Just watched Star Trek V - pros and cons

[ProtoAvatar]

LOL, reviewers are objective. Learn something new every day.

You actually think you're more objective then them with regards to star trek V? Or objective at all?

One would need to let people watch who have never seen any Trek before to find out.

Already happened.

I hereby demand proof!

Should be easy enough - let some of your friends see the movie - in an environment where they can tell you their honest opinion about the quality of the movie without ruining the disposition. Then ask them their honest opinion.
Of course, you'll be embarassed - that's just the price you'll have to pay.

 

[JarodRussell]

Should be easy enough - let some of your friends see the movie - in an environment where they can tell you their honest opinion about the quality of the movie without ruining the disposition. Then ask them their honest opinion.
Of course, you'll be embarassed - that's just the price you'll have to pay.

Oh I did that, and they liked it, which is why I brought it up to begin with. Of course you won't believe that, or (which is a very clever strategy of yours) you simply question my friend's honesty.

You actually think you're more objective then them with regards to star trek V? Or objective at all

There is no objectivity at all. It's a movie, it's art. There are no facts, only opinions.

Objective is: the movie has visual effects, and they had a 5 million budget to create them. Subjective is: the VFX were baaaaaaaaaad. Or: the VFX were still good, despite the budget.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Should be easy enough - let some of your friends see the movie - in an environment where they can tell you their honest opinion about the quality of the movie without ruining the disposition. Then ask them their honest opinion.
Of course, you'll be embarassed - that's just the price you'll have to pay.

Oh I did that, and they liked it, which is why I brought it up to begin with. Of course you won't believe that, or (which is a very clever strategy of yours) you simply question my friend's honesty.

I would question your friends' tastes.

It's your honesty I question - considering that a few posts back you said "One would need to let people watch who have never seen any Trek before to find out." But what's a large contradiction if you can thus protect star trek V?

You actually think you're more objective then them with regards to star trek V? Or objective at all

There is no objectivity at all. It's a movie, it's art. There are no facts, only opinions.

You think there are no objective criterions in judging art - and movies? Really?
But what's an absurd statement like that if you can thus defend star trek V, right, JarodRussell?

Objective is: the movie has visual effects, and they had a 5 million budget to create them. Subjective is: the VFX were baaaaaaaaaad. Or: the VFX were still good, despite the budget.

Not quite.
Objective is: the visuals effects are garbage.
The budget thing is an excuse/justification for (and doesn't change in the least) the fact that VFX is OBJECTIVELY garbage.

 

[ConRefit79]

Not quite.
Objective is: the visuals effects are garbage.
The budget thing is an excuse/justification for (and doesn't change in the least) the fact that VFX is OBJECTIVELY garbage.

I think most people will admit the effects are poor when compared to the first 4 films. How is it an excuse that all the major effects houses were booked? It's not Shatner's fault that they were all booked. It's not Shatner's fault that the studio would not push back the release date so they could get ILM. He picked a new effects house and was pleased with a test project he received from them. Like most of the flaws with this film, the effects are poor because the studio rushed the film. As for budget, I cannot tell you if ILM would have completed the effects for the same budget.

 

[Amaris]

Not quite.
Objective is: the visuals effects are garbage.
The budget thing is an excuse/justification for (and doesn't change in the least) the fact that VFX is OBJECTIVELY garbage.

I think most people will admit the effects are poor when compared to the first 4 films. How is it an excuse that all the major effects houses were booked? It's not Shatner's fault that they were all booked. It's not Shatner's fault that the studio would not push back the release date so they could get ILM. He picked a new effects house and was pleased with a test project he received from them. Like most of the flaws with this film, the effects are poor because the studio rushed the film. As for budget, I cannot tell you if ILM would have completed the effects for the same budget.

