ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2013
- I love the way these two great guys sum up The Original Crew's chemistry!
One major quibble, these two actually said on their 1984 At the Movies review that Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is a pretty good sequel • Siskel & Ebert At the ... and not lumped in as bad by Ebert herein. Roger also said in his 1979 Chicago Sun Times *** review of Star Trek: The Motion Picture www.rogerebert.com/reviews/sta..., "My inclination, as I slid down in my seat and the stereo sound surrounded me, was to relax and let the movie give me a good time. I did and it did."
Then Siskel says it's a good series, particularly Star Trek II, on their 1986 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home review here • Siskel & Ebert - Star ... !
I never thought of Star Trek III as being bad. It's actually pretty good.
Chris Terry tough call, but as a trilogy 2,3 and 4 were the cornerstones of my childhood
+Abbas Zaidi Same for me. 2, 3, and 4 are the best of the trek movies. 4 will always be my favorite as well. It's the best trilogy.
3 and 6 are my favs of the original film series
While I disagree with what they're saying most of the time, attacking Siskel and Ebert based on religion is pretty lame and just doesn't make sense when you're talking about Trek. That's just not how trekkies roll.
Star Trek II and III are really just a single 4 hour Star Trek movie. You could literally cut the closing credits out of II and the opening credits out of III, and you would barely notice that II had ended (other than the change in who is playing Savvik)
Walter Koenig has the funniest line in this movie. "Guess who's coming to dinner". The audience in the theaters roared.
Nichelle wouldn't say that line. So he got it.
VI had some of the most memorable lines in the series.
"Let them die!" and "Fly her apart then!" being among them.
"We SURRENDER!"
My favorite quote has to be from Mccoy, "I'd give real money if he'd shut up."
I canna keep it goin!
"They like each other... and you can't fake that."
Oh, Gene, if you only knew...
But they're such professionals as actors because playing those characters they did like each other onscreen! 8-)
TrekkiELO true, not even all the gnashing of teeth behind the scenes can over come the many voyages that came before.
It's not that cut and dry. Sure there was some drama and tension between Shatner and some of the others like Doohan and Takei, but Shatner, Nimoy and Dee Kelley were genuine friends, and Leonard was of course well liked by all.
I do think that the actors liked the characters they played, and obviously knew them as well as they knew their real selves. And I liked ST III! I don't understand why so many people put it down. It certainly plays a crucial role in the saga of Star Trek.
Takei grew into a pompous princess by this point and clashed with Shatner over leads and lines....Not enough people recognize that GT was just as much at fault as WS
Plummer is just astonishing!
Isn't he always? David Warner too.
@HerbSuperb44 He's in the new Mary Poppins Returns.
@HerbSuperb44 One my all time favorite movies. Love it! Warner is great in everything I've ever seen him in.
Astonishing is a good word...
He was a fine Sherlock Holmes too.
Another favourite of mine.
It's not a "nice" move, it's a GREAT movie.👍👍
My favorite original series movie.
I dont like it.
But isn't that nice, though?
RIP Christopher Plummer.
I so love Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country. Just watched it a couple of times in the last few weeks, and it still holds up very well. Just great all around, and it is a beautiful celebration of the 25th anniversary of Trek and a wonderful send off of the original crew! So glad the old series ended on this note instead of Star Trek V.
RIP to these guys. they entertained me for many many years. Most times I didn't agree with them but they were still great.
"They can't tell me what to call them."
How i miss this sentiment.
TFW you find someone who really really wants to use the N word
If there is to be a brave new world, sounds like you're gonna have the hardest time living in it! 😜
'What's in a name? that which we call a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet.'
3 wasn't bad! IT was great!
They both gave Star Trek III two thumbs up, now they're trying to say it was bad. Star Trek III is a really good Trek movie. They know it and playing along with those who say only the even ones were good is to be dishonest.
