Star Trek V..... what the?

[Maurice]

^^^Most of the spaceship shots looked awful because Ferren's group shot most of the models frame by frame without the motion control rig moving *during* the exposure, which makes everything stacatto. The Enterprise warp shot is really egregious, because the ship appear to curve as it takes off. And there's more!

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Jonesy said:
I think I remember our very own TGT mentioning a very different kind of book that was to be written about the making of Trek V, that was squelched before it made it to press. That I would've paid money to read.

Ms. Shatner's hagiography is little more than an extensively edited version of a manuscript written by Hollywood entertainment journalist Linda Simeone (was that her name, trevanian?). She had been hired by Paramount to pen a "making of" tie-in book for ST:TFF and was thus given full access to the production, but Shatner demanded Simeone's removal from the project after he read several sample chapters detailing the incompetence of the filmmakers, in particular that of the "director".

TGT

 

[Jon1701]

Star Trek V rocks.

Apart from the ship warping sideways away from the torpedo, which doesn't.

That aside, :thumbsup:

Oh, and the decks going upwards is a bit annoying - but you get used to it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's the worst of the ten Trek movies, hands down.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Starship Polaris said:
It's the worst of the ten Trek movies, hands down.

Other than 3, 4, and 6.

oh, and all the TNG movies.

 

[ancient]

It has flaws, but the character moments save it. Plus it's not completely BORING, unlike NEM and INS. If a movie is fun to watch it goes a long way towards saving it from being nit-picked to death, at least for me.

 

[Sharr Khan]

ancient said:
It has flaws, but the character moments save it. Plus it's not completely BORING, unlike NEM and INS. If a movie is fun to watch it goes a long way towards saving it from being nit-picked to death, at least for me.

I agree. Can't say I ever found it at all boring unlike a good chunk of TNG films.

Sharr

 

[TGTheodore]

I just found myself rolling my eyes and looking away from the screen more than any other Trek film.

They gave Shatner a long leash, despite his protestations about budget, etc. And, like his "novels", he indulges to the point of ruining large chunks of Trek parameters.

One the main things every writer was told in every incarnation of Trek is "NO long-lost or suddenly discovered siblings."

TFF is a perfect example of why.

--Ted

 

[Jon1701]

Sharr Khan said:

ancient said:
It has flaws, but the character moments save it. Plus it's not completely BORING, unlike NEM and INS. If a movie is fun to watch it goes a long way towards saving it from being nit-picked to death, at least for me.

I agree. Can't say I ever found it at all boring unlike a good chunk of TNG films.

Sharr

Ditto.

There are bits of the TNG movies I like, but terribly dull bits sprinkled through it.

I also think, whilst it will still have flaws - updated special fx would improve TFF greatly. Script needed another re-write really (to clean up the plot), but as others have remarked - the character moments save it.

 

[AJBryant]

The "assault phasers" looked cool and all, but... um... since when does one need to "chamber a round" on a phaser?


Tony

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

AJBryant said:
The "assault phasers" looked cool and all, but... um... since when does one need to "chamber a round" on a phaser?


Tony

IIRC, they are power packs similar to how the handle of the original phaser pistol (TOS) was the power pack for the unit.

 

[Squiggy]

Guy Gardener said:

Ezri said:

Computer said:
Oh and the galactic barrier was just a bad mushroom trip.

Why does GOD need a starship (?)

Answer: Magic Mushrooms

No.

the correct answer is: "To get to the other side".

Actually, he wanted Enterprise specifically because this ship, for some reason...could get from The Neutral Zone to the center of the galaxy in about 6 hours.

 

[trevanian]

middyseafort said:

AJBryant said:
The "assault phasers" looked cool and all, but... um... since when does one need to "chamber a round" on a phaser?


Tony

IIRC, they are power packs similar to how the handle of the original phaser pistol (TOS) was the power pack for the unit.

Actually,, the magazine clip that fits into the handle of the TFF phaser would be the power pack (allowing them to run out of power after a number of shots) ... the action on the top just cocked or armed the thing. There are a couple pics of how it worked in the AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER issue on TREK 5.

And the handle of the original phaser pistol wasn't to the best of my knowledge the power pack, it was just a frame and/or amplifier for the little phaser to set into. Maybe making of st contradicts that, idunno, but when Kirk asked for extras in OMEGA GLORY, I assumed that was a way of saying, send down a bunch of phaser 1s (or perhaps crystal to go inside the phaser 1s.)

