According to the author of Hollywood vs. America, Michael Medved, Star Trek V failed due to the fact that it offended America's sensibilities about God. Ok, this is the first time that i I hear this one. There is anyone offended by the depiction of spirituality in this movie?
Have to be honest... this one really does sound like clutching at straws. Nah, the movie's "religious connotations" had nothing to do with STV's performance. In fact, I remember nobody saying anything about this at the time. STV failed because of a combination of bad word-of-mouth and the fabled 'summer of blockbusters' that saw so many heavy-hitters being released within weeks of each other. Somebody had to be the fall guy, and STV got washed away in the tide.
And I believe the movie made clear that the entity at the center of the Galaxy was not really God ("Why does God need a starship?"). Soooo... What?!?!
I used to tolerate Michael Medved's overly enthusiastic film reviews, but then he turned into some kind of right-wing conservative squawk box talking about politics.
It didn't offend me when was 19, and it doesn't offend me now. Parts of the movie ANNOY me, but don't offend me.
It all makes sense now! Star Trek V didn't fail because it was a badly-written William Shatner vanity project with special effects by Some Guy In New Jersey Working Out Of His Garage, Inc. It failed because God didn't like it! Let me stress that I find this entirely credible. It means God has good taste. But if that's so, I wonder if Mr. Medved can explain why God torpedoed Star Trek V but allowed the entire Twilight film series to be made, to say nothing of Katherine Heigl rom-coms and the Transformers movies.
It failed because the raging success of Star Trek IV. Paramount thought everyone wanted Star Trek to be a comedy.
I found a review of the book (Charles Oliver, "It's Not a Wonderful Book" (Review of Hollywood vs. America), Reason Magazine, February 1993)
I don't think this is a fair assessment. The story was pretty weak and I'm not sure anyone could've turned it into a great movie with Paramount wanting it to have comedic elements like The Voyage Home.
Agree. TFF just did not connect with the moviegoers in the summer of '89. I saw it then with friends and felt it's story needed work.
The story was shaky, yeah, and the script needed a couple drafts to be less, well, dopey, but you can't seriously fault the direction. Shatner-as-director did pretty well at first pointing the camera at interesting-looking things, and in having the camera guide the eye to what's important to see, without being distracting about it. I honestly and without irony feel there's some good ability there that in a more just universe would have had more opportunities to develop.
Take all of the original cast movies and edit out all of the effects and then compare them. Star Trek V does not fair poorly against STTMP and others. Please, I have been chasing around for genuine confirmation of an authorized Star Trek V director's cut, does anyone have the latest info?
There will never be one. Shatner is eighty-years old and Paramount has shown no interests in doing a Directors' Edition. Though if Paramount wants him for Star Trek 3, he could use it as leverage. If he's still interested in doing a DE.
Medved is an uptight blowhard and a moral scold, neither of which makes for a good film critic. I'm curious if he also pins the poor performance of Licence to Kill (another victim of the Summer of '89) on the cheesy televangelist played by Wayne Newton.