I really don't understand why anyone claims III isn't good. It's wonderful. I don't hate I & V but I absolutely see why others do, but III is so much better than either of those films.
@@juliaangelina1984 It’s because it fits into the superstitious nonsense some people like to believe. The curse of the Star Trek numbers they called it. Star Trek 3 was awesome.
Superstitious people and conspiracy theorists drive me nuts. They substitute logic and reasoning for paranoia.
@ Daniel Dalton. I agree - "Star Trek3: The Search For Spock" is actually a very good movie contrary to what Roger Ebert said in his review of "Star Trek6: The Undiscovered Country" on the "Siskel & Ebert At The Movies" TV show, in which he contradicted himself forgetting that he gave "StarTrek3: The Search For Spock" a "thumb-up" rating years earlier!
Star Trek 3 was my favorite movie of the franchise. And quite frankly, one of my favorite films of all-time.
@@KH4444444444N . "Star Trek3" was a pretty good film, definitely much better than it has been given credit for by a lot of fans and critics. At least it wasn't an absolute clunker film like "Star Trek:TMP" and "Star Trek5" !
“They can’t tell me what to call them”. What a time this used to be.
I have to say, as bad as some parts of it are, I have a soft spot for The Motion Picture. I see its flaws, but they're mitigated by the slow, drawn out, atmospheric scenes of discovery, which I have an affection for in movies.
How can you not love Christopher Plummer as Chang?! Quoting Shakespeare! William Shatner was his understudy back in the day. ❤
Siskel: "They can't tell me what to call them" Just made me laugh... I miss them!!!!!
Thematically, number 6 was the most important film in the franchise. The great Star Trek arc, which began in "Errand of Mercy" was the relationship between the Federation and the Klingons. Ayelborne, an Organian entity, predicted in that episode that eventually Humans and Klingons "will be fast friends, they will work with each other." This was fulfilled in TNG and exemplified in DS9, but it was The Undiscovered Country which built that necessary bridge.
This was the greatest plant and payoff of all time. It's what makes Jadzia's line from DS9's "Call to Arms", "Who says there isn't a Klingon around when you need one?" so fulfilling.
Jarl Knudsen you’re right, Star Trek VI was probably more effective as a hand-off movie than Generations was.
In hindsight after VI, they probably could have ditched the Generations script and gone straight to First Contact.
@@mattpope1746 I always HATED how they kept on about Generations being a passing of the torch film. The torch was well past being passed on in 1994. Star Trek VI did a great job of bridging the old cast story with the future Next Generation. Dr. Mcoy, Sarek, Spock, and Mr. Scott had all appeared on The Next Generation . We did not need Generations, which tried to be a stupid team up movie gimmick.
Star trek 3 was an amazing movie
“They can’t tell me what to call them.” Very appreciate statement for this day and age.
it never really dawned on me how many of us actually loved ST6. i've been seeing a lot more stuff about it lately, i'd always thought it was one of those "meh" type movies to most of the trek crowd, but i adored it. it's good to see it getting so much love
I was never aware of it being a meh movie to fandom. It was a wonderful celebration of the 25th anniversary and a send off of the original cast that always evokes an emotional response from me. It was great to this long time Trek fan back in 1991, and it still holds up today! I just watched it again the other night...great film! We are lucky to have gotten it after Star Trek V which nearly killed the old cast movies. There was lots of talk about making Starfleet Academy instead. Thank goodness the right decision was made and The Undiscovered Country was made instead!!!!!
RIP?!?! Bite your tongue! Shatner, Koenig, Nichols, and Takei are all still alive.
I remember seeing it as a kid and it totally rocked. Whereas around the same time "Lethal Weapon 3" came out (and Lethal Weapon movies were my favorite,) I immediately knew it sucked.
6 had some very clever dialogue: "According to one of my ancestors, once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." The punchline being that Sherlock Holmes was Vulcan.
And Spock is also half-human from his Mom Amanda. 8-)
No, it was Spock acknowledging his human ancestry.
