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

[Amaris]

LOL, you stick to your guns Amaris! See, when I was 10 I'm seeing Nichelle Nichols in classics such as Truck Turner () (1974) and other blaxploitation classics.

So it's just a matter of references and context.

Thank you.

Plenty of people dislike ST:V, and that's fine. There are movies I can't really stand that people just adore, and that's fine, too. The Big Three scenes keep me coming back, and yes, I adore Nichelle Nichols. ♥
I also have a lot of fond childhood memories attached to that time of my life, and that film is one of them. I mean, how else could I view something that was a gift on my birthday, on VHS format no less, and was used, but that was because video tapes were still expensive, and it's the best my parents could afford (as if that took away from the value of it)? So, lots of good feelings attached to that movie. A thousand people could shred it to ribbons every day, and I'd still love it.

 

[Longinus]

Focusing on visuals on that extend seems particularly weird in a franchise where TOS exists. It's effects obviously are not great by today's standards. ST:Ent undeniably has magnitudes better effects, whilst by any reasonable measure being a much worse show.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

Thank you.

Plenty of people dislike ST:V, and that's fine. There are movies I can't really stand that people just adore, and that's fine, too. The Big Three scenes keep me coming back, and yes, I adore Nichelle Nichols. ♥
I also have a lot of fond childhood memories attached to that time of my life, and that film is one of them. I mean, how else could I view something that was a gift on my birthday, on VHS format no less, and was used, but that was because video tapes were still expensive, and it's the best my parents could afford (as if that took away from the value of it)? So, lots of good feelings attached to that movie. A thousand people could shred it to ribbons every day, and I'd still love it.

A sincere BRAVO, Amaris! You get it 100%. Yours, IMO, is a position of self-confidence. You love what you love. You can see and acknowledge the virtues as well as the weaknesses and deficiencies in things and still be confident in what appeals to you. No excuses but also no trying to defend the indefensible because of ego.

I get a kick out of George Lucas's take on Howard The Duck. I can see it is legitimately not a good a film. I could go through and explain why it is not a good movie, yet, I enjoy it so (to say I'm in the minority on that seems like a massive understatement ). Of course it would be intellectually dishonest of me to try and manufacture a context in which it wasn't a bad film or to ignore or undermine the legitimate criticisms or to try and argue with those who had every reason not to like it. That would be pure troll silliness.

I, in fact, will still re-watch Star Trek V. I would even say, in the grander scheme of things, that I found both ST: Nemesis and Resurrection to be far more offensively bad. The Final Frontier may have been way short on technique, but it did at least have some heart. I could see folks enjoying it for some intended, and some not so unintended, reasons.

So again, Amaris, I salute and respect your opinion as well as your self-assuredness. LLAP.

 

[Amaris]

A sincere BRAVO, Amaris! You get it 100%. Yours, IMO, is a position of self-confidence. You love what you love. You can see and acknowledge the virtues as well as the weaknesses and deficiencies in things and still be confident in what appeals to you. No excuses but also no trying to defend the indefensible because of ego.

I get a kick out of George Lucas's take on Howard The Duck. I can see it is legitimately not a good a film. I could go through and explain why it is not a good movie, yet, I enjoy it so (to say I'm in the minority on that seems like a massive understatement ). Of course it would be intellectually dishonest of me to try and manufacture a context in which it wasn't a bad film or to ignore or undermine the legitimate criticisms or to try and argue with those who had every reason not to like it. That would be pure troll silliness.

I, in fact, will still re-watch Star Trek V. I would even say, in the grander scheme of things, that I found both ST: Nemesis and Resurrection to be far more offensively bad. The Final Frontier may have been way short on technique, but it did at least have some heart. I could see folks enjoying it for some intended, and some not so unintended, reasons.

So again, Amaris, I salute and respect your opinion as well as your self-assuredness. LLAP.

\\//,

 

[Maurice]

Yup. They were shoddy. But it’s not like they were that bad by the standards of the day.

Sorry, I remember the standards of the day and the effects were that shoddy. Nothing close to what ILM or Apogee or Boss FIlm Studios (Ghostbusters, 2010, etc.), etc. were doing 5 years earlier.

 

[jaime]

Sorry, I remember the standards of the day and the effects were that shoddy. Nothing close to what ILM or Apogee or Boss FIlm Studios (Ghostbusters, 2010, etc.), etc. were doing 5 years earlier.

Stop motion terror dog bouncing across the road on line 2. Nazi pilot crashing downs tunnel on line 3....

 

[Smellmet]

TMPs effects were way better and that film is a decade older.

 

[jaime]

TMPs effects were way better and that film is a decade older.

