What would it take for you to forgive a Trek movie you hate.

[GalaxyX]

I was thinking about this, and I'm sure people have different opinions on what movies they liked and which ones they hated.

For me, I liked all the TOS movies, although TMP is the most monotonous one to watch.

If they got rid of those pajamas they were wearing it would have improved the look of the film, but as it stands in the DE, I like it.

I also like TFF because the right message was there, and the earnest to tell it well, but other issues prevented the story to play out as it should have been. So for that, it's forgiven

So now what movies I hated:

Generations: What a clusterfuck! but all it needed for me to forgive it was to NOT KILL KIRK!! Dammit what were they thinking? Bonus points if the had not destroyed the Enterprise D, but I could have lived with what we got with the exception of killing the most iconic character in Trek. I will never forgive it for that.

First Contact was just ok, but I liked it. Nothing to forgive

Insurrection could have been a decent story, but the Ba'ku were arrogant, unlikeable pieces of shit, and the whole story revolved around the "injustice" being done to them.
For me to forgive the movie, it would have taken the Ba'ku to be actually likeable.

Nemesis was another cluster fuck. But all it needed for me to forgive it was: DON'T KILL DATA!! and don't try to tell me B4 could be Data. We all know that was an inferior model, so at best, we get retarded Data. This movie in general ended as depressing as fuck, but Data's death was the biggest reason for that winded, depressed feeling at the end.

 

[BillJ]

The only Trek film I have no desire to revisit is Insurrection. They would have to go back and pretty much rebuild that movie from the ground up.

 

[Count]

I would have forgiven Nemesis if they gave me one thing. At the end of the battle, when Picard ran Shinzon through with the rod, If Shinzon had simply looked down at the spear in his chest, laughed and died, that would have made the ending much more satisfying.

Not to mention that it would make Picard's stunned reaction to his death more meaningful as well as shine a light on how alike they really were.

Tech mistakes, occasional discontinuity is fine, I can forgive all that for storytelling reasons as long as they keep the depth of characters.

being raised on the trek movies, I really have no complaints about any of them, they are what they are. Only the 4 TNG movies did i see when i was close to an adult and have opinions on.

 

[2takesfrakes]

The Final Frontier I really hate, for reasons that have nothing to do with sub par effects. The look of this ... ugh ... this film would certainly be helped, but the story problems cannot be helped. I do not want Paramount, or CBS, or Bad Robot or whomever, to go unscrambling eggs for me, either. I understand the compulsion to update and revamp TOS effects. It's a HUGE temptation and even though I prefer it warts and all, if I had any say in it, I would have to go with the update, with the hope of getting new viewers onboard. But I would agonize about it later, I tell you! I might be so depressed I might not even answer a text some chick might send me at 2 AM asking me "wyd". ... MIGHT not answer, I said. Anyway, as I said, nothing's going to help a poor script, or actors who aren't doing well, or any of the problems plaguing this particular installment. But yes, improved FX would help this jagged little pill otherwise known as STAR TREK 5 go down alot easier.

 

[Christopher]

The answer to "what does it take to forgive" does not come from outside. Forgiveness or hatred is a choice you make yourself. The cause of the affront doesn't have to go away before you can forgive; on the contrary, forgiveness is, by definition, the choice not to condemn an affront.

I think that what it takes to forgive any movie is the recognition that it's just a movie, just a couple of hours of recreation, and thus nothing about it is important enough to feel hatred over. I mean, let's put this in perspective. There's a story in the news lately about how the director and producers of a film called Midnight Rider have been charged with involuntary manslaughter because of the death of a camera assistant, allegedly due to the filmmakers illegally filming in dangerous conditions. If the makers of a movie get someone killed due to recklessness, that's something worth getting angry about. That's something that's hard to forgive. If the makers of a movie just tell a story you don't enjoy... well, you can see how that just doesn't compare, does it? As long as the makers of a movie don't actually hurt anyone, there's no real cause to accuse them of anything.

Criticizing a movie is fine. Talking about how it could've been done differently is fine. But let's not pretend these issues are remotely important enough to be a matter of hatred or forgiveness.

