Star Trek

Post Reply New Topic

Since NC is doing a Star Trek themed month I thought I'd ask which trek movie is the least favourable. He's only doing the odd numbered ones which coincidentally are the least favourable. I doubt he'll do the 11th one because 1 it is a recent film and 2 it does not suck. FYI despite some flaws I like III and X and VII is pretty good as well.

You don't have the most recent one on the list, the "reboot".
That one was a travesty to everything trek.

I respectfully disagree.

In my opinion, "Old Trek" had pretty much explored every strange new world possible in the ST universe. Rebooting it along a parallel timeline may open up a few new possibilities ... maybe not ... but at least Zoe Saldana is there to provide eye candy.

Nemesis.

i wonder why nobody's considered considering [much less actually making] a big-screen version of the 70s star trek tv cartoon series?

It is all personal opinion, and I hated the reboot.
Star Trek is now dead to me.

But that's me & my opinion.

It's a coin toss between Frontier and Nemesis for me. Since the odd/even ST film myth has since been disproven, I guess that every fifth ST film REALLY sucks is still a feasible pattern.

I hated the new Star Trek movie, it left a feeling of disgust in me when I left the theater. I knew they were going to do things differently, but I hadn't expected they'd turn the Kirk character into a punk. There is nothing redeeming about Chris Pine's version of Kirk, he is an idiot, he is not a leader, he behaves like a juvenile delinquent; completely opposite the sober, introspective Kirk we see in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" when he delivers a somber log recording on his decision to maroon his friend Gary Mitchell on a remote planet. Most of the rest of the cast of this move were just doing comic impressions of the original cast as if this were a Saturday Night Live skit. If this was the direction they were going they had might as well have hired Jim Carey and Frank Calliendo to round out the cast of this "spoof."

'Twas a spectacular piece of donkey dung.

What you three seem to have either forgotten or overlooked is that ST: Reboot is based on the idea that the Romulans' incursion into the Federation's past has somehow altered the timeline in such a way that not only will the people look different, but that they will behave differently, as well. In this context, I thought the premise was handled well, despite the rough edges now and then.

I mean, consider how different each of you might be if your parents had conceived you even a few seconds before or after you were actually conceived - consider that a different sperm cell, carrying slightly different genetic information, would have fertilized the ovum. Then consider how different you and your life would be if you were taller, smarter, more nimble, or even of the opposite sex!

This is the basic premise - temporal incursions change things from what they would have naturally evolved to be.

Last edited by Fnord on 14 Jan 2012, 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That's something I've played around with in my head a couple of times... Especially when watching sci-fi shows where a character has to travel back in time to make sure that their parents shack up or something so that they can be born. But I'd think that if a different sperm cell fertilized the same original ovum, it's not really you, but rather a 'brother' or 'sister'.

I agree, however, that events in your life directly influence who you are. So if someone travelled back in time to, for example, prevent that you get that dream job, and you have to look for something else... the timeline does diverge in such a way that the person moving on from that point is no longer 'you'.

On topic, my least favourite Star Trek movie is Insurrection. Simply put because I didn't like the humour in it, and I thought the direction was too off-beat for my tastes. I never finished watching the movie.

It's funny to me that Trekkies spend so much time complaining about the post-TOS movies simply because they contradict something that came before, when there are so many more genuine and legitimate things to complain about. The scripts have been uniformly horrible, not just in relation to past Trek films and shows, but as standalone stories.

Yes ... something of a fraternal twin. But imagine that this "twin" was given your name, was raised by your parents, and was presented with the same choices and opportunities you were - do you think that this "twin" might somehow have turned out different from you? How many similarities would there be?


By the same token, the only person who was the "same" between the original ST series and the reboot was Spock, and even then, there was enough divergence that he and Uhura had a "relationship" in the reboot that they didn't seem to have in the original series.

I am interested in seeing how this reboot is played out - not out of disrespect for Mr Roddenberry's original concept, but out of curiosity for how the temporal incursion has changed the development of the Federation and the characters themselves.

Dudes, now your getting into the nature vs nurture debate...

I can't believe that Nemesis is the most hated one. I admit it wasn't a great film but it was certainly better than some of them. Even Doug Walker (Nostalgia Critic) liked it. I didn't add J.J. Abrams film because it does not suck it was awesome in my opinion. Second only to Wrath of Khan.

Not really ... I'm just trying to consider the ST: Reboot as a continuation of ST:TOS, albeit with an altered timeline.

New Kirk is more brash and impulsive than Old Kirk ... New Scotty is something of a hard-luck story before he meets Old Spock ... New Uhura is slimmer and more in-your-face than Old Uhura (but just as sexy) ... and so forth. All these differences can be "hand-waved" away with the Romulan Temporal Incursion that was established in the first Reboot movie.

I'm also not saying that it is all bad or all good; I'm saying that it may be worth watching in the future.