Reminder: Midnight Screening Tonight of Star Trek V in 70MM w/ Walter Koenig in West L.A. | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Reminder: Midnight Screening Tonight of Star Trek V in 70MM w/ Walter Koenig in West L.A. July 17, 2010

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Conventions/Events/Attractions,Feature Films (TMP-NEM),TrekMovie.com , trackback

There are only two more original crew movies to go in the Summer STAR TREK Simply 70 Spectacular-Spectacular Saturdays at the Royal Theater in West L.A. Tonight continues with a 70 MM showing of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, preceded by a Q&A session with the original Pavel Chekov, Walter Koenig. More details below, plus a fun parody video all about Walter.

 

William Shatner’s Star Trek V in 70MM with Walter Koenig as guest

Tonight Laemmle Theaters (in conjunction with Ledjer Film & Theater services and TrekMovie.com) runs the fifth of the original crew Star Trek features in a series of midnight movies at the Royal Theatre in West L.A. William Shatner get’s his turn in the director’s chair as he and the crew try to find god in  Star Trek V: The The Final Frontier, shown in 70mm and 6-channel stereo. As we do with each film, the screening is proceeded with a Q&A session and tonight I will be talking with Star Trek’s Pavel Chekov, Walter Koenig.


See Star Trek IV in 70MM with special guest Nichelle Nichols at the Royal Theater in West LA tonight Saturday July 10th 

Walter Koenig Exposed!

In preparation for tonight I am studying this exposé on the true and shocking facts behind the man we know as Walter Koenig.

More 70MM Trek + TNG on the big screen next

The Simply 70(mm) Spectacular Saturday series is passing the half way mark. Here is the remaining schedule.

Date Film Guest
July 17 STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER Walter Koenig
(Pavel Chekov)
July 24 STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY George Takei
(Hikaru Sulu)

And after the TOS movies series is over, the four TNG movies are next. Details are currently being worked out.

EVENT DETAILS

What: Simply 70 Star Trek movie series

When: Saturdays at midnight in June and July (see above schedule)

Where: Laemmle’s Royal Theatre is located at 11523 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90025, (310) 478-3836 

Tickets: $10 for general admission. You can buy tickets at the box office or online at www.laemmle.com.

Comments

1. dunsel - July 17, 2010

I really like st:V it is very must a star trek story and I love the character development

2. Phaser Guy - July 17, 2010

I like Trek V, but it plays better on DVD than it ever did in the theater. Mainly because the story isn’t big enough to fill a big screen.

3. fred - July 17, 2010

i agree with the first comment trek 5 is not as bad as the trek fans make it as at its heart it is a trek movie unlike trek 2

4. VGer23 - July 17, 2010

Star Trek V is severely underrated. It has some GREAT character moments and the concept of the film is more in line with the original series than any of the other films.

I’m a bit TFF fan!

5. William Kirk - July 17, 2010

4: I completely agree. Yes, there is a small difference, I am a BIG TFF fan :-D. Love the character moments.

6. Paul Fitz - July 17, 2010

Star Trek V, is on Channel 4 tonight at 11:05pm
(For all those in the UK and Ireland)

As much as it is not perfect, i’m gonna happily sit and watch this. Sure it aint TWOK, but its a little bit of Trek fun.

7. Magic_Al - July 17, 2010

Please ask about the lack of Moontrap on DVD!

8. MikeTen - July 17, 2010

I really enjoy Trek 5 and like everyone else said this movie has character scenes closest to the original series.
The main thing that hurts Trek 5 is the special FX. If they would have waited and went with a better company the fate of this movie would have turned out much better.

9. El Chup - July 17, 2010

RIP Andrew Koenig

10. SpockGrokker - July 17, 2010

I agree- there were definitely parts of V that I really enjoy. And there were parts I wasn’t as thrilled about, but I guess that’s true of many of the movies.

Anthony, any idea when “Walter Koenig Exposed” was made? And was it for a special occasion? It’s pretty funny!

11. KhanSingh - July 17, 2010

I saw Moontrap. I have to say it was worse than Star Trek V.

12. KhanSingh - July 17, 2010

Walter’s toupe look pretty good. Too much of it in Star Trek The Undiscovered Country.

13. CmdrR - July 17, 2010

V plays much better when the glaring continuity problems are edited out. That tells me the studio COULD have raised it several more steps had the execs given a Shat. They obviously didn’t. That’s on them.

#7 – Agreed. A fun low-budget sci-fi movie. Moontrap is surprisingly good and a LOT better than anything SyFy has done in the last decade.

Mostly wanted to say it’s great to see Walter out and doing stuff. Wish I could be in LA.

