Star Trek Beyond: 2 Fast 2 Futuristic?

[Giggling Ghast]

Directed by the Fast and Furious' Justin Lin, though this trailer has considerably less gay subtext (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IICPLHDOz70) than the average Fast and Furious movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRVD32rnzOw

It just doesn't look like a modern Star Trek movie to me. Where are the plots lifted from previous Star Trek movies? Where's the lens flare?

Fingers crossed it ain't the next Star Trek: Nemesis.

[Legato Endless]

That had considerably less gay subtext than the average Fast and Furious movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRVD32rnzOw

It just doesn't look like a modern Star Trek movie to me. Where are the plots lifted from previous Star Trek movies? Where's the lens flare?

Fingers crossed it ain't the next Star Trek: Nemesis.

Ugh. I'd almost forgotten.

There's a very adolescent part of me amused by the inclusion of Saucer separation, the ship separating into several smaller ships thrills me as someone who grew up on TNG. On the other hand, I'm really quite sick of the Enterprise getting wrecked to establish dramatic tension. At this point, why don't we just rechristen it the USS Worf.

Kirk is still listening to Beastie Boys, which for all I roll my eyes is very much in the Trek mold of nostalgia for centuries old pop culture contemporary to the audience.

They've at least changed their format. The only planet crash down film was Search for Spock, and this doesn't look in any way similar. If anything, it's a throwback to the Planet of ethical dilemmas and oppressive societies iconic to the franchise. We've got our spunky native helping Kirk, the crew separates to deal with issues, some lesson is learned as they overthrow the planetary establishment in an easy rebellion. Elba as the antagonist is wonderful, but then again, Cumberbatch didn't exactly save Into Darkness.

Honestly I'm not sure. There's a lot of action comedy here, but maybe the trailer isn't representative of the film as a whole. Would it completely kill the box office if they had their characters sit down and talk, like you know, nigh every legendary Star Trek episode?

[Kitten Champion]

this trailer has considerably less gay subtext (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IICPLHDOz70) than the average Fast and Furious movie.

Awww~

I don't even know what to think, even for these movies Kirk pulling a motocross jump is... trying too goddamned hard.

[Palanan]

Just watched the trailer now. Gawd.

Rarely have I ever seen a more profoundly stupid-looking science fiction movie. This isn't just embarrassing, it's idiotic.



This isn't Star Trek. This isn't the spirit of hope and exploration, the mystery and intrigue of alien minds, the excitement and wonder of discovery in the deep uncharted galaxy. This isn't the grand adventure of reaching out into the cosmos with bold optimism and a conviction that humanity has something worthwhile to offer.

This is cheap motorcycle stunts and ridiculous aliens that make Defiance look classy. This is a wretched waste.

[Yora]

Could someone please photoshop a shark into the image of the motorcycle jump?

I only saw the second movie once. Are the jokes really that bad?

[Giggling Ghast]

Just watched the trailer now. Gawd.

Rarely have I ever seen a more profoundly stupid-looking science fiction movie. This isn't just embarrassing, it's idiotic.

This isn't Star Trek. This isn't the spirit of hope and exploration, the mystery and intrigue of alien minds, the excitement and wonder of discovery in the deep uncharted galaxy. This isn't the grand adventure of reaching out into the cosmos with bold optimism and a conviction that humanity has something worthwhile to offer.

This is cheap motorcycle stunts and ridiculous aliens that make Defiance look classy. This is a wretched waste.

Let's be fair: Star Trek itself delved into cheesy action quite a bit. See: The Gamesters of Triskelion. De-duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-de-de-de-duh.

I am glad to see they're out of Federation space for once. Let's get out of the rock quarries of Earth and explore the rock quarries of alien worlds. :smalltongue:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Candle Jack
Let's be fair: Star Trek itself delved into cheesy action quite a bit.

Yes, but Star Trek evolved.

:smalltongue:



There's no question that TOS leaned on the fistfights, not to mention the occasional gorilla suit, but there was still an underlying sense of something greater in play. TNG developed this much further, and I miss that potential for genuine wonder, limited as it sometimes was by time and budget constraints.

There's absolutely no prospect of that here, just banal tropes and refried stunt cliches. No real imagination in evidence.

[Mando Knight]

Let's be fair: Star Trek itself delved into cheesy action quite a bit. See: The Gamesters of Triskelion. De-duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-de-de-de-duh.

I am glad to see they're out of Federation space for once. Let's get out of the rock quarries of Earth and explore the rock quarries of alien worlds. :smalltongue:

Yeah, the trailer looks like the movie will be approximately to the other summer blockbusters what TOS was to the Batman TV show. (On a similar note, I think Batman & Robin could be considered an attempt to blend 90s Batman with 60s Batman, including the Austrian-accented ice-punning Mr. Freeze and the Bat-Whatever gadgetry)

[Kitten Champion]

Is this going to be a Planetary Romance, like Avatar? I think that what's being indicated.

[Mando Knight]

Is this going to be a Planetary Romance, like Avatar? I think that what's being indicated.

As in, Kirk arrives at alien planet, encounters trouble, woos pretty alien lady while dealing with said trouble? Yes, but that also covers a good number of TOS episodes as well. And some TNG ones as well, if you sub in Riker (or less frequently Picard *cough*Insurrection*cough*) instead of Kirk.

[Legato Endless]

Could someone please photoshop a shark into the image of the motorcycle jump?

I only saw the second movie once. Are the jokes really that bad?

How about a jump cut to the motor cycle jump after an ominous pan of the Borg Queen saying, "Watch your future end."

[thatSeniorGuy]

How about a jump cut to the motor cycle jump after an ominous pan of the Borg Queen saying, "Watch your future end."

*** Snort ***. Well put.

As for the trailer ... a friend of mine recently said that the JJ Abrams films have been more generic sci-fi than Star Trek, and it looks like this is continuing in the same manner. Sigh.

[HardcoreD&Dgirl]

um... is that even star trek?

[Rogar Demonblud]

And another movie I won;'t be bothering to see. Amazing how trailers, which are supposed to increase interest, are so good at killing it.

[Yora]

i was surprised to see that the aliens are dark elves. Wasn't that already done in Avengers 2?

[Killer Angel]

As already said by someone else... where's the real Star Trek trailer?
Because that's frankly embarassing.

