If you take into account inflation, ST:ID and 09 earned a lot less money than you think they did.
yes, but if you look at this page (link) and scroll down a bit to look at the 'adjusted for inflation' section, Star Trek 2009 IS the top grossing film; and the only films that (again adjusted for inflation) grossed more than ST:ID were ST:TMP and STIV:TVH.
So, sorry, the Abrams films did quite well for the franchise from a Box Office perspective.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
BEST TREK FILM:
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
-Simply because it's my personal favorite. I'm a sucker for time travel episodes, and this film did it justice. Hell, as a kid, I would get up on a sunny Saturday morning and watch this film instead of Saturday morning cartoons. Hell, I listen to "Invisible Touch" & "Take Me home" by Genesis, and they both remind me of this film. Hell, every time I listen to Invisible Touch, I imagine TVH end credits, and every time I listen to Take Me Home, I imagine Jim Kirk as he was in the film singing this tune. Enough said.
WORST TREK FILM:
Star Trek: Nemesis
-I don't even have to say why it's the worst - just the first 10 minutes of this film alone is enough to make you want to vomit and go all "Bill Gates wake up with with Oprah's money" resulting in throwing yourself out a window.
BEST HONORABLE MENTIONS:
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek: First Contact
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
Star Trek (2009)
Galaxy Quest <-(counts as a trek film IMO)
Star Trek: The Motion Picture <-(OK, before anyone nags at me about adding TMP as an best honorable film and not a worst film, it's simply because I like the film. I like the soundtrack, I like the effects, and the uniforms, and for me the story clicks. So for everyone else who hates this film, I don't care what you think, or what reason you have to hate it, you ain't changing my mind. If I'm the only one in the world who loves TMP, then so be it! Now let's move on.)
WORST (DIS)HONORABLE MENTIONS:
Star Trek: Insurrection
Star Trek Generations <-(only for not having Spock and McCoy in it)
Star Trek Into Darkness <-(Wrath of Khan 2.0, done sideways)
Star Trek V: The final Frontier
yes, but if you look at this page (link) and scroll down a bit to look at the 'adjusted for inflation' section, Star Trek 2009 IS the top grossing film; and the only films that (again adjusted for inflation) grossed more than ST:ID were ST:TMP and STIV:TVH.
So, sorry, the Abrams films did quite well for the franchise from a Box Office perspective.
Accepted, but part of the reason for that is that going to the cinema has become much cheaper than it was in the 70s and 80s. The theatre-going audience is much bigger now than it was back then.
And for the record, I liked the Abrams films; I'm just a stickler for the facts. Even when those tables support my view, I try to remember that they're still leaving out stuff.
yes, but if you look at this page (link) and scroll down a bit to look at the 'adjusted for inflation' section, Star Trek 2009 IS the top grossing film; and the only films that (again adjusted for inflation) grossed more than ST:ID were ST:TMP and STIV:TVH.
So, sorry, the Abrams films did quite well for the franchise from a Box Office perspective.
And Jersey shore has higher ratings then Firefly.
What does that say about the connection between box officer success/ratings and quality?
Best: Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country
Worst: Star Trek - The Motion Picture
The motion picture is just a bit too boring. It's not because they don't use violence, but it just isn't that much going on in the movie, and I don't really care for the two "other" protagonists (Decker? and the Deltan).
---
The thing I disliked about the JJ movies where some things that are basically plot holes or plot contrivances or scientific highly questionable. Red Matter I have no problem with, a planet from where you can see Vulcan's destruction was not. It seems to me that the writers weren't really trying there and just put together enough so that through the action and the emotional investment in the characters you wouldn't overthink things. I think they could have done a lot better there if they had bothered. Lazy writing, basically.
But I still love the characters, and I found the general story fine. The Wrath of Khan 2.0 movie stood well on its own and was extra fun if you knew which movie it was based on (at least IMO), and the storyline beyond a Startrek Officer going too far for the sake of his Utopia is always good.
I probably would prefer staying in "Prime Trek", with a new crew, but maybe Startrek has become victim of its own success - the original characters are the ones that everyone knows and loves and establishing new ones has turned difficult.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
This certainly is a thread that gets the community yacking. I like it! Here's my choices.
1.Star Trek II: Even now, this simple, but tight story, wove character development in with tense battleship drama and action. Spock's sacrifice was a poignant moment that transcended genre confines.
2.Star Trek VI: I was surprised to see people put this among their worst. This film asked hard questions within this story of political intrigue about forgiveness, xenophobia, etc. without resorting to becoming a preachy morality play that the TNG-era shows and other SF at the time often served up. It was a poignant final exit for the original cast.
