‘Star Trek’ Flicks — Worst to Best: Part 1
by John NolteWith the rebooted “Star Trek” hitting a gajillion theatres at midnight tonight, a good enough excuse has finally arisen to allow for a couple of top 5 posts listing the 10 “Trek” films from worst to best. Okay, I didn’t need an excuse, but I did need an intro sentence with all that information in it.
Other than 10, 9, and 8, which really are difficult to sit through, the remaining 7 are on fairly regular rotation here in my little East L.A. abode. Revisiting the Trek world and spending time with old friends from the original crew is a cinematic pleasure The Hot Little Number I Used to Call Mrs. Harry and I look forward to at least once a year.
–
10. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) – If you’re a fan of high-adventure mixed with compelling themes and interesting characters the final chapter of the Next Generation (TNG) crew is your nemesis. The story itself isn’t as bad as you might think, it’s mediocre to be sure, but the real problem is that this cast is much too bland to elevate blah material. There was never much spark between TNG crew and even less natural warmth. They tried valiantly (and frequently the strain showed), but unlike the original gang, other than Picard, they always came off as chemistry-free television actors who had no business being on the big screen. This meant the material had to deliver the zing the actors couldn’t and the story and direction for “Nemesis” doesn’t come close. A dull villain and listless script can make for a forgettable one-hour television episode, but spread over 116-minutes, this outing should’ve been called “Star Trek: Interminable.”
–
9. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) – Easily the dumbest of the ten with our vanilla TNG crew turning against the Federation in a television-level production heavy on leftist allegory but way lite on compelling action. This might be a good time to stop and confess my white hot hatred for Data — as mawkish and simpering a character as has ever been conceived. He’d win a lame-off with Barney the Dinosaur, and his wide-eyed “escapades” are the worst part of every movie and TV episode his ingratiating presence poisons. Given the chance I would pay all kinds of money to “Office Space” his cloying little needy ass.
–
8. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) – Until “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the George Lucas Sucks,” this was the biggest and most crushing cinematic disappointment of my life. Every day, before the echo of the final bell died, I’d burn out those front school doors, steal through seven backyards and ignore one of the “left-right-left’s” in order to be home in time for the original “Star Trek” (followed by “Wild Wild West” and “Mission Impossible”). Learning that my beloved characters would be given a cinematic resurrection was a nerdy dream come true, and I was there opening day ready to be swept away. The lights dimmed, that fantastic score rose, and … over the course of the next seven hours the life slowly drained from me. In recent years, there’s been an attempt to resurrect Robert Wise’s ode to glacier-paced pretension, but other than a few of the early character moments, the existential trip to V’ger is boring as hell. Still, boring with the original cast beats TV-lite with Data and company.
–
7. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) – The quality of the series takes a big leap here. This is a terrific chapter in a continuing saga that starts with “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” and runs through “Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.” The five films fit effortlessly together and make for a space opera miniseries engrossing through every one of its ten hours. Some weak special effects on the crumbling Genesis planet and an uninteresting villain really hurt this chapter in spots, but the character moments are some of the richest in the series. The bond between Kirk, Spock and McCoy develops into something that will help to carry the rest of the films, and of course the murder of Kirk’s son will be a big part of what drives Shatner’s iconic Captain right up until his death in “Generations.”
–
6. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) – The most frequently derided of the ten, but nowhere near as bad as reputed. William Shatner’s feature directing debut certainly has its share of rough spots, but his focus on the continuing relationship between the characters and the development of who and why they are who they are eventually morphs a misstep into a very good entry. Scotty hitting his head and getting knocked out, Uhura’s odd feather dance, and a truly terrible scene between the three main players after they’re locked up together by Spock’s messianic brother Sybok (who’s hijacked the Enterprise to search for God), would be enough to kill off most films, but after the three escape the narrative immediately sharpens and comes together and the story of these three friends is all the more richer for it.
Tomorrow, the best of the remaining five.
UPDATE: You can read part two here.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
475 Comments
I think I know what number one is going to be. . . just saying. Not a dry eye in the house when Spock dies.
A Data hater? Yes! I liked him better when he's dismantled. Not sure I can tell the TNG movies apart. They're all jumbled together in my fevered brain. I've got to disagree with Star Trek III being ranked #7. It's not that bad. Christopher Lloyd as Kruge was outstanding. Loved his little dog sitting by the Captain's chair.
So you can't call her Mrs. Harry anymore? What do you call her?
If it's not Wrath of Khan, then this list is rigged.
Remember the rule: Even numbered "Treks"; odd numbered "Apes"
"in order to be home in time for the original “Star Trek” (followed by “Wild Wild West” and “Mission Impossible”)"
Wow John, that's exactly what I did. I went with a Star Trek friend to the first movie. What an incredible let down. Wrath of Khan fixed everything though.
