Laurence Luckinbill Says Leonard Nimoy Nimoy Wanted To Play Sybok In Star Trek V | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Laurence Luckinbill Says Leonard Nimoy Nimoy Wanted To Play Sybok In Star Trek V May 16, 2012

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Feature Films (TMP-NEM),History,Nimoy , trackback

In Star Trek V: The Final Frontier we learned that Spock had a half-brother. The fully Vulcan Sybok was played by actor Laurence Luckinbill who has revealed that things were a bit icy between him and Leonard Nimoy. Apparently Nimoy wanted to play both Spock and his brother. Details below.

 

Luckinbill: Nimoy Wanted To Play Sybok

In an interview with Star Trek.com, actor Laurence Luckinbill talked about his time on the set of William Shatner’s Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, including how things with actor Leonard Nimoy weren’t exactly brotherly. Luckinbill explains:

Luckinbill: He did not say one word to me for quite a long time, other than “Hello,” because, I found out later, he had really, really pushed hard to have this be a double role, a dual role for him. I don’t know if this is absolutely true. That was the scuttlebutt and I got that from very high up in the food chain of information, that Leonard wanted to play Sybok and play Spock. That would have been a tremendous thing, to do that, but since they weren’t twins, they cast me. I think that Bill wanted a separate actor, and he was right. We were very different people. The best compliment I got was, in the last scenes, 20 or 25 weeks later, Leonard looked at me and said, “You know, you’re terrific in this.” I thought that was a great send-off.


Luckinbill (R) says Nimoy (L) wanted to play his character Sybok in "Star Trek V"

The actor also talked about the general negative reaction the film got from fans and critics, saying:

Luckinbill: I was surprised and disappointed that anybody hated the film. I thought it came down to their dislike of Bill himself. That seemed to be the leading edge of the whole thing, Shatner’s need for comeuppance, blah, blah, blah, “He’s too arrogant,” this and that. I did agree with one of the streams of comment that said that the film was in two pieces. It broke in half with the comedy of the old guard trying to retire and not being able to, climbing and joking with each other in the woods and singing “Row, Row, Row Your Boat,” and the serious story of Spock’s brother, who is attempting to change the universe with this movement of power. I felt the movement of power story was by far the more interesting part of the movie, but that may be because it was my story.

For more from Luckinbill, see the full interview at startrek.com


Luckinbill thinks critics of "Star Trek V" had issues with director William Shatner (R)

 

Comments

1. Gabriel Bell - May 16, 2012

Unequivocally, the worst two hours in Star Trek history.

2. Gorn Born - May 16, 2012

Nimoy wanting to play a double role does not ring true. In Shatner’s book on the Trek movies he says that he wanted Sean Connery to play Sybok. It seems unlikely that Nimoy would be pushing to play a twin.

3. Praetor - May 16, 2012

I thought Mr. Luckinbill’s performance was one of the finer aspects of the film. As to the rumor, if untrue perhaps Mr. Nimoy was simply annoyed by Shatner’s directorial style or something along those lines and it just made him irritable. Or perhaps he simply disliked the idea of an emotional Vulcan

4. Jamesb3 - May 16, 2012

Likely, after Connery passed on the project, Nimoy tried to pitch the dual role idea.

5. Drew - May 16, 2012

I read this story a couple of days ago… I haven’t read much about behind-the-scenes drama, but this and the other anecdotes are… fascinating.

6. fansincesixtynine - May 16, 2012

I’ll never forget coming out of the theater after this film feeling SO disappointed. After so much anticipation, the likes of which I just don’t feel for the “new” crew, this was a big let down.

7. Jonboc - May 16, 2012

Always loved Luckinbill as Sybok. A very charismatic actor and a very interesting villain…that wasn’t really a villain. And I will always love Trek 5 for delivering a film that, to this day, remains closest in spirit to the original series. That’s all I ever asked for in the movie series and Trek 5 delivered in spades.

8. Red Dead Ryan - May 16, 2012

I don’t know about this. I never got the sense that Nimoy would be that self-centered and egotistical to demand a dual role. I think either Lawrence Luckinbill or someone else at Paramount was pulling something out of their asses.

9. Gabriel Bell - May 16, 2012

@7 – I find that almost impossible to believe. The fact that this movie turned Spock into someone that would sacrifice his friends and ship for a half-brother he can barely stand (as he is about to do in the scene portrayed above), just makes me hate it even more. And the slapstick in which they turned Scotty into a clown? Terrible. And the focus on the hocus-pocus, mumbo-jumbo that is religion? Insulting. I believe it was the film least in touch with the original series.

10. SoonerDave - May 16, 2012

That there was so much negative reaction to the film had nothing to do with people hating Shatner.

It had to do with this little matter of the film sucking, sucking the very light from the stars the Enterprise flies by, sucking the green blood from every living Vulcan, sucking like the Atmospheric Vacuum Cleaner in Spaceballs.

Yeah, I think that had something to do with it.

The *story* was puerile. Actually, Shatner’s *direction* wasn’t bad – but his rock monster wouldn’t have saved it.

11. Bucky - May 16, 2012

I think this flick is the most in tune with the workaday average episode vibe of TOS – generally swinging for big ideas but getting a bit sidetracked by awkward plotting & lower production values. Let’s just say that not every TOS episode is “Space Seed”. And while “Wrath of Khan” is a worthy successor to that episode, I’d say that “Final Frontier” is a worthy successor to something, like, “The Apple”. It’s not the genius camp level of something like “Spock’s Brain” but it has ideas in there which are fun to explore & “what does God need is a starship” I think is still one of my favouritest Kirk lines in the entire series.

Where’s Sybock in the JJ-verse? Still searching for God? Get blown up on Vulcan? IDW series plotline potential here!

12. Radioactive Spock - May 16, 2012

Personally, I always liked Star Trek V. There are some good character moments, and Jerry Goldsmith’s score is fantastic. I think some minor re-editing and a bit of effects clean-ups would make it worthy of the franchise to all but the biggest haters.

13. Red Dead Ryan - May 16, 2012

The Rock Monster probably would not have saved “The Final Frontier”, but damn, it would have been fun to watch in a movie that sucks.

14. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - May 16, 2012

@6 – Me too. I was 16, my dad and I went to see it — him being open but not really a fan of Star Trek — and I walked out feeling embarrassed. I think it was one of only three or four times I was embarrassed to be a Star Trek fan.

15. The Great Bird of the Galaxy lives! - May 16, 2012

@9, re:@7

I agree w/ jonboc. This movie did come close to to the original format. Was the Shat a bit over the top? Absolutely, he was. But I feel, In general it was a great movie with all the elements of the original vision…

@9- ” I find that almost impossible to believe. The fact that this movie turned Spock into someone that would sacrifice his friends and ship for a half-brother he can barely stand (as he is about to do in the scene portrayed above), just makes me hate it even more.”

I’m sorry, but I can’t Imagine Spock pulling the trigger on anyone at point blank range, let alone his own Brother. It was interesting to see the dilemma unfold. Spock, as we all know is non-violent Is faced with a difficult choice- And I believe the question he faced was this: Was there any chance that this situation can be resolved in a non violent fashion? And the answer was yes. And disobeying a direct order was secondary to the primary issue. Very Spock-like performance, and good storytelling IMHO.

Overall, I give the movie a C+, or 3 out of 5 stars.

16. Chain of Command - May 16, 2012

Star Trek V came out on June 9th, 1989. I remember seeing the first commercial for it and I was REALLY excited. I couldn’t wait to see the “new” Enterprise and the original crew in action again. TNG was struggling through its’ second season and, when I saw the commercial for TFF during the first-run broadcast of “Up the Long Ladder..” I said, “Thank GOD! The real crew is coming back because this TNG show sucks!”

Then, something happened: I went to see Star Trek V and I realized, about a half hour into the film, that it was a terrible movie. Don’t get me wrong, it has some redeeming qualities (some “Big three” scenes and a good soundtrack) but overall it was a colossal failure on all levels. I remember being so excited to see this movie that I was actually shaking. I didn’t get to see it on opening day like the others in the series so I was really jazzed to see this film. Then all my 12 year old hopes came crashing down when I realized it was just full of forced humor, crappy re-dresses of the TNG sets, special effects that looked like something from Superman IV and a script that just stunk!

To top it off, when I got home from the debacle that was Star Trek V, the TNG episode that was on was “Manhunt”. I really thought, that day, that Star Trek was dying.

17. Amish Electrician - May 16, 2012

St 6 saved this series of movies from the never do one again..Star Trek 5 sucked

18. Red Dead Ryan - May 16, 2012

The soundtrack is great.

#12.

“I think some minor re-editing and a bit of effects clean-ups would make it worthy of the franchise to all but the biggest haters.”

Yeah, kind of like putting whipped cream on a pile of crap. You might pretty it up a bit, and make it look a bit less like a pile of shit, but at the end of the day you can’t change the fact that its a pile of crap!

19. The Great Bird of the Galaxy lives! - May 16, 2012

@13

With over half of the movies budget being doled out to some of these bloated self righteous retiree’s of course the movie was lacking, but It had SOME potential. And I agree, the rock suits were so pathetic it wouldn’t have made any difference.

20. ster julie - May 16, 2012

I liked this movie, esp Sybok and the FABulous score.

Know what I hated the most? There were phallus-es EVERYwhere, from the hairstyles on the Klingon and the Romulan women to the rocks THRUSTing out of the ground to create that dome where they met ‘god.’

21. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - May 16, 2012

I love how those who hate on this film, and trash talk when fans bring up the fact that final frontier is really the closest in spirit in the TV series.
are the same ones who trash talk fans who mention the problems in Trek 09, which is quite frankly the farthest away in spirit from what makes Trek out of any of the movies that feature the characters of TOS.

Just an observation

22. CaptainDonovin - May 16, 2012

I can usually find enough in a Trek movie or series to like even if there are a lot of fans who hate it, i.e. Enterprise. Can’t say the same about Star Trek V, I figured that eventually it would grow on me. Still waiting for eventually to get here.

I will say it isn’t the worst 2 hours of Trek. Watching TATV twice in a row is.

23. Bob Tompkins - May 16, 2012

#4- Connery has stated he would have loved to have done STV but he was committed to Indiana Jones- even that would not have helped the movie’s box office…..
One original blurb for the movie was that the theaters need to install seat belts for this roller coaster ride- I agreed- to keep the audience from walking out…

24. Bob Tompkins - May 16, 2012

http://fivealarmbees.com/viewblog.php?entry=110
Here’s the seat belt ad…

25. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - May 16, 2012

For me the order goes like this

Star Trek II
Star Trek First Contact
Star Trek V
Star Trek VI
Star Trek TMP
Star Trek III
Star TrekIV
Star Trek Generations, Star Trek Nemesis (Tied)
Star Trek XI
Star Trek Insurection

Now having put my preferences in order, I LOVE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE MOVIES,and just because a movie might be at the bottom or near bottom of my prefferance doesnt mean I dont get enjoyment and entertainment out of it.

26. Jonboc - May 16, 2012

#9 …sorry it’s so hard to believe. the Spock thing isn’t a deal breaker for me, especially when considering the steps he took to help Pike. Yes, it’s hard to believe he might go to those lengths for Sybok, but he clearly is capable of going to those lengths. And I would agree the Scotty bit is groan inducing. But you can thank the success of Trek 4 for that. But what Trek 5 DOES have…from best acting for De Kelley,ever…to the friendship and final realization that Kirk, Spock and McCoy are family… heavily outweigh the negatives. 70 something decks? So what, bad editing.Saw it in TOS too and it didn’t ruin that. Bad FX, yeah, but arguably theyre as crude as those in TOS…and I have no problem with those. Trek 5 brought back the Galileo…original TOS bridge sound FX, Jerry Goldsmith, a teaser before the opening credits, kicking’ it old school! It introduced the best phaser design since the original. it introduced the beautiful observation room. Love how Shatner moves the camera and composes his scenes. yeah, some serious love for Trek 5 here…so much to enjoy and no more “problems”, really, than are easily found in the other films. Sorry the haters can’t see the forrest for the trees. :)

27. pissed off virgin vulcan basement nerd - May 16, 2012

STV would have been a great success if they’d not cut the scene with Shatner fighting five rock men.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bemhyCVcu3o

28. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - May 16, 2012

26 thats perfectly put, right there.

29. sean - May 16, 2012

I’ve never understood the argument that the bad special effects were the problem with this one. I never even thought of them being all that bad at the time. It wasn’t until years later that I really noticed the downgrade from previous films.

Nope, the problem with TFF has always lied with the script. Mr Luckinbill hits on it in his quote, if the movie had focused on the Sybok story and dumped all the dumb subplots and juvenile attempts at humor, it might have worked a lot better, bad VFX or not.

And honestly, I’d take Trek 2009 over TFF any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

30. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - May 16, 2012

You have to admit it would be kind of humorous if the new universe Trek movies have the opposite public reaction that the classic trek movies did.
you know Treks 1 3 5 are considered great and New Treks 2, 4 and 6 are not as succsefull as there classic trek counterparts.