If also a logical fallacy and is a terrible argument.
Best in the series hands down. It had Shakespeare, it had Sherlock Holmes, it was political, it had action! It's the best
The next two were really good as well though! But ultimately I have to say that Undiscovered Country holds up to repeated viewings better than any other.
Hands down means there's no debate. More people love Wrath of Khan for sure and even if that weren't true it definitely wouldn't be close to unanimous. It's not even close to hands down.
Wrath of Khan hasn't aged well, with the exception of Ricardo Montalbahn's performance.
The Voyage Home is good, but obviously dated by the 80s references and the 'Save the Whales' kind of cheesy early environmentalist plot device.
*****
Lol, thus far in my life you are the only other person who has said they liked The Search for Spock. I find my thinking in line with your own.
As was often the case, Ebert forgot his own track record. He liked ALL of the Star Trek films up to that point except for Part 5.
I like all the star trek movies.
Why would someone liking Star Trek III be a quibble? ST3 is a genuinely good movie.
ST3 is a WONDERFUL movie.
It seems people fell in love with that "even number movies good/odd movies bad" thing. I think ST6 has more flaws than ST3.
I think ST3 gets a bad rap for a couple reasons. The first is simply being sandwiched between 2 and 4. 2 is very spectacular and 4 is more fun.
Second, the peak of the movie for most is stealing the Enterprise and it happens really early.
God I miss Siskel & Ebert! I really loved them.
I’m sorry I’m glad they’re dead
In the days before everyone became movie critics.
I've never heard the word "TreckERS" in my life lol
It's Trekkers, and yes, a lot of us prefer Trekker to Trekkie. Nimoy and Shatner even talked about it in one of the many VHS tapes on Star Trek they did. It was a common thing among conventions in the 70s and 80s. "Trekkies" is the perjorative version. The equivalant of calling someone a basement dweller.
@@TriarchVisgroup, no. It's Trekkies and that's a fact. Someone told Gene Roddenberry that it was Trekkers and he said (roughly), "no god damn it. I made up the whole damn thing and it's Trekkies." Legend.
Great fun, with heart and humor, and action. This Trekkie for life loved it.
I’ve never had a problem with being a Trekkie. I don’t understand some fan’s problem with the term. I love all of the movies in some way.
It's funny that they make a distinction between "trekkies" and "trekkers" as early as 1991. I wasn't a hardcore TREKKIE until 1996, but I was proud of that label!
What do you expect, they were critics. They got paid to pass off an opinion as fact.
It has been trekkies since at least the early 80s. Only boomers use trekkers now.
@@thunberbolttwo3953 in the mid-late 90s, at least in the UK, there were jokes about trekkers vs trekkies; a trekker wonders what it's like to have sex in zero gravity, a trekkies wonders what it's like to have sex... etc
I have been a star trek fan since star trek the motion picture came out. it is only in the last year. that i have heard the term trekkers to describe star trek fans. To me it has always been trekikis used to describe star trek fans. I live in the us.@@awakeningcry
At minimum it goes back to the 1970s. Believe me, fans have made a thing out of it for a very long time.
Part 2,3,4,6 probably one of the best story arcs ever created in Hollywood
So underrated.
+ joe salazar Sure was. Star Wars Sequels could have learned from Star Trek on story archs
No, 5 was bad, 1 was ookkkaaaayyyy-not bad, 3 was awesome-not quite WoK, but it was a solid film.
+Broyale26 I actually think 5 was better than 1. At least 5 had some character moments and the focus was on them, and it tried to be like the show (though not successfully). 1 was nothing, it was just a dragged out boring movie that had no focus on the characters at all, it was almost all about Decker and Ilia. Had they put some proper scenes where characters actually did something and interacted it would improve it drastically. 1 had a better story than 5 though...
