In Defense of Star Trek V and William "Ego" Shatner

[malchya]

Just something else for consideration: generally a crew follows what their divisional officers tell them. Their contact with command is limited. If Sybok subverted the major divisional officers, which we see him do except for Scotty, then the divisional officers would pass on to their people that Sybok was acting in an official capacity and the remainder of the crew would probably not question it. And remember, "Less than a skeleton crew on board." Sybok's ship wide broadcast would have cemented his "official" status to any not in the know.

 

[sonak]

I think Koenig's letting his personal dislike of Shatner cloud his perceptions on this.

Even if he is, theres something to be said for the fact that around half the original cast had a 'personal dislike' of Shatner for some very similar reasons.

Like Spock says: "The needs of the many... outweigh..." Not that Shatner saw it that way.

that's probably true, but Im just saying that Koenig's reflections on this film should be understood with that dislike in mind-he's not an impartial observer due to his dislike of Shatner.

 

[Harvey]

Eh, he's pretty even-handed when he talks about Shatner in the book. He has no illusions about being the star of the series. And it's hard to say that there's bias when he's just reporting the facts (i.e. that Shatner wanted the movie to focus on the "Big Three" and made this known, and that Koenig himself worked fewer days on the film than he had on the others in the series).

 

[Broccoli]

Eh, he's pretty even-handed when he talks about Shatner in the book. He has no illusions about being the star of the series. And it's hard to say that there's bias when he's just reporting the facts (i.e. that Shatner wanted the movie to focus on the "Big Three" and made this known, and that Koenig himself worked fewer days on the film than he had on the others in the series).

What does that even mean "fewer days"? Wouldn't that be more of a scheduling issue and less of how the character was written or what the character was given to do (which seems pretty much on par with the rest of the series)? If memory serves, the film came either right around a writer's strike. I wouldn't be surprised if much of the filming was rushed.

And also, who cares if Shatner, Bennett, and Co. wanted the movie to focus on the Big Three? If Koenig has no illusions about his role, then why call attention to the issue? Hell, he was lucky to be remembered and brought back for TMP instead of disappearing into obscurity like Mr. Leslie or, to a lesser extent, Mr, Kyle.

 

[sonak]

Eh, he's pretty even-handed when he talks about Shatner in the book. He has no illusions about being the star of the series. And it's hard to say that there's bias when he's just reporting the facts (i.e. that Shatner wanted the movie to focus on the "Big Three" and made this known, and that Koenig himself worked fewer days on the film than he had on the others in the series).

Work days aren't the best measurement here. I wonder if he'd come out similarly to TSFS in terms of actual spoken lines. I'd bet Nichols and Takei have more actual lines in this one than they do in TWOK or TSFS, but I couldn't say for sure.

 

[Harvey]

What does that even mean "fewer days"? Wouldn't that be more of a scheduling issue and less of how the character was written or what the character was given to do (which seems pretty much on par with the rest of the series)? If memory serves, the film came either right around a writer's strike. I wouldn't be surprised if much of the filming was rushed.

The writer's strike didn't affect the number of days they could shoot -- it just meant that they couldn't do any additional writing while they were shooting. The same thing happened to Star Trek (2009).

As for what "fewer days" means, it's this: Koenig spent fewer days on set than he did in any of the previous movies. This may have been partly due to better scheduling, but it was also due to the fact that Koenig had less to do in the movie than in past films. It certainly wasn't a matter of pay -- the secondary regulars were all signed to multi-week shooting deals after the cost overruns of Star Trek -- The Motion Picture. It was a matter of screen time.

And also, who cares if Shatner, Bennett, and Co. wanted the movie to focus on the Big Three? If Koenig has no illusions about his role, then why call attention to the issue?

I don't think he does call attention to it. And in fact, he says he was pretty happy with his experience on the fifth movie. But he did work less days on a movie that was more focused on the "Big Three," and it's a detail included in his book.

 

[Harvey]

Work days aren't the best measurement here. I wonder if he'd come out similarly to TSFS in terms of actual spoken lines. I'd bet Nichols and Takei have more actual lines in this one than they do in TWOK or TSFS, but I couldn't say for sure.

Quite possible, but either way, the number of days that Koenig worked on the movie would have little to do with how many lines Nichols and Takei ended up getting in the movie.

