So i used to like Star Trek V when i was younger and now i find it almost unwatchable it is so bad. — Page 3

Scandanavians and Aborigines have been genetically seperated for more than 2000 years, and they're still the same species.

Fascinating. And are the Scandanavians from the planet Scandanav, or have they been on the earth those whole 2,000 years just as the Aborigines?

TheBoost said:

 There is a lot of racism shown from the sides of Klingons, Ferangi and other species, but I have always felt Star Trek has done a good job of painting racism as a negative thing, and shown the Federation to meet all alien races with open arms. Perhaps I am wrong on this. Mind citing a few examples of aliens needing to act more human in order to become better?

In a broad manner Trek does (the white/black vs. black/white aliens) but when you really look at HOW these races/cultures are written I think you see a lot of racist ideas. Notably, how species and culture are the same thing, unless your human. Only humans can have variety.

I think Spock's long term arc of being more human and embracing his friends is portrayed as a positive (this is strongest in the movies). Spock's influence never influences a human to become more logical and less friendly.

The Ferengi teenage on DS9 had to learn to be more human (less greedy, brave). Cisco's kid was never shown to learn to be more like a Ferengi (and if he had, it would have been seen as a bad thing).

Worf needed to learn to be more human to deal with his spinal injury on TNG. A Klingon would have just killed himself. And Picard TOOK WORF'S SIDE, insisting that no Klingon could adapt to what he'd expect a human to adapt to, even a Klingon raised and living among humans. 

Im not sure, but I think the half-Klingon on Voyagers second line ever was "I'm sorry, but my Klingon half is forever warring with me!"

Given that we have had zero known contact with extra terrestrial lifeforms, I just don't think the science is there to prove this. Yes, it is true with earth species, a dog can't mate with a cat. But I am more than willing to suspend disbelief and go along with the idea that various alien species in the galaxy have evolved so closely along the same lines that they are able to produce viable offspring with one another. Ultimately, it is pretty ridiculous that all these different aliens look so much alike. At the end of the day, you could peg the "bad science!" label on every single sci-fi and fantasy story ever told.  

 I'm not attacking that they all look human. That's a reality of TV/Film production. But if Vulcans and Romulans have a common ancestor and can breed, they are the same species. That's what 'species' means.

 

Really, I've always hated the 'Star Trek has real science' argument. Of 'Star Trek is for grown ups.'

Star Trek wraps itself in nonsense technobabble, but has NO more science in it that Star Wars. Star Trek even spends half their time dealing with various 'omnipotent aliens' who for all intents and purposes are evil gods. And just because the chick in the leotard on the Enterprise says she's an alien telepath, as far as I'm concerned she's a Force User, with as much science as that contains. The Genesis Device has no more merit than the Death Star.

And if every sentient species in the galaxy can mate, that's just magic.

Except Star Trek is set in our own primary universe and in the future.  And star wars is set long ago in a galaxy far far away, or once upon a time.  One is clearly intended to be science fiction and the other pure make believe fantasy.  Star Trek is made up to, but it has humans from Earth in it.  Star Trek is more relatable to the real world sciences except where they constantly remain inconsistent with real science.  And It is supposed to follow our own known physics but often denies the implied laws.  

Star Wars and Star Trek cannot be any more opposite in my opinion.  In wars the only people of any subtance are elites who decide how the rest of everybody should live.  In Star Trek its supposed to be every race and people being equal and working together at least in the federation.  But the TV show and movies did not reflect this for a long time.  The Captain James T Kirk being a heterosexual white male.  And everyone else his subordinate and beneath him.

I'm not so sure people want a gay or transgendered captain.  Though they did do the interspecies thing in star trek it was almost always looked upon negatively.  And later on we got a black captain and a female captain. 

Even in the real world of television and movie production Star Trek has had a problem with diversity.  But has made some strides.  At the end of the day though it was created by a White Man who supposedly was a womanizer, And more concerned with making a living as a writer than in changing the world.

Created by a deeply flawed and imperfect man that had a  "vision".  Though his stories entertained generations of people.  Though his anti religious and anti democratic stance is called into question by people.  Is Star Trek communist and star wars democratic?

I personally don't care because they are both make believe.  Though next generation has that socialist/communist slant to it with their being no money and everybody equal.  In fact perfect cummunism without all the flaws in real life, an idealist view.

