Star Trek 5 is a masterpiece. Ill die on this hill. Its the only film to capture the Kirk/Spock/Bones dynamic from TOS and doesnt break them off into an A plot B plot. Plus, the opening score and yoesmite scenes are cozy af. Nothing is more trek then when kirk touches the plate that says "Where no man has gone before"
@@jonathancurran5366 Well the Star Trek as a phenomena has established its roots on classical music, literature and arts way before Simpsons loaned their influences from popular culture, including Star Trek.
I’ve said it over and over but the Observation Lounge scene with Sybok and the big three is one of the best Character moments in Trek. And the Battle of the Bassen Rift features some of the best Ship-to-Ship combat not only of the franchise but of SciFi in general. Flawed as they may be, but it can’t hate these two movies.
That lounge scene gets me everytime. Spock seeing his father react to his birth, and the camera pans to him with a still disquiet, is the strongest moment I've ever scene Spock, have. As much as I was saddened with McCoy's memory, Spocks memory hits me harder. No son should ever feel that.
My biggest beef with Bad Reboot is the lazy shortcut taken to churn out quick movies. Recast previous characters... have 3 movies that had less emotional investment than Wrath of Khan put in on its own. They basically were if Star Trek was produced like a DC Comics movie. The casting was fine. The sets were acceptable... once you shut off the flare lights that make me think a 2nd unit director is faking drug tests to work.
When Enterprise came out, I was in jail for the first time ever. Pretty much for an unpaid fine. I was in Hennipen county in Minneapolis, mn. A big holding cell full beyond capacity and i was the second whitest guy there. To my shock the only fully white guy asked what tribe I'm from, and I was shocked. Said Red Cliff band Chippewa. Which is true, Anyway, earlier in the biggest most packed holding cell I've ever been in, somehow I got control of the TV.... something i tend to be good at when i visit jails. As I was looking around for something to watch, Enterprise was advertised to start soon, and i was like. Hell, yeah! So it started and that theme song started and i was like.... no... no no no.... No!!! C,mon! I'm in jail and convinced everyone here to watch this! No!!!!
I like The Final Frontier better than the Motion Picture. I don't think Frontier is a particularly good movie, but I wasn't bored to death by it. It even had one of my favorite scenes in a Star Trek movie (when Sybok gives Bones and Spock flashbacks).
I can understand why people didn't like The Motion Picture, but that was a very thought provoking film. A computer collects so much information, that it becomes sentient, self aware, and it starts to ask "what is the purpose of existence"? That is a very profound question to ask in a film. I know the movie was slow, but the concepts it asked with the plot, I enjoyed that. If you think about it Spock was searching for the purpose of HIS life. He ultimately rejected pure logic. Spock finally embraced his human side because he saw how empty just pure logic was. "Jim. This simple feeling is beyond V'ger's comprehension. No meaning, no hope." it completely changes Spock's perspective, he laughed twice, amazed that he never saw it before after fighting his emotions all his life.
"Star Trek V has specific failures in writing and direction while Star Trek I fails across the board: art direction, costuming, music, sound editing." -Sheldon Cooper
@@Satai80 That's just an actor repeating dialogue from a writer that has about as much knowledge of what it's like to work in science as I do to work as a farmer. The writer, I doubt, even saw the film.
Just to be contrarien: I would prefer S2E08 "If memory serves", but thats about it. Also S2E06 "Sound of Thunder" is 80 percent a great star trek episode, but they ruin it in the last act. Gave up watching after season two.
You mention JJ at them end. JJ Abrams shouldn't be allowed to touch another franchise. His Trek movies make the 1st and 5th OG movies shine, and his Star Wars movies make me miss Jar Jar.
The biggest problem with ST: Nemesis is that it is, essentially, The Wrath of Khan. If you don't believe me: 1) Both have a genetically modified/enhanced super villain who was, at one time, banished and mostly forgotten about. 2) Both have a weapon that the genetically enhanced/modified super villain gets his hands on and that weapon has the ability to wipe out life on a planet. 3) Both contain the "death" of a long loved character when their sacrifice saves the lives of those on the Enterprise. 4) The "death" of those characters isn't actually a death because their conscience was transferred to another character and they could be revived later
1. Only Khan is an enhanced super-villain, Shinzon is just a clone with a defect. 2. Planetdestroying superweapons a are a staple of many SciFi-films to make the bad guy seem more dangerous. See Dr. Soran in Star Trek VII:Generations and Ru'afo in Insurrection (though that planet has only 900 people). In Star Trek:First Contact its the Borg threatening Earth and while the probe in Star Trek III is not evil its action have the same result. Actually movies V and VI are the only ones where there is no planet-destroying threat present. 3. That is giving a character a meaningful death. Again, Kirks death in Generations also matches. 4. The death being non-permanent is neither part of Wrath of Khan nor Nemesis, those are later movies/shows. The similarity between Wrath of Khan and Nemesis would be that an actor wanted to be written out of the story.
@@gildor8866 point missed like the forest for the trees; the specific plot points might be different, naturally, but the themes as described in the OP are extremely similar.
@@f1jones544 The main themes of Wrath of Khan are the rivalry between Kirk and Khan and more importantly Kirk coming to accept getting older and "being mortal". I see neither in Nemesis. Generations has a scene were Picard ponders that he is the last of his family. Spocks death is integral part of the story and its main theme, one of the things that makes it great and without it the film would be greatly dimished. Data death just feels tacked on and unnecessary. It has no emotional impact. I just don't see it.
Yeah, Nemesis was being compared to WOK back in 2002 during its promotion in theatres. Wrath has cast a long shadow over Star Trek in the cinema. JJ's trilogy is a case in point.
Everything star trek post 2002 is complete sh*t. Motion picture and 5 are my favorite "what dose God need with a starship?". the picard movies were fun
Star Trek 5 gets an unfair treatment. Just watch it like an extra long episode of TOS, instead of a movie, and it makes perfect sense. Nemesis, however, is indeed irredeemable
I have to respectfully disagree. TOS had imperfect moments for sure, but STV betrayed 2 decades of character development and humiliated iconic characters. The story and script were at amateur level -- and this was a major motion picture.
I completely agree. Of all the original series movies, 1 and 5 are the only two that feel like actual TOS "episodes". 2,3 & 4 are like a "Spock Trilogy", following a specific story arc, and 6 feels like a finale. 1 & 5 are the only ones that feel that familiar "one and done" vibe, stand-alone stories, "regular episode" singular adventures. With that in mind, they very much get a bad rap.
Negative reviews of Star Trek V, Batman and Robin and the 1998 Godzilla movie can all be summed up with the phrase "I was not expecting this to be a comedy."
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock wasn’t a failure under any rubric. It had a good story, good acting, excellent SFX, a soaringly beautiful score, and it made money at the box office, thereby guaranteeing that the sequel Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home would be made.
find it kinda lame that they killed kirk's son;they basically undo the ending of wrath of khan. -No more lady friend or son for kirk -spocks alive -genesis planet is suddenly unstable and blows up. I don't hate it, but it's just kinda lame to reset everything like that
I think the problem with Star Trek III was the directing, which felt very stiff and awkward. It says something when the best directing in the movie is the clips from the previous movie.
The campfire scene in STV is one of the best character scenes in Trek. Absolutely love that scene. I think The Final Frontier gets a bad rap and isnt half as bad as people say.
