Why was the budget for The Final Frontier reduced?
- Thread starter indycar
- Start date
Spock: I've lost a brother
Kirk: Yes. I lost a brother once. I was lucky I got him back
McCoy: You did?
Kirk: yes *looks at Spock knowingly*
Spock: Captain did you somehow rejuvenate the body of your brother also?
Kirk: um..
Bones : Jim this is incredible! You brought Sam back!?
Kirk: no. Uh. I er. i meant Spock..
McCoy: oh..
Spock: that.. is illogical captain
Kirk: Yes. I lost a brother once. I was lucky I got him back
McCoy: You did?
Kirk: yes *looks at Spock knowingly*
Spock: Captain did you somehow rejuvenate the body of your brother also?
Kirk: um..
Bones : Jim this is incredible! You brought Sam back!?
Kirk: no. Uh. I er. i meant Spock..
McCoy: oh..
Spock: that.. is illogical captain
Last edited:
So besides the fact that this is absolutely atrocious dialogue and the fact that Kirk actually did have a brother who died and didn't come back (as Khan 2.0 humorously points out above), I still fail to see how the revelation that Kirk realizes that he has an 'extended' family in Spock, Bones, et. al (which he should have already known about anyway despite the fact that they all betray him in this movie) is an example of how Spock and/or Sybok "saved" him from anything.
Really, the gist of this film comes down to one single quote, and it always has: "Why does God need a starship?" It's almost become a running joke. The line is given to Kirk because Kirk is the HERO of this movie...never mind that every single other person in the film (especially Sybok) should have been asking that question from the get-go. I'm sure the audience was certainly asking it.
Last edited:
That dialogue doesn't bother me at all.
The dialogue is the one aspect of this film that's outstanding. Specifically the scenes in the observation lounge.
The films two primary flaws that would've been easy to flesh out is how Sybok was originally inspired/deluded. Something similar to what happened to Barclay in the Nth Degree would've done nicely.
The attack on Nimbus was unnecessarily slapstick. They gave Rura Penthe a "magnetic shield that prevents shielding" in the next film, it's a pity they didn't come up with that with this film. It would've removed the need for the dumb comedy scenes of the malfunctioning Enterprise.
The dialogue is the one aspect of this film that's outstanding. Specifically the scenes in the observation lounge.
The films two primary flaws that would've been easy to flesh out is how Sybok was originally inspired/deluded. Something similar to what happened to Barclay in the Nth Degree would've done nicely.
The attack on Nimbus was unnecessarily slapstick. They gave Rura Penthe a "magnetic shield that prevents shielding" in the next film, it's a pity they didn't come up with that with this film. It would've removed the need for the dumb comedy scenes of the malfunctioning Enterprise.
Well, to be fair, no one knew God was going to ask for a lift off Sha Ka Ree until they actually got to the surface and started talking to him. And by that point, Sybok was basically paralyzed with regret, Spock had been sent flying with a lightening bolt, and McCoy was... well, who knows.
But your other points certainly stand.
Oh, the saving is literal.
Sybok jumped the God thing, then spock shot it with disruptors
The extended family thing is shown with kirk outright saying 'men like us don't have families' at the beginning of the film, so the true camaraderie (as opposed to Syboks cult family) wins the day, with Sybok calling kirk and Co. his friends just before jumping God.
And of course none of the people under Syboks glamour, or Sybok himself would ask why God needs a starship. One of the themes in the film is the lack of wisdom in blindly having faith in charismatic types or external forces without question.
The internal faith that Kirk has in his friends, and as he puts it, the human heart, is something even Sybok seems to realise too late.
The 'why does God need a starship' is probably, and in my experience certainly, because it's actually a cool scene. And the God being explains precisely why it needs one.
It's very similar to TMP with v'ger calling spock, or IV with the probe...except the being is malevolent, and clearly is not the/an actual God, but is using that.
This is all pretty clear from watching the film, and was even to a roughly 10 year old back then.