Agreed. Once you get the whole picture of what happened, you realize that what Shatner wanted and what he got were two wildly different animals. Everything from Paramount shortchanging the budget, to the writer's strike, to consultants never showing up, to none of the quality art effects houses being available. If this movie would have been made a year prior or a year later, it would have been an entirely different movie. That said, I still love this movie. Shatner's direction is solid, the photography was terrific, the idea was a good one, and this movie felt the most like TOS.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Not quite.
Objective is: the visuals effects are garbage.
The budget thing is an excuse/justification for (and doesn't change in the least) the fact that VFX is OBJECTIVELY garbage.

I think most people will admit the effects are poor when compared to the first 4 films. How is it an excuse that all the major effects houses were booked? It's not Shatner's fault that they were all booked. It's not Shatner's fault that the studio would not push back the release date so they could get ILM. He picked a new effects house and was pleased with a test project he received from them. Like most of the flaws with this film, the effects are poor because the studio rushed the film. As for budget, I cannot tell you if ILM would have completed the effects for the same budget.

Shatner wanted this, the studio did that - they're merely excuses, justifications - it's not Shatner's fault, it's the studio's, there were no money, bla bla bla.

Why? Because none of these changes the FACT that the visuals are GARBAGE. When judging a movie, it does not matter what Shatner or whomever wanted to do, it matters what was done - what's on-screen.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Not quite.
Objective is: the visuals effects are garbage.
The budget thing is an excuse/justification for (and doesn't change in the least) the fact that VFX is OBJECTIVELY garbage.

I think most people will admit the effects are poor when compared to the first 4 films. How is it an excuse that all the major effects houses were booked? It's not Shatner's fault that they were all booked. It's not Shatner's fault that the studio would not push back the release date so they could get ILM. He picked a new effects house and was pleased with a test project he received from them. Like most of the flaws with this film, the effects are poor because the studio rushed the film. As for budget, I cannot tell you if ILM would have completed the effects for the same budget.

Agreed. Once you get the whole picture of what happened, you realize that what Shatner wanted and what he got were two wildly different animals. Everything from Paramount shortchanging the budget, to the writer's strike, to consultants never showing up, to none of the quality art effects houses being available. If this movie would have been made a year prior or a year later, it would have been an entirely different movie. That said, I still love this movie. Shatner's direction is solid, the photography was terrific, the idea was a good one, and this movie felt the most like TOS.

Your post proves my case, Sarek of Vulcan ("Shatner[...]and this movie felt the most like TOS."):
"if you don't care about Kirk&co (not caring about TOS), the movie has no other appeal.

In other words "It can only be enjoyed for fan-boyish or nostalgic reasons"."
Of course, I should add Shatner to the list; star trek V fans seem to be, without exception, dedicated Statner fans.


As for "Shatner's direction is solid, the photography was terrific, the idea was a good one" - no they aren't.
You actually think the script was anywhere resembling 'good one' and Shatner's directing was 'terrific'?
You lack objectivity, Sarek of Vulcan.

 

[Amaris]

Your post proves my case, Sarek of Vulcan ("Shatner[...]and this movie felt the most like TOS."):
"if you don't care about Kirk&co (not caring about TOS), the movie has no other appeal.

In other words "It can only be enjoyed for fan-boyish or nostalgic reasons"."
Of course, I should add Shatner to the list; star trek V fans seem to be, without exception, dedicated Statner fans.

I'm not making a case, I'm enjoying a movie.

As for "Shatner's direction is solid, the photography was terrific, the idea was a good one" - no they aren't.
You actually think the script was anywhere resembling 'good one' and Shatner's directing was 'terrific'?
You lack objectivity, Sarek of Vulcan.

I lack nothing but the desire to make a case out of watching a movie. Your mileage may vary.

 

[JarodRussell]

It's your honesty I question - considering that a few posts back you said "One would need to let people watch who have never seen any Trek before to find out." But what's a large contradiction if you can thus protect star trek V?

That confuses you, doesn't it? It's not like people can't say "one would need to do this..." when they already did it, but want to see the reaction on the other side first.

Objective is: the movie has visual effects, and they had a 5 million budget to create them. Subjective is: the VFX were baaaaaaaaaad. Or: the VFX were still good, despite the budget.