I don't know if it is fair to say that star trek regards the community ideal in the highest regard, instead of the achievements of the individual.

Which Star Wars was about like THX 1138 about the individual.  Until that is that intead of being a common farmboy who through his own heroic and individual actions saved the galaxy with the help of friends.

Until he bacame the offspring of an elite dictator who previously belonged to an elite reliegious sect that determined how common folk where to lead their lives.  Until he was only a hero because of the bacteria in his blood midi chlorians.lol.

TheBoost said:

In a broad manner Trek does (the white/black vs. black/white aliens) but when you really look at HOW these races/cultures are written I think you see a lot of racist ideas. Notably, how species and culture are the same thing, unless your human. Only humans can have variety...

Some good points there. I guess you could take these things as racism, but I think it is more the limited scope of the story tellers.

Sometimes Trek has tried to make alien species more indepth and three dimensional, but it is true, for the most part they are defined by their cultural traits than shown to be diverse planets of people. But again, I think this is due to limited scope, not any ill will toward the created species. It is easier to say, "These are Klingons, they are violent and like to fight, etc." Than to say, "Klingons from the Eastern most continent of their planet..." I think some species have been shown to be more diverse than others. The Ferangi are perhaps the most 2D aliens on the show. All together I find them to be very shallow and poorly thought out, but again, it is just a silly sci-fi show, made up for entertainment. The fact that certain traits found in our shallow two diminsional aliens are often seen as negative character traits (greed culture of the Ferangi, culture of violence with the Klingons) just doesn't come off as racist to me.

I still think that for the most part ST has done a great job of condemning racism, and depicting it to be a very negative thing. I do agree that many poor choices of words and ideas by the writers can be seen as somewhat racist (speciesist?). But I think it is more poor communication of ideas, than something that should be seen as racism. Kirk clearly wasn't knocking vulcans by saying that Spock was the most human soul he had known. This line was suppose to be touching, not a statement that humans are superior to vulcans, but Spock was okay because Kirk precieved him more human than vulcan. I think you run into these issues when you open up a world much bigger than the minds of the men who created it. It is hard to imagine a universe filled with hundreds of inhabitable planets with just as many various species of aliens. What kind of terminology would we use? What term would be used to refer to all intelligent lifeforms (as human is used to describe all people on earth)? 

Given that we have had zero known contact with extra terrestrial lifeforms, I just don't think the science is there to prove this. Yes, it is true with earth species, a dog can't mate with a cat. But I am more than willing to suspend disbelief and go along with the idea that various alien species in the galaxy have evolved so closely along the same lines that they are able to produce viable offspring with one another. Ultimately, it is pretty ridiculous that all these different aliens look so much alike. At the end of the day, you could peg the "bad science!" label on every single sci-fi and fantasy story ever told.  

 I'm not attacking that they all look human. That's a reality of TV/Film production. But if Vulcans and Romulans have a common ancestor and can breed, they are the same species. That's what 'species' means.

I wasn't suggesting you were attacking all species looking human. That was my own statement. Too me, it is as ridiculous that the Klingon and a human could produce offspring as it is that a Klingon and a human would look so much alike. That is the real world biological definition of the word "species". But I think we can agree in the Trek universe, a human and a klingon clearly are not the same species. If, lets say, in the real world aliens are discovered, and it somehow turns out we can breed with them, I suppose we would have to change the definition of species. Right? Or could we consider two seperate lifeforms, that evolved on different worlds, but that somehow ended up compatible for procreation, to be of the same species?

Really, I've always hated the 'Star Trek has real science' argument. Of 'Star Trek is for grown ups.'

I'd agree. Star Trek is more for grown ups. Kids can enjoy it, I know I did, but ultimately it deals with some pretty adult themes. However, the real science part of it is total BS. I have yet to meet anyone who would make that argument. Anyone who does is clearly too much of an idiot to realize that it is all just technobabble put in place to make it sound more scientific. I think it achieves this goal quite well, but it is really sad if some people decide this means that any of this stuff is in any way plausible real world science.

DarkFather said:

 

Scandanavians and Aborigines have been genetically seperated for more than 2000 years, and they're still the same species.

 

Fascinating. And are the Scandanavians from the planet Scandanav, or have they been on the earth those whole 2,000 years just as the Aborigines?

