internet campaign to restore star trek final frontier starts

[Trek Survivor]

I like TFF just the way it is - and yes, I'm serious and yes, I realise I'm probably the only one!

The effects were fairly poor quality, but the story was interesting and the Kirk-Spock-McCoy friendship has never been portrayed better.

[Dukhat]

MikeS wrote:

---

^Isn't that what happens in most directors cuts?

Thanks for the constructive comments.

Well, I don't know how much more "constructive" I could have been. Trimming scenes from a completely flawed film isn't going to make the film better, it's just going to make the film's running time shorter.

And BTW, some director's cuts actually add scenes that weren't in the theatrical release.

[jeddah]

There is a growing movement for a STV DE and for the ST TMP DE to be brought to HD, surely Paramount will one day give this the green light, didn't the TMP DE make more money than expected on DVD in 2001

[YARN]

Let me know when they circulate the petition to burn the remaining prints of this film.

[LOKAI of CHERON]

jeddah wrote:

---

There is a growing movement for a STV DE and for the ST TMP DE to be brought to HD, surely Paramount will one day give this the green light, didn't the TMP DE make more money than expected on DVD in 2001

I'd say TMP DE on Blu-ray is a certainty, not so optimistic for TFF unfortunately.

[CoveTom]

I guess what it all comes down to -- and this is solely personal opinion -- is whether you think TFF began with a good story that then got lost through bad filmmaking, or whether it was a bad story to begin with that was just made worse by the bad filmmaking.

I personally think the former. I think the story, as constructed, is solid. I think there is a lot of good stuff there. I think it was brought down by three things: the insistence by the studio on including lots of humor in what was supposed to be a serious story; the choice of a visual effects company unqualified for a project of this scale; and the refusal by Paramount to adjust the budget to allow for rewriting and reshoots when the problems were discovered.

Most people focus on re-doing the visual effects. That's certainly possible, and even perhaps not terribly complicated, with today's technology. And I think it would help. But that's not the biggest thing that could be done. The biggest thing would be to re-cut the movie. You could remove a lot of the ridiculous humor moments without removing any key information from the story. Okay, the fall of the mountain and Spock's Superman rescue are pretty tightly tied into the more touching moments of Kirk discussing the fact that he knows he'll die alone. But other elements, such as the oft-cited Scotty banging his head on a bulkhead for example, are not and could be trimmed with ease.

A good, thorough re-cutting of the film could work wonders, IMHO. But that's because I think it's got a good story that it starts with. Your mileage may vary.

[Grant]

CoveTom wrote:

---

I guess what it all comes down to -- and this is solely personal opinion -- is whether you think TFF began with a good story that then got lost through bad filmmaking, or whether it was a bad story to begin with that was just made worse by the bad filmmaking.

I personally think the former. I think the story, as constructed, is solid. I think there is a lot of good stuff there. I think it was brought down by three things: the insistence by the studio on including lots of humor in what was supposed to be a serious story; the choice of a visual effects company unqualified for a project of this scale; and the refusal by Paramount to adjust the budget to allow for rewriting and reshoots when the problems were discovered.

Most people focus on re-doing the visual effects. That's certainly possible, and even perhaps not terribly complicated, with today's technology. And I think it would help. But that's not the biggest thing that could be done. The biggest thing would be to re-cut the movie. You could remove a lot of the ridiculous humor moments without removing any key information from the story. Okay, the fall of the mountain and Spock's Superman rescue are pretty tightly tied into the more touching moments of Kirk discussing the fact that he knows he'll die alone. But other elements, such as the oft-cited Scotty banging his head on a bulkhead for example, are not and could be trimmed with ease.

A good, thorough re-cutting of the film could work wonders, IMHO. But that's because I think it's got a good story that it starts with. Your mileage may vary.

I totally agree.

If you think the movie is 1 of 5 stars--then re-cut and new Fx wouldn't be making much of a dent in your opinion, but if you think it's 2 to 3 stars then a judicious re-cut and new effects may push it over the top as being 'good'

The flaws:

1. FX
2. Too much silliness
3. Not enough good action
4. Besides Sybok-- weak guest cast
5. Poorly realized climax

1, 2, 4, and 5 can be somewhat adressed with new FX and a re-cut. Obvioulsy 4 cannot.

