I would blame Treks 5 and 10 on the writers, not the directors. Even with dodgy writing, what was so horrible about Trek 5 until they actually met "God" and the FX budget ran out? The Kirk/Spock/McCoy interplay wasn't bad and if they had the budget and a re-write, it could have been a passable film.

Trek 1 had the opposite problem. Great direction. The movie was beautiful. Except the script was the same as an episode of the old show. Stretched out to 3 hours. "Where NOMAD has Gone Before", if you will.

Trek 2, well obviously.

Trek 3 was a good flick, so you can all fark yourselves.

Trek 4 was just goofy. Funny in parts but it was silly. Although as a kid I did appreciate the whale scientist's nipples.

Trek 6. Yeah, I guess it was good.

Trek 9 was just Picard once again siding with the villains. Some collection of assholes squat on a planet that provides eternatal life and refuses to share it with anyone and they're the good guys? WTF were they thinking? The Dominion War was what Trek 9 was supposed to be about.

Trek 10. Too much to even write about.

The New One. Unecessary but executed very well.

the new one was awesome. the director of the first one owes me 3 hours.

Mugato: The Dominion War was what Trek 9 was supposed to be about.

Yeah, because that was a great plot arc. Ugh.

t3knomanser: Mugato: The Dominion War was what Trek 9 was supposed to be about.

Yeah, because that was a great plot arc. Ugh.

It was, actually. IMO.

Lens flair! There was action! It was dumbed down! Continuity! Complain!

Star Trek V also had a good message which was muddled from the shiatty humor: if God is "out there", he's not gonna be sitting round, waiting for someone to visit. Finding God shall take more than a starship that travels faster than light.

In fact, God may not be "out there", but here.

Bith Set Me Up: Star Trek V also had a good message which was muddled from the shiatty humor: if God is "out there", he's not gonna be sitting round, waiting for someone to visit. Finding God shall take more than a starship that travels faster than light.

In fact, God may not be "out there", but here.

Actually, Roddenberry always wanted to do a film where Jesus was an extraterrestrial, returns to say, "Worship me, biatches!" and humanity shrugs and says, "No, we don't need you."

That was the initial plot for both ST:1 and ST:5. ST:5 adhered the most closely to that idea.

superoogie: RogueViking: superoogie: WaltzingMathilda:
the new one was awesome. the director of the first one owes me 3 hours.

Yes, it was "awesome" as in "Michael Bay AWESOME"

/"LENS FLARE: THE MOTION PICTURE"

We get it. The movie had a lot of lens flares. Abrhams has said as much. It was still an enjoyable time and a movie I'll enjoy multiple viewings of. Get over it.

Not until they make a movie with a plot in it, no.

so there was this guy who was pissed off at spock. he wanted to kill him. the enterprise figured out a way to stop him. hooray. that's just as much plot as "some guy who had been asleep for a while, decided he was mad at the enterprise crew. they figured out a way to stop him, even though he put some bugs in a russian guy's ears."

t3knomanser: Bith Set Me Up: Star Trek V also had a good message which was muddled from the shiatty humor: if God is "out there", he's not gonna be sitting round, waiting for someone to visit. Finding God shall take more than a starship that travels faster than light.

In fact, God may not be "out there", but here.

Actually, Roddenberry always wanted to do a film where Jesus was an extraterrestrial, returns to say, "Worship me, biatches!" and humanity shrugs and says, "No, we don't need you."

That was the initial plot for both ST:1 and ST:5. ST:5 adhered the most closely to that idea.

I'm surprised Roddenberry totally loathed Star Trek V, since it was right up Roddenberry's alley: Kirk meets "God", Kirk's not impressed.

Bith Set Me Up: I'm surprised Roddenberry totally loathed Star Trek V, since it was right up Roddenberry's alley: Kirk meets "God", Kirk's not impressed.

Well, there were a lot of other problems in ST:5. The "diplomatic planet of FAIL" pretty much runs contrary to the utopian ideals Roddenberry had for the future, and didn't make a lot of sense even in a cynical view of global politics. Pretty much everybody ends up playing against their character. And very little of what happens makes very much sense at all. Also, I don't think he got a cut of a lot of the merchandising.

Persnickety: And yet Roddenberry did manage to pull off an episode of TOS with pretty much exactly that plot.

As the Motionless Picture demonstrated, they weren't above mining TOS for plots that Roddenberry wanted to blow out of proportion.

Mugato: I would blame Treks 5 and 10 on the writers, not the directors

Shatner wrote (new window) Trek 5.

superoogie: WaltzingMathilda: superoogie: RogueViking: superoogie: WaltzingMathilda:
the new one was awesome. the director of the first one owes me 3 hours.

Yes, it was "awesome" as in "Michael Bay AWESOME"

/"LENS FLARE: THE MOTION PICTURE"

We get it. The movie had a lot of lens flares. Abrhams has said as much. It was still an enjoyable time and a movie I'll enjoy multiple viewings of. Get over it.

Not until they make a movie with a plot in it, no.

so there was this guy who was pissed off at spock. he wanted to kill him. the enterprise figured out a way to stop him. hooray. that's just as much plot as "some guy who had been asleep for a while, decided he was mad at the enterprise crew. they figured out a way to stop him, even though he put some bugs in a russian guy's ears."

If you are seriously comparing the plot and character development between Lens Flare and Khan, I have no logical basis on which to talk to you.

i'm not comparing them and saying they're the same. i'm saying quit letting your emotions tell you there was no plot. there was a plot, and it was no worse than any of the old movies. i've seen them all. 1 was awful, 2 was better, 3 wasn't bad but was kind of boring, 4 made me lose faith in humanity, etc., etc. The new one was great.

mjohnson71: They must have cut out a good 15 minutes of viewscreen and reaction shots

Those reaction shots were put to hilarious use in this video (NSFW audio).

superoogie: WaltzingMathilda: superoogie: WaltzingMathilda:

so there was this guy who was pissed off at spock. he wanted to kill him. the enterprise figured out a way to stop him. hooray. that's just as much plot as "some guy who had been asleep for a while, decided he was mad at the enterprise crew. they figured out a way to stop him, even though he put some bugs in a russian guy's ears."

If you are seriously comparing the plot and character development between Lens Flare and Khan, I have no logical basis on which to talk to you.

i'm not comparing them and saying they're the same. i'm saying quit letting your emotions tell you there was no plot. there was a plot, and it was no worse than any of the old movies. i've seen them all. 1 was awful, 2 was better, 3 wasn't bad but was kind of boring, 4 made me lose faith in humanity, etc., etc. The new one was great.

The plot of Lens Flare was at best an appendix to the film. The film was there to show space explosions, lens flares, and the characters being all bad-assed. I.e. it was a well-directed Michael Bay film. The plot was there to get from explosion A to explosion B. Say what you want about the other films, they had plots that were important, and some would say with merit too important, to the films. But Star Trek, as a genre, is not a mindless action film.

And, no, it was not great.

i'd rather have no plot than "we need to use a completely inexplicable time travel method to go back in time to find a whale."

it was great for a reboot, which is exactly what they said it was going to be. if you need a plot about a human farking a sentient spaceship to show the next stage of human evolution to enjoy a movie, then fine ... but that's what made some of the earlier movies impossible to watch. all that buildup for the worst ending ever. the new movie mixed plot and action well.