[Chen]

I'm surprised people keep saying "this isn't Star Trek". It looks exactly like the trailer for Insurrection. Star Trek never had good consistency in what to do with its movies. You have the good ones like Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, First Contact (sort of). But you have the god awful ones like Final Frontier and Insurrection. The trailer for this one is definitely leaning towards awful territory, but I'd be hard pressed to say it's not "Star Trek".

[DigoDragon]

Ugh. I'd almost forgotten.

Same here. I blame Tumblr for the reminder. :smalltongue: I agree with the "It isn't Trek" group. It does feel like a science-fiction space movie, but I think my wife described it pretty well-- Guardians of the Galaxy crossed with LOST.

Though I'll give the trailer this-- Bones' line 'typical' after Spock beams out was funny. Karl Urban is a great asset.



On the other hand, I'm really quite sick of the Enterprise getting wrecked to establish dramatic tension.

I reckon that the Enterprise is getting destroyed at the beginning of this movie too. I think it's a bad move to destroy one of the movie's iconic sets that early. Damaging it is fine (Wrath of Khan), but destroy? Save that kind of tension for the end of the movie. Star Trek Generations was 'okay' as a Trek movie, but destroying the Enterprise D near the end of it was actually a pretty well-done scene I thought, and fit best there and not anywhere sooner.



Yes, but Star Trek evolved.

The latter seasons of Next Generation and DS9 were some of the best Trek I've ever watched.

[Cikomyr]

Honestly I'm not sure. There's a lot of action comedy here, but maybe the trailer isn't representative of the film as a whole. Would it completely kill the box office if they had their characters sit down and talk, like you know, nigh every legendary Star Trek episode?

You mean like the rather forgettable 2-hour episode named "Star Trek : Insurrection", which is just like one big episode?

The best of Star Trek movies were great theatric pieces (II, VI, First Contact) or silly mindless comedy fluff (IV). Not sit-and-talk.

[CozJa]

I'm surprised people keep saying "this isn't Star Trek". It looks exactly like the trailer for Insurrection. Star Trek never had good consistency in what to do with its movies. You have the good ones like Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, First Contact (sort of). But you have the god awful ones like Final Frontier and Insurrection. The trailer for this one is definitely leaning towards awful territory, but I'd be hard pressed to say it's not "Star Trek".

Well, I think that the problem is not that much quality: you're right in saying that things like "Final Frontier" were pretty horrible, but... I think there were some kind of bad (or really bad) executions of a general plan, the idea around Star Trek has always been "space exploration and blah blah".

In that trailer I see a (probably) good execution of... something else?

[JadedDM]

Man, if you absolutely have to use a Beastie Boys song in a Star Trek trailer, why wouldn't you use 'Intergalactic' instead?

I saw several alien races, but didn't recognize any of them. Are they new? Was that one guy supposed to be a Gorn? I have no idea what species the woman with Kirk is supposed to be.

Anyway, the whole thing looks like garbage. But Into Darkness set the bar so low, it will most likely be better than that, at least.

One positive thing I will say, is Karl Urban really is the perfect new Bones. That was my one complement of the last two movies, too.

[Yora]

I believe the aliens are the dark elves from Thor 2.

[Giggling Ghast]

The best of Star Trek movies were great theatric pieces (II, VI, First Contact) or silly mindless comedy fluff (IV). Not sit-and-talk.

It's true. First Contact had the Enterprise crew duking it out with the Borg. Wrath of Khan had the big spaceship battles.

[Legato Endless]

You mean like the rather forgettable 2-hour episode named "Star Trek : Insurrection", which is just like one big episode?

The best of Star Trek movies were great theatric pieces (II, VI, First Contact) or silly mindless comedy fluff (IV). Not sit-and-talk.

Insurrection was banal heavy handed piece of small minded trash which ultimately seemed to state beyond the perils of forced displacement, Finders keepers, losers weepers. It was badly characterized, badly established, and yes, too episodic.

However.

I think you're mischaracterizing my point. I want some philosophy. A moral issue, and the debate that follows. Star Trek is that dry, and your examples bear that assertion out.

II starts, lest we forget, with two lengthy conversations of Kirk talking with his two best friends about how secretly depressed he is about aging, which then transitions into a 10 minute debate about the nature of creation and destruction and man's responsibility there in once we see the Genesis info dump. Then like, 5 other people all talk to Kirk separately throughout the film about death and aging and losing and crap.

Roughly like an hour or so in VI are spent with people grappling at dinner, in their beds, in a court room, in hallways, on the bridge about the fear of the future, fear of change, cold war allegory, and obsolesce. People make tons of allusions to other things.

Remember that whole subplot in First Contact where scientist hero is struggling with his responsibility and everyone else is realizing their idol is more gilded than godlike? How about that long argument Picard has with Lily about the nature of revenge and Moby ****?

People navel gaze on screen all over those films. IV is admittedly an exception, but that's the lone pure comedy entry of the series, so I see fit to ignore it as Trek fails far too painfully often at humor for me to desire it becoming a fixture.

[Cikomyr]

I can totally buy that.

I also want some deeper meaning and insights in maeh Star Trek.

Hell. I seen the Lego Movie yesterday. That one had more subtext and navel-gazing than the last three Star Trek put together.

[Scowling Dragon]

This is "The Guardians of the Universe did well- What license do we have to match this?" the movie.

Down to a retro sountrack being the core of a movie.

I just wish the franchise stayed dead. Its like the media is nothing but a graveyard. Its either Adam Sandler Tier comedy, or recitation of what came before, or grim movies, or zombie reboots.

Why can't we move beyond?

[Cikomyr]

This is "The Guardians of the Universe did well- What license do we have to match this?" the movie.

Down to a retro sountrack being the core of a movie.

I just wish the franchise stayed dead. Its like the media is nothing but a graveyard. Its either Adam Sandler Tier comedy, or recitation of what came before, or grim movies, or zombie reboots.

Why can't we move beyond?

Because its a cash cow potential.

There is no reason. Maybe with the new series, it'll get more mature and with more depth. And as this grow, the audience itself might grow to want more depthful stuff out of Star Trek.

Not allowing the franchise to die allows it to remain relevant, grow new fans, and keep the potential of a better tomorrow. And JJ Abhrams suceeded

[Scowling Dragon]

Or it permanently killed it, which I see more likely.

