Best and worst Star Trek films?

Best: 2, Wrath Of Khan - tho not initially
Worst: Into Darkness, again, not initially

Best: 4 and 6
Worst: The modern reboot ones

Best: Wrath, Voyage and Generations
Worst: Into Darkness

Best wrath,voyage,first contact,worst into darkness

Thanks for the replies guys. Into Darkness really gets a bad rap online, but repeated viewings make clear why that is.

Here's a couple of thoughts on most of the films, so far : -

1: I quite enjoyed the long, slow pace of this when I watched it whilst a kid. If the original series is like a pop album this is almost like a classical concerto! Emphasised ominous mood over action; oddly non-commercial for a first instalment.

2: Took me a while not to see flaws in WOK: now I think I was being harsh. The themes are mature and the characterisation of the clash between Kirk & Khan fantastic. Funny how Into Darkness made such a mess of ripping it off.

3: Has an inappropriately lighter tone at times considering some of the stuff that happens in it. Kirk in particular gets put thru absolute hell. Yet it's well-directed by Nimoy and had a wonderfully graceful closing scene - who knew a character coming back to life could be handled so sensitively and intelligently?

4: Found the humour funny, though I never connected as much with the 'green' issues. At least the cast looked like they had fun.

5: Gets too much stick, for me, tho it seems far less of a shoe-in for worst film than it used to be. I like the main theme - weightier than 4 - and the camping scenes and jokes hit the spot. I may be the only person who finds the 'Scotty banging his head' gag amusing!

6: A good entry, tho the mood is excessive at times (Plummer quoting the Bard constantly, the jokes about Kirk fighting himself) yet the court scenes are pretty great. Reminiscent of Trial Of A Time Lord, strangely.

Generations: Gee, Malcolm McDowell as a bad guy, what a surprise! Still I enjoyed the Kirk/Picard interplay, which was more memorable than the action scenes. Nice character insights.

First Contact: Not as big a fan of this as many are - somehow the Borg seem ruthless & ineffectual at the same time, much like Who's Cybermen - but the scene where Picard refuses to abandon ship is Patrick Stewart at his best.

Insurrection: Disliked by many but I find it intelligent, touching and gentle whilst having a fine argument on ethics. More like a feature-length episode than a standalone film.

Nemesis: Saw it in the cinema and I still like it, tho it seems to compete with ST:ID for absolute worst in many's eyes. Tom Hardy does a fine job, as ever, whilst the sub-plot with Data/B4 nicely enforces the theme of the main storyline.

Star Trek (2009): Pretty good reboot in some ways: I liked the more complex timeline stuff. Also thought some of the acting was solid, not least Bruce Greenwood, once again, as Pike. Still not so convinced by Kirk's excessive hellraising and particularly Spock being so easily-smitten and manipulated into losing his temper.

ST:ID : Oh dear. Individual scenes work pretty well, but 'Harrison' 's plot makes little sense, there are plot holes all over the place (allowing such a blatant flying assassination attempt - how bad is Starfleet's security, exactly?), Cumberbatch's sneering is excessive in an almost Kenneth Williams fashion and as for that scene that shamelessly steals from the end of WOK only to bring Kirk back with magic blood - give me strength! If ever there needed to be an example of fan service ruining a project, this is it.

Beyond: Not seen it yet. Any good, chaps?

I'm quite a fan of the much-maligned 'Star Trek The Motion Picture' and that's mainly because of:

:




Unfortunately, I can't stand the NuTrek films.

Mott1 wrote: I may be the only person who finds the 'Scotty banging his head' gag amusing!

It cracks me up.

Best: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, a childhood favourite. Just beautiful, classic film-making.

Worst: Probably still Insurrection to be honest, a complete washout.... Additionally I just don't give a damn about any of the Kelvin timeline/Abrams films. They've got no staying power, leaving nothing for the mind to remotely chew on. I'd take Star Trek V: The Final Frontier over them any day.

