I don't think STV is that terrible

[LOKAI of CHERON]

I have to say, i don't think many of the people who crafted the film would claim that it is FINELY CRAFTED (budget restrictions), or EPIC (story and budget restrictions). It is neither wonderful nor immersive (flat lighting and not very believable special effects). For these specific reasons it does not entertain me beyond being 'Star Trek' and me wanting to like all things Star Trek and me wishing it was better.

Other than being distributed for a few short weeks (couldn't keep it on screens in 1989) there is little 'cinematic' about it. Sorry.

Err... please read the whole thread again.

ultimately it's just opinion of course, but I have to say this is pretty funny. You can literally count on a watch how many minutes of nothing but effect shots there are and minutes of just "reacting to effects" shots there are of the actors. I guess if you don't view that as "padding," then it won't convince you.

As you say, it's all subjective. The movie is a finely crafted, beautiful, epic science fiction odyssey - a wonderfully immersive, highly entertaining cinematic experience. To this day, I still love turning the lights out, cranking up the volume and losing myself in this incredible movie. I find it pretty funny you're not able to enjoy the film in this way - just my opinion.

fair enough. I'm glad you enjoy it so much


I would point out though, that obviously they went in a totally different direction for the rest of the Trek movies, so clearly there were a lot of folks who feel the same way I do about it.


But yes, it does have terrific effects(still terrific even today) and a great score.

OK, each to there own. With the exception of NEM I love all the movies.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

I really like Bones's flashback scene.

Really, that's all I can say without taking the thread in a mean-spirited direction.

But I really really liked that bit.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

I've said this before of Uhura's fandance and I'll say it again: I hope I look that good when I'm that age, and have that chutzpah.

 

[Phantassm]

If anything what the film got right was the sense of family between the BIG 3. Seeing them together was heart-warming and the line that Spock tells Sybok: "Sybok you are my brother but you do not know me. I am not that outcast boy those many years ago. Since that time I have found myself and I know where I belong...and I cannot go with you."
Kirk's nod like he was saying: "Yeah baby.
McCoy:"You'd better count me out too."
Great stuff. Lots of great moments in an otherwise mediocre film.

 

[Tina Lawton]

Good post.

As I pointed out in my review, originally the script called for both Spock and McCoy to turn on Kirk and side with Sybok, but both Nimoy and Kelly refused to play it that way.

Good for them.

 

[TheMurph]

I enjoy V, and I actually place it far above Nemesis. The cinematography and the interaction among the characters is what saves it for me, not the effects or writing.

V is not a good movie. Not well directed, not well written and not well produced (the choice not to use ILM). I would watch Kirk, Spock and McCoy in a knitting circle, but this film was not well made from the first inception through the execution.

A couple of things, personally I think Shatner did fairly well with his directing. The writing is pretty bad, and the Writers Strike had something to do with that. However, as for the "choice" not to use ILM, I was always under the impression that they wanted ILM, but that ILM was booked up because of Indiana Jones and Ghostbusters II. So, I wouldn't count that against the movie as much as I would the studio, who wanted STV rushed out in time for the 25th anniversary.

And since the film took a drastic change in direction from its inception to its execution, I wouldn't knock that either. Just my opinion anyway.

 

[Tina Lawton]

Post number 30, please.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Post number 30, please.

"The Phantom Menace was awesome!"

"Redletter Media please."

 

[22 Stars]

I enjoy V, and I actually place it far above Nemesis. The cinematography and the interaction among the characters is what saves it for me, not the effects or writing.

V is not a good movie. Not well directed, not well written and not well produced (the choice not to use ILM). I would watch Kirk, Spock and McCoy in a knitting circle, but this film was not well made from the first inception through the execution.

A couple of things, personally I think Shatner did fairly well with his directing. The writing is pretty bad, and the Writers Strike had something to do with that. However, as for the "choice" not to use ILM, I was always under the impression that they wanted ILM, but that ILM was booked up because of Indiana Jones and Ghostbusters II. So, I wouldn't count that against the movie as much as I would the studio, who wanted STV rushed out in time for the 25th anniversary.

And since the film took a drastic change in direction from its inception to its execution, I wouldn't knock that either. Just my opinion anyway.

No, you are mistaken, Ralph Winter has taken full responsibility for this CHOICE not to use ILM:

http://trekmovie.com/2010/06/30/producer-ralph-winter-on-star-trek-v-we-almost-killed-the-franchise/

And, unfortunately I almost killed the franchise in terms of the visual effects. We felt like we got taken advantage of by ILM and so we shopped to go to other places. We found a guy in New York, Bran Ferren, who had a pretty good approach to doing the effects, but ultimately they were horrible. And the combination of a story that was not working, it just wasn’t commercial, the effects were terrible – we almost killed the franchise, it almost died.

 

[Ssosmcin]

So, I wouldn't count that against the movie as much as I would the studio, who wanted STV rushed out in time for the 25th anniversary.

Actually, Star Trek VI was rushed out for the 25th anniversary (and it shows). Trek V was released in 1989.

 

[22 Stars]

So, I wouldn't count that against the movie as much as I would the studio, who wanted STV rushed out in time for the 25th anniversary.

Actually, Star Trek VI was rushed out for the 25th anniversary (and it shows). Trek V was released in 1989.