ST III is one of the top 5 easy. Khan and ST3 are really one long movie.
Shouldn't the title be "…Worst to Best" or "…Worst to First"? The logic of his title and the article makes it appear he's listed his faves from the top down.
You speak the truth. . .
Thank you. Yes.
You see, the only person on the site without an editor is the editor …
Star Trek: The Motion Picture may not be very good (those pajama uniforms!), but it had one of the most beautiful scores thanks to Jerry Goldsmith.
The first Star Trek film was pretty lame. But the Jerry Goldsmith score is terrific. (Listening to it now.) Goldsmith's stuff almost never disappointed, and almost always elevated mediocre material on screen.
That's what I was gonna ask.
He might of done it to see if anyone actually reads the intro paragraphs or not.
Got to strongly disagree here. #5 Final Frontier is my least favorite of the films, even including the lamest of the Next Generation films. Because I cared much more for the original crew, it was more painful. Even the chemistry between Kirk, Spock and McCoy seems forced in this film as they sing their oh so painful renditions of "Row, row, row your boat." And yes, the Urhura dance and the Scotty head boink are the ultimate indignity for these under used players.
Word has it Shatner was always jealous of his screen time, of any other player outshining him, and he manages to direct everyone into pitiful performances in this film.
And I don't think III is too bad, breaking the odd-even rule. I was much sadder to see the Enterprise die rather than Spock, because I believed a true ressurtion was more unlikely.
I liked the TNG movies, but I have to agree about it being little more than TV actors on the big screen. It's similar to Stargate or Highlander, which made for great series, but not right for the big screen. Serenity translated so much better (although didn't do much at the box office). I'm still hoping the new one will lead to a higher level of film for the Star Trek Universe. Wrath Of Kahn was great, but didn't lead anywhere for the series (which went right back to mediocrity).
I must be the only one who liked The Motion Picture. I will grant that it had severe pacing problems in the middle (going from outside V'ger to inside, the bald probe thing that used to be the commander's GF), but I thought the first half-hour were filled with great nostalgia/reunion moments, with nice special effects for the time. The end (SPOILER?) with the huge ship grown out from the old NASA probe was a cool sorta twist. It seemed (I think) to really have that slightly thoughty bent present in the best episodes of TOS.
Plus Bumpy Head Klingons!
But yeah, Nemesis was garbage.
Me too! Jim Kirk, Jim West and Jim Phelps.
This review was well worth a read if only to be vindicated by the "white hot hatred of Data." At least he eventually ditched that stupid "emotions" chip that supposedly made him more human (oops, not really–just way more annoying, and that's saying something).
Looking forward to the rest of your review!
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country is EASILY my favorite.
Every time I see "Kahn" instead of "Khan" in describing Star Trek II, I keep picturing Madeling Kahn facing off against Kirk. Would have been a good parody.
Oops. I mean Madeline Kahn.
I've felt that it has never been a contest about which was the very worst Star Trek film. It was Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Who knew they could turn a Star Trek movie into a Save the Whales PSA. I'm no Trekie, but I enjoyed the original series as a kid. Boy was I ticked the moment I realized where that movie was headed.
I was just a kid when I saw ST #1 at the theatre, and alI remember is the Enterprise flying through a giant candle shop for about 6 hours with intermittent cuts to Kirk's awestruck visage. Wrath of Khan was the best, followed by The Undiscovered Country (Christopher Plummer quoting Shakespeare in the original Klingon!!).
Data hatred? With TROI in the Cast! Gadzooks, man! Every time that woman came on the screen, I wanted to rip out my eyes. I despised her.
TNG was AWFUL. What made the original "Star Trek" superior is the top quality actors (this was before Shatner became Shatner), the intelligent scripts which overcame the lousy special effects (salt shakers for medical diagnostics). It was PC before we knew what PC was — An African-American, an Asian, A European (Hispanics weren't "in" then), a white guy and – HOLY SMOKE! A half-human alien! I loved it!
I also despised the save the whales rant, but loved the bit where Spock gave the punk rocker the Vulcan neck pinch. "Double dumbass on you!" was also pretty funny.
I've never seen Nemesis, but based on all I've read and heard about the film, I'm not exactly too eager to go see it.
Insurrection I found to be okay, story wise, but on the whole remains a purely entertaining film.
The Motion Picture is better than I think is given credit for here. The real letdown is how the story wraps up after the crew discovers the origin of VGER. Even then, it's a letdown I can deal with.
The Search For Spock remains the best of the Star Trek films for the reasons you state, as well as how the bonds between all the characters leads them to risk everything to save their friend and comrade.
I'm glad to know The Final Frontier is getting some love, just when it seems nobody is giving it. It's one of a very few of the Star Trek films that truly embodies the immortal line To boldly go where no man has gone before.
