Yeah, I think TFF's problem was more a mismanagement issue than a funding issue, at least when it came to the money. It was in line with the previous 3 films, accounting for things like inflation. Then what happened is things started going over budget, than Paramount started tightening the purse strings. But that was after things started getting out of hand. ILM basically was unavailable to do the special effects work for TFF for when Paramount wanted TFF out. If they had been willing to wait a bit, they probably could have gotten ILM at some point. They had the budget for ILM, but ILM just had other commitments. But even if ILM wasn't available there are other effects houses out there that could have done at least a decent job. As STEPHon pointed out Trumbull did excellent work on TMP, and there are others as well. ILM didn't do Insurrection or Nemesis either and while those movies get, um, mixed reviews, usually it's not the special effects that get ripped on the most with those two movies. I think where some of the blame for TFF's problems fall on Paramount is some interference on the story end of things. Especially with the humor. Paramount thought they had a potential gold mine after TVH was so popular, partly because of some of the humor there, so they thought they could do that again. But in TFF the humor was more forced, and at times just dopey (like Scotty hitting his head on the conduit, after saying how well he knew the ship, yuk yuk yuk )--though that's not to say there wasn't some good humor in the film (usually involving Dr. McCoy--I do love his line "I liked him better before he died." ). Shatner had good potential as a director though. I think he had some good ideas. And I remember reading the cast felt he did a pretty good job. Even George Takei, who is no Shatner fan, admitted Kirk had a good handle on the cast and despite all the nonsense going on around him, he kept things light on the set and was pretty responsive to suggestions. I think TFF was a better character movie than TUC. I liked TUC, but I agree with STEPH that the characters there seemed off. The only one that I could see nursing a grudge against the Klingons would be Kirk. But the rest of the crew always seemed a bit over the top. Distrust? Ambivalence? I can see that. These were mortal enemies of the Federation. But there was outright race hatred that just seemed out of character. Distrust and ambivalence I could see, but also with a bit of hopefulness for the future. Only Spock seemed to hold any optimism. I did like Gorkon and Chang though (I still love the patch nailed to his head, Klingons never do anything small ). And Plummer was just a great actor that brought Chang to life.
The line, "I liked him better before he died." - was written by Nicholas Meyer for Star Trek 4 but edited out of the Final Cut.
Chang is so James Bond, comic booky villain, it's beneath Star Trek, as good as Plummer's performance was it still stems from the great Montalban without the background (Space Seed). Sadly it's a formula which has plagued this franchise, one phenomenal actor after another try desperately to reach Noonien Singh's cold, hearted hatred for our hero. Sybok was a breath of fresh air, that character had zero grudge for Earth or any of the well dipping cliches which traps the other antagonists in the other movies. As for pure cinema and the production, Star Trek V looks better than 6, take out those amazing SFX from 6 and what would that movie be??? Integrity was the everlasting thing I loved about Star Trek, it's not about the special effects, and it will never compete with the 800 pound gorilla which is Star Wars, something Viacom will never understand, the characters were wholesome, and the people I can admire. Racists??? No. Bigots??? Absolutely not! There are many ways to engage an audience to a story and pouring bile on our heroes is not a good way for me to get in depth with it. It just exposes it's weaknesses as a narrative, like a surgeon I can dissect it scene by scene.
So, I'm going to offer a little bit of a different take on this that always helped me make sense of the crew's reaction in TUC. Mind that I do not think it is a perfect explanation because I think some crewmembers are still way out of character, especially Chekov and Uhura. But, if one takes TFF out of the viewing order then the bitterness of the crew makes a lot more sense. They are still suffering from the loss of their ship, as well as being accused of murder and the Genesis events basically being unacknowledged in their loses. In other words, they were forgotten for the sake of political expediency. The other part of the struggle I see is that TFF really feels like a poor follow up to TVH and I lay that at the feet of the conflict between Shatner and the studio. Paramount wanted a comedy like TVH, while Shatner wanted a deeper, more philosophical approach on the search of deity. Shatner convinced the studio he could do both. Hence why I think the jokes land unevenly, but why the "I need my pain" scene works so well. It was what Shatner really wanted to do and it shows. I like TFF as its own adventure but I think that TUC goes off of a through line from the TWOK trilogy forward, rather than viewing TFF. That's always been my view too. An interesting character study exploring long held biases that went undiscussed for years. I love TUC because it dares to say that these humans are like us and still have struggles. Something TOS did well and a lot of times were left aside in the name of perfect humans.
Which was why I admire TFF, it won't sell out the characters for the story it was trying to tell. I don't blame the studio for wanting something in the same vein as TVH because it was a good movie. Some parts in TFF could have been better executed but most movies have those same issues. I still rank it higher than TUC, which is what this thread is about.
Humor works well in Star Trek when it’s an organic part of the story or characters (or as a release of tension). The Voyage Home was conceived as a comedy adventure with most of the humor coming out of the characters being out of their element and era. The Final Frontier was conceived as a deadly serious examination of faith and evangelism. The humor was mandated by the studio and wedged in. It wasn’t meant to be a comedy, so it stands out. If the studio had asked for another comedy adventure from the outset, it may have been more artfully written.