 

[GalaxyX]

The Final Frontier I really hate, for reasons that have nothing to do with sub par effects. The look of this ... ugh ... this film would certainly be helped, but the story problems cannot be helped. I do not want Paramount, or CBS, or Bad Robot or whomever, to go unscrambling eggs for me, either. I understand the compulsion to update and revamp TOS effects. It's a HUGE temptation and even though I prefer it warts and all, if I had any say in it, I would have to go with the update, with the hope of getting new viewers onboard. But I would agonize about it later, I tell you! I might be so depressed I might not even answer a text some chick might send me at 2 AM asking me "wyd". ... MIGHT not answer, I said. Anyway, as I said, nothing's going to help a poor script, or actors who aren't doing well, or any of the problems plaguing this particular installment. But yes, improved FX would help this jagged little pill otherwise known as STAR TREK 5 go down alot easier.

That's interesting. You said a lot but did not actually say what you hated.

We all know the FX were pretty bad, and the technical details (like the deck #'s being repeated) and the bad comedy bits that shouldn't have been there.

Most of it is technical stuff that could be easily fixed now, and a lot of the bad comedy can be trimmed out.

So what's wrong with an attempt to try to fix all this, particularly if it more closely matches Shatner's original vision?

 

[GalaxyX]

Criticizing a movie is fine. Talking about how it could've been done differently is fine. But let's not pretend these issues are remotely important enough to be a matter of hatred or forgiveness.

I don't fully agree with you for the following reason:

1. If we are fans of a series and the studio promises us a movie with a great story based on that series, if we are let down we have a right to voice our disappointment, particularly if the reasons for the failure were stupid to begin with.

You whole argument was basically a long version of "Guys it's just a movie! it's not real life!"

You are correct in "hatred" and "forgiveness" being too strong a words to use, but within context of what you were expecting, I think they fit quite well.

You're right, if I don't like a movie I just won't watch it. I haven't seen Insurrection in over 5 years. I have no desire to. I do have a desire for that movie to have been watchable so that I would have a decent movie to watch.

 

[wulfio]

What would it take for me to forgive a trek movie or 2?

A one hour special where Patrick Stewart wakes up in a cold sweat after they have returned to the 24th century following Cochranes warp flight, only to realize that everything from Insurrection and Nemesis was all a bad dream. Later on, Wil Wheaton appears for a brief cameo where Patrick Stewart proceeds to tell him to shut up and get off the bridge. And then Patrick goes in to the holodeck to play some Henry V with Mr Spiner.

Possibly with a bonus song & dance number during the end credits featuring John De Lancie on the maracas.

 

[RoJoHen]

I would have forgiven Nemesis if they gave me one thing. At the end of the battle, when Picard ran Shinzon through with the rod, If Shinzon had simply looked down at the spear in his chest, laughed and died, that would have made the ending much more satisfying.

Not to mention that it would make Picard's stunned reaction to his death more meaningful as well as shine a light on how alike they really were.

This kind of thing never even crossed my mind, but yeah, that would have been a great way for Shinzon to die.

 

[Melakon]

There aren't any I "hate", but if they want to get on my good side, they could always send me one half of one percent of their gross box office.

 

[Robert Comsol]

@ wulfio



I'm really not sure my approach is to forgive. If it's a movie I really disliked I just tend to ignore it and eventually it fades away in my memory.

The Romans practiced this, some people consider ignorance stronger than hate.

(But I admit I paid to much attention to ENT's TATV and criticized it. I'll work hard on myself to completely forget this thing)

Bob

 

[2takesfrakes]

The Final Frontier I really hate, for reasons that have nothing to do with sub par effects ...

That's interesting. You said a lot but did not actually say what you hated.

We all know the FX were pretty bad, and the technical details (like the deck #'s being repeated) and the bad comedy bits that shouldn't have been there.

Most of it is technical stuff that could be easily fixed now, and a lot of the bad comedy can be trimmed out.

So what's wrong with an attempt to try to fix all this, particularly if it more closely matches Shatner's original vision?

As far as naming specific "corrections," the list is just too long to go through them all. But, for the purposes of discussion ...

