nice cut and paste job mr. shatner

[Goshzilla]

I've seen better photoshopped special effect jobs done at Kinko's

I'm referring to the dualing Shatners scene. At least it was easy for the one eyed Klingon to figure out which was the bad dye job vs. which was the bad paste job.

[Road_Element]

I really doubt that mr. Shatner had anything to do with the special effect in the film. Either way this movie wasnt that bad. If anything it was one of the best out of the first 6 trek films..

[gammer]

I could tell who the real shatner was, just by looking to see which one had the leg-cuffs on.
The real one did, the fake shatner didn't

[macleod]

I really doubt that mr. Shatner had anything to do with the special effect in the film. Either way this movie wasnt that bad. If anything it was one of the best out of the first 6 trek films..

I know, not saying much, but I have to agree...this is an entertaining movie, unlike V

[Johnny_Short_Torso]

I know, not saying much, but I have to agree...this is an entertaining movie, unlike V

Khan is the best of the Star Trek movies

[shortstack]

The weird thing that I've always found about Undiscovered Country, is that on the one hand it has the goofy, lets-solve-a-mystery-with-spock storyline when they're trying to spring Kirk, but also an underlying political message which sort of gets buried until the end. I've always particularly enjoyed the ending to this one- it gave an appropriate closure to movies with the original cast, and an interesting development in Kirk's character. I also like the concept of peace and change being 'the undiscovered country'.

Of course, this movie is still chock-full of classic Star Trek cheese (pretty much all of them are).  But damn it, why couldn't Insurrection have had something as good as that?

[Johnny_Short_Torso]

why couldn't Insurrection have had something as good as that?

I think it's because the writers put the whole story on autopilot. Their method of action was like this: "Hey, this is star trek, let's just create some cheesy metaphysical message and that should satisfy the audience and fanboys! Also, let's make sure Data has some cheesy lines and make sure there's some action, then it'll for sure be the best trek movie ever!"
After all this time, writers have no idea how to properly balance action, story and drama in a star trek movie. Instead they let loose with inappropriate lines with Data talking to worf about his boobs, when earlier hearing Dr crusher and Troi talking about boobs. And I don't mean the kind you find in a three stooges picture. Yes, star trek has been on a rolling decline since First contact which was the only decent next generation movie. Oh yes, there's the other matter of that stupid cliche that Data says: "Lock and load". Now... with cliches as massively and embarrassingly cheesy as that, you should ONLY be able to get away with saying that only once in the entire run of Star Trek films. Deforest Kelly said it in Star Trek VI!!! But that was long before it became a cheesy and overly used catchphrase all over the nation at your local paintball ranges!!!

[macleod]

I'd have to agree, the fanboys are of a different breed.

The marketing strategy must be "if we give them the uniforms, the dorks will purchase"

[Road_Element]

Personally i really didnt like Nemsis or Insurrection. They took some really great characters and screw them up. But i never found Star Trek 6 to be cheesy. Sure it had its moments. But overall it wasnt the flying pancake episode from the first season. As for the mystery. Well that was one of the things i really liked about Star Trek 6. But im a mystery buff. I like old Sherlock Homes, Dick Tracy, Mr Wong and Charlie Chan Mystery movies. Not to mention stuff like Batman and Shadow. Overall i just dont consider it be bad at all and personally i like almost all of the original Star Trek films and i really dont care what mike and the gang says about them or if people think there chessy. Because mainly i dont care.  Anyways Next to Wrath of Khan. This is my favorite Trek movie.

[gbeenie]

Ironically, the thing that the Original Crew (henceforth to be referred to as "O.G."; word) movies did well, that the Next-Gen movies did not, is the same thing that ST:TNG the series did well, that wasn't even a consideration on the original show: continuity and context.

Starting with the second one, the O.G. Star Trek films had an almost episodic structure, where each successive movie built on both the events and the character developments of the previous installments. Part of the reason Star Trek V is SO bad as a Trek movie (apart from its general suckitude) is that it's completely disposable. It can be dropped from the Trek movie series entirely (heck, I don't even own a copy, and my partner will not let me pay more than $5 for one, even for RiffTrax purposes) and have no appreciable effect on II,III, IV and VI as an enjoyable series of films.

