Ricardo Montalban's chest was his own as been stated many, many times.... It was no special effect.

Okay, this is a great article, but I'd like to shoot the guy who wrote it simply because for all his efforts to come off as a Star Trek fan, I can't believe that he or she could confuse a Romulan Bird of Prey with a KLINGON Bird of Prey, which is what the Enterprise used in Star Trek 4, because they went up against the Klingons in Star Trek 3 and thus after blowing up the Enterprise, they took the Klingon's ship. Any fool with half a brain knows that!

Star Trek IV: "Borrowing a Romulan Bird of Prey..."

Fact checking anyone?
*sigh*

And that was a Klingon bird-of-prey, not Romulan, in Trek IV that was captured at the end of Trek 3 after the Enterprise was destroyed.

The Wrath of Khan is still the best.

I guess the previous posters beat me to it. Honestly, I am never one to split hairs with trivial facts on blog posts, but HOLY COW guys! If you are going to make a history of Trek post, for an audience of Sci-Fi (or is the Sy-Fy) geeks you better make damn sure you get the facts right.

Happy May Day every one, I hope you all have a nice pole dance today. You know... a May Pole? Dirty minded Sci-Fi geeks at that! :-)

A little less snark next time, please.

Oh, and BTW, Jonathan Frakes did a superb job directing. Let's see YOU try it.

I swear, you guys at SciFi Wire are the biggest bunch of self righteous nit-pickers I have ever seen. You call out Wrath of Khan for it's poor special effects even though that movie was made in the early 80s and that stuff was top of the line back then. You bad mouth Jonathon Frakes because his directing style doesn't conform to what YOU would consider "cinematic" filmmaking. And you have the nerve to say that Nemesis ripped off Undiscovered Country for having a cloaked ship that can fire while cloaked. When you consider that those two films take place in the same universe (with several decades in between their stories) is it really that inconceivable that someone else in that universe would try that same thing? I mean it was working really well for the Klingons before Kirk shot a photon torpedo up their tailpipe. Why wouldn't the Remans try it if they had only one ship and wanted to cripple the Federation?

Of course, you don't call these films out for their biggest flaws. The genesis device is the single most unbelievable piece of so called "science" I've ever seen portrayed in film (and don't even get me started on Thaleron radiation or that frakking "Nexus" from Generations). Sling-shotting around a giant ball of burning gas somehow equals time travel according to Star Trek IV, and why the Hell did people allow Shatner to put a planet at the center of the Galaxy with God on it when any credible astronomer will tell you that there is a supermassive Black Hole there that is holding all of the stars in our Galaxy in multi-billion year orbits (like planets around a star). No one calls these movies out for their scientific inconsistencies. Just the little things that annoy their inner nerd.

And of course none of you give these filmmakers the benefit of the doubt. Every time they try to use a little creative license and do something unique, you hold their work up to the impossibly high standards you've put on "Gene Roddenberry's creation" and use this to justify blasting every other scene in these films. Cut these people some frakking slack (except Shatner. Ever time i watch Star Trek V I feel like he's stolen 2 hours of my life. That pretentious douchebag deserves all the scorn he can get).

Actually for those interested the BOP - bird of prey was orginally a romulan ship - the uncut script for star trek 3 had the klingon commander stealing a ROMULAN bird of prey at the beginning of the movie. however it was cut and fans just assumed the bird of prey was a klingon ship and then it was established as cannon.

fans of tos will remember the cloak/engines treaty the roms and klings had so there tech would have been very simmilar for several years after as each side took the best from one anothers tech do adapt their own ship designs.

And to be honnest i think you where too harsh writing that article - i disagreed with atleast 1 point you made on every film

By Hyperwraith: "Sling-shotting around a giant ball of burning gas somehow equals time travel according to Star Trek IV,"

At least it is consistent with canon. The same plot device was used in the TOS episode "Tomorrow is Yesterday" when the crew had inadvertently time travelled to the 1960s. To return to the 23rd century, Spock plotted a course around the Sun. Who's to say it wouldn't work? Have you tried it? :)

I do wish you would do a little more research before you write anything. Montalban's chest was his own, in fact they specifically designed that costume to show it off. It's a myth that it was a chest plate, and I do wish that this rumor would finally die the death it deserves.

STIII was ok with the exception of them blowing up the original Enterprise. ST Generations to me was the worse. Why? Well let’s see ....a terrible Captain for the Enterprise B, Kirk dies at the end and they destroyed the Enterprise D and Counselor Trio crashes what is left of the Enterprise D. Way to go Paramount and Rick Berman for destroying TOS franchise and setting the other end up for failure. Rick Berman…the real reason the Star Trek franchise died.

This article is the "Just in case the reboot film fails" spin. It points out the good and bad of each film. To accodate all fans. Those that are licking at the chops for May 8 and those like me who will wait for the Netflix selection rotation.

And haven't any of you learned by now that film reviews are for an audiance of one...those that write the article.

The reviewer realy is lazy. ST II was the definitive trek for evryone. Montalban was excellent and the story loyal to canon.
I agree with the others, how lazy were you not to research this better? At least you could have dug up the old Starlog articles if you wanted to write something relevant. The new movie looks like it will rock, but in accordance with the old Reagan saying, I trust JJ but we must verify.
On the other hand SYFY, you have lost your roots.

Well, to be fair, many of the Trek films weren't that good. V and 2 of the four TNG films are just bad.

But I think the article spends too much time glossing over what made the best Trek films great, and those are imo II, IV, and VI.

The Wrath of Khan is great because it actually gave us a great villain (albeit one that returned) and the themes of friendship. And Nero isn't going to be anywhere near as good a villain as Khan either, so don't bother making the comparison.

The Voyage Home and The Undiscovered Country in part focus around the friendships once again, but also in the one area where Trek shines that most people simply forget about: social issues.

