I don't think STV is that terrible
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Every time I think of what Shatner wanted as opposed to what he was allowed to do, I get angry. If they had given him the budget Star Trek V deserved (based on ST 4s great success) we would have gotten a sci-fi Lawrence of Arabia rather than a big budget remake of Way to Eden. Don't get me wrong, I love TFF and think it's tons better than WtE, but it could have been so much better. Damn Paramount and damn Harve Bennett.
Nick Meyer made TWOK on a tiny budget. You don't need a huge budget to make a good movie. If Shatner couldn't get the budget he wanted, he should have changed the movie accordingly, not made a bad movie and then blame it on the budget.
Also, a more special effects-heavy finale with neat rockmen wasn't the difference between success and failure here.
Meyer's movie was written around it's budget. Shatner's was intended to be an epic. While you don't need a huge budget to make a good movie, you need a huge budget to make a Lawrence of Arabia style epic.
No. The difference was Shatner getting cockblocked by both Bennett and the studio 'til only a few tiny, tattered shreds of his original ideas were left on the screen.
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier was made for a healthy increase over its predecessor. It cost $32 million ($750,000 over budget); Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home cost $22 million ($1 million under budget).
Shatner was never going to get the financial support offered to a film like Lawrence of Arabia, and he should have realized that. Moreover, that Meyer was able to produce a movie with a much more epic scope for the same amount of money (not adjusted for inflation) two years later shows how much better he was at getting the money spent to show up on screen than Shatner.
Roddenberry nixed a lot of things during his time as a creative consultant, but his opinion didn't matter at that point. His was certainly not the final word eliminating those (rather silly) elements.
then Shatner should have either adjusted to the budget or give the writing to someone else rather than spend the next twenty years blaming the movie's failure on money problems. It had a budget comparable to other Trek movies. Why should he have gotten an epic-type budget when Nimoy and Meyer didn't?
And again, of all I've read of what got sacrificed for budget, it wasn't the difference between a good movie and a weak one anyway. Rockmen, Furies, an impressive looking fake Satan and fire pits were all just nibbling around the edges. The problems were the lame humor, somewhat silly premise, and problematic story elements, not a lack of budget.
Jim, Spock and Bones around the campfire. Yay!
Hikaru and Pavel lost. Yay!
Shuttlecraft and the crash. Yay!
. . .
Give me the Academy movie.
Hikaru and Pavel lost. Yay!
Shuttlecraft and the crash. Yay!
. . .
Give me the Academy movie.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but I think the script suffered due to the Writers' Guild strike. I know they had to hurriedly finish the first or second draft before the strike began. By the time it ended, Bennett and Paramount were hesitant about the themes and set pieces in the movie. That's when all the changes started happening. I think, if anything, Shatner got screwed by the Guild in the end.
I was in my late 20s and that was the first Trek movie I went to see in the theaters. It was a lot of fun. Took me years to realize that many fans didn't like it.
I also agree, there is not a Star Trek movie I dislike. I like them all even though there are some better than others.
I like this movie better than III, IV, the Motionless Picture and all the TNG movies.
Nothing wrong with Shatner's direction. I think most of Shatner's ideas were good but needed a couple more draft revisions on a great concept. The writing is the worst part and can be laid at the strike. I really wished they would have done more with the Hall of Ancient Thought ideas from the Novelization to tie in with the katra idea from III. Tone down but keep the shakedown issues. Not sure who to blame for continuity issues (deck numbers, bridge change, etc).
I'll always shake my head at how cheap Paramount was with the budgets for all the TOS films after TMP.
Nothing wrong with Shatner's direction. I think most of Shatner's ideas were good but needed a couple more draft revisions on a great concept. The writing is the worst part and can be laid at the strike. I really wished they would have done more with the Hall of Ancient Thought ideas from the Novelization to tie in with the katra idea from III. Tone down but keep the shakedown issues. Not sure who to blame for continuity issues (deck numbers, bridge change, etc).
I'll always shake my head at how cheap Paramount was with the budgets for all the TOS films after TMP.
Last edited:
I don't know. Making a film about Kirk finding God and throwing in three stooges like comedy with a touch of euthanasia being done to family members is less like direction, but more like total randomness.
The only thing that's middy consistent in Shatner's direction is how he painted Kirk as an this super incredible person where if you associate his name with anything, success will surely follow no matter what the obstacles are. For instance, the scene with Admiral Bob.
Kirk: The Enterprise is a disaster, there's got to be other ships
Bob: Other ships, but no experienced commanders. I need Jim Kirk.