31. The Great Bird of the Galaxy lives! - May 16, 2012

Star Trek 09 was a fantastic extravaganza that excelled in many ways , but it was lacking in one thing. It did not feel right. Now, I know the vision was not to recreate the original series, but certain things should have gone without saying. The bridge for example, was mind blowing, but it did not feel like the bridge of the NCC- 1701.
They utterly failed in representing the interior of the Enterprise, including the engine room… now THAT was a total embarrassment. Hopefully the powers that, for the time being hold the reigns will get it closer to what we’ve grown to expect, and in some cases, love.

32. Basement Blogger - May 16, 2012

There are two Star Trek shows that when I watch them, I groan. TOS’ Spock’s Brain. And there is Star Trek V. The two lowest points in the franchise.

The problems for Star Trek V were numerous. But the worst parts. Spock-Kirk-McCoy singing “Row your boat.” Uhura does a fan dance. Scotty knocks himself out. All this silliness done while searching for God!

Yet…. there’s Jerry Goldsmith’s magnificent score. And there’s the Kirk-Spock friendship. Romulan amassador played by Cynthia Gouw was gorgeous.

33. pissed off virgin vulcan basement nerd - May 16, 2012

Imagine if Cumberbatch were playing a pissed off, post-apocalypse Sybok. It could work actually.

34. GalileoAce - May 16, 2012

I actually like Star Trek 5. Maybe it’s a product of cognitive dissonance, because even though much of the story doesn’t seem to work, I still like it. Granted it’s near the bottom on my list of Trek, but I dunno…Maybe I’m incapable of disliking something Star Trek (except the last few seasons of Voyager)

I even like Insurrection and Enterprise, Enterprise (exc. Season 2) is my 2nd favourite series. So perhaps my opinion doesn’t much count :P

I can’t say I overly liked Luckinbill’s performance. He’s a good actor, and very charismatic which helped the role, but an emotional Vulcan needed to be more emotive. Like full on manic, I would think.

35. Kev-1 - May 16, 2012

Trek V had its problems, and some good scenes, but I always thought ILM quality effects would have made it much more successful. The bridge scene just before they beam down to Sha Ka Ree? for me has the feel of 3rd season TOS. Oddly the STVTFF plot is reminiscent of Roddenberry’s (so far) unpublished “The God Thing.” Don’t get the instant Spock brother angle, understand why Nimoy would be skeptical.

36. Ensign RedShirt - May 16, 2012

ST V needed a VERY savvy screenwriter in order to make it work. Shatner’s initial instinct to get someone like Lustbader to write it was good-it’s unfortunate that it didn’t work out. Balancing the humor and the darker subject matter was always going to be tricky, and although I think Loughery meant well, he wasn’t right for this material. Add in Shatner’s inexperience at shooting features and an FX house that was in over their heads and you end up with a well-intentioned mess.

Bill did a nice job shooting the picture-he was a far more visually interesting director than Nimoy, who had more of a “point-and-shoot” style.

While the idea of Sybok was ridiculous, I thought Luckinbill did a wonderful job in the role.

37. Basement Blogger - May 16, 2012

@ 28

From one basement dweller to another, thanks for that. I did not know there was supposed to be rock creatures. That would have rocked. Um… sorry.

38. VZX - May 16, 2012

Yay! trekmovie put up a count-down! It’s about time! (get it? it’s about TIME? time?, nevermind)

Any-who, that’s probably for the US release date, since I am pretty sure that it will be released like 3 weeks earlier in other countries. That’s the way it goes now-a-days.

39. norez - May 16, 2012

I find I enjoy it more now after having read that a number of people belive the non-Yellowstone parts of the movie to be a dream of Kirk’s while they’re camping.

40. I'm Dead Jim! - May 16, 2012

I cringed when I saw the rock climbing and campfire scenes. The rest may have been tolerable although I haven’t watched it since it came out. I do remember Luckinbill doing a fine job though.

41. Dunsel Report - May 16, 2012

Everyone blames Shatner, but this movie might have been the purest expression of Gene Roddenberry’s obsession with making a movie about humanity vs. God.

42. VZX - May 16, 2012

Yay! We’re putting up our favorite Star Trek movies in order!

OK, here’s mine:

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek: First Contact
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Star Trek
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Star Trek: Generations
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Star Trek: Insurrection
Star Trek: Nemesis

43. VZX - May 16, 2012

I think it would have been cooler to see Nimoy in the Sybok role, but whatevs.

44. J.C. England - May 16, 2012

Horrible Trek idea – horrible script – horrible direction.
All of the actors did a great job with what they had… I just
wish they could undo it…

45. TonyD - May 16, 2012

#1 – TFF is far from the worst of Trek. Generations, Insurrection, Nemesis and a host of episodes from TNG on forward yield far more cringes than TFF ever did.

TFF was hamstrung by Shatner’s directorial grasp exceeding his reach, a studio that wasn’t willing to put up the money necessary to help bring the film’s vision to fruition and an uneven script with some badly placed attempts at humor (which I suspect was due in no small part to more studio meddling).

Yes the humor of the Yellowstone scenes is forced and weak and the production values and effects leave a lot to be desired. But this movie more than any other really peels away the layers of the main three characters and really examines the bond that they share. The whole notion of going in search of God and finding something terrible is also a theme that Roddenberry would have embraced. In those respects, for all its faults, it did have something to say and was able to add some interesting lore to the Trek mythos, something that cannot be said of a lot of the Trek that followed it.

46. MikeTen - May 16, 2012

@28, Thank You for the link, I never knew they actually build the rock creatures and they look great. They should have went ahead and shot the scenes. Paramount really short changed this movie. If they would have toned back the comedy and used a better FX company Trek 5 would have been a classic. Mr. Shatner deserves a directors edition.

47. AJ - May 16, 2012

It was amazing to see just how much Shatner as Director didn’t understand the Kirk character after having played him for decades. He surrenders the Enterprise so quickly, and then submits to Sybok in an instant before doing all the other crap that no one cares about.

Some people say this was the best of all the films in its depiction of the KSM triad. To that I say poppycock. The camping scene was insultingly revolting, and other scenes, like the brig, made you think Kirk and Spock were going to kiss each other with McCoy on deck for sloppy seconds.

Thankfully, Luckinbill actually showed up for work every day, and in the years I have re-watched this film, his performance is the most heartfelt and passionate. His character, ultimately, should never have been created, and Nimoy’s suggestion that he should have been a lost twin brother would have been a wonderful story possibility, sadly, never realized.

48. Daoud - May 16, 2012

A few things that should have been:
* Cestus III, not Numbnuts III. Tie in with Arena, and would have made sense (and could have included a Gorn. Need More Gorn!, pay attention Boborci!)
* more Korrd, Dar, and StJohnSmythe… more influenced not just by Sybok, but by an honest desire to bring change. The use of Thunderdome as the planet of galactic peace was caustic. If it hadn’t been a “Western” tumbleweeds kind of place… but more like Omicron Ceti III, then the irony of Sybok leading them would have been better.
* More Klaa and Vixis. Damn they made good Klingons, and spoke it so beautifully.
* Rock monster, smock monster. Should have had Kirk fighting his own “demons” quite literally… flashbacks of certain TOS moments…. all sorts of things… Q like even. Heck, if the bad guy had been more like a bad Q, that could have helped. We make God in our own image… so an evil Kirk-looking being… that would have “rock”ed better than rock monsters. Literally fighting himself, shades of “The Enemy Within”.
* Spock and McCoy more clearly rejecting Sybok, perhaps after even a few more “pain” sequences: Spock’s birth was fine, but how about his being abused as an Earther on Vulcan, his rejection of the Academy… well fortunately Bob gave us that in ST’09., maybe something regarding Saavik though…. McCoy… how about his breakup with Joanna’s mother or something, the death of a million Dramians because he didn’t act fast enough, etc.
* The Evil One being not at “the center of the galaxy”, but just beyond the barrier. Then the damn barrier in WNMHGB would have made more sense… it was keeping him out. If we found that Sybok had tried to penetrate the barrier a hundred years ago (he’s a much older brother) and thus his ‘amazing power’ was another Mitchell/Dehner-like power…
.
Star Trek V just needed another six months of development. I still enjoy it for pieces of greatness. McCoy’s sequence with his father is irreplaceable. Korrd and Klaa saving Kirk…. that should have resolved the “Klingon bastards killed my son” crap. ST VI has its problems too. Big time.

49. Sebastian S. - May 16, 2012

Nimoy playing both roles would’ve just been another variation on the old cliche of the ‘evil twin’ (a cliche ST has used too often). As it was, with Luckinbill in the part, we were left with that other cliche; the long forgotten half brother (a staple on TV soap operas).

I’m not sure if ANY ideas could’ve salvaged this really ill-advised movie. More (and better) special effects at the end wouldn’t really address the fact that the story is a cheat; they’re off to find God, and we (as the audience) just KNOW that’s not possible, nor is it going to really happen. So instead, they find an evil banished alien (* yawn *). The film sets the audience up for what we already know (2 hrs in advance of the characters) will just be an anti-climax….

It was probably the worst idea for a ST movie. “Kirk meets God.” They’d have been wiser to stick to the more agnostic universe of previous (and post) ST adventures. Leave theological discussions for church, mosque, temple, what have you…

50. Spike - May 16, 2012

Jonboc I agree with you 100%

51. Dunsel Report - May 16, 2012

Another pass by the writers to improve the STV script and it could have been a classic, even with the God premise. I always thought the last 30 minutes of the movie botch what could have been an exciting last battle sequence.

First, the movie wastes the tension and excitement of the hijacking when, rather than remaining locked at odds with Sybok, Kirk seems to shrug and go passively along with his captor. We want to see Kirk change the situation and defy death, but instead he is going on a fatalistic field trip, a little like the Ilia stroll that ends “Star Trek: The Motion Picture.” Imagine if the movie instead depicted Kirk determined until the end to defy and sabotage this maniac who stole his ship.

Second, with no rock monster FX to add spectacle to the final fight, the rescue of Kirk by the Klingons ends the movie with deus ex machina that isn’t satisfying. Think of Spock’s sacrifice to save the Enterprise, Kirk’s gutsy command decision to blow it up, or even his jump from the Vulcan Drill to save Sulu. These are the kinds of things you love to see Kirk do. But here he just gets a ride off the planet like Arthur Dent, and it makes him a little pitiful.

Early teaser posters for V promised that the movie was “why they’re installing seatbelts in theaters this summer.” But the Shah Kah Ree scenes didn’t make you want to jump out of your seat. If they did, I submit that audiences would have been willing to forgive even an ending around a Yosemite campfire.

52. Let Them Eat Plomeek Soup - May 16, 2012

Sean Connery as Sybok??

Now THAT would have saved this entire movie.

53. Bucky - May 16, 2012

The thing is, everyone saying that this movie is religious tripe in the middle of Star Trek, the bad guy is NOT God. It’s a mean space alien that shoots lightning outta it’s eyes. Once again, “What does God need with a starship?” If you think the concept of the crew going to visit God, remember, they were kidnapped by a crazy religious, mind-controlling cult leader and basically forced on their way there. It’s not as if Kirk is like, “I believe in God and I’m gonna go hug him!” At most, it’s a scientific curiosity and keeping in the “seeking out new life forms”, etc.

54. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine. Stand at ease. - May 16, 2012

Well, I look at this as a biased 48 year old fan who grew up on TOS. For me, only TOS is really Star Trek. I never got interested in the other incarnations. So, STV is a chance to see the actual crew of the Enterprise in action. If we are honest, there were very few really, really good episodes, and very few really, really bad episodes, but I enjoyed them all. STV is enjoyable because there will only ever be 6 movies featuring the TOS crew. It has merit for that reason alone, and for that reason alone it means more to me than any non-TOS crew film, and that includes ST09.

It has some real clunker moments, but that is ok.

It also has some great moments, including my all time favorite Film Kirk moment, when he tells McCoy, “Damn it, Bones, you’re a doctor. You know that pain and guilt can’t be taken away with a wave of a magic wand. They’re the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don’t want my pain taken away! I need my pain!” Classic, and true.

We cannot perfect Man, and we will never have perfect Trek. Enjoy it for what it is; a visit with old friends.

55. TDrake1701 - May 16, 2012

NOT the worst for sure – Generations took care of that…tied for bottom of the original cast though….with TMP

56. Dunsel Report - May 16, 2012

#53 You’re damn right. That moment with Bones was one of the great Trek moments.

57. RetroWarbird - May 16, 2012

Sort of the red-headed stepchild of the Star Trek narrative. I like V the way I like “everything Trek”. The history itself seems fine, it’s just the way it was played that couldn’t save it. Daring shuttle piloting from Sulu? Good. Freaky world where the three big space empires have this sweetly-named but horrible “peaceful city”, kind of clever. An irrational Vulcan trying to find god, a lost brother of Spock? That’s good stuff. (The Klingons and Romulans needed to be a lot more hardcore, and the vast bulk of the time should’ve been spent on Sha Kah Ree, like Genesis before it.)

