Star Trek films question [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Kobold-Bard

2010-07-25, 06:40 AM

Basically I'm off work (:smallannoyed:) & uni (:smallbiggrin:) atm so I decided to stock up on Doritos and go on a Star Trek binge :smallcool:

Basically I'm wondering if there's a specific order I need to watch things? As I understand it all the TOS films come after the series ended so that's no trouble.

However I'm not sure if this is true of the TNG films. Can I just watch the series then the films, or do the films fit between certain episodes eg. will I watch an episode the have the events of a film discussed in the next one, or do they all happen after the TNG finale?

And to be even dorkier, where in the DS9 chronology to the TNG films come (if they do at all).

Thanks in advance ,
K-B

Yora

2010-07-25, 06:48 AM

Enterprise season 1
Enterprise season 2
Enterprise season 3
TOS season 1
TOS season 2
TOS season 3
Star Trek I
Star Trek II
Star Trek III
Star Trek IV
Star Trek V
Star Trek VI
TNG season 1
TNG season 2
TNG season 3
TNG season 4
TNG season 5
TNG season 6 / DS9 season 1
TNG season 7 / DS9 season 2
Star Trek VII
DS9 season 3 / Voyager season 1
DS9 season 4 / VOY season 2
Star Trek VIII
DS9 season 5 / VOY season 3
DS9 season 6 / VOY season 4
Star Trek IX
DS9 season 7 / VOY season 5
VOY season 6
VOY season 7
Star Trek X
As there is almost no overlapping between the shows, it's probably best to just watch TNG to the end, then start DS9 and watch it to the end, and then start with VOY. It might also be a good idea to watch Enterprise last, even though it takes place first. But I think things will make a lot more sense then. :smallwink:
Also, I recommend not watching Star Trek IX and Star Trek X at all! When you're a Star Trek fan, these movies are just stupid and meaningless. If you're not a Star Trek fan, they are just really bad Sci-Fi movies without any meaning.

Elana

2010-07-25, 06:50 AM

And in case you are obsessed with chronological order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Star_Trek

Now you can try to watch the time travel episodes first, so you get really confused :D

kamikasei

2010-07-25, 06:51 AM

All the TOS films are set after TOS. All the TNG films are set (and were made) after TNG. The TNG films are spread out through and after DS9 and Voyager's runs, though.

Generations is around the third season of DS9, I believe.
First contact, the fifth.
Insurrection, the seventh.
Nemesis, four years later and after the end of Voyager.

None have serious spoilers for the other series except that something about how Voyager ends is obvious from elements of Nemesis.

- Star Trek VIII is about the time when DS9 ends.
Actually, an episode in DS9 season 5 specifically refers to the events of First Contact.

Agreed on Insurrection and Nemesis though.

Kobold-Bard

2010-07-25, 06:54 AM

- First it's 3 seasons TOS
- Next is Star Trek I to VI
- Then it's TNG season 1 to 5
- TNG season 6 and 7 and DS9 season 1 to 2 take place at the same time, but its no problem to first watch TNG season 7 and then continue with DS9 season 1.
- Star Trek VII takes place about here.
- Then it's DS9 season 3 to 7 at the same time as Voyager 1 to 5. But again, you can first watch DS9 to the end and then start with VOY, as there is basically no overlapping.
- Star Trek VIII is about the time when DS9 ends.
- Last are Star Trek IX and X, but it could be said you'd better DON't watch those at all. They are crap.

That's extremely concise, thanks very much :smallsmile:

I will be watching 9 & 10, though I'll heed your warning.

Then obviously Enterprise comes next, and the new film finishes me off.

Athaniar

2010-07-25, 08:28 AM

Also, I recommend not watching Star Trek IX and Star Trek X at all! When you're a Star Trek fan, these movies are just stupid and meaningless. If you're not a Star Trek fan, they are just really bad Sci-Fi movies without any meaning.
Hm? I thought Nemesis was a good movie (but I agree with you on Insurrection).