Its fans are not Star Trek Fans. Its Fans are JJ Abrams Star Trek Fans.

Wheras before if somebody heard "Star Trek, whats that?" they would be forced to watch something classic. But now "Star Trek, whats that?" gets you "Oh its that thing where Spock beats Khans face in till its flat".

This is building a "Library Land" amusement park over the ashes of a destroyed library. Lets not pretend anything is gonna grow out of it.

[Giggling Ghast]

"I saw the weirdest trailer today. It was for a generic science fiction action movie, but it was all dressed up in Star Trek costumes."

https://twitter.com/wilw/status/676546142499307520

[Legato Endless]

Because its a cash cow potential.

There is no reason. Maybe with the new series, it'll get more mature and with more depth. And as this grow, the audience itself might grow to want more depthful stuff out of Star Trek.

+1 for optimism in the spirit of Trek.

[Scowling Dragon]

Wait. So people think sequels will make action shlock grow into depth?

Am I in Bizzaro world? Since when have sequels made anything more complex and subtle?

[lurkmeister]

Notes:

One of the things I like about Trek is how much the nature of the crews are driven by the captains' personalities. Nemesis failed hard because it was a genre mismatch: Picard's crew never did pure action well. By contrast, (young) Kirk is something of a jock, and that esprit certainly animates the TOS crew and feeds its chemistry (Kirk, Spock, and Bones are each other's foils, but ultimately Kirk's decisions win out). It's probably why a TOS reboot works well enough in Abrams' hands, where TNG or DS9 ones would likely fail hard. Don't forget, a number of generic sci-fi film tropes started with TOS, and in many ways, what gives TNG its unique voice is its rejection of the generic tropes TOS established.

That said, Abrams hasn't proven willing to include many of Trek's best elements. Where is the fully-fleshed-out Klingon culture, one of the most believable alien cultures ever devised? Where are the Borg, which to my mind are the scariest alien race ever devised?

Saying this "isn't Trek" is silly. It's a pretty straight rip of the parts of classic Kirk-Spock-McCoy Trek that got most genericized, but they're still tropes that came from Trek. What's better to say -- and I would agree with -- is that "it isn't the Trek I grew up with". But then ... I grew up with Picard and Riker and Worf, with Sisko and Odo and Quark. And we're in the strange in-between where their actors are too old to reprise their roles ... but the source material is too young, and any attempt at a reboot would likely cause howling because you'd need to re-cast the roles. Also the TNG esprit doesn't adapt as well to the silver screen as TOS'. Though I daresay the DS9 Dominion War arc would make one fine epic sci-fi trilogy.

[Scowling Dragon]

Il say it. I didn't grow up with TOS, but this isn't it.

This is Michael Bay to the TMNT. Or any franchise he touches.

It takes any character trait and PUMPS IT TO THE MAXIDROME! It was silly at times yes, but this is like the amusement park version of what the show was.

This is the cliffnotes version for idiots.

[TheEmerged]

So, I had a bad thought today, rewatched the trailer... and it grew into a fear.

Big hair? Check.
Bizarre leather outfits? Check.
The notion of being trapped/prisoners on the planet? Check.
Strangely archaic fights & equipment? Check.

This is... this is going to be a movie-length remix of the Gamemasters of Triskelion, isn't it? It's even got the Tri thing for the Third movie...

Let's remember, the first movie had a LOT of little callbacks and outright lifts from the original series and even the little-acknowledged cartoon. The second movie is essentially a remix of the second Trek movie. It's not impossible. A nightmare scenario, perhaps...

[Bulldog Psion]

Should I take it as a personal affront this is being released on my birthday?

[Olinser]

What I take from this trailer is that a 3rd string hack director is trying to mindlessly apply a formula that has had moderate success in fringe movies with a very specific target audience that wants to see fast cars and explosions. So he mindlessly copies what he THINKS audiences want from Fast and the Furious and mindlessly jams Star Trek characters into it without understand the differences in audience and target demographics.

Movies made to this formula are universally disastrous both critically and at the box office.

[Darth Ultron]

Well, it is an all action trailer....likely put out so it can be shown before Star Wars. We don't really get any story, just action, action, action.


It does look a bit more like Classic Trek: one crew going 'beyond' where no one has gone before.


Though Star Trek has always had a movie problem. Star Trek has a lot of elements like drama that the creators just ignore over action. A lot of the most popular Star Trek episodes had little or no action, but for some reason they only make the movies for the simple action fans.

[Yora]

What I take from this trailer is that a 3rd string hack director is trying to mindlessly apply a formula that has had moderate success in fringe movies with a very specific target audience that wants to see fast cars and explosions. So he mindlessly copies what he THINKS audiences want from Fast and the Furious and mindlessly jams Star Trek characters into it without understand the differences in audience and target demographics.

No, that is the sad thing. That is the target demographic.

[Legato Endless]

So according to Simon Pegg, what we've seen is in no way illustrative of the final product. There's supposedly a lot more than what was shown. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f4aAwa5wdg) He definitely looks like he's trying to be diplomatic about a choice the marketing department made that doesn't really accurately sell what he wrote, although the real question is just how different this supposedly.

[DigoDragon]

"I saw the weirdest trailer today. It was for a generic science fiction action movie, but it was all dressed up in Star Trek costumes."
https://twitter.com/wilw/status/676546142499307520

*Snerk* Okay, that made me chuckle.



Well, it is an all action trailer....likely put out so it can be shown before Star Wars. We don't really get any story, just action, action, action.

Yeah, I kind of would like a little story. A scene with two characters discussing something relevant to break up the action a bit. Action is cheap. Any movie can do it these days. Gotta sell me on some story. :3



So according to Simon Pegg, what we've seen is in no way illustrative of the final product. There's supposedly a lot more than what was shown. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f4aAwa5wdg) He definitely looks like he's trying to be diplomatic about a choice the marketing department made that doesn't really accurately sell what he wrote, although the real question is just how different this supposedly.

I'm a little wary about that. A trailer that isn't true to its movie.

[Cikomyr]

I just saw where Abrams clearly outright state that he was frustrated with the choices he made for the Star Trek movies.

That is encouraging, at least. The man isnt like George Lucas who cant take a hint as to why his movies are subpar.

