Just watched Star Trek V - pros and cons

[A beaker full of death]

Excellent movie. The one that really feels like the series. I was surprised at how well Shatner knew these characters.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Uhura's fan dance [was] cringe worthy

Balls. She still had great legs, and it was entirely in keeping with ALL the TOS characters to use their sexuality as a weapon.
Plus we finally get a movie where Uhura sings again!

 

[Chrisisall]

Excellent movie. The one that really feels like the series. I was surprised at how well Shatner knew these characters.

We are a small voice here, my friend. The hate runs deep.
And that leads to the Douche Side.

 

[RAMA]

I like Star Trek V. It's no masterpiece, but I think it's fun in a TV-movie kind of way (disclaimer: I think Nemesis is great, too)

About the effects: Sha'Ka'Ree looked great from space. I didn't think the rest were too bad. A little weaker than normal, admittedly but hardly the worst ever.

STV was also the first Star Trek film I ever saw. As a kid I loved the horseriding phaser attack on Paradise City.

I must admit Spockhura works a billion trillion times better than Scottyhura. What were they thinking?

Well Nemesis is light years better....STV is just awful...nothing redeeming about it.

RAMA

 

[Chrisisall]

My phaser is set to kill...

 

[RookieBatman]

...it was entirely in keeping with ALL the TOS characters to use their sexuality as a weapon.

I don't recall Scotty ever using his sexuality as a weapon.

(I'm not trying to nitpick, but I like to be careful about absolutes.)

Well Nemesis is light years better....STV is just awful...nothing redeeming about it.

Why do people like this even come on these threads? At least when I state my dislike for *certain movies,* I at least try to add something constructive to the conversation. This kind of statement is just pointless.

 

[A beaker full of death]

...it was entirely in keeping with ALL the TOS characters to use their sexuality as a weapon.

I don't recall Scotty ever using his sexuality as a weapon.

Well there was this upkilt shot once ...

 

[RandyS]

Pros: nice music

Yeah, and the best Enterprise bridge that was ever built.

 

[Chrisisall]

Pros: nice music

Yeah, and the best Enterprise bridge that was ever built.

I miss his old seat...

 

[Myasishchev]

And you know, even though I rather enjoy TOS, I'd still take TFF over any individual episode.

My phaser is set to kill...

Now, I do like TOS a lot, but the films in general are just better for me. TOS is static. The films, even the more flawed ones, move the characters. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy changed more in twelve hours of movies than seventy-nine hours of television.

But that might just be a personal preference.

 

[Chrisisall]

But that might just be a personal preference.

Character evolution can be... fascinating.
But enduring iconic peeps can be... infecting.

But it's all good!

 

[A beaker full of death]

Now, I do like TOS a lot, but the films in general are just better for me. TOS is static. The films, even the more flawed ones, move the characters. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy changed more in twelve hours of movies than seventy-nine hours of television.

Most episodes of the series were not about those characters. That's the nature of an episodic series.

 

[Chrisisall]

Most episodes of the series were not about those characters. That's the nature of an episodic series.

Story over characters?

Or, story over character development?

 

[RandyS]

Pros: nice music

Yeah, and the best Enterprise bridge that was ever built.

I miss his old seat...

So do I.

The 21 year old one from Star Trek V.

 

[Chrisisall]

So do I.

The 21 year old one from Star Trek V.

Yeah, it was really good, I was just riffing off Kirk's line from the movie.

 

[RandyS]

So do I.

The 21 year old one from Star Trek V.

Yeah, it was really good, I was just riffing off Kirk's line from the movie.

I know. I got it.

 

[Chrisisall]

I know. I got it.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Most episodes of the series were not about those characters. That's the nature of an episodic series.

Story over characters?

Or, story over character development?

No.
Drama is about a dramatic hero. There is no story without character. The thing is, you can't destroy your hero's life every week. Consequently, most of the episodes were about the guest characters. The regulars were our entre into a world were anything was possible. It has the same principle as an anthology series.
We got to know the characters of Star Trek because we saw them in action. We got to experience things WITH them, not about them.

 

[JarodRussell]

Now, I do like TOS a lot, but the films in general are just better for me. TOS is static. The films, even the more flawed ones, move the characters. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy changed more in twelve hours of movies than seventy-nine hours of television.

THIS.

 

[plynch]

The thing is, you can't destroy your hero's life every week. Consequently, most of the episodes were about the guest characters. The regulars were our entre into a world were anything was possible. It has the same principle as an anthology series.
We got to know the characters of Star Trek because we saw them in action. We got to experience things WITH them, not about them.

Good point -- that seems to be the '60s drama show mode. But character development is certainly possible in an anthology series w/o destroying anybody's life. Little moments or realizations or "B" plots. Witness TNG or DS9, which I bet we could agree had way more character development than TOS. They had 4 more years, of course, but still there was a different way of doing stories by the time the later series aired.