Yora

2010-07-25, 08:34 AM

I think 2, 6, and 8 are the only ones that are actually "good movies". 4 isn't really that bad as a movie, but just too dorky for a franchise that consideres itself to be serious.

Frostwolf

2010-07-25, 12:19 PM

I really don't understand all the hatred for ST X. I actually enjoyed the movie quite a lot, even watched it twice in the theatre.

On the other hand, IX really was the worst Star Trek experience I ever had...

Prodan

2010-07-25, 12:23 PM

ST I was pretty bad.

Kobold-Bard

2010-07-25, 12:30 PM

Which one has Sulu in a helicopter? Because I remember seeing a bit of that one, and it didn't look great.

arguskos

2010-07-25, 12:35 PM

Which one has Sulu in a helicopter? Because I remember seeing a bit of that one, and it didn't look great.
Probably Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, which was totally freaking great. It's like the second best of the series.

The Big Dice

2010-07-25, 01:01 PM

Probably Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, which was totally freaking great. It's like the second best of the series.

I'll never understand he love people have for the dreadful buddy comedy that is ST IV. It's a bad movie on every level and rams it's eco message home so hard and so aften that it's embarrasing.

And why the hate for ST:TMP? Watch a few seasons of TNG, then go watch the original Trek movie again. Realise that Gene Rodenberry was trying to do exactly what he did in TNG back in 1979. Realise that the first movie is in fact the definitive one. And the one with the most Enterprise porn too.

Yora

2010-07-25, 01:08 PM

The first movie isn't really bad. It's just "special".
It's very different from all the other movies, as it's not an action movie. It does has its qualities, but it really sticks out from what Star Trek usually does.

Lord Seth

2010-07-25, 01:44 PM

Kobold-Bard

2010-07-25, 01:53 PM

I'd honestly suggest skipping The Motion Picture. It's just plain boring. The Wrath of Khan, on the other hand, was magnificent.

Also, no discussion of Star Trek is complete without me linking to Chuck Sonnenberg (http://www.youtube.com/user/sfdebris) (a.k.a. SF Debris) and his awesome Star Trek reviews.

He has a playlist dedicated to Q. I thank you for introducing me to this (regardless of whether he's good or not). I do love the Q man.

Derthric

2010-07-25, 03:00 PM

Star Trek: The Motion Picture is long and it can be boring but it and the first two seasons of TNG are probably the closest one gets to what Roddenberry wanted to show. That being said TMP is more 2001 than Star Wars and it was expected to be the other way around. So know what you are getting yourself into. Its not bad but its 40 frakking minutes until you actually get the ship to start moving!!!!

Taken as a single movie ST IV blows chunks, big humpbacked whale sized ones. But as a continuation of the overall series it fits in with anything the original series would have done or most of TNG. And the character interactions which were sorely lacking in III really actually give IV some life which in context is why its enjoyed so much. That and V really really really made it look alot better in context.

And remember they all have at least something in them worth remembering as part of the greater overall story of the world. Even V had one good line, not much else but one good line.

Brewdude

2010-07-25, 03:23 PM

arguskos

2010-07-25, 03:25 PM

Taken as a single movie ST IV blows chunks, big humpbacked whale sized ones. But as a continuation of the overall series it fits in with anything the original series would have done or most of TNG. And the character interactions which were sorely lacking in III really actually give IV some life which in context is why its enjoyed so much. That and V really really really made it look alot better in context.
I felt like The Voyage Home was entertaining as a celebration of the camp feel of TOS. That's why I liked it, anyhow.

And remember they all have at least something in them worth remembering as part of the greater overall story of the world. Even V had one good line, not much else but one good line.
No, Star Trek V: William Shatner Shoots God in the Face didn't have any redeeming features. :smallannoyed: This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU2ftCitvyQ) is pretty sexy though, and is tangentially related to ST V.

hamishspence

2010-07-25, 03:30 PM

No, Star Trek V: William Shatner Shoots God in the Face didn't have any redeeming features.

