20 Facts About Star Trek V: The Final Frontier | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

20 Facts About Star Trek V: The Final Frontier June 14, 2009

by John Tenuto , Filed under: Feature Films (TMP-NEM),List , trackback

TrekMovie finishes out our 20th anniversary coverage of Star Trek V The Final Frontier with 20 fun facts all about William Shatner’s turn in the director’s chair.

 

 

STAR TREK V: 20 Fun facts

1. The original title for the film that William Shatner wanted was "Star Trek: An Act of Love"

2. The name "Sha Ka Ree" is a sound-alike for Sean Connery (the actor they production team originally hoped would play Sybok)

3. STV is the first feature film made after Star Trek: The Next Generation went into production, and there is much to "engage" in Star Trek V. For example, the corridors in the film are from the Enterprise D as is the sickbay set. The steps that were brought out for Kirk and company to utilize when disembarking from the shuttle were reportedly those of Patrick Stewart’s trailer (they had forgotten to make stairs and quickly redecorated what was available).

4. Laurence Lunkinbill is married to Lucy Arnaz in real life. That means he was Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz’s son-in-law (it was Lucy’s production company Desilu who originally owned and produced Star Trek).

5. Klaa’s ship is named the Okrona, after Marc Okrand who wrote much of the Klingon language.

6. The crew person to whom Kirk gives his jacket when first appearing on the Enterprise is Shatner’s daughter Melanie Shatner (who was also featured during the episode "Miri").

7. The band Hiroshima which plays the ‘Uhura fan dance’ song "The Moons A Window" on the soundtrack is still an active band with a new album. They are well known in the jazz and new age music community.

8. The history and origins of the alien who pretends to be God in Star Trek V is the subject of The Q Continuum books from Greg Cox.

9. Harve Bennett, the producer and writer who helped save Star Trek starting with The Wrath of Khan, is featured as Admiral Robert Bennett who gives Kirk his orders during the film.

10. Owens Dry Lake in the Mojave Desert is the real world location for Nimbus III. Its stark environment is contrasted with the beauty of Yosemite during the film’s first moments.

11. Both Todd Bryant (Klaa) and David Warner (St. John Talbot) would return with roles in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Bryant played the Klingon interpreter and Warner was Gorkon.

12. Uhura’s erotic fan dance was initially suggested as a joke by writer David Loughery, to his surprise it was approved.

13. Kirk continues his tradition of calling Klingons "bastards" in this film, something that starts in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.

14. The comic book adaptation features all the deleted scenes, including what the infamous Rockman scene could have looked like.

15. Star Trek V was the first Star Trek film that both Herman Zimmerman and Mike Okuda were crew

16. Star Trek V was #1 at the box office its first week earning $17 million dollars. It would eventually earn $52 million domestically and about $70 million internationally. While profitable it was a disappointment, earning about half of what Star Trek IV did a few years before.

17. Star Trek V The Final Frontier wasn’t the first "Star Trek V" that William Shatner starred. In 1986 while on Saturday Night Live, he played Captain Kirk in the infamous skit "Star Trek V: The Restaurant Enterprise"


Classic SNL: The Restaurant Enterprise – View more free videos

18. Before Nokia and Budweiser’s product placement in ST09, this film also had product placement. Kirk and company are wearing Levi Jeans and Levi Strauss & Company is credited in the film.

19. Star Trek V is one of the few films that has been allowed to film at Yosemite National Park. Because of its environmentalism themes, Star Trek was allowed to film where few have filmed before.

20. The special edition regular DVD release of Star Trek V has an Easter Egg worth checking out. On the special features of disc 2, go to the main menu and click on "Deleted Scenes" Go to "Behold Paradise" and then move the DVD arrow to the left. A symbol will be there and you could now enjoy a brief joke scene. Other bonus features are a very cool press release video and Shatner discussing how Kirk represents every person and hugging mountains


 

 

Bonus: Good Morning America 1989 Shatner and Nimoy interview

 

See you at the 30th anniversary
Well that pretty much wraps up our 20th anniversary coverage for Star Trek V. Maybe some day Paramount will give Shatner the money to create a digitally enhanced special edition of The Final Frontier, but we won’t be holding our breath.

 

Comments

1. dayxday - June 14, 2009

Never did care for the film. Maybe I’ll give it a second look.

2. Brett Campbell - June 14, 2009

Interesting tidbits. Thanks!

3. 750 Mang - June 14, 2009

“What does God need with a Starship?”

4. Harry Ballz - June 14, 2009

I love TOS cast, but Shatner can’t direct traffic! He should just stick to acting!

5. Xai - June 14, 2009

It’s hard for me to say that any Trek “failed”, but this one did, IMO.

6. J_schinderlin56 - June 14, 2009

“Star Trek: An Act of Love”

I won’t even get it to what such at title could imply.

7. jackson - June 14, 2009

I saw this when I was 9, and even then I thought it was dog poop,

8. 750 Mang - June 14, 2009

It’s still better than Insurrection and Nemesis. If for no other reason than it features Shatner, Nimoy, and DeForrest Kelly together for almost the last time.

But it’s better than those two movies for other reasons also.

9. SPOCKBOY - June 14, 2009

That Good Morning America video was priceless.
Thanks for posting it.

: )

10. New Horizon - June 14, 2009

4. Harry Ballz – June 14, 2009

The directing was fine. It was the script and dodgy effects that hurt the film. Trek V has some of the most dynamic camera work of any of the original series movies. The man knows how to stage a scene. There were a few dodgy ones, but overall…he did quite well.

11. RobertZ - June 14, 2009

Thanks trekmovie for this coverage of Star Trek V!

Star Trek I and V are my favorites. I’m an odd Trekker.

12. Big Bill C - June 14, 2009

I wish that Paramount would give Shatner the money to do a director’s cut of STV, new CGI and all. One of the problems with the current version of the film is that, as you watch it, you can actually watch the money run out. A new director’s cut would solve a lot of that.

13. Kilo-Three-Zero - June 14, 2009

Reason 5539 Picard is better than Kirk:

They had to steal PICARD’s stairs for KIRK’s movie.

14. THX-1138 - June 14, 2009

I still would rather watch this than Insurrection. I give the film a C. I guess I’ll chime in with my major hates:

Sybok- I mean, please. I reject this reality and substitute my own. To this day I insist that Spock is and always has been an only child.

Scotty smacking his head- no explanation needed.

Horrid FX- Truly awful.

Other than that, If I can make it through Spock’s Brain and The way to Eden is to Follow the Space Hippy with the big ears, then I can watch this.

15. sean - June 14, 2009

Eh, the bad VFX never bothered me. Though I just noticed that picture above does make the shuttlebay doors look comically small.

16. Michael - June 14, 2009

Act of Love? More like suicide! Hahahahahahaahahahah
Actually, when I first saw it in the theater, I left thinking….Did I Like This? I had to see it a second time to figure out, that it lacked something……I’ve learned to enjoy it more olver the years as a better than average tv episode, rather than a feature film. I believe if paramount had loosened the purse strings, Shatner’s vision and the film’s outcom would have fared better than the cheap wad of cash the suits gave him to make a major motion picture. They made a TON of $ on ST 4, so why did the studio give Bill a $1.49 to pay for his lone rock creature and a 3rd rate crappy effects house?

17. S. John Ross - June 14, 2009

Cool list! Not a great movie, but a cool list.

18. Andros - June 14, 2009

That SNL sketch was actually quite funny.

19. Brett Campbell - June 14, 2009

I never saw that SNL sketch in its entirety. It was pretty funny.

20. Millennium Vulcan - June 14, 2009

I have always felt that the negative fan reaction to ST:V was hyperbolic and somewhat unfair. While I agree that the film has it’s share of weaknesses (like all Trek movies IMO), it is not the flaming pile of manure most fans make it out to be.

Though ST:V was not the first Trek movie I saw in a theatre (that was ST:IV), it was the first one I saw as a true Trekker (thanks to TNG).

21. Brett Campbell - June 14, 2009

Phil Hartman as Bones was great. Such a tragic loss, what happened to him.

22. JimJ - June 14, 2009

That youtube video of Kirk, WOW, he was pretty thin back then. Not bad at all for his age at that time. Wish I was that trim! Amazing how philisophical he tried to sound about the mountain climb.

23. Brett Campbell - June 14, 2009

The Good Morning America clip was interesting. That anchorwoman … I forgot how big hair was in the ’80’s!

