Boldly Going Until I'm Blue in the Face: Six 'Star Trek' Movies in Three Days
Filed under: Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Remakes and Sequels

Doing a six-movie (Kirk-and-Spock) Star Trek marathon in a weekend can shed a lot of light on Stockholm Syndrome. I did a great deal of laughing and scoffing and eye-rolling, which I insist is the proper response for any reasonable person watching these films for the first time today. And yet, as the final credits rolled for Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country -- fashioned in the style of the cast members' signatures -- I found myself wiping back tears.
As I explained in this motivating post last Friday, my goal was to bone up on my Star Trek in anticipation of J.J. Abrams' reboot, due May 8th. I had seen the last four films, plus most of The Next Generation and all of Voyager (which I love, damn you), but virtually nothing from the original series. The Castro Theatre in San Francisco was screening all six of the original-series films over one weekend. This seemed perfect -- if arduous. I committed (publicly, no less) to the full complement.
I should clarify that the amount of eye-rolling I did wasn't uniform throughout the marathon. The conventional wisdom is correct about the even-numbered films faring far better than the odd-numbered ones, and I enjoyed the gleefully hammy Wrath of Khan, the witty and lovable Voyage Home, and the thoughtful, vaguely Hitchcockian Undiscovered Country. But gee, I thought: Kirk is awfully one-dimensional, isn't he? Aside from Spock, the crew doesn't have much to do besides stare at Kirk in slack-jawed admiration. And I didn't know Uhura was basically a glorified receptionist.
I still think the movies' dynamic is impossibly hokey and stilted, with the cast doing more public speaking than acting. It's hard not to laugh: at Walter Koenig's ludicrous Russian accent, which for some reason turns v's into w's and w's into v's; at James Doohan's overemphatic, catchphrase-spouting Scotty (probably the franchise's most-caricatured personality); at the gotta-see-them-to-believe-them digressions into Vulcan mysticism. But like many before me, I was won over by the obvious affection of the movies for the characters, and by the characters for each other. I think it helped that the movies became increasingly self-effacing as they went along, complicit in their own absurdity. I loved that Kirk's first line in The Undiscovered Country is an incredulous "What are we doing here?", seemingly delivered on behalf of the entire aging cast. And of course the entirety of The Voyage Home is one long, funny joke at the crew's expense.
I think I was even won over by the undeniable awfulness of the odd-numbered entries, which possibly explains why I thought the much-maligned Star Trek V: The Final Frontier -- the one with Spock's half-brother and some sort of weird acid trip masquerading as the Almighty -- was actually the "best of the worst," just as goofy as The Motion Picture and The Search for Spock, but livelier. (Maybe it was the campfire scenes.) For the record, it seemed to me that the Leonard Nimoy-directed Search for Spock was the weakest of the films, hung up as it is on The Wrath of Khan's skimpy "Genesis" storyline, while adding nothing of its own.
But as a constant defender of later Star Trek efforts -- particularly First Contact, which I think ranks among the best modern sci-fi -- I have to point out that The Next Generation and even Voyager (which I know no one but me likes) held up without forcing fans to justify them as amiably silly or self-mocking. Sometimes their plots credibly explored moral, ethical and philosophical issues, and more often they stood on their own merits as serious science-fiction. It's hard to fault the original series for this too much: it pioneered the franchise, after all. But after seeing these six films, I must admit I'm skeptical of the claim that the original series was "better" than its successors. I wonder if watching episodes of the TV show would change my mind.
Another problem -- a more serious one -- is that Star Trek mistook fearlessness for courage. Shatner's Captain/Admiral Kirk was afraid of nothing: he plunged into battle with barely contained glee. Compare Jean-Luc Picard, who was mortally afraid of (for example) the Borg, but did what had to be done. I think the latter is a lot more interesting -- and is part of what made The Next Generation so consistently rich over two decades.
Anyway, I think I'm ready for the J.J. Abrams film now. I'm kind of well-positioned for it, actually: I liked the characters the first time around, but think some things were missing that Abrams could fill in. He might start with character arcs and some genuine gravitas.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-09-2009 @ 10:31PM
Cole said...
You really should watch at least the first season of the original series to get the tone JJ seems to be shooting for...The films were mainly about the crew getting old, sad to say. Though, they did have their moments.
The stories of the original series are pretty awesome for their day, especially for such a small budget...Yes there's lots of corny in them, but that's what you get with a fearless womanizing captain and a space elf as the first mate.