14. Rm10019 - July 17, 2010

Not a ST V fan but I would like to see an edited down version with reimagined FX. Could make in better. Remove all the forced humor, and see what you get.

15. Flake - July 17, 2010

I have a soft spot for Trek V as it was the first Trek Movie I saw :)

Infact I am watching it now on Channel 4! In HD too!

We need to employ Tobias Richter to re-make the special effects though.

16. YARN - July 17, 2010

Gotta love die-hard fans. Bring out what is arguably the worst film in the franchise and they’ll still find good things to say about it.

I do agree that if ST V had merely been a TOS episode, it still would have been better than clunkers like “Spock’s Brain”. You can forgive more in television, because there is always a chance to make things up next week. On that note, in another year or two, it would be nice to see a Trek return to the small screen – it’s not enough of a fix to get a film once every 3-4 years.

17. fred - July 17, 2010

what 16 dont you like spock brains come on its that bad its great i mean seeing spock give a adivse to the doctor who is putting back your brain on how to do it

as for 5 well well bad fx but they are some great moments in this film and for me one of the best trek moments for mccoy with his father brillant written and amazing actored by kelly

18. crypter crypter crypter - July 17, 2010

Trek V’s biggest fault was it wasn’t Trek IV!!!

Sure the FX are substandard, but there is a lot to love about this movie! I break it out about once a year!!!!

“Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream…”

19. Magic_Al - July 17, 2010

William Shatner was a better Star Trek director than Stuart Baird, that’s for sure.

20. Balok - July 17, 2010

some good things in the movie, beginning was good… then the annoying things started to appear:

– Admiral Bennett
– Spock has a brother
– Mouse hole sized shuttle doors
– Insulting effectics
– Uhura and Scotty
– Romulan princess
– 52 decks
– probably more that I forgot about

Walter seems like a nice guy and proably wouldn’t dump on the movie, I thought he was good as Captain Chekov, but would be interested in what would have to say about it after all these years…

21. Simon - July 17, 2010

#19 – Like when Kirk is able to throw a 3-boobed catwoman over his head into a fishtank/”pool” table? Like when Scotty bashes his head and Uhura comes onto him? The “American Gladiators” Klingons?

#19 – No. “Nemesis” had problems but the direction was the least of them.

22. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - July 17, 2010

This is the only Star Trek film I haven’t seen since it came out on screen. I have to say I found it to be deplorable, but as with all things Star Trek, I am willing to give it another chance. However, I wouldn’t spend money to see it on screen again. Instead, I am hoping one day it will be added as an instant viewing option on Netflix.

23. Hugh Hoyland - July 17, 2010

I like Star Trek V as well dispite its short falls (which are quite a few). It really is the the only TOS picture that reminded me of the series. Lots of character moments, The Trio of Kirk, Spock and McCoy being the center piece of the story, ect.

I suspect that a lot of fans that dismiss the movie outright as being simply “bad” and it was all Shatners fault dont know much of the back story to its production, which seemed snake bitten even before it got off the floor. Shatner had the mistaken belief that he was going to get a larger budget to make the movie. Not only did the studeo NOT increase the budget over the previous movies, they actually lowered it significantly.

On top of that, the script was altered quite a bit from Shatners original idea of a “Darker” story, some of the staged humor seen wedged into the movie was absent from the original screenplay. And some of the original humor that was actually comical was omited. Throw in LN’s and D Kelly’s resistance to a major theme of the story, and a rather none menacing antagonist at the end instead of the omited fire breathing “Rock Man”, and you have a lot of wind taken out of the climax. (There were other things left out that also watered down the movie even more)

I look at V the way I look at most of the TOS movies, post TMP, lots of potential never quite meet (usually do to budget concerns), Even ST 2 was made on the “cheap” per Nick Meyers. But the movies had a built in production team that could take a pretty low budget, couple that with a solid story and make something that at least “looked” bigger than it actually was, and IMO thats a testament to them.

On the flip side, when you have a really lowered budget and a watered down story… well the results are there to be seen. It might not have ended up being the “greatest” Trek movie made if all went as planned, but it had potential of being one of the more interesting and entertaining for sure.

24. MC1 Doug - July 17, 2010

The Walter Koenig expose was fun. To get a glimpse, albeit a fabricated one, of his family life was sure cute. He definitely has a talented family… and it was nice seeing Andrew (RIP) goofing it up.

I had no idea Walter had been on so many early 60s and 70s TV programs… aside from his role as Chekov.

Fun!