Remember, the golden age of science fiction is twelve
Now, the execution does let things down, but the dialogue and characterisation is borderline perfect for a Tos film, and it's concept is extremely true to the original series. There is far worse dialogue in the 'popular' films, and certainly worse characterisation. In an objective sense rather than a personal ' I didn't like it so it's rubbish' sense. Often, as with a few junky scenes in V, for the sake of humour. (big sodding dictionaries in ST VI for example.)
More time and a little more money for the finale would have fixed V. Cgi could help it even now. Gloss.
Oh, the saving is literal.
Sybok jumped the God thing, then spock shot it with disruptors
The extended family thing is shown with kirk outright saying 'men like us don't have families' at the beginning of the film, so the true camaraderie (as opposed to Syboks cult family) wins the day, with Sybok calling kirk and Co. his friends just before jumping God.
And of course none of the people under Syboks glamour, or Sybok himself would ask why God needs a starship. One of the themes in the film is the lack of wisdom in blindly having faith in charismatic types or external forces without question.
The internal faith that Kirk has in his friends, and as he puts it, the human heart, is something even Sybok seems to realise too late.
The 'why does God need a starship' is probably, and in my experience certainly, because it's actually a cool scene. And the God being explains precisely why it needs one.
It's
Their only fault was not controlling Shatner.
Really nice post, and I think it sums up something about STV that a lot of people forget, that being Shatner's starting point for the story was as something of a commentary on the 'televangelist' phenomenon, which Shatner saw cynically as being people using faith to exploit others, declaring that only they have a direct conduit to speak with God, that you need to give them lots of money in order to truly show your devotion to the almighty, etc etc. In the finished movie, Sybok's role as a "false phophet" was downplayed to non-existence, as the character was softened into being less villainous and more like somebody whose own faith has duped him, the 'God Creature' instead is the televangelist figure leading Sybok astray.
A lot of people have gone on to take the piss about Star Trek V, deriding it's "This Week, The Enterprise Discovers God!" premise. But the reality is that Shatner's basic story is actually very good, and thought-provoking. 'Other factors' conspired to lessen the movie, but I do think Shatner's heart was actually in the right place.
How so? That's like blaming them for not controlling Braga and Moore during Generations. No matter how great a talent you are, if you're handed edicts from the studio on how the movie needs to be done, then your hands are pretty much tied.
Yeah, they went off the beaten track with a story. I commend that. I enjoy the way Spock is thrown by the affable yet determined Sybok who appears to have things come easy to him whereas life is a constant struggle for Spock. Sybok is a direct challenge to Spock on a number of fronts and Spock struggles with that. The test Sybok poses to the classic triumvirate of McCoy, Spock and Kirk, an apparently powerful appeal that is promptly rebuffed by the trio just elegantly demonstrates how cast-iron their bond has in the winter of their careers. Members of the general audience might not appreciate that but I think fans generally will.
As for some scenes when we get the ropier dialogue....it's not something that fazed me. It's not some dramatic rupture comparison to the previous film where apparently the smog of San Fran turns Spock into some kind of semi-coherent lobotomy act.
As for some scenes when we get the ropier dialogue....it's not something that fazed me. It's not some dramatic rupture comparison to the previous film where apparently the smog of San Fran turns Spock into some kind of semi-coherent lobotomy act.
Last edited:
And the campouts at beginning and end.
To be fair, Spock had just come back from the dead.
True. In universe, TVH was three months after SFS and TFF was between six months and a year later, what with the shakedown cruise first, before Scotty's three week attempt at miracle-working.
This is almost completely nonsensical. Shatner may have been the director (and he directed the hell out of the movie; it's gorgeous), but Bennett and Winter could and should have realized, for example, that Associates & Ferren didn't have the skills or the resources to pull off the effects -- that kind of due diligence falls upon the producers' shoulders. Beyond that, Bennett, by his own admission, was burned out on Trek after he continuously fought with Nimoy during production and post-production of The Voyage Home, and he didn't really want to be part of another movie. That, combined with a ludicrously rushed production schedule, is a recipe for disaster.
Similar threads
- Poll
