Star Trekhas had an unusual road to its fandom. It began as a short-lived television series, and yet it’s a highly influential and long lasting franchise that has spawned four sequel series and thirteen motion pictures. These two formats can be incredibly different, both in terms of tenor and tone, despite taking place in the same universe with the same casts. It is, to quote Mr. Spock, “fascinating.”
Some make the case that this is a story that deserves to be told on a cinematic canvas, while others argue thatTrekis best served as an episodic series. Some pay great homage to the feeling of the original series, while others feel like they should have aired on television. It’s a rich, diverse film franchise where even the failures are intriguing.
So let us boldly go, and start with the weakest entry in the series thus far:
13.) Star Trek Into Darkness
I must politely disagree with my colleague Chris Cabinon the merits ofStar Trek Into Darkness. While it’s not as bad on a second viewing, it’s still suffering the growing pains of not knowing whatStar Trekreally is.
That’s the conundrum with the J.J. Abrams’Star Trekmovies: if you want to take them as simple action movies, they’re serviceable enough, but that’s a waste of a world and disrespectful of whatTrekis about. If you’re not aTrekfan, I doubt you’ll care, but imagine if someone made aStar Warsmovie and tried to take the mystical force and turn it into something scientifically measurable (oh wait). It’s fine to updateTrekwith new uniforms, a new ship design, a new score, etc. That’s the artistry, but that’s not the core of what makesStar Trektick.
Star Trekis about science fiction, and J.J. Abrams isn’t interested in that. He’s interested in makingSpace Adventure!and he does a poor job of telling the story. It may stimulate the lizard parts of your brain with the bright colors, canted angles, lens flares, and set pieces, but it’s bad storytelling that tries to steal from a far superior picture.
I understand that for Kirk, this is a learning experience film for him, and he has to overcome his cockiness and irresponsibility (you wonder how someone who responds to breaking the Prime Directive with “Big deal,” should ever be a captain in Starfleet – assuming you care about Starfleet), but it’s such a drag, and the character is so deeply unlikable that you’re almost rooting for him to fail. It also fails as a friendship tale, as there’s little chemistry between Pine and Quinto, so the big “Khan!” moment comes off as laughably terrible.
Rather than boldly build a new world,Into Darknesssteals from the old one, and does so poorly. For some it may pass as mindless entertainment, but it’s mindless to wasteTrekin such a vicious, vacuous manner.
12.) Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Someone give William Shatner a participation trophy. WatchingStar Trek V, it’s like Shatner saw the lighthearted success ofStar Trek IV: The Voyage Homeand wanted to redo it for his directorial contribution to the franchise. Unfortunately,Star Trek Vis constantly silly and nonsensical rather than fun and upbeat. It starts out from a promising position, but quickly falls into lethargy, and missing the point of what makes aTrekmovie withThe Original Seriescast work so well.
When it comes to movies with theTOScast, the best thing to do is keep the focus on the cast. Unless you have a villain like Khan (Richardo Montalban), a villain who is rooted in the old show and who’s utterly captivating on his own merits, then your greatest strength is the camaraderie of the old cast working together.
Unfortunately,Final Frontiershortchanges the original cast on two fronts. First, it invests far too much in its villain Sybok (Laurence Luckinbill). While I like that Sybok isn’t an outright evil person, he comes off like an overly familiar camp counselor. He’s not creepy so much as he’s irritating, and then there’s his whole spiel about tapping into a person’s pain, which then in turn somehow brainwashes that person into being completely loyal to him.
That leads to the film’s second major failing: separating Kirk (William Shatner) from his crew. If that’s the route they were going to take, then they really should have carried more major stakes with it. Instead, it feels like a cheap shortcut that in turn deprives supporting characters like Uhura (Nichelle Nichols), Sulu (George Takei), and Chekov (Walter Koenig) of character arcs and motivations. The movie also had an opportunity to delve into Spock’s loyalty to Sybok, but that plays more as ambivalence than a source of real conflict between the characters.
Caught between a weak villain and ignoring its greatest asset, you have a film that’s trying so hard to be goofy and constantly missing the mark. While it’s endearing in the odd way that Shatner is trying so hard to please his audience, it doesn’t change the fact that he’s missing the mark, and comes up with jokes like Scotty (James Doohan) hitting his head after saying he knows the ship like the back of his hand. So when we finally come to the comical “Why would God need a spaceship?” it’s just the summation of all of the film’s flaws rather than its final error.
11.) Star Trek: Insurrection
On the one hand, I can respect that theStar Trek: The Next Generationmovies were in a difficult position. Unlike theTOSmovies, which were set in the 23rd century and didn’t have to worry about how their events would affect the TV shows,TNGwas right in the prime of otherTrekon television even though their own show had ended. Rather than be audacious and tie into what was happing in the TV series (which, granted, is a big ask for any movie), theTNGfilms were largely content to tell standalone stories that only briefly acknowledge the largerTrekuniverse.