Mott1 wrote:Beyond: Not seen it yet. Any good, chaps?

It's better than Into Darkness, but I wasn't terribly impressed. Still too much made of Kirk being a Beastie Boys fan.

Worst:
Star Trek the Motion Picture: Overdulgent fan fic. Painstakingly slow.
Voyage Home: Black pudding in space. Tedious jokes. Misplaced save the whale message.
Generations: Pointless to me. No need for the two teams to meet. Kirk should have been shot dead in The Man Trap and replaced with someone who could act.

Best:
Wrath of Khan
Final Frontier: David Warner lifts this. i was miffed when they killed him off so early in the film.

I dont care for the Next Generation films. Dunno why. The series was much better.

I am sorry but i really like the JJ Abrams movies. They had a vitality and energy missing from much of star trek.

But then i like Star Trek: Enterprise so there you go ...

Wrath of Khan is one of the best films ever made never mind Star Trek.

Ricardo Montablan's performance is Oscar worthy. He's a vicious, ruthless villain, and the way he tortures and kills people is extremely visceral for Star Trek. They really don't hold back at all. (The bit where they stick the monsters in Checkov's ears, is as gruesome as anything in Classic Who IMO.) Yet incredibly enough you can't help but feel sympathy for Khan in certain moments as he was wronged in some ways.

Khan and Kirk are probably one of the best realised examples of the archenemy trope. Up there with Batman and the Joker, Xena and Callisto etc.

Search for Spock meanwhile is a classic too. Christopher Lloyd as always is excellent as Kruge, and I'd say its probably Shatner's best performance when he sees his son die. The story is also an interesting concept and as Mott1 said Spock's resurrection is handled sensitively and thoughtfully. It doesn't cheapen Khan as they have to go through hell to save him, and it doesn't just feel like he could come back from anything.

Also who doesn't love this scene. IMO this is proof of what a great actor Shatner is. Much like Jack Nicholson, he can take mundane, boring lines like "I have had enough of your" or in Nicholson's case "you can't handle the truth" and make them iconic and imitable through his delivery.



I despise the JJ Abrams movies personally.

They are to ST what the RTD era is to DW. A shallow, soulless, meaningless, cash in on a once unique, intelligent franchise.

Case in point.

burrunjor wrote:I despise the JJ Abrams movies personally.

They are to ST what the RTD era is to DW. A shallow, soulless, meaningless, cash in on a once unique, intelligent franchise.

I think what both RTD's era and the Abrams Trek films have in common is this.

With the original series they had to make do with the resources they had, and basically it took trial and error to get to some of their best successes, and taking a chance on certain writers who were against the norm. In the case of old Trek it was Harlan Ellison and Dorothy Fontana, with Doctor Who it was writers like Robert Holmes, Christopher Bailey, Barbara Clegg and Ben Aaronovitch.

The original Trek movies were themselves a difficult learning curve for the makers. They thought The Motion Picture would make a good film, things went wrong. But afterwards they spent the next films in the series really learning the language of cinematic storytelling and making some impressive films because of it.

Even Star Trek V you can't say wasn't taking a chance at doing something different.

But with RTD and Abrams, they just seemed to decide "sod trial and error, lets just assume the audience are stupid and make it as energetically flashy and dumbed down for them as possible, and let's just make the old characters what we want them to be to make them instantly cool and progressive and remove anything 'nerdy' about them." And basically it never ventures beyond that mind-numbing formula.

Or rather where RTD's era did show signs of daring, it was usually from guest writers from Big Finish who had been through some trial and error themselves, and yet it was always RTD who decided to cancel out any new direction those stories pointed to.

Abrams' Trek doesn't even have that. And I think that's why the audience enthusiasm dwindled with Into Darkness. And why after Abrams' safe, by the numbers Star Wars: The Force Awakens, when the next film tried to do something different it was a complete catastrophe.

