Star Trek V

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2003-04-10 09:06am

...or Star Trek: the One we try to forget.

I read the novelisation of STV last night & I must honestly say it is pretty good. It describes the charcter of Sybok much better, it explains how he can do what he does...the pain sequences for Scott & Sulu are very descriptive...

The novel gives it a sense of drama that was missing from the film. I actually don't mind the film as much as some, though I do think it was marred by shoddy SFX.

What do you think?

kmart · Post by **kmart** » 2003-04-10 11:16am

I figure all of the films take liberties with the characterization and continuity from the series, so the fact that ST 5 seems to do it in a way that inflames lots of folks doesn't hold much weight for me, and the movie is among my favorites ... I saw all of them when they first released theatrically, and despite the fx and the logic lapses, it was the most enjoyable theatrical experience I ever had with a Trek movie.

Since then, I have probably seen ST 5 more than any of the other except ST 1 & 2. I like the cinematography a lot from a compositional standpoint and find the stuff with the Big 3 to be awesome entertainment.

Goldsmith's score helps skill the movie through the bad plotting, and there are a few moments of genuine wonder (when Spock sez, I am no longer in control of the craft' as they approach the god planet, for example), the kind of stuff that simply doesn't exist in any form in the Nimoy films, which seem very prosaic to me.

I'm not going to compare it to any legitimate science fiction film like 2001 (hell, I've seen 2001 nearly two dozen times IN THE THEATRE, apart from countless viewing on laserdisc and dvd) or COLOSSUS; I'm looking at it strictly from the viewpoint of somebody who loves the original series for its characterization and its prominent, memorable music and some sense of being 'out there' on the frontier.

To me, ST 5 delivered in those areas in spades, so the jittery model photography and bad optical work and Paramount-imposed badly done humor can't take away from that achievement. I defended the film online at trekbbs for quite awhile, but JKTIM is a mod there who can do that as well as I by this point.

For every bitch about '78 decks' or 'getting to the galactic core in a half-hour', I can point to fuckups and misthinks in all of the other features, so I say look at it for what it is and what it tries to say, not what it fails at being.

Oddly enough, I myself canNOT take that same attitude with most of ModernTrek, since I can't figure out what the fuck it is or wants to be ... there doesn't seem to be much content or inspiration value for me after DS9 (or in a lot of NextGen, either, for that matter. Hard to get excited about a culture that has this magic box replication tech that is basically something-for-nothing, yet won't share with those who can't build a warp drive and relies on pre-Heisenberg thinking to justify its prime directive of hands-off, which I equate to genocide through benign neglect.)

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-04-10 10:28pm

I think it's a real shame that Shatner's original vision of Star Trek 5 never made it to the screen; I think that would have been a great movie.

Personally, I think Star Trek 5 is better than any of the TNG films. None of the TNG films have a FRACTION of the fun that Final Frontier has. The effects don't even bother me that much; frankly the shot of the Enterprise flying into the Great Barrier, into the unknown, is one of the best scenes in the entire franchise. All the torpedos and phaser strikes of TNG can't compare.

To go further would be to retread what kmart has already said.

kmart: You've seen the Colossus movie? Was it very good? I've read the whole trilogy, and tried for weeks afterward to find it in local video rental places; I guess I'll just have to bite the bullet and order it online or something, but I'd appreciate knowing beforehand whether it's any good or not.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-04-11 12:19am

When I finally saw ST5, I was amazed at how non-bad a lot of it was. The problem was, there was a bit of it that was just so bad (Uhura's gratuitous fan-dance, among other things) that it kinda screwed the movie over.

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-04-11 01:39am

Uraniun235 wrote:I think it's a real shame that Shatner's original vision of Star Trek 5 never made it to the screen; I think that would have been a great movie.

What was different in the original version?

Equinox2003 · Post by **Equinox2003** » 2003-04-11 02:53am

I never really thought it was all that convincing that everybody
suddenly forgot what they were about and agreed to follow Sybok.
Now maybe if he had some sort of control hypnosis or something,
that would be different. All we see is that he talk to them and
suddenly they follow him like it was a religion.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-04-11 03:19am

Now is this a coincidence that ST5 was on TNN tonight?

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-04-11 04:05am

I read Shatner's book, "Movie Memories" and he talks about the making of Trek V. You know what is interesting, he got the idea for Sybok from watching a televangelist.

Baron Mordo · Post by **Baron Mordo** » 2003-04-11 10:24am

Makes sense to me.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-04-11 10:50am

IG-88E wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote:I think it's a real shame that Shatner's original vision of Star Trek 5 never made it to the screen; I think that would have been a great movie.
What was different in the original version?

Space combat, expanded ground combat scenes, general mayhem yet plenty of character development at the same time.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-04-11 10:52am

Best...Star Trek...movie....EVER.