Life longTrekker here, all of the TOS movies are entertaining for whatever reason… I do tend to watch the 2 3 and 4 story arc the most because the story is soooo good. I also love 6 because it wrapped everything up so well 😊. Have to say 5 was fun cos we took the day off from work and drank a bit before showtime, we knew it wasn’t the best but we still enjoyed it
8:37 It has no clear-cut villain?? What?!? The god-creature may have only been in a single scene, but jeez, the thing killed a key character, played a large role in redeeming TWO lesser-villains, was the cause of the whole situation by using Sybok's gifts against him halfway across the galaxy no less,... just because it was quickly dispatched doesn't mean it wasn't a grave threat to the galaxy. It was literally a "maximum security prison escape attempt." But "no clear-cut villain"?? I suppose even movie reviewers experience their own plot-holes sometimes.
I hated ST1, 5 i thought was a poor movie. BUT then I watched 3 seasons of picard and by god.... I look back at ST2-10 and frankly.... all is forgiven. even the part where shatner wrestles a furry wearing a nipple bra and drowns her in a fish tank. Seriously ALL IS FORGIVEN! Except the motoneless picture... noting is worse then 12 minutes of vyger shots with nothing happening, followed by 40 minutes of walking, aimlessly through the ship while nothing happens. Even the part where picards mother hangs herself felt less depressing and hopeless then the best parts of the motionless picture.
Star Trek V is my favorite of the original cast movies. Felt the most like the series, both in theme and (cheesy) production. Given I hate all of the TNG and Abrams movies, I find it illogical that it could be the worst.
Its Harve (pronounced Harv)for God's sake, not Harvey, LOL :D And as to the theory that all odd numbered movies are bad annoying most Trekkies ... I don't believe that for a second. I personally know a ton of like minded Trek fans, myself included, who agree with the theory. It doesn't make us hate them, but we accept they are the weakest, so speak for yourself JoBlo :)
Worst name-brand picture? Perhaps. But actual worst picture? Not possible. Three Fugitives, The Experts, Kinjite and Red Scorpion amongst many, many others. all came out in 1989.
Honestly, I think I like these better than Voyager Home 😂 I know it made a ton of money but Voyage Home always seemed a bit forced to me - we've seen them time travel before, suddenly now Earth is an alien culture to them? At least both of these were space opera.
Unpopular opinion but I actually concur. I’ve rewatched ST III & V more, but as an adult ST IV has certainly grown on me. Perhaps it’s because we were stuck with STD.
The movie was about televangelists, and to me, it showed. Sure the first antagonist was sympathetic, but he felt a bit shallow and not really fleshed out. To me, the outward flamboyance and stereotypical image of televangelists was captured, but I found it hard to believe that Sybok could have such a large following - telepathic powers aside. To me, Sybok should have been like Khan from the series - with an extreme level of charm and charisma, that hides his more negative aspects. It just didn't seem believable that such a misguided and somewhat ignorant "villain" would be able to convince a veteran crew member, like Sulu, to betray his crew, his friends, his ship, and everything he believed in. The second problem, was indeed the effects. To me, that indicated that there was so much commitment to the idea of addressing televangelists, that it prevented the film from reaching its full potential. There were a lot of scenes I really liked from the movie. It wasn't all bad. However, the final scenes reminded me of something from The Ten Commandments - which was fine for the 50's, but maybe not for an 80's sci-fi film, on the verge of entering the 90's. What the film deserved was something on the level of Raiders of the Lost Ark, in its climax. Maybe, if there weren't enough funds to do the film properly, it might have been worth trying a different theme, until the effects could do it justice. Many of my favorite scenes could have also worked for a different type of film. The film could have dealt with Klingons and Romulans, and maybe it would have turned out better. I still think that ST V wasn't entirely bad, but maybe it was a bit too ambitious for the time.
I find it somewhat funny you say that considering those two movies have the highest imdb scores of the Trek movies (albeit Into Darkness is tied with Wrath of Khan) and have the second highest Cinemascores of the movies after IV (albeit there are none for the first three). Then again the latter is more of a measure of how mainstream-friendly a movie is so that fits.
@@LinkMarioSamusexactly! That and the Abrams’ movies brought in a new, younger audience, something the Trek shows have struggled with. I read an article where they talked with a Jonathan Frakes and he mentioned that despite the critical success of Picard season 3 and Strange New Worlds, at signings, he’d see an increasingly aging fanbase, with not as many younger people coming in
I saw Star Trek V opening day. It is a guilty pleasure. I overlook the bad effects, because that was a timing/ budget issue. I do find it an interesting take on the characters.
Does anyone else feel like 5 & 6 should have swapped titles? Try it. Honestly consider the plotline of each movie vs their title. Then do it again w/ the other movies title.
I’ve somewhat reappraised Final Frontier since the various remasters have at least made the visuals acceptable, it still jumps the shark in a few too many scenes, but it has plenty of good moments and is perfectly watchable.
Minor correction. The X-Men films aren't a part of the MCU, so when Patrick Stewart returned to that franchise, he wasn't returning to the MCU. A very unimportant nitpick.
I can answer that right away. STAR TREK V (1989) and NEMESIS (2002) ✝ were great. So which STAR TREK films sucked and were utter abominations? Abrams (2009) was one. INTO DARKNESS (2013) was the equivalence of smashing a crucifix. And don't even get me started on BEYOND (2016) .
I think STV suffered from production problems and going over budget. Nemesis suffered from budget cuts and trying to play the story too safe. Like Insurrection, safe stories are not meant for theatrical outings.
V is a guilty pleasure. I think the budget and FX are the main problems. It's the one Star Trek film that puts the Kirk, Spock and McCoy trinity front and center. The comedy could be toned down but that scene where Kirk says "I need a shower." And Spock deadpan delivers "Yes." Is brilliant. I just needs some tweaks and it would be great.
The Jar Jar Abrams trilogy films and the modern Trek series are far far worse than ST 5 & Nemesis in my own opinion. I would gladly rewatch 5 and Nemesis anytime over any of the reboot crappy films & modern Trek series, IMO. Peace ✌️
??? I’ve been a Trekkie my whole life & I loved the JJ films. But into darkness was the worst & beyond was the best. But they should have done the first film then done a TV series for 3 or 5 years. Any trek after September 2016 is not trek.
Nemesis is my favourite Trek movie....even over First Contact. I have never understood the hate? Well developed bad guy, good space battles, Picard, Data & Riker getting the airtime. I think I'll watch it again 🙂
When I first saw Nemesis, I think I ranked it low because it was different in tone to the previous movies, but when I went back I found it stood up better than I thought. It has a tighter script and a more consistent tone than the other TNG films. Shinzon is probably the most interesting Trek movie villain, thanks to Tom Hardy. I admit it drags a bit towards the end, but it really is one of the better Trek films.
As a lifelong Gen X Star Trek fan who has seen the original series & movies countless times, I’ve concluded that The Final Frontier isn’t that bad Afterall, and I’m not brainwashed from the masses, I definitely prefer it over Star Trek The Motion Picture, which doesn’t feel anything like the light hearted original series, But I do consider The Voyage Home the most enjoyable & rewatchable Star Trek movie.
The big problem with *Star Trek V* was all the bad "comedy" they forced in to make it like *Star Trek IV.* The actual plot is a nice call-back to the original series, and everyone loves the "I need my pain" scene. ... *Nemesis* is underrated. It's definitely better than *Insurrection,* which sank the franchise with its smug tone and TV-level production. Its big weaknesses are that the final battle drags, and the death of the villain feels underwhelming. I watched season 3 of *Picard* after hearing the hype, and was very disappointed (especially as the showrunner had made the *12 Monkeys* series). The plot was unengaging, the dialogue was mostly exposition dumps, and frankly the acting was weak.