3... is Star Trek III: In most cases when a character is brought back from the dead, it cheapens their sacrifice. Here, the stakes were never higher. Up to this point, Kirk and crew never had put so much on the line. Destroying an iconic ship like the Enterprise was even more unthinkable than killing off an iconic character like Spock. But Kirk did what had to be done, and somehow a contrived resurrection leaves the audience satisfied.
4. First Contact: The best TNG film. This had the size and scope to justify the big screen and Patrick Stewart lended the gravitas with Alfre Woodard to make this more than just a cracking good SF action film. Brent Spiner and the others also turned in some of the best onscreen performances of their careers.
5. Generations: The plot was immensely simple, sure. This film was a transition piece solely which I think is why there's so much negativity toward it in some other posts. This was a tasty meal but not the steak I feel we got with the above choices. It wasn't poorly written, just a little too simple. In the end it served its purpose while giving us a fun ride with two iconic captains saving the universe together--and who can forget the final descent of the Enterprise D?
6. Nemesis: Fanboys/girls have their narrow idea of what Trek is and they're missing some damn good stuff here. I wouldn't have picked this to be the sendoff for the TNG cast, but this dark, brooding film is almost neck and neck with Generations. I still don't understand how someone can think the writing on a show like Voyager was superior to this film.
7.The Motion Picture: Much like Generations, this film's appeal lies in the event itself than the story. Yeah it's Nomad 2.0 dragging a solar system of junk with it, yeah it at times bogged down, but I can forgive that because it was a *smarter* SF film than what was coming out at the time. It was about getting the band back together. It was a pretty good film that needed to be great after nearly a decade of trying to get Trek off the ground again.
Now th rest...
8 and 9: The Abramsverse. The summer blockbuster tone gets on my nerves at times, but these were both very well cast and told compelling stories, if very contrived in spots. Sure, I wish they could have made up their minds how big the damn ship was supposed to be, among other things but I hope time will lend objectivity to fanboy/girl rage that these two films don't deserve.
10. Star Trek IV: This film is endearing, but rather small and really is just a Greenpeace promo. The message is an important one and it was told in a fun way, but I see it and am just reminded of the morality plays that too often radiated through the TNG shows down the line.
11. Insurrection: Would have been a great two part episode of the show. Not worth the price of tickets and popcorn though.
6. Nemesis: Fanboys/girls have their narrow idea of what Trek is and they're missing some damn good stuff here. I wouldn't have picked this to be the sendoff for the TNG cast, but this dark, brooding film is almost neck and neck with Generations. I still don't understand how someone can think the writing on a show like Voyager was superior to this film.
Here is what was wrong with Nemesis. Shinzon is part of the lowest cast of Romulan society and is forced to work as a slave with the Remans. Then he somehow gets hold of the thaloron radiation and then somehow gets a hold of the supplies and resources to build the Schimitar and somehow gets support from high ranking Romulans despite the fact that he is a slave and more than that a human clone. The idea of it was just ridiculous. I'm sure the novel probably explained more of this but what they put into the movie didn't make any since.
Here is what was wrong with Nemesis. Shinzon is part of the lowest cast of Romulan society and is forced to work as a slave with the Remans. Then he somehow gets hold of the thaloron radiation and then somehow gets a hold of the supplies and resources to build the Schimitar and somehow gets support from high ranking Romulans despite the fact that he is a slave and more than that a human clone. The idea of it was just ridiculous. I'm sure the novel probably explained more of this but what they put into the movie didn't make any since.
You can as easily say : "here is why first contact is the worst Star Trek movie ever. The Borg approach Earth having the capacity to time travel and still decide engage the federation fleet instead of using that advantage in the first place."
You can find logic gaps in any movie, some more some less serious.
The problem with that aren't the gaps themselves. The problems comes more when the movie does not entertain you enough and doesnt draw you enough into the action so you actually SEE them from the very first second. If the rest of the movie is good enough those gape do not bother much.
As I said before...Nemesis has some things going for it, it just has more going against it. I'd rank it still far higher then Generations or Jar Jar 2009.
no movie is perfect..... at the time of making these trek movies, there is usually so much pressure for them to be better than the last that giant leaps from the norm are taken without forethought
Here is what was wrong with Nemesis. Shinzon is part of the lowest cast of Romulan society and is forced to work as a slave with the Remans. Then he somehow gets hold of the thaloron radiation and then somehow gets a hold of the supplies and resources to build the Schimitar and somehow gets support from high ranking Romulans despite the fact that he is a slave and more than that a human clone. The idea of it was just ridiculous. I'm sure the novel probably explained more of this but what they put into the movie didn't make any since.