Baron Mordo · Post by **Baron Mordo** » 2003-04-11 12:10pm

Alyeska wrote:
IG-88E wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote:I think it's a real shame that Shatner's original vision of Star Trek 5 never made it to the screen; I think that would have been a great movie.
What was different in the original version?
Space combat, expanded ground combat scenes, general mayhem yet plenty of character development at the same time.

Also it would've had David Warner as Sybok. My god, he can chew the scenery as well as Ricardo Montalban.

kmart · Post by **kmart** » 2003-04-11 03:30pm

Baron Mordo wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
IG-88E wrote: What was different in the original version?
Space combat, expanded ground combat scenes, general mayhem yet plenty of character development at the same time.
Also it would've had David Warner as Sybok. My god, he can chew the scenery as well as Ricardo Montalban.

Never heard of Warner for Sybok. The candidates I've always heard are Sean Connery, Max Von Sydow and Klaus Maria Brandauer.

kmart · Post by **kmart** » 2003-04-11 03:37pm

Uraniun235 wrote:
kmart: You've seen the Colossus movie? Was it very good? I've read the whole trilogy, and tried for weeks afterward to find it in local video rental places; I guess I'll just have to bite the bullet and order it online or something, but I'd appreciate knowing beforehand whether it's any good or not.

I've seen COLOSSUS about seven or eight times. It is available on an out of print hard to find laserdisc in a package with SILENT RUNNING, and on vhs from many years back too I believe, but not on dvd yet. SCI FI CHANNEL runs a cut version of it every year or so (that's all I have at the moment.)

Personally, I find it to be a very clever movie, and think of it as a kind of pseudo prequel to THE MATRIX in what it sets up. Always wished they'd made a 30 years later sequel, since the principal actors are still around.

You DO get some of that hysterically funny feel from some of the computer elements, like when you see 'state of the art computers' in an episode of THE PRISONER, because so much stuff dates so badly, but it is easy to overlook, as the movie just plain WORKS. The guy who directed it also directed THE CORBOMITE MANEUVER for Star Trek and the original theatrical version of TAKING OF PELHAM 123, and he keeps things interesting all the way through.

I remember reading the second Colossus book as a teen and being kind of surprised, since the author sets the action well into the future. Also all that 'rape of the Sabine women' stuff was pretty distasteful -- it must be, for me to be able to remember it three decades later!

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-04-11 08:16pm

Well, there's definitely continuity errors between the first and second Colossus books. Cleo's age changes, and I don't think the first book had been set quite as far into the future as the second book. There were a couple of other differences as well... nothing too glaring though.

IG-88E: http://www.geocities.com/phineasbg/st5bh.html

Eddy the Very Great · Post by **Eddy the Very Great** » 2003-04-13 09:14pm

I didn't like that movie. The other ST movies I have seen were much better.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2003-04-13 09:20pm

Eddy the Very Great wrote:I didn't like that movie. The other ST movies I have seen were much better.

NO DUH SHERLOCK, I think that's been expressed all throughout the thread and by anyone who has seen the frieken movie!

That being said, was it this movie, or ST: I that was removed from the Canon of Startrek?

Mutant Headcrab · Post by **Mutant Headcrab** » 2003-04-13 11:13pm

Ahhhh....Star Trek 5. That movie was a milestone to me, with Kirk blowing up God, Uhura leaf dances, and everyone follows Sybek like some sort of demented cult.

Begin.....memory....repression!!!

kmart · Post by **kmart** » 2003-04-14 10:37am

Eddy the Very Great wrote:I didn't like that movie. The other ST movies I have seen were much better.

Straha wrote: NO DUH SHERLOCK, I think that's been expressed all throughout the thread and by anyone who has seen the frieken movie!

Dude, did you even READ the posts in this thread? Looks to me like most of the folks DO appreciate this movie to some degree (geez, and in my case shitloads more than the Nimoy-directed ones!)

That being said, was it this movie, or ST: I that was removed from the Canon of Startrek?

According to Okuda (filtered through that Richard Arnold guy, who is probably the one who said it, not Gene), GR supposedly declared parts of trek 5 & trek 6 apocryphal.

The idea that GR would have bothered to make a statement about decanonizing trek 6 during the 30 or so hours he lived after seeing it (besides dictating his memo about everything he wanted changed and cut) is kinda silly, and supports the notion that all this decanonizing movie crap really is Richard Arnold applying HIS standards, if you want to call them that, and justifying it by saying it was GR.

While I think Berman was the worst thing to hit Trek EVER, the one good thing he did (besides stay largely hands off with DS9) was to lose Arnold once GR was gone.

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2003-04-14 09:17pm

Man, So I'm not the only guy who thinks that ST:V wasn't that bad. I'll partially agree with you Kmart, Shatner does get alot of udeserved grief for this movie but I don't think it was his fault at all. He was able to use Jerry Goldsmith brilliantly regarding the score, something that Frakes and some of the other TNG directors fail to do. Goldsmith's TFF score almost exceeded TMP in many ways.