I think this is in part why the TNG films have pretty much failed - and why the new Trek film will fail too - is that they pretty much ignored social commentary, and that is what Trek was built upon from the start.

I am a sucker for Star Trek V. All this esoteric BS of finding god, only to have Kirk ask him why he would need a starship in the first place and trash all "faith" plotlines in five minutes, having them turned into nothing more but superstition. Gotta love that.

In defense of Trek V: While admittedly the plot lines were lame in places (especially God at the galactic core), the film also suffered from insufficient resources needed to tell the story properly. Shatner wanted to tell a sweeping tale across a grand stage, but he had neither the budget nor the raw FX capability available in 1988-89 to pull it off. In his original concept, Sybok became a cult leader of millions, and the populist uprising that followed from that could not be effectively portrayed on the screen then. If it was remade today, with digital FX replacing the "cast of thousands", the result would have been quite different.

(Oh, and sy-fy's captcha sucks.)

"Why Generations Sucks: Satisfying the demands of so many different plot lines doesn't make for compelling storytelling. Plus, it's as boring as The Motion Picture."

Oh no. None of them are as boring as the first movie.

I thought Nemesis borrowed more from the Star Wars universe than previous Trek installments.

I have to agree...This is a poor article. Picard going b***hit in First Contact is one of the reasons it was such a great movie, and though he may have lost his cool, it is exactly inline with his very human and deeply developed character.

Secondly, not a mention of killing of Data in Nemesis? Really?!? (Do you also write for SNL, btw?)

And, finally, I gotta ask... Dude. What is your issue with time travel?

I dont understand why everyone always bashes Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It is perhaps my favorite movie in the series. The plot was great and the special effects were amazing for the time, and still are today. I totally disagree that is was boring.

And I also think Nemesis was not as bad as everyone says... it was alot better than Insurrection and Generations, and it allowed Troi to have a larger role in the movies.

If you want to talk about a bad Star Tek movie, look at The Final Frontier. I still enjoy it, but it had horrible special effects and a crap plot.

I for one thought Nemesis was a great film. It had a more movie feel than the other Next Gen movies and the central story focussed on Picard and Data was great. I think it continued the great run of the even movies.

How does one write a blurb about ST:III without even mentioning the destruction of possibly the most famous piece of sci-fi tech ever, the orignal NCC-1701 U.S.S. Enterprise? If anything, THAT's why ST:III mattered.

We've corrected the Romulan error.

You should also correct that Montalban's chest was an effect. It wasn't.

In Star Trek IV it is not a Romulan Bird of Prey. It is a Klingon Bird of Prey. Huge difference. Besides everyone knows the Klingons are so much cooler than the sneaky untrustworthy Romulans. Kirk and his gang stole the Bird of Prey from the Klingons at the end of ST III, due to the fact that the Enterprise was still shot to hell because of Khan (you remember him). From Star Trek II all the way to IV the original cast movies run together very well time wise.

Like other reviewers I don't see what was wrong with Nemesis. A heavily armed prototype ship that can fire while cloaked with devastating technology is right up the Romulans way of doing things. Remember they are sneaky and they don't like to do anything that might be thought of as playing fair boys and girls.

Further, I agree with other reviewers. Can we please have the SCIFI writers back instead of the Syfy ones? These guys suck the photons out of the torpedoes seriously. Oh, one other thing....SyFy? Really? I wonder how much that particular brain storm cost?

It appears to me that someone forgot these movies were also supposed to be FUN. Sheesh.

By Hyperwraith: "Sling-shotting around a giant ball of burning gas somehow equals time travel according to Star Trek IV,"

By Pete C: Who's to say it wouldn't work? Have you tried it? :)

-------

As a physicist, I can tell you that it WOULD work.

Einstein's General Relativity allows backward time travel by traveling at extreme velocities nearby an extreme gravitational force (a massive body, like a star).

Now slingshotting the OTHER direction WON'T send you FORWARD through time (only backwards travel is allowed), but at least they got the physics half right.

I will pit any one of these 10 movies against wonderboy Abrams insulting train wreck of a movie he has done.

"Insulting train wreck" . . . ? Give me a break. We haven't even seen the new movie yet.

And who is it insulting? I've been a hardcore Trekkie for over forty years and I'm thrilled to see Kirk and Spock hit the big time at last.

I agree with just about everyone on some salient points. the LATE Ricardo Montalban's chest was indeed his own. Shatner has said it in many different interviews over the years. On the off chance he is being kind...shouldn't we too? And I have to agree WAY too snarky.

Generations wasn't boring. It was actually pretty good and I think that it was the best along with First Contact starring the Next Gen. cast. I really didn't like the last two of the bunch and can't wait for the new reboot.

A reminder about our commenting policy: If you want to take issue with the points in the story, that's fine. If you want to dispute our conclusions, that's fine. If you want to correct a factual error, that's fine.

But If you want to hurl insults at us, complain about how bad SCI FI Wire is or call us morons, we're going to delete your comments.

Okay, TrekPhysics, I'll concede that point. You would obviously know more about that than me. I was wrong. From a civilian's perspective though, the idea SEEMS ridiculous. They could have at least thrown Einstein's part in the idea into the dialogue to make it seem more credible to those who don't know about that.

On separate note, as a physicist, did that whole planet at the center of the Galaxy thing in Star Trek V piss you off as much as it did me?

I had completl forgotten about the last two films. And i think so have most people. and my, my this site has gotten sensitive

@Death: Shatner also says he doesn't wear a toupee. But if you read the article, you will note the author says he is joking about Montalban's chest being an effect.

But...The effects in ST II are bad? Sure, if you consider the single effect that launched MRI technology AND single-handedly created digital movie effects to be bad.

For the record, Frakes may work well with actors but his cinematic flair is practically nonexistent. Paramount has always been big on hiring cheap, inexperienced directors and pairing them with uber-experienced DPs so the films end up looking pretty good. They failed on that count when Frakes was in the director's chair so his directing looks bad.