The trio of Kirk/McCoy/Spock is never bad when in a room together, and Scotty and the rest had fun moments too, so for me it’s pretty squarely laid on Shatner’s direction and the art direction. (I mean, TMP was pretty spaced out and dragged on but it looks so brilliantly wild and cosmic)

V … oh, V. I’ll say I did like Luckinbill’s performance fine. I’d have wished for an actor with more of a likeness to Nimoy and Mark Lenard. If Sybok ever shows up in the Redux films, man, if Quinto’s got a brother, go for it.

58. Vultan - May 16, 2012

As clumsy as this movie is, I do like the overall theme of exploration, the spirituality, issues of pain, friendship, and Kirk’s conclusion that “maybe God’s not out there but right here. The human heart.”

Maybe it’s overly simplistic but… I like it.

59. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine. Stand at ease. - May 16, 2012

OK, here is as good a place as any to roll this grenade into the barrel of oatmeal. A writer named Andrew Price has been doing a series on The Politics of Trek. From a conservative perspective! I encourage you to read it, as it is unique, and well written.

His latest is about A Taste of Armageddon. Here is an excerpt:

“Why It’s Conservative

This episode starts with several conservative themes. First, Kirk rejects the idea that the Federation is the universe’s policeman. We see this when Kirk makes it clear he believes the planet’s wishes to be left alone should be honored and when he makes no attempt to jump in and stop their war. This is consistent with the conservative belief that one person or society should not impose themselves on another, and it fits the conservative foreign policy view that we should not get entangled in the affairs of others except where our interests are directly involved. Liberals, on the other hand, have no qualms about trying to control countries just like they have no qualms about the government trying to control the lives of citizens, and they believe a benign superpower or similar organization (like the UN) should force peace upon smaller countries for their own good.

Next, Kirk rejects out of hand the idea that some members of society should be killed so the rest of society may continue. This oft-repeated Star Trek idea is expressed here:

MEA: Don’t you understand? Our duty–
KIRK: Your duty doesn’t include stepping into a disintegrator and disappearing.
MEA: I’m afraid mine does. . . Don’t you see? If I refuse to report, and others refuse, then Vendikar would have no choice but to launch real weapons. We would have to do the same to defend ourselves. More than people would die then. A whole civilization would be destroyed. Surely you can see that ours is a better way.
KIRK: No, I don’t see that at all.

This goes back to the conservative respect for the sanctity of the individual and individual life. Conservatives simply do not believe that the collective should be allowed to decide who lives and dies for the benefit of the collective.”

ME: There is much more, and it is startling. The Kirk quote in STV about needing his pain is akin to the message here.

It is definitely a different take, and well worth the read. Here is the link:

http://commentaramafilms.blogspot.com/2012/05/politics-of-trek-taste-of-armageddon.html#comment-form

P. S. A Gene L. Coon episode, by the way!

60. sean - May 16, 2012

For everyone saying TFF was a concept Roddenberry would have embraced…the guy was STILL ALIVE in 1989. And he hated the film.

61. Greg2600 - May 16, 2012

Would have liked to see Connery in the role. I still love STV, it was one of the first Trek movies I ever saw, and hooked me on the franchise.

PS: I think Roddenberry hated all the films in one way or another.

62. FarStrider - May 16, 2012

@56 Quinto does have a brother. . . he was actually a Romulan on the Narada (I think he was the one who saw Kirk and Spock beam in). . . However, I’d go for Eli Roth if Sybok ever shows up in these films. . .

~FS

63. Hat Rick - May 16, 2012

“Laurence Luckinbill Says Leonard Nimoy Nimoy Wanted To Play Sybok In Star Trek V”

Nimoy Nimoy — is that like “nanu nanu”?

;-)

64. Shilliam Watner (Click Name for Trek Poster) - May 16, 2012

By far my least favorite Trek film, and it has nothing to do with hating William Shatner, but hating what he did with the film. Big difference. Luckinbill was excellent in the film, and came off better than most of the regular cast. I’ve always wondered why he doesn’t act more, because he’s really quite good.

65. Comm Lohmann - May 16, 2012

One thing everyone seems to be missing is that Nimoy as Sybok would simply not work. The revelation that Sybok and Spock are brothers is supposed to be a surprise revelation. If you have the same actor playing the two characters it would be obvious that they were related.

66. WillH85 - May 16, 2012

I guess I’m one of those few Trekkies that actually has a soft spot for V. Sure, there’s a ton wrong with it, but I love it for the moments that were good. The camp scenes, when they get to the planet beyond the great barrier, the brotherhood aspects. Then again, I found my self liking Enterprise despite its numerous flaws.

67. AJ - May 16, 2012

58:

Too bad whoever wrote that must have died before the Bush wars, and probably before “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Using “ATOA” to justify a conservative wacko screed is insulting. He obviously would not have respected Ronald Reagan.

Kirk’s actions in ‘Armageddon’ are more akin to an armed “Occupy Wall Street” movement. Kill the Military Industrial Complex. Eisenhower recognized this as a burgeoning issue in the 1950s.

And get outta town about conservatives getting out of people’s faces. They are the most intrusive, as ‘Republicans,’ in the personal lives of Americans, ever (Women’s Rights). Fact is, most ‘conservatives’ nowadays would hate Eisenhower and Reagan. And the latter is rolling in his grave today whenever the current ‘talent’ says his name on the box.

“Armageddon” is really one of the greats of TOS lore to open debate, and it does do that. Maybe the greatest, along with “A Private Little War.” But it”s totally much cooler because it is a great non-in-your-face- Trek-sci-fi story.

68. El Chup - May 16, 2012

While Star Trek V is certainly not the best of the movies, it is not the wost either. It is stronger than both Nemesis and particularly Insurrection IMO.

The effects are awful and the A story, althought Trekkian in priciple (i.e. boldly going) aren’t very good. The B villian, the klingons, are poor. However, Trek V has some outstanding character moments. Not only for how the characters interact together, but also how the movie depicts the relationship between “the big three”, which I feel is done very well.Also, the Spock birth scene, McCoy’s father’s bedside scene and Shatner’s “pain makes us who we are” are some of the best TOS character scenes of all time.

No a masterpiece by any means, but has enough good moments to not be dismissed as “the worst two hours of Trek over”, especially when the likes of Star Trek Voyager exist in the canon.

69. Toothless Grishnar Cat - May 16, 2012

Regarding the photo and the ‘I can’t kill my own brother’ bit…
Hasn’t Spock ever heard of the stun setting?

70. Peter Loader - May 16, 2012

I can see Nimoy wanting to play and emotional Vulcan in a heartbeat.

71. braxus - May 16, 2012

I felt when I first saw this movie was it dragged on for so long, and by the time it really started to get going, the film was over. It was a huge let down. Some good ideas in the film just got watered down in the rest of mediocrity.

72. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - May 16, 2012

63 he was more of a Broadway/Off Broadway actor than he was a film actor, he has appeared in more stage productions than movies over the years.
I had the chance to see him as Herr Schultz in the Broadway Revival of Cabaret and he was great, and has a good singing voice as well.

I always found it kind of cool that the son in Law of Desi And Lucy (Desilu) was a part of star trek V

73. Bucky - May 16, 2012

68, I don’t think the improvised, patchwork phasers that were being used had a stun setting. Let’s just go with that.

74. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2012

Sean Connery as Sybok?

Oh, great, a Vulcan with a thick Scottish accent!

“Ach, it’s a great day, a great day to live long and prosper!”

75. Shilliam Watner (Click Name for Trek Poster) - May 16, 2012

71. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow – I’m ancient enough to remember Luckinbill from his very short-lived series The Delphi Bureau. I was probably about ten years old at the time, but I remember really like this show, and really liking Luckinbill. I think he was even married to Lucie Arnaz back then. Maybe.

I bet he was great on stage. He has real presence.

76. Sebastian S. - May 16, 2012

# 67

I would agree that STV is better than Nemesis and Insurrection; both of which were simply wastes of time. Nemesis faltered with it’s ill-advised attempt at repeating too much of “Wrath of Khan” (both thematically and literally); genetically engineered villain(s) seeking revenge after years in exile, Spock/Data’s sacrifice, battles in a nebula-cloud thing. The all-powerful weapon(s). Themes of morality and aging througout, etc, etc. Nemesis was a poor man’s Wrath of Khan, IMO.

“Insurrection” reminded me of the two part TNG “Gambit.” Both of which were so dull and mediocre that I couldn’t figure out how they manage to pad both to 2 hour length. Insurrection could’ve been an hour-long TV episode, and it still would’ve been just an average episode that I’d skip on repeat…

STV (despite it’s fatally flawed premise) had moments; I liked the campfire scene (a nice reminder of why we enjoy spending time with these characters), I liked McCoy’s euthanasia of his father (sensitively acted by Kelley, and moodily directed by Shatner). There were other bits here and there, but overall it was sabotaged by the story itself; you’re never going to find God lurking behind a tree somewhere. Never. Any attempt to do so in a movie is a mistake. And then you’re just left with a meaningless, hollow experience; a fake-out. ‘Oops. Not God after all. Just an evil alien… my mistake!’
An overly ambitious idea; sabotaged by a lazy script and inept execution.

And frankly? I don’t even think Sean Connery as Sybok (Shatner’s original pick) would’ve helped; lest we forget, he has a few clunkers under his belt as well (“League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”, 1998′s “Avengers”, “Zardoz”). I doubt any actor could’ve single-handedly saved STV…

77. sean - May 16, 2012

One of the funniest reviews of Trek V by Siskel & Ebert:

http://youtu.be/3XkJnBp-3j4

Gene Siskel – “…everyone is getting sloshed in this film, maybe because they’ve read the script.”

78. Sebastian S. - May 16, 2012

By the way, Lawrence Luckinbill is an amazing actor; I saw him play LBJ on PBS too (back in the late ’80s), and he was mesmerizing. He was also excellent in the 1970 film, “The Boys in the Band.” Whatever I feel about STV’s artistic failure, I don’t attribute any of that to the casting of Luckinbill, per se.

79. Basement Blogger - May 16, 2012

@ 58

Gene L. Coon was a U.S. Marine says,

“OK, here is as good a place as any to roll this grenade into the barrel of oatmeal. A writer named Andrew Price has been doing a series on The Politics of Trek. From a conservative perspective!”

Um, … yeah, that was a grenade in the oatmeal. Since Anthony hates political discussions, I’ll try to avoid as much negative comments about conservatives as possible.

The argument that the Federation is not the universe’s policemen and therefore is a conservative idea is without merit. The Prime Directive was designed to protest American interference in other countries affairs. It’s a dig at the Viet Nam war. There were other anti-Viet Nam ideas in the TOS. See “A Private Little War.”

But if the argument is that conservatives don’t interfere with other countries or impose themselves on other, that’s not entirely correct. First, take a look at the Eisenhower administration. They helped to overthrow an Iranian government and installed the Shah of Iran. What about President Ronald Reagan? Reagan helped many rebels confront their governments. See Nicaragua. See Reagan Doctrine. Link.

The idea that we are not the world’s policemen was dismissed by President George W. Bush and his neo-conservative allies. If he argued we are not nation building, then the neo-cons changed that with the Iraq War. And before you say that was about the search for WMD, after they found none, the Bush administration switched its motive for the war as a cause to spread democracy in the Middle East.

The article you cite further says,

“This goes back to the conservative respect for the sanctity of the individual and individual life. Conservatives simply do not believe that the collective should be allowed to decide who lives and dies for the benefit of the collective.”

I take this comment to be about a pro-life position. The argument is not about individual rights such as the First Amendment. I think the author gets it wrong. “A Taste of Armageddon” is an anti-war episode. When Kirk threatens the whole society with war, he points out what war is. It’s not neat and tidy. It’s death, pain and suffering.

By the way, I’m not an anti-abortion person. But if you want a Star Trek show that could be interpreted as an anti-abortion, see Voyager’s “Drone.” Captain Janeway lets an advanced Borg embryo live even though it might pose a danger to the ship.

Star Trek supported ideas that were not conservative at the time. It was not conservative to oppose racism. Martin Luther King Jr. was not a conservative. Conservatives opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Sen. Barry Goldwater, father of the modern conservative movement. who opposed it. Yet Star Trek produced shows to demonstrate the evils of racism. “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.”

Tolerance was not a conservative idea in the sixties. And it’s probably not one now since conservatives oppose gay rights. Yesterday, Virginia Republicans rejected the appointment of a gay lawyer to become judge. Yet Star Trek blazed a path for the idea of tolerance. See “The Devil in the Dark.” Certainly, the word “empathy” is a bad word to conservatives. LInk. Yet there is the poignant episode, “The Empath.”