Good calls, every one. Though I'd have flipped #9 and #8.
ST:The Movie almost killed the franchise in the cradle.
Thank Rodenberry for ST II.
Prediction for tomorrow:
5. Generations
4. First Contact
3. The Undiscovered Country
2. ST IV: The Voyage Home
1. ST II: Wrath of Khan
And as long as no one casts George Clooney as Capt. Kirk, the movie franchise shows no signs of fading.
Um… the discussion of bad parts in V does not include God being a floating alien head with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" ghosts jumping all around it? Seriously?
Nemesis is a listless film. Many of the little things bug me, including but not limited to:
-Wesley's appearance at the wedding in uniform, which is explained in one of the A Time To… novels
-Worf's reappearance on the Enterprise bridge, also explained in one of the novels
-no mention of Lore, not to mention the ease with which they locate the positronic signal
-Shinzon… I'm still conflicted whether my lukewarm opinion is due to Tom Hardy's acting or John Logan's writing
-director Stuart Baird… Executive Decision is one of my guilty pleasures and he is a great editor but, unlike Wise/Bennett/Meyer, he failed to do his homework and sadly, didn't seem to care
-Rick Berman/John Logan/Brent Spiner… I have respect for all three and I was never part of the "anti-Berman" brigade but I have to ask… what happened? Is it a case of a hack screenwriter flaunting his Trekkie credentials? A talented actor with too much veto power? (See: Stewart, Patrick) A worn out producer stuck in television mode?
-they completely wasted the talents of Dina Meyer, Alan Dale, and Ron Perlman
-I'm not one for pointing out scientific gaffes but even in the theater I realized the Enterprise couldn't crash into the Scimitar, and then reverse without dragging the Scimitar with it! (unless the Scimitar was also reversing)
However, the visual effects are excellent and the score has grown on me (it's a better listening experience on the bootleg) but the film is simply two hours of wasted potential at 24fps.
Regarding Star Trek V, while it's far from a perfect movie (it’s conceptually flawed, the visual effects are 95% awful, the Enterprise makes it to the center of the galaxy in no time at all, the ending is anti-climactic, etc.), it does have heart, and it wears that heart on its sleeve. The Big 3 are at their best in this film. I actually like the campfire scenes, including “Row, Row, Row Your Boat.” This film asks the classic Star Trek questions: Who are we? Why are we here? Is this all that there is? Sybok is an interesting, charismatic villain who sadly isn’t served well by the script and I think Laurence Luckinbill turned in a fine (and underrated) performance. Shatner proves himself to be a decent director who happened to be saddled with a WGA strike, a Hoboken visual effects house inexperienced with motion control work, a studio that wanted more humor in the film after the success of Star Trek IV, a serious lack of funds, and basically no ending when all was said and done. And Jerry Goldsmith contributed a wonderful score.
The film has grown on me over the years. I would rank it ahead of Star Trek: Nemesis and possibly Insurrection as well. I think it might also have to do with where I am in my own life right now and for that reason, one of my favorite scenes in the film (and I’m sure it’s a favorite for many) is the observation lounge scene with Kirk’s famous line: “I don’t want my pain taken away, I need my pain!” For me, that scene is one of the top ten scenes in a Star Trek movie. I’ve come to appreciate the film for what it tries to do. Most films don’t set their sights that high but I believe this one did. To paraphrase executive producer Ralph Winter in the DVD making-of: “Too much enthusiasm, not enough discernment.”
A ship counselor? How touchy feely can you get? I originally hoped she would function as some sort of diplomat trying to get a tactical advantage over whoever Picard was dealing with. Instead, she became an interstellar Dr. Phil! Troi, what a tool!
I agree with Growltiger but I wanted to add my own 2¢…
Thank You Sir Nolte for saying what I've been saying since Trek went to the movies. Especially the films dealing with TNG! Except for some of the 'Borg' issues TNG has been boring, boring oh and boring. I've never liked Data. To me he is Jar Jar or even The Ewoks of Star Trek. I admire Patrick Stewart's acting and he is a truly wonderful Professor X (He was born for that role) but as Capt. Picard? Who wants a thinking-man as a Captain. He's always debating the pros-n-cons of any action or reaction. He's Jimmy Carter in Space but with better acting.
I also agree that Insurrection looked awful. It's been that way through alot of the Trek movies. It's like Paramount said don't abuse our Discover card on the Production values.
Now we have J.J. Abrams. He gets it. His Mission rocked, His Monster flick rocked, Lost truly rocks and Alias wasn't bad except for the network tinkering that disrupted it's storyline. I've been telling anyone who will listen that based on the trailer there has been more thought and expenditure on this reboot then all ten of the previous attempts.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture I believe has aged like a fine wine (Bones' disco-era civilian outfit notwithstanding). It also has great visual effects (which should've won the Oscar), a great Jerry Goldsmith score (ditto), and asks the big questions. I've shown it to friends of varying degrees of fandom and they get it.
