Star Trek Movies
Despite my crusade against the horrors of transporter technology, I'm a Trek fan from way back. In college, after final exams, I would set up my little TV/VCR combo and watch Star Trek movies into the night. Not sure why this ritual caught on, but I highly recommend it. It’s a great way to soothe your inner geek.
Not all Star Trek movies are created equal. The conventional wisdom that the even numbered films are better than the odd numbered films pretty much holds true, except Star Trek III is pretty good and Star Trek 10- i.e. Nemesis – is bloody awful.
Trek movies, from best to worst:
Wrath of Khan isn't just the best Trek movie. It's one of the best movies ever made. It's airtight - not a wasted moment. The characters are note perfect, and Spock’s death is extraordinarily moving. My six year old son watched this with me and cried himself to sleep. We had to show him Star Trek III the next day to console him.
I've also memorized the dialogue from this movie, and it comes in handy in everyday situations. Walk into a crowded room and yell "This is Ceti Alpha V!" or "KHAAAAAAN!" and you'll be sure to win friends and influence people. No complaints, other than it would have been nice if Khan and Kirk had been in the same room at some point, but there it is.
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country is an overlooked gem. I was actually given the script for this before it came out, and it included a fun opening sequence where Kirk gathers up his retired crew for one last hurrah. I went to a screening at the Paramount lot before it opened, and the crowd was pretty dang enthusiastic. That experience may be why this one holds such a fond place in my heart.
Even so, it holds up very well with repeat viewings. The plot is solid, but what I find truly interesting is what they do with Spock. His confrontations with Valeris take this character to places he's never been before. A great last hurrah for the original series cast.
After the Generations debacle – see below - I expected Star Trek: First Contact to suck. But the Borg were too good a villain, and the whole Zefram Cochrane/First Contact idea worked too well. This is not, however, a character-driven film, which is a good thing, since the TNG characters aren't iconic enough to carry a film. That's why none of the other TNG movies worked. Other than Data and Picard, everyone else is interchangeable. (Maybe Worf, too, although he became something of a caricature as the series progressed.)
A strong plot and a great bad guy make this one work. (Love the creepy/sexy Borg queen!) It's probably the last piece of good Star Trek that has appeared in any medium.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, i.e. "the one with the whales" is generally considered by the unwashed masses to be the best Trek film ever. Certainly its the most accessible to non-fans, but that's what makes it off-putting to many die hards. It's a bit too jokey, and the "Save the Whales" moralizing is pretty tedious.
Still, everyone's having so much fun that it's hard not to get caught up in it. Spock's mind mild with the whale in the aquarium is hysterical, as is Chekov's quest to find "nuclear wessels." And Mormons everywhere guffawed when Kirk explained Spock's eccentricities on his hippie days when he "took too much LDS."
Shatner was a pretty smarmy date in the pizzeria, though.
In some ways, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is one of my favorite Treks, because it's the only one that's almost entirely character driven. It humanizes the characters in a way that has never been done before or since. Sulu was a cardboard cut out throughout the series and in the first two movies. Then he gets to beat up a guard and say "Don't call me tiny." Suddenly, he's a real person.
Everyone gets a moment. In one film, you discover these characters care about each other as people, which changes the dynamic of the whole film series going forward. This is actually a critical film in the series, and it gets dissed more than it deserves.
So why isn't it higher on my list? Because the plot is a by-the-numbers expositional slog with a cookie-cutter villain. You're always ten steps ahead of the characters, and there's a perfunctory feel to the whole thing. It works as a set-up for IV, but it doesn't stand well on its own.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a noble failure. It tries to be an embodiment of a Grand Idea in an attempt to sell a fairly interesting sci-fi concept, but this is the wrong vehicle to make it work.
I remember loving this movie when it first came out, because it was my chance to see Kirk, Spock and Co. back in action. It wasn't until I saw it a couple of years later on TV that I realized how ploddingly dull the whole thing was. The V'Ger thing is somewhat interesting, but the delivery comes at the expense of the characters. We finally get to see Kirk and Co. back in action, and all we get to watch is them staring out the window.
The recent Director's Cut made the stuff in the windows look better, but the film still doesn't work.
Star Trek: Generations was a collossal disappointment. Contrasting the lifeless TNG ciphers with the boldness of Captain Kirk made his pathetic fall off of a bridge even more disappointing. The opening scene is kind of fun, and Picard's actual meeting with Kirk was a thrill to watch. In total, that's about seven minutes of worthwhile screentime.
Everything else blows, especially the goofy "emotion chip."