Nemesis was not that bad really. Not perfect but also somewhat unfairly criticised by a increasingly toxic Fandom at the time. Yes it had flaws and some pretty stupid parts but it was okay. Star trek 5 was just dire
In Nemesis at the first scene showing Enterprise E, Whomever did the CGI forgot to place a bump map on the impulse engines, that is a beginner's mistake.
Disagreed about the CGI in Nemesis. I still feel that it holds up very well to this day. The scene when the E and the Scimitar collide I believe was a blend of practical and digital effects and, frankly, looks amazing. The story is definitely open to criticism but the quality of the effects work I feel stands tall.
Wonder if Shatner (who was getting one salary to star, and another to direct) ever offered to give up some of that money (much like Cameron did when he was making "Titanic") to pay for better effects and more time to improve the film?
There is a great movie lurking inside of Star Trek V (btw, I only acknowledge 10 Star Trek movies, all JJ Abrams and after are non-cannon to me) Ok, here is how you fix the movie. In order of how the movie is shown 1) Give Sulu and Checkov scenes from their home lives in SF and Russia instead of having them wandering in a forest together. (builds the characters up, fans love that sort of thing. 2) Don't have Enterprise issues so silly. Make them more serious (computer, weapons, transporter issues not doors not working). And have Scotty directing repairs to a busy crew (like the beginning of ST 1) ok, now to the meat of the matter 3) Sybock is Spocks brother, but make a point he was a grown man and moved from home by the time Spock was born and dear god no "princess". Why not the first wife of Sarek was a Vulcan _______ (doctor, engineer, scientist, philosopher, lawyer, anything real). Sybock returned home from time to time and that is how Spock knew him. 4) No fan dance 5) Reveal that Sybock is a former friend of Dr. Sevrin and reference the whole Luddite cult from Journey to Eden. Have them mention to Sybock what happened to them "on the way to Eden" 6) The Great Barrier is at the edge of the galaxy as already established in Star Trek lore 7) Sybock believes Eden is "inside the great barrier" 8) Silly stuff/incorrect stuff removed - Proper deck count of Enterprise in turbo shaft scene and Scotty simply gets captured, perhaps stunned by a phaser 9) Eden is found in the great barrier 10) "God" is revealed to be GARY MITCHELL, who it is revealed, after the death of his physical form, tried to return to the source of his power, the barrier and has since been trapped on a world that he created for himself. There, I have created a movie with ties to TWO plots from the series and made a solid movie
I liked ST V as a youngster, and I still enjoy it now for nostalgic reasons. Nemesis wasn’t terrible… I would still take these movies over almost anything post 2009
I agree, two worst Star Trek movies. However, it was jokes like Scotty hitting his head that ruined Star Trek 5, not because it wasn't funny. Scotty hitting his head was one of the funniest scenes ever but it belonged in a blooper reel not in a Star Trek movie. The humor of Star Trek 4 worked not because it was hilarious but because it was the kind of humor that fit Star Trek, that flowed naturally from the characters. The humor of Star Trek 5 may or may not have been hilarious but it didn't fit Star Trek, it didn't flow naturally but felt instead like one of those old time variety shows like Carol Burnett or Sonny and Cher. It just wasn't Star Trek.
All TREKK is beautiful and important to me because it's about the continuing mission! Including 5,and Nemesis. Star Trek is mostly campy,and that's why I love it. Discovery has really tried to get away from campy and has lost it's trekness.TOS,TNG,DS9,VGR,ENT,LDS,PRO-- are all about; "And the Human Adventure Continues..."
ST5 has several missteps. The flaws are : 1) bad F/X, 2) too short - about 14 minutes were cut out, thus background narrative is missing and 3) a bit too much corny humor (trying to ape ST4). But I still don't think ST5 is terrible.
I always shake my head at the knee-jerk "Star Trek V" dislike. Star Trek V was vastly superior to Motionless Picture. Star Trek nearly ended as a franchise with Roddenberry's attempt to rip off 2001: A Space Oddessy. Uhura, Sulu, Chekov & Scotty were basically extras in it. Star Trek V: they all had something to come away with in the movie. Kirk got to fall of a mountain. Spock got to have a half-brother... and clearly got to address emotional baggage just 4 months after dying in Enterprise's engine room. McCoy got to have an emotional scene. Sulu rode a horse and crashed a shuttle in an attempt to knock out the hijackers. "Captain" Chekov. Scotty, if you go buy the director's cut, basically got the most to do. Uhura got to dance in the desert. The budget sucked... that's not on Shatner. Star Trek's II & VI... director's cut. Whomever recut Nicolas Meyer's for theatrical release is almost as bad as J.J. Abrams. Star Trek's III & IV... I have things I would have done different. But Nimoy's direction was solid. If there are movie scripts I'd send back for 2nd passes... Generations definitely goes back for something better that what we got. I'm not sure which Enterprise "captain" came out looking worse. Captain Harriman [Enterprise-B] on a shake-down cruise it wasn't prepared for. Or Commander Riker & Lt. Worf's 2nd attempt at defending Enterprise-D from a 8-decade old Bird-of-Prey looking worse than their failure in "Rascals". Nemesis... that felt like a cliffhanger to nowhere.
Star Trek 5 has a number of good scenes. (It always gets bonus points with me for allowing Bones to shine in it.) With some script tinkering and the proper SFX company/budget/time, it could have been a fine entry. I've never had a problem with Sybok, especially since it makes perfect sense that Sarek would have had a first wife. Vulcans are paired at a young age and marry at their first pon farr, so why would he have ended up with a human at a much older age? Because he'd had a first wife. Logical. But if Shatner is inspired by the Bakers, then Sybok should not really be a true believer but an exploiter of faith in others. In the end, our liking Sybok deprives the movie of a villain. The smart thing would have been for Paramount to delay the release to allow for the proper SFX and then release it in 1990 when box office competition would have been light.
Insurrection is probably my least favorite. Kind of boring with sketchy effects. I really liked Nemesis and never quite understood why no one else does, though I wish some of the deleted scenes were left in. To each their own I guess. I remember after being so into Treks II-IV, then seeing V in the theater and just being so disappointed. It looked pretty awesome in the previews. Trek VI was one of the best theater experiences I ever had - people applauding and what not - so I guess that kind of made up for V.
If there is a Star Trek original series movie that I have watched more than any other it is Star Trek five. Star Trek five feels like an episode of the original series and that’s why I love it. I love the character interaction, and I’m even willing to accept less than stellar special effects. In the end, this movie has what feels like a lot of heart and I think that it captures the essence of original series Star Trek.
Star Trek nemesis is probably the worst Star Trek movie and one of the worst final films of any franchise ever. To me was almost a precursor to nu trek focusing on weird action over a goodstory.
People don't like to admit it, but first contact is the precursser to the JJ abrhams movies. It's just action schlock with no understanding of the characters and no respect of whats established
I couldn't disagree more, I thoroughly enjoyed Nemesis. The original motion picture was 1000 times worse than Nemesis. It has to be the most boring and climatically ugliest film of the franchise.
Maybe you should watch it again? There isn't a lot of action in Nemesis, apart from the starship battle at the end. The core of the story is the idea of doppelgangers (Picard/Shinzon, Data/B4) which traditionally are associated with death. Maybe that's too poetic for a Trek film.
I find Star Trek V hilarious. I prefer it over The Motion Picture. I also find at least the scene where McCoy relives killing his father so moving. And I will always defend V.