Star Trek: Insurrection is one of the few times that I've DISAGREED with the crew's actions. And I'm fond of joking with my Trek geek friend, "This is the one where they save the planet full of those alien hippies, you know, those white people who look like us!"
It does however have a great score (by Goldsmith again).
Number IV sucked apart from the parts where it didn't.
The dialog bits had it's moments, the awkwardness of the future meting the past. The clear aluminum? still waiting for that. But the whales? blech
Nolte, you must have had a better sense of quality than I did at your age.
Like you, I bolted from school to catch Star Trek. I couldn't not have been more impatient for the Star Trek Movie (!!!!).
Wont you admit that even though it was an overlong movie with a plot taken right out of an episode, that it had you completely hypnotized? In retrospect, yeah it was a poor movie. But weren't you in the moment at the time?
I was a smitten geek boy from the moment that the three Klingon battlecruisers entered the scene. And seeing the Enterprise bigger than life? Gawd, the movie took my breath away. *
* This might also explain why I wouldn't date for several more years.
He did a lot of LDS back in the hippie days.
I wanted Troi with a fiery passion
man she was my image of a perfect woman at the time.
The best Star Trek movie?
Galaxy Quest
By Grabthar's Hammer, I love Galaxy Quest!
The needs of the few outweigh the hands of a stinking ape?
The needs of the many outweigh the stinking paws of a damn, dirty ape!
With Galaxy Quest it was proven that you can mock something but at the same time praise it. Quest was everything the actual Trek movies wanted to be but fell short.
Oh absolutely. It was a loving jab at Trek and their fans.
I don't see Galaxy Quest mocking Star Trek. It was a loving parody along the lines of Young Frankenstein.
That's it. Thanks!
[...] honor of the new Star Trek movie opening tommorow, there is a great discussion of the worst and best Trek films over at Big [...]
Highlander was a movie first, then two terrible sequels, all before the series was created. Same with Stargate (except for sequels). They both did well at the box office – which was a primary reason they were tried out on TV. Firefly/Serenity was the other way around – and it's plot was just as pedestrian as any one of the episodes (which is to say, still pretty darned good anyway), as one of it's functions was to tie up loose ends as to River, amongst other things.
"in order to be home in time for the original “Star Trek” (followed by “Wild Wild West” and “Mission Impossible”)"
Me, four.
God, the first movie sucked and yeah, WOK has to be number 1. It defibrilllated the franchise.
Here's the thing: Troi was HAWT!
I love Galaxy Quest!
Another great Star Trek movie: Master and Commander.
The Director's Cut of TMP is actually pretty good.
Except for Picard, I disliked StarTrek TNG To me it was 80's "Yuppies in Space"…"For God's sake Jim-they even brought their Shrink along!!!"
I agree Growtinger the Shrink (Troi) must have had 20 variations of 'How are you feeling" (taking-up about 80% of her lines)
And Data…is just a spaced-up Pinocchio
For me, the biggest flaw of ST:TMP was this: there was no banter. There was no sense to me that these folks had been the closest of friends for many many years. They had gone from the Amok Time's "I would be honored, sir" to…almost strangers.
Wrath Of Khan brought back the friendship. "I don't think these kids can steer", indeed.
Personally I hate Star Trek, but John Nolte is one of the main reasons I keep coming back to BH (even if he did disrespect Loretta Young).
Yes, the Spock hold on the idiot on the bus was one of the few bright spots.
Will somebody in the new film PLEASE adominsh the skipper with "She's givin me a she's got a Jim!" in a thick Scotish brogue and "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a miricle worker!".
One of the commenters was mistaken about Stargate, it started on the big screen with, Kurt Russell and James Spader and then went to the small screen.
Amen!
Boy, nothing 'outs' me more than putting me in the midst of Trekkies. I haven't a clue what you're talking about – and the point is – I don't wanna.
Sorry, folks. The only Star Trek I go near is the original series – the black and white original series on television. To me, everything else is blasphemy.
Funny, I always kind of liked the Data character. Yes, they should have beamed him (and the writer) directly into deep space when he got that damn "emotion chip." That was bad acting at its best. But overall, I didn’t mind him as much as others.
Some who I thought deserved "Phasers on Full:"
Wesley (King of the dorks) Crusher
Troi – Yeah, I got your feelings right here baby.
Whoopi – Too deep, too boring (too angry).
Beverly Crusher – the quintessential plastic, TV actor. (although, that's pretty much all of them, sans Stewart)
Agreed on TMP. I kept waiting for the typical Kirk/McCoy and nothing.
