Best Star trek movie

[Reply #80 on:]

Interesting they're going for some big-ish names. Not necessarily promising, but interesting...

[Reply #81 on:]

This had better be good, or I'm activating my Anti-Higgs Boson Beam.

[Reply #82 on:]

Hmm. Until this thread was bumped, I didn't realise it had been 5 years since Nemesis came out. (while I'm here, casting a 2nd vote for TUC.)

When I think of the new movie, I just keep picturing Matt Damon doing a bad Shatner impression until Sylar cuts the top of his head off - not to take his powers, as he has none; just to shut him up. The best thing I can say about Matt as Kirk is at least Shatner left a relatively small pair of shoes to fill. 

I don't object to recasting per say, but I object to the fact that it's a prequel, as I dislike prequels. Of course, there was no way (short of a total reboot) to do a movie about the original characters again without going back in time, and casting LN and WS as younger versions of themselves seems like a bad idea too.

Bottom line for me, everything about this project feels too slick (as in oil, not clean/smart), too engineered. Reminds me of a scene from SG1's 200th episode... a gag about recasting with younger, edgier versions... such things should be left to jokes.

and a belated Re: the notion of Janeway castrating the Borg... that process started the minute they decided the borg had a queen in ST:FC. It weakened them, made them vulnerable, pliable. Christ, you could negotiate with them! From there, they could only go down.

[Reply #83 on:]

 

Originally posted by Gopher:
Reminds me of a scene from SG1's 200th episode... a gag about recasting with younger, edgier versions... such things should be left to jokes.

IIRC there was some talk (before Enterprise hit the screens) that Rick Berman was planning something like a Star Trek Academy series...that would have probably been like this segment from the 200th SG-1 episode.

But yeah, I'm also a bit skeptical about this next Star Trek film. Sure, J.J. Abrams is probably the current impersonation of 'creative' filmmaking in Hollywood, so perhaps it will not totally totally bomb, despite being an odd-numbered ST film, but still, doubts remain.

Also, will this film be worth another mediocre Lost season?   

[Reply #84 on:]

Heh, I can't help notice none of the odd numbered movies have a single vote (even Nemesis have a pithy vote for crying out loud).

 

Originally posted by Gopher:
and a belated Re: the notion of Janeway castrating the Borg... that process started the minute they decided the borg had a queen in ST:FC. It weakened them, made them vulnerable, pliable. Christ, you could negotiate with them! From there, they could only go down.

Fully agree but just because FC killed the horse doesn't mean V'Ger needed to flog it every opportunity they had. Sadly the Borg will never feel as intimidating and unstoppable as they did at the end of The Best of Both Worlds I.

[Reply #85 on:]

   

Originally posted by Teral:

Heh, I can't help notice none of the odd numbered movies have a single vote (even Nemesis have a pithy vote for crying out loud).

This will not stand!  ST III: TSFS had one of the greatest scenes in Trek movie history - Stealing the Enterprise.  How any real Trek fan can discount this movie because it's an odd-numbered movie is silly.  Granted, it had the bad luck of being sandwiched between two of the best Trek movies ever (TWOK and TVH); it didn't have the adrenaline-pumping action of TWOK or the humor and activism of TVH, it was still a better-than-average Trek movie.   

So Teral, you now have one undocumented vote for an odd-numbered Trek movie.  Trying as hard as I can, I can't find anything kind to say about ST V: Death of a Franchise.   

I previously voted for TWOK as the greatest, so I can't vote again.

   

Fully agree but just because FC killed the horse doesn't mean V'Ger needed to flog it every opportunity they had. Sadly the Borg will never feel as intimidating and unstoppable as they did at the end of The Best of Both Worlds I.

The Borg would have been better to have not been used as much and keep them around for killer episodes, with the Federation ship being badly damaged and barely surviving thus the Borg retaining their badass position in Trek History.  That's Hollywood for you - find something popular and destroy it by sheer repetiton.

Besides, they had to prove that Janeway can do no wrong and defeat every opponent, because she's a woman.  Kirk made mistakes, Picard made mistakes, Sisko made mistakes and those mistakes made them human - those flaws gave them a even greater-than-human facade. 