That’s how we get something as tepid and forgettable asInsurrection, a movie that could have delved deep into its interesting premise, and instead looks like a cheap, two-parter that went unaired because it’s the cure for insomnia.Insurrectionhad the opportunity to take on an interesting question: what happens when the Federation is wrong? It’s an issue that had popped up repeatedly during the series, butInsurrectioncould have tackled it on a massive scale, and even incorporated the weakened Federation brought low byDeep Space Nine’s Dominion War.
Instead, rather than question what the Federation means and how important it is to the crew of the Enterprise (a crew that always agrees, which is nice, but doesn’t invite conflict), the plot to remove the peaceful Ba’ku (who look like they were pulled out of an L.L. Bean catalog) to profit the greedy Son’a and the Federation is the work of a couple of bad apples rather than something endemic to Starfleet. The lines are clearly drawn from the beginning, and rather than challenge the audience to question Starfleet and the loyalty of the Enterprise crew, the characters ditch their uniforms without much fuss and go help the Ba’ku.
10.) Star Trek: Nemesis
Again, it starts out from an interesting place—nature versus nurture, and who would Picard be if his life had been one of torment rather than one in Starfleet? Unfortunately, the film is so hard up to make its villain, Shinzon (Tom Hardy), unequivocally evil that there’s no dramatic pull. It’s not simply enough for Picard to see a dark mirror that reaffirms his righteousness. The film also doesn’t challenge Shinzon to find the good in himself. Had they pushed Shinzon in that direction, it would have made him a more tragic figure rather than the moustache-twirling villain who wants to destroy Starfleet with a super-weapon.
Nemesisalso suffers from the same problem as all of theTNGfilms in that in cannot get enough Data. For some reason, even though you have a rich, diverse case withNext Generation, the movies treat Picard and Data as the main characters and ignore everyone else. This kind of thinking is how you get to disgusting things like Shinzon mind-raping Troi (Marina Sirtis) just because, and then doing nothing with that assault other than using it later for a plot device to let her empathically guide the photon torpedoes.
The movie also wants to get away with killing Data, but not having any of the emotional impact of actually killing Data. Data has to live, so his “sacrifice” is rendered meaningless because he has B-4 back on the Enterprise as a backup.
9.) Star Trek: Generations
This film seems to exist so it can pass a torch that never needed passing. Looking back onStar Trek: Generations, it’s a story that seems more suited to fan fiction than something that actually servesStar Trekof any generation. The original series cast had already gotten a great send-off withStar Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, and it’s a bit of a bummer to see an incomplete cast some back for a second encore. Additionally, theNext Generationcast was already well-established and had a full series under their belt. The producers should have trusted them to carry their own story.
Instead, the movie tries to play to two audiences and ends up serving neither. Buried beneath all the dreck and talk of the Nexus and Data obnoxiously showing off his new emotion chip, there’s actually a compelling story about the cost of duty to Starfleet. Kirk and Picard are united by what they’ve personally sacrificed for Starfleet—and how they lost out on having families because they chose to be explorers instead. If you must have Kirk and Picard share the screen (and you really don’t), then this is solid thematic ground to walk.
ButGenerationsbungles it completely with how tonally scattershot it is and the atrocious structure of the narrative. It’s a movie where you kill off Captain Kirk, an incredibly beloved and revered character, and then your next scene is the crew of the Enterprise-D playing dress up on the holodeck. They then keep Kirk out of the film until the third act, so there’s no real time for Picard and Kirk to build a bond before they have to take down Soran (Malcolm McDowell). And then Kirk gets killed by a bridge.
8.) Star Trek: The Motion Picture
The biggest problem withThe Motion Pictureis that it lostStar Trek’s sense of identity. The film is trying to ape2001: A Space Odyssey, and so it thinks that what the audience wants it a slow, meditative motion picture, and while there’s nothing inherently wrong with that, it losesTrek’s greatest strength. It’s the opposite end of the spectrum fromStar Trek Into Darkness—it’s not thatStar Trekneeds to be a non-stop action thrill ride, but it also shouldn’t be something understandably derided as “The Motionless Picture.”
There’s no good reason why the docking sequence should take as long as it does, and it feels like half of this movie is just people looking at the view screen. While I understandStar Trektaking a chance and going with something unexpected,The Motion Picturedoesn’t play to the strengths of the original series or its cast.
It’s particularly frustrating that the movie pushesThe Original Seriescrew to the background to play up new characters Decker (Stephen Collins) and Ilia (Persis Khambatta) to the point where it feels likeThe Motion Pictureis their story that just happens to includeThe Original Seriescast along for the ride. It doesn’t move the characters we know forward, and while the V-ger reveal is kind of neat, it elicits more of a shrug than any contemplation.
7.) Star Trek Beyond
I both kind of love and kind of dislikeStar Trek Beyond. On the one hand, I knew I had a fun time while I was watching it. It felt like it was embracing classicTrekin a way we hadn’t really seen sinceStar Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. But that being said, it’s almost impossible to remember this movie because beyond showing its love of classicTrek, it doesn’t have much in the way of a personality.
