I'm not sure how saving the Earth from destruction made Kirk look bad.
I'm also not sure how a space battle between the Enterprise and Klingon ships would have made this a better movie.
What else could they have done for Trek V?
- Thread starter Khan 2.0
- Start date
I'm not sure how saving the Earth from destruction made Kirk look bad.
I'm also not sure how a space battle between the Enterprise and Klingon ships would have made this a better movie.
The idea of Kirk dealing with a religious zealot and his followers is an interesting one. How do you deal rationally with people who appear, to your eyes, irrational? What place does faith have in a society where science seems to have all the answer? That is a story worth telling, but, Shatner was so focused on the "finding God" idea that he missed the prize dangling right in front of his nose. Maybe he needed Story-Retinax...
I hated how the Wrath of Khan was stretched into a three story arc, specially since the two films that followed were inferior. We're supposed to believe that the timeline of the films is only a few months, even though six years or so pass between the first and last film.
I wish that after The Wrath of Khan, they'd just done standalone films, like the Bond series essentially did, rather than follow the Star Wars film series. If they needed to bring Spock back, it could have been done later in the series. What made The Final Frontier potentially appealing was that it was the first film after that arc to actually want to tell a story unconnected to the previous ones.
But it was pretty obvious from the poster of the film that the studio had no idea what to do with the movie, and Shatner was known for having some pretty harebrained ideas about story telling. I recall sitting in the theater after a few minutes and just shaking my head. It was obvious the film was going to be a disaster. What's odd is that there really wasn't a good reason for it, save the two most obvious things: A lousy story and an incompetent director. The acting is no worse in The Final Frontier than any other Star Trek films, but the whole film has an amateurish quality to it, and that's not confined to SFX.
When the Undiscovered Country came out, they essentially returned to the Wrath of Khan story arc. It could easily be the fourth film in that series. And that always bothered me, too, because were were so many stories they could have told. But it was the 80s and mostly about making a buck. And they did.
I wish that after The Wrath of Khan, they'd just done standalone films, like the Bond series essentially did, rather than follow the Star Wars film series. If they needed to bring Spock back, it could have been done later in the series. What made The Final Frontier potentially appealing was that it was the first film after that arc to actually want to tell a story unconnected to the previous ones.
But it was pretty obvious from the poster of the film that the studio had no idea what to do with the movie, and Shatner was known for having some pretty harebrained ideas about story telling. I recall sitting in the theater after a few minutes and just shaking my head. It was obvious the film was going to be a disaster. What's odd is that there really wasn't a good reason for it, save the two most obvious things: A lousy story and an incompetent director. The acting is no worse in The Final Frontier than any other Star Trek films, but the whole film has an amateurish quality to it, and that's not confined to SFX.
When the Undiscovered Country came out, they essentially returned to the Wrath of Khan story arc. It could easily be the fourth film in that series. And that always bothered me, too, because were were so many stories they could have told. But it was the 80s and mostly about making a buck. And they did.
The story is well-known how Shatner only got to direct 5 because he told Paramount he wouldn't be in 4 without it. Had there been no more loose ends in The Search for Spock, I would not have been surprised to see the studio tell Shatner, "thanks, but no thanks." But when Bennett wrote 3, the concern was for "the franchise." Which I find very ironic, considering the age of the cast. There wasn't going to be much of a future for STAR TREK, even with a future. So, that Shatner felt emboldened to pressure Paramount in this fashion is kind of interesting to me - even though such a move isn't at all unheard of in Hollywood.
I wonder if they couldve made a movie of the Khan exile Ruling in Hell/To Reign in Hell thing for Trek V?
e.g. instead of camping at Yosemite, Kirk, Spock and Bones have some downtime to return to Ceti Alpha V to investigate the place which caused all the events of the previous 3 films to kick off and there they find Khans diary (as in the Greg Cox novel 'To Reign in Hell') - then we flashback to the end of the Eugenic Wars and Khans escape....then we skip Space Seed (as we seen that) then pick up with Khan on Ceti Alphawhich would be the bulk of the film up until Terrel and Chekov find him. then we go back to K/S/B who get beamed up to the obiting Enterprise ready for Trek VI.
so basically a prequel to Star Trek II showing how the events of the past 3 films came to pass.
Kirk, Spock, Bones etc would really only have extended cameos but Khan was (and pretty much still is) second only to Vader in terms of popular Sci Fi villians and the movie would’ve been a direct prequel to the most popular ST movie...I dont think fans and moviegoers wouldve had a problem with going to see a trek film mainly about Khan..