Then there's Katherine 'my crap smells like fresh, crushed peaches' Janeway who could make no bad decision, give no wrong order and always end up on top.  That didn't make the Janeway character better than the other Trek captains - it made her a parody of Trek captains.  There's even a site that has stories about "The Adventures of Mistress Janeway", with Janeway being a leather-bitch captain who dominated her entire crew in more ways than one.     


(If anybody wants the URL, e-mail me.  The stories aren't anything that -mArc- would want PEEL linking to.)

[Reply #86 on:]

Hehe, fresh crushed peaches.
 

[Reply #87 on:]

"The Adventures of Mistress Janeway"

That sound like some BDSM erotic fan-fiction site 

oh wait..thats surelly what is it

I agree with how Voyager destroyed the Borg...
they were those unbeatable, relentless enemyes wich only needed to send a single ship to take on the Federation`s central planet.. a single ship that could destroy docens of cruisers without a scrath...
and then one day i sit to watch a  voyager ep and see how several Borg vessels are destroyed by a single blast... and how they run and go over the place and dont inspire fear..even respect..

Is like the Shadow ships on Babylon 5, They appeared as soon as Season 1 and only  glimpse of one , enought to make it something to fear , the ultimate enemy.. and then by the end of the season 3 or 4 we had saw so many of them in so many situations that they lost its "terror-apeal"..
JMS realized that and thats why he avoid showing President Clark , he said he wanted Clark to remain a figure to fear, mostly unknown.. not an overexposed enemy

[Reply #88 on:]

 

Originally posted by Ralph Snart:
 This will not stand! ST III: TSFS had one of the greatest scenes in Trek movie history - Stealing the Enterprise. How any real Trek fan can discount this movie because it's an odd-numbered movie is silly. Granted, it had the bad luck of being sandwiched between two of the best Trek movies ever (TWOK and TVH); it didn't have the adrenaline-pumping action of TWOK or the humor and activism of TVH, it was still a better-than-average Trek movie.

Well, I'd definitely call the second best of the odd numbered movies. Just a tidbit too melodramatic for my taste. Particular the rather silly fight between Kirk and Kruge grated on me. The scene back on Vulcan when Spock awakens was easily my favorite part of the movie. Quite nice when Kirk reverse Spock's line from TWOK about the needs of the one and the many, Spock recognise the "human logic" behind the statement and after a while simply states: "Jim. Your name is Jim".

But the ultimate sin of TSFS is casting Robin Curtis as Saavik.  There's only one Saavik, damnit!

 

  The Borg would have been better to have not been used as much and keep them around for killer episodes, with the Federation ship being badly damaged and barely surviving thus the Borg retaining their badass position in Trek History.  That's Hollywood for you - find something popular and destroy it by sheer repetiton.

Exactly. It's not like we didn't expect them to run into the Borg, they're in the Delta Quadrant after all. But given how easily V'ger defeated them one have to wonder how they got so powerful in the first place (and don't even get me started on the idiocy of them not being able to modify their own nanoprobes).

It's a sign of the imaginative bankruptcy of the V'ger writing staff. How many good villains did they create over the years? The Viidians, the Krennim (or at least Anorax), the Hirogen were so-so, and that's about it.  The Voth, while a nice "what if"-story were too silly a concept. There might have been more in the later seasons, but my attention to the show was spotty at best after season 4.

 

Then there's Katherine 'my crap smells like fresh, crushed peaches' Janeway who could make no bad decision, give no wrong order and always end up on top.  That didn't make the Janeway character better than the other Trek captains - it made her a parody of Trek captains.

The main problem as I see it is Janeway was right because the script said so, not because her actions proved her to be. Her hypocritical nature were swept under the rug and we were told that's how it is. One example: in Equinox I + II she say she will bring Ransom to justice for murder, but conveniently her execution of Tuvix (who never committed any crime, nor got a trial) is never mentioned. 

And all her questionable command decisions (starting with stranding the ship in the Delta Quadrant in the first place, over flip-floping in "Alliances" to rejecting Q's bribe in "Death Wish" ) never bred any trace of resentment or dissent among the crew, because the script tells us Janeway is right.

Timothy Lynch puts everything much more concise and eloquent than I could (half way down under "II Voyager, Season 2: General Commentary" ).