In case this makes sense only to me, I was demonstrating that TheBoost raised a point perfectly answered by the statement he quoted me on before raising the point.

DarkFather said:

 

Scandanavians and Aborigines have been genetically seperated for more than 2000 years, and they're still the same species.

 

Fascinating. And are the Scandanavians from the planet Scandanav, or have they been on the earth those whole 2,000 years just as the Aborigines?

DF makes a very valid point here. Scandinavians and Aborigines look about as different from one another as possible, while living on the same planet only separate climates. Imagine the differences there might be had they lived on two separate planets, with very different climates, atmospheres, conditions, resources, foods.

I agree they would be the same species (in fact, I have a really hard time buying into the idea of cross species evolution, but that is a whole different discussion), but they would be quite different. 2000 years is a rather short amount of time for any biological changes to take place. But then again, the vast majority of aliens in Star Trek seem to be biologically identical anyway. Silly science fiction stories! So unrealistic I can barely stand it! ;)

Adaptation.

I was referrring to the jedi.  A relgious sect/cult that is above the rule of law. 

They are not much different from the evil jedi called sith.

Supermen who have superpowers who can interfere with free individuals and free will, and control governments and subvert them with mind tricks.

I would hate to have a reliogious order like the jedi in real life.  It would lead to a terrible theocracy.

Of course i blame the prequels and the sequels to star wars for changing the very nature of the story.  Luke is the hero because he is hereditary offspring of a tyrant with force powers.  Lucas borrowed the idea of a demi god from greek mythology.  The heroes were always princes and the sons of kings, and also the sons of gods and goddesses.

Kirk originally as created in Star Trek was an everyman and not a demi god.  A common man with the intellect and perseverance to aplly himself.

Luke has the right to lord it over others and rule them because of his birth.  Though he never claims said right and works side by side with his fellow rebels if he had been perverted to the darkside he would have been just as bad as vader.

Normal people who work hard and apply themselves can't become JEDI.  To be a jedi you have to be born with a high midi chlorian count.

I prefer Luke as the Everyman he was in 1977 Star Wars than what he became.  In the end he became a superhero almost cut directly from the cloth of the comics and pulp fiction of the past.

Though a new hope confused people because Lucas always intended Luke to be a demi god.  in fact his early treatment ends with the bumbling sidekicks stumbling away drunk from the victory celebration realising they have been adventuring with demi-gods.

He based the Jedi on the Galactic Patrol of EE doc smith Specifically the Gray Lensman who were above the law just like the spectre in mass effect the videogame, and were judge jury and executioner.

I mean Luke is based on the great aryan heroes Kimble Kinnison and Flash Gordon, as well as the southern gentleman warrior John Carter, and based on Arthur, and theseus and perseus.

TheBoost said:

As near as I can tell, Trek is a fascist socialist society. The pseudo-military Starfleet rules everything with an iron fist. There's no private industry, and apparently no real political equality as the Maquis and the movie 'Insurrection' seem to show.

Insurrection was an example of corruption within Starfleet. As Picard and his crew stated, what was going on there was completely against the principals Starfleet. The Maquis stuff is DS9, and the last season of TOS. I really don't remember that stuff well. But if I remember correctly, they were terrorists, right? They had colonized planets, and now due to treaties with the Romulans, they were being forced to relocate away from Romulan space, and so they began fighting off the Romulans on their own and resisting Federation orders to move out of Romulan space, right? The Maquis storylines were told very sympathetically on the side of the Maquis, if I remember correctly. Starfleet had to relocate them as an issue of intergalactic peace, never a good situation.

In both these citations of Star Trek being somehow fascist, the "fascist" behavior is acknoledged and addressed. With Insurrection we are suppose to hate what the Starfleet guys are doing. With a Maquis, we are suppose to feel torn between the treatment of the Maquis and Starfleets obligation to keeping the peace. 

I don't see Starfleet ruling anything with an iron fist. It is more like the UN, you are not obligated to join, and its purpose is to keep peace and make galactic wide progress. If there was an iron fist, we would see the Enterprise seeking out new civilizations so they could conquer and control them, not so they could learn from them. 