I have a somewhat unpopular opinion that Star Trek the Motion Picture was actually one of the best films of the series. While the slower pace might not be big with the fans, I've always thought the movie had a good science fiction plot, good acting, and some truly beautiful special effects.
The reason that The Motion Picture gets a bad wrap, is because it was made by a director who made story driven plots in the the 50's, 60's, and 70's (The Day The Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain, The Hindenburg, The Curse Of The Cat People, The Sound Of Music, and The Haunting). None of these movies are 'actioners', and they're all character driven. The Motion Picture is the best directed and as a result, BEST ACTED Star Trek movie ever made. The way the small budget was handled by the director and production crew, is amazing. He'll, it was even co-written by a writer from the original series. The movie and it's lack of support from the fans and critics then and NOW, goes to show the dumbing down of audiences. But when they're given franchise installments LIKE the J.J. Abrams films, and Nemesis, which cater to what they want, they REJECT the films. Star Trek fans really don't know what they want. They just know that they like WRATH OF KHAN best. Pretty sad.
Star Trek The Slow Motion Picture is the worst. So slow paced, so boring and so hard to watch, it's only blind nostalgia which makes people put it above these two
Also, it's basically a remake of a TOS episode (The Changeling). That might place it a little higher or lower on the list, depending on how people feel about it.
I've loved Star Trek all my life, going back to the Original Series. That being said, ST:V was an embarrassment bordering on parody. It had a handful of decent elements such as witnessing Spock's birth and McCoy's guilt regarding his father's death, however, that's about it. All the rest, especially with the unrecognizable characters mostly reflecting Mr. Shatner's ridiculous sense of humor was humiliating for the franchise. I remember coming out of the theater feeling frustrated as my childhood heroes were getting older and wouldn't have too many more opportunities on screen and that all this was a waste of time. As for Insurrection, it was a misfire (some good things, some bad things) and also somewhat a waste of diminishing opportunities for the TNG crew, still in their prime -- but not at nearly the level of shame and disgrace as was The Final Frontier.
Star Trek Nemesis was not a bad film. The film before it Insurrection was a bad Star Trek film. And when it comes to Star Trek 5 ,a writers strike and budget cuts were against William Shatner . & the highest grossing film of 1987 and was Beverly Hills Cop 2
Nemesis was a really bad film, used the Romulan Ale joke when it was actually legal again, and worse than that, we had a car chase in a Star Trek movie. In a vehicle specifically designed for a car chase, and way more useless than the shuttle carrying it.
Sorry, but as a HUGE Star Trek fan (the Motion Picture is one of my all time favorites) Nemesis is a BAD film, a REALLY bad film. Now so is Insurrection but it's still not nearly as bad as Nemesis - I mean Nemesis does have some fun action and great CGI but that's really about it. So yes, Nemesis _is_ a bad film.
@@KiltedCritic the car chase with something different and maybe something different at Star Trek needed. When it comes to continuity, that was a shaky and tricky thing to uphold.
Nemesis is a decent film. It's more consistent that the previous TNG films and has a more interesting villain. I can't take seriously critics whose main ammo is that there was a car chase and some of the cast were annoyed that the director didn't treat them like stars. I will accept that the tone was darker than some fans might want.
@@ThreadBomb you're right, there are some good early episodes, but the show didn't really hit it's stride until later, and by that time too many people had tuned out sadly.
The three worst Star Trek films are Star Trek 11, Star Trek into Darkness and Star Trek Beyond. God i hate the "cute" titles. I feel these are Trek films for people who don't like Star Trek. Though i do know people who are Star Trek fans who do like them. I don't gwt it. I'll watch V three times in a row rathwr than the Jar Jar films. Nemesis is the worst of the TNG and worst of the original crews films. I blame the ditector. I kept reading how he kept callin Lavar Burton "Laverne" for some reason. NONE of the TNG crew have anything nice to say about him that i have read. Thanks for killing Trek films you chowderhead.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
"What does god need with a Starship?"
"Jim! Ya don't ask The Almighty for his I.D.!"
"You doubt me?"
One of my fave lines in all Trek. Perfectly Kirk.
"Who is this creature?"
@@Vanessinha91Pucca "I doubt any God who inflicts pain for his own pleasure."
Star Trek Beyond is the worst film. I've never been able to finish the film because I get pissed off at the stupidity. LOL
Star Trek 5 is a masterpiece. Ill die on this hill.
Its the only film to capture the Kirk/Spock/Bones dynamic from TOS and doesnt break them off into an A plot B plot. Plus, the opening score and yoesmite scenes are cozy af.
Nothing is more trek then when kirk touches the plate that says "Where no man has gone before"
Loved yr comment, totally agree! That name plate touch....🫡 Challenger Crew would be proud!
FINAL FRONTIER and NEMESIS are too entertaining. INSURRECTION is probably my least favorite, but I can still watch it.
Insurrection is saved by the musical interpretation of HMS Pinafore musical!
@@jooei2810 simpson 's did it.
@@jonathancurran5366 Well the Star Trek as a phenomena has established its roots on classical music, literature and arts way before Simpsons loaned their influences from popular culture, including Star Trek.
Insurrection is definitely the worst. It was so bad that it turned off audiences from TNG movies altogether.
I’ve said it over and over but the Observation Lounge scene with Sybok and the big three is one of the best Character moments in Trek. And the Battle of the Bassen Rift features some of the best Ship-to-Ship combat not only of the franchise but of SciFi in general. Flawed as they may be, but it can’t hate these two movies.
I totally agree. That scene deserved a better film to be in. Sybok, and Laurence Luckinbill who played him are the best things in a bad film.
That lounge scene gets me everytime. Spock seeing his father react to his birth, and the camera pans to him with a still disquiet, is the strongest moment I've ever scene Spock, have. As much as I was saddened with McCoy's memory, Spocks memory hits me harder. No son should ever feel that.
@@brucelaborin2124 I also love how McCoy looks at him after that, like he suddenly realized something fundamental about Spock.
I will always like that line what would a god need with a Starship.
Star trek 2009
Into darkness
Beyond.
Far worse than any of the kirk or picard era films.
My biggest beef with Bad Reboot is the lazy shortcut taken to churn out quick movies.
Recast previous characters... have 3 movies that had less emotional investment than Wrath of Khan put in on its own.
They basically were if Star Trek was produced like a DC Comics movie.
The casting was fine.
The sets were acceptable... once you shut off the flare lights that make me think a 2nd unit director is faking drug tests to work.
Insurrection is worse than any of those, just a horrible, pointless waste of a movie.
Haven't seen Into Darkness or Beyond, but I thoroughly enjoyed Star Trek 2009.
People have hyped Beyond as "the good one", but for me it was the worst. It had no feeling of stakes, and the dialog felt like fan fiction.
When Enterprise came out, I was in jail for the first time ever. Pretty much for an unpaid fine. I was in Hennipen county in Minneapolis, mn. A big holding cell full beyond capacity and i was the second whitest guy there. To my shock the only fully white guy asked what tribe I'm from, and I was shocked. Said Red Cliff band Chippewa. Which is true, Anyway, earlier in the biggest most packed holding cell I've ever been in, somehow I got control of the TV.... something i tend to be good at when i visit jails. As I was looking around for something to watch, Enterprise was advertised to start soon, and i was like. Hell, yeah! So it started and that theme song started and i was like.... no... no no no.... No!!! C,mon! I'm in jail and convinced everyone here to watch this! No!!!!
When I did a week in county we watched CSI all day every every day LOL
Insurrection is my least favorite of the bunch because it is essentially a long and wholly derivative Next Generation episode.