[Giggling Ghast]

So according to Simon Pegg, what we've seen is in no way illustrative of the final product. There's supposedly a lot more than what was shown. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f4aAwa5wdg) He definitely looks like he's trying to be diplomatic about a choice the marketing department made that doesn't really accurately sell what he wrote, although the real question is just how different this supposedly.

That seems fair. It's probably not the awful Fast and Furious clone that the trailer makes it out to be, but they do want to grab some of that sweet, sweet Fast and Furious money.

[TheThan]

I think the problem that writers are having with making Star Trek into an action heavy movie is that they are failing to add in any depth to that action. It quickly becomes senseless action with no sense of drama attached to it to make it matter. It’s my main issue with Nu-Trek.
Take a look at Star Trek II: wrath of Khan.

That film is a very action oriented film, but there’s substance to that action. Khan wants revenge; he’ll stop at nothing for that revenge. That makes the action meaningful. To khan it’s a personal quest to defeat the only man to ever defeat him; Kirk.

In Star Trek beyond, we’re not seeing that.
We’re seeing motorcycle jumps; a conversation that’s obviously spliced together from different parts of the film; A swarm of space bats; some good lines for the trailer, explosions; and that’s just about it. We’re not given anything to go on. Who are the bad guys? What do they want? Where’s the substance?



Fingers crossed it ain't the next Star Trek: Nemesis.
I don’t get the hate for Nemesis. It’s not that bad of a film. Granted it’s not great but honestly Insurrection is a far worse film. Nemesis at least has a well developed plot; good acting all around, and a solid setup for the big action sequence at the end. Sure it’s got its fair share of silly scenes like Picard Duel wielding disruptor rifles; and the scene with the dune buggy; but I don’t think they really ruin the film; heck most star trek films have some sillyness to them; it can add to the charm as long as they don't call full slapstick comedy like Star Trek V. everything should be ok... Well maybe the dune buggy scene works to ruin the film; but that’s just because of the introduction of the hateful B-4.

The thing I really hated about it is that they didn’t have the balls to permanently kill off Data. I think it was a good way to go out. Data had been striving to become more human. In the end he finally commits the most human of acts and self sacrifices himself for his beloved captain (no homo); thusly showing how far he’s actually progressed in his journey to being human. But nooo they couldn’t let him go out that way and instead have him transfer his mind into the uhh… B-4 body. Which isn’t as advanced (and totally unnecessary). Were they afraid of fan uproar that they killed a beloved character? I dunno but it just feels half assed and cowardly.

Some whine about Nemesis being an action movie. Hello? Go back and watch wrath of Khan; it’s an action movie and it’s considered the very best in the franchise; First contact was also an action movie; and it’s pretty good as well. So yeah; it’s not a departure from the format; it’s not worse because it’s an action movie. People are just saying it’s terrible because they didn’t like it. Well fine, just admit you don’t like it and move on.

/rant

[Yora]

I don’t get the hate for Nemesis. It’s not that bad of a film. Granted it’s not great but honestly Insurrection is a far worse film.
Very true. I haven't seen the fifth in ages, but Insurrection is probably the worst. Clearly among the worst two.

[Legato Endless]

I don’t get the hate for Nemesis. It’s not that bad of a film. Granted it’s not great but honestly Insurrection is a far worse film. Nemesis at least has a well developed plot; good acting all around, and a solid setup for the big action sequence at the end.

Insurrection didn't have Troi getting raped by a curious depraved adolescent. For shock value. And to get past his cloaking issue. The fact that there's another whole deleted scene where this happens again gives us entirely too much insight into the Director's predilections. It didn't feature some bizarre parody of a prematurely bald petulant manchild of Picard. Why couldn't Stewart just act opposite himself?

I don't think Nemesis has a well developed plot at all. The whole endeavor is thematically confused. It's easily one of the three worst films along with Final Frontier. Being maybe better than Insurrection isn't anything to write home about.

[DigoDragon]

We’re not given anything to go on. Who are the bad guys? What do they want? Where’s the substance?

+1 Like



I don’t get the hate for Nemesis. It’s not that bad of a film. Granted it’s not great but honestly Insurrection is a far worse film.

I agree on your points. Between the two, I find Insurrection much weaker. They invent these new aliens for the conflict and I have no interest invested in them because they're new and not much is given about them. I couldn't remember why this one magic planet is magic. How did that one woman slow time? I mean, even Picard asked and I know I didn't get an answer to the question.

With Nemesis, we're looking at the Romulans. Hey, they got a big history in Next Gen! Okay, I can get invested here and they don't have to give me too much exposition to follow. Even if you only casually followed the series, you probably at least heard of the Romulans. They are pretty well established. The whole subplot with B4 really could have been dropped, but otherwise it's not that bad of a movie.

[zimmerwald1915]

I believe the aliens are the dark elves from Thor 2.
There's also that one Narn.

[Olinser]

I think the problem that writers are having with making Star Trek into an action heavy movie is that they are failing to add in any depth to that action. It quickly becomes senseless action with no sense of drama attached to it to make it matter. It’s my main issue with Nu-Trek.
Take a look at Star Trek II: wrath of Khan.

That film is a very action oriented film, but there’s substance to that action. Khan wants revenge; he’ll stop at nothing for that revenge. That makes the action meaningful. To khan it’s a personal quest to defeat the only man to ever defeat him; Kirk.

In Star Trek beyond, we’re not seeing that.
We’re seeing motorcycle jumps; a conversation that’s obviously spliced together from different parts of the film; A swarm of space bats; some good lines for the trailer, explosions; and that’s just about it. We’re not given anything to go on. Who are the bad guys? What do they want? Where’s the substance?


I don’t get the hate for Nemesis. It’s not that bad of a film. Granted it’s not great but honestly Insurrection is a far worse film. Nemesis at least has a well developed plot; good acting all around, and a solid setup for the big action sequence at the end. Sure it’s got its fair share of silly scenes like Picard Duel wielding disruptor rifles; and the scene with the dune buggy; but I don’t think they really ruin the film; heck most star trek films have some sillyness to them; it can add to the charm as long as they don't call full slapstick comedy like Star Trek V. everything should be ok... Well maybe the dune buggy scene works to ruin the film; but that’s just because of the introduction of the hateful B-4.