1. Reagan Doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Doctrine

2. Colbert on Republican opposition to a judge who has empathy, they think it’s code for activisim; note it has a Star Trek clip
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/226695/may-04-2009/code-word-empathy

80. Sebastian S. - May 16, 2012

ST has had ideas that fall into both liberal and conservative ends of the spectrum. Problem is, the US is so politically divided these days that partisanship has taken on an almost religious fervor. You’re either in this camp or that camp. With us or against us. There are no moderates anymore, it seems. I’m not taking sides, I’m just observing…

ST just cherry picks whatever philosophical ideas work best to tell it’s stories; it doesn’t necessarily purport to be one ideology or the other. It used to be (back when I was younger) you could vote liberal on some issues and conservatively on others. These days, that seems impossible. It’s this ‘all or nothing’ attitude that have turned political parties into eternally divided and warring camps. Ridiculous. And I’ve noticed that when it comes to ST? It seems each end of the political spectrum are able to (legitimately) use specific episodes and characters to fit BOTH arguments.

Let’s not pin ST into one political camp or the other; it’s a TV show, a fantasy. A means and metaphor for us (some of us, anyway) to try to escape all of this divisiveness and imagine a future where (somehow) all of that is put BEHIND us….. ;-)

Live long and prosper; EVERYBODY (left and right!)

81. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2012

79.

Oooooh, Sebastian, you smooth-tongued bastard!

You are slicker than whaleshit on an iceflow!

:>)

82. Khan was Framed! - May 16, 2012

I would love to see a fully re-editted version with modern special effects, some corrective overdubbing of inconsistent dialogue & a more cohesive adherence to the original script.

This movie is horrible, but it could be mediocre with some spit, polish & a few bucks.

I always find it funny that much discussed energy barrier which was on the outside edge of the galaxy in TOS is now at it’s centre in STV.

#79 – nope, sorry; Star trek is Hollywood & Hollywood are Democrats. All that has happened is that the parameters for the right & left have become more extreme. There is no ambiguity here, Rodenberry was a proto-hippy.

83. saavik001 - May 16, 2012

Star Trek 5 had huge flaws (special effects, lame jokes) but I still consider some of the emotional elements really powerful. Still a lot better than Insurrection. Probably a little lower than Generations I think.

84. Vultan - May 16, 2012

Conservatism is a wider philosophy than what is seen in the Republican party, just as liberalism is a wider philosophy than what is seen in the Democratic party. Don’t fall into the partisan traps. We’re better than those people in Washington. We’re better than the old “evil twin” story.

ALL of us.

85. MJ - May 16, 2012

Star Trek V — Lessoned Learned:

1. Shatner can’t direct, period, exclamation point!

2. Going cheap on special effects on a Trek movie is unnacceptable.

3. NEVER have the three main charcaters in Trek sing, Row Your Boat — the worst song experience in Trek since the And the Children Shall Lead song.

86. Jack - May 16, 2012

“I don’t think the improvised, patchwork phasers that were being used had a stun setting. Let’s just go with that.”

The thing is, the production spent A LOT of money on art direction, props, costumes and sets. No costs were spared on a lot of things and that was part of the problem. Shatner wanted the phasers to look more militaristic and expensive new props were designed and used, as far as I recall. I remember he’d wanted his new communicators to light up, brightly, when open so the props guys had to run hidden wires up the arms of costumes and such.

I’d read him say that when the rock monsters looked terrible, they didn’t have money to do anything else and the ending was kind of cobbled together (and looks it).

79. The republicans weren’t neo-cons back then. And, I still don’t buy this Roddenberry was a hippie, or proto-hippie thing or that Trek was built on hippie ideals (which was argued in another thread this week). In the 70s he kind of embraced all the human potential stuff, but I don’t think he was ever all “peace, love, and communal gardening, man.”

87. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - May 16, 2012

geesh really dont come on this site read politics. can we get back to the subject of the article the very talented Laurence Luckibill

88. MJ - May 16, 2012

@83 “Conservatism is a wider philosophy than what is seen in the Republican party, just as liberalism is a wider philosophy than what is seen in the Democratic party. Don’t fall into the partisan traps. We’re better than those people in Washington. We’re better than the old “evil twin” story.”

Exactly. We are smarter than falling into these categories.

See Vultan, we agree on some things! :-)

89. MJ - May 16, 2012

All you have to know regarding how bad Star Trek V was is to look at the photo in this article where is looks like Spock is holding something that looks like a “bug sprayer” at Sybook. Neither actor looks at all convincing…they both look like they are thinking, WTF are we doing in this ridiculous scene and using this ridiculous prop?

90. Jason - May 17, 2012

@ 1 – No, that would be JJ-Trek.

@ 21 – Amen!

@ 32 – No, again, the lowest point in this franchise is JJ-Trek.

Here is my list of the best to worst “Star Trek” films:

1.) Star Trek IV/ Star Trek: First Contact (tied)
3.) Star Trek II
4.) Star Trek VI
5.) Star Trek III/ Star Trek: Insurrection (tied)
6.) Star Trek: Nemesis
7.) Star Trek: Generations/ Star Trek V
8.) Star Trek: The Motion Picture

If you notice, there is no JJ-Trek in there. I said the best to worst STAR TREK films. So, first JJ-Trek would have to be Star Trek to even count, but if it did, it still would not make the list it’s so bad.

91. Jim Nightshade - May 17, 2012

rock creatures…jj would say…..galaxyquest kinda did it for trek 5–feel like humming…hail hail fire n snow…far away far to see friendly angel come to me….hey friendly angel looks kinda familiar..wasnt he in the original battlestar galactica series—

92. MJ - May 17, 2012

@89. So are you saying that you didn’t like Trek 2009?

93. Greenberg - May 17, 2012

Anyone who puts this movie at the bottom has never seen a TNG movie.
Generations – ‘orrible premise, terribly executed, music that sounds like Dennis McCarthey sat his ass on a keyboard for 2 hours.
Insurrection – stale rehash of a TV episode blown out to movie length. Picard incongruously continuing his ‘action man’ shtick from First Contact, another pointless villain being played by a way overqualified actor. Riker shaving.
And Nemesis – Berman’s sick idea of a Khan fanfilm. Yet again, a decent actor making an absolute mess of the villain role. Brent Spiner copying Spock’s sacrifice and katra routine, all the while wondering why no one cared when the hero died this time around. Riker’s sweaty back as he made love with Troi.

At least you can laugh along with the Final Frontier. Watching the 3 bad TNG movies was like having a gastrointestinal complaint – now I know this site likes to delete comments that are a little too honest, but you might consider letting this one stand.

94. LizardGirl - May 17, 2012

Bear with me. This is very long. I won’t hold it against you if you completely skip over this post!

The only movie I saw in theater was Star Trek XI. Unfortunately, I was too young to see the others or was completely unaware of Star Trek at the time. I didn’t watch any of the old stuff until after seeing ST09. I ordered all 6 original cast movies and 4 TNG cast movies from my local library and watched them back to back.

I didn’t have years in between to let them grow on me. My reactions were pretty immediate. Compared to most who’ve commented here, I’m still pretty new to the franchise. I’ve based my opinions of those movies from my still fresh perspective. So here goes: Just a few of my faves.

*The Undiscovered Country–I love the idea of this movie tying in with the current events of our history. They compared it to the wall in Berlin coming down but instead, it’s the wall between the Klingon Empire and the Federation coming down.

I also like the comparison between Gorkon and Abraham Lincoln. He was this seeker of peace, but his dreams were so revolutionary that it incited fear and ultimately he was killed for his ideas. Yet, the pursuit of peace didn’t die with him. It was so big, bigger than the Klingons, the Federation, bigger than anything but so fragile. This movie has probably made the biggest impression on me intellectually than any other Star Trek movie. I could write an essay on that movie. That’s why it’s my most favorite. Plus I love Klingons!

*The Wrath of Khan–not because of Khan but because of the pure fact that this is the only Star Trek movie in which I cried. “The needs of the many…outweigh…the needs of the few or the one”. Spock has always been one to “do what feels right” sometimes to the amazement or confusion of his human counterparts. He did what he had to do. But to see him dying from radiation, yet trying to keep his dignity, it got me. And Kirk seeing him in there–unable to help. But the coffin scene at the end… how they shot that… That’s the reason why WOK is my second fave movie. There’s a bittersweet ending if I’ve ever seen one.

*The Voyage Home–Whales! But no that’s not the only reason why this is one of my favorite, though the environmental message was lovely. This, I think, is humor and Trek done right. The humor made sense.

These were people from the future didn’t know they needed money (exact change) to get on a bus. The fact that Chekov is Russian and wants to know where their “nuclear wessels” are. Scotty shouting “computer! computer!” and not realizing that they they don’t talk back. Spock with his Vulcan grace and poise…being confused with a hippie who takes LCD (or LDS according to Kirk). This is one of my favorite Spock quotes who’s still learning to use profanity at this point:

Spock: They like you very much, but they are not the hell “your” whales.
Dr. Gillian Taylor: I suppose they told you that.
Spock: The hell they did.

As we remember, Spock thought it a good idea to go swimming with the whales, I think that was before this quote. Love this movie. Anyone who doesn’t like Trek would love this movie.

WOW THIS IS LONG! SORRY!!!

*Star Trek (2009)– I love this movie because it was dynamic! The whole “western in space” idea fits this movie to a T. The action was exhilarating, the characterization was done perfectly. It felt like a sold reintroduction. You got character background that you don’t get as much of anywhere else.

Some thought that Spock was too emotional, but I don’t believe so. Take a second look at Journey to Babel season 2 (his mother mentioned that he was picked on by the other children) and then watch Yesteryear from the animated series (season 1) which IS considered canon. You’ll see that young Spock was ridiculed by the other schoolchildren and he did struggle with his emotions at a young age (his father complains about Spock witnessed fighting in the street). Yes, I will admit that there were some inconsistencies in ST09 but it’s a great movie hands down!

Now, to weigh in about Star Trek 5. I liked the McCoy backstory as well as Spock’s, which shows his father’s reaction to his newborn son “so human” or something like that. I like how ST09 uses that, but puts it in a different context. The same words are spoken but by a nurse instead of his father, who only says “he has your eyes”. I like how Kirk struggles with making peace with growing older, represented by the fact that he needs eye glasses.

STAY WITH ME!!

I did NOT like, as someone here put it, the “mumbo-jumbo”, religious-y turn at the end. I wasn’t keen on the humor in this one. And I did feel it was a little choppy as far as story telling goes.

Another large strike against The Final Frontier was that it was sandwiched between two enormously popular and well received Trek movies. We tend to compare a present movie with its predecessor. Trek 5 was compared to 4 and 6 to 5. While watching the Final Frontier, after finishing the Voyage Home, I experiences a kind of subdued shock. The quality of 5 seemed lacking.

Correct me if I’m wrong but it was called the Final Frontier because it was to be the last movie. But it was so badly received that they felt they had to do another one to sort of cleanse the palate.

WHEW!!

95. Mickey MET - May 17, 2012

A few years ago, prior to the 2009 movie being release, I copied this from this website because it was very thought inspiring about Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. . . To me, it was worth keeping. . . I apologize to the original writer, I unfortunately, didn’t save the name.

==================================

Regarding Trek V – what if the majority of the film was just in Kirk’s head, i.e. – a dream.

Think about it:

- All the nonsense happens between the camping scenes.

- the song “Row, Row, Row Your Boat” (sung around the campfire) ends with the line “life is but a dream.”

- The events of the movie are a reflection of Kirk’s fears: being put back into action while he’s unprepared, getting screwed by Starfleet, losing his crew and losing, above all, his friends.

- Events from the camping trip are mirrored in the dream: the fall from El Capitan/the fall from the turboshaft, musing around the campfire/musing around the steering wheel, climbing El Captitan/climbing to escape ‘God’

- The broken and unreliable Enterprise is another fear of Kirk; that no ship can live up to the original.

- The movie follows dream logic: characters appear when needed (Spock in the turboshaft, Scotty in the brig, Spock in the Bird of Prey) and reality warps to accomodate the “story” (70+ decks, the mysterious wheel room, unicorns), plus God!

- Spock having a brother which was never mentioned before.

-The romantic relationship between Scotty and Uhura.

-A 30 year plus impossible journey that happens in a few hours

- McCoy says: “Are we dreaming?” and Kirk says then: “Maybe life is a dream.” as they approach Ska Ka Ree

- Kirk ate gods for breakfast, so it’s no surprise they show up in his dreams. The fight against “god” is Kirk’s subconscious idea of a generic adventure. Likewise, a Klingon is his idea of a generic villain.

- In the end, Spocks saves his ass, just like he saved Spock’s.

- End of the film is them around the campfire again – the story starting and ending in the same spot, with the Kirk, Spock and McCoy wearing the same clothes….maybe this was just the morning after his fall….and all the stuff inbetween was the dream.