 

There's even a site that has stories about "The Adventures of Mistress Janeway", with Janeway being a leather-bitch captain who dominated her entire crew in more ways than one.     


(If anybody wants the URL, e-mail me.  The stories aren't anything that -mArc- would want PEEL linking to.)

No thanks, I'm still having nightmares about the Garak/Bashir slash fics I stumbled upon before being aware of the whole "Garak is gay" nonsense.

[Reply #89 on:]

ST III also gave us the destruction of the original Enterprise, which in addition to being a great scene in its own right, also gave us the ending of ST IV where Kirk is given command of his "new" ship.

 

Originally posted by Teral:
But the ultimate sin of TSFS is casting Robin Curtis as Saavik.     There's only one Saavik, damnit!

Agreed.

[Reply #90 on:]

Let's see, that would be Kirstie Alley, right?  Before she blew up bigtime?

[Reply #91 on:]

 

But the ultimate sin of TSFS is casting Robin Curtis as Saavik.  There's only one Saavik, damnit!

Whoa, hold it.  Here's a pic to calm you down.

Kirstie was so lick-a-licious back then.  She didn't make friends with Trek fans by not appearing in TSFS.  Her story today is that she didn't want to be typecast as a vulcan.  The real story was her ego (and manager) told her that she was worth Shatner-type money.  Paramount disagreed.

It's really sad that Robin Curtis got the backlash that resulted - it wasn't her fault what happened (taking a part that somebody else started).  She is seen very often at Sci-Fi conventions and had several small parts in the other Trek series.  The backlash was bad enough that the Saavik character was buried in ST:TVH in the first 5 minutes and never mentioned again in the rest of the Trek franchise.

Kirstie's ego followed her from Cheers.  Ted Danson and Kelsie Grammar both had parts in ST: TNG.  Kirstie was to reprise her role as Commander Saavik, the XO of the Boseman, standing next to Captain Bateson (Grammar).  She backed out because her asking price was so high.  It's also interesting that Grammar did his part for scale because he was such a huge Trek fan.

You would think that Kirstie would be a little loyal to the franchise that gave her the first Hollywood gig she had.   It's all about the dollars (and judging by the size of her ass, the chocolate ice cream).

[Reply #92 on:]

So its the old case of "I want so much that i end up with nothing"

[Reply #93 on:]

 

Originally posted by Ralph Snart:
 

Whoa, hold it.  Here's a pic to calm you down.

[Chandler]That's the stuff![/Chandler]

[Reply #94 on:]

Chris Pine is Kirk.

[Reply #95 on:]

I don't have a good feeling about this new Trek movie...

[Reply #96 on:]

 

Originally posted by ~FazeShift~:
Chris Pine is Kirk.

Huh. I had mentally bashed and crammed Matt Damon into it, and now I have to bash and cram another bloke... which sounds a bit gay. Ugh - he looks... I dunno... maybe?

 

Originally posted by Ralph:
I don't have a good feeling about this new Trek movie...

Keep expectations low so you're less likely to be disappointed.

[Reply #97 on:]

Karl Urban is McCoy?

[Reply #98 on:]

Now THAT I cannot see. That's... feckin' stupid.

[Reply #99 on:]

 

Originally posted by coldangel_1:

 Keep expectations low so you're less likely to be disappointed.

Dude, my expectations can't get any lower.

This movie will suck worse than Nemesis.

[Reply #100 on:]

Nah, nothing can top Nemesis. 

And yes, I do think that even Star Trek V was slightly better than Nemesis.

[Reply #101 on:]

Zachary Quinto and Leonard Nimoy were a good decision. Eric Bana, meh. But with this stuff about Simon Pegg and Karl Urban and Chris Pine, I really am doubting this movie. Not even Shatner joining the cast will raise my expectations. Okay, that would definitely raise my expectations, but not high enough!

You know, maybe they should just scrap this movie and make Star Trek: The Golden Years, where aging Spock, Uhura, and Chekov get flung forward in time, causing Kirk not to die but to be alive on the Enterprise with Jean-Luc Picard. And Sisko is randomly there. Then, some bad person comes, shit happens, and everybody's happy that we get a movie with Spock, Uhura, Chekov, Kirk, Jean-Luc, Data, Worf, Sisko, and all your favorite characters, albeit pass their prime. Everybody wins! Except for Chris Pine.

