Print Page | Close Window

Greatest Star Trek Film

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=83686
Printed Date: February 08 2025 at 21:21
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Greatest Star Trek Film
Posted By: progistoomainstream
Subject: Greatest Star Trek Film
Date Posted: December 22 2011 at 21:53
Have at it.

-------------



Replies:
Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: December 28 2011 at 19:59
The Voyage Home-for me, it most epitomised the charm and character of the original series


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 28 2011 at 20:28
WoK, maybe cause it saved the franchise after the moribund first film and ironically was not handled by Roddenberry, but mostly cause it's the simplest, has the best ship-to-ship action anywhere, and actually makes sense.   I'm also one of the few who seem to like Final Frontier (dug the whole "I need my pain" thing), and I mostly enjoyed the 2009 one though it had some real flaws; if they're gonna continue with prequels they need to take things a little more seriously.



Posted By: progistoomainstream
Date Posted: December 28 2011 at 22:02
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

...
and I mostly enjoyed the 2009 one though it had some real flaws; if they're gonna continue with prequels they need to take things a little more seriously.

 
I'd have to agree. They sort of messed up the whole idea of Star Trek with that film.


-------------


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 29 2011 at 06:15
Oh, my wife and I love ST 2009.  I mean Spock and Uhura doing it and all.  I think they did well with the crop of actors selected to reprise the roles.  Khan certainly breathed new life into a franchise that was floundering. The Voyage, good but a little too cutesy.  Kirk should have been banging Gillian. Tongue


-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: December 29 2011 at 09:00
Originally posted by progistoomainstream progistoomainstream wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

...
and I mostly enjoyed the 2009 one though it had some real flaws; if they're gonna continue with prequels they need to take things a little more seriously.

 
I'd have to agree. They sort of messed up the whole idea of Star Trek with that film.


I wasn't really a big fan of the 2009 film.  It was ok, but nothing like the rest of the franchise.  BTW, the 2009 film was a reboot (much like what they did with Battlestar Galactica) not a prequel. 

My favorites are II, IV and First Contact.  Tough choice between those three.  Gonna go with IV today.


-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: December 29 2011 at 09:06
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by progistoomainstream progistoomainstream wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

...
and I mostly enjoyed the 2009 one though it had some real flaws; if they're gonna continue with prequels they need to take things a little more seriously.

 
I'd have to agree. They sort of messed up the whole idea of Star Trek with that film.


I wasn't really a big fan of the 2009 film.  It was ok, but nothing like the rest of the franchise.  BTW, the 2009 film was a reboot (much like what they did with Battlestar Galactica) not a prequel. 

My favorites are II, IV and First Contact.  Tough choice between those three.  Gonna go with IV today.

For me the reboot was the best of all the films. I loved it. But of th earlier films II, IV.and VIII are he best.


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: caretaker
Date Posted: December 29 2011 at 09:47
The Search for Spock, then First Contact. The newest one was allright. I thought the actors did a good job but the film as a whole could have been much better.


Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: January 01 2012 at 03:15
The "Save the Whales" (IV) movie was the most enjoyable for its one-liners:
"Awameda...Nuclear Wessles"
"Double dumbass on you!"
"Too much LDS in the '60's"

That was until the last one where Karl Urban's portrayal of Bones had me in stitches the entire movie. One of the finest character interpretations ever.  


-------------
https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">
https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp


Posted By: progistoomainstream
Date Posted: January 01 2012 at 11:44
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by progistoomainstream progistoomainstream wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

...
and I mostly enjoyed the 2009 one though it had some real flaws; if they're gonna continue with prequels they need to take things a little more seriously.

 
I'd have to agree. They sort of messed up the whole idea of Star Trek with that film.


I wasn't really a big fan of the 2009 film.  It was ok, but nothing like the rest of the franchise.  BTW, the 2009 film was a reboot (much like what they did with Battlestar Galactica) not a prequel. 

My favorites are II, IV and First Contact.  Tough choice between those three.  Gonna go with IV today.
 
That is true. It is bringing an alternate reality to the new series. And really it wasn't that confusing unlike some other time travel/alternate reality movies.


-------------


Posted By: progistoomainstream
Date Posted: January 01 2012 at 11:46
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Oh, my wife and I love ST 2009.  I mean Spock and Uhura doing it and all.  I think they did well with the crop of actors selected to reprise the roles. 
 
Are you saying you actually liked the portrayal of Pavel Chekov?