25. Vultan - July 17, 2010

It’s been said plenty of times before, but a story is usually only as good as its villain (or the challenges faced by its protagonists). Maybe if Trek V had a more substantial villain or a bigger challenge than flying through a scary-looking lightning storm in a lava lamp, the film wouldn’t have been so bad. Sybok was more a misunderstood bastard child than a true baddy, and the Klingon motorcycle gang came dangerously close to being an outright parody of Christopher Lloyd’s crew from a couple movies back. Oh, and the less said about the glowing God/Demon head (which was strangely unharmed by a direct photon torpedo blast but somehow destroyed by a couple of Klingon disruptors) the better.

26. RobertZ - July 17, 2010

Thank you for sharing these two films about about this beloved spy/actor.
I’m also a big fan of Star Trek V and hope everyone has a good time at this event.

27. DaveK69 - July 17, 2010

Have to admit that Trek V definitely had some of the funnier lines in the entire series…. Especially by McCoy:

Spock: “Were we having fun?”
McCoy: ” God I liked him better before he died.”

Kirk: “I outta knock you on your god damn ass!!”
McCoy: “You want me to hold him Jim?”

All in all, Trek V suffered from bad editing and bad special effects. If someone at Paramount agreed to fund redoing the SPFX and recutting to make a more viable film I’m sure it could make up for a lot

28. Capt Atkin - July 17, 2010

I like STAR TREK 5: The Final Frontier. The only big thing that hurts it is the effects. Paramount needs to spend some money and re-do them. It certainly wouldn’t cost much, and anything with Shatner’s name on it makes money these days.

29. Simon - July 17, 2010

#23 – “Not only did the studeo NOT increase the budget over the previous movies, they actually lowered it significantly.”

Interesting math there since usually $27 million (V) > $24 million (IV).

And it was Shatner’s idea to search for God in the first place.

It was his disaster, nothing less.

30. Rah - July 17, 2010

I like five quite a bit, for the reasons noted.
The 3 mains were good, some of the other stuff was insulting to the second tier mains, Chekov and Sulu being lost in the woods for instance.
A well intentioned film, if a little too much of a feather in the cap for Shatner.

Stuart Baird
Stuart Baird
Stuart Baird
That is the problem with Nemesis, if you watch the cut scenes he wanted two Troi rape scenes and the first one to be longer, other things like the gokart and the b4 were silly, but if you look at what he cut, the family flow of the crew, the touching scenes, he had no respect for star trek.

31. Hugh Hoyland - July 17, 2010

#29 the $27 million figure is very much debated, and is usually followed by an “estimated” figure following it. I believe that several people involved in the production have said that figure is inflated compared to the actual cost. Either way Shatner had the idea he was going to have a lot more money to work with than what he got, the insinuation being he was told so by higher up’s. Who knows really except them.

As far as the idea of searching for God as being a “bad” theme or more like “sac-religious”, I disagree. Why is that subject taboo? I think It usually has to do with people feeling their religious convictions are somehow being questioned by the story rather than its a “bad” idea.

32. Vultan - July 17, 2010

Most of those Nemesis cut scenes can be found on youtube, and they are worth seeing. Too bad they didn’t make it into the finished film.

On a side note, after seeing Inception last night, I’m actually tempted to watch Nemesis again (a film which I hate) just to see Tom Hardy’s performace as Shinzon. Yeah, he was that good in Inception! Now I’m looking forward to his take on Mad Max.

33. Phaser Guy - July 17, 2010

There were plenty of things wrong with Nemesis. Mainly direction, story and visuals.

34. Greg2600 - July 17, 2010

If not for Star Trek, I would not have been a Trek fan. I used to watch it constantly, when it came on HBO, probably early 1990. I loved it, and immediately made a point of watching TNG, and rented the older movies, and I was hooked.

35. kmart - July 17, 2010

27, 29,

I’m a huge fan of ST V, but it came in OVER 30mil, more than TUC. Winter has admitted this a couple times, and SC Jaffe said as much too. Money wasn’t spent in the right places at the right times, so that makes it seem cheap, plus they had to spend money on stuff they hadn’t intended to (probably close to a mil for the new bridge and for Paradise City, when they could have probably modified an existing old structure for the latter) …

I think TFF is absolutely better in the theater, despite the vfx problems. Most of the live-action is extremely well-composed, and on a big screen this effect is very nice indeed. The way the camera and/or K S M move slowly while talking in the lounge is pretty good, and the way matching symmetrical cuts take place as the spires come out of the god cathedral thing is good too. Shatner and his DP did really good work on a lot of that.

I think it was insane to come out in summer 1989 considering the competition (notice that was the last year that a Bond flick dared come out in summer, and it got creamed worse than TFF), and another six months of postproduction WITHOUT the superexpense of mega-overtime that they had on vfx would have improved the film too. A lot of bad calls, you can’t put this all off on Shatner, (though he’d’ve been smart to put his salary up in early 1989 to get more money when it would have really mattered and helped.)

