I love Star Trek V.
Unfortunately, I believe that is an overwhelmingly unpopular sentiment.
![]()
Star Trek V is somewhat underrated in my opinion. It's a very flawed film with a flimsy story and lackluster script but it does have some really good character moments. To me it's the only six of the original films that really taps back into the dynamic between Kirk/Spock/McCoy. I rate it as the second weakest of the TOS film only because I can actually watch it in one sitting unlike TMP which I can never sit through.
I know I'm johnny come lately here,
but I disagree with your sentiment so much I kinda wanna fight you![]()
Disagree with my love for it, or disagree that my love for it is an overwhelmingly unpopular opinion?
Disagree with your love of it.
I was just teasing,
In fact, I have a ton of TFF memorabilia, including a movie poster autographed by Shatner, Nichols and Takei (all in person) and a cardboard 3D movie theater display that is very rare.
So...yeah...judge me!!! I probably deserve it!
![]()
It's tough to argue with a Goldsmith score. Character is (mostly) V's saving grace. (Excepting nonsense like Scotty cracking his head on a bulkhead.)It's a shit movie by every objective measure (except I'd argue cinematography, music score, and character).
is the display of the main one sheet (Kirk/Spock)? or the teaser seatbelt ? (im assuming the signed poster is the main one)
It's tough to argue with a Goldsmith score. Character is (mostly) V's saving grace. (Excepting nonsense like Scotty cracking his head on a bulkhead.)
But I'm interested to hear what you think of the cinematography. I never thought much for the look of V, but then I haven't paid that much attention to it.
To me the best shot of the TOS films is IV. I think part of that is because so much of it is in the real world which allowed more scope. But I also loved the look of the 23rd century parts of the film as well.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.