-------------


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 01 2012 at 12:43
Originally posted by progistoomainstream progistoomainstream wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Oh, my wife and I love ST 2009.  I mean Spock and Uhura doing it and all.  I think they did well with the crop of actors selected to reprise the roles. 
 
Are you saying you actually liked the portrayal of Pavel Chekov?

Sure.


-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: January 01 2012 at 12:49
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by progistoomainstream progistoomainstream wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Oh, my wife and I love ST 2009.  I mean Spock and Uhura doing it and all.  I think they did well with the crop of actors selected to reprise the roles. 
 
Are you saying you actually liked the portrayal of Pavel Chekov?

Sure.

Me too.


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: progistoomainstream
Date Posted: January 01 2012 at 13:37
Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by progistoomainstream progistoomainstream wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Oh, my wife and I love ST 2009.  I mean Spock and Uhura doing it and all.  I think they did well with the crop of actors selected to reprise the roles. 
 
Are you saying you actually liked the portrayal of Pavel Chekov?

Sure.

Me too.
 
I think he was the worst portrayed charecter in the whole film. There was no resemblence at all between the charecter in the TV show and in that film. The only similarity they have is a russian accent (which was pretty bad in the film).


-------------


Posted By: Horizons
Date Posted: January 01 2012 at 13:43
JAMES T. KIRK


MR. SPOCK


LEONARD MCCOY


MONTGOMERY SCOTT


HIKARU SULU


UHURA


PAVEL CHEKOV

Just for references.


-------------
Crushed like a rose in the riverflow.


Posted By: progistoomainstream
Date Posted: January 01 2012 at 15:55
Originally posted by Horizons Horizons wrote:

JAMES T. KIRK


MR. SPOCK


LEONARD MCCOY


MONTGOMERY SCOTT


HIKARU SULU


UHURA


PAVEL CHEKOV

Just for references.
 
Now I personally do not care how the charecters look (as long as they vaugly resmble a younger version of the original cast [which they do]). I mostly care about if they seem like younger versions of the charecter when it comes to personality and mannerisms and such.


-------------


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 01 2012 at 17:20
Look the Checkov character/actor may not have be the best but he really didn't bother me.

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: progistoomainstream
Date Posted: January 01 2012 at 17:55
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Look the Checkov character/actor may not have be the best but he really didn't bother me.
 
I don't really care how he looks (although that did distract me a bit [from all the charecters really{but Chekov especially}]). I don't think his charecter was represented like a younger version of the guy in the TV show. And his fake accent was annoying in the film.


-------------


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: January 01 2012 at 18:36
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

  BTW, the 2009 film was a reboot (much like what they did with Battlestar Galactica) not a prequel.
"Reboot" my ass, the only thing they 'rebooted' was thje level of stupidity (e.g. the ice monster scene or the fight on the platform).  Other than that, very little changed and it was quite clearly aligned with TOS, much unlike the reinterpretation of - and improvement upon - Galactica.



Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: January 01 2012 at 18:45
 -- speaking of ST reinterps, anyone seen the old show with the new exterior graphics?   They're way cool, and only certain exteriors and special effects that looked crappy were re-done, the bulk of the footage they left untouched.  But to be able to see the Galileo 7 streak across an emerald green nebula as Spock ignites the fuel instead of some cruddy model limp across a cardboard star field, or the Gorn's eyes blinking, or the Vulcan landscape and sky finally portrayed as it should've been, is a real treat.   Some people will complain they've tinkered with a classic but I think they did a great job on a show that deserved and desperately needed it.  

 


Posted By: progistoomainstream
Date Posted: January 01 2012 at 23:04
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

  BTW, the 2009 film was a reboot (much like what they did with Battlestar Galactica) not a prequel.
"Reboot" my ass, the only thing they 'rebooted' was thje level of stupidity (e.g. the ice monster scene or the fight on the platform).  Other than that, very little changed and it was quite clearly aligned with TOS, much unlike the reinterpretation of - and improvement upon - Galactica.

 
It may not be a true "Reboot" but it is not a true prequel either.


-------------


Posted By: progistoomainstream
Date Posted: January 01 2012 at 23:07
Originally posted by Tapfret Tapfret wrote:

The "Save the Whales" (IV) movie was the most enjoyable for its one-liners:
"Awameda...Nuclear Wessles"
"Double dumbass on you!"
"Too much LDS in the '60's"

 
There is a lot of humour to be had placing charecters in a society that is a few centuries earlier thatn what they are used to.


