The Star Trek Thread

[Silver Nemesis]

I thought it was about time we had a thread for all things Star Trek. Classic Doctor Who and Star Wars were my favourite franchises growing up, but the older I get the more I gravitate towards Shatner-era Star Trek for my science fiction fix. I know most fans regard The Next Generation as the best of the Star Trek TV shows, but my preference has always been for the Original Series.

I was introduced to Star Trek at a very young age, back in the late eighties, through seeing the movies, The Next Generation and reruns of the Original Series on television. Like the Indiana Jones and James Bond films, the Star Trek movies and TV shows always seemed to be on in our house. When I was six my mum took my brother and I to see Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) at our local cinema, and I vividly remember watching the first episode of Deep Space Nine when it premiered in the UK. I was less of a fan of Voyager, though I still watched it on a semi-regular basis. The first Star Trek show I didn't bother with was Enterprise, and I've hated pretty much everything else Star Trek related since then.

Rather than explain why modern Trek is so awful, I'd prefer to highlight my favourite corner of the entire Star Trek franchise, and that's the 'Genesis Trilogy' of movies from the eighties. For those who aren't familiar with classic Trek, this is a great place to start. The trilogy consists of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986). Most Star Trek films are standalone adventures, but these three flow into one another to form a narrative trilogy.

These three films encapsulate Star Trek at its finest – dramatically compelling space adventure constructed around well-written plots interwoven with thought-provoking themes, memorable characters and imaginative visuals. The story told across this trilogy takes the viewer on an epic interplanetary journey from 23rd century Earth to Ceti Alpha V...

...to Regula I...

...to the Genesis cave...

...to the Mutara Nebula...

...to Earth Spacedock...

...to the Genesis planet...

...to Vulcan...

...to 20th century Earth...

...and finally back to 23rd century Earth.

This is the sort of good quality science fiction adventure we seldom see in modern cinema. Here are my thoughts on each film.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Simply put, this is one of the greatest science fiction films ever made. It came out the same year as Blade Runner and The Thing and is easily worthy of standing alongside those classics.

Nicholas Meyer, author of The Seven-Per-Cent Solution (1974), brings a literary sensibility to the narrative that ensures the protagonists and central themes are never eclipsed by the special effects the way they arguably were in Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979). His direction is confident and the script full of quotable lines and poignant moments that highlight the characters' relatable humanity amid the alienness of their surroundings. The central themes are death and creation, as well as the cyclical relation between the two. We get to see Kirk experience a midlife crisis as he struggles to come to terms with growing older and being an absent father, and we see him confront the inevitability of death in a way he's never before experienced. The film begins with the false death of Spock during the Kobayashi Maru test and concludes with his real death when he saves the Enterprise from the Genesis Device. The themes work in perfect harmony with the human drama element to weave a story that is both intelligent and emotional.

While The Motion Picture was clearly influenced by 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), I suspect The Wrath of Khan was influenced more by Alien (1979). Ceti Alpha V looks a bit like LV-426, and the parasitic Ceti eels evoke the invasive body horror of the facehuggers in Scott's film. The script is full of literary allusions to works ranging from Herman Melville's Moby Dick to Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities, and none of these references feel forced or out of place. The cinematography favours murky oranges and reds – the colours of sand and dried blood – which contributes to the film's dark ambience. This is the most explicitly violent Star Trek movie, though I'd argue the gore is justified by the intensity of the subject matter and never feels excessive.

As well as bringing back the familiar heroes, The Wrath of Khan also does a good job of introducing some younger characters who go on to feature prominently in the trilogy: namely Dr. David Marcus and Lieutenant Saavik. The acting is excellent across the board, and special mention has to be given to Ricardo Montalban as the eponymous villain (I'll come back to him later in this post). Shatner delivers an uncharacteristically subdued performance that is well suited to his character's midlife ennui. I think this is his best acting as Kirk, and the script gives him a lot more dramatic meat to sink his teeth into than the previous film did. The special effects by ILM are great and James Horner's score is magnificent. I'm fairly certain he recycled some of it for James Cameron's Aliens (1986).

As I say, one of the greatest science fiction films ever.

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

This film continues the theme of Saṃsāra – the cyclical nature of life – by presenting the viewer with another major death (David) as well as a major rebirth (Spock). A lot of people seem to struggle with the Vulcan mysticism in the film and find the plot difficult to understand, but I never had a problem with it. Kirk has to reunite Spock's regenerated body with his incorporeal soul to fully resurrect him. It's a fairly straightforward quest narrative motivated by the hero's desire to help his two best friends. It works for me.

Another prominent theme in The Search for Spock can be found in its allegorical parallels with the Soviet-American arms race that was topical at the time. The Federation and the Klingon Empire are fighting a cold war, and their struggle to gain control of the Genesis Device presents an interesting metaphor for the race for nuclear supremacy. A major player throughout this battle is the Klingon Bird-of-Prey, which makes its screen debut in this movie. In the Original Series cloaking devices were synonymous with the Romulans, and I believe the back story behind the Klingon Bird-of-Prey is that it was designed using technology stolen from the Romulans. This explains why it features the Romulan Bird-of-Prey feather design on its exterior while retaining the overall shape of the earlier Klingon D7-class battle cruiser.

The end result is a superior hybrid of the two designs.

Robin Curtis takes over from Kirstie Alley as Saavik, and when comparing their performances I have to say I do prefer Alley's interpretation. Alley played Saavik with a hint of sass that reflected the Romulan side of the character's mixed heritage, while Curtis plays her more robotically as though she were wholly Vulcan. Curtis isn't bad in the role, but I liked Alley's original take on Saavik better. The scenes of her and David exploring the Genesis planet are among my favourite in the film, as they evoke the 'strange new worlds' aspect of the TV show's premise. On the trivia side, Dean Cain's mother Sharon Thomas also appears in a small role as the waitress who flirts with Bones during the bar scene.

