>Those visual effects
>That god-tier Jerry Goldsmith score
>Simple story, yet epic feel
>Amazing cinematography
>Slow pace to enjoy the experience, normies need not apply
Star Trek: TMP is a fucking masterwork. Sure wish they'd make another sci-fi like this.
>droning synths as a clearly fake ship drifts across the screen for six minutes at a time
nty
More like; The Motion-LESS Picture
am i right guys? XD
amirite
best trek beaming aboard.
4
2
3
1
8
5
6
7
9
10
11
13
12
I can't stand Trek, but those first two movies were fantastic.
>6 that low
I really fucking love TMP but it would be better if it was maybe 30 minutes shorter
I love how the Bird of Prey massively changes size almost every single scene it's in in this film from like 50m long too several hundred meters, yet people still get hung up on the shuttlebay scene of 09 which makes them claim JJPrise is 750m when every single other scene and design aspect shows it's clearly 300-400m.
TMP
2001
Solyaris
are the holy space-kino trinity.
...
most over-rated trek beaming down.
after watching st1 for the first time , you are 100% right ,
kirk is a bit of a dick compared to the later movies
So Star Trek 4 will start aping the posters of the TNG movies?
Is Beyond as good as RLM make it out to be? I want to be hopeful because I really like the new cast, but Into Darkness was so fucking terrible, I can't be sure what to expect.
I would rather have this meme than the forced "kino" meme.
>I love how the Bird of Prey massively changes size almost every single scene it's in in this film from like 50m long too several hundred meters
One was made with optical effects. Other in era where scaling issues should be impossible to happen as essentially everything is done with CGI when it comes to effects.
...
If you didn't like into darkness there is no hope you'll like this one.
This poster is incorrect.
He was a dick because he'd become an empty, miserable shell of a person without Spock, Bones, or the Enterprise
He stops being a cunt to Decker as soon as Spock is on board
he was also stuck doing a desk job for years after he was promoted to admiral
Everyone said this was going the complete opposite route Into Darkness was going.
James Rolfe put it best when he compared ST1 and 2 to Street Fighter 1 and 2. Nobody gives a fuck about the first Street Fighter, where the fuck is the second?
>5 and First Contact ranked above 6
Try the Director's Cut, released on DVD (no Blu-Ray yet). They cut it down and added a few new shots, like an exterior of V'Ger as it reaches Earth.
memory-alpha.wikia.com
when are you plebs gonna realize that trek 6 is over-rated.
> muh whodunit is space.
Oscar worthy acting in star trek
star trek 2 wrath of kahn scene (pic related)
>mfw they try to use curtains to turn ten-forward into the office of the president of the federation
>mfw they use only tight closeups to hide tng's engineering
>mfw they do nothing to alter tng's briefing room for VI's dining room
>mfw the only original set is the kitchen and it looks like the server room for a Russian cam site
>mfw when Nick Meyer uses his Trek films to crib shamelessly from Shakespeare and Sherlock Holmes and people can't press their lips to his dick fast enough for it
miss Vulcan, in the study, with the gun
Oscar worthy acting in star trek
trek 5 shatners is screaming "SHOOOTTTTT HHHHHIIIIIIIIM
please stop posting
>II: Wrath of Khan
>I: The Motion Picture
>VI: The Undiscovered Country
>Beyond
>IV: The Voyage Home
>First Contact
>Insurrection
>III: The Search for Spock
>Nemesis
>V: The Final Frontier
>Star Trek 09
>Generations
>Into Darkness
>nemesis
>better than generations and final frontier
YOUR POST IS POINTLESS AND BRINGS NOTHING TO THIS DISCUSSION .
Yes it was stellar. The best Trek movie since First Contact, possible even Star Trek VI. It captured the spirit of the TOS show perfectly, arguably better than many of the TOS MOVIES did. It felt like an extended away mission where everything goes to shit.
Ignore this poster: he's either b8ing or just plain retarded. The tone and style in completely different from the first or second JJ Trek and they're all but ignored.
I've never watched the movie, only some episodes from the show, star trek 2 and 3, and some next generation stuff
I wanna show some of the older movies to a girl who's only watched the newest one, so I can show her for comparison's sake. With the cursory knowledge of star trek that I have, is TMP understandable for someone who has very little knowledge of the series overall?
Just watch it. Like twenty minutes in you'll both get bored. Then you can turn it off and fuck.
I love TMP but it's VERY inspired by 2001. Slow as molasses, very visual, very little plot, very musical, very conceptual, etc. etc. It is definitely comprehensible without watching the show but it makes a lot more sense with context. Kirk acts like a complete dick the entire time and that makes more sense if you've seen the show and get that it's because his ship, friends, mission, etc. have been taken from him and that's all he lived for.
Realistically speaking you should show her Wrath of Khan. Wrath of Khan essentially saved Star Trek by making a more fast paced adventure driven story that normies could enjoy.