When you look at the movie as a nightmare, a reflection of Kirk’s subconscious fears and desires, it actually, somehow, makes *more* sense. In fact, it starts making a *lot* of sense – if that was Shatner’s intention then he’s a genius.

===========================

Again, I apologize to the original author of this “New Look on Star Trek 5″. . . I thought it was great! And Nimoy playing dual roles would have fit right into the “dream” aspects mentioned above.

96. Christopher Roberts - May 17, 2012

Dear Paramount: Just let Shatner supervise his Director’s Cut ALREADY.

97. It all started with a big bang - May 17, 2012

@94 Brilliant, never heard that before and I would have never thought of that myself. Too bad you can’t remember who thought of that originally but it really does cast the movie in a whole new light.

I was only 11 when I saw it and even at that age noticed that the effects weren’t quite up to par and then I read an article about Bran Ferren doing the effects and, even at 11, thought too bad they couldn’t get ILM.

The story wasn’t horrible, again, I agree with those who like the character moments, McCoy and his father and the big three bonding and what have you.

I always thought the planet at the center of he galaxy and the great barrier etc. was dumb (and never mentioned before or since in Trek and certainly not at all consistent with real science) but this Kirk’s bad dream idea shines a whole new light on that. Although, unless Shatner come out and says as much, I guess it’s always going to be a Dark Side of the Moon/Alice in Wonderland sort of thing. Overall, though, I just don’t see why so many think that this movie was the worst in the franchise. Certainly, not the best but but I agree with those that think it has a lot of the tone of TOS.

What surprises me even more is that there are not more Insurrection haters. Now, let’s talk about the giant steaming pile of crap that was ST Insurrection. Talk about a bloated and forgettable made for TV episode. The CGI was terrible. Again, going with Blue Sky after coming off an ILM film and especially going all CGI (which I understand is what Blue Sky does) after some fine and very well done model work by ILM in First Contact, it just looked plain wretched. I think the idea of doing all CGI and no physical model work just wasn’t ready for prime time yet. I mean the cheesy looking rings around the planet (I know they were integral to the story but that doesn’t mean they were well executed visually), even the stars in the background looked looked crappy. I always thought the FX work in this movie looked bad and seeing it in HD recently didn’t help. And the ridiculous looking makeup. The sets looked like they were straight up made for TV too. I can’t believe F. Murray Abraham agreed to do the role once he saw himself in that cheesy makeup. For me, the whole thing was the biggest FAIL of all of the movie series.

Not saying ST V was great or anything but no where near as bad as Insurrection.

98. Vlad M. - May 17, 2012

The interesting thing about Trek V was that out of ALL the Star Trek TOS movies, it was the only one that tried to be a grandiose spectacle.

Shatner wanted to do a major epic, a story with larger than life action, settings, locations, cinematography. The pre-credits scene is AMAZINGLY put together. It just set you up for what was supposed to a large scale space opera.

Paramount green-lit the TOS movies simply because they saw the hugely positive reaction the Star Wars movies received, both in terms of the audience liking it and from a financial perspective.

TMP was a HUGE production, but it was a deep thinking sci-fi movie that wasn’t a lot of “fun”. But comparing TMP to WOK, SFS, TVH, it’s clear that the scale and size of TMP had been dropped. Trek movies were small scale, more intimate movies.

With Trek V, it’s my feeling and understanding (from all the info I’ve seen and interviews,etc) that Shatner wanted to go back to the large scale, large production of TMP, but to do that with an action-adventure story that also tackled a pretty interesting subject (the search for God).

What happened though was the fact that the studio messed up big time. There’s plenty of factual information available that the studio pushed to have as much campy humor injected into the script (due to Trek 4′s success) and then, they didn’t give Shatner the money, the time nor the support to allow him to make the movie he wanted.

Was Shatner perhaps aiming too high and trying to do too much? Yes, he didn’t have the experience to handle such a large scale movie and he also was too full of himself for his own good.

BUT, I think he was right. Trek needed a large scale movie, an epic, something that would “wow” viewers on the visual side as well as on the emotional and narrative side.

Not since TMP had Star Trek targeted to make a blockbuster and after Trek V flopped, it didn’t try again until 2009. That’s why Trek V, despite it’s flaws still has a special place in my heart because it was aiming for that special feeling you get when watching some the classic blockbusters.

With a little bit more work, Trek V could have been amazing, the kind of movie you mention in the same breath as the Indiana Jones movies or other movies like that.

That’s what Shatner was going for, I feel. To make an action adventure epic. And even if he failed, I still admire that.

99. Vlad M. - May 17, 2012

Also, just for clarification purposes, the Trek movie I like least is Nemesis, that one failed on a lot of things from start to finish, not in the least in its treatment of already established characters. At least Trek V got a lot of the character stuff amazingly right.

The thing is that to me, most of the Trek movies are just bigger budgeted TV episodes. Almost all of them are like that. TMP, Trek09, First Contact are the only ones who felt like movies with a proper budget and Trek V at least TRIED to be close to that. Generations too looked bigger than it was, mostly due to the lighting.

I’m not saying that the size of a movie’s budget dictates its quality, I am simply referring to the way a movie feels and looks.

And no, my fav Trek movies are not the ones with the bigger budgets.

100. Aurore - May 17, 2012

I wonder whether Mr. Nimoy’s “insistence” on playing both roles was not due to the fact that, according to “canon”, Spock was not supposed to have any other siblings ( Dorothy Fontana said as much while being interviewed in the new “Focus on Trek ” from IDW comics. http://trekmovie.com/2007/07/22/dc-fontana-on-tas-canon-and-sybok/ ).

Thus, Mr. Nimoy might have thought that a “long lost twin brother” would have made more sense in the overall story.

At any rate, if possible, I would very much like to read his own side of the story. Someday.

101. CmdrR - May 17, 2012

There aren’t enough electrons on the internet to list all the problems with ST:V.

I’ll limit my comments, this time, to wishing Shat had not given into the desire to do a story about “finding God.” Please, not so grandiose. Also, Shatner’s idea of funny and every other sentient being’s idea of funny… are, well, farts apart.

102. CmdrR - May 17, 2012

98 – I agree that Nemesis (and Insurrection) served fans even worse than did “V: Final Frontier.”

103. SirBroiler - May 17, 2012

Happened to catch a bit of First Contact last night. Really is a great movie. The sequence on the ship’s exterior was excellent (minus Worf’s dumb lines). Alfre Woddard James Cromwell are probably give the best performances of any ST movie guest actor next to Montalban. Great action sequences. Great ties to trek History (Cochran, First Contact). Each of the main characters got a beefy moment. Everything is there.

Only major flaw – if the Borg wanted to destroy the Federation there are lots of better ways than going back to disrupt First Contact. Why not go further back in history and assimilate pre-technological Earth?

George Washington, resistance is futile.

104. Jeyl - May 17, 2012

Leonard Nimoy playing the villain? Hmm…. It’s not a bad idea, just not as an ego driven madman with god delusions.

105. star trackie - May 17, 2012

I always loved The Final Frontier. It always felt more like the TV show than all the others, and as a life long TOS fan..especially having been subjected to TNG for a couple of years at the time…this movie was a welcome breath of fresh air! Most of the problems people have with the movie are either people hating on Shatner…nothing new or original there…bitching about the FX…well, the TV show FX were not from ILM either…and they suit the show just fine. Or they are complaining about the lame story…the Enterprise searches for God. Again, that last complaint doesnt hold water. It was about a crazy Vulcan searching for God, by hijacking the Enterprise. And while not original…its a valid premise explored time and time again in the original series, be it the Scalosians, the Kelvins or Bela and Loki or Melvin Beli’s minions or Eden’s Hippies..etc etc. No, most of the compaints against this movie just dont hold up to scrutiny. Also, its nice to know the extended sountrack is being re-released, I missed it the first time around.

106. Magic_Al - May 17, 2012

The production has the deck stacked against it. It was rushed because the studio was worried about the writer’s strike delay ruining the “momentum” after Star Trek IV. (Obviously this is not how they think about Star Trek “momentum” today.) The writer’s strike is also indirectly responsible for the special effects since there were so many effects-heavy films scrambling to get made at the same time afterward, Star Trek was not able to get ILM or anyone in that tier.

107. claypool2011 - May 17, 2012

The best thing about that movie was the bridge set. Best Enterprise bridge of all the TOS movies.

but ugh, the deck numbers in the turbo lift, Scotty knocking himself out… yea I don’t re-watch that film.

108. Whalien - May 17, 2012

# 32 — Oh, come in!!! The Way to Eden, And The Children Shall Lead, and Platos Stepchildren are FAR worse than Spocks Brain!!!

Granted, SB is not a great episode, but those others I mentioned are MUCH worse and far more embarrassing to watch with family and friends than SB is!!!

At least SB tried to present an interesting concept and played it straight — unlike Way To Eden for example. Which, BTW, Way to Eden is the TV version of STV…only marginally better!

109. Sebastian S. - May 17, 2012

# 81

Roddenberry was a proto-hippie who was also a cop, a pilot and who fought in WW2. He was a very complex man, and IMO it does him discredit to pigeonhole him (or anyone) into such narrow parameters….

As for Hollywood being ‘all-Democrat’? Beg to differ; Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Sylvester Stallone, Kelsey Grammar and many others would argue that point. California is thought to be an ‘blue’ state, but there are large patches of ‘red’ as well.

There’s an inherent danger in the oversimplification and labeling of any group of people as being of only ONE mindset….

# 80

HB

~ Thanks…. I think?! LOL. ;-D

110. dscott - May 17, 2012

STV was just “meh” to me the first time I saw it. But I remember watching it again at some point years later and for some reason the following lines from Kirk hit me like a ton of bricks, really touched me as it was how I was feeling at the time, especially the last two lines:

“You know that pain and guilt can’t
be taken away with a wave of a
magic wand. They’re things we carry
with us – the things that make us
who we are. If we lost them, we
lose ourselves. I don’t want my
pain taken away. I need my pain.”

From the moment on, STV was no longer my red headed step child :)

111. Sebastian S. - May 17, 2012

As for the argument that money could be put towards making a special edition of STV? I seriously doubt the bean counters at CBS/Paramount would put major fundage into restoring a bad movie into a so-so movie.
Not much profit motive there, really…

Besides, I think the team that would be ideal for such a task (the Okudas and the FX artists at CBS digital) will have their hands full on the TNG special editions for awhile (and hopefully, at some future point, DS9 SEs. One can hope…. ;-D ).

112. drumvan - May 17, 2012

“You know that pain and guilt can’t
be taken away with a wave of a
magic wand. They’re things we carry
with us – the things that make us
who we are. If we lost them, we
lose ourselves. I don’t want my
pain taken away. I need my pain.”
___________________________

i completely agree. when tff played it “serious” there were some great moments. that entire scene where sybok is showing spock & mccoy their “pain” was terrific. it stacks up against the best of trek very well. but the whole yosemite/climbing/camping scene was just brutal. uhura’s fan dance, the buffooning of scotty, spock nerve pinching a horse. dreadful.

113. Captain of the USS Monte Carlo NCC-1986 - May 17, 2012

There is so much crap on TV that sucks these days that makes ST V look like Lord of the rings or a harry potter film in comparison. there are worse Sci fi movies than ST V. I think if they had allowed Shatner to do this film the correct way then it wouldn’t have been as bad as it was. I think this one is still better than Insurrection or parts of Nemesis, and this coming from a TNG fan. Those films should have been on TV!!! I’d rather hear these guys sing row row your boat than hear Deanna and Beverly talk about their boobs firming up (not that that is a BAD thing) :) just not in a movie…..

114. drumvan - May 17, 2012

also, nimoy playing sybok would have made things even worse. those spliced together scenes where the same actor is on the screen at the same time never look good. especially back with late 80′s technology. the kirk/kirk fight scene in undiscovered country is one of the low points in an otherwise good film.

115. Damian - May 17, 2012

Part of the problem with Star Trek V was Paramount. With the success of Star Trek IV, they wanted more humor in V. Shatner did state he wanted to make a more dramatic film. That may have helped. Whereas the humor in IV seemed perfectly natural and fit well with the story, here it seemed forced and artificial. The story could have been tweaked a bit. I always found the fact that they get to the center of the galaxy in a few hours laughable, since even at maximum warp we all know it would have taken years. A directors cut with enhanced special effects would have at least brought the production value up to Star Trek’s normal standards. It wouldn’t have helped the story, but at least it would look better. Even the much maligned Nemesis and Insurrection had superior special effects.

116. Damian - May 17, 2012

Also, I would encourage anyone out there to read Dillard’s novel for Star Trek V. I actually read the novel before the movie (the book came out a few days before) and the book really was good. I thought, wow, this is going to be a pretty good movie. But we all know what happened to that thought. She actually included an explanation about how Sybok was able to get them so far so fast, and about Sybok’s origins.