Overall The Search for Spock is not as good as The Wrath of Khan, but I still like it a lot. The plot does delve into mysticism, which might be off-putting for some sci-fi fans, and the recasting of Saavik is a little jarring. But overall, I think it holds up very well. For years there a commonly held attitude that every odd numbered Star Trek film was bad, but as far as I'm concerned Star Trek III disproves that theory (as does The Motion Picture). Its main disadvantage lies in being sandwiched between two superior films. Which brings me to...

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Leonard Nimoy helmed both The Search for Spock and The Voyage Home, and I consider the second of these to be his best work as a director. On paper, it sounds terrible – a comedy in which the crew of the Enterprise travel back in time to save the whales. And yet somehow it works. I think the key is that it doesn't come off as too preachy and that the fish-out-of-water humour succeeds at being funny. Often the final entries in trilogies simply retread material from the previous two films but on a bigger scale. This can result in underwhelming conclusions that feel repetitive and overblown. But with Star Trek IV, the filmmakers took an entirely different approach to the earlier films and ended the trilogy on a satisfyingly inventive and upbeat note.

I've always loved science fiction with an oceanic feel. My favourite Doctor Who story is The Sea Devils, and I enjoy aquatic sci-fi films like Solaris (1972) and The Abyss (1989) and novels like Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea (1869). I always wanted a Star Wars movie that was set primarily on an ocean planet and which would explore the practicalities of naval warfare in that universe, but sadly we never got to see that. But with The Voyage Home we get an oceanic Star Trek movie full of cetacean imagery and an appropriately maritime atmosphere. The cinematography reflects the oceanic theme and lighter tone, employing a colour palette than emphasises fresh greens, blues and whites over the murkier hues of the previous two films. There's also some great lighting and use of haze during the night scenes and the sequences on board the Bounty. I love how this film looks.

In addition to the obvious ecological themes, The Voyage Home also explores the idea of miscommunication in various forms. The space probe struggles to communicate with an extinct species of whale, the crew of the Enterprise struggle to communicate with the people of the 20th century, Spock struggles to communicate with the human side of his personality, and so forth. Although this is the most nonviolent Star Trek movie to date, it still contains some exciting set pieces, such as the time warp sequence and the final splashdown of the Bounty where Kirk has to swim through the flooded cargo deck to release George and Gracie into the sea. There's plenty of excitement and spectacle sprinkled in among the laughs.

I think the change in tone from the previous two films was a smart move. After all the pain Kirk suffered through in Star Treks II and III, it's nice to see him enjoy a relaxing meal with an attractive woman. Catherine Hicks as Dr. Gillian Taylor makes a likeable foil for Shatner, and the dialogue between them and Nimoy is some of the best in the trilogy. I'd be remiss for not also mentioning the scene with the punk on the bus, which is one of the greatest moments in Star Trek history.

The Voyage Home is an uplifting time travel adventure that provides a perfect ending to the trilogy while offering proof that you don't need violence to make a great sci-fi film. The plot is well paced and makes good use of all the main cast members by giving them each their own little missions to accomplish. I rank this as the second best Star Trek movie after The Wrath of Khan.

Now on to the subject of the trilogy's main villains.

The mysterious space probe in The Voyage Home is less of a true villain than a plot catalyst, but it exudes a sinister aura and is sufficiently different from the threats posed in the other Star Trek films to make an impression. If nothing else, it looks and sounds very creepy.

Commander Kruge is my favourite evil Klingon. It's funny to think that just one year later Christopher Lloyd would play the loveable Doc Brown in Back to the Future, because here he's downright horrible. The final fight between him and Kirk is what my childhood self envisaged Obi-Wan and Vader's fateful duel to have been like before the Prequel Trilogy came out.

And then there's Khan Noonien Singh, my favourite character in the entire Star Trek mythos. I rank him up there with Darth Vader and Sauron as one of the all-time greatest villains in genre fiction.

Many people say that Ricardo Montalban should have received an Academy Award nomination for his work on The Wrath of Khan, and I wholeheartedly agree. It's a magnificent performance that imbues the character with an inhuman savagery offset by all-too human emotional weaknesses. He's a Nietzschean archetype whose intellectual superiority is compromised by hubris and passion. He manages to be extremely intimidating while still being somewhat sympathetic and relatable, which I think is the mark of a great bad guy. Khan only made two screen appearances, and yet between them he undergoes an interesting character arc. In 'Space Seed' he's a princely and arrogant tyrant, but is also charming and has a sense of honour and fair play.

In The Wrath of Khan he's matured into a grizzled throat-slashing renegade hell-bent on revenge above all other considerations. The older Khan is just as strong and intelligent as he was in 'Space Seed' and ten times more brutal, but prone to irrational judgements his younger self might have risen above. On a purely visual level, Khan's appearance in Star Trek II is his most iconic look. And yes, those were his real muscles. Montalban was in his early sixties when he shot the film, but he was still in amazing physical shape.

Also worth checking out is Khan: Ruling in Hell, a comic book miniseries that explores the fifteen year period between 'Space Seed' and The Wrath of Kahn. It depicts Khan's attempts to tame Ceti Alpha V and build a new civilisation, his struggle to deal with the catastrophe caused by the destruction of Ceti Alpha VI, the emergence of the Ceti eels and a rebellion led by one of his former followers, and his gradual disillusionment with the belief that Captain Kirk will one day come back and help his people. If you didn't already feel some measure of sympathy for Khan, then this comic will instil it in you.