There was a trilogy of TNG novels in which the events leading up to That Guy being imprisoned, are covered.

The Q Continuum trilogy.

He's one of several allied villains- two of which appeared in TOS. Gargan ("Hail, hail, fire and snow") and that thing that manipulates Kirk and Kang (and their crews) into fighting each other, resurrecting them when they die so they can fight again.

Lord Seth

2010-07-25, 04:18 PM

So basically what you are saying is that the most boring parts of star trek are what Gene Roddenberry was trying to say, and only through the intercession of Berman did Star Trek start being worth watching?I'd probably attribute it more to Michael Piller than Rick Berman because Berman would later drive the franchise into the ground. But it is funny when people complain about DS9 being a betrayal of Roddenberry's vision when Roddenberry's vision was responsible for the worst seasons of TNG.

The rest of Star Trek was the result of producer politics of people trying to exploit the interesting and popular parts of the idea while stealing the best ideas sent to them to fix it without giving credit to the creators of those ideas. It got so bad that writers started sending in intentionally screwy ideas just to mess with management to see if they would steal those instead. The result? The DS9 episode about the Ferengi Home World was the most glaring example.I have no idea what you're even trying to say here.

chiasaur11

2010-07-25, 04:44 PM

Yora

2010-07-25, 04:54 PM

So basically what you are saying is that the most boring parts of star trek are what Gene Roddenberry was trying to say, and only through the intercession of Berman did Star Trek start being worth watching?
It's like Star Wars. The franchise is great, but fans don't actually enjoy the original creators vision. :smallbiggrin:

Kobold-Bard

2010-07-25, 05:04 PM

Skip Enterprise for sure.

Same with Voyager.

And Next Generation took a while to really get good. Original series, even when awful, was generally corny fun. Next Generation, less so. So, don't be afraid to skip any episodes that look bad.

The films, rule of thumb was for quite some time, evens are swell, odds reek.

(With the exception of Search for Spock, which is alright)

But then 10 and the reboot came along, and the rules just didn't apply.

Still, Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, The Undiscovered Country, and First Contact are all well worth watching. As is the reboot.

I've seen a lot of the tv show, the endevour here is to fill in the episodes I've missed (except TOS which is never shown on tv). Then stock up on the movies.

And I don't care what people say I liked Enterprise once they got over the awkward first bit.

Derthric

2010-07-25, 05:18 PM

So basically what you are saying is that the most boring parts of star trek are what Gene Roddenberry was trying to say, and only through the intercession of Berman did Star Trek start being worth watching?

Nemesis rocked. It had five gazillion plot holes and still rocked. I want to see more like it. It goes to show what a creator with the pull of Abrams can do when freed from executive meddling.

The rest of Star Trek was the result of producer politics of people trying to exploit the interesting and popular parts of the idea while stealing the best ideas sent to them to fix it without giving credit to the creators of those ideas. It got so bad that writers started sending in intentionally screwy ideas just to mess with management to see if they would steal those instead. The result? The DS9 episode about the Ferengi Home World was the most glaring example.

I think my failed attempts at snark seem have given you the wrong impression. I liked alot of the screwiness in trek I like its variety from Roddenberry's vision even to the absurdity of "Bashir as James Bond" episode of DS9.

Trek has elements and stories that can appeal across the board and what i like to think is you can like those parts that appeal to you without dismissing the parts you don't. Personally I don't like Nemesis or the Abrams Movie but I can see why others do and I say watch it all so you can get the whole experience.

And Come on "What does god need with a starship?" is a good line......ok maybe not but it made a good punch line for me and my friends once so there's that.

*edit*Also the original series is available for viewing on the star trek main site now which is quite good news.

kamikasei

2010-07-25, 05:43 PM

The films, rule of thumb was for quite some time, evens are swell, odds reek.

(With the exception of Search for Spock, which is alright)

But then 10 and the reboot came along, and the rules just didn't apply.
There's an explanation (http://qntm.org/odd).

