indeed that is definitely the worst Trek movie. The rocket boots were laughable but the ending where they go to heaven find god decide he's an asshole and kick his ass is terrible...
I really enjoyed this movie... it wasn't "Star Trek" per se but it was a great movie on its own merits.
Mind you I did find Simon Pegg enormously annoying and I'd have to say I don't know anyone who's seeen have a bad word to say about it.
Agreed simon pegg was the one negative. Just dont like him as an actor.
Apart from 'Star Trek', all the films people are complaining about on this thread have all had budget or production problems.
Regarding the TNG films, I never found any of them that good, I prefered the 2-part TV episodes - 'The Best of Both Worlds', 'Redemption', 'Unification', etc. I saw them as feature-length TV films ages ago, anyone else remember seeing them?
But the trailer was good enough to send me to the cinema for the preview screening and I absolutely loved it
Chris Pine, Zacahry Quinto & Karl Urban were perfect in their roles, J.J Abrams did a fine job at directing, the score was rousing and the plot was engaging.I went back to watch the film a second time and enjoyed it even more
In my opinion, the fact that the OP slated 'The Voyage Home', which is easily one of the best Trek films, negates his view on the 2009 'Star Trek'...
Abrams' film was pretty decent. Particularly the first 30mins and the sky jump to the mining platform. The plot with old Spock was boring but it was worth it to see Leonard Nimoy in the role again alongside the brilliantly capable Zach Quinto. Chris Pine is the perfect young Kirk too.
I'm a big star trek fan but I still managed to enjoy the new film. It wasn't the Star Trek of old but I wasn't expecting it to be either. I see it as something completely different. The prime-timeline (old) star trek still exists. This is just an alternative time line/ branch of star trek.
There's no denying that the last Star Trek film was immensely successful financially, not least because it was more action orientated and designed to appeal to a wider audience.
Now many would say, "Oh that's a good thing." But let's just say that they re-booted Coronation Street, and it was on after 9pm with loads of sex and violence, and the audience jumped up to 30 million for every episode.
Now, although it's more successful in terms of audience share, selling DVDs etc etc. is it still successful in terms of 'sticking' to the original?
I'm neither here nor there with the last Star Trek film incidentally. I enjoyed the action sequences but thought that the story was extremely weak. I do like the idea of an alternate timeline leading to new stories etc. but this could only really be explored in a TV series, which I don't think we'll ever see.
There's no denying that the last Star Trek film was immensely successful financially, not least because it was more action orientated and designed to appeal to a wider audience.
Now many would say, "Oh that's a good thing." But let's just say that they re-booted Coronation Street, and it was on after 9pm with loads of sex and violence, and the audience jumped up to 30 million for every episode.
Now, although it's more successful in terms of audience share, selling DVDs etc etc. is it still successful in terms of 'sticking' to the original?
To answer that you need to focus solely on how the movie was received by the long time fans. On the whole it was a very positively received, so I'd say it's probably safe to say yes.
A fact - onscreen Star Trek was on its last legs before Abrams's film. Nemesis could easily have ended up being the last Star Trek feature EVER. Regardless of what any Trek fan thinks of 2009 Star Trek, they can't afford to dismiss its importance in keeping the franchise alive.
Um... Yogi Bear wasn't a bomb, so I don't know what that proves...
Simple fact is, Star Trek is the 13th highest grossing film of all time, was nominated for four Oscars, and received near-universal critical acclaim.
I don't know where you got "Star Trek is the 13th highest grossing film of all time" from because it certainly isn't. It only grossed $385m worldwide on budget of $150m.
If Paramount had thought that after spending $150m, they would get a film that made no more money than an 80 minute kids film about a CGI bear and his sidekick who only adults remember, do you really think they'd have green lit the film. Star Trek, while it made reasonable money, didn't provide a particularly good return on the initial investment. If I was stinking rich and funded Yogi Bear, I'd be very happy with the return on my investment, but if I'd invested $150m in Star Trek, I'd have wanted a far better return. More money, more risk, higher return needed.