+Ingen Ting While I agree with a small part of your statement here, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is definitely better than Star Trek: The Motion Picture even though I've always liked both for what they are, however the latter has some character moments as well, it's also 6th or last on my original crew feature film favorites list from 1979-1991, but ranks above The Next Generation movies along with those at least tolerable reboots by JJ Abrams set in his own parallel universe! 8-)
+Broyale26 Ebert was probably just referencing that old myth about odd-numbered _Star Trek_ movies which really only applies to _V, VII,_ and _IX_ (plus the horrible tenth movie, _Nemesis,_ of course) Some people think the first movie was a little boring, and I can't really blame them for feeling that way. But it definitely wasn't *bad* in the same sense _The Final Frontier_ was.
Come to think of it, Ebert gave _The Search for Spock_ a thumbs up when it first came out. So did Siskel. Good job contradicting yourselves, fellas.
+Ingen Ting I disagree about the character development in _TMP._ The crew had been separated for at least 18 months and had gone on with their lives, especially Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. It took time for the three of them to become a team again and the rest of the original crew to get used to their new situation, not to mention all the changes on the ship itself. It felt natural considering the circumstances and their relationships seemed to redevelop organically as the story progressed.
On the other hand, there were really only *three* what you _might_ call decent character development scenes in _The Final Frontier,_ and one of them (the campfire singalong) *still* makes me cringe to this day whenever I think about it. Sybok's attempt to "help" Spock and McCoy was the only truly *great* character development scene in the movie. But even if the special effects *hadn't* been utterly embarrassing, _TFF_ still had a *very* mediocre, rushed, and convoluted script while it was obvious that a lot of care and thought had gone into planning the story for _TMP._
+icemachine79 No, Ebert could not have been referencing anything to do with movies after VI, since they weren't made yet. As this was a review about ST: VI when it was just released. At the time many people did thing that 1, 3 and 5 were bad and that 2, 4 and 6 were good.
V was always my favorite for having the best character moments between the trio.
V was derided at the time, but it feels like a TOS adventure, if not homage of - something nobody expected. It's not a perfect movie, some jokes were horrible, but it's nowhere as bad as its reputation.
Final Frontier may be the least good Original Series movie but it has a lot of heart and I am sure was hindered by the Writer's Strike that year. Also ILM was booked up so they had to scrounge SFX from inexperienced companyies and it shows. Shatner actually uses the camera better than Nimoy!
V was never as bad as people thought. Yes it was different but is that so bad? 1 was different after all!!!
Sorry, 5 is terrible. Marshmellons told me so...
“Don’t let it end this WAY, Captain.”
Saw this at the movies with my Mom loved it.
Best film in the franchise.
They both gave part 3 a good review.
They sometimes forget their own reviews. Ebert says 3 was bad but watch his review on 3 and he liked it and gave it a positive review...lol
He also said here that 1 was bad, but he gave it a positive recommendation in 1979.
" If I were Human , I'd tell Star Fleet to go to Hell, ...........if I were Human."
Best Spock line ever.
Wait wasn't David Warner also in the Final Frontier?
Purefoldnz .... Yes he was!
Purefoldnz I'm trying to forget that
LOL
Yes. He was the Federation representative but you probably already knew that.
We never speak of 5
Yes, he played St. John Talbot, the Earth representative on Nimbus III. I honestly don't know why Shatner got him for the role, as it was a nothing role that seriously wasted David Warner. It is a sin to have such an amazing actor and to do nothing with them. I am really glad he returned to play Chancellor Gorkon in The Undiscovered Country. David deserved to actually get to play a well-written character in Star Trek!
I liked 5. "What does God need with a Starship?"
"Who am I? Don't you know, aren't you God?
Only dumb part was they had a palm tree on a barren planet.
"What does Kirk need with a palm tree?" Apart from getting wood but that's a given.
I like it, too. I think the budget hampered the story telling. I like all 6 with the original cast.