I like The Final Frontier better than the Motion Picture. I don't think Frontier is a particularly good movie, but I wasn't bored to death by it. It even had one of my favorite scenes in a Star Trek movie (when Sybok gives Bones and Spock flashbacks).
I actually like Motion Picture, but your reasoning is sound. That's a great scene.
I can understand why people didn't like The Motion Picture, but that was a very thought provoking film. A computer collects so much information, that it becomes sentient, self aware, and it starts to ask "what is the purpose of existence"? That is a very profound question to ask in a film. I know the movie was slow, but the concepts it asked with the plot, I enjoyed that. If you think about it Spock was searching for the purpose of HIS life. He ultimately rejected pure logic. Spock finally embraced his human side because he saw how empty just pure logic was. "Jim. This simple feeling is beyond V'ger's comprehension. No meaning, no hope." it completely changes Spock's perspective, he laughed twice, amazed that he never saw it before after fighting his emotions all his life.
"Star Trek V has specific failures in writing and direction while Star Trek I fails across the board: art direction, costuming, music, sound editing." -Sheldon Cooper
@@Satai80 That's just an actor repeating dialogue from a writer that has about as much knowledge of what it's like to work in science as I do to work as a farmer. The writer, I doubt, even saw the film.
I definitely agree that it’s better than The Motion Picture, which doesn’t capture the light hearted feel of the series.
ST V is better than ANY ST Discovery episode.
STD's are never pretty or enjoyable
Just to be contrarien: I would prefer S2E08 "If memory serves", but thats about it. Also S2E06 "Sound of Thunder" is 80 percent a great star trek episode, but they ruin it in the last act. Gave up watching after season two.
Facts.
1000%
STD's are never pretty or enjoyable
You mention JJ at them end. JJ Abrams shouldn't be allowed to touch another franchise. His Trek movies make the 1st and 5th OG movies shine, and his Star Wars movies make me miss Jar Jar.
J.J. Abrams & "Bad Reboot"
We should be glad Star Trek didn't introduce a Jar Jar Binks on Enterprise.
This movie has a lot of charm at least.
A lot of which came from nice character moments, it at least has that going for it.
Star Trek V > All TNG crappy movies. The scene where we see McCoy and Spock's pain is one of, if not the greatest Trek moment.
The biggest problem with ST: Nemesis is that it is, essentially, The Wrath of Khan. If you don't believe me:
1) Both have a genetically modified/enhanced super villain who was, at one time, banished and mostly forgotten about.
2) Both have a weapon that the genetically enhanced/modified super villain gets his hands on and that weapon has the ability to wipe out life on a planet.
3) Both contain the "death" of a long loved character when their sacrifice saves the lives of those on the Enterprise.
4) The "death" of those characters isn't actually a death because their conscience was transferred to another character and they could be revived later
1. Only Khan is an enhanced super-villain, Shinzon is just a clone with a defect.
2. Planetdestroying superweapons a are a staple of many SciFi-films to make the bad guy seem more dangerous. See Dr. Soran in Star Trek VII:Generations and Ru'afo in Insurrection (though that planet has only 900 people). In Star Trek:First Contact its the Borg threatening Earth and while the probe in Star Trek III is not evil its action have the same result. Actually movies V and VI are the only ones where there is no planet-destroying threat present.
3. That is giving a character a meaningful death. Again, Kirks death in Generations also matches.
4. The death being non-permanent is neither part of Wrath of Khan nor Nemesis, those are later movies/shows. The similarity between Wrath of Khan and Nemesis would be that an actor wanted to be written out of the story.
@@gildor8866 point missed like the forest for the trees; the specific plot points might be different, naturally, but the themes as described in the OP are extremely similar.
@@f1jones544 The main themes of Wrath of Khan are the rivalry between Kirk and Khan and more importantly Kirk coming to accept getting older and "being mortal". I see neither in Nemesis. Generations has a scene were Picard ponders that he is the last of his family. Spocks death is integral part of the story and its main theme, one of the things that makes it great and without it the film would be greatly dimished. Data death just feels tacked on and unnecessary. It has no emotional impact.
I just don't see it.
Yes, and when you compare same scene in both movies, Khan's are always better. Like preparation for the battle. Or death of major character.
Yeah, Nemesis was being compared to WOK back in 2002 during its promotion in theatres. Wrath has cast a long shadow over Star Trek in the cinema. JJ's trilogy is a case in point.
Thank god they cut Will Wheaton out of Nemesis, he was always annoying.
Everything star trek post 2002 is complete sh*t. Motion picture and 5 are my favorite "what dose God need with a starship?". the picard movies were fun
Star Trek 5 gets an unfair treatment. Just watch it like an extra long episode of TOS, instead of a movie, and it makes perfect sense. Nemesis, however, is indeed irredeemable
I have to respectfully disagree. TOS had imperfect moments for sure, but STV betrayed 2 decades of character development and humiliated iconic characters. The story and script were at amateur level -- and this was a major motion picture.
I completely agree. Of all the original series movies, 1 and 5 are the only two that feel like actual TOS "episodes". 2,3 & 4 are like a "Spock Trilogy", following a specific story arc, and 6 feels like a finale. 1 & 5 are the only ones that feel that familiar "one and done" vibe, stand-alone stories, "regular episode" singular adventures. With that in mind, they very much get a bad rap.
Nemesis disproves the notion that you can't polish a turd. You can, but what you get is a shiny turd.
Negative reviews of Star Trek V, Batman and Robin and the 1998 Godzilla movie can all be summed up with the phrase "I was not expecting this to be a comedy."
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock wasn’t a failure under any rubric. It had a good story, good acting, excellent SFX, a soaringly beautiful score, and it made money at the box office, thereby guaranteeing that the sequel Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home would be made.
find it kinda lame that they killed kirk's son;they basically undo the ending of wrath of khan.
-No more lady friend or son for kirk
-spocks alive
-genesis planet is suddenly unstable and blows up.
I don't hate it, but it's just kinda lame to reset everything like that
I think the problem with Star Trek III was the directing, which felt very stiff and awkward. It says something when the best directing in the movie is the clips from the previous movie.
The campfire scene in STV is one of the best character scenes in Trek. Absolutely love that scene. I think The Final Frontier gets a bad rap and isnt half as bad as people say.
You pronounce Data like Dr. Pulaski. 🤣
One is my name and one is not.
Life longTrekker here, all of the TOS movies are entertaining for whatever reason… I do tend to watch the 2 3 and 4 story arc the most because the story is soooo good. I also love 6 because it wrapped everything up so well 😊. Have to say 5 was fun cos we took the day off from work and drank a bit before showtime, we knew it wasn’t the best but we still enjoyed it
Yeah, it's kinda hard to beat the opening of Undiscovered Country.
“Uh, Excuse me… What does God need with a spaceship?” Is the only line you need to justify STV’s existence.
8:37
It has no clear-cut villain?? What?!?
The god-creature may have only been in a single scene, but jeez, the thing killed a key character, played a large role in redeeming TWO lesser-villains, was the cause of the whole situation by using Sybok's gifts against him halfway across the galaxy no less,... just because it was quickly dispatched doesn't mean it wasn't a grave threat to the galaxy. It was literally a "maximum security prison escape attempt."
But "no clear-cut villain"?? I suppose even movie reviewers experience their own plot-holes sometimes.