My friends and I did the same thing…it was a geek-fest! Agree w/ the movie review, but boy, I'll never forget the thrill of seeing the Klingon bird of prey near the beginning of the film. All that detail…the camera does a "fly-by" and swings over the top…NEW Klingons….and STEREOPHONIC SOUND!
I'm tellin' ya…geek-fest!
I always found it awkward how she never really counseled anybody outside of the senior officers. She would just sit around and wait for the perfect opportunity to say something insightful which usually wasn't.
Yep…they hit a home run when they chose him. Like I posted earlier, that first scene (for a Trek-geek like me) with the Klingon ship was pretty cool after all those years of lame TV special effects. And Goldsmith's "Klingon Theme" was VERY cool when heard during the Bird of Prey scene near the beginning.
Too bad about the rest of the movie!
Hard not to agree here. If I was like Wesley Crusher, (EVER) when I was a kid, someone should scatter my atoms across 5 galaxies or a '63 Galaxy 500, whichever…..Whoppi Goldberg……bleccch!
Oddly enough, I never could stand Star Trek III. I think Christopher Lloyd as the villain was only part of the problem for me. I can never watch it without seeing him running up to Kirk:
"Kirk! Kirk! Oh my God, we have to go back."
"Why? What's wrong? Do I turn out wrong?"
"No, no, you turn out fine, but it's Spock!"
SOMEONE ELSE WHO THINKS SO!!!
Every time I picked up a Patrick O'Brian book I kept wondering : was he a closet Trekkie? The
I remember the days of Star Trek marathons…back when cable wasnt the default setting for television. 48 hours non-stop of TOS. Then came TMP…I havent seen it in a while, but frankly I dont want to (score notwithstanding) As far as Im concerned WoK is THE first ST movie…and I was particularly thrilled by it because it referenced a book I was reading at the time it came out: A Tale of Two Cities. I thought that was such a fitting way to tell a story especially where Spock was concerned. I hope you put WoK as number one in your final list, because I really think that was the best of the best that all of the actors were to bring to the series. It has some of the best lines too:
"What if we go nowhere?"
"Then this is your chance to get away from it all."
"Khan…I'm LAUGHING at your superior intellect."
"I have been, and always will be, your friend." (*weeps*)
Like another poster, I was really excited to watch ST: IX – but was really let down when I began to realize it was going to be ST: The Whale Movie. You finally do what Ive always wanted to have done to the ST crew, send them back in time, and its actually about WHALES?!
I miss Dr. McCoy…my one deciding factor about the new movie will be how well the actors are true to the original characters…olutely!
I was recently talking with my daughter about upcoming movies. She expressed some doubts about the new Harry Potter picture, and I told her, "Never mind, you'll go see it anyway. Just like I've seen all the Star Trek movies, even the ones that sucked."
"Which ones sucked?" she asked.
"Pretty much all of them," I admitted.
In all seriousness the "Ones That Didn't Suck" list consists of 2, 6, and parts of 4. That's it. None of the Next Generation cast films was any good; I don't know why. Sometimes things just don't translate well between different media, and Star Trek's natural home is one-hour television episodes rather than feature films.
Highlander and Stargate were movies that had little relationship to the series that spun off from them. However, they both have had movies afterward that included the cast (with Stargate it being two direct to DVD projects). That's what I was referring to because it involves the television show's cast, and both were brutally bad, and probably doomed any hope for further projects.
Hey I had a post here…it disappeared?! WHY?
AS I WAS SAYING – someone else who thinks so!! Every time I picked up a Patrick O'Brian book, I kept wondering : is he a closet Trekker?!
(Please dont erase this…)
ACK!!!! SORRY – it really did disappear though!! I refreshed my screen several times!!!
*embarrassed now*
sorry sorry…
"None of the Next Generation cast films was any good; I don't know why"
For me, it was because they (and Voyager, Deep Space Nine) were so PC. There was no character flaws/conflicts/camaraderie during these shows (and movies).
"Captain…we're under attack!"
"Hailing frequencies! If we can just talk to them. If not, senor staff to my ready room for discussion".
Overstated, but that's kind of how it felt.
Plus, every time you had to call Federation security, forget it! They got their butts kicked. Anyway, that PC worldview was translated into every TNG movie.
At least the show "Enterprise" brought in some Federation "Makos" (Marines) in to actually fight like the military would if needed (at least they tried to get closer).
Anyway, regarding the new movie; like the poster on Fox Mulder's office wall…"I want to believe".
Part 1 of 2
I have to say I'm rather surprised that you describe, "Star Trek: Insurrection," as a "leftist allegory." While I agree with the general consensus that it was lackluster, I think the film had a rather conservative message, moreover it was a rather nuanced one (even if not deliberately so.)