In the above scenario, I wouldn't actually invest in a Star Trek film at all. I'd put all my money in to the next Transformers movie. Dark of the Moon $195m budget, $1.1bn worldwide box office.
For the huge tentpole summer blockbuster that it was, Star Trek performed poorly by recent standards. A lot of good films bomb at the box office. Doesn't stop them being good films. But the bottom line is everything.
CBS and Paramount are probably only making another Trek film in order to keep the moderate amount of interest going. They're spending a great deal of time and money cleaning up TNG for Blu-ray release. They want and need those sets to sell when they come out. Trek is still Paramount's biggest long term money generator, but that's due to all the old Trek. A new film every few years is just a bone thrown to the 30, 40 and 50 somethings to keep them interested in 60s TOS and 80s TNG.
There's no denying that the last Star Trek film was immensely successful financially, not least because it was more action orientated and designed to appeal to a wider audience.
Incorrect. It just had the biggest budget of any Star Trek film by a very long way and thus had to make a large gross just to break even. In 1994 Generations made over 3 times it's budget at the box office, as did First Contact in 1996.
Abrams' Star Trek made about 2.5 times its budget.
Incorrect. It just had the biggest budget of any Star Trek film by a very long way and thus had to make a large gross just to break even. In 1994 Generations made over 3 times it's budget at the box office, as did First Contact in 1996.
Abrams' Star Trek made about 2.5 times its budget.
Incorrect? I would say making 2.5 times your budget is a good measure of financial success.
I don't know where you got "Star Trek is the 13th highest grossing film of all time" from because it certainly isn't. It only grossed $385m worldwide on budget of $150m.
If Paramount had thought that after spending $150m, they would get a film that made no more money than an 80 minute kids film about a CGI bear and his sidekick who only adults remember, do you really think they'd have green lit the film. Star Trek, while it made reasonable money, didn't provide a particularly good return on the initial investment. If I was stinking rich and funded Yogi Bear, I'd be very happy with the return on my investment, but if I'd invested $150m in Star Trek, I'd have wanted a far better return. More money, more risk, higher return needed.
In the above scenario, I wouldn't actually invest in a Star Trek film at all. I'd put all my money in to the next Transformers movie. Dark of the Moon $195m budget, $1.1bn worldwide box office.
For the huge tentpole summer blockbuster that it was, Star Trek performed poorly by recent standards. A lot of good films bomb at the box office. Doesn't stop them being good films. But the bottom line is everything.
CBS and Paramount are probably only making another Trek film in order to keep the moderate amount of interest going. They're spending a great deal of time and money cleaning up TNG for Blu-ray release. They want and need those sets to sell when they come out. Trek is still Paramount's biggest long term money generator, but that's due to all the old Trek. A new film every few years is just a bone thrown to the 30, 40 and 50 somethings to keep them interested in 60s TOS and 80s TNG.
Apologies, the thirteenth thing was a misread. But there's still the fact that it's not a bomb, by any reasonable definition of the term. Not as much of a hit as other films, but not a bomb.
It was the 13th highest worldwide gross of 2009, so that's probably where that came from. 149th of all time. Not a bomb though. It made by far the most of any Star Trek movie. It made a quarter billion dollars over it's budget at the box office, which is quite good. And a well received cultish film like that makes a fortune in DVDs and other revenue streams afterwards. Even the already quite good box office numbers aren't telling the whole story. It's enough of a success to make studios happy and continue the franchise.
Was it one of the great blockbusters of all time? No. When people start using that as their benchmark for success, you can tell it's nothing but sour grapes. It was successful, and there is no possible way to justify calling it a bomb regardless of how you try to spin it. It didn't bomb in total box office, or in profit, or in critical reception, hardcore fan reception, mainstream reception, or by any other metric. It's arguing contrary to the facts to claim otherwise.
But a movie can still bomb with it's fans and still generate record breaking box office sales.