I hated ST1, 5 i thought was a poor movie. BUT then I watched 3 seasons of picard and by god.... I look back at ST2-10 and frankly.... all is forgiven. even the part where shatner wrestles a furry wearing a nipple bra and drowns her in a fish tank. Seriously ALL IS FORGIVEN! Except the motoneless picture... noting is worse then 12 minutes of vyger shots with nothing happening, followed by 40 minutes of walking, aimlessly through the ship while nothing happens. Even the part where picards mother hangs herself felt less depressing and hopeless then the best parts of the motionless picture.
Star Trek V is my favorite of the original cast movies. Felt the most like the series, both in theme and (cheesy) production. Given I hate all of the TNG and Abrams movies, I find it illogical that it could be the worst.
Agree! It's not my favorite, but it's a fine movie
Its Harve (pronounced Harv)for God's sake, not Harvey, LOL :D
And as to the theory that all odd numbered movies are bad annoying most Trekkies ... I don't believe that for a second. I personally know a ton of like minded Trek fans, myself included, who agree with the theory. It doesn't make us hate them, but we accept they are the weakest, so speak for yourself JoBlo :)
Star Trek 3 is the beloved middle chapter of The Genesis Trilogy. ❤
"Search For Spock" certainly makes mincemeat of the odd numbered movies suck theory. I rank it second on my favourite Trek movie list.
@@gallery7596 Same here! Thank you!
Not as long as Star Trek Into Darkness exists.
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier received the Golden Razzie for Worst Picture.
Worst name-brand picture? Perhaps. But actual worst picture? Not possible. Three Fugitives, The Experts, Kinjite and Red Scorpion amongst many, many others. all came out in 1989.
Okay? Discovery has an 100% on rotten tomatoes.
The Critics lie
The Razzies suck.
I still say part 5 is better than the first one
Not as long as the Kelvin timeline exists
Honestly, I think I like these better than Voyager Home 😂 I know it made a ton of money but Voyage Home always seemed a bit forced to me - we've seen them time travel before, suddenly now Earth is an alien culture to them? At least both of these were space opera.
Unpopular opinion but I actually concur. I’ve rewatched ST III & V more, but as an adult ST IV has certainly grown on me. Perhaps it’s because we were stuck with STD.
The movie was about televangelists, and to me, it showed. Sure the first antagonist was sympathetic, but he felt a bit shallow and not really fleshed out. To me, the outward flamboyance and stereotypical image of televangelists was captured, but I found it hard to believe that Sybok could have such a large following - telepathic powers aside. To me, Sybok should have been like Khan from the series - with an extreme level of charm and charisma, that hides his more negative aspects. It just didn't seem believable that such a misguided and somewhat ignorant "villain" would be able to convince a veteran crew member, like Sulu, to betray his crew, his friends, his ship, and everything he believed in.
The second problem, was indeed the effects. To me, that indicated that there was so much commitment to the idea of addressing televangelists, that it prevented the film from reaching its full potential. There were a lot of scenes I really liked from the movie. It wasn't all bad. However, the final scenes reminded me of something from The Ten Commandments - which was fine for the 50's, but maybe not for an 80's sci-fi film, on the verge of entering the 90's. What the film deserved was something on the level of Raiders of the Lost Ark, in its climax.
Maybe, if there weren't enough funds to do the film properly, it might have been worth trying a different theme, until the effects could do it justice. Many of my favorite scenes could have also worked for a different type of film. The film could have dealt with Klingons and Romulans, and maybe it would have turned out better. I still think that ST V wasn't entirely bad, but maybe it was a bit too ambitious for the time.
The Abrams films are the worst. Plus the streaming Trek is worse as well.
I find it somewhat funny you say that considering those two movies have the highest imdb scores of the Trek movies (albeit Into Darkness is tied with Wrath of Khan) and have the second highest Cinemascores of the movies after IV (albeit there are none for the first three). Then again the latter is more of a measure of how mainstream-friendly a movie is so that fits.
@@LinkMarioSamusexactly! That and the Abrams’ movies brought in a new, younger audience, something the Trek shows have struggled with. I read an article where they talked with a Jonathan Frakes and he mentioned that despite the critical success of Picard season 3 and Strange New Worlds, at signings, he’d see an increasingly aging fanbase, with not as many younger people coming in
Insurrection was the worst movie in the ST franchise.
I saw Star Trek V opening day. It is a guilty pleasure. I overlook the bad effects, because that was a timing/ budget issue. I do find it an interesting take on the characters.
Does anyone else feel like 5 & 6 should have swapped titles? Try it. Honestly consider the plotline of each movie vs their title. Then do it again w/ the other movies title.
I disagree wholeheartedly. I love Star Trek 5. Some of the best Star Trek scenes in the whole franchise, thanks to the great trio of veteran actors.
I’ve somewhat reappraised Final Frontier since the various remasters have at least made the visuals acceptable, it still jumps the shark in a few too many scenes, but it has plenty of good moments and is perfectly watchable.
Minor correction. The X-Men films aren't a part of the MCU, so when Patrick Stewart returned to that franchise, he wasn't returning to the MCU. A very unimportant nitpick.
I can answer that right away. STAR TREK V (1989) and NEMESIS (2002) ✝ were great. So which STAR TREK films sucked and were utter abominations? Abrams (2009) was one. INTO DARKNESS (2013) was the equivalence of smashing a crucifix. And don't even get me started on BEYOND (2016) .
star trek generations was also not great
I think STV suffered from production problems and going over budget. Nemesis suffered from budget cuts and trying to play the story too safe. Like Insurrection, safe stories are not meant for theatrical outings.
I still don't understand all the hate for Star Trek 5 !!!
V is a guilty pleasure. I think the budget and FX are the main problems. It's the one Star Trek film that puts the Kirk, Spock and McCoy trinity front and center. The comedy could be toned down but that scene where Kirk says "I need a shower." And Spock deadpan delivers "Yes." Is brilliant.
I just needs some tweaks and it would be great.
Just watched The Final Frontier. It was pretty good. Limited by the budget, but I enjoyed it more than Voyage Home.
If Chris Bumbray has anything to do with it, I will watch. He has this calming narration that works every frickin' time. Thank you.
clockwatchers?
If Star Trek 5 had just been a slice of life Kirk Spock and Bones camping, would have been a significantly better episode
The Jar Jar Abrams trilogy films and the modern Trek series are far far worse than ST 5 & Nemesis in my own opinion. I would gladly rewatch 5 and Nemesis anytime over any of the reboot crappy films & modern Trek series, IMO. Peace ✌️
I like Star Trek 2009. The other two suck.
I'll agree with that. At least the star trek films were in fact stories. And not just a bunch of baiting and setup just to use none of it.
💯
I really like Strange New Worlds but I agree with everything else. The Jar Jar films are crap. Trek for people who don't like Trek, like Jar Jar.
??? I’ve been a Trekkie my whole life & I loved the JJ films. But into darkness was the worst & beyond was the best. But they should have done the first film then done a TV series for 3 or 5 years.
Any trek after September 2016 is not trek.
Clockwatchers 😂
Nemesis is my favourite Trek movie....even over First Contact. I have never understood the hate? Well developed bad guy, good space battles, Picard, Data & Riker getting the airtime. I think I'll watch it again 🙂
When I first saw Nemesis, I think I ranked it low because it was different in tone to the previous movies, but when I went back I found it stood up better than I thought. It has a tighter script and a more consistent tone than the other TNG films. Shinzon is probably the most interesting Trek movie villain, thanks to Tom Hardy. I admit it drags a bit towards the end, but it really is one of the better Trek films.
