Star Trek V - What does God need with a starship?

[Captain_Nick]

I liked this movie. Apparently a lot of people don't though. It has 'specific failing in script and direction' according to a fictional TV character.

My question is 'what are they'. Yes it was a pretty weird concept but I don't think the movie was 'bad' per se.

Star Trek 1 now that movie was unwatchable. Ten minutes of the cameraman orgasming over the new Enterprise. Wtf

 

[Gojira]

I like both movies. The TMP fly over of the Enterprise must be seen in the light of historical context. We only had a few glimpses of the Enterprise in the series and the movie gave viewers the opportunity to see her in all her glory. It is one of my favorite scenes.

 

[sbk1234]

^^^^Agreed. I'll admit that both were flawed, but both also have some of my favorite Trek moments.

 

[Captain_Nick]

Fair enough. Star Trek V - I like this movie. What are the criticisms of it (unfounded probably)

 

[sonak]

Star Trek V isn't nearly the disaster it's made out to be. It's much more watchable than the slow, special effects demo reel that is TMP.

TFF is a flawed, uneven film to be sure, but it has good character moments, a nice exploration of the "Big Three," Sybok is one of the more interesting of the Trek movie characters, and you can tell that at least they were thinking big for this film.

Better an interesting disappointment(TFF) than a boring one(TMP).

 

[Brikar99]

Calling any of the 'Star Trek' movies "unwatchable" is just hyperbole. None of the eleven films falls anywhere near that category, even compared to similarly budgeted major motion pictures. Some of these movies are better than others, that's just a given, but some of the claims made on this board are just totally ridiculous.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

I disagree. I've not been able to stomach NEMESIS more than once or twice. Oh, I've tried. I just give up on it.

STV on the other hand may be as brainless at times as Spock's Brain, but it is watchable.

 

[Merky]

To me, TMP is seriously unwatchable due to the fact that the movie is a special effects reel. Cut the hour and 30 minutes spent on stupid effects and maybe it'd be enjoyable. TFF is an unintentional comedy that I just can't bring myself to watch without feeling a wave of second hand embarrassment.

With what they were trying to do it was hard to sell the cast being action stars when they all looked like they were obviously in their late 50s/early 60s/70s. STV was trying to capture that old style of action but it failed hard and you only could laugh or cringe.

 

[Tiberius]

Fair enough. Star Trek V - I like this movie. What are the criticisms of it (unfounded probably)

Here's some... Scotty claiming that he knows this ship like the back of his hand and then smacking his head into a support beam. And after spock used the klingon ship's guns to blast "god", why did he aim them at Kirk? The corny dialogue, such as Kirk's, "Hi Bones, mind if we drop in?" after he falls off the mountain, and the overly long goodnight scene, where everyone says goodnight to everyone else. And Bones muttering about how he might start talking to himself (which is an example of him talking to himself. Oh ha ha, he's being unintentionally funny!) Sulu and Chekov trying to cover up the fact that they get lost (does anyone seriously buy the fact that a starship PILOT and NAVIGATOR can actually get lost? Did they really go into unfamiliar territory without at least a map and a compass?).

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Fair enough. Star Trek V - I like this movie. What are the criticisms of it (unfounded probably)

Here's some... Scotty claiming that he knows this ship like the back of his hand and then smacking his head into a support beam. And after spock used the klingon ship's guns to blast "god", why did he aim them at Kirk? The corny dialogue, such as Kirk's, "Hi Bones, mind if we drop in?" after he falls off the mountain, and the overly long goodnight scene, where everyone says goodnight to everyone else. And Bones muttering about how he might start talking to himself (which is an example of him talking to himself. Oh ha ha, he's being unintentionally funny!) Sulu and Chekov trying to cover up the fact that they get lost (does anyone seriously buy the fact that a starship PILOT and NAVIGATOR can actually get lost? Did they really go into unfamiliar territory without at least a map and a compass?).

That stuff is GOLD.

Gold I tells ya.

This too:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxk1BSQo8bg[/yt]

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Scotty claiming that he knows this ship like the back of his hand and then smacking his head into a support beam.

Common occurrence. I'm 6' 5", and so I hit my head on low support beams in my own house, even though I've lived here for years.

And after spock used the klingon ship's guns to blast "god", why did he aim them at Kirk?

Maybe that was just the 'at rest' (default) angle where the guns are normally aimed?

The corny dialogue, such as Kirk's, "Hi Bones, mind if we drop in?" after he falls off the mountain

Kirk's probably got a fair amount of adrenaline in his system at that point. He was just feeling giddy.

 

[Saito S]

Calling any of the 'Star Trek' movies "unwatchable" is just hyperbole. None of the eleven films falls anywhere near that category, even compared to similarly budgeted major motion pictures. Some of these movies are better than others, that's just a given, but some of the claims made on this board are just totally ridiculous.

I actually agree with this sentiment. It's all a matter of preference, I suppose; if anyone truly finds their least favorite Trek films "unwatchable", then fine... but I question how many really, truly AWFUL movies you've seen if you say that.

On TFF: it's a close call for my least favorite film between it and TMP, though I have to give the "nod" (or am I giving it a kick in the teeth?) to TFF. They are both bad for different reasons, but at least TMP - despite being stiff, slow, pastel, and utterly boring - managed to maintain a modicum of intelligence, and was shooting for high-concept sci-fi as its base plot driver, rather than a villain-based action piece (something I wish at least ONE of the other Trek films would have attempted...). Whereas TFF is just... stupid. And I don't think much of the concept; it's not just the execution that drags it down (though, don't get me wrong: the execution is abysmal).

Ah what the hell, I'm already posting, so following Tiberius' lead, here are some more off the top of my head:

-Sybok is a terrible villain. He fluctuates between goofy and vaguely creepy throughout the entire movie. (I still love the suggestion by Phil Farrand of Nitpicker's Guide fame that the song "The Laughing Vulcan and his Dog", suggested by Marisa when Picard asks her if she can think of something for the group to sing in TNG's "Disaster", refers to Sybok and that freaky chap he meets at the very beginning of the movie).
-Nimbus III. What is the point of this place? We are told what it is, but never why it's on this backwater nothing planet, which strikes me as pretty much the worst place it could be. Also, Sybok needs a ship. To leave Nimbus III and search for God. Pop quiz: how, in all likelihood, did he GET to Nimbus III? Perhaps... on a ship?
-Speaking of ships, why was the Enterprise such a complete mess? NO new ship would be anywhere near THAT unfit for deployment, and yet still be deployed. And the admiral says he needs Kirk out there, if memory serves. Can't they just stick him on another ship for a bit if the Ent-A has THIS many crippling bugs to work out. But that's all moot anyway: the Ent-A isn't even a brand-new ship at this point.
-Managing to outdo even the majority of the "lol Starfleet Security" moments from TOS and TNG (a feat) is the scene where Kirk and his team are defeated by those half-wit natives and their guns that shoot rocks.
-What DOES Sybok do to people? Is it actual brainwashing? If so, how DID Kirk resist? If not... that doesn't say much for the loyalty and willpower of Kirk's longtime friends and colleagues.
-Why are the special effects in this movie so god damned TERRIBLE?
-The fan dance.
-And finally, we have the (inexplicably green) photon torpedo that the Enterprise fires at "God", which hits the ground and explodes with all the force of a handful of firecrackers.

 

[lurok]

^ rofl Pretty accurate list and there's more one can add...

although tbf you could draw up similar ones for each of the movies They all have their flaws. I'm not sure why I'm more prepared to forgive TFF. It's pretentious and cheesy, yet has a warmth and heart (emotion?) I think is lacking from, say, TUC which is a better crafted film but I find a bit sterile and humourless.

 

[Tomalak]

Damn, I'm going to watch it now.

 

[Albertese]

Calling any of the 'Star Trek' movies "unwatchable" is just hyperbole. None of the eleven films falls anywhere near that category, even compared to similarly budgeted major motion pictures. Some of these movies are better than others, that's just a given, but some of the claims made on this board are just totally ridiculous.

I actually agree with this sentiment. It's all a matter of preference, I suppose; if anyone truly finds their least favorite Trek films "unwatchable", then fine... but I question how many really, truly AWFUL movies you've seen if you say that.

Have you seen Nemesis?

On TFF: it's a close call for my least favorite film between it and TMP, though I have to give the "nod" (or am I giving it a kick in the teeth?) to TFF. They are both bad for different reasons, but at least TMP - despite being stiff, slow, pastel, and utterly boring - managed to maintain a modicum of intelligence, and was shooting for high-concept sci-fi as its base plot driver, rather than a villain-based action piece (something I wish at least ONE of the other Trek films would have attempted...).

...

Have you seen Nemesis?

--Alex

 

[sonak]

Er, Star Trek IV was pretty clearly another Trek movie that had high concept sci-fi without a personal villain.


And they pulled it off much better than TMP. Of course, they did it by making it a comedy rather than a glorified special effects demo reel.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

You know, damn, I'm going to have to watch STV tonight.

 

[RyanKCR]

I read in a review by someone (who was a person behind the scenes of Star Trek?) some time ago and indicated that the line "What does God need with a Starship?" got a laugh when it was supposed to be a very dramatic/pivital moment was a sure sign of the problems with the movie.

