Shatner says he should never have directed Trek V in new book

[Khan 2.0]

https://trekmovie.com/2018/08/30/7-things-we-learned-from-william-shatners-new-memoir-live-long-and/

He admits that directing Star Trek V was not the best choice he could have made
He talks about his original story idea, with which many Trek fans are already familiar, and says that Gene Roddenberry thought it was objectionable, so they compromised. “I had a choice,” he writes. “I could accept the compromise or refuse to direct the movie. I made a mistake; I accepted the compromise, which doomed the picture from the beginning.”

Also shockingly reveals the reason he didn't attend Leonards funeral wasn't due to the Red Cross but that he wasn't welcome.

 

[Dukhat]

He is correct. But I don’t think his original story idea would have been any better.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Also shockingly reveals the reason he didn't attend Leonard's funeral wasn't due to the Red Cross but that he wasn't welcome.

Shatner's earlier book, Leonard, made it pretty clear that, for the last five years or so of Nimoy's life, Shatner and Nimoy had no meaningful relationship, and I'm not surprised with the revelation that Shatner would have felt -- and been -- unwelcome at the funeral had he left the Red Cross fundraiser to attend the funeral.

Shatner, for his part, still thought of Nimoy as a friend and a brother, but Nimoy had moved on and cut Shatner from his life, apparently even before the filming incident at some convention. (Shatner wanted an interview with Nimoy for some project he was working on, and he resorted to sending someone to film Nimoy's appearance at a convention.) I understand Shatner's bewilderment; it's confusing when a friend ends a friendship because no reasons and answers are forthcoming, especially so in this case, and he's denied the closure he wants. At the same time, Nimoy felt that he neither needed nor wanted Shatner in his life, and he spent his final years with the people he wanted to be surrounded by, doing the things he wanted to do. As an outsider, I respect and accept Nimoy's choice in the matter and sympathize with Shatner at the same time.

 

[Kor]

I agree that Shatner shouldn't have directed STV.

Kor

 

[Dukhat]

I agree that Shatner shouldn't have directed STV.

Kor

I don’t agree. STV should never have been made in the first place

 

[Khan 2.0]

They should've done what they probably about to do with Trek Thor any day now - skipped to the next movie

 

[Tenacity]

I agree that Shatner shouldn't have directed STV.

I don't feel it was Shatner's directing that was the problem, everything I've heard says that he was a surprisingly good on set director.

Having Shatner in a position to effect the story and script was the problem.

 

[XCV330]

There was a lot more wrong with TFF than direction, and somewhere inside of the script is a good moving trying to pop out. It takes humility to admit that he wasn't the right person to direct the movie. Shatner has humility. In other news, residents in Hell are reporting burst water pipes due to cold temperatures.

I wont even comment on what happened between him in Nimoy except to say it must be extremely difficult keeping a friendship going under the spotlight for decades. Sometimes relationships change or fade, and its not a fault, its just the end of the road.

Most of us have tried some career move that didn't quite work out.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I like Star Trek V. Possibly not the smartest direction for the franchise at the time, but I love the result nonetheless.

 

[STEPhon IT]

I don't feel it was Shatner's directing that was the problem, everything I've heard says that he was a surprisingly good on set director.

Having Shatner in a position to effect the story and script was the problem.

Maybe he should've focus more on what the character's believed in than something superficial, and I'm not sure Shatner knew what the movie needed to be. Some parts of the film it wanted to have shades of TVH and then some wanted the piece to be serious. I'm not sure where the film should've taken it's theme but the idea is weak because it paves the way for disappointment. A director needs to know the measures for his picture. I'm wondering if Shatner asked Nimoy for some insight? I know Shatner asked Nic Meyer to write it and he passed but Nimoy was a man who had loads of creative ideas.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

Shatner, Nimoy, Takei all seem somewhat full of themselves and also petty. Who knows though? I've never really met any of them.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I'm not sure Shatner knew what the movie needed to be. Some parts of the film it wanted to have shades of TVH and then some wanted the piece to be serious.