Maybe I should rank Star Trek: Insurrection above Generations, since it isn't really terrible; it's just pointless. As I recall, it's a fair to middling TNG episode put on the big screen. To be honest, I don't remember much about it.
It clearly hasn't made its way into my repeat viewing roster.
Star Trek: Nemesis just sucked. Dull, lifeless, out of character Wrath of Khan wannabe. Data's pathetic death is, in some ways, even more embarrassing than Kirk's.
Actually, no, Kirk's was much worse. You knew what you were losing when they tossed him off the side of a bridge. When Data dies, you don't care, and, judging from the fact that Spiner's B4 now has all Data's memories, it changed nothing.
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is unwatchable. Literally. I can't sit through it. It's not even good camp. The plot is preachy and anti-religious and incomprehensible, all at the same time. The jokes are painful. The art direction is muddy and cluttered. The story's even worse.
William Shatner demonstrates that he has absolutely no understanding of the franchise that made him a star. He shows contempt for his characters, mocking them without affection and undercutting the reasons for their loyalty.
Everything's wrong here. Gravity boots? Farting around the campfire? Uhura's shudder-inducing fan dance? Spock's New Age brother? I can't think of a single thing I like about this film.
Look away. It's hideous.
____________________
There’s a new Trek movie coming out next year. Nimoy’s in it, so it might be OK. I think Trek is pretty much spent, though. I watched The Next Generation, never much enjoyed Deep Space Nine, and ignored Voyager and Enterprise completely.
For my money, can Trek altogether and bring back Firefly.
Not all Star Trek movies are created equal. The conventional wisdom that the even numbered films are better than the odd numbered films pretty much holds true, except Star Trek III is pretty good and Star Trek 10- i.e. Nemesis – is bloody awful.
Trek movies, from best to worst:
Wrath of Khan isn't just the best Trek movie. It's one of the best movies ever made. It's airtight - not a wasted moment. The characters are note perfect, and Spock’s death is extraordinarily moving. My six year old son watched this with me and cried himself to sleep. We had to show him Star Trek III the next day to console him.I've also memorized the dialogue from this movie, and it comes in handy in everyday situations. Walk into a crowded room and yell "This is Ceti Alpha V!" or "KHAAAAAAN!" and you'll be sure to win friends and influence people. No complaints, other than it would have been nice if Khan and Kirk had been in the same room at some point, but there it is.
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country is an overlooked gem. I was actually given the script for this before it came out, and it included a fun opening sequence where Kirk gathers up his retired crew for one last hurrah. I went to a screening at the Paramount lot before it opened, and the crowd was pretty dang enthusiastic. That experience may be why this one holds such a fond place in my heart.Even so, it holds up very well with repeat viewings. The plot is solid, but what I find truly interesting is what they do with Spock. His confrontations with Valeris take this character to places he's never been before. A great last hurrah for the original series cast.
After the Generations debacle – see below - I expected Star Trek: First Contact to suck. But the Borg were too good a villain, and the whole Zefram Cochrane/First Contact idea worked too well. This is not, however, a character-driven film, which is a good thing, since the TNG characters aren't iconic enough to carry a film. That's why none of the other TNG movies worked. Other than Data and Picard, everyone else is interchangeable. (Maybe Worf, too, although he became something of a caricature as the series progressed.)A strong plot and a great bad guy make this one work. (Love the creepy/sexy Borg queen!) It's probably the last piece of good Star Trek that has appeared in any medium.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, i.e. "the one with the whales" is generally considered by the unwashed masses to be the best Trek film ever. Certainly its the most accessible to non-fans, but that's what makes it off-putting to many die hards. It's a bit too jokey, and the "Save the Whales" moralizing is pretty tedious.Still, everyone's having so much fun that it's hard not to get caught up in it. Spock's mind mild with the whale in the aquarium is hysterical, as is Chekov's quest to find "nuclear wessels." And Mormons everywhere guffawed when Kirk explained Spock's eccentricities on his hippie days when he "took too much LDS."
Shatner was a pretty smarmy date in the pizzeria, though.
In some ways, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is one of my favorite Treks, because it's the only one that's almost entirely character driven. It humanizes the characters in a way that has never been done before or since. Sulu was a cardboard cut out throughout the series and in the first two movies. Then he gets to beat up a guard and say "Don't call me tiny." Suddenly, he's a real person.Everyone gets a moment. In one film, you discover these characters care about each other as people, which changes the dynamic of the whole film series going forward. This is actually a critical film in the series, and it gets dissed more than it deserves.
