Why does The Final Frontier get so much crap?

[Jeyl]

Well, the film could have worked if it wasn't a Star Trek movie. Flaws in production, effects and lame jokes is one thing, but complete and total lack of understanding or care for the other characters who aren't the "Big Three" was the biggest gripe I had. We go from characters who risk their careers for Kirk now freely choose to mutiny against him because of a therapy session. It wasn't mind control, it wasn't influencing them to follow him, it was just "I take away this thing that will never be mentioned that's been giving you pain" and that's it. McCoy and Spock had no problems in shaking this "no pain" off, but everyone else? "$&@# them" says Shatner.

If your want to portray your crew as incompetent, ready to mutiny at the first sign of emotional relief and be downgraded to painful gags, you aren't doing anything a service.

 

[sonak]

Well, Scotty gets some pretty good moments even though he suffers the humiliating "knows the ship like the back of his hand" moment.

He helps the Big Three break out of the brig, and stubbornly sticks to his commitment to fix(is it the transporters?) for Kirk. He gets the line about how he's not going to let the captain down.

And Chekov gets the "assume the captain's role" part to fool Sybok. So it's not like the supporting cast don't get some good moments.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

Well, the film could have worked if it wasn't a Star Trek movie. Flaws in production, effects and lame jokes is one thing, but complete and total lack of understanding or care for the other characters who aren't the "Big Three" was the biggest gripe I had. We go from characters who risk their careers for Kirk now freely choose to mutiny against him because of a therapy session. It wasn't mind control, it wasn't influencing them to follow him, it was just "I take away this thing that will never be mentioned that's been giving you pain" and that's it. McCoy and Spock had no problems in shaking this "no pain" off, but everyone else? "$&@# them" says Shatner.

If your want to portray your crew as incompetent, ready to mutiny at the first sign of emotional relief and be downgraded to painful gags, you aren't doing anything a service.

I can't really disagree with anything you've stated - you're pretty much bang on the money. But when I sit down to watch the film I still can't help but enjoy it - despite the indisputable flaws. I'd take TFF over the ultra-bland, truly "by the numbers" Nemesis in a heartbeat.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

This film has some major flaws, many of which have been mentioned above. It is easily the weakest of the Original Series Movies, but I don't think it is as bad as many people make it out to be.

 

[Harvey]

Like STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, it is in may ways a remake of a subpar episode of STAR TREK. In the case of the earlier film, it was "The Changeling;" in the case of the latter film, it was "The Way to Eden."

The visual effects don't stand up to the previous three films, nor the good effects to be found in STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE. The production design is also weak; the re-use of many sets from STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION with minimal redress doesn't do the movie any favors. At least STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY would make significant changes when it re-used the TNG sets.

It does feature a superb Jerry Goldsmith score, however. It's been a few years since I've seen the film, and I think I'll be re-watching it again soon. Maybe it's better than I remember, maybe it's worse. We'll see...

 

[nightwind1]

I have noticed the trash talk about Star Trek V and i disagree with all of it. I really liked TFF and i would like to know why so many hate it. And i am aware that SOME of the special effects are bad but none movie breaking and the ones that needed to be good(the enterprise, center of the galaxy, ect.) were good. I will admit the rocket boots were terrible.

I'll save space and time by listing what I LIKE about STV...

The observation deck with the old ship's wheel.

That's it...

 

[Joker]

The pain scene was good, as was the observation deck, the bridge, the full-scale shuttle, the score, Lawrence Luckinbill's performance...

Special mention in the bad goes to the "engine room", if you could even call it that.

 

[Jeyl]

Well, Scotty gets some pretty good moments even though he suffers the humiliating "knows the ship like the back of his hand" moment.

He helps the Big Three break out of the brig, and stubbornly sticks to his commitment to fix(is it the transporters?) for Kirk. He gets the line about how he's not going to let the captain down.

And Chekov gets the "assume the captain's role" part to fool Sybok. So it's not like the supporting cast don't get some good moments.

True, Scotty does come off as slightly competent, but that's only because he never got under Sybok's influence. It's sort of like congratulating someone for not jumping off a bridge when they cross it. What would have given his character a lot more credibility would be if he resisted Sybok's treatment and still remained loyal.

 

[Jeyl]

Special mention in the bad goes to the "engine room", if you could even call it that.

Yeah, it's just that inner walk way where Scotty bangs his head on the bulkhead. All they did differently was put a non-attached piece of set in the middle of the hallway. If you look closely, you can see where they removed the red tube and tried filling in the space it used to occupy with wall plaster without even repainting it.

