Could Star Trek V been saved?

[ChristopherPike]

I do find it a shame Highlander 2 The Quickening has two or three revised versions over the same period it's been in existence. Not an attempt on Star Trek V though. Official that is. It's not a hugely expensive endeavour (by fan pocket standards, let along Hollywood money) and probably within the realms of being a profitable new edition. Roddenberry Archive have shown they can do some amazing work which could bring that unfilmed Kirk fleeing from the Rock creatures climax to life. I suppose if 2029 comes and goes without such a project happening, then it's absolutely never happening.

 

[fireproof78]

don't know how to tell you that you attempting to insinuate others are engaging in misogyny and objectification is 'moral talk'. You are concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior. You are expressing a conception of right behavior.
Accusing someone of objectification and of misogyny (regardless of response, as you said) is an inherently moral accusation against them. You are attempting to associate them and their opinions with a socially immoral thing

Ok. Definitely moral then.

Don't objectify people. I didn't think this was a difficult concept.

Why are you using a quote box? That's briefly stating what Kant wrote.

And isn't Kant arguing that sex is morally dangerous unless constrained by reciprocal commitment, i.e. marriage?

Anyway, like most matters, philosophers disagree on this topic. Martha Nussbaum argues that treating a person as an object (sexual intimacy) is not inherently wrong if they are still viewed and treated as a whole human being with autonomy.

Better put than I did. Thank you.

 

[SatrianiRules]

I don't understand why you two can't just focus on the fact the way he spoke about Uhura was pretty disrespectful in his first post on the matter without needless posturing on ""misogyny"" and ""objectification""? All characters are objects, being weirdly anti-horny doesn't make you morally superior to someone. Misogyny isn't some fun word you morally accuse someone of because you don't want to engage with them.

Satriani's comparing it to the modern increase of it happening for the benefit of women is actually the most mature. The biggest problem was the lack of consideration of the female audience, and that's why the only good and feminist Star Trek is TOS! Cute 60's outfits and shirtless scenes! half-joking... maybe... maybe not...

And back on topic, Star Trek V! I imagine the effects were probably disappointing at the time, but I am only charmed by them now.

Yeah that is true, we have seen this increase in recent years to benefit women, and that's just fine. But really it has always been there for both sexes, more so for men to be sure. Maybe a good example is James Bond...he resonates because Men want to BE him and Woman want to be WITH him...perhaps would explain the longevity of the character.

Enjoying the visuals of attractive people in seductive or 'sexy' outfits is not in itself harmful, but of course actions that manifest from it can be. Whenever I see Seven of Nine on Voyager reruns, she still gives me that special feeling, like when we used to climb the rope in gym class. But I enjoy her character and stories primarily, first and foremost.

Just because someone thinks someone is "smokin hot" doesn't mean that they are demeaning them in any way, it's a subjective characteristic that is pleasing to viewers, but again doesn't encapsulate, the entirety of that person.
I'm sure we've all had friends or co-workers that fit the description, but we manage to temper our behavior/thoughts...
on a personal level we might be wishing we could play a game of "Hide the Salami" with those that we find attractive...but as evolved persons in a professional or personal environment, we have filters and self controls and rules/codes of conduct, both social and personal

Same with the Uhura comment, yeah, not interested in seeing grandma in a bikini, call it age appropriateness....as don't I want to see children in inappropriate dress..age appropriateness...don't find it disrespectful at all....it's no different than the guy or gal at the club who is too old to be at the club, they are not old...just too old to be at the club (thank you Chris Rock!!)

and about V: I have to wonder what Leonard Nimoy would have done with it if HE had directed...

 

[Pauln6]

Yeah that is true, we have seen this increase in recent years to benefit women, and that's just fine. But really it has always been there for both sexes, more so for men to be sure. Maybe a good example is James Bond...he resonates because Men want to BE him and Woman want to be WITH him...perhaps would explain the longevity of the character.