 

[sonak]

Work days aren't the best measurement here. I wonder if he'd come out similarly to TSFS in terms of actual spoken lines. I'd bet Nichols and Takei have more actual lines in this one than they do in TWOK or TSFS, but I couldn't say for sure.

Quite possible, but either way, the number of days that Koenig worked on the movie would have little to do with how many lines Nichols and Takei ended up getting in the movie.

yes, but it would have to do with whether Star Trek V was particularly egregious at ignoring the non-Big Three, which it wasn't.

 

[jk82]

yes, but it would have to do with whether Star Trek V was particularly egregious at ignoring the non-Big Three, which it wasn't.

I just finished watching ST movies 1-5 for the first time (in the chronological order, have not seen 6-10). I have read on this board and elsewhere that Trekkies almost “unamimously” detest the fifth movie and that Mr. Shatner is “universally hated” by Trekkies when ST V is mentioned. I dreaded very much going into it thinking that it was going to be a disaster. But it turned out that even with a simplistic story and subpar special effects (but I never do care about special effects, because after all these years of being bombarded with “special effects” left and right, they are simply not “special" anymore anyway), overall the film is rather enjoyable, especially with those scenes with the BIG THREE (which make them HUMAN indeed). And it has the most expansive and beautiful cinematography among the first five movies (granted the others have more “space” scenes). After finding myself enjoying this film greatly, I am saddened by the realization that I am never going to be qualified to become a Trekkie. Sigh

I thought there was very little of non-Big Three to begin with in the first 2 films. I was really disappointed that even Bones was not featured enough in the earlier ones. Even though I like TWOK the best, but really Kirk carries this film basically by himself. He outshines everybody else, including Spock. I was surprised how little Spock does in TWOK, other than the poignant death scene he is pretty much missing in action. III and IV are very enjoyable but honestly they are also very simple stories filled with numerous plot holes. My ranking of the first 5 films would be: II; V-IV; III; I (I understood what the film was trying to say, but I was bored to tears by the endless CGI drawings.)

 

[sonak]

yes, but it would have to do with whether Star Trek V was particularly egregious at ignoring the non-Big Three, which it wasn't.

I just finished watching ST movies 1-5 for the first time (in the chronological order, have not seen 6-10). I have read on this board and elsewhere that Trekkies almost “unamimously” detest the fifth movie and that Mr. Shatner is “universally hated” by Trekkies when ST V is mentioned. I dreaded very much going into it thinking that it was going to be a disaster. But it turned out that even with a simplistic story and subpar special effects (but I never do care about special effects, because after all these years of being bombarded with “special effects” left and right, they are simply not “special" anymore anyway), overall the film is rather enjoyable, especially with those scenes with the BIG THREE (which make them HUMAN indeed). And it has the most expansive and beautiful cinematography among the first five movies (granted the others have more “space” scenes). After finding myself enjoying this film greatly, I am saddened by the realization that I am never going to be qualified to become a Trekkie. Sigh

I thought there was very little of non-Big Three to begin with in the first 2 films. I was really disappointed that even Bones was not featured enough in the earlier ones. Even though I like TWOK the best, but really Kirk carries this film basically by himself. He outshines everybody else, including Spock. I was surprised how little Spock does in TWOK, other than the poignant death scene he is pretty much missing in action. III and IV are very enjoyable but honestly they are also very simple stories filled with numerous plot holes. My ranking of the first 5 films would be: II; V-IV; III; I (I understood what the film was trying to say, but I was bored to tears by the endless CGI drawings.)

there are more that agree with you than you think. It's long been cool in Trekfan circles to say "TFF sucks" both because it was the first real box office "bomb" of the series and because it was Shatner's. Yes, it's one of the weaker entries of the film franchise, but it's not THAT bad of a movie, it's only bad in comparison to other good Trek or sci-fi movies. I find it MUCH more watchable than TMP because TMP is glacially paced, the characters are stiff and awkward in it, it takes itself way too seriously, and it's padded by about a half hour of nothing but special effects. TFF wouldn't have the reputation it has if it had been a decent box office success and if it wasn't Shatner's Star Trek movie.

 

[jk82]

TFF wouldn't have the reputation it has if it had been a decent box office success and if it wasn't Shatner's Star Trek movie.

I simply don't understand this persistent resentment toward Mr. Shatner from some Trekkies. I understand if you don't like somebody it is very difficult to say this person is good or his work is good. But why the hate in the first place?