24. Daoud - June 14, 2009

Star Trek V: The Restaurant Enterprise… is one of the best bits of Trek ever. Shatner never played Kirk better. :) Look at how he handles Khan!

If you’ve never watched that link, be SURE to watch it. I don’t know about it being “infamous”, because with Phil Hartmann as McCoy, Kevin Nealon as Spock, and Victoria Jackson as Rand, it’s inspired casting….

Dana Carvey cracks me up every time…. Kkkkkkkkkkkkkirrrrrrrrrrrrrrk.

25. Harry Ballz - June 14, 2009

Aha!! In the Good Morning America interview, Shatner says, “the three of us are like the three stooges” (Nimoy, of course, tries to downplay that)

Over the years I always said I HATED The Final Frontier because the humour was farcical to the point of the main actors behaving like the three stooges!!

“Hey, Spock, how many fingers am I holding up? Woo, woo, woo…”

People said that was an unfair comment on my part! Now, we hear Shatner, at the time in 1989, stating that is what they were aiming for!!

Unbelievable!! I feel both vindicated over my initial observation AND disgusted that people try to defend this turd of a movie!

I can’t stand it when people are handed millions of dollars to make a film and they completely squander the opportunity! Disgraceful!

26. Fortyseven - June 14, 2009

As bad as it is, the scenes of Kirk, Spock and McCoy camping out, and the entire scene where Sybok ‘shows them their pain’ were fantastic character development moments. And of course, there’s a handful of other minor bits that were good.

Despite being such an awful film, I still dust it off every couple years just for those good bits.

27. Fortyseven - June 14, 2009

#24, I was stunned to see movie-era Shatner dressed in TOS-era costuming — that was fantastic all by itself. ;D

28. Baroner - June 14, 2009

This movie started out great but became a flamingly horrible disaster. I am re-stating the obvious because the above-described “20 facts” are cool enough to make people think that maybe, just maybe, upon reflection, this movie is alright. It is not. Even allowing for the horrible FX, ridiculous story, and bad acting, we were not even given our own characters behaving as they “normally” would (e.g. Kirk allowing rebels aboard the ship; Kirk not at least bashing Sybok in the f#&@’ing face instead of shooting him, but instead allowing him to take control of the ship; Scotty allowing Sybok and co. to take over the ship (apparently forgetting the intruder alarm system, including anesthezine gas, etc.); the list goes on and on!!!).

Nemesis was a zillion times better than this. Insurrection, I’ll give you that one – no doubt it was the worst movie ever.

29. Gary Seven - June 14, 2009

Although very stupid in parts, ST V has, in my opinion, the best character moments of ANY in all of Star Trek. Never has the love, the sense of family, between the “big three” been captured so warmly and directly. I think that in this way, ST V took Trek further and better than ever before.
Again, this isn’t to say I loved the movie; it has many awful aspects. But I value it dearly for its wonderful aspects.
McCoy: “I thought you said people like us didn’t have families.”
Kirk: “I was wrong.”

I also agree with the reviewer, who noted how brave and poignant the following is:
McCoy: We were wondering, is God really out there?”
Kirk: “Maybe he’s not out there Bones, maybe he’s in here (pointing to his chest)…the human heart.”
In these aspects, I believe STV captured the essence of TOS- it’s warm love between very different people (Kirk, Spock, and McCoy) and its message of goodness coming from humanity- better than the new movie.
Before I get bombarded my ST V haters, I am not saying that this is one of the best ST movies or that it is nearly as good a movie as the new one. I am saying that it has some absolutely wonderful and invaluable qualities which make it a unique contribution to Star Trek.

30. Vlasid - June 14, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTJSILpenpM – gag reel from the DVD. Pretty funny :)

31. Michael Hall - June 14, 2009

“It’s still better than Insurrection and Nemesis. If for no other reason than it features Shatner, Nimoy, and DeForrest Kelly together for almost the last time. “

Nope, not really. But for all its numerous flaws, THE FINAL FRONTIER, in its ham-fisted way, at least *tries* to be about something. In that sense (and in that sense alone), it’s a better film–or at least better Star Trek–than what we got this year.

32. VOODOO - June 14, 2009

Michael #31

Sorry, but the new “Star Trek” film is superior in every way.

I will agree that ST V is a very flawed film, but I do prefer it to the rather bland Nemesis and Insurrection. ST V is not a good movie, but it does have a few nice moments.

33. Hat Rick - June 14, 2009

Did William Shatner really say that the sinewy guys who climb the mountain essentially want to make love to the mountain? I mean, it’s getting late so I’m not really sure I heard it right.

It’s getting really, really late.

34. Penhall99 - June 14, 2009

Damn you people and your low ratings for Trek V in the poll!!!

I still think that if the movie got a beefed up ending and enhanced effects, it would go up a few notches on everyone’s list.

35. The Wild Man of Borneo - June 14, 2009

#31 I agree 100% with you. At least it tried to be about SOMETHING.

#32

It is not superior in every way. Not even close. It was air headed and totally aimed for the transformer’s MTV crowd.

I’d take the Trek V any day.

36. Paulaner - June 15, 2009

#15 “Though I just noticed that picture above does make the shuttlebay doors look comically small.”

OMG, how big is the 1701-A? Tell us the real size… (joking)

37. Iowagirl - June 15, 2009

Thanks for that great list!

Btw, did I ever mention that I like STV? :))

38. ety3 - June 15, 2009

I didn’t think of it before, but Shatner’s daughter looks a tad like Amy Winehouse.

And of course, “Restaurant Enterprise” is one of the greatest Trek parodies ever made. Phil Hartman as Bones. Dana Carvey as Khan. It’s glorious.

39. Hat Rick - June 15, 2009

“McCoy”‘s line about his being a doctor, not a (doctor)… was hilarious!

40. DJT - June 15, 2009

I *LOVE* that SNL skit. Thank you guys for posting it.

“Sulu?! Oh my God!”

lol.

41. Carlos Teran - June 15, 2009

To me, STV is a movie that deserved a way better treatment. It breaks my heart to listen Shatner’s comment track, and how his vision never came to life. I wonder how this story would be with ILM-quality visual effects and the original concept proposed by Shatner. The story is powerful and promising, and I do like this movie, even more than Nemesis.

42. Dom - June 15, 2009

13. Kilo-Three-Zero – June 14, 2009: ‘Reason 5539 Picard is better than Kirk: They had to steal PICARD’s stairs for KIRK’s movie.’

Reason 5 million Kirk is better than Picard: Kirk walked off with Picard’s stairs and no one could stop him, meaning poor old Picard would have belly flopped on the ground a bit like his movies did. ;)

Seriously though, I’m tired of TNG fans (who represent the majority of Shatner haters) using this movie as a stick with which to beat down Shatner.

A movie torn apart by strikes, studio cowardice, Gene Roddenberry’s vocal hostility, a 50 per cent budget cut just before filming started, a non-ILM FX house having to do the FX work in an era where ILM were the only decent movie FX house and a strike which included one of the strike breaker crew’s vehicles mysteriously exploding can’t all be put down to Shatner.

Star Trek V is a badly flawed film for many reasons and, even with a decent re-edit and new FX, could only be improved somewhat, but I’ll take Star Trek V’s failed ambitions over the unambitious, safe Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis anyday.

Shatner failed to make the movie he wanted, but at least he was striving for something. Gen, Ins and Nem were exactly the films the makers wanted to release and there can be no bigger condemnation than that!

43. Charlie - June 15, 2009

50 per cent budget cut?! wtf :S

44. TonyD - June 15, 2009

With the advances in CG effects and technology, it probably wouldn’t cost that much for Paramount to finance new effects for Star Trek Vl; just look at some of the stuff James Cawley’s Trek shows are doing with a modest budget. I’m sure CBS digital or Darren Dortchermann could do a great job in a relatively short time or relatively short money. The TOS remastering projects showed that you could retrofit new effects into an existing product and make it look and feel organic. It all comes down to getting people aboard who are fans of the show and care about the product; I’m really surprised some enterprising fans haven’t already done a revised cut.

45. Kurt - June 15, 2009

See that photo under #6? Lens flares!

46. Dave P - June 15, 2009

Does anyone know where it officially says the Okrona is called so?

47. Dave P - June 15, 2009

#45 – Actually, I think it’s just a console exploding….

48. Robert H. - June 15, 2009

I always found the Final Frontier had the right feel, the right look, and the right attitude, but felt a little like a farce which didn’t help.

49. Captain Dunsel - June 15, 2009

#47 – Um, no, it’s being worked on.