Even Star Trek Beyond, which was supposed to redeem the franchise is always falling back on the same safe cushion of the 2009 film. Kirk on a motorbike, big on his Beastie Boys records.

Case in point.

Yep. I couldn't believe that moment either.

Strangely enough, up until that point I thought the film seemed to be doing something that would turn out to be interesting, albeit convoluted. Certainly I thought it was an interesting idea to put Kirk and Khan in an uneasy alliance in this timeline.

But then with that scene it just degenerated into pure contrived, bad fanfic and suspension of disbelief became impossible. And it really epitomized the gulf between the old and new Trek films. I believed in the old Trek films. I believed in the mortal danger the characters were in, and the internal thoughts and feelings they had.

With the new ones there's so much overkill on the danger and melodrama, and so much brazen fanservice, that I don't believe it in the same way, and that scene was case in point. I could see nothing but author's fiat in it and at a time when it's supposed to be moving me with Kirk's death, I felt nothing but disbelief that the movie was stupidly doing this.

I'm a massive fan of Star Trek. I believe The Phantom Menace is probably the worst one out of the entire bunch.

burrunjor wrote:Wrath of Khan is one of the best films ever made never mind Star Trek.

Ricardo Montablan's performance is Oscar worthy.

Search for Spock meanwhile is a classic too. Christopher Lloyd as always is excellent as Kruge, and I'd say its probably Shatner's best performance when he sees his son die.

Also who doesn't love this scene. IMO this is proof of what a great actor Shatner is. Much like Jack Nicholson, he can take mundane, boring lines like "I have had enough of your" or in Nicholson's case "you can't handle the truth" and make them iconic and imitable through his delivery.



I despise the JJ Abrams movies personally.

They are to ST what the RTD era is to DW. A shallow, soulless, meaningless, cash in on a once unique, intelligent franchise.

Case in point.

Montalbans acting is good in the role and it does leave you with a sense of creeping pity for the characteer as you say. But its not oscar winning stuff. Unless they are giving oscars out to b-movie actors now.

Christopher Lloyd is excellent as you say and he comes across well in that scene you post. There are other scenes where he shines more although to be fair to Lloyd, Shatner is probably holding him back. Yes Shatner raises his game as he did in most of the ST films relative to the tv series, but its hyperbole to say Shatner's performance was in any way iconic. At best you can say he worked well with the other professionals on set and didn't embarrass himself.

Shatner's acting in the "Bastard Klingon killed my son" scene is embarrassingly weak. He overplays it from start to finish. From the characters p.o.v. it seems odd that he responds the way he does to the death of a son he was unaware of until the events depicted in the film and so failed to develop any close emotional ties. Regardless, Shatner misjudges it and gives it all he has got. Unfortunately this turns out to be one of the hammiest performance of his life. Even if you argue he was aware of David during the previous 20 years, Kirk chose to cut off contact and pursue his career in starfleet instead of being a close father. So he has had no real contact and so no emotional ties could have been developed. He was a committed star fleet careerist. So again his reaction to the lads death is unreal.

Although i like the Abrams film i don't quite understand the context of the spock clip you have posted. I am guessing he is reacting to the death of Kirk. If thats what it is i don't see how it is any different to Kirk's reaction to the death of Spock in, i think, Khan. Although i would add that Quinto acted his part much better than Shatner.

The parallels between NuWho and NuTrek are undeniable.

iank wrote:The parallels between NuWho and NuTrek are undeniable.

Definitely, though they've "progressed" through the three stages in a slightly different order. If JJTrek was its equivalent of the RTD era, it then skipped straight to the Chibnall era with Discovery. Its equivalent of the Moffat era's false promise and unfulfilled potential looks set to arrive later this year in the form of Picard.

Kahn is obviously the greatest ST movie ever made. I found the original to be pretty boring for the most part although my old man enjoys it for what it is.

Great responses here.