As a lifelong Gen X Star Trek fan who has seen the original series & movies countless times, I’ve concluded that The Final Frontier isn’t that bad Afterall, and I’m not brainwashed from the masses, I definitely prefer it over Star Trek The Motion Picture, which doesn’t feel anything like the light hearted original series, But I do consider The Voyage Home the most enjoyable & rewatchable Star Trek movie.
The big problem with *Star Trek V* was all the bad "comedy" they forced in to make it like *Star Trek IV.* The actual plot is a nice call-back to the original series, and everyone loves the "I need my pain" scene. ... *Nemesis* is underrated. It's definitely better than *Insurrection,* which sank the franchise with its smug tone and TV-level production. Its big weaknesses are that the final battle drags, and the death of the villain feels underwhelming.
I watched season 3 of *Picard* after hearing the hype, and was very disappointed (especially as the showrunner had made the *12 Monkeys* series). The plot was unengaging, the dialogue was mostly exposition dumps, and frankly the acting was weak.
Picard was terrible...the final season could have been so much better also
I enjoyed Nemesis, it has its highlights, and disagree about the CG being bad.
Nemesis was not that bad really. Not perfect but also somewhat unfairly criticised by a increasingly toxic Fandom at the time.
Yes it had flaws and some pretty stupid parts but it was okay.
Star trek 5 was just dire
In Nemesis at the first scene showing Enterprise E, Whomever did the CGI forgot to place a bump map on the impulse engines, that is a beginner's mistake.
Disagreed about the CGI in Nemesis. I still feel that it holds up very well to this day. The scene when the E and the Scimitar collide I believe was a blend of practical and digital effects and, frankly, looks amazing.
The story is definitely open to criticism but the quality of the effects work I feel stands tall.
They destroyed the original script and couldn’t get ILM to do the special effects. This did not help
Wonder if Shatner (who was getting one salary to star, and another to direct) ever offered to give up some of that money (much like Cameron did when he was making "Titanic") to pay for better effects and more time to improve the film?
It's not that all the odd numbered ones sucked, it's just that the even numbered ones were generally far superior.
There is a great movie lurking inside of Star Trek V (btw, I only acknowledge 10 Star Trek movies, all JJ Abrams and after are non-cannon to me)
Ok, here is how you fix the movie. In order of how the movie is shown
1) Give Sulu and Checkov scenes from their home lives in SF and Russia instead of having them wandering in a forest together. (builds the characters up, fans love that sort of thing.
2) Don't have Enterprise issues so silly. Make them more serious (computer, weapons, transporter issues not doors not working). And have Scotty directing repairs to a busy crew (like the beginning of ST 1)
ok, now to the meat of the matter
3) Sybock is Spocks brother, but make a point he was a grown man and moved from home by the time Spock was born and dear god no "princess". Why not the first wife of Sarek was a Vulcan _______ (doctor, engineer, scientist, philosopher, lawyer, anything real). Sybock returned home from time to time and that is how Spock knew him.
4) No fan dance
5) Reveal that Sybock is a former friend of Dr. Sevrin and reference the whole Luddite cult from Journey to Eden. Have them mention to Sybock what happened to them "on the way to Eden"
6) The Great Barrier is at the edge of the galaxy as already established in Star Trek lore
7) Sybock believes Eden is "inside the great barrier"
8) Silly stuff/incorrect stuff removed - Proper deck count of Enterprise in turbo shaft scene and Scotty simply gets captured, perhaps stunned by a phaser
9) Eden is found in the great barrier
10) "God" is revealed to be GARY MITCHELL, who it is revealed, after the death of his physical form, tried to return to the source of his power, the barrier and has since been trapped on a world that he created for himself.
There, I have created a movie with ties to TWO plots from the series and made a solid movie
I liked ST V as a youngster, and I still enjoy it now for nostalgic reasons. Nemesis wasn’t terrible… I would still take these movies over almost anything post 2009
16:43 Um... then what was _Looney Tunes: Back in Action?_
I agree, two worst Star Trek movies. However, it was jokes like Scotty hitting his head that ruined Star Trek 5, not because it wasn't funny. Scotty hitting his head was one of the funniest scenes ever but it belonged in a blooper reel not in a Star Trek movie. The humor of Star Trek 4 worked not because it was hilarious but because it was the kind of humor that fit Star Trek, that flowed naturally from the characters. The humor of Star Trek 5 may or may not have been hilarious but it didn't fit Star Trek, it didn't flow naturally but felt instead like one of those old time variety shows like Carol Burnett or Sonny and Cher. It just wasn't Star Trek.
All TREKK is beautiful and important to me because it's about the continuing mission! Including 5,and Nemesis. Star Trek is mostly campy,and that's why I love it. Discovery has really tried to get away from campy and has lost it's trekness.TOS,TNG,DS9,VGR,ENT,LDS,PRO-- are all about; "And the Human Adventure Continues..."
ST5 has several missteps. The flaws are : 1) bad F/X, 2) too short - about 14 minutes were cut out, thus background narrative is missing and 3) a bit too much corny humor (trying to ape ST4). But I still don't think ST5 is terrible.
I always shake my head at the knee-jerk "Star Trek V" dislike.
Star Trek V was vastly superior to Motionless Picture.
Star Trek nearly ended as a franchise with Roddenberry's attempt to rip off 2001: A Space Oddessy.
Uhura, Sulu, Chekov & Scotty were basically extras in it.
Star Trek V: they all had something to come away with in the movie.
Kirk got to fall of a mountain.
Spock got to have a half-brother... and clearly got to address emotional baggage just 4 months after dying in Enterprise's engine room.
McCoy got to have an emotional scene.
Sulu rode a horse and crashed a shuttle in an attempt to knock out the hijackers.
"Captain" Chekov.
Scotty, if you go buy the director's cut, basically got the most to do.
Uhura got to dance in the desert.
The budget sucked... that's not on Shatner.
Star Trek's II & VI... director's cut. Whomever recut Nicolas Meyer's for theatrical release is almost as bad as J.J. Abrams.
Star Trek's III & IV... I have things I would have done different. But Nimoy's direction was solid.
If there are movie scripts I'd send back for 2nd passes...
Generations definitely goes back for something better that what we got.
I'm not sure which Enterprise "captain" came out looking worse.
Captain Harriman [Enterprise-B] on a shake-down cruise it wasn't prepared for.
Or Commander Riker & Lt. Worf's 2nd attempt at defending Enterprise-D from a 8-decade old Bird-of-Prey looking worse than their failure in "Rascals".
Nemesis... that felt like a cliffhanger to nowhere.
Star Trek 5 has a number of good scenes. (It always gets bonus points with me for allowing Bones to shine in it.) With some script tinkering and the proper SFX company/budget/time, it could have been a fine entry. I've never had a problem with Sybok, especially since it makes perfect sense that Sarek would have had a first wife. Vulcans are paired at a young age and marry at their first pon farr, so why would he have ended up with a human at a much older age? Because he'd had a first wife. Logical. But if Shatner is inspired by the Bakers, then Sybok should not really be a true believer but an exploiter of faith in others. In the end, our liking Sybok deprives the movie of a villain. The smart thing would have been for Paramount to delay the release to allow for the proper SFX and then release it in 1990 when box office competition would have been light.
I must be the only person on the planet who both enjoyed ST: Nemesis and the Green Lantern movie.
I'll take 5 over Nemesis any day of the week
Data's head is still in that cave too.
11:45 And that was a cover of a Rod Stewart song.