Superficially, it is certainly possible to interpret it as "anti-federation" (anti-American) insofar as the big bossy federation is taking advantage of the peaceful Ba'ku, and pro-pacifist as the Ba'ku are being defended, yet overall I think this is a rather shallow interpretation.
As I see it, Picard is clearly the hero among opposing and equally fallacious philosophies and those who self-righteously cling to them. On the one hand, we have the Ba'ku, who claim moral superiority on account of their pacifism. Yet is the untenability of this philosophy not made manifest? The fact that they espouse that life is the greatest good yet cannot defend or preserve their own lives indicates a great problem in their philosophy. They value an abstract notion of life before they even value their own lives thus, in dying, they would in fact demonstrate that other people's lives (the lives of their murderers', in fact) are more valuable than their own.
On the other hand, we have the Son'a. Quite obviously the bad guys and driven by their own actions to desperation, revenge and malice, they are prepared to commit murder, but first they bribe the federation into "relocating" the Ba'ku by offering them the proverbial, "fountain of youth."
But the movie is called "Insurrection" because it is Picard's relation to the federation that is the heart of the story. The federation has gotten in bed with the Son'a and decided to pull "eminent domain" on the Ba'ku to reap the benefits. The fact that the federation was willing to do this clandestinely doesn't make it "more immoral" but it does make it more shameful. They might have been compensated with another planet, but they weren't even asked, thus the compensation would have been simply decided upon by the federation. Also, their planet and its properties were wholly unique, how could they possibly have been compensated?
Thus Picard is caught among thee self-rigteous groups of people: The Son'a are bent on larceny and murder and haven't even attempted to justify it, the federation is justifying larceny on the grounds that 1) "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," 2) it wasn't their original planet so it wasnt' "really theirs" anyway, and 3) the federation knows how to use the unique resources of the planet better than the Ba'ku do.
I think points two and three should sound the bells of any conservative, especially now, but I'd like to tease out the logic of point one. Do the needs of the many really outweigh the needs of the few? This theme bothered me since its introduction as the central element of, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" even more so because Spock somewhat glibly asserts that "logic demands" that it is so. Does it really? Sure you all democratically vote to take away my wealth and redistribute it according to your needs; it would be democratic, but unjust nonetheless. Besides, what are "needs?" Who decides what "needs" means? If you decide to redistribute my property to help others, then you are deciding what "needs" are and thus making them a right. This seems to me to be a contradiction with our American values and our constitution, which assert that one person cannot be untitled to that which can only exist by the work of someone else. This conflict should also appeal to conservatives, especially now. [End part 1, please see part 2 below]
Part 2 of 2
Now in the context of Star Trek II, surely Spock's death was a noble one. Yet he would have died anyway had he not acted, along with the rest of the crew as device went off. Thus he didn't really "altruistically" save them (i.e. save them at his expense), he "merely" saved them, albeit dramatically. His choices were either to die (a morally neutral act in this case), or die and save others (a morally positive act.) His fate sealed (since he was the only one disciplined (capable) enough to work through the pain and repair the drive), he was in fact unable to sacrifice anything; he "simply" did the best he could with what he had, and he acted with great nobility to save the crew. All that considered, what does the quote about "the needs of the many. . ." really have to do with anything? Not being deprived of anything, Spock's needs weren't being weighed against others, and thus the "many:few" relationship of values does not really hold. At most, one might say that Spock undertook a painful death (as opposed to a quick and painless one) to save the lives of the others. Certainly nothing to sneeze at, but the actions do not really have the relationship that the famous quote implies.
All of that said, "Insurrection" disagrees with the quote's premise anyway. The needs of others (be it the vengeance of the Son'a or the comfort of federation citizens) did not outweigh the property rights of the Ba'ku.
Yet back to my first point, the Ba'ku are the last of the "self-rigteous" Picard is caught among. They have values that, however noble, could only exist in a universe where everyone shared them and are thus impossible to maintain in this one without the help of someone willing to do work you consider "too immoral for you." Quite simply, they would have died without Picard, their esteemed pacifism glorified in death and thus destroyed (what life was saved, what affirmed?)
Thus Picard had to choose who was the least wrong, the Ba'ku. Yet the plot doesn't glorify them, they're merely not worthy of the scorn heaped on the federation and the moniker of "evil" branded on Son'a. The plot glorifies Picard, and the movie's real failing is not overtly acknowledging his heroic choice, the choice to declare that yes they are all wrong to some degree, but this group is at least committing no crime and thus having sworn to defend life, he will.
