As a reminder, a little precis of them all -

• Star Trek: The Motion Picture - the original crew regroup to defend Earth from "V GER"
• Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - Kirk goes head to head with an old enemy from the original series, and Spock makes a logical sacrifice
• Star Trek III: The Search for Spock - where could he be?
• Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home - the crew of the Enterprise check out the 1980's in search of some Whales
• Star Trek V: The Final Frontier - Kirk, Bones & Spock go camping, then go in search of God, then go camping again
• Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country - the Klingons attempt a little Glasnost with the Federation, but somebody wants the Enterprise to intervene
• Star Trek: Generations - Picard and the Next Gen crew get their first film, but still need a little help from an old master
• Star Trek: First Contact: Picard faces up to the Borg
• Star Trek: Insurrection - the Next Gen crew get all rebellious about.. something..
• Star Trek: Nemesis - Picard faces his dealiest foe yet, and other fun cliches (the last film, and a bit of a flop in fairness).

This message was edited by:Tim on 2005-01-04 07:07

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

I dont think i've ever really watched a whole movie through, but ive seen bits and pieces of them and thought it was generally a pretty terrible movie.

My wife on the other hand is a self-declared treky and has taken over my netflix for the next couple months with the star trek tv series. Im sure she would love to chime in here - ill mention it to her and see if she wants to make an account.

__________________________

Never allow someone to be your priority, while allowing yourself to be their option.

First Contact was good. There rest would take second place to whatever else was on

But nothing will beat the detail, commitment, worksmanship and fantastic source material that the Lord of the Rings trilogy has achieved for a good 10 years.

First Contact was okay, not great. Possibly the best of the next gen films, but not particularly special. The original series films are far superior, thanks to the much stronger cast and the simple fact that they defined the universe in which the later films took place.

LOTR - they're three old, classic books, made into three modern films with big budgets and the best effects available to man today - nice and everything, but in terms of great cinematic series do they really compare to the originality and breadth of the ten ST films?

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

Ok. Star Trek First Contact was the best.
That's all there is to it!!!

By the way, I'm the wife lady of Fluid

oooooooh! hello Elinay, lady wife of Fluid

__________________________

-the bouncy sleepy bar of chocolate

I haven't seen First Contact yet but i am looking forward to it. Apart from that fact it involves Data, never has there been such an annoying character in anything. Except possibly Frodo and Sam in LOTR.

I think the LOTR films were a cinematic treat, they were spectacular and i enjoyed them. Same as i enjoyed the books.

However, I dont think that in some respects they will stand the test of time like some of the Star Trek films, or even Star Wars come to that. If you watch the Star Trek Motion Picture or the Wrath of Khan the scene where we see the Enterprise docked in space is spectacular. Even now, however many years later and thats because all the special effects aren't purely done using a computer. I think that in 10 years time some of the scenes in LOTR will look very dated. I'm not saying the Star Trek films don't look dated, some of the effects are laughable but in a way they fit the film.

Also, in my personal taste the LOTR films leave me feeling very empty. I also think they are too long to fully enjoy and I find i skip any scene featuring Frodo and Sam (i do the same in the books) there's nothing I want to skip in Star Trek!

As for favourite Star Trek film, it has to be a cross between The Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock - i love them!

__________________________

Honestly now...

Quote:

LOTR - they're three old, classic books, made into three modern films with big budgets and the best effects available to man today - nice and everything, but in terms of great cinematic series do they really compare to the originality and breadth of the ten ST films?

Yes! And exceed them.

Quote:

On 2005-01-05 11:03, MickyBoinng wrote: Yes! And exceed them.

i think you're vastly overstating their significance in the long run - LOTR in general is fashionable at the moment, but the books have been around for a very long time; there have been other adaptations in the past and there will be others in the future. Twenty, thirty years from now you'll be defending them against fans of an even later version with even better special effects, while others still insist that the books are better, etc..

Meanwhile, each of the ten Star Trek films stands alone as a unique work in itself; they aren't adapted from anywhere and they're unlikely to be remade - tho they may be reinvented. They started making these films twenty years before the first LOTR, and might announce another tomorrow - that's what you call movie history.

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

Since Lord of the Rings is the first to make a clean sweep at the Oscars, it'll be more than 30 years before someone attempts to best them. They have already made their mark in cinematic history, Star Trek has not and never will.

I don't see Star Trek as cinematic history. As far as I'm concerned, it's a higher-than-average budget running sci-fi TV series, not a film franchise.

So by this logic, I'd say the greatest franchise in cinema history is the Disney franchise.

by what logic? disney is a studio, not a franchise - the only thing their films have in common, for the most part, is their source of funding.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture was, well, a motion picture - and so were the nine sequels that followed it. In what way do their big movie budgets and worldwide theatre releases make them a TV series?

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

Thought I'd poke a few thoughts in about this Tim if you don't mind Haven't made a meaningful post in the forum for a while.

Anywho, as far as Star Trek goes I've only seen the ones with SNG crew,
Star Trek the motion picture and the Undiscovered Country. I've enjoyed all of them and I do quite like Star Trek and I find Data funny at times ( to Lisa, j/k). I do agree with you in the fact that all of the movies are original in the fact that they are not based on books (although there are plenty books based on the TV-Series etc now).

However there is something to be said about the LoTR trilogy. I don't think in 20/30 years time there will be any sort of re-make. If Peter Jackson doesn't do The Hobbit say there could be a film then about there or perhaps an adaptation of one of the other stories set in Middle Earth, but I don't think anyone will re-make it. It has achieved so much and been bestowed with so many honours, a film maker wouldn't dare touch it imho. So I think, Tim, some of your comments on LoTR are a little harsh although your points are fair. Even Star Trek fans have discussion about who is the better captain, which series of films are the best. I know fans of Kirk defending the earlier films against those who prefer TNG films. Here are arguments about films with better SFX/direction/storyline.