50. Dom - June 15, 2009

43. Charlie: ’50 per cent budget cut?! wtf :S’

Yep! It’s covered in Star Trek Movie Memories!

51. Klatch - June 15, 2009

Product placement , wasn’t Reebok shoes also shown. I’d have to go back and watch it. to be sure.

52. dannyboy1 - June 15, 2009

The look, feel, pace and characters were miles ahead of ST-TMP, in which everyone seemed almost “plastic” and bland. So Shatner’s trek was better than Roddenberry’s!!!

53. Jeffery Wright - June 15, 2009

shatner was heavily impeded by the studio suits on this one, had he been able to make the movie he wanted, it would have been one of the best in the lot.

maybe someday, this will be remade, the way it was supposed to.

i think the budget for special effects alone was like, $100, and it shows.

they insisted on bringing in a comedy write to ‘punch up’ the script with zany humor…

this was supposed to be a dark, action movie with heavy philosophical study. but it came out of the oven, a half baked turkey, thanks paramount!

54. Drew - June 15, 2009

Probably will be flogged/stoned/tarred and feathered for this, but I liked V better than IV. Yeah, I said it. What of it?

55. Hat Rick - June 15, 2009

Do we know exactly why Paramount gave Shatner so little money to do TFF, given that TVH was such a huge success?

56. Aldo F. Rodriguez - June 15, 2009

Give it to James Cawley and Daren Dochterman; they’ll could do magic with it as far as the special effects goes (Maybe the acting too…; ).

57. Dom - June 15, 2009

54. Hat Rick: It was all extremely messy. IIRC there were management changes, along with the strikes and God knows what else. Shatner talks very well about it all his books.

There are a lot of faults with the film, but William Shatner himself takes plenty of blame, proving he’s not quite the monster he gets made out to be.

Even when Shatner and Nicelle Nichols were feuding a few years back, she said he was a really good director who had a genuine feel for getting the best out of his actors. Sadly this tends to be forgotten because of George Takei and his petty sniping.

58. zirclet - June 15, 2009

#45: you’re right, lens flares! The Shat was a visionary, 20 years before his time!

59. ScottDS - June 15, 2009

Regarding fact #15 –

Mike Okuda actually worked on Star Trek IV, making V the second Trek film he worked on. I believe he designed the bridge displays seen on the Enterprise-A bridge at the end of the film.

60. Taemo - June 15, 2009

Funny, the SNL skit is from 1986 and they already replecated food. Food Replication was not introduced in Star Trek until one year later, when TNG premiered.

61. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - June 15, 2009

> Maybe some day Paramount will give Shatner the money to create a digitally enhanced special edition of The Final Frontier, but we won’t be holding our breath.

Please, let’s hope not. Let Trek V rest in the awful maelstrom of CGI peace it created.

#4…Shatner couldn’t direct traffic.

As much criticism as Trek V has received (and richly deserved), Shatner’s *direction* really isn’t one of the film’s problems. He does some really good work in the Enterprise interiors, particularly on the bridge, with some unusual camera angles and tight one- and two-shots that created a sense of familiarity not seen as much in the prior films. Now as for his management of the rest of the film….that’s a different matter.

What derailed Trek V was its ludicrous story, which was a failure the moment it was written. That the antagonist was motivated by the “god creature,” which you utlimately knew would be some other sort of faux CGI apparition, the story became an inevitable strawman with the conflict manufactured by Sybok to be irrelevant. Add in that fact that Scotty became a buffoon, the Klingons were reduced to semi-drunken cariacatures of villainy, and some absolutely embarassing effects footage and you have the worst movie of the Trek theatrical area by a wide, wide margin.

62. Brett Campbell - June 15, 2009

35 – Boy, you summed it up exactly. That was the problem I had with the new film. All style and very little substance — at least compared to what we are used to getting with TOS and TOS films.

Just last night I was thinking I would watch V gladly before I bother to watch “’09” again. At least V tried something new. And it had more character and depth.

37 – Iowagirl, have I ever mentioned …? You’re all right!!

63. TrekMD - June 15, 2009

One has to wonder if Paramount will ever greenlight redoing the special effects with CGI. It would help the movie to at least have better effects.

64. Shatner_Fan_Prime - June 15, 2009

#25 “I feel both vindicated over my initial observation AND disgusted that people try to defend this turd of a movie!”

Whatever you say, Closettrekker.

65. KIingon to something !!! - June 15, 2009

I would cut out all the Police Academy style gags and humour if I was to special edition his film.

66. Dom - June 15, 2009

Yeah, the problem with STV:TFF is that it needs a complete overhaul in terms of structure . . . and that means removing most of the joke scenes, because they’re awful.

It won’t suit the likes of George Takei to see Sulu scenes removed, but what does that awful early sequence with Sulu and Chekov blowing into the communicator add to the film? And they need to drop in a Sybok follower stunning Scotty with a phaser to get round the goofy ‘headbang’ scene!

End of the day, if they aren’t too worried about duration for Blu-ray release, this flabbily-paced 107min film could probably come in as a lean, mean 80-90 minuter.

67. Klingon to something !!! - June 15, 2009

51. Klatch – June 15, 2009

Product placement , wasn’t Reebok shoes also shown. I’d have to go back and watch it. to be sure.

———————————————————————————————

Yes they were

68. FredCFO - June 15, 2009

Maybe someone else said this previously, but the 21st Fact is that Star Trek V sucked.

From the bad story (Shatner) to the bad acting / casting (Luckinbill instead of Connery) to the bad special effects (no ILM) to the fart joke (“Beans and bourbon, an explosive combination”) to the “Go Climb a Rock T-shirt” to the out of shape Nichelle Nichols fan dance to David Warner smoking to the “David Lee Roth” Klingon to 89 decks of the Enterprise to toilet in the holding cell to singing Row Row Row Your Boat to… oh forget it. It sucked.

69. sean - June 15, 2009

Look, Bill wanted to call this movie ‘An Act of Love’. As far as his original ‘vision’ goes, I think we’re all lucky to have missed it.

That anyone can claim the new movie is dumb and then grab hold of TFF as some kind of beacon of intelligence is a real head scratcher. Whatever the original intention was (and I’ve read Shatner’s books on the subject – quite frankly, I don’t think he really knew what he was getting at), the filmed product is dimestore philosophy at best. ‘We need our pain and God is in the heart! Yay?’.

The reality is that William Shatner (much as I respect the man) just didn’t get Star Trek, nor its characters. Kelley & Nimoy finally had to put their collective foot down about several elements of the script (like joining Sybok & abandoning Kirk), but even Nimoy lost out on the flashback to his birth (his argument being his character had already gone thru that particular story arc and was at peace with his human half – something I completely agree with).

The main reason I dislike this movie is the same reason I dislike most of the Shatnerverse novels – suddenly everything is about Kirk, he’s the only one that can save us, he’s the only once than can resist the mind control, etc. They relegate every other character to minor supporting roles and turn it into The Kirk Show. And that’s my problem with TFF – it should have simply been renamed The Kirk Show. It turned everyone but Kirk into a bumbling, buffoonish caricature (and actually, it unintentionally did the same to Kirk, really).

70. Steve - June 15, 2009

Good direction, bad effects and terrible humor. To this day I think the sets are some of the best though. This is by far my favorite Enterprise bridge. I was so sad to see it changed for Star Trek VI.

71. Dom - June 15, 2009

67. FredCFO

Some of your complaints are actually positives: the “Go Climb a Rock” tee-shirt is something people would be as likely to wear in the future as now, David Warner smoking is nothing outlandish, and, while I don’t remember a toilet in the brig, what are they supposed to use? Three seashells?

72. Starman - June 15, 2009

How many (sequential) decks does the Enterprise have?

Ok, so it had two decent parts. Meh.

73. Steve - June 15, 2009

#71, that is easily explained by the fact that the turboshaft was closed for repairs. They had to fix the deck levels that some joker put in there!

74. DavidJ - June 15, 2009

Not a great Star Trek movie….. but it’s still a lot of damn fun. : D

Hell, I’d rather watch it than most of the TNG movies. Or any of the SW prequels.

75. JL - June 15, 2009

68

“The Kirk Show”

Heh

76. JL - June 15, 2009

#68

“The Kirk Show.”