[Reply #102 on:]

 

Originally posted by Gocad:
Nah, nothing can top Nemesis. 

And yes, I do think that even Star Trek V was slightly better than Nemesis.

You're telling me the 3 hours of boring landscape shots of V'Ger in Star Trek the Motion Picture is better than both of them?

I stand my ground that the first movie was by far the worst of the entire series. At least Star Trek V had some good McCoy stuff in it, and Nemesis had some bitchin' space battles.

[Reply #103 on:]

Well, sure, TMP isn't a great film, but the Director's Cut with the new effects has softened my opinion about it.

 

Originally posted by i_c_weiner:
Eric Bana, meh.

What? Eric Bana is actually a cool choice...well, at least in my opinion.

[Reply #104 on:]

Karl Urban?  Maybe in 10 years he'd be old enough to play a convincing McCoy.  Deforest Kelley was 11 years older than Shatner, after all.

Chris Pine?  Who?  ::Looks at imdb page::  Who?
"# The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement (2004) .... Nicholas Devereaux"   

[Reply #105 on:]

Cool first contact fan trailer:
 http://youtube.com/watch?v=DeV2n-FOliE

(actually made way before youtube)

[Reply #106 on:]

Well... let's try not to do the jaded know-it-all nerd thing and hate the flick before it's even been made. There'll be an abundance of time in which to hate it after it's released.

*reserve judgement*
*ignore all preconceptions*

After all, they might pull a rabbit out of their collective arses and actually make it work. You never know. The haters have been proved wrong before about stuff like this... they said V for Vendetta couldn't be made into a good movie... they said Daniel Craig would make a shite James Bond.


 

Originally posted by Nasty Pasty:
 You're telling me the 3 hours of boring landscape shots of V'Ger in Star Trek the Motion Picture is better than both of them?

I really liked TMP... but I like 2001 as well. I have a thing for the epic and grandiose.

[Reply #107 on:]

I will say that one movie that is always forgotten and never gets enough credit is Insurrection.

I think overall, it was Gene Roddenberry's original vision of the series, and would have certainly made him proud (more so than Time-Travelling Robot Zombies in Space, ie. First Contact). The story was excellent and relevant, and although the villains were..."Meh" to say the least, it almost felt like a movie version of The Inner Light or other TNG episodes with similar themes. Not to mention, some of the mini-stories like Troi and Riker falling back in love, Data learning how to be a child and have fun, and Worf going through Klingon puberty are just perfect Trek.

I know a few people that think some of the elements were just plain boring or badly done, but I consider it a perfect mix of what Star Trek originally was (a generally relevant social commentary with exploration of the fantastic and unknown), with the action and battle sequences fans expect since Wrath of Khan.

All in all, Roddenberry would have loved it.

[Reply #108 on:]

Yeah, I also think Insurrection is underrated. Perhaps not generally as fun as many of the other films, but more thematically pure.

[Reply #109 on:]

Bloody good fan trailer.

[Reply #110 on:]

I've only seen part of the first movie, even though I watched the series. Are they good?

[Reply #111 on:]

Yes especially 2-4.

I voted for Khan since I couldn't choose 2 of them. Khan and Voyage Home are tied for me. Both soo good.

[Reply #112 on:]

How come only 2 voted for Undiscovered Country?
Shakespeare, people!

[Reply #113 on:]

Why no votes for Search for Spock? It was good not as good as 2&4 but still good. I understand Final Frontier.

[Reply #114 on:]

Yeah, that was a good one, Coldy.  But, I just can't avoid Kirk yelling "KHHHAAAAAAN!"  It's not only ingrained in pop culture, but is referenced in WNFHGB.  You just can't vote against that...

[Reply #115 on:]

...Nerds :-P

[Reply #116 on:]

To quote Ninaka, "Pot...Kettle...Black".  You're posting on a Futurama bulletin board, in case you forgot...   

[Reply #117 on:]

[Reply #118 on:]

Blimey, this had better be good...

[Reply #119 on:]

:sigh: I really hate prequels. I'd very much like to like this movie, really I would, but I find it difficult to imagine that I will.

I'll just have to wait and see I guess.