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

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 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
(Pavel Chekov)
(Hikaru Sulu)

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


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

Sort by:   newest | oldest
July 17, 2010 1:59 pm

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

Phaser Guy
July 17, 2010 2:04 pm

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.

July 17, 2010 2:08 pm

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

July 17, 2010 2:12 pm

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!

William Kirk
July 17, 2010 2:15 pm

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

Paul Fitz
July 17, 2010 2:36 pm

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.

July 17, 2010 2:44 pm

Please ask about the lack of Moontrap on DVD!

July 17, 2010 2:49 pm

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.

El Chup
July 17, 2010 3:02 pm

RIP Andrew Koenig

July 17, 2010 3:08 pm

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!

July 17, 2010 3:25 pm

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

July 17, 2010 3:26 pm

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

July 17, 2010 3:30 pm

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.

July 17, 2010 3:31 pm

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.

July 17, 2010 3:32 pm

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.

July 17, 2010 3:46 pm

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.

July 17, 2010 4:06 pm

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

crypter crypter crypter
July 17, 2010 4:14 pm

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…”

July 17, 2010 4:41 pm

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

July 17, 2010 4:46 pm

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…

July 17, 2010 4:54 pm

#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.

4 8 15 16 23 42
July 17, 2010 5:09 pm

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.

Hugh Hoyland
July 17, 2010 5:35 pm
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… Read more »
July 17, 2010 5:56 pm

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.


July 17, 2010 6:03 pm

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.

July 17, 2010 6:19 pm

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.

July 17, 2010 6:27 pm

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

Capt Atkin
July 17, 2010 6:31 pm

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.

July 17, 2010 6:57 pm

#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.

July 17, 2010 7:01 pm

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.

Hugh Hoyland
July 17, 2010 7:12 pm

#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.

July 17, 2010 7:13 pm

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.

Phaser Guy
July 17, 2010 7:23 pm

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

July 17, 2010 7:31 pm

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.

July 17, 2010 7:56 pm
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… Read more »
July 17, 2010 7:58 pm

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.

July 17, 2010 8:51 pm


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.

July 17, 2010 9:55 pm

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.

July 18, 2010 1:06 am

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.

July 18, 2010 3:01 am

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

July 18, 2010 3:17 am

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.

July 18, 2010 3:19 am

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

July 18, 2010 6:47 am

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.”

July 18, 2010 7:22 am
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.
July 18, 2010 7:56 am

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.

July 18, 2010 9:03 am

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.

Brett Campbell
July 18, 2010 9:47 am

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.

Anthony Thompson
July 18, 2010 10:37 am


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.

July 18, 2010 11:30 am

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.

Phaser Guy
July 18, 2010 12:41 pm

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