If you liked the film and got more out of it than I did, fine. I’m not trying to sway anyone’s opinion about it if they liked it. I’m just giving the specific reasons why I personally didn’t like it.
Since I posted the topic a month or so ago, you've been posting completely off-topic slams against the film that have absolutely nothing to do with the initial question I posed (the topic was simply to ask about Kirk's choice to invade Paradise City by force, when it seems that his orders were to the contrary). You've used the very specific topic/question I posted to be a platform for generally smearing feces all over the place for several posts. So yeah, your interpretations are coming off as biased bait given that context. The stuff you've posted is off-topic and comes off exactly as you are saying you're NOT trying to come off (simply trying to sway opinions or argue). If you have something to say that's on-topic (because the topic sure as hell wasn't
"Hay guyz do you like TFF???!?!"
Y or N, ok!!!1!"), I'm happy to engage on it.
Hell, given what I have written below, it looks like I'm happy to engage regardless, so how about that...
And I feel that whatever character moments there were, were just secondary and really just there to reinforce that Kirk doesn’t fall for some flim-flam man’s bs about healing people’s pain while everyone around him does.
Whether the character moments are secondary to anything or not isn't relevant to my argument, which is simply that Star Trek V has as many or more character development points as any of the other franchise films. Also, Kirk isn't the only one who doesn't fall for Sybok's gag. McCoy and Spock stay solid despite being exposed to his technique, Scotty also doesn't waiver. So, not sure what film you saw.
What is the actual story?: Well, on the surface it looks like some really nice guy cult leader is led astray into thinking he’s going to find God and instead finds something that looks like God but isn’t God, which then kills him.
Ummm...ok....I guess this is supposed to be taken seriously and not considered "reductive," huh? The movie is about a fundamentalist/extremist who believes himself to be righteous because his actions are motivated by what he believes to be a "God" speaking directly to him. His quest turns out to be misguided, and he learns too late that his own arrogance was not only his undoing but led to harm of others as well. Again, whether or not this was executed to your liking is a totally different topic. But the movie had a plot and a theme.
But that’s not really what the film is about.
Oh, excellent, do tell us what the film is "really about!"
Shatner might originally have had some idea about an allegory for televangelists or whatnot, but the actual plot of the film is simply that Kirk triumphs when everybody else fails. It’s as simple as that. The entire film is structured in such a way as to make Kirk look strong while every other character is made to look weak and/or stupid.
No, not really. Sorry.
McCoy: The euthanasia scene, while powerful, was just a plot device to make Bones look weaker than Kirk. It’s not like he spent the rest of the movie agonizing about his decision to end his father’s life. He got over it toot sweet just in time to be a Sybok convert and betray Kirk.
Man, you are a huge Shatner fan huh?
1. How does McCoy killing his father make him look weaker than Kirk? That makes no sense. None whatsoever. In fact, the scene implies it took great emotional
strength for McCoy to do what he thought was right, and the irony was that not long after he made the decision, a cure for the affliction was found...making McCoy's choice horribly tragic. That doesn't make him weak. The decision to "pull the plug" wasn't what McCoy's pain was based on...it was the tragedy of what came after. There's no "weakness" in that, and particularly not in comparison to Kirk.
2. Why would he spend the rest of the movie agonizing over his father's death? His realization that he did the best that he could do with the information he had available at the time helped him deal with it. Because, that was the truth of the realization that reason can overcome emotion. McCoy had no way of knowing that a cure would be found.
3. When was he a Sybok convert and when did he betray Kirk? This never happened. When was the last time you saw the film?
Spock: Again, the audience finding out he has a crazy half-brother who he hasn’t heard from in decades, is the hostage-taker, and who Spock does absolutely nothing to stop, so that Kirk can ream him out for being weak, is not character development. It’s contrived crap to reinforce that Kirk is stronger than Spock. And finding out that Sarek was disappointed in him? We already knew that from TOS, and Spock didn’t betray Kirk then. Why now?
Again, this is the most bizarre interpretation of this that I have ever read or seen.
1. Sybok isn't crazy. One of the main points of the film is that he's not crazy, and that he actually believes in what he is doing.