Derthric

2010-07-25, 05:55 PM

There's an explanation (http://qntm.org/odd).

I like the way you think.

Lord Seth

2010-07-25, 06:16 PM

Skip Enterprise for sure.

Same with Voyager.Voyager was...okay. The main thing about Voyager was that it was, from start to finish, pretty average It did improve in the later seasons, but even then it wasn't anything particularly special. The problem with Voyager wasn't that it was bad, it's that it's so unremarkable.

As for Enterprise, the series did dramatically improve in the third and fourth seasons.

On the even/odd rule, I think that First Contact is very overrated. It is the best of the Next Generation films (which I guess it gets from being even), but I didn't find it to be that great. Reminds me of how Mr. Plinkett declared it to be the 3,967th worst film ever made.

I like the idea of Galaxy Quest being the good "even" numbered one though. It all makes sense now!

chiasaur11

2010-07-25, 06:29 PM

There's an explanation (http://qntm.org/odd).

Of course!

Tua consilia omnia nobis clariora sunt quam lux!

Yora

2010-07-25, 06:35 PM

As for Enterprise, the series did dramatically improve in the third and fourth seasons.
It did? I stopped watching mid 2nd season, because there seemed to be nothing else but recycled scripts from TNG:
"There's a storm comming and we can't send a shuttle. What? This woman is a fraid of beaming? Transporter Accident!!!" :smallsigh:
Alone in a shuttle and shot down on a planet. Attacker also crashes down? I bet translaters are not working!

It was so predictable, it wasn't funny anymore.

Lord Seth

2010-07-25, 07:37 PM

It did? I stopped watching mid 2nd season, because there seemed to be nothing else but recycled scripts from TNG:
"There's a storm comming and we can't send a shuttle. What? This woman is a fraid of beaming? Transporter Accident!!!" :smallsigh:
Alone in a shuttle and shot down on a planet. Attacker also crashes down? I bet translaters are not working!

It was so predictable, it wasn't funny anymore.The last episode of season two (the set-up for season three) is when Enterprise finally starts to turn itself around. Granted, season three was quite hit-or-miss, but unlike seasons one and two, at least there were a decent number of hits. Season four may have overdone it on the constant continuity nods to the other series, but it was more consistent in quality than season three (the finale aside, which it seemed almost everyone hated).

Turcano

2010-07-27, 05:05 AM

So basically what you are saying is that the most boring parts of star trek are what Gene Roddenberry was trying to say, and only through the intercession of Berman did Star Trek start being worth watching?

Sort of.

Nemesis rocked.

That nonsensical Wrath of Khan ripoff with a Romulan Picard clone as the villain? I don't know what you're smoking, but I want some.

It's like Star Wars. The franchise is great, but fans don't actually enjoy the original creators vision. :smallbiggrin:

I think it's more that Lucas and Roddenberry were good "idea people," but those ideas really needed to be executed by someone else. Roddenberry's vision of a humanity that "outgrew" all of its problems strikes me as incredibly naive, but that's probably just personal taste.

Yora

2010-07-27, 08:59 AM

Roddenberry's vision of a humanity that "outgrew" all of its problems strikes me as incredibly naive, but that's probably just personal taste.
Well, I think for a fictional world, that's completely legitimate. It's just that in the last decades, people started to acdept that in other parts of the world, people don't want to adopt our culture and standards, and that we should no longer try to convinve them to.
In the 70's and 80's, when we still thought everyone would want to adopt our standard of living, once the soviets are down, a homogenous society on earth was only the logical conclusion. And the Federation simply extends that way of thinking to other alien species as well.

Abies

2010-07-27, 09:31 AM

I'm suprised no one has yet suggested skipping Generations. That movie is so full of plot holes and mischaracterization that it boggles the mind to know that the producers actually rejected other scripts. (well, not really the end product is a mash-up of about 5 screenplays, so...).