A movie like this will generate a lot of interest with fans old and new as well as it's appeal to non Trekies. So everyone rushes out to see it. It makes good box office sales but that's not to say everyone liked it afterwards. This is why I say you can't go on box office takings. Not everyone who goes to see a film will like it.
It bombed for me personally as well as a lot of the old fans. Maybe not in the global scheme of things no. But with a lot of old fans who remained true to the old format of the tv show and the movie spinoffs.
The 2009 movie for a lot of older fans has left a bad taste in our mouths. I feel this movie has gone down the route to appeal to the wider audience and somehow lost it's way. It's not true to the style or format of the Star Trek we're used to and in my opinion I feel it relied too much on modern special effects and less about the relationships and sub story that generally run through other Star Trek movies. Yes we have the space battles, good vs evil etc but that is only part of the film. Star Trek is known for engaging it's fans with the lives and emotions of the characters but in the 2009 movie I watched it feeling absolutely nothing for them and there wasn't really any sub story with regards to the characters. I guess the sub story was how Kirk was gonna become captain but even the fact he got the title 5 minutes out of rookie school just made it look a bit ridiculous.
I felt the whole thing was cold and emotionless and it's the only Star Trek movie i've watched where i've genuinely thought, I couldn't give a toss whether you all get blown up. And I think that's mainly down to the fact we've not been given the chance to engage with the characters and their emotions prior to seeing this film as we did with TOS and TNG. To be honest I found the majority of the film tedious and boring.
Simon Pegg is just annoying in everything he does and I found his role closer to the mad Doc Brown from Back to the Future than Scotty. It was comical and that's just his appaling Scottish accent. Again his character didn't work for me so I couldn't really feel anything for him.
Kirk has always been slightly swarve and fancied himself as a ladies man and a little bit arrogant at times but at the same time remained likeable and someone I could warm to, whereas this Kirk just came across as a total big headed arrogant cock.
For me it neither had the look or the feel of a Star Trek movie and as a sci-fi film in it's own right I think it was alright but as a Star Trek movie I thought it was absolutely dreadful. It's like they took our cosy little franchise and dragged it kicking and screaming into the 21st century and given it an Ikea style makeover. It's cold, emotionless and lacks all the warmth and character that the previous movies used to have.
But you can't narrowing down the categories and still say it bombed
It bombed with the critics...well all right it didn't bomb with the critics but it bombed at the cinema...well all right it didn't bomb at the cinema but it bombed with the fans of the original...well all right no it didn't bomb with fans of the original but it bombed with fans of the original who wanted it to "remain true".
If you keep narrowing the field down it ends up with "it bombed with me and my mate Tim" and that really doesn't count as bombing.
As has been pointed out time and time again it did not bomb in any way shape or form. You didn't like it, we understand that. There were some others who didn't like it, we understand that. But the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who saw it (both fans and non-fans alike) rated it very highly, and a bloody load of people saw it. It did not bomb with it's fans, it did not bomb with it's non-fans, it did not bomb.
I doff my cap to your perseverance, but find another word or phrase, like "it disappointed a core of original series fans"
PS - I always found Shatner's Kirk a bit of a cock, so it seemed a good translation to me.
OP - You might find if you just said - I didn't like the latest Star Trek movie, anyone else find the same - that you'd have a lot more credibility than trying to repeatedly claim it bombed.
In my opinion, the fact that the OP slated 'The Voyage Home', which is easily one of the best Trek films, negates his view on the 2009 'Star Trek'...
Abrams' film was pretty decent. Particularly the first 30mins and the sky jump to the mining platform. The plot with old Spock was boring but it was worth it to see Leonard Nimoy in the role again alongside the brilliantly capable Zach Quinto. Chris Pine is the perfect young Kirk too.
That's TIC right? It wasn't the worst but it was a long way from the being the best...
OP - You might find if you just said - I didn't like the latest Star Trek movie, anyone else find the same - that you'd have a lot more credibility than trying to repeatedly claim it bombed.
Ok ok ok so i'll concede that it didn't bomb. I Googled something like Star Trek 2009 worst star trek ever to see if I could find other people which thought the same as I did and I found loads but I guess I would given what I was searching for. But ok i'll bow down and say ok it was a success.
