And Star Trek V failed because...
- Thread starter Zaku
- Start date
I actually watched Shatner's two "Captains" documentaries last night, so have gained a bit more insight into him. It was interesting to hear him concede (I think in conversation with Avery Brooks) that his approach for many years had been to try to derive maximum emotion from each line he delivered - only later did he realise that he should relax and just let it happen.
This matches with Nick Meyer's observation that Shatner got better when made to do a lot of takes, because he would stop "acting" and start "being". I think most would agree that in the last decade Shatner has definitely become more relaxed.
Also, talking to Patrick Stewart, he said that he had finally stopped resenting being "that Star Trek guy" and would be happy to be remembered for being associated with this interesting work.
In many ways Shatner has been his own worst enemy, but with the right director he has done some great work, most notably in TWOK and TSFS.
The trouble with The Final Frontier?
Well, there's these great Kirk-Spock-McCoy scenes early and at the end. There's some interesting stuff where Sybok invades Paradise City interrupting the idealistic Romulan ambassador and the jaded Federation and Klingon ones. There's some good scenes of Spock's and McCoy's inner pains. There's a fantastic scene of penetrating the Great Barrier. The trouble is there's a lot of sluggish or dull or unfocused scenes in-between those bits.
The movie's got the necessary three good scenes; it just fails at not having bad ones.
The camping scenes all suck, they only seem "good" in comparisson to the crap movie they're embedded in. There really isn't anything worthy about STAR TREK V, except that it made Shatner happier than a pig in shit to finally get his directorial début in motion pictures ... until the numbers came in, at least.
I don't think he has hate in his soul.
However, start trek v is just a bad movie. Bad basic idea, badly directed, bad special effects, bad acting and bad writing. All of us would have loved to love this movie. Even the"best" scene of the trio camping was cringe worthy. Wish I had a tardis so i could go back in time and get shatner to do a good movie.
I disagree. Great basic idea, poor execution. To wit, meh direction, terrible (not bad, terrible) pedestrian (not special) effects, acting only as good as the meh direction allowed it to be, and poorly researched meh writing. It isn't the worst movie of all time, but it has to be seen (many times) more than once so it can grow on you.
In fact, the only good thing about the effects is that it's the one time in the franchise that the scale between a Scout Class BOP and the Enterprise is shown correctly.
In fact, the only good thing about the effects is that it's the one time in the franchise that the scale between a Scout Class BOP and the Enterprise is shown correctly.
Last edited:
I like the scenes looking out at the approach to the barrier from inside the lounge, such as those visible here. I'm not sure how the space shots were inserted behind the actors, but if I had to guess I'd guess good ol' rear projection.
Quite simply, TFF was the most disappointing film I've ever seen in a theater. I was as psyched for it as anyone. I think the whole movie was a Shatner hubris-fest and therefore a huge waste of time and effort.
The whole "God" thing had to go either one of two ways: the film's way ("Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here - in the heart"… with oboe playing in the background, naturally) or the it-really-is-God way, which was never going to happen. Rock monsters would have made no difference at all.
Shatner's (credited) story idea sucked, I'm sorry to say. But he must have thought it was fine, and it's unfortunate that no one was in a position to tell him it wasn't.
I don't like the campfire scenes at all, nor any of the other "humorous" moments. All the Planet of Galactic Peace stuff was a total waste. Nor is this Goldsmith's best work (and certain things about the score became formulaic, repeated verbatim, in the last three TNG movies).
One scene only do I find worthwhile: the Enterprise with the full moon behind it.
As I've probably mentioned on a similar thread years ago, my favorite newspaper review headline from summer 1989 (City Pages, Minneapolis) was just so perfect:
Dammit, Jim
The whole "God" thing had to go either one of two ways: the film's way ("Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here - in the heart"… with oboe playing in the background, naturally) or the it-really-is-God way, which was never going to happen. Rock monsters would have made no difference at all.
Shatner's (credited) story idea sucked, I'm sorry to say. But he must have thought it was fine, and it's unfortunate that no one was in a position to tell him it wasn't.
I don't like the campfire scenes at all, nor any of the other "humorous" moments. All the Planet of Galactic Peace stuff was a total waste. Nor is this Goldsmith's best work (and certain things about the score became formulaic, repeated verbatim, in the last three TNG movies).
One scene only do I find worthwhile: the Enterprise with the full moon behind it.
As I've probably mentioned on a similar thread years ago, my favorite newspaper review headline from summer 1989 (City Pages, Minneapolis) was just so perfect:
Dammit, Jim
You would not be on a Star Trek message board...because there would be no Star Trek that survived being more than a 1960s minor curiosity (at best) if Shatner was not good for the production.
Take Shatner away from ST and you have Jeffrey Hunter--or whoever else, and the series dies quickly. Nimoy certainly was not going to carry that on his own.
Shatner tends to get painted into a no-win corner by some. If he had refused to reprise the role in movies, he would have been disliked for that, too.
James T. Kirk as we know him is an awesome character, who wouldn't have existed without William Shatner — who was awesome in the role. Kirk was good for Trek, ergo Shatner was good for Trek. However, none of that makes STV a good film.
I don't quite agree. That's like saying that Alec Baldwin was the only actor who could play Jack Ryan...if Hunt for Red October was the only Tom Clancy movie ever made. But obviously it wasn't, and obviously he wasn't.
Strangely enough, when I read a Clancy book it's Baldwin's face and voice in my head as Ryan--even though I liked Harrison Ford's version better. It really pisses me off.
Not at all the same. Jack Ryan existed as a character in print before he was transferred to the big screen. And his was a fleeting appearance that made no big impression on the culture at large.
Contrast that with Captain Kirk that was brought immediately to the masses via television and as depicted by William Shatner. The series went on to really resonate with masses of people throughout society and Shatner's portrayal and defining of Kirk was a huge component of that.
Far, far more people will recognize the name of Captain Kirk and identify Shatner's face with it than will ever recall Jack Ryan with or without Alec Baldwin's face.
That wasn't my point. The point was that one cannot justifiably say that only one actor can successfully be associated with one particular role. If that was the case, we'd only have had one Doctor and one James Bond.
Your argument is still empty. Other characters have indeed been portrayed by various actors over the years leading to said characters being somewhat fluid in terms of interpretation in the eyes of the public at large. But for forty years William Shatner has been associated with James T. Kirk and effectively defined exclusively by Shatner's performance.
Your argument would have some weight if Kirk had been recast during TOS' run or later during the films (an idea floated initially). But he wasn't. Additionally Shatner did a solid job of bringing Kirk to life so there was never any real thought of replacing him.
If Shatner had bungled it or if NBC had turned down the series even after the second pilot then maybe some reboot might have come along over the decades. But that isn't what happened and it basically undermines your argument at least as it pertains to Trek.
More recently fan productions and the 2009 reboot have recast the role (out of necessity) yet those varying performances are still judged in how they compare to William Shatner's portrayal.
Presently one can point to previous portrayals of Superman, Batman, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, James Bond and others and proclaim any of them as being more definitive, subjectively speaking. Note that all those characters existed in print before being translated to the mediums of film and television. But for four decades no one can point to anyone other than William Shatner as a definitive portrayal of James T. Kirk. Even today you would have a practically impossible case to claim anyone else has done it better than Shatner.
Chris Pine's version is the official one, but I like Vic Mignona's version more. He's actually at the age Shatner was in TWOK, yet his performance of the TOS Kirk is excellent. I mean no offense toward James Cawley, but Vic Mignona's version of Kirk is better by far.
Similar threads
- Locked
