Jump to content

Worst. Trek Movie. Ever.


  • Please log in to reply

1004 replies to this topic

#1

CaptainSnarky

CaptainSnarky

Posted Jan 10, 2004 @ 3:41 PM

I think the reason I bear such unremitting hatred for Nemesucks is because I like the Romulans. They've always had great potential that has been woefully underused. When I first heard that the Romulans were going to be the "enemy" in Trek X, I was excited. Maybe we would get Sela back in a big muthafuckin' Khan-esque way. Which would have made me happy. Maybe the Romulans would instigate a war that would lead to a movie arc. But no. What we got was so crayola-by-numbers that it was irritating. And possibly more dissapointing than Attack of the Clones. And don't get me started on the uselessness of Data's "death."

Edited by TWoP Howard, Feb 15, 2011 @ 3:58 AM.

  • 0

#2

Harrison Fjord

Harrison Fjord

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 31, 2004 @ 10:24 PM

So, I have to say I think TUC may have grown into my favorite Trek, ever.

I just sat through it 3 times in a row. Once movie only, then the Meyer/Flynn commentrak, and then Okudatext. Then I watched the entire 2nd disc (and cried at the tribute to Kelley).

I think the greatest thing that happened to Trek was Nicholas Meyer; I cannot conceive of the film franchise surviving long enough for Paramount to decide TNG would be viable without Khan. While he's not the best film commentator of all time (he and Flynn both had a tendency to repeat themselves just minutes apart), and his personal take on Trek grated Roddenberry to no end (I love the fact that Roddenberry hated the script... largely because I hate most of Roddenberry's scripts), he's responsible for the 4 best non-DS9 hours of Trek ever, IMO.

Maybe it's just that the DVD is fresher, but I've decided that on a whole, I think TUC works better than Khan. I don't have the whole "how could they not notice a whole planet was missing?" phenomenon ruining the basic set-up.

One question that I have never found a suitable answer to, and was disappointed to not find an explanation on the DVD... why did they have Colonel West made-up as a Klingon to assassinate the President? Why not just have one of the Klingon conspirators do it?

For the longest time I always assumed that the line about, "An ancestor of mine maintained that once you have eliminated the impossible..." was meant to imply that Holmes was Vulcan (which makes a kind of sense given his prodigious intellect). It wasn't until Meyer mentioned it that it occured to me that maybe Holmes was a great-grandpere of Amanda, and then I felt incredibly dense.
  • 0

#3

nelamm

nelamm

    Stalker

Posted Feb 1, 2004 @ 9:41 AM

he's responsible for the 4 best non-DS9 hours of Trek ever, IMO.

Plus, he was one of the writers of TVH.

I'm not sure the movie wouldn't work better without the West portions altogether (as it was originally).

Regarding Holmes: Remember that that's how Meyer gained fame in the first place- three books and one movie.

Edited by nelamm, Feb 1, 2004 @ 9:42 AM.

  • 0

#4

RichardCranium

RichardCranium

    Channel Surfer

Posted Feb 1, 2004 @ 11:03 AM

TFF had a lot of nice moments between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. In fact, the scene where McCoy has to deal with his father's death was really powerful. The plot wasn't fundatmentally flawed, i.e. the idea of going to find God was a good setup, it just wasn't carried out particularly well. I know Shatner had a completely different ending and the studio slashed his budget. As to editing problems (passing the same floor twice, etc), Paramount pushed up the release date and it didn't leave enough time for post-production. At a convention years ago, one of the speakers (It's been more than a decade, I can't remember who) made mention that Paramount was in the process of trying to buy another studio at the time TFF was being made. They needed quick cash, they knew Star Trek always makes money first weekend regardless of how good the movie is (those were the days), so they slashed the budget and forced Shatner to send it out early to generate some quick cash. Yes, it was a pretty bad movie, but it didn't HAVE to be.

Nemesis just didn't deliver on what could have been some great moments. Why wasn't Shinzon doing a more over-the-top version of Picard. And shouldn't they have had more in common? They were clones. In fact, Shinzon should have been inserting himself into Picard's dreams rather than Troi's, since they shared DNA. The Romulans turned into wusses and the Remans just didn't cut it as villians. The other question I had, is if the Remans were capable of building such fantastic ships and they were so much more powerful, how did the Federation survive all this time? Oh yeah, and New Data was a dork. Bring back Classic Data.

I thought Insurrection was pretty good, mainly because it was like watching an extended episode of Next Gen. The Next Generation cast never really made the big screen transition. They hadn't really finished telling all the stories they could have on television, so there wasn't any real need to go to the big screen. Insurrection just felt like a pretty good episode of the show and I liked that. I never went to a Next Gen film expecting the sort of spectacle that the original cast put on. But it was a different time.