The thing I really hated about it is that they didn’t have the balls to permanently kill off Data. I think it was a good way to go out. Data had been striving to become more human. In the end he finally commits the most human of acts and self sacrifices himself for his beloved captain (no homo); thusly showing how far he’s actually progressed in his journey to being human. But nooo they couldn’t let him go out that way and instead have him transfer his mind into the uhh… B-4 body. Which isn’t as advanced (and totally unnecessary). Were they afraid of fan uproar that they killed a beloved character? I dunno but it just feels half assed and cowardly.

Some whine about Nemesis being an action movie. Hello? Go back and watch wrath of Khan; it’s an action movie and it’s considered the very best in the franchise; First contact was also an action movie; and it’s pretty good as well. So yeah; it’s not a departure from the format; it’s not worse because it’s an action movie. People are just saying it’s terrible because they didn’t like it. Well fine, just admit you don’t like it and move on.

/rant

Insurrection was bad, but that was it. It was a bad Trek movie that people were content to forgot about.

And yes, while Nemesis debatably may not have been as bad as Insurrection, it was bad enough that with it coming immediately AFTER Insurrection, it finally killed Next Generation forever.

So the hate on Nemesis is not 100% about Nemesis. It's about being mad that it was a bad ending to a beloved series and group of characters.

[Rogar Demonblud]

The thing I really hated about it is that they didn’t have the balls to permanently kill off Data. I think it was a good way to go out. Data had been striving to become more human. In the end he finally commits the most human of acts and self sacrifices himself for his beloved captain (no homo); thusly showing how far he’s actually progressed in his journey to being human. But nooo they couldn’t let him go out that way and instead have him transfer his mind into the uhh… B-4 body. Which isn’t as advanced (and totally unnecessary). Were they afraid of fan uproar that they killed a beloved character? I dunno but it just feels half assed and cowardly.

The really bad thing being the sacrifice was a futile and wasted gesture. The bridge scene should've gone something like:

Geordi "And transporters are down."
Riker "So what? Go down to shuttlebay two and fire up one of the transporters there."
Worf "Yes, we'll use the Galileo, just like the last two times we had to rescue the captain from a hostile ship."

[Olinser]

The really bad thing being the sacrifice was a futile and wasted gesture. The bridge scene should've gone something like:

Geordi "And transporters are down."
Riker "So what? Go down to shuttlebay two and fire up one of the transporters there."
Worf "Yes, we'll use the Galileo, just like the last two times we had to rescue the captain from a hostile ship."

There was a hilarious sketch about that done here:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Nemesis/Pictorial-4.html

[Darth Ultron]

Take a look at Star Trek II: wrath of Khan.

That film is a very action oriented film, but there’s substance to that action. Khan wants revenge; he’ll stop at nothing for that revenge. That makes the action meaningful. To khan it’s a personal quest to defeat the only man to ever defeat him; Kirk.

The trick they always seem to miss about Star Trek II: wrath of Khan is the backstory. There is a whole episode, plus more story to the back story. There is history, natural history. There are real, deep reasons why Kirk and Khan don't like each other.

A modern movie, like Star Trek: Into Darkness has none of that. Kirk meets Khan for no reason, and twelve seconds later they are the greatest enemies in the whole universe. It is very hollow.

Also Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan presents Khan as truly evil, as he is simply truly evil. Yes, he focuses on Kick because of his actions, but he is evil beyond that.

Star Trek: Into Darkness has the whinny, betrayed ''tragic villain'' who maybe could have been the greatest person in the universe except for ''society'' that made him evil.


It should not be so hard to make a good Star Trek movie. You just need:

1.A racy on edge plot with a story ripped right from the headlines, mixed in with Sci-Fi. The whole story needs to have a nice, clear parallel to real life. Not have an easy, direct solution. And be full of dilemmas, moral, ethical and more.

2.Kick with the simplistic, good feeling, good meaning, straight forward solution, that ignores one or more of the other possible sides of the story.

3.Bones and Spock do the classic emotions vs logic and both are partly for and partly against Kirk's solution.

4.Psychological horror, not just CGI spam that ''kills'' blips on the screen. Even better if you can work it into a ''solution to the problem'', but make it go horrible wrong.

5.An open ending. The story gets wrapped up, but with tons of open questions and holes. There are no easy answers, just some that are enough...maybe.

[Giggling Ghast]

I don’t get the hate for Nemesis. It’s not that bad of a film. Granted it’s not great but honestly Insurrection is a far worse film. Nemesis at least has a well developed plot; good acting all around, and a solid setup for the big action sequence at the end. Sure it’s got its fair share of silly scenes like Picard Duel wielding disruptor rifles; and the scene with the dune buggy; but I don’t think they really ruin the film; heck most star trek films have some sillyness to them; it can add to the charm as long as they don't call full slapstick comedy like Star Trek V. everything should be ok... Well maybe the dune buggy scene works to ruin the film; but that’s just because of the introduction of the hateful B-4.

I confess, I barely remember Nemesis' plot beyond the fact that I hated it, and I was generally more forgiving of films than I am now.

I recall that the villain's motives for destroying the Federation were awfully contrived and his actions were frequently nonsensical, like the afore-mentioned psychic molestation of Troi.

Data's death was pointless melodrama (yes, I get that Brent Spiner felt that he was getting too old to play Data) and the action scenes — including the godawful dune buggies — were generally pretty awful.

AND REMUS WAS A STUPID, STUPID IDEA.

It was awful. At least Insurrection's plot sort of made sense, and it had a few decent laughs.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I believe the aliens are the dark elves from Thor 2.

Funny, the dark elves in Thor 2 reminded me of the characterless Romulans from the first Abrams 'Trek.

Except other stuff happened in Thor 2 apart from the boring villains, so I enjoyed it despite not liking it that much over all.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

Enough with "Sabotage", already. What is it with Hollywood's fetishistic fascination with that song? Is it that difficult to find hard rock?

[The Fury]

Enough with "Sabotage", already. What is it with Hollywood's fetishistic fascination with that song? Is it that difficult to find hard rock?

Actually when talking about this trailer to one of my friends and mentioning the music, she mentioned that it should have been "Intergalactic." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qORYO0atB6g) She was right.

[Kitten Champion]

Enough with "Sabotage", already. What is it with Hollywood's fetishistic fascination with that song? Is it that difficult to find hard rock?

That JJ Abrams is a huge fan of theirs could have something to do with it.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

That JJ Abrams is a huge fan of theirs could have something to do with it.