Not saying Shatner isn’t a jerk, just that he isn’t the horrible director his rep indicates (at least not back then — the few minutes of GROOM LAKE I endured were Phil Tucker/ROBOT MONSTER bad.)

36. kmart - July 17, 2010

Oh, and Meyer mentioned a few times that he was the only director who had to bring both his trek pics in for less than the films that preceded them. Since TUC wound up costing 30mil (that’s including its approved overages, mostly added vfx shots), that definitely puts TFF north of that number.

37. davidfuchs - July 17, 2010

TO SETTLE THE BUDGET:

STV was definitely more money than STVI, and most likely more than STIV (the actual numbers are fudgy.)

I have to agree with others above that STV was essentially the “swiss cheese” model of error of the films. The cast members (especially Nimoy and Shatner) got more money with each film, negating much of the added budgets; Shatner and Ralph Winter got snowballed by a nice tech demo by the special effects guy, who simply wasn’t up to the task; the story was hampered by the Writer’s Guild and committee (I think Shatner’s original idea of “descent into hell” to rescue his friends, while egotistical, would have been far better than what came.) Calling a film “bad” or “good” is always a foolish idea as there are so many talents and so many cooks involved. Even the best films have flaws, though often more cunningly concealed. Sometimes a poorer film is the more rewarding viewing.

38. kmart - July 17, 2010

37, good points, all. And to be fair, sometimes a bad movie is enjoyable because it knows what it is and doesn’t pretend to be more. At least that’s my excuse for rewatching ACTION JACKSON every five or six months. I probably rewatch it at least as much as I do Se7en or Children Of Men or 2001, but I’m not claiming it is anything great … or even good … just eminently rewatchable, with me laughing both at it and with it.

And one other point with the money; Shatner spent a lot of it up front getting GREAT new phasers and combat uniforms. Really nice touches, but if he hadn’t been spending on stuff like that before the budget crunch came down, he might have had something left for act III’s big moments.

39. jay - July 18, 2010

I would like to re-edit and create completely new efx shots. Get ILM to do it and it’ll look great as even thier budget work surpasses much of what’s out there now. Then edit out the “nothing on the ship works right” parts of scenes as much as possible. You could have “some” things go wrong, but drop the clunky lines about them in a few scenes and correct the mislabeling of decks in the escape scenes. The “thruster boots scenes could be CG and would make them look more realistic. Paramount did the directors cut of STMP and this time though it would be a more extensive renovation, it would be worth-it.. It could end up being a decent flick.

40. Toonloon - July 18, 2010

It surprises me that no one has added their own effects to show what difference were all taking for granted new effects will make.

41. Tfan - July 18, 2010

I love TFF. I think the comments about the fx are too harsh in that the other films have as bad or worse fx. The ear in TWOK almost ruins the film for me. Talk about hoaky. And when Kirk is telling kirstie alley to locate Reliant’s shield code, can’t they hear him? I guess since he turned around the mics couldn’t pick up his voice. In TUC when Iman is the bigfoot character walking in the snow it looks like harry pajamas especially on the feet. So, my point is that with any of these movies one has to have a willful suspension of disbelief.

I totally agree with those above who talked about great character moments. TFF has alot of them. Some hoaky albeit, but many great ones. Plus I love the theme and I love the imprisoned creature at the end. I thought Laurence Luckinbill’s performance was great. It is classic Star Trek.

42. fred - July 18, 2010

yes do a new cut did shatner himeself say he be willing to do it and put some cash in as well

43. P Technobabble - July 18, 2010

There’s no doubt that Trek fandom would love to have a true Director’s Cut of STV, but in true paramount fashion, it doesn’t look like Paramount is going to allow it. As recently as last month, there was a new campaign aimed at CBS and Paramount for fans to lobby for a Director’s Cut. I have no idea if anything has come of it, but haven’t heard any buzz… so we can probably assume nothing has come of it.
As much of a disappointment as the film was to many fans, it was surely most disappointing to Shatner, himself, as this was his first stab at directing a feature-length film. As “captain of the ship,” he assumed responsibility for the film’s failure, but it was as much the failure of Bennet and Loughery who severely altered Shatner’s original story (and not necessarily for the better), Associates and Ferren for delivering shoddy sfx, and Paramount for dropping ILM and choosing Ferren.
I wonder if the execs at Paramount have something personal against Shatner, since it makes absolutely no sense not to “re-make” STV. Just the headline “Star Trek V to finally get a face-lift” would, IMO, guarantee a dvd sale for every Trek fan alive. But I can probably guarantee some genius at Paramount would say, “Big deal.”

