Nothin' but pure science fiction!
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Star Trek: The Final Frontier (1989)
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Star Trek Movies and related subjects
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)

Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 15383
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


I received my Blu-ray of it today from Amazon. Very Happy

Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Galactic Ambassador

Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1818

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My condolences.
...or not...

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Galactic Ambassador

Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 1730

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is a deleted scene on YouTube:
Art Should Comfort the Disturbed and Disturb the Comfortable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Galactic Fleet Vice Admiral (site admin)

Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 574

PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


_______ Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (Trailer)


You know a Star Trek film has some problems when the episode of the original series it calls to mind is The Way to Eden, the one with the space hippies seeking their own version of a planetary Eden.

This 5th Trek film also has similarities to the episode Who Mourns for Adonais?, another example of confronting a false deity, and even though that episode is not one of the better ones, it's still more effective than this film. That's rather sad. One might say, this was the turkey of Star Trek films.

This film looks exciting based on a summary and stills, but a lot of things went wrong it seems. The film has good intentions; it seeks to return to Trek's potent theme of exploration, of seeking answers on more than just the physical level, after a trilogy of films which stressed space battles, chasing about, and future politics.

However, first-time director Shatner and the writers seem to have no understanding of the concepts presented, or even of the general Trek universe. The first half of the film seems influenced by Shatner having watched too many action movies taking place in the desert; he appears hellbent on transplanting scenes from Lawrence of Arabia into the Trek worlds.

Some of the problems with this film were actually caused by Paramount, such as insisting on funny scenes to capture the success of the 4th film, The Voyage Home (1986).

But Shatner, trying to better Nimoy's directing jobs, was in charge and cannot be held as blameless. Overall, Shatner's approach is best described as flippant; he sets up scenes well, then throws them away with ludicrous turns of the plot. An early example is the sequence in Yosemite National Park, which begins fine, a sense of adventure even as the heroes are on shore leave. All of a sudden, we see Spock become Superman, zooming to the rescue of Kirk, now Lois Lane. No one paused to think or challenge Shatner with the opinion that it just plain looks silly.

Shatner extends this approach to his fellow actors. Yes — Doohan, Takei, Koenig and Nichols are given more to do than usual here, but the extra stuff usually involves them looking clownish; we're not laughing with them, as in the previous The Voyage Home, but at them. Sulu & Chekov lost in the woods, Uhura's 'erotic' dance, Scotty knocking himself out.

Was Shatner hinting that they were all acquiring senility by this point? And then there was all the business about nothing working on this new Enterprise. I guess Starfleet rushed in putting this NCC-1701-A ship together? Shatner is now ridiculing the ship, on top of everything else.

This isn't a total mess. A lot of the casual banter, mostly among the main trio (Kirk,Spock,McCoy) still works, a benefit of these actors having worked together for so long.

But the one who almost steals the movie is Luckinbill as the enigmatic Sybok, the emotional Vulcan who drives the plot. Most Trekkers are not fans of this strange character. In fact, Gene Roddenberry himself considered him as non-canon; the older brother to Spock, who was conceived by Sarek's earlier tryst with a Vulcan priestess.

It does sound like it's out of left field.

And, I would've liked more information about why Sybok behaves in such a non-Vulcan manner. But it's a charismatic performance and you kind of buy into the whole premise of his hypnotic power to gather his followers, including even key members of Kirk's crew.

The most powerful scene must be when Sybok uses his power on McCoy and we get a glimpse into what drove this character during the original series, including his often fatalistic approach to things.

The plot revolves around Sybok's plan to acquire a starship so that he can journey to a galactic barrier (similar to the one from the Where No Man Has Gone Before pilot episode) and pierce it to enter the galactic center and meet God. It's not very complicated. And they make it look easy enough so that almost anyone could zoom in over there.

Once there, they encounter a run-of-the-mill energy composed/manipulating alien — the kind they ran into every other week on the original series — and Sybok gets a cold splash of reality; yes, life is certainly not a dream.

Shatner is not able to tie the thought-provoking concepts together into some kind of cohesive whole, probably because he was more concerned with presenting an action picture. For him, it was more exciting to have