You see what I'm talking about? We have a broken understaffed ship, a hostage crises involving the three major powers in the alpha quadrant and the only reasoning that Admiral Bob uses in why he's sending Kirk is simply because he's Kirk. This is clearly Shatner's direction in making his character look epic since Bob doesn't bother mentioning the rest of his crew. You would think that everyone else would command at least as much respect since in the last two movies they were all willing to be court-martialed for their actions in saving Spock. I bet if Kirk was the only person on the bridge, he'd order Kirk to fly the Enterprise to Nimbus III all by himself even though his crew is still onboard space dock. It's Bob's reasoning and unprofessional behavior in Starfleet that paints itself as a childish organization, and the writing behind it that comes off as arrogant and self-serving. Shatner had neither care nor respect towards any of the characters except his own.
Having a low budget is one thing, maintaining it is another. This wasn't a case of Paramount being cheap on Star Trek V with it's budget since V had a bigger budget than Star Treks II and III combined, and those films delivered the goods on a lot of stuff. Star Trek II managed to save their budget for the important stuff later in the film by reusing footage and sets from TMP, and Star Trek III with it's tight budget was able to create all sorts of new material from new starship designs, new equipment that resembled the original series equipment, and a lot of cool alien effects.
And the real kicker in V's budget woes is Star Trek VI. That film was given the same exact budget that V had, and look at the results. Great set pieces, brand new visual and special effects and a story that held together.
The problems with Star Trek V have more to do with Shatner's delusional sense of direction and bad luck with a lot of people's schedules. ILM was out, Sean Connery was out, Nicholas Meyer was out and finally Shatner's three precious one million dollar a piece transitions. He wanted to spend three million dollars on transitions. I do believe there IS something wrong with his direction.
Last edited:
Honestly, I don't get the love for Shatner's original concept: the Enterprise goes to find God but finds Satan instead. The actual Satan. Doesn't this wholesale "proving the unprovable religious figure" bother anyone? Roddenberry had a good point: "by proving the existence of Satan, you're proving the existence of God by inference." They didn't FIND God, but they proved He exists. You might as well close up shop right there. What mysteries would ever compare?
Star Trek was great for discussing religion, but they weren't in the business of "proof." And how would one filmmaker's vision of God or Satan be accepted without pissing off a bunch of people? All of this was brought up back then and still Shatner held fast to the love of his concept. Honestly, Bennett and Loughery did the film a favor by "cockblocking" Shatner. They made it a fast paced action film with ideas rather than something potentially offensive and divisive.
I liked Shatner's camera eye. He kept it moving and fluid, composed some striking visuals and kept the film moving. His story sense, however, is lacking. Someone else should have been tasked to find the story and write the script and kept Shatner behind the camera.
As it has already been pointed out, the film noticeably favors Kirk to a high degree. He's gone from realistic middle-aged guy who misses the old days to free-climbing superman who is the answer to the galaxy's problems. Everyone around him is there for support and laffs.
Star Trek was great for discussing religion, but they weren't in the business of "proof." And how would one filmmaker's vision of God or Satan be accepted without pissing off a bunch of people? All of this was brought up back then and still Shatner held fast to the love of his concept. Honestly, Bennett and Loughery did the film a favor by "cockblocking" Shatner. They made it a fast paced action film with ideas rather than something potentially offensive and divisive.
I liked Shatner's camera eye. He kept it moving and fluid, composed some striking visuals and kept the film moving. His story sense, however, is lacking. Someone else should have been tasked to find the story and write the script and kept Shatner behind the camera.
As it has already been pointed out, the film noticeably favors Kirk to a high degree. He's gone from realistic middle-aged guy who misses the old days to free-climbing superman who is the answer to the galaxy's problems. Everyone around him is there for support and laffs.
I'll put it in another way. Let's say Shatner did have a bigger production budget, Sean Connery as Sybok and his three transitions that cost a million dollars a piece. Would that have made this movie better? I highly doubt it. Paramount being cheap on Shatner is not the issue as to why the film is problematic. The problems are what Shatner brought to the table in both the story and his direction. Nothing about the effects work breaks the film, it just makes the low production quality more obvious. The story and the direction can overcome low budgets and tight production values.
This thread should be required reading before every young person's confirmation or bar/bat mitzvah. You cannot be called and addressed as an adult until you realize and publicly admit how crappy ST V is.
Badly conceived, written, directed, produced and executed in every way. (ok, I like the old timey steering wheel and the music cue that accompanies it (ok, all the music))
Until then you are a child.
Badly conceived, written, directed, produced and executed in every way. (ok, I like the old timey steering wheel and the music cue that accompanies it (ok, all the music))
Until then you are a child.
come on, it's weak, but it's not THAT bad. There's still some good Big Three stuff, the music is terrific(which you acknowledge), Luckinbill is good, and some of the humor does work.
I find it much more watchable than TMP, which is just watching folks watching special effects on a viewscreen.