44. Jonboc - July 18, 2010

Trek 5 is a fav. Absolutely the closest to the TV series and that is the highest compliment of all. The production goofs? 70 decks? Big deal, TOS had them right and left. Sub par effects….well, newsflash…the Fx on TOS weren’t the best either…but thanfully Trek, or at least TOS has never been about the FX. So that’s really a non-issue.

Spock has a brother. Always had one one, we just never knew it….not unlike Sulu’s uncle Bob…just because there was never an episode that mentioned him doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist.

The story? It’s not about “the crew goes in search of God”. It never was. It’s about a crew’s ship being hijacked by a crazy Vulcan who is searching for God. Again, a story line done before in TOS. No problem.

Shatner’s direction? Technically and artistically, one of most interesting directors of all the films. His frame compositions are well thought out and his movement of the camera always make for some great shots. Add to that the performances he got out of Luckinbill and the other cast members and I think his directorial debut…budget juggling not withstanding…was an artistic success. Shat bashers have and will always dog this movie…it’s just what they do, but their arguments are usually never hold up to scrutiny.

I think anyone that really hates Trek 5 either, one, hasn’t watched TOS in a very long time, or two, they’ve never watched it at all.

45. Sebastian - July 18, 2010

There’s a certain irony in choosing Koenig to do the Q & A for the Trek V screening; a man who publicly trashed director/star Shatner in print and who had very little to do with the finished movie. Maybe after Generations he learned to swallow that bitter pill? Hope so; those kinds of negative feelings only serve to weigh upon one’s soul.

At any rate, it’s brave of WK to do this so soon after his son’s tragic suicide. I still wish him and his family all the best after such a horrible loss.

46. John - July 18, 2010

Koenig was great. He didn’t trash the film or Shatner’s direction. It turns out he only worked on the movie for 8 days! He did say if he had a problem with Shatner he would have walked off the set, but it never happened. He was in good spirits during the Q&A.

The print was stunning and the sound was great. This was the way to best experience the movie.

47. Brett Campbell - July 18, 2010

It’s nice to see a little love for this film for a change. It’s far from being the stinker that so many people make it out to be.

Shatner did a fine job directing. It has some great character moments, and, as pointed out, an outstanding performance by DeForest Kelley.

It is the most spiritually themed of the Trek films, and not nearly as misguided effort as TMP and several of the TNG films, IMHO.

48. Anthony Thompson - July 18, 2010

43.

STV IS the Director’s Cut !!! So far as I’m aware, the film wasn’t taken away from Shatner at any point. Do you have proof to the contrary? What we have is most definitely his film, his “cut”. Based on his choices as director.

49. kmart - July 18, 2010

48, Bennett cut a lot out pre-release, and Shat was only able to get him to reinstate some of it.

What they are talking about is a cut that reflects the stuff that Shatner had to take out of his early drafts due to cost and Nimoy/Kelley not liking it.

50. Phaser Guy - July 18, 2010

I wonder why they went so cheap on TFF when TVH was such a huge hit?

51. Alec - July 18, 2010

I watched this film, here in the UK, last night and early this morning on TV. I have to say that I enjoyed it a lot more than I remember doing so; perhaps because my expectations were low. Nevertheless, I think this film is much better than most fans give it credit.

First of all, I liked the story. In the media, the idea of the Trek crew searching for God was much derided. But it is absolutely what the crew would do. It is absolutely a story, in the classic sense, of Star Trek. It is the ultimate expression of the mantra ‘To boldly go where no man has gone before.’ Moreover, this film attempts to follow TVH by abandoning the standard maniacal villain vs. hero formula which we see dominate so many franchises, including Star Trek. TFF deserves credit for not falling into this lazy and tired pattern. I find that the story is plausible, too. It’s about a man, Sybock, who has a vision from a God-like creature whom he is deceived into thinking is God Himself. Sybock, consumed by his vision, travels to the promised land that’s contested by rival powers and takes as hostages three local diplomats. Sybock overpowers those who come to rescue the hostages and continues on his spiritual quest. Only to find out that ‘God’ doesn’t exist. So the superficially most religious couple of hours of Star Trek is turned on its head to be perhaps the most ardent statement of Gene’s atheism. I.e., those many humans who claim to have visions, purportedly from God, are mistaken. As Kirk says, God isn’t ‘out there’ he’s a human construction, an outward projection of what it is to be human: he’s the human heart.