Just not with me and some other fans.
For me the best films were...
The Wrath of Kahn, Search for Spock, Undiscovered Country, First
Contact, Generations and Nemesis
The worst ones were the Final Frontier (just why?) Never let Shatner direct ever again. Insurrection. Not as bad as everyone made out. It was more like a movie length version of a tv episode and because of that I was bored by half way through. The Voyage Home. Now I know this sits well with a lot of fans but for me it was the novelty joke Star Trek movie full of gags and hilarious gaffs. It was like someone had crossed Star Trek with Police Academy. I just can't take this one seriously i'm afraid and because it's set mainly on Earth it's dated almost as quickly as TMP which again i'll put towards the bottom of my likes list purely because it's so slow going and dated which now makes it extremely hard to watch without falling asleep. Now don't get me wrong TMP is a good film but watching it now it's like trying to watch Logan's Run all over again. In other words, hard going. Then of course Star Trek 11. For me it couldn't have been further removed from the franchise and as a movie in itself it was clearly better than Star Trek V and easier to watch than TMP or Insurrection but for me it just wasn't Star Trek. It didn't feel like Trek or look like Trek and the prime directive had been thrown out the window. It was like those Dave specials they made of Red Dwarf when they brought it back all those years later. For me it might carry the name and as a show in itself it's quite funny but it's not Red Dwarf as we know it and i'm happy to distance it from the previous series and put it somewhere separate like those specials they do for Comic Relief night. Some things are better left as they were.
I think the last Star Trek movie would have been better had they made it a movie in it's own right with a new crew rather than try to put a new spin on an old show which for me just didn't work.
Prequals never sit well with me anyway as I find it very difficult to convince myself that something is supposed to be set in a time older than what i've seen before yet looks more modern with better technology and the same people now look totally different and the costumes look more modern yet are supposed to be older. How is that? And althought they're supposed to be the same characters they aren't the same people so I can't immediately warm to them in the same way I could with Shatner or Nimmoy as i'd already grown up watching the series prior to seeing the films so by the time the movies came out they were already like family.
I guess it all depends on why you watch a Star Trek movie and what you get from it. For me it's been all about emotional connection. Following the progress of the characters from day one and watching them grow and the actors grow into their roles and seeing how their characters progress and learning their back stories and about their personalities and their transition from small screen to big screen. I didn't feel I got any of that emotional connection from the last movie.
I confess to really liking The Voyage Home.It's probably my second favourite of the whole series after TWOK.
Where as Insurrection was somewhat an antidote to the darkness of First Contact, The Voyage Home was an antidote to the darkness of TWOK and Search For Spock.
I confess to really liking The Voyage Home.It's probably my second favourite of the whole series after TWOK.
Where as Insurrection was somewhat an antidote to the darkness of First Contact, The Voyage Home was an antidote to the darkness of TWOK and Search For Spock.
The movies are an interesting subject.... Apart from "Khaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!" which I never tire of, I think all of the movies have dated really badly and I find that when I try to watch them these days, I really can't be bothered.
I do enjoy first contact but not all the Ephraim rubbish, just the Borgy bits and pieces... I also think that Data's scenes in that movie are the best use they ever made of him.
I think the whole Star Trek universe is quite staid and dated now, the movie was just what was needed to breath new life into it.
It was to the Star Trek Franchise , what Casino Royal was to the James Bond franchise. A chance to start again.
I confess to really liking The Voyage Home.It's probably my second favourite of the whole series after TWOK.
Where as Insurrection was somewhat an antidote to the darkness of First Contact, The Voyage Home was an antidote to the darkness of TWOK and Search For Spock.
I see your point about light and darkness in the two comparisons but didn't think First Contact was dark or needed an antidote. If you'd have said Generations or Nemesis i'd have been more likely to have agreed with you but I thought First Contact was quite light hearted especially during the scenes with Zefram Cochrane.