If I were voting, I'd give the nod to Nemesis. I can find some redeeming qualities in both TFF and Insurrection, but I can't think of anything nice to say about Nemesis
  • 0

#5

Doogie2K

Doogie2K

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 1, 2004 @ 11:34 AM

And shouldn't they have had more in common? They were clones. In fact, Shinzon should have been inserting himself into Picard's dreams rather than Troi's, since they shared DNA.


That depends on what part of the nature-nurture debate you subscribe to. I figure they'd have similar aptitudes, but their personalities would most likely be shaped by their environments: Picard was raised in France, while Shinzon was raised in a hole in the ground. As for the dream thing, I think he went to Troi simply because she was the local psychic.
  • 0

#6

tothemax

tothemax

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 1, 2004 @ 11:35 AM

I can't think of anything nice to say about Nemesis

It ended. Does that count?
  • 0

#7

starri

starri

    Stalker

Posted Feb 1, 2004 @ 11:48 AM

I thought the climatic battle between the Enterprise and Schimitar was pretty cool. Although the Data stuff was just too damned much.
  • 0

#8

nelamm

nelamm

    Stalker

Posted Feb 1, 2004 @ 2:36 PM

I was just thinking- the movie would've been pretty good without the Data story at all (besides, it was a bit of a ripoff from the Geordi story in Generations, with the "inside man" and all). They could have replaced it with something...well, I'm not sure what, but that's what writers are paid to think of.
  • 0

#9

Promethea

Promethea

    Stalker

Posted Feb 1, 2004 @ 10:42 PM

For the longest time I always assumed that the line about, "An ancestor of mine maintained that once you have eliminated the impossible..." was meant to imply that Holmes was Vulcan (which makes a kind of sense given his prodigious intellect). It wasn't until Meyer mentioned it that it occured to me that maybe Holmes was a great-grandpere of Amanda, and then I felt incredibly dense.


I never thought of that. I always took it as a sort of meta-statement about Spock being a literary descendent of Holmes.

I liked Nemesis well enough, perhaps because I went in with very low expectations. For me, Insurrection will always be the worst. Partly because of the stupid "humour" and partly because I fundamentally disagreed with the rebellion - I can't see why those people (who were, remember, not native but colonists) particularly had the right to stay there just because it happened to have made them immortal. Boo hoo, you already got several extra free lifetimes, don't be greedy. Plus, I'd like the idea of a movie-sized TV episode more if the actors didn't all look ... strange ... blown up to that size. For me, an over-the-top, blockbuster plot is needed to make them look right.
  • 0

#10

Cleo256

Cleo256

    Stalker

Posted Feb 2, 2004 @ 1:13 AM

Just watched TUC on DVD, and remembered again why I love it so. Although they made a change to the movie: now when Valeris names the conspirators, they cut to an image of them. That might have been useful the first time I saw the movie, when I wasn't quite sure who Admiral Cartwright was, but now it'll distract me every time with the thought, "That wasn't there before."

I know why I like it better than WoK. It's the politics. I've always eaten up the interstellar politics portion of Trek. They were my favorite TNG episodes, and it's why DS9 is my favorite series.

I love the trial scene, which is why I was so hard on ENT's "Judgment". Because if they're going to recreate possibly my favorite scene in my favorite Trek movie, they better treat it well. And maybe they did, but I was hyper-critical.
  • 0

#11

dc3

dc3

    Video Archivist

Posted Feb 2, 2004 @ 11:38 AM

For the longest time I always assumed that the line about, "An ancestor of mine maintained that once you have eliminated the impossible..." was meant to imply that Holmes was Vulcan (which makes a kind of sense given his prodigious intellect). It wasn't until Meyer mentioned it that it occured to me that maybe Holmes was a great-grandpere of Amanda, and then I felt incredibly dense.

I always took it to mean that Amanda was a descendant of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle...?
  • 0

#12

nelamm

nelamm

    Stalker

Posted Feb 2, 2004 @ 11:42 AM

dc3, there's something called "The Game" in which it is assumed that Holmes really did live. That's why Meyer published his Holmes novels as "edited from Dr. Watson's manuscripts." It's fairly widespread- look in the index of a book that mentions Holmes, and you'll likely see him indexed as a real person.
  • 0

#13

starri

starri

    Stalker

Posted Feb 2, 2004 @ 11:58 AM

I know why I like it better than WoK. It's the politics.

