber-charismatic Sybok.

TUC on the other hand aged poorly; the characters are all beginning to become caricatures, when they're not straight up out of character, and if you actually pay attention to the dialogue in the dinner scene it doesn't make a lick of sense. I said it elsewhere but it reads like a much better, longer scene was hacked apart in editing because practically everything is non sequitur.

Seemlar
Jun 17, 2002


A solid OP because it includes both truths that the Odd/Even theory is a fraud and RLM have really bad opinions on Star Trek

I love The Motion Picture most of all, but I couldn't personally say any of the first six movies are ones I could totally do without - even at their lower points like Final Frontier they all tell their own stand alone stories while contributing to a greater ongoing narrative (more character based really) without feeling like franchise episodes stringing you along to keep seeing more the way current blockbuster series and universe movies do.

That's the one thing more than anything else that the Next Generation and alternate universe movies both failed to replicate entirely.

piratepilates posted:

Did anyone earnestly enjoy Into Darkness? I havenít seen it since release, but I canít remember anything particularly noteworthy about it. Looking back, it seemed to be the worst parts of J. Jabramsí tendency to take existing material, shift around parts, and then zig where the original zagged (Kirk dies instead of Spock [but he lives anyway!], Khan is good instead of bad, etc.).

Iíve barely seen people discuss it since it came out, Iíve read plenty of discourse about the 09, about Beyond, about the TNG movies and the TOS movies, but ID is the one that seems to have sank like a dead mobster in the open waters of collective consciousness.

For all it's numerous faults, I would watch Into Darkness in a heartbeat over 2009 - since they both tread exactly the same ground character wise AND Beyond would be completely unchanged if either 09 or ID didn't exist, it's actually easy to pick just one of the two and stick with it, whichever your preference. I just find it generally entertaining and everything wonky about it already existed in 09 so it's more of a lateral move compared to it rather than some step backwards. Cumberbatch actually turning out to be Khan was a misstep but I'd still rather watch him than Bana's Nero. Peter Weller too.

I think it's also overlooked that the idea that Into Darkness is some widely reviled disaster isn't really that much of a thing in the real world - that movie was well received by pretty much everyone outside of the hyper-specific Star Trek fandom.

Cemetry Gator
Apr 3, 2007

Do you find something comical about my appearance when I'm driving my automobile?


The motion picture gave us McCoy in a full beard and leisure suit, so by that measure alone, it is the best.

The Wrath of Khan was handled by the TV production wing. TMP made a lot at the box office, but they wanted to produce the films tighter.

Having Spock die during the Kobaishi Maru mission was a way of trying to stop the spoilers - you see him die, and it's only a training simulator. I guess those rumors were false... Oh no, you didn't! Also, Kirk and Khan never share the screen.

It works well because it does something interesting. They focus on the human part of superhuman, so despite all of Khan's strengths, he has to get revenge on Kirk. It's not enough to win.

It also takes a different look at the swashbuckling captain that Kirk was. He's forced to face mortality and the consequences of his actions, and he's not always going to be able to wriggle out.

In a way, it's fascinating, because we have a film that's about getting old, which goes against the modern film making ethos. Kirk has to accept he's no longer the young buck, but it also says you can still live.

3 was good, but it definitely suffers from the lower production values, and replacing Kirstie Alley. But having Kirk blow up the Enterprise was brilliant - it's a perfect symbol of the crew and that loyalty went both ways. Kirk was willing to throw it all away to do right by Spock.

It's too bad that they overused that trope. On numbers if times they destroyed the Enterprise, Picard certainly has Kirk beat. If not for time paradoxes...

6 shows why you don't have digital clocks that are accurate to the second.

The TNG films - it's been a while, but I think the biggest mistake was doing them pretty much immediately after the show had ended. Part of the first six films was that we got a chance to see these old friends again, but with TNG, it felt like a continuation of a show that had a pretty definitive and strong end. I wondered if waiting 10 years might have allowed them to explore how they have changed more, like the first six films.

As for the new trilogy - I have rarely hated a film as viscerally as I hated Beyond. I have thoughts, which I will share when I get off work, since my lunch break is ending.

PeterCat
Apr 8, 2020



Son of Sam-I-Am posted:

As the years go by I like Final Frontier more and Undiscovered Country less. FF is a mess, but it's an ambitious mess with one of the best scores, and the characters are at their best, including uber-charismatic Sybok.

TUC on the other hand aged poorly; the characters are all beginning to become caricatures, when they're not straight up out of character, and if you actually pay attention to the dialogue in the dinner scene it doesn't make a lick of sense. I said it elsewhere but it reads like a much better, longer scene was hacked apart in editing because practically everything is non sequitur.

TUC never lived up to the hype for me. Everyone is way too racist towards the Klingons compared to previous encounters, even including what happened to Kirk's son, and Spock mind-raping Valeris is inexcusable. The novelization handled that better, it made the melding of their two minds a thing that allowed Valeris to see the emotions and empathy Spock had and why it was the right thing to tell what she knew. Nothing about Spock forcing the information out of her.

The II-III-IV trilogy is the heart of the TOS movies and are the only ST films I would say people must watch if they are interested.

I saw all of the TNG movies in the theater, but I don't have any desire to revisit them. They feel like weaker episodes from Season 7.

Roadie
Jun 30, 2013


sean10mm posted:

I also think it's interesting how different Leonard Nimoy makes Spock SOUND in this movie, it's like he was trying to be more genuinely alien here than at any other point.

TMP's originally intended soft reboot included some 'actually, TOS was a fictionalized account of Kirk's actual adventures' stuff, so that's not all that surprising.

Drunkboxer
Jun 30, 2007


Blood Boils posted:

I love into darkness, it's one of the best ones imo

It's at least as good as wrath, which is a bit overrated. Plus the brown face is a little yikes, is it not?

I mean, it's a pretty weird take to criticize Wrath for brown face and not Into Darkness. The dudes name is loving Benedict Cumberbatch.

sponges
Sep 14, 2011



Iíve always loved TMP. Itís the kind of slow burn boring sci fi that I love.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kull the Conqueror
Apr 8, 2006



Where is there brown face in Wrath of Khan?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply