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

[Vger23]

To be clear, and I said this at the start, Star Trek V does have some good scenes in it. It fails overall, but, in isolation, there are some good bits.



Wrong to direct? No. Even though I believed he failed the exam, I also believe he got somethings right. In retrospect, I do think his desire to direct was more out ego rather than the more noble ambition of telling a good story well. For Nimoy it was about the work and the art. For Shatner it's about the more superficial aspects. You know what, he's not the only director to be that way, and some of them are tremendously successful. I

I did like the "our pain is part of what makes and defines us." I like it because it was a logical offshoot of episodes such as "The Enemy Within" as it speaks to larger, though unintended point, that a perfect world would not guarantee a race of perfect people. Probably just the opposite.

I agree that Star Trek V just needed one more top-to-bottom rewrite (I've said it myself in the past). A rewrite that would have heeded what Harve Bennett, and others, tried to communicate to Mr. Shatner. He didn't get more help because he wasn't being receptive to it and that put others in the position of not wanting to seem obstructionist. Honestly, I also do believe that Paramount had little to no faith in his ability and from the beginning probably worked to cut their envisioned losses and move on. A consequence of that is Shatner was, in a sense, setup to fail. IOW, Star Trek V's failure was the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As for the B.O. competition, I don't buy it. There is always competition. According to B.O. Mojo Star Trek II was up against E.T., Rocky III, and Poltergeist. That year it ranked as the 6th most successful film of the year (1982). I mean read the list of films released in the month of June 1982 and WOW!

As opposed to Star Trek V. It premiered in the number one spot (beating out Indy 3) then quickly sunk like a stone against, arguably weaker competition. Indy 3 Ghostbusters 2, Karate Kid III all did well but deemed much weaker than their predecessors. Star Trek V finished the year in the 25th spot. (1989)

So, again, the competition argument doesn't hold up as an excuse for it's box office failure.

It was a massive blockbuster summer.

Last Crusade (certainly not weaker than Temple of Doom BTW)
Ghostbusters 2
Karate Kid 3
Dead Poet's Society
Lethal Weapon 2
Star Trek V
Honey I Shrunk the Kids

And the MASSIVE blockbuster, Batman


While I think word-of-mouth and critical reviews certainly contributed, absolutely don't agree that "box office competition is just an excuse" either. TFF had considerable competition that summer.

Some consider summer of 1989 to be one of the best movie seasons ever.

https://nypost.com/2014/07/07/was-1989-the-best-summer-for-movies-ever/

 

[Doc Mugatu]

It was a massive blockbuster summer.

Last Crusade (certainly not weaker than Temple of Doom BTW)
Ghostbusters 2
Karate Kid 3
Dead Poet's Society
Lethal Weapon 2
Star Trek V
Honey I Shrunk the Kids

And the MASSIVE blockbuster, Batman


While I think word-of-mouth and critical reviews certainly contributed, I certainly don't agree that "box office competition is just an excuse" either. TFF had considerable competition that summer.

Some consider summer of 1989 to be one of the best movie seasons ever.

https://nypost.com/2014/07/07/was-1989-the-best-summer-for-movies-ever/

Again, compared to 1979, 1982, 1984, and 1986 your assertion regarding competition becomes ridiculous to the point of absurdity. You really think the competition the other Trek films faced was relatively lighter? LOL! Star Trek VI finished 1991 in the number 15 spot making The Final Frontier (#25) the only TOS film NOT to end the year in the Top 20. It flopped because it was, all things considered, a bad film. So bad that those who had seen it once did not, in significant numbers, either see it again or recommend it to others. They moved on from it quickly because it was awful. So awful it experienced a nearly 60% drop off in business between it's first and second weekend of release. So no matter how you slice the pie, Star Trek V's awfulness is completely supported by the objective data.

As for the NY POST article, well, many years have had the same articles written about them, however, the general consensus amongst those in the know is 1939 as the best year for movies for it was the year Gone With the Wind, all-time box office champ (adjusted) was released. Also the year of Wizard of Oz and the inspiration for Indy 2, Gunga Din (starring Cary Grant , Victor McLaglen , and Douglas Fairbanks Jr.), and many others.

