According to various sources, it's been reported that at the annual star trek convention in nevada, they did a poll ranking all the star trek films. In fact, they even included "Galaxy Quest", which was sort of a light tongue and cheek comedy that paid homage to the original star trek series.
Anyway, after ranking all the star trek movies, it was reported that "Star Trek Into Darkness" was ranked dead last, as many fans at the convention booed it as the film was announced. And, one of the people at the convention chimed in saying that "Star Trek Into Darkness" shouldn't be counted at all as a real star trek film.
Yes, you read right. according to various sources, "Star Trek Into Darkness" was ranked lower than such star trek movies like "Star Trek: the motion picture", "Star trek v the final frontier" and that unholy abomination known as "star trek insurrection."
however, this begs the question...are they right? what do you all think? was star trek into darkness the worst star trek film ever made? and if so, do you feel it shouldn't even be called a star trek film at all? please discuss.
If this was at a star trek convention of course the newer movies are going to come in last. Most of the people who go to those are fans of the original star trek with Captain Kirk and Spock. To them that is, and always will be the best Star Trek. I actually thought the next generation movies were pretty good, and the first new Star Trek movie was really good.
One thing that seems almost unanimous across generations of trekkies is the fact that they consider Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan to be the epitome of what The Original Series aimed for. It's typically a fan favorite. I do think, though, that overall the newer films are frowned upon by the older generations because they may feel as though it doesn't "belong" to them, in a way. And it does have a different feel. I've watched Star Trek since I was six and have been a fan of it for 15 years and I love the new alongside the old.
Steve, I have to disagree.
Movie critics are frequently burdened with subjective opinions. Occasionally, they have objective reasons for placing one movie above another, but this case does not seem to be one of them.
I thoroughly enjoyed "Into Darkness" and even "Insurrection." I think Star Trek 2009 was a bit better, but not by much.
I tend to agree that the odd numbered Star Trek movies were bad and the even ones were good, for the first several. But I thoroughly enjoyed 4 consecutive Star Trek films from Undiscovered Country to Insurrection. I didn't enjoy Nemesis as much, but I enjoyed it more than Motion Picture (#1), Search for Spock and Final Frontier combined.
Rotten Tomatoes rates Into Darkness higher than either Voyage Home or Undiscovered Country and nearly as high as Wrath of Khan.
IMDB rates Into Darkness highest of all of the Star Trek movies.
Perhaps the ill will at the Star Trek convention was a function of mass hysteria. Someone says something bad about a film and automatically everybody else wants to seem cool. This is ego (self-importance) run amok. It's like the social blindness regarding 9/11. Labels are easy, so anyone who questions the governments faulty "conspiracy theory" is automatically called a "conspiracy theorist." That's group think. That's ego. Perhaps convention attendees had their own fixed idea about what a Star Trek movie should be. General movie aficionados (fans at IMDB) seem to disagree. They found Star Trek "Into Darkness" to be highly watchable.
And that could be a good thing. If Star Trek becomes even more main stream, it's possible that it could gain far more staying power. That warms the cockles of this die-hard Trekkie's heart. I'm the kind of fan who gagged when "Lost In Space" first showed it's ugly face on television. That farce started out as cool, when Dr. Smith committed murder to sneak onto the Jupiter Starship. But then, the last half of the first episode descended in to wild inanities that left me choking and hoping and praying for something like Star Trek to come along and save my space travel sensibilities.
It is not the worst--it just seeks a new audience, one most critics are not part of.
Well to be fair, most critics as far as I know loved "Into darkness." this was a ranking done by a lot of the hardcore fans at the annual star trek convention.
They are probably like me and committed to the original STuniverse. I never saw it as I have zero interest in rebooting the story. (That is, this story wipes all previous stories and starts the timeline from scratch). But that is just my personal taste.
Oh no! Say it isn't so. I haven't seen it yet... and for the record, Galaxy Quest... one of the best movies of all time.
...No. Just no.
And to the Star Trek fans bashing Into Darkness: Get over yourselves. Seriously.
babies are wrinkly poop machines that make a lot of noise
sunsets are a precursor to mosquitos
and laughing makes my nose run.....
i love ALL the star trek movies, each of them in thier own right,... though i gota be in the mood for them individualy,... the latest ones have been tremendous fun,... perhaps self apointed expert uber fans just take things too seriously and arent very receptive to change?.... time will tell,... take the pole again in 10 years and that SAME group of uber fans will say all the old ones are great and the latest film rag will be pronounced trash,.... smsh
and yes,.... galaxy quest was and is,.... freeking AWSOME! ... "NEVER SURENDER,... NEVER GIVE UP"!
I imagine that most of those hardcore fans look at it unfavorably because it borrows a good deal from the original series and Wrath of Khan, thus they see it as being unoriginal and uninspired. They're not being objective and looking at the film on its own merits, instead looking at it just based on the older films.
Truth be told, looking at it as objectively as I could, I thought it was one of the best films, certainly not the worst. Final Frontier, Generations, and Insurrection were all far inferior movies if you ask me.
As a die hard Trek fan, I have become quite fond of the characters from the original and TNG series. I was even finding my way with the characters from Star Trek "Enterprise", which I thought was really first rate. I would rather have had them bring that set and characters to the big screen than what it is that they have done here. We older fans are looking for that bridge between the warm and familiar and the different direction taken in the new Star Trek films.
What is all this talk about Vulcan having been destroyed?
well to be fair, this new rebooted star trek universe takes place in an alternate universe; hence the timeline in the new movie series is going to be drastically different than the ones you grew up with. It doesn't mean the originals never happened, as they still did within trek lore. No, everything they have going on since abrams took over takes place in an alternate timeline. If you think of it that way when you watch the rebooted movie series, then you don't really mind as much because this isn't following the same continuity timeline that shatner and his posse followed, as this is a completely different universe.
by Steve Witschel 6 years ago
If you're already a Trekkie and have seen the new Star Trek film, what are your thoughts?
by alexandriaruthk 6 years ago
Are you excited about the new "Star Trek Into Darkness" movie sequel?To be released spring of 2013?
by Susan Reid 9 years ago
.Would you please share your favorite SiFi TV or movie and why you like it?
by kerryg 5 years ago
Which is better, Star Trek or Star Wars?I'm interested in both personal preference and which you think is more culturally significant.
by David Livermore 5 years ago
Which Star Trek movie do you feel is the best Star Trek movie?This could be any movie, from the original cast up through the most recent movie. It's a difficult choice for me. But I would say Undiscovered Country. I am never bored of watching that one, despite seeing it many times.
by Steven Escareno 8 years ago
Before J.J. Abrams' reboot, there used to a common pattern with "Star Trek" films where majority of fans would say that all the odd numbered ones sucked, while the even number ones were arguably the best. However, why is that though? Is there some sort of binary anominally...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|