Enjoying the visuals of attractive people in seductive or 'sexy' outfits is not in itself harmful, but of course actions that manifest from it can be. Whenever I see Seven of Nine on Voyager reruns, she still gives me that special feeling, like when we used to climb the rope in gym class. But I enjoy her character and stories primarily, first and foremost.

Just because someone thinks someone is "smokin hot" doesn't mean that they are demeaning them in any way, it's a subjective characteristic that is pleasing to viewers, but again doesn't encapsulate, the entirety of that person.
I'm sure we've all had friends or co-workers that fit the description, but we manage to temper our behavior/thoughts...
on a personal level we might be wishing we could play a game of "Hide the Salami" with those that we find attractive...but as evolved persons in a professional or personal environment, we have filters and self controls and rules/codes of conduct, both social and personal

Same with the Uhura comment, yeah, not interested in seeing grandma in a bikini, call it age appropriateness....as don't I want to see children in inappropriate dress..age appropriateness...don't find it disrespectful at all....it's no different than the guy or gal at the club who is too old to be at the club, they are not old...just too old to be at the club (thank you Chris Rock!!)

and about V: I have to wonder what Leonard Nimoy would have done with it if HE had directed...

I think the issue comes in when the characters are forced into those situations against logic and reason, purely for titillation. So the scene with Carol Marcus was wrong for sooooo many reasons. The only reason to put her in her underwear AND focus on her in her underwear was misogyny. Kirk works on a co-ed ship in an institution where men and women bunk together all the time. It was dumb that he was asked to turn around. It was dumb that he peeked. It was dumb that the camera focused on a full frontal.

So the issue in Star Trek V for me is that Uhura is the only woman in the Starfleet landing party. Why is that? Then, rather than use her Starfleet training to trap the rebels, she takes all her clothes off. Spending more time on a smarter rescue of the ambassadors might have worked better, taking them up to the ship where they could work together to gain control.

 

[flyerdog]

So the issue in Star Trek V for me is that Uhura is the only woman in the Starfleet landing party. Why is that? Then, rather than use her Starfleet training to trap the rebels, she takes all her clothes off. Spending more time on a smarter rescue of the ambassadors might have worked better, taking them up to the ship where they could work together to gain control.

Yeah, I'd agree, and I think he mentioned that the scene was gratuitous, and from a writing standpoint made no sense except, to be gratuitous.

If the soldiers that were guarding this outpost were simpleton enough to be distracted by it, why would they be guarding the outpost in the first place. Normally they would raise their weapons and demand that she surrender when they saw a strange woman near an outpost they were supposedly guarding, no matter what she was wearing..even if she was naked....just a poorly written scene...

been reading through some of the comments, and I concur with the idea that having the plot center on the idea of assimilation into a cult/mindset might have been the better way to go...instead of tackling the 'God' issue, because you know what? you HAVE to do that sort of story the right way, or it simply won't work and the audience won't buy it

 

[Ssosmcin]

Well, more or less. "There are always alternatives" turned into the more romantic and less pragmatic "There are always possibilities."

He didn't have it all memorized. The guy had 79 episodes in his head and probably not easy to keep going back to in 1981. They'd call up the projectionist and all that. FANS still get lines wrong and we have far more resources. The point is, messing up a line of dialog is a little different than forgetting Kirk had a brother when there was a full episode about it. And then having a script for a movie where the character specifically has a line about a brother. I give Bennett benefit of the doubt because he actually did care about a lot of the history.

 

[Ssosmcin]

We don't have to. The line clearly was about Spock, and Kirk's actual brother was completely forgotten by everyone, including Shatner.

Again, not definitive and obviously debatable.

 

[Dukhat]

Again, not definitive and obviously debatable.

Debatable? Not really. In no way, shape or form was Kirk referring to Sam when he made that comment. Because he didn’t get Sam back. He got Spock back.