To be honest I wouldn't compare the two. Star Trek is, like you say, a franchise. LoTR is a trilogy and an adaptation of something that already exists and so is limited by what is already written. If you wanted to compare Star Trek to something the compare it to Star Wars or James Bond that goes for all of ya! hehe.

Go Spock!

__________________________

Big Gorram Line of the Week

"Well… my sister's a ship. We had a complicated childhood."

Quote:

Star Trek: The Motion Picture was, well, a motion picture - and so were the nine sequels that followed it. In what way do their big movie budgets and worldwide theatre releases make them a TV series?

The same way Lord of the Rings is a book. And for some people it will always be a book.

Power Rangers the movie had a big film budget. Does this make it anything other than a children's Saturday morning show?

Quote:

On 2005-01-05 19:26, MickyBoinng wrote: Power Rangers the movie had a big film budget. Does this make it anything other than a children's Saturday morning show?

Yes it makes it a movie hence the name just like South Park the Movie was a movie. Just because a TV show is made into a movie doesn't mean it's still classed as a TV Show.

However I do understand your point. The distinction between an extension of a TV series and a movie is in the name. You can have a feature length episode, which still makes it classed as a TV show, and making it into a movie makes it a movie. This is how the Star Trek movies evolved from being a TV Show to being a movie franchise. The first Star Trek movie was Star Trek the Motion Picture and iirc at this point the TV series had stopped. Similarly, the first TNG film, Star Trek: Generations, was released after the series had finished.

Just because a movie has a corresponding or previous TV series does not mean the movie is a long TV show, it's a movie, plain and simple.

__________________________

Big Gorram Line of the Week

"Well… my sister's a ship. We had a complicated childhood."

agreed with giz - the Star Trek movie series actually began a long, long time (10-15 years?) after the TV series was cancelled, and many were made before TNG brought Trek back to the small screen (thanks largely to the continuing success of the films). They weren't remakes of the TV episodes but entirely new stories.

Quote:

On 2005-01-05 19:26, MickyBoinng wrote: The same way Lord of the Rings is a book. And for some people it will always be a book. Power Rangers the movie had a big film budget. Does this make it anything other than a children's Saturday morning show?

The first Star Wars sequel wasn't a movie at all, but a TV Holiday Special - where does that leave the rest of the series, by your logic?

Yes LOTR is a book, but it's also a film, and a cartoon, and radio series, etc - all very similar, and all telling the same story, but yet clearly different things.

This message was edited by:Tim on 2005-01-06 02:44

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

Ooh... I've never seen any of them. Tim, Lisa, I may just have to borrow some cos I'd like to join in the slag... i mean debate!

i'm staying as far away from this as possible

Nothing wrong with a good ol' mass debate.

What about the other great film series? Rocky, for instance? I'm a great fan of Rocky. It may never have won any oscars but I enjoy them a darn sight more than the average Star Trek film.

star trek = more films than Rocky = better

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

I agree! But only in a slightly hypocritical way as I've never seen any Star Trek films, but I do love a good rocky film! "ADRIAN!!!"

Quote:

On 2005-01-06 10:34, MickyBoinng wrote: Nothing wrong with a good ol' mass debate. What about the other great film series? Rocky, for instance? I'm a great fan of Rocky. It may never have won any oscars but I enjoy them a darn sight more than the average Star Trek film.

Quote:

On 2005-01-06 10:39, Tim wrote: star trek = more films than Rocky = better

I think there's a difference between being prolific and being good ... my ex probably had more blokes than a working men's bar but that doesn't mean she was any good in the sack.

lol...

but your analogy's a bit broken; Paramount didn't keep making Star Trek films because they were a bit rampant, they made them because each was popular, and successful, and worthy of a sequel.

the Rocky series had run out of steam by the fifth film (some would say well before that) - Star Trek has had enough depth and inventiveness to double that score, so far.

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

The Rocky ones were all succesful also, considering their budget. And my analogy is not broken - we all know the Star Trek films were succesful, but my analogy - were they any good? Not in my opinion.

This message was edited by:MickyBoinng on 2005-01-06 12:03

Quote:

On 2005-01-05 04:21, Lisa wrote: Also, in my personal taste the LOTR films leave me feeling very empty. I also think they are too long to fully enjoy and I find i skip any scene featuring Frodo and Sam (i do the same in the books) there's nothing I want to skip in Star Trek!

My favourite bit of Lord of the Rings is Sam and Frodo on Mount Doom! The acting is better than ANYTHING you will find in Star Trek at this point.

if they "weren't any good", why were they successful? how did it take ten successful films (or at very least nine) before people realised they were no good?

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

I don't think the Blair Witch Project is any good. Box office gross: £248,639,099 (which, incidentally, is more succesful than any one Star Trek film)

This message was edited by:MickyBoinng on 2005-01-06 12:14

Well I liked it, and it was generally (and critically) well received at the time.

Blair Witch should have remained a great, original movie on it's own; but in fact it was so successful the studios tried to milk a sequel out of it. The second film was absolute toss, taking the idea of the original and completely screwing it up, and was a dismal failure at the box office. Doesn't that actually prove my point that there is more to a successful franchise (like Star Trek) than simply pumping out sequel after sequel?

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

I have to agree with you Tim, even though I like the Rocky series. I suppose with Star Trek though, you could say they are not sequls, in the strictest sense. Rocky 2 was a follow on from Rocky, it picked up where the story left off at the end of Rocky. Now, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know that that happens within the Star Trek series? Some have got to be completely unrelated, after all, they have different captains, eras ie: TNG.