Both TWOK and Nemesis are both quite dark and heavy films where as The Voyage Home and Insurrection both have more of a sense of humour and a lighter feel about them I must agree.
I see your point about light and darkness in the two comparisons but didn't think First Contact was dark or needed an antidote. If you'd have said Generations or Nemesis i'd have been more likely to have agreed with you but I thought First Contact was quite light hearted especially during the scenes with Zefram Cochrane.
Both TWOK and Nemesis are both quite dark and heavy films where as The Voyage Home and Insurrection both have more of a sense of humour and a lighter feel about them I must agree.
It wasn't up for negotiation. The studio mandated that whatever followed First Contact be a more light hearted movie. As a result we got the disspointing Insurrection.
Comments
indeed that is definitely the worst Trek movie. The rocket boots were laughable but the ending where they go to heaven find god decide he's an asshole and kick his ass is terrible...
Agreed simon pegg was the one negative. Just dont like him as an actor.
Regarding the TNG films, I never found any of them that good, I prefered the 2-part TV episodes - 'The Best of Both Worlds', 'Redemption', 'Unification', etc. I saw them as feature-length TV films ages ago, anyone else remember seeing them?
Chris Pine, Zacahry Quinto & Karl Urban were perfect in their roles, J.J Abrams did a fine job at directing, the score was rousing and the plot was engaging.I went back to watch the film a second time and enjoyed it even more
Abrams' film was pretty decent. Particularly the first 30mins and the sky jump to the mining platform. The plot with old Spock was boring but it was worth it to see Leonard Nimoy in the role again alongside the brilliantly capable Zach Quinto. Chris Pine is the perfect young Kirk too.
That's what gave it away for me too, wind up thread if you ask me.
There's no denying that the last Star Trek film was immensely successful financially, not least because it was more action orientated and designed to appeal to a wider audience.
Now many would say, "Oh that's a good thing." But let's just say that they re-booted Coronation Street, and it was on after 9pm with loads of sex and violence, and the audience jumped up to 30 million for every episode.
Now, although it's more successful in terms of audience share, selling DVDs etc etc. is it still successful in terms of 'sticking' to the original?
I'm neither here nor there with the last Star Trek film incidentally. I enjoyed the action sequences but thought that the story was extremely weak. I do like the idea of an alternate timeline leading to new stories etc. but this could only really be explored in a TV series, which I don't think we'll ever see.
To answer that you need to focus solely on how the movie was received by the long time fans. On the whole it was a very positively received, so I'd say it's probably safe to say yes.
I don't know where you got "Star Trek is the 13th highest grossing film of all time" from because it certainly isn't. It only grossed $385m worldwide on budget of $150m.
If Paramount had thought that after spending $150m, they would get a film that made no more money than an 80 minute kids film about a CGI bear and his sidekick who only adults remember, do you really think they'd have green lit the film. Star Trek, while it made reasonable money, didn't provide a particularly good return on the initial investment. If I was stinking rich and funded Yogi Bear, I'd be very happy with the return on my investment, but if I'd invested $150m in Star Trek, I'd have wanted a far better return. More money, more risk, higher return needed.
In the above scenario, I wouldn't actually invest in a Star Trek film at all. I'd put all my money in to the next Transformers movie. Dark of the Moon $195m budget, $1.1bn worldwide box office.
For the huge tentpole summer blockbuster that it was, Star Trek performed poorly by recent standards. A lot of good films bomb at the box office. Doesn't stop them being good films. But the bottom line is everything.
CBS and Paramount are probably only making another Trek film in order to keep the moderate amount of interest going. They're spending a great deal of time and money cleaning up TNG for Blu-ray release. They want and need those sets to sell when they come out. Trek is still Paramount's biggest long term money generator, but that's due to all the old Trek. A new film every few years is just a bone thrown to the 30, 40 and 50 somethings to keep them interested in 60s TOS and 80s TNG.
Incorrect. It just had the biggest budget of any Star Trek film by a very long way and thus had to make a large gross just to break even. In 1994 Generations made over 3 times it's budget at the box office, as did First Contact in 1996.