I don't blame the studio at all. Any things I struggle with TFF I find with Shatner and the mishandling of characters. TFF is a good film all by itself. As a follow up from TVH it is lacking for me.
The plot of TFF is simply unbelievable. I mean the crew betraying Kirk after all they've gone together. In TSFS they risked a court-martial just to indulge and we're supposed to believe that now they've turned on him unanimously (except for Bones and Spock) because of some "mind trick"!!!
That was one of the main issues Nimoy had with the story. Originally it was a "Kirk Stands Alone" plot but Nimoy rightly argued that Spock would never betray Kirk especially after risking everything to bring him back. Kelley also felt the same. I'm not saying Shatner's original idea was good (I actually hated it), but it wasn't meant to be a comic as the final film. I prefer the finished product because Sybok was softened to be misguided rather than a black hat villain and the characters had a lot of great moments.
Maybe it was better Kirk, McCoy and the crew were better off looking like racists, I'm guessing some of you had lived long enough to know those characters better than I would. As for V, I thought Kirk climbing that mountain was a nice touch to what the movie could've been; trying to reach and achieve the impossible and falling. But the journey was worth the effort.
It's not a matter of "better." It's a matter of an engaging story and journeying with the characters in their trek of self-discovery that makes a story enjoyable.
I didn’t mind the crew being prejudiced and untrusting towards Klingons. They had history with them, were “old soldiers” and one of them did kill Kirk’s son. And, okay, I get that the production was trying very hard to ignore everything about the previous film and so any inter species goodwill built up in the climax of TFF would be equally glossed over. But the insults were far too on the nose Earth racist, so bad that I read Nichelle refused to read a line like “but would you want your daughter to marry one?” This wasn’t a “morality play” or an allegory. It was a sledgehammer delivered, front loaded message. And not everyone had to be bigoted, honestly, Kirk would have been enough. The rest (other than Spock) could be suspicious, but the hatred and disgust was over the top and manufactured for this story. Kirk was entitled and his “let them die” was incredible (Shatner was on fire). But everyone was off in this film other than Spock.
Were the characters integrity better off in TFF or TUC, obviously to many in this forum the superior movie?
Honestly, for me, it depend greatly on the character. Scotty, Chekov and Sulu all felt completely out of character from TOS and the past several films to TFF. TUC was a little rougher for Uhura and Chekov and Spock.
Perhaps I have a bit of a different take on TUC because I read the novelization, which goes a bit more in depth (I really enjoyed the novelizations of both TFF and TUC---highly recommend TFF novel if you haven't read it, Dillard really did a good job with it). I do rank TUC higher than TFF (in fact, I do have TFF in last place among Star Trek films I'm sad to say --though to be clear I still like it, I just found it the weakest of the films overall). I actually didn't see too many similarities between Chang and Khan. Chang actually had a bit of respect for Kirk as a fellow warrior. I'd say he thought of Kirk as a worthy adversary. There was no revenge involved, just someone who wanted to preserve the Empire as it was. I also didn't get any Star Wars vibes from TUC. It was more an allegory about the end of the Cold War at the time. I mean, sure, there are scenes that might have been reminiscent of Star Wars, but as a total movie, I can't say I left with that impression. But I do agree with you that the characterizations of the Enterprise crew was off. Doubts I can understand, but the bigotry just seemed beneath them, except for Kirk. And I agree about Sybok. He was an unusual villain at first, and later we find out he really isn't a villain at all. Also I have to give kudos to Luckinbill for his performance. I was a bit hesitant at first about him being Spock's long lost brother, however Luckinbill sold me on his performance. And I always point out the Forward Observation Room was one of my favorite sets on the Enterprise-A. I always wished they had reused it for TUC. Oh, and Goldsmith's score from TFF is a favorite as well. I remember reading somewhere Nicholas Meyer had asked Goldsmith to return to score TUC (after Horner turned him down) but Goldsmith refused. Not to say Eidelman didn't turn in a good score, but I mean, Jerry Goldsmith... Yeah, and this is one point I definitely agree with STEPhon. Even when I first saw it that felt off. Except for Kirk. If there was one thing that maybe felt like some continuity in TUC from TFF was Kirk's dislike of Klingons. He clearly noted that in TFF. TUC takes place several years later, a long time for that dislike and even hatred to fester. And like I said, TFF is a better character movie. I find it good comfort food among the Trek films. It's one reason I'd love to see Paramount just invest the little bit of money it would take to fix the God-awful special effects and bring it up to the standards of the other films. The effects really drag it down, they're really that bad. It's painful to watch. This is one of the points the novel helps out on. Sybok not only helps them face their pain but helps them understand what his goals really are and they don't feel like they are betraying Kirk. He helps them see into their own souls, for lack of a better work, and they get a look at his as well. Yeah, that's where I think Paramount went wrong. TVH was a fun ride, meant to be light-hearted. And frankly a much needed reprieve from the headier TWOK and TSFS. The movies needed TVH--we needed a movie just to have a bit of fun with. It came at the perfect time. But Paramount saw the success TVH had, especially among casual movie fans, and they thought they could replicate that, while Shatner wanted a more dramatic film. So the comedy felt more forced and out of place. Not to say there aren't genuinely funny moments. Hell, even TSFS had a bit of comedy thrown in here and there. But there were several groan worthy moments.
