|
Post by burrunjor on Apr 30, 2024 20:12:30 GMT
whilst the 80s had unquestionably the best films in the series My big issue with the 80s films is that they don't really recapture the ethos of the show. TOS had many cinematic episodes that could easily be used as the baseline for a movie - like the Corbomite Maneuver, The Doomsday Machine, Balance of Terror - episodes, which feel grand but are also very imaginative, explore certain humanitarian issues and show the crew being intelligent explorers. II, III and IV are just fun blockbusters that have the crew in them. V sort of aims in the old-school direction, but it's more like the goofier side of TOS. Which is fine, but again, the potential for a really great Original Series movie is missed. If only The Motion Picture hadn't shit the bed in its second act, it could've been that. But oh well. (I have very few positives about The Undiscovered Country) Wrath of Khan is vastly superior to any episode of the original series and arguably so is Star Trek 3.
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Apr 30, 2024 21:10:43 GMT
Ohhhhh... them's fighting words!
I reject both statements, with great passion. Star Trek has so many incredible episodes.
Wrath of Khan is fun. It's a well made adventure film. But it's not complex. Search for Spock doesn't even belong in the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Apr 30, 2024 21:16:03 GMT
I mean, comparing the best of TOS to Wrath of Khan is like comparing Curse of Fenric to Dalek Invasion of Earth. Innovative and emotionally gripping television cannot fall beneath a slick-looking action/adventure.
|
|
|
Post by iank on Apr 30, 2024 21:29:27 GMT
TUC is literally the best Trek movie.
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Apr 30, 2024 21:44:38 GMT
TUC is literally the best Trek movie. I can see why people would say that, I just don't get any enjoyment out of it. There's a fantastical, larger-than-life element to Star Trek that's entirely missing in The Undiscovered Country. That movie could, almost by design, be a television movie set on Earth. It's too serious and too grounded in real life issues to be entertaining. The conspiracy isn't very compelling. We know the crew didn't do it. So it's just a question of "which thinly written supporting character is responsible". And as much as I love Christopher Plummer, he's barely in the movie. They want him to be the next Montalban, and he isn't. Seeing Kirk turn into an anti-Klingon racist for his final film isn't very charming either. I get the point and I get what motivates his hatred, but I fully understand why Roddenberry was turned off by it. It reduces him. The only scenes I really enjoy are Kirk and McCoy on the prison planet, and the ending with Kirk's beautiful "second star to the right" quote.
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on May 1, 2024 8:33:29 GMT
I kind of agree with Rushy re TOS vs the movies. Whilst the original series was a mixed bag, it had many episodes with great SF concepts, many written by acclaimed SF writers. Whilst I love some of the films for different reasons, they don't come close to best TOS episodes in terms of SF concepts. IMO, the films are much more about the characters, and work because they are beloved characters more than anything else. However, breaking it down into having to choose a favourite decade is problematic for me, because I think Trek is a mixed bag right from the start. Having said that, I choose the '60s overall, because the best episodes (I'd say TOS is approximately 1/3rd excellent, 1/3rd good, and 1/3rd poor) I'd say are more groundbreaking and conceptual SF (on tv) than anything which came after, apart from maybe TNG, which also had some great SF concepts along the way, although it did seem to have a pre-occupation with time paradoxes.
So for me it would go like this:
STAR TREK is my favourite. (or around 70% of it)
STAR TREK ANIMATED
Some of the stories are actually pretty good, but it's animated so I struggle with it.
STAR TREK MOVIES My personal favourites are:
THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK (almost 1st equal) THE WRATH OF KHAN
Tier 2: (Good/Enoyable enough)
THE MOTION PICTURE (Good SF, but poor pacing) THE FINAL FRONTIER (Flawed by trying to be good SF, but compromised by trying to replicate the comedic success of IV) FIRST CONTACT (Good film overall. If only Picard had been more like this from the outset)
Tier 3: (Poor/Not my bag)
THE VOYAGE HOME (It's basically a Disney movie. Family friendly. You can watch this with your gran) lol GENERATIONS (Really doesn't do it for me. Shatner is terrible. Very poor send-off for Kirk. Should've stuck with TUC) INSURRECTION (Boring. Like a poor TNG episode stretched out to film length. What happens in this one again?) NEMESIS (Just dire)
TNG
S1: is largely dull, but a smattering of good eps. The cast take forever to gell. S2: as above, but a few more good eps. The cast still feel a bit wooden. S3: The cast are finally starting to hit their stride. Good episode ratio on the up. Banging season cliffhanger. S4 to S7: Largely good, with a few really poor, but many more excellent eps.
DS9
S1: The most boring season to date. 2 or 3 good eps. Wooden as f*ck cast. S2: A few more good eps, but still largely dull. Still struggling to like any of the characters. S3: Picks up a lot towards the end. And the ratio of good eps is increasing. S4 to S7: Worf is a shot in the arm. The complex Cardassian stuff is intriguing, and the Dominion War stuff is really good. Can't stand the dull, soapy O'Brien family crap, or the tedious Ferengi episodes though.
VOYAGER
S1 to S3: Not bad, but starting to feel a bit Trek by numbers by now. Fairly uninspired, generic cast apart from the Doctor. S4 to S7: Better, and more good eps, but I still struggle to remember any outstanding ones. This is basically to Davo era. lol
ENTERPRISE
S1: The best and most consisent opening season of any Trek spin-off. Some of the cast actually have a bit of charisma, even this early on. S2 to S4: For me, this feels fresh after Voyager. I'm aware that Enterprise was so unpopular that it was cancelled early. I could never understand why. I liked it better than Voyager, most of DS9, and at least half of TNG. Go figure.