Watch the first season and you'll be more excited for the JJ film...trust me
Reply
3-10-2009 @ 12:02AM
Paul said...
I have to agree. The original series wrote the proverbial book on TV sci fi writing. The sets were cheesy, as was the acting, but the stories, with their futuristic spin on the problems of the day and the style with which to make that interesting tend to hold up even today.
Also, if nothing else, you should watch Khan's origin episode, Space Seed.
3-10-2009 @ 12:08AM
gottacook said...
Absolutely, trying to evaluating original-cast Star Trek strictly on the basis of the six movies may give you a distorted view. The existence of the movie series is attributable to a fan base that wanted new Star Trek stories, for whom the early-1970s animated series (with most of the cast involved) wasn't nearly enough. A UPN-style Paramount network featuring a new Trek series (sans Nimoy but with a full Vulcan officer instead) was accordingly planned in the mid-1970s, sets and models built, scripts commissioned - then Star Wars came out, had a year-long theatrical run, and the pilot episode of the aborted series became the first Star Trek picture in late 1979.
Boy, did that picture have problems - I'm playing it back on listentoamovie.com right now, but wouldn't want to be stuck in a theater with it again. Luckily a second picture was given the go-ahead, with a much smaller budget through Paramount's TV division. The key to its success was NOT making a sequel to the G-rated Motion Picture, but rather a sequel to a TV episode; TMP was completely ignored and essentially the series was rebooted.
Regarding the movies, you also have to take into account the behind-the-scenes people for each one. No surprise that the even-numbered ones all had Nicholas Meyer involved (director of II and VI, credited writer on IV and VI, and more-than-likely uncredited writer on II).
Reply
3-10-2009 @ 1:38AM
Paul Nicholson said...
3-days for 6 movies? You are weak, weak i say!
I used to burn through all 6 on random long days during the summer if i didnt have class.
Wow. Did i just admit that in public?
Haven't added it up, but i'm assuming thats longer than the 3 LOTR extended edition movies - which i've done as a marathon on more than one occasion too :-)
Reply
3-10-2009 @ 2:08AM
BloodwerK said...
One needs to have seen the original series to completely get the films...
Reply
3-10-2009 @ 4:25AM
Alfred Schrader said...
I am one of the last people to communicate with Gene Roddenberry before his death. He told me the secret to Star Trek....alfredschrader@aol.com
Reply
3-10-2009 @ 9:32AM
Ethen said...
I think Roddenberry would be happy to know that his baby is still going strong. It's great that they included Nimoy, Majel Roddenberry and Chris Doohan in the cast. Classy and cool.
Reply
3-10-2009 @ 10:12AM
Astin said...
A touch off-topic, but you do mention it twice - Voyager. How you can "love" Voyager is beyond me. It wasn't a terrible show, but it did absolutely nothing to create an attachment to the characters. You could have essentially taken everyone from the second episode, moved them to the finale, thrown in Seven, and seen no difference. There was no character growth, and pretty much all cameraderie came off as forced. That's saying something for 7 years.
Compare to TOS. TOS was all about the relationship between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. You believed that these three honestly cared for one another, and that friendship infused the rest of the main crew (as shown strongly in VI by Sulu, or II by Chekov, or just about any time Scotty was on screen ever).
Or TNG, where they started off getting to know each other and building rapport. There was already some built-in history between some characters, but over its 7 seasons, the genuine affection the actors felt for one another came through in the characters, who had grown into a family. If you took the final scene from TNG and put the Voyager crew in its place, it would have come off as flat and unbelieveable, but in TNG, you honestly believed that Picard regretted not having come down from his captain's chair much sooner.
And that's where the new movie's success will hinge. If Abrams fails to successfully create the genesis of the friendship between these people, then the movie will have failed. If it feels like "good-looking people hanging out in space" instead of "lifelong friends meeting for the first time", then it's just another flashy sci-fi piece, and not a quality Trek movie.
Reply
3-10-2009 @ 10:31AM
Paul said...
I took a month or so and watched Enterprise all the way through. It wasn't "good" (though it definitely had its moments), but afterwards, I was left wanting more. I think it's exactly because of the connections the characters had with one another. I wanted to see more stories with them and was willing to accept nuggets of goodness per episode if not a whole good episode. Voyager never accomplished that.
3-10-2009 @ 10:48AM
pAT said...
