• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why does The Final Frontier get so much crap?

^ I remember a convention where Shatner blamed the poor showing of TFF on basically the same thing you are here.

I don't recall 1986 being a bad year for movies either.

So, by that logic Star Trek IV should have done at least as horribly given:

1) Top Gun
2) Crocodile Dundee
3) Platoon
4) The Karate Kid II
5) Aliens
6) The Golden Child
7) Ferris Bueller's Day Off
8) The Color of Money
9) Stand By Me
10) The Fly

Actually, my point was that, despite of "doing poor", it's box office is not all bad actually. Abyss, License to Kill, those are great movies, and still made about the same or less.

And seeing that list of films from 1986, I'd say TFF would have even done a bit better in that year than in 1989. ;)
 
I like William Shatner, and Bill, Leonard and De were good friends, and if you believe the reports well before the lack of work took it's toll, most of the remaining cast liked him, too. Yeah, there were reports of him being a prick, but I'm fairly certain that most actors can be that way. I also think people didn't get Bill's sense of humor. It's mischievous, which means it's the most fun. :lol:
Yeah J., I aree we'll have to check a few decades down the road for "Todays" hits....;)

Yeah, they laugh now, but I want to hear Marina Sirtis in 15 years, talking about the "insufferable Jonathan Frakes" (keeping in mind that I really like both Sirtis and Frakes). :D
 
I was someone who did like The Final Frontier. However, I won't proclaim that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread and can see why some people may not care for it.

I've always felt that if "The Final Frontier" was filmed with the same SFX and overall motion picture feel as "The Undiscovered Country" then it might be a truly excellent motion picture adventure. In some respects, I think it resembles TOS the closest.

I feel it had some of the best character moments of any of the films too, especially Kirk talking about dying alone, and then scene where Kirk/Spock/McCoy face their fears through Sybok's mind altering. Not to mention that Jerry Goldsmith delivered a hell of a soundtrack.
 
I was the bad effects, trying to add humor since it worked so well in the previous film and the story could have been a little tighter, the writer strike hurt them. Basically it was Shatner's fault and if he was a more seasoned director like Nick Myers he could have used these fault and worked with them. As Nick said and I live by, "creativity thrives on restrictions"
 
I was the bad effects, trying to add humor since it worked so well in the previous film and the story could have been a little tighter, the writer strike hurt them. Basically it was Shatner's fault and if he was a more seasoned director like Nick Myers he could have used these fault and worked with them. As Nick said and I live by, "creativity thrives on restrictions"

LOL. Bad effects, too much humor, story not tight enough, writer strike... nah, it was Shatner's fault. :lol:

And all behind the scenes info I read has cast & crew saying that Shatner was a great director.
 
99% of what was wrong with Star Trek V could have been fixed by a writer who had Paramount's backing to tell Shatner to sit down and stay out of the story ( . . . )
What makes this film really sloppy is that there was PLENTY of time to get this story polished.

Been gone a long time and I havent read down this whole thread -- but you do realize that the film was produced during a writer's strike? They had to go with the draft on hand.

Geez, fans are so quick to complain, without reading all the material out there that explains production difficulties. This was by far NOT the script Shatner wanted to do. It was the one he was stuck with.
 
Perhaps it would have been better to put production on hold until the writers were available again.

...actually, given the final product, I can't imagine how that could have turned out worse from a film quality standpoint...
 
For all the flak about the crappy FX, I would rather have TFF without the stupid humor.

Yeah.
TFF same bad FX, minus the humor > TFF, better FX, with the humor.
 
There's one moment in TFF that seals the deal for me, I love the movie but this moment just raises it for me.

The Enterprise has just breached the great barrier, Sha Ka Re is visible on the view screen. Everyone on the bridge is stunned by the beauty of the planet, Jerry Goldsmith's score is magnificent. The camera slowly pans from the front of the bridge to a moniker near the back. As the camera reaches the monitor it comes to life and reveals the bird of prey. At this moment Goldsmith inserts a small portion of his Klingon theme.

It's just a beautiful moment all around.
 
What's really fantastic about that moment is that, apparently, it was basically improvised by Goldsmith on the recording stages, yet it sounds like the score couldn't exist without it. A great moment in a great score.
 
I like Trek 5, Sybok and all. Actually I'm rather fond of Sybok. It felt like an episode complete with the same storytelling beats - yes I know not a good thing for an epic movie but most of the Trek movies have not been epic in scale.
 
I never get the criticisms of which movies to some people feel like overlong episodes and which don't. You hear it more with the TNG ones, like GEN or INS, but really I don't know what it means. Storyline not epic enough? Special Effects not good enough? What?
 
I never get the criticisms of which movies to some people feel like overlong episodes and which don't. You hear it more with the TNG ones, like GEN or INS, but really I don't know what it means. Storyline not epic enough? Special Effects not good enough? What?

It's usually meant as a compliment when applied to STV but negatively when spoken of a TNG movie - as in, 'The Final Frontier was the only movie that captured the feel and attitude of the original series!', versus, 'Insurrection didn't feel big, grandiose, or interesting enough to merit a film - it felt like an above-average two-part episode'.

I think it's true in both cases.
 
I wouldn't say that capturing the feel of the original series is the same thing as saying the movie feels like an episode of the original series. I believe the latter is a reference to the scope of the plot while the former is a description of the characters' chemistry.

That being said I didn't think TFF got the chemistry between the big three any better or worse than 2-4. Combined with the other aspects of TFF though, that's a net loss relative to the other films.
 
I never get the criticisms of which movies to some people feel like overlong episodes and which don't. You hear it more with the TNG ones, like GEN or INS, but really I don't know what it means. Storyline not epic enough? Special Effects not good enough? What?

It's usually meant as a compliment when applied to STV but negatively when spoken of a TNG movie - as in, 'The Final Frontier was the only movie that captured the feel and attitude of the original series!', versus, 'Insurrection didn't feel big, grandiose, or interesting enough to merit a film - it felt like an above-average two-part episode'.

I think it's true in both cases.

It's EXACTLY the opposite to me, honestly. Or...more accurately, STV encapsulates the parts of TOS that make me groan and cover my eyes, whereas GEN seems like a pretty good, if not amazing, TNG ep.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top