Don’t hate me but, I like the reboots with Chris Pine. 🖖
Of all of the problems with V, you have been with the tree?
Star Trek III The Search for Spock was a good movie, still don't know why its had such a bad rap over the years.
Not only that, but if you go back and watch the Siskel & Ebert review for ST3, they say it's good! Not great, but good.
I can see why some find it a bit slow and dry, but I love it.
I think its because of the whole thing with them bringing bk Spock, and the movie being purely about that, but I have to say I do like Star Trek 3, its a nice roaring adventure movie. And to be honest after all that taunting and shakepseare "to the last breath" stuff in Wrath, of all that tension that builds up, they never actually meet face to face in that movie, thats whats funny about it. But I know it was all about the battle between two foes and their ships, outsmarting eachother and that was good.
With Star Trek 3, it did have some real dark, gritty moments, like where the Klingons actually kill Kirk's son, that was very dark and Shatner played that scene perfectly, the way he just fell bk, by his chair. I think you just have to be a real oldskool Kirk and co fan to be able to really appreciate Star Trek 3. Its the chemistry between them, for me they got better as they got older in those movies.
+matt murdock Why don't you check out Siskel & Ebert At the Movies review Star Trek III: The Search for Spock review here at my TH-cam channel? The entire Stealing the Enterprise scene is priceless, then what you said! I was eleven when it was released June 1984, went with a friend to Tyler Mall Theater in Riverside, California, now Barnes & Noble. I'd say it's just about an all-time favorite of mine followed closely by All The Original Crew feature films, see also, another upload, VH1 I Love the 80s Strikes Back Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, under this account as well. My very first Star Trek experience June 1982, always click "SHOW MORE" below these videos for initial commentary from me. 8-)
+TrekkiELO That is absolutely right. The stealing the Enterprise sequence was the best part. In fact, any scene in those movies with the ship are great! My favorite part of Star Trek The Motion Picture is the shuttle flyover of Kirk seeing the newly redesigned Enterprise for the first time.
+sirrocko711 I didnt find ST III slow at all. I found it to be the fastest paced of all of them. It's a fun movie.
After the disasterous V, this was a great sendoff of the original cast. And the story was very compelling, digging deep into politics and whether certain Klingons and Starfleet personnel were ready for change, not to mention a pretty good whodunit. I don't know why Roger generalized the odd-numbered ST's, since he did give thumbs up to I and III. I liked III a lot and thought it was the most underrated of the series.
Star Trek TMP: "Who is Nick Meyer? Never heard of him..."
Star Trek II: "This new Nick Meyer guy is great!"
Star Trek III: "Khan was a great movie! We don't need Nick Meyer!"
Star Trek IV: "Better have Nick Meyer help write this..."
Star Trek V: "Voyage was a HIT!! I can do my own movie...without Meyer!"
Star Trek: VI: "Better get Meyer back...yeah....and let him write AND direct it... and name it...."
...Star Trek II's original title The Undiscovered Country and make Hikaru Sulu Captain of the Excelsior like what was originally written in Vengeance or Wrath of Khan! 8-)
I remember going to see this film with my 3 best friends on opening day, not long before we all went our separate ways in life - my god it was a nail biter - it's not my favorite Trek film, but it was a hell of a last hurrah and one of my best memories. I miss those days.
And even V had a good, interesting idea at its core. Its more victim to poor execution. It's a failure all right, but an honest one.
Great movie 👌👍 excellents visual effects and the CGI of this age was very good 👌 and also was an excellent party for the originals actors from the 60's TV series 👌👍 .
Notice how after the Kilingon ship gets hit. The klingon with the eye patch talks to kirk looking up from underneath the enterprise!! He fired the torpedo from there!! That's the only time from the viewing screen that I can remember having that type of an angle!