Picard going bats--t in First Contact was one of the films strong points! I'm not a Trek fan so seeing some real human drama was great, these characters are way too cool and collected, it was great to have something deeply personal. I like Star Trek Generations alot though, even if the villain and plot are weak the stuff with Picard and Kirk is wonderful.

Just curious here, who would you like to see direct a Star Trek movie? I have a few ideas:

5.) Ridley Scott. Yes, despite being a sci-fi classic, Blade Runner is boring. But he also directed Alien, and we know Scott is a master a directing action flicks (Blackhawk Down, Gladiator) that also rely heavily on drama.

4.) Alfonso Cuaron. Harry Potter 3 is still the best in the series. Cuaron can handle action and story, and has a good grasp of dealing with fantasy.

3.) Stephen Spielberg. Although none of his movies have an ounce of organic feel (with the possible exception of Schindler's List), he nevertheless has created some of the most iconic Sci-Fi films of the last thirty years. And we know he can handle action and story well.

2.) Guillermo Del Toro. I would actually love to see this. Guillermo has a wonderful mind for fantasy, and can masterfully blend fantasy and action with serious drama. I can think of only one director I would rather see do a Trek movie, which brings me to:

1.) Peter Jackson. Not only can he handle all of the elements necessary for a successful Trek movie (action, fantasy, drama, effects), but he also has proven he can faithfully and reverently represent a beloved mythology. Jackson would be the perfect Star Trek director.

This new movie is a disgrace because it says we don't care about the current timeline that the prevous trek movies has established. If they didn't want to use the next gen crew fine, but they needed to explore the next crew in line DS9. They could had made a good movie exploring where DS9 left off with the domenion or even the VOY crew needing to go back to the delta quadrant to stop a threat that some species posed. Paramount in my opinion never wanted Nemesis to make money because they did not do a good job advertising the movie. If they had advertised Nemesis as much as they are for this new piece of **** it would've done better.

Let's be realistic. DS9, although a fine show, was never popular enough to justify a new movie series. That's what the novels and comic books are for.

If STAR TREK is to remain a going concern, it has to appeal to more than just nitpicking hardcore fans like you and me. Relaunching the series a la BATMAN BEGINS or CASINO ROYALE sounds both shrewd and creatively promising.

Some fans need to be less thin-skinned. Making a STAR TREK movie that appeals to everyone, not just Trekkies, isn't an insult or a disgrace. It's boldly going where Trek needs to go to survive.

I have to agree that skipping mention of the destruction of the original Enterprise was a huge mistake.

I am amazed that you were able to grit your teeth and find something positive to say about ST:5, frankly.

But the BIGGEST flaw in the article is the failure to mention the true significance of ST:1--- KLINGON FOREHEADS!!

The major problem with Nemesis was the editing. there were some great shots filmed, but most didnt make it to the screen and only someto DVD. what i wanted to know was WHEN did wesley re-join star fleet, last we heard he was with the TRAVELLER exploring the galaxy. WHEN did worf re-join Star Fleet? last we heard he was Ambassador to Q'ronus. An why did Worf attend their wedding, when neither of them came to his. And no mention of Worf's past relationship with Dianna. How did that end?? sigh.... to many questions....

Ok, the how the Romulans get into the past if based upon what most consider the greatest episode in Star Trek history "The City on the Edge of Forever" which first aired on April 6, 1967. In this episode, the crew discovers the Guardian of Forever which, if you ask the right questions, will allow you to view and travel to any point in time. Dr. McCoy, delusional from a drug overdose, jumps into the portal and changes history for the worse. Kirk and Spock go back into time and attempt to McCoy from altering history. They succeed but at the cost of Kirk's only true love.

For the movie, the Guardian of Forever makes another appearance. The Romulans, led by Nero (Eric Bana) use the Guardian to travel in the past to kill James T. Kirk. Considering his "history" is safe to say his death would probably leave Earth destroyed (due to V'ger in STI and the Probe (in STIV among other things). Spock (Leonard Nimoy) learns of the plan and travels through the Guardian also and recruits his younger self (Zackary Quinto) to stop Nero.

One scene mentioned is a heart to heart between the older more experienced Spock with the younger emotionally rigid Spock explaining the friendship that developed over the years. Cool way to explain the change in behavior from Pike's Spock to Kirk's perhaps other then network orders at the time.

The first time that Kirk is seen on screen is while taking the Kobayahsi Maru no-win scenario. This scenario is "famous" for Star Trek fans as Kirk is the only cadet to win the scenario.

The Maru is the name of a civilian ship in virtual reality test for Starfleet cadets to determine their character and command abilities when facing a no-win scenario. The Maru crosses the Klingon Neutral Zone (think of it as a border crossing between countries) and disabled by a mine. The civilians need to be rescued but Klingon starships could attack and crossing the zone violates treaties that could lead to war. The scenario is set up so victory is not possible as you can't rescue the civilians and get out of the zone with the starship intact. So the choices are do nothing saving the ship or attempt a rescue that may save the civilians but will destroy the ship and its crew. Kirk achieves a win by cheating. He reprograms the scenario to achieve his victory earning him a commendation for "original thinking" that helped his ascension to captain of the Enterprise. This also fits the character whose career is cheating death at every opportunity.

Lots of explanations for Star Trek newbies, but to sum up, Spock goes in the past to stop Romulans from killing cadet Kirk who is taking the Maru test.

I have enjoyed Trek from the beginning. I watch an episode of the various series every week. As for every detail of every movie or series episode I just may not remember it exactly as it was and really do not enjoy the series any less because I don't.

I hope the new movie does so very well that CBS will have a stockholder’s revolt if a new TV series is not part of the new success. I suspect I am as old as anyone on this site and the newly imagined movie is a great idea and in my view, the youngsters of today from twelve (or younger) up need a new updated presentation of this great story for it to relate to their generation. I hope the big budget that this new film has can really restart the greatest show that has ever been on TV and can return it to the position it deserves.

