RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,831
Posts: 5,473,198
Members: 25,039
Currently online: 483
Newest member: noroadcordova

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Trek Business Card Cases
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

February IDW Publishing Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

Retro Review: The Siege of AR-558
By: Michelle on Nov 15

Trevco Full Bleed Uniform T-Shirts
By: T'Bonz on Nov 14


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 19 2014, 07:15 PM   #1
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
STV - TFF is 25 years old...

The Final Frontier is now twenty-five years old.

It often gets panned for some deserved reasons, but it's not all bad. It's often cited as the worst of Trek films, but I'll TFF over any of the NextGen films and certainly over any JJtrek anytime and anywhere.

At heart TFF has a worthy story and it's a shame it just wasn't better executed. There are some decent (and some not so decent) character moments in the film. It has energy and a fair dose of run-and-jump--one can't fault William Shatner's sense of energy.

It also has a pretty fine soundtrack.

If the f/x could have been more polished, the overdone humour toned down and the story massaged some it could have been a much better remembered outing. That said I still prefer TFF over TVH, GEN, FC, INS, NEM and the JJ offerings.

Maybe I'll watch TFF as a nod to a noble albeit fumbled effort.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2014, 07:16 PM   #2
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STV - TFF is 25 years old...

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=246679
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2014, 07:31 PM   #3
Melakon
Vice Admiral
 
Melakon's Avatar
 
Location: Unmarked grave, Ekos
Re: STV - TFF is 25 years old...

We're sure getting a lot of anniversary threads. I'm even seeing anniversary threads for episodes 15 years old.
__________________
Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard: For duty and humanity! --Men in Black (1934)
Melakon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2014, 05:35 PM   #4
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: STV - TFF is 25 years old...

Warped9 wrote: View Post
The Final Frontier is now twenty-five years old.

It often gets panned for some deserved reasons, but it's not all bad. It's often cited as the worst of Trek films, but I'll TFF over any of the NextGen films and certainly over any JJtrek anytime and anywhere.

At heart TFF has a worthy story and it's a shame it just wasn't better executed. There are some decent (and some not so decent) character moments in the film. It has energy and a fair dose of run-and-jump--one can't fault William Shatner's sense of energy.

It also has a pretty fine soundtrack.

If the f/x could have been more polished, the overdone humour toned down and the story massaged some it could have been a much better remembered outing. That said I still prefer TFF over TVH, GEN, FC, INS, NEM and the JJ offerings.

Maybe I'll watch TFF as a nod to a noble albeit fumbled effort.


I agree that it's not as bad as it's made out to be, but I have to vehemently disagree that it's better than GE, FC, Star Trek XI, or STID.


It's got good character moments and great music, a good performance from Luckinbill, but it's got a seriously flawed story.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2014, 09:13 PM   #5
sbk1234
Rear Admiral
 
sbk1234's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles
Re: STV - TFF is 25 years old...

I always felt The Final Frontier was treated like a much worse movie than it was. I loved the character bits between the Big Three. In a lot of ways, the film felt the most like the old series than all of the other films. The biggest problems were the effects and the script. The story itself could have worked just fine, but they tried too hard to force a lot of humor that didn't belong due, I think, to the success of TVH.
__________________
In all the history of the world, a riot has NEVER broken out at a Sci-Fi convention.

"It's a fucking TV show!" - Gary Lockwood
sbk1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2014, 09:24 PM   #6
J. Allen
Going Nowhere Fast
 
J. Allen's Avatar
 
Location: Ohio *sigh*
Send a message via ICQ to J. Allen Send a message via AIM to J. Allen Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to J. Allen Send a message via Yahoo to J. Allen
Re: STV - TFF is 25 years old...

sbk1234 wrote: View Post
I always felt The Final Frontier was treated like a much worse movie than it was. I loved the character bits between the Big Three. In a lot of ways, the film felt the most like the old series than all of the other films. The biggest problems were the effects and the script. The story itself could have worked just fine, but they tried too hard to force a lot of humor that didn't belong due, I think, to the success of TVH.
That's what it was. Paramount told Shatner that they wanted funny, like from the previous movie. Shatner himself wanted a more serious, darker film. That is, if I remember the interviews correctly.
__________________
-----------------------
💗 Visit Brony Kingdom 💗
-----------------------
J. Allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2014, 09:44 PM   #7
LOKAI of CHERON
Commodore
 
LOKAI of CHERON's Avatar
 
Location: Post-apocalyptic ruins of my once mighty Homeworld.
Re: STV - TFF is 25 years old...