But why is Khan so cool to begin with? For one thing, he's a genetically-engineered superman. He has five times the strength of an ordinary human and is capable of crushing phasers with his bare hands. My one major criticism of 'Space Seed' is the way Kirk beat him during their final fight. There's no way that flimsy plastic pipe should have overpowered a man strong enough to turn Shatner into a bowling ball.

In addition to his physical prowess, he also possesses superhuman intellect. Khan hails from the 20th century, and yet he's able to immediately familiarise himself with 23rd century science and technology. He spends a few minutes examining the Enterprise plans in 'Space Seed', and based on that perusal he was able to figure out how to override its security and anti-intruder devices to take control of it. He later used his knowledge of the Enterprise to devastate the original 1701 model during the Battle of the Mutara Nebula. Granted, it was Commander Kruge who delivered the crippling blow in Star Trek III, and Kirk himself who actually destroyed it, but it was the damage inflicted by Khan in Star Trek II that set the Enterprise on the path to the scrap heap.

Khan is also a well-read man of culture. He knows his Milton from his Melville and his preferred reading materials – Paradise Lost, King Lear, Moby Dick, etc – tend to be works that explore themes of exile and revenge. He also has an incredibly magnetic personality and even Kirk, McCoy and Scotty had to admit that they admired him, despite the fact he was a tyrant who conquered one quarter of the Earth's surface. The gorgeous Lieutenant McGivers, disillusioned with the males of the 23rd century, fell almost instantly in love with him. Khan was one of the few men to out-alpha Kirk, and the way he seduced and manipulated McGivers was at once despicable and awe-inspiring.

Truly one of the greatest villains ever.

Anyway, I just wanted to kick things off by expressing my appreciation for Khan and the Genesis Trilogy as a whole, but feel free to use this thread to talk about anything Star Trek related. Who is your favourite captain? Which is your favourite TV series or film? Are there any specific episodes, characters, storylines, books, novels or games that you particularly like? I'll come back and highlight some of my favourite episodes at a later time, but for now I'll end this ridiculously long post here.

[thecolorsblend]

For me Star Wars ended in 2005 with Revenge Of The Sith.

Afterward, I decided to blow the dust off Star Trek and reevaluate it. I grew up watching TNG and really enjoyed it but I wanted to get a clearer picture of what Trek is all about. Where Star Wars is fundamentally a story, Trek is a concept that can be rethought, reimagined and re-presented for modern audiences. It can be. But I'll spare you the rant about post-2005 Trek.

For me, TOS is probably my favorite iteration of Trek. It's a fun series with meat on the bone. In my opinion, Star Trek is at its best when it makes you ponder the world and society. Enjoyable characters are fine in their place (TNG has plenty to choose from) but what sets TOS above the rest is its determination to comment upon the human condition.

The trilogy of ST 2-4 is highly enjoyable. I'm the guy in the room who enjoys all three of them. Star Trek can do plot-oriented stories and those movies demonstrate that.

I'll also defend Star Trek- The Motion Picture until Armageddon. There are tons of movies out there that I absolutely adore but wish would be longer. TMP is basically a really ambitious episode of TOS spread out into a feature length movie. That plays for me. The slower pace, the more cerebral tone, the ponderous nature of the plotting, for me those are features, not bugs.

[BatmanFurst]

Prior to the 2009 Trek film I hadn't seen anything Star Trek related. As the hype was gaining for that film I decided to watch Wrath of Khan for the first time. As a teen I thought Wrath of Khan was just fine, but it didn't blow me away. After seeing the 2009 Trek I went back and watched a lot of episodes from the original series. For an outsider Trek came across as deadly serious  sci-fi that's all about tech. When I watched the original series I was surprised by how much fun that series is. It's a good balance of meaningful messages and adventure.

That of course made me want to watch the original films. I started out with the Star Trek trilogy, and Undiscovered Country. Basically all the ones that are heralded as the best of the franchise.

After doing all of that, I must say that I adore Wrath of Khan. I think that it's a film that you gain more appreciation for as you get older. A lot of the themes initially didn't resonate with me as a teenager. However, as an adult I can pick up on what the film is really about. And I love that the conflict between Kirk and Khan is less about fisticuffs and more of a battle of wits.

I also want to say that ILM's special effects in 3 & 4 are outstanding. There are shots in those films that you could put in a modern film and they'd still be just as effective. In the 80's when ILM showed up in the credits you knew you were about to see something special.

[Silver Nemesis]

The trilogy of ST 2-4 is highly enjoyable. I'm the guy in the room who enjoys all three of them. Star Trek can do plot-oriented stories and those movies demonstrate that.

I'll also defend Star Trek- The Motion Picture until Armageddon. There are tons of movies out there that I absolutely adore but wish would be longer. TMP is basically a really ambitious episode of TOS spread out into a feature length movie. That plays for me. The slower pace, the more cerebral tone, the ponderous nature of the plotting, for me those are features, not bugs.

I'm with you on that. I don't like The Motion Picture as much as the Genesis Trilogy, but I do think it's a much better film than people generally give it credit for. As with The Search for Spock, I've never understood the hate it gets. It's got an intelligent script, amazing visuals and an iconic score by Jerry Goldsmith. It is deliberately paced, but I like that about it. It takes its time to properly introduce the characters and concepts its exploring. Compare that to modern Trek, which is practically wall-to-wall action and violence, and I'd argue that The Motion Picture has aged remarkably well.