Fans should be able to make their dedication mean something. So many of us have watched every movie multiple times and watched so many episodes, even in reruns, pretty much every week. Now all this excitement over the new movie but very few ways to channel that energy to benefit anyone. Support the Star Trek Movie Fundraiser at http://StarTrekFundraiser.org and help a good cause, win some tickets, and make being a fan count for something.

I know it's unpopular to think so, but "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" is easily my favorite Trek film! Perhaps it has something to do with watching it for the first time on TV with my big brothers back in Newfoundland in 1989, and us all laughing and hanging out together (and we rarely are all together anymore and when we do there's always tension and awkwardness between my brothers).

Robert Wise's Director's cut makers vast improvements in terms of pacing and special effects with the only problem being his eliminating Kirk's irritability. Otherwise, I think the guest actors were really strong and it's quite a beautiful message with V'Ger being quite complex.

I loved when Spock cries after being so cold and restrained during most of the film and says, "There is a time in all of our lives, when we turn to a father, a brother, a God, and ask, 'Is this all I am? Is there nothing more?' I weep for V'Ger as if he were my brother." That's such a moving portion of the film and I really felt for the dynamic between the main characters; I also loved McCoy complaining when Kirk drafted him. Great film that really was about discovering the unknown.

Love this film. Then it's Star Trek 2, which had great effects, I think and some cool moments, though Khan was a bit one-dimensional, but, honestly, I've felt vengeful like him sometimes. Great battle scenes, too.

Star Trek 3 was awesome for Kruge

Star Trek 4 was the first I saw in the cinema, and probably didn't understand.

Star Trek 5 I saw in Newfoundland with my brothers that same summer of 1989, and they were really disappointed, but I think Sybock is a terrific character and what greater unknown to explore than God? Goofy comedy, Paramount not giving a bigger budget, and some admitted plot issues were at the heart of this, but it's got some great themes!

Star Trek 6 I loved when it came out, though I was too young to understand any of the Cold War themes. However, one big criticism I've always had is it gets far too rushed after Kirk and McCoy are arrested; I remember loving the battle scene at the end. I could have been great, if the dialogue weren't so hell bent on making the main cast look like heroes and making the Klingons look like aggressive idiots; there was some wonderful stuff about Kirk getting over his racism, but not nearly enough texture that we come to find on DS9.

Hate Star Treks 7 through 9 (couldn't get over the preposterous of Picard exiting the Nexus when Guinan couldn't and knowing it was real and not simply an illusion of the Nexus), and enjoyed the themes of 10, but the bad guy was too simplistic; Data's end was touching; repeating the Troi mental rape felt exploitative and a cheap way to give Riker a cheesy heroic moment. Still my favorite Next Gen film!

I strongly disagree with you, greg. DS9 is ripe for a series of films, but it has to be written by Ira Steven Behr and maybe his other writers, too, not the superficial J.J. Abrams and his Transformers writers because they miss the point of DS9's political and dramatically realistic themes; they can only do fluff and sensationalism.

The hardcore audience was who let down DS9 -- the ones who always wanted a ship and easy battles. Those who were open-minded loved DS9, as would many critics and a wider audience if they gave it a chance from Season 3 onward.

The trouble is that the original series and Next Gen and Voyager messed that up by constantly driving home to the public that Star Trek is mostly silly fantasy with bad dialogue and a focus on special effects. DS9 was so much more and is for that smarter audience, but people don't check in because of all the stereotyping that Paramount has continued to further by never promoting smarter Trek.

Paramount is responsible for Berman and Braga doing the stuff they did. Paramount never respected the writers of DS9 and that show flourished because its writers had integrity and Paramount didn't care enough about it and were focussed on making money with Next Gen (which worsened substantially in its last 2 seasons) and Voyager. Now, Paramount is insulting a potential Trek audience by just updating the same superficial crap Berman and Braga did; it's just these guys are better at superficiality. However, it will never be a respectable piece of art like much of DS9 was.

Don't get me wrong. I watched DS9 religiously, too. After a shaky start, it turned into a great show with unforgettable characters. But anyone who thinks that DS9 is beloved by more than a small cult following has more enthusiasm than perspective. Even non-Trekkies know who Kirk and Spock are. The average moviegoer has no idea who Sisko or Odo are. Paramount would be insane to spend $100 miillion on a DS9 movie. Ditto for VOYAGER.

And who says Abrams and Co. can only do fluff and sensationalism? I'd put LOST and ALIAS up against DS9 anyday . . . .

My, my; Star Trek fans. Infinite diversity in infinite combinations, in a pig's hamhocks.

Cpt R. D Williams, I enjoyed your summary of the film for newbies, although it scares me a bit that you seem to know so much about the plot of a film that hasn't hit screen yet. One thing, which may be you, and may be the film: according to TOS, at the time Kirk was in the academy, there was no Klingon Neutral Zone. A slowly growing, undeclared war, but no truces. But that is another signpost of Kirk's importance in Trek history, he was there when the Organians forced the treaty.

Don't get me wrong I'll watch the reboot or prequil or whatever their calling it. I don't know if I'll watch it in the theaters or wait til its on dvd. I just don't like that from my prospective their just gonna start all over again and make more of these reboots. I would rather have no new trek movies if all their gonna do is make more imposter movies.

TheDoctor89...Doc, the actual completely practical reason that the Enterprise D was destroyed in the first Next Gen. movie was...because the E-D had been designed TO LOOK GOOD ON TV. It didn't come across well on the big screen. They did some subtle changes to the bridge set to make that look better for the movie, but ultimately they needed to dump the E-D to bring on the E-E...which WAS designed to look good on the big screen. Sadly, we didn't really get to see much of the E-E before the Next Gen. movie series ended.

