The Salvation of the Final Frontier

[BriGuy]

For weeks afterwards the non-Trek friends I dragged to the theater didn't let me hear the end of what a corny movie it was.

You say that as though Star Trek isn't totally corny to start with.

Trek had become popular and somewhat "hip" after the widespread success of Voyage Home.

There were high hopes for TFF. They were quickly dashed, and I know I as a "Trekkie" and a high school senior at the time was embarrassed by the film.

 

[The Dominion]

Of Kirk's three mentioned nephews, we later only see one, did the other two get "retcon'ed"
out of existence? I don't think so.

There is too much of Sybok (with a Y) in canon to simply have him disappear, he has a established back story, we know about his very established father, a little about his mother. It's through Sybok that we know that Vulcans have princesses in some way. That Vulcan 's have rebels. We get a little better picture of Vulcans overall through him and this movie.

.

But Sybok himself his never referenced in the rest of Trek, so what's really keeping him tied into the cannon besides a ridiculous movie? It's just like, all of a sudden Spock has a goofy brother and then that's it.

Almost everything else TFF brings to the cannon of the series is in small references to outside facts, not so much anything that has to do with the plot of the movie in a major way.

 

[Gojira]

Of Kirk's three mentioned nephews, we later only see one, did the other two get "retcon'ed"
out of existence? I don't think so.

There is too much of Sybok (with a Y) in canon to simply have him disappear, he has a established back story, we know about his very established father, a little about his mother. It's through Sybok that we know that Vulcans have princesses in some way. That Vulcan 's have rebels. We get a little better picture of Vulcans overall through him and this movie.

.

But Sybok himself his never referenced in the rest of Trek, so what's really keeping him tied into the cannon besides a ridiculous movie? It's just like, all of a sudden Spock has a goofy brother and then that's it.

Almost everything else TFF brings to the cannon of the series is in small references to outside facts, not so much anything that has to do with the plot of the movie in a major way.

Sybok is part of the Star Trek canon because he was seen in a movie. That is all that is required. This ridiculous movie may be the only thing keeping him tied to continuity but he is and forever will be part of the Star Trek canon.

You're really confusing canon with continuity. Canon is simply a body of work. period. In the case of Star Trek canon is that which is seen on both the large and small screens.

Continuity is totally different and yes there are many things in the entire franchise that contradicts earlier facts and therefore doesn't fit in with continuity.

Here is an exampe: If the next movie depicts Vulcans with yellow blood it will go against the continuity that Vulcans have green blood but it will become part of the official canon of Star Trek because it is part of the body of work that is seen on either the small or large screen.

Canon: the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art.

Continuous: being in immediate connection or spatial relationship.

 

[Harvey]

Age has nothing to do with it (to her credit, Nichelle looks great in the movie). It's demeaning to the character, and generally stupid. I mean, really, that's all it took to get the entire camp of guards to abandon their posts and weapons?

So it's demeaning and stupid to their characters not Uhura.

No, I meant that it's demeaning to her. Could you imagine any of the male characters being used in a similar way?

 

[Captrek]

No, I meant that it's demeaning to her. Could you imagine any of the male characters being used in a similar way?

I can’t imagine any of the male characters doing a fan dance, but manipulating someone by appealing to their sexual desires is something that male characters do. For example, Kirk and Shahna, or Spock and the Romulan commander.

 

[Captrek]

A while ago I posted this about themes in TFF:

Whatever flaws TFF may have as a movie, I think it provides the TOS film franchise with a key thematic counterpoint to TMP. TMP tells us that “Logic and knowledge are not enough” — we need the human traits of “Other dimensions, higher levels of being,” which we might identify as emotion or spirituality. TFF depicts the folly of someone who allows “I know in my heart that it’s true” to trump his powers of reason.

Taken together they tell the story of two brothers who see two paths ahead of them: the path of logic and the path of emotion.

One brother, Spock, follows the path of logic. He seeks Kolinahr, which would completely separate him from the other path. He does not find his answers there. His encounter with a great consciousness calling to him from space teaches him that he needs something from the “emotion” path.