Go ahead and watch it if you're ok with all your favorite characters behaving in incredibly foolish ways, Kirk getting killed for no reason, and the NCC-1701-D getting destroyed because Riker neglects everything about ship combat he ever learned for the sake of allowing Worf to make a Knowlege: Klingon Military check.

Yora

2010-07-27, 09:34 AM

The thing with Generations is, that it's still quite entertaining.
Nothing great, but really not that bad.

Abies

2010-07-27, 12:49 PM

The thing with Generations is, that it's still quite entertaining.
Nothing great, but really not that bad.

It all depends on what one finds distracting to the point of total depletion of suspension of disbelief.

Imagine a man whose plane has to make an emergency landing in Hawaii. He likes it there and wants to go back after the airline gets him to his final destination. How does he get back to Hawaii? Well of course he devises a plan to make the Earth's techtonic plates shift the location of Hawaii so that the island comes to him. Could he take a plane? Sure, why not? Oh, it never occurred to him that he could go there in a plane on purpose despite his supposed genius level intellect. So instead of taking a reasonable course of action he engages in a genocidal and illegal campaign of scientific asshattery.

This and many other inexplicable plot points make the movie unwatchable for me.

hamishspence

2010-07-27, 01:22 PM

Could he take a plane? Sure, why not? Oh, it never occurred to him that he could go there in a plane on purpose despite his supposed genius level intellect. So instead of taking a reasonable course of action he engages in a genocidal and illegal campaign of scientific asshattery.

This and many other inexplicable plot points make the movie unwatchable for me.

I thought the main reason he couldn't go directly, was that it was surrounded by an extremely hazardous zone which has a good chance of wrecking any ship before it gets there. Still, that doesn't justify other dubious events in the movie.

Lord Seth

2010-07-27, 02:32 PM

Obligatory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h06WKYFYdlo) RedLetterMedia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azSh47-oRPId) reference (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqb9q3c1Pxo) regarding Generations. Actually all his reviews are worth checking out, even if he does get a bit nitpicky at times.

That said, I don't think Generations was a terrible film. It had tons of problems in it, but it was ultimately just a mediocre film.

factotum

2010-07-27, 04:00 PM

The thing that annoyed me most about Generations was the usual thing of space being a lot bigger than SF writers give it credit for--the prime example being a rocket-powered probe that gets to the sun from the surface of a habitable planet in a matter of seconds, and then causes a change in the sunlight that is instantly visible from said planet. Either that was a heck of a small sun, or normal humans in the Star Trek universe have warp-speed sensors instead of eyes!

Forbiddenwar

2010-07-27, 07:07 PM

On another note: the reason the original movie is called "bad" "boring" "dull" and "2001" here is because it was never meant to be a movie. The script was completed to be a 1 hour pilot for the sequel television show. And then Star Wars was released and some Exec at paramount said, "screw making another TV show, we have the script, we'll just make a movie." and so writers were forced to turn a 40 page script into 120 pages overnight. So yeah, there is a LOT of visual and script padding. You have been warned. Now know that if you pass out, no one will hold it against you.
edit:

The thing that annoyed me most about Generations was the usual thing of space being a lot bigger than SF writers give it credit for--the prime example being a rocket-powered probe that gets to the sun from the surface of a habitable planet in a matter of seconds, and then causes a change in the sunlight that is instantly visible from said planet. Either that was a heck of a small sun, or normal humans in the Star Trek universe have warp-speed sensors instead of eyes!

A Wizard did it! (couldn't resist)

Brewdude

2010-07-27, 07:52 PM

That nonsensical Wrath of Khan ripoff with a Romulan Picard clone as the villain? I don't know what you're smoking, but I want some.

Err what? Wrath of Khan? What possible part did it rip off? Apparently you stole my stash before I got to take a toke.

I liked the orbital drop scene that should have been in Starship Troopers. I liked the re imaging of all the main characters (great casting for the most part). What? Science problems? In a Star Trek movie? Say it isn't so! So I ignored them. It's a fantastic reboot that I want to see more episodes of.