These are valid points which is why I didn't rate the film higher. It needed to be explained but it's not hard to think those in high places on Romulus wouldn't find value ina cast-off clone of Jean-Luc Picard, even after he'd had his nose and jaw broken to make for some apparent differences in physical appearance. It's still far better than ST IV and V and less a ponderous cinematic of space opera SFX that TMP was.
Here is what was wrong with Nemesis. Shinzon is part of the lowest cast of Romulan society and is forced to work as a slave with the Remans. Then he somehow gets hold of the thaloron radiation and then somehow gets a hold of the supplies and resources to build the Schimitar and somehow gets support from high ranking Romulans despite the fact that he is a slave and more than that a human clone. The idea of it was just ridiculous. I'm sure the novel probably explained more of this but what they put into the movie didn't make any since.
Well, Shinzon was a noted commander during the Dominion War, that is what the Feds know about him and that was stated during the movie. However, this movie is plagued with bad editing from a guy who is known as a great movie editor (Stuard Baird), so as Will Ferrell puts it, it is mind bottling.
Frankly, all of the Trek movies suffer from ridiculous ideas.
TWOK suffers from Kirk's ineptitude (movie should have been over at the first Reliant v Enterprise battle)
TSFS a starship jerry-rigged to be manned by four people
Well, Shinzon was a noted commander during the Dominion War, that is what the Feds know about him and that was stated during the movie. However, this movie is plagued with bad editing from a guy who is known as a great movie editor (Stuard Baird), so as Will Ferrell puts it, it is mind bottling.
I've seen far worse as far as subpar editing, but the flow could have been better, especially during the Riker fight near the end.
Frankly, all of the Trek movies suffer from ridiculous ideas.
VERY VERY TRUE! No one thinking to check Geordi's visor after he was freed in Generations is another example.
TWOK suffers from Kirk's ineptitude (movie should have been over at the first Reliant v Enterprise battle)
Kirk actually acknowledges his screwup within the film and it also plays into his feelings of being a dinosaur in a new age. Kirk wasn't just any guy in the chair, so one would expect him to be able to recover quickly enough to snuff out Khan right there, but I don't think his gaffes were inconsistent with the character at that stage.
TSFS a starship jerry-rigged to be manned by four people
Basically all they could do was drive it and jump in and out of warp. With a full crew they woudln't have gotten plowed by that warbird even with the damage that still needed repaired. Now, if they had stolen Enterprise out of drydock as it was being repaired for its last trip to the museum with a skeleton crew of say, 25 additional people, that I could buy a little more. Then again, in order to have Kirk be able to blow the ship up, those 25 would have to either been beamed to the surface as additional hostages before he and the others on the bridge tripped the self destruct. Contrived either way, but I can live with the four guys able to make the ship move and little else.
Accepted, but part of the reason for that is that going to the cinema has become much cheaper than it was in the 70s and 80s. The theatre-going audience is much bigger now than it was back then.
And for the record, I liked the Abrams films; I'm just a stickler for the facts. Even when those tables support my view, I try to remember that they're still leaving out stuff.
Well, I was responding to your comment of:
Originally Posted by ryan218 View Post
If you take into account inflation, ST:ID and 09 earned a lot less money than you think they did.
"Quality" of ANY fictional work is always VERY subjective as this thread (by it's responses) in general shows.
Also, I don't know what world you're living in, but as someone who grew up and went to films in the 1970ies, and 1980ies, no, going to the cinema is not cheaper now then it was then. In fact, it's cheaper now to wait for the film to come of On Demand/Blu-Ray/, et. al. and with the home theatre systems available, you don't miss the 'theatre' experience much (if at all) in the bargin.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Comments
yes, but if you look at this page (link) and scroll down a bit to look at the 'adjusted for inflation' section, Star Trek 2009 IS the top grossing film; and the only films that (again adjusted for inflation) grossed more than ST:ID were ST:TMP and STIV:TVH.
So, sorry, the Abrams films did quite well for the franchise from a Box Office perspective.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
The Undiscovered Country... The best bridge setting on both Excelisor and Enterprise A, very military theme and the Music is Awesome.
Star Trek 3, the destruction of the Enterprise. Stealing the Enterprise was awesome. Excelisor got left behind lol.
Star Trek 2. the battle scenes.