All in all, her novel actually turned it into a pretty good story. Had they used the novel as a screenplay instead of vice-versa, it might have been a better movie.

117. Troy - May 17, 2012

I suppose for my part, despite certain elements that made it “cheesy” or “horrible,” I liked the film. I was very young when I first saw the first few films, and that time with my Dad watching the movies was always associated as a boyhood time of great fun. I do not think it was the greatest Star Trek film, to be sure, but I rather enjoyed this movie.

118. simon - May 17, 2012

i liked that movie more than the new trek movie..i think that it has it faults but the bond betwee the crew is evident in the movie.also sybok is a great character..by the way i was 12 years old when i saw it and i liked it alot..anyway

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEAvkUMHra8

god i miss the old crew…

119. Bob - May 17, 2012

Read the novel based on the movie. It’s actually a good read and “fixes” a number of the issues that were in the film

120. Shannon Nutt - May 17, 2012

The film was a disappointment because of it’s poor special effects (there’s a good story behind why ILM wasn’t used and it’s NOT because they were “booked”) and, frankly, it’s poor direction (sorry Bill!). However, I disagree with those who say it was a bad story idea…it just wasn’t executed well.

As for Nimoy wanting to play Sybok…I’ve never heard that before, so I’m wondering if he just misread Nimoy on the set.

121. Harry Ballz - May 17, 2012

108.

Sebastian, oh, don’t worry, it’s a compliment!

122. Phil - May 17, 2012

Trek V was bad, but I think it was just a whole series of little things that killed it, it’s unfair to lay the blame completely at Shatners feet. Generations was worse, though, because on each re-viewing it reveals some new flaw that suggests it was written as it was shot, and there was no oversight. Horrible story, horrible premise, and if the goal was to send JT Kirk out in a blaze of glory turning it into some sick inside joke was the ultimate insult. I still watch it, though….like some strung out Trek crack addict….

123. Sebastian S. - May 17, 2012

# 120

Thanks, Harry. ;-D

“Sybok in the hangar deck with a pebble gun.”

ST: Clue continues… (LOL).

124. Hugh Hoyland - May 17, 2012

I still have a soft spot for ST5 and it remains one of my favorites, warts and all. And it does shine in some areas with some of the best “Triad” moments of any of the films.

I’ve had a chance to read some of the history behind the movie and its actually interesting. Shatners original ideas included a “darker” movie since ST4 was such a light hearted story (So the forced Humor would have been absent), Sybok being a much more menacing villain instead of just being a misguided zealot, betrayel from both Spock and Bones, the Rock Man (originally intended to be 9 Demons), Discovering that “God” was actually Satan pretending to be God ect.

I talked to someone who claimed to “be in the know” about the production of this movie and I wont say he is right or wrong but he believed the movie failed as a movie mostly because of meddling from Harve Bennet rather than directorial incompetence from Shatner. Again I wont say hes right or wrong, its just what he told me.

I still wish the Rock Man would have made his debut though, goofy or not it would have been a character talked about for years to come, guaranteed.

125. REM1701 - May 17, 2012

For ALL U arm-chair film\ historians\ critics, the thing that KILLED STV was a horrible release date and sub-par effects. CASE CLOSED!

126. sean - May 17, 2012

#124

Except it had bad direction and a crappy script. CASE REOPENED!

127. Gary - May 17, 2012

Not sure if Nimoy playing Sybok would have saved this film, however had Patrick Stewart played his own clone in Nemesis instead of Tom Hardy, it might have saved STX.

128. rm10019 - May 17, 2012

Horrible release data: check
sub-par effect: check
bad direction: check
crappy script: check

I will add

bad acting by guest romulan and klingons: check
bad makeup design: check

Feel free to add to the list of things that made ST V bad. There is also a thread here that is fun.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=164713&page=12

129. rm10019 - May 17, 2012

126 – agreed!

130. James T. West - May 17, 2012

I’d rather watch this, then Nemesis!

This movie had a LOT of heart in it!! It takes a bad rap, because it followed The Voyage Home! Sure, its not the greatest, but hardly deserving the crap it takes.

131. Adam Cohen - May 17, 2012

I enjoy STAR TREK V a great deal for the interplay between Kirk, Spock and McCoy. I think fan frustration with the film stems from the fact that THE VOYAGE HOME moved TREK into the mainstream. I remember thinking “Finally, Trek has become legitimate with the public, now they appreciate what I love!” and then TREK V killed all of that hope. Nevertheless, I love the movie.

132. rm10019 - May 17, 2012

ST V deserves the criticism.

There was a great cartoon featured in Newsweek I think, of a sad Shatner looking up at a movie theater marquee, the caption to the cartoon was “WORDS AND PHRASES THAT LEFT THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN 1989″ and on the marquee it simply read “Star Trek V…. Directed by William Shatner”

133. Cafe 5 - May 17, 2012

On the DVD release Of ST-V the visuals on the menu are better than whats in the movie….a directors edition with edits and better FX would go a long way to improve this film…Paramount did it for Robert Wise for STTMP they should do the same for Shatner.

134. Nick Cook - May 17, 2012

Shatner was not the problem, the lacklustre script was. There were other issues, but the script is by far the biggest one.

135. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine. Stand at ease. - May 17, 2012

For all that commented on that A Taste of Armageddon link, I am glad you had a chance to read it. A friend sent it to me, and I figured this was the best group with whom to share it. You will notice that I did not comment on its content. Just putting it out there. I have my opinion, but I will reserve comment.

Besides, I love when the Most Valuable Gene gets some acknowledgement. Had Coon not died, think of how much better TMP could have been.

It is interesting!

As for STV, I still say the best way to view it is as another episode. Not great, but it has its moments.

136. Damian - May 17, 2012

127–I found it curious too that Stewart was not his own clone. It might have been interesting to see good Picard vs. bad Picard, almost like a mirror universe.

Tom Hardy as a villain in and of itself wasn’t bad. I just had a hard time buying him as Picard’s clone.

I never really had a major problem with Nemesis, though I had some issues with it. I can easily watch it along with TWOK or Star Trek (2009). But whatever, to each their own.

137. Captain Hackett - May 17, 2012

ST:V is the worst Star Trek movie that I had ever watched. It was unfortunate that the Paramount let egolastic Shat made this so bad movie.

138. MJ - May 17, 2012

If Star Trek V was interned as a dream, then it was a very bad dream, and a dream that I would have not rather seen.

139. SoonerDave - May 17, 2012

I completely overlooked the lone redeeming quality of Trek V, and that was Goldsmith’s score.

Unfortunately, I also read where the sheer awfulness of that movie was primarily why Goldsmith refused to even consider working Trek VI.

I suppose I could say that Trek V plays somewhat “better” on TV than it did in the theater, but that’s not too far removed from saying that stomach flu at home is better than in the hospital.

140. Elias Javalis - May 17, 2012

Loved the Final Frontier! It was my first theatrical star trek movie. It arrived on April 1990 here in Greece, 11 months after the US release..

I absolutely didnt care about the SFX. For a trekkie, the original crew, is all that he wants..and i believe thats what separates star trek fans from the rest!

141. William Kirk - May 17, 2012

As I wrote many times, I love this movie, it is my favorite Star Trek movie. Great fun, great score by Mr. Goldsmith. Well, the special effects were in my opinion awful and some remastering would be very helpful, because people laugh AT the movie because of these “special” effects. But if you laugh WITH the characters, you find an interesting story and TOS spirit of the frendship of the crew members. I think that this is the most TOS movie of all.

142. Jack - May 17, 2012

120: “(there’s a good story behind why ILM wasn’t used and it’s NOT because they were “booked”)”

What’s the story? I remember reading (in Captain’s Log, by Shatner’s daughter) that he wasn’t impressed by what ILM proposed (their God was just a guy standng in a beam of light, Shatner said) but was really impressed with Ferren and that he could come up with these effects by just mixing a bunch of chemicals together. It didn’t seem like he was being politically correct (avoiding saying that they couldn’t afford ILM) because he was pretty honest about al the stuff that he wanted to do (a shot starting in space and zooming in on Kirk on Yosemite, pre CGI) and was annoyed that it was impossibly expensive.

143. LizardGirl - May 17, 2012

I think that ST 5 would’ve been better if Mr. Nimoy was the director. The trek movies he’s produced/ wrote for have been some of the best ever.

144. Basement Blogger - May 17, 2012

@ 108

Whalien says, “Oh, come in!!! The Way to Eden, And The Children Shall Lead, and Platos Stepchildren are FAR worse than Spocks Brain!!!

It’s hard to say you’re wrong. It’s just a matter of taste. I mean bad taste. The episodes you mention are all groan worthy. I could change my mind but that would mean watching those bombs. But remember what Kara says in Spock’s Brain.,

“Brain and brain! What is brain?”

145. sean - May 17, 2012

I can’t remember which behind-the-scenes book it was, but there was a quote from Leonard Nimoy where he basically said – in the nicest way possible – that it really showed that Shatner was a first-time director, and it kind of set the tone for the entire production. He mentioned that Shatner talked too fast – so fast, that people couldn’t understand what he was saying.

I also remember Walter Koenig discussing the difference between Nimoy and Shatner’s directing styles. If you gave a good performance, Nimoy simply moved on to the next scene. The only time he talked to you is if you goofed up. Shatner, on the other hand, had a tendency to coddle you a bit, constantly reaffirming what a good job you were doing.

This does not make William Shatner a bad person. He was just inexperienced, and it showed. The cinematography on that film was quite lovely (as was the music), but everything else really lacked. All the jokes were at the character’s expense, so you were laughing *at* the characters instead of *with* the characters. If I had to point to the film’s biggest flaw, it would be that.

146. Star Trek Nemesis blows, is the point. - May 17, 2012

Anyone who thinks Star Trek V is worse than Star Trek: Nemesis doesn’t have good taste in Star Trek.

147. Orb of Wisdom - May 17, 2012

Simply put, my take is the film’s story, like Nemesis in the TNG era, had massive potential. HOWEVER, due to budgetary and technological impediments of the time, the true scope of both films was never able to be realized. Both films had, in my opinion, an epic feel that could never be realized to them, like they were forced to be much smaller in scope than they were meant to be, thus making them into bad movies. All in all, I think JJ should have a go at remaking Star Trek V with a fresh approach and an epic scale and see what happens. Ironically, in JJverse Trek, Star Trek V might be better suited, if Sybok attempted to rally the Vulcan survivors into an extremist cult.

Even Shatner himself had admitted in interviews that this film suffered greatly from budgetary and technological limitations. If Star Trek V had had the scope and budget of JJ’s 2009 film, I think it would have, with a few script alterations/additions, had the potential to be just as big a film.

148. Scotty - May 17, 2012

It wouldn’t have saved that crapbag of a movie.

149. Star Trek Nemesis blows, is the point. - May 17, 2012

@147

Nemesis was blighted by the decisions that Stuart Bard made as director of the film.

150. Driver - May 17, 2012

When the camera pans up and away from a laughing Sybok before the opening credits, I knew this was going to be a great film. And I wasn’t disappointed in the least.

151. Orb of Wisdom - May 17, 2012

#149 well, that too. Even the cast hated that guy. I always felt in the case of Nemesis, Shinzon should have been painted more as an Antichrist-like figure, using his Viceroy’s mental powers to seduce and hypnotically influence people across the Alpha Quadrant into supporting him and his plans, and played up the Reman Nosferatu look. In TOS, whenever a parallel between a race and a human historical precedent was made they usually angled that race to be the source of the legend. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20.

On the Star Trek V angle, overall, I do think a retelling of the story could work even better in JJverse Trek… Sybok plays on the Vulcan survivors’ needing a savior and he presents his Sha-Ka-Ree thing as a New Era for Vulcans, a New Path to Salvation., even corrupting Prime Spock’s Reunification with Romulus idea from back in Prime Universe to influence the Vulcan survivors to comply. Basically a merging of Star Trek V and Nemesis into one story. Minus the Thaleron radiation B.S. and what not.

152. Whalien - May 17, 2012

Nemesis is boring and unwatchable. Same for Insurrection!! Generations is almost as bad!! Talk about bad humor — Data acted STUPID all through Generations; the Klingon zit stuff and the Enterprise joystick scenes in Insurrection were stupid…and all the B4 nonsense in Nemesis was stupid too.

Don’t get me wrong…TFF had lame humor but the Next Gen films were every bit as lacking in that department!

And as good as the special effects might have been in Insurrection an Nemesis, they did little to made those films watchable. If the effects in TFF were redone, that might make it a better movie.

There’s nothing to save Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis.

They just suck across the board!!! And I can’t even watch those because they are just so damned BORING!!! At the very least, a person could watch TFF to laugh at how bad it is…in a RiffTraxx MST3K kind of way if nothing else! LOL!!!

153. Mike Thompson UK - May 17, 2012

3 great pictures in this story alone, love the music and great bits with MCoy, Kirk & Spock.

Star Trek 6 though was a real bonus.