Heh

77. Krik Semaj - June 15, 2009

Fact # 21
The movie sucks

78. A better name than Sybok - June 15, 2009

The original title for the film that William Shatner wanted was “Star Trek: An Act of Love”

ROFLMAO…….perfect title ….. or maybe “Star Trek: An Act of Desperation”

or

“Star Trek: Look Ma I Can’t Act”

or
……..

79. Hat Rick - June 15, 2009

Say… is the SNL skit canon? It starred a major cast member, in a presumably paid performance, as James T. Kirk. It featured the Enterprise. It had other major characters (played by different actors, but still, they were there). It featured Treknology. It had the classic stock phrases.

It even had Khan!

Plus, not a fan-made production; it was professionally made; and it was broadcast all over the nation (and in fact, the universe, since radio waves propagate indefinitely).

So … canon?

:)

80. TrekkieJan - June 15, 2009

I tend to agree with those who’ve said the movie’s weakest link is the script, not the direction, and not the acting. Much of the story and dialog has always seemed, to me, like bad fan-fic.

The FX didn’t bother me, particularly. In most ST movies (and the show) the effects serve the story, not vice-versa. Besides, I had gotten used to seeing a certain amount of low-budget economy in ST (because that’s what we generally got.)

It was one of TOS’s charms. (Of course, I always secretly longed to see TOS done with a major FX budget, as JJ has so brilliantly done.)

The forced humor in ST-V hurts my ears, and Sybok being Spock’s never before mentioned brother from Sarek’s never before mentioned first “marriage” annoys the crap out of me – and makes me wish this movie were declared a dream, or de-canonized.

Scotty and Uhura’s apparent romance didn’t trouble me – relationships do change – and I actually thought Uhura’s fan dance was sort of a cute idea (although, yeah, both things read like fan-fic again.)

Of course, in the day I would go and see any of these guys in anything, I loved them so much. But the things to like in this movie have never weighed up against the disappointment of a lost opportunity with an aging cast.

But if I disliked this movie, it’s nothing to my feelings for Generations, which I never saw until this year. Had no interest in seeing Kirk die when it was in playing in the theaters, or for many years on DVD. When I finally saw how it was handled – well, it was a greater waste of an opportunity than ST-V.

81. TyanaZai - June 15, 2009

Re : #77

How about :

Star Trek V : “If nimoy can do it, so can I”!
LOL :P

82. jonboc - June 15, 2009

Great Trek movie. Those that don’t see the obvious parallels to TOS are either too busy hating William Shatner to notice or 24th century Next Genies who either never really knew or have forgotten those original 79 episodes.

Trek 5 rings truer to classic Star Trek than any of the other movies. It’s treatment of the main 3 characters, who, after all, WERE the heart that made Star Trek tick, is spot on. The effects were not very good, but you know what, never were the effects of the original series. Again, it’s not about the space ships, its about those 3 characters IN the spaceships. One who looks at such superficial things, again, is missing the heart beat that made Trek live.

Continuity issues and editing problems like too many decks on the Enterprise?? There is so much of that in all the movies and all the episodes that it is an argument not even worth visiting.

The story that so many seem to get hung up on, is no worse or different that many of the original episodes. How many times was the ship hijacked? How many times did they face godlike creatures? I’m sorry, but walking away from the movie and feeling like I just watched another episode is, in my opinion, the highest compliment one can give the film.

Sure, it has warts, as do ALL the movies. This movie is no worse than the others, and it certainly is no worse just because it was directed by William Shatner. For those that believe it is, I suggest, first , therapy to get over your petty problems with Shatner, then watch ALL 79 episodes of the original series to remind yourself what they were really like. Then maybe…just maybe…you’ll see the obvious.

83. John James - June 15, 2009

Better then Nemesis and Insurrection without a doubt, but thats it.

84. FrequencySpike - June 15, 2009

Truly crappy movie.

That said, I’d rather watch it five times in a row than any single hour of any reality TV show.

85. Danpaine - June 15, 2009

Well put, jonboc….

86. Iowagirl - June 15, 2009

#82
I couldn’t agree more.

87. sean - June 15, 2009

#82

Sorry jonboc, nothing about the pathetic way The Big Three were treated in TFF rings true for this fan. IMO, it spits on the relationship between the Big 3 in just about every way – especially the original story, which called for both Spock and McCoy to betray Kirk. How they thought they’d get away with that one, I’ll never know.

Differences aside, how one feels about TFF does not make one less of a fan or more of a fan. Let’s avoid the finger pointing.

88. Capt. Finnegan - June 15, 2009

He did a very good job directing this movie, that & the effects are not the problem. . They should never allowed his ego anywhere near the story. “An Act of Love”?????? Is he kidding? But after the Uhura dance, Spock’s full Vulcan brother who looks like Lyndon Johnson, Shakaree????? I would believe anything. They should not give him one dime to update the effects, because it will still suck. This crappy movie single handedly killed the momentum the had going with the previous 4.

89. CaptainRickover - June 15, 2009

I prefer it any time instead of the new movie.

90. Hat Rick - June 15, 2009

Thanks, 57, for your cool answer. :-)

91. Pyork (JE) - June 15, 2009

I like the ideas that are in Trek V, but the execution of the film was horrible. Those of you who like obviously have dug yourself into the hole where you pay no attention to practical detail. Trek V was bad because of the following:

1) Shatner directed it
2) Shatner wanted the cheapest effects he could find and the lowest possible budget, hence the film quality being worse than Star Trek: The motion picture, the Enterprise looking like crap, the corridors form Enterprise D and the effects looking like something out of a B sci-fi movie.
3) The huge miscontinuity of Sybock. I’m sorry, but you don’t ad-hock a brother to Spock we’ve never met before or even heard of
4) The patheticness of how the crew of the Enterprise was captured was very pitiful. Well-trained Starfleet officers would not simply hand the ship over to a band of rebels living out in the deserts of Nimbus III.
5) Movie sucked altogether. End of discussion

92. J_schinderlin56 - June 15, 2009

“The Climber wants to hug the Mountain. The Climber wants to make love to the mountain.”

The Mountain wants to scale Shatner’s ego.

Good grief.

93. ML31 - June 15, 2009

Bones, that man is choking!

Dammit Jim I’m a doctor not a…. Oh.

(Still, STV was better than STIV: The big pile of poop.

94. questor1964 - June 15, 2009

I remember standing in line in anticipation of the film. ST was in full swing at the time. They were just coming off the commercially successful ST IV and there was a new series on the air, ST TNG.

What a stinker. I remember sitting in the theater just trying to make myself like this film but I just couldn’t. The biggest reason for such a dismal failure was the poor story and script. With all the millions the studio poured into the movie you’d figure they’d come up with a decent storyline. What a wasted opportunity. I mean come on, the Klingon commander apologizes in the end???? The effects were also very sub par. The whole project was a mess.

95. jonnieboy - June 15, 2009

Yes every once in awhile someone thinks they should “revisit” Star Trek V. I wouldn’t recommend it. What kills it for me is that we’ve come over the years to know and love these characters so well/much, and they just don ‘t…act right in this movie.

I believe originally there was no Sybok and his actions were to have been portrayed by Spock. Leonard Nimoy told William Shatner that if Spock was to behave this way that Nimoy could not do the film. It’s in one of William Shatner’s (very entertaining) memoirs.

96. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - June 15, 2009

Shatner really seemed into the whole “living granite” thing – maybe that’s what gave him the idea for the Rock Creature.

Shatner rocks, seriously.

97. Gilberto Bud - June 15, 2009

NOT IN FRONT OF THE KLINGONS!!!!!!!!!!!

98. Harry Ballz - June 15, 2009

If this movie rubbed up against s**t……s**t would try to rub it off!

99. ClassicTrek - June 15, 2009

I really enjoyed reading this coverage of STAR TREK V. It continues to be a favourite of mine. incidentally, between questions 6 & 7 above – is that a JJ abrams lens flare going on?

cheers and thanks for an interesting series of features on this film

Greg UK

100. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - June 15, 2009

Still better than Nemisis and Insurection by far, not saying much but still better

101. Dr. Image - June 15, 2009

Better than Insurrection? I wouldn’t go THAT far at all.
Still, when you consider all the stinker TOS episodes, it fits with the program.
And it’s more enjoyable now than it was THEN.
Here’s one to shock everyone- my wife and I like watching it better now than The Voyage Home! Really! The whole whale thing got so incredibly heavy handed.
STV is so like a train wreck, it holds up over morbid repeat viewings.

102. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - June 15, 2009

>Great Trek movie. Those that don’t see the obvious parallels to TOS are either too busy hating William Shatner to notice or 24th century Next Genies who either never really knew or have forgotten those original 79 episodes.

