Why was the budget for The Final Frontier reduced?

[Lance]

It was VI that had its budget reduced (at least initially. Think it might've eventually had the same budget as V) . V had an increase from IVs budget (as IV had from III, and III from II) I think Shatner wanted more for the climax of the movie but it wasn't granted.

Yeah, I think from my understanding of it V was budgeted higher than IV. It's just that Shatner's original concept overestimated the money that Paramount was willing to let him play with, so he had to start trimming the fat. Which meant bye-bye Rockmen. The mess up with the FX houses didn't help. (For what it's worth, Shatner could have elected to use ILM's "C Team", the "A" and "B" teams being too busy, but he chose to go elsewhere.)

VI had the same budget as V, but they were just cleverer about how they spent the money. It was an incredibly tight production.

 

[Timby]

The other thing is that there was a shit-ton of very expensive location shooting on The Final Frontier.

 

[RAMA]

Simply put, this is a myth perpetrated by Shatner because the project was so badly managed. The reality is it had a bigger budget than STIV and ST VI:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Trek#tab=summary

 

[Kor]

The rock men would have been quite reminiscent of the series, IMO. Too bad it didn't make the final cut.

Kor

 

[Timby]

Simply put, this is a myth perpetrated by Shatner because the project was so badly managed.

The poor project management falls on Bennett and especially Winter, not Shatner.

 

[gottacook]

...you can see the money running out as the film goes on...

Such a statement assumes the film was shot in script sequence; that's a very unusual occurrence.

This is one of the few films I ever saw in a theater that I regret having paid to see.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

I agree that STV is an excellent TOS episode, provided the humor is toned down excessively. Maybe they can get the nuCast to remake it (properly).

 

[jaime]

Sorry, but the movie was fundamentally flawed, and no amount of new and awesome special effects would change that.

I wasn't suggesting new and awesome, I was suggesting new and not naff.

I disagree that the film is fundamentally flawed, certainly no more and no less than other more popular entries, and I am curious as to which relatively objective flaws you feel weren't caused by budget, strikes, or the same problem that affected TMP: a deadline set, and a small production time.

 

[jaime]

...you can see the money running out as the film goes on...

Such a statement assumes the film was shot in script sequence; that's a very unusual occurrence.

This is one of the few films I ever saw in a theater that I regret having paid to see.

It is, but listening to the commentary, that seems to almost be exactly the case. I may be mistaken and it seems an odd choice, but then it opens with location filming and that allows time for bridge to be finished, and then studio on standing sets, and then ends on a built studio exterior set. So it's not without logic, in the broad strokes.
The beginning of the film is probably it's strongest section.

 

[Khan 2.0]

I agree that STV is an excellent TOS episode, provided the humor is toned down excessively. Maybe they can get the nuCast to remake it (properly).

Tom Cruise for sybok!

 

[Paradise City]

It could never be a blockbuster. But most blockbusters are uninteresting homogenised Big Macs anyway. V was a grand film. Nichey, perhaps but a grand film. They just needed to tighten up on the plot and overhaul the FX including overhauling the slapstick attempt to retake Paradise City. But the film was fundamentally sound.

 

[jaime]

One rarebthing in its plot (for star trek movies) was that at practically no point do we find ourselves wondering why something is happening or being done. Even the Klingon captain klaa, in retrospect, fits into two of the themes in the movie. He wants to fight kirk for much the same reason kirk climbs a rock, and like Sybok, finds out that getting his desire and fulfilling his quest leads to disappointment, but because he has help/friends something better happens (stretching koord as friend I admit)
Fundamentally all of Syboks friends were not real as he had to manipulate them into the relationship, and ultimately he dies alone, admittedly redeeming himself.

Now more time would make all that clearer with a few rewrites they couldn't have, and more money for the end sequence or better effects would gloss over any problems (though if you gloss over every plot problem or narrative universe problem with visuals and fx, you get prometheus or the jj verse)

 

[suarezguy]

I have to say, I rarely am displeased by special effects, most of them look good enough to me and that includes those in V. I thought V was overall better than III or IV and its big problems were the uneven tone between comedy and drama and that the supporting cast betrayed Kirk with no explanation or significance.

 

[jaime]

I have to say, I rarely am displeased by special effects, most of them look good enough to me and that includes those in V. I thought V was overall better than III or IV and its big problems were the uneven tone between comedy and drama and that the supporting cast betrayed Kirk with no explanation or significance.

The betrayal thing bothers me too, Sybok and telepathy taking over what we know to be a skeleton crew in however long kirk spock and bones are in the brig I can get. Bones only half heartedly remaining with kirk after the scene in the lounge...that I don't like. He should be as loyal as spock if not more so.
The effects are OK by the standards of 1989, but not great...in retrospect it's the tng corridors and engineering that stick out like a sore thumb, but didn't at the time so much.

 

[Mudd]

One rarebthing in its plot (for star trek movies) was that at practically no point do we find ourselves wondering why something is happening or being done.

Not true. Little of the movie makes any sense.

 

[jaime]

Not true. Little of the movie makes any sense.

Like what out of curiosity? Plot moves from a to b to c, themes are apparent. Did you watch it upside down with the wrong language track?

Writers strike, better budgeting whether by planning or extra money from studio to make up for locked in release date (which is a big part of why TMP went over budget) and it would have been fine. The story to hang a movie on is right there.

 

[Dukhat]

I could sit here and type a laundry list of why nothing in this movie makes sense (and I'll do it too if you want ), but fundamentally, the flaw of the film is that it's structured so that Kirk is made out to look like the invincible superhero who's never wrong, and everyone else is made to look like weak, easily swayed morons. Oh, and looking for the Judeo-Christian God at the center of the galaxy thing too.

 

[jaime]

I could sit here and type a laundry list of why nothing in this movie makes sense (and I'll do it too if you want ), but fundamentally, the flaw of the film is that it's structured so that Kirk is made out to look like the invincible superhero who's never wrong, and everyone else is made to look like weak, easily swayed morons. Oh, and looking for the Judeo-Christian God at the center of the galaxy thing too.

Doesn't the film end with kirk saying he was wrong and explaining how events have changed his views?
Isn't it ultimately spock and Sybok who save him and the day?
Isn't it outright stated that the being and place at the centre of the galaxy at least claims to be pretty much every God before turning out to be none?

The myths built around the film seem to bare little resemblance to the reality.

 

[Dukhat]

Doesn't the film end with kirk saying he was wrong and explaining how events have changed his views?
Isn't it ultimately spock and Sybok who save him and the day?
Isn't it outright stated that the being and place at the centre of the galaxy at least claims to be pretty much every God before turning out to be none?

Please find me the relevant quotes from the film that allude to this.

The myths built around the film seem to bare little resemblance to the reality.

I can't speak for the "myths," but the reality is that the film was a failure in almost any way one can think of.

 

[jaime]

Please find me the relevant quotes from the film that allude to this.




I can't speak for the "myths," but the reality is that the film was a failure in almost any way one can think of.

He refers to being wrong about not having a family during the whole lost a brother dialogue, and I think he may say something similar during the human heart dialogue too.

He literally says the words 'i was wrong' having started with a different viewpoint at the beginning of the film.

Yes the film failed, and it's not the best film, however...attempting to objectively analyse this and what effect the budget situations (angels and demons...no...Rockmen.... One Rockman... A spooky voice. Can we afford a spooky voice?) had on the film, and suddenly the film doesn't seem so much worse, sat next to the others or the series, if looked at with less emotion or hyperbole.