Studio interference. Shatner wanted to make a serious film that tackled a serious subject (religious fanaticism), and the studio looked at Star Trek IV and, believing that the reason for that film's success was that it was funny, wanted a light, comedic film.

The film's tone, which generally works, imho, probably could have been better smoothed out in a rewrite, but the WGA strike affected the script, too.

 

[Pauln6]

I think Kirk feels more forced in STV. Shatner could have done with a director to reign him in a bit. I thought the other characters were OK. Uhura actually does better out of it than most other outings.

Similarly, the story needed to be a bit more adult. I would much rather have known what dark secrets were weighing down Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov and a bit more about the politics of Nimbus III.

Plus there's no reason why they had to trot out the centre of the Galaxy as opposed to some made up location like the Nekrit Expanse or the Briar Patch.

I also think the absence of Cartwright, Saavik, or even some more cameos from Sarek, Chapel, and Rand make it lose a touch of continuity. It feels silly that none of the crew has other friends to hang out with.

 

[Bad Robot]

It's never been my belief that anything could have fixed Star Trek V, even on a blank sheet of paper. Shatner believes it because in his view he was forced to compromise. He's also not really a storyteller, and there was never a cohesive story in play. Shatner's idea was "God turns out to be the devil." This wasn't problematic because it was too controversial; it was too much of a "what huh?" to earn any status of being controversial in the first place.

The studio did ask if more humor could be worked into the story, but I think this again reflects more on their lack of faith with what they were seeing from Shatner. They also didn't doom the movie by asking for the type of slapstick humor that was used; that was either Shatner's or Loughery's doing. However it's worth noting that all the ST movies since The Voyage Home have had a somewhat lighthearted tone to them (except perhaps Nemesis, that one you really can't tell).

I believe Nimoy did warn Shatner he would be laughed off the screen, promting Shatner's decision to follow the studio's advice and re-work his concept.

Star Trek V is still no worse than most of the TNG films, even if there's more to it that's embarrassing.

 

[STEPhon IT]

The concept is not that far off from Indiana Jones, it needed a little tweaking but the focal point should center on the 3 main characters: Kirk, Spock, & McCoy. As we know Indiana Jones start off in his adventures as a skeptic and there's a personal issue which revolves around the story. Kirk lost his son and found out a planet resurrected his colleague, Kirk could've been conflicted by this and questions his faith. Could there be planets out there in the universe which could re-animate the anatomical matrix? Sybok should have suffered a similar plight and found out his brother's resurrection which to him was an act of God. Spock and Bones had discussion about this already in TVH and I thought it should've continued in TTF, but this time Bones is questioning his own mortality because this day is the anniversary of the death of his father. See? All it needed was tweaking and focus more of the characters instead of "God turns out to be the Devil."

 

[Pauln6]

I think Sybok is too much of a cypher as well. There are reasons why Vulcans suppress their emotions. At what point did he throw aside logic? Did the vision he received recently give him some kind of emotional balance that he is able to pass on through a variation of a mind meld? This is implied admittedly, although traditionally it's been a side effect of a mind meld since the first one.

Linking this event to Spock's resurrection might have bridged the gap to the previous movies, although McCoy does mention it and Spock does come off as a bit fuzzy.

Spock's professed interest in the hippy cause in the Way to Eden is established. A reference back to that group by him or by Chekov might have added some historical context or even a female lead.

Saavik on the Planet of Galactic Peace might have given us some canon reference to her mixed heritage and upbringing. Sybok could really have done a number on her more realistic than that on the other wholesome crew members.

 

[Qonundrum]

I don’t agree. STV should never have been made in the first place

Not in its current form, the budget-cut comic relief routine inspired by TVH's comedic success. Many factors were involved, Shatner is scapegoated for a few too many.

