Shatner says he should never have directed Trek V in new book

[Doc Mugatu]

Well *I* was entranced by fan dancing Uhura, even at the age of 10 (when I first saw the film).

LOL, you stick to your guns Amaris! See, when I was 10 I'm seeing Nichelle Nichols in classics such as Truck Turner () (1974) and other blaxploitation classics.

So it's just a matter of references and context.

 

[Longinus]

I really don't understand the hate for V. Sure, it has it's flaws, but overall it is pretty decent film. It is character driven, it has mystery and it makes a philosophical point. 'I need my pain' is quite powerful and insightful stance. I also liked the nod in the end to the idea that there is no need to search for external god; the things we need a god for, they're in us. Execution maybe somewhat shoddy, but it is more intelligent than many later Trek films; it is easily on my 'like' half of the films.

 

[jaime]

To be clear, you could argue "ageism" not "sexism" as I wouldn't want to see any of the TOS crew at that time do a fan dance. I mean, sweet Jesus, could you image Kirk, Spock, Scotty, McCoy, Sulu and Chekov doing a Full Monty type scene in that movie? Uhura fan dance nightmare to the power of 10!

Aside from that you raise a good point regarding the lack of strong female leads in the TOS films.

It’s not so bad for the time, when you consider the leads were actually cast in TOS.
From day one...Ilia is on the poster and a main character, Saavik is everywhere in II and there’s carol, III has Saavik, though not in as big a role, IV has Gillian, and V has Uhura getting her scenes, as well as strong supporting roles like Caitlin Daar and the Klingon first officer...they aren’t exactly leads, but they are way more than extras. VI has Azet Bur and Valeris. The leads are always gonna be Bill, Leonard and De, but once you take that out of the equation, it’s really pretty good for the film genre and the time. Overall, it’s only really Nemesis and Generations that let the side down, and Generations was a shopping list movie...Nemesis was such a mess in the end there’s not much that would have saved it, though you can make an argument that many key roles in it are women...Senator Thingy and Troi are key characters, if treated pretty shoddily. But this is a filme abou PICARD and DATA and everyone else is unimportant.

 

[Pauln6]

It’s not so bad for the time, when you consider the leads were actually cast in TOS.
From day one...Ilia is on the poster and a main character, Saavik is everywhere in II and there’s carol, III has Saavik, though not in as big a role, IV has Gillian, and V has Uhura getting her scenes, as well as strong supporting roles like Caitlin Daar and the Klingon first officer...they aren’t exactly leads, but they are way more than extras. VI has Azet Bur and Valeris. The leads are always gonna be Bill, Leonard and De, but once you take that out of the equation, it’s really pretty good for the film genre and the time. Overall, it’s only really Nemesis and Generations that let the side down, and Generations was a shopping list movie...Nemesis was such a mess in the end there’s not much that would have saved it, though you can make an argument that many key roles in it are women...Senator Thingy and Troi are key characters, if treated pretty shoddily. But this is a filme abou PICARD and DATA and everyone else is unimportant.

Traditionally, Trek has done ok with its female leads and I think that Uhura comes out of Trek V better than most. It's looking beyond the leads where they used to fall down. The shuttle heading to Nimbus has Uhura and then a whole bunch of men.

Actually TMP did really well but they snapped right back with all the subsequent movies. Only Beyond and Discovery has overcome this bias.

I for one would have loved to see Saavik in this one. Her back story could have been revealed by Sybok. It would have been cool and would have given Robin a chance to play a more emotional Saavik that might have impressed Meyer enough for STVI.

I know Saavik was never in any draft of STV but I wonder why it was never thought to be a great opportunity to explore her.

 

[jaime]

Traditionally, Trek has done ok with its female leads and I think that Uhura comes out of Trek V better than most. It's looking beyond the leads where they used to fall down. The shuttle heading to Nimbus has Uhura and then a whole bunch of men.

Actually TMP did really well but they snapped right back with all the subsequent movies. Only Beyond and Discovery has overcome this bias.

I for one would have loved to see Saavik in this one. Her back story could have been revealed by Sybok. It would have been cool and would have given Robin a chance to play a more emotional Saavik that might have impressed Meyer enough for STVI.

I know Saavik was never in any draft of STV but I wonder why it was never thought to be a great opportunity to explore her.

I think the pregnancy plot that stalled ended her arc really.

 

[Pauln6]

I think the pregnancy plot that stalled ended her arc really.

A plot that was never expressly stated or referred to subsequently? They could even have revealed that during this movie if they had wanted to run with it.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

I really don't understand the hate for V. Sure, it has it's flaws, but overall it is pretty decent film. It is character driven, it has mystery and it makes a philosophical point. 'I need my pain' is quite powerful and insightful stance. I also liked the nod in the end to the idea that there is no need to search for external god; the things we need a god for, they're in us. Execution maybe somewhat shoddy, but it is more intelligent than many later Trek films; it is easily on my 'like' half of the films.

I'd say it's pretty clear that you remembering the small screen viewing experience. As a Made-for-TV/Direct-to-video OFFERING it is fine. On the big screen with the requisite expectation and quality demanded Star Trek V was absolutely rage inducing. The special effects were atrocious. Not a hard to spot boo-boo here and there, but an amateurish affair that the large screen made impossible not to notice. The story, compared to the previous four movies, was cartoonish and weak. Did ST:V have some nice character moments? Absolutely. If this had been made FOR the small screen as a special to hold folks interest until the next major motion picture then fine but it wasn't. In a nutshell, Star Trek V was a minor motion picture with terrible SFX. Perhaps as TV's get bigger and higher definition those flaws will make themselves noticeable once more and you will be able to experience the disappointment that many of us remember all too well.

 

[Longinus]

I'd say it's pretty clear that you remembering the small screen viewing experience. As a Made-for-TV/Direct-to-video OFFERING it is fine. On the big screen with the requisite expectation and quality demanded Star Trek V was absolutely rage inducing. The special effects were atrocious. Not a hard to spot boo-boo here and there, but an amateurish affair that the large screen made impossible not to notice. The story, compared to the previous four movies, was cartoonish and weak. Did ST:V have some nice character moments? Absolutely. If this had been made FOR the small screen as a special to hold folks interest until the next major motion picture then fine but it wasn't. In a nutshell, Star Trek V was a minor motion picture with terrible SFX. Perhaps as TV's get bigger and higher definition those flaws will make themselves noticeable once more and you will be able to experience the disappointment that many of us remember all too well.

Sounds very superficial. Yes, I've never seen it a theatre. Still, it is a bit silly to focus on effects, sure they were shit, but that it hardly a big deal. I really don't watch Star Trek for special effects, that's just some extra that is nice to have. Abrams films have great effects but they're still crap movies, I take the Final Frontier over them any day.

 

[urbandefault]

I'd say it's pretty clear that you remembering the small screen viewing experience. As a Made-for-TV/Direct-to-video OFFERING it is fine. On the big screen with the requisite expectation and quality demanded Star Trek V was absolutely rage inducing. The special effects were atrocious. Not a hard to spot boo-boo here and there, but an amateurish affair that the large screen made impossible not to notice. The story, compared to the previous four movies, was cartoonish and weak. Did ST:V have some nice character moments? Absolutely. If this had been made FOR the small screen as a special to hold folks interest until the next major motion picture then fine but it wasn't. In a nutshell, Star Trek V was a minor motion picture with terrible SFX. Perhaps as TV's get bigger and higher definition those flaws will make themselves noticeable once more and you will be able to experience the disappointment that many of us remember all too well.

I never had a problem with TFF, large or small screen. Then again I don't fancy myself a movie critic; I just tend to take things at face value. It was an enjoyable ride with characters I like. That's good enough for me.

YMMV.

 

[jaime]

A plot that was never expressly stated or referred to subsequently? They could even have revealed that during this movie if they had wanted to run with it.