"Parallels between Klingons and Russians"
Yeah, I've got news for everybody:
"Don't wait for the translation, answer the question!" (Spoken by a Klingon in the movie) is entirely ripped from the words of a U.S. diplomat, during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
U.s amassador to the u.n and former presidentall canidate adlai stevenson
Didn't know that, cheers! *Sigh* Remember when screen sci-fi used to reference something other than its own franchise history?
1, 3, and 5 aren't bad. I mean one wasn't that great, but if you are a true fan of the original series and cast, the story was OK- it's definitely watchable ... and five wasn't the strongest in the series, but the premise of finding God I thought was interesting and there were some good action scenes, good comedy and the cast worked well together as always. I read somewhere that Paramount changed part of the story line in 5 and Shatner feels that it ruined the picture, but I liked the movie. But why they always mention Star Trek III when they talk about the weakest pictures in the series I don't understand. I think Star Trek lll was a great film, I mean it brought Spock back to life for crying out loud!!! It shows the loyalty of these characters risking their own lives and careers to save their friend. I thought 3 was a wonderful film.
A voice of reason like my own, perfect post! 8-)
@@TrekkiELO Thank you! To be honest I really love all 6 films, I am a HUGE fan of the original cast, but 3 is definitely one of my favs. And Dr. Emmett Brown as a Klingon... priceless!!
@@KLUNKET Same here, as my TH-cam username clearly states, I'm a big fan of The Original Crew from 1966-1991, I really love all 6 feature films along with 3 Star Trek TV seasons! And Christopher Lloyd as Klingon Commander Kruge before he was Dr. Emmett Brown! 8-)
@@TrekkiELO I just love him... Got to meet him briefly some years ago at a signing in Pittsburgh- he seems really shy in public. He said that I was one of the only people that day to ask him about his work on Star Trek and Taxi, everyone associates him so much with the Brown character. Anyhow, nice guy, but very quiet and soft spoken.
I remember waching Siskle and Ebert on PBS back in the 1970s when I was a kid. We always got their opinion before going to a new flick.
Man, I miss them. There hasn't been a movie critic worth beans since Roger left the balcony.
3 was not bad and both of you liked it
RIP boys
It's a good, solid movie with some great scenes and dialogue. However, the fact that Meyer and his co-writer did not have much time to write it shows through at times and the pacing is a bit off. The special effects are very good and the Cliff Eidelman score is a nice change of pace in the series.
Even though I gave it 8/10 on my blog, I admit that you have to be a fan of the series, to get an experience equal in caliber of that, when the ending comes.
Now hold on. I thought they liked Star Trek III
You Have Never Appreciated Shakespeare, until You Have Heard Him,in The Original Klingon!
ebert said 1 3 5 were bad but he gave positive reviews for 1 and 3 LOL
The, he's a liar.
@@colinmontgomery5492 yeah because 2 and 4 hadn't been made yet, in comparison they were bad but alone they were good for a single sit down (maybe not rewatchable material)
@@colinmontgomery5492 Or he changed his mind. . .
@@keyboardwarrior327 Nah, he's just full of shit.
(1:57-1:59) they also did that at the end of "Avengers: Endgame." Which is also a good movie.
I actually enjoyed this film
This was the first Star Trek movie I watched and I saw it in the theater on opening weekend!
By that point, my Dad and I were watching TNG every week and I only watched a small bit of an episode of TOS (I think it was “The Changeling”, in hindsight), but I still enjoyed the movie a lot and watched it several more times when we got it on VHS.
For me, it’s the third best in the series, behind Wrath of Khan (best) and First Contact (2nd).
Loved when Kirk and Spock were alone in the conference room
What you think you say in public or social media that was meant to be private comes back to haunt you many years later... Star Trek predicting the future yet again.
I served 2 years in Rura Pente. It sucked.
Waving those laser drills back and forth must have got pretty old fast, huh?
1 & 3 are good. I would say 1 is my favorite.
The only bad one is 5 (out of the first 6).
Idk why Ebert claims 1,3,5 are bad.
He gave 3 a good review!
