Thus far, there have been six characteristic movies primarily based on “Star Trek,” 4 primarily based on Star Trek: The Subsequent Era,” and three set in a rebooted timeline (known as the Kelvin timeline by followers). These 13 movies have been all launched theatrically from 1979 to 2016, averaging one movie each three years or so. Up subsequent, “Star Trek: Part 31” is slated for launch on Paramount+ someday in 2025, and it is going to be the primary “Star Trek” TV film. There has additionally lengthy been speak of creating a fourth movie within the Kelvin timeline, however that film’s destiny is at the moment a query mark; I am going to consider it once I see it.
The longstanding basic consensus is that the odd-numbered “Star Trek” movies are unhealthy and unsuccessful, whereas the even-numbered movies are wonderful hits. “Star Trek: The Movement Image,” as an example, was one thing of a disappointment on the field workplace, however “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” is held by many to be the most effective within the franchise. “Star Trek III: The Seek for Spock,” regardless of being an emotionally intense journey, is usually seen as a stopgap movie used solely to convey Spock (Leonard Nimoy) again from the useless. It was adopted by “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Residence,” a well-liked comedy movie that was very financially profitable. And so forth.
Essential consensus, nonetheless, breaks that sample handily, not less than so far as approval rankings on Rotten Tomatoes go. The best-rated movie within the “Star Trek” franchise is an odd-numbered movie. The #1 movie’s approval ranking is just barely increased, nonetheless, than a celebrated even-numbered “Star Trek” movie from the Nineteen Nineties. Though the “Star Trek” reveals are most notable for his or her sense of diplomacy and willingness to sort out heady, philosophical issues, the highest-rated movies within the sequence are probably the most violent, action-oriented ones.
Star Trek (2009)
With a 94% approval ranking, primarily based on 356 evaluations, J.J. Abram’s 2009 “Star Trek” film is one of the best reviewed of all of the “Star Trek” movies on RT. Some Trekkies might discover this truth disappointing since Abrams’ movie is a large departure for the franchise. Somewhat than proceed with any extant “Star Trek” lore, Abrams created an alternate timeline whereby he might reintroduce Kirk, Spock, and all the remaining as youthful, hotter, extra tempestuous variations of themselves. This was high-octane “Star Trek,” filled with fights and explosions and dying and drama. It is extra like “Star Wars” than “Star Trek.” Most of the particulars of Abrams’ movies — the ships, the characters’ persona traits — have been derived merely from what a non-Trekkie would possibly learn about “Star Trek” via cultural osmosis; Abrams infamously admitted that he knew little about “Star Trek” when he took on the mission.
One would possibly perceive why Abrams’ movie was such successful. A mass viewers unfamiliar with “Star Trek” might get excited a couple of clear “restart,” now unthreatened by the many years of lore that got here earlier than, whereas long-term Trekkies might attend out of morbid curiosity. A full-bore reboot of a serious leisure franchise can also be a surefire option to generate a variety of ink within the leisure press, assuring that “Star Trek” could be talked about for a full yr main as much as its launch.
It definitely did not damage that dazzlingly enticing actors performed the acquainted Enterprise crew. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, John Cho, Zoe Saldana, Anton Yelchin, Karl City, and Simon Pegg portrayed the leads roles, and most critics, even those that did not just like the movie, admitted that the casting was fairly spot on. The one main criticisms have been that the plot was skinny, sacrificed in favor of quick pacing and countless motion.
Make it so, numbers two and three
With a 93% approval ranking, Jonathan Frakes’ 1996 actioner “Star Trek: First Contact” got here in because the second highest-rated “Star Trek” movie on RT. That movie, like Abrams’, was violence-forward, that includes the sort of plot one finds in typical Hollywood motion motion pictures. Within the movie, an unthinking species of cyborgs known as the Borg journey again in time to the yr 2063 to cease humanity from launching their first faster-than-light starship and ushering in a utopian age of exploration. The characters, though not well-suited to motion — AT ALL — fireplace weapons and make action-y quips in methods they by no means had earlier than. This movie, thoughts you, was primarily based on “Star Trek: The Subsequent Era,” a sequence much more considerate and diplomatic than the unique.
The motion proved to be palatable to a mass viewers, nonetheless, and “First Contact” was an enormous hit. Critics definitely favored it. The one individuals who complain about “First Contact” are snotty old-school Trekkies like me, who complain about how in contrast to the TV present it was.
Third highest-rated, with an 87% approval ranking, is Nicholas Meyer’s celebrated “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” from 1982. That movie was slower and extra considerate than the movies above, however is definitely extra action-packed than “Star Trek: The Movement Image,” which was infamously sluggish. It additionally featured a tremendous Ricardo Montalban because the hammy title villain, a personality that’s troublesome to withstand.
It was “Wrath of Khan” that launched the notion that “Star Trek” motion pictures wanted a “supervillain” character, and one motivated by revenge. This notion has hamstrung a number of “Star Trek” motion pictures, leaving their tales uninspired. 4 “Star Trek” movies in a row had vengeance-bent supervillains at their core: “Nemesis,” the 2009 movie, “Star Trek Into Darkness,” and “Star Trek Past.”
The decrease decks
The bottom-rated “Star Trek” movie, as Trekkies would possibly predict, is “Star Trek V: The Remaining Frontier,” which has an incredibly low 23% approval ranking. That movie, as talked about, was directed by William Shatner and felt sloppy and slapped-together. The particular results are horrible in “The Remaining Frontier,” and the story is badly written. One should admit, nonetheless, that the central idea is a wonderful concept. Within the movie, the Enterprise is hijacked and brought to a spot within the galaxy the place God — the precise bodily manifestation of God — lives. “Star Trek” has at all times been a humanist sequence, eschewing religion and faith for science and purpose. To have “Star Trek” characters going through an actual deity would trigger an fascinating philosophical battle.
With a mere 38% approval ranking, 2002’s “Star Trek: Nemesis” is the second lowest-rated of the franchise. That movie tried the “supervillain” story, forcing the crew of the Enterprise-E to face off towards a bitter clone of Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart). The story is convoluted and never fascinating, and not one of the forged regarded like they wished to be there. Additionally, “Nemesis” got here instantly after 9/11, and it appeared that the world was extra eager on tales of destruction and vengeance; the diplomatic world of “Star Trek” could not exist at the moment. It is no surprise “Nemesis” and the TV sequence “Star Trek: Enterprise,” which ran concurrently, each failed.
And third-worst-ranked, with a 48% approval ranking, is “Star Trek Generations” from 1994. The primary movie to be primarily based on “THe Subsequent Era,” the movie was all too obsessive about “passing the torch” from Captain Kirk to Captain Picard. By no means thoughts that Picard had already led seven profitable seasons of “The Subsequent Era,” and will have had a narrative of his personal. It is clunky, not very artistic, and weirdly stodgy.