Private industry is gone, in favor of advancement of society as a whole (completely absurd I agree, but this kind of a society, as unrealistic as it is, would be absolutely perfect), technology has replace the low level working class. Now instead of people working at factories and the like, everything is replicated. Everyone works and does their jobs to personally contribute to society as a whole (completely nuts, would never in a million years work in real life, but still a fun premise to consider). There is no iron fist, because everyone is allowed to do what they wish. If I want to becomes a scientist and travel to the far reaches of the galaxy and study things, I can do that. Likewise, if I wanted to do something more simple like be a shuttle pilot, I could do that too. It is never addressed what becomes of those who want to sit around and do nothing, I think the assumption is that in this more highly evolved future version of man, such laziness and lack of drive is nonexistent (again, silly unreasonable idea, but since it is just s story...)

I know nothing about Rodenberry as a man, but if I understand correctly, he was really trying to show a utopian future. I just think his personal shortsightedness and that of his writers, as well as scientific laziness, shows through quite strongly.

My goodness, it is a lousy science fiction series. What were you expecting from the man? Realistic social commentary? Accurate real world science? I don't think he was trying to show a Utopian future so much as make an enjoyable show. The fact that we are still talking about it today makes me feel safe in saying that I think he did a kick ass job.

Ragging on Trek for being shortsighted and scientifically lazy reminds me of those guys who rag on James Bond because it isn't a realistic portrayal of what spies really do. I don't think you need to explain that to anybody, they know it is fantasy and that real secret agents don't really save the world from near destruction every few years, while sleeping with no less than three provacatively named women per mission between wild fights with hoards of bad guys and extravagant chanse scenes. But it is a lot of fun for some of us, so we enjoy it anyway. A realistic show about space exploration sounds about half as interesting as a realitic spy movie.

I love star trek IV.

I love the lines " well a double dumbass on you!"  and "I think he did a little too much lds"

The Nuclear "wessels" though is a bit rediculous.  Though the interrogation of Chekov is hilarious. 

"Of course he's a ruskie but he's a retard or something".  Plus the name, rank and serial number is all your supposed to give under torture if you are a member of our armed forces.  Even if you are tortured to death.

"Admiral do you think it is time for another colorful metaphor."

"Hello computair"

"I'm from iowa i only work in outer space"

Still not as bad as the humor in Trek V.  " I know this ship like the back of my hand" bang!.  Scotty hits his head.  And how could he know the ship like the back of his hand when it is totally new and the enterprise he knew blew up and burned up on entry in genesis atmosphere.

The Katra thing was nowhere to be found in Trek V either.  Sybok does not meld with Spock before his sacrifice.  So how can his soul be brought to the mountain on vulcan that Sarek made such a big deal of in star trek III?

And just like we never found out what the hell happened between the motion picture and the wrath of Khan there is a huge gap in between events in Treks V and VI.

The enetrprise A is commisioned at the end of star trek IV but is decommioned after VI.  Talk about a short while in space.  Could not have been more than a few years. 

Another thing that makes no sense in V.  The excelsior is in the same space dock as enterprise and seems to be in perfect repair.  Why send a ship with a skeleton crew that barely works like enterprise that is an outdated constitution class vessel when you can send the prototype excelsior class?

The next Enterprise B is exelsior class but not under Kirks command which i see as a mistake.  This Ferris Bueler guy is in like in the one movie Generations.  And like the enterprise C is shown only once and then never used again. 

Then the D galaxy class prototype was used for all seven seasons of next gen and only the movie generations.  E the sovereign class prototype borrows a bit from the design of the refit of the 1701.

I like the Refit, the A and the E best.  The E could blow the JJprise into pieces.

Someone should make a fan video where the A kirks ship blows up the pretender jjprise.  You have Shatner commanding the real enterprise and chris pine goes kaboom with the jjprise,lol.

ChainsawAsh said:

Final list:

- The Undiscovered Country
- The Wrath of Khan
- The Final Frontier
- The Voyage Home
- The Motion Picture
- The Search for Spock

Oh, and one last thing - how the hell did those whales breathe once they were beamed into the Klingon ship?

Now that looks a list of someone who actually watched the movies and not someone who just follows the sheep and says "all the even movies and then all the odds" with TFF being the worst, cause it fucking wasnt even close
....and you summed up 4 perfectly, IT WASNT GREAT so people need to get off the notion that it was

ChainsawAsh said:

Alright, I just finished watching The Voyage Home.  My thoughts:

It's not nearly as bad as I remember, but not great.

