And Star Trek V failed because...

[Zaku]

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?

 

[Lance]

Have to be honest... this one really does sound like clutching at straws.

Nah, the movie's "religious connotations" had nothing to do with STV's performance. In fact, I remember nobody saying anything about this at the time. STV failed because of a combination of bad word-of-mouth and the fabled 'summer of blockbusters' that saw so many heavy-hitters being released within weeks of each other. Somebody had to be the fall guy, and STV got washed away in the tide.

 

[Zaku]

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?!?!

 

[Melakon]

I used to tolerate Michael Medved's overly enthusiastic film reviews, but then he turned into some kind of right-wing conservative squawk box talking about politics.

 

[RandyS]

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.

 

[Zaku]

Can anyone post the snippet where the author talks about Star Trek V? I'm quite curious...

 

[GeorgeKirk]

It all makes sense now! Star Trek V didn't fail because it was a badly-written William Shatner vanity project with special effects by Some Guy In New Jersey Working Out Of His Garage, Inc. It failed because God didn't like it! Let me stress that I find this entirely credible. It means God has good taste.

But if that's so, I wonder if Mr. Medved can explain why God torpedoed Star Trek V but allowed the entire Twilight film series to be made, to say nothing of Katherine Heigl rom-coms and the Transformers movies.

 

[BillJ]

It failed because the raging success of Star Trek IV. Paramount thought everyone wanted Star Trek to be a comedy.

 

[HIjol]

Our Pain runs deep.

 

[Zaku]

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. For example, he
notes that Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
was the least successful of the series. He
blames it all on the closing moments
when Capt. Kirk points to his chest and
speculates that maybe God is “right here.
The human heart.”

For Medved, this is an obviously antireligious
statement rejected by moviegoers.
He never stops to consider that the
film did poorly (only in comparison to the
other Star Trek films) because it was
simply the worst of the series. Writerdirector
William Shatner couldn’t direct
traffic on a one-way street.

 

[BillJ]

Writerdirector
William Shatner couldn’t direct
traffic on a one-way street.

I don't think this is a fair assessment. The story was pretty weak and I'm not sure anyone could've turned it into a great movie with Paramount wanting it to have comedic elements like The Voyage Home.

 

[erastus25]

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?

 

[Zaku]

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

Well, if you put it this way, it's a quite strong anti-religious message...

 

[Galileo7]

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.

Agree. TFF just did not connect with the moviegoers in the summer of '89. I saw it then with friends and felt it's story needed work.

 

[Nebusj]

Writerdirector
William Shatner couldn’t direct
traffic on a one-way street.

I don't think this is a fair assessment. The story was pretty weak and I'm not sure anyone could've turned it into a great movie with Paramount wanting it to have comedic elements like The Voyage Home.

The story was shaky, yeah, and the script needed a couple drafts to be less, well, dopey, but you can't seriously fault the direction. Shatner-as-director did pretty well at first pointing the camera at interesting-looking things, and in having the camera guide the eye to what's important to see, without being distracting about it. I honestly and without irony feel there's some good ability there that in a more just universe would have had more opportunities to develop.

 

[David Ellerman]

Take all of the original cast movies and edit out all of the effects and then compare them. Star Trek V does not fair poorly against STTMP and others. Please, I have been chasing around for genuine confirmation of an authorized Star Trek V director's cut, does anyone have the latest info?

 

[BillJ]

Take all of the original cast movies and edit out all of the effects and then compare them. Star Trek V does not fair poorly against STTMP and others. Please, I have been chasing around for genuine confirmation of an authorized Star Trek V director's cut, does anyone have the latest info?

There will never be one. Shatner is eighty-years old and Paramount has shown no interests in doing a Directors' Edition.

Though if Paramount wants him for Star Trek 3, he could use it as leverage. If he's still interested in doing a DE.

 

[Lance]

Our Pain runs deep.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Medved is an uptight blowhard and a moral scold, neither of which makes for a good film critic. I'm curious if he also pins the poor performance of Licence to Kill (another victim of the Summer of '89) on the cheesy televangelist played by Wayne Newton.

 

[Khan 2.0]

-misplaced humour
-poor SFX
-questionable plot
-lacklustre finale
-competition of summer 89