There are some great scenes in this film. I particularly like the revealing, emotional scene where Sybock shows McCoy and Spock the inner pain which they have carried all their lives: the pain that has helped to define who they are. It’s a great character scene, with real emotion and depth, which stands out in Trek lore. I also liked the scene near the end where Kirk explains that he, Spock, and a McCoy are a family; that they are brothers. The camp fire scenes were touching, also, with some good laughs. I don’t have a problem with the ‘beans’ joke. And I think it’s a lot better than the stagnant, awful humour of the TNG films; for example, Troi protesting, whilst drunk, that she doesn’t have time to talk about the time-line….or Worf getting a pimple; or Data joking (I use the term loosely) about how firm one’s breasts are.

In TFF, there are many good scenes. For example, the huge Bird of Prey suddenly appearing, dwarfing the lone Kirk on the ridge. Or the framing of Kirk, Sybock, McCoy, and Spock in the classic style of ‘Spectre of the Gun’. I also liked Shatner’s direction: it was noticeably more frantic and energetic than Nimoy’s classic style, which also has its charms, of course. Shatner’s direction was very redolent of JJ’s style.

The music in TFF is beautiful. It must be one of the very best scores. It tells the story of the whole film perfectly: echoing Kirk climb of the majestic (and well-named) ‘El Captain’; the unbending, intriguing mysticism of Sybock; the flight of the raiders; the voyage into the Great Barrier; etc. It doesn’t simply bellow out repetitive, generic themes as is the case with Trek 2009.

I don’t see why we should have a problem with Spock having a half-brother. This is just something that we didn’t know before; and it creates a strong, personal connection between the characters that is so important in any good story. I think that the quibble regarding the number of decks is just that: a quibble. Besides, this was a new Enterprise, since the previous one was destroyed in TSFS. I can’t see why anyone would have a problem with Admiral Bennett or Shatner’s daughter having a role. This is a good way of saving money and is a nod for the fans (especially regarding Shatner’s daughter, since she was in an episode of TOS). And I didn’t have a problem with the Scotty/Uhura relationship: it didn’t really add anything to the story; but nor did it detract from the story.

My biggest problem is the budget and the special effects. The special effects were bad; sometimes awful. They take you out of the film, much as JJ’s budgineering does. They don’t allow you to ‘believe’ what you’re seeing. Although this is a big criticism of the film, it is again true to the spirit of Star Trek: the TOS episodes were on a tight budget and often had dodgy effects and sets. Moreover, this is something that could easily be rectified. If only they would redo the external space shots. There can’t be many: it wouldn’t be expensive. And it would make the film considerably better. I bet there would be a market, at least among Trekkies, for a Director’s Edition of TFF.

52. sean - July 18, 2010

Trek V’s story was flawed from the get go, so even if Shatner had the money to do what he originally envisioned, it wouldn’t have been a good Trek story. Bill didn’t get his character or anyone else’s character, and that’s not just in reference to the poor attempts at humor that were tacked on. Even Leonard Nimoy said as much when he objected to the scene with Spock experiencing his birth. It’s not the worst movie ever made, by far, but it is the worst Star Trek movie, even over Nemesis (which was abysmal by-the-numbers trash but at least competently filmed).

53. Vultan - July 18, 2010

51

Sorry, I didn’t see Kirk’s conclusion that God exists in the human heart as an affirmation of atheism but the exact opposite. But I guess that should go to Shatner’s credit, leaving the unanswerable question unanswerable while still giving a sense of faith and kinship to those who do believe. And, while definitely not the best of the TOS films, that moment when Kirk, Spock and McCoy are standing together next to the ship’s wheel really does strike at the heart of what TOS was really about–friendship.

54. KhanSingh - July 18, 2010

Why do people feel they need to write a book when they post something.
I forgot about the Ted Nugent Klingon in Trek V. That movie was terrible.

55. BringBackTrek - July 18, 2010

I actually read the novelization before watching this in the theater – big mistake when I saw the fx or lack thereof on the big screen! Also, I think there was a certain amount of one upmanship going on between Shatner and Nimoy, with Shatner wanting to outdo Nimoy in the dramatic and comedic aspects of the film. As a followup to Star Trek III and IV, Shatner crams in so many scenes that are played over the top or for cheap laughs. Don’t get me wrong, there are many wonderful scenes present as well. The big three have some of their best film series scenes here but as to the rest of the cast – fandance, etc? Ugh!

Still, gotta love Kirk’s line, “Excuse me, what does God want with a starship?” Straight out of TOS…

56. Phaser Guy - July 18, 2010

As bad as Trek V is, it’s still better than most of the TNG movies.

57. YARN - July 18, 2010

#56 Depending on one’s perspective, your statement it is either hopelessly contentious (‘dems fightin’ words!) or the faintest praise imaginable (is it also better than a sharp stick in the eye?) for ST V.