Couldve recast Khan some younger dude for the flashback scenes (Barhem/Del Toro) - then had Montoban on Ceti Alpha (he was still in good shape in 1989 and couldve played TWOK era Khan again easy). called it something like 'Star Trek: The Genesis of Khan'. Meyer could have directed..
e.g. instead of camping at Yosemite, Kirk, Spock and Bones have some downtime to return to Ceti Alpha V to investigate the place which caused all the events of the previous 3 films to kick off and there they find Khans diary (as in the Greg Cox novel 'To Reign in Hell') - then we flashback to the end of the Eugenic Wars and Khans escape....then we skip Space Seed (as we seen that) then pick up with Khan on Ceti Alphawhich would be the bulk of the film up until Terrel and Chekov find him. then we go back to K/S/B who get beamed up to the obiting Enterprise ready for Trek VI.
so basically a prequel to Star Trek II showing how the events of the past 3 films came to pass.
Kirk, Spock, Bones etc would really only have extended cameos but Khan was (and pretty much still is) second only to Vader in terms of popular Sci Fi villians and the movie would’ve been a direct prequel to the most popular ST movie...I dont think fans and moviegoers wouldve had a problem with going to see a trek film mainly about Khan..
Couldve recast Khan some younger dude for the flashback scenes (Barhem/Del Toro) - then had Montoban on Ceti Alpha (he was still in good shape in 1989 and couldve played TWOK era Khan again easy). called it something like 'Star Trek: The Genesis of Khan'. Meyer could have directed..
I don't think a prequel coming so soon after the events of the earlier films would have gone over well. I'm reasonably sure most people wanted something new, just not what we got.
It would have been particularly frustrating to get a mostly-prequel given that TVH ended setting us up for Our Heroes to get back to exploring the galaxy with a new ship and all. It was time to look forward, not backward.
OTOH, if there'd been an appropriate series for it at the time, I could have seen that as a pretty cool two-part episode.
It would have been particularly frustrating to get a mostly-prequel given that TVH ended setting us up for Our Heroes to get back to exploring the galaxy with a new ship and all. It was time to look forward, not backward.
OTOH, if there'd been an appropriate series for it at the time, I could have seen that as a pretty cool two-part episode.
You echo much of my dissatisfaction with the films TWOK-TUC.
TMP left me with a sense of hope that we might see something like TOS but writ larger on the silver screen. But that isn't what we got.
During their initial releases I got something out of each of the films 2-6, but they haven't aged well. And subsequent rewatches over the years have simply illuminated more of their flaws and the disappointing overall approach.
Oddly a story something like TFF (only done better) is the kind of thing I had hoped would follow TMP. Time wise I would have set the story about a year after the events of TMP.
Of course, there is also the very real issue of age of the cast. A series of films is not like a television series. It's much easier to maintain a sense of consistency and continuity in a weekly television series where the characters are aging more slowly. But with a series of films released over more than a decade you can't help but notice the cast ageing, particularly in a storyline that supposedly spans only a few months. Realistically the cast in TFF shouldn't have looked much different than they had in TWOK, but that was impossible. Their appearance in TUC is pretty consistent with how they should have looked for when that story was supposedly set.
I would have thought the TOS films were fairly independent of TNG. Who was not focused on TNG while they were working on TOS films?
The 'success' of TUC showed that there was still a market for the aging TOS cast.
And older Pike was pretty popular in ST09 and STID. Not tomentionPicard in TNG as an older statesman captain.
That's not quite what I meant.
In 1986, Star Trek was at its most popular. TVH was the most successful Trek film to date, and it ended on a hugely positive note. Everything was so great, in fact, that somebody decided that it was time to bring Trek back to television. Instead of focusing on the TOS cast, which seemed to have had their story concluded with TVH, a new cast and ship were created with a new time period and a fresh slate.
So really, other than money, why was there any reason at all to continue with TOS?
Not really. TUC derived its success on its advertising campaign and the fact that everyone knew this would be the last time we'd see this crew.
I never said older people can't carry a show. I said that after 20 years, it was time to end TOS for good and focus on TNG.
I agree. I don't personally think the cast was too old to still be making films, as is often said, but I think the aging issue needed to be addressed head-on rather than avoided.
TMP tried to use makeup and camera tricks to make everyone look like it was still the 1960's. Then TWOK did a better job, by acknowledging the passing of time and having Kirk lament getting older. But TSFS and TVH tried to pretend they were within a few months of TWOK, and that wasn't too realistic.
Best thing they could have done, in my opinion, was jump forward in time for TFF so that the time period the film is supposed to be set in would match the ages of the cast. Wouldn't really necessitate changing the story. Just don't pretend the cast is 10 years younger than they all are.
And my point is you can have both.
And if you didn't like TOS no-one out there was making you watch those movies.
Applying that logic maybe they should stop replaying the TOS/TNG era on TV/selling merchandise to make room for the Abrams films. I mean the TNG era is gone isn't it? People will get confused.
Kindly please don't attribute things to me that I didn't say.