My main criticism of TMP is the lack of compelling emotional drama. The heart of the film is the relationship between Decker and Ilia, but I've never found that terribly engaging. The subsequent Star Trek films packed more emotional oomph, and in comparison to something like The Wrath of Khan TMP feels a bit dry. Other than that though, it holds up very well and I'd still rank it over any Star Trek film from the past two decades. The editing is overindulgent of the special effects, but much of the imagery is so stunning that I really don't mind. The scenes where the characters are travelling inside V'ger, accompanied by Goldsmith's haunting score, have me entranced every time I watch it.

I'm still not entirely sure what I'm looking at in some of these scenes, but the results are mesmerising.

The plot of the TMP has a number of interesting precedents. There's an episode in the second season of the Original Series titled 'The Changeling' which has a similar premise involving a manmade probe that returns from deep space in search of its creator. There's also an episode in the first season of Space: 1999 – which was basically Britain's answer to Star Trek – called 'Voyager's Return' which features a Voyager space probe bringing an alien menace back from its deep space explorations. I suspect the costumes and production design in Space: 1999 influenced TMP and The Next Generation. Speaking of the The Next Generation, the character of Decker in TMP was meant to be one of the main players in Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek: Phase II, which ultimately morphed into TNG. With that in mind, I see Will Decker as a precursor to Will Riker. Hair colour aside, they even look somewhat alike. Will Decker is also meant to be the son of Commodore Matt Decker from 'The Doomsday Machine', one of the best episodes from the second season of the Original Series.

The Motion Picture and The Undiscovered Country are my favourite Star Trek films outside of the Genesis Trilogy. I watched Star Treks II-IV again recently, and I'm planning to revisit Star Treks I, V and VI in the near future. I'll probably post more about them after I do. I might even give The Next Generation movies another look. It's been a long time since I last watched those.

After doing all of that, I must say that I adore Wrath of Khan. I think that it's a film that you gain more appreciation for as you get older. A lot of the themes initially didn't resonate with me as a teenager. However, as an adult I can pick up on what the film is really about. And I love that the conflict between Kirk and Khan is less about fisticuffs and more of a battle of wits.

I remember seeing The Wrath of Khan at a very young age and not really appreciating it either. I found it quite frightening and intense, and I thought Khan himself was a scary villain. But I didn't realise what a great film it was until I saw it again as an adult. It's a bit like The Exorcist insofar as it's one of those classic films that resonates more with adults than youngsters and gets better on repeated viewings.

I also want to say that ILM's special effects in 3 & 4 are outstanding. There are shots in those films that you could put in a modern film and they'd still be just as effective. In the 80's when ILM showed up in the credits you knew you were about to see something special.

Absolutely. ILM were special effects wizards in the truest sense. I look back on so much of their work from the seventies and eighties and marvel at how they managed to accomplish it. The absence of ILM is frequently cited as one of the main reasons Star Trek V fell below the standards of the other Star Trek films. Apparently ILM had their hands full working on Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Ghostbusters 2, so Shatner hired Associates and Ferren to do the special effects instead. The results were noticeably inferior to the previous four films.

[thecolorsblend]

I'm with you on that. I don't like The Motion Picture as much as the Genesis Trilogy, but I do think it's a much better film than people generally give it credit for. As with The Search for Spock, I've never understood the hate it gets. It's got an intelligent script, amazing visuals and an iconic score by Jerry Goldsmith. It is deliberately paced, but I like that about it. It takes its time to properly introduce the characters and concepts its exploring. Compare that to modern Trek, which is practically wall-to-wall action and violence, and I'd argue that The Motion Picture has aged remarkably well.

My main criticism of TMP is the lack of compelling emotional drama. The heart of the film is the relationship between Decker and Ilia, but I've never found that terribly engaging. The subsequent Star Trek films packed more emotional oomph, and in comparison to something like The Wrath of Khan TMP feels a bit dry. Other than that though, it holds up very well and I'd still rank it over any Star Trek film from the past two decades. The editing is overindulgent of the special effects, but much of the imagery is so stunning that I really don't mind. The scenes where the characters are travelling inside V'ger, accompanied by Goldsmith's haunting score, have me entranced every time I watch it.

This might be a Monday morning quarterback thing to say but I've long maintained that if the severed love story had revolved around Kirk or, perhaps better yet, Spock, the emotional anchor of TMP would probably hit harder for people. Basically, swap either Kirk or Spock in for Decker's role in that story and move it along. I think it might be more effective had it been Spock's story but it could go either way. Point is that asking audiences to invest in Decker when they were probably there for Kirk, Spock and McCoy wasn't a good idea.

The reintroduction of the characters was a necessity since (A) the TV show had been off the air for ten years by that time and (B) the characters had moved on with their lives after the show.

Honestly, I'm hard-pressed to find even one TOS film that I simply cannot abide. The Final Frontier pushes my tolerance to its limits, admittedly, but not beyond my limits. It isn't bad; it's just nowhere near WOK's level of maturity and sophistication. But then, what is?

In the final analysis, I watch Star Wars to be wowed but I watch Star Trek to be inspired. More recent iterations of Trek have been created by people who either don't know or don't care about what makes Trek work. Until that changes, bs like Discovery is probably as good as it gets. Which is sad.

[Silver Nemesis]

This might be a Monday morning quarterback thing to say but I've long maintained that if the severed love story had revolved around Kirk or, perhaps better yet, Spock, the emotional anchor of TMP would probably hit harder for people. Basically, swap either Kirk or Spock in for Decker's role in that story and move it along. I think it might be more effective had it been Spock's story but it could go either way. Point is that asking audiences to invest in Decker when they were probably there for Kirk, Spock and McCoy wasn't a good idea.

Your idea would have been better. The emotional dynamic between Kirk and Carol Marcus worked in The Wrath of Khan, despite the fact she'd never appeared in any earlier films or TV episodes, and using a similar approach to connect Ilia to a character fans already knew and cared about would have made her storyline more accessible. Decker had enough drama on his plate with the power struggle between him and Kirk. The romance storyline could easily have been passed to another character.

