That's the first I've heard of that. Were they were going to construct a model of the KM for that scene, or just a computer graphic of the ship?
STAR TREK V DIRECTOR´S CUT
- Thread starter AnotherGalaxys
- Start date
- Status
That's the first I've heard of that. Were they were going to construct a model of the KM for that scene, or just a computer graphic of the ship?
I rewatched the film tonight. I always enjoy it, but it's also very painful from a "what could have been" standpoint.
One thing I will say is that the pacing, tone, set pieces etc are all perfect summer blockbuster material. In a way (bracing for backlash) the movie reminds me a lot of Star Trek 2009. It's flawed, silly and illogical in many ways, but it's just so much damned fun that you don't care. There's a ton of heart and creativity in there. And yes, the humor in some places is in poor taste, but in other places it works well, and the script has genuine wit. Again, it really reminds me of the characteristics of that first Kelvin film, good and bad.
Also, as bad as the model work is on the visual effects front (and it is horrible), it's almost made up for by all the gorgeous location shooting, exceptional cinematography, a kinetic shooting style, and great set design. If you replace the vfx, this honestly is a gorgeous looking film...maybe the best since TMP, but in a very different way.
One thing I will say is that the pacing, tone, set pieces etc are all perfect summer blockbuster material. In a way (bracing for backlash) the movie reminds me a lot of Star Trek 2009. It's flawed, silly and illogical in many ways, but it's just so much damned fun that you don't care. There's a ton of heart and creativity in there. And yes, the humor in some places is in poor taste, but in other places it works well, and the script has genuine wit. Again, it really reminds me of the characteristics of that first Kelvin film, good and bad.
Also, as bad as the model work is on the visual effects front (and it is horrible), it's almost made up for by all the gorgeous location shooting, exceptional cinematography, a kinetic shooting style, and great set design. If you replace the vfx, this honestly is a gorgeous looking film...maybe the best since TMP, but in a very different way.
What's interesting is that the motion picture is the movie with the most scenes being aboard the ship. The only scenes not aboard the ship are on Vulcan on Earth and then at the end with the v'ger set. And Star Trek V is the movie with the most time spent off the ship.* and also the most scenes on the ship spent away from the bridge. The shuttle Bay the brig the Jefferies tubes the turboshaft, the transporter room, the forward observation room, the shuttlebay observation room and even a brief shot in the Sick Bay. Whereas the motion picture spent an interminable amount of time on the bridge. Although we also did get a few glimpses of other parts of the ship.
And no matter how good the director or the cinematographer if you're shooting an hour and 20 minutes of a Star Trek movie entirely on the bridge it's going to get stale and repetitive.
* obviously in Star Trek the Voyage Home they spent the vast majority of the time Outdoors/ off the ship but to me it's not at all compelling just to see them walk around 1986 Earth in a 1986 movie.
And no matter how good the director or the cinematographer if you're shooting an hour and 20 minutes of a Star Trek movie entirely on the bridge it's going to get stale and repetitive.
* obviously in Star Trek the Voyage Home they spent the vast majority of the time Outdoors/ off the ship but to me it's not at all compelling just to see them walk around 1986 Earth in a 1986 movie.
Agreed. It made TFF feel like a movie with much broader scope. We had 3 different planets (Earth, Nimbus, Sha Ka Ree), multiple Enterprise sets (bridge, shuttle bay, shuttle control room, corridors, sickbay, brig, Jefferies tubes, turboshaft, forward observation lounge, random engine room, turbolift interior), travel via shuttlecraft and not the transporter, and even a different space environment (Great Barrier).
I still think this movie gets an unfair amount of hatred. Watching the film last night with as objective an eye as I could, I found way more positive than negative. Yes, the visual effects are embarrassing most of the time and the script needed a couple of re-writes to iron out some of the foolishness. They should have further developed the backstory of Sybok's obsession and the lore around Sha Ka Ree / The Great Barrier and they should have axed about 50% of the more silly humor.
But, on the flip side, the sense of adventure / discovery, the character interactions and insights, the pace and fun set pieces, some of the witty dialogue, the awesome soundtrack and the gorgeous look of the film continue to make this one of my favorites. I actually prefer it significantly to TVH (like you said, not interested in watching the crew walk around 1980's Earth) and TUC (just feels like a cheap, quickly produced, claustrophobic quasi-whodunit/political thriller). TFF was more like an Indiana Jones movie in space, infused with the fun and colorful content of The Original Series.
