Unfortunately, the utter nonsense that the film is filled with overwhelms whatever ‘plot’ there might have been.
What exactly WAS the point of Star Trek V anyway?
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
Unfortunately, the utter nonsense that the film is filled with overwhelms whatever ‘plot’ there might have been.
As leads, Nimoy and Shatner had what's called a "favored nations" deal with the studio for the Trek films. That meant what one got (pay, opportunity), the other would also get. So when Nimoy got a chance to direct a Trek film, the studio was obligated to let Shatner direct as well.
This has been chronicled in Shatner's various memoires.
Ok....so I'm a glutton for a good bludgeoning apparently.
I actually think Star Trek V had several "points:"
1. There was commentary on/depiction of false prophets and false "Gods." Sybok is a quintessential religious / cult leader who, through a dangerous combination of good intent, a horrific misleading, and his own excessively bloated ego, ends up doing some really bad things all because he believes he's been chosen by the supreme being. And he pays the ultimate price for it in the end.
2. Through that point, religious fundamentalism and terrorism (prisoner taking, hijacking, etc) are highlighted
3. The TOS main characters and the solidarity of their relationships are highlighted and expanded upon in a meaningful ways: McCoy gets a rare and insightful piece of backstory regarding the tragic decision to euthanize his ailing father. Spock's relationship with Sybok is revealed, and his loyalties to family and friends are tested. Kirk reveals that for all the bravado and puffed-up heroism, there's still pain that drives him, and we see him express his love and brotherhood for his friends.
4. The concept of the "Great Barrier" was representative of mankind's fears and how fears on both an individual and universal level can prevent us from certain major achievements / aspirations.
Now, you can CERTAINLY debate the effectiveness and clarity with which these points were successfully communicated and integrated into the overall story execution.
But, I don't think it's fair or reasonable to claim that Star Trek V had "no point."
I actually think Star Trek V had several "points:"
1. There was commentary on/depiction of false prophets and false "Gods." Sybok is a quintessential religious / cult leader who, through a dangerous combination of good intent, a horrific misleading, and his own excessively bloated ego, ends up doing some really bad things all because he believes he's been chosen by the supreme being. And he pays the ultimate price for it in the end.
2. Through that point, religious fundamentalism and terrorism (prisoner taking, hijacking, etc) are highlighted
3. The TOS main characters and the solidarity of their relationships are highlighted and expanded upon in a meaningful ways: McCoy gets a rare and insightful piece of backstory regarding the tragic decision to euthanize his ailing father. Spock's relationship with Sybok is revealed, and his loyalties to family and friends are tested. Kirk reveals that for all the bravado and puffed-up heroism, there's still pain that drives him, and we see him express his love and brotherhood for his friends.
4. The concept of the "Great Barrier" was representative of mankind's fears and how fears on both an individual and universal level can prevent us from certain major achievements / aspirations.
Now, you can CERTAINLY debate the effectiveness and clarity with which these points were successfully communicated and integrated into the overall story execution.
But, I don't think it's fair or reasonable to claim that Star Trek V had "no point."
Upon Shatner's request, though. So, to @Kor's point, Shatner had to "push" for it. Paramount wasn't just blindly offering the opportunity.
But the fundamental flaw with this, in my opinion, is that this isn't really a 'plot.' We already know that Sybok is a false prophet and that he's not really going to find God. So there's really nothing for the audience to be convinced of. I mean, was there actually someone in that theater watching the film who actually thought Sybok was right and that he would actually find "God" at the end of the film? And something bad is going to happen to him because of his beliefs? Well, no offense, but, duh.
Actually, the hostage-taking should have been the main plot of the movie, not religious fundamentalism. At least with the terrorism there isn't already a set outcome.
Yes, I'll agree that the McCoy's and Spock's respective dads' scenes were pretty moving. But they were really nothing more than just reinforcement for a film about Kirk being strong while literally everyone else around him was weak.