TWOK or maybe one of better episodes of TOS or TNG, like City on the Edge of Forever, Balance of Terror, Cause and Effect or Yesterdays Enterprise.
But you make the movie sound awesome though. 2001 is one of my favorite movies.
But I agree, she'll probably like wrath of khan more. I've already seen that one, so I know what to expect.
Into Darkness was hot fucking garbage and I genuinely enjoyed Beyond.
It looks nice, has a great score and some top tier effects for the time but the plot is ripped from other ST episodes and it's protracted as hell.
I like it for what it is but I completely understand why the audiences didn't like it.
>forgetting the corobomite maneuver
The best thing about it is that it lacks JJ's swooping cameras and lens flares.
The plot is a retread of the previous two.
The only big problem with it is the villain
kys
How do people genuinely like Beyond? I feel like I'm getting trolled.
There were a lot of good things about the movie, but there were also such glaring flaws that I can't say that I liked it. Mainly to do with the antagonist and just about everything he does and everything about his methods. Why did he need the doomsday weapon when the swarm ships he found on the planet were so powerful and could easily destroy the space snowglobe? How were there so many people under him when he says there were only three of his crew left in that one captain's log? How did he get past every Federation shield the entire movie?
These are all pretty plot important questions and really took away from the movie. There were a lot of other things too, but I was constantly waiting on some kind of explanation for these and never got one. Maybe I just missed them.
That's not the Shatner vs Shatner scene in 6
My thoughts exactly. What does the ancient weapon do exactly? Is it a gray goo? Does the cloud get bigger the more it kills?
It's only shown killing one person at a time and needs a ventilation system to do any massive damage. Relative to the power level of the setting, that's nothing! You could create a better weapon by accident!
I get that it would be stupid to destroy a planet in each movie to prove the villain is a real threat, but it wasn't explained well.
This.
Here's mine:
1: II: Wrath of Khan
2: I: The Motion Picture
3: Beyond
5*: IV: The Voyage Home
5*: First Contact
6: Star Trek 09
7: III: The Search for Spock
8: VI: The Undiscovered Country
11*: Generations
11*: Insurrection
11*: V: The Final Frontier
12: Into Darkness
13: Nemesis
>6: Star Trek 09
>8: VI: The Undiscovered Country
What the fuck are you doing?
As an aside, Beyond is riding its post-release bump, and feels better to me right now because of how shitty STID was, the same way First Contact felt so good because it was better than Generations.
I fully expect that Beyond will settle in time to somewhere between ST09 and the time travel movies.
The undiscovered country is comfy AF but it's choppy and feels cheaply thrown together with a cast that was all too old for this shit (because it was). It's got way more in common with Nemesis, in terms of its "bones" as a movie, than most Trekkies would ever dare admit.
ST09 OTOH has some hackneyed plot points, but all in all it had a compelling and completely new story, and it was easily the most ambitious Star Trek film ever made this side of TMP.
The only reason it gets hate from the fans is because it was a big-budget mainstream reboot.
>Beyond THAT fucking high
09 also never explained how the fuck a mining ship turned into a weapon of doom
whats going on, pedos?
Also, Christopher Lloyd's Kruge was just as solid of a baddie as Plummer's Chang was.
And nobody wants to admit that Nero was just as intimidating (a time-travelling revenge-obsessed psychopath using future technology to destroy the past? You sold me.) as any of them.
Take a modern 20,000 TEU container ship armed only with modern small arms 200 years into the past and you could have won Trafalgar singlehandedly.
It was pretty much implied that Nero did just that, even ignoring the non-canon back stories about Borg technology.
It was hundred years though in which case you'll still get raped
Your opinions literally couldn't be worse. Lloyd's only achievement was being able to out-ham Shatner while still managing to be as boring as possible even as he shanked Captain Kirk's son to death in cold blood.
Nero was just a snooze and I remember nothing about him other than whatever awful accent Bana went with and the hilarious tantrum screaming.
>The only reason it gets hate from the fans is because it was a big-budget mainstream reboot.
The reason why it gets all the hate is far simpler. It has no substance doesn't even pretend to have any depth. Nu-Trek is all about image over substance.
>Take a modern 20,000 TEU container ship armed only with modern small arms 200 years into the past and you could have won Trafalgar singlehandedly.
Battle of Jutland would be closer to reality.
Ok, take the Atlantic Conveyor to Jutland and you could have won that one singlehandedly as well.
The commercial navigation radar alone would have been enough to evade the combined English and German fleets while the Harriers completely neutralize individual ships using dumb bombs and gun pods alone to knock out command areas, completely uncontested by AA fire.
That is assuming there was enough ammo to sink everything. Atlantic Conveyor probably didn't carry low capacity bombs (armour piercing, low capacity is about explosive filling). WWII battleships would have been pretty tough targets for medium capacity bombs or cluster bombs that are closest modern equivalents for high capacity bombs.