No he did not, Chang hated Kirk the moment he saw him. During the dinner sequence he was pushing Kirk's buttons with several backhanded compliments. Later was involved in framing him to being the mastermind of an assassination, and had the audacity to prosecute him for such a sloppy crime. The only time he thought of Kirk as a worthy adversary was the remaining moments he saw that gas-seeking torpedo heading directly at his face. I can't say V was the weakest and with all of the issues I have with TUC I can't give that sloppy movie an edge either. For me, they're a tie - both with some serious flaws, VI has a predictable murder mystery including out of character moments and a production that looked cheap and worn out which its saving grace was the SFX while V had a disjointed plot and not much of a story but the characters of Kirk, Spock and McCoy were intact. I guess reading the novelizations would be something to do since both movies struggled so hard to convey a narrative which supported these iconic characters. It's quite strange to do homework by reading the book versions to understand the movie. I didn't have to do that for TMP, TWOK, TVH and their narratives were clear and never added garbage to smear our heroes.
I think Sybok is top-3 when it comes to franchise movie "heavies" (Khan, Sybok, Kruge) I think Chang is bottom-3 (Ru'affo, Chang, Krall), and I put TUC under TFF in terms of how much I enjoy the films. YMMV, of course. Not a lot of people like Kruge as much as I do, for example. But, I think Sybok was the closest thing to a bona fide TOS heavy, with nuance and layers to his motivations and his personality. Even Khan, by the time of TWOK, was just a crazy psychopath. Krall would have worked better for me if he had a redemption arc in the end of the film. I thought, for one brief moment (when he sees his reflection in the shard of glass) that they were headed that way. But alas, they did not. Chang to me was so cliché and obvious and bland. Literally a moustache-twirling villain who quotes Shakespeare and just "wants war." I'm not sure what anyone sees in him as a bad guy, aside from the fact that Plummer is awesome. But, F. Murray Abraham and Idris Elba are awesome too...and they certainly didn't save those characters. It's kind of ironic that Sybok (played by relatively unknown Luckinbill) is one of the best heavies of all in my book.
I guess I just saw it differently. I'm not saying Chang wanted to be Kirk's BFF or anything, or even that he thought of Kirk as a friend. Kirk was an enemy, and Chang as an 'old style' Klingon was going to take Kirk down by any means possible. But that doesn't mean he couldn't respect him as a worthy adversary. I think he wanted to take Kirk down partly because he was such a worthy adversary. Much like Klaa in TFF, taking down Kirk would be quite the notch in his belt. And the plan almost worked. My main point was that Chang was not some Khan redux. His motivations were different as was his dislike of Kirk. He wasn't after vengeance. And you can hate someone, yet respect them as an adversary at the same time. Where TUC gets sloppy is how easy the Enterprise got to Rura Penthe. I mean, the Starfleet ship flying through what was still enemy territory should have gotten some notice. Rura Penthe is supposed to be a major Klingon prison. And the Klingons never notice Kirk's patch? I don't know, maybe Klingon vision is different from ours, but it was hardly inconspicuous. It's like the movie makers realized they were running out of time and had to move things along. And that ridiculous scene where they are looking up translations in books. Another ill advised attempt at humor in that case. Ok, you can't use the UT, but you'd think the computer could provide a read-out of what to say and Uhura could just read it. She's one of the best communications officers in the fleet so you'd think she'd be able to read Klingon pretty convincingly--it's not some new language she never heard before after all. I read both before the films came out (the novels came out a few days before the movies). I esp. recommend TFF novelization. I really thought TFF was going to be a really good movie after reading the novel. The movie was a bit of a let down. The novel actually addresses some of the movies shortcomings--like how quickly the crew is won over by Sybok, how easily they got through the "Great" Barrier, and other things. I mean, some of that is normal, novelizations can always go a bit deeper. But in TFF, and in some ways TUC novels help some of those films weaknesses. In some ways, reading those novels helped me enjoy the movies a bit more. There was another novel, Cast No Shadow, that addresses some of what happened in TUC and that the conspiracy was part of a Section 31 plot and Admiral Cartwright and Lt. Valeris were part of Section 31. I don't hold as high an opinion of TUC as some do. Some rank it in their top 3. I find it a middle of the road Star Trek film. My top 3 are TMP-TWOK and First Contact, in that order. My bottom 2 would be Insurrection-TFF. Then the ones in the middle can move around a bit. I am a bit of an oddball in that TMP is my favorite Star Trek film of all, Beyond is my favorite of the Abrams' films and of course, I liked Nemesis (to this day I still don't understand the amount of vitriol that film gets).