Star Trek (1966 - present)

1202123252685

Comments

  • Posts: 2,341
    Gene Roddenbery created a great universe and truly endearing characters with the original series. However he should leave script writing to others. He penned TMP which is probably why it sucked.
    Look at the original series and most of the better episodes were those that were not penned by Roddenbery.
    It was with Star Trek II when Gene was used only as a consultant when the movies actually took a big turn for the better.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    That's all very fine, but it still doesn't help me identify what precisely you and others dislike so strongly about the movie Insurrection...
  • edited February 2014 Posts: 381
    I'd give Insurrection 3/5 stars. It's the AVTAK of the Bond series.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited February 2014 Posts: 17,789
    I'd give Insurrection 3/5 stars. It's the AVTAK of the Bond series.
    Whoah, the DETAILS are absolutely flooding my positronic matrix here....
    ;)

    I'd give it 4 of 5 because it was totally successful at telling the small morality tale it attempted to. The only reason I wouldn't rate it as highly as First Contact is the general lack of scope, making it feel more like an insanely expensive TV movie than an epic theatre experience.
  • I've never seen Insurrection from start to finish, simply because I never took to the next generations cast. I did watch Generations and First Contact, but kind of lost interest with the latter. I don't think it's always a good idea to have one of the leading cast in the directors chair for these releases, but on occasion (Nimoy - The Search for Spock, Shatner - The Final Frontier) it can just about work and provide a near success. I could happily sit down when time permits itself and watch any (barring The Voyage Home) Star Trek movie from the first seven or eight releases, but following that, just wouldn't share the same enthusiasm unfortunately
  • chrisisall wrote:
    I'd give Insurrection 3/5 stars. It's the AVTAK of the Bond series.
    Whoah, the DETAILS are absolutely flooding my positronic matrix here....
    ;)

    I'd give it 4 of 5 because it was totally successful at telling the small morality tale it attempted to. The only reason I wouldn't rate it as highly as First Contact is the general lack of scope, making it feel more like an insanely expensive TV movie than an epic theatre experience.

    I think that's pretty right-on. The story was okay, but not great. It was like a middle-of-the-road episode of TNG. A film like Star Trek VI was far more compelling. Considering how great DS9 was at the time in terms of writing and story-telling, Insurrection should have been better.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    A film like Star Trek VI was far more compelling.
    Well, now you're talking about pretty much my favourite serious Star Trek film.
    :)>-
  • Star Trek VI is just an amazing film, on many levels.

    As far as the shows go, I feel that Voyager was also outstanding, maybe on-par with TNG (not quite as good as DS9 though).
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    I feel that Voyager was also outstanding, maybe on-par with TNG (not quite as good as DS9 though).
    I loved Voyager mostly because of Janeway. I'll admit, half the episodes were pretty *whatever*, but when it was good it was great IMO (the final ep, despite the time paradox possibilities, was compelling). DS9 was fairly hardcore. Final ep let me down some though. Enterprise was 2/3 *meh* but most of the last season rocked.
  • I felt that the first two seasons of Voyager were hit-or-miss, but you could also say that about TNG and DS9. After that, most of the episodes were very good.
  • Posts: 2,341
    I got into TNG during the third season. I really liked the trials and tribulations of this new Trek series.

    I liked Voyager at first but got tired when they turned it into the "Seven of Nine Hour". And I left it for Babylon 5 -a great show. I did watch the series finale, felt I owed it that much since I had been with the show when it first aired.

    DS9 I just never warmed up to the characters. I saw several episodes over the years and knew everyone but I just never got much into that series. I read good things about the show but it just never connected with me.

    Enterprise I liked a lot. I liked Archer and his whole crew.
  • SuperheroSithSuperheroSith SE London
    Posts: 578
    08. Star Trek: The Voyage Home (don't kill me...)

    That's a great movie and one of the best in the series.
    It just wasn't my cup of tea.
  • edited February 2014 Posts: 381
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    I got into TNG during the third season. I really liked the trials and tribulations of this new Trek series.

    I liked Voyager at first but got tired when they turned it into the "Seven of Nine Hour". And I left it for Babylon 5 -a great show. I did watch the series finale, felt I owed it that much since I had been with the show when it first aired.

    DS9 I just never warmed up to the characters. I saw several episodes over the years and knew everyone but I just never got much into that series. I read good things about the show but it just never connected with me.

    Enterprise I liked a lot. I liked Archer and his whole crew.

    With DS9 you have to really watch it from the start and watch it season-by-season, as it's hard to follow otherwise. The first couple seasons have more stand-alone episodes and then it becomes much more of a serial. If you liked Babylon 5 then you would probably also like DS9--very similar in some ways. In fact it's been said that DS9 ripped-off B5, especially early on.

  • Posts: 1,817
    chrisisall wrote:

    And now for my Trek/Bond comparisons:

    STTMP=SF
    STII=OHMSS
    STIII=FYEO
    STIV=TSWLM
    STV=QOS
    STVI=TLD
    STGenerations=CR '67
    STFirst Contact=TB
    STInsurrection=DN
    STNemesis=MR

    Fascinating. What do you think about my comparisons? (It's imcomplete because I haven't seen them all)
    STII=FRWL
    STIII=TB
    STIV=TMWTGG
    STFirst Contact=GE
    ST=CR/SF
    ST Into Darkness=QOS
  • That's a good way to put things actually

    Star Trek The Motion Picture - The Man with the Golden Gun

    The Wrath of Khan - Dr No

    The Search for Spock - The Spy Who Loved Me (or Octopussy)

    The Voyage Home - Goldfinger

    The Final Frontier - You Only Live Twice

    The Undiscovered Country - The World Is Not Enough

    Generations - Tomorrow Never Dies

    First Contact - Thunderball

    (haven't seen Nemesis and Insurrection enough to follow on. Never wanted to view Into Darkness at all for what it's worth)
  • That's a good way to put things actually


    The Final Frontier - You Only Live Twice

    That's either a huge insult to YOLT, or major praise for TFF.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Captain Murdock's Star Trek Movie retrospective. Part One.

    Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
    OA_bobpeak_0242-564_StarTre.jpg
    After a decade Star Trek was coming back on the Big screen. I known about Star Trek since I was a child. Though it was mostly TNG and Voyager that was on TV and those were boring to me. It wasn't until 2007 that I discovered the original 60's TV Series which I fell in love with because of it's Iconic theme song. After watching several episodes, I was hooked. I wanted to see this whole Series. Not long after I got it on DVD. So I was excited to see the films that followed the adventures of the TOS crew. So I will begin with Star Trek 1.

    My original first impressions of Star Trek the motion picture were rather negative. It's a very weird movie. It doesn't really feel like a Star Trek adventure. (TV or Movie.) Obviously it was inspired by 2001 but after several revisits my opinions on it are neutral.

    The story is quite good but most of my problems with the film are mostly visual choices.

    The musical score is perfect. Jerry Goldsmith ideal for the job.

    The special effects are also stunning.

    The refitted Enterprise is very stunning.

    Onto the negatives...

    The uniforms are awful. They are too sterile and no life to them. I liked Kirk's admiral uniform that was pretty much the only good one. I wish they had kept the original TOS uniforms and maybe updated them a bit. Not these bland earth tone uniforms.

    The film is badly paced. It is a drag to sit through almost 20 minutes of the actors looking surprised at V'ger. All that time could have been spent putting some closure on TOS. Like what happened when the 5 year mission ended and could have done some character development.

    Kirk is very grumpy throughout most of the film and doesn't feel like Kirk.

    There is also one or two lines that are unnecessary. Such as Ilia's "ode to Celibacy" Why was that even brought up? There is one more line towards then end where V'ger's backstory is explained and Decker says "V'ger was lost in what they used to call a black hole." Were we calling it something else?

    The film is not perfect. But it's not bad. It's a good movie that has it's flaws.

    7/10
  • My favourite Star Trek series by a very very large margin is DS9 - watched all seven seasons and loved it. TNG is very good, but only from Season 3/4 onwards, TOS has aged poorly, Voyager had some very good episodes, but was mainly a bit boring and crap, and Enterprise... well, I don't talk about Enterprise.

    When it comes to the films, I'd say The Voyage Home, The Undiscovered Country, First Contact and the two Abrams ones. I never really connected with Wrath of Khan tbh.

    Anyway, any other DS9 fans who wish to confer, by all means, I like a good conversation about it, particularly as I'm pretty much the only DS9 fan in South London.
  • SuperheroSithSuperheroSith SE London
    Posts: 578
    TOS has aged poorly.

    Well, so has Grease, but it is still a classic.
  • TOS has aged poorly.

    Well, so has Grease, but it is still a classic.

    I never said TOS wasn't - it's just a bit creaky and wooden at times, and while there are wonderful episodes like 'The City on the Edge of Forever', there are also episodes like 'Spock's Brain'...

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    This is....Fascinating.
    2de71d99d638a9edaf3f049b522c55b3.jpg
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Is it just me, or does Sulu have a scar by his mouth that I'd don't remember George Takai having?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Would love a Pixar Star Trek movie. Make it happen.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Is it just me, or does Sulu have a scar by his mouth that I'd don't remember George Takai having?

    No i think its just a laughter line when you smile.

  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,568
    Pretty cool concept, but somehow I doubt Pixar would make Sulu's skin as yellow as his shirt...
  • Posts: 1,817
    A question regarding Into Darkness: Isn't it weird or incoherent that Kirk sacrifices himself while in Wrath of Khan he says he has only cheated death, not faced it, and that he don't believe in a no-win scenerio?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Well there is a big difference between the two films. In Into Darkness, Kirk's ego was blinding his judgement. But when Marcus betrayed him and was about to destroy the Enterprise, he had to make things right so they would survive. As Khan said in the brig "What would you do for your family captain?" Kirk had finally learned fear. And like his father in the first film, He put the lives of his friends before his own so they would have a fighting chance to live. In Wrath of Khan, Kirk was much older, He's already had experience as a Captain for over 20 years so what he would have thought or done is different. In Into Darkness he's only been a captain for a little over a year and still quite young and stubborn.

    But Abram's universe takes place in an alternate reality. Major events have occurred changing that universe. Kirk's father died, not being able to shape and meld him into the disciplined, respective officer he is in the Prime universe. Hope that helps.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    0013 wrote:
    A question regarding Into Darkness: Isn't it weird or incoherent that Kirk sacrifices himself while in Wrath of Khan he says he has only cheated death, not faced it, and that he don't believe in a no-win scenerio?

    Technically, he does later cheat death, when they get Khan's blood and bring him back to life.

    Say, don't all the frozen photon torpedo people have the same blood as Khan? Why did they have to retrieve Khan to get his blood? And why was there a trench coat just laying around for Khan to take?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Star Trek: Generations was about the worst movie-going experience I've ever had.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    chrisisall wrote:
    Star Trek: Generations was about the worst movie-going experience I've ever had.

    Same here. Just as bad as Man of Steel with me.
Sign In or Register to comment.