Just watched Star Trek V - pros and cons

[Aslan ch'Shran]

Please hold me =(

Seriously though this movie was horrible. The sad thing is they created a fantastic anti-hero/hero in Sybok. I thought he was played to perfection from the moment we saw him in the desert up until he faced himself and sacrificed himself to save the Enterprise crew and his followers. By the end I honestly couldn't even see him as a villain, just a misguided man who in a different circumstance could have been a galactic hero who could have changed many lives. Imagine if Sybok had had the chance to work with Spock to help the Romulans years later.

Terrible, terrible movie otherwise with bad acting from the two Klingon "villains" (if you can call them that they acted and were presented like bit-players) and sub-par special effects.

Yes... hold me.

 

[Amaris]

What a terrific movie! Sorry, Aslan ch'Shran, I'll hold you but you might not like being held by a sympathizer.

I love this movie, it's one of my very favorite Star Trek movies, and I have many fond memories of it, flaws and all.

 

[RyuRoots]

Its many, many, many, many, many flaws...

 

[Joker]

Cons: It was shit.

Pros: Woulda been good had it not been shit.

 

[Tiberius]

Pros: nice music

 

[sbk1234]

I find TFF had a great underlying theme of the dangers of being a blind follower. Like TOS, it encorporated this theme without being too heavy handed.

It spotlighted the relationship of Kirk/Spock/McCoy better than any of the others, before or since.

Awesome character moments, such as Spock's birth, Bones euthanizing his father, Sybok's conversion of that character in the prologue.

The music was great.

Yes, I agree that it was far from perfect. The special effects, for example were clearly sub-par. (That's the nice way of saying it.) On the other hand, we can still watch TOS original special effects and not be turned off by it.

Biggest con: they pushed too hard to throw humor in, which turned out to be contrived, rather than evolving genuinly from the plot.

Personally, I think it was a terribly under-rated film.

 

[Aslan ch'Shran]

I agree that it was underrated but the movie was still horrible.

There are many reasons for it, especially the bad writing and bad characters. The primary example are is the Klingon bird of prey and her crew - the two new "Klingon adversaries" weren't even really adversaries, and they both were horrible actors and their parts were completely pointless except for the fact that someone decided that they HAD to be at Sha'Ka'Ree to shoot the God-like being out of the sky.

Another huge offender was the Uhura dance number. What? They a) couldn't think of ANYTHING else? This is Captain Kirk for Christ's sake! and b) 10 grown men actually fell for it.

A third offender WAS the humor. It was good but at too many places it felt pushed too hard, almost like they were trying to make a comedy as opposed to a Star Trek movie.

 

[Amaris]

I agree that it was underrated but the movie was still horrible.

There are many reasons for it, especially the bad writing and bad characters. The primary example are is the Klingon bird of prey and her crew - the two new "Klingon adversaries" weren't even really adversaries, and they both were horrible actors and their parts were completely pointless except for the fact that someone decided that they HAD to be at Sha'Ka'Ree to shoot the God-like being out of the sky.

Another huge offender was the Uhura dance number. What? They a) couldn't think of ANYTHING else? This is Captain Kirk for Christ's sake! and b) 10 grown men actually fell for it.

A third offender WAS the humor. It was good but at too many places it felt pushed too hard, almost like they were trying to make a comedy as opposed to a Star Trek movie.

Completely agreeing with SBK. The humor thing is explained in commentaries and such. After STIV, Shat was told "be more funny like the whale movie" and so humor had to be shoehorned in. From what I remember, Shat wanted a much darker, much more serious movie.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I like Star Trek V. It's no masterpiece, but I think it's fun in a TV-movie kind of way (disclaimer: I think Nemesis is great, too)

About the effects: Sha'Ka'Ree looked great from space. I didn't think the rest were too bad. A little weaker than normal, admittedly but hardly the worst ever.

STV was also the first Star Trek film I ever saw. As a kid I loved the horseriding phaser attack on Paradise City.

I must admit Spockhura works a billion trillion times better than Scottyhura. What were they thinking?

 

[shadowedgalaxy]

Question: How does a blue-bubbly-glowing-planet-thing have a purple sky?

 

[Warped9]

It plays something like a faltering 3rd season TOS episode. Lots of good elements in it that just is generally poorly executed. Good music, some decent character moments, a valid story idea and then nothing. Horrible F/X. The shuttlebay sequences were just awful. TOS did better with less.

 

[Shazam!]

It has one of the best 'ideas' of any Trek movie, and the in-a-nutshell plot description of 'madman hijacks the Enterprise to find God' is genius.

 

[Balrog]

Pros: Some of the best character moments in Trek. The scene of the Big Three and Sybok in the Observation Lounge are the best of any Trek. De Kelley shines, as well as Shatner's Kirk ("I need my pain!"). The campfire screne is also great. The music, especially that at Yosemeti, is some of the best!

Cons: Many, many, many... Heartbreaking really, because there there is so much to like. So many of the comic bits were forced and stupid. The optical effects were done on the cheap, and it shows BADLY. The camera work was shoddy for the physical stunts and effects. You can see the strings holding up Kirk in the shuttlebay fight scene, etc. At times, TFF is painful to watch.

Sad. It is by far a personal guilty pleasure of mine. And I do like it more than INS or NEM.

 

[SheliakBob]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Triple-Breasted Cat Woman!!!

 

[JarodRussell]

I love this movie. It has heart and soul, some of the most iconic moments and just nails the characters of TOS like no other movie. The soundtrack is excellent. The story is the best of all the TOS movies. Fuck the bad visual effects, I don't care.

Cons: Paramount's inability to get Sean Connery and to give Shatner the money for the rock creature.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I really liked the Sybok we got. I'm not sure I would have been able to believe Sean Connery was Spock's half brother, much less a Vulcan. I had enough trouble when he was a Scottish-accented Russian defector!

 

[JarodRussell]

I really liked the Sybok we got. I'm not sure I would have been able to believe Sean Connery was Spock's half brother, much less a Vulcan. I had enough trouble when he was a Scottish-accented Russian defector!

Though there is a connection between Connery and the budget. Paramount was so stupid to shoot The Final Frontier at the same time as Indiana Jones 3. And because of that Shatner couldn't get Connery, and because of that Paramount didn't trust the movie to be a success, and because of THAT they didn't give Shatner the budget he needed. Shot themselves in the foot with that.

Similar things happened with Nemesis. It's like Paramount intentionally wanted these two movies to bomb.

 

[Gojira]

As I always say I like all Star Trek movies to some degree or other and Trek V is no exception. It reminds me of some of the more cheesier episodes of the original series. There are wonderful moments of character development between Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Sybok really is a very interesting character.

Some of the humor and Uhura's fan dance are cringe worthy and the special effects are not up top par but they do have a certain charm to them.

All in all I really do like this movie flaws and all.

 

[Harvey]

As I noted in another thread, it shares a lot in common with "The Way to Eden," and is about as bad.

It does have a terrific Goldsmith score, though. Hopefully a complete release of that will emerge someday.

 

[sbk1234]

I will also add that this was Shatner's first film to direct. To direct a major sci-fi movie full of special effects as your first film is a big undertaking.
I know, the same can be said of Jonathan Frakes and Leonard Nimoy who were more successful, but it's all I got.