CompMovieGuy said:

Now that looks a list of someone who actually watched the movies and not someone who just follows the sheep and says "all the even movies and then all the odds" with TFF being the worst, cause it fucking wasnt even close
....and you summed up 4 perfectly, IT WASNT GREAT so people need to get off the notion that it was

I don't believe anyone said it was great.  It was fun, which is more than can be said about TFF, at least in my opinion, which is the point I guess.  These are all opinions.  Just because a majority of people think Star Trek V sucks doesn't mean that you have to think that.  I acutally think its cool that you're giving TFF more than a fair shake.  TFF was actually the first movie I can remember seeing in theaters (I was FIVE), so I guess it will always hold a place in my life (McCoy having to relive letting his dad die will do that to a kid).  But I don't have to enjoy it more than TVH.

I know Im coming off as a fanboy for V, but let me stress that actually Im not
I think out of the original 6, there are two movies that are CLEARLY (to me anyway) in a class of their own....which is VI and II
These are by far the best of the pack, and when it comes to the other four the debate begins with me because while those two are on a different level the other four are almost on the same level, thus why I dont get when people say IV is the greatest original ST movie, and people do say that....makes me roll my eyes
V doesnt even come close to VI and II, none of the others do....and when I look at the other four its HARD for me to actually rank them cause they all have their own problems and their own love/hate moments.
Its a hard choice after the first two but this is how I see it
VI TUC
II TWoK
(noticeable gap)
V TFF (the one movie thats a mixed bag)
IV TVH (for the fun factor, storyline was shit)
III TSFS (Lloyd saved this movie or else it would be last)
TMP (I hate to have to do it but its just HARD to actually say "hey I think Im gonna watch TMP tonight" cause I know after hour one Im gonna be bored out of my mind since it just drags on)

But like you said, its all opinion

CompMovieGuy said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Final list:

- The Undiscovered Country
- The Wrath of Khan
- The Final Frontier
- The Voyage Home
- The Motion Picture
- The Search for Spock

Oh, and one last thing - how the hell did those whales breathe once they were beamed into the Klingon ship?

Now that looks a list of someone who actually watched the movies and not someone who just follows the sheep and says "all the even movies and then all the odds" with TFF being the worst, cause it fucking wasnt even close
....and you summed up 4 perfectly, IT WASNT GREAT so people need to get off the notion that it was

 

 

Holy shit it is the opinion police! They've discovered I never really watched Star Trek and only look to other people for my opinion! Run for it!!!

I think it is fantastic you like FF so much. But how exactly does that make those of us who don't sheep?

For a guy who face palms a lot, you sure make me feel like face palming. You seem offended at the idea of people liking other Trek films more than FF. It isn't a matter of intelligence or of being right or wrong. It is a matter of opinion. If I liked the movies I do just because everyone else does, then that would make me a sheep. Just because I happen to like the films in close to the same order that a lot of people do, does not make me, or any one else in the same position, a sheep.

ChainsawAsh said:

...how the hell did those whales breathe once they were beamed into the Klingon ship?

I'm sure there was a bit of an air-space above the water.

And my list:

II: TWoK
VI: TUC
IV: TVH
V: TFF
III: TSfS
I: TMP

Davnes007 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

...how the hell did those whales breathe once they were beamed into the Klingon ship?

I'm sure there was a bit of an air-space above the water.

Whales can survive underwater for several hours without having to come up with air.  But don't forget, it was a concern.  Kirk's final battle at the end of this movie was rescuing the whales from the tank as the ship was sinking because, as Gillian said, "They'll drown."  So, yeah, there you go.  Everything makes sense.

Yeah it is kinda funny being concerned for fake rubber whales having to breath in a piece of make believe fiction.  LOL.

What would we do if those nonexistant fake whales died on our tv, oh the horror!.

I still think TREK V is the worst of the original series movies.  But not the worst of all the trek movies nemesis fits that bill. 

I am probably the only one who likes final frontier better than JJ's movie simply because it has the original cast and enterprise in it.  No matter the laughable plot, bad acting and action scenes and the worst big screen special effects i have seen since Superman IV the quest for peace.

