*** Official Star Trek Films Discussion (1 Viewer)

[Rex Bachmann]

Richard WWW wrote:

I'm a Star Trek fan and I have very low expectations of any and all Star Trek films, this one not excluded. I learned a long time ago---the hard way---not to expect much. Its "being the best Trek yet" to my mind is not saying much, given the prevailing standard. WOK, generally judged the best of the lot, was fun, but, as in all the other Trek films, I sense something totally lacking.
The cinema is where the Trek franchise should be free to be the most daring and innovative, but somehow, I sense, it's where it's the least.

 

[Angelo.M]

The cinema is where the Trek franchise should be free to be the most daring and innovative, but somehow, I sense, it's where it's the least.

This seems particularly naiive to me. Why would a studio spend tens to hundreds of millions of dollars on a franchise film that didn't stick to some previously-successful formula? The bottom line is that the Star Trek films are products competing for your entertainment dollar, products in which the studio has invested serious capital that it would like to see returned. If the writers of Trek want to be "daring" on a one-hour TV show, that's probably more than acceptable to the studio. But, if we're talking major motion picture, it's not going to happen.

I'm a very occasional and casual Trek fan, and I'm always amazed at the lengths to which some will complain about the quality of the Star Trek films. They're not meant to be high art; they are meant to cash in on one's familiarity with the franchise.

 

[Dan Paolozza]

Angelo, the issue is not with the reasoning behind the mostion pictures. I am Star Trek has gained my 'familiarity' by employing, for the most part, being a creative, original and sometimes (often?) daring content.

So I agree with you that Trek fans shouldn't expect more, but at the same time, it's sad and frustrating that we shouldn't expect more. It'd be nice if we could get the 'best of Trek' in motion-picture form. The way the film industry and the franchise business is, this is an overblown expectation (especially, as you point out, comparted to TV).

But as I said, it's just unfortunate that we have to assume a lower grade, whether there's a logical rationale behind the 'lower grade' or not.

 

[Yee-Ming]

what irks me is the fact that in Nemesis, Janeway is now an Admiral whilst Picard remains stuck at Captain. surely a man who's been a captain for, let's see, 30+ years in ST timelines (20 as captain of Stargazer, 7 seasons of TNG and by now probably 5 more or so covering the Voyager/TNG movies era) should be an admiral, regardless of whether he personally wishes to remain in command of a starship.
one nice touch of ST:TMP was that Kirk was getting fed up with his desk-bound admiral job, and wangled his way back onto the Enterprise. I know it would be re-hashing it, but wouldn't something similar, with friction between Picard and his former XO, now Captain Riker and CO of the USS Enterprise, be a bit more interesting? turning to Riker, no man as capable and ambitious as him would want to stay second fiddle for that long either, especially since in the TV series he'd turned down a third offer of command, even if he were initially holding out for command of the Enterprise itself.
this ties back to the earlier comments as to the fact that there are no significant changes to the character, e.g. a Picard and/or Riker promotion etc. granted they'd have to take liberties to re-assemble the crew, e.g. engineering Worf's return to the Enterprise in First Contact on the basis that the Defiant was crippled, but without any growth in the characters, it seems they stay static the entire time which makes no sense if others are moving (in particular _Admiral_ Janeway -- I suppose Kim must be an LT by now? )

 

[Todd K]

Picard has remained in the Captain's chair, I believe, based on advice from a very wise man -- James T. Kirk.

If I were to save one plot point from that piece of tripe Generations, it would be Picard learning that he can make the most difference on the bridge of his ship. I don't know how he'd learn it, though, since I would have prefered the last thing we see of Kirk being him sailing into the sunset in Star Trek VI.

p.s.- on the old subject of opinions on the films (without rehashing anything):

III - Is it possible that Kirk went to Genesis because he got Esteban's encoded message that Spock's tube was on the Genesis surface? I can't remember at what point that message was sent in the film.

VI -- A good final entry for the original crew, but not without its flaws. Valeris should have been Saavik. It would have made the "whodunnit" much more interesting. It was quite obvious the newcomer was the sabateur on the ship. And the clapping at the end from Kirk's cheesy speech, right after the "scooby doo" mask peeling? Ouch. Still, it's my second favorite in the series. God bless Nicholas Meyer.

VII -- This movie is not a total wash. I'll even buy into the magical plot point of The Nexus. But if you leave you can go anywhere, at any time?? Besides Kirk's death, it's the most idiotic part of the film. And if you could go anywhere at anytime, why wouldn't you go back to a time when you could confront Soran somewhere else besides alone on a dangerous cliff?

VIII -- Enough with the "We have to save Earth" business already. And they were pushing their luck by using the time travel element again.

IX -- The only reason this should be rated higher than V is because the plot holds up a little better. Barely. Am I correct in remembering that the Baku weren't even natives of that planet? And they're a population smaller than that of my high school?

X -- Could be good, but from what I hear there may be some remnants of the corniness found in Insurrection. And from what I've seen in the trailers, one guy on one ship from billions of miles away is able to seriously threaten Earth? I certainly hope that's not the source of the movie's biggest tension. But, to end on a high note, I can't tell you how happy I was to hear that they hired non-Trek people to write and direct.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Angelo.M wrote:

Quote:

Not by me. It's still my least favorite of these films. Too many easy laughs and too much pratfall humor. It was so popular because it avoided the science of the fiction so assiduously. "More people dressed like weirdos in San Francisco." Whooptydoo! Not what I'm looking for.