Cpt R. D Williams...Uh...well...I think you are in for a few surprises in the movie...1st...Harlan Ellison, I believe, thinks he owns a copywrite on the character/concept of "THE GUARDIAN." Whether he does or not is irrelevent. He thinks he does. If the producers of the new movie had tried to use the Gurardian...Ellison would would have the movie tied up in the courts for years.

Nero is NOT looking to assasinate Kirk. Popular early misconception. He is looking for...someone else...I wont say who for those who dont know...because he blames that person for something...I wont say what for those who dont know. Encountering Kirk is just a byproduct of that SEARCH FOR...oops! Almost gave it away! ;^)

I'm not sure how the film is edited since I have not seen it yet...but I would think the Kobayahsi Maru test that Kirk cheats on...is probably not the first time we see young Jimmy boy. Remember the bar fight...the one that leads to his encouter with Captain Pike who new Jim's dad, and dares him to enlist in Starfleet and do better than his dad had done? Gotta think that is close to the first time we see Jim...or at least before the Maru scene,which would take place 4 years later. Of coarse I could be wrong...again I haven't seen the movie yet...but in about one week from today.....!!!

Post attempt 1-FAILED
Post attmept 2-FAILED...and you will not believe why!!!

IMHO, the problem with ST1 was it ignored the main thing that made Star Trek what it is: the characters. The long and boring tour of the remodeled Enterprise puts you to sleep. But it did bring back the franchise.

They got it right with ST2. The characters and their interpersonal relationships are there. The fun was back.

Star Trek in all its forms has always been at its best when one of the main focuses is on the characters.

As for DS9, remember it took TNG a year or two to get up to speed. They actually used a couple of plotlines from TOS before they found their own voice.

I greatly enjoyed DS9. And in both TNG and DS9, what made the shows what they were was the characters!

Fascinating. We lambast ST:1, when it was Paramount's choice to try and take 'Star Trek' mainline that made it a failure with the Trekkies. Robert Wise was a 4-time oscar winner, chosen to direct the initial 'splash' of Star Trek to the big screen. He directed the original "The Day the Earth Stood Still". Look him up on IMDB. His failure was that he knew NOTHING of Star Trek. Therefore a LOT of the things he accented in the movie were the wrong thing to focus on. Character development of two people who were not in the original cast, "Wonderous" focus on the technology that was normally just a prop for the characters we knew and loved. Mistakes like that made the movie boring to anyone who knew anything about TOS.

One more point about Shatner's directing. Watch that movie on a regular old (4:3) TV set. It looks and feels nowhere as bad as you remember it in the movie house. Shatner did not know how to direct for the big screen. ALL the right ideas were there, the 'brotherhood' that the main players felt for each other, the spate of one-liners, and the ability for Kirk to see through things and start saving the day ("What does God need with a Star Ship ?"). Even the "Marsh-Melon" joke played on Spock by McCoy.
I have a hard time classifying any of the ST (TOS) movies as BAD. It seems to me that some were just better than others. :>D

OK, The Motion Picture is my fave. Come on! A machine that gathers so much information that it acquires intelligence and sentience, and then demands to meet its creator so it can evolve? That's an awesome Trek concept!! It's was great! The only thing I hate about the Trek movies was the needless invention of the BORG QUEEN!!! The whole reason the borg were so spooky and threatening was because the 'snake' had no 'head' to cut. If you killed one or ten, or a hundred, there was always more. Now, if you screw around with the Queen a little, she fails and the whole collective fails too!! Totally the opposite of what the Borg were created to be!! Anyway, can't wait to see the JJTrek! Later.

Of course, you all realize that this article's only intention was to get Star Trek fans talking. Factually correct or no (maybe that was intentional?). The more traffic on their boards, the more "successful" the site. You were all baited by this article--myself included. Agree or disagree, it got you all to talk, and for that, the author has succeeded. The accuracy, content or positioning of the article is truly inconsequential. I mean, you realize that, right? (And why is it that the original captcha never works, and I always have to reload the page and enter the second one?)

I wouldn't put "Lost" or "Alias" anywhere near DS9, greg. Those shows are so contrived with awful cliches of cheap Americana. The writers don't care about really evolving the characters and every character is an archetype whose transgressions are due to some impossibly evil parent. It's just chock full of gimmicks. Anyway, Abrams gets all the credit for "Lost" but he didn't write a damn thing; he helped come up with ideas for the pilot and directed it, but Damon Lindeloff did all the hard work and it's been Lindeloff and Cuse and Javier Grillo-Marxauch and others who've done the work; that's another reason I hate Abrams, he never refutes all the credit people give him for whatever twists and turns are occurring on "Lost". Added to that, "Fringe" sucks, too. All his stuff is about ripping off stuff from other shows to make it look cool.

In any case, my point was not that Star Trek should return to well-known characters but that it should actually break new ground with the mainstream with an Ira Steven Behr and company script. It's not like people didn't know who Kirk and Spock were when Star Trek 5 flopped or didn't know the Next Gen cast when the last 2 Next Gen films flopped.

The point is the public has a notion of Star Trek as quite superficial and effects laden, and Ira Steven Behr showed how Star Trek could be so much more than that.

Heck, I would have much rather seen Eric Jenderssen's script than anything by those crappy and cynical Transformers writers. This thing is gonna be terrible, but everyone loves J.J. because he brings in the cash and fulfills people's low ambitions for entertainment. Not once has "Lost" moved me to tears.

DS9, The X-Files, BSG -- those have many times because they're written by people with integrity and some sense of originality and who want to infuse their characters with their personal experiences. So many times, I found myself relating to Odo and Scully and Baltar and Lee Adama! Not so with Abrams shows because his characters spend all their time trying to be cool without ever being dark in a realistic and relatable way "because that's just a downer, man."

