Sarek of Vulcan wrote:
I found the reasons why the movie had so many troubles to be adequate. To each his or her own.
Well there are lots of reasons why movies have troubles, or stumbling blocks. Who cares whether or not they're "adequate". The general point I was making (one that you completely swept away - or chose to ignore - in one single sentence) is that Shater & his defenders make them sound like excuses
. In other words, that it was everyone else but Shatner who made it such a terrible film. And that it was everyone else who chose a bad screenwriter, bad FX house, and everyone else who couldn't manage the budget to put together something worth seeing. Whereas in the other films, there were likely stumbling blocks to get over (Nimoy talked about having his studio breathing down his next in Trek 3, just as an example) but they turned in decent films regardless, for less
The reason why Trek 5 sucked as hard as it did was because it had a terrible director (again, Shatner's track record completely
backs this up) they chose a crappy FX house, and they had a terrible script written by someone who could not pen halfway decent humor, or anything else for that matter. The only part about the film that is even worthwhile to stomach is the acting of the "main three" in a few scenes.
I didn't sweep it away or ignore it, I simply found it to be to your preference, and not mine. That's why I said to each his or her own. What you find inexcusable simply does not bother me. What you consider a major flaw is simply irrelevant to me. What you consider excuses, I consider valid reasons (hence my statement that for me they are adequate reasons), and so to each his or her own. I'm just not bent out of shape over it. I enjoy the movie for what it is, and how you enjoy it or dislike it is your prerogative, and as I said, to each his or her own.