Star trek final frontier directors cut finished
- Thread starter tmosler
- Start date
Well, that's what you get when you give a Vulcan emotions.
^It doesn't have to be, that's just creative laziness. The actor and/or director should have come up with something about Sybok's personality/mannerisms to distinguish him as still being an alien, and a Vulcan in particular.
On occasions when Spock's emotions were let loose, it always came off as odd and unnerving, IMO. And take a look at TNG's "Sarek"--Patrick Stewart gives us a tour de force performance as Picard channeling Sarek's lifetime of pent-up emotions being unleashed. We have Stewart playing the human Picard displaying emotions, but he's not remotely the same character as Picard.
The concept from TOS was that Vulcans suppressed their emotions for a reason...that they were a very violent and barbaric people. Sybok should have at least given hints of a dark and violent side that he was keeping in check. Some resentment towards Spock might have been an interesting direction to take.
If you're going to give us "the emotional Vulcan" cliche, do something interesting with it. Don't just put ears on a character who doesn't even have a compelling reason to be Vulcan.
On occasions when Spock's emotions were let loose, it always came off as odd and unnerving, IMO. And take a look at TNG's "Sarek"--Patrick Stewart gives us a tour de force performance as Picard channeling Sarek's lifetime of pent-up emotions being unleashed. We have Stewart playing the human Picard displaying emotions, but he's not remotely the same character as Picard.
The concept from TOS was that Vulcans suppressed their emotions for a reason...that they were a very violent and barbaric people. Sybok should have at least given hints of a dark and violent side that he was keeping in check. Some resentment towards Spock might have been an interesting direction to take.
If you're going to give us "the emotional Vulcan" cliche, do something interesting with it. Don't just put ears on a character who doesn't even have a compelling reason to be Vulcan.
I'm really looking forward to seeing this version of the film. I hope Shatner and CBS sign off on it and release it on Bluray. That would be most excellent.
But was it really a cliche in 1989?
Not every Vulcan is going to be ape-shit violent when they show emotion. I thought Luckinbill did fine with the material he had, he can't be blamed for forced humor and shitty special effects.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
The other aspect is that this wasn't a show where they could do a lot of takes, since production was playing catchup from the start. It could be that additional takes would have let Luckinbill range out a bit away from his WeirdUncleVulcan toward something that had the more traditional Surak/Sarek/Spock feel (more like Von Sydow would have done it.)
The ST II Director's Cut DVD was essentially someone showing Nick Meyer what had already been added to the ABC-TV extended screening and him agreeing it was okay. IIRC.
It was in my opinion at the time.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Yeah, and that really subverted the whole notion of a director's cut, since I was hoping & praying we'd see what had gotten screened as the director's cut in May 82 before they snipped about 16 minutes and added the stuff with the coffin in Golden Gate Park.
THAT was the director's cut, with Spock dead at the end, not on ice waiting for a kiss to be reawakened.
When DC Fontana was working for TOS, she became the custodian for all things Vulcan, and had put out a memo suggesting to the writers that, in order for Spock to retain his uniqueness as a character, they should refrain from doing stories where all manner of siblings appear as guest stars.
She and Roddenberry reminded Shatner of this when the script of ST V was being firmed up, but he chose to ignore their input. DC also managed to put a cheeky line into her then-upcoming novel, "Vulcan's Glory", where Amanda states that Spock is "the only son of Sarek". (A few months later and the line would probably have been removed.)
The sudden appearance of a brother never bothered me too much. It is a bit contrived though.
I think it would have been better had Sybok been a controversial teacher/professor/philosopher with whom Spock had studied and developed a mentor relationship. Sybok was then dismissed from his position and ostracized and disappeared. There is still a deep connection there, there is no sense of retcon, and it's all easily explained in a couple of lines.
I think it would have been better had Sybok been a controversial teacher/professor/philosopher with whom Spock had studied and developed a mentor relationship. Sybok was then dismissed from his position and ostracized and disappeared. There is still a deep connection there, there is no sense of retcon, and it's all easily explained in a couple of lines.
Why is Sybok being Spock's half brother a retcon? It's not a retcon.
Well, that's a little iffy. Paramount has rights to the Trek films, but CBS owns the entire franchise. The name Star Trek and related indicia are trademarks of CBS which Paramount is licensed to use in their movies, though Paramount is the copyright holder for the movies (but CBS has a joint copyright with Paramount on the novelizations, comics, etc.). And since characters like Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. were created for a TV series that CBS owns, that probably means that Paramount is only permitted to use them under license from CBS.
So even though ST V is a production of/copyrighted by Paramount, if anyone wanted to release a new DVD with Star Trek in the title, even a re-edit of an old movie, they'd at the very least need CBS's permission to use the trademark.
Hoping we get to see it somehow.
Some of the CGI samples posted are quite old...is it safe to assume a lot of those were WIP and will look more photorealistic in the final cut?
Some of the CGI samples posted are quite old...is it safe to assume a lot of those were WIP and will look more photorealistic in the final cut?
Last edited:
CBS is the SOLE owner of Star Trek, Paramount, owned by Viacom, (a now separate company after the 2006 split) has contracted licensing rights to make the films. The decision is CBS. That said, there are some legal ramifications that need to be sorted out before CBS would 'sign off' on this, such as worker time compensation (for the film restoration) and possible union issues among many things. Not saying it could not happen, just a lot of red tape for CBS to deal with.
@Christopher, are you sure Paramount still has the joint copyright license on books, etc.. I thought that had recently changed to all CBS. You would know better obviously since you deal with them more. I may be wrong.
@Christopher, are you sure Paramount still has the joint copyright license on books, etc.. I thought that had recently changed to all CBS. You would know better obviously since you deal with them more. I may be wrong.
What does God need with a Directors Cut? lol
Similar threads
- Poll