I think you're giving the concept of TGB far more credit than it actually deserves, since if it was supposed to be a 'test of faith' to get through it, then how did the Klingons and their clunky BoP fly through it just fine?
If I sound like I'm nitpicking, I apologize. As far as I'm concerned, if you liked TFF, then great, and more power to you. And if the above points work for you, that's awesome. They just really didn't work for me the same way.
You’re right. It's not a plot. It’s a point, as answered to the OP. Further, Sybok being a false prophet is a theme, and his misadventure of “not really going to find God” becomes an arc, and an integral part of the plot.
Probably not. I (as I’m sure you and most others) kinda had an inkling that Sybok was not going to land on his feet by the credit roll. Nothing was going to convince me otherwise. But that journey makes for excellent drama, and plot, doesn’t it? See Don Quixote. Not exactly the same, but quite similar. We know that a flawed character on a quest will usually be disappointed, at the least. That trope is an old chestnut.
I know: not for you, in this particular case. Fair enough. Though, I think you’ve confused “point” with plot. And character arcs and story arcs.
I don’t think so. That’s an oversimplification. It showed Kirk being the type that channels his pain into motivation. It’s what gives him the capacity to captain a starship. Also, the scene did not show McCoy or Spock as weak, but strong despite their pain. Scotty wasn’t weak, either, by the way.
The Klingons got through it because they had faith that they’d get through it. It wasn’t as though “faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” was literally the key that unlocked the door. It was Kirk’s (and Sybok’s) faith in himself that he could endure and conquer the unknown. Same with the Klingon commander. It’s explicit in Sybok’s dialogue.
I think the concept of the Great Barrier is sound. It’s possible that it is the execution that finds The Final Frontier wanting.
I get that it didn’t work for you, and I don’t think you’re nitpicking. The problem is you’re disassembling the points, arcs, themes, and story lines all wrong.
So I'll ask: What's the plot of this movie? See next entry.
Not to me. In order to have a successful 'hero's journey' theme, one must actually empathize and care about the hero and his journey, whether he is flawed or not. And no matter how much Sybok was trying to convince everyone that he's right and to believe in his quest, we the audience already know that his quest will be for nothing, because there's no way Sybok's gonna find God. There's no real drama there. Not to mention that the film isn't really about Sybok and his quest for God anyway. It's about Kirk being stronger than literally everyone else in the film and not being swayed by a con man. (Hint: that's my answer to the above question of plot.)
Not trying to sound condescending, but I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.
It showed they were weak because after their visions, they were all ready to go along with Sybok on his quest, and essentially betray Kirk. That was actually a plot point that Nimoy and Kelley disagreed with when the film was being made. They felt that there was no way that Spock and McCoy would ever betray Kirk. And yet they do.
Nowhere in the film does it ever show or even imply that the Klingons got through TGB because of their faith. No offense, but you're just making that up.
Again, I'm pretty sure I'm not.
I'll buy that perspective. It's interesting the things one will take as obvious in these discussions and the things one will take as interpreted.
Indeed, I could see Shatner really digging Leonard Nimoy's improved command of the director's job in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, and experiencing how special that film truly was. I could see him getting the itch to direct one of these things, and attempt to spin and weave some magic which resonated so well with that film. V is trying to be something which it doesn't know what it wants to be. This was a poor decision by the studio to approve of a project where no one knew what the hell the thing was about? They should've had tons of questions for Shatner where he would had to pitch this thing and answer all of the heavy questions about who is God? What is God? What does God look like? Should God look like Santa Claus or Oden??? Why would God be trapped on a planet??? Why are Vulcans playing stupid for this adventure?
Unless you correct me, I'm going to assume from that statement that what you believe is obvious, I think is an interpretation. Well, you're welcome to feel that way. But you'd obviously be wrong
Last edited:
As ever no one can articulate what the film is about because it's a grab-bag of ideas that go underdeveloped or entirely undeveloped.
