The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > General Star Trek Discussions > Films > Movies (I - X) > ST V - Not as bad as you think?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-17-2010, 07:41 AM
matty's Avatar
matty matty is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 184
Default ST V - Not as bad as you think?

Ive watched ST:V again today, it was on Sky this morning, now i remember it being a bit naff and its generally regarded as pretty poor, but aside from very ropey special effects and a couple of ropey scenes actually enjoyed watching it, why do folk think its so poor? Do you think that if Shatner could go back and do a directors cut and polish up the CGI, would it be a better movie?
__________________
"But I can't make this movie for readers of [Nacelles] Monthly who are only concerned with what the ship's engines look like. They're going to find something they hate no matter what I do."
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-17-2010, 08:56 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

I have often wondered if replacing the dire effects would at least make it more presentable as a viewing experience.

(When you can virtually see the strings on the models it can take you out of the film a bit).

And certainly parts of the basic story are grounded in the kinds of things that TOS used to do.

Travelling with total ease to the very centre of the Galaxy and finding a big powerful entity there etc, etc

But most of the dialogue is poor and the action elements still fall flat, Sybock is a mistake of execution if not conception on a basic level and at the end of the day I find the bad outweighs the good on it mostly.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-17-2010, 10:25 AM
jla1987's Avatar
jla1987 jla1987 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,483
Default

Personally, I love The Final Frontier and I agree that updating the effects would help the film quite a bit. Overall, it's no sillier than a TOS season 3 episode.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-17-2010, 12:08 PM
Steve Gennarelli Steve Gennarelli is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Land O Lakes, FL
Posts: 112
Default

Here's a different take on it. Had there been no "Star Trek I-IV" and "Star Trek V" had been the 1st film in the series, I think people would have liked it more.
In my opinion, each Star Trek movie from the first one on kinda sorta improved
on the one before it.
The weakness of "The Final Frontier" is that the smorgasboard of ideas on display had already been delivered in a superior way in one of the previous films.
(The Klingons had been used better in Trek III, Humor had been used better in IV,
the special effects of the 1st 4 films were far superior than what Bran Farran's group
could pull together for Shatner).
On the plus side, you have an underrated wonderful guest star in Lawrence Luckinbill and a remarkable score by Jerry Goldsmith. Those 2 elements add a lot to the mix, but overall the film is generally regarded on the lower end of "Star Trek" moviedom and rightly so, IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-17-2010, 03:21 PM
NCC-73515's Avatar
NCC-73515 NCC-73515 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 7,229
Default

SW colony with SW bar... desert unicorn horses... and Bill Kaulitz in space.
__________________


"English! I thought I dreamed hearing it!"?
Khan, Space Seed (TOS)

Brought to you in living color by NCC.
-= first fan member =-

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-18-2010, 10:20 AM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
I don't think that the movie would be much better in a CG-ified version. I'd say that it's main weaknesses are plot issues whereas it's strength the character moments.
I agree, the strongest parts of the film to me are the camping scenes.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-18-2010, 11:18 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

I would agree about the camping scene and the general early character moments, but they become less compelling as the film goes on I find.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-18-2010, 11:46 AM
jla1987's Avatar
jla1987 jla1987 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,483
Default

It isn't any less compelling than Insurrection. That whole movie isn't compelling...

Had to get a shot in there! Just had to!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-18-2010, 07:36 PM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,208
Default

I wouldn't deny that Insurrection is still the least cinematic of all the ST films. But it at least manages to avoid being embarassing like so much of STV and Nemesis were.

Even seeing V in theaters at age 15 -and actually thinking at the time that the 'humor' in it was somehow funny- I remember being aware of how cringingly on-the-nose much of the dialogue was, right from the time Sybok opened with "Your pain runs deep." Even the much-beloved campfire scene doesn't get a free pass. Kirk and friends are like family? You don't actually come out and say that after twenty-plus years... you just don't do that (although in Shatner's defense, didn't Janeway actually come right out and refer to her crew as a family on several occasions? Way too on-the-nose.)

I also wouldn't deny that STV was better than most of TOS's 3rd season (it had better be, with all the money involved). It doesn't change the fact that I pretty much write off all of S3, save for the pilot episodes that tend to get clumped in with it like demo tracks at the tail end of a CD anthology collection.

I dare say, I think most of us would forgive the poor special effects (save for maybe the confrontation with 'God' having no line-of-sight spatial continuity), if the rest of the movie had compensated in any significant way. But I'm with the general consensus which says that it didn't.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:38 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.