Ranking Every "Star Trek" Movie, From Worst to Best

[Vworp Vworp]

Ok, let's have a go (Oh, and I'm doing best to worst cos that's how it works).

1) Star Trek. Awesome film in it's own right, even before it's a Star Trek movie.
2) First Contact. Ditto above.
3) Into Darkness.
4) The Voyage Home. Still feels like the Star Trekiest of all the classic crew movies.
Joint 5th) You can put Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, Final Frontier, Nemesis and Insurrection in here together. I can't pick between 'em. They're all basically alright movies that I'll probably watch when they rock up on the TV - but I don't own them in any format and can't imagine ever specifically wanting to watch any of them.
6) The Search for Spock. Boring.
7) The Motion Picture. Boringer.
8) Generations. Ugh. Ugh to it all. Ugh to the crappy job they did with Data, ugh to killing off Picard's family, ugh to how dull it was, ugh to that bit at the beginning making the new captain of the Enterprise look like a numpty just to big up Super-Kirk. UGH.

[morph1138]

I had to stop reading the article when the author said in entry 12: "The franchise's 2002 finale didn't do justice for the series" only to say in entry 8: "Despite the series' incredibly strong finale months prior". If he can't even be consistent on his opinion of the TNG finale in the same article, I find it hard to listen to his opinions on the rest of the franchise.

[sunofdarkchild]

I had to stop reading the article when the author said in entry 12: "The franchise's 2002 finale didn't do justice for the series" only to say in entry 8: "Despite the series' incredibly strong finale months prior". If he can't even be consistent on his opinion of the TNG finale in the same article, I find it hard to listen to his opinions on the rest of the franchise.

In entry 12 it was referring to Nemesis as the finale of the movie series in 2002. In entry 8 it was referring to the finale of the television series in 1994.

[Blind Otto]

While Wrath of Khan is probably the best action picture, I'll always have a soft spot for The Motion Picture. And no, I didn't find it long-winded or boring - I found it amazing.
I'm probably biased since it was my introduction to Star Trek... but what an introduction!

[Anduinel]

From best to worst:

1. Kahn. Not just because it was a good movie in its own right, but because it allowed the franchise to have a future after the misfire of TMP.
2. Undiscovered Country. The crew at its best and worst. Great send-off. But yes, it should have been Saavik.
3. Voyage Home. A very thin story held together by the strength of the cast, but so much fun all the same.
4. First Contact. I really wish this had been TNG's send-off...
5. The Search for Spock. Some clunky bits, but the crew's devotion to each other makes it mostly work.
6. NuTrek. Lazy, LAZY story, but the new cast did a good enough job that it got me on board for this hyped-up AU silliness.
7. Generations. A strong opening with so much squandered potential.
8. TMP. A two-hour slog toward a half-decent idea. I still hold this film up as a prime example of why it was a good thing Gene lost the captain's chair.
9. Insurrection. Predictable, unfunny, and booo-oooring.
10. Frontier. Bill Shatner aggrandizing Kirk at the crew's expense. Blech.
11. Nemesis. A grimdark hot mess.
12. Darkness. Regressive, unoriginal garbage. This movie was everything I didn't want the reboot to be. Instead of boldly going, we got a rehash of a film already done before and better. I'd rather do a marathon viewing of the first season of TNG followed by the low points of Voyager than ever watch this again. Also, Buntyfunt Garglesnatch needs to keep his pale, knotty self out of my fandoms.

[Darkhawk]

I really don't understand why people keep shitting on Generations. It's a great movie. It's funny, it's exciting. The Nexus is a good idea handled well. Whoopi Goldberg really adds something to the proceedings. Oh and Malcolm Macdowell!

EDIT: Oh hell here's me:

VIII First Contact
IV Voyage Home
II Wrath of Khan
VII Generations
VI Undiscovered Country
XI Star Trek 2009
III Search For Spock
XII Into Darkness
I The Motion Picture
X Nemesis
IX Insurrection
V Final Frontier

[NexusTenebrare]

I really don't understand why people keep shitting on Generations. It's a great movie. It's funny, it's exciting. The Nexus is a good idea handled well. Whoopi Goldberg really adds something to the proceedings. Oh and Malcolm Macdowell!

This! All of this.
I don't get all the people crapping on Generations either. It was a great Star Trek movie.

I can't rank them all right now. It's been ages since I saw most of them.
I'd put First Contat in first place though and Insurrection and the two Abrams films dead last.
Insurrection was plain boring. It could've sort of worked as a subpar episode of the TV series, but as a motion picture it falls flat on its face.
And the whole rebooting of the franchise to the TOS cast has been the worst thing that ever happened to Star Trek. It's a terrible regressive attitude we also saw with the Enterprise show.