Yeah, I was with Paramount at the time, and to imply that after ST IV's HUGE success, that Paramount was anything short of supportive is just plain false. Yes, the culture was to make the Trek films (and most Paramount movies on limited budgets at that time) but Shatner's contract stating that if Nimoy got to direct, then he would have the option to direct was the biggest detrimental element to the franchise. You can 'blame' Paramount for agreeing to that, but they didn't have much choice. They didn't write the thing, and they certainly didn't tell Ralph Winter not to use ILM.

People may like ST V, but objectively it is a simple situation. William Shatner got creative control of Star Trek and made a bad movie that performed badly at the box office and was badly received by critics at the time.

 

[TheMurph]

Whoops, I got confused and I stand corrected.

 

[sonak]

So, I wouldn't count that against the movie as much as I would the studio, who wanted STV rushed out in time for the 25th anniversary.

Actually, Star Trek VI was rushed out for the 25th anniversary (and it shows). Trek V was released in 1989.

Yeah, I was with Paramount at the time, and to imply that after ST IV's HUGE success, that Paramount was anything short of supportive is just plain false. Yes, the culture was to make the Trek films (and most Paramount movies on limited budgets at that time) but Shatner's contract stating that if Nimoy got to direct, then he would have the option to direct was the biggest detrimental element to the franchise. You can 'blame' Paramount for agreeing to that, but they didn't have much choice. They didn't write the thing, and they certainly didn't tell Ralph Winter not to use ILM.

People may like ST V, but objectively it is a simple situation. William Shatner got creative control of Star Trek and made a bad movie that performed badly at the box office and was badly received by critics at the time.

It did perform badly at the box office, but to be fair, summer of '89 was a HUGELY competitive one, from "Last Crusade" to "Batman" to "Ghostbusters II" to "Back to the Future II."

Also, TFF was the first Trek movie released while a Trek show was on the air. None of the previous movies had to compete with that.

 

[22 Stars]

^ Ok, to be fair, it was not a well written, directed or produced film. We will never know how ST IV would have done if released in the summer of '89, but when you want to play with the big boys you have to bring your 'A' game.

Most Trek films were produced as 'B' movies, with second tier guest actors and moderate f/x budgets. Star Trek V was subpar on every account.

When even the producers admit they almost killed the TOS franchise, who are we to argue? They made a poor film, that looked cheap, and they knew it.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

^ Ok, to be fair, it was not a well written, directed or produced film.

...in your opinion. I thought Shatner's direction was actually quite good, the editing excellent, the cinematography outstanding and the score a Goldsmith classic. I would concede the FX are poor more often that not and the script could definitely have used some work.

 

[22 Stars]

Sure, the score is nice and there are some pretty shots of Yosemite. Probably not what most moviegoers were looking for in '89 I guess. It threatened or even did go over-budget, and that falls on the Director, so sorry, that goes against Shatner in this case, so no, it was not well directed, and even lost its original ending with the rock-men. Lol the editing was... there... with continuity errors everywhere, so not well edited, no.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

Sure, the score is nice and there are some pretty shots of Yosemite. Probably not what most moviegoers were looking for in '89 I guess. It threatened or even did go over-budget, and that falls on the Director, so sorry, that goes against Shatner in this case, so no, it was not well directed, and even lost its original ending with the rock-men. Lol the editing was... there... with continuity errors everywhere, so not well edited, no.

There are continuity errors in every movie. The editing brought a real sense of energy to the film - in tandem with Shatner's direction. IMHO the score is magnificent and calling it "nice" is underselling it in the worst way.

 

[22 Stars]

Don't get me wrong, i like the score a lot, even though (and partly because) it has many of the major themes from his previous work. But it doesn't make the 'movie' good, it makes the score good or very good, or magnificent (I don't agree with that superlative, but ok).

Tastes vary, and I don't care if people like V or not, but not everything in this world is subjective. The movie did badly. The movie looked cheap. The fandance is embarrasing. The movie sounded good. The producer said he almost ended the franchise. Shatner wanted more time and money and slapped on a half-assed ending.

I am a HUGE Trek apologist, and like moments in V, but it was not a 'well made' film.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

Don't get me wrong, i like the score a lot, even though (and partly because) it has many of the major themes from his previous work. But it doesn't make the 'movie' good, it makes the score good or very good, or magnificent (I don't agree with that superlative, but ok).

Tastes vary, and I don't care if people like V or not, but not everything in this world is subjective. The movie did badly. The movie looked cheap. The fandance is embarrasing. The movie sounded good. The producer said he almost ended the franchise. Shatner wanted more time and money and slapped on a half-assed ending.

I am a HUGE Trek apologist, and like moments in V, but it was not a 'well made' film.

I didn't state the score made the movie "good" in of itself - merely that it's a magnificent score, and certainly, makes an excellent contribution to the film.

Yes, the fan dancing is awful, as is Scotty bumping into the bulkhead etc.

Yes, the movie did badly.

True, not everything in the world is subjective - but in the case of the arts I believe it is. If even one person views TFF as a cinematic masterpiece, then for them, it is. You can argue "it looks cheap" into eternity (I think it does in places) - but that's merely your opinion - even if it's supported and endorsed by an overwhelming majority.

 

[22 Stars]

Lol, ok, I'll take that.