I've heard that the Decker-Ilia romance would have featured prominently in the Phase II series, but instead the scripts exploring their relationship ended up being rewritten for Riker and Troi in the first season of TNG. I'm not sure if that's true.

Honestly, I'm hard-pressed to find even one TOS film that I simply cannot abide. The Final Frontier pushes me tolerance to its limits, admittedly, but not beyond my limits. It isn't bad; it's just nowhere near WOK's level of maturity and sophistication. But then, what is?

I was very little when I first saw The Final Frontier (it was probably the UK TV premiere back in the early nineties), and back then I enjoyed it just as much as the other Trek movies. It had lots of action and weird aliens and I remember thinking it was funny. But viewed through the lens of adulthood, it's a very different experience. Still, I'm looking forward to watching it again sometime in the next week or so. Even the worst of the original crew films is more entertaining than 90% of most other sci-fi movies. And if nothing else, The Final Frontier gave 1989 cinemagoers the villainous cat-woman that was absent from Burton's first Batman film. Granted, she was a triple-breasted alien cat-woman, but a cat-woman nonetheless.

Shatner's often spoken of wanting to create a director's cut of The Final Frontier in order to fix some of the movie's problems. I say why not? I'd rather Paramount financed an improved version of Star Trek V than waste more money on drivel like Discovery, Picard and Lower Decks.

If one were to regard the original crew films as a self-contained series, then surely it's the most consistently good sci-fi film franchise out there. Six films and only one of them is really poor (but still watchable). I think the Rocky series has the most impressive overall batting average for a film franchise (eight films, and only one dud), but as far as science fiction movies go is there another series with as many consistently good films as Star Trek I-VI? I can't think of one.

In the final analysis, I watch Star Wars to be wowed but I watch Star Trek to be inspired. More recent iterations of Trek have been created by people who either don't know or don't care about what makes Trek work. Until that changes, bs like Discovery is probably as good as it gets. Which is sad.

It is very sad, as well as baffling. Classic Star Trek always presented a fundamentally utopian vision of mankind's future that gave viewers something to aspire to. It's shocking how the makers of the most recent shows have inverted that hopeful utopian vision into the cynical nihilistic dystopian nightmare it's become. Classic Trek had its own unique identity that was instantly recognisable. Where Star Wars was more mythical, Star Trek was more literary. It was driven by ideas. It still had plenty of action and special effects, but they served the plot rather than being the basis of it. Modern Trek feels as though it's desperately trying to be anything but classic Trek.

Where classic Trek was intelligent and sophisticated, modern Trek is crude and puerile. The best response is to ignore it altogether and focus on celebrating the wealth of classic real Trek produced between 1966 and 2005.

[Silver Nemesis]

Ok, so I've finished re-watching Star Treks I, V and VI. Here are my thoughts.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

I've already given my opinion on this film earlier in the thread, but here are a few additional observations following my most recent viewing.

From the pre-title musical overture to Douglas Trumbull's special effects, TMP is clearly trying to evoke 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). The film is slow paced, portentous and very dry when it comes to human drama, but to be fair those same criticisms could also be applied to Kubrick's film. Where TMP shines is in its intelligent script, imaginative visuals, high quality production values and superb score. The leisurely pacing really doesn't bother me except in one scene, and that's the drydock sequence where Kirk and Scotty are preparing to board the Enterprise. I understand that they wanted to show off the new Enterprise model – and it is a beautiful model – but that scene drags on for far too long.

A common criticism levelled at The Next Generation films is that they failed to adapt their scope for a different medium and ended up feeling like two-part television stories rather than true cinematic experiences. You can take that criticism one of two ways: either as a compliment to the TV series for feeling so cinematic in the first place, or as an indictment of the films for not capitalising on their increased budget. At any rate, it's not a criticism that applies to The Original Series films. With the exception of Star Trek V, all of the movies based on TOS look great and manage to upgrade the iconography of the television programme to meet the expectations of post-Star Wars cinemagoers. You can see this in the miniatures and sets, as well as in the upgraded costume and makeup effects on the Klingons. It's a significant improvement over how they looked in the TV show.

I'd forgotten until I saw the opening credits that Alan Dean Foster wrote the story. This must have been shortly after he wrote Star Wars: Splinter of the Mind's Eye. The plot he delivers here is probably not the crowd-pleasing rollercoaster Paramount was hoping for, but it has a lot to offer science fiction buffs. I find the most interesting part of the story to be Spock's character arc. At the beginning of the film he's the closest he's ever come to being purely Vulcan, but he gradually embraces the merits of his human side when he witnesses V'Ger's inability to comprehend philosophical concepts that transcend pure logic. In light of this epiphany, his decision to remain on the Enterprise at the end feels plausible. As Spock himself observes in Star Trek VI, "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end."

That's about all I have to say on TPM. Many viewers will find it boring, but I enjoy it. I don't think it's anywhere near as good as The Wrath of Kahn, or the other two films in the Genesis Trilogy, and it certainly isn't director Robert Wise's best film, but I maintain it's an underrated entry in the series that blows any modern Trek movies or TV shows out of the water.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

Two movies were released in the summer of 1989 concerning a group of friends embarking on an adventure in search of divine illumination. One of them had Sean Connery, the other had Sha Ka Ree. One of them turned out to be one of the greatest movies of all time, the other turned out to be Star Trek V.