And the ensemble is so much stronger. Christopher Plummer is great, as is David Warner, and I even didn't hate the Federation President, which between TVH and DS9, is a first.

I also love the brief appearance from the slimy Romulan ambassador. Although one wonders why they're invited to peace talks between the Federation and the Klingons, since A) they're not involved, and B) neither the Federation nor the Empire trusts or likes them all that much.
  • 0

#14

Schwartzvald

Schwartzvald

Posted Feb 2, 2004 @ 12:43 PM

Although one wonders why they're invited to peace talks


Politics. The Feds didn't wants the Romulans thinking there was some super-secret alliance in the works, which could have (from the Romulans' P.O.V.) been a prelude to war. So, the Romulans get included with complete access, and nobody gets an itchy trigger finger. Well, almost nobody, but you get the idea.
  • 0

#15

CaptainSnarky

CaptainSnarky

Posted Feb 2, 2004 @ 1:01 PM

I tried to get TUC:the Director's Cut at Tower this weekend. They didn't have any, nor did Media Play. Did these idiots not even bother to get more than five copies??

Grr. I really wanted to see TUC again.
  • 0

#16

Harrison Fjord

Harrison Fjord

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 2, 2004 @ 5:14 PM

I tried to get TUC:the Director's Cut at Tower this weekend


I think calling it a Director's Cut would be generous in the extreme, though. :)

Really, the only noticeable change is the inclusion of quick cuts to images of the conspirators during Spock's mind-meld with Valeris. I think it amps up the tension considerably. I've always felt Spock was dancing on a line in that scene before... for some reason, during my four viewings this weekend I felt that he didn't just dance on it, he crossed it full speed. That scene was dark, and makes all of the various Deanna mind-rapes (I'm looking at you Nemesis) seem... ridiculous.

Other changes include some minor editorial quirks (most of them in that same scene... changing a wide shot for a closeup and vice versa), but nothing that really changes the scene much.

As for the Doyle/Holmes thing... I could see the argument for Doyle, but given Meyer's history, and his own words in the Commentrak, he was aiming to imply that Holmes was the human ancestor, not Doyle.

I love the extras on Disc 2. I've never been a gung-ho Klingon fan... I find them to usually be rather stock characters. But the history of Klingons, both as Trek lore and the actors who played them, was a really well put together documentary.

The "Stories from Trek VI" were interesting as well; Shatner is such a mystery. Sometimes he can seem like the most genuine guy, then he seems like an outright asshole, and then he has a glint in his eye and you can't tell if he's really being mean or just being really dry on the sarcasm. As much for tweaking Roddenberry's sensibilities as for knowing the best way to direct and edit Shatner (particularly re: "Let them die!"), I just can't say enough good about Meyer.
  • 0

#17

Melk

Melk

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 3, 2004 @ 8:05 AM

I've always eaten up the interstellar politics portion of Trek. They were my favorite TNG episodes, and it's why DS9 is my favorite series.


Wordy McWord. That's exactly what it is about TUC which makes me love it the best. And the same with DS9, the politics thing is different, fresh and credits the audience with a certain degree of intelligence. But also comes complete with ass-kicking action scenes. All that business with Federation conspiracies, corrupt ambassadors, new alliances and political sacrifices was a thousand and one times more interesting than T'Pol's stretchy space catsuit or Voyager's... whatever it was Voyager supposedly had going for it.

I disliked the Baku as much as I disliked the proper bad guys. We're all beautiful people, immortal, living a simple life but capable of amazing technologies if we wanted, this isn't really our planet but we're not sharing because it's our basic right to live forever and ever...

If all they wanted was to live a peaceful simple life I'm sure the Federation could come up with a suitable planet. Stop cheating death.
  • 0

#18

RiverThames

RiverThames

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 3, 2004 @ 9:32 AM

I don't know why the So'na didn't just set up shop on the other side of the world. Insurrection is a classic example of Trek thinking a planet is just one village.
  • 0

#19

nelamm

nelamm

    Stalker

Posted Feb 3, 2004 @ 9:51 AM

Well, we find out that the So'na have an axe to grind with those people. But someone else could have thought to ask that.

Does Meyer explicitly mention that he was going against Roddenberry's wishes at points? (I'm still waiting for the DVD to arrive.)
  • 0

#20

Promethea

Promethea

    Stalker

Posted Feb 3, 2004 @ 9:59 AM

Stop cheating death.

Exactly!

Seems to me the whole Trek philosophy is against the idea of just stultifying forever in a village and not connecting with other cultures.
  • 0

#21

Schwartzvald

Schwartzvald

Posted Feb 3, 2004 @ 2:32 PM

I don't know why the So'na didn't just set up shop on the other side of the world.