2. When Kirk gets angry at Spock, it isn't for being "weak." That's frigging ridiculous. This is a known terrorist who has taken intergalactic hostages, taken over a neutral settlement by force, and now is on the verge of commandeering a state-of-the-art starship for who knows what purpose. Kirk, as he clearly states in the brig, was
ordering (yes, Captains can order their first officers) to defend the ship against hostile take-over, which is absolutely and completely within his right and responsibility as a starship captain. In fact, Kirk feels weak and embarrassed once he learns that Sybok is Spock's blood brother, and clearly is ashamed by his body language that he didn't understand this dynamic before he lays into Spock.
3. I didn't say we found out that Sarek was disappointed in him. I've seen Journey to Babel a few times myself, thanks. I said we found out that Spock has resolved his pain related to this due to his sense of belonging with Kirk, McCoy and the Enterprise crew.
4. Just like my reply above, since when did Spock betray Kirk? It never happens. When was the last time you saw the film?
Kirk: what was the point of the mountain climbing scene? One might think it’s, “perhaps Kirk is getting too old to be leading a reckless life”...but that’s not it. It’s the exact opposite of that, actually. It’s just Kirk being strong and fearless about death because he’ll always have his buddies to save him, which is exactly what happens.
So, why or how is this not character development? Just because you don't like it doesn't make it something else. The scene shows Kirk has taken an interest in thrill-seeking pursuits (and he's actually pretty good at it). This is, by all definitions, development of his character. So again, your argument falls flat. You're saying you don't like it. That's fine. It doesn't mean that it somehow is invalid.
The “I always know I’ll die alone” line was not meant to be a philosophical musing about mortality; it was just an excuse to justify his behavior.
And you know what the line was meant to convey
HOW exactly?
And the Klingons were just cardboard villains
Truth
that really had nothing to do with his negative feelings toward them based on what happened to his son.
Not true. Kirk's "Klingon Bastards" line is lifted direct from Trek III, immediately calling back to the scene where Kirk's son dies. Kirk's demeanor changes when he realizes that Korrd has ordered Klaa to save him, and Kirk is obviously grudgingly grateful that this was done. He even salutes Klaa somewhat half-heartedly at the end of the film, as a difficult show of mutual respect. Again, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
That was developed far more in TUC than here.
Well, no kidding, that's what the
entire film was about.
And I never really felt that Kirk was in any way a spiritual person.
That's your "feeling" but, I don't view it that way at all. Kirk has always had a spiritual side to him. He certainly has a grater appreciation for spirituality after his life-death-life experience with Spock (BTW, it never ceases to amaze me how people try to project their own belief systems onto characters). There are instances littered throughout the franchise that show that while Kirk is suspect of "God-like figures" and perhaps the need for organized religions, he does have some beliefs that go beyond the physical understanding of the universe.
As a matter of fact, throughout most of the film (and especially at the end), he pretty much mocks God and religion.
I never once saw him mock "God" or religion in Star Trek V. Perhaps you are seeing what you wish to see? He nods knowingly/solemnly when McCoy jokingly says "I'll call Valhalla and have them reserve a room." He questions that any "God" (or similar concept) would reach out directly to Sybok...or why Sybok would believe he had legitimately been spoken to, which is a perfectly legitimate concern. He asks what "God" would need with a starship, knowing full well that any being with the supposed power of a supreme creator would certainly have no need for a primitive metal shell put-putting along through space. He proclaims that perhaps the concept of "God" isn't a physical being that one can go see, but a concept that exists inside the "human heart" (which is itself a spiritual concept).
I'm also frequently amazed by people's inability to separate the concept of "spiritualitiy" from the concept of "religion." They are not the same. Kirk can be a spiritual person (believing in the human spirit or soul, as opposed to material things) without being interested in organized religious constructs. His statement about "God in the human heart" is spiritual, a recognition that "God" isn't likely to be a concept you can understand or physically interface with...but perhaps an entirely different construct that lives in the spirits of all beings. Kirk's line about "I've always known I'll die alone" directly implies some underlying spiritual belief he has developed, that is real to him but defies explanation.
So yeah, I guess I got more out of it than you did. As you said, "good for me!"