Abrams' Star Trek made about 2.5 times its budget.
Incorrect? I would say making 2.5 times your budget is a good measure of financial success.
Budget = $150,000,000
Takings = $385,680,446
But feel free to disagree with me!
Apologies, the thirteenth thing was a misread. But there's still the fact that it's not a bomb, by any reasonable definition of the term. Not as much of a hit as other films, but not a bomb.
It was the 13th highest worldwide gross of 2009, so that's probably where that came from. 149th of all time. Not a bomb though. It made by far the most of any Star Trek movie. It made a quarter billion dollars over it's budget at the box office, which is quite good. And a well received cultish film like that makes a fortune in DVDs and other revenue streams afterwards. Even the already quite good box office numbers aren't telling the whole story. It's enough of a success to make studios happy and continue the franchise.
Was it one of the great blockbusters of all time? No. When people start using that as their benchmark for success, you can tell it's nothing but sour grapes. It was successful, and there is no possible way to justify calling it a bomb regardless of how you try to spin it. It didn't bomb in total box office, or in profit, or in critical reception, hardcore fan reception, mainstream reception, or by any other metric. It's arguing contrary to the facts to claim otherwise.
A movie like this will generate a lot of interest with fans old and new as well as it's appeal to non Trekies. So everyone rushes out to see it. It makes good box office sales but that's not to say everyone liked it afterwards. This is why I say you can't go on box office takings. Not everyone who goes to see a film will like it.
It bombed for me personally as well as a lot of the old fans. Maybe not in the global scheme of things no. But with a lot of old fans who remained true to the old format of the tv show and the movie spinoffs.
The 2009 movie for a lot of older fans has left a bad taste in our mouths. I feel this movie has gone down the route to appeal to the wider audience and somehow lost it's way. It's not true to the style or format of the Star Trek we're used to and in my opinion I feel it relied too much on modern special effects and less about the relationships and sub story that generally run through other Star Trek movies. Yes we have the space battles, good vs evil etc but that is only part of the film. Star Trek is known for engaging it's fans with the lives and emotions of the characters but in the 2009 movie I watched it feeling absolutely nothing for them and there wasn't really any sub story with regards to the characters. I guess the sub story was how Kirk was gonna become captain but even the fact he got the title 5 minutes out of rookie school just made it look a bit ridiculous.
I felt the whole thing was cold and emotionless and it's the only Star Trek movie i've watched where i've genuinely thought, I couldn't give a toss whether you all get blown up. And I think that's mainly down to the fact we've not been given the chance to engage with the characters and their emotions prior to seeing this film as we did with TOS and TNG. To be honest I found the majority of the film tedious and boring.
Simon Pegg is just annoying in everything he does and I found his role closer to the mad Doc Brown from Back to the Future than Scotty. It was comical and that's just his appaling Scottish accent. Again his character didn't work for me so I couldn't really feel anything for him.
Kirk has always been slightly swarve and fancied himself as a ladies man and a little bit arrogant at times but at the same time remained likeable and someone I could warm to, whereas this Kirk just came across as a total big headed arrogant cock.
For me it neither had the look or the feel of a Star Trek movie and as a sci-fi film in it's own right I think it was alright but as a Star Trek movie I thought it was absolutely dreadful. It's like they took our cosy little franchise and dragged it kicking and screaming into the 21st century and given it an Ikea style makeover. It's cold, emotionless and lacks all the warmth and character that the previous movies used to have.
It bombed with the critics...well all right it didn't bomb with the critics but it bombed at the cinema...well all right it didn't bomb at the cinema but it bombed with the fans of the original...well all right no it didn't bomb with fans of the original but it bombed with fans of the original who wanted it to "remain true".
If you keep narrowing the field down it ends up with "it bombed with me and my mate Tim" and that really doesn't count as bombing.
As has been pointed out time and time again it did not bomb in any way shape or form. You didn't like it, we understand that. There were some others who didn't like it, we understand that. But the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who saw it (both fans and non-fans alike) rated it very highly, and a bloody load of people saw it. It did not bomb with it's fans, it did not bomb with it's non-fans, it did not bomb.