But if you think a quest to find god who turns out not to be--is a horrible premise--nothing will change your mind.

I give the movie a current 2.5 stars and think a good re-cut and new FX could bring it up to 3.5.

I'd buy it.

[Dukhat]

CoveTom wrote:

---

I guess what it all comes down to -- and this is solely personal opinion -- is whether you think TFF began with a good story that then got lost through bad filmmaking, or whether it was a bad story to begin with that was just made worse by the bad filmmaking.

I personally think TFF was flawed right from its inception.

Really, there wasn't even a need for this movie in the first place. TVH was a fantastic place for the TOS films to end, and TNG was at the height of its popularity. But instead Shatner decided he wanted to make a Trek movie, and Paramount decided to let him do it. And that's where the problem started.

1. Nimbus III - Why oh why on Earth was this shithole of a planet chosen for such an important meeting place for galactic dignitaries? You mean to tell me there was no other planet in the Neutral Zone better than this place?

2. The ENTIRE camping scene made me painfully aware of how old these people are and that they really shouldn't be making movies anymore.

3. Spock's half-brother, and Kirk, McCoy, et. al not knowing about his existence - this has been commented on ad infinitum, so there's really nothing new I can say about it, other than, "who the hell is Lawrence Luckinbill, and how did he get this role?"

4. The only concept that I found intriguing was the "I can heal your pain" thing Sybok was doing. But the fact that a) Sybok was the one doing it, and b) that it made completely loyal friends and officers turn against Kirk without any real forcible influence just smacked of ridiculousness.

5. The Enterprise "being the only ship in the quadrant" thing has been done in other movies and shows before, but here it's just nonsensical. Really, a malfunctioning ship that seems to be the result of a severe design flaw is the only vessel Starfleet can send? What the hell was the Excelsior doing that they couldn't send it? And what about all those ships Starfleet has on Neutral Zone border patrol all the fucking time? Wouldn't they be, like, closer to Nimbus III than the Enterprise, which was in orbit around Earth?

6. A planet at the center of the galaxy, and the Enterprise can reach said center in less than an hour? Need I say more?

7. The Klingons were incredibly boring and dull, even more boring and dull than usual. Why were they even in the movie again? Oh yeah, so that Spock could use their ship's gun to kill God.

8. And finally, God, and why he needed a starship. And why Sybok was so incredibly stupid as to believe in this nuttiness. I suppose what Grant said, (i.e. the quest to find God who turns out not to be who you thought) could be an intriguing concept if it was done correctly. But that would work in more of an abstract way...not a literal way as presented here.


None of these points have anything to do with the movie's sub-par VFX, or the silly dialog, or the lack of action. These fundamental flaws simply cannot be fixed by editing.

[MikeS]

Not to sound like I'm "flaming" but, for a movie that you so obviously hate you have an awful lot to say about it. This is a thread about possibly making it better for those of us that think it's "ok" as is, and how that can be achieved. We are all aware of the flaws. If I hated something so much I'd just ignore it. It is only a movie afterall. Probably best to look at your own signature and think about exactly what that means.

[Dukhat]

MikeS wrote:

---

If I hated something so much I'd just ignore it. It is only a movie after all. Probably best to look at your own signature and think about exactly what that means.

My post was a response to CoveTom's comment, which I clearly quoted for all to see.

Obviously you've never been on a Star Trek internet bulletin board before. This is what people do. If you don't like it when people express opinions that are counter to your own, then perhaps you should be the one to ignore them.

And BTW, my signature was in response to something that occurred here years ago, and was an in-joke, and I haven't gotten around to changing it. And I don't see how my signature has anything to do with what I wrote.

[Grant]

I'm trying to think of a movie I hate and name a hundred reasons why I don't think it can be improved!
Please stand by.

[trevanian]

Dukhat wrote:

---

TVH was a fantastic place for the TOS films to end, and TNG was at the height of its popularity.
[snip]
1. Nimbus III - Why oh why on Earth was this shithole of a planet chosen for such an important meeting place for galactic dignitaries? You mean to tell me there was no other planet in the Neutral Zone better than this place?

2. The ENTIRE camping scene made me painfully aware of how old these people are and that they really shouldn't be making movies anymore.

