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

[Jeyl]

I believe the intent, which is fleshed out in the novelization in more detail IIRC-

Intent doesn't mean jack if they couldn't put it in the movie. What we got was straight "Took a bad memory" away scenario. It wasn't mind control because there were no scenes in this film that showed Sybok releasing anyone from any form of control. None of the crew acted any differently before or after Sybok was even dead!

 

[Shazam!]

Star Trek is SERIOUS BUSINESS

 

[Shazam!]

Out of context, Star Trek V is a perfectly fine 2 hour summer sci-fi movie with some good humour, likable characters and an interesting story.

 

[Cyke101]

Who did derail his plan in large part. I mean that jailbreak certainly wasn't in Sybok's playbook. Sure he caught the fugitives a few minutes later but still Scotty was the fly in Sybok's ointment and the pain in his ass. If he hadn't knocked himself silly with a bulkhead Scotty could very well have shut Sybok's plan down by sabotaging the Enterprise's engines and/or activating her internal defenses ala Space Seed.

Congratulations, in the space of one measly internet message board post, you've already written a better movie than what we got

Semi-seriously, that could've been a decent subplot, and since it's all Scotty it still frees up the focus to make it a Big Three + Sybok movie, which was the original intent.

 

[jk82]

^
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.

I find this "hate" really interesting. I have seen Oscar winners churn out much worse performances (for big fat paychecks I suppose) than Mr. Shatners worst performances (for trying to make ends meet), so acting ability is really not that important. I have seen great drama actors who cannot do comedies period, so acting range is not an issue either. I have seen lauded seasoned directors making horrible movies like Star Wars I-III. But none of them seems to get the same hate like Mr. Shatner does. I can understand why people dislike Russell Crowe (I like his acting very, very much, despite all his faults, but I am not going to defend his faults), Mel Gibson etc., but what has Mr. Shatner ever done that could arouse so much hatred from people? Mr. Shatner has not publicly thrown a telephone at some poor hotel clerk or made some stupid remarks, has he?

I myself happen to dislike quite a few actors. I make a point not seeing their movies in theater (but from time to time I may still watch their movies on DVD or netflix and if they happen to give good performances, I am fine with that), but I never go on a message board attacking them, because I don't have energy nor time to hate people. On the other hand I do go on message boards to "praise" people. I don't know why I am able to find time for that. LOL. But if hating someone makes one feel better just like praising someone makes me feel better, I guess it is...OK?

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.

ALL OF STARFLEET was already incompetent in IV. They did absolutely nothing and had to wait for Kirk and Co. to save the day. Gee... And the non-big three had little to do in the first two movies. I don't think these are Mr. Shatner's faults, really.

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

They may have never seen any of earlier ST movies. Like me a week ago.

 

[sonak]

^
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.

I find this "hate" really interesting. I have seen Oscar winners churn out much worse performances (for big fat paychecks I suppose) than Mr. Shatners worst performances (for trying to make ends meet), so acting ability is really not that important. I have seen great drama actors who cannot do comedies period, so acting range is not an issue either. I have seen lauded seasoned directors making horrible movies like Star Wars I-III. But none of them seems to get the same hate like Mr. Shatner does. I can understand why people dislike Russell Crowe (I like his acting very, very much, despite all his faults, but I am not going to defend his faults), Mel Gibson etc., but what has Mr. Shatner ever done that could arouse so much hatred from people? Mr. Shatner has not publicly thrown a telephone at some poor hotel clerk or made some stupid remarks, has he?

I myself happen to dislike quite a few actors. I make a point not seeing their movies in theater (but from time to time I may still watch their movies on DVD or netflix and if they happen to give good performances, I am fine with that), but I never go on a message board attacking them, because I don't have energy nor time to hate people. On the other hand I do go on message boards to "praise" people. I don't know why I am able to find time for that. LOL. But if hating someone makes one feel better just like praising someone makes me feel better, I guess it is...OK?

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.

ALL OF STARFLEET was already incompetent in IV. They did absolutely nothing and had to wait for Kirk and Co. to save the day. Gee... And the non-big three had little to do in the first two movies. I don't think these are Mr. Shatner's faults, really.

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

They may have never seen any of earlier ST movies. Like me a week ago.

the non-Enterprise crew Starfleet didn't come across as all that competent in TSFS either for that matter.

 

[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.

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?