Generations.. Finally seeing the Enterprise B, and the destruction of the D.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
-Simply because it's my personal favorite. I'm a sucker for time travel episodes, and this film did it justice. Hell, as a kid, I would get up on a sunny Saturday morning and watch this film instead of Saturday morning cartoons. Hell, I listen to "Invisible Touch" & "Take Me home" by Genesis, and they both remind me of this film. Hell, every time I listen to Invisible Touch, I imagine TVH end credits, and every time I listen to Take Me Home, I imagine Jim Kirk as he was in the film singing this tune. Enough said.
WORST TREK FILM:
Star Trek: Nemesis
-I don't even have to say why it's the worst - just the first 10 minutes of this film alone is enough to make you want to vomit and go all "Bill Gates wake up with with Oprah's money" resulting in throwing yourself out a window.
BEST HONORABLE MENTIONS:
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek: First Contact
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
Star Trek (2009)
Galaxy Quest <-(counts as a trek film IMO)
Star Trek: The Motion Picture <-(OK, before anyone nags at me about adding TMP as an best honorable film and not a worst film, it's simply because I like the film. I like the soundtrack, I like the effects, and the uniforms, and for me the story clicks. So for everyone else who hates this film, I don't care what you think, or what reason you have to hate it, you ain't changing my mind. If I'm the only one in the world who loves TMP, then so be it! Now let's move on.)
WORST (DIS)HONORABLE MENTIONS:
Star Trek: Insurrection
Star Trek Generations <-(only for not having Spock and McCoy in it)
Star Trek Into Darkness <-(Wrath of Khan 2.0, done sideways)
Star Trek V: The final Frontier
View My gallery at http://captricosakara.deviantart.com
Accepted, but part of the reason for that is that going to the cinema has become much cheaper than it was in the 70s and 80s. The theatre-going audience is much bigger now than it was back then.
And for the record, I liked the Abrams films; I'm just a stickler for the facts. Even when those tables support my view, I try to remember that they're still leaving out stuff.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
And Jersey shore has higher ratings then Firefly.
What does that say about the connection between box officer success/ratings and quality?
Worst: Star Trek - The Motion Picture
The motion picture is just a bit too boring. It's not because they don't use violence, but it just isn't that much going on in the movie, and I don't really care for the two "other" protagonists (Decker? and the Deltan).
---
The thing I disliked about the JJ movies where some things that are basically plot holes or plot contrivances or scientific highly questionable. Red Matter I have no problem with, a planet from where you can see Vulcan's destruction was not. It seems to me that the writers weren't really trying there and just put together enough so that through the action and the emotional investment in the characters you wouldn't overthink things. I think they could have done a lot better there if they had bothered. Lazy writing, basically.
But I still love the characters, and I found the general story fine. The Wrath of Khan 2.0 movie stood well on its own and was extra fun if you knew which movie it was based on (at least IMO), and the storyline beyond a Startrek Officer going too far for the sake of his Utopia is always good.
I probably would prefer staying in "Prime Trek", with a new crew, but maybe Startrek has become victim of its own success - the original characters are the ones that everyone knows and loves and establishing new ones has turned difficult.
1.Star Trek II: Even now, this simple, but tight story, wove character development in with tense battleship drama and action. Spock's sacrifice was a poignant moment that transcended genre confines.
2.Star Trek VI: I was surprised to see people put this among their worst. This film asked hard questions within this story of political intrigue about forgiveness, xenophobia, etc. without resorting to becoming a preachy morality play that the TNG-era shows and other SF at the time often served up. It was a poignant final exit for the original cast.
3... is Star Trek III: In most cases when a character is brought back from the dead, it cheapens their sacrifice. Here, the stakes were never higher. Up to this point, Kirk and crew never had put so much on the line. Destroying an iconic ship like the Enterprise was even more unthinkable than killing off an iconic character like Spock. But Kirk did what had to be done, and somehow a contrived resurrection leaves the audience satisfied.
4. First Contact: The best TNG film. This had the size and scope to justify the big screen and Patrick Stewart lended the gravitas with Alfre Woodard to make this more than just a cracking good SF action film. Brent Spiner and the others also turned in some of the best onscreen performances of their careers.
5. Generations: The plot was immensely simple, sure. This film was a transition piece solely which I think is why there's so much negativity toward it in some other posts. This was a tasty meal but not the steak I feel we got with the above choices. It wasn't poorly written, just a little too simple. In the end it served its purpose while giving us a fun ride with two iconic captains saving the universe together--and who can forget the final descent of the Enterprise D?