And he gave part 1 a thumbs up as well.
Best film in series is either Wrath of Khan or the Voyage Home.
The Search for Spock bridges those two. Very good film. Christopher Lloyd was a great choice as the villain.
Agreed
I am a TREKKIE, proud of it and would not like to be referred to in any other way.
these guys were the first Guys to rate films on TV , First time I saw them was PBS
Siskel said you can tell the TOS cast really like each other. So much for his powers of observation, lol.
Well even if the cast didn't like...(a) certain member/s...they at least come across as liking each other. Which means there's good acting going on!
They knew each other, had history together, needed each other despite all their differences. What showed on the screen was a genuine relationship.
only star trek V is truly bad of the original films. I and III are fine in their own ways.
Not onl did the liberally use Shakespeare, they also pinched lines from Peter Pan - and Adali Stevenson!
I'm with Siskel. The correct terminology for Star Trek fans is Trekkie. ---Because a trekker is someone who actually goes out on a journey. All Trekkies do is sit on a couch and watch the episodes and/ or movies.
My favorite of the series.
VI is the best Star Trek film of all time to me.
My favorite of the 6
In terms of the first 6 Star Trek movies, Star Trek III is only surpassed by Star Trek II. The Voyage Home and The Undiscovered Country are good films, but The Search For Spock is much better at mixing gritty action with genuine drama.
3 wasn't bad, but generally the odd numbered films are bad.
In this videoclip from the TV show, "Siskel & Ebert At The Movies" Roger Ebert seems to forget that Star Trek fans originally called themselves "Trekkies" ! It was only sometime during the 1970's or 1980's that there was a movement among the fans of the original Star Trek TV series to change their nickname to "Trekkers'' because they thought that "Trekkies" sounded effeminate!
Ebert can't say that 1, 3 and 5 were bad, when he gave 1 and 3 thumbs up!!! He liked them all except 5.
RIP David Warner
i like them all...to me V was the best about human emotion and relationships-shatner did not get the money for effects that he wanted to do-had he it would have been a different story.
Hard to believe Roddenberry hated this film.
Siskkl: "They like each other and you can't fake that"
Actually they faked it very well.
Star Trek III wasn't a bad movie. It was a good movie with a bad premise. Once they decided to dedicate an entire film to a resurrection plot - "Disney Death," a.k.a. "Comic Book Death" - the damage was done. All they could do then was to try to turn that sow's ear of a concept into the finest faux-silk purse they could make, and they largely succeeded.
It's Trekkies, I should know I invented it. Gene Roddenberry.
Gene Siskel& Roger Ebert must‘ve felt a little sad when they saw in the opening credits of Star Trek 6 the words “For Gene Roddenberry”.
God I wish Those Two were still Alive in 2019, I wonder what they thought about,
The Addams Family CGI Animated Movie - 2019.
Aladdin - 2019.
Dumbo - 2019.
The Lion King - 2019.
Toy Story 4 - 2019.
TrekkiELO's username indicates that we have two things in common. In fact, I think I came across your here on TH-cam before.
What do Star Trek 2, 4 and 6 have in common? Nicholas Meyer. Paramount should have kissed his ass to get him back for Generations...
3 isnt bad it just has the misfortune of being a direct sequal to wrath of kahn...also ebert says one is bad but he gave it thumbs up when it came out (but it is bad)
It's TREKKIES...
Ebert originally gave positive reviews to The Motion Picture and The Search for Spock. Here he says they’re bad?
It's "Trekkies". Sheesh, even when they attempted to do their homework...
2:20 Hey... you said you *liked* _The Search for Spock_ in your original review, Ebert. Yeah, I know it was kind of a downer and mostly served as a bridge between _II_ and _IV,_ but it was still a *good* movie.
+ icemachine79 becaue it WAS. Each movie set up the next one, creating the longest plot line ever. Six movies worth.
