Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by Aslan ch'Shran, May 23, 2010.
Exactly. The effects are secondary to everything else.
Gary returned in Star TreX, the Trek/X-Men crossover comic book.
Does anyone else find the scene where Kirk, Spock and McCoy have gotten back inside the shuttle on Sha-Ka-Ri, and you can hear the "God" creature outside making those weird moaning/murmuring noises, quite creepy? Always makes me think of The Haunting.
Admiral Bennett says that he “need Jim Kirk” despite the condition of the Enterprise and sends Kirk & crew to deal with the situation. I used to think it was a pretty stupid decision, but now I think I was in error in taking the Admiral’s words at face value.
I now see it differently. The Nimbus III situation is an ass assignment. When Caithlin Dar says that their respective governments would “stop at nothing to ensure [the hostages’] safety,” she’s deluded, just as she is in her belief that she was sent to Nimbus III to make a difference. Sending the Enterprise to deal with the situation is a half-hearted action. In truth Starfleet didn’t want to pull another starship off a mission that actually matters. The bit about needing Jim Kirk was just flattery.
Waitaminute. Trek 5 gained a higher budget than Trek 4 received. (although admittedly not that much higher) Still, how is that shortchanging? Did he really think he was going to be handed a vastly larger budget than Trek 4? Wasn't the reason why he chose a non-traditional effects house was because he knew how much money he was going to be handed in pre-production, and wanted to allocate more money elsewhere? And perhaps a noteworthy question: Why were Bennett, Nimoy, and Meyer able to create better films with less money involved? My answer: because they were better filmmakers.
What I find with Shatner defenders is excuses. Studio wanting humor - which is fine, if you find a capable screenwriter who can write half-decent humor. Humor was an element in all of the films, and I have seen capable-to-good humor put in some fairly dark material. Budget problems with FX? Cut down the FX. Nimoy had to do it, I am sure that Meyer and Bennett had to as well. I have never made a film myself, but I do know someone who does, and one of the most rudimentary things that they tell me is that they make the best film given the parameters laid out for them. But they don't make excuses after the fact. Directors know that they are ultimately the ones who are going to be responsible for the success and failure of their movies, and certainly planning is one element that provides success. I don't see Nimoy, Bennett, or Meyer making vast excuses for being given tiny budgets and all sorts of other hurdles thrown in front of them. I am sure that there are tons of politics and studio meddling that they have never ever shared publicly with Trek's 2,3,4 and 6. My guess is that the reason why they made successful films despite their shortcomings in terms of resources and interference is that they are/were adequate for the task. In other words, that they are/were decent-to-good filmmakers.
And to take this subject out the realm of Trek 5 for just one moment - one only has to look at the absolute garbage that Shatner has directed elsewhere to come to the realization that he is just frankly a bad filmmaker. I don't think his ego will allow him to admit that to himself, so in his eyes the problem has to come from someone or somewhere else.
That makes sense. These people are in a broken down ship, pulled away from shore leave, and since by that time the Enterprise was little more than a figurehead than an actual ship of the line, they figured grab the old folks out of mothballs and chuck them at the problem.
I found the reasons why the movie had so many troubles to be adequate. To each his or her own.
ST2 & 3 were shot on sets. ST4 had very few visual effects. And the ones they did have were completed by ILM. Shatner has already explained the major effects houses were booked on other projects. Did he and Bennett select a bad one, yes. But it was not their first choice. And if memory serves, most of the original sets were destroyed, damaged or altered for TNG. So they had to create a new bridge, shuttle bay, lounge, ect. The corridors were from TNG.
Most of the things that I dislike about this movie have already been listed, so I won't list them again. And since I'm somewhat late coming in on this discussion, I stopped reading at about page 10, so if what I'm about to say has been covered in the last couple pages and I'm just repeating, I apologize!
the problem I have with this movie and with several other instances in sci-fi is the attempt to make a statement about religion without actually really knowing anything about religion.
Is this REALLY how an "non-believer" views religious people? I admit, I don't like "religion"; neither did Jesus. And I admit that there are some "charlatans" out there, but I guess I just think the broad brush used here is inaccurate.
To me, this seems like an attempt to attack something one doesn't even understand.
Glad I'm not the only one that sees STV this way. I've always seen the 1701-A and Kirk retaining command more as a PR stunt for Starfleet. They really couldn't hand him his nuts after the Whale Probe incident, not publicly anyway. So they tell the Federation President they're "rewarding him" by giving him what he wants and a duplicate of his old ship. Win, win: Starfleet gets some good PR and Jim Kirk is out of the Admiralty and out of their hair
From there on out: he's given little pissy assignments that no one really cares about and he can't cause to many problems with. Which explains why by the time of STVI the crew is ready to retire.
Ironically, and unintentionally, this sort of mirrors post STIII DC comics in some ways: Where Kirk saves the Federation, Starfleet can't bust his nuts cause Kirk has given all his logs over to a young reporter who makes Kirk into a Federation hero, so they give him Excelsior (which is buggy as all get out) to shakedown and work out the kinks. The send him to the ass end of space for the most part.
Many people forget that Starfleet demoted Kirk. Although he himself was happy about it, it was a major punishment. It's not like Starfleet rewarded him like many people always say. The only reward was that the rest of the charges were dropped.
In Star Trek, saving the world has never been a career booster. Picard and Riker saved Earth from the Borg, what happened? Nothing. Kirk saved Earth from V'Ger, and nothing happened. He grew old and grim, unhappy about his career. And then he saved Earth from the Whale probe, and they demoted him and gave him a ship that wasn't fully functional. Sisko saved the Federation a couple of times, too, and he wasn't turned into a superhero either.
I blame Voyager/Nemesis and the new movie. Janeway didn't achieve jackshit and became Admiral. Cadet Kirk essentially only stopped a terrorist and got promoted to Captain and got command of the flagship. By the these movie's logic, Picard, Kirk, Sisko, Riker & Co would have been elected to Federation Presidents or Masters of the Universe long ago.
I have that particular comic.
I think Janeway was promoted to keep her close to home. She returned home in 7yrs and crippled the Borg, which would have made her famous. But after some of the crap she pulled in the Delta Quadrant and what Future Janeway did, maybe they wanted to keep her stuck at a desk.
As for STXI, that was really stupid. They should have flashed fwd 6yrs and made him Captain then. They are really setting the young up for a major disappointment. The real world does not work like this. You cannot go from Cadet to Captain. Of course they followed the Hollywood mentality. You put out a good hyped song, movie or TV show, you become a star. Hollywood offers you roles you're probably not ready for, simply because you're the latest thing.
As for Kirk, I think the writing was on the wall. The Constitution Class was being decommissioned. I'm pretty sure Navy crews are trained for specific vessels. They can be retrained for other assignments, but that is probably an expensive process. His command crew was moving on in their careers. So he probably decided it was time to retire.
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 money.
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 recall this guy you're calling Admiral Bennett was referred to onscreen as Admiral "Bob."
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.
Yes, but it is still fun to watch I still love the line "Hold Your Horse, Captain" when Spock says this to Kirk.
Separate names with a comma.