Not quite.
Objective is: the visuals effects are garbage.
The budget thing is an excuse/justification for (and doesn't change in the least) the fact that VFX is OBJECTIVELY garbage.

No, wrong.

Why? Because none of these changes the FACT that the visuals are GARBAGE.

Again, wrong! It's not a fact.


I ask you, what makes visual effects good and what makes them garbage?

I also think they look crap, but I also know that it's just my subjective opinion. You seem (as many times before in other threads) to confuse your own opinions with facts and objective criteria.

You think there are no objective criterions in judging art - and movies? Really?
But what's an absurd statement like that if you can thus defend star trek V, right, JarodRussell?

What I'm trying to tell you has nothing to do with Star Trek V. It could be Howard the Duck or Shawshank Redemption. The point is that you think the quality of a movie can be objectively measured, which is simply wrong. As with every piece of art, a movie is solely perceived subjectively by each individual viewer. And what you do now with this movie is basically that you sell your own opinion is fact and that everybody else is wrong or lying.


Again. Statements like "Visual Effects are GARGABE!" are not objective. It's just your own opinion.

I also like your choice of words in your posts. You say I try to "protect Star Trek V", "defend Star Trek V", and you "are making a case", and you appear pretty aggressive and act like it was a matter of life and death. What's your problem, dude?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

JarodRussel

Get it through your head: Art (movies) can be - and are - judged according to objective criteria relating to everything from production values to plot, pacing and characters.

And star trek V IS a substandard movie, according to every objective criterion worth mentioning.
As for the special effects, they ARE OBJECTIVELY GARBAGE. The fact that you can't even admit this evidences how biased you are.


The rest of your post is just convoluted wanna-be explanations relating to you being caught lying - I mentioned non-trek fans watching star trek V, your response admitted you never showed the movie to non-trek fans, then you claimed the opposite, and now you're jumping from one foot to the other trying to cover up your insincerity.
You would make a good politician, JarodRussel.

 

[JarodRussell]

Hm, and now you are accusing me of lying. Whatever, dude. But it's not the first discussion with you about totally banal things that went way out of line.

As for the special effects, they ARE OBJECTIVELY GARBAGE. The fact that you can't even admit this evidences how biased you are.

Since they are objectively garbage: PROVE IT! It's all objective, so you can do it.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Hm, and now you are accusing me of lying. Whatever, dude.

JarodRussell, when you write down an obvious falsity (lie) - such as claiming you did something you just admitted you did not do - you should expect other posters to call you on it.

As for the special effects, they ARE OBJECTIVELY GARBAGE. The fact that you can't even admit this evidences how biased you are.

Since they are objectively garbage: PROVE IT! It's all objective, so you can do it.

Sure.
You want a detailed discussion about how the wires were seen in this scene and how crappy the lightshow was in the other scene? Read reviews found on the internet for a forensic analysis, if you wish.

Or, even simpler, watch the movie. Not alone - with a non-trek-fan friend. After the movie, ask him what he thought about the special effects.

 

[ConRefit79]

Shatner wanted this, the studio did that - they're merely excuses, justifications - it's not Shatner's fault, it's the studio's, there were no money, bla bla bla.

Why? Because none of these changes the FACT that the visuals are GARBAGE. When judging a movie, it does not matter what Shatner or whomever wanted to do, it matters what was done - what's on-screen.

So is your opinion the whole film is crap? Or do you think it would be worthy had decent ILM effects been used and it included the final conflict scenes Shatner & Co originally wanted?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Shatner wanted this, the studio did that - they're merely excuses, justifications - it's not Shatner's fault, it's the studio's, there were no money, bla bla bla.

Why? Because none of these changes the FACT that the visuals are GARBAGE. When judging a movie, it does not matter what Shatner or whomever wanted to do, it matters what was done - what's on-screen.

So is your opinion the whole film is crap? Or do you think it would be worthy had decent ILM effects been used and it included the final conflict scenes Shatner & Co originally wanted?

If the movie would have benefitted from a reworking of the script and far better special effects, then yes, it could have been decent.

 

[Solarbaby]

Pro- Caithlin Dar! An oriental looking beautiful Romulan.