So why isn't it higher on my list? Because the plot is a by-the-numbers expositional slog with a cookie-cutter villain. You're always ten steps ahead of the characters, and there's a perfunctory feel to the whole thing. It works as a set-up for IV, but it doesn't stand well on its own.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a noble failure. It tries to be an embodiment of a Grand Idea in an attempt to sell a fairly interesting sci-fi concept, but this is the wrong vehicle to make it work.I remember loving this movie when it first came out, because it was my chance to see Kirk, Spock and Co. back in action. It wasn't until I saw it a couple of years later on TV that I realized how ploddingly dull the whole thing was. The V'Ger thing is somewhat interesting, but the delivery comes at the expense of the characters. We finally get to see Kirk and Co. back in action, and all we get to watch is them staring out the window.
The recent Director's Cut made the stuff in the windows look better, but the film still doesn't work.
Star Trek: Generations was a collossal disappointment. Contrasting the lifeless TNG ciphers with the boldness of Captain Kirk made his pathetic fall off of a bridge even more disappointing. The opening scene is kind of fun, and Picard's actual meeting with Kirk was a thrill to watch. In total, that's about seven minutes of worthwhile screentime.Everything else blows, especially the goofy "emotion chip."
Maybe I should rank Star Trek: Insurrection above Generations, since it isn't really terrible; it's just pointless. As I recall, it's a fair to middling TNG episode put on the big screen. To be honest, I don't remember much about it.It clearly hasn't made its way into my repeat viewing roster.
Star Trek: Nemesis just sucked. Dull, lifeless, out of character Wrath of Khan wannabe. Data's pathetic death is, in some ways, even more embarrassing than Kirk's.Actually, no, Kirk's was much worse. You knew what you were losing when they tossed him off the side of a bridge. When Data dies, you don't care, and, judging from the fact that Spiner's B4 now has all Data's memories, it changed nothing.
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is unwatchable. Literally. I can't sit through it. It's not even good camp. The plot is preachy and anti-religious and incomprehensible, all at the same time. The jokes are painful. The art direction is muddy and cluttered. The story's even worse.William Shatner demonstrates that he has absolutely no understanding of the franchise that made him a star. He shows contempt for his characters, mocking them without affection and undercutting the reasons for their loyalty.
Everything's wrong here. Gravity boots? Farting around the campfire? Uhura's shudder-inducing fan dance? Spock's New Age brother? I can't think of a single thing I like about this film.
Look away. It's hideous.
____________________
There’s a new Trek movie coming out next year. Nimoy’s in it, so it might be OK. I think Trek is pretty much spent, though. I watched The Next Generation, never much enjoyed Deep Space Nine, and ignored Voyager and Enterprise completely.
For my money, can Trek altogether and bring back Firefly.
posted by Elder Samuel Bennett | 8:39 AM
9 Comments:
Star Trek II is the best, but I love this part: Chekov and crew think they're on Ceti Alpha 6. But no, Ceti Alpha 6 expoded, so it's really Ceti Alpha 5.
How?
The fifth planet from the sun would still be the fifth planet from the sun, no matter what happened to a sixth planet. How dumb is that?
My top three: First Contact, Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock.
I remember people crying in the theaters when the Enterprise self destructed in III.
The interesting thing with First Contact is that Frakes directed it and RDM was involved with the story and screenplay.
You know, I heard on the news once that all chat rooms eventually degenerate into talking about sex, no matter what the original purpose of the chat was.
There is one notable exception: Star Trek rooms. They continue to talk about Trek, and nobody mentions panties once.
I loved First Contact. I love Picard. I don't like Kirk. He's annoying. But Picard is yummy and powerful, and I lurve him.
Your pain run's deep Stallion.
Let us explore it together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me, and gain strength for the sharing.
P.S. Universal Studios vs. My Fractured Psyche: Guess Who Lost
Available at all major vanity house publishers.
"For my money, can Trek altogether and bring back Firefly."
Amen!
I mostly agree with this, but I had way too much fun with IV to put it so far down, and I also appreciated Generations a lot more than you did. Other than that, right on!
I really think you should give Voyager a try. The first couple seasons were painful and slow in the development, and the opening episode was as disaster, but they did amazing things later on. Being stranded far away gave them much more room to write compelling stories. And Janeway was actually good as a female captain. They didn't push any over-the-top feminist trash.
Gok says,
I agree with many things you have to say here.
In no particular order : Kirk WAS a smarmy date in the pizzeria, and V was just awful.