J. Allen wrote: View Post
sbk1234 wrote: View Post
I always felt The Final Frontier was treated like a much worse movie than it was. I loved the character bits between the Big Three. In a lot of ways, the film felt the most like the old series than all of the other films. The biggest problems were the effects and the script. The story itself could have worked just fine, but they tried too hard to force a lot of humor that didn't belong due, I think, to the success of TVH.
That's what it was. Paramount told Shatner that they wanted funny, like from the previous movie. Shatner himself wanted a more serious, darker film. That is, if I remember the interviews correctly.
The humour in The Voyage Home was natural and organic - and flowed spontaneously from the characters in an enjoyable and endearing fashion. The perfect balance of comedy and drama.

However, I do feel that movie created the "curse of da funnies" in most of the subsequent Trek films. It does indeed feel forced, contrived and somewhat laboured. Probably as a consequence of studio intervention as suggested.
__________________
YOU MONOTONE HUMANS ARE ALL ALIKE... FIRST YOU CONDEMN, THEN ATTACK.
LOKAI of CHERON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27 2014, 06:39 AM   #8
GalaxyX
Rear Admiral
 
GalaxyX's Avatar
 
Location: Canada
Re: STV - TFF is 25 years old...

LOKAI of CHERON wrote: View Post
J. Allen wrote: View Post
sbk1234 wrote: View Post
I always felt The Final Frontier was treated like a much worse movie than it was. I loved the character bits between the Big Three. In a lot of ways, the film felt the most like the old series than all of the other films. The biggest problems were the effects and the script. The story itself could have worked just fine, but they tried too hard to force a lot of humor that didn't belong due, I think, to the success of TVH.
That's what it was. Paramount told Shatner that they wanted funny, like from the previous movie. Shatner himself wanted a more serious, darker film. That is, if I remember the interviews correctly.
The humour in The Voyage Home was natural and organic - and flowed spontaneously from the characters in an enjoyable and endearing fashion. The perfect balance of comedy and drama.

However, I do feel that movie created the "curse of da funnies" in most of the subsequent Trek films. It does indeed feel forced, contrived and somewhat laboured. Probably as a consequence of studio intervention as suggested.
Paramount should have just kept making movies about Kirk and crew going back in time to save more whales so they could keep milking the cash cow

Seriously, fucking idiots. STVH did well at the box office because more non-trekkie geeks could relate to the story. It wasn't because of the humor (which would only work with people already familiar with the characters, not with the general audiences)

I forgive ST-TFF because it had a great premise. It was about the story of finding out about ourselves. Isn't that what every religion claims to have? knowledge of where we came from and why we are here.

TOS dealt with this premise several times (beings who self appointed themselves as our gods, which turned out to be sinister)

ST-TFF simply was on-course for the same style of "TOS" storytelling.

It's too bad that Paramount being the cheap fuckers they are (fuck you ) they stripped ST-V's budget practically to a shoestring, and forced in out of place comedy moments.

But none of these are faults of the story itself, which was trying really hard.

I think if someone redid all the FX like a "TOS Remastered" episode, just on that, the movie would improve like 5 times. Remove the dumb comedy bits that you can remove safely, and you actually have a decent movie.
__________________
Top Gear America: Jay Leno, Adam Carolla, Tim Allen. DONE!
GalaxyX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 27 2014, 09:38 AM   #9
Smellmet
Captain
 
Smellmet's Avatar
 
Location: Goole
Re: STV - TFF is 25 years old...

I couldn't agree more with your points, unfortunately the film still is what it is and that's what I have to judge it on. I can't see Paramount going to the trouble and expense of re-doing special effects of what in many people's eyes is an unpopular and financially unsuccessful movie, like you said - tight fuckers. They were right in the middle of treating Trek like a hardworking undervalued employee...
Smellmet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28 2014, 06:46 AM   #10
GalaxyX
Rear Admiral
 
GalaxyX's Avatar
 
Location: Canada
Re: STV - TFF is 25 years old...

Smellmet wrote: View Post
I couldn't agree more with your points, unfortunately the film still is what it is and that's what I have to judge it on. I can't see Paramount going to the trouble and expense of re-doing special effects of what in many people's eyes is an unpopular and financially unsuccessful movie, like you said - tight fuckers. They were right in the middle of treating Trek like a hardworking undervalued employee...
I think TWOK hurt the chances of Trek ever getting a decent budget (with the high budget TMP doing only so-so, compared to the smashing success of TWOK).

Paramount thought they could get away with doing things cheaper and cheaper. TVH cemented it because it was the most successful movie based on production budget vs box office profit.

I'm looking at this site:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Trek

If those #'s are right, what the hell did they spend $70mill on Insurrection?? That movie had the FX quality of a Playstation 2 game.


