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

[Saquist]

TFF is just God awful...(pun intended)

The whole quest for God at the center of the Galaxy is just a profoundly stupid concept that' I'd expect from the mind of Shatner. There are good character moments but Scotty and the bulkhead weren't one of them.

I wish the whole Row Row Row your both bit was in a completely different movie. They should have done that in IV. It was classic...but a horrible story...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9RwsyBywXE&feature=related

 

[Captrek]

Would the story have been better if the Barrier were the WNMHGB/BAON galactic barrier, and God the presumed-dead Gary Mitchell?

 

[Elder Knight]

"Why does God need a starship?"

"Well, after I went ahead and made the speed of light a constant, I forgot my silly password, so even I can't go any faster on my own."

 

[Brikar99]

"I did naht hit her! I did not...oh hi Mark.:

"I heard back from the doctor. I have breast cancer." "That's sad. I don't love my husband anymore!"

 

[JarodRussell]

Would the story have been better if the Barrier were the WNMHGB/BAON galactic barrier, and God the presumed-dead Gary Mitchell?

What would that change about the story?

 

[Captrek]

Would the story have been better if the Barrier were the WNMHGB/BAON galactic barrier, and God the presumed-dead Gary Mitchell?

What would that change about the story?

Not much. Mostly a continuity nod for the fans. Also addresses the complaint that the center of the galaxy is too far away.

As far as things noticeable to non-fans, how differently would the film have been received if they had gotten Sean Connery and ILM?

 

[Galileo7]

...how differently would the film have been received if they had gotten Sean Connery and ILM?

True. A more fascinating question is how different would TFF have been with Sean Connery and ILM involved?

 

[JarodRussell]

...how differently would the film have been received if they had gotten Sean Connery and ILM?

True. A more fascinating question is how different would TFF have been with Sean Connery and ILM involved?

Well, better effects, and Sean Connery saying the same lines as Lawrence Luckinbill.


But I think people would have loved it.

 

[Harvey]

Better effects would certainly improve the experience, but the appeal of Connery in my mind lies more in the errant hope that he would have forced re-writes than any preference over Luckinbill. If Connery had the same lines as appear in the finished film, Sybok still would be a half-empty character.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

As much as I like Sean Connery, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that his appearance in The Avengers movie couldn't save that film. I don't think ILM or Sean Connery would make a difference in TFF.

 

[Harvey]

Connery's appearance couldn't save a lot of films -- he's noted publicly that his discretion in choosing scripts has been pretty poor. Which probably means my hope that he would have forced re-writes is an empty one (although he may very well object on the grounds that he'd want more for his character to do).

 

[Saquist]

Would the story have been better if the Barrier were the WNMHGB/BAON galactic barrier, and God the presumed-dead Gary Mitchell?

It would have been a better story if the characters hadn't all stepped out of character just to build up to Shatner's massive plot blocking Ego...

 

[Merky]

Better effects would certainly improve the experience, but the appeal of Connery in my mind lies more in the errant hope that he would have forced re-writes than any preference over Luckinbill. If Connery had the same lines as appear in the finished film, Sybok still would be a half-empty character.

Winner.

There's so much an actor can do with a character before it's just hopeless. There was nothing wrong with Luckinbill, the problem was that Sybok was an empty, no1curr, character that you could not connect to.

" I'm trying to find God! "

Kay, and?

 

[sonak]

Better effects would certainly improve the experience, but the appeal of Connery in my mind lies more in the errant hope that he would have forced re-writes than any preference over Luckinbill. If Connery had the same lines as appear in the finished film, Sybok still would be a half-empty character.

Winner.

There's so much an actor can do with a character before it's just hopeless. There was nothing wrong with Luckinbill, the problem was that Sybok was an empty, no1curr, character that you could not connect to.

" I'm trying to find God! "

Kay, and?

Huh? I'd say he was pretty well-defined. A renegade from the traditional Vulcan path, a religious fanatic blinded by his own arrogance and his obsession with his particular "quest," but still well-meaning over all.