Picard's choice is the hardest; the wisdom of his superiors is faltering, his allies have thrown up their hands in typical [liberal] impractical, ivory-tower, self-righteious hand-washing, and the enemies are at the gates. Nonetheless he follows his own conscience, acting outside the broken system, against a merciless foe, for a people who may or may not deserve to be saved. They don't value their lives enough to consider fighting for them, why should anyone else? Well, they need better people, people who can make the hard calls, who realize that sometimes you can do the moral thing and have horrible results, and sometimes you can do the immoral thing and have something good come of it. (This theme was handled far more deftly in the Star Trek universe in the TNG Episode, "The Masterpiece Society," and in cinema in The Dark Knight.)
The real crime of, "Star Trek: Insurrection," in my opinion, is having left all that unsaid and merely implied. The pieces were there, but not put together. Additionally, the movie makes the Ba'ku too appealing and remains silent on their morality/immorality, effectively sanctioning their pacifism. Nonetheless the untenability of the philosophy is inherent whether it is overtly said or not. I think everything I've said "is in there" in the movie, inherent in the situations, but unelaborated on and sadly, unfulfilled. I'm willing to entertain the idea that they were, in fact, trying to make a "liberal" "pro-pacifist" movie, yet that would have been inconsistent for the character of Picard, who has forcefully defended himself on numerous occasions in the Star Trek universe. Thus please note above I said "The plot glorifies Picard," i.e. the actual actions, not the dialog. Maybe the writers didn't have the guts or desire to say what I suggest, nonetheless the morality of the events they wrote can reasonably be interpreted in this way. I guess I'll just say that whatever they were attempting, I think the above approach is the best way of putting together the pieces that made it on the screen.
Sorry for the rant folks, but movies + Star Trek + philosophy + logic + conservatism = enthusiasm = lotsa words.
I think it is more because he used to be Dirty Harry, and now that he has been "outed" she can be Mrs. Nolte…just a guess.
I grew up loving the original Star Trek series. For years I refused to even give TNG a try. Finally, I was forced into watching the reruns. No one is more surprised than me that I began to really enjoy them. I didn't love all the characters. The character that bugged me the most was Number One. I personally enjoyed DATA. He brought a dimension to the show that I got a kick out of. Sorry if that is not PC on this site, but the fact is that many people enjoyed DATA.
My husband and I will go see the new movie with high hopes since we are both Trek fans from way back!
Not a Trekkie, but I do enjoy it—just not devoted.
Loved Wrath of Khan, because of Montalban! What an actor, and an incredible human being.
That's pretty good. It's not science fiction, but how about Taber from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest confronting Kirk? Or Reverend Jim from Taxi?
John, you've echoed my feelings exactly. TNG was always dull (except for Stewart), Data is lame, and Star Trek V — though horribly flawed — is not as bad as everyone remembers.
I've actually gotten into bar arguments over that last point– mostly because I was talking about Star Trek V at a bar.
The author makes some good arguments, but Star Trek V should probably be at the bottom. (I feel poorly executed should be rated beneath bland and pointless.) It boasts inferior special effects compared to the other films, they added the worst humor ever seen in a sci-fi film (totally misunderstanding why it could only work in Star Trek IV and nowhere else), and the plot is paper thin. (Oh, what? Spock has a half brother we never heard about?)
Star Trek III needs to be in the top five list, and Star Trek Generations needs to be over here. The latter film is a total embarrassment. At least Star Trek V had some nice character moments. Here we have recycled special effects from the movies and TV shows, the most far fetched plot device ever seen (i.e. the nexus, a "magical energy ribbon"), and the death of James Kirk inserted just for the sake of killing him off instead of a sound storytelling reason. He sailed off into the sunset like a hero in Star Trek VI, and here they bring him back for a few minutes just to kick a 30-year hero in the teeth by making him fall off a bridge.
I see him as Jim from Taxi: "What. . . does. . . a. . . yellow. . . alert. . . mean. . .?"
Wesley was awful. Gee, let's have the annoying kid pilot a starship! Worf should have bitch slapped him. Whoopi Goldberg? That was just cruel to Star Trek fans.
Part II wasn't just a good Trek movie. It's one of the best Sci-fi movies ever made. I'm betting that it won't lose its top spot after the new one comes out. I'll be judging for myself in about three hours.
While "Wrath of Kahn" was the best of the movies, the opening sequence to the first of the theater releases, the much castigated 1979 "Star Trek: The Movie" had, inarguably, the best audio/visual intro of all the ST movies. The opening minutes have never been duplicated!
Mike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwLrEcwtFM4&fe...
I'll confess, I enjoyed Data. YES!
I LIKED THAT ROBOT!!!
Great post!
"The real crime of, "Star Trek: Insurrection," in my opinion, is having left all that unsaid and merely implied. The pieces were there, but not put together. Additionally, the movie makes the Ba'ku too appealing and remains silent on their morality/immorality, effectively sanctioning their pacifism."