@@aracelymoran2504 Not the 5th movie. That turd William Shanter dropped was completely standalone, thankfully. The 6th continued the same themes as 2-4, but it wasn't a direct continuation of the story like 2 to 3 or 3 to 4.
@@icemachine79 I am not a "Trekkie" but enjoy ST. I could never understand the "hate" over The Search for Spock. I enjoyed it. It was the only movie we see Kirk that vulnerable. He put everything on the line for his comrade - his post as Admiral, his son's death, losing the Enterprise. His breakdown at his son's death was a radical take of Kirk. The look at EVERY crew member at his breakdown, every glance showed all you needed to know about how they felt. An emotional ordeal that culminates in seeing his son's dead body (and the crew's glances again). How he rebounds quickly as Captain and resume the mission was a bold character virtue in Kirk. He never fully processed his son's death in Episodes IV and V, until we actually get a glimpse of it in Episode VI and how it was expected that that grief would drive him against the mission and against Spock's idealism whom he never doubted. And what a fitting end where Kirk responds to a compassionate Vulcan, Spock's father, flipping the earlier Spock quote with "the needs of the One (Spock) outweigh that of the many (himself and his comrades)". IMO II, III and VI were the best. Then #4. #1 was a trial/pilot movie and it is unfair to hate on it. It was there to get the ball rolling and served its purpose and was a good movie. I enjoyed it. V was not as bad as people think, just a bit weird.
Roger liked 1 and 3. Guess in comparison to the even numbered films, he thought they weren't as good.
2:20 search for Spock was not bad, it’s easily the second best in the series behind wrath of Khan 🤷♂️
I like how he says the cast like each other. No they don’t. Everyone hated Shatner very much.
Roger Ebert actually liked 1 and 3 when they reviewed them (rightfully so, both are underrated films), why did he give in to the popular opinion here?
On the Klingon home world, the turkeys are the size of emus, with cassowary like spurs.
Turns out the seventh Star Trek was a real winner, although I understand that not everybody thought so. You've gotta be a big Picard fan, and understand him well, to really love the picture.
Although there are some awkward moments, I actually enjoyed Star Trek Generations from 1994 until Captain James T. Kirk's completely unnecessary death at the end!
Star Trek: Generations was not all that bad, it had great potential with so many things going for it such as Picard meeting Kirk, the return of the Duras sisters, and Soran blowing up solar systems to get to the Nexus. However, the problem was with the Nexus itself, specifically, if it can allow to you go anywhere at anytime, why didn't Picard go back in time to prevent Soran's family from being killed by the Borg? Time travel stories are very hard to write about and that is certainly the case here. By the way, I used to like TNG when I was teenager when it first aired, but now seeing the show again through the eyes of an adult, it made me realize that TNG era is a time where the Federation has become corrupt and decadent, not to mention that Picard is the most unethical Star Fleet captain next to Sisko and Janeway. Kirk rules! :)
Agreed! Star Trek: Generations had way too much going against it as well such as the overuse of technobabble dialogue, the Christmas scene you pointed out, the lack of chemistry between Kirk and Picard, and the way Kirk's death was handled. I did not mind Kirk's death, it was a bold and daring move, and I welcomed it because it make the story feel more realistic and poignant, however, it could have been accomplished in a more heroic fashion compared to the final product. I would have had Kirk at the missile launcher and as Soran comes up to Kirk at gunpoint, Kirk says to him, "I locked the docking clams! See you in hell!" and takes Soran out with him or something similar.
You definitely make a valid point. Sometimes even heroes die meaningless deaths in real life too. The question is, do you think Kirk's death was meaningless?
***** Bridge on the captain!
Sorry... Couldn't resist.
I have a feeling there's going to be a new generation in star trek. Who would've known that Gene Siskel (R.I.P ),was right.
Gene Siskel was obviously referring to The New or Next Generation if you will in #7 just three years later, circa 1994
And it's the next generation, not the "new" generation.