-------------


Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: January 02 2012 at 01:12
The Voyage Home followed by First Contact.

-------------
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: January 02 2012 at 14:19
I love the 2009 film. It breathed new life into a franchise which was becoming a little tired under Berman & etc.

However, the vote goes to IV. a wonderful film, although, as has been said, Kirk most certainly should have hooked up with Gillian!


-------------
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org

Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 02 2012 at 15:04
Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

I love the 2009 film. It breathed new life into a franchise which was becoming a little tired under Berman & etc.

However, the vote goes to IV. a wonderful film, although, as has been said, Kirk most certainly should have hooked up with Gillian!

Oddly enough Decker from the first movie would hook up with her on a TV series. LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_Heaven" rel="nofollow - 7th Heaven


-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: progistoomainstream
Date Posted: January 02 2012 at 18:58
Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

I love the 2009 film. It breathed new life into a franchise which was becoming a little tired under Berman & etc.

However, the vote goes to IV. a wonderful film, although, as has been said, Kirk most certainly should have hooked up with Gillian!
 
I'm surprised they did not meet eachother in a future film. It was set up perfectly for that.


-------------


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: January 02 2012 at 19:08
Originally posted by progistoomainstream progistoomainstream wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

  BTW, the 2009 film was a reboot (much like what they did with Battlestar Galactica) not a prequel.
"Reboot" my ass, the only thing they 'rebooted' was thje level of stupidity (e.g. the ice monster scene or the fight on the platform).  Other than that, very little changed and it was quite clearly aligned with TOS, much unlike the reinterpretation of - and improvement upon - Galactica.

 
It may not be a true "Reboot" but it is not a true prequel either.

Of course it's a true reboot. Gawd!


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: January 02 2012 at 22:05
Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by progistoomainstream progistoomainstream wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

  BTW, the 2009 film was a reboot (much like what they did with Battlestar Galactica) not a prequel.
"Reboot" my ass, the only thing they 'rebooted' was thje level of stupidity (e.g. the ice monster scene or the fight on the platform).  Other than that, very little changed and it was quite clearly aligned with TOS, much unlike the reinterpretation of - and improvement upon - Galactica.

 
It may not be a true "Reboot" but it is not a true prequel either.

Of course it's a true reboot. Gawd!


The writers threw out the continuity of Star Trek (the most obvious example of this was blowing up Vulcan and the death of Amanda).   While it takes place in an alternate Trek universe, this is just a way of saying they rebooted the series, meaning throwing out the established continuity and starting fresh. 

It is most certainly not a prequel of any kind, because to be a prequel it would have to fit in with the established continuity.  Star Trek: Enterprise was a prequel in that regard. 


-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: progistoomainstream
Date Posted: January 02 2012 at 22:49
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by progistoomainstream progistoomainstream wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

  BTW, the 2009 film was a reboot (much like what they did with Battlestar Galactica) not a prequel.
"Reboot" my ass, the only thing they 'rebooted' was thje level of stupidity (e.g. the ice monster scene or the fight on the platform).  Other than that, very little changed and it was quite clearly aligned with TOS, much unlike the reinterpretation of - and improvement upon - Galactica.

 
It may not be a true "Reboot" but it is not a true prequel either.

Of course it's a true reboot. Gawd!


The writers threw out the continuity of Star Trek (the most obvious example of this was blowing up Vulcan and the death of Amanda).   While it takes place in an alternate Trek universe, this is just a way of saying they rebooted the series, meaning throwing out the established continuity and starting fresh. 

 
And was that really necessary to make a Star Trek film that people will want to go to? I think it would have been better if they made a proper prequel film.


-------------


Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: January 02 2012 at 23:06
Originally posted by progistoomainstream progistoomainstream wrote:


 
And was that really necessary to make a Star Trek film that people will want to go to? I think it would have been better if they made a proper prequel film.


Agreed.  A proper prequel could have been very cool.  Battlestar Galactica was one thing, but why would you even think of rebooting a show with a 35 year history, 10 films and 5 television series all based in the same universe?  It doesn't make sense to me. 


-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: progistoomainstream
Date Posted: January 02 2012 at 23:17
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by progistoomainstream progistoomainstream wrote:


 
And was that really necessary to make a Star Trek film that people will want to go to? I think it would have been better if they made a proper prequel film.


