• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

CHUD.com, in regards to ST V: The Search for God

I read it pretty frequently (always keeping an eye out for their movie reviews), but didn't know this was upon us. Thanks for the tip. :techman:
 
I think they pretty much nail it. It does get pretty campy, but there are some damned impressive shots in the film.
 
I'm a big fan of CHUD, but the guy who wrote that is a douche. The only reason he put "Star Trek V" on that list is to take a cheap shot at TNG. He had a habit of doing that. He's one of those "Star Trek" purists who just loves to put down TNG. He praised this movie because he knows it's the worst of the original Star Trek movies, but gets off on saying stuff like, "this movie is better than every single Next Generation movie" and "see this with Next Generation fans to rub their faces in how even this movie is better than anything starring Jonathan Frakes."

A few months later, he wrote an article about the most 'overrated' movies, and proudly declared "Star Trek: First Contact" makes sure that TNG goes 0 for 4 on big screen outings." Asshole. It's bad enough that we TNG fans are stuck with those three other inarguably weak movies, and then people try to take away the only good one we got, which is light years better than "Star Trek V". :(
 
doubleohfive said:
Am I the only one who understood Kirk's line about "losing a brother and getting him back" was about Spock?
Click to expand...
I think that was the point. The movie quote was about Spock alone, which means the screenwriter forgot that Kirk also had a literal brother.

Speaking as someone who thought all four TNG movies were far better than Star Trek V, I just shrugged off the guy's comments about the TNG films. Different Strokes...

Here is another funny review of Star Trek V.
 
doubleohfive said:
Am I the only one who understood Kirk's line about "losing a brother and getting him back" was about Spock?
Click to expand...

That was my understanding as well and it's pretty clear that Kirk is talking about Spock there, especially considering the events in the previous films.

Anyway, the guy who wrote that article must not be in his right mind.
 
"but this movie is better than every single Next Generation movie. Why? Simple: it features the original Enterprise crew."

I stopped reading right here and see no reason to bother with the rest.
 
Boo Much Fun said:
gets off on saying stuff like, "this movie is better than every single Next Generation movie" and "see this with Next Generation fans to rub their faces in how even this movie is better than anything starring Jonathan Frakes."
[SNIP]
A few months later, he wrote an article about the most 'overrated' movies, and proudly declared "Star Trek: First Contact" makes sure that TNG goes 0 for 4 on big screen outings."
Click to expand...
Yet, Star Trek: First Contact isn't universally loved. Sci-Fi Universe (Mark Altman's magazine) trashed it pretty thoroughly back in the day. I think it's the least of the four TNG films (and the bottom of all eleven); it's poorly directed and the story is slight and frivolous. I accept, though, that my thoughts on the First Contact are outside the mainstream. :)

As for Star Trek V, when it works, it works very well. It's not perfect, but it's not as bad as its reputation.
 
OK, I really like First Contact, you don't, different strokes for different folks, etc. But what really confuses me is your criticism that the storyline is "slight and frivolous." Huh? That's like the opposite of the case! In fact, a common complaint of Generations and Insurrection is that they're too much like a two-part episode of TNG, and not cinematic enough.



However, I've never heard this criticism of First Contact. Usually, it's regarded as TOO MUCH like a big blockbuster action epic for Star Trek. As for "slight and frivolous," it features time travel, an invasion of Earth, the Borg, one of the most effective villains in Trek, an all-out war for control of the Enterprise, AND first contact with the Vulcans.


Really, what were you looking for?
 
Star Trek V is worse than the worst things that trekkies will generally say about it. If it didn't have Star Trek in the title it probably would have pulled in about ten million bucks.
 
Much as I like all of the films, I really have to wonder about the judgment of the people who green lit Trek 5. Shatner was entitled to direct, but they really should have gone to an actual writer for the story.

"Bill, we'd like to bring in someone else to furnish the story."
"If I can't do my story, then I won't direct it."
"Okay."
"And I won't act in it."
"No prob, Harve's got this Academy script we'd like to try."
(pause)
"Fine, I'll just direct."
Result: better movie.

What rule said he had to supply the story? That's when the project went south. You know, right at the start.
 
Allyn Gibson said:
Yet, Star Trek: First Contact isn't universally loved. Sci-Fi Universe (Mark Altman's magazine) trashed it pretty thoroughly back in the day.
Click to expand...