Watching Wrath again today. Love the scene where Kirk taunts Khan by 'mocking the superior intellect - brilliantly acted by both performers, and the disintegration of the Reliant mirroring Khan's collapsing mental and physical state. Also, Kirk raises the question that Khan has a potentially cowardly side: for all his strength and intelligence he seems to want to avoid facing him in person and gets others to try to assassinate him?

Also The Journey Home - is it effectively an 80s comedy/green issues reboot of The Motion Picture?

Edit: just seen the first half of Beyond. So far, frankly, it's the worst of the new trilogy - this time the Enterprise didn't even last the first act, the tonal whiplash is worse than ever and the reactions of characters to events is utterly unbelievable. It's as if there's a ration per movie for gags, effects, explosions, wrecked enterprises etc. Also the way Uhuru reacts to Kirk in particular is constantly inconsistent with the chain of command which gave gravitas to the original crew.

No tension, no coherent geography to the set pieces, Scotty is basically Mickey from Nu Who and Uhura is Rose / Clara - this film in particular really could be the rtd / moffat / chibbers version of Star Trek. Awful.

I went to see TMP at the cinema when it came out, but it was a bit of a disappointment even on the big screen. It's nickname of the Motionless Picture is well deserved. It tried to be a bit 2001, but Star Trek was much more character driven, which is part of the reason it failed so miserably.
I do love that scene where Bones and Spock first meet though. Such a witty observation of the relationship between the two.

I always liked II and III best. I find them hard to separate, but I think Search For Spock is a very underrated entry and I've probably returned to that one more often than most.

IV is ok, but not a favourite. It always feels a bit Disney for me.

V is also ok. Not as bad as its rep, but not great either.

VI is a personal fave, and would probably be my bronze medallist. It's the last time we see the entire original cast, and I'm glad they made a pretty good stab at it.

Generations is great until Kirk comes back, then it feels entirely contrived. I would've preferred they just left it alone after the last movie. Shatner was never that fantastic in the films, but Kirk's death achieved the opposite of what it intended. Just embarrassing.

First Contact - Solid and enjoyable. Shame it took so long for Picard to get this good.  

Insurrection - This would've made a very average tv episode, but padded out to movie length makes it very much last than average.

Nemesis - Again very average, but not as boring as the previous entry.

Star Trek reboot - I found it reasonable enough as a one off. Not as bad as what comes next...

Into Darkness - Ok you can fuck off now.

Beyond - I know I've seen it, but no trace of it exists in my memory.

I don't know why 'Star Trek The Motion Picture' gets so much stick - it's really rather marvellous! (and that's not just because I fancy the arse off Lieutenant Ilia ).  Yes, it's slow and ponderous in places but no more so than films like '2001: A Space Odyssey' or 'Solaris'(which just happen to be two of my favourite flicks). It would have been easy to just make an ST film that was basically an extended TV episode writ large for the cinema with a bigger budget and slicker effects but they tried something a little bit different, more dispassionate, more cerebral (saying that, I do admit there are similarities between The Motion Picture and the old ST episode 'The Changeling'). Or they could have played it safe and made a film that in the wake of Star Wars was more flash, bang wallop, kiddy-friendly, action/adventure escapism (which is basically what the NuTrek films try to be).  I first saw ST:TMP back in 1979 at the local fleapit (a great year for Sci-Fi - also saw 'The Black Hole' and 'Alien' at the same cinema! ) and there were parts of the film that I found a bit tiresome and stuff I didn't quite understand, but I loved the basic premise of the movie - the concept of machine intelligence - the scary idea of our own old space junk coming back to threaten us. Do you want a quick-buck, empty, pop-corn, commercially friendly movie or something (that at least tries to be) more thoughtful and profound?  
Smashing Jerry Goldsmith score, too.