 

[RyuRoots]

It's an OK movie that suffered from a fandom "bandwagon effect," whereby what had been merely a mediocre disappointment got transformed through hyperbole into THE WORST STAR TREK EVER ON SCREEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1



Seriously, it has its flaws, many of them mentioned here, but it basically gets picked on because it's the "cool thing" in Trek fan circles to make fun of TFF.

I saw it without any input from others beforehand and I thought it was an atrocious excuse of a film. How does that fit into the bandwagoning?

 

[SeerSGB]

Best description I've ever heard of STV: William Shatner decided to make a fanfilm.

I'll give the movie credit for a couple of great scenes: The moonlit 1701-A and the campfire scene that was touching right up till they started making jokes about bourbon and beans. And a honorable mention goes to the lounge scene at the end with the big three standing together.

 

[sonak]

It's an OK movie that suffered from a fandom "bandwagon effect," whereby what had been merely a mediocre disappointment got transformed through hyperbole into THE WORST STAR TREK EVER ON SCREEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1



Seriously, it has its flaws, many of them mentioned here, but it basically gets picked on because it's the "cool thing" in Trek fan circles to make fun of TFF.

I saw it without any input from others beforehand and I thought it was an atrocious excuse of a film. How does that fit into the bandwagoning?

well, you may have gotten the negative vibe from Trek fans subliminally.


But seriously, if you really thought it was "an atrocious excuse of a film," perhaps you have very high standards for movies, otherwise I wonder how you react to films that really ARE awful from an artistic, technical, storywise, etc. standpoint.

 

[sonak]

Best description I've ever heard of STV: William Shatner decided to make a fanfilm.

I'll give the movie credit for a couple of great scenes: The moonlit 1701-A and the campfire scene that was touching right up till they started making jokes about bourbon and beans. And a honorable mention goes to the lounge scene at the end with the big three standing together.

not to sound dumb, but what does that description mean? It sounds like it's trying to be a funny insult, but doesn't make any sense.


usually a fan film means it has fanboyish elements, like the Enterprise taking on the Klingons, Romulans, and Tholians all at once, or it fulfills a fan's wish about certain characters, like you'd have Spock and Kirk have a romantic relationship or something.

I guess you could say the film was an ego trip for Shatner due to heavy focus on Kirk, but it focuses on the Big Three as a whole, not just Kirk, plus he is the main character of the series anyway. And as mentioned, the story's very similar to "way to eden," so it's hardly a fanboyish type of plot.

 

[Cyke101]

I would like to happily point out the caption potential for these two photos combined.


Anyway, TFF holds a special place in my heart for being the movie that introduced me to the Trekverse. But if I look at it with anything more than sentimentality and rose-colored glasses, then I'm going to disappoint myself. I remember being completely blown away with TUC because it was leaps and bounds better than TFF, and as the years went on I found myself returning to TFF less and less. Now in hindsight of watching the rest of TOS and their films as well as XI, TFF doesn't quite hold up in comparison (okay, so there are the really horrible TOS episodes, but they didn't have the advantage of budget + time that a major motion picture would have). The two things that define Star Trek: camaraderie and space exploration, are basically thrown out the window with alarming ease.

usually a fan film means it has fanboyish elements, like the Enterprise taking on the Klingons, Romulans, and Tholians all at once, or it fulfills a fan's wish about certain characters, like you'd have Spock and Kirk have a romantic relationship or something.

Well, among other things we got:
-Kirk facing down a Bird of Prey (by the by, the same class of ship that ultimately destroyed the original Enterprise)
-Kirk facing down "God" by himself
-Kirk proving everyone wrong, repeatedly
-Kirk unbelievably scaling a mountain himself
-nude Uhura 20 years too late

As you note, Kirk is the main character of the series, it's just that all the other TOS films handled his character in much better ways while retaining his centrality. Hell, right before this he saved the whales and the Earth in a rather biblical fashion, and after TFF he manages to save the galaxy from interstellar war, but it was done so in such a way with such urgency and conviction that it didn't come across as self-serving fanwank for Kirk. The ironic thing is, in TFF he moves closer to the biblical sense (fighting God and paradise) while advancing galactic peace (with the big three national powers) -- essentially combining elements of IV and VI, and yet it seems to come up short and empty. In comparison, III had Kirk pulling off one of the most deftly swift maneuvers of improvisation ever -- blowing up the Enterprise while gambling to commandeer the enemy ship to escape from an exploding planet (my mind is also blown) -- and TFF seems like facing God is both a means of trying to one-up the past and yet somehow far less exciting.

