I love those books. Marshak and Culbreath rocked. Too bad they stopped writing Trek after "triangle."
I don't think STV is that terrible
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
I love those books. Marshak and Culbreath rocked. Too bad they stopped writing Trek after "triangle."
Congratulations! You're the first person I've ever heard say this. In 23 years since the film premiered, he's been consistently singled out as being one of the bright spots of the film (I love his performance).
But hey, there ya go.
I wonder if the author realizes that the plot was ripped off for Nemesis.
The chubby, overly jolly, and slightly confused just came off as 'Santa Claus-ish' to me.
Ian Keldon
Fleet Captain
You are probably the only one I know who likes M&C. They're widely regarded as the worst of the early Trek writers (and in general).
You are probably the only one I know who likes M&C. They're widely regarded as the worst of the early Trek writers (and in general).
(shrugs) different strokes and all that.
Edit: Acck never mind, I read that as FROM not FOR. Sorry
Anyway: As for ripping off the books for Nemesis: I think it was more a case of "How can we rip off Star Trek II again? Fans like that right? Worked for First Contact...but we can't use the Borg again...Hey EVIL PICARD! Let's do this!"
Hey, I'm sure Sybok celebrated Christmas. I could absolutely see him dressed as Santa and "ho-ho-ho"ing loudly, scaring the crap out of young Spock.
I thought he was talking about Scotty.
I stand corrected. But the overall point still stands. Why would the producers and the studio approve of a visual effects company that had little or no experience doing motion control photography for a picture that used motion control for the bulk of its effects? I know Ferran dazzled them with his approach to doing the "God effect" in a cloud tank -- and I have to admit that the cloud tank effects he did were pretty good -- but that shouldn't overrule everything else.
Many people cite that shot as one of their favorites, but it's never looked quite right to me. It looks like a still photo of the Enterprise sitting in front of the moon.
The Original Series' effects have not stood the test of time. Yet fans still love it. So, fans being upset because the effects in STV are sub-par seems.... contradictory.
IMO that just makes it truer to the series upon which it's based!
(and, tbh, I don't see a noticable difference in FX quality vs the other classic movies. The only thing I ever noticed was that the photon torpedo the Enterprise fires at Sha'Ka'Ree was green and not the usual red or blue. Sha'Ka'Ree itself looks stunning from orbit.)
IMO that just makes it truer to the series upon which it's based!
(and, tbh, I don't see a noticable difference in FX quality vs the other classic movies. The only thing I ever noticed was that the photon torpedo the Enterprise fires at Sha'Ka'Ree was green and not the usual red or blue. Sha'Ka'Ree itself looks stunning from orbit.)
The visual effects of TOS were state of the art for television at the time when TOS was produced, and were either on par with or better than other TV series on the air at the time. That they look unimpressive today is merely a function of the passage of time.
The visual effects of TFF were crap the first time the film was shown. They were a result of the incompetence of the visual effects artists who worked on the film. Their quality, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the passage of time.
Apples and oranges.
That having been said, I think the broader point that comes from this is that Star Trek does not need flashy visual effects to tell a good story. TOS certainly proved this, and even in the more modern series, you can see that pre-CGI, TNG had to deal with far more limited effects than, say, DS9 or Voyager, yet that rarely if ever hampered TNG's storytelling.
However, if you construct a story that requires visual effects to be told properly -- one, let's say, that has as it's climax a ravaging horde of stone gargoyles -- and then your visual effects don't come through, the story won't work.
I will proudly use my 2500th post to offer my support for Star Trek V. It's my favorite of the series and for me it is the last one that I saw in a theater. When I saw it, it was in a little cheese box in a multiplex and a storm went through in the middle of the film and you could hear the whole thing, so thin were the walls. I waited for 'The Undiscovered Country' to come out on video and that is how I have watched all of the movies since.
Anyhow, whereas some people compare V to 'The Way to Eden,' the ending reminded me of 'The Alternative Factor' a bit. In a good way. The film seemed more like the original series.
I enjoyed 'The Motion Picture' for the sense of wonder. TFF had that same feel, to a certain degree.
'Wrath of Khan' was about fighting an old enemy in possession of a ship from their own fleet. 'Search for Spock' was exactly that. 'Voyage Home' was Earth bound. 'Undiscovered Country' was politics, strange bedfellows, etc. They were good, but....
For me, Star Trek has always been best when it says, "Let's see what's out there." TFF delivered on that. So, it wasn't God. But it was an interesting and complex being that challenged humans in many ways besides the physical.
It made you think. That counts for a lot.
Anyhow, whereas some people compare V to 'The Way to Eden,' the ending reminded me of 'The Alternative Factor' a bit. In a good way. The film seemed more like the original series.
I enjoyed 'The Motion Picture' for the sense of wonder. TFF had that same feel, to a certain degree.
'Wrath of Khan' was about fighting an old enemy in possession of a ship from their own fleet. 'Search for Spock' was exactly that. 'Voyage Home' was Earth bound. 'Undiscovered Country' was politics, strange bedfellows, etc. They were good, but....
For me, Star Trek has always been best when it says, "Let's see what's out there." TFF delivered on that. So, it wasn't God. But it was an interesting and complex being that challenged humans in many ways besides the physical.
It made you think. That counts for a lot.
This was one of its strongest points.
agreed.
"And here's a way in which TFF is like "spock's brain," just look at the parallels..."
"He has his doubts" always makes me cringe, when Sybok apoligizes to "God" for Kirk's blasphemy.
And "Very well. Do what you have to, but no more." What the heck does that mean? As if Kirk, given an inch, won't take a parsec to save the day.
I have never thought STV was a ba film. I remember enjoying the story as far back as Opening Night on Friday, June 9, 1989. I went with my father, sister and a friend of hers. I was excited to watch the drama unfold and never thought it was terrible or anything like that. I feel sorry for those who love to openly be critical of "The Final Frontier" as they are really missing out and just don't get it.
^ I feel sorry for those who can't be critical of a film made poorly, written poorly, ill conceived and poorly executed. When the producer admits the he blew it, and jeopardized the entire franchise, you my friend have a bad film.
Enjoying it on 6/9/89 as I did, doesn't mean its not a bad film. It means we were younger, less critical and hungry for a new Trek film.
Enjoying it on 6/9/89 as I did, doesn't mean its not a bad film. It means we were younger, less critical and hungry for a new Trek film.