I think that’s why it ended her arc.

 

[jaime]

I'd say it's pretty clear that you remembering the small screen viewing experience. As a Made-for-TV/Direct-to-video OFFERING it is fine. On the big screen with the requisite expectation and quality demanded Star Trek V was absolutely rage inducing. The special effects were atrocious. Not a hard to spot boo-boo here and there, but an amateurish affair that the large screen made impossible not to notice. The story, compared to the previous four movies, was cartoonish and weak. Did ST:V have some nice character moments? Absolutely. If this had been made FOR the small screen as a special to hold folks interest until the next major motion picture then fine but it wasn't. In a nutshell, Star Trek V was a minor motion picture with terrible SFX. Perhaps as TV's get bigger and higher definition those flaws will make themselves noticeable once more and you will be able to experience the disappointment that many of us remember all too well.

I think it depends on a persons age or what else they were watching. I was kid, it was fine, the FX were fine. Not great, far from invisible, but fine.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

I never had a problem with TFF, large or small screen. Then again I don't fancy myself a movie critic; I just tend to take things at face value. It was an enjoyable ride with characters I like. That's good enough for me.

YMMV.

Well, yes AND no. Highly visible Matte lines, washed out composite sequences and harsh lines around characters in front of green or blue screens (whichever they used). That's not a "YMMV" issue, that is blatantly/objectively bad filmmaking. As to the merits of the actual story … you like what you like and I'm fine with that. Again, it did have some nice moments. It also had some hokey moments as well as some God awful ones (get it? ). LLAP.

 

[jaime]

Well, yes AND no. Highly visible Matte lines, washed out composite sequences and harsh lines around characters in front of green or blue screens (whichever they used). That's not a "YMMV" issue, that is blatantly/objectively bad filmmaking. As to the merits of the actual story … you like what you like and I'm fine with that. Again, it did have some nice moments. It also had some hokey moments as well as some God awful ones (get it? ). LLAP.

Ghostbusters. Ghostbusters 2. Last Crusade. Three films from roughly the same period within same FX issues.

 

[urbandefault]

Well, yes AND no. Highly visible Matte lines, washed out composite sequences and harsh lines around characters in front of green or blue screens (whichever they used). That's not a "YMMV" issue, that is blatantly/objectively bad filmmaking. As to the merits of the actual story … you like what you like and I'm fine with that. Again, it did have some nice moments. It also had some hokey moments as well as some God awful ones (get it? ). LLAP.

If I judged space movies by visible matte lines and other SFX defects, I'd be bothered by a whole bunch of them. Like I said, I take things at face value. I understand that it's not real, and just enjoy the ride. You like to point things out and criticize.

Fine. Here's a laurel, and hardy handshake.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

Ghostbusters. Ghostbusters 2. Last Crusade. Three films from roughly the same period within same FX issues.

Sorry, no (you're attempting to establish some false equivalencies). An imperfection here or there (as I previously stated) happens, but to the extent and consistency of Star Trek V was absolute malpractice. Ferren and Associates did a terrible job. Yes, they were not given the usual amount of time or budget and it was easily their most ambitious job-to-date, and ultimately they failed to rise to the challenge. Even Shatner has decried the work done.

 

[Longinus]

Sorry, no (you're attempting to establish some false equivalencies). An imperfection here or there (as I previously stated) happens, but to the extent and consistency of Star Trek V was absolute malpractice. Ferren and Associates did a terrible job. Yes, they were not given the usual amount of time or budget and it was easily their most ambitious job-to-date, and ultimately they failed to rise to the challenge. Even Shatner has decried the work done.

Does that really matter though?

 

[jaime]

Sorry, no (you're attempting to establish some false equivalencies). An imperfection here or there (as I previously stated) happens, but to the extent and consistency of Star Trek V was absolute malpractice. Ferren and Associates did a terrible job. Yes, they were not given the usual amount of time or budget and it was easily their most ambitious job-to-date, and ultimately they failed to rise to the challenge. Even Shatner has decried the work done.