I think it was unnecessary to make the character turn out to be Spock's half-brother, and that part-therapy, part-brainwashing trick he did was maddeningly undefined, but he certainly didn't seem like a shallow character to me.

 

[JarodRussell]

Better effects would certainly improve the experience, but the appeal of Connery in my mind lies more in the errant hope that he would have forced re-writes than any preference over Luckinbill. If Connery had the same lines as appear in the finished film, Sybok still would be a half-empty character.

Winner.

There's so much an actor can do with a character before it's just hopeless. There was nothing wrong with Luckinbill, the problem was that Sybok was an empty, no1curr, character that you could not connect to.

" I'm trying to find God! "

Kay, and?

Well, that's what you say now. Nobody knows - not even you - what you would say about Connery's Sybok.

 

[Harvey]

With the same lines and the same direction, I can't see how the response would to the character would be much different. It's true, we can't know what our response would be to a hypothetical, but we can make a pretty good guess, no?

 

[Merky]

With the same lines and the same direction, I can't see how the response would to the character would be much different.

Exactly. An actor can do but so much but it's the director that determines what he wants from them, self evident with how many times Meyer and Shatner clashed with that one scene in STVI.

Either Connery could have camped up Sybok even more or delivered a flat performance - but it was still Shatner's vision. Also, again, there was one dimension to him: I need a starship to find God and I'll use my voodoo mind magic to make you all follow me.

Yeah, Sybok went against the Vulcan path and yeah he was a religious fanatic but that was things that were "said" about him. Sybok and Spock never clashed about the Vulcan way of life nor was there any inner struggle or depth to Sybok other than what was presented. Sybok had potential but it was lost potential that focused on him ranting about God and how he had a vision or whatever to find him.

 

[JarodRussell]

With the same lines and the same direction, I can't see how the response would to the character would be much different.

Exactly. An actor can do but so much but it's the director that determines what he wants from them, self evident with how many times Meyer and Shatner clashed with that one scene in STVI.

I want to bring up these videos regarding how much an actor can change the whole scene without changing the lines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pgAFV2YxLQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NANUpPaiGG8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SIZcDWKyw0

 

[Harvey]

A fair point, except that I don't have a problem with Luckinbill's performance in The Final Frontier. Bujold, in contrast, was terrible, which quickly led to her departure and the ultimate casting change that was made on Voyager.

My dislike of the Sybok character has little if anything to do with the actor playing him. Thus, changing the actor would have little effect unless the change was to an inferior performer (which Connery certainly is not).

 

[Merky]

With the same lines and the same direction, I can't see how the response would to the character would be much different.

Exactly. An actor can do but so much but it's the director that determines what he wants from them, self evident with how many times Meyer and Shatner clashed with that one scene in STVI.

I want to bring up these videos regarding how much an actor can change the whole scene without changing the lines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pgAFV2YxLQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NANUpPaiGG8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SIZcDWKyw0

There is no mistake in how an actor delivers their lines could make or break a character (and there are actors who are weak in comparison to others) - but if the script doesn't work the script doesn't work. If the direction doesn't work then the direction doesn't work. If both don't work then the actor and character suffers... Connery wouldn't have made a difference in this roll because Sybok was a flat character. He could have added more "sass" or more "conviction" from Sybok but Sybok would still be the frustratingly 2-Dimensional Vulcan from no man's land.

...and Sybok was definitely not a character that fit Connery anyway. There's a style to Connery's acting that would have been lost on Sybok in my opinion. Luckinbill played Sybok well for what was given to him and I have no faults or problems with him in the role as Sybok. He is Sybok.

It's like Heroes for instance: We have Sylar, a great character with great potential played by a fantastic actor. We get a great performance and characterization for the first season, but in the second season it goes to shit... then the third season is falls into deeper shit and by the fourth season the character becomes a flat, 2-Dimensional shell that ends up being a joke in itself.