So how much would have quality SFX in TFF helped the movie to you?

[enterprisecvn65]

Better effects would have made the wildly erratic storytelling easier to take, to be honest. I remember cringing several times the first time I saw it(which I had to hide so as to not turn newbies off to Star Trek), but it was as much for the cringe-inducing scenes being followed by cringe-inducing effects as the bad writing. All in all STV would still be the worst of the TOS films, but by much, much less of a margin if ILM had done the effects.

The VFX for this film were:

1. Kirk falling off a mountain and Spock rescuing him.
2. Shots of the Enterprise either sitting around doing nothing or flying through space.
3. Shots of the BoP either sitting around doing nothing or flying through space.
4. Pioneer exploding(!)
5. A shuttle flight that ends up crashing in the shuttlebay.
6. The occasional phaser blast or photon torpedo or two.
7. ShaKaRee.
8. God.

How would better VFX for any of the above really have helped make the film's story any easier to take?

Yeah there were few sfx, but by quality I mean besides the EFX looking good they could have thrown in some more at points to even the film out a little more.

Let me be CLEAR on my stance. I am not saying by any measure great SFX would have made this into a good film.

What I am saying, at least as far as I'm concerned, in the dreadful SFX on top on everything else made me, and many others, have pretty much ZERO respect for anything about the making of the film and the flim itself.

Here are are a couple of examples.

1. TMP. As a kid I hated it because it was so slow and boring and paled next to Star Wars. As and adult with more patience and greater understanding it's improved in my mind somewhat. Will I watch it on TV when it's on.....usually, am I going to run out and buy the limited edition blu ray collectors edition if it ever comes out....no. Truth is I still am only kind of blah over it, it's still a slow story that doesn't do it for me. BUT I can RESPECT the amount of time and effort that was put into the SFX for the film. It's clear they were of the highest quality of the time and they were trying to match Star Wars in that department. This is one reason I can watch it despite my indifference, because I respect it.

Titanic....Don't really like the movie that much and think the fact that it won best picture is one of the biggest jokes in Oscar history. BUT again I can respect the incredible amount of effort and detail Cameron did in trying to make the visual elements of the film top notch and it allows me to watch certain parts.

If either of the two films had had horrible visuals I don't think I would watch them for a second when there were on. But because they did I can respect, and maybe at parts, like the film despite my overall feelings.

If TFF had had great visuals there's A CHANCE I might have at least respected the effort that went into the film despite the fact the film itself was weak and I may be inclined to watch it a little more when it's on.

But the fact the story was weak and it was clear they mailed in the SFX, ON A STAR TREK FILM OF ALL THINGS, that's the nail in the coffin that makes me say "This thing is worthless and not worth my time."

That's my take at least.

 

[Smellmet]

You've summed up nicely the point I was trying to make earlier, this is why TFF is easily at the bottom of the pile for me, and also why I find Nemesis to be so watchable despite it's other flaws.

 

[Christopher]

BUT I can RESPECT the amount of time and effort that was put into the SFX for the film. It's clear they were of the highest quality of the time and they were trying to match Star Wars in that department.

I don't know if I'd say they were just "trying to match Star Wars." One of TMP's FX supervisors, John Dykstra, was the person in charge of Star Wars's effects; and the other, Douglas Trumbull, had done equally impressive work on films like 2001 and Close Encounters (and later Blade Runner). So it's not like they were mere imitators. The studio surely wanted another Star Wars, but Dykstra and Trumbull were simply living up to their own professional standards.

 

[cardinal biggles]

See, it's exactly the opposite for me. TFF with its crappy effects and bad jokes still has a bit of heart and was actually trying; NEM had excellent VFX, but the story left me absolutely cold. Not that I watch either one very often, but I'll give you one guess which one I'd watch first.

 

[Smellmet]

I can totally see your point, but bar the campfire scene and the odd other, I find TFF to be almost unwatchable, whereas I still think despite it's dumb plot, Nemesis still has a lot of heart and some great scenes, plus the great FX. I just find it a far more entertaining watch.

It's not all black and white though - I find the Lord of the Rings trilogy to be largely a complete bore, despite the excellent source material, good acting, directing pretty much everything. Like an earlier poster said, I respect them but don't have any love for them.

 

[Dukhat]

What you list as "stock footage", wasn't.

I think you misunderstood me. When I said "stock footage," I meant that stock footage of the Enterprise at warp and the BoP decloaking from the previous films could have been used both to save money and to look better than what was actually filmed by Ferren.

And matte paintings ARE VFX. The art department doesn't do them.

Ok, but that wasn't actually the point. The point was, how would "better" matte paintings of El Capitan, etc. have helped to make TFF a better movie?

 

[Timby]

Winter saying if theyd gone with ILM it wouldve been their 'D' team as the A team etc had already been booked with the other blockbusters of 89 (why did the Trek V team let that happen anyway? they knew the schedule)

Indiana Jones had first priority because ILM was owned by Lucasfilm (and it began shooting in May 1988); Ghostbusters II was much more of a money-maker and higher-budgeted than Star Trek V and was able to get ILM working well in advance of the start of filming.