Are you serious? I mean, do you believe even half of what you just wrote? Hey, we all have opinions, and if you liked Trek V, power to ya, but what’s the point of throwing those who disagree with you under the bus? I think you’ll find a majority of folks who think Trek V was wretched, and don’t fall into the narrow absolutist categories you’ve defined.

There is no doubt in my mind that Trek V is the worst, and most embarassing, of all the Trek movies. Everything *bad* about Trek was in nuclear overload in this movie. To condescend to and then *celebrate* those depths as a glorification of its 60’s predecessor series is the only way I can pay homage to Trek without being either a Shatner hater or to have “forgotten” the original 79 episodes? Good grief, get real!

Guess what? I can simultaneously enjoy and critique ALL the Trek films, some more severely than others, and it says not thing one about my personal like or dislike for Shatner, Nimoy ,or anyone else in the Trek universe. It isn’t a religion, folks. It doesn’t make one a heretic to call a spade a spade, and Trek V was one ugly mess of a film. And I’m not a “next-genner,” a “Shat hater,” or someone who has “forgotten” the original series.

Surely we have (or had) higher aspirations for TOS-era movie efforts than to simply have no better production values than TOS itself.

Sure, there were elements of the movie that suggested it was going to better than it was. In fact, it started out pretty credibly. But as it progressed it just got worse, and worse, and worse. Goldsmith’s score was a wonderful reinvention of the TMP theme, but it can’t save the rest of the movie – its story was awful, characters were dumbed down…geez, Harve Bennett playing dress-up as a some sort of fleet admiral and sending the Enterprise out like some sort of Delta Force to the Planet of the Three-Breasted Cat Woman??? I half expected to see Bennett playing with GI Joe toys on his desk.

The net result was opportunity lost, and when Trek V went over the cliff, it went in a bad, bad way. I sure hope that admission doesn’t mean I have to turn in my Trek fan card….

103. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine. - June 15, 2009

So, is there, or isn’t there, a fan edit of this movie out there? I don’t mean just the effects. I mean has anyone posted a re-edit that removes some of the gags, and tightens up the pacing? I have googled, but I don’t see one.

Some more piquant observations:

-I am surprised at the anger at the number of Enterprise decks. Yawn.

-I actually don’t really even care about Spock having a half-brother. I can live with that. Double yawn.

-I never liked Kirk’s jokey tone in this one, but I am not sure which lines you could trim and not remove whole scenes. The brig scene in particular is a problem. IIRC Kirk is justifiably furious at Spock for disobeying a direct order, but then he throws one liners in there right next to the outrage, I think.

-Many posters here have made the point that TFF is more or less watchable than this or that episode. THE ALTERNATIVE FACTOR remains the most boring episode.

More to come…

104. Demdoe - June 15, 2009

I always liked that Harve Bennett was the Admiral who gave Kirk his orders in the movie. I thought that was a classy touch for a man who did so much for the series. It also shows he was a fan for him to want to do that, which says a lot.

Paramount…. please!!!!! Re-release this film with updated effects. I won’t buy it until that day comes.

105. Baroner - June 15, 2009

91: right on.

People who say the new movie needed a real script/story: you’re right, but give the new team a break. They needed to make a splash to get back in the game. If they give us a storyless action flick next time, string ‘em up.

106. jonboc - June 15, 2009

#102 “It doesn’t make one a heretic to call a spade a spade, and Trek V was one ugly mess of a film. And I’m not a “next-genner,” a “Shat hater,” or someone who has “forgotten” the original series. ”

..really? … your explosive reaction makes me think I may have actually hit the nail on the head.

And if anyone is under the bus, a little fellow named hypocrisy did all the pushing, not me. So many fans love to appear fashionable and label Trek 5 as the worse movie ever because of certain things, and yet, inexplicably, those very people will blindly accept those very same type flaws in the other movies and the series. Be it because Shatner stole their lunch money or be it because they love to jump on the “Bash Trek 5 ” bandwagon or be it because they truly can’t recognize such things without being shown…I don’t really know. What I do know, is that it has become tiresome.

I mean, what was wrong with Harve Bennett? He wasn’t bad at all. Now if he was a horrible actor, like the Romulan Ambassador, who TRULY was hideous, sure, I could see that. But Bennett wasn’t bad at all. Very natural acting actually and rather good to not have any experience.

And what’s wrong with a 3 breasted cat creature? You can buy into a Horta and Gorn but you have problems with a 3 breated cat?? It’s this very type of reasoning, justifying how and why Trek 5 is such a horrible movie, that I just cant wrap my mind around. ALong with too many decks, Spock doesn’t have a brother, Shatner’s too fat, Shatner’s horrible direction, etc etc etc. When held in comparrison with all the 79 episodes that have come before as well as the previous 4 movies…they’re all rather empty accusations actually, and hold no merit whatsoever when examined closely.

107. Lt. Bailey - June 15, 2009

For me this film beats Insurrection hands down, that film could or should have been a 2 part TV show for my money. Not to mention that Insurrection is the only DVD I have not bought for my collection of Star Trek films.

The trick is to watch this film with Shatner and his daughters commentary and you get a better understanding of the film. But Mike & Denise Okuda’s commentary is fantastic as always. When ever I watch an ST film I play it their commentary running.

108. jonboc - June 15, 2009

# 87 ” Sorry jonboc, nothing about the pathetic way The Big Three were treated in TFF rings true for this fan. IMO, it spits on the relationship between the Big 3 in just about every way – especially the original story, which called for both Spock and McCoy to betray Kirk. How they thought they’d get away with that one, I’ll never know.”

Granted, had McCoy and Spock betrayed Kirk it would have been completely wrong. But that’s just a behind- the- scenes tidbit that never made it to the screen. ( and rightfully so! Props to De and Leonard for standing their ground!) So, the movie can’t be faulted for something that “might” have been in the movie.

And as far as the relationship of Kirk Spock and McCoy being pathetic and not true to TOS in Trek 5, all I can say is…well…I really don’t know what to say. Man. If you can’t see that relationship and chemistry re-ignited…well…maybe I would just suggest that you REALLY need to watch the 79 episodes again, it’s been way too long!

109. anti-matter - June 15, 2009

i kind of love that movie. it has inspired me for years

110. Bob - June 15, 2009

The movie was crap and best forgotten.

111. sean - June 15, 2009

#108

Watch ‘em all the time, buddy. All I can say is if you think the Three Stooges presentation of the Big 3’s relationship in TFF is even remotely like that of TOS…well, *I* don’t know what to say. They barely resemble the same characters/relationships.

And the only reason I bring up the Spock/McCoy thing is that it demonstrates just how skewed the screenwriters’ (Shatner included) perceptions of the characters were (and face it – part of it still came through on McCoy’s part during the ‘feel your pain’ scene), Sadly, too many of the other bad character moments made it to the filmed version.

112. RD - June 15, 2009

I think this CRACKED review of the first 10 Trek films has been posted in the past, but it strikes me as mostly dead on … and I never thought I would agree with Cracked about anything since I was 10. However, not being a TNG fan per se, I would put TFF above INS in 9th place.

http://www.cracked.com/article_15091_best-worst-star-trek-movies-all-time.html

113. Bill Hiro - June 15, 2009

#59 is correct – Mike Okuda’s first Star Trek work was designing the screen displays for the Klingon Bird of Prey and the Enterprise-A bridges on Star Trek IV.

114. Balok - June 15, 2009

Hmmm… also forgot about those annoyingly undersized shuttle bay hanger doors.

Liked the SNL skit though….

115. jonboc - June 15, 2009

#108 “Watch ‘em all the time, buddy. All I can say is if you think the Three Stooges presentation of the Big 3’s relationship in TFF is even remotely like that of TOS…well, *I* don’t know what to say. They barely resemble the same characters/relationships. ”

Calling Dr. Howard, Dr. FIne, Dr. Howard!! If watching Kirk, Spock and McCoy around the campfire in Trek 5 reminds you of the Three Stooges….call JJ imediately! I’m sure he and the writers can most certainly benefit by your experience living in whatever alternate universe you are from!