The other brother, Sybok, follows the path of emotion. He praises his Vulcan ancestors saying they “were ruled by their emotions.... They believed with their hearts.” His encounter with a great consciousness calling to him from space leads him to religious belief in the name of which he does terrible things despite being at heart a good person. His mistake is not taking what he should take from the “logic” path.

The composite theme is about how our “higher levels of being” can give purpose and meaning to our logic but should not supplant it. We need both paths, logic/knowledge and intuition/emotion/spirituality. We should not jump back and forth between them arbitrarily, but rather recognize the necessary role of each. It’s a more complete and interesting theme than either of the two films has without the other.

 

[A Little Otter]

The Final Frontier was a missed opportunity for a potentially compelling story. They completely forgot what kind of humor worked in Star Trek, which is not puns and goofiness. What made The Voyage Home work so well was character-driven humor with a fish-out-of-water angle. I can buy Kirk wearing a "go climb a mountain" T-shirt, because that's in keeping with his character, but Spock telling him to "hold your horse" is a groaner, and there were too many of them in the film.

I have no problem with Sybok being Spock's unheard-of brother, but it would have been more interesting to explore their relationship and history more (and Kirk's line about having lost a brother, referring to Spock metaphorically, was a missed opportunity to reference his brother George).

This was the first movie to forget about Kirk's problem dealing with aging, but couldn't he have been given something deep to deal with? I would have loved to see what Kirk's pain was. Of course, the plot was simplistic in thinking that people would blindly follow Sybok simply because he removed their pain (whatever that means).

Another missed opportunity was Nimbus III. Here's the first attempt at the Federation, Klingons, and Romulans to work together, but it's apparently failing. There could have been much more explored there (and the Romulan ambassador was horrible). Instead, it's a plot point that's handled ineptly.

One other gripe I have about the film is the costume design. I remember sitting in the theater and wondering why the characters were dressed in a retro-Renaissance manner (check out their pointy shoes) while not in uniform. I had more problem with that than the God-awful visual effects.

 

[CaptainMatt]

As a fan who first saw Star Trek V in theaters on Friday, June 9, 1989, I can say I saw nothing wrong with the film and still don't to this day. Shatner tried to make a good storyline but was hindered by co-writers and the Studio itself. The film is still worth looking at. It is my favorite of the film series hands down. We get cool moments between the Triad of Kirk, Spock & Bones, and we have moments for the supporting cast as well regardless how effective you might think such scenes were.
I think when they went to make Star Trek VI they deliberately left the humor out as a response to too much humor in the fifth feature film. That is a shame as Star Trek-the Original Star Trek-always seemed to work well with a light-hearted approach.

 

[Tosk]

I think when they went to make Star Trek VI they deliberately left the humor out as a response to too much humor in the fifth feature film.

Star Trek VI may have a more serious tone than STV overall, but it most certainly is not without humor. ...Whether or not the comedy works is up to the individual, but I like quite a lot of STVI's attempts at humor. (No, not the Klingon dictionary scene. It's just stupid. )

 

[Elder Knight]

As the Klingon General Korrd's reassertion of dormant authority provides the resolution, three things are needed:

(1) Trim the scenes that show him as drunken, crude, useless, e tc., e tc.

(2) Add some more backstory for his character.

(3) Connect him with Kirk.

I suspect you'd have to somehow hocus a face to face scene with Kirk and Korrd, and maybe continue it with flashback and new scenes accompanied by voice-over. Korrd reviews his own glorious history, and laments its downturn. Kirk fears the same, but reminds the old man of what once was.

Now, when Korrd saves the day, it clicks!

(Maybe add a Spock line that echoes what Kirk said -- nice synergy.)

 

[Captrek]

I suspect you'd have to somehow hocus a face to face scene with Kirk and Korrd, and maybe continue it with flashback and new scenes accompanied by voice-over. Korrd reviews his own glorious history, and laments its downturn. Kirk fears the same, but reminds the old man of what once was.