Cons. Shitner directing. Give the script to someone who knew what they were doing and this might have been a lot better received by critics

 

[RookieBatman]

Star Trek V is, objectively, a VERY poor movie.

I don't think anyone can really say that any movie is objectively very good or very poor. Art is, by nature, purely subjective. The only objective standard you can use to determine quality is popularity, and that's hardly indicative of what most people consider quality. So, ultimately, even something like Manos can't really be called objectively bad, because there simply is no objective standard.

It can only be enjoyed for fan-boyish or nostalgic reasons.

I, personally, have no problem enjoying something purely for nostalgic reasons. Enjoyment is enjoyment, no matter the reason.

 

[RookieBatman]

if you don't care about Kirk&co (not caring about TOS), the movie has no other appeal.

I would think that the appeal of most movies is based on whether you care about the main characters. Sure, an action movie might have good action, but if you don't even like the character involved in the action, then you're not gonna enjoy it. So, saying the movie has no appeal if you don't like the main characters hardly means anything.

CorporalClegg, to reiterate - star trek V is, objectively, a far sub-standard movie.
If you think otherwise - you're seeing the movie through rosy-coloured glasses.

I think that STXI is objectively a sub-standard movie, and that all the myriad people who think otherwise are seeing it through rose-colored glasses. People who liked it think the exact same thing about those of us who couldn't appreciate it.

Again, there is no objective standard. Any person's appreciation of a movie is based on personal tastes.

Browse the internet for any review of the movie, if you want proof of this.

As has already been stated, this is hardly proof. Reviewers are also people, so they also have personal tastes. Their personal tastes will have an effect on their "objective" reviews, whether they realize it or not.

A movie is a movie. All that matters is whether you enjoyed it or not. There isn't much point in trying to "prove" to other people that they shouldn't enjoy it.

Now, if you want to discuss specific points that you didn't like about the movie, I'm all for that (although, I haven't seen it in a while).

 

[JarodRussell]

I doubt you will be able to change his mind, RookieBatman. He thinks movies can be objectively measured, that reviewers are objective, and has his own (rather weird) idea of what objectivity is. And we've learned from other threads that he will never agree with or even respect another person's opinion. Best thing is when he starts telling you what you think, as if he would know it better.

Movies are a form of art, so everything in them is solely subjective.

So you see wires in the VFX shots. That is a fact, I congratulate you. But the evaluation "wires = garbage" is subjective again. It's an opinion. And your opinion is no better than everyone else's opinion. So when one likes this "garbage", he/she is not "wrong" about it.

I also think the VFX are crap, compared to TVH anyway. Compared to TOS, they again look nice. But I don't say everybody who thinks otherwise is wrong, or deluded, or lying, like you constantly do.

 

[Mjuice]

Or, even simpler, watch the movie. Not alone - with a non-trek-fan friend. After the movie, ask him what he thought about the special effects.

If a majority of people have an opinion as to the quality of something it still doesn't make it any more objective or "true". If 99 people out of a hundred think the effects are "garbage" it's still just the subjective opinion of those people. All qualitative valuations are by definition subjective.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

The only argument for star trek V seems to be that there are no objective criteria by which to judge art - and this movie - (which is, of course, wrong).
Why? Because, when such criteria are applied to it, star trek V is found lacking.

As for - there are no objective criteria by which to judge a work of art - well, this is absurd. What I find surprising is that such an obviously erroneous argument was even invoked by some in order to save their pet movie. Anything, just to avoid admitting the movie is sub-standard.
Objective criteria is what differentiates the artistic masterpieces from mediocre works - not how you happen to think about them.
For example, Rembrand's work is FAR better than the work of some untalented nobody, despite the fact that someone would like Rembrand's paintings less.
'Contact' is FAR better than 'Lost in space' even if someone would like 'Lost in space' more.

RookieBatman, I read part of your anti star trek XI rant in trek lit forum. You're upset it does away with your cherished continuity; you refuse to judge the movie on its own merits. Which is as subjective as it gets.