ILM's B or C crew effects don't hold up very well either and look budget grade.  The only film with satisfactory effects out of all six was the motion picture.  They cheaped out ever since then up until the new jj movie.  And the last time they had any jaw dropping visuals was in like 1 scene in first contact.

The only film to have star wars level effects or even surpass star wars in some ways was the motion picture done by Trumble and Dykstra.  With the aid of Lucasfilms old van nuys warehouse and the dystraflex camera at apogee.  A lot of people who moved to the new ILM headquarters worked on star trek 1.  in fact that production is all ilm in all but name and because trumbal was involved.  A lot of people remained behind to work for John at apogee and worked on the original battlestar galactica.

Almost all the trek scripts and as filmed are overgrown tv productions and not epic screen adventures.  The motion picture would be the last to do so until JJ made his own epic big screen take on the franchise, which some fans and critics have damned as being too much like an extended television episode of the original series on speed.

In one way star wars is ever so more superior than star trek it was always intended to be on the big screen and shot in the wide anamorphic aspect ratio of 2:35:1.  And composed visually and tonally as an epic space saga.  With sweeping visual flair Lucas borrowed from Akira Kurosawas samurai epics.  And World War II films and John Ford westerns. Which of course were composed chiefly in academy standard ration of 1:33:1.

The film Lucas style for star wars borrowed from besides his own films THX 1138 and American Graffiti was Kurosawa's first use of the anamorphic widescreen filmaking process the Hidden Fortress.

TREK began as a tv series and it should return to tv even with the start of pre production on a new sequel to TREK 2009.  Hopefully they will actually  call it something next time other than Star Trek to not confuse people.

The novel for "Star Trek V" does a much better job conveying the plot then the film, and is one of the few Trek novels I re-read every few years.

I don't think William Shatner did that bad of a job directing the actors. It was the lack of production value, and forced humor that hurt it much more. I would put the majority of blame on the producers, but Bennet did not truly want to do another Trek. William Shatner talked him into returning. That was a big error. You never want people who are not truly motvated involved on big project like that.

FanFiltration said:

The novel for "Star Trek V" does a much better job conveying the plot then the film, and is one of the few Trek novels I re-read every few years.

 

I don't think William Shatner did that bad of a job directing the actors. It was the lack of production value, and forced humor that hurt it much more. I would put the majority of blame on the producers, but Bennet did not truly want to do another Trek. William Shatner talked him into returning. That was a big error. You never want people who are not truly motvated involved on big project like that.

True.  Though Bennet wanted to return to direct the academy days script written by David loughery aka as "top gun in space" to fans who hated the idea.  It would have been the sixth star trek picture and therefore undiscovered country would have never been made and V would have been the last film as the original cast.  Other than Cameo roles for Shatner and Dee Kelley in the first one.  They would recast the roles with cheaper younger actors and put the older actors out to pasture after the bomb of a film V was.

It was even greenlit until they changed course and made the end of the cold war in outer space trek VI instead.

If you look at how old the actors are in VI there is a truth that Bennet realized TREK needed to be reborn.  But not done by the suits who are affraid of change and did'nt want to rock the boat.  Until the new head of productions greenlit JJ's movie they kept doing movies with old actors.  The only exception to the rule is Nimoy being in the new film and he did not really have to be i would have preferred a true reboot instead of the throwing a bone to trekkies by having Nimoy in it.

I would have preferred an entirely new breakthrough concept like the New Battlestar Galactica which saved its own franchise from and revived it from the grave.

Who wants to see geriatrics in films.  Aging action stars like Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, Stallone as rocky and rambo, willis as john MClaine, and Arnold as the terminator i find to be awfully cringeworthy playing these characters like they have not aged at all.  As laughable as a seventy year han solo in the star wars novels being the hero,lol.

In my opinion despite its flaws the motion picture feels like the cerebral star trek i like. 

I think it is the best of the original six films despite its slow pace.  It basically was trying to be another 2001.

Khan i find to be the second best even though it is universally seen as the best.  Then i would pick III next, IV after that and VI next.  With V being on the overall bottom unless that spot now belongs to JJ abrams star trek which i consider as a seperate continuity and a singular film with no sequels.

Though in terms of script and direction TREK II is heads above all the rest.  There are times when i seriously think II AND VI are the very best and the rest are garbage.

My favorite is of course known as the genesis trilogy Films II, III and IV.  That arc is the best imho.