Given Kirk’s attitude toward Klingons, it’s hard to see him asking a Klingon for help. It works better with Spock.

It would have worked better still without the “Damn you.” I don’t know what Shatner was thinking when he had Spock say that.

 

[BriGuy]

Of Kirk's three mentioned nephews, we later only see one, did the other two get "retcon'ed"
out of existence? I don't think so.

There is too much of Sybok (with a Y) in canon to simply have him disappear, he has a established back story, we know about his very established father, a little about his mother. It's through Sybok that we know that Vulcans have princesses in some way. That Vulcan 's have rebels. We get a little better picture of Vulcans overall through him and this movie.

.

But Sybok himself his never referenced in the rest of Trek, so what's really keeping him tied into the cannon besides a ridiculous movie? It's just like, all of a sudden Spock has a goofy brother and then that's it.

Almost everything else TFF brings to the cannon of the series is in small references to outside facts, not so much anything that has to do with the plot of the movie in a major way.

Sybok is part of the Star Trek canon because he was seen in a movie. That is all that is required. This ridiculous movie may be the only thing keeping him tied to continuity but he is and forever will be part of the Star Trek canon.

You're really confusing canon with continuity. Canon is simply a body of work. period. In the case of Star Trek canon is that which is seen on both the large and small screens.

Continuity is totally different and yes there are many things in the entire franchise that contradicts earlier facts and therefore doesn't fit in with continuity.

Here is an exampe: If the next movie depicts Vulcans with yellow blood it will go against the continuity that Vulcans have green blood but it will become part of the official canon of Star Trek because it is part of the body of work that is seen on either the small or large screen.

Canon: the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art.

Continuous: being in immediate connection or spatial relationship.

Sybok may be part of canon, but the fact he hasn't been referenced since shows he's part of the canon that TPTB are fine with forgetting and never bringing up again.

 

[Gojira]

But Sybok himself his never referenced in the rest of Trek, so what's really keeping him tied into the cannon besides a ridiculous movie? It's just like, all of a sudden Spock has a goofy brother and then that's it.

Almost everything else TFF brings to the cannon of the series is in small references to outside facts, not so much anything that has to do with the plot of the movie in a major way.

Sybok is part of the Star Trek canon because he was seen in a movie. That is all that is required. This ridiculous movie may be the only thing keeping him tied to continuity but he is and forever will be part of the Star Trek canon.

You're really confusing canon with continuity. Canon is simply a body of work. period. In the case of Star Trek canon is that which is seen on both the large and small screens.

Continuity is totally different and yes there are many things in the entire franchise that contradicts earlier facts and therefore doesn't fit in with continuity.

Here is an exampe: If the next movie depicts Vulcans with yellow blood it will go against the continuity that Vulcans have green blood but it will become part of the official canon of Star Trek because it is part of the body of work that is seen on either the small or large screen.

Canon: the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art.

Continuous: being in immediate connection or spatial relationship.

Sybok may be part of canon, but the fact he hasn't been referenced since shows he's part of the canon that TPTB are fine with forgetting and never bringing up again.

I can agree with that. But Sybok is one of many characters from all the series and all the movies that only were referenced once.

 

[22 Stars]

Eh, I LIKE "The Final Frontier". Oh sure it's not a great movie, but it is much better than its lowly reputation suggests. Like "Nemesis", it seems to be often cited as the "worst" simply because that's what fandom demands.

Well, I like it! I've said many times around here before, that the Kirk-Spock-McCoy friendship has never been better portrayed, the premise is interesting, Sybok's a good character and those perpetually-moaning co-stars (Koenig et al) all got at least a couple of decent-ish scenes.

The scene where Kirk stands up to Sybok was fantastic.