I have to take his word for it, just like I have to take the word of someone who only listens to "Jeremy" that they're a Pearl Jam fan.

[Joran]

I'm surprised people keep saying "this isn't Star Trek". It looks exactly like the trailer for Insurrection. Star Trek never had good consistency in what to do with its movies. You have the good ones like Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, First Contact (sort of). But you have the god awful ones like Final Frontier and Insurrection. The trailer for this one is definitely leaning towards awful territory, but I'd be hard pressed to say it's not "Star Trek".

As a long time Trek fan, it didn't feel that far off from the Star Trek I know. It reminded me a lot of Insurrection (not in a good way), but I also know that trailers lie. I'm willing to give it a shot, especially since the director is Justin Lin and I need to support my peeps.


Or it permanently killed it, which I see more likely.

Its fans are not Star Trek Fans. Its Fans are JJ Abrams Star Trek Fans.

Wheras before if somebody heard "Star Trek, whats that?" they would be forced to watch something classic. But now "Star Trek, whats that?" gets you "Oh its that thing where Spock beats Khans face in till its flat".

This is building a "Library Land" amusement park over the ashes of a destroyed library. Lets not pretend anything is gonna grow out of it.

As someone who was a huge fan of Star Trek, I was thrilled with the first J.J. Abrams reboot. It made Star Trek relevant again. It was a fun movie, well-paced. It fell apart if you gave it a single thought, but it made Star Trek feel fresh again.

Into Darkness sucked.

I'm going to see Beyond, because it's an even movie, therefore it has to be good. Also, I always thought the best of Trek was in the TV shows and the movies have created an opportunity for a new Star Trek TV show and I'm hoping that's good.

[Rodin]

Also, I always thought the best of Trek was in the TV shows and the movies have created an opportunity for a new Star Trek TV show and I'm hoping that's good.

Pretty much how I feel about it. I've never even been that big a fan of Wrath of Khan, to be perfectly honest. I've always been into Trek to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new civilizations, etc etc. As such, the movies largely didn't do it for me:

The Motion Picture had an interesting life form and a premise that could have been worked into a decent plot, but suffered from pretty poor implementation.

Wrath was action-Trek. Fun, but not what I get nostalgic for.

I actually had to Google the plot of Star Trek III it left such little impression. War with the Klingons and resurrecting Spock, without much exploration in there.

Voyage Home was a giggle, but it was Star Trek in San Francisco.

I don't think I've ever sat down and watched V, because it's reputation is so bad.

Undiscovered Country was, again, Klingons. It did scratch my space opera itch and was a good movie, but I've never had an urge to sit down and re-watch it.

Generations was probably my favorite out of all of the movies, as the Nexus was exactly the sort of weird negative space wedgie I liked to see. Shame about the rest of the movie though.

First Contact was action-Trek again.

Insurrection in theory was what I was looking for, but they did a horrible freaking job at it. The criticism I always hear is that it's just an extended episode, but the problem is that it's a BAD extended episode. If they had done a 2-hour episode the same quality as Inner Light I would have been delighted.

Nemesis was bad action-Trek.

-----------

The movies have also lost me because they never built up the tension for these action sequences. Khan managed it for TOS viewers because of the earlier episode - The Best of Both Worlds was the equivalent for TNG by virtue of the Borg previously appearing and being absolutely terrifying. The rest of the movies have just been a succession of villains that I struggle to care about, because I know they only showed up for this movie and will be defeated at the end of it. It's not an area that Trek excels in, and that really affects the quality of the movies.

Give us a natural disaster for one of the movies - have the Enterprise be introducing themselves to a newly space-faring species when something goes horribly wrong. They spend the time trying to work out a solution, spectacle occurs from whatever the space wedgie is doing, then we discover that the space wedgie is a life-form or something and the drama is in learning to communicate with it before it kills everybody. Yes, it's the plot of a Star Trek episode, but that's because a Star Trek episode on the big screen is what I want to see when I go to see a movie with Star Trek in the title.

The stakes don't have to be galactic destruction and the end of the Federation every time.

[cucchulainnn]

it will do exactly what it is intended to do. make money. fans will see it because of the name. afterwards they will pick it apart. everyone else will see it because "rule of cool". it has explosions and cool looking special effects. studios know that fans will almost always pay to see it and can be milked. i am not only writing about trek fans but fans in general.

[Ranxerox]

it will do exactly what it is intended to do. make money. fans will see it because of the name. afterwards they will pick it apart. everyone else will see it because "rule of cool". it has explosions and cool looking special effects. studios know that fans will almost always pay to see it and can be milked. i am not only writing about trek fans but fans in general.

Yeah, look how well that strategy worked for Fant4stic.

[cucchulainnn]

Yeah, look how well that strategy worked for Fant4stic.

they made their investment back plus a some extra, in a few years they will put out an other one. and fans will go see that one too, following up with complaints. each time they do that they will make a little less money until the well runs dry. to keep it going all they have to do is every once in a while throw us a bone.

i am not happy with it either but that is the way the entertainment industry works.

they give these jobs to people that don't understand the source material because they don't have to care. you should read up on pt barnum.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

Just when I was thinking they couldn't frig up Star Trek anymore than what it has been, I am proven wrong.

[Ranxerox]

they made their investment back plus a some extra, in a few years they will put out an other one. and fans will go see that one too, following up with complaints. each time they do that they will make a little less money until the well runs dry. to keep it going all they have to do is every once in a while throw us a bone.

i am not happy with it either but that is the way the entertainment industry works.

they give these jobs to people that don't understand the source material because they don't have to care. you should read up on pt barnum.

No, they didn't. They lost tens of millions of dollars. The film cost 120 million to make and had a box office of 168 million. This might seem like a profit, but the studio doesn't get back the whole box office. Here in the US the studio gets back about about half of the box office with the theaters keeping the other half. In overseas box office returns the studios get back even less, with returns of 40% of box office to 25% depending on what country the movie is playing in. So of the 56 million Fant4stic made domestically, Fox got back about 28 million. Of the 112 million it made in foreign markets, Fox got back somewhere south of 45 million. In total, Fox got back less than 73 million dollars on their 120 million dollar investment, and you know that has got to smart.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Don't forget the extra costs for Marketing and Advertising. That's another $45-50 million (at least) these days.