Uh, because even fewer people gave a fuck by that time.

ST 5 came out at a time when Star Trek was still growing in popularity - ST 4 had been a big hit, and ST:TNG was a TV success story - and ST 5 managed to bomb anyway. And, of course, Shatner is quite a character in his own right. That, and what was bad about ST 5 was truly over the top and ridiculous, so preposterous that it was and is easily mocked - the later TNG films were simply unimpressive and uninteresting to most non-trekkies.

Not complicated at all, really. The answers are simple and obvious, they're just not what defenders of ST 5 like to hear.

 

[sonak]

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?

Uh, because even fewer people gave a fuck by that time.

ST 5 came out at a time when Star Trek was still growing in popularity - ST 4 had been a big hit, and ST:TNG was a TV success story - and ST 5 managed to bomb anyway. And, of course, Shatner is quite a character in his own right. That, and what was bad about ST 5 was truly over the top and ridiculous, so preposterous that it was and is easily mocked - the later TNG films were simply unimpressive and uninteresting to most non-trekkies.

Not complicated at all, really. The answers are simple and obvious, they're just not what defenders of ST 5 like to hear.

I'm not a "defender" of TFF, I wrote that it's one of the weaker of the Trek films. I just don't think it's nearly as bad as its image would indicate. To me, it's about a two-star film, maybe, maybe if I were feeling generous a two and a half star film, but that's about it. It's bad in comparison to other Trek films but not a terrible film overall. And it's funny that in your post you kind of agree with me-you mention that Shatner is a character and about how TFF was a bomb during a time when Star Trek was very popular. And what did I give as reasons for why TFF is singled out so often to get criticized? Because it was Shatner's and because it was the first real box office bomb of the Star Trek movies. So what are we arguing about?

 

[jk82]

I'm not a "defender" of TFF, I wrote that it's one of the weaker of the Trek films. I just don't think it's nearly as bad as its image would indicate. To me, it's about a two-star film, maybe, maybe if I were feeling generous a two and a half star film, but that's about it. It's bad in comparison to other Trek films but not a terrible film overall. And it's funny that in your post you kind of agree with me-you mention that Shatner is a character and about how TFF was a bomb during a time when Star Trek was very popular. And what did I give as reasons for why TFF is singled out so often to get criticized? Because it was Shatner's and because it was the first real box office bomb of the Star Trek movies. So what are we arguing about?

I am not a defender of TFF either. I give every single ST movie I've seen so far a 3 or below 3, including the new reboot. I give TOS a 4, would have given it a 5 if not for the lackluster 3rd season. That doesn't mean I don't like those movies. I just don't think any of them is great cinematic achievement and also it is hard to recreate the magic from TOS. I do like II and V more than the others, II because Kirk outshines everybody (I like those episodes in TOS where Kirk acts like a smart, decisive leader and outshines everybody, LOL), V because Kirk, Spock and Bones are great together (I also like those episodes in TOS where these three have great interactions with each other). As for plots, all of them have giant holes half the size of the galaxy. If not for likable leading actors all these films would have been terrible, if they were not already underachieving.

My friend hates TVH with a passion. I like it better than III and I, and I am not arguing with him either.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And what did I give as reasons for why TFF is singled out so often to get criticized? Because it was Shatner's and because it was the first real box office bomb of the Star Trek movies. So what are we arguing about?

I'm not arguing, I'm offering my opinion. What we're disagreeing about, I believe, is that I think the film was - as I said in my last post - egregiously and memorably bad in many respects and that is a big reason that it's mocked where other unsuccessful Trek movies are less remembered.

And Shatner is a big part of the reason. He is, honestly, a pretty fearless and committed performer (fearless as in he overcomes whatever misgivings he has and forges ahead, I wouldn't presume to know how he actually feels when he's working) but a guy of really uncertain taste. This is one reason that stuff he did ages ago like "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" lives on - it's not that people dislike him (some do) but that we're entertained and kind of fascinated. He recovers as quickly from a train wreck as Clark Kent.

 

[Seven of Five]

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.

I would say that Star Trek just wasn't as relevant to film audiences when Insurrection and Nemesis struggled. Whereas when The Final Frontier came out, the franchise was almost at the height of popularity. Wasn't TFF also the Star Trek first film to be both a critical and financial disappointment?