TNG (and Voyager/Deep Space Nine) did this kind of thing all the time. That's why I always felt it was just too PC.
This movie would have been better if it had been a Science Fiction version of "Hunt for Red October" or "Clear and Present Danger", using all the points that you describe. But, if memory serves, they spent much of the time portraying the Ba'ku so glowingly, as if the writers are telling us; "this is IT! THIS is how life should be…agrarian. Communal living with NO (evil) technology!"
Not that TOS was all that much better, but at least "Wrath of Khan" (and "Undiscovered Country") had MORE of the kinds of conflicts similar to what you describe (both written or directed by Nicholas Meyer…someone OUTSIDE the Trek circle of writers).
"This film asks the classic Star Trek questions: Who are we? Why are we here? Is this all that there is?"
Actually those are the classic Babylon 5 questions. You know, that vastly superior series that DS9 ripped off, badly.
/flamebait
I like Babylon 5, too. I'm actually rewatching the entire series as we speak – I'd only seen the first three seasons so I bought the whole show when the DVD sets went on sale at Best Buy a few months ago.
As I recall, the big B5 question was, "What do you want?"
As for who stole what from whom, I'm not even going near that can of worms!
Star Trek TNG always seemed a little too wholesome, kinda like the Brady bunch in space. The original Star Trek with all of it's crude technology and low tech aliens and adventures (compared to TNG) always had the best story line and actors, IMO. Star Trek TNG was a good 'TV' show with some interesting story lines no doubt, but it was just a tad to goody goody for the big screen.
Star Trek V irritates me because the novelization of it is much better than the movie. I can't remember who wrote it, but they filled in all sorts of plot holes, and they did it without altering the story. What this tells me is that the movie is missing pieces: a few more lines of dialogue, an extra scene or two, and boom, better movie.
My question about The Next Generation …. How does Lt. Worf keep his job? He's the security officer for the flagship. But it gets boarded every week.
Do you really want to tell an angry Klingon he's doing a lousy job? That would scare the heck out of me.
As a ginormous StarTrek fan (and, it seems, the only one here who has watched any of the other series aside from TOS), I feel I need to vent some angry nerd rage at this article.
First off, why all the new stuff hate? Believe me on this, TNG and DS9 got way deeper and more cerebral than TOS ever did. General quality of storylines and acting were consistently far above TOS. That TNG and DS9 are super PC and poor quality is a misconception that I think arises from people who watched the show when it was brand new and gave up on it too early. Unlike TOS which started great and got progressively worse as the episodes rolled out (I hold that Plato's Stepchildren has to be some of the worst TV ever), TNG and DS9 actually got better with time and didn't hit their strides until a season or two in.
As for the list itself, well Star Trek V really IS as bad as everyone says and it deserves the ten spot. The other entries I can live with, save that I'd replace Star Trek 3 with Generations. I see a lot of people calling for STII to be the best film, but I'd have to disagree with that strongly. STII was fun alright and probably the most well known to non-fans, but it was pure camp, and I think that misses the point what makes ST so special and just makes it into another silly-but-fun SciFi franchise. STVI: Undiscovered Country does the best job of taking itself serious, being cerebral, and still delivering the excitement. First Contact should get the second spot and the rest I don't care about. STIV and STII can fight it out for the remaining positions. As I said, STII is fun action camp, but STIV is hilarious (though probably strictly for the fans).
The new star trek movie is nothing but propaganda to promote race mixing.
If I'm not mistaken, Scott, Shatner wanted to put more into the story for Star Trek V, but he had to deal with Paramount, budget restrictions and limited resources in regards to special effects. If it had been up to Shatner, I have no doubt the film would have been better & more enriching.
Even the chemistry between Kirk, Spock and McCoy seems forced in this film as they sing their oh so painful renditions of "Row, row, row your boat."
I thought it was because Kirk, Spock and McCoy were such bad singers that it was painful (I had to say it). I agree Uhura & Scotty were underused, since so much of the story is centered on Kirk, Spock & McCoy, but most of the Star Trek storylines centered on the three of them (Star Trek II, III & VI being examples; only I & IV centers on the entire crew).
As for Shatner, I honestly don't know about any jealousy. I disagree with you on the performances of everyone in Star Trek V; their performances were by no means pitiful, in my opinion. My personal bias is what leads me to claim Star Trek III is the best of the Star Trek films; I like how the crew is willing to risk everything out of friendship to Spock. As Kirk says in the film: "I'm talking about loyalty and sacrifice."
Has anyone else noticed that TNG has aged the worst of all the shows? I can always watchTOS, DS9, Voyager, even most episodes of Enterprise, but watching TNG, most of the episodes just look dated. Though it is funny to see who pops up on that show (such as the guy who plays Aaron Pierce on 24–he played a crewman in several episodes).
You must be logged in to post a comment.