 

[Mr_Homn]

It's not nearly as bad as many of the fans make it out to be.

it has bad parts, it has cheesy humor, and it has some bad effects, as well as some stupid science.... as does every single star trek film ever. Yet still, they are all at least somewhat enjoyable movies. Some more than others, perhaps, but by no means is TFF "Pure shit". It's better than Nemesis (not that that is saying much.)

perhaps because i heard that it was SO BAD before viewing it, that I was pleasantly surprised. The first time i saw it was in HD as well, so that may have helped. But thanks to the amazing music and great character moments and good cinematography i think it holds up rather well on repeat viewings. I actually watched it again right away after seeing it for the first time because i enjoyed it so much.

it's also better than some of the poorer episodes IMO, and even some of those are worth rewatching

 

[SeerSGB]

I think part of the problem with STV is that it's a serious concept ( facing god, you're own fears) and it's played for laughs most of the time.

 

[sonak]

I would like to happily point out the caption potential for these two photos combined.


Anyway, TFF holds a special place in my heart for being the movie that introduced me to the Trekverse. But if I look at it with anything more than sentimentality and rose-colored glasses, then I'm going to disappoint myself. I remember being completely blown away with TUC because it was leaps and bounds better than TFF, and as the years went on I found myself returning to TFF less and less. Now in hindsight of watching the rest of TOS and their films as well as XI, TFF doesn't quite hold up in comparison (okay, so there are the really horrible TOS episodes, but they didn't have the advantage of budget + time that a major motion picture would have). The two things that define Star Trek: camaraderie and space exploration, are basically thrown out the window with alarming ease.

usually a fan film means it has fanboyish elements, like the Enterprise taking on the Klingons, Romulans, and Tholians all at once, or it fulfills a fan's wish about certain characters, like you'd have Spock and Kirk have a romantic relationship or something.

Well, among other things we got:
-Kirk facing down a Bird of Prey (by the by, the same class of ship that ultimately destroyed the original Enterprise)
-Kirk facing down "God" by himself
-Kirk proving everyone wrong, repeatedly
-Kirk unbelievably scaling a mountain himself
-nude Uhura 20 years too late

As you note, Kirk is the main character of the series, it's just that all the other TOS films handled his character in much better ways while retaining his centrality. Hell, right before this he saved the whales and the Earth in a rather biblical fashion, and after TFF he manages to save the galaxy from interstellar war, but it was done so in such a way with such urgency and conviction that it didn't come across as self-serving fanwank for Kirk. The ironic thing is, in TFF he moves closer to the biblical sense (fighting God and paradise) while advancing galactic peace (with the big three national powers) -- essentially combining elements of IV and VI, and yet it seems to come up short and empty. In comparison, III had Kirk pulling off one of the most deftly swift maneuvers of improvisation ever -- blowing up the Enterprise while gambling to commandeer the enemy ship to escape from an exploding planet (my mind is also blown) -- and TFF seems like facing God is both a means of trying to one-up the past and yet somehow far less exciting.

I guess it's a matter of interpretation. Kirk doesn't really "face down" the BOP since Spock is the gunner onboard, bailing Kirk out. And Kirk doesn't really "face down" the fake God creature, it's mostly Sybok and the weapons of the BOP that do that. And, he falls from the mountain and Spock bails him out there, too. You could just as easily call this "Leonard Nimoy makes a fan film," for the way Spock is constantly saving Kirk's ass in this one.

As you mention, Kirk does many over the top heroic feats throughout the Star Trek film series,many much more impressive than anything he does in TFF, and he's often written as a larger than life hero of the old school type. That's not Shatner's doing.

 

[sonak]

I think part of the problem with STV is that it's a serious concept ( facing god, you're own fears) and it's played for laughs most of the time.

a fair point, but as Shatner tells it, the studio forced humor elements into it because they saw the massive success of TVH as being partly due to the success of the comedy stuff.

 

[SeerSGB]

I think part of the problem with STV is that it's a serious concept ( facing god, you're own fears) and it's played for laughs most of the time.

a fair point, but as Shatner tells it, the studio forced humor elements into it because they saw the massive success of TVH as being partly due to the success of the comedy stuff.

At the end of the line, it doesn't matter who screwed it up the final product was subpar. It isn't the worse movie off all time, isn't even the worse Trek movie of all time. It just happens to be the one where the flaws are the most jarring

 

[sbk1234]

All I can add is at least the engine room in TFF didn't look like a brewery.


and, yes, I very much liked that movie, too. So I'm not bashing it. Put your weapons away.