154. ST:EXP - May 17, 2012

Anyone want to see my fan-edit of ST:V. ??

So much better than the studio release.

I’d like to post some clips of the edit on YouTube, but I don’t want to get in shit for it.

155. Red Dead Ryan - May 17, 2012

So, the guy who did the visual effects in TFF was named “Bran”?

Well, that helps to explain the amount of crap that was produced!

Also, Laurence Luckenbill couldn’t find any more acting jobs in Hollywood because, in spite of his best efforts, he became associated with the disaster that is TFF.

Good actors often pay the price for the poor quality film they may star in.

156. sean - May 17, 2012

#152

For all of Generations’ flaws – and there are many – it is a really beautifully shot film. The use of natural lighting in many of the scenes was really gorgeous, even if it didn’t always make a lot of sense (did Picard forget to pay the electric bill or were they going green and attaching motion sensors to the light fixtures?).

157. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - May 17, 2012

double role would have been eppic for Nimoy!

158. P Technobabble - May 17, 2012

If anyone could’ve pulled off the double role, it would be Nimoy. It would have been interesting to see. But Luckinbill definitely brought an energy to a movie that desperately needed it. In the hands of a lesser actor, the role might have turned into a joke, which really would have turned the film into a comedy.

159. nscates - May 17, 2012

I saw Star Trek V in the theater when it came out and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t disappointed. The effects were several grades below what had come before (at least in the movies) and the experience of watching it was pretty uneven. It seemed like every time I found myself getting into it, something lame would happen to screw it up. Good scene, bad scene, good scene, bad.

I’ve worked in post production for 20 years or so, so I have a little insight into the kinds of problems a production can run into, whether it be a feature film or a TV commercial. Some skills and principles are true regardless of the format. It is with this in mind that I say that Shatner’s direction was actually pretty good – at least in the context of blocking scenes, camera positioning (except for the stedi-cam stuff on the bridge, that was poorly executed). The cinematography (not Bill, but if he didn’t like the shot, you can bet he changed it) was outstanding and the shots all flowed pretty well. Some of the acting was quite good. Lawrence Luckinbill was interesting, playing a layered character who fervently believes but not at the expense of his own values. The worst was the woman who played the Romulan ambassador, she was pretty wooden. However, the scenes featuring the principals were all first rate, so one can’t accuse Shatner of creating a unpleasant atmosphere for the actors. So, in those respects, I thought he did remarkably well for a first-time director.

Where he fell short (again IMO) is primarily with the script and also in failing to battle the studio’s input more. In his Star Trek Movie Memories book, he relates how the studio insisted he add more humor and kept slashing his budget. For a man who has had the reputation of being a bit of a diva, he was surprisingly compliant, to the detriment of the film. He should have thrown a hissy fit instead of allowing other people to compromise his vision. He was the director and the star, you don’t get much better leverage than that.

In terms of the script, It’s been well covered how the supporting characters were handled poorly, and maybe that was his call, I don’t know. It seemed like he didn’t know what to do with them so gave them silly, unnecessary moments like the fan dance or Scotty’s head bumping buffoonery. It’s like he never payed enough attention to the co-star’s characters to know who they were or how they should fit into the story. Things seemed better when the story centered on the classic triad, though there are a few gags (like anything having to do with those stupid jet-boots) that fell flat. What was nice was that the relationships between the big 3 felt like an extension of the original series – with most of the ups and downs that implies – for the first time since they started making movies. That is probably what saved the movie for me.

I grew up watching Kirk, Spock and McCoy in the 70s in syndication. When I saw the motion picture, I was shocked that all of the warmth and camaraderie from the TV show was gone. Wrath of Khan was a little better, but there weren’t that many scenes with all three together. Ditto with ST III and IV- Spock was dead or no longer himself… The vibe between them didn’t really click until V. And I discovered when I watched it how much I had missed that aspect of Trek. Finally, here were the guys I had watched in my childhood.

A number of the concepts were thought provoking and in the tradition of the show if not the movies. I never thought of it as “the crew of the enterprise go looking for God”, and I’m always a little irritated when it is characterized that way. If you really believe that, you didn’t watch the movie. When Sybock hijacks the big E, nobody was like “aw yeah, let’s go find God!” No, Kirk, Spock and McCoy were put in the brig and a number of crew members were brainwashed. No doubt the brainwashing thing was a weaker thread of the plot – they could have done more to make the viewer aware of how Sybock’s power worked, otherwise it makes the Enterprise crew look like a bunch of weak minded storm troopers, ie: “These are not the droids you’re looking for”.

I wanted really badly to like the movie but in the end it was uneven and ultimately lack-luster. But at least it wasn’t a complete re-hash like Nemesis. That movie had very little to redeem it and is pretty much at the bottom of my list of Trek movies by virtue of being an almost total rip-off of Khan.

My $.02. Flame away!

160. nscates - May 17, 2012

@ 156 Agreed. The lighting and cinematography in Generations was top notch.

161. PEB - May 17, 2012

Nimoy playing Sybok? Shinzon before Shinzon perhaps…

162. MJ - May 17, 2012

@144. I have to say, although Spocks Brain and Plato’s Stepchildren are among the worst, they still maintain that “B-movie charm” for me. However, I get nearly physically ill when I watch the kids chant in And the Children Shall Lead…by far, the worst episode of any Trek series of all time. Star Trek V and Nemesis look like Citizen Kane in comparison to And the Children Shall Lead.

163. Greg2600 - May 17, 2012

Plot was nonsense, but STV continues to have unlimited rewatch value for me. I watch it whenever I see it’s on TV and all. It’s the only Trek film where Spock, Kirk and McCoy spend almost the entire film together, and play really well off each other.

164. Trek Fan - May 17, 2012

Star Trek V suffered primarily from buget cuts and extremely poor special effects. The story was not great but it had potential. Too many goofy scenes such as the way the klingons were portrayed. Uhura and Scotty’s charcters were painful to watch in particular. Sybok and “god” could have done with more character development as well. Good concept poorly executed.

165. Captain Karl - May 17, 2012

I’ve enjoyed every ST movie and series…well, there were things I disliked about each and every one, but that’s a whole lot of material over the decades and not every note can be pitch perfect…but I overlooked it because of my love for the franchise…

although there are still some things I will forever nitpick over ST 2009…

166. Thomas E. - May 17, 2012

Sybock needs to be a character introduced in the JJ Universe. I don’t believe it was ever said when he had been banished from Vulcan but it’s possible it was before Nero destroyed it in the JJ Universe so he could be alive out there somewhere.

Considering the loss of the entire planet and Spock’s mother, as well as his emotional turmoil from said events, it would be interesting to introduce his pro-emotion older half brother to the mix. Just drop the “I spoke with God” aspect and it will work.

167. Sebastian S. - May 17, 2012

# 160

The late cinematographer John Alonzo (Chinatown, Blue Thunder) deserves major kudos. Despite some flaws, Generations was a gorgeous looking movie. The Enterprise D interiors (especially Ten-Forward) never looked better. The use of shadow and strong external lighting sources (with the Amorgosa star bathing the ship interiors in golden hues) were simply, jaw-droppingly beautiful. As were the Valley of Fire, NV location shots….

Not that it would’ve helped with any of the bigger problems of STV (story, FX, etc), but I can’t help wondering what John Alonzo’s imagery would’ve brought to the STV table….

168. kmart - May 17, 2012

Andy did a great job shooting TFF, but a lot of the crew they had on the picture was godawful. I remember interviewing the physical FX guy on TFF when he did Spielberg’s ALWAYS, name of Mike Wood, who had done POLTERGEIST as well, and he said Shatner was making TFF under the most incredible time and money constraints, especially given the scale of the vision. And when he said this, it wasn’t like he was angling for a job, he wasn’t even saying it for the article, just conversation.

169. Red Dead Ryan - May 17, 2012

The cinematography for “Generations” was great, even if the film isn’t. Though I don’t understand when, just after Picard orders Riker to lead the away team onto the Amargosa station, Riker leaves the ready room for the bridge, which is pitch black. We know the bridge and ready room were connected as sets, but it looked like Riker was walking into blackness.

170. cd - May 17, 2012

94 – Great commentary, LizardGirl! Interesting to hear from someone who took the ‘crash course’ instead of experiencing it in ‘real time’. Good points with a lot of good thought behind them (although I do not agree about ST09 having good characterization!)
>;>}

171. Khan is not the easy route - May 17, 2012

I agree with the idea of introducing Sybok to the new story line. Unless his introduction is he died as a result of the destruction of Vulcan.

172. MJ - May 17, 2012

@166 @171

Maybe they should also have Sybock’s super weed killer/sprayer in the new movie as well. They could show him spraying it on dandelions or something.

173. Jack - May 17, 2012

Agreed on Generations — it was gorgeous. I remember a hard-core TNG fan I knew hated how dark the Enterprise was. It was pretty ridiculous, but it looked great. I still love the stellar cartography scene — it looked like Trek should look… Compare it to the back-projected stellar cartography in nemesis, which looks cheap as hell (and probably wasn’t).

It also annoyed me that the bridge graphics in Trek 09 *looked* back-projected. The stuff on the New Voyages/Phase II bridge looks more convincing/23rd century-ish than the banks of leds and the view screens on the Trek-09 e-bridge.

This bugged me going back to Trek III — where the bridge graphics looked like they were done on a Commodore 64 (compared to Trek ii, where they made them, most of them, look appropriately abstract and futuristic). And look at teh great stuff they did with the genesis tape a couple of years earlier, not just the CGI genesis planet stuff, but the titles and the retina scan. It looks convincing now.

The non-ILM films (V, Insurrection, Nemesis) didn’t look as good, period, as the ILM films, including Trek 09.

It’s funny how V really does look cheap, but it cost a bunch more, as I understand it, than VI, III, or, especially, II.

174. cd - May 17, 2012

167 – I agreed about the lighting in Generations; it gave much more of a visceral feeling that the Enterprise was actually around a real star in another star system. A relatively simple technique, but brilliant.

175. sean - May 17, 2012

#173

I saw Insurrection on TV not that long ago, and it really struck me how bad the visual effects on that film are. The CGI ships are particularly bad. The nebula effects are really nice, but the Ba’ku village looks like a super cheap TV set that was set up in 2 hours.

176. Paul - May 17, 2012

STV was almost great instead its good. The film to this day needs all the existing VFX work thrown away & replaced with something worthy for a Bluray special edition.

Shatner had plenty of interesting ideas the original opening shot was a powers of ten pullback into the galaxy (like the one Contact rendered 8 years later!). Shatner wanted a lot of cool stuff but the budget was only $35M & $14m of that went to the 7 TOS actors leaving $21m to make the movie so that more than anything hurt it a lot. The sub-standard VFX work was considered by the producers to be temp work in progress placeholders it was only when they discovered it was the finished result did they realise & it was too late to change anything. Then Shatners appetite for expensive sets/props (how much did that fabulous shuttlecraft prop cost!!!! or what about the shuttlebay set another expensive set-piece) just ran out quickly leaving little budget to tie it all together. Shatner probably needed twice the budget he got!

The sad thing is all Paramount had to do back in 1989 was throw another $5m at the movie put it back 6 months & count the $$$ instead the failure of ST5 meant we only got 1 final complete cast TOS movie instead of 2 but ST5 even though it failed still made more money adjusted for inflation than ST9/10!!!

177. MJ - May 17, 2012

@175. Insurrection is painful to watch. Nemesis, for all its faults, at least had some action and things happening, albeit dumb-ass things. With regard to Generations, if they had done a better job with the ending and not f-upped Kirk’s unforgivable lame way he went out, then I think it would have ended up being one of my favorites. First Contact is the only really good NextGen film, but that fight on the deflector dish looks so dated and lame now — wish they had done a better job on that part of the movie.

178. MJ - May 17, 2012

@176. You are missing the point — Shatner messed it up. Throwing more money and time at the Shat would likely have resulted in an even worse movie; although I will admit that better special effects by having the $$ to go with ILM would have helped.

No matter how much time and money, we would still have the awful site of Spock singing Row Your Boat…that is unforgivable!!!

179. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - May 18, 2012

Watching star trek v again tonight! :)
still a fun trek adventure. haters can hate all you want wont change, my affection for the film

180. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - May 18, 2012

177 just admit it, your a JJ groupie only at this point.

181. Paul - May 18, 2012

@178

Its not just VFX the whole intent of the movie changed tone when the budget went down the story shifted to humour instead of more adventure.

182. Damian - May 18, 2012

177–My father, a huge TWOK fan actually listed Generations as one of his favorite films, which I was surprised at. He loved the scenes of Picard in the Nexus seeing what his family would have looked like.

To me, Generations was an ok film. I agree with most here that Kirk’s death could have been done far better. I actually do not have a problem with him dying, or even dying for a race he never met (to me, a true hero’s death). It just seemed anticlimatic. His “first” death actually was more fulfilling. But absent that, it wasn’t a bad story overall and I agree with others the film work and special effects (mostly) on this film was top notch.