I doff my cap to your perseverance, but find another word or phrase, like "it disappointed a core of original series fans"
PS - I always found Shatner's Kirk a bit of a cock, so it seemed a good translation to me.
Ok ok ok so i'll concede that it didn't bomb. I Googled something like Star Trek 2009 worst star trek ever to see if I could find other people which thought the same as I did and I found loads but I guess I would given what I was searching for. But ok i'll bow down and say ok it was a success.
Just not with me and some other fans.
For me the best films were...
The Wrath of Kahn, Search for Spock, Undiscovered Country, First
Contact, Generations and Nemesis
The worst ones were the Final Frontier (just why?) Never let Shatner direct ever again. Insurrection. Not as bad as everyone made out. It was more like a movie length version of a tv episode and because of that I was bored by half way through. The Voyage Home. Now I know this sits well with a lot of fans but for me it was the novelty joke Star Trek movie full of gags and hilarious gaffs. It was like someone had crossed Star Trek with Police Academy. I just can't take this one seriously i'm afraid and because it's set mainly on Earth it's dated almost as quickly as TMP which again i'll put towards the bottom of my likes list purely because it's so slow going and dated which now makes it extremely hard to watch without falling asleep. Now don't get me wrong TMP is a good film but watching it now it's like trying to watch Logan's Run all over again. In other words, hard going. Then of course Star Trek 11. For me it couldn't have been further removed from the franchise and as a movie in itself it was clearly better than Star Trek V and easier to watch than TMP or Insurrection but for me it just wasn't Star Trek. It didn't feel like Trek or look like Trek and the prime directive had been thrown out the window. It was like those Dave specials they made of Red Dwarf when they brought it back all those years later. For me it might carry the name and as a show in itself it's quite funny but it's not Red Dwarf as we know it and i'm happy to distance it from the previous series and put it somewhere separate like those specials they do for Comic Relief night. Some things are better left as they were.
I think the last Star Trek movie would have been better had they made it a movie in it's own right with a new crew rather than try to put a new spin on an old show which for me just didn't work.
Prequals never sit well with me anyway as I find it very difficult to convince myself that something is supposed to be set in a time older than what i've seen before yet looks more modern with better technology and the same people now look totally different and the costumes look more modern yet are supposed to be older. How is that? And althought they're supposed to be the same characters they aren't the same people so I can't immediately warm to them in the same way I could with Shatner or Nimmoy as i'd already grown up watching the series prior to seeing the films so by the time the movies came out they were already like family.
I guess it all depends on why you watch a Star Trek movie and what you get from it. For me it's been all about emotional connection. Following the progress of the characters from day one and watching them grow and the actors grow into their roles and seeing how their characters progress and learning their back stories and about their personalities and their transition from small screen to big screen. I didn't feel I got any of that emotional connection from the last movie.
Where as Insurrection was somewhat an antidote to the darkness of First Contact, The Voyage Home was an antidote to the darkness of TWOK and Search For Spock.
I do enjoy first contact but not all the Ephraim rubbish, just the Borgy bits and pieces... I also think that Data's scenes in that movie are the best use they ever made of him.
I think the whole Star Trek universe is quite staid and dated now, the movie was just what was needed to breath new life into it.
It was to the Star Trek Franchise , what Casino Royal was to the James Bond franchise. A chance to start again.
I see your point about light and darkness in the two comparisons but didn't think First Contact was dark or needed an antidote. If you'd have said Generations or Nemesis i'd have been more likely to have agreed with you but I thought First Contact was quite light hearted especially during the scenes with Zefram Cochrane.
Both TWOK and Nemesis are both quite dark and heavy films where as The Voyage Home and Insurrection both have more of a sense of humour and a lighter feel about them I must agree.
It wasn't up for negotiation. The studio mandated that whatever followed First Contact be a more light hearted movie. As a result we got the disspointing Insurrection.