You know what this article really reminds me of?
http://scifiwire.com/2009/01/we-strike-back-nine-reasons-george-lucas-should-retire.php
Sci Fi wire needs to stop becoming like most news services which have junk. I want to hear about facts, not some nerd, who isn't really a fan, spout their opinions that are unwarranted and unintelligent. Give us NEW information. And quit whining about other channels' ratings and get some good shows like CAPRICA and BSG that aren't fake "reality" TV. Seriously wrestling on the SCIENCE FICTION channel! (sorry I meant Syphilis channel)

Someone may have already pointed this out... but I think the posters have missed the "tongue in cheek" style of the writers article.

The writer clearly states that Montalbans chest is real, and it's just simply humour to call it the "best special effect". Particularly if the writer is using the term "special effect" as it's used in film - a physical effect generated in real time as opposed to a visual effect which is created in post-production. Rick's chest has widely been acknowledged as pretty damn amazing in TWOK and props to him for looking so great.

The fact "Romulan" was left in the article and scratched out means the writer knows damn well it's a Klingon Bird of Prey and is simply commenting with good reason on how originally, in TOS, Romulan ships were called Birds of Prey. Suddenly, in TSFS so are Klingon vessels because, what? The Klingons thought it was too cool a name to let the Romulans have? Any Trekker knows the reason behind the similarities and I won't go into that... but give the writer a break, it's just tongue in cheek humour and a wink and a nudge to all of us who have been following the series and are fan enough to know a lot of the backstory.

If the article has any fault it's in its popularist rationale for what's good and what's bad with no real insight given either way. Otherwise, it's just a brief snapshot that's probably attempting to sum stuff up for the less Trek-addicted amongst us or is just attempting to toss a nod our way as we countdown to STXI. :o)

I always thought it was kinda funny how Romulus was the name of the surviving twin brother who started Rome,,,be that as it may, there's always coincidence. But then the twin planet of Romulus is named Remus,,,now that's too much. If one tries to follow basic logic, the only conclusion would be the writers expect us to assume that a Romulan family who named their twin sons after their twin planets, visited Earth before the Roman Empire was founded, and died leaving their two sons to be nursed by a she wolf,,,ummm? Okay,,,I'll buy that,,,but what about the ears,,,I know,,,since it was bad enough being raised by a wolf, the last thing they needed was pointy ears, sowhoever took them in must've gave them a trim job. There,,,logic is preserved, I hope this helped others with the same thoughts, I myself found it carthartic.

Ok, setting a couple things right, some of you need to see star trek 5 again, because you didn't like it you must have only watched it once. First of all the planet was not at the center of the universe, it was at the end of it, at a place known as the great barrier, a section of space at the end of the known universe that scans would not penetrate and no ships had survived going through.

secondly, it wasnt actually "God" it was a highly telepathic creaature trying to fool everyone into thinking it was God by praying on all their religious beliefs (especially Syboks). I'll be the first to admit it was not the best movie, but lets criticize what was actually wrong with it and get our facts straight.

Hey guys read more closely, the writer is joking about Khan chest.

I'd always assumed Romulus and Remus were the human names, but not what the inhabitants call themselves except through movie translating. I could be wrong.

But mostly, in defense of Robert Wise (and not so much ST:TMP), the man actually knew what he was doing when he was directing. He was plain and simple overruled on his decisions by the studio and forced to incorporate the expensive special effects they'd paid for by a first-timer who went way over-budget and was ultimately replaced. They wanted their money on-screen, whatever the cost, and the first rule of movie editing is that it's always the character moments that go first. The movie that was released was not the movie Wise wanted to release, but Hollywood is a business first and foremost.

Insurrection wasn't too bad, but it was literally just two episodes of the series, done with movie-budget. Two *well written* episodes. Nonetheless it wasn't an "event" movie.

Nemesis was just.....someone thought they could shamelessly steal the plots to Star Trek 6, mix it with Trek 2, and make an ACTUAL MOVIE?

The worst part of all was that it was the final movie for TNG.

****the cast openly hates it. AND they CUT OUT all of the meaningful character scenes but LEFT IN the action scenes, which were repetitive shooting anyway. We had to watch the DVD to get BASIC character motivations.

AnsateCross,

I think you are right about Romulus & Remus being Human designations. Check out this excerpt from Memory Beta:

Romulus is the adopted homeworld of the Romulans and capital planet of the Romulan Star Empire. The planet is also known as ch'Rihan (in the Rihannsu language) and 128 Trianguli III-A (in the astronomical notation of Earth). In yet another language, it is known as Rom'laas, and in another catalog system, Ket-cheleb III. Romulus is the third of ten planets, and its tidally-locked "sister world" is known as Remus. Together, Romulans and Remus are sometimes called the Hearthworlds.

I beg your pardon but Picard going Batsh-t in First Contact was not a minus, it was a plus! It's nice to know that in the 24th century mankind has become a bit kinder but really, next to the fact that we never saw a single Starfleet officer go take a pee (which was also referenced in the film) we had nary any primal emotion in the series save for the random episode when someone gets infected with some disease or something and goes batty. It's about time they show a little unbridled passion, it showed he was not completely healed from his dealings with the borg. Despite his best attempts to brush it off and bury his pain. For God sakes, the 24th century humans undercut their true feelings so much it's a wonder they haven't become Vulcans.

Nemesis was hysterical. I agree with everyone that they shamelessly lifted previously used story ideas, but they didn't even steal the good bits! Shinzons motivation for destroying Picard and attacking the Earth? "I'm evil! Eat babies, burn orphanages, psychic rape bad! Glarbleblargle!" And the gawd awful Remans? First they follow an uneducated, genetically flawed human for no obvious reason, and when they somehow succeed the agree that the first order of business should be interstellar war? For the love of Khan, why would they do that?

because:
1) they were bored?
2) they had an inferiority complex?
3) the movie executives got their hands on the script?