Kaijuko wrote:I don't know why 'Star Trek The Motion Picture' gets so much stick - it's really rather marvellous! (and that's not just because I fancy the arse off Lieutenant Ilia ).  Yes, it's slow and ponderous in places but no more so than films like '2001: A Space Odyssey' or 'Solaris'(which just happen to be two of my favourite flicks). It would have been easy to just make an ST film that was basically an extended TV episode writ large for the cinema with a bigger budget and slicker effects but they tried something a little bit different, more dispassionate, more cerebral (saying that, I do admit there are similarities between The Motion Picture and the old ST episode 'The Changeling'). Or they could have played it safe and made a film that in the wake of Star Wars was more flash, bang wallop, kiddy-friendly, action/adventure escapism (which is basically what the NuTrek films try to be).  I first saw ST:TMP back in 1979 at the local fleapit (a great year for Sci-Fi - also saw 'The Black Hole' and 'Alien' at the same cinema! ) and there were parts of the film that I found a bit tiresome and stuff I didn't quite understand, but I loved the basic premise of the movie - the concept of machine intelligence - the scary idea of our own old space junk coming back to threaten us. Do you want a quick-buck, empty, pop-corn, commercially friendly movie or something (that at least tries to be) more thoughtful and profound?  
Smashing Jerry Goldsmith score, too.

I’ve come to see TMP that way over time too- it’s a rather admirable film which decided to dispense with archetypal blockbuster conventions and instead opt for a more cerebral touch akin to 2001 and Solaris (although both of those are miles better). And Goldsmith’s score is rather magnificent. It’s a very flawed film, and certainly a ponderous one, but it has grown on me a lot.

I’ve not actually seen them all, mind. Wrath of Kahn I recall being rather good, I have a soft spot for The Voyage Home, and enjoy The Undiscovered Country quite a bit. I recall finding Insurrection very dull, though First Contact was OK. Star Trek (2009) was fine, if very NuWho in its approach, though Into Darkness was fucking appalling. I never saw ‘Beyond’.

I'd never seen it until like a month or so back.. and loved it. Easily one of the best of the Trek movies (my other faves are 4 and 6).

Bernard Marx wrote:

Kaijuko wrote:I don't know why 'Star Trek The Motion Picture' gets so much stick - it's really rather marvellous! (and that's not just because I fancy the arse off Lieutenant Ilia ).  Yes, it's slow and ponderous in places but no more so than films like '2001: A Space Odyssey' or 'Solaris'(which just happen to be two of my favourite flicks). It would have been easy to just make an ST film that was basically an extended TV episode writ large for the cinema with a bigger budget and slicker effects but they tried something a little bit different, more dispassionate, more cerebral (saying that, I do admit there are similarities between The Motion Picture and the old ST episode 'The Changeling'). Or they could have played it safe and made a film that in the wake of Star Wars was more flash, bang wallop, kiddy-friendly, action/adventure escapism (which is basically what the NuTrek films try to be).  I first saw ST:TMP back in 1979 at the local fleapit (a great year for Sci-Fi - also saw 'The Black Hole' and 'Alien' at the same cinema! ) and there were parts of the film that I found a bit tiresome and stuff I didn't quite understand, but I loved the basic premise of the movie - the concept of machine intelligence - the scary idea of our own old space junk coming back to threaten us. Do you want a quick-buck, empty, pop-corn, commercially friendly movie or something (that at least tries to be) more thoughtful and profound?  
Smashing Jerry Goldsmith score, too.

I’ve come to see TMP that way over time too- it’s a rather admirable film which decided to dispense with archetypal blockbuster conventions and instead opt for a more cerebral touch akin to 2001 and Solaris (although both of those are miles better). And Goldsmith’s score is rather magnificent. It’s a very flawed film, and certainly a ponderous one, but it has grown on me a lot.

I’ve not actually seen them all, mind. Wrath of Kahn I recall being rather good, I have a soft spot for The Voyage Home, and enjoy The Undiscovered Country quite a bit. I recall finding Insurrection very dull, though First Contact was OK. Star Trek (2009) was fine, if very NuWho in its approach, though Into Darkness was fucking appalling. I never saw ‘Beyond’.