 

[TheLongshot]

IV was considered good because after all the seriousness of the previous three films, the mood needed to be lightened somewhat, and it worked quite well in this film. Also, it was nice to have a threat that wasn't, in itself, malevolent. Unfortunatly, it indirectly caused the disaster that was V with its success.

That being said, I find that IV doesn't age as well for me, maybe because it gets a little too silly. It is still probably my girlfriend's favorite Star Trek film, tho.

Jason

 

[Jack Briggs]

It's not considered "good" so much as it was popular with the non-enthusiast public; it offered the banter among the Kirk/Bones/Spock troika that the masses enjoyed.

Otherwise, The Voyage Home was little better than The Final Frontier, and utterly riddled with cliches and then-popular causes and political fads. As "science fiction" it was a complete failure. As Trek-standard storytelling, it was still subpar.

The film is embarrassing to watch sometimes.

 

[Dan Paolozza]

I really agree with Rex and Jack's comments on IV. I've read all over the place this theory of the "evens being good" with the Star Trek movies. I thought III was way better than IV, just because it had the interesting premise of the Genesis effect regnerating Spock. It didn't have much else, but for me, it was still more than what IV contained. I thought IV was a trite little story with the "neat-o" gimmick of putting the Trek crew in "our time period."
This I disagree with (at least, I think) Not that I think Insurrection was the best film, or even a "great" film, but I thought part of it's "charm" (if you will) was that it highlighted the essence of the crew, and TNG Trek. That is, at the heart of the matter, is that sometimes one has to do the right thing, even if on behalf of a tiny population. It may not have made for good tension on the silver screen, and it certainly lacked any sort of scope, but at least it was (what I consider) Trek, through and through.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Somehow, this thread was resurrected. Since I was on my deathbed yesterday, I hope whomever brought this thread back to life reposts.

Prediction: If there is another Trek feature, it won't appear until Enterprise runs its wearying course.

 

[Tino]

I resurrected it Jack, and am just now noticing that my post is gone.
I basically resurrected it to publicly state how wrong I was in my prediction for Star Trek Nemesis' boxoffice potential. Due to my satisfaction with the script that I reviewed last year, I said I was pretty sure that it would be one of the best Treks yet and be a huge success. Boy was I wrong!
I actually enjoyed Nemesis and am a bit surprised at how harsh the criticisms were and how poorly it did at the cinemas. Of the ten Trek films, I'd rate it above Final Frontier and Insurrection, and as good as Search For Spock and Generations. It takes a lot for me to really dislike a Trek film. But I can certainly understand how the fans were disappointed.
I am confident that more Star Trek films will be made, I just hope the powers that be at Paramount take note of whatr happened with Nemesis and rectify this with a a Trek film that pleases fans and non-fans alike.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Unfortunately, part of the problem is the powers that be over at Paramount. Rick and Brannon gotta go before this franchise can ever hope to get back on track.

 

[Dan Paolozza]

I still haven't seen Nemesis. I keep meaning to pick up the DVD, but something stops me (for instance, that look of "you're going to waste more of our money?" in my wife's eyes).
It's the first Trek film I didn't go to see on opening weekend. I guess I've become a bad trek fan... :frowning:
I haven't read much about it, and am curious to see it, but nothing more. I used to be so optomistic and hopefull about these things.

 

[Tino]

Jack

Perhaps Paramount needs to rethink who they currently have in charge of the Trek franchise as fans have been saying all along.

Maybe Nemesis' poor reception and Enterprise's dwindling ratings will open there eyes and force them to seek out new, fresh blood to run all things Trek, TV and film alike.

 

[Pete-D]

I think they did kinda try to bring in fresh blood with the last Star Trek movie, the director even admits to knowing next to nill about Star Trek beforehand but was more into action.

That didn't work.

I think Star Trek VI is hugely underrated. Aside from the Scooby Doo mask thing (haha), the movie is well executed, has stunning cinematography (the Rura Pente shots in particular crap all over the Genesis planet), and a really epic, booming score.

Also the send off for the original crew was touching and did justice to the end of a Trek era.

I'm kinda sad that if this is it for the TNG crew that they never really hit their stride on the big screen.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Well, Stuart Baird's lack of Star Trek knowledge is the same pitfall that was so plainly evident when Rick Berman brought Brannon Braga into the fold. Remember, Braga bragged about not having been exposed to TOS. The rest is history, as they say.

Nemesis had potential, but the stagnated powers that be settled on The Wrath of Shinzon and boldly rehashed what has been rehashed before. Thing is, if the film simply had been fleshed out a little more, retooled here and there, it might have worked. I sure wanted it to.

But it simply may be too late—for now, at least. The non-fanbase public is tired of Star Trek, and what's left of the fanbase itself is not enough for the film series to be economically viable any longer.

Like so many others, I "conclude" my Star Trek "universe" with the finale of DS9. I prefer to imagine Voyager and Enterprise as never having been unleashed upon us.