Insurrection is probably my least favorite. Kind of boring with sketchy effects. I really liked Nemesis and never quite understood why no one else does, though I wish some of the deleted scenes were left in. To each their own I guess. I remember after being so into Treks II-IV, then seeing V in the theater and just being so disappointed. It looked pretty awesome in the previews. Trek VI was one of the best theater experiences I ever had - people applauding and what not - so I guess that kind of made up for V.
Star trek V is almost great. It has some good effects a great concept
If there is a Star Trek original series movie that I have watched more than any other it is Star Trek five. Star Trek five feels like an episode of the original series and that’s why I love it. I love the character interaction, and I’m even willing to accept less than stellar special effects. In the end, this movie has what feels like a lot of heart and I think that it captures the essence of original series Star Trek.
The beginning of Final Frontier was the best part and unfortunately Insurrection was just a borefest!!🤣🤣
The theory doesn't annoy Trekkies? They're the ones who came up with it 😜 The fact the odd numbers movies suck is what annoys them.
IMO opinion the 2 all-time WORST are:
1. Star Trek: Insurrection;
2. Star Trek: Nemesis.
Its great that the Franchise overall has stayed alive.
Both films had great potential but a lot of nonsense happened behind the scenes like most cases.
Star Trek nemesis is probably the worst Star Trek movie and one of the worst final films of any franchise ever. To me was almost a precursor to nu trek focusing on weird action over a goodstory.
People don't like to admit it, but first contact is the precursser to the JJ abrhams movies.
It's just action schlock with no understanding of the characters and no respect of whats established
I couldn't disagree more, I thoroughly enjoyed Nemesis. The original motion picture was 1000 times worse than Nemesis. It has to be the most boring and climatically ugliest film of the franchise.
Maybe you should watch it again? There isn't a lot of action in Nemesis, apart from the starship battle at the end. The core of the story is the idea of doppelgangers (Picard/Shinzon, Data/B4) which traditionally are associated with death. Maybe that's too poetic for a Trek film.
@@ExperienceEric the motion picture is one of the most beautiful and epic sci-fi films of the late 70s
@@ThreadBomb what version of Star Trek nemesis were you watching?
I find Star Trek V hilarious. I prefer it over The Motion Picture. I also find at least the scene where McCoy relives killing his father so moving. And I will always defend V.
I have a somewhat unpopular opinion that Star Trek the Motion Picture was actually one of the best films of the series. While the slower pace might not be big with the fans, I've always thought the movie had a good science fiction plot, good acting, and some truly beautiful special effects.
The reason that The Motion Picture gets a bad wrap, is because it was made by a director who made story driven plots in the the 50's, 60's, and 70's (The Day The Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain, The Hindenburg, The Curse Of The Cat People, The Sound Of Music, and The Haunting). None of these movies are 'actioners', and they're all character driven. The Motion Picture is the best directed and as a result, BEST ACTED Star Trek movie ever made. The way the small budget was handled by the director and production crew, is amazing. He'll, it was even co-written by a writer from the original series. The movie and it's lack of support from the fans and critics then and NOW, goes to show the dumbing down of audiences. But when they're given franchise installments LIKE the J.J. Abrams films, and Nemesis, which cater to what they want, they REJECT the films. Star Trek fans really don't know what they want. They just know that they like WRATH OF KHAN best. Pretty sad.
@@brucelaborin2124 Disagree. I like a lot of older movies. TMP just has bad pacing, which weirdly went uncorrected in the director''s cut.
Insurrection is worse than either of those two. It's just awful from start to finish.
Insurrection is a little worse than Nemesis in my eyes
I couldn't disagree more
A LOT worse.
I consider Search for Spock a weaker film. There were some nice ideas in ST5. It needed a rewrite to punch up the story.
Harve Bennett's first name is pronounced "Harv", not "Harvey". "Harv" is how Shatner and Nimoy say it.
Star Trek The Slow Motion Picture is the worst. So slow paced, so boring and so hard to watch, it's only blind nostalgia which makes people put it above these two
Also, it's basically a remake of a TOS episode (The Changeling). That might place it a little higher or lower on the list, depending on how people feel about it.
I've loved Star Trek all my life, going back to the Original Series. That being said, ST:V was an embarrassment bordering on parody. It had a handful of decent elements such as witnessing Spock's birth and McCoy's guilt regarding his father's death, however, that's about it. All the rest, especially with the unrecognizable characters mostly reflecting Mr. Shatner's ridiculous sense of humor was humiliating for the franchise. I remember coming out of the theater feeling frustrated as my childhood heroes were getting older and wouldn't have too many more opportunities on screen and that all this was a waste of time. As for Insurrection, it was a misfire (some good things, some bad things) and also somewhat a waste of diminishing opportunities for the TNG crew, still in their prime -- but not at nearly the level of shame and disgrace as was The Final Frontier.
Star Trek Nemesis was not a bad film. The film before it Insurrection was a bad Star Trek film. And when it comes to Star Trek 5 ,a writers strike and budget cuts were against William Shatner . & the highest grossing film of 1987 and was Beverly Hills Cop 2
Nemesis was a really bad film, used the Romulan Ale joke when it was actually legal again, and worse than that, we had a car chase in a Star Trek movie. In a vehicle specifically designed for a car chase, and way more useless than the shuttle carrying it.
Sorry, but as a HUGE Star Trek fan (the Motion Picture is one of my all time favorites) Nemesis is a BAD film, a REALLY bad film. Now so is Insurrection but it's still not nearly as bad as Nemesis - I mean Nemesis does have some fun action and great CGI but that's really about it.
So yes, Nemesis _is_ a bad film.
@@ross-carlson no it's not. Its main problem was Stuart Baird yes. An insurrection is just an empty story that should have been on the show.
@@KiltedCritic the car chase with something different and maybe something different at Star Trek needed. When it comes to continuity, that was a shaky and tricky thing to uphold.
Nemesis is a decent film. It's more consistent that the previous TNG films and has a more interesting villain. I can't take seriously critics whose main ammo is that there was a car chase and some of the cast were annoyed that the director didn't treat them like stars. I will accept that the tone was darker than some fans might want.
Star Trek died in 2005.....
Strange New Worlds has been enjoyable.
StV doesn't bother me so much, Nemesis doesn't exist
I liked V better than IV, the regular music returned as well, weirdly missing from IV
I disagree. Star Trek IV - The Voyage Home is the worst Star Trek movie.
11:26 at least people seem to be rediscovering Star Trek Enterprise, corny title song and all, for how great the later seasons were.
I,paves that series but I really did not like how it ended. It seemed rushed at the end and I hate what they did to Trip.
@@mikepalmer1971 the very last episode we kinda don't count for exactly that reason; had the show been renewed that episode would've never happened.
There are great episodes in the earlier seasons too. You just have to pick and choose. The show was weirdly inconsistent all the way through.
@@ThreadBomb you're right, there are some good early episodes, but the show didn't really hit it's stride until later, and by that time too many people had tuned out sadly.
5 is leagues better than any of TNG movies.
The three worst Star Trek films are Star Trek 11, Star Trek into Darkness and Star Trek Beyond. God i hate the "cute" titles. I feel these are Trek films for people who don't like Star Trek. Though i do know people who are Star Trek fans who do like them. I don't gwt it. I'll watch V three times in a row rathwr than the Jar Jar films.
Nemesis is the worst of the TNG and worst of the original crews films. I blame the ditector. I kept reading how he kept callin Lavar Burton "Laverne" for some reason. NONE of the TNG crew have anything nice to say about him that i have read. Thanks for killing Trek films you chowderhead.
Nemesis isn't the worst of the TNG spin-off movies, insurrection claims that spot easily.