Agreed.  A proper prequel could have been very cool.  Battlestar Galactica was one thing, but why would you even think of rebooting a show with a 35 year history, 10 films and 5 television series all based in the same universe?  It doesn't make sense to me. 
 
And they botched a few charecters pretty much beyond the point of return. But at least it wasn't as bad as Generations. That was just a terrible film. It was almost as bad as Jack Frost.


-------------


Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: January 22 2012 at 15:03
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

 -- speaking of ST reinterps, anyone seen the old show with the new exterior graphics?   They're way cool, and only certain exteriors and special effects that looked crappy were re-done, the bulk of the footage they left untouched.  But to be able to see the Galileo 7 streak across an emerald green nebula as Spock ignites the fuel instead of some cruddy model limp across a cardboard star field, or the Gorn's eyes blinking, or the Vulcan landscape and sky finally portrayed as it should've been, is a real treat.   Some people will complain they've tinkered with a classic but I think they did a great job on a show that deserved and desperately needed it.  

 


I like the fact that they took time to improve on the effects of the 60s which stinketh. At least one has a choice now to watch either. The Gorn is the Gorn though and thats just classic stuff and should be left alone. Its nice to see Enterprise soar across a planet looking splendiferous instead of a model on a starry curtain.  

My vote here btw has to be the 2 best films from each generation: ie 1. ST4 Voyage Home and 2. First Contact.

The worst from each is ST Motion Picture and Nemesis. or even Insurrection which was quite lame really, though had some good humour in it. 




-------------


Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: March 03 2012 at 15:47


Liked the second movie most, but those films I have seen from the list weren't very good - have personally stuck quite fundamentally to the original 60's series.
It would have been interesting to see what they would have achieved if doing more TV series instead of motion pictures with the original actors from late 70's to 80's.

Might check the mentioned old series with new effects in the future Smile


Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: March 12 2012 at 01:30
Dunno about the films as much but I think I like the Next Generation more than the original series, but I need to watch the originals to be sure.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: RoyFairbank
Date Posted: March 22 2012 at 22:25
I have watched almost every star trek production often twice over, but I don't consider myself a trekky, mainly for my ego, otherwise it is true.

I am especially partial to Star Trek V, despite it being hated. This is probably explained by my being an atheist (so is the film really), on the one hand, and enjoying efforts at social commentary in films, despite the major failures of the film including terrible effects, plot holes, messed up breaking of universe rules, etc. It also has good humor and a good villain, plus no idiot characters like David or any leading love interest for Kirk (I don't think?) or any ugly vulcan woman character.

Besides that, I would obviously praise Wrath of Kahn, First Contact and yes, maybe IV. The other films were pretty boring, though Undiscovered Country is fair, III is fairish... Insurrection is quite dreadful, generations is similar, Nemesis is mildly entertaining but barely Trek, the new film is Nemesis but with the dead weight cut, leaving a generic 2000s, 2010s action film that throws the whole of star trek down the tubes and replaces it with a comic book style universe in the making.

Of the series, I enjoyed them all, but the original is classic. Next Generation is a bit repetitive and boring at times, but strongest overall of any of the series on many points. Deep Space Nine is entertaining, a bit too shallow at times, Voyager I have not watched for a while but I have watched every episode. It continues in the vein of Deep Space Nine, and is generally intelligent, focusing on interpersonal development and exploring human nature and our culture & values like the others. Enterprise is alittle different, and got bogged down in mundane plots and action-adventure drama, but it was high quality. Failed to develop its characters correctly, but they might have been able to do more without the pressures and the cancellation.

I hope there is a new show in the prime universe someday. The internet may open up an opportunity for shows like that again, should television be defeated at long last.



Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 22 2012 at 23:35
 ^ I saw ST:V when released and I liked it too (my friends did not), I dug the whole thing with one's pain and how Kirk slams Sybok by pointing out he needs his pain.. very TOS



Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 23 2012 at 04:42
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

 ^ I saw ST:V when released

For some strange reason that abbreviation reminds me of SCTV.  Loved their Farm Film Celebrity Blowup.



-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: Formentera Lady
Date Posted: March 28 2012 at 20:04
Don't kill the whale! (IV)

-------------
http://theprogressiveweb.blogspot.de" rel="nofollow - Visit me in Second Life to talk about music.


Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: March 28 2012 at 20:57

The premise of IV was quite stupid, but the movie was so funny that I'll pick it anyway.



-------------
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: March 28 2012 at 21:19
Wrath of Khan, because it had rich Corinthian leather.

-------------
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk