Star Trek V re-edits?

[CorporalCaptain]

But he's not the hero of the story. He's the villain. He makes things happen for everyone except Kirk, who's too tough and strong to be susceptible to Sybok's "feel your pain" bullshit!

(Yes, I'm being sarcastic here, but my point stands.)

My remark had an element of sarcasm too, which I'd hoped was clear. But its primary purpose, and one that was completely serious, was to illustrate why STV's story is so poorly constructed. Kirk ought to be the hero and the focus of his own story, but in this case he certainly wasn't. In fairness, TMP had a similar problem.

 

[Dukhat]

My remark had an element of sarcasm too, which I'd hoped was clear. But its primary purpose, and one that was completely serious, was to illustrate why STV's story is so poorly constructed. Kirk ought to be the hero and the focus of his own story, but in this case he certainly wasn't. In fairness, TMP had a similar problem.

I think I understand what you're saying. But IMHO, the fundamental problem of Sybok being the one who makes things happen is that the audience really has no vested interest in what Sybok wants. He's just a plot device to make Kirk look like he's the "last man standing" while everyone else (even Spock!) has buckled under this religious fanatic's brainwashing.

The Planet of Galactic Peace concept- the failed development of a world that was supposed to be governed by 3 major superpowers, its failure, and why it was the prefect place for Sybok to prey on the weak

I think it would have worked far better if both the Romulan and Klingon governments had sent official expeditions (instead of Klaa's ship just hanging around doing nothing and going to Nimbus III just to fuck with Kirk) and that the Planet of Galactic Peace was a far more important place than it was depicted in the film.

Sybok's backstory...in far greater detail (who is he, why did he reject the Vulcan disciplines, how did he acquire the powers he possesses, what motivates him / has him in contact / believing in this "God" idea, how does his supposed brilliance come into play?)

Unfortunately, as I mentioned to CorporalCaptain above, Sybok was just a plot device and ergo, all of his backstory was just exposition for the "meeting with God" thing.

The ironic thing is that if Sybok was a character in DSC and was developed over time just like you describe, I think he'd work out great

The concept of The Great Barrier and what it represents

Again, I felt that the "Great Barrier" was just a plot device (and not a very good one, since for all the bitching they do about not being able to cross it, they cross it just fine.) Now if it was the Galactic Barrier then at least we'd have some context about how dangerous it is. It makes people turn into Gods, you know...

The "turning" of the crew via this false technique of relieving pain

The crew each facing their personal demons was definitely a good concept.

Faith, fundamentalism, and science

Again, good concepts. Not so much for a two-hour movie though, but definitely for a series.

Spock's relationship with Sybok

...would be the one thing I'd get rid of. Sybok being a logic-rejecting Vulcan with special powers is inherently interesting in itself without the added saddle of being Spock's totally-unknown-before-now brother or that they'd need to have had any prior knowledge of each other.

The Klingon element (assuming you keep it at all...expand upon the motives here...not just "Kirk is a great warrior who would be cool to defeat" crap...but dive into what Kirk represents to the Klingons, particularly after the Genesis Incident)

As I said before, having the Romulan, Klingon, and Federation governments actually take the incident seriously and that Nimbus III was actually an important place as opposed to "we really don't give a crap about this place or the people we sent there, and we care about it so little that the only people we're sending are a bunch of geriatrics on a ship that's literally falling apart" would have been a better use of dramatic tension.

8. Flesh-out the idea of Sha Ka Ree. It's not a literal heaven where God lives, but perhaps it is believed by Sybok to be a destination, achieved only through great trial, where a worthy traveler is granted an audience with "God"

9. Provide a little more meat on the bones to what the backstory and motivation of the entity they discover is. How did it come to be in that situation? How did it reach Sybok's mind (similar to V'Ger finding Spock??) What are it's goals / motives?

These go hand-in-hand. Because they are what makes this film so bad. The audience already knows that Sybok isn't really going to find God, and whatever planet Sha-Ka-Ree is or where it's located, it will not be heaven. So virtually ANYTHING we see is going to be a letdown. Did you really care about the alien or its motivations other than "it's trapped and wants to be set free to do more mischief?" I sure didn't. So instead of having a ham-fisted idea of "searching for God," perhaps it would have been better if Sybok's motivations were instead focused on something more realistic, like trying to forge peace between the Romulans, Klingons and the Federation by using his powers to break down the barriers between the three powers, and having the three representatives return to their respective governments with Sybok's message.

 

[Vger23]

I think I understand what you're saying. But IMHO, the fundamental problem of Sybok being the one who makes things happen is that the audience really has no vested interest in what Sybok wants. He's just a plot device to make Kirk look like he's the "last man standing" while everyone else (even Spock!) has buckled under this religious fanatic's brainwashing.



I think it would have worked far better if both the Romulan and Klingon governments had sent official expeditions (instead of Klaa's ship just hanging around doing nothing and going to Nimbus III just to fuck with Kirk) and that the Planet of Galactic Peace was a far more important place than it was depicted in the film.



Unfortunately, as I mentioned to CorporalCaptain above, Sybok was just a plot device and ergo, all of his backstory was just exposition for the "meeting with God" thing.

The ironic thing is that if Sybok was a character in DSC and was developed over time just like you describe, I think he'd work out great



Again, I felt that the "Great Barrier" was just a plot device (and not a very good one, since for all the bitching they do about not being able to cross it, they cross it just fine.) Now if it was the Galactic Barrier then at least we'd have some context about how dangerous it is. It makes people turn into Gods, you know...



The crew each facing their personal demons was definitely a good concept.



Again, good concepts. Not so much for a two-hour movie though, but definitely for a series.



...would be the one thing I'd get rid of. Sybok being a logic-rejecting Vulcan with special powers is inherently interesting in itself without the added saddle of being Spock's totally-unknown-before-now brother or that they'd need to have had any prior knowledge of each other.



As I said before, having the Romulan, Klingon, and Federation governments actually take the incident seriously and that Nimbus III was actually an important place as opposed to "we really don't give a crap about this place or the people we sent there, and we care about it so little that the only people we're sending are a bunch of geriatrics on a ship that's literally falling apart" would have been a better use of dramatic tension.



These go hand-in-hand. Because they are what makes this film so bad. The audience already knows that Sybok isn't really going to find God, and whatever planet Sha-Ka-Ree is or where it's located, it will not be heaven. So virtually ANYTHING we see is going to be a letdown. Did you really care about the alien or its motivations other than "it's trapped and wants to be set free to do more mischief?" I sure didn't. So instead of having a ham-fisted idea of "searching for God," perhaps it would have been better if Sybok's motivations were instead focused on something more realistic, like trying to forge peace between the Romulans, Klingons and the Federation by using his powers to break down the barriers between the three powers, and having the three representatives return to their respective governments with Sybok's message.

Well have to agree to disagree on a lot of this. I loved Star Trek V.

 

[Dukhat]

Well have to agree to disagree on a lot of this. I loved Star Trek V.

That’s great that you loved STV. I wasn’t telling you not to like it. I was just pointing out the film’s fundamental flaws and how they could have been better handled to make a better story.

 

[Vger23]

That’s great that you loved STV. I wasn’t telling you not to like it. I was just pointing out the film’s fundamental flaws and how they could have been better handled to make a better story.

Absolutely, you enhanced my day with your hard work and thoughtful writing.

 

[sbk1234]

See the trouble is no one can articulate what the film is about. For instance...

.

I disagree here. I always saw the film as being about the dangers of being a blind follower, and not thinking for yourself. I think that gives it actual thought and substance, therefore making it true Star Trek.

 

[Damian]

I disagree here. I always saw the film as being about the dangers of being a blind follower, and not thinking for yourself. I think that gives it actual thought and substance, therefore making it true Star Trek.

That may be, but the problem to me was this was not articulated very well. The overall plot made sense, it wasn't overly complicated, but any nuances I think weren't well executed in the film (the novel was better at articulating some of that). And not all that was Shatner's fault. He was the director so he has a lot of responsibility, but Paramount insisting on goofy humor to bank on TVH (the humor worked and was more natural there, whereas with TFF it appeared forced and just plain goofy) when Shatner wanted a more dramatic film was a problem, the poor special effects I know pulled me out of the film, and the whole Sybok is Spock's half brother that we never heard of was unnecessary I think (he could have been an early mentor or something like that) all interfered I think with what the film was trying to portray.

I like it. I'd love to see a version with the special effects 'fixed' because it had it's moments. But it is, IMHO the most flawed of the 13 films.

 

[Maurice]

I disagree here. I always saw the film as being about the dangers of being a blind follower, and not thinking for yourself. I think that gives it actual thought and substance, therefore making it true Star Trek.

Except that's barely touched on and doesn't factor into the resolution of the story at all. Ideas are a wonderful thing but execution is what matters, and none of the themes in it are explored in more than a superficial way.

 

[Firebird]

See the trouble is no one can articulate what the film is about. For instance...

TWOK: Kirk has to overcome his own failings, face the mortality of this ship and crew when an enemy from his past resurfaces, and learn that there are times when you can't cheat death.

That tells us what the film is about.. The particulars are endlessly fungible, but they are largely in service of that premise and those themes. That's what Meyer brought to it when he synthesized all those bits of different scripts. But there's no there there with ST5. There never was. I've read the same accounts of the writing and no one ever nailed down what the story was about. It's a bunch of ideas thrown together without an underlying theme at the core.

I think the key to what STV should've been about is Kirk's line at the end: "I lost a brother once... I'm glad I got him back." If the movie's plot focused more on family and really upped the personal stakes for Kirk, it would've made more sense. Shatner's original concept of Sybok turning the crew against Kirk after releasing them from their pain would then enhance Kirk's story arc immensely. Sybok should take everything from Kirk, and it's Kirk's hero journey to get it all back. This would also perfectly setup his line from the early campfire scene, "I've always known I'll die alone," and then would show the development in Kirk's character at the end when he realizes he was never alone, his Bridge crew was always his family.

 

[Commishsleer]

I think the key to what STV should've been about is Kirk's line at the end: "I lost a brother once... I'm glad I got him back." If the movie's plot focused more on family and really upped the personal stakes for Kirk, it would've made more sense. Shatner's original concept of Sybok turning the crew against Kirk after releasing them from their pain would then enhance Kirk's story arc immensely. Sybok should take everything from Kirk, and it's Kirk's hero journey to get it all back. This would also perfectly setup his line from the early campfire scene, "I've always known I'll die alone," and then would show the development in Kirk's character at the end when he realizes he was never alone, his Bridge crew was always his family.

So a repeat of "The Paradise Syndrome"?

 

[Maurice]

So a repeat of "The Paradise Syndrome"?

What does Kirok have to do with anything? Or did you mean "This Side of Paradise"?

 

[PureCrimson]

The novel is darn good and it shows how they could have filled so many holes with a little effort.

The later adaptation of the film? Or the original script novelization?

I'm curious as to how much was different. Well, the lower production values and bad effects certainly wouldn't be an issue in text form, so that's 1. And I seem to recall hearing little fun details left out of the movies, that are still somewhat present.
Spock's "Marshmelon" line, for example, I know in the script McCoy purposely tampered with the ship's database on camping since he knew Spock would do research beforehand, hence why he's smirking that he fell for the obvious mispronunciation later on by the campfire.

Little things like that?

 

[Vger23]

What does Kirok have to do with anything? Or did you mean "This Side of Paradise"?

Kirok has something to do with EVERYTHING!

 

[diankra]

Oddly enough, I was rereading the Making Of book last night, and Shatner's initial idea (watching televangelists and wondering how someone could think that God is speaking through them, and only them) is an interesting one.
But not for Trek, at least beyond the initial Wagon Train to the Stars pitch, because it places the focus on Sybok not the crew, and also Network already did that movie.

 

[Samuel]

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

I hated:

1) The entire "new Enterprise falling apart" thing.
2) The entire thing of Sybok being Spock's brother. Along with Discovery why does Star Trek insist of dredging up previously unseen relatives of Spock?
3) The entire voyage to the center of the galaxy and Sha-Ka-Ree.
4) The poorly utilized Klingons.
5) The suggestion of a Scotty/Uhura relationship. Along with the 2009 introduction of a relationship between Uhura & Spock why has Star Trek seemed intent on finding a man for Uhura. Isn't that kind of sexist thinking?

Otherwise the movie is fine.

 

[Dukhat]

I disagree here. I always saw the film as being about the dangers of being a blind follower, and not thinking for yourself. I think that gives it actual thought and substance, therefore making it true Star Trek.

You're welcome to follow that interpretation, but it assumes that the movie was about Sybok. It was no more about him than ST: Generations was about Soran, or ST09 was about Nero.

As I've mentioned before, Sybok is really nothing more than a plot device whose existence and actions serve to promote the idea that Kirk = Hero. The audience already knows that Sybok will not really find God, no matter how many people he recruits with his "show me your pain" schtick (which really makes no sense...how does helping someone confront their hidden pain suddenly equate to "I'm going to blindly follow this guy on his crazy journey to the center of the galaxy to find God?" That's like saying that after treating you for your depression, your psychiatrist suddenly asks you for help in looking for the Loch Ness Monster, and you agree without question.) That nonsense with recruiting followers and going to the center of the galaxy to find some planet that God is trapped on is secondary to the overall idea that Kirk is tough and won't let some zealot get the best of him even though everyone around him is weak and susceptible to Sybok's influence to the point of ridiculousness.

 

[Paradise City]

It's been years since I first remembered watching it. I don't know if I'm being revisionist now in recalling my first impressions of it. But this is Trek. I remembering thinking maybe he had sussed out god but that he's a benevolent alien, a nice guy version of Q. For me, Sybok was a convincing antagonist.

I don't see Sybok as a shiester in this film; he was duped as well. It's obvious a warning against cults, how even a capable man can sincerely delude himself and how our "pain" cannot be banished away.

Sybok also unnerves Spock for most of the film and he sorely tests the bonds between the trio of McCoy, Spock and Kirk; which was some of the best scenes in the TOS movies.. I think the plot is great, unusual and meaningful; it's just the production was badly executed at times to an unacceptable degree.

 

[Commishsleer]

What does Kirok have to do with anything? Or did you mean "This Side of Paradise"?

Kirok has something to do with EVERYTHING!

OK OK OK next you're going to tell me I'm not a tru-fan.

What excuse can I give, I was up late. I was drunk.

Anyway if you did what Shatner wanted then Spock's journey to accept himself which had started in TMP and was present throughout the movies would have stopped here. Spock would have a cheap trick overcoming kis loyalty to Kirk and to himself.
And I thought the mind-control Sybok had over the Enterprise crew was unbelievable. Sure those desperadoes from the planet had nothing to lose following him but the crew had years of service and a relatively good life. I think they did it better in that umm Paradise episode in TOS.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah, it's very much like "This Side of Paradise."

The crew going docile and Kirk's rebuff "I need my pain!" also remind me of "The Enemy Within." Without Evil Kirk, Good Kirk becomes ineffectual. Without their pain, the crew becomes... err... drones.

But it's also really stupid. That "Paradise" episode was much better. (Actually both of them are, to be frank.)

 

[Dukhat]

Yeah, it's very much like "This Side of Paradise."

...But it's also really stupid. That "Paradise" episode was much better.

At least "TSOP" had the crew abandoning Kirk because they were under the influence of an alien flower. As I said before, I don't quite understand why the crew went against Kirk just because Sybok showed them their personal demons.