OK, I was a subscriber to Sci-Fi Universe back in the day, and this didn't jibe with my memories, so I pulled out my copy of the February 1997 issue with Altman's review of First Contact... Giving it a B- grade is "trashing it thoroughly"? :wtf::confused: I recall them having some fun with it, but loving something doesn't automatically mean you're unaware of its flaws. That's something Altman & company have always understood.

Man, I miss Sci-Fi Universe.
 
I feel that ST V was better than all of the TNG films except First Contact. For all of FC's issues, it felt like a film, it had a decent premise (albeit farfetched), and it had good production quality. The other three felt like they should have been released straight to video (especially Generations). Nemesis was a joke with a film coming out in 2002 having such limited effects.

In regards to ST V's script, Shatner had wanted to get another writer to make it much darker. Seeing the success of ST IV, the studio wanted a much lighter script and made Shatner go with what we got. They also had to go with another company for F/X. When watching that film, it should be looked upon for its character relations. It is basically what a 2 parter TOS episode would have been had it come out in '89. Cobra
 
sonak said:
OK, I really like First Contact, you don't, different strokes for different folks, etc. But what really confuses me is your criticism that the storyline is "slight and frivolous." Huh? That's like the opposite of the case! In fact, a common complaint of Generations and Insurrection is that they're too much like a two-part episode of TNG, and not cinematic enough.
Click to expand...
It's a subjective thing. *shrug*

I don't find the story compelling, or even particularly Trek-worthy. First Contact also doesn't transcend the storytelling parameters of the series; the A-plot/B-plot structure is blatant, the two storylines have little effect on one another, the tone jars badly between the two, and there's nothing that First Contact does that the television series didn't do or couldn't have done. Ultimately, that's the real problem with the film; after Generations brought closure to the television era, First Contact doesn't do enough to redefine TNG as a film franchise. Instead, it's simply more of what we've had, just with cosmetic differences.

JonnyQuest037 said:
OK, I was a subscriber to Sci-Fi Universe back in the day, and this didn't jibe with my memories, so I pulled out my copy of the February 1997 issue with Altman's review of First Contact... Giving it a B- grade is "trashing it thoroughly"? :wtf::confused:
Click to expand...
I was thinking of an article that tore into the film, the summer after it came out. (Or at least, that's how I remember it.) It could be that time and distance have turned what was a lighthearted spoof into doom and gloom within my memories.

Man, I miss Sci-Fi Universe.
Click to expand...
It was a good magazine. I treasured every issue. I tried reading the post-Altman version of the magazine. It wasn't even close to the same.
 
Allyn Gibson said:
I was thinking of an article that tore into the film, the summer after it came out. (Or at least, that's how I remember it.) It could be that time and distance have turned what was a lighthearted spoof into doom and gloom within my memories.
Click to expand...
I thought that might have been what you were referring to. I can't find the issue right now, but I do remember that feature. It was a two-page list of nitpicky criticisms of the movie from Altman & Robert Meyer Burnett, as I recall. I think it was at least partially tongue-in-cheek. I remember Altman writing a similiar piece about Goldeneye.

Allyn Gibson said:
Man, I miss Sci-Fi Universe.
Click to expand...
It was a good magazine. I treasured every issue. I tried reading the post-Altman version of the magazine. It wasn't even close to the same.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I remember it well. It happened right after I finally subscribed. Four issues in, it switched from a witty, irreverent "Magazine for Sci-Fi Fans With a Life" into... that. I still recall a particularly lame interview with DS9's Marc Alaimo:

Interviewer: What's your favorite word?
Alaimo: It's going to sound like a cliche.
Interviewer: Go for it.
Alaimo: Love.

:wtf::barf::brickwall:
 
ssosmcin said:
What rule said he had to supply the story? That's when the project went south. You know, right at the start.
Click to expand...

Even if they had gone with a completely different screenwriter, as director of the picture Shatner could have easily thrown it all out and re-wrote it as he saw fit. That's what directors on features do; it's how the power structure works on a feature. Thus, Shatner was the auteur of the film, even though there really was much to be all auteur about.
 
doubleohfive said:
ssosmcin said:
What rule said he had to supply the story? That's when the project went south. You know, right at the start.
Click to expand...

Even if they had gone with a completely different screenwriter, as director of the picture Shatner could have easily thrown it all out and re-wrote it as he saw fit. That's what directors on features do; it's how the power structure works on a feature. Thus, Shatner was the auteur of the film, even though there really was much to be all auteur about.
Click to expand...

Not really. A director can't just go in an rewrite a script. It doesn't work that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top