TMP is still the best of them all and the only worse movie is Insurrection and Nemesis is the best of the TNG films.

 

[lurok]

Putting aside all my critical faculties, here's my list from memory of things I liked about this film (with caveat that all of these have their 'duh?' aspects):

Sybok
Spock in jetboots
cool new unfinished bridge
lots of shuttle action !
Klingon target practice
Fed ground troops (pre-ENT's MACOs)
Shuttle bay crash
Kirk's "shoot him!"
first (last?) trek appearance of WC facilities
the brig scene
all the stuff with Sybok and crew...
but in particular the Kirk/Spock/McCoy scene
the cool way the great barrier actually does closer in that scene (considering they were using practical vfx)
Enterprise entering the barrier + music
All the ShakaRee stuff/music leading up to...
God. Love fx, acting, music, different personifications...
Kirk's skepticism
Sybok's sacrifice

Film kind of ends there for me

 

[Saito S]

^ rofl Pretty accurate list and there's more one can add...

although tbf you could draw up similar ones for each of the movies They all have their flaws.

Oh, absolutely!

I've said this a few times in various BBS threads over the years: ALL Trek movies have at least a moderate amount of gaping plot holes, major contrivances, and just plain lapses in logic. The best movies (and which ones those are is, of course, largely subjective) overcome those by just being awesome in other ways, so that you don't care about the problems as much. But they all have 'em to varying degrees.

I'm not sure why I'm more prepared to forgive TFF. It's pretentious and cheesy, yet has a warmth and heart (emotion?) I think is lacking from, say, TUC which is a better crafted film but I find a bit sterile and humourless.

Well, obviously I disagree, heh. I honestly did find TFF to be pretty stupid, and I LOVE TUC. But if someone does just like TFF, then hey, no problem. We all like what we like, and this is all a matter of preference, really. But the OP DID ask for criticisms, hence my list...

Calling any of the 'Star Trek' movies "unwatchable" is just hyperbole. None of the eleven films falls anywhere near that category, even compared to similarly budgeted major motion pictures. Some of these movies are better than others, that's just a given, but some of the claims made on this board are just totally ridiculous.

I actually agree with this sentiment. It's all a matter of preference, I suppose; if anyone truly finds their least favorite Trek films "unwatchable", then fine... but I question how many really, truly AWFUL movies you've seen if you say that.

Have you seen Nemesis?

Yes, I've seen Nemesis. I've seen ALL of the Trek films; let me just say that now so there's no ambiguity.

Have you seen "Congo"? Or "Children of the Corn"? Or "Escape 2000"? (That last one, I only saw because of MST3K, but it IS still a real movie). None of the Trek films come close to the levels of pure, concentrated AWFUL that those films (and others, of course) manage to achieve. There is NOTHING WHATSOEVER that is in ANY WAY good about any of those movies. Hell, there's nothing whatsoever - not a single moment or aspect - of those three films that rises above "bad". That was my point. Bad Trek movies are not actually THAT bad.

At least, to me. If you truly find Nemesis - or whatever your other least favorite Trek films are - to be THAT BAD, overall, as movies... it's an opinion, so I won't say you're wrong, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around it, and would honestly say you have bizarre taste.

On TFF: it's a close call for my least favorite film between it and TMP, though I have to give the "nod" (or am I giving it a kick in the teeth?) to TFF. They are both bad for different reasons, but at least TMP - despite being stiff, slow, pastel, and utterly boring - managed to maintain a modicum of intelligence, and was shooting for high-concept sci-fi as its base plot driver, rather than a villain-based action piece (something I wish at least ONE of the other Trek films would have attempted...).

...

Have you seen Nemesis?

--Alex

Uh... what?

I said that TMP, despite my dislike of it, was the only "high concept sci-fi" Trek movie; the rest are all villain-based action fare (excepting TVH; I'll get to that below). I then said that I wished at least one other Trek film had attempted that. What does any of that have to do with Nemesis?

Er, Star Trek IV was pretty clearly another Trek movie that had high concept sci-fi without a personal villain.


And they pulled it off much better than TMP. Of course, they did it by making it a comedy rather than a glorified special effects demo reel.

I probably should have mentioned this in my previous post when I made the comment. TVH did have a more high-concept sci-fi aspect with the probe, and it wasn't a villain-based action piece, true. But it doesn't really count for what I was talking about, since it's basically a comedy (and doesn't try not to be). The movie as a whole isn't really ABOUT the probe or its origins/nature/how it communicated with whales, of all things... none of that is explored in any great detail. It's really just a set-up for 20th century shenanigans.

It's lots of fun, but it really isn't a "high concept sci-fi film", the way TMP (despite its flaws) was.