I would place Insurrection far above where you did, however. What was noteworthy about it for me was its square take on the Prime Directive, the first ever in a movie, and defending a small group of people. This impressed me because it was so clearly based on the assault on indigenous peoples that has happened worldwide, and Picard alludes to this in his argument with Admiral Dougherty. Also, there is a refreshing twist on a usual Star Trek theme. Usually Star Trek asserts that paradise is impossible, and no one should even try. Countless OS episodes have the crew interfering with various attempts. Here Picard really sticks to the Prime Directive, and we get to see a small utopian community and how it has created its own space. Given how many religious minorities did the same in America, and in a sense built it, I think that's a worthwhile theme for Star Trek to have explored. Also, it was great to see Riker in command and I liked his new beardless look.
I still think that VI is a good movie, but I place it lower than you. I think VI all got elevated in our minds because it was like salvation after the hell of V, and it is still a strong film, but at times the social parallels (which are good, that's Star Trek) became way too obvious, kind of like the Omega Glory with the Kohms and the Yangs. I mean, Klingons with Russian accents? Come on. And to me, the mind-meld scene with Valeris was EXTREMELY disturbing and felt like rape, and it was acted like it was rape, and I thought it completely destroyed Spock's character and made him break with all Vulcan ethics of peace. I didn't like it one bit.
One thing you might revisit with The Motion Picture is its music. This film has some of the best music, and although it's true most of the film is a small Enterprise travelling through some (pretty amazing for 1979) effects, the music especially in these scenes is particularly transcendent. Consider as well that the Next Generation got its theme from the music of this film. The first scenes with the Klingons are, I think, riveting, as is the scene with the Kohlinar. Spock regaining his emotional side and connection with Jim is really very moving, and I would think that form a Mormon perspective, the "spiritual marriage" scene between Ilia and Decker would be very interesting.
What's interesting about V is that its basic idea had existed in Trek for a long time. Shatner stole Roddenberry's idea and did extremely poor execution on it. Roddenberry had been discussing for years the idea of the crew finding God and it turned out to be the Devil (which, while offensive in some ways, is not so much "anti-religious" as it is very Gnostic, and Roddenberry at times shows a decidedly Gnostic streak). This was such common knowledge amongst the cast that you can see a 1978 interview with the cast where DeForrest Kelly openly discusses the idea -- to the horror of the host who is aware of the religious sensibilities of his audience!! (I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with this theme here, merely trying to give some of the history of it. I hated V!)
The Sybok character was potentially very interesting, but in actuality quite flat. I agree that Shatner ventures into anti-religiosity here, because here we have a prophetic kind of figure who is made out to be just mistaken.
DS9, which apparently you've neglected, is one of the most pro-religious shows of all the Trek series, because it deals with the Bajorans, who are an extremely religious people, who draw upon their "prophets", who are like gods to them. These are science fictionalized to the Federation as "wormhole aliens", but as they are beings who exist beyond space and time, they are more like the Organians in some way, except more advanced, so perhaps something between the Organians and the Q.
Some great points about III and its fleshing out of the other characters. Sulu really was likable in this film. But I'm going to argue for greater importance for this film. First of all, I completely and totally disagree with you about the villain. I thought Christopher Lloyd was not only awesome and formidable, but hilarious as well, and that is a really fun combination in a villain. For me, it was both believable and enjoyable. Moreover, III has religious overtones, perhaps the first Star Trek to openly do so. In fact, it is very much like the Mystery Religions of old, where a dying figure is resurrected. In its own oblique way, it is almost allusive to Christianity (although I am in no way equating Spock and Christ!). But as an allegory it is suggestive.
We're agreed that II is just amazing.
IV was not so impressive to me. It was a fun romp, to be sure, but here are my major problems : First of all, Roger Cormel died before the shooting of the movie, which completely changed the plot. Most people didn't know this, but I did, because they had told us that IV was going to have Harry Mudd in it. That would have just been so awesome, and it would have had all the comedy IV had. So that was an unfortunately unavoidable disappointment. Secondly, the music for this film sounds like the soundtrack for the Ghost and Mrs. Muir, and doesn't have the seriousness and depth we expect in a Trek score. Then there is the matter of over-flippancy with changing the timeline. Scotty's simple question of "How do we know he didn't invent the damn thing?" is just ridiculous, and "Hello, Computer" just begins the slapstickization of Scotty that results in "I know this ship like the back of my hand *BANG*" (V) or "I think this new ship was built by monkeys" (V). Did WWIII really wipe out so much information that a trained Engineer would know absolutely nothing about the history of computers? However, in its favor, it has the best integration of aliens into Trek in any film. I was very impressed by the multicultural/alien demographics of Starfleet in this film. Nimoy did a great job with that. And it was fun watching them run around San Francisco. I know it may have been far too clumsy to include references, but they act like they've never been to 20th century Earth before when in fact they've been there several times before.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home