The Glyphstone

2010-07-27, 07:56 PM

Err what? Wrath of Khan? What possible part did it rip off? Apparently you stole my stash before I got to take a toke.

I liked the orbital drop scene that should have been in Starship Troopers. I liked the re imaging of all the main characters (great casting for the most part). What? Science problems? In a Star Trek movie? Say it isn't so! So I ignored them. It's a fantastic reboot that I want to see more episodes of.

Yeah....the only Wrath of Khan parallel I can see is that both movies feature a villain who wants revenge.

chiasaur11

2010-07-27, 08:16 PM

Yeah....the only Wrath of Khan parallel I can see is that both movies feature a villain who wants revenge.

Red letter media seemed to find more.

But hey. Dude's crazy.

Lord Seth

2010-07-27, 08:28 PM

Err what? Wrath of Khan? What possible part did it rip off? Apparently you stole my stash before I got to take a toke.Well, you can find a list of similarities here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZjkHUrEuHc) (he starts explaining the parallels at about 3:42 in)

Turcano

2010-07-28, 09:18 PM

Well, I think for a fictional world, that's completely legitimate. It's just that in the last decades, people started to acdept that in other parts of the world, people don't want to adopt our culture and standards, and that we should no longer try to convinve them to.
In the 70's and 80's, when we still thought everyone would want to adopt our standard of living, once the soviets are down, a homogenous society on earth was only the logical conclusion. And the Federation simply extends that way of thinking to other alien species as well.

It's just that Roddenberry's vision contradicts my observations on human nature. I mean, in the three hundred years or so since the Enlightenment, we've gone from glorified savages to glorified savages who restrain ourselves from acting like savages a great deal of the time; I don't think another three centuries are going to bring us from here to there, and neither is getting rid of material wants, nationalism and religion. And that's to say nothing of other species. (On that note, why did Q bag so much on humanity when you've got people like the Klingons running around punching people in the nads?)

Err what? Wrath of Khan? What possible part did it rip off? Apparently you stole my stash before I got to take a toke.

Okay, that was a bit of hyperbole, but I was referring mainly to the climax, where the revenge-obsessed villain activates a superweapon just before he dies so he can take the Enterprise out with him, but is thwarted by the self-sacrifice of a character whose actor got tired of playing, but not before he puts his consciousness into another character to give said actor an out should he change his mind. The main difference is that the former was one of the most moving moments in cinematic history, and the latter was so full of plot holes you could use it as a colander.

The Glyphstone

2010-07-28, 09:35 PM

Okay, that was a bit of hyperbole, but I was referring mainly to the climax, where the revenge-obsessed villain activates a superweapon just before he dies so he can take the Enterprise out with him, but is thwarted by the self-sacrifice of a character whose actor got tired of playing, but not before he puts his consciousness into another character to give said actor an out should he change his mind. The main difference is that the former was one of the most moving moments in cinematic history, and the latter was so full of plot holes you could use it as a colander.

I thought we were talking about the 2009 JJ Abrams reboot...when did this part happen in the new movie? If, the whole time, we've been talking about Generations or Nemesis (it sounds like you're talking about Nemesis, which sucked), I apologize.

Jimorian

2010-07-28, 09:56 PM

My take on Generations was that when Picard was in the nexus, and after the "perfect life" got boring for him, the nexus created a scenerio where he could be truly happy: Meeting and getting to work with a hero of his (Kirk), finding a way to "escape" then save the day.

In other words, everything that happens after Generations is a continuing illusion created by the nexus to keep Picard happy.

Turcano

2010-07-28, 10:35 PM

I thought we were talking about the 2009 JJ Abrams reboot...when did this part happen in the new movie? If, the whole time, we've been talking about Generations or Nemesis (it sounds like you're talking about Nemesis, which sucked), I apologize.

Yeah, it was Nemesis, seeing how the conversation up to my last post was:

Brewdude: Nemesis was awesome.
Me: You best be tokin', man.
Brewdude: NO U