It also seemed surreal. I just finished watching the TV series and here they are on the big screen with the same uniforms as TNG and DS9 on the same sets as the TV show. First Contact was more removed from the TV show with the new uniforms and new ship, so it was easier to think of it as a motion picture.

183. Symar - May 18, 2012

While I won’t dispute how crappy the special effects in this movie were (including the jailbreak and elevator scenes) and the premise of getting to the center of the galaxy quickly and through yet another energy barrier to be barely plausible, I thought the story was good and well-portrayed by the actors. My favorite part of the movie is Kirk’s quote about pain:

“Damn it, Bones, you’re a doctor. You know that pain and guilt can’t be taken away with a wave of a magic wand. They’re the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don’t want my pain taken away! I need my pain! ”

I have always found that to be a defining statement about life. Life is not always easy. It is our failures as much as our successes that define us. Whenever I make a mistake that I would just as soon forget, I remember that scene and use that experience to make myself stronger.

184. MJ - May 18, 2012

@180 “177 just admit it, your a JJ groupie only at this point.”

Well, if you throw in TOS and DS9, then you are close. :-)

185. MJ - May 18, 2012

@179 “Watching star trek v again tonight! :)
still a fun trek adventure. haters can hate all you want wont change, my affection for the film.”

Haters ot Trek V? It is aknowledged bad Trek movie. Check out IMDB — it is the lowest rated Trek movie of all, with a 5.1 out of 10, a full point 1.2 points behind the clunkers Insurrection and Nemesis?

Dude, like the vast majority of people, I just don’t find it a very good movie.

186. Damian - May 18, 2012

Jambootu’s Bad Movie Dimension website actually has a pretty comical review of Star Trek V. It’s fun to read and it’s a reminder, really, of just how many plot holes Star Trek V had, even for someone like myself who generally accepts quite a bit of “suspension of disbelief” to try to enjoy movies.

At one point he makes a note about troublesome family and comically refers to Wesley Crusher annoying TNG fans. In a particularly funny comment he notes that a TNG movie that would have made tons of money would portray Wesley’s “long, meaningless death caught in a time loop so you can watch it over and over again.”

187. Shannon Nutt - May 18, 2012

@142

Okay, here’s the REAL story of why ILM wasn’t used for STAR TREK V. I’m not sure they still do it this way, but ILM used to divide their teams up by letter – Team A, Team B, Team C and Team D (maybe more…not sure). Now one team is not any “better or worse” than the next…they’re all equally as talented, that’s just how they divide them up.

Shatner hears back from ILM that “Team D” is available and Shatner (not actually checking the meaning of “D”) decides that he doesn’t want the “fourth-best effects crew” at ILM working on his movie, so he gives the job to Bran Ferren’s company instead.

I think someone finally explained to Bill about ILM, but it was too late at that point, so the “cover story” about ILM being completely booked came into existence. One can only wonder how much better the movie might have been with competent effects.

188. Brett L. - May 18, 2012

Despite its big problems, ST V has its moments, moments which have more heart than the entirety of the plot-hole mess called “Generations.”

189. MJ - May 18, 2012

@187 “Shatner hears back from ILM that “Team D” is available and Shatner (not actually checking the meaning of “D”) decides that he doesn’t want the “fourth-best effects crew” at ILM working on his movie, so he gives the job to Bran Ferren’s company instead.”

If you are serious (are you having fun with us?), then I can’t say I am all that surprised. What an egotistical moron Shat is — I can just hear him saying, “Team D…not on my movie.” And the only reason he wanted to direct was because Nimoy got to. What a baby!

190. Anthony Pascale - May 18, 2012

Here is what producer Ralph Winter told me about STV and ILM

We had fun and felt good about IV, that wasn’t the case on V. I think on V we were smoking our own press releases. We made the mistake of searching for god. That is what the first movie did. What did we think we were going to find? What did we expect? We were focused and we wrote a good script. Larry Luckinbill (Sybok) was terrific. There were a lot of good things about it. I think we were, not delusional, but we almost killed the franchise.

And, unfortunately I almost killed the franchise in terms of the visual effects. We felt like we got taken advantage of by ILM and so we shopped to go to other places. We found a guy in New York, Bran Ferren, who had a pretty good approach to doing the effects, but ultimately they were horrible. And the combination of a story that was not working, it just wasn’t commercial, the effects were terrible – we almost killed the franchise, it almost died.

http://trekmovie.com/2010/06/30/producer-ralph-winter-on-star-trek-v-we-almost-killed-the-franchise/

191. Vultan - May 18, 2012

If the effects in Voyage Home are an example of ILM taking advantage of the producers, then by all means ILM should take advantage of every Trek movie! They were excellent.

Needless to say, Ferren’s work in Final Frontier was not.

192. Red Dead Ryan - May 18, 2012

I still think Paramount was cheaping out when they turned down ILM. ILM is the best in the business, and they (quite rightfully) don’t come cheap. Talent is expensive.

Digital Domain came cheap for “Insurrection” and “Nemesis” and cheap is what we got, as in cheap-quality visual effects.

193. Vultan - May 18, 2012

#192

Yep. You get what you pay for.

194. "Check the Circuit!" - May 18, 2012

If it’s true that Nimony wanted to play both roles, I have to smile at the irony of a guy not wanting to play a character at all a few years earlier, then deciding he wants to play him twice in one movie.

Might have been fun to see an emotional “Spock” again….without the emotions coming from space viruses, pon farr or spores.

195. punchatz - May 18, 2012

Bad BAD movie, for many reasons, but as far as I am concerned it had one of the best lines/moments from any trek film at the end of the movie……Kirk says to the omnipotent alien life form “Excuse me, but what does God need with a star ship?”

I did wish I could cleanse by brain after seeing the fan dance scene….. Now that would be the perfect case for a CGI replacement if they ever did a special edition. replace Old Uhura with young Old Uhura;) Wearing a princess Leia slave girl outfit….yeah that’s the ticket.

196. VulcanFilmCritic - May 18, 2012

Something about this Nimoy-wanted-to-play-both-roles stuff just doesn’t ring true. Nimoy was exhausted after directing himself in “Star Trek IV.” He even fell asleep on the set once.

He was hesitant, in fact, to be directed by the hyperactive Mr. Shatner anyway, so why would he ask for a double serving of trouble?
Two costumes, two different make-ups, two sets of ears plus either a wig or a skull cap? Nimoy wanted that? I doubt it.

Maybe Nimoy’s tendency to get into that icy, detached character and stay there all day led to speculation about his unfriendliness on the set. Other actors have called him a “cold-hearted bastard” and “unnerving” when he was “in his Spock bag.” He’s just doing his Method actor thing.

Besides, he’s done double roles before. Spock/Henoch and Spock inhabited by the Medusan ambassador come to mind. Why would he want to do Sybok?

197. Aurore - May 18, 2012

“Why would he want to do Sybok?”
____________________________

I hope Star trek.com asks Mr. Nimoy that excellent question, soon.
I’d like to know, as well.

198. MJ - May 18, 2012

@197. Why wouldn’t he. Playing an emotional Vulcan, and getting to play two major roles in the film. Of course he’d want to play Sybock…duh!

The real question is, why wouldn’t the pompous Shat let him?

199. Aurore - May 18, 2012

“The real question is, why wouldn’t the pompous Shat let him?”
_________

Fine.
Star Trek.com could ask Mr. Shatner that… “real”… question, as well.

:)

200. Aurore - May 18, 2012

In all seriousness though, as I wrote upthread, now that I’ve read Laurence Luckinbill’s statement, if possible, I would like to hear Mr. Nimoy’s version of the facts.

If indeed there is something to be said, on the matter.

201. Sebastian S. - May 18, 2012

# 190

Anthony~

That’s pretty definitive when the producer himself says that more money would not have helped. And I have to agree. To be charitable, STV had it moments and bits that were fun, but the basic story; about the ship hijacked by religious fanatics to look for Eden/God at the galactic center? It sounds like a movie adaptation of “The Way To Eden” IMO.

Going to find ‘god’ in space is just a setup for an anticlimax. You’ll never find God in the physical, cause-and-effect universe, so the only way out of that creative corner is to change ‘god’ into a wrathful alien, or what not. Looking for God in outer space is kind of a ludicrous idea to begin with, really; it’s kind of like going to the moon looking for green cheese.

And what could have been a scathing commentary on religious fanaticism (the kind DS9 did all the time) didn’t really pan out, either. None of Sybok’s followers were ever really fleshed out or given any kind of real characters to play (besides J’Onn bit in the opening scene). An opportunity (one of many in that film) missed…

I agree with Winter’s assessment; throwing money on a faulty, ill-advised “Way to Eden”-type story premise would NOT have helped. STV is not a total disaster (I’ve seen worse), but it’s a significant drop in quality and creativity (but not ambition) from the previous four ST movies.

202. Anthony Pascale - May 18, 2012

I get the sense that maybe Nimoy was looking for something challenging. He had just come off directing two Trek films and he was getting more work as a director at the time and so doing another round as Spock and letting someone else direct maybe wasn’t feeling very challenging but playing twins might have been something more interesting.

203. Vultan - May 18, 2012

#201

Bender B. Rodriguez found God in outer space.

204. Jack - May 18, 2012

190. interesting. wow.

I wonder how they felt taken advantage of? financially? the II, III and IV effects were good (especially IV). They weren’t as good as the stuff ILM was doing on Empire and Jedi, but they were good.

205. VulcanFilmCritic - May 19, 2012

@202. Anthony Pascale. I guess Mr. Nimoy was always looking for a challenge, but according to his own account, he was kind of tired at the time.

And I’ve just never gotten the feeling that he was anything less than generous with his fellow actors. He could be a stern taskmaster as a director, he could intimidate a co-star who wasn’t up to par (he chided his co-star in Equus for smoking and Walter Koenig for mugging) but I just don’t think he was the kind of selfish actor to begrudge another actor for getting this part. Much less the kind of actor who would REVEAL that he was unhappy about Mr. Luckinbill getting the part. Mr. Shatner, on the other hand, is precisely the kind of selfish actor who would do something like that.

As others who know Mr. Nimoy have said, if there is one word to describe him it’s “political.” Even if he were unhappy with what was happening on set, he would never show it. He would go behind a director’s back and speak to a producer, or write a memo.

But he wasn’t petty about it. If he had a complaint, it was a legitimate complaint. He was always the kind of “team captain” that the other actors trusted and respected.

As #197 Aurore said, I too hope someone asks Mr. Nimoy about this. I’d really like to know.

206. P Technobabble - May 19, 2012

It’s interesting to speculate what STV might have been. I always felt it could have been more of a real continuation of the previous 3 films. There was a great line in STIV where the Klingon Ambassador shouts, “There will be no peace as long as Kirk lives!” I think that could have been a good premise for V.
Or who knows?
By now, everyone knows what Shatner’s original premise was: how do evangelists convince some people that God speaks to them? I think that is a fine premise for a movie — but not a Star Trek movie. And by the time everyone was done hacking away at the script, it just turned STV into a movie that didn’t know what it was about.

207. MikeB - May 19, 2012

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Star Trek: Nemesis
Star Trek: Generations
Star Trek: First Contact
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Star Trek: Insurrection

I put the new movie in a tie for first it can’t be better because it lacks the sentimental element. Maybe in 20 years I can say it’s the best. Insurrection is the only one in the series that I can’t make myself watch. Last time I did a Trek movie marathon I decided I could justify skipping it. I’ve even considered dumping it from the collection. I could not bring myself to skip V.

208. Joe is another name for awesome - May 19, 2012

To the Great Barrier with you all.

Star Trek V is the best “Trek” movie and one of the best Star Treks ever.

Obviously, the fan boyz hate it but that speaks to them personally — their world view, level of engagement outside fantasy, maturity, and personal experience with the Big Ideas in life.

I don’t love Star Trek for its wiz-bang or idiotic fantasy geek back story of unreal people from unreal places. I love it for what it has to say about life and, apart from ur Star Trek, the spinoffs fall tragically short (“The Inner Light” absolutely excepted. Brilliant in its own right.)

Just Sayin

209. Xplodin_Nacelle - May 23, 2012

I saw it opening weekend with a friend who was an on the fence kinda Trek fan, & I am a die hard. That said….

I remember feeling let down, & embarassed by the crappy special effects that were in that film. They weren’t up to the spectacular quality of the previous four films. Seeing the Big E just hanging in space, & the bent warp jump during the “Shuttle En’Route” scenes left me dissapointed

Also as much as I loved Jerry Goldsmith’s TMP score, it was already being reused at the time for TNG. I remember thinking, “Ok, couldn’t they think of something original?”

I thought the scene w/ Scotty smacking his head off the beam was corny

I could go on, but the point is now in retrospect I love this movie!!!!. It has really grown on me. I have watched it at least 100 times, & can now quote it verbatim. – lol.

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