It's not like the Star Trek team had a divine right of kings of utilization of ILM's services.

 

[Grant]

The 3 main faults of the movie are the SFX, the stupid "humor" and the lack of a decent climax.

If you include the "rockman" as part of the SFX--then I think that it would be a good improvement.

Upgrade the SFX, cut the comedy out and the movie (I think) would go from a 3 of 10 to a 6 of 10.

That's more than most poor movies would improve from simple editing and competent SFX.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

With the best VFX money could have bought, I would have loved STV at most only marginally more. By the time I was complaining about the VFX, the film had already lost me.

At least one aspect of the VFX I like: looking out the windows of the forward observation room at the approaching Great Barrier, shown here. Was putting the space FX in the windows done by rear projection?

 

[Greg Cox]

I never thought the SFX were the problem. I'm sure they haven't aged well, but I don't remember them bothering me at the time.

It's the plot that's a mess.

 

[RoJoHen]

The special effect that bugs me is the giant wall of blue light that is the Great Barrier. Otherwise, while the effects may not be perfect, nothing really stands out to me as terribly bad...although I would definitely get rid of the screaming probe that the Klingons shoot down. Seriously, why did it scream?

 

[Grant]

With the best VFX money could have bought, I would have loved STV at most only marginally more. By the time I was complaining about the VFX, the film had already lost me.

At least one aspect of the VFX I like: looking out the windows of the forward observation room at the approaching Great Barrier, shown here. Was putting the space FX in the windows done by rear projection?

Really? The blue-screen of Kirk's fall was abysmal even by 1989 standards. So the film had lost you 4 minutes in or the blue screen of Kirk's fall "wasn't that bad"

 

[CorporalCaptain]

With the best VFX money could have bought, I would have loved STV at most only marginally more. By the time I was complaining about the VFX, the film had already lost me.

At least one aspect of the VFX I like: looking out the windows of the forward observation room at the approaching Great Barrier, shown here. Was putting the space FX in the windows done by rear projection?

Really? The blue-screen of Kirk's fall was abysmal even by 1989 standards. So the film had lost you 4 minutes in or the blue screen of Kirk's fall "wasn't that bad"

Rewind a decade to the original Star Wars. It had its share of wonky FX shots. The infamous shot of the landspeeder hovering from the Imperial checkpoint over to the Mos Eisley Cantina was one of the worst. The Empire Strikes Back had the awful snow creature puppet shot. Return of the Jedi had model shots that looked exactly like the shots of models on a table top. These films had so much more going for them than individually bad shots. They had so much more going for them than great VFX shots.

Point being, as a seasoned audience member of the 1970s and 1980s, I was perfectly OK with there being bad VFX shots in good SF films. A few bad shots wasn't anything to be alarmed about.

The shot of Kirk falling off of El Capitan was bad. But the premise of what was going on, with Kirk tra-la-la free-climbing without even any ropes, was much worse. I read it as a sign that Shatner's ego was completely out of control. When Kirk fell off, the movie fell down. The film could have even recovered, if it had dusted itself off and gotten down to the business of being a decent film. But no, and better FX wouldn't have helped.

More alarming than the fall off El Capitan being bad was the fact that such a bad FX shot was this early in the picture; if you're going to have a few bad shots, then it's better to put them later on, and before the climax. Seeing that bad of a shot that early was ominous, but still not nearly as ominous as including the free-climb itself. Of course, the bad puppet shot in TESB was pretty early, so it all depends.

 

[Grant]

You are comparing the FX of Star Wars in 1977 to the FX of Trek 5 in 1989?

You are right about the idiocy of kirk climbing the mountain in 2286(?) with no protective measures. total absurdity.
More than "playing games with life" ----total disregard for his life and his friends who would be there to scrap him off the ground.
Scene should be cut just before he falls. No bad FX and no huge gap in logic.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You are comparing the FX of Star Wars in 1977 to the FX of Trek 5 in 1989?

Um, no.

I'm saying that four or five minutes into a film is too soon to hold one bad VFX shot against a film, because even great SF films with overall great VFX had bad shots. How was I to know at that point what the rest of the film was going to look like?

As I said:

A few bad shots wasn't anything to be alarmed about.

There were also great SF films released before with overall very mediocre VFX, certainly by Star Wars standards.

 

[Maurice]

Star Trek V's effects were bad by the theatrical standards of 1989. Comparing them to 70s television effects isn't apt, and even late 70s TV shows like Galactica and Buck Rogers had better spaceship work.

Sure, there are wonky effects in other movies well known overall for good effects, but those films do no contain consistently bad effects, just the occasional ones that didn't quite pan out. TFF, on the other hand, features consistently weak to bad effects work throughout.