 

[CoveTom]

^ That's a very good question, and one which I don't understand myself. The truth is that, with few or no exceptions, no one on this board knows William Shatner personally. The most interaction that the majority of us have had with him is perhaps meeting him at an autograph table at a convention, if even that. The rest of the information that people are relying on is what others, such as his co-stars, have had to say about him in books, interviews, etc. and our impressions from seeing him speak.

The truth is, I don't think anyone -- well, I'll say "hardly anyone" because there are always exceptions -- here is qualified to speak about William Shatner personally. His acting, his directing, his writing, all those things are fair game and can be easily evaluated. But how he is as a person, and how he treated those around him, is a subject that we simply do not have enough information on. And let's also not forget that while it's easy to quote a source like George Takei or Nichelle Nichols who speaks ill of him, it is equally easy to quote a source like Leonard Nimoy or DeForest Kelley, who speaks well of him.

In short, I don't understand the "Shatner hate." I can like or dislike what he did with the character of Captain Kirk, or how he handled TFF, or any other of a myriad of issues. But as to what kind of man and co-worker he is, I have no idea.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

^ I find it hard to believe that Sybok was intent upon hijacking the ship and taking it to Sha Ka Rhee -- so intent that he managed to brainwash all of the senior staff and put Kirk, Spock, and McCoy in the brig -- but he just never got around to the chief engineer and third in command who could easily derail his entire plan.

I would have court-martialled the lot of them. Space!Dr Phil shows up, spouts some misguided words of wisdom and wham! Everyone mutinies. What's up with that?

 

[CoveTom]

I would have court-martialled the lot of them. Space!Dr Phil shows up, spouts some misguided words of wisdom and wham! Everyone mutinies. What's up with that?

Well, I suppose the issue would come down to whether or not they were simply convinced to follow Sybok, or whether there was some form of telepathic mind control/brainwashing at work. I believe the intent, which is fleshed out in the novelization in more detail IIRC, was that it was the latter. That he was using some ancient Vulcan technique of mind control and that the crew was basically not acting out of free will. But it was badly fleshed out in the film and came across kind of murky at best.

 

[sonak]

I would have court-martialled the lot of them. Space!Dr Phil shows up, spouts some misguided words of wisdom and wham! Everyone mutinies. What's up with that?

Well, I suppose the issue would come down to whether or not they were simply convinced to follow Sybok, or whether there was some form of telepathic mind control/brainwashing at work. I believe the intent, which is fleshed out in the novelization in more detail IIRC, was that it was the latter. That he was using some ancient Vulcan technique of mind control and that the crew was basically not acting out of free will. But it was badly fleshed out in the film and came across kind of murky at best.

yeah, brainwashing makes much more sense for the plot and doesn't end up committing character assassination for the regular crew, but then Sybok is much more a villain than he is simply a tragic character. I guess "unintentional brainwashing" with Sybok unaware of what he's doing is the best explanation that avoids most of the plot holes and character assassinations.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

I can live with that, because if it was just a matter of convincing almost all senior officers to rebel....boy howdy. Everyone would be in serious need to grow a spine.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

TFF wouldn't have the reputation it has if it had been a decent box office success and if it wasn't Shatner's Star Trek movie.

It wouldn't have the reputation it has if it had been a better film and more people had liked it as a consequence.

This isn't complicated.

 

[sonak]

TFF wouldn't have the reputation it has if it had been a decent box office success and if it wasn't Shatner's Star Trek movie.

It wouldn't have the reputation it has if it had been a better film and more people had liked it as a consequence.

This isn't complicated.

if that's so, then why aren't INS or NEM in the same category of being constantly made fun of and referenced for being bad even in non-Trek pop culture circles?

Both INS and NEM were either box office disappointments or bombs, and neither were particularly well-received by critics or fans, yet neither are as famous for failure as TFF.

 

[Harvey]

Non-Trek fans still remember Star Trek V: The Final Frontier?

 

[Jeyl]

Star Trek V shouldn't belong in anything Trek. Sure, there have been some stories that involved incompetent officers in the Federation, but what Shatner did here was make ALL OF STARFLEET incompetent! And it's not just the federation. It's also Chekov, Uhura, Sulu and anyone else who didn't have a strong position the way Nimoy, DeForest and Doohan did.