I agree that the script needed one more rewrite and the movie delayed until a holiday release. Always felt there should have been a third group of rescuers, the romulans, also trying to rescue the hostages and clash with Kirk to give it a little more space action -- that and the removal of the worst comedic bits and a little more explanation of how they got to the center of the Galaxy as well as was described in the novelization would Have made It a darn good movie.
The Final Frontier - 30th anniversary (June 9th)
- Thread starter BlueStuff
- Start date
I think the franchise by that point while fairly areligious was far from anti-religious, so most of the general viewers and even general fans (liked the characters and some episodes but weren't huge fans) wouldn't note or remember even the absence of it, let alone perceive rejection of it as a big theme of the franchise, and thus expect Sybok to fail.
There would be some expectation he would fail just because actually meeting one God depicted in a particular way would be too controversial but there would still be something significant beyond the barrier and that it was actually malevolent was possible but far from the only or most likely reveal.
Like TMP I consider Star Trek V to be a noble, ambitious failure. It explores great themes but the script fails to tie them together successfully. Friendship, family, healing, a great spiritual quest wrapped up in a fun adventure story that, aside from some special effects, is one of the prettiest Star Trek films.
When Sybok meets God it's a false God masquerading as God. That's an ending to almost another movie altogether.
Siskel and Ebert said the movie takes too long to introduce the plot. They also said characters are grandly introduced, such as David Warner's character, only to be forgotten halfway through the movie. Those are fair points.
A script rewrite could have turned Star Trek V from noble failure into epic success.
When Sybok meets God it's a false God masquerading as God. That's an ending to almost another movie altogether.
Siskel and Ebert said the movie takes too long to introduce the plot. They also said characters are grandly introduced, such as David Warner's character, only to be forgotten halfway through the movie. Those are fair points.
A script rewrite could have turned Star Trek V from noble failure into epic success.
I consistently rank this film in last place among the Star Trek films. I don't hate it. I have it in my 'special edition' DVD's and I watch it usually when doing a movie series rewatch. I like the characterizations, particularly the Kirk-Spock-McCoy dynamic. I liked Laurence Luckinbill as Sybok. He's not your typical villain, and really isn't a villain at all. And when Jerry Goldsmith is doing the music you know you're going to get a good score.
If it weren't for the special effects I'd probably rank it ahead of Insurrection. But the special effects, added to the ridiculous, corny humor Paramount insisted on (leave it to the studio to think they could recapture TVH's magic again in the same way) drags the film down to last place. For the flaws that Insurrection has, it at least looks like it was made by professionals. The special effects in TFF are so atrociously bad it looks like it was put together by monkeys. And guess who's job it is.....um, sorry, getting carried away
. It's embarrassing Paramount released it in that shape.
Story wise--it has some potential. But as others have noted an additional round of rewrites probably would have helped. There are some things I read on the Memory Alpha website that make me believe had some things been done TFF may have had a better outcome. One was Shatner had wanted Nicholas Meyer to do a script polish but he wasn't available. Another is that one of the reasons they didn't use ILM is because their primary team was busy in The Last Crusade (was another ILM team available? I'm not clear on that but ILM's worse team has to be better than Ferren and Ferren). If ILM couldn't do it there are still other, better special effects companies out there that could have done an adequate job.
If it weren't for the special effects I'd probably rank it ahead of Insurrection. But the special effects, added to the ridiculous, corny humor Paramount insisted on (leave it to the studio to think they could recapture TVH's magic again in the same way) drags the film down to last place. For the flaws that Insurrection has, it at least looks like it was made by professionals. The special effects in TFF are so atrociously bad it looks like it was put together by monkeys. And guess who's job it is.....um, sorry, getting carried away
. It's embarrassing Paramount released it in that shape.Story wise--it has some potential. But as others have noted an additional round of rewrites probably would have helped. There are some things I read on the Memory Alpha website that make me believe had some things been done TFF may have had a better outcome. One was Shatner had wanted Nicholas Meyer to do a script polish but he wasn't available. Another is that one of the reasons they didn't use ILM is because their primary team was busy in The Last Crusade (was another ILM team available? I'm not clear on that but ILM's worse team has to be better than Ferren and Ferren). If ILM couldn't do it there are still other, better special effects companies out there that could have done an adequate job.
IIRC, Enterprise firing a photon torpedo at Sha Ka Ree was, IIRC, both a bad visual and bad audio effect which sounded like something out of the series.
I also recall the BOP torpedo miss at the shuttle and the shuttle crash sequence not seeming very impressive. But it's been a long time since I watched this film. I skip it on rewatches because I just can't convince myself to spend that amount of time on it.
As others have said, I appreciate its ambition, but...it's a good thing this wasn't the first Trek I was exposed to.
I also recall the BOP torpedo miss at the shuttle and the shuttle crash sequence not seeming very impressive. But it's been a long time since I watched this film. I skip it on rewatches because I just can't convince myself to spend that amount of time on it.
As others have said, I appreciate its ambition, but...it's a good thing this wasn't the first Trek I was exposed to.
I had just finished grade 12 and my last exams, so my friends and I went to see TFF as a celebration. I remember the excitement level highest at the beginning, but dwindling throughout the movie. I was aghast at the amateur look of the special effects. The attempts at humour were just badly written. I also wondered why we got the TMP theme again, considering in '89 this was firmly established as the TNG theme. On the whole, I felt like Shatner cut major corners and cheated us out of a worthy successor to TVH.