According to both Cinefex #1 and Return to Tomorrow, 10 years earlier Robert Abel & Associates also had problems with the motion control systems and planned to shoot the models stop-motion fashion, so imagine those strobey, staccato TFF effects all over TMP. That goodness they got fired. As Trevanian once said, Associates and Ferren obviously didn't read Cinefex #1.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

And by the time it became clear sitting in the theater that it was going to be generally one crappy VFX shot after another, there were too many other problems for the VFX mess to be the killer.

Just so it's clear, Grant was basically asking what was going through my mind five minutes into the movie.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

Star Trek V's effects were bad by the theatrical standards of 1989. Comparing them to 70s television effects isn't apt, and even late 70s TV shows like Galactica and Buck Rogers had better spaceship work.

Sure, there are wonky effects in other movies well known overall for good effects, but those films do no contain consistently bad effects, just the occasional ones that didn't quite pan out. TFF, on the other hand, features consistently weak t o bad effects work throughout.

According to both Cinefex #1 and Return to Tomorrow, 10 years earlier Robert Abel & Associates also had problems with the motion control systems and planned to shoot the models stop-motion fashion, so imagine those strobey, staccato TFF effects all over TMP. That goodness they got fired. As Trevanian once said, Associates and Ferren obviously didn't read Cinefex #1.

Oh the spaceship shots in the Original Galactica and Buck Rodgers beat TFF hands down. Only problem was they did kept reusing the same dozen or so over and over.

You could ever make a legit argument that, given the technology of the time and the budget limitations they were under, the effects in TOS were superior to TFF.......and that's just sad.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

With the best VFX money could have bought, I would have loved STV at most only marginally more. By the time I was complaining about the VFX, the film had already lost me.

At least one aspect of the VFX I like: looking out the windows of the forward observation room at the approaching Great Barrier, shown here. Was putting the space FX in the windows done by rear projection?

Really? The blue-screen of Kirk's fall was abysmal even by 1989 standards. So the film had lost you 4 minutes in or the blue screen of Kirk's fall "wasn't that bad"

Rewind a decade to the original Star Wars. It had its share of wonky FX shots. The infamous shot of the landspeeder hovering from the Imperial checkpoint over to the Mos Eisley Cantina was one of the worst. The Empire Strikes Back had the awful snow creature puppet shot. Return of the Jedi had model shots that looked exactly like the shots of models on a table top. These films had so much more going for them than individually bad shots. They had so much more going for them than great VFX shots.

Point being, as a seasoned audience member of the 1970s and 1980s, I was perfectly OK with there being bad VFX shots in good SF films. A few bad shots wasn't anything to be alarmed about.

The shot of Kirk falling off of El Capitan was bad. But the premise of what was going on, with Kirk tra-la-la free-climbing without even any ropes, was much worse. I read it as a sign that Shatner's ego was completely out of control. When Kirk fell off, the movie fell down. The film could have even recovered, if it had dusted itself off and gotten down to the business of being a decent film. But no, and better FX wouldn't have helped.

More alarming than the fall off El Capitan being bad was the fact that such a bad FX shot was this early in the picture; if you're going to have a few bad shots, then it's better to put them later on, and before the climax. Seeing that bad of a shot that early was ominous, but still not nearly as ominous as including the free-climb itself. Of course, the bad puppet shot in TESB was pretty early, so it all depends.

Yeah I've said it before but there are many free climbers in the world today in the peak of their physical health in their 20's and 30's and very few of them would even consider doing a free climb of El Cap.

So having a 55 year tubby Captain Kirk, who last I checked was a in a career that pretty much dominated his life and didn't leave him much time to become a top notch rock climber, do it was the absolute height of absurdity.

That was Shatner's ego at it absolute best. "No look I'm not getting older for godsakes, I'm only getting stronger and better and can do something that is impossible for even most pro rock climbers.

If he was going to do something like this he should have gone for something completely over the top like jogging along the waterfront with a harness on him attached to an aircraft carrier in the water by the running path and have him pulling it while maintaining a good 15 mph clip......Would have been just as likely as climbing El Cap and at least it would have been so ridiculous you could have just laughed instead of thinking "Oh my God......Shatner wants to take this scene seriously that he's climbing like this" and just being speechless.

In real life Shatner would have made it 10 feet off the base before either running out of strength or falling on his ass.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

BUT I can RESPECT the amount of time and effort that was put into the SFX for the film. It's clear they were of the highest quality of the time and they were trying to match Star Wars in that department.

I don't know if I'd say they were just "trying to match Star Wars." One of TMP's FX supervisors, John Dykstra, was the person in charge of Star Wars's effects; and the other, Douglas Trumbull, had done equally impressive work on films like 2001 and Close Encounters (and later Blade Runner). So it's not like they were mere imitators. The studio surely wanted another Star Wars, but Dykstra and Trumbull were simply living up to their own professional standards.

Yeah Dykstra and Trumbull were highly competent pros. But Paramount didn't have to hire them. In saying they were trying to match Star Wars I'm not saying they were in a competition, but the people in charge realized Star Wars had raised the bar and if they wanted TMP to be taken seriously they had to meet the new standard.

And it's a reason that despite the fact I'm not in love with the film overall I can watch it and respect it for the effort that was made.