There's no meaningful exploration of false prophets and evangelists, there's just a faint suggestion of one, and whoops, he has mind powers so no one is falling for his schtick because he's literally brain manipulating them.
The Great Barrier is introduced and just immediately passed with no real effort. "We can't." "We can." They did. So what?
Etc.
Compare this to TWOK where the themes are set up in the first three scenes and everything that follows builds on them and pays those off. STV is amateur hour screenwriting by someone with no clear narrative direction and no understanding how to structure a screenplay or pay it off. Ideas are a dime a dozen and they don't make a movie in of themselves, as this turd ably demonstrates.
There's no meaningful exploration of false prophets and evangelists, there's just a faint suggestion of one, and whoops, he has mind powers so no one is falling for his schtick because he's literally brain manipulating them.
The Great Barrier is introduced and just immediately passed with no real effort. "We can't." "We can." They did. So what?
Etc.
Compare this to TWOK where the themes are set up in the first three scenes and everything that follows builds on them and pays those off. STV is amateur hour screenwriting by someone with no clear narrative direction and no understanding how to structure a screenplay or pay it off. Ideas are a dime a dozen and they don't make a movie in of themselves, as this turd ably demonstrates.
No, man. It wasnt passive-aggressive. Just appreciating different perspectives.Unless you correct me, I'm going to assume from that statement that what you believe is obvious, I think is an interpretation. Well, you're welcome to feel that way. But you'd obviously be wrong
Harve Bennett, from first hearing the story Shatner came up with, did think it was very burdened by having that inevitability. But a lot of stories of blockbuster films have big elements of that, when you think of it, of course the heroes will in the end succeed and the villains fail.
I think the film does still create enough interest and intrigue in the story. Sybok provided an interesting challenge to Kirk and the audience, aside from his power to actually mind-change people (which wasn't really explored enough), with his argument that barriers regarded as unbreakable in the past have been repeatedly, successively broken, so much so that meeting a god or trying to isn't actually that necessarily impossible for Trek/its internal universe. The movie also involves the question of if they won't meet God why and what does cause Sybok to try so much to find him, what was beyond the barrier and on the planet, was it actually nothing or some other kind of entity. And also if Sybok does discover God or some origin or any great entity then is he really a villain? As resentful as Kirk is over the hijacking he ends up agreeing with Sybok it's worth exploring further.
True, at least one of the big points of the film, especially Shatner's original concept, is to try to glorify Kirk and thus Shatner. But while Shatner thought it would be a good drama if all the crew betrayed Kirk the actual film instead shows the trio tested and somewhat divided and yet still sticking together-and it's also fairly sympathetic to the misguided/extreme yet in ways reasonable, likeable antagonist.
My takeaway is: There is no god, we created him (Kirk's "The human heart" line) and don't look for him because it's a fools errand that'll only be lead into darkness (as Sybok was)
Ok. But that's not really a statement about the dangers of following televangelists, which was Shatner's original idea. Of course, the movie utterly fails to convey this as well, since Sybok wasn't trying to con people out of their money by getting people to believe in his imaginary friend.
Raiders is one which TFF is kind of similar set up/pay off
...Having the real God show up shouldn't really be that big a problem for the writers in this (or even that) day and age. Just call to check on the current commitments of Morgan Freeman. Having Him show up doesn't even detract much from the role of the main heroes, as per, say, Mr Freeman's appearances so far. It's sort of like having Albert Einstein or Genghis Khan pop in now.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
What an ultimate failure of a movie, a Star Trek movie, where the audience leaves the movie thinking it's a fools errand to have faith. On other TFF threads I'd mentioned the tone of the movie should've been more like Indiana Jones, going on an adventure and capturing the wonder to give the audience to say, "What if?"; I am surprised Shatner, after experiencing THV and also being part of a franchise for so long doesn't know that Star Trek always had the message of hope.
Similar threads
- Poll