[Ranxerox]

Don't forget the extra costs for Marketing and Advertising. That's another $45-50 million (at least) these days.

True, but there is also extra income in the form of merchandising rights. Budgets and box offices are what we know. Marketing and merchandising (worst RPG ever) information the studios keep to themselves. With pictures like Fant4stic that have merchandise, I just figure that the ad cost and merchandise income to some extent cancel each other out. It's probably not a very good assumption, but what else can you do when all the numbers are kept secret?

[cucchulainnn]

fair enough, though my point still stands. as long as the right name is attached to the project fans will support it. to a point. yes eventually fans will abandon it, but at that point the industry has already made their money and have moved onto something else. i've seen it multiple times. someone or a group works to build up a fan base. a corp sees that and moves in takes control of it and then proceeds to milk it until the well is dry.

how many times have you heard fans say something like "i know it sucks but we have to support it or they wont make anymore of it."

do i think this is done willfully? no i do not. i think it is often misinterpreted out of callousness. why should i have to understand the source material when i can produce and tripe slap a name on it and the fans will eat it up anyway. and of course the non-fans wont know the difference so even less reason to care.

[Tyrant]

True, but there is also extra income in the form of merchandising rights. Budgets and box offices are what we know. Marketing and merchandising (worst RPG ever) information the studios keep to themselves. With pictures like Fant4stic that have merchandise, I just figure that the ad cost and merchandise income to some extent cancel each other out. It's probably not a very good assumption, but what else can you do when all the numbers are kept secret?
Total sidetrack but did Fant4stic even have merchandise?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Other than some t-shirts, no. But they did have some fast food tie-ins (of course).

[Velaryon]

how many times have you heard fans say something like "i know it sucks but we have to support it or they wont make anymore of it."

More than I can count, though usually when it comes to the Action Trek films, it's only half of the statement. Most of the time I hear "I enjoyed them. Sure, they aren't like the Trek I grew up with/used to love, but at least it's new Star Trek material." Where it comes up even more is among WWE fans. I used to spend entirely too much time on the GameFAQs pro wrestling forum, and the most common refrain there is "of course the current product sucks, but I keep watching in hopes that it will get better."

It's no different than all the gaming horror stories we see in the Roleplaying Games board on this forum. People put up with crap that no one should have to deal with because it's the only gaming group they have. We usually give the advice there that "no gaming is better than bad gaming," and I feel much the same about movie, TV, and video game franchises. I'd rather have no Star Trek at all than what is currently being passed off as Star Trek.

[Ranxerox]

Total sidetrack but did Fant4stic even have merchandise?

There were backpacks. I know this because I participated in school supply charity drive. I of course wouldn't stick some kid with poor kid with a Fant4stic backpack but they were available had I been so cruel.

[Joran]

More than I can count, though usually when it comes to the Action Trek films, it's only half of the statement. Most of the time I hear "I enjoyed them. Sure, they aren't like the Trek I grew up with/used to love, but at least it's new Star Trek material." Where it comes up even more is among WWE fans. I used to spend entirely too much time on the GameFAQs pro wrestling forum, and the most common refrain there is "of course the current product sucks, but I keep watching in hopes that it will get better."

It's no different than all the gaming horror stories we see in the Roleplaying Games board on this forum. People put up with crap that no one should have to deal with because it's the only gaming group they have. We usually give the advice there that "no gaming is better than bad gaming," and I feel much the same about movie, TV, and video game franchises. I'd rather have no Star Trek at all than what is currently being passed off as Star Trek.

I'm willing to trade subpar Action Trek films for a chance at another Star Trek TV show. The current environment for movies is for big dumb movies that sell well overseas and Hollywood is unwilling to bet on anything that isn't a sure thing, preferably one with a built-in audience. The environment for TV however is the best it's ever been; there's been so much good quality TV that I have high hopes for a Star Trek TV show to be good. The Action Trek movies proved there was an interest in Star Trek and made another TV show possible.

P.S. I gave up completely on Star Trek: Enterprise within the first season, so I'm not a complete sucker ;)

[cucchulainnn]

i actually like startrek enterprise. except i'm not a fan of time travel as it realest to star trek in particular. not sure why because other wise i like the premises. i lost interest because for some reason when it was on i wasn't able to catch it regularly and the few times i did it was all about time travel. if these episodes weren't about time travel i probably would have made more of an effort to watch it. on a personal level i find myself enjoying movies and books that aren't "part *" of a series.

in my opinion the 1st star trek reboot was pretty good, the 2nd shows a total disregard to the source material. maybe i'm just burned out on lackluster squeals.

i used to stress really hard on bad movies and editions of d&d, now i express my anger issues on other topics.

what are you gonna do.

[cucchulainnn]

on a side note i have noticed that the more you like a genre, the more likely you are to know the details and the easier it is to find the faults. sapping your enjoyment.

[Killer Angel]

More than I can count, though usually when it comes to the Action Trek films, it's only half of the statement. Most of the time I hear "I enjoyed them. Sure, they aren't like the Trek I grew up with/used to love, but at least it's new Star Trek material." Where it comes up even more is among WWE fans. I used to spend entirely too much time on the GameFAQs pro wrestling forum, and the most common refrain there is "of course the current product sucks, but I keep watching in hopes that it will get better."

...'til the point you're tired to eat garbage, and stop care about it.

[BannedInSchool]

Although it does seem that if a movie or TV show is a total flop because it's bad then Hollywood will sometimes just abandon that property, thinking people aren't interested, rather than try to make something good.

[russdm]

I have watched all but the Animated Star Trek Series of Star Trek TV Series, plus I watched all of the movies, so I don't see anything wrong with another Star Trek reboot movie.

Star Trek movies tend to be more action flicks than the episodes are, probably because movies are longer than episodes.

I am more a fan of Star Wars than Star Trek, but I liked Sisko, and the Klingons, and romulans and Garak's people. I always felt there were more stories there to be mined from, and with the Gamma Quadrant and Dominion, more exploration. There is also the founding of the federation, which was what Enterprise could have been more about, but they went for a lousy plot instead, only starting any real interesting material in the last season.

If the reboot material helps encourage another TV series, then I am thrilled, because having new Trek to watch would be fun.

