SITCOM · CARRY ON · GLASGOW · CHRISTMAS · CARTOONS · SATIRES · BANDS · BONDS · TREK · WWII · POSSESSED · HOME
Star Trek Films
"Why is any object we don't understand always called a 'thing'?
"
Film franchises are funny things. They can run for only a handful of entries and swiftly conquer the world (LORD OF THE RINGS), or notch up dozens of editions and gain for themselves a niche in the gently fibrillating heart of a nation (CARRY ON…). Some conform very much to the rule of diminishing returns (RAMBO/ROCKY) or are just bloody awful to begin with (CONFESSIONS…). Some make their characters part of popular contemporary folklore (Bond, STAR WARS) but a very select few are based upon characters that were already dearly loved by all right-thinking people through television and who helped define a genre and an entire generation in the process. Yes, On The Buses films are great indeed. But besides them Star Trek films are quite good too.
As with all the best tiresome conceits cooked up here around the Creamguide (Films) fireplace we shall at this point define the ground rules against which to measure the entries taken under consideration. Star Trek films from our point of view mean those from numbers 1 to 6 since we don't count the latter editions for the following reasons; a) they stopped numbering them after VI which is all wrong, b) proper Star Trek films have a captain who has the decency to wear a wig, c) FIRST CONTACT may have been okay but that last one was too horrible to dwell on. Those criteria settled upon let us plough on with the best and worst Star Trek movies.
The story goes that in the slipstream of Star Wars other film studios looked to see how they too could cash in successfully on the sci-fi phenomenon (as opposed to the film SLIPSTREAM starring Mark Hamill which managed to cash in not at all on anything). After some expensive consultations, lengthy spitballing and extensive pow-wows and confabs with their people on the coast someone at Paramount tripped over some old film cans and discovered that they were responsible for marginally popular velour showcase Star Trek which, despite having been cancelled some time before, had a loyal following of `fans' who pined for a Crossroads-style return to their screens at some point in the future (for which they had probably assigned a stardate). Nobody thought much of it but it was set in SPACE! Bingo. So STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE was brought into being. Pleasingly ramshackle is probably the best way to describe outing #1 being as it is of definite Rain Delay Theatre calibre. Cobbled together from old scripts it makes bugger all sense and hinges on a twist that Mr Magoo could have seen coming even if Waldo had superglued his eyelids together but, hey, it was set in SPACE! And so a franchise was born.
Having got that difficult birthing period out of the way – and having made bundle of cash in the process – it was time for Paramount (a Gulf+Western company, lest we forget) to have another tilt at the Lucas helmed space hegemony with the second – and easily the best – of the bunch, STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN. Nicholas Meyer (who was to return to salvage the reputation of the series for #VI) did a bang-up job with this one and set in train much of what was enjoyable about the series as a whole. First off he started to number them in roman numerals (which we love; if he had stuck an exclamation on the end it would have been perfect) but he also managed – as all the best Star Trek films do – to walk the line between the two interest groups filling those picture halls: Star Trek fans and the rest of us. By picking as a storyline the remnants of a plot and character who had appeared before he satisfied all the wonks who love that sort of thing. Latterly Trek features have become weighed down by all that pseudo-scientific balderdash they all talk on screen and which brainwashes the feeble-minded into arguing about engines and systems that do not, have not and will never exist whilst dressing as fairies and goblins, but mercifully there's no sign of that here. Crucially though, the inclusion of Khan – played by Ricardo `boss!' Montalban – worked brilliantly well on its own `cos he's just a such a great baddie. Daft accent, silly hair, ludicrous costume and a propensity to say things like "I shall avenge you!" Khan had it all. Besides Khan there was also a super- weapon, which is always a winner, and lots of Goldman-pleasing subtext involving Kirk's ex and his son who, pleasingly, was just as big an arse as his dad. Yes indeed, Meyer did a bang-up job. In fact, so strong is the storyline that it actually runs into the next two films.
Conforming to the Big Finish theory of really good films, the best part of #II comes at the end when Spock buys the farm in a radiation chamber (don't correct us!) as Khan himself finds enough energy to quote Melville as he spits his last. Kirk is there too but Nimoy gets it all to himself as he croaks his splendidly theatrical platitudes to genuinely moving effect. Another bonus of the scenario is that it allows Scottie to demonstrate that he may be the universe's last Scotsman but he can still play the bagpipes, natch. All in all, STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN is as good as it gets. Which is very good indeed.
The real winner from KHAN turned out to be Leonard Nimoy who went on to direct the next two segments of the saga, STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK and STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME. We are not party to the complicated and intricate machinations that led the brass at Paramount to hand control of such a lucrative franchise to Leonard Nimoy. Possibly he demonstrated a keenness and skill in several smaller features which convinced them that they ought to trust him and take a chance. We hope however it was because he really wanted to do it and told them he wouldn't appear in them unless he directed. We can't say for sure (and if any of you are possessed of lengthy anecdotage on the real reason, please don't feel compelled to let us know). Whatever the reason it was an inspired choice `cos III and IV are great. And we're sure it's only a coincidence that they almost entirely revolve around Spock. That, as they hilariously say, would be illogical *ahem*.
So, in an effort to claw our way back to the reason that we brought you here, which is the worst Star Trek film? Well, lots of people found THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK too ludicrous a storyline (since of course everything else about Star Trek is perfectly reasonably *cough*) and many found the heavy-handed environmental message of VOYAGE HOME too much to take. But, as we mentioned above, we didn't and of course we're always right. We love those two films but we hate STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER which is just rubbish.
If III and IV are proof that allowing a cast member to direct is sometimes right then THE FINAL FRONTIER is proof that most of the time it isn't. William Shatner is responsible for this monstrosity skewing things a little more in Kirk's favour than before, if such a thing is possible. Witness the scene early on where he shows himself happily and effortlessly climbing a mountain without the aid of ropes, companions or indeed the heavy lifting equipment that would seem to the most untrained of eyes completely necessary to the task. Kirk travelling back in time, nabbing a couple of whales and then using them to save the planet we can deal with. This we can't. It's a really crappy film. We would normally have been appalled by the notion that Kirk could face down god (or whatever) at the end in itself but by that time we were more involved with trying to pick the hard bits out the popcorn which seemed in comparison infinitely more diverting. STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER. In a word: cobblers.
The aforementioned Nicholas Meyer's STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY got things back on track a little and was pretty good especially since it promoted David `suitable case for' Warner from set-filling two-line nobody to plot-revolving Klingon High Chancellor which is much more like the thing. Of course by this time in any case the game was a bogey since the cast had a combined age of about twelve thousand and Scottie had plans to start a family but at least the series proper ended on a relative high before spinning off into the uncharted celestial void of its own arse.
Naturally enough Star Trek films are now top telly film fodder and a quick glance at the pattern of scheduling of each of them show that KHAN is still prime Xmas and Bank Holiday fare while FINAL FRONTIER tends to get shoved out on anonymous Sunday afternoons when the schedulers can't get a tape of Keeping Up Appearances rewound quickly enough. So there is justice in the quadrant, or parsec or galaxy or whatever after all.
It just shows to go ya! And *that's* Movie! Movie!
SITCOM · CARRY ON · GLASGOW · CHRISTMAS · CARTOONS · SATIRES · BANDS · BONDS · TREK · WWII · POSSESSED · HOME
