[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

The movie is a cluster**** basically.

Apart from now having this weird picture of Klingon group sex in mind this is the best explanation for the gun scene. Nonetheless, the movie feature some of the most memorable character scenes. They are embedded in a crappy movie but in and of themselves they are good.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by horatio

Apart from now having this weird picture of Klingon group sex in mind this is the best explanation for the gun scene. Nonetheless, the movie feature some of the most memorable character scenes. They are embedded in a crappy movie but in and of themselves they are good.

I won't disagree. The movie did have some good character moments. There were elements where the humor was genuine, and not forced. (McCOY: Imagine that? A passionate Vulcan.) And some pretty somber/dramatic moments as well.

I did think, for the most part, the meeting of Sybok, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy in the observation lounge (actually, both scenes in the observation lounge, with and without Sybok) were some of the high points of the film.

And the movie did have a very poignant line, spoken by Kirk: "I lost a brother once. I was lucky I got him back."

[horatio]

I totally agree. I also like this very pain scene in combination with the following God scene. In both instances Kirk rightly refuses to acknowledge the authority of somebody else, be it over his soul or his ship.
Looking back upon "I need my pain" from the perspective of TUC gives this line even more weight. Yes, he needs his pain to hate the Klingons, to be picked by the conspirators as scape goat and to overcome all of this.
Some alternative Kirk, brainwashed by this New Age Vulcan, might have been a nice, balanced guy but he would not have achieved something historical.

Shatner should be blamed for all the shortcomings of this movie but he should also be praised for having had a bunch of nice ideas and for having gotten his character right.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by martok2112

I won't disagree. The movie did have some good character moments. There were elements where the humor was genuine, and not forced. (McCOY: Imagine that? A passionate Vulcan.) And some pretty somber/dramatic moments as well.

I did think, for the most part, the meeting of Sybok, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy in the observation lounge (actually, both scenes in the observation lounge, with and without Sybok) were some of the high points of the film.

And the movie did have a very poignant line, spoken by Kirk: "I lost a brother once. I was lucky I got him back."

That's why it was so hard to believe it was a bad movie until you actually watch it...but the moments were stellar...just wish they were done elsewhere.

[martok2112]

Thanks, guys.

All this goes back to my original point: No one sets out to make a bad movie.

Even the highly vilified Uwe Boll (I say vilified because he is indeed vilified by video game fans everywhere for making some of the absolute worst video game based movies around...I have yet to see one of his films, but I'm taking other folks' words for the misery they've endured...LOL) does not intentionally set out to make bad movies. I'm sure that in his mind he feels he has great ideas, and sets out to bring them to fruition...unfortunately, his ideas tend to rub genre fans the wrong way, and thus his movies end up being considered bad.

Star Trek V has a great premise, and yes, it can be said that perhaps Shatner's full vision was not realized, but part of the taint in the equation is that he rammed his ideas down Paramount's throat.

[horatio]

Wasn't it Kirk 2.0 aka Riker who wanted to shove something down somebody's throat while playing with his joystick?



Seriously, I don't know whom or what to blame. Shatner's ego, the studio accepting that Shatner does everything on his own or production problems.
It's like with the "franchise fatigue" years. Berman and Brega or a risk-averse study wanting one series after another without any innovation in between.
I guess it's always a mixture of several factors ... although I admit that the ShatEgo is a nontrivial one.

[kevin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Tr...ier#Production

As ever, there's a few things of interest in the article on the production side, but at the end of the day I think it doesn't really cover the whole story.

I heartily agree that no-one sets ever out to make a film that fails, or that gets a truly bad reception............from general folks or a specific group of people like fans, and it's not easy to always figure why some fall on their face. Though, as with the Shat-ego, it can be easier to find a place to start! And I'm sorry, but letting someone who has never directed a feature film before get the job as part of a promise just because his co-star was allowed to and it's 'fair' that way is asking for trouble!

The film is just too derivative of past episodes and films without bringing anything new and even though it has some nice character scenes that doesn't provide enough to sit for two hours and watch a whole film.

It really just verifies that Trek is subject to the same production 'push-me-pull-me' as any other film.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by martok2112

And the movie did have a very poignant line, spoken by Kirk: "I lost a brother once. I was lucky I got him back."

The odd thing is, I hear that line and instead wonder why everyone seems to have forgotten about Sam..........

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

No one sets out to make terrible music, or open a terrible restaurant, or write bad poetry either. But all of those things happen too.

[horatio]

Some folks do intentionally write bad poetry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-meLjxRTg8A&t=6m47s