Literally searching for the physical manifestation of He Who Has No Name is completely absurd to base an entire STAR TREK movie on, to start with. How can you ever represent "god" other than as A Booming Voice from the Sky and not expect it to be laughable, or weird, or pretentious? You're NEVER going to find the Creative Solution to this problem!!! It's an automatic FAIL!!!

But quite aside from that, in the story, Sybok's "negotiating" with "Captain" Chekov via CCTV, unaware that it's all an elaborate rouse to get the hostages out. So he hears "shots" fired and turns to Pavel and says something like, "do you know what you've done? It wasn't bloodshed I wanted!" Not too swift, for being the most brilliant mind Spock has ever known. When you kidnap people and threaten governments ... governments with powerful Militaries and so on ... yeah, Sybok, you're pretty much inviting bloodshed. Sorry to have to break that to you.

And between having the keenest intellect Spock has ever known AND Powers of Persuasion like none other, why is Sybok kidnapping people to get a ship, anyway? Why not, you know ... just rent one. Or work his Voodoo Magic on Captain Klaa and Friends, so he has a Bird of Prey that can get him to The Almighty's Lap of Luxury AND duke it out with a functional - FULLY - Enterprise that has business being sent out to meet this, uh ... this "threat."

As it is, though, we get Sybok's bizarre insistance upon having a starship of STARFLEET Battle Cruiser Callibur ... that's in desperate need of repair. One that's so compromised, on it's own, without his having been involved or even having known this was happening, to make The Enterprise available to him in the first place. One which, purely by chance, provides him the additional edge of having his own brother serving on it, in a command position - a fact he seems to have been initially unaware of.

All that new CGI is going to do is dress up The Dinner of a Dog, that's all. It's still a suck-off movie, a lame concept and a weak script. And that's just a mere sample of what's wrong with this picture! You know, if William Shatner wants us to pretend with him, that's well and good and I'm all for it. But must it be so goofy as this? That's something I don't believe anyone can truthfully answer, GalaxyX.

 

[F. King Daniel]

If a movie is bad, no amount of tweaked VFX and modified technical mumbo-jumbo will make the slightest difference.

Insurrection is the worst Trek film (IMO), because it's dull.

 

[trevanian]

I would have forgiven Nemesis if they gave me one thing. At the end of the battle, when Picard ran Shinzon through with the rod, If Shinzon had simply looked down at the spear in his chest, laughed and died, that would have made the ending much more satisfying.

Not to mention that it would make Picard's stunned reaction to his death more meaningful as well as shine a light on how alike they really were.

This kind of thing never even crossed my mind, but yeah, that would have been a great way for Shinzon to die.

Logan is a movie-pastiche writer, and here he is leveraging EXCALIBUR, just doing it out of context. Where they really screwed up is not tying in the final Data/Picard moment with the opening of the film, when Picard tells Data to shut up. If Data had said the same to Picard as he slaps the convenient-movie-gizmo on him, that would have given a tiny bit of resonance to a pretty hollow presentation.

 

[GalaxyX]

As far as naming specific "corrections," the list is just too long to go through them all. But, for the purposes of discussion ......................All that new CGI is going to do is dress up The Dinner of a Dog, that's all. It's still a suck-off movie, a lame concept and a weak script. And that's just a mere sample of what's wrong with this picture! You know, if William Shatner wants us to pretend with him, that's well and good and I'm all for it. But must it be so goofy as this? That's something I don't believe anyone can truthfully answer, GalaxyX.

Ok interesting post.

The only thing I agree with you completely is the representation of God.

If I remember correctly, Shatner wanted this "god" to actually be the devil. I'm not sure if he meant to portray the devil in the religious form, but I do know that practically half of TOS deals with aliens pretending to be gods and basically being the devil instead.

So it's not far fetched for a TOS movie to deal with the same topic.

The other points were probably written like that due to the available budget. Weren't the Klingon and Romulan representatives basically cast aways on that planet? Did any of them actually have any sway in getting a ship from their respective governments to show up? So Sybok did the only thing he could: threaten a kidnapping and hope the Federation sent a ship to "save" the kidnapped.

I will admit that the whole story played like a B-movie, and some parts are pretty bad (the Klingon ship that was shoehorned into the story for example).