NuTREK MOVIES
Didn't mind the first one so much, although it wasn't great. But the last two were just facepalm level crap.
DISCOVERY
Struggled through S1, but didn't really care. The Captain Pike stuff in S2 wasn't bad, but even so I gave up after that, and skipped to SNW.
STRANGE NEW WORLDS
Mixed feelings at first. Nice to get back seperate adventures rather than arcs. I thought S1 wasn't too bad, but not great. I went off it during S2 though. Just feels like they're using the characters to get mileage out of Trek. It's not the worst ever, but it doesn't feel quite right.
PICARD
I've put this last because I haven't actual seen it yet. It's in my 'To Watch' pile, but I haven't worked up a lot of enthusiasm despite seemingly good reviews. Seeing the trailers of Picard looking about 95 didn't help. I'll get round to it one day though. What do you guys think of it?
|
|
|
Post by iank on May 1, 2024 9:00:52 GMT
Season 3 of Picard was really good, a full TNG reunion and sendoff. The first two were apparently dogshit so I avoided them entirely. I've thought of Voyager as Trek's Davo era myself lol
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on May 1, 2024 9:07:16 GMT
I kind of agree with Rushy re TOS vs the movies. Whilst the original series was a mixed bag, it had many episodes with great SF concepts, many written by acclaimed SF writers. Whilst I love some of the films for different reasons, they don't come close to best TOS episodes in terms of SF concepts. IMO, the films are much more about the characters, and work because they are beloved characters more than anything else.To be honest I'd say that is true for most of Star Trek. I honestly don't think it was the best for sci fi concepts. I mean the premise is great and there were some fantastic ideas throughout the series don't get me wrong. It's not like its sci fi was pedestrian or anything, but honestly I don't think when it came to sci fi ideas that it could match Doctor Who. Its aliens were never as colorful or imaginative for instance, its planets were never as fleshed out, it didn't, barring a few exceptions like Khan have as interesting villains or monsters etc. What made it the classic it was for me at least was the compelling characters, their relationships with each other and their interactions. Take Balance of Terror for instance. Undeniably one of the greatest ever episodes, but what makes it work are the character interactions, and the dilemma we see Kirk go through. The Romulans themselves meanwhile are fairly generic badguys from a sci fi point of view when compared with the Daleks, the Cybermen, or hell even the Ice Warriors or the Sontarans. However that's okay as the point of that story is to present a more thoughtful, measured take on the space war. Unlike the Daleks there is no easy answer of let's just blow them up because they are the bad guys. Similarly the Apollo episode, by that stage that was a fairly unoriginal idea of the gods were aliens, but the fact that Apollo is a more tragic character we can actually empathise with and it's sad seeing how we've outgrown him is what makes it so compelling. Possibly my favourite episode of TOS, the one with Spock and the cave babe meanwhile is again great because of the tragedy of the love story, with the sci fi concept being a bit more basic when compared with say Inferno. In that respect I think the films like Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock are a perfect follow on from the series, but honestly they do it better than the show, though I do agree that the films wouldn't work as well if they didn't have the show to draw on, but to be fair you could say the same about any great entry of something that comes years later like Genesis of the Daleks that also wouldn't be as effective if we hadn't seen the Daleks for decades before hand. Honestly it's funny because I think modern who and Trek seem to get it the wrong way round in some respects. DW actually doesn't have as interesting lead heroic characters as Star Trek. The Doctor obviously is more interesting in some respects simply because he is an alien, but overall he's not really a character you should explore in too much detail, whilst the companions come and go. DW's strength lies in the fact that due to its varied format, it can be used as a vehicle to tell incredibly imaginative stories and focus entirely on the adventure. Star Trek with a more limited premise, focuses on the characters and is more thoughtful with them. Modern who however tries to be a big character piece at the expense of its stories, whilst a lot of modern Trek like those awful J J Abram movies focus more on make them big, epic action adventure stories vithout any of the thoughtful character development. Of course both the modern versions are also tired, politically shallow, and made by nepo hacks who don't have any care for either franchise too LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on May 1, 2024 9:39:57 GMT
Well I wasn't making any comparisons with Who, but more directly with the wider Trek universe, and most specifically with the movies, as per the previous debate between you and Rushy. Who vs Trek is entirely another debate altogether, and I would be advocating for Dr Who as well. In the context of the original discussion, I think people tend to forget how much reliance there is on ideas that the original series did first, and concepts that were conceived right back to The Cage. The Wrath of Khan is a deeper exploration of the characters, and then the kind of strategic space battle that echoes Balance of Terror. Although Balance of Terror, despite being one of my favourite episodes, is basically 'The Enemy Below' in space. (Although I love The Enemy Below as well, so... lol) The biggest mistake that The Enemy Below makes is that space is supposed to be in 3d, but they play it like a 2d submarine battle) lol I think the Genesis device/planet is probably the best concept that the films came up with, but the rest of it is using previously established ideas, albeit with more time to flesh out the characters because of the movie length. Which incidentally, they do really well, which is why I like them so much. But aside from that, there's nothing really new. (Even V'Ger was basically Nomad from The Changeling) But if you went through the synopses of a good percentage of the original episodes, there's a plethora of concepts and ideas that previously you'd only find them in SF novels. I think the only thing aside from Who which came up with stuff on that level on TV, was probably The Twilight Zone. They would certainly my Top 3 SF tv shows. Who, Trek, TZ. Obviously lots of great stuff came later, but back in the more pioneering age of tv, it would definitely be those 3 for me. They are the Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and Deep Purple of SF tv.
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on May 2, 2024 4:51:03 GMT
Me when the new ep of Dr Who accidentally comes on in the pub.
|
|