[justinslot]

I would have hoped for more consensus on Into Darkness being the absolute worst Trek film. Khan is the consensus best Trek film (and I agree with that) and Into Darkness is Bizarro Khan--every moment feels false, every creative decision was the wrong one.

[ChrisIII]

I think part of the problem with the NG films is that they didn't really have the same ensemble cast feel of the TV show. It was mainly Picard and Data, with most of the rest of the crew not really given that much to do except the bit of reigniting the Riker/Troi romance. Also they kind of tried to make things more action-oriented, when TNG was pretty much the most cerebral and slow paced of all the shows (I mean, it did have some good action sequences in episodes with the Klingons/Borg/Romulans but it dealt far more with other, more dramatic elements IMO). Especially with Patrick Stewart-Captain Picard seemed more of a diplomat and thinker in the series, with Riker more of the action guy. Although there were some cool Picard speeches in the films, and some great dramatic scenes by Stewart (Finding out his brother and nephew had died, the Borg thing, the debate about moving the Baku etc.), they had him with phasers or fists in a lot of the other scenes.




Also with Data I feel he was either treated too much as comic relief especially in Generations, and the emotion chip thing seemed to be mostly forgotten in Insurrection and Nemesis (I think the non-canon books mentioned that he lost it or something to explain that).

[sunofdarkchild]

I really don't understand why people keep shitting on Generations. It's a great movie. It's funny, it's exciting. The Nexus is a good idea handled well. Whoopi Goldberg really adds something to the proceedings. Oh and Malcolm Macdowell!

Funny-Data was the comic relief and he was as funny and annoying as Jar Jar Binks.

The Nexus is never explained properly, like how Picard can just leave it and go to any time he wanted. And if it had been handled well Picard would have gone back far enough to stop Sauron from leaving the Enterprise in the first place. So it was a half-baked idea handled horribly.

The Enterprise D, under the command of the man who defeated the Borg, goes up against a Bird of Prey so outdated the Klingons stopped producing that model, and only manages a draw because of some stupid technobabble allowing it to lower the enemy's shields.

Kirk and Picard, both of whom have faced gods and saved the human race, team up just to beat up an old guy. And the stakes that bring these legends together? The stakes being a race of primitives we never even see. The comedy about saving the whales presented a more credible threat and higher stakes.

Kirk's death 'on the bridge.'

Killing off Picard's family out of the blue.

The villain's plans being stupid and unnecessary because we see several times that anyone who flies a ship into the nexus just ends up in the nexus, meaning there was never a reason to destroy stars in the first place.

Then there are the myriad little things like the uniforms being all over the place.

Generations is a turd of a movie, and as a Star Trek movie goes out of its way to dick with the fans.

[Viz]

Is there a thread somewhere on CBR to discuss the new 2017 series? If so what's the link? Thanks

[Teek]

"Search for Spock" and "First Contact" need to be bumped up to 3 and 2 on this list. Putting the Abrams Reboot ahead of them is just sacrilege.

[mmurphy1968]

never mind...

[Cyke]

I see a lot of reasons why Abramverse are bad. I agree.

So what's the list of reasons why the NG movies are bad? Personally I never thought First Contact was that great, it was more action/popcorn like which is why I assume it was more popular. Just another Borg and time travel story.

Why is Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis so bad? Details would be great.

My young son likes Generations because Kirk dies. :shrugs:

This is me personally, and by no means reflective or on behalf of any other Trekkies out there. Everyone's free to like what they like, and if you like those movies, more power to ya! You're who the movies are meant for (I hate that "this isn't REAL Trek" or "You're no Trekkie" elitist BS). But this is just my thoughts and preferences. Thanks in advance as well for indulging me.

Generations: One of the primary draws was finally a meeting between Kirk and Picard, but that was saved for Act III, so a lot of that hype and build up was squandered; compare and contrast of Kirk and Picard would've been a dream, but instead Picard summons Kirk to play by Kirk's rules. Narratively, it's not a sound plan -- if the Nexus is so powerful, Picard could easily come up with any number of time-travel solutions instead of picking a single historical figure (travel to Ten-Forward to arrest Soren, for example!). And even then, the build up to get to that point has very little with the meandering Act II. And that's not even taking into account just how Kirk died, by falling off a cliff.

The thing is though, Generations was written at the same time as All Good Things, though the movie took longer to write, understandably. But AGT worked on a grander scale, focused much more on character development rather than character skits, had a truly enthralling mystery, gave everyone a moment or two to shine (including old friends), and the climax was brought upon by enlightened wonderment. Braga and Moore both say that AGT is the stronger effort than Generations, and I'm inclined to agree with the men who wrote both.