Supposedly Paramount wanted The Final Frontier to be funny like The Voyage Home, while Shatner intended for it to be a much darker film, and this conflict inevitably resulted in an uneven tone. You've got goofy scenes like Scotty bumping his head and knocking himself out (I'm slightly embarrassed to admit that I found that hilarious as a child), but then you've also got dark scenes like the one where McCoy relives the night he euthanized his father. The film is also thematically unfocused. The opening act highlights themes of brotherhood and camaraderie, the middle act is more preoccupied with ideas of guilt and expiation, the final act touches upon theological themes concerning God and the boundaries of the material universe (these concepts are introduced far too late in the film to be properly explored), and finally the coda returns to the theme of brotherhood. It would have been wiser to have picked just one of these ideas (preferably the brotherhood theme) and develop it in more depth.

The special effects in Star Trek V are noticeably inferior to those of the other films in the series. ILM was reportedly too busy working on Indiana Jones 3 and Ghostbusters 2, so Shatner hired another company. Most of the sets, costumes and makeup effects are fine, but the miniature and composite shots are generally poor. It's not that the film was made on the cheap – it had a budget of $33 million, which is only $2 million less than Batman (1989). The effects just aren't handled very well. They're not Superman IV bad, but considering the money Paramount invested in this they should have been better. One sequence, involving Kirk encountering a rock monster, was cut altogether because the effects were deemed unsatisfactory. The scene did however make it into the comic book adaptation.

Here's some footage of the original unused effects.

On the subject of bad special effects, I must mention the turbo shaft scene where the deck numbers pass by in the wrong order and Spock ends up flying past deck 78, despite the fact the Enterprise-A only has around twenty-something decks to begin with. The physics of the flying scenes are plain baffling. Just look at the shot of Spock holding Kirk upside down after the latter falls from the mountain. How is Spock's body hovering at this angle when the propulsive force keeping him aloft is directed downwards through the soles of his boots?

Overall, I don't hate The Final Frontier. This might be nostalgia talking, but if you think of it as a lame episode of the TV show's third season – a cinematic 'Spock's Brain', so to speak – it makes for a watchable sci-fi adventure flick. I'd never argue it was good, but I liked it as a kid and even now I don't find it to be as excruciatingly bad as something like Attack of the Clones. Many people complain about the campfire scenes, but I never had a problem with them. The friendship between Kirk, Spock and McCoy was always the emotional core of TOS for me, and having them sing 'Row, Row, Row Your Boat' together exemplifies their camaraderie in a way that's silly but also rather charming. I also like the location photography in Yosemite National Park. Some of the wide landscape shots are beautiful.

Most of the scenes on Nimbus III are decent too. Uhura's fan dance was clearly ill judged, but I enjoy the following scene where the heroes storm Paradise City only to discover they've walked into a trap. I also like that the Galileo shuttlecraft features so prominently in the action. Much of the humour falls flat, but there are one or two funny moments, like Bones offering to hold Spock while Kirk hits him. On the music front, Jerry Goldsmith is as reliable as ever. The subplot about the Klingon vessel hunting the Enterprise feels too much like a retread of the Kruge storyline from Star Trek III, and I would have preferred it to have been a renegade Romunlan captain instead. The Romulans never got the chance to take centre stage in any of the original crew films, and since there was a Romulan ambassador on Nimbus III this would have been a good opportunity for them to do so.

To conclude, Star Trek V is a nostalgic guilty pleasure. Objectively, it's a 5/10 at best. But while it may be the worst of the original crew films, I'd still rank it over some of the Star Trek films that came later. The Final Frontier also gave us this sublime work of philosophical rumination.

Who knew the rock climbing scene was so layered?

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

It would have been tragic if the Star Trek film series had ended with The Final Frontier, but thankfully we have The Undiscovered Country to conclude the saga on a high note. I'd forgotten just how good this one is.

Nicholas Meyer returns as co-writer and director, bringing with him his fondness for literary allusions (this time mostly Shakespearean) as he continues the Cold War themes of the Genesis Trilogy. The central plot about the treaty serves as an allegory for the collapse of the USSR, with the destruction of the Klingon moon Praxis being analogous to the Chernobyl disaster that helped precipitate the collapse of the Soviet economy. The central theme is prejudice and the need to overcome it if the enemies of yesterday are to become the friends of tomorrow. Unlike the modern Trek shows that have taken a clumsily heavy-handed 'woke' approach to the theme of race (divisively grouping people into tribes of oppressors and oppressed instead of uniting them on a basis of equal worth), Star Trek VI takes a more nuanced and intelligent approach to the subject.

Kirk is basically a good man, but the film doesn't shy away from confronting his racism. We've seen him fighting the Klingons for the past 25 years, and we saw how they murdered his son in cold blood, so we can understand the basis of his prejudice. But at the same time we also understand the need for people like Kirk, and indeed the Klingons themselves, to overcome their prejudice and put aside past grievances in order to focus on building a peaceful tomorrow. I only wish modern Trek could handle such themes with the same maturity.

If Star Trek III is a quest narrative and Star Trek IV is a time travel story, then Star Trek VI is a conspiracy thriller mixed with elements of detective fiction. There's no denying the cast were old and out of shape by this point, but I can overlook it in The Undiscovered Country because this is meant to be their final adventure. On that score, it serves as a fitting swansong to a series that began a quarter of a century earlier. Star Trek VI is also a satisfying sequel to the Genesis Trilogy. It revisits plot points from Star Treks II-IV, such as David's death and the USS Excelsior, and it even brings back supporting characters like Admiral Cartwright and the Klingon ambassador from The Voyage Home. However its relationship to the Genesis Trilogy also leads me to my single biggest criticism, which is the character of Valeris. Kim Cattrall gives a good performance, but she should have played Saavik. In the original script her character was Saavik.