I think the movie had it's heart in the right place, and practically all it's failings are due to studio interference.

I wish we could have gotten better, but I enjoy what we got.

 

[CorporalClegg]

To hate any film is extremely silly, and the idea presents a growing problem I see in the internet age with any fandom. People say "I hate this." or "I hate that." about pieces they don't like of whatever art form they're passionate about. Why hate? At most, any of these films cost $15 to see. Don't like it? Shrug it off and move on.

This is why blanket statements like [TFF, INS, STiD] is the worst film ever. Well no, it really isn't. Realistically, all Star Trek films exists well above Hollywood's 70th percentile. It's even higher if film from around the world is included. There currently exists tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of films that have been made over the last century that are complete and utter rubbish. The venturous can find some on Netflix.

As such, I find all ten "classic" films watchable. Certainly, some are better than others (albeit as much as some like to claim), but I don't know that I'd call any of them out-right "bad."

That said, the only one that is really in dire need of help is Nemesis. That the problems fall solely on the director. I've never exactly been a fan of Logan, but the script was what it was. And the film would have otherwise been fairly okay if the guy behind the camera actually gave two shits.

It's not a reach to call Baird a "hack" director. While his acumen as an editor can be debated, with all three films he directed, he was so obviously only there for the pay check. Everything about them (outside perhaps RDJ's performance in Marshalls) is completely by the numbers. There's no nuance in them at all.

This effect was only exacerbated in NEM due to his obvious ignorance of the source material. That's what sets Wise, Meyer, and Abrams apart. While they too knew nothing of Trek when they started, they cared enough to educate themselves and make it their own. Baird clearly didn't do that.

They other two common offenders (INS, and TFF) really don't need that much help. The only thing TFF needed was for the studio to stay out of Shatner's way at let him make the film he wanted to. There's so obviously a brilliant shiny film hidden beneath those layers of coal. Had Paramount just cut bait during the strike, recouped and tried again a year later, things probably would have turned out better. And of course, not insisted on all those stylistic changes.

INS's biggest problem isn't so much the humor. Yeah it's juvenile and silly but ultimately harmless. The problem is it tried to build a "fun, family movie" around a serious moral dilemma--one, I might add, that has been the source of more debate than any other in the history of Star Trek. If your name isn't Joss Whedon, you shouldn't even bother trying something like that. And I don't know if he could have even pulled it off.

More importantly, make me care about the victim. Having the allegoric Native Americans be well-to-do, pseudo-intellectual white hippies who have a predisposition for condescension and pomp isn't going to get the job done.

 

[Caligula]

What would it take for Nemesis to be forgiven? There's far too much that's wrong to really fix it, but here's the basics:

Don't hire a fanboy to write the script. Hire a director who has a fundamental understanding of what "Star Trek" is and who these characters are. Don't turn the Romulans into pussies. Don't present the Remans as telepathic Orcs. No pointless mindraping of Troi, m'kay? Don't bother killing Data, and spare us the lame B-4 storyline. And, for frack's sake, don't even think about inserting an ATV scene, no matter how much Patrick Stewart insists upon it!

 

[Shat Happens]

I literally hate the TNG movies. I want to burn all the copies and stomp on the ashes and piss on them. I want to bitchslap Berman. I want to shit at David Carson's porch. Boy I'm mad.

 

[Robert Comsol]

David Carson was the director of GEN, if you are offended by the story you should seek out the porches of Berman, Moore and Braga.

Bob

 

[ChristopherPike]

I don't hate Into Darkness, but some kind of flashback during Cumberbatch's character reveal. If not the Eugenics War and Augments in action on Earth of the past, then certainly Marcus finding the Botany Bay and a way to canonize the identity reassignment stuff from the comic. While he's talking, something visually similar to the Nimoy-Spock mind meld with Kirk from the 2009 film, throwing up images of Khan's past. Instead of one prolonged shot of BC crying and talking to the wall.

That's an easy way to forgive the film-makers for stringing people along with the "Is he Khan, Isn't he Khan?" hype. Because the various attempts to muddy the water with talk of Gary Mitchell etc, if not the casting itself, could clearly lead you to believe not. So the scene I'm referring to, without more to back it up, went down like a lead balloon.