Star Trek VI is the best Trek movie by far. I mean Trek is always best in an episodic TV format so the movies generally don’t have a reason to exist. But VI was needed to give a send off to the original cast. And it gives some commentary on the cold war which was relevant at the time and fit into Trek canon since TNG was a thing by then so we knew the Klingons and Federation made peace.
And yeah it had a lot of details in there. I always loved the universal translator constantly screwing up… Shakespeare in the original Klingon, old Vulcan proverbs about Nixon. The antigrav failing on the Klingon ship, and yeah ships not just behaving like ships floating in water. It nailed everything.
it suprises me that this sentiment isn’t more common. i don’t hate the other movies, but they’re more movies with the Trek characters and world than they are Star Trek in a movie format. with it’s allegorical but ultimately hopeful story, VI really did feel like Star Trek proper, just with a bigger budget and longer runtime. The Motion Picture had the same spirit but loses points for just bolting 2001 and the Nomad probe episode together, and I’d like to think that Into Darkness could have been a modern-at-the-time Undiscovered Country if they didn’t spend the whole runtime failing to be a modern Wrath of Khan
Yeah I think a story about an arms buildup and a defense industrial complex just doesn’t work well in a movie. In real life it’s about subtle influences on politics not “pew pew pew”, there’s not even any opportunities for passionate speeches. Just “maybe it’s bad to put so many resources towards building warships and once you have them you might be tempted to use them to justify the expenditure… someday.” In the real world it’s a trend over time, so how do you make a compelling story about that? If you deviate too much to make it more interesting it’s not accurate to the real world, and then it’s more like a fictional problem.
Star Trek VI is the best Trek movie by far. I mean Trek is always best in an episodic TV format so the movies generally don’t have a reason to exist. But VI was needed to give a send off to the original cast. And it gives some commentary on the cold war which was relevant at the time and fit into Trek canon since TNG was a thing by then so we knew the Klingons and Federation made peace.
And yeah it had a lot of details in there. I always loved the universal translator constantly screwing up… Shakespeare in the original Klingon, old Vulcan proverbs about Nixon. The antigrav failing on the Klingon ship, and yeah ships not just behaving like ships floating in water. It nailed everything.
it suprises me that this sentiment isn’t more common. i don’t hate the other movies, but they’re more movies with the Trek characters and world than they are Star Trek in a movie format. with it’s allegorical but ultimately hopeful story, VI really did feel like Star Trek proper, just with a bigger budget and longer runtime. The Motion Picture had the same spirit but loses points for just bolting 2001 and the Nomad probe episode together, and I’d like to think that Into Darkness could have been a modern-at-the-time Undiscovered Country if they didn’t spend the whole runtime failing to be a modern Wrath of Khan
Yeah I think a story about an arms buildup and a defense industrial complex just doesn’t work well in a movie. In real life it’s about subtle influences on politics not “pew pew pew”, there’s not even any opportunities for passionate speeches. Just “maybe it’s bad to put so many resources towards building warships and once you have them you might be tempted to use them to justify the expenditure… someday.” In the real world it’s a trend over time, so how do you make a compelling story about that? If you deviate too much to make it more interesting it’s not accurate to the real world, and then it’s more like a fictional problem.