Unlike the show they're based on (which took the idea of ongoing continuity to an eventual extreme, wherein it became virtually impossible to pick up the last couple Trek series mid-stream) the Next Generation films seemed content to almost completely disregard the previous film(s). Data finally installs his emotion chip, and has REAL TROUBLE dealing with the ramifications (one of the strongest features of Generations, in my view)? Not to worry: by First Contact, he'll have figured out how to turn it off (although the stuff with the "seduction" of Data by the Borg is my favorite part of that movie); by Insurrection (STUPID title), he'll be able to remove it and will behave pretty much the way he did at the beginning of the TNG series (did anyone read this fucking script before it got greenlighted?); and by Nemesis (which has a Data-centric subplot, fer cryin' out loud), they won't even bother to mention it. The producers worked overtime to try and make the Next-Gen films self-contained (ostensibly to increase their box office with a general audience). What they succeeded in doing was to make them insular and uninvolving, particularly for existing Trek fans.

Now that the Berman/Braga era is over, maybe there'll finally be some room for new ideas. The Star Trek franchise is a license to print money; but you still have to know how to build a goddamn printing press.

[macleod]

Well put, I think
But really, continuity wasn't the best thing in the world for the movies...after all, it produced movies II, III, and IV. I mean, Star Trek III was terrible, and only there because of the continuity issues.

I don't care about some meaningful development in between the movies...especially when they were only longer episodes...

[Johnny_Short_Torso]

Star Trek III was terrible

Pardon my saying so... but... BULLSHIT!!!!!

[Road_Element]

Well put, I think
But really, continuity wasn't the best thing in the world for the movies...after all, it produced movies II, III, and IV. I mean, Star Trek III was terrible, and only there because of the continuity issues.

Well i dont think the whole continuity thing was really on perporse. After Wrath of Khan, Nemoy didnt want to play Spoke again. But fans wanted him back and Nemoy said that he wouldnt come back unless he could direct it. So if they where going to bring spook back it would have to take place after STII. As for Star Trek IV, well they had to find a way to get Kirk and the gang off on stealing and blowing up a starship. Whats a better way to do that but to save the world. Overall i dont find Star Trek III to be bad either. Anyways you do have other movies that have continuing continuitys and i would find them to be bad just because they do so. As for the Next Gen movies. I dont care most of them (especially the last two) because they sucked compared to the series that spawn them. Not to mention all the missed opportunity.

[macleod]

Well, I'll agree with that much.

When you compare the original Trek with the TNG franchise, the latter is just laughably mediocre

[gbeenie]

Well put, I think
But really, continuity wasn't the best thing in the world for the movies...after all, it produced movies II, III, and IV. I mean, Star Trek III was terrible, and only there because of the continuity issues.

I don't care about some meaningful development in between the movies...especially when they were only longer episodes...

Well, as I mentioned in the post you're responding to, the O.G. movies were (largely) successful as films BECAUSE they were different from the series. One of the key elements in successful dramatic fiction is that the characters are affected by their experiences, just like real people would be. It's the basis for every good dramatic TV show or series of films I've ever seen. And for those of us who grew up on Star Trek, these characters are very much like friends; we care about what happens to them, and we worry when we see them doing things we don't understand.

Which brings me to Star Trek III. This film gets unfairly maligned by a lot of Trek fans; primarily, I think, because of some of its weaker plot elements, such as the entire idea of resurrecting Spock (even without the benefit of online communication back then, I can tell you that his death affected Trek fans. A LOT.), or the tiresome, pedantic message about "the dangers of playing god" ingrained in the Genesis Planet subplot.
For me, although ST III doesn't have quite the emotional punch of Star Trek II (every time I watch the funeral scene, when Kirk's voice breaks during his eulogy for Spock, I get teary-eyed. EVERY SINGLE TIME. Heck, I'm actually feeling a little misty just thinking about it RIGHT NOW. I am NOT kidding.), there are a lot of elements in the film that resonate. For those of you who've ever lost your best friend, maybe even forever: what would you do to get them back? Would you risk your entire career, everything you've ever known as your life, and even that life itself to get your friend back, as Kirk does? And, when faced with the choice, would you be willing to destroy the thing you love most in the entire universe (in Kirk's case, his ship) in order to possibly save the people you care about most? I realize this seems like an over-dramatization, but these are important human questions, very much about one's morality and learning what it is you have inside of you. The best science fiction is that which makes its way past the fantastical, superficial trappings of the genre, and explores the nature of our very real and essential selves. Maybe because these questions are addressed in an allegorical, metaphorical way in sci-fi explains why it appeals to many in ways other kinds of fiction does not (still waiting to hear about an E.R. or West Wing convention).

Also, Star Trek III features the single best line of Future Sulu Subtext imaginable:

"Don't call me 'tiny.'"