Nemesis matters because it's the film that killed the Star Trek movie franchise as we know it. The studio, in its infinite wisdom, decided to take Star Trek out of the hands of those who knew the series and give it to the director of U.S. Marshals and one of the co-writers of Gladiator (whose work on that film was rewritten, BTW) in the hopes of it becoming more mainstream. Nothing wrong with that as an aim (and it had been done before with Wrath of Khan), it's just that they handed it to the wrong people and we ended up with a film that didn't understand its characters or the essence of Star Trek.

Instead of a story that successfully picked up on elements developed in the series (as they did with First Contact), we got the Remans... why? To justify some new action figures? Instead of a cool character like Lore we got the pathetic B-4, who shamed the very memory of Data with his presence at the end of the movie.

Bad dialogue and bad plot wrapped up in good visuals is still bad dialogue and plot (which goes equally for any extra resources Shatner may have wanted for The Final Frontier).

Nemesis was a hollow attempt at making a Hollywood Star Trek blockbuster. Compared with that effort, I'll take the new Trek film by JJ Abrams any day! It's a far superior movie.

I heard Recardo Montalbon himself say the chest was makeup on the tonight show.

And I heard Nicholas Meyer say it's his real chest on the DVD commentary for Star Trek II. Of course there's make-up on it, all actors wear make-up any place that you see on screen.

Actually, I think "Frakes is not the director" belongs in the "why it sucked" category for Nemesis. What the hell kind of director in his DVD commentary says "I don't know why they insisted on there being a cat. Maybe it has something to do with the TV show." Shouldn't a director be familiar with the dramaturgy, if not immersed in it?

Hyperwraith, can we also talk about how the missile Soran launches on Veridian III in Generations manages to blow up the sun in like 5 seconds??? And don't tell me it "had warp drive" or some other techno cop-out.

firstly I adore DS9, which took off after season three dramatically and story wise, and it is my favourite of the franchises because the characters were flawed and multi-dimensional. But as much as I would like it, it simply is not popular enough as TOS or TNG for a big budget film. a tv movie maybe.

My fav trek films are parts 2 and 8. Great action, wonderful story (the Genesis device is a McGuffin) and brought emotion to the colds of space. Picard going batpoopie and then making his "the line must be drawn here!" speech, and Spock's death scene are easily two of the most dramatic moments in the more than four decades of the franchise.

I was thoroughly entertained by parts 3,4 and 6 as well. Part 5 was a let down - yeah, you were working against budget but you could have had a better story. And parts 7 and 9 were a bit on the boring side.

I think in Nemesis they wrongly sought to focus on the action and not the characters (umm, we Trekkies do like our noggins jogged). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Nemesis as you can read on wikipedia a number of scenes that could have given the movie a little more heart and made it more interesting character-wise were removed. and what we were mostly left with is boom bam bam oh crap they killed Data, crappily. Unlike with Spock and Jadzia Dax's deaths I felt nothing for the passing of one Trek's best characters. And why did they not show more of Romulus and Romulan culture and expand the theme of former slaves seeking revenge and thereby corrupting themselves. They REALLY missed the bus.

Lastly I thought Motion Picture was a good movie, but not a good Trek Movie. It could have been any crew on any spaceship. Would it really have mattered? But it is worth seeing just for the awesome visuals.

Finally, let's actually WATCH the new Trek movie before handing down judgment.

Tekwar584,

Generally when Treknology, such as Soran's missile, is used, I just shrug, give it the nod and leave it at that. Since we aren't privy to the exact details of how it all works, it is difficult to say what it can or can not do, or the possible side effects of using it in various scenarios. But for the sake of discourse I'll play devil's advocate.

What we can do is observe the effects of using it in the universe as presented on the screen in the theater and make deductions based on that.

Since the effect Soran's missile's "detonation" had on the star occurred and propagated faster than the speed of light we have to make the reasonable assumption that Treknological propagation was employed. Since subspace, warp and transwarp are the "known" such versions of that in common use it isn't that big of a leap to postulate that one or a combination of those were used so that the effects would seem to propagate "faster" than it could in "normal" space.

Once you have that kind of technology on-board it really isn't that far of a stretch to have the missile itself also use it to enhance its ability to arrive at its destination quicker.

Where I draw the line is when the new writers decided to abandon "artificial" supernovae and take the well observed "natural" phenomena and ramp them up "naturally" so that they can pose a credible threat to a "Treknological" civilization. I'm sorry but naturally occurring supernovae do not propagate their cataclysmic effects faster than the speed of light without a Treknological assist - I don't care how you try to have it otherwise - and neither do their precursor "burps".

And finally some reviews for the new 'Star Trek' movie are being released. Most I've read are not so favorable: 'Choppy story', 'Nothing special', 'Waste of potential'. Is anyone really surprised?

Kaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhnnnnnnnnnn!!!

Ooops, sorry Khhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnn!!

HERE'S MY TAKE ON THE TEN MOVIES

The Motion Picture
Why it Works
It was good to see the whole cast reunited after so many years of longing. At that time they were still at a good age to make such a movie. It was one of the first from TV to Screen endeavors

Why it Sucks
For me, it exposed how a TV series works, functioning only from episode to episode, and if you don't have a good carryover story, the movie will be boring!!!!!! Actually I thought the movie played like a Paramount version of The Black Hole where the spaceships floated aimlessly in space waiting to be gobbled by its apparition. Lets face it, after Star Wars Episode IV, every other Space movie was a poor imitation.

Why it Matters
Dull story aside, it brought back a fan favorite and gave the Franchise promise and possibilities.

The Wrath of Khan
Why it Works
bacause it expanded on a well known episode and turned it into a somewhat decent story of revenge. Also I got to say Kirstie Ally was hot!!!!!

Why it Sucks
I could not get into the rage felt by Kirk. Why did he get so worked up after so many years, or was he just mad at his own years slipping away? Also Spock died! That did not feel like a necessary story line or a decent cliffhanger

Why it Matters
It provided a better step in the footbridge of trek sequels. Now we got something.