Oh, but that would make sense.

Insurrection is a classic example of Trek thinking a planet is just one village.


There's an "it takes a village" joke in there somewhere, but I ain't touchin' it.

Seems to me the whole Trek philosophy is against the idea of just stultifying forever in a village and not connecting with other cultures.


Good point, BUT...it's not the Fed's call to make (the Prime Directive, remember?). If these people want to sit around and contemplate their navels all day, that's their right (remember "Miramanee" & co. from TOS?).
  • 0

#22

Cleo256

Cleo256

    Stalker

Posted Feb 3, 2004 @ 3:25 PM

I can see Picard's point about forcibly moving the Baku being wrong. Even if they are just the Interstellar Amish and have settled there, rather than being native. And I understand why the Sona want them dead. That all makes sense. I just don't get why the Federation doesn't set up a hospital on the other side of the planet.

That's not the movie's biggest flaw by a mile , but I won't get started on the Insurrection-bashing, because I can never stop.

Oh, okay. The redundant Data character-non-plot is the worst part.
  • 0

#23

RiverThames

RiverThames

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 3, 2004 @ 4:25 PM

Yeah, even if the Federation is all, "This energy can do a lot of good," there's no need to harvest it and destroy its source, when it's utterly usuable exactly as it is. Despite it being in the "Briar Patch", there's no sense that it's at all challenging to get in there.

We're supposed to believe that the situation with the Dominion War is so dire that the Federation is desperate enough for ANY allies that they're willing to whore out their morals to get in bed with the So'na. It's a rather key point that gets a glossed over treatment, and they made the whole thing too much adventure romp instead.
  • 0

#24

nelamm

nelamm

    Stalker

Posted Feb 3, 2004 @ 5:45 PM

Especially when the So'na are supposed to be helping the Dominion.
  • 0

#25

tothemax

tothemax

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 3, 2004 @ 6:02 PM

Did the Federation know that the So'na were helping the Dominion in the movie?
  • 0

#26

starri

starri

    Stalker

Posted Feb 4, 2004 @ 12:33 AM

Riker mentioned that they'd been making ketracel white, which only has one application--keeping the Jem'Hadar in line.
  • 0

#27

Doogie2K

Doogie2K

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 4, 2004 @ 1:18 AM

We're supposed to believe that the situation with the Dominion War is so dire that the Federation is desperate enough for ANY allies that they're willing to whore out their morals to get in bed with the So'na. It's a rather key point that gets a glossed over treatment, and they made the whole thing too much adventure romp instead.


Yeah, I'd rather have seen an insurrection over the shit-awful allies the Federation made to save their own asses than over some penny-ante Fountain of Youth. Plus, then we wouldn't have had that horrid "Klingon puberty" joke *shudder*.

Edited because I finally found a grammatical error three days after posting.

Edited by Doogie2K, Feb 7, 2004 @ 12:52 PM.

  • 0

#28

Harrison Fjord

Harrison Fjord

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 4, 2004 @ 6:00 PM

Does Meyer explicitly mention that he was going against Roddenberry's wishes at points?


He does say that Roddenberry hated the script specifically; generally, though, Rodd just didn't like Meyer's militari-fication of Starfleet and his violation of the "No prejudice" cornerstone of his utopia.
  • 0

#29

Cleo256

Cleo256

    Stalker

Posted Feb 4, 2004 @ 7:04 PM

I think this is another case of Roddenberry believing his own hype. No one's allowed to hold a grudge against Klingons because they've been at war for so long, and yet it's okay to constantly poke fun at Spock's ears and blood and mannerisms?

Besides which, the ultimate lesson of TUC is that everyone who hates Klingons, up to and including Kirk himself, is wrong. Are we really supposed to believe that people never need to be reminded why prejudice is wrong? They just all know it all the time?
  • 0

#30

Promethea

Promethea

    Stalker

Posted Feb 4, 2004 @ 7:30 PM

Good point, BUT...it's not the Fed's call to make (the Prime Directive, remember?).


I thought the PD didn't apply in this case because the society was warp drive capable (they chose not to use it, but they had previously reached a stage of discovering it). That's why the importance of them not being native to that planet - they got there using warp drive then, uh, scrapped it when they saw how nice it was, or something. So, to me, it wasn't really their right to 'claim' that planet as their exclusive property. Stultifying on your own planet of origin is one thing, going somewhere else, occupying it and keeping it all to yourself - and if I remember rightly, they weren't going to allow the Federation access? - is something else.
  • 0