58. Phaser Guy - July 18, 2010

Well, i was being honest.

59. Mike Thomspon UK - July 18, 2010

Shatner at the London Comic con (sunday) said that due to pressure from other people he Compromised on his original story. He obviuosly regrets that but had to trust the people he was working with ( he likened it to compromises in a relationship, difficult if you don’t!). The Rock monsters didn’t work so he was without an ending. He didn’t handle the budget well, was a diificult time for him.

He has seen Stewert and Brooks for the Captains…

60. Magic_Al - July 18, 2010

Star Trek V cost a lot of money. The fact that it has so many moments that look cheap is because spending was not prioritized well.

Things that probably cost too much:

Shuttlecraft and Hangar Bay. Yes, it was nice to remember the Enterprise has these things, but remember why the transporter was invented in the first place: showing the shuttlecraft being used is much more expensive than doing the transporter effect. The Hangar Bay set was large and expensive but not large enough to be successful. That part of the ship would be huge and that’s why it was only briefly shown with matte paintings and miniatures in the first movie, and it was a miniature in the original series too.

Filming outdoors. Yes, it looks “big”, especially after the first three films didn’t go outside really at all. But it’s expensive! That’s why the first three films and most episodes didn’t do it! Paradise City could have been a matte painting or a model, and a set on a soundstage. The location shoot on the “God planet” was unnecessary since the final confrontation ended up on stage, which they could have beamed into if the film had been done without shuttlecraft.

Combat uniforms. Good idea and logical, but could have been done more cheaply by making another version of landing party jackets as in the first three movies (and “The Cage”), and having all the other pieces the same as the regular uniform.

Things They Should Have Spent Money On Instead:

New Enterprise sets/redressed TNG sets. This was ridiculous. Accept that Paramount didn’t want to build a whole nother starship after TNG took over the old movie sets, but come on. Star Trek VI did the redressing much better, with less money. In 5, only the new bridge looked great. The officer’s lounge is good, but given the weak redressing of the TNG ship corridors, they may as well have saved the money and used TNG’s Ten Forward set. The fluorescent-tube brig fails to improve on the old invisible forcefield conceit that would have been cheaper to build (no door instead of fluorescent-light door). Service tunnels and turbo shaft built to the comedic requirements of the scenes they’re for, rather than to look like functional parts of a starship. On the other hand none of the ship looks like a beer factory.

Visual effects. Needed. Much. More. Money.

61. kmart - July 18, 2010

60

hangar cost little, it was a stage set leftover and modified from COMING TO AMERICA.

If they’d shot indoors on V it’d’ve been green acres

62. Phaser Guy - July 18, 2010

I don’t know why Kirk and the guys have to climb up all those levels. Couldn’t they just crawl through the jefferies tubes?

63. Robert H. - July 18, 2010

Star Trek 5 is like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Great story, lousy execution.

64. Patty W - July 18, 2010

#10 “Walter Koenig Exposed” was written, directed and shot by Danielle Koenig (Walter’s daughter) and edited by Andrew Koenig (Walter’s son) as a birthday present that was shown at Walter’s surprise 70th birthday party. (September 2006).

The version I have up on YouTube (which is the one Anthony has posted here) had a sound remix done by Ralph M. Miller and credits added by myself and Ben Alpi to show at the Phase II premiere of “To Serve All My Days” in March of 2008.

#24 Walter actually had a thriving career before being cast as Chekov – many times playing gang leader type punks and many times as the main “guest star”. In all, he’s had over 150 different roles on television… not including Chekov on Star Trek and Bester on Babylon 5.

Sorry.. you spurred my soapbox… which always leads to “why is he the only one of the seven main cast of Star Trek who STILL doesn’t have a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame”?!!

excuse my soapbox… and return to your regularally scheduled topic….

65. Tfan - July 19, 2010

Watching TFF and had to provide this site with the comedic line from Spock, “Hold your horse Captain.” Alot of great lines in this movie :-) I know alot of you are dissatisfied but I throughly enjoy it.

66. Simon - July 19, 2010

I want what #56 is drinking.

67. P Technobabble - July 19, 2010

48. Anthony Thompson

I wasn’t implying that the film was “taken away” from Shatner. If you read Shatner’s “Movie Memories,” and his daughter’s account of the Making Of STV, you will find that A) his original story was severely altered by Harve Bennett and David Loughery — and not to Shatner’s liking; B) many of the scenes Shatner wanted to shoot had to be eliminated because of Paramount’s budget restrictions. Numerous instances in the film were not, specifically, “choices,” but rather “compromises.” This was not wholly the movie Shatner wanted to make, if he’d had his way. To call it the “Director’s Cut” is accurate in that Shatner was the director. It is not a true Director’s Cut the way the TMP dvd release was, since Robert Wise was allowed to alter the film to turn it into the film he intended to make. I, and many others, believe Shatner should have been given an opportunity to at least re-do the effects, and perhaps some strategic editing to bring the film more in line with Shatner’s vision.