After what I considered the disappointment of The Voyage Home, I was extremely excited to see this film based on what I knew about many of the things you mention: multiple planets, more action, ruthless Klingons and really just getting back into deep space.
And sure, when I saw it, there were a ton of jokes and I’ve always had a dislike of Trek as a sitcom. But...unlike TVH there was a ton of action and exploration of space as well as the characters and our own ideas of faith. And if I’m gonna be honest, in 1989, this film made me laugh a LOT. Also, as much as I resisted Spock having an unknown brother, Luckenbill was so amazing and likable in the role, he became one of my favorite Trek characters.
Also, having Jerry Goldsmith pen some of his best music of the decade helped a lot (especially coming off Rosenman).
TFF has many faults but I always loved it. I may just watch it tonight.
And sure, when I saw it, there were a ton of jokes and I’ve always had a dislike of Trek as a sitcom. But...unlike TVH there was a ton of action and exploration of space as well as the characters and our own ideas of faith. And if I’m gonna be honest, in 1989, this film made me laugh a LOT. Also, as much as I resisted Spock having an unknown brother, Luckenbill was so amazing and likable in the role, he became one of my favorite Trek characters.
Also, having Jerry Goldsmith pen some of his best music of the decade helped a lot (especially coming off Rosenman).
TFF has many faults but I always loved it. I may just watch it tonight.
Today is the anniversary of the film's release date (June 9th, 1989)....so it's a great time for a re-watch!
Going to see this movie as a 13-year old at the height of my Trek fandom on opening night with my dad is one of my favorite childhood memories.
Voyage Home is an extremly well made polished movie of a subject that does almost nothing for me. Just another step on the road to reseting the franchise to pre WOK.
Trek V is a very troubled production of a Trek movie adventure that I truly enjoy. And the score alone tells you what they were reaching for. Beautiful! The big 3 were never better on the big screen. Is there a single sequence where the 3 are not together?
Trek V is a very troubled production of a Trek movie adventure that I truly enjoy. And the score alone tells you what they were reaching for. Beautiful! The big 3 were never better on the big screen. Is there a single sequence where the 3 are not together?
TVH is absolutely a wonderful movie. It's funny, whimsical, well-made, and contains a nice Trek message. It just happens to be somewhat misaligned with what I like best out of Trek. That certainly isn't the movie's problem....that's my problem. Many people love TVH and I can't blame them.
TFF is far more aligned with what I look for from Trek. Like you said, even though it's more flawed....it contains more elements that I have passion for in the franchise (exploration/sense of wonder, Big 3 relationships, action/adventure, dynamic style, etc) than most of the other films. For me, that helps me look past the flaws of the film because I value those things so much, they outweigh my frustrations with script issues and visual fx.
@Vger23 I am in agreement. I "like" The Voyage Home, but since I am not a fan of Star Trek as a comedy, the film doesn't get revisited. And unlike a weekly series, where if you don't like a comedy episode, the next week will be back to business as usual, for a film that's 4 or 5 years until the next "serious" film - unless the comedy is such a success that it informs the rest of the series - as it happened.
The Motion Picture, The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock are "my kind" of Star Trek: serious with moments of humor. Then TVH is primarilily light - which is fine really - and then instead of going back to the mature drama with character humor from earlier, we got a dark premise diluted with "gags." However, the reason I will alway prefer The Final Frontier to TVH is because it is primarily an adventure. Harve Bennett knew the audience would be ahead of them so he said "make it a roller coaster and keep them too distracted to dwell on the God part until we got there." It's such fun and well paced and just a joy for me. My sister and I saw every Star Trek movie with the original cast together opening nights. We both loved it. It focued on the core stars and kept them together throughout. It is the only one of the classic films to have all three of them interacting and playing off each other like the old friends they are - for the whole film! Yes, the film has weaknesses - big ones - but I was so thrilled at how it felt so "right" to have the trio bonded like that.
Could it have used some rewriting? Sure. Sybok didn't need to be a brother and even if he was, Kirk's discussion with Spock in the didn't have to sound like a couple of kids arguing in front of Dad. Sha Ka Rhee could have just been in the center of of an inpenetrable anomoly, and the Klingons could have had much better motivation...BUT at least they WERE Klingons! Not Shakespeare spouting dandies. There's a good movie in there somewhere.