Agreed, though I am, of course referring to the original 1972 version of 'Solaris', not the god-awful George Clooney remake!

'Wrath of Khan' is also magnificent - a  very different beast to TMP though.  Which is good - I think it would have been a mistake to try and make a follow-up ST film in the same vein.

Kaijuko wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:

Kaijuko wrote:I don't know why 'Star Trek The Motion Picture' gets so much stick - it's really rather marvellous! (and that's not just because I fancy the arse off Lieutenant Ilia ).  Yes, it's slow and ponderous in places but no more so than films like '2001: A Space Odyssey' or 'Solaris'(which just happen to be two of my favourite flicks). It would have been easy to just make an ST film that was basically an extended TV episode writ large for the cinema with a bigger budget and slicker effects but they tried something a little bit different, more dispassionate, more cerebral (saying that, I do admit there are similarities between The Motion Picture and the old ST episode 'The Changeling'). Or they could have played it safe and made a film that in the wake of Star Wars was more flash, bang wallop, kiddy-friendly, action/adventure escapism (which is basically what the NuTrek films try to be).  I first saw ST:TMP back in 1979 at the local fleapit (a great year for Sci-Fi - also saw 'The Black Hole' and 'Alien' at the same cinema! ) and there were parts of the film that I found a bit tiresome and stuff I didn't quite understand, but I loved the basic premise of the movie - the concept of machine intelligence - the scary idea of our own old space junk coming back to threaten us. Do you want a quick-buck, empty, pop-corn, commercially friendly movie or something (that at least tries to be) more thoughtful and profound?  
Smashing Jerry Goldsmith score, too.

I’ve come to see TMP that way over time too- it’s a rather admirable film which decided to dispense with archetypal blockbuster conventions and instead opt for a more cerebral touch akin to 2001 and Solaris (although both of those are miles better). And Goldsmith’s score is rather magnificent. It’s a very flawed film, and certainly a ponderous one, but it has grown on me a lot.

I’ve not actually seen them all, mind. Wrath of Kahn I recall being rather good, I have a soft spot for The Voyage Home, and enjoy The Undiscovered Country quite a bit. I recall finding Insurrection very dull, though First Contact was OK. Star Trek (2009) was fine, if very NuWho in its approach, though Into Darkness was fucking appalling. I never saw ‘Beyond’.

Agreed, though I am, of course referring to the original 1972 version of 'Solaris', not the god-awful George Clooney remake!

Don’t worry- I am too!

Kaijuko wrote:I don't know why 'Star Trek The Motion Picture' gets so much stick - it's really rather marvellous! (and that's not just because I fancy the arse off Lieutenant Ilia ).  Yes, it's slow and ponderous in places but no more so than films like '2001: A Space Odyssey' or 'Solaris'
..........

Do you want a quick-buck, empty, pop-corn, commercially friendly movie or something (that at least tries to be) more thoughtful and profound?  
Smashing Jerry Goldsmith score, too.

Well I think it doesn't necessarily have to be an either/or scenario, as later Trek films have shown.
I think my reaction to it at the time (I also saw it in 1979 at my local cinema) was probably based on having grown up on the TV series, and this film seemed to lack all the character and presence of said series, and the characterisation that underpinned the success of it.
Also I'd already seen 2001 and wasn't really looking to see Star Trek try to emulate it, albeit within its own universe. By the same token, Star Wars had already done the 'popcorn/commercial' thing, and I get that the Trek producers wanted their movie to be above that level.
Ironically, whilst 2001 is one of my favourite films, I think Star Wars is more entertaining to watch than ST:TMP. Ultimately, I think the producers were too self-concious about what type of film that they wanted to make, that they forgot about the characters that made Star Trek what it is.