TMPs effects were way better than stuff out now. Amazing when you consider the mad rush job after the whole Abel thing.

 

[Vger23]

On the topic of visual effects, I think it's clear that TFF's quality is below standard and failed the movie to a great extent.

That said, there are some things that definitely work for me:

1. Shots of the Enterprise with the Moon as a background
2. All the planets (Nimbus III, various moons, Sha Ka Rhee)
3. Shot of the Enterprise above the Sha Ka Rhee, beam of light flies by
4. The general appearance of the Great Barrier (in fact, I love how you can see it gradually getting closer out the windows...nice technique there)
5. Enterprise and BoP in orbit of Sha Ka Rhee after Kirk is rescued
6. The blue hand phaser beams
7. Shot of the shuttlecraft crashing into the bay
8. Some of the images of the God creature (in the beam, pursuing Kirk)

On the other hand, most everything else was horrific. I don't think there was any motion control work whatsoever. Most of it looked like they took static shots of the ships, and moved them across the camera.

 

[Maurice]

Stop motion terror dog bouncing across the road on line 2. Nazi pilot crashing downs tunnel on line 3....

You can always find a couple of bad shots. That doesn't mean that overall the quality of the effects by those houses wasn't way above Ferren's on STV.

 

[jaime]

You can always find a couple of bad shots. That doesn't mean that overall the quality of the effects by those houses was way above Ferren's on STV.

Like I said, they are shoddy, but not so shoddy as to totally bring the show down. I was in the audience at the time and had no problem with it.

 

[Vger23]

Like I said, they are shoddy, but not so shoddy as to totally bring the show down. I was in the audience at the time and had no problem with it.

It's funny...I was 13 when Star Trek V came out...and I saw it with my dad on opening night June 9 1989. I loved every min of it, never really noticed any bad visual fx, and at the end of the film, the sold-out audience gave it a standing ovation.

It wasn't until later (VHS) that I started to see that some of the fx were really horrible, and that I started to learn that people thought the movie was garbage. It really threw me off (this was before the days of the interwebs obviously), because for a while, TFF was my favorite Trek film, even more so than TWOK.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

I like STV, it's like a actual TOS episode but just longer, and the charactor interactions again are like those of TOS, love it, and what is not to like about it, it's a fun movie that has Spock in rocket boots, cat women and emergency landing plan B, that's a win right there.

 

[Timby]

I don't know why everyone is harping on Shatner for The Final Frontier's effects work when it was Harve Bennett and Ralph Winter who chose Associates and Ferren.

 

[Vger23]

I don't know why everyone is harping on Shatner for The Final Frontier's effects work when it was Harve Bennett and Ralph Winter who chose Associates and Ferren.

Because Shatner said "get a life" back in a 1985 SNL sketch, probably.

 

[Maurice]

I saw it in theaters when it first opened and the effects were cringe-worthy even then and several of my friends commented on it.

Much of the rest of the film was groan-worthy. That's the part I pin on the Shat.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

I don't know why everyone is harping on Shatner for The Final Frontier's effects work when it was Harve Bennett and Ralph Winter who chose Associates and Ferren.

As director, William Shatner, is too take blame for what went wrong as well as accolades where they went right. One thing that is agreed upon here is that ST V had some wonderful moments and that is to his credit. Even George Takei has pointed out that he was excellent at directing the actors. Again, however, as director the buck stops with him.

 

[inflatabledalek]

I think the basic direction of V is fine. I think the big issue is Paramount was contractually obliged to give Shatner the gig even though the film he wanted to make (the serious confrontation with God) and the film they wanted (Star Trek IV II) were at odds.

If Shatner had been allowed to do what he wanted (maybe with a more solid writer and being more prepared to listen to the people giving him advice), I think we could have had a good film. If he'd thrown himself fully into doing what Paramount wanted, I think we could have had a good film (he's got a pretty good wit after all). Both competing with each other with little ground give you wind up with a very odd, awkward film.

 

[marlboro]

Warts and all, it's my third favorite Trek movie. Only 2 and 6 are more watchable for me.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

Because Shatner said "get a life" back in a 1985 SNL sketch, probably.

I thought that sketch was funny myself and generally pretty accurate. It wasn't until decades later in one of Shatner's "Memories" books that I learned there had been a bit of a backlash. Even funnier, Shatner said he had gotten Roddenberry's pre-approval on it (making me wonder if good old G.R. didn't set poor old B.S. up?).

Though, full disclosure, I think William Shatner now needs to shut up and go away. He's had his run. He's made his money. He's proven he doesn't care about others (even supposed longtime friends and co-stars). He has really revealed himself to be a loathsome individual. He is a Trump level sociopath. In my opinion.