Star Trek: The Return (1996)

Star Trek: The Return (1996)

Authors: William Shatner / Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens  | Page Count: 371

'For a silent moment after, even the rain stopped. When it began again, it felt gentle. Warm. Slow as tears.'

Like The Ashes of Eden (1995) did before it, The Return opens on Veridian III and continues the story of the Star Trek: Generations (1994) film. It's not a flashback narrative this time, though, it's the real deal, an actual continuation of current events.

It engineers a ridiculous scenario that brings together aspects and crew of TOS, TNG and DS9 for a ret-conning adventure that's thick with melodrama and action movie clichés. Some of the connections made are mind-blowing and may have fans either happy-clapping or furiously fighting. Either way, some of the reveals in the last quarter are extremely memorable. It's unfortunate that a large portion of the remainder of the book is such a damned chore to get through.

Star Trek: The Ashes of Eden (1995)

Star Trek: The Ashes of Eden (1995)

Authors: William Shatner / Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens  |  Page Count: 309

'He gulped a mouthful of Scotch. Felt it burn his throat — ice cold and fire hot at the same time. That was his poetry. Sensation. Being alive.'

TAoE begins just a few hours after the ending of the Star Trek: Generations (1994) movie, so you'll need to have seen it first. But to really get the most from the book you'll need to have seen all the TOS movies because the story is one of reflection on what's passed as well as a look to the future. Even though it's technically set post-Generations, ninety-nine percent of it is a flashback to an era before Kirk stepped aboard the Enterprise-B, shortly after the political upheaval that occurred at Camp Khitimer (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)).

Without a ship to command Kirk is a little lost, as if his reason for living has been suspended, and daily Starfleet duties do little to assuage the feelings. He's secretly hungering for adventure, and more often than not someone with that goal will either find what he's looking for or set it in motion himself.

Star Trek VII: Generations (1994)

Star Trek: Generations (1994)

Dir. David Carson

There's a feeling in Trek fandom that when it comes to the movies the odd numbered entries generally aren't as good as the even numbered ones – at least, up to a point. I don't know if it's a majority feeling or merely a more published one, but for me it rings true. Generations, being film number VII, is an odd numbered entry.

Even though it has Captains James T. Kirk and Jean-Luc Picard in the same film (Oh my!), it's simply not as good as the even numbered features that came immediately before and after it.

It begins in the TOS era (2293), with three of the original cast members doing a kind of royal visit - followed by a news crew, they watch the maiden voyage of the Enterprise-B. Kirk is antsy that he's not in the big chair, but deep down he knows change is inevitable: the torch must be passed.

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)

Dir. Nicholas Meyer

While TNG was kicking ass on TV, TOS returned to the big screen for one last old-crew hurrah.

And it went out in style. From the dramatic opening to the bitter-sweet ending it rarely puts a booted-foot wrong. I don't understand why it so often gets overlooked by many people.

Writer/Director Nicholas Meyer, having co-worked on the screenplays of II and IV, did the same for VI but took the helm as director, too.

Thematically, the end product is darker than Star Trek often dared to go. The optimism is still evident but it's bullied by heavy political issues, prejudices and ingrained racism, all of which are dissected and put under a microscope.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)

Dir. William Shatner

I love all but one of the TOS films. I've watched them dozens of times and would never want to be without them. I've upgraded from VHS to DVD to Blu-ray. I've gave Paramount more money than they probably deserve for the same film over and over. Nevertheless, even from a vantage point of that nature, I'm able to look at them objectively. So, Star Trek V... eh? Set phasers to critique.

It's new challenges time and a new ship for the old crew. There's a problem in the Neutral Zone (again) and only Captain Kirk can sort it out. Why only Kirk? Because he's William Shatner, of course. Oh, and he's now also the film's director.

I doubt that anyone who isn't a Trek fan would've made it this far into the films, so I'll not be saying anything that deep down most fans don't already know. The Final Frontier has got some problems.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)

Dir. Leonard Nimoy

Star Trek II, III and IV are a connected trilogy, with each film telling its own story but equally one part of a longer three-part journey. Among other things, the end section explores the dangers of shortsightedness, while highlighting mankind's follies and the consequences of actions.

During a return voyage to face the music after stealing the Federation's flagship, the close-knit group find themselves in temporal trouble.

Previously they were fighting against time to help their friend. This time they're traversing time itself in order to help the whole of Earth, which is under threat from a powerful probe of unknown origin.

The Voyage Home has its detractors, like all things inevitably have, but I'm a big fan of it.

There's something absurdly entertaining in seeing the ship's crew wander around San Francisco like a retirement home science club on a field trip.

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)

Dir. Leonard Nimoy

Star Trek II, III and IV are a trilogy telling one story. The middle section explores the benefits of friendship and the burden of responsibility.

In order to write what I want to write about the film, I'll need to refer to events from the previous one. Therefore, there will be SPOILERS for ST II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) hereafter.

Having left the Mutara Nebula behind (see events in TWoK), the USS Enterprise crew are set to return home to Earth for repairs, but their hearts are heavy and the bridge has a missing member.

It's fascinating (no pun intended) that the absence of the characteristically emotionless Spock causes such strong emotions in his human colleagues.

The ship feels half-empty to Admiral Kirk (William Shatner), and in a strange way having Leonard Nimoy ever-present in his role as director yet largely absent onscreen as Spock that same sense of loss affects the viewer. He's there, but he isn't. He's in our hearts and minds, but not visible.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

Dir. Nicholas Meyer

Watching Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan makes the disappointment of The Motion Picture (1979) seem even worse than it was, by comparison.

Regarded by many fans, including myself, as the best of TOS's big-screen adventures, TWoK is what a Star Trek film ought to be. Respectful of the series history, it uses the Kirk, Spock and McCoy triumvirate as a strong foundation to heap layered levels of danger and tragedy atop. The story recognises that the steadfast closeness of the Trek family is its greatest strength.

The villain of the piece is the titular Khan, played with aplomb by Mexican actor Ricardo Montalbán. Full name Khan Noonien Singh, he's a character first seen in the TOS episode Space Seed (S1, Ep 22), but you don't need to have seen it in order to enjoy Ricardo's spectacular performance because the screenplay manages to recap his backstory successfully, without it seeming like some kind of info-dump or intrusive exposition scene.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

Dir. Robert Wise

TOS's transition from TV to big screen certainly was spectacular, but not in a good way - it was a spectacular disaster. By making the established world more cinematic, the warmth and personality of the TV Series was severely compromised.

Often referred to as 'The Motionless Picture' affectionately by fans and from the opposite viewpoint by haters, writer Alan Dean Foster's final draft (screenplay by Harold Livingston) forgets that it's supposed to be Star Trek.

The final product is closer to the cold and clinical end of the science-fiction spectrum, the kind that puts its emphasis on science over characters.

That approach is fine in theory, but TOS has always worked best when its characters were put up front; I feel it's more relatable, and therefore more successful, that way. I'd even go so far as to argue that it's the human/emotional side of things that really defines Star Trek, at least for me.