Why do so many people think TFF is the worst Trek movie? I mean to be fair its not the best thing ever made, there's huge gaping holes in logic, writing and the effects weren't the best but I think as far as Star Treks go, I find it bearable and even some of the lame comedy enjoyable. The only things I didn't like about the movie was this: Nichelle Nichols doing what she did in this movie, and I think we all know what I'm reffering to was... an interesting choice to put it lightly. During TOS... man go for it... TFF... Nah that's ok. And what the hell was up with that wierd, akward romance (never capatalized on) implied between Uhura and Scotty in TFF? Other then that, I actually enjoy watching TFF.
Lets see... It was full of blatant continunity errors, including Spock having a half-brother, (although that was mild compared to the rest I'm about to list) the Enterprise reaching the centre of the Galaxy within a few hours, (despite TNG clearly establishing speed limitations) Kirk just seemingly forgetting that the Klingons killed his son (and then remembering this in TUC) and inviting them aboard and hosting a party while being very courteous and of course the Ent-A having a large number of decks for a relatively small ship. The plot didn't make sense. Sybok had that David Koresh vibe but his whole "take away your pain" thing didn't make a lot of sense and served as a poor dramatic element to pull off the brainwashing. There wasn't really anything made clear about Sybok's backstory, except that he was a Vulcan prodigy that rejected logic in favour of emotion and was cast out. His quest to find "Sha Ka Ree" was meaningless. Many of the characters strayed from their established roles. Scotty and Uhura having a romance wasn't very believable, Nichols and Doohan had no real chemisty and it wasn't developed upon in the film. Sulu did practically nothing (although this was probably due to Shatner directing) and Chekov's entertaining but brief role as Captain was ruined when he just stood back and allowed Sybok to take control of the bridge without calling for security or creating any kind of resistant. The visual effects were naff in places and the bridge of the ship looked completely different to how it did at the end of TVH. (only a couple of months were meant to have passed since the film) Klaa was a tedious Klingon who had as much "baddie" potential as the Ferengi. I don't see how destroying a defenseless satellite can be considered a hard target. The film was largely an ego trip by Shatner and I know a lot of people say that but it really was. A lot of the direction of the movie was in keeping with how Shatner would act, lighthearted and hammy in places. William Shatner couldn't do tongue in cheek very well back then and should have realised from his performances in TWOK and TSFS that he actually is a talented serious actor and can really act to a high standard.
The director had absolutley no sense at all about the characters and their established roles. Nor did it appear that he cared. The writer had absolutely no sense at all about the characters and their established continuity. Nor did it appear that he cared. Waitaminuite!!! SHATNER WROTE AND DIRECTED??? Oh well then if that's the case... the director\writer didn't give two poops about anything and just tried to do a big FU to the franchise. Every character had a goofy (disrespectful?) moment and it seemed to me that the director\writer was making fun of them, not having fun with them. Nobody was in character in this movie...it could of been great...buuuutttt....
I bet Simon Pegg's begging the writers of the next Star Trek for the same action Jimmy Doohan got in this film. Cue Scotty rushing out of Uhura's quarters, wearing a pair of small tight Tartan speedos, to locate a quick post nookie sandwich... Better pass me that bottle of brain bleach.
well I don't think it's the worst of the Trek movies, I do think it's one of the weaker entries, for a lot of the same reasons mentioned above. Also, for a plot about the "search for God," the movie spends a lot of time on other stuff like the Nimbus III hostage rescue and the hijacking of the Ent-A and stuff. Find some focus. the humor is often at the expense of the characters in this one. The special effects aren't so great. Sybok's pain relief trick makes no sense unless it's pure brainwashing, which it isn't because it doesn't work on Kirk, Spock, or McCoy. The premise is kind of a re-hash of "way to eden." Things I liked: exploration of the Big Three, some good character moments, Luckinbill's performance, Spock turning out to be the gunner on the bird-of-prey.
well I don't think it's the worst of the Trek movies, I do think it's one of the weaker entries, for a lot of the same reasons mentioned above. Also, for a plot about the "search for God," the movie spends a lot of time on other stuff like the Nimbus III hostage rescue and the hijacking of the Ent-A and stuff. Find some focus. the humor is often at the expense of the characters in this one. The special effects aren't so great. Sybok's pain relief trick makes no sense unless it's pure brainwashing, which it isn't because it doesn't work on Kirk, Spock, or McCoy. The premise is kind of a re-hash of "way to eden." Things I liked: exploration of the Big Three, some good character moments, Luckinbill's performance, Spock turning out to be the gunner on the bird-of-prey.
To be fair, that's a problem with TUC. You can't blame a continuity error on what came first. By TFF, Kirk had clearly processed the death of his son, and was rational enough to separate the actions of one rogue band of Klingons from the race as a whole.
The problem with TFF is that it doesn't know what it's about. There's no thematic backbone that runs through the whole thing to hold it together. As such, it ends up being about a bunch of different little things and ultimately about nothing at all. That's the cardinal sin, over and above badly written dialog, lame VFX and numerous other defects.
I don't know why Sybok is a continuity error. I always thought he made perfect sense. And let me make it clear I can't stand this film. But it was obvious Sarek was betrothed before Amanda. What happened to her that Sarek was released from that vow? TFF explains it well enough. I don't mine Sybok's existence at all.
Spck mentioned that Sarek was married to a Vulcan priestess, but we have no idea what happened to that marriage.
Because all Vulcan's are betrothed from birth. I'm assuming that no earthling would promise his daughter to an alien at the age of 7. Therefore Amanda would have to be his second wife or his first wife after the Kali-fee.
While that does make sense, it still doesn't explain why Spock never told Kirk about Sybok until this movie. The real explanation of course, is that Sybok (or the idea of a half-brother) didn't exist before this movie, and it's never talked about afterwards either, almost like everyone wanted to forget it existed in the first place.
Sybok enbraced his emotional side and that made him sometbing of a rebel among the other Vulcans, so it's not surprising that Spock didn't mention the black sheep of the family.
My gripe was that General Korrd turns out to be the rseolution of the whole thing, yet up until then he's only portrayed as drunken, stupid, vulgar, useless -- you name it. Had there been an earlier face-to-face moment, with Kirk reminding the man of his past glories, the wrap-up would have had meaning.
Yes, I've heard this excuse before, and it doesn't fly with me. It had been shown time and time again that Kirk, Spock and McCoy kew quite a lot about each other's personal lives. Granted, Spock had the most reason to be unforthcoming with personal information, but that information should at least have been in his Starfleet record.
I seem to remember Kirk being alittle surprised that Sarek and Amanda were Spock's parents in Journey To Babel. Yeah he knew that Spock's mother was human but he still didn't know who they were.