The other point might be that I am not so deeply possessive of the franchise in a feeling like I own it fashion. Sometimes, you just get tired of having now D&D, because it is more suffering than just bad D&D. (I have experience with both, I long for the lousy D&D because at least I was playing and having some fun. Now, I am not doing either, and it is definitely not fun. So I will be playing some ToEE modded for Keep on the Borderlands)

[Velaryon]

I'm willing to trade subpar Action Trek films for a chance at another Star Trek TV show. The current environment for movies is for big dumb movies that sell well overseas and Hollywood is unwilling to bet on anything that isn't a sure thing, preferably one with a built-in audience. The environment for TV however is the best it's ever been; there's been so much good quality TV that I have high hopes for a Star Trek TV show to be good. The Action Trek movies proved there was an interest in Star Trek and made another TV show possible.

P.S. I gave up completely on Star Trek: Enterprise within the first season, so I'm not a complete sucker ;)

You may be right about the trend in movies, but there are certainly degrees of dumb. For my money, Action Trek is a little too dumb, especially considering where it came from. As for TV... we can hope. I for one will need to learn more about the new TV show before I decide whether to be hopeful or dread it.

As for my own Trek pedigree, I suffered Trek burnout after maybe two seasons of Voyager, so I never Enterprise other than in passing. I also didn't see all of Voyager, and didn't see all of DS9 until I watched it again a few years ago. It was much better than I had remembered.

[Rodin]

As for my own Trek pedigree, I suffered Trek burnout after maybe two seasons of Voyager, so I never Enterprise other than in passing. I also didn't see all of Voyager, and didn't see all of DS9 until I watched it again a few years ago. It was much better than I had remembered.

Speaking of DS9, I never managed to watch the whole thing contiguously since I was only catching re-runs on days when I didn't have classes that were interfering with it. I recently tried to sit down and watch from the beginning, but the early episodes of Season 1 were just painful.

Is there a recommended starting point for someone broadly familiar with the series? I originally watched long, long ago and tuned off near the beginning of the Dominion War, then picked back up late into it when I was watching the re-runs. I'd ideally like to catch the beginning of the Dominion War again to refresh myself but I'm not sure when the quality of the show really took off.

[Joran]

Speaking of DS9, I never managed to watch the whole thing contiguously since I was only catching re-runs on days when I didn't have classes that were interfering with it. I recently tried to sit down and watch from the beginning, but the early episodes of Season 1 were just painful.

Is there a recommended starting point for someone broadly familiar with the series? I originally watched long, long ago and tuned off near the beginning of the Dominion War, then picked back up late into it when I was watching the re-runs. I'd ideally like to catch the beginning of the Dominion War again to refresh myself but I'm not sure when the quality of the show really took off.

You're in luck, someone just wrote an article about the essential episodes of DS9:
https://medium.com/maxistentialism-blog/star-trek-deep-space-nine-in-82-5-hours-10acde591fd2#.p3jvhtxic



As for my own Trek pedigree, I suffered Trek burnout after maybe two seasons of Voyager, so I never Enterprise other than in passing. I also didn't see all of Voyager, and didn't see all of DS9 until I watched it again a few years ago. It was much better than I had remembered.

I stuck with Voyager the entire way through. It got better once 7 of 9 joined the cast, since the writers could finally figure out some stories they wanted to tell, mostly about the Doctor and 7 of 9 becoming more human.

Voyager was such a missed opportunity. It was such a good premise, but the writers couldn't handle it and it became just mediocre Trek. I imagine it'd look a lot like a less-dark version of BSG if it was done today.

[Seppl]

Speaking of DS9, I never managed to watch the whole thing contiguously since I was only catching re-runs on days when I didn't have classes that were interfering with it. I recently tried to sit down and watch from the beginning, but the early episodes of Season 1 were just painful.

Is there a recommended starting point for someone broadly familiar with the series? I originally watched long, long ago and tuned off near the beginning of the Dominion War, then picked back up late into it when I was watching the re-runs. I'd ideally like to catch the beginning of the Dominion War again to refresh myself but I'm not sure when the quality of the show really took off.Personally, I would recommend just watching it all the way through. The typical DS9 tone sets in pretty quickly, even if you do not like the Bajor and Marquis episodes that dominated the story in the first two seasons.

If you already have a working understanding of the setting and characters and really want to skip forward, the point where things get darker and edgier is about mid season 2. The overall plot will still deal a lot with the Bajor and Marquis storylines but things will not always work out well for our heroes. The big turning point is the last episode in season 2 and the first few episodes of season 3, where the Dominion conflict is fully revealed (before that, it was only subtly hinted at). From there on things cool down a little until a big reminder mid season 3 (Improbable Cause, The Die is Cast) and from the season 3 finale and onwards the war plot is on full track.

If you decide to skip stuff you will miss many good episodes in seasons 1, 2 and 3 that have nothing to do with the Dominions war. Also, there are plenty of episodes in later seasons that are bad, silly or have nothing to do with the main plot. Maybe a better recommendation would be to just watch the good episodes? There should be plenty of guides findable on the Internet. Or ask here for recommendations. sfdebris may not have covered all DS9-episodes yet, but he has covered all the best and worst. You could use his scores (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Trivia/SFDebris) and watch everything with a score 6 and above, regardless of season; skip everything with 3 or below regardless of season; and otherwise just watch the Dominion war episodes of seasons 2 and 3, that I mentioned above, and then head straight into season 4.


You're in luck, someone just wrote an article about the essential episodes of DS9:
https://medium.com/maxistentialism-blog/star-trek-deep-space-nine-in-82-5-hours-10acde591fd2#.p3jvhtxic
Wow, perfect link. A list of all the episodes I would have recommended (and indirectly a list of all the episodes I would skip) but was too lazy to compile for my answer. And for TNG, too! Do you realize what you have done? I will now have to spend 120 hours re-watching these episodes!

[comicshorse]

Speaking of DS9, I never managed to watch the whole thing contiguously since I was only catching re-runs on days when I didn't have classes that were interfering with it. I recently tried to sit down and watch from the beginning, but the early episodes of Season 1 were just painful.

Is there a recommended starting point for someone broadly familiar with the series? I originally watched long, long ago and tuned off near the beginning of the Dominion War, then picked back up late into it when I was watching the re-runs. I'd ideally like to catch the beginning of the Dominion War again to refresh myself but I'm not sure when the quality of the show really took off.

I usually recommend starting with episode 19 of Season 1 'Duet' and just going from there