 

[Vger23]

Again, compared to 1979, 1982, 1984, and 1986 your assertion regarding competition becomes ridiculous to the point of absurdity. You really think the competition the other Trek films faced was relatively lighter? LOL! Star Trek VI finished 1991 in the number 15 spot making The Final Frontier (#25) the only TOS film NOT to end the year in the Top 20. It flopped because it was, all things considered, a bad film. So bad that those who had seen it once did not, in significant numbers, either see it again or recommend it to others. They moved on from it quickly because it was awful. So awful it experienced a nearly 60% drop off in business between it's first and second weekend of release. So no matter how you slice the pie, Star Trek V's awfulness is completely supported by the objective data.

As for the NY POST article, well, many years have had the same articles written about them, however, the general consensus amongst those in the know is 1939 as the best year for movies for it was the year Gone With the Wind, all-time box office champ (adjusted) was released. Also the year of Wizard of Oz and the inspiration for Indy 2, Gunga Din (starring Cary Grant , Victor McLaglen , and Douglas Fairbanks Jr.), and many others.

I stopped reading at "LOL"

 

[Firebird]

As for the NY POST article, well, many years have had the same articles written about them, however, the general consensus amongst those in the know is 1939 as the best year for movies for it was the year Gone With the Wind, all-time box office champ (adjusted) was released. Also the year of Wizard of Oz and the inspiration for Indy 2, Gunga Din (starring Cary Grant , Victor McLaglen , and Douglas Fairbanks Jr.), and many others.

Good lord, I've never heard someone sound so pompous and condescending on this board, and I've been around here more than 13 years.

Kirok said 1989 was ONE OF the best years for movies, not THE best - and it's not an unknown fact or some special, forbidden knowledge. It's movies, not state secrets.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

I stopped reading at "LOL"

Thank goodness because I can tell you, without bias, your arguments got utterly destroyed. So badly in fact I was concerned you'd develop PTSD (complete with night terrors). But since you didn't read past "LOL!" then bullet dodged.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

Good lord, I've never heard someone sound so pompous and condescending on this board, and I've been around here more than 13 years.

Kirok said 1989 was ONE OF the best years for movies, not THE best - and it's not an unknown fact or some special, forbidden knowledge. It's movies, not state secrets.

"Pompous?" No. "Magically delicious" in both style and substance, okay I'll accept that.

The intentionally false implication Kirok was attempting to establish was that the films released in 1989 were somehow superior than that of previous years that saw the release of TOS era Star Trek movies and that was the reason why TFF failed. I merely pointed out that 1979 (TMP), 1982 (ST II). 1984 (ST III) and 1986 (ST IV) were ALL years that had formidable box office competition yet the quality of those films had them finish in the top 10. Nothing "pompous" in that.

Btw, what I said regarding 1939 was factually correct.

 

[Vger23]

Thank goodness because I can tell you, without bias, your arguments got utterly destroyed. So badly in fact I was concerned you'd develop PTSD (complete with night terrors). But since you didn't read past "LOL!" then bullet dodged.

1. I wasn't making an argument. I was simply pointing out a point of view that might have been different than your own. Clearly that was a mistake.

2. Wow.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

Secondly, you seem to feel if you keep repeating

1. I wasn't making an argument. I was simply pointing out a point of view that might have been different than your own. Clearly that was a mistake.

2. Wow.

Kirok, I don't mean this pompously or snarky in any way, however your point # 1 is literally the definition of what an argument is.

The problem with your position is simply, by no objective measure or metric (recognized either now or in the past) can you refute the fact that Star Trek V was both a box office/commercial as well as critical failure. There is simply no other reasonable point-of-view on those facts (It's like trying to claim that the "Flat Earth" belief is a reasonable alternative to the scientific fact it is an oblate spheroid). Yet you try.

Subjectively, you can love it like no other. I do not, myself, hate it. Where you run afoul is trying to alter facts to fit your opinion (and we all know what the fourth Doctor said about that in "Face of Evil").

 

[Roundabout]

Since he is a Canadian born actor his lies are ultimately benign and I don't have to worry about him running for POTUS.

Did Shatner ever obtain American citizenship?

Being Canadian would give Shatner a distinction, though.

Avery Brooks was the first black captain to star in a ST series. Kate Mulgrew was the first female captain to star in a ST series. Oddly enough but perhaps fittingly, I guess Shatner was the first alien captain of a ST series (from an American perspective).

 

[plynch]

I liked STV fine in the theater. Didn't notice fx probs. Yes, film is visual. Also has stories, characters, music, dialog too.

 

[Jonesy]

But that's not a story. That's just a premise. The story is what is the challenge facing our characters? To me this is where Shatner got in over his head, because he didn't have a narrative through-line. Okay, so you have a televangelist...and? What are we trying to say about him? Or God? Or people's willingness to throw away logic in belief of something? I never once read or heard Shatner articulate any such details.