The Searc for Spock
Why it Works
I guess it only worked for Fans to get their Trek on and see more of the same characters in another full length feature but that's it!

Why it Sucks
It was unecessary to take Spock's Death and explode it into another two hour epic which did not need to be seen other than to correct the error made in ST2. Also why kill off David and make Kirk blubber all over the bridge. There was nothing heroic about that! Also why kill Kirstie Ally off and replace her with a lifeless imitation!! Kirstie more than the character herself was essential to the movies!

Why it Matters
It didn't. It really did not have any redeeming qualities to it.

The Voyage Home
Why it Works - the element of comedy applied to a good space time travelogue which was surprisingly a BIG part of Star Trek Canon, made for a universally enjoyable movie. It made the Series laugh at itself and provided a decent commentary on environmental preservation. (it reminds me of the Wonder Pets! - Save the chimp!, Save the Whales! - Look it Up!)

Why it Sucks
These actors are getting OLD!!!! It was sad to see these heroes run around in compromising situations too close for the public too touch. At this time the actors were starting to burst out of the shell of their characters.

Why it Matters
I remember being a Trekkie in the eighties while people were laughing at me for loving scifi and still watching the reruns. This made the franchise more mainstream and enhanced the movie watching experience of the time more.

The Final Frontier
Why it Works
It felt like The Jerk for Kirk - I cannot find a good reason why it worked.

Why it Sucks
I CAN find a couple of reasons here - 1) that toothless boob at the beginning of the movie. 2) The silly plot setup with the ancillary characters being kidnapped by Spock's brother 3) Uhura's Fan dance - I would have screamed seeing her. 4) Spock eating beans and farting around the campfire; that does not endear me any closer to the characters seeing them like this.

Why it Matters
It had some scenes that you wanted to see: heroes saving the day; a weathered old ship venturing into a final unknown, which to me meant the end of mortality, and yes, old friends together after a long journey in life.

The Undiscovered Country
Why it Works
I liked Christopher Plummer's naval battle with Kirk. It was a bit weathered but I liked it. It was actually the story to see of these old space dogs, looking for another day to save and then floating away into the sunset.

Why it Sucks
How did that go?; time is like a predator that stalks you, etcetera. It was way time to hang it up original crew and it was time to end their cinematic fantasy.

Why it Matters
It clearly voiced the end of the original franchise while the next generation was starting theirs.

Generations
Why it Works - It was a new and exciting time to see a successful seven year run end on television and translate nearly six months later into a hopeful full blown movie experience,

Why it Sucks - It didn't deliver. There were elements of cornyness in the movies. You wanted to root for these heroes and they were also caught up in moments of made for TV sillyness. I think basically the series could not keep pace with the way movies had to be seen during the mid nineties, storyline, cinematography and all.

Why it Matters
It gave a a respectable Coda for Kirk. He was a swashbuckling old bear who deserved an honorable end. I think the Shat liked it too because he was so likable in the movie - Please call me Jim. It's Fun!

First Contact
Why it Works
This flick was a real crowd pleaser, at least in the audience that I saw it with. I took the best elements of the Next Generation series and turned it into a promising franchise - my favorite scene was the space battle at wolf 10, seeing all of the other starships only to be stood up by the new enterprise. Also I thought Picard was in a rare and powerful form: the prime of his career. (I loved his Freakout) I also though that the moment where zefrom cocran meets the vulcans played an emotionally pivotal moment in Star Trek History.

Why it Sucks
While diminsished, it still had a level of TV suckiness, like the holodeck scene, the casting of Alfre Woodard (she wasn't that bad) Barckley. I don't want to be distracted by that unnecessary crap.

Why it Matters
I thought at the time this would be the groundbreaking Trek that was needed to boost the franchise to another level. It was also released at the time the SW special editions came out. It was a very nearly awesome movie.

Insurrectioin
Why it Works
It didn't

Why it Sucks
It was a pretty dissapointing storyline, feeling very planet of the week: if you hate that planet, well.....

Why it Matters
I guess at the very least it gave the new ship a workout.

Nemesis

Why it Works
It didn't. It was the worst movie, surprisingly and nailed the coffin on the next generation.

Why it Sucks
Where can I start? Well Picard's clone was not, his alien sidekicks were ridiculous, and various plot areas sucked, e.g. why empathically rape Troi? Why kill off data? why the ugly alien ships? Why wreck the Enterprise-E just to fill the movie with a little action? Why even this whole movie?

Why it Matters

It didn't. It did create a result; to put the franchise on hold before JJ Abrams could give a shot at it. GOOD LUCK.

I don't think anyone has mentioned one of my favorite reasons Wrath of Khan is so good - it pairs a rollicking good adventure (the Khan storyline) with a cinematic arc about aging and confronting death - specifically Kirk's story. From the very beginning where he has to wear reading glasses, to meeting his son he hasn't seen in 20 years, to facing death (which he cheats in the Kobyashi Maru scenario - pardon my spelling). The director, Nicholas Meyer, was not a Trek fan - which is one of the reasons it is so effective as a MOVIE - and not just a 2 hour TV episode - as many of the later films turned out to be. Also I think the effects hold up pretty well. The Genesis sequence is still pretty cool CGI IMHO.

Wow, everyone's so worked up! Calm down and take a breather, please.

Personally, my favorite is STII: TWoK. One of the few times William Shatner's acting skills impressed me comes after one of Ricardo Montalban's great lines: "I've done far worse than kill you: I've hurt you. And I want to go on hurting you. I shall leave you as you left me, as you left her, marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead planet... buried alive, buried alive..."

Do you think it is possible for the "new" Kirk, having lost his father at his birth, to confront death in his possible future TWoK with the same self discovery of having avoided facing it? I mean, the absence of his father due to death is liable to haunt him in ways that the original Kirk never had to experience.