3. Spock's half-brother, "who the hell is Lawrence Luckinbill, and how did he get this role?"

[snip]

5. The Enterprise "being the only ship in the quadrant" thing has been done in other movies and shows before, but here it's just nonsensical.

IN reverse order from above:

They actually have fun with this, Kirk's "Oh please" could be any veteran audience member.

They couldn't get Sean Connery, Max Von Sydow or Klaus Maria Brandauer.

Nearing 60 might be painful but i don't know that it is old, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about here.

It's fairly easy to infer (w/o much rationalization either) that Nimbus was set up to fail, just from Warner's dialog. Shatner's delivery of the words "planet of galactic ... " also has the tone of "oh THAT place" which reconfirms this for audience.

TNG at height of its popularity? It wasn't even WRITTEN yet when TVH came out (and if TVH is your idea of going out on a high note, I gotta think you're high. It was a fine 'one viewing' pic that did a neat top itself/top itself again ending, but I'd hate the idea of remembering TOS films as ending in that appalling white N chrome mess -- sorry I mean redress -- of a bridge set, which looks like the template for The Abrams Thing's bridge AKA the cosmetic aisle in your friendly neighborhood Target store.

[Dukhat]

trevanian wrote:

---

They actually have fun with this, Kirk's "Oh please" could be any veteran audience member.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

They couldn't get Sean Connery, Max Von Sydow or Klaus Maria Brandauer.

I know who the actors were that they wanted...that wasn't my point. My point was that they probably could have gotten a better, more well-known actor to play a part as "important" as Spock's half-brother.

Nearing 60 might be painful but i don't know that it is old, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about here.

It wasn't the actors' literal ages that made them seem so old...it was the way they acted out the scene. I had no idea how old they were until you posted that.

It's fairly easy to infer (w/o much rationalization either) that Nimbus was set up to fail, just from Warner's dialog. Shatner's delivery of the words "planet of galactic ... " also has the tone of "oh THAT place" which reconfirms this for audience.

So if this planet was simply a big joke, then why risk one of Starfleet's best captains and crew to save the ambassadors?

TNG at height of its popularity? It wasn't even WRITTEN yet when TVH came out...

I could be misremembering the exact dates here...now that you mention it, I believe TNG was at the height of it's popularity during STVI, not V. My bad.

(and if TVH is your idea of going out on a high note, I gotta think you're high. It was a fine 'one viewing' pic that did a neat top itself/top itself again ending, but I'd hate the idea of remembering TOS films as ending in that appalling white N chrome mess -- sorry I mean redress -- of a bridge set, which looks like the template for The Abrams Thing's bridge AKA the cosmetic aisle in your friendly neighborhood Target store.

Your are of course entitled to your own opinion, but you're confusing the literal ending of the movie (and I'm not sure why you're making such a deal out of a set that was seen for about five seconds) with the entire movie itself, which was the basis for my statement that TVH was a good finale for the TOS crew.

[trevanian]

Why risk one of their best captains and crews on a rescue of useless ambassadors,that was the question?

PR stunt would be my guess, since it should have been a milk run. They could have sent anything that held air and warped to the planet and just beamed everybody up if it weren't for the ship, which brings me to my version of your risk question ...

Why risk one of their best captains and crews on a ship that would probably demonstrate the lemon law is alive and well in the 23rd century is a better question. Do they want these guys to croak?

(the 'only ship in quadrant' scene in TFF includes Bennett saying he needs Jim Kirk, to which Shat does the 'oh please.' to me it is played at the audience as much as the guy on the viewscreen.)

[Dukhat]

trevanian wrote:

---

(the 'only ship in quadrant' scene in TFF includes Bennett saying he needs Jim Kirk, to which Shat does the 'oh please.' to me it is played at the audience as much as the guy on the viewscreen.)

I'll have to watch that scene again; it doesn't ring a bell for me.

I did vaguely remember Bennett stating that he wanted Kirk for the mission. However, there's really no good reason why Kirk couldn't have used another ship for it, if the Enterprise was really in that bad of a shape. Which begs the question: What was the point of having the ship be malfunctioning at all? Does it really have anything to do with the overall plot of the film, aside from a few silly jokes?