 

[jk82]

I would say that Star Trek just wasn't as relevant to film audiences when Insurrection and Nemesis struggled. Whereas when The Final Frontier came out, the franchise was almost at the height of popularity. Wasn't TFF also the Star Trek first film to be both a critical and financial disappointment?

I wonder how many people hated it mainly because of poor special effects?

 

[malchya]

Unquestionably the effects were sub par. There still managed to be a few shots, however, that are really very good. The rock climbing at the beginning of the film is one of the better green screens I've seen in film. (Not the fall, though - that sucked). The shot of the Enterprse against the moon and of her reflection in the shuttle port are both understated masterpieces. As for the rest, well....

 

[CoveTom]

The rock climbing at the beginning of the film is one of the better green screens I've seen in film.

That's because it's not a green screen shot. They constructed a fake mountain wall and placed it in a parking lot at Yosemite in proximity to the real mountain. So when the camera shot Kirk climbing the fake mountain, and the camera looked past him and saw the real mountain, it gave a quite effective illusion that he was on the mountain. The only green screen work -- well, blue screen, actually -- was the fall.

 

[malchya]

All right, then. I stand corrected. My reference to green screen (or blue, for that matter) was based on a Shatner interview some years ago in which he described building the wall and filming in a parking lot at Paramount prior to superimposing the shot onto another of Yosemite. But Shatner changes his stories from time to time for effect.

 

[CoveTom]

True. There are any number of photos out there, though, showing the fake wall and it's location in the Yosemite parking lot, not the Paramount one. Plus, I believe in the documentary footage on the TFF DVD, it shows the truck pulling that wall into position at Yosemite. So I'm pretty sure no green screen work was used there. However, Shatner's "Movie Memories" book does have a color photo showing him hanging in front of a blue screen in his "falling" posture, so that's obviously how they did those horrendous falling shots.

 

[jk82]

Unquestionably the effects were sub par. There still managed to be a few shots, however, that are really very good. The rock climbing at the beginning of the film is one of the better green screens I've seen in film. (Not the fall, though - that sucked). The shot of the Enterprse against the moon and of her reflection in the shuttle port are both understated masterpieces. As for the rest, well....

I guess in addition to below standard effects, the movie also lacks exciting action and battle sequences, which I don't miss but many people do; the movie centers on searching for God, which I don't mind but many people do. In addition it was released in summer crowded with blockbuster films (action films?) while TVH was released around Thanksgiving/Christmas, so the timing of this film's release was not exactly in its favor either.

Just watched TUC and personally I don't like it. It no doubt has overall better special effects than V but it begins with a terrible shot of futuristic SF also. Do not appreciate that the chemistry among the main cast is missing. That's all.

 

[TheLobes]

To be fair, the secondary cast should just thank their lucky stars they got any screen time at all. TOS was always about Kirk-Spock-Bones, and with the possible exception of Scotty, the other characters werent really that useful. It was nice to see them around in the movies, but they werent really necessary, except in VH which demanded an ensemble cast.

Part of what made the TNG movies so awful was that TNG had a larger main cast, so they needed to give every damn person something to do, and thats really hard to accomplish. Uhura and Sulu didnt do much at all in TWOK, and that was a good thing, because they didnt really have a place in the story. If that had been a TNG movie, they would have had to find a couple of pointless things for the characters to do, in order to make it worthwhile for the actors. One of the things I liked about the new trek movie was that they did give everyone something to do, and succeeded where the TNG movies failed.

I agree with the comments about Shatners ego, and that he did just make about every other character look stupid, while making Kirk look awesome. But, come on, Shatner was a much more integral part of the story than fricking Nichelle Nichols; that doesnt excuse it, but its worth remembering.

 

[Satyrquaze]

I wonder how many people hated it mainly because of poor special effects?

Well, I for one hated it because it was it was a poorly constructed plot badly executed by the director. ymmv.

 

[jk82]

I wonder how many people hated it mainly because of poor special effects?

Well, I for one hated it because it was it was a poorly constructed plot badly executed by the director. ymmv.

I am glad you are not one of those people focusing on special effects. Neither TSFS nor TVH to me is directed or edited very well (especially TVH), but I like them a lot better than I and VI because they both have hearts. TFF and TWOK are the only two that moved me a great deal emotionally: TWOK because of Mr. Shatner's "brilliant" (I guess no one would agree with me) performance, especially this one particular scene when he sees an empty chair; TFF because of the back stories of Bones and Spock.