I think Sybok is too much of a cypher as well. There are reasons why Vulcans suppress their emotions. At what point did he throw aside logic? Did the vision he received recently give him some kind of emotional balance that he is able to pass on through a variation of a mind meld? This is implied admittedly, although traditionally it's been a side effect of a mind meld since the first one.

Linking this event to Spock's resurrection might have bridged the gap to the previous movies, although McCoy does mention it and Spock does come off as a bit fuzzy.

Spock's professed interest in the hippy cause in the Way to Eden is established. A reference back to that group by him or by Chekov might have added some historical context or even a female lead.

Saavik on the Planet of Galactic Peace might have given us some canon reference to her mixed heritage and upbringing. Sybok could really have done a number on her more realistic than that on the other wholesome crew members.

^^this

Particularly for Sybok's backstory. I think he's a great character and a new one with an unusual and interesting background and with more potential than Klaa (though the twist at the end was cool), but they never really explored why he cast off his emotions. What epiphany took place - which would be when this bogus God alien called out to him. As with so many set pieces and ideas, the core ideas are there and fantastic but it's not really well-explained to the point the audience is so far hooked into the experience the movie is trying to tell. Remove half the comedy routines and I bet enough setup and exposition could have smoothed out so much.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

https://trekmovie.com/2018/08/30/7-things-we-learned-from-william-shatners-new-memoir-live-long-and/
Also shockingly reveals the reason he didn't attend Leonards funeral wasn't due to the Red Cross but that he wasn't welcome.

He admits that directing Star Trek V was not the best choice he could have made
He talks about his original story idea, with which many Trek fans are already familiar, and says that Gene Roddenberry thought it was objectionable, so they compromised. “I had a choice,” he writes. “I could accept the compromise or refuse to direct the movie. I made a mistake; I accepted the compromise, which doomed the picture from the beginning.”

How much did Gene even have to do with the franchise by 1988-1989? I wouldn't have figured anything Gene wanted carried much weight, if any, by this point.

Still, I always knew that a great many factors go into a movie, good or bad. A screenplay has to be written, reviewed, edited or re-written, etc. many times. Then you have producers having their say, and directors guiding the thing as it gets put onto film. The post production editing can remove some good or bad material.

Now I like STV fine. Not the best of the six, but good Star Trek fare. Either way you can't blame only the Shat if you think the movie sucked.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Shatner talks more on V:

You don’t go into a ton of detail about Star Trek V in Live Long And…, but you make a point of saying that you regret making compromises on the film. If you had it to do again, what would you have done differently? Would you have not made the film? Would you have fought harder for your initial idea?

That's a really good question. It's something I hadn't thought of. Now that I realize I compromised, and then I write a great deal about the art of compromise, I don't know. I think that, given my nature, I would have compromised, but at least I would have known that I had done it consciously and maybe been able to rescue elements of the story that I lost, as a result of the original compromise.

There’s at least one positive from Star Trek V that I’d like to point out. If you ask fans for their favorite lines from the Trek features, people will, high on the list, reply, “What does God need with a starship?”

Right, which is the beginnings of the element of doubt. I'll incorporate that into my comments, into things to answer about Star Trek V.

http://www.startrek.com/article/william-shatner-what-i-learned-along-the-way

 

[STEPhon IT]

How much did Gene even have to do with the franchise by 1988-1989? I wouldn't have figured anything Gene wanted carried much weight, if any, by this point.

Still, I always knew that a great many factors go into a movie, good or bad. A screenplay has to be written, reviewed, edited or re-written, etc. many times. Then you have producers having their say, and directors guiding the thing as it gets put onto film. The post production editing can remove some good or bad material.

Now I like STV fine. Not the best of the six, but good Star Trek fare. Either way you can't blame only the Shat if you think the movie sucked.

I blame Shatner because his name is all over this picture and the film doesn't make any sense.