Linkara: "Star Trek: Generations" is one of the films that's a mixed bag for me personally. I certainly enjoyed it at the time. It may even have been the first Star Trek movie I ever saw in theaters. I have vague recollections of seeing "Star Trek VI" in theaters, but I was only four years old if I did. But looking at it nowadays, it's not considered one of the best Star Trek movies out there. I don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be, but it's certainly not one of the best. It has major plot problems, some of which could have been easily written off with only a sentence or two of dialogue, but then there are major thematic and narrative elements that we'll be getting to throughout the review. I'd say, of all the films considered bad, this is the least bad, though that's just my own opinion. Unfortunately, that means that a comic adaptation is not gonna do the story that much better unless there are massive rewrites to how the events play out. In fact, it may end up even worse, because I've seen some of the cutscenes and they were good things to cut. For those not in the know, "Star Trek: Generations" is the turning point in the film franchise, where it stops being about the original series and instead about the "Next Generation" cast. The Next Generation is probably the most successful series of all Trek, with mainstream knowledge of it being unequal to the original series. Hell, it's why we even have the debate phrase: "Kirk vs. Picard". For the record, though, the answer to that question is "Sisko".