I like all the TOS films, with the exception of TFF, which was a self-indulgent piece of crap. None of which has anything to do with why I feel the films should have ended with TVH.
If you watch Star Trek IV carefully, Meyer and Bennett laid down quite a few things for possible follow up in Trek V.
But, for whatever reason, Shatner and Bennett (let's not let him off for the disappointment of V) ignored the lot.
- Saavik's mysterious exit (pregnant?)
- "There will be no peace as long as Kirk lives!"
- Gillian will "see you round the galaxy"
- Did Scotty giving Nichols the formula alter history? Gillian's disappearance?
- Brand new Enterprise with very impressive touch screens that looked like it was ready to handle a five year mission.
- Spock is still "not quite right"
- The Bird of Prey could looks like it survived intact.
- The establishing of the Federation president character, and several parliamentarians
- Chapel and Rand now work at Starfleet HQ under Cartwright
But, for whatever reason, Shatner and Bennett (let's not let him off for the disappointment of V) ignored the lot.
Interesting.
I love TVH and consider it my personal favorite of all Trek films and most of that didn't occur to me as being a loose thread with potential for future sequel ideas.
I think your first three points for sure.
I can't remember who wanted to do a Starfleet Academy film about Kirk and Spock's Academy days, but I believe it was Bennett. To me, that would have been a fun way to go, allowing Kirk and Spock to reminisce and show us a new adventure, while allowing the aging cast a little less action-yes, you would have to argue with Shatner on that but there are ways.
I like dealing with the loose threads from TVH, which largely go unremarked and unresolved due to TFF. The idea of Kirk's "mysterious death" would be an interesting one, but it focuses a lot on Spock as detective, and deals with a lot of information already known-in other words, it really isn't "new," at least in the sense of a new discovery. Say what you want about TFF (and there is plenty to say) but the idea of Spock's half-brother? Kind of crazy, wouldn't you say?
Also, let us all keep in mind that the studio wanted a comedy for the next Trek film because TVH did so well at the box office. Shatner wanted a introspective, philosophical work about finding God, which is tough to do a comedy about. Not impossible, mind you, but really not Trek's thing. So, the film was an attempt to bridge both concepts, and really lets us down by not really being either or face palmingly awful in execution (Scotty's head knock, anyone?).
Personally, I would have preferred and Academy-era film, or a film working with material from TVH. If they had done so, we may not have had to go with TUC, since we could have an attempt by the Klingons to bring Kirk to their version of justice (kidnapping, or something like that) and him to deal with the consequences of his actions.
Despite the aging of the cast, I see no reason to stop making films, but to have a willingness by all parties to acknowledge that aging, and to try something different.
I like dealing with the loose threads from TVH, which largely go unremarked and unresolved due to TFF. The idea of Kirk's "mysterious death" would be an interesting one, but it focuses a lot on Spock as detective, and deals with a lot of information already known-in other words, it really isn't "new," at least in the sense of a new discovery. Say what you want about TFF (and there is plenty to say) but the idea of Spock's half-brother? Kind of crazy, wouldn't you say?
Also, let us all keep in mind that the studio wanted a comedy for the next Trek film because TVH did so well at the box office. Shatner wanted a introspective, philosophical work about finding God, which is tough to do a comedy about. Not impossible, mind you, but really not Trek's thing. So, the film was an attempt to bridge both concepts, and really lets us down by not really being either or face palmingly awful in execution (Scotty's head knock, anyone?).
Personally, I would have preferred and Academy-era film, or a film working with material from TVH. If they had done so, we may not have had to go with TUC, since we could have an attempt by the Klingons to bring Kirk to their version of justice (kidnapping, or something like that) and him to deal with the consequences of his actions.
Despite the aging of the cast, I see no reason to stop making films, but to have a willingness by all parties to acknowledge that aging, and to try something different.
So much of the problem with the TOS cast in the 80s was them seeming to teeter towards going back to television and it not happening. They did not plan out the franchise far into the future like they are currently with Marvel and DC. They thought it up as they went along and each film was not a sure-thing. I remember reading in Starlog how a second Trek film was considered "doubtful" after TMP. They were wrong, of course, but it was touch-and-go on more than one occasion. That anxiety tended to make for better individual films, but taken together, the linkages are contrived.
With Trek V you have the perfect storm of the cast (at least Shatner) giving off a vibe of entitlement about coming back every couple years to do another one, at the same time that Trek was going from a rare treat to a weekly ritual with TNG. So the stage was set to make the old cast look long-in-the-tooth.
Had Trek VI come out instead of Trek V, it would have been the way to end it, as Trek VI provides some decent bridges to Trek III (referring to the death of Kirk's son) and to TNG (with the Klingon angle), but there just wasn't enough mileage left in the character arcs to fuel more films beyond that. It would have been fine for a series with an alien-of-the-week premise, but that's about it.
Similar threads
- Poll