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

trevanian said:

middyseafort said:

AJBryant said:
The "assault phasers" looked cool and all, but... um... since when does one need to "chamber a round" on a phaser?


Tony

IIRC, they are power packs similar to how the handle of the original phaser pistol (TOS) was the power pack for the unit.

Actually,, the magazine clip that fits into the handle of the TFF phaser would be the power pack (allowing them to run out of power after a number of shots) ... the action on the top just cocked or armed the thing. There are a couple pics of how it worked in the AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER issue on TREK 5.

And the handle of the original phaser pistol wasn't to the best of my knowledge the power pack, it was just a frame and/or amplifier for the little phaser to set into. Maybe making of st contradicts that, idunno, but when Kirk asked for extras in OMEGA GLORY, I assumed that was a way of saying, send down a bunch of phaser 1s (or perhaps crystal to go inside the phaser 1s.)

In that episode,iirc, Tracey comes in holding just the handles and identifies them as power packs. For more info: phaser pistol type-II

 

[trevanian]

middyseafort said:

trevanian said:

middyseafort said:

AJBryant said:
The "assault phasers" looked cool and all, but... um... since when does one need to "chamber a round" on a phaser?


Tony

IIRC, they are power packs similar to how the handle of the original phaser pistol (TOS) was the power pack for the unit.

Actually,, the magazine clip that fits into the handle of the TFF phaser would be the power pack (allowing them to run out of power after a number of shots) ... the action on the top just cocked or armed the thing. There are a couple pics of how it worked in the AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER issue on TREK 5.

And the handle of the original phaser pistol wasn't to the best of my knowledge the power pack, it was just a frame and/or amplifier for the little phaser to set into. Maybe making of st contradicts that, idunno, but when Kirk asked for extras in OMEGA GLORY, I assumed that was a way of saying, send down a bunch of phaser 1s (or perhaps crystal to go inside the phaser 1s.)

In that episode,iirc, Tracey comes in holding just the handles and identifies them as power packs. For more info: phaser pistol type-II

Wow, I stand humbled and corrected. So you only need or can use power packs for the type 2s I guess?

 

[AJBryant]

middyseafort said:

AJBryant said:
The "assault phasers" looked cool and all, but... um... since when does one need to "chamber a round" on a phaser?


Tony

IIRC, they are power packs similar to how the handle of the original phaser pistol (TOS) was the power pack for the unit.

Yeah, I got that...

But I *swear* after he put in the powerpack, he "slides back" the cowling -- the same way you rack a semi-auto pistol to chamber a round.


Tony

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

AJBryant said:

middyseafort said:

AJBryant said:
The "assault phasers" looked cool and all, but... um... since when does one need to "chamber a round" on a phaser?


Tony

IIRC, they are power packs similar to how the handle of the original phaser pistol (TOS) was the power pack for the unit.

Yeah, I got that...

But I *swear* after he put in the powerpack, he "slides back" the cowling -- the same way you rack a semi-auto pistol to chamber a round.


Tony

Maybe he was setting in the type-I phaser, which resides inside the cowling See: assault phaser with open cowling and type-I phaser and cocking the phaser.


But Greg Jein, the prop builder, states that they phasers were designed to cock back so that a person could check the charge, more 411 and Greg Jein's comments: Assault Phaser

 

[Timo]

If we try to apply pseudorealism here, it would make far more sense to check the charge of the weapon while aboard that shuttle than to "cock" the weapon. Professional soldiers don't lug their weapons around in a dangerous ready-to-fire state unless they absolutely have to.

We see Trek folks peek into the guts of their personal arms in other contexts as well. There is such activity in "The Siege of AR-558", for example; Bashir sort of field-strips his rifle, possibly as a response to the fact that Reese moments before brought new power packs for everybody. Clearly there are user-serviceable parts inside, despite appearances.

Personally, I really like the idea that these are special "assault phasers", distinct from the sleeker sidearms of the period.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[trevanian]

applying what we know from the guy who built the phasers (greg jein in AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER, reproduced in MAKING OF TREK FILMS), you check the charge on the magazine, by pulling it off a bandolier and seeing it light up ... THEN you slap it in the phaser proper.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Remarkably, the "assault phasers" are no more or less effective than any other Trek ray-gun.