The twist where she is revealed to be one of the conspirators would have had so much more impact if this was the character fans had already come to know in Star Treks II-IV, instead of a new character we've only just met. Spock's reaction to her betrayal would also have carried more weight, and her motive for distrusting the Klingons – deriving, at least in part, from having witnessed their murder of David – would have offered an interesting parallel to Kirk's. Instead Cattrall insisted on playing a new character, and so Saavik was replaced with Valeris. This always struck me as a missed opportunity and it remains my biggest gripe with the movie.

On the technical side, ILM make a welcome return. Their work on this film feels like a breath of fresh air after the stale special effects displayed in Star Trek V. The only effect which looks slightly dated now is the CG blood during the scene where the assassins massacre the Klingons in zero gravity, but we have to take into account that the technology used in that scene was still relatively new at the time. The Undiscovered Country came out just a few months after Terminator 2 and only two years after The Abyss. That entire zero gravity sequence is very creative and it blew my mind when I first saw it on the big screen back in the early nineties.

The final voyage of the Enterprise crew takes them from Earth to the penal asteroid of Rura Penthe and finally to Camp Khitomer. I find Rura Penthe, an ice world that feels like a fusion of Hoth and the Temple of Doom, to be the most memorable of these locations. I like how the purple colour scheme reflects the purple of Klingon blood.

Speaking of Rura Penthe, is it just me or does the big alien Kirk fights in the mines look a bit like Doomsday?

I'll end this review by saying that The Undiscovered Country is a terrific send-off for the original crew and probably my favourite Trek film outside of the Genesis Trilogy. It's got a good script, strong production values and a spirited performance from Christopher Plummer as the villainous General Chang. Having the actors' signatures appear on the end credits was also a nice touch.

My final ranking for first six movies would be:

1.   The Wrath of Khan
2.   The Voyage Home
3.   The Search for Spock
4.   The Undiscovered Country
5.   The Motion Picture
6.   The Final Frontier

Except for Star Trek V, they're all good.

[thecolorsblend]

Regarding TFF, I recognize that it's the lesser work when compared to any other TOS film. And yet, I can still see value in it from the standpoint that it's the TOS cast back in action. That cuts a lot of ice for me. And just for the record, not everybody gets that same amnesty. Insurrection as a film does not rise above a weak story with a patronizing theme simply because I like TNG. Insurrection doesn't suck but it's no exaggeration for me to say I enjoy TFF far more than Insurrection.

There is plenty to criticize TFF for but it doesn't have structural issues. Too little money and too many chefs in the kitchen. And honestly, those same issues have plagued numerous other films. I'm prepared to cut TFF and Shatner some slack here.

As to TUC, that whole Saavik thing has been a source of heartache for me for quite some time. It's fun to imagine Kirstie Alley playing the character in all three films. I guess that was never a possibility but I like the idea of seeing her as a rookie in WOK and her downfall in TUC.

You can extrapolate a plot point from there that it's probably easiest for a rookie to turn than a more seasoned veteran. If anything, Kirk has more reasons to do what Valeris did than Valeris herself. And it would've hit home so much harder if Kirk could've seized that moral victory with a character and actress that audiences were more familiar with. Kirk's ultimate nobility in the film would shine brighter when contrasted against Saavik played by Alley, I think.

The Cold War element of TUC plays for me about as well as you, apparently. It is true that there were Cold Warriors on both sides who were highly reluctant to let it go. First, the Cold War was all they knew. A new geopolitical reality was all but unthinkable. A status quo had existed for over forty years by then and, in their collective mind, change was bad. Second, they didn't want actual war so much as a decisive military victory. The collapse of the USSR was basically a forfeit and the hardliners on both sides found that intolerable.

Where the rubber meets the road on that is Kirk is initially positioned as the Cold Warrior reluctant to let go of the old conflict, probably for personal reasons as well as practical ones. But in the end, he lets it go. (A) He has no choice and (B) he's not Valeris.

I find it interesting that the OG film franchises ended on sort of comparable notes, re: peace with a long time antagonist. In TOS, it was obviously the Klingons. In TNG, it was the Romulans. In both cases, the hardliners won out, aided by assassinations.

I'll criticize Insurrection here, there and everywhere. But I'll fight to the death in my defense of Nemesis, if only for that reaction shot (I can't find it after a quick image search) of Picard right after Shinzon keeled over. Picard's expression is a bewildered mix of emotions, underlined by a sentiment of "If this was always how I was going to die, what the hell was the point of anything?

In its own way, Nemesis is defined just as much by a change in status quo as TUC had been. Senior officers (longtime TNG cast members) were moving on to other ships/commands (or death), peace with the Federation was starting to become mainstream thought among the Romulans, it could be inferred that Picard resigned command of the Enterprise after the showdown with the Scimitar (no, Star Trek: Picard is not canon for me), etc.

But unlike TUC, there wasn't some irl metaphor you can assign to the peace signaled in Nemesis -- which, again, owes back to why I regard TNG as an entertaining but ultimately lesser work than TOS. TNG is fine in its place and I love it. But the real meat of Star Trek for me is TOS and the TOS-related films.

In the final analysis, the Trek film I probably struggle with the most is Generations. Berman has said that Generations had to satisfy a lot of people and he freely admits the final product suffered as a result.  This is the closest the OG franchise came to producing a just plain bad film.

[Silver Nemesis]

It's been a long time since I watched The Next Generation films. I'd like to revisit them all in the near future and refresh my memory.