116. TrekVSucky - June 15, 2009

Spock betrayed Captain Kirk and Starfleet over a half brother who was attempting to take over the Enterprise. GOOD GRIEF. You call that true to the character? Didn’t the guy die for his crewmates? Didn’t he decide to sacrifice his father for the good of the Federation? How the hell is that true to the character? Please answer me that question. The Spock I watched in the TOS and Treks II – IV would not do that. Why didn’t Kirk order the cargo bay gassed? I don’t care about the poor SFX, the SFX have never been why I watch Trek – those who ooh and ahh over the ham-fisted scenes involving the Holy Triumvirate on the Mountains and in the Map Room seem to always forget the total out of character moments from Spock and Scotty, and the rest of the crew..except for James Hooker Kirk.

At least Insurrection didn’t mess with continuity or characters too much.

117. Scott B. here. - June 15, 2009

I’ll never forget the looks on the faces of the audience departing the theater as we who had bought tickets to a later show stood in line. They looked like they were leaving a funeral.

I’ll state the obvious that no one seems to ever mention: this movie is a faithful remake of one of the 4 worst episodes of TOS: The Way to Eden.

Besides the many suggestions above, here are a couple of things that could have made it better:

– Martin Landau as Sybok.

– McCoy’s daughter Joanna being the one McCoy pulled the plug on, rather than his ancient father. THAT woulda stung.

Scott B. out.

118. sean - June 15, 2009

#115

You’re right, in that the Three Stooges were classy enough to stay away from fart jokes. ;)

119. Harry Ballz - June 15, 2009

It was Shatner himself who said, “we’re like the three stooges!”

So, honestly, when did the triumverate turn into the three stooges?

Answer: When William Shatner’s ego and his power over Paramount met up…….it made for one very NASTY combination!

Actors should ACT and nothing else! What a mess we’ve had to witness from one man’s overinflated opinion of himself! Crikey!!!

120. Balok - June 16, 2009

Yeah brother 117!

High expecations after STIV probably made this more painful to watch, but I recall feeling like I waited 2 years for a huge letdown, and also feeling bummed that I would have to wait another 2 years for a shot at another decent Trek movie..

121. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - June 16, 2009

119. Harry Ballz

So I guess Leonard Nimoy, Ron Howard, Robert Redford, Clint Eastwood, and et al should have never helmed a film?

JMN

122. hawaiowa - June 16, 2009

I agree with the idea of reworking the DFX for the remaining Trek movies, at least the TOS sequence of II-VI. Especially V. Give Mike and Michelle Okuda a swing at it, as they did with the TOS.

One of the issues I’ve felt that V suffered from was that it’s core concepts were too forward-thinking to be framed within a movie. Some ideas translate well to film, others cannot. The advert campaign with it’s ‘Trek meets God’ focus didn’t help either. In one sense, Trek works best on the big-screen when it is at it’s least contemplative…the contemplative films like Insurrection and Frontier didn’t sell like hotcakes because fans expect a ‘save the world’ theme ala TMP, IV, First Contact and ST2009.

There are a lot of touching vignettes and scenes in V, such as the gathering of the three in the ‘helm room’ with the replica naval steering wheel, Uhura’s ‘fan dance’ (which is my mind comes a close second to the wonderful ‘Mr Adventure’ sequence in ST III), the marshmellow campout scene with the three, and McCoy’s powerful “I don’t believe in a God who would hurt other beings” statement (here he is risking his life to express his deep-held conviction about deity).

Granted, these are gems in the rough, but they are gems nonetheless to some, myself included. I can overlook the hokey shuttlecraft-in-a-garage sequence. Imagine if Anthony’s suggestion to update the SFX of V is granted. With enhanced SFX effects, that scene could match the wonderful ‘escape’ scene in Spacedock in ST III, which some Trekfans would rate as the best sequence out of all the movies.

Funny how its so easy to dismiss a movie and a director…

123. Dovile - June 16, 2009

Oh yeah, there were lense flares in the prime universe too… LOL

14, me too, I choose to ignore Sybok completely. I hope they’ll never bring him into the new ST reality (one of the good things about alternate realities:))

124. Star Trackie - June 16, 2009

#116 “Spock betrayed Captain Kirk and Starfleet over a half brother who was attempting to take over the Enterprise. GOOD GRIEF. You call that true to the character? Didn’t the guy die for his crewmates? Didn’t he decide to sacrifice his father for the good of the Federation? How the hell is that true to the character? Please answer me that question.”

Uh…ever catch a little episode called “The Menagerie”? And Pike wasn’t even a blood relative! Hmm. The things that Vulcan is capable of….contrary to what some on this board believe!

And what’s all this three stooges baloney?? Shatner, somewhere in an old interview mentions that he, Leonard and De are like the 3 stooges and suddenly every one is seeing eye pokes, pie fights and slaps to the faces in Trek 5?? That’s crazy talk! …why,I oughta…

Love Trek 5, awesome movie…but even more awesome TOS-style-Trek!

125. Harry Ballz - June 16, 2009

#121

Nah, just a certain Priceline negotiator who shat all over the silver screen!

126. sean - June 16, 2009

#124

To even compare what Spock did for Capt Pike in The Menagerie with what he does in TFF is absurd. It isn’t even apples & oranges, more like apples & cow patties.

127. Closettrekker - June 16, 2009

#98—“If this movie rubbed up against s**t……s**t would try to rub it off!”

Lol.

#103—“-I actually don’t really even care about Spock having a half-brother. I can live with that. ”

In my opinion, the fact that he has a half-brother is not really even the issue to me. It is the notion that this half-brother also happens to have broken with Vulcan tradition (and that of Sarek’s family), therefore diluting the impact of a significant facet of Dorothy Fontana’s wonderful backstory for the character of Spock, which irks me about the character of Sybok.

As for “living with it”, we’ve really had no choice for the last twenty years!

Semper Fi.

128. Star Trackie - June 16, 2009

#126

“To even compare what Spock did for Capt Pike in The Menagerie with what he does in TFF is absurd. It isn’t even apples & oranges, more like apples & cow patties.”

Absurd? Why? Because Spock hijacked the enterprise for an illegal cruise to Talos 4, condeming all aboard her to the death penalty? Or is it because his selfish loyalty to his former captain outweighed any and all penalties that his friend Jim Kirk and his crew might suffer from his actions? Or maybe his complete disregard of Starfleet regulations? Naturally, none of this is anywhere close to describing Spock, from Trek 5, an officer that disobeyed his captain’s orders and refused to shoot his own flesh and blood half-brother. Yeah, TOS SPock was nothing like that.

Am I detecting holes in your defense grid or has it really been THAT long since you’ve really watched TOS?

129. Closettrekker - June 16, 2009

#126—“To even compare what Spock did for Capt Pike in The Menagerie with what he does in TFF is absurd. It isn’t even apples & oranges, more like apples & cow patties.”

Agreed.

I’m not sure how that even applies, unless Star Trackie is pointing out that Spock is capable of acting upon emotion (whether he admits it or not)—-but that’s hardly in question. All that his actions in “The Menagerie” suggest is that he was willing to break the law, assault a crewman (by way of neck pinch), and lie in order to accomplish a goal set out of loyalty and compassion for his former captain.

The only real comparison is between “Journey To Babel” and STV. Spock was willing to allow his father to die in order to be on the bridge while the Enterprise is merely “subject to possible attack”, but unwilling to shoot a half-brother in order to prevent losing control of the Enterprise to a group of criminals.

And why would discharging that weapon automatically result in killing Sybok? I understand that it had no stun setting, but why not simply wound/disable him and trust his recovery to the skills of Dr. McCoy?

130. Closettrekker - June 16, 2009

#128—You’re discounting Spock’s confidence in his ability to convince everyone that his actions were just. Yes, he did those things, but he was convinced that he was morally correct. Did he take a risk? Sure. But in the end, his judgement was validated. Was it not?

As for anyone but Spock being subject to the death penalty, that seems contrary to this—-

Kirk: “Even though regulations are explicit, you could have come to me and explained.”
Spock: “Ask you to face the death penalty too? No, one of us was enough.”

131. Spock - June 16, 2009

I still jack to Uhura’s scene.

132. sean - June 16, 2009

#128

Oh come on, you’re being deliberately obtuse. Spock took every precaution to prevent the crew of the Enterprise and Jim Kirk himself from suffering the penalty of visiting Talos IV. How long has it been since *you* have watched TOS? To describe Spock’s actions in that episode as selfish tell me it’s been quite a while. No one but Spock faced the death penalty. In contrast, his actions in TFF endangered *everyone*.

133. Shatner_Fan_Prime - June 16, 2009

#131 … That’s a sort of Vulcan salute I’m not sure we needed to hear about.

134. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - June 16, 2009

Closettrekker, why couldn’t Sybok be the inspiration for Spock taking the steps he did, but in a much more logical and sensible way?

And McCoy tells us and Kirk why Spock didn’t shoot his brother. Allowing his father to die from an ailment that required his presence and was NO guarantee his father would even survive if he did is not the same as Spock shooting his own half brother. Keep in mind there is a reason Spock uses the neck pinch and fires the phaser on STUN. Watch The Galileo 7. He wouldn’t kill those creatures either.

135. Closettrekker - June 16, 2009

#134—“Closettrekker, why couldn’t Sybok be the inspiration for Spock taking the steps he did, but in a much more logical and sensible way?”

It isn’t that he couldn’t. It still dilutes the impact of Spock’s decision to turn away from the wishes of his father and from Vulcan tradition, which is part of Dorothy Fontana’s great backstory for the character. Sybok’s presence in the equation (and everything that comes with him) means that really isn’t even unusual in Sarek’s family. In fact, as far as Sarek’s children are concerned, it’s par for the course!

I’m pretty sure Dorothy Fontana threw up in her mouth a little. I know I did.

“And McCoy tells us and Kirk why Spock didn’t shoot his brother.”

Yeah—he says that if Spock would have fired that Sybok would have been killed (which in itself is in need of an explanation). Why? Why couldn’t Spock simply wound Sybok and prevent losing control of the ship to a bunch of criminals? It’s just a throwaway line that provides no explanation.

“Allowing his father to die from an ailment that required his presence and was NO guarantee his father would even survive if he did is not the same as Spock shooting his own half brother.”

But there was McCoy’s own guarantee that Sarek wouldn’t survive if he didn’t try. In contrast, McCoy’s proclamation that Sybok would have been sure to die if Spock discharged that weapon makes no sense.

“Keep in mind there is a reason Spock uses the neck pinch and fires the phaser on STUN. Watch The Galileo 7. He wouldn’t kill those creatures either.”

I see. So, “Kill Gary Mitchell while you still can” means that he is unwilling to kill with his own hands, but is perfectly comfortable with pleading with his captain to do so?

Sorry, but that’s pretty thin.
The larger point is that the “absolute” in the equation (Sybok’s inevitable death if the weapon is discharged) is incredibly flimsy. Moreover, Spock is giving Sybok the option to surrender. Even if the weapon is deadly when fired under any circumstances at any part of the body—-it would be Sybok’s choice to accept death rather than to comply with his arrest.

The whole thing just doesn’t work for me. Sorry.

136. Star Trackie - June 16, 2009

#129 “I’m not sure how that even applies, unless Star Trackie is pointing out that Spock is capable of acting upon emotion (whether he admits it or not)—-but that’s hardly in question. All that his actions in “The Menagerie” suggest is that he was willing to break the law, assault a crewman (by way of neck pinch), and lie in order to accomplish a goal set out of loyalty and compassion for his former captain.”

Yes, the point is to point out that Spock IS capable of such things. And whether it is regarding his ex-commander or his long lost brother, the bottom line is he IS capable. Because he did certain unimaginable things for his old captain, out of loyalty, in The Menagerie doesn’t preclude him from being able to act in a similar fashion where his half-brother is concerned.. especially if it involves potentially killing him.

And yes, I agree, Spock could have simply wounded Sybok, but that wasn’t the story they wanted to tell. Like the lack of shuttles in The Enemy Within, and so many other story plot points of the various episodes and movies…it doesn’t make a lot of since, it simply serves the story. That’s show biz and I really don’t see how Trek 5 can be singled out as the “worst” because of it.

137. Shatner_Fan_Prime - June 16, 2009

#136 “it doesn’t make a lot of since, it simply serves the story. That’s show biz and I really don’t see how Trek 5 can be singled out as the “worst” because of it.”

Agreed. Why did Nero beam Spock to Delta Vega? Why didn’t Picard emerge from the Nexus at an earlier time period when he could have arrested Soran aboard the E? Most of the movies have issues like this.
How is this example from STV any different?

138. Closettrekker - June 16, 2009

#136—“That’s show biz and I really don’t see how Trek 5 can be singled out as the “worst” because of it.”

Because of the weaknesses of that scene alone? Of course not. It is much more a combination of things that bother me about it.

—-Instead of William Shatner as James T. Kirk, we get James T. Kirk as William Shatner;

—-The Enterprise-A is a lemon;

—-In a gross misallocation of personnel resources, Starfleet has inexplicably assigned three Captains and four Commanders to serve aboard the same ship;

—-The otherwise benevolent Federation has somehow allowed the so-called “Planet Of Intergalactic Peace” and its inhabitants to succumb to utter deprivation and despair;

—-The poorly casted/directed character of the Romulan Ambassador actually becomes so frightened that she literally seeks comfort in the arms of her human counterpart;

—-Spock suddenly has a half-brother, conceived by Sarek and a “Vulcan Princess” who has, by the way, also chosen to disregard Vulcan tradition (and that of his family), thereby diluting the impact of a substantial element of Dorothy Fontana’s wonderful backstory to one of television history’s greatest characters;

—-Despite being willing to sacrifice his own father’s life in order to be on the bridge when the Enterprise is merely “subject to possible attack” (”Journey To Babel”), Spock is willing to betray his captain rather than fire a weapon at his crazed half-brother;

—-The Enterprise is hijacked by Sybok and his gang of misfits, but worse, control of the ship is only regained by the goodwill (and at the convenience) of the criminal perpetrators;

—-The Klingon warrior in command of the BOP ends up “apologizing” to Jim Kirk;

—-Kirk’s “I lost a brother once…” comment appears to ignore (or at the very least dilute the impact of) the fact that he actually did lose a brother in “Operation—Annihilate!”;

—-An overweight and out-of-shape Kirk is somehow able to dodge a photon torpedo (embarassing);

—-The goofy rocket boots scene (embarassing);

—-The Enterprise Helmsman and former navigator are lost in the woods (embarassing);

—-Uhura’s fandance (embarassing);

—-Uhura and Scotty flirting like middle-schoolers (embarassing);

—-”Row, Row, Row Your Boat” (monumentally embarassing)

I don’t even care about the f/x, so that’s actually not an issue to me.

There are holes, inconsistencies, and wild contrivances in TMP, TWOK, TSFS, TVH, TUC, and ST09 as well. But not only does STV have an unusually long list of issues as far as I am concerned, but (IMO) it lacks something that all of those films have—-enough good points to overcome those issues. Most telling is the fact that 20 years later, the weaknesses of STV still bug me.

It isn’t the worst movie of all time. It’s just the worst Star Trek movie featuring the original characters (and maybe the worst overall). Frankly, I had no interest in, nor did I have any expectations for, any of the TNG movies—so one of them may very well have been worse. It is just that those movies would had far less potential to disappoint me (It’s tough for me to be disappointed in something I never paid to see!).

139. Closettrekker - June 16, 2009

#136—-” Like the lack of shuttles in The Enemy Within…”

I was going to let that one go, but I can’t….

The “Enemy Within” was written and had already been filmed before the notion of shuttlecraft was ever introduced to the series. That’s nothing *like* the story issues with STV—which had 23 years of prior material from which to draw. Canonically speaking, the Enterprise could simply have not yet been equipped with them.

But the bigger issue is not how many such are present in other ST films (and you’re right that there are some), but that this one isn’t strong enough (IMO) to sustain its issues.

140. Star Trackie - June 16, 2009

Closettrekker, I saw that list of yours successfully debunked in a previous thread on Trek 5, so, needless to say, I don’t feel they qualify in branding Trek 5 as the all time worst. So I won’t revisit it here. :)

I would, however, be interested in these “story” issues that Trek 5 should have, in your opinion, avoided…having had those 23 years of backstory to draw from.

And while you’re certainly right that the Enemiy Within was written before the shuttle craft were seen onscreen, I don’t believe for a moment that it was before they ever became a “notion”. It was clear the shuttlebay was designed on the model from day one. Budgetary constraints were part of their omission I’m sure. Only when AMT offered to build it did we actually see it. But it doesn’t mean they didn’t exist before that. The bowling alley mentioned in Charlie X didn’t just magically appear because it was mentioned in that episode. In Trek’s imaginary world, it existed, on the ship, in all the episodes prior to that. We just never heard about it.

141. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - June 16, 2009

Having issues with Sybok diminishing Spock via stealing his rebelliousness is one thing but his entire existence?! I kept hearing this over and over back then and never understood it. Why didn’t anyone raise a fuss when Sam Kirk appeared all the sudden? Or Sarek and Amanda?! I sure hope they don’t try and show any of the other’s having family we haven’t seen or heard of!

See how silly that is?

142. Closettrekker - June 16, 2009

#140—“I saw that list of yours successfully debunked in a previous thread on Trek 5…”

Lol. Seeing someone disagree with any or all of it is hardly a “debunking”. Whether or not those issues are viewed by an individual as problematic is entirely subjective, and I have yet to have my mind changed on any of it. Each one of those things, to various degrees, has a negative impact upon how I judge the film.

“It was clear the shuttlebay was designed on the model from day one. Budgetary constraints were part of their omission I’m sure.”

The notion of transporter technology was a result of that budgetary constraint. But whether they wanted to depict them or not, they didn’t until after “The Enemy Within”. You may assume that they are there prior to that anyway, but it isn’t a canonical certainty. This creates a reconciliatory margin for the absence of shuttles in that episode.

“The bowling alley mentioned in Charlie X didn’t just magically appear because it was mentioned in that episode. In Trek’s imaginary world, it existed, on the ship, in all the episodes prior to that. We just never heard about it.”

No, I’m sure it was there in “The Man Trap” as well (the only episode to air prior to “Charlie X”). But that is a poor analogy. The absence of a bowling alley never caused a retroactive story problem or inconsistency in “The Man Trap”.

143. Closettrekker - June 16, 2009

#141—“Why didn’t anyone raise a fuss when Sam Kirk appeared all the sudden? Or Sarek and Amanda?! I sure hope they don’t try and show any of the other’s having family we haven’t seen or heard of!

See how silly that is?”

That would be silly. But—-

Sam Kirk’s appearance in “Operation: Annihilate!” doesn’t water down the backstory for James T. Kirk. Nor would Sybok’s mere ‘existence’ as a half-brother for Spock create any real problems either.However, the notion that Spock’s decision to go against Sarek’s wishes and join Starfleet is suddenly not even the most significant act of rebelliousness on the part of one of Sarek’s sons *does* dilute the impact of that very substantial portion of Dorothy Fontana’s quite thoughtful backstory for one of television/film’s greatest ever fictional characters.

This was a thoughtless concept. Whoever (I don’t even know) is responsible for that didn’t stop and think at all about what he was doing—either that, or he didn’t care.

144. TrekVRuined My Life - June 16, 2009

Still doesn’t compute. You can’t equate the lack of shuttles with the decisions made by the most important, person in Trek canon. Lack of shuttles = plot convenience. Total disregard of a character’s traits = bad storytelling, and worse damage to the core character of the TOS. Lets face it, Spock’s poor decisions was part of Shatner’s plan in Trek V to make him the ultimate hero. Everyone else needed to look bad, bumbling or moronic. Take your pick.

145. Professor Robert Crater - June 16, 2009

Well, its grown on me in 20 years! I remember seeing it on opening night! We didn’t ‘hate’ it then, and I certainly don’t hate it now!!
I loved, LOVED: the campfire scene bookends!, the assault phasers!, Sybok!, the Goldmith score, the assault uniforms, Harve ‘Admiral Bob’ Bennett’s cameo, the pre-fanfare/opening titles scene (really set up a different mood/vibe!!!!!!!!!!!! nice touch) and the hijacking of the Enterprise-A.
Okay, it lacks in a lot of areas, but just having the Kirk-Spock-McCoy troika in full Trek effect, is priceless!!!!!!! The script wasn’t great, but it wasn’t horrible! Its like TMP, it lacks, but it has some to offer.
I watch it annually at least…and now I own it on BluRay…so I am looking forward to a ‘new’ viewing of it!
And Paramount, if you are reading this: I will plunk down $30 for a Director’s edition with updated SPFX!!! Get busy!!! Hello ILM!!!???!!!

146. The Invader (In Color!) - June 16, 2009

People rag on the 79 decks or whatever, but nobody ever talks about how that hangar deck is WAY too small! I mean…just look at those bay doors — they are barely bigger than Kirk and crew!

Pitiful.

Compare that pitiful set to what they had in ST:TMP — there is no…ahem…comparison! Granted they used matte paintings to make the TMP hangar deck bigger, but even so…

The one in TFF is way too small.

147. Magic_Al - June 16, 2009

^22. Shatner was indeed in good shape for this movie, and is a very energetic presence. Shatner directs himself instinctively, in contrast to how Nicholas Meyer would wear him down with multiple takes to try to get a subtle performance. It’s one of many reasons this feels more like a second-season TOS episode than part of the film series.

Although Shatner got his weight down, I doubt if even as a teenager he was ever as thin as his climbing double in this movie. The first sign this movie has big problems is the intercutting of a breathtaking, real, record-setting freefall stunt with awful blue-screen of Shatner hanging from strings.

148. TheWon - June 16, 2009

I love Star Trek V for the same reason I love IV. The fall in line in what I believe is real Star Trek. Like the episode “The Inner Light from TNG. You may get 2 to 3 ship fly bys. The movie is just about character, script and conversation. Something we will never get with this new JJ Trek. I’m calling it now. The next Trek will be like th upcoming Transformers 2. Just s whole lot more of mindless no reason action.

So enjoy old thought provoking Trek and get ready of more of that. For people with A.D.D. Sci Fi movie.

149. sean - June 17, 2009

#148

If you want mindless action, there’s no better place to start than TFF.

150. Closettrekker - June 17, 2009

#148—“The movie is just about character, script and conversation. Something we will never get with this new JJ Trek. ”

ST09 is full of poignant character moments. I’m not sure you saw the same movie that I did.

And you’re given it far too little credit, no doubt because you cannot buy into the notion that a film can have that much exciting action and still deliver something more.

To be fair, I think you’ve ignored its exploration into the human condition—-the psychological significance to a young man of a paternal relationship (regardless of whether or not the father is alive or dead) is explored through both of the story’s two main characters.

We also see the blatant racism in Vulcan society, and that arrogant bigotry is only mildly toned down (in the form of underhanded praise) in the council scene as compared to the Vulcan equivalent of the schoolyard playground. Indeed, Spock’s biracial heritage is perhaps even more socially significant today than it was 43 years ago—particularly given that such a large portion of the population (including the US President) now deals with similar cultural issues in their lives.

Add to that the philosophical ground covered in the fatalistic/deterministic manner in which certain events and relationships in the story are almost naturally predestined—-and I would say that this film gives the audience more than enough to chew on besides a couple of hours worth of action.

151. Hippie Killer - June 17, 2009

The phasers props looked cool.

That’s the only good thing about this movie. Trek V was an abortion.

152. N - June 17, 2009

Gosh I hate those red/brown uniforms from those movies!

153. Crusade2267 - June 18, 2009

Star Trek V will always hold a special place in my heart as the first Star Trek movie I ever saw in the Theaters. It’s also the film that sparked a major crisis of faith in my 4 year old brain: Does God really eat people like Sybok? Apparently, I inspired a sermon at my church because of this!

154. Browncoat - June 19, 2009

The author of this piece has things backwards……the sets, in particular the corridors, of the Enterprise D used forms and molds first developed for STTMP.

155. Stephen Waterstram - September 2, 2009

This had by far the best and BIGGEST bridge of any Enterprise. I don’t like the fact in ST-VI, they shrunk the bride and rturned th floor back to a metallic look. They also reinstated stupid push button system when ST-V’s computer panels were completely touch button and in all sorts of green blue and black colors. I also prefer the Desert Sand Beige color vs. the Burgundy standing station pad panels.
The only problem with the viewers in the work staations on this bridge is that they were screwed with using CRT’s instead of the benefit of having LCD screens like Archer did.

More blues and ggreens were also exaggerated in the Great Barrier. Why did they exaggerate blue and green in this movie?

156. Alyssa - August 3, 2010

My favorite “Star Trek” movie. Fan of Linda Fetters now Mrs. Ken Howard who played the cat lady. She has medium blonde color of hair, dark brown color of eyes, and height of 5’5″ as me. I say wonderful muscles
because Chekov says that to Sulu who looks at Vixis walking into the observatory deck. I remember seeing this film when it came out and enjoyed it.

157. Captain Kirk - December 28, 2011

This was my favourite of the Star Trek feature films. I concede it is not the best, but a personal favourite nonetheless. Great story and character development and a thoughtful message make this a great (and largely underappreciated) film.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.