68. Scott B. here. - July 19, 2010

Star Trek V: Great trailer, but crap movie, guys. I say it every time the subject comes up — ST V was just a remake of “The Way to Eden.”

However, the “Walter Koenig Exposed” short was hilarious. Danielle Koenig did a great job on it.

Scott B. out.

69. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - July 19, 2010

Sometimes the true measure of a fan is someone who can be honest with the good AND bad. I can’t see how any honest Trek fan can find anything redeeming (well, excepting Goldsmith’s score) out of Trek V.

Trek V was absolutely wretched. A mysterious long-lost brother? Suddenly alienated allegiances? An Enterprise with over four-dozen decks? Embarrassing SFX? Ridiculous story? Good heavens, take your pick. The movie was doomed the moment that story was approved.

No re-edited rock monster is or was gonna save this beast.

70. Pro-Khan-Sel - July 19, 2010

while we are on the subject of trashing Trek V.. One of the most annoying scenes was the bird of prey’s stalking and destroying the voyager spacecraft. Yes we know what happened to the voyager spacecraft that became V’ger, and I guess shatner thought it might be amusing to learn the fate of the second voyager probe. When the probe is destroyed, I had an immediate dislike for the klingons in the film, (which I suppose it was intended to) I felt that the scene came off as a slam against nasa and early space exploraion. The icing on the cake was the terrible scream that the probe made as it was being destroyed. It was just one of many moments in the film that was “supposed” to be funny and ultimately wasn’t.

71. Star Trek V 70mm Memories - July 19, 2010

I vividly remember when this movie came out. The previews and advertisements were very exciting and the interivew Shatner gave to Charlie Gibson on Good Morning America was also very good.

The movie was showing in 70mm at only one venue in the DC area and that was at the now closed Wisconsin Ave Cinemas in two THX certified auditoriums.

Unfortunately, the fact that our showing had few patrons on opening day was a bad omen. I enjoyed the opening prologue. Lawrence Luckinbill’s entrance was cool. The opening Star Trek title opening played very well even though it copied the THX deep note sound trailer segueing into Jerry Goldsmith’s fanfare theme.

One thing about 70mm presentations back in the day is that you are reasonably assured that the sound track is going to be special. V does not disappoint. The shuttle landing, bird of prey decloaking, shuttle crash landing and the god planet sequences were good. If only the accompanying visual fx were decent..we all know what happened there.

As I’ve blogged in the IV section, its well known that probably 1/2 of the budget was spent on salaries before one frame of film was shot. So even at $30M, we only got to see $15M of it onscreen. If Shatner really believed in this movie, he could have spent his $7M or so to ‘finish’ the movie.

On a humorous note, some Trek V production trivia. When Shatner was filming a horse riding scene..maybe he was subbing for Lawrence Luckinbill in the opening sequence..as the camera was rolling, the fierce winds were so strong that it blew off his toupee!!! The few crew that were around broke down and laughed but, reportedly, Shatner was so incensed that he fired them on the spot. I wish that scene made it to YouTube, but I suspect Shatner burned the print, himself.

72. kmart - July 19, 2010

70,
Pretty sure it was a Pioneer space probe, not a
voyager, in TFF.

73. Magic_Al - July 19, 2010

^70. Yep. Easy to remember: Pioneer spacecraft have the naked drawing, Voyager spacecraft have the gold record.

74. dunsel - July 19, 2010

@ 20, look for the deleted scenes online or on the dvd. The scenes with the 3 ambassadors on nimbus 3 are great. You will dig the romulan “princess” after seeing her read the klingon!

75. Simon - July 19, 2010

#71 – “One thing about 70mm presentations back in the day is that you are reasonably assured that the sound track is going to be special. V does not disappoint. The shuttle landing, bird of prey decloaking, shuttle crash landing and the god planet sequences were good. If only the accompanying visual fx were decent..we all know what happened there”

Most of that is dynamic impact and LFE, but there’s surprisingly little surround activity throughout the film.

When you compare it to ST:VI you’ll think it was mono!

76. Pro-Khan-Sel - July 19, 2010

Thank you #72-73 I still hate that scene!

77. Shatner_Fan_Prime - July 20, 2010

#71 … “the fierce winds were so strong that it blew off his toupee!!!”

Nope. Total urban legend.

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