 

[flyerdog]

I think the issue comes in when the characters are forced into those situations against logic and reason, purely for titillation. So the scene with Carol Marcus was wrong for sooooo many reasons. The only reason to put her in her underwear AND focus on her in her underwear was misogyny. Kirk works on a co-ed ship in an institution where men and women bunk together all the time. It was dumb that he was asked to turn around. It was dumb that he peeked. It was dumb that the camera focused on a full frontal.

So the issue in Star Trek V for me is that Uhura is the only woman in the Starfleet landing party. Why is that? Then, rather than use her Starfleet training to trap the rebels, she takes all her clothes off. Spending more time on a smarter rescue of the ambassadors might have worked better, taking them up to the ship where they could work together to gain control.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[flyerdog]

He didn't have it all memorized. The guy had 79 episodes in his head and probably not easy to keep going back to in 1981. They'd call up the projectionist and all that. FANS still get lines wrong and we have far more resources. The point is, messing up a line of dialog is a little different than forgetting Kirk had a brother when there was a full episode about it. And then having a script for a movie where the character specifically has a line about a brother. I give Bennett benefit of the doubt because he actually did care about a lot of the history.

I guess to be fair, even TOS, (not just all the new series) had inconsistencies in writing...sometimes stuff slips through the cracks....

The Enemy Within: why not just send a shuttlecraft to pick up the landing party?
The Changeling: The ship gets hit with an energy blast equal to 90 photon torpedoes...really????

forget the episode but there was a throw away line where Kirk says that the death penalty is implemented for violation of the non-interference clause of the UFP. Don't think that is accurate...

Wolf in the Fold: if the computer can tell that a person is lying, why do you need trials? (Court Marital)

I think it's the hardcore fans that are the only ones that knew about Sam Kirk obviously, to appease us maybe the line should have been: "I lost two brothers, but I got ONE back..." :-)

 

[Set Harth]

(Court Marital)

Is that like divorce court?

 

[Pauln6]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I am fine with them sticking Alice Eve in her underwear if she's up for it (I still want to see her as Typhoid) but the point was the way the scene was written. I love Pine's performance but his Kirk constantly evades punishment for insubordinate, morally reprehensible, illogical, dumb, and illegal behaviour. This scene is no exception. The writers are deliberately shouting out to bro-culture, that it's cool to peep at women, which is about as un-Trek as you can get.

Men and women changing in front of each other would be commonplace but the writers CHOSE to make it forbidden by her asking for privacy, CHOSE to have him violate her privacy for sleazy snickers, and CHOSE to have the camera pan out so we could all violate her privacy. Now, if there was something plot-relevant here, like her body being covered in scars or burns (albeit bad examples as those can be cured) or a tattoo saying, I ♡ genetic supermen, there might be a reason to do it.

 

[diamond204]

I do find it a shame Highlander 2 The Quickening has two or three revised versions over the same period it's been in existence. Not an attempt on Star Trek V though. Official that is. It's not a hugely expensive endeavour (by fan pocket standards, let along Hollywood money) and probably within the realms of being a profitable new edition. Roddenberry Archive have shown they can do some amazing work which could bring that unfilmed Kirk fleeing from the Rock creatures climax to life. I suppose if 2029 comes and goes without such a project happening, then it's absolutely never happening.

From what I know the Highlander re-cuts were completed within 5 years or so of the films release. That's a great window to do that type of thing. But I see the issue as there are cuts that need to be made to this film that would NEVER be approved by Shatner on any level (even if he was not 95 years old) and so it will stand where it is. I was told when Shatner was presented the fanedit Special Edition that came out in the DVD heydays he wasn't too thrilled with it. And that one just had greatly enhanced effects including the Rock Creature added at the end.

 

[diamond204]

So the issue in Star Trek V for me is that Uhura is the only woman in the Starfleet landing party. Why is that? Then, rather than use her Starfleet training to trap the rebels, she takes all her clothes off. Spending more time on a smarter rescue of the ambassadors might have worked better, taking them up to the ship where they could work together to gain control.