Nevertheless, what would I do to improve it? Probably tone down the humour a little (though truthfully, I find some of the forced "humour" of Trek VI - e.g. Uhura with the Klingon dictionaries, Chekov and the crewman's webbed feet etc - far more painful to sit through). I also feel the grand finale is a letdown; I'm fine with the evil alien, but there's something about the scene and Sybok's sacrifice which just falls flat. I don't think the SFX help, but there's something more fundamental. Not sure how I'd rewrite it.

But that's about it. A perfectly serviceable Trek film, no worse than some of the others.

Wow, you either have a high tolerance for crap, or a low standard by which you judge the other Trek films by....

 

[Ranger3]

I would have replaced Sybok's dialogue where he said his vision of Sha Ka Ree was given to him by God. I would have replaced with something like this.

"Given to me by the One. He waits for us on the other side."

I would have also removed the dialogue where Kirk had stated that no ship or probe has ever survived a trip to the center of the galaxy. Since the Enterprise visited the center in TAS episode "The Magistics Of Megas-Tu"(and yes, TAS is considered ST canon), Kirk's original line of dialogue would be contradictory in terms of TOS continuity.

 

[Search4]

So while there are many small issues, this thread is ignoring the big one... the idea of Star Trek meeting God. Given the complete lack of religious backstory, there was no way that was going to be the actual ending. You could have forecast that from the moment the concept came out, and oh yes throw in the idea that this is a studio production and they would never take that type of risk, e.g. the risk of offending people. We've met too many all powerful aliens to believe that actually meeting God was going to be the actual story. So the story fails to provide a dramatic moment in a big way since the basic premise just rings as untrue.

 

[Gojira]

Eh, I LIKE "The Final Frontier". Oh sure it's not a great movie, but it is much better than its lowly reputation suggests. Like "Nemesis", it seems to be often cited as the "worst" simply because that's what fandom demands.

Well, I like it! I've said many times around here before, that the Kirk-Spock-McCoy friendship has never been better portrayed, the premise is interesting, Sybok's a good character and those perpetually-moaning co-stars (Koenig et al) all got at least a couple of decent-ish scenes.

The scene where Kirk stands up to Sybok was fantastic.

Nevertheless, what would I do to improve it? Probably tone down the humour a little (though truthfully, I find some of the forced "humour" of Trek VI - e.g. Uhura with the Klingon dictionaries, Chekov and the crewman's webbed feet etc - far more painful to sit through). I also feel the grand finale is a letdown; I'm fine with the evil alien, but there's something about the scene and Sybok's sacrifice which just falls flat. I don't think the SFX help, but there's something more fundamental. Not sure how I'd rewrite it.

But that's about it. A perfectly serviceable Trek film, no worse than some of the others.

Wow, you either have a high tolerance for crap, or a low standard by which you judge the other Trek films by....

Taste is subjective and I happen to agree with his assessment of the film. Despite its flaws I find it very enjoyable.

 

[Gojira]

So while there are many small issues, this thread is ignoring the big one... the idea of Star Trek meeting God. Given the complete lack of religious backstory, there was no way that was going to be the actual ending. You could have forecast that from the moment the concept came out, and oh yes throw in the idea that this is a studio production and they would never take that type of risk, e.g. the risk of offending people. We've met too many all powerful aliens to believe that actually meeting God was going to be the actual story. So the story fails to provide a dramatic moment in a big way since the basic premise just rings as untrue.

I disagree. I remember there was a moment in the film where I wondered if they were truly going going to have a God like experience.

 

[CaptainMatt]

I agree, I too wondered how far they would go with the God concept and suprised when they met the entity behind the Great Barrier. He had more in common with the Devil, and truly that is who I thought it was as a boy watching this film in theater back in '89.
No changes should have been made to change the God dialogue to the One, also as Shatner's original vision was that they search for God, not just some powerful almighty creature. TPTB hindered his vision and we got a superalien instead of a God who turns out to be Satan.
Also, I love this film it will always remain a favorite no matter what so-called fandom says online or off.

 

[Captrek]

...instead of a God who turns out to be Satan.

That was his vision? How unoriginal. Muhammad told the same story 13 centuries earlier.