response 115 of 146:

Dec 7 14:59 UTC 1998

It was contrived as all-get-out. But then, I expected it to be.

response 117 of 146:

Dec 7 23:38 UTC 1998

(Last Emperor was an exquisite look at the loss of power and privilige)

response 119 of 146:

Dec 19 22:44 UTC 1998

Me and a friend went to see Star Trek: Insurrection on opening night 
(yeah, I'm a little late getting this in).  This movie, again, features 
the cast of STNG, including Worf (though no explination is given to his 
presence).  As a whole, I'd say that STI would'ov made an excellent 
MFTV movie, but as a theater movie, I felt it wanting.  One thing I did 
like about this Trek story was the inclusion of, what I like to call, 
everyday life scene;  Something that's been missing in Trek stories.  
If your an ST fan, I think it's worth spending seven bucks...once.  
Otherwise, wait 'til it comes 'round to the dollar theaters.

response 121 of 146:

Dec 20 04:41 UTC 1998

Explanation of why Worf is there is given, briefly, early in the film.

response 123 of 146:

Dec 20 18:49 UTC 1998

...and Star Trek: Insurrection is...

Not bad!

OK, it will likely be a long time, if ever, before we get something like Wrath
of Khan again.  This was a TNG film, so it wasn't quite as bombastic as a TOS
film.  Rather, lots of interplay between well-known characters.  If you recall
on TOS (The Original Show) where Dr. McCoy and Spock were sort of bickering
friends, TNG (The Next Generation) characters *all* have some kind of
relationship with each other full of little in-jokes from the series.  This
movie plays on that a lot.

What else?  F. Murray Abraham wasn't much of a villian, the obligatory plot
holes, yada yada yada.

If you liked TNG (even if you *hated* the last season or two, like I did)
you'll probably like this movie.  Catch it at matinee or second run for
cheaper tickets and therefore more enjoyment.



Oh, and one other (unrelated) observation:  I hadn't been to Showcase in a
couple years, so this was my first time with  the new lobby and more theatres.
Wow, reminded me of walking thru Detroit Metro Airport, with all the twisty
little passages leading back to the last theatre in the building.  I would
have waited for this movie to get to Fox Village for the $1.50 price, but
decided I wanted to see it *now*.

response 125 of 146:

Dec 20 22:06 UTC 1998

Re. 121:  Care to share?

Re. 123:  IMO, STWOK was the second worst ST film made.  Talk about 
"holes."

response 127 of 146:

Dec 20 23:49 UTC 1998

Greg?  Are you okay?  Wrath of Khan is almost universally worshipped as 
the best Star Trek movie that was ever put together.  I fail to see 
where you're coming from in your particular criticism.  Oh well.  (And 
if its the second worse, that means you rank either five or one better 
than it, both of which are horrendously bad movies with plots like swiss 
cheese).

This movie was a nice, light-hearted break.  Not a world beater, and F. 
Murray Abraham wasn't the worst guy ever invented, but he got the job 
done.  Mark is partially correct about the last two being serious, but 
Generations wasn't a "save the universe" movie.  It was a "save unlisted 
planet with 200 million people" movie.  More people, but it was still 
relatively minor on the Star Trek scale of things.  Not that that is 
bad.  

The characters in TNG have much more backstory behind them than TOS.  
TOS had three seasons to develop its characters and the only ones that 
got significant work were the main three.  The others were essentially 
one dimensional matte paintings until they got work in the movies.  
Insurrection plays off the 7 seasons and 2 movies worth of 
characterization the characters have, and it does it with contrast.  I 
agree, though, that the script could have been a different movie 
entirely.

response 129 of 146:

Dec 21 08:54 UTC 1998

Didn't mean to denegrate Greg's opinion that much... I just think he's 
dreadfully wrong :)

response 131 of 146:

Dec 22 02:50 UTC 1998

Re 127:
>Wrath of Khan is almost universally worshipped as the best Star Trek 
>movie that was ever put together

"Universally?"  And what statistical source came up with that 
conclusion?  

>I fail to see where you're coming from in your particular criticism.

I've been around Trek since it's inception in '66.  Over the years, 
I've become something of a Trek purist, and I balk at those things that 
try to upset the established universe.  A couple examples from WOK:  

1) Several references are made to something called "energizer" or "main 
energizer."  You get the impression that this, whatever it is, runs the 
whole ship.  This greatly departs from what's been laid down in 
previous movies, series, books, etc., and from third movie on, no 
further mention is made of it, implying that it was an error in 
"treknology."  

2) Knan remembers Chekov.  Excuse me, but Chekov came aboard /after/ 
the events of "Space Seed."  Oh, and just for good measure, leet's not 
forget the amazing, moving blood stain.  There are plenty other such 
things, if your interested.

>if its the second worse, that means you rank either five or one better 
>than it,

Five was definitely the worst.  No surprise that Shatner was never 
asked to direct again.  As for STTMP, no, it wasn't the best, but I 
think it was one of most technically acurate.  And'ya gotta admit, 
seeing that grand cruise outside the new Enterprise was worth the cost 
of admission.  There was a beautiful ship.

response 133 of 146:

Dec 22 13:54 UTC 1998

In the immortal words of William Shatner: "Get a life!"

response 135 of 146:

Dec 25 20:33 UTC 1998

Chechov could have been in the crew for Space Seed, just not a bridge crew
character yet.

response 137 of 146:

Dec 27 14:02 UTC 1998

One of the top 5 I don't know, but it's a great ride.  The way
Sigourney Weaver spits out the word "bitch" at the end is perfect.
"Get away from her, you *bitch*."  She isn't afraid anymore; she's 
had it up to here with the f*cking monster, and is really, really, 
pissed off.  The monster is the greatest monster ever filmed, by far.  

"Aliens" is a James Cameron film, which means his only agenda is 
to put fannies in seats.  In another item ages ago, before I knew 
who James Cameron was, I said the difference between the directors 
of the (at the time) three Alien movies was: the director of Alien^3
wants you to think he's cool; the director of Aliens wants you to 
see his movie three times at the theater, and tell all your friends 
how terrific it is, and buy the video when it comes out; and the 
director of Alien wants you to eat shit and die.  In retrospect, 
pretty good likenesses of David Fincher, James Cameron, and Ridley
Scott, respectively.