It must have been a decade or more since I last saw Generations. I went to see it when it first came out and I have to admit... I actually quite like it. I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think it's that bad. I find it to be the saddest of all the Star Trek films. It probably does have a lot of flaws that would stand out if I watched it again now, but the simple fact that it moved me emotionally – and not in the blunt JJ Abrams tradition of cheap unearned sentiment (e.g. Threepio bidding a lachrymose farewell to his "friends" that he'd barely spoken to in the previous films) – is deserving of some credit.

Whatever other faults it has, the score by Dennis McCarthy is very stirring. It's up there with James Horner's work on Treks II and III.

The central theme of letting go – of the past, of life, of self-delusion, of our own individual happiness to serve a greater good – has timeless resonance. I suspect it might be even more relevant now, in light of the current pop culture fixation on nostalgia that has led to so many classic film franchises, including Trek, being devalued by lame reboots. On the downside, I think Shatner's larger-than-life presence does somewhat eclipse Stewart (Kirk was always my favourite captain anyway, so I'm biased), and the fact the film has one foot planted firmly in the past tethers it to the older films and prevents it from fully carving out its own identity. The first TNG movie really needed to break free of the older films, and to an extent the TV show, the way The Motion Picture and The Wrath of Khan did. I don't think that happened until First Contact. There's no denying that Generations is also an unnecessary continuation of Kirk's storyline after the perfect send-off he received in Star Trek VI. But I still like it.

I didn't see First Contact on the big screen in 1996. I can't remember why I skipped it now, but I wish I had gone to see it. The last time I watched it was on TV about seven or eight years ago, so this one's slightly fresher in my memory. I always loved the Borg. Their episodes are among my favourite of the TV series and they possess an eerie biomechanical quality that I find deeply unnerving. They're essentially a cross between the Cybermen from Doctor Who, the Cenobites from Hellraiser, and the baddies from the Michael Jackson film Captain EO (1986), which was written by George Lucas and directed by Francis Ford Coppola of all people.

Did the Supreme Leader played by Anjelica Huston inspire the Borg Queen? Perhaps.

When I was about ten I visited the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry when it was hosting a Star Trek exhibition that was touring the UK. They had lots of costumes and sets for visitors to explore, but what I remember most about it was this one darkly-lit corridor containing some of the scarier alien costumes. Alone in this passageway, I stood face-to-face with a Borg. It stared back at me in the darkness with this lifeless expression while its mechanical eye whirred and twitched with a mind of its own. It was incredibly creepy. Since then, I list the Borg alongside the Xenomorphs as one of the most frightening alien races to haunt the silver screen. I'm still conflicted about the whole idea of them having a queen, since it undermines the premise of them being a collective devoid of individuality. But I suppose the filmmakers felt they needed a villain that could interact with the Enterprise crew on a more personal level, and on that score she serves her purpose. Alice Krige was great in the role and I'm glad she got to reprise the part in Voyager.

I know some TNG fans don't like the way Picard was portrayed in the movies. The films made him more outwardly emotional, as opposed to his typically reserved characterisation in the TV show. You can see this in FC with the aggression and violence he shows towards the Borg. Mr. Plinkett highlighted this in the Red Letter Media review as an example of the dumbing down of the franchise, and I can see where he's coming from. But being an Original Series fan, I was never so emotionally invested in the Picard character that this bothered me much. I think the scenes taking place on Earth with Zefram Cochrane are more interesting than the action sequences on board the Enterprise anyway.

I'm not a fan of how the script references Captain Ahab in relation to Picard's lust for revenge. That particular analogy was already used far more effectively in The Wrath of Khan, and here it just feels like they're echoing Star Trek II. There are plenty of other literary revenge tragedies they could have referenced. Still, from what I recall FC is probably the most entertaining of the Picard-era films. The new uniforms help differentiate it from the TV show in a way Generations failed to do, and the production design and special effects feel suitably cinematic. It's a fun movie.

I went to see Insurrection on the last day of the Christmas holidays back in January 1999, so I have a certain nostalgic fondness for that one and associate it with Christmastime. I've seen it at least once since then on TV, but I'm struggling to remember much about it. I don't recollect it being bad. It's enjoyable enough. Just not terribly memorable. This might be the Next Gen film that feels the most like two TV episodes stitched together. Hopefully if I watch it again soon I'll have some more meaningful observations to contribute, but right now all I can remember is that it took place on a planet that looked vaguely like Naboo, it featured Doctor Octopus' wife, and it continued FC's strategy of trying to turn Picard into an action hero rather than the calm diplomat he was in the TV show.

I'm afraid I can remember even less about Nemesis. I didn't see it on the big screen in 2002, and I don't remember there being any hype surrounding its release. I saw the trailer a few times, and maybe one or two posters, but apart from that it was completely overshadowed by Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. I definitely have seen it once or twice on TV, but I can only recall images. I'd very much like to see it again, since Nemesis is probably the last real Star Trek film we'll ever get.

Like you, colors, I'm a TOS fan. The Original Series and movies are my era of Star Trek. But to a much lesser extent I am also a fan of The Next Generation era, and while the Picard movies aren't as good as the earlier films, they're still a damn sight better than modern Trek. I've got a long list of movies I want to re-watch before the end of this year, but I'll try to squeeze the Next Gen films in there somewhere. Then hopefully I'll be able to discuss Insurrection and Nemesis in more depth.

[Kamdan]

Did the Supreme Leader played by Anjelica Huston inspire the Borg Queen? Perhaps.

Yes, it has been acknowledged that the Supreme Leader from Captain EO was an inspiration for the Borg Queen. Huston along with Angela Bassett were considered for the part until they settled on Alice Krige based on her performance in 1981's Ghost Story. The character came about due to a studio note asking for a more centralized villain instead of the zombie hive of Borg. This was how it played out in the first draft of the screenplay which had Picard on Earth and Riker on the ship.