I don't think STV is that terrible

[Nathan_Heller]

I liked STV for many of the same reasons the original poster said. It was a far better film than Star Trek: Nemesis!

 

[CoveTom]

Really the effects in STV weren't the problem at all. They were good at the time and certainly still are fine today.

No, they really weren't. They were substandard by 1989 standards. To prove that, just look at the effects work that Doug Trumbull, John Dykstra, and their respective teams did an entire decade earlier for TMP and compare it to TFF. Or the work that ILM did for the following three films which, while I consider them below the standard of TMP, were none-the-less far and away superior to TFF.

Bran Ferren and his team did a few things well, and a few things right. I liked their cloud tank effects, which they were known for. And I liked their use of rear projection on the viewscreen and in the windows, rather than all the blue/green screen work that was the norm. But beyond that, they were simply in over their heads. They did not have the experience and capabilities with motion control work that was necessary for a film of that type.

I agree that the visual effects are not the major problem with the film, but they are certainly subpar.

 

[SchwEnt]

So many problems, both onscreen and in the script and behind the scenes... it's amazing it turned out as well as it did. And even that's pretty bad.

But with so many odds stacked against them, I'm surprised it wasn't a screaming horror rather than just plain bad.

 

[SillyTilly]

I watched it last night and thought it was quite good. Yes, it could be improved but it was still enjoyable.

 

[gottacook]

Of course it is that terrible! Case in point: One of the stars, soon after the movie begins, drops a long distance. One of the other stars rescues him. That gives the decision-makers behind this movie such a frisson that they do it all over again an hour later. This is a level of storytelling more befitting a Three Stooges movie. [Moreover, the second instance takes place in a shaft that has dozens of deck levels (as many as necessary for a good long fall, I guess) and, on a ship with artificial gravity, that shaft wouldn't have had gravity in the first place; why risk a crew member falling like that?]

The movie is a flawed story badly told. Even if it'd had a good story, it might have been badly told. I suppose Harve Bennett couldn't collaborate with Shatner the way he could with his friend Nimoy. I have always given a share of the blame to the co-writer (Loughery) but have no idea how much he deserves it - anyone here know?

 

[NebulaClassGuy]

It wasn't as bad as people think... it actually had some of the best and funniest Kirk/Spock/Bones humor of all the classic films, second only to the humor in "The Voyage Home". IMO.

 

[Garrovick]

Sybok is probably the strangest villain ever. So he brainwashes people by sharing their pain? What the heck does that even mean?

Well, I admit I never thought about it before, but it means Sybok is essentially a goal-oriented, non-mute, bearded version of Gem from "The Empath." Which sheds light on why he's a very strange "villain" indeed.

I thought "God" didn't end up dying but simply remained trapped...?

All in all, this discussion gives me another excuse to mention (as I probably do about once a year on one thread or another) the absolutely great two-word headline given to a review of ST V in the alt-weekly City Pages (Minneapolis): Dammit, Jim

The whole "mutiny" storyline is a mess. Shatner wanted to have Kirk stand alone as the crew betrayed him, yet wanted to keep Sybok a more complex character than just a straight villain.

So he doesn't brainwash, he just performs therapy. So it just makes the crew look like voluntary traitors instead of brainwashed victims.

An obvious compromise would have been revealed that Sybok's technique DOES brainwash, but have him be unaware of that, and think that his followers are joining him voluntarily.


Except Spock and McCoy's resistance to it would ruin that, too. Ah well.

I actually think that Sybok did really believe he was performing therapy on his "victims", even though it really wasn't therapy but something rather darker IMO - forcing people to relive traumatic memories the way he did to Spock and McCoy really isn't a very nice thing to do, regardless of your motivations. This being the case, I do also believe that Sybok thought he did have volunteers. It's true that he didn't seem to get too upset that Spock and McCoy didn't join him for the penetration of the Great Barrier, but refusals like that might have happened to him in the past before he traveled to Nimbus III.

Actually, that whole aspect of the film is somewhat reminiscent of "This Side of Paradise" - an unexpected mental suggestion is turned loose on the Enterprise crew, and everyone suddenly decides to turn against Kirk, who of course resists it just because he's Kirk.

If you compare this movie to any of those that came before (or after) it, the effects are clearly subpar. I do stand by my love of the shot of the Enterprise-A hanging in front of the moon, though. I do wish that whoever designed the shuttle hangar had taken a look at Star Trek: The Motion Picture, though.

I wish that turboshaft scene had never happened. Too many things wrong with that scene to even count, and the scene was totally and completely unnecessary. It would have been better to have Kirk, Spock, and McCoy use Jeffries tubes to get from one deck to another.