Yup. They were shoddy. But it’s not like they were that bad by the standards of the day. It’s not as huge a deal as you imply basically. The worst is at the very end, and by then...well...it doesn’t matter so much to an invested viewer of the time. And I and others like me were. It doesn’t have to sit next to 2001 or Alien or even TMP (films rarely do) it just has to sit next to Battle Beyond the Stars, Spacehunter, the other Trek films, stuff like that. Terminator was only eight years or so earlier...a blink of an eye to some extent back then, and we don’t know the difference between high and low budget as kids in those days. ILM is just a name that crops up a lot on behind the scenes stuff, not some byword. Some jaded twentysomething true believer? I can see them being a bit pissed, but then...five films in, Shatner directing? They were gonna be pissed anyway. We just didn’t see those Matt lines or jerky stop motion, because at the time, that was the norm.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

Does that really matter though?

Well, you posed the question as to why some hated Star Trek V. I attempted to answer your query. It actually appears you were trolling as you are more determined to argue than listen. Fact: Star Trek V was an undeniable box-office failure (check out B.O. Mojo). With that, and your question, in mind I offered up three points: Terrible special effects throughout, a weak story, and a higher standard to live up to when money is paid to see it in a theater (as opposed to free on TV).

Does it matter?

It mattered to Paramount and anyone who had profit participation. It mattered to the general audiences who saw it only once and dogged it to their friends resulting in it failing at the box office. It mattered to William Shatner's legacy as the Ed Wood of Star Trek. So yeah, I'd say it mattered.

 

[Longinus]

Well, you posed the question as to why some hated Star Trek V. I attempted to answer your query. It actually appears you were trolling as you are more determined to argue than listen. Fact: Star Trek V was an undeniable box-office failure (check out B.O. Mojo). With that, and your question, in mind I offered up three points: Terrible special effects throughout, a weak story, and a higher standard to live up to when money is paid to see it in a theater (as opposed to free on TV).

Does it matter?

It mattered to Paramount and anyone who had profit participation. It mattered to the general audiences who saw it only once and dogged it to their friends resulting in it failing at the box office. It mattered to William Shatner's legacy as the Ed Wood of Star Trek. So yeah, I'd say it mattered.

That it was not a great financial or critical success is hardly in dispute. I assumed we were talking on more personal level here, and personally I feel that hating on a film for poor special effects is really superficial. And of course in retrospect it matters even less; perhaps the effects were particularly shoddy even for the time, but from today's perspective it is immaterial. Even great effects from decades past look poor by today's standards.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

That it was not a great financial or critical success is hardly in dispute.

No, it isn't yet that is what you are apparently determined to do.

I assumed we were talking on more personal level here, and personally I feel that hating on a film for poor special effects is really superficial.

Film is all about visuals - it is a visual medium. A bit nonsensical to claim that factoring that into one's assessment is in anyway "superficial."

And of course in retrospect it matters even less; perhaps the effects were particularly shoddy even for the time, but from today's perspective it is immaterial. Even great effects from decades past look poor by today's standards.

Not at all true. Last year when Star Trek II: TWoK was re-released to theaters the special effects still held up. I would dare say some aspects even surpassed what's possible today as there was a mass, a dimension, to the use of models that CGI still can't beat. 2001: A Space Odyssey stills looks great and stands up.

A film in which the visuals fail the storytelling will always be a detriment to how it is judged. ST: V may have been given a reprieve of sorts due to the lower definition of standard television and diminished expectation, however, that is now quickly changing. How will it be judged on 85" 5K home theater setup we have yet to see. We do know it is generally ranked the worst of the TOS films even now and a source of continued embarrassment to its director.

You know there are folks out there who love the smell of dog poo. That's a fact. Even they don't try to defend their liking it as they know what it is and how most others react to it. Star Trek V is your dog poo. You can love its odor all you want and I'll leave you to it, however, the only one you discredit in extolling its excremental virtues is yourself.

Thank ya'll and goodnight!