The Motion Picture, The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock are "my kind" of Star Trek: serious with moments of humor. Then TVH is primarilily light - which is fine really - and then instead of going back to the mature drama with character humor from earlier, we got a dark premise diluted with "gags." However, the reason I will alway prefer The Final Frontier to TVH is because it is primarily an adventure. Harve Bennett knew the audience would be ahead of them so he said "make it a roller coaster and keep them too distracted to dwell on the God part until we got there." It's such fun and well paced and just a joy for me. My sister and I saw every Star Trek movie with the original cast together opening nights. We both loved it. It focued on the core stars and kept them together throughout. It is the only one of the classic films to have all three of them interacting and playing off each other like the old friends they are - for the whole film! Yes, the film has weaknesses - big ones - but I was so thrilled at how it felt so "right" to have the trio bonded like that.
Could it have used some rewriting? Sure. Sybok didn't need to be a brother and even if he was, Kirk's discussion with Spock in the didn't have to sound like a couple of kids arguing in front of Dad. Sha Ka Rhee could have just been in the center of of an inpenetrable anomoly, and the Klingons could have had much better motivation...BUT at least they WERE Klingons! Not Shakespeare spouting dandies. There's a good movie in there somewhere.
I've said before (at least once in this thread I think) That TFF is great science fiction, and substandard Star Trek (I usually say bad). It's a rollicking adventure, has a great message about faith, and if you look past the terrible effects, it has a wonderful sense of space exploration and mystery solving. But save for the exceptional camaraderie and friendship between the big three, it has little to show for the title. The rest of the characters are shown in uncomfortable or unfamiliar situations that don't present them at their best, and the tropes are either nonexistent or assbackwards.
The first time I saw TFF, I came out of the theater feeling let down. For all the adventure, it felt like I'd seen an installment of some other franchise attempting to do a Star Trek knockoff. The effects were terrible, the humor forced, and the story seemed half-told. Subsequent viewings have improved my opinion, as it seems to grow on you with exposure, but that sense of being half-told remains.
The first time I saw TFF, I came out of the theater feeling let down. For all the adventure, it felt like I'd seen an installment of some other franchise attempting to do a Star Trek knockoff. The effects were terrible, the humor forced, and the story seemed half-told. Subsequent viewings have improved my opinion, as it seems to grow on you with exposure, but that sense of being half-told remains.
Do you mean this?
3 INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE - ANOTHER ANGLE
[...]
On screen: Enterprise approaches the stricken vessel.
On screen: Enterprise approaches the stricken vessel.
...because before that...
1 CONTINUED (2)
Tactical on big screen.
Because to me that just sounds like what we got: a tactical that shows the Enterprise approaching the vessel. Even though the Klingons are stock they are described as "dark and sinister". The absence of any description at all for the Maru supports the notion that there were no plans to show it except maybe as a tactical graphic.
At the very least, Final Frontier should get an ILM remake of the horrible visual effects sequences. Plus redoing some scenes, like the tall vertical turboshaft could change to an angling one. Kirk climbs up and crawls into the horizontal passage as McCoy huffs and grunts his way up behind him "Jim, this is gonna take me forever..."
Spock comes up from behind them in his rocket boots, instead of from overhead "I believe I have found a faster way" and cut the scene right there, without the "captain, please come back down" or the "I believe I overshot the mark by one level"
I think a Directors Edition could do the film some good, but Paramount refused to allow it.
Spock comes up from behind them in his rocket boots, instead of from overhead "I believe I have found a faster way" and cut the scene right there, without the "captain, please come back down" or the "I believe I overshot the mark by one level"
I think a Directors Edition could do the film some good, but Paramount refused to allow it.
But keep in mind this is Paramount we're talking about here. They've constantly given Star Trek the shaft ever since The Motion Picture failed to be 2001 meets Close Encounters meets Star Wars
It's not even anything personal; they shaft the overwhelming majority of their films on home video, and have ever since the DVD era began. The only times Paramount ever really throw themselves into a Blu-Ray presentation is for a film that made $100 million plus (cumulative global, not just domestic) at the box office. And even then, for any of those produced before 2000, the studio usually has to be arm-twisted into it by the filmmakers (or their powerful industry friends) themselves.
It sounded like his point was that Final Frontier was being singled out as the one Paramount saw no value in. However, history has proven that Paramount often held Star Trek in general in rather low regard, or at the very least its fans.
Ok, but I think @Nightowl1701 is correct; Paramount has no personal issues with Star Trek; rather, they just don't see most films needing to be updated, the least of which a film that most people consider a flop.
Well then, its up to us fans to do the work for them, since there are many of us who make some decent CGI. I've seen an absolutely awesome CG recreation of the Wrath of Khan battle that I feel was even better than the original
- Status
