Didn't Shatner write the script for Star Trek V?

I was at my library the other day and saw the book for Star Trek V, but it was written by a different author then William Shatner. But I thought Shatner was the brainchild of Star Trek V, unless someone else decided to write a book based on the movie? I would think the book would of been done by Shatner, as well...?

 

The novelizations of movies are almost always done by people other than those who wrote the screenplay. Shatner and Bennett wrote the script for the movie, and Dillard wrote the novelization.

 

Actually Bennet and Shatner cowrote the story, but David Lowery wrote the screenplay, after Eric Lustbader asked for too much money.

Supposedly Ellison was asked to write SFS and TFF as well as TVH, but I'd have a hard time believing Shatner would go to Ellison.

 

The novel for TFF came out before the film. I was quite excited about the film when I read it because it is MUCH better than the final filmed product. Many little plot holes are filled in and some of the goofy awkwardness of the humor is gone. One of these fan productions should re-make this film based on the book.

 

If you believe that, you probably believe Spielberg wrote the script too. Uhh-uhh. There are probably as many uncredited writers on CE3K as there were credited on TOOTSIE, including Paul Schraeder.

Spielberg often claims to never read books as an adult; it'd probably be tough to write one without that experience.

 

By the way -- just for the record, "brainchild" is being used wrong in the OP.

"Star Trek V" was SHATNER'S brainchild. Not the other way around.


Tony

 

That's what I said...?

 

You wrote:

Oops!

 

^Oh, I'm not confused. While TFF's novelization was a better version than the film, the novel Final Frontier was a REALLY good novel which SHOULD have been made into a film. I know the difference. In addition to filling plot holes (like Sybok's invention of the deflector shield modification that made passage through the barrier possible-later copied by the pursuing Klingons) the overall pacing was more exciting in the book.

 

Odd nomenclature reference: While often a "brainchild" is referred to, you never hear a reference to a "brainparent".

Just an observation. Back to the thread...nothing to see here.

 

J.M. Dillard is one of the better Trek novelists, whether doing a movie adaptation or her own novels.

But ST V does NOT need to be remade, in any form, for any reason. It should never have been made in the first place. It's the only Star Trek movie that ever made me almost walk out of the theatre in disgust -- it was that bad. I think it had about one redeeming line: "Do you not know a jailbreak when you see one?" I also liked the expression on the Admiral's face when he saw Kirk's shirt that said, "Go climb a rock." Message, Kirk?

And my opinion is not just based on the movie; I've read the "making of" book that William Shatner's daughter wrote. The title of it should have been: The Making of Star Trek V: William Shatner's Whiny Excuses for Why This Movie Was a Piece of Crap.

 

Sounds to me like you have no personal firsthand experience of filmmaking. Shatner's lack of savvy (as in lack of NickMeyer-ness) hurt him, as did certain other aspects, but the exterior (paramount/union/about 2000 other things) issues WERE really more than he should have had to deal with. Ralph Winter and co really let him down IMO.

The floor fx guy, Mike Wood, told me back in '91 that Shatner had to deal with production snafus that he'd never seen a director have to encounter on any other shoot (and Wood did some great work on difficult shows like POLTERGEIST and INNERSPACE as well as ALWAYS.)

Of course, I love TFF (in spite of its many faults.) Whereas TMP, with its many faults, I just rewatch wondering, 'why am I getting suckered into this yet again?" sort of a kick yourself for watching and thinking 'what could have been' which ain't fun like TFF 'big three' scenes.

 

I have exactly ZERO personal firsthand experience with filmmaking (not many movies get made in Central Alberta, in Western Canada). But I have plenty of experience with being a Star Trek fan and moviegoer who expects a decent end product. In my opinion, I didn't get what I expected as a fan, and I feel I got gypped as a moviegoer who paid to see a movie that turned out to be awful.

Whatever the reasons for the stuff that went wrong, they don't excuse the crappy premise in the first place. Once you put magic in place of science in a science fiction story, I lose all respect for those responsible. It's Shatner's name on the director's credit, and the basic story was his idea. It's his fault, and he shouldn't whine if people didn't like it.

(Lest you think I have no experience at all with what can go wrong in the entertainment industry... I spent 12 years working backstage in a live theatre company. Trust me, I've seen lots of things go wrong that happened either because of somebody's ego getting too big or Murphy deciding to smile on us that night.)

 

I'm a big Shatner fan, but I have to say that the biggest problem with TFF was the script. Harve Bennet, Nimoy, and even Kelly all expressed concerns with the script from the very beginning to Shatner and he apparently brushed them all off and went full steam ahead. It's very true that the film had other big problems, the substandard effects by Bran Ferren, the low production budget necessitating the use of the TNG sets with virtually no re-dressing, but all that could've been forgivable, since the original ST, at least, was never ever about the effects and production but about the story and the characters. There are some strong character scenes in TFF but the overall story was pretty terrible. I found it a very dissapointing film to watch after the high that was the fantastic TVH.

That said, I think I still like TFF more than INS. I really hate that film for many reasons. I know I'm in the minority in that regard, but that's how I feel.

 

I enjoyed V when I saw it in theaters, but of course I was 12 in 1989, so there's no telling how I might have viewed the film as an adult. I still have a soft spot for it, and like others have said, there's some strong character interaction. Some of it makes me cringe, but overall I enjoy breaking it out every three or four years. The basic premise was quite good, but it was poorly executed, I think. I have an old issue of Starlog from 1989. In the letter's section there's a suggestion from a reader that it would have been cool if the "god creature" on the other side of the barrier had been Gary Mitchell, evolved into some kind of superbeing. I thought that was a cool idea.
On a humorous side note, I remember when one of my best friends and I went on a trip to Six Flags that year with his parents. When we arrived, I got out of the car and yelled, "WE HAVE TRAVELED FAR!" We laughed about that the entire weekend. Ah, good times.