What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

yeah, Luckinbill was fantastic. But I will always wonder how truly close Connery was to taking the role. I’ve read everything from it was a coin flip between V and “Last Crusade” to it was never even officially offered to him.

no, it’s cheesy and wonderful.

 

Nope.

 

I don’t even think it’s cheesy. It’s just like old buddies having a laugh, which is exactly as it should have been.

I think TFF is due a rewatch for me as well.

 

I did just buy the brand new 4K of TFF. I’ve only watched a few scenes and it looks and sounds wonderful. Maybe I’m due for a full rewatch too.

 

Pure revulsion? Really?

It’s just three old dudes singing a song round a campfire. It seems like an extreme reaction to a bit of frippery.

I save pure revulsion for things like child abusers and war crimes.

 

Well in my opinion Star Trek V should be banned by the Geneva Convention.

But seriously; ever heard of hyperbole?

 

I have, but on a forum like this hyperbole is often used to ridiculous levels.

My apologies for the misunderstanding...

 

|

No worries. It's the thing with the internet, there isn't any tone of voice or facial expressions and that can lead to misunderstandings, particularly because, as you say, there's people out there who do unironically express ideas that can be quite extreme or eccentric.

 

The 4K arrived so I'll let you know, LOL! Last I recall, it seemed to go on a tad long and there weren't accompanying fart noises since the whole scene is arguably paying homage to "Blazing Saddles" with all the other beans references...


(and in glorious HD, woohoo!!! )

Granted, the most important question is TV stations removed the scene entirely for reruns back in the day, or if they supplanted the naughty noise with cows gently mooing...

 

Well, to be fair, TrekV has cheese. It didn't fly out of the theaters after only one week for nothing.

 

And some of the cheese is gouda...

Considering the competition, Trek V had little chance, even if it was the most refined and perfect thing ever. Batman subverted expectations and going in a bold new direction that nobody expected but most loved*. Indy 3 came out, which to me was overly comedic (ugh) but a newer franchise overall... amongst others...

* it's therefore ironic when I say I wasn't one of those folks, as the 1966 style felt definitive. I also love Batman Forever and only mildly-dislike Batman & Robin (which is awful in some aspects, solid in others, but too far a step in the superficial direction... puns were fun but even the comics didn't pair those two villains up because it's too obvious that they're goals are incompatible, not to mention the bigger-obvious that one would eventually fight the other.)

I just popped in the 4K and watched nonstop until Chekov took command. Let me know if I'm off the mark with the charms...

The only real letdown in this movie is the forced and/or excessive comedy, which feels out of place and too demeaning against the characters.

In 1989, I liked the movie but it felt "different" compared to the previous ones. Later on, I'd see that it's paying homage more to 60s TV Trek and in a way that is not unsuccessful.

The campfire scene is not that bad, and is one of the better forays into the realm of humor. The song goes on just long enough, and Spock's unwillingness to sing helps. And one consistent element throughout is McCoy, who's simply perfect. The worst offenders for the award of "comedy gone wild" are elsewhere.

I can handle Sulu and Chekov being lost, but it gets over the top with the claim of big blizzard.

Scotty+Uhura may have been out of nowhere but I still love it.

The idea of the ship having problems is one thing; the logbook is standard issue and could not be affected. Again, good idea going OTT with the comedy thrown in.

Shore leave is explored - this is worthy.

So is working to prevent the panacea of the transporters - a very shrewd move.

The Nimbus III city is seedy, like the bar just outside of town. This almost feels ahead of its time, but the tone is crucial considering how the idea was noble but execution was another thing - not unlike Khan being left on a new planet and nobody bothered to check up on their progress. Unintentional or not, there is a running theme that fits continuity, as well as setting continuity for the next... more on that later. Also note the subtle S&M scene during a camera pan and, of course, for a movie that's oh-so-apocryphal (it isn't, sorry Gene), it also has a 3-b00bied creature - and unlike Gene wanting 4 for Troi (OMG), at least he got something approaching his wish fulfilled and under less-inappropriate circumstances.

I adore the three consuls, even if a lot of their introduction was cut from the film in a bizarre move. Exposition exists, but there's enough payoff... but the deleted/extended scenes for this were badly needed and should have stayed, since they are important but we're left with a shallow and vague introduction - that led critics of the time to complain. Had the deleted material been available for critics back then, would their perceptions change? I'd wager 20 Quatloos that theirs would.

IMHO, YMMV.

After having seen some deleted scenes from a few weeks back, and this partial rewatch (will finish later today as V is truly underrated, even with its imperfections and more of those are not on Shatner than otherwise), I wish they would do a Director's Cut because Shatner legitimately was onto something with some of his ideas and there IS a good story, even with its theatrical mixed bag presentation. The idea of a combined effort to build a planet, which failed... subtle nuances to characterizations... a Klingon wanting to kill Kirk... Kirk saying in the scene before that one in response to McCoy's comment about how Klingons don't like him with "the feeling's mutual" really does to into Kirk's explosive reply to Spock in VI.


I recall bits and pieces from the remainder of the film but won't re-comment on those yet.

In 1989, it felt like a letdown and not as "EPIC" as the previous three. Does that mean the movie is a dumpster file? Not at all. As I had watched IV more recently, I am close to putting V above it. Because there is more plot meat to this story, and a lot more potential. IV also started the "need" for overt comedy in Trek films...

 

Or maybe "charm" is a subjective thing, also possible.

 

Star Trek V is great fun. But what do I know? I loved Star Trek Into Darknes, Batman V Superman and think The Last Jedi is the best Star Wars movie of them all.

 

Well, the thread is called controversial opinionS, plural, so you succeeded. I don't think I've seen 4 different controversial opinions in the same post before.

 

I can discern it just fine. I just don't fins it enjoyable as others do. As a scene goes its silly and harmless and not fun for me.

 

TLJ is arguably underrated... It's #3 in my list (topped only by, in no order, TESB and ROTJ, which is saying something since ROTJ is 60% rehash of the 1977 original, repurposing elements of the 1978 holiday special as Ewoks, but whose standout bits involve the Emperor himself and those scenes are way too strong despite the plot rehashing that's otherwise going on. )

 

Don't know if The Last Jedi is the best Star Wars movie or not, but it was absolutely, certainly the best of the sequel trilogy.

 

TLJ is so, so much better a movie now that TROS exists. So much better.

 

I think 1/3 of TLJ is the best part of the sequel trilogy, but I enjoy TFA more as a whole film. I don't know if Duel of the Fates would have been better than TROS considering how I feel about Trevorrow's track record, but I feel like it would have at least been different and more coherent, plus I would have loved seeing Coruscant, and Chewie flies an X-Wing.

 

Leia floats in space... then flies back to an airlock.

Yeah, THE LAST JEDI made sense...