6. Nemesis: Fanboys/girls have their narrow idea of what Trek is and they're missing some damn good stuff here. I wouldn't have picked this to be the sendoff for the TNG cast, but this dark, brooding film is almost neck and neck with Generations. I still don't understand how someone can think the writing on a show like Voyager was superior to this film.
7.The Motion Picture: Much like Generations, this film's appeal lies in the event itself than the story. Yeah it's Nomad 2.0 dragging a solar system of junk with it, yeah it at times bogged down, but I can forgive that because it was a *smarter* SF film than what was coming out at the time. It was about getting the band back together. It was a pretty good film that needed to be great after nearly a decade of trying to get Trek off the ground again.
Now th rest...
8 and 9: The Abramsverse. The summer blockbuster tone gets on my nerves at times, but these were both very well cast and told compelling stories, if very contrived in spots. Sure, I wish they could have made up their minds how big the damn ship was supposed to be, among other things but I hope time will lend objectivity to fanboy/girl rage that these two films don't deserve.
10. Star Trek IV: This film is endearing, but rather small and really is just a Greenpeace promo. The message is an important one and it was told in a fun way, but I see it and am just reminded of the morality plays that too often radiated through the TNG shows down the line.
11. Insurrection: Would have been a great two part episode of the show. Not worth the price of tickets and popcorn though.
12. The Final Frontier: Horta TRIBBLE.
Here is what was wrong with Nemesis. Shinzon is part of the lowest cast of Romulan society and is forced to work as a slave with the Remans. Then he somehow gets hold of the thaloron radiation and then somehow gets a hold of the supplies and resources to build the Schimitar and somehow gets support from high ranking Romulans despite the fact that he is a slave and more than that a human clone. The idea of it was just ridiculous. I'm sure the novel probably explained more of this but what they put into the movie didn't make any since.
You can as easily say : "here is why first contact is the worst Star Trek movie ever. The Borg approach Earth having the capacity to time travel and still decide engage the federation fleet instead of using that advantage in the first place."
You can find logic gaps in any movie, some more some less serious.
The problem with that aren't the gaps themselves. The problems comes more when the movie does not entertain you enough and doesnt draw you enough into the action so you actually SEE them from the very first second. If the rest of the movie is good enough those gape do not bother much.
As I said before...Nemesis has some things going for it, it just has more going against it. I'd rank it still far higher then Generations or Jar Jar 2009.
These are valid points which is why I didn't rate the film higher. It needed to be explained but it's not hard to think those in high places on Romulus wouldn't find value ina cast-off clone of Jean-Luc Picard, even after he'd had his nose and jaw broken to make for some apparent differences in physical appearance. It's still far better than ST IV and V and less a ponderous cinematic of space opera SFX that TMP was.
Well, Shinzon was a noted commander during the Dominion War, that is what the Feds know about him and that was stated during the movie. However, this movie is plagued with bad editing from a guy who is known as a great movie editor (Stuard Baird), so as Will Ferrell puts it, it is mind bottling.
Frankly, all of the Trek movies suffer from ridiculous ideas.
TWOK suffers from Kirk's ineptitude (movie should have been over at the first Reliant v Enterprise battle)
TSFS a starship jerry-rigged to be manned by four people
I've seen far worse as far as subpar editing, but the flow could have been better, especially during the Riker fight near the end.
VERY VERY TRUE! No one thinking to check Geordi's visor after he was freed in Generations is another example.
Kirk actually acknowledges his screwup within the film and it also plays into his feelings of being a dinosaur in a new age. Kirk wasn't just any guy in the chair, so one would expect him to be able to recover quickly enough to snuff out Khan right there, but I don't think his gaffes were inconsistent with the character at that stage.
Basically all they could do was drive it and jump in and out of warp. With a full crew they woudln't have gotten plowed by that warbird even with the damage that still needed repaired. Now, if they had stolen Enterprise out of drydock as it was being repaired for its last trip to the museum with a skeleton crew of say, 25 additional people, that I could buy a little more. Then again, in order to have Kirk be able to blow the ship up, those 25 would have to either been beamed to the surface as additional hostages before he and the others on the bridge tripped the self destruct. Contrived either way, but I can live with the four guys able to make the ship move and little else.
Well, I was responding to your comment of:
"Quality" of ANY fictional work is always VERY subjective as this thread (by it's responses) in general shows.
Also, I don't know what world you're living in, but as someone who grew up and went to films in the 1970ies, and 1980ies, no, going to the cinema is not cheaper now then it was then. In fact, it's cheaper now to wait for the film to come of On Demand/Blu-Ray/, et. al. and with the home theatre systems available, you don't miss the 'theatre' experience much (if at all) in the bargin.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."