Insurrection: Props to the writers for trying to tackle a subject that's been getting more and more discussion lately -- the needs of expansion vs. forced relocation of indigenous people. The big, big failing though is that no one really feels all that motivated or with the same conviction for either side; it's not enough that they're both talking about survival and ethics, but delving into culture, history, the "humanity" (for lack of a better term); in other words, why are their goals worth fighting for. It must be a good reason for Starfleet officers (both evil admiral and Picard) to betray this key institution to make their stand. But evil admiral is treated as an idiot in a suit, and Son'a doesn't come across as particularly threatening or intelligent, certainly not a worthy foe for the crew. The Fountain of Youth qualities of the planet are also a bit weird to stomach, seeing as how TWOK, TFF, and TUC all had the TOS crew deal with age -- the TNG crew was comparatively fresh (it's part of their name, after all), and too young to be going through some new rejuvination; is it a commentary on the state of Trek? If so, they're not the crew to do it, because we still like them. Is it just meant simply to be part of the story? Ok, it leads to some fun scenes admittedly, but like Generations it leads more to an Act II that goes from point-A to point-B rather than anything meaningful. If it's supposed to provide personal motivation to our heroes, they don't really dwell on it enough to make me care, and they make their unanimous decision to fight a little too quickly, with little objection (and the TNG crew, by decree of Roddenberry, were designed to always be agreeable with each other -- and even then this choice seemed too fast). Couple that with some boring fight scenes trying too hard to mimic the dynamic action of First Contact, bland OST music, and a really weird blue screen in the climax that the producers said, "**** it, no special effects here. Leave the CGI blue screen in!", and it's a bit of a weird, boring mess. Most other Trek two-parters, I'd say, have a much stronger, tighter story with more conviction. To me this ranks as the worst of the Trek movies; bad Trek movies can still be entertaining, but this movie suffered from being boring.

Nemesis: TOM HARDY AND RON PERLMAN! My god, what a great casting coup for a Trek movie! It's a pity though that they were squandered so badly, imo. The movie suffered from too many contrivances -- a clone of Picard *and* Data? One of those alone would've been annoying as a movie. A super-duper ship that greatly outguns the Enterprise -- that's one of the major weaknesses of Into Darkness, but it was invented here (the cube in FC doesn't count since Starfleet sent every ship they had at the thing, and won). For that matter, the Enterprise falls into a trap that Data and Picard should've seen a light year away. Beverly basically disappears, the movies' collective emphasis on Picard-Data make the show's LaForge-Data broship meaningless, there's no real reason for the Romulans to make a clone of Picard in the first place, and in maybe the most boring move, Shinzon decides to go after Earth, even though the movie clearly established that his beef was with the Romulan Star Empire, and that he had accomplished that goal already. But maybe that's all because Nemesis started to take the action in First Contact/Insurrection for granted, and hired Stuart Baird to direct. His directing career included action movies sure, that weren't exceptional but otherwise dependable (US Marshals, for one). But he basically made a movie that wasn't very ambitious despite trying to show major changes in the crew's lives (Mr. and Mrs. Troi, for example). Whatever John Logan and Brent Spiner wanted to advance, Baird seemed to say, "Whoa there." And so he removed key character development moments in exchange for battle scenes that go on for a bit too long; I like starship fights as much as the next person, but halfway through the big battle with the Scimitar, I started to drift -- "Are they still fighting? Really?" Lastly, it was, for all intents and purposes, a grim-n-gritty movie for a cast forged from utopianism. While normally I like that juxtaposition, no one in the movie really seemed to notice. Insurrection didn't know which direction to go, Nemesis felt it needed to go dark to seem serious. Now, with Abramsverse movies, I agree with some criticisms. But several of those criticisms in the Abramsverse movies are present in, or even started in, Nemesis; perhaps it's a sign of the times, perhaps Abrams took it from Nemesis, but either way, some things don't work in both the TNG or the JJ movies.

Nemesis wasn't just Baird's final turn at the director's chair; it took a heavy toll on Tom Hardy, too. For all the work he put into prepping for the movie, Baird and Berman basically told him he was doing it wrong. The movie's failures were one of the primary reasons why he sank into substance abuse and mental breakdown, so much so that it took him years to get his career back on track. The screentest showed a thoughtful, charismatic, contemplative Shinzon; what we got in the final product was a generic villain who needed a mustache to twirl.



If I had to rank them, I'd say Gen -> Nemesis -> Insurrection.

[choptop]

BEST to worst

Wrath of Khan
Nemesis
Galaxy Quest
The Motion Picture
First Contact
The Search for Spock
The Voyage Home
The Final Frontier
The Undiscovered Country
Star Trek 2009
Generations
Insurrection
Into Darkness