The plot ofStar Trek Beyondfinds the gang stranded on an alien planet (The Enterprise is destroyed. Again.) where the natives are ruled by a mysterious leader Krall (Idris Elba) who wants to unleash a powerful weapon against the Federation. This crash-landing allows the group to pair off in ways that hadn’t really been done before and allows for unique pairings like Spock and Bones that give the movie a lot of its power. The strongest asset of the newTrekmovies has been the casting, and that really gets to shine here.
Unfortunately, the film fails to leave much of an impact because it never makes any bold choices. you may feel that this is a movie caught in a postStar Warsworld where as the first two rebootedTrekmovies could simply beStar Warssubstitute,Beyondis wrestling with what it means to try and get out from under the shadow of the mammoth sci-fi franchise. Sadly, it never really finds an answer to that question, so while it makes for a fun, enjoyable picture with a better script than 2009’sStar Trek, it also lacks the necessary punch to make it more than disposable summer fare.
6.) Star Trek
J.J. Abrams’Star Trekis a movie I really enjoyed when I first saw, but it has not held up well on repeat viewings. On a surface level, it’s really shiny and fun, and Abrams has the wherewithal to give hisTrekan interesting new aesthetic (lens flares and shaky camera aside). It’s a fun compromise between the iconography of the original (they use communicators instead of com-badges) and an energetic, clean art design that sucks you into this new world.
The problem withTrek2009 is that its story falls apart if you so much as glance at it the wrong way. For starters, likeInto Darkness, it could not care less about what makesStar Trekspecial. It’s a movie where a suspended cadet gets promoted all the way to first office because the captain likes the cut of his jib. It’s a movie that doesn’t have a sci-fi bone in its body beyond trying to verify that the original continuity remains intact while also forging an alternate reality. It’s a movie where they build the Enterprise on land rather than in space just so there can be a shot of Kirk looking at it in Iowa.
But even if thoseTrekconcerns don’t bother you, there are still the larger story problems. For example, Spock strands Kirk on a planet where Kirk could easily die, but it’s okay because Kirk conveniently runs into Spock Prime (Leonard Nimoy) and Scotty (Simon Pegg), the only two people who can help get him back to the Enterprise. Or there’s the moment when Kirk confronts Nero (Eric Bana), and there’s no emotional baggage to it even though this is the man responsible for the death of Kirk’s father.
The success ofStar Trekis that you don’t really notice its myriad of problems until you start looking for them, because Abrams made such a tight, lighthearted action flick that keeps barreling forward at breakneck speed. At the time, it felt promising because you would think that with four years betweenStar Trekand its sequel, there would be time to really nail down the story, and Abrams’ direction would remain intact. Oh well.
5.) Star Trek: First Contact
Star Trek: First Contactis an odd sort of movie. It’s the first time theNext Generationcrew is really on their own, and they’re pulling from one of the strongest elements they ever contributed toStar Treklore, the Borg. It’s a good setup and it also rewards those who saw theNext Generationseries while not being so esoteric that it would alienate those who never saw the show.
And yet it’s still not quiteStar Trek. It’s not a movie about anything. Say what you will aboutGenerations,Insurrection, andNemesis, but for all their faults, at least they’re about something (legacy, duty, and destiny, respectively).First Contactis an action-horror film, which is something you wouldn’t necessarily expect aStar Trekmovie to be, but directorJonathan Frakesmakes it work within the context of a new genre.
It’s just unfortunate that there’s no consideration of anything beyond Picard facing his old demons. Once again, outside of Picard, only Data really gets to shine, but at least they give Worf (Michael Dorn) more to do thanInsurrection, which literally makes the character go through puberty because that’s the best they could come up with. The Borg are a compelling villain, and while you may have to cringe a bit with lines like “Assimilate this,” at leastFirst Contactis fun, which is more than you can say than the otherTNGfilms.
4.) Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
This is where on this list thatStar Trekactually starts to feel likeStar Trek. One of the great thingsThe Original Seriesdid was to tell narratives that reflected real-world tensions. Out of all of theStar Trekmovies,The Undiscovered Countryis the only one to mirror real world events. In this case, the script cleverly draws a parallel to the closing of the Cold War with the coming peace treaty between the Federation and the Klingons because the Klingon Empire is about to go bankrupt.
It’s also a story that’s rooted in the films that came before, as Kirk must wrestle with making peace with the people he holds responsible for the death of his son. It’s an issue that hadn’t been dealt with sinceThe Voyage Home, but it adds personal stakes rather than keeping the issue nebulous. It also makesThe Undiscovered Countrya personal journey for Kirk, where he has to learn the importance of not only forgiveness, but also accepting a new status quo where the Klingons and the Federation can live in peace.
Undiscovered Countryalso gives almost everyone something to do. Kirk (William Shatner) and Bones (DeForest Kelley) are on trial on Kronos and are part of a prison break while everyone else (minus Sulu, who gets the short shrift in this picture despite finally becoming a captain) is busy playing detective up on the Enterprise. It’s a well-balanced story, and while the film tries too hard to turn Chang (Christopher Plummer) into the next Khan (the climactic battle has Chang shouting like he really wants to get his Shakespeare Quote-a-Day calendar out of his system), it’s still a fun dynamic that actually feels like aStar Trekstory at its core.
