And Star Trek V failed because...

[arch101]

It was because it was a bad film. Nothing else. Trek films depended on people going back more than once (and the typical Trekker goes back many times). TFF is the only Trek film I went to only once. It was also the last one I went to on opening day. I got the BIGGEST headache in the theater, too! What ruined it for me was that I had read the novelization a couple of weeks before and it was really great. Executing that story turned out to be a whole different matter, however.If you haven't read the book, go get it at a used bookstore and read it. You'll be saying "what a great film this would make if it's just like this".

 

[EnriqueH]

Star Trek V did poorly, but not as poorly as James Bond film "Licence to Kill". Compared to LTK, STV was a moneymaker.

 

[cardinal biggles]

In America, yes. But internationally, the Bond films have always had solid international distribution, and the international box office always far outstrips the U.S. results, even for more recent mega-hits like Skyfall (which only made 27.5% of its $1.1B gross in this country). Trek movies, on the other hand, have had uneven international distribution, and only with the Abrams films have they really broken into international markets.

Star Trek V
U.S.: $52.2M
Int'l: $17.9M
-------------
Total: $70.2M — against a $32M budget

Licence to Kill
U.S.: $34.6M
Int'l: $121.5M
---------------
Total: $156.1M — against a $32M budget

 

[Timewalker]

According to the author of Hollywood vs. America, Michael Medved, Star Trek V failed due to the fact that it offended America's sensibilities about God.

Ok, this is the first time that i I hear this one. There is anyone offended by the depiction of spirituality in this movie?

I nearly walked out of the theatre. Mind you, there were more elements than the religious ones that greatly annoyed me with this movie.

And I believe the movie made clear that the entity at the center of the Galaxy was not really God ("Why does God need a starship?").

Soooo... What?!?!

Seriously. Wasn't the whole point of the movie that it's impossible to find God?

Part of what the movie said was that different cultures have the same basic concept of God but call it by different names.

 

[fireproof78]

The only thing about Trek V that I liked was the commando style raid on Nimbus 3, and that (at the time) I thought the Romulan ambassador was cute.

The rest, even as a young person, was just so lackluster. There are a few character bits that are nice, but overall, just unimpressive.

Also, as a deeply religious person, I was not offended by "God" at the end of the film. The final battle was deeply disappointing, though.

And a DE has been asked for by Shatner and Paramount has said no. So, I think it will have to be put to rest.

 

[Hypaspist]

Actually I think that a lot of movies in '89 did so well because of Batman. I ended up seeing Indiana Jones and a few others because Batman was sold out every time. Those were great movies though, so it looks like I won all around!

 

[Maurice]

Medved in the original Golden Turkey Awards era was kinda fun, but he's long since passed his use-by date and curdled.

The only thing that really interests me about Star Trek V would be to see what was left on the cutting room floor. They spent a buttload of money on that Paradise location and you hardly see it or Sybok's army. I have this suspicion they shot a lot more there, at least of Sybok's people taking it, than we see in the finished film.

As to a Director's Cut, I think the Rockman ending and updated VFX would only make the film less embarrassing to look at but wouldn't make it "better", which is why I suspect TPTB have never shown interest in such an refurbishment.

 

[Zaku]

Quality aside, I believe there is a strong secular humanist message in the movie. Can you imagine the main character of a modern blockbuster saying: "Maybe [God] is not out there, [...] Maybe He's right here... the human heart."?

I read somewhere a comparison between Carrie (1976) and the 2013 remake. In the original movie the mother of Carrie was a religious nutjob, in the remake they totally downplayed the religious aspect.

It seems that modern Hollywood execs are trying to not upset any particular religion. Probably they think that if you don't offend anyone, you can sell more tickets...

 

[Maurice]

It's not necessarily secular to say God is in the human heart. It can mean that you can't find God "out there", and certainly not on Sean Connery.

 

[suarezguy]

IMO the movie was far from terrible, audiences mostly disliked that the humor felt really forced. I do think Shatner does deserve some of the blame, though, as he seemed willing if not eager to relegate the supporting characters to being the targets of the humor and, while not anti-religion, the nature of his story made the progression feel a little too cautious and inevitable.

 

[Melakon]

I read somewhere a comparison between Carrie (1976) and the 2013 remake. In the original movie the mother of Carrie was a religious nutjob, in the remake they totally downplayed the religious aspect.

Regarding the original, Piper Laurie said she played the character over the top because she thought her lines so hilarious ("dirty pillows"), that it must have been a comedy. She wound up getting an Oscar nomination for it.

 

[CoveTom]

Around the time of TFF's original release, I do recall there being some people upset about Kirk's line at the end of the film about God not being "out there" but in the human heart. That was taken, again by some, as a statement on Kirk's part that there is no actual God and that we create him in ourselves.

Personally, I honestly never took it that way, but more as a statement just that God is not going to be able to be found on the surface of some planet somewhere. It never struck me as particularly anti-religious. Certainly not in the vein of some of Picard's more pompous speeches.

Regardless, though, it's clear that an anti-religious sentiment, if there was one, was not what hurt the film at the box office.

 

[Greg Cox]

I found a review of the book (Charles Oliver, "It's Not a Wonderful Book" (Review of Hollywood vs. America), Reason Magazine, February 1993)

When a movie that Medved dislikes
succeeds at the box office, it’s
because the American public was fooled
into seeing it by those crafty bastards in
studio executive suites. On the other
hand, when a movie that he dislikes fails
at the box office, it’s because America
rejected its evil message..

Exactly. Medved has been riding the same hobby-horse--that Hollywood is out of touch with mainstream American values--for decades now. It's old and tired and has nothing to do with why ST V was a box-office disappointment.

 

[Hypaspist]

I never made any of these analogies with the movie. Kirk straight up asks the entity, whatever it is, "What does God need with a Starship?" The idea of God being a personal thing isn't inconsistent with any mainstream religion, and Picard calling Q a false god had been going on for several episodes at this point.

 

[Khan 2.0]

row row row your boat gently down the stream...merrily merrily merrily merrily Trek V is but a dream
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=243037

 

[Smellmet]

I'm happy for it to be a dream and move swiftly on to The Undiscovered Country.

 

[Relayer1]

It failed because it was awful in premise and plot.

There were some nice character pieces between Kirk, Spock and McCoy, but that's about it.

 

[Smellmet]

Certain Trek films down the years have gone up and down in my rankings, in particular, I've got a new found appreciation for TMP and GEN (apart from the ending) but TFF for me has always been rooted to the bottom spot and I think it always will.

 

[Zaku]

Around the time of TFF's original release, I do recall there being some people upset about Kirk's line at the end of the film about God not being "out there" but in the human heart. That was taken, again by some, as a statement on Kirk's part that there is no actual God and that we create him in ourselves.

Really? So, it wasn't only Medved?

 

[Spock's Barber]

It didn't offend me when was 19, and it doesn't offend me now.

Parts of the movie ANNOY me, but don't offend me.

Agreed. The main thing that bothered me was how easy it was to penetrate the Great Barrier and...*poof*...there was 'God'. Oh, that and the second rate/cartoon-like special effects. 'God' looked more like some homeless dude.