I've seen some fan attempts at fixing ST:V. I'm decent with video and sound editing but really bad at designing CGI, which is what the movie would need the most (and good CGI, better than what the movie currently has)
__________________
Top Gear America: Jay Leno, Adam Carolla, Tim Allen. DONE!
GalaxyX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 29 2014, 04:33 PM   #11
Push The Button
Captain
 
Push The Button's Avatar
 
Location: Smithfield, Rhode Island USA
Re: STV - TFF is 25 years old...

I love Nichelle Nichols, but I could have done without her fan-dancing scene. Ditto for the infinite turbolift shaft.

I did like the camping scenes with the big three, and Spock's "marshmellon" dispenser and rocket boots.
__________________
Check the circuit!
Mr. Spock, The Cage
(The very first line of dialogue in the series)
Push The Button is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2014, 01:25 AM   #12
Leto_II
Commander
 
Leto_II's Avatar
 
Location: Room 303, The Heart O' The City Hotel
Re: STV - TFF is 25 years old...

GalaxyX wrote: View Post
It's too bad that Paramount being the cheap fuckers they are (fuck you ) they stripped ST-V's budget practically to a shoestring, and forced in out of place comedy moments.
Correction, here:

The budget of Star Trek V was actually quite a bit higher than Star Trek IV's ($33 million vs. $21 million). The fifth movie's visual FX budget (initially $4 million) was also slightly higher than the fourth movie's; Paramount insisted upon several cuts to planned sequences when initial projections surpassed this figure by two or three million dollars.
__________________
"Pablo, please take Chet's corpse into the other room, and then fix Mr. Hallenbeck a drink."
Leto_II is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2014, 01:50 AM   #13
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: STV - TFF is 25 years old...

Leto_II wrote: View Post
GalaxyX wrote: View Post
It's too bad that Paramount being the cheap fuckers they are (fuck you ) they stripped ST-V's budget practically to a shoestring, and forced in out of place comedy moments.
Correction, here:

The budget of Star Trek V was actually quite a bit higher than Star Trek IV's ($33 million vs. $21 million). The fifth movie's visual FX budget (initially $4 million) was also slightly higher than the fourth movie's; Paramount insisted upon several cuts to planned sequences when initial projections surpassed this figure by two or three million dollars.
I'd amend that by saying that documentation I have pegs those numbers at $32 million and $22 million, but you've made the point I was going to make -- Star Trek V cost quite a bit more than any previous film in the series up to that point (except for the first film).
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2014, 12:07 AM   #14
GalaxyX
Rear Admiral
 
GalaxyX's Avatar
 
Location: Canada
Re: STV - TFF is 25 years old...

Harvey wrote: View Post
Leto_II wrote: View Post
GalaxyX wrote: View Post
It's too bad that Paramount being the cheap fuckers they are (fuck you ) they stripped ST-V's budget practically to a shoestring, and forced in out of place comedy moments.
Correction, here:

The budget of Star Trek V was actually quite a bit higher than Star Trek IV's ($33 million vs. $21 million). The fifth movie's visual FX budget (initially $4 million) was also slightly higher than the fourth movie's; Paramount insisted upon several cuts to planned sequences when initial projections surpassed this figure by two or three million dollars.
I'd amend that by saying that documentation I have pegs those numbers at $32 million and $22 million, but you've made the point I was going to make -- Star Trek V cost quite a bit more than any previous film in the series up to that point (except for the first film).
That is quite interesting. Why the heck did it end up looking so hokey then?

I know ILM was out working on something else (I think it was Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?) so they got the B-team to do the FX. But they payed them the same??
__________________
Top Gear America: Jay Leno, Adam Carolla, Tim Allen. DONE!
GalaxyX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2014, 02:37 AM   #15
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: STV - TFF is 25 years old...

GalaxyX wrote: View Post
Smellmet wrote: View Post
I couldn't agree more with your points, unfortunately the film still is what it is and that's what I have to judge it on. I can't see Paramount going to the trouble and expense of re-doing special effects of what in many people's eyes is an unpopular and financially unsuccessful movie, like you said - tight fuckers. They were right in the middle of treating Trek like a hardworking undervalued employee...
I think TWOK hurt the chances of Trek ever getting a decent budget (with the high budget TMP doing only so-so, compared to the smashing success of TWOK).

Paramount thought they could get away with doing things cheaper and cheaper. TVH cemented it because it was the most successful movie based on production budget vs box office profit.

I'm looking at this site:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Trek

If those #'s are right, what the hell did they spend $70mill on Insurrection?? That movie had the FX quality of a Playstation 2 game.


I've seen some fan attempts at fixing ST:V. I'm decent with video and sound editing but really bad at designing CGI, which is what the movie would need the most (and good CGI, better than what the movie currently has)

I think actors' salaries, especially Stewart's and Spiner's, were eating up a chunk of the budget at that point. I think Stewart's was around 12 mil or something.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.