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)

"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!

Nichelle wouldn't say that line. So he got it.

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.

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

My favorite original series movie.

I dont like it.

But isn't that nice, though?

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.'

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" !

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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 KZfaq 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.

+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.

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.

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.

I’m sorry I’m glad they’re dead

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.

So underrated.

+ joe salazar Sure was. Star Wars Sequels could have learned from Star Trek on story archs

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...

"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?

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.

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.

...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-)

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?

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.

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 KZfaq 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.

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.

The Search for Spock bridges those two. Very good film. Christopher Lloyd was a great choice as the villain.

Agreed

Waving those laser drills back and forth must have got pretty old fast, huh?

And he gave part 1 a thumbs up as well.

+ 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.

Gene Siskel was obviously referring to The New or Next Generation if you will in #7 just three years later, circa 1994

"Trekkers" was made by those who were ashamed of being called "Trekkies"... as if there is some kind of shame attached to it, which there is not. You either love Star Trek, or you don't. Gotta stop trying to put some kind of "cool" spin on it.

No, "Trekkies" was coined by science-fiction buffs who wanted to belittle the Star Trek fans that started showing up at their conventions in the late 60s. "Trekkers" isn't a "cool spin", it's just a less juvenile-sounding term in response to those scoffing sci-fi fans.

@@porflepopnecker4376 "Less juvenile-sounding" a.k.a. putting a "cool spin", it means the same thing. Its people ashamed of being called "Trekkies" just because of how others treat them. There is nothing wrong with the word "Trekkie", in fact it was added to one of the big line of Dictionaries, possibly Webster's (not 100% sure which), and is not defined as a derogatory term in any way. People saying "Trekkers" is the preferred term created by fans because "Trekkies" is an insult is actually revisionist history, created by those who find shame in the word

@@porflepopnecker4376 SF not sci-fi too. 🤔