This (points above).

I've always wondered just what we were denied that was so much better than what was presented in Trek 5 (in terms of the story). Shatner has had many years to set the record straight. An original draft of a screenplay or even an extensive outline could shed some light on what we we've been missing all these years.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

Did Shatner ever obtain American citizenship?

Being Canadian would give Shatner a distinction, though.

I believe I once read in an old TV Guide profile Shatner stated he was dual citizenship that way he could, as a Canadian, do theater in England's West End if need be. The interview was mid-70s so I don't know if the Canadian citizenship held other benefits.

 

[Maurice]

This (points above).

I've always wondered just what we were denied that was so much better than what was presented in Trek 5 (in terms of the story). Shatner has had many years to set the record straight. An original draft of a screenplay or even an extensive outline could shed some light on what we we've been missing all these years.

I don't think we were "denied" anything. I suspect there never was any "there" there as far as that script went.

 

[Khan 2.0]

This (points above).

I've always wondered just what we were denied that was so much better than what was presented in Trek 5 (in terms of the story). Shatner has had many years to set the record straight. An original draft of a screenplay or even an extensive outline could shed some light on what we we've been missing all these years.

just offhand (remembering from the pages of Cinefantastique/Gross&Altman Making of Trek Movies book) it was mainly the climax of the film - 'God' was actually revealed to be the devil (not an alien pretending to be God). the end was Kirk vs legions of demons/gargoyles (imagine ILM would've been able to do them convincingly).. then when the devil was shelved It was rockmen...then budget dictated 1 rockman which was filmed..(and when footage was unusable the floaty God head). the transporter was disabled at the end by Scotty accidently beaming up a gargoyle instead of Kirk who he them vaporises with a phaser (not a BOP strike disabling it). Kirk ontop the mountain was to have a phaser in each hand blasting at legions of demons as they closed in before the BOP appears then Kirk fires his opens fire on at that too.

 

[Firebird]

This (points above).

I've always wondered just what we were denied that was so much better than what was presented in Trek 5 (in terms of the story). Shatner has had many years to set the record straight. An original draft of a screenplay or even an extensive outline could shed some light on what we we've been missing all these years.

I've got a second draft from October 1987, and another draft from February 1988. Apart from the ending being further scaled back as the budget tightened, the story is by and large the same.

 

[Maurice]

The God isn't God but the devil is beginning writer "twist" crap: we can't show God so we'll suggest God exists cuz we'll show the devil. Meh.

There was a germ of a good idea in the early concepts for TFF: the idea of the televangelist who can persuade masses of people to do things. Showing how such a charismatic charlatan can win over converts even in an enlightened future is an interesting notion, but they don't go there. They just make Sybok brainwash people and so this angle becomes a vestigial appendage: useless.

 

[Kerock]

I wonder if Sybok and Michael Burnham knew each other.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

They just make Sybok brainwash people and so this angle becomes a vestigial appendage: useless.

I will say this in defense of ST V, I didn't see Sybok as brainwashing folks per se rather he used his Vulcan abilities to provide a therapy that allowed people to unburden themselves of a tremendous, possibly crippling, guilt they harbored and what we saw was the temporary euphoria it produced as a side effect. At least that's how I took it as Sybok never struck me as malevolent just determined.

 

[Vger23]

I will say this in defense of ST V, I didn't see Sybok as brainwashing folks per se rather he used his Vulcan abilities to provide a therapy that allowed people to unburden themselves of a tremendous, possibly crippling, guilt they harbored and what we saw was the temporary euphoria it produced as a side effect. At least that's how I took it as Sybok never struck me as malevolent just determined.

One of the reasons I find Sybok to be one of the more compelling antagonists of the movie franchise.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

One of the reasons I find Sybok to be one of the more compelling antagonists of the movie franchise.

I hate applying the word "antagonist" to Sybok. It is correct of course, but I feel misleading for he was on what would otherwise be characterized as a rather noble quest of mythological proportions. He was no more villainous than King Arthur and his knights or Odysseus trying to make his way home after the siege of Troy.

I do wish TPTB of current Star Trek productions would expand on interesting side characters rather than trying desperate ways of exploiting old starring ones. I like that they are doing more with Harry Mudd and the original Number One. They should have chosen to focus on Sybok rather than Spock. Leave the Kirk, Spock, Picard's alone. Move forward in expanding what Star Trek is rather than going backwards.