But, that's negative! The positives of the movie for me, in retrospect, were the TOS-style interactions of the crew (particularly Kirk/Spock/Bones). The campfire scene was a good touch, and seeing as the bulk of the movie is bookended by two campfire scenes, I rationalize to myself that the entire movie was a bad dream induced by Bones' whisky. (Note that they sing "Life is but a dream" as the end credits fanfare picks up).
Great barrier, photon torpedoes, even the movement of the ships. It looked fake.
But, that's negative! The positives of the movie for me, in retrospect, were the TOS-style interactions of the crew (particularly Kirk/Spock/Bones). The campfire scene was a good touch, and seeing as the bulk of the movie is bookended by two campfire scenes, I rationalize to myself that the entire movie was a bad dream induced by Bones' whisky. (Note that they sing "Life is but a dream" as the end credits fanfare picks up).
Great barrier, photon torpedoes, even the movement of the ships. It looked fake.
For me, most of the visual effects are serviceable with the exception of any motion-control model work. That is what brought the movie's visual appeal to a screeching halt.
I like the barrier, God-column, Sha Ka Ree, shuttle crash, Phaser blasts, etc. It's really the model work that suffers most. And, it's really bad....like REALLY bad. I think Feren and Associates had absolutely no idea how to do motion control work. In many cases, the models simply look like still images moving across the screen.
Shatner falling from the mountain was laughable. Every single shot of the enterprise bar the moon one and the very last shot of it in the film were embarrassing - the ones where it warps away from the torpedo and where it goes into the great barrier were particularly poor and looked like they just moved the shot to the left or zoomed the shot away respectively - the great model work of the first four movies are nowhere to be seen here. The 'god' visuals were dreadful also and looked beyond cheap and unfinished.
Pretty much 90% of the FX in this movie ranged from at best sub par to worse than the 60's show. It really is that bad.
Even the 78 deck bit pisses me off when I see it - how could they get these things so wrong?
Even after all these years it beggars belief that this film was released in this condition, it's a shame as I think Shatners direction and the cinematography and score were pretty decent. There's a much better film lurking under all these basic errors.
30 years, wow! I don't mind this movie, it's fun. Love the campfire talk, and I like how the trio gets focused on. I like the new Enterprise bridge set, and the observation lounge. Sybok is a really interesting character, compellingly acted. Jerry Goldsmith makes a great score. J.M. Dillard wrote a top-notch novelization.
The special effects never bothered me, as they fulfill their function. I still like the original effects from the original show; the same stock shots of the Enterprise circling a planet, it gets the point across. Also, I grew up with the old Doctor Who. I'm usually fairly forgiving about special effects, even if I notice the quality isn't what it could be.
The special effects never bothered me, as they fulfill their function. I still like the original effects from the original show; the same stock shots of the Enterprise circling a planet, it gets the point across. Also, I grew up with the old Doctor Who. I'm usually fairly forgiving about special effects, even if I notice the quality isn't what it could be.
I read somewhere that Herman Zimmerman even told Shatner the Enterprise-A only had 12 decks I think it was and Shatner ignored him. Even the Enterprise D only had a fraction of that number of decks and that ship was huge.
Pretty much all of it for me. The only effect shots I liked was the Enterprise with the moon ahead of it--they actually managed a beautiful shot there---and maybe the night shot on Nimbus 3 when they are looking toward Paradise City and you see the moons in the sky. That's actually not a bad effects shot (thought the moons do seem a bit too luminous--but not bad). The rest is as most of the others pointed out. And I cringe watching the attempt at copying the streaking star effect from TNG on the Klingon ship at warp. TNG-ENT streaking star effect is one of my favorite warp effect in Star Trek and TFF makes a mockery of it.
Yeah, I definitely recommend the novelization, even to anyone who hated the film. I actually read the book a few days before the movie came out (I think the book came out about a week before). I had high hopes for the movie after reading the book. I have to say I was a bit disappointed. But the novel does explain some of the movies excesses--like how the Enterprise (and Klaa's ship) reached the center of the galaxy in a matter of what, a day or so. And it gives some more background into Sybok and Spock's secretiveness about him.
You know, when I saw Goldsmith's name on the movie poster I actually was hoping to hear TMP picture theme again. And somehow Goldsmith made it sound even better in TFF. It is one of my favorite Star Trek themes--I think because it has a positive vibe about it and seems to capture the Star Trek spirit best. Maybe it's sacrilegious to say but I actually like TMP theme more than the original series theme. And I loved that Goldsmith included Courage's intro in TFF with TMP theme--that made it perfect.
It's fucking delightful. I can see the problems; the deck numbering is a big stinkin' goof, and the big "how did they get there" questions about the center of the galaxy require a big dose of "well, that happened." But I think it's largely redeemed by the character work and the larger-than-life story.
What does God need with a starship, indeed.
What does God need with a starship, indeed.
I'm really curious what the film would have been like had Shatner been able to get his first choice to write it, Eric Van Lustbader. I'm not even sure if Van Lustbader had done any film work at that point.
IIRC, ILM's A, B, and C teams were booked in early 1989.
I heard it was partly that, and partly that Paramount wanted bargain basement prices.
Hell, ILM's interns could have done a better job than Ferren and Ferren
30 years ago...........no..........what........noooooo...........you have to be wrong, it was only a few years ago, i remember it clearly, i was only 22, so if this really was 30 years ago that would make m................oh my god, too many marshmelons.
Similar threads