The bigger question is why did she have that outfit stowed away in the shuttle??? Not to mention who was playing the drums? I guess they had them in the shuttle too? Sounds like she was using a PA system with reverb too. I could go on ..... belongs in Scooby Doo not Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

This scene is no exception. The writers are deliberately shouting out to bro-culture, that it's cool to peep at women, which is about as un-Trek as you can get.

Except, the story shows Kirk grow past that "bro" mentality, even from the beginning of the film. And it's not like peeping wasn't in TOS before.

I don't care for the scene, but saying that Kirk somehow didn't grow through this missed the entire arc he had in the movie.

Which is more than I can say for Seven or T'Pol in terms of wardrobe choices. Their characters were good despite stupid wardrobe choices. Kirk and Marcus work because Kirk grows past his Gary Mitchell like horniness.

 

[flyerdog]

Is that like divorce court?

no, dyslexia!!!

 

[flyerdog]

I am fine with them sticking Alice Eve in her underwear if she's up for it (I still want to see her as Typhoid) but the point was the way the scene was written. I love Pine's performance but his Kirk constantly evades punishment for insubordinate, morally reprehensible, illogical, dumb, and illegal behaviour. This scene is no exception. The writers are deliberately shouting out to bro-culture, that it's cool to peep at women, which is about as un-Trek as you can get.

Men and women changing in front of each other would be commonplace but the writers CHOSE to make it forbidden by her asking for privacy, CHOSE to have him violate her privacy for sleazy snickers, and CHOSE to have the camera pan out so we could all violate her privacy. Now, if there was something plot-relevant here, like her body being covered in scars or burns (albeit bad examples as those can be cured) or a tattoo saying, I ♡ genetic supermen, there might be a reason to do it.

i don't know, here is the scene:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

based on Kirk's expression, to me it seems more like...confusion? Sure there is also an underlying moment of "Whoa!" (which is understandable when you see her in her skivvies!!)...I get your point though, if everyone changes in the same rooms there would be no issue as it would be common place.

and I agree this scene was completely gratuitous, but I'm fine with that, it was pretty stunning to see her like that.

not so sure about this being "un trek" though. ST has always used female beauty and sometimes gratuitously....

from the outfits in 'What Are little Girls made of?" to "Gamesters of Triskelion", to Risa, to Tom Paris's holodeck program..etc...

 

[Pauln6]

The bigger question is why did she have that outfit stowed away in the shuttle??? Not to mention who was playing the drums? I guess they had them in the shuttle too? Sounds like she was using a PA system with reverb too. I could go on ..... belongs in Scooby Doo not Trek.

Except, the story shows Kirk grow past that "bro" mentality, even from the beginning of the film. And it's not like peeping wasn't in TOS before.

I don't care for the scene, but saying that Kirk somehow didn't grow through this missed the entire arc he had in the movie.

Which is more than I can say for Seven or T'Pol in terms of wardrobe choices. Their characters were good despite stupid wardrobe choices. Kirk and Marcus work because Kirk grows past his Gary Mitchell like horniness.

In fairness, NuKirk does grow across the three movies. My issue is less with Kirk the jerk (except for the summary execution of Nero's crew) and more with how so many of the characters laud and reward him for being a jerk during his journey. I mean his plans were terrible. If they had just put in a subtitle acknowledging the passage of time before he became captain, it would not be so unrealistic.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

I just wish we could have gotten the next step in NuKirk's fatherhood storyline: learning that he's a father himself and worrying about how good of one he'll be. I'd hope in the Kelvinverse, he'd be there for any surviving child he has in a way that he wasn't in the prime universe.

 

[fireproof78]

In fairness, NuKirk does grow across the three movies. My issue is less with Kirk the jerk (except for the summary execution of Nero's crew) and more with how so many of the characters laud and reward him for being a jerk during his journey. I mean his plans were terrible. If they had just put in a subtitle acknowledging the passage of time before he became captain, it would not be so unrealistic.

So many? What, 4?