Eugene may be the only person that enjoyed Voyager but I seem to be the only person that enjoyed the first Star Trek movie. I thought it was a hokier version of 2001: A Space Odyssey. It definitely seemed to represent the spirit of the original series; to boldly go where no man has gone before. If nothing else, I enjoyed seeing an alien intelligence that wasn't immediately identified, embodied in a rubber suit or bad makeup and then beaten into submission by a bare-chested Kirk. Hail VGER!
Reply
3-10-2009 @ 10:51AM
Pat said...
The original series: "you know, 80 episodes, about 30 good ones." Yeah, I stole this from Futurama but it's incredibly accurate. And those 30 good ones came in the first two seasons.
But some of the bad episodes, like the bad films, can be enjoyable in spite of themselves. Who doesn't love Spock's Brain or I, Mudd for the sheer silliness of them?
And my last comment: I tear up a little at the Wrath of Khan, which wasn't nearly as campy in 1982 as it seems today. It's one of the two or so ST films to do what I hope the new film will do, focus on character and action and leave the philosophizing for the TV show(s). It always seems to work best this way, even though I love the occasional brainy-liberal-sci-fi-allegory episodes.
Reply
3-10-2009 @ 10:54AM
Pat said...
I meant to say "which I ASSUME wasn't as campy in 1982 as it seems today." I'm not old enough to claim concrete knowledge of life in 1982, though I understand it involved mustaches and neon lights.
Reply
3-10-2009 @ 12:09PM
Saltypoison said...
Voyager is my favorite Star Trek series by far. The only episodes that bugged me were the ones that delved into Native American mythology... They always came across as really cheesy to me. But many of the story arcs and two parters were just good TV.
"Year of Hell" anyone?
Reply
3-10-2009 @ 12:46PM
Eugene Novikov said...
Oh, absolutely. "Year of Hell" was great television. How about the "Joker" episode with Michael McKean? Or the one where an accident produces a splice of Tuvok and Neelix that doesn't want to be killed?
3-10-2009 @ 3:09PM
Lauren said...
I also enjoyed Voyager and so does my husband. I grew up watching TNG, but could never get into DS9 or TOS. I did watch all the movies though. I'm looking forward to what the new movie has to offer.
3-10-2009 @ 3:03PM
Astin said...
Individual episodes being above average doesn't make the show on the whole good. Year of Hell was decent, but even the best Voyager episodes paled in comparison to the best DS9 or TNG ones. In fact, I'd put the quality of the last two seasons of Enterprise against Voyager's whole run any day (but not the first two seasons of Enterprise).
"Year of Hell" also had Deus Ex written all over it from the start. In the end, the whole story didn't matter, because they simply hit reset. I found "Course: Oblivion" better in many ways because the "crew" had no effect on the larger story regardless of the outcome.
I found "Joker" annoying and overdone. And while Tuvix himself was great, and the questions raised were interesting, there was never any doubt that Tuvok and Neelix would be back, which changed the episode from thought-provoking to maudlin. In fact, those episodes show a lot of what was wrong with Voyager - these things happen, and then nothing changes. It was like the Full House of Star Trek, without the character development.
The ONLY character that truly advanced in the show was The Doctor. Even Seven going from Borg to human pretty much occured over a handful of episodes and then stalled.
3-10-2009 @ 5:12PM
ML said...
I don't know whether you'd enjoy the original series or not; it is, after all, 60s television and therefore dated. However, much of the first season steals unabashedly from classic SF literature and film and has more of a straight SF quality. The second season moves more into character ... and the third, well, let's not go there.
Ha, Voyager. I was unable to receive the signal of the local UPN channel for a while and did not miss it at all. My least favorite Trek by miles. Glad you liked it, though.
Reply
3-10-2009 @ 6:00PM
gottacook said...
Comment #17: "much of the first season steals unabashedly from classic SF literature and film..." I don't know whether this is fair, given that in one case the 1940s story "Arena" by Fredric Brown was explicitly credited as the basis for the episode of the same name, and other episodes in the first two seasons were written by established SF authors such as Sturgeon, Bixby, Spinrad, et al. The only SF author contributing to the third season was Bixby (two of 24 episodes); David Gerrold's The World of Star Trek (1973) has more insight into this and its effects. I can see a case being made for only a few "steals" from classic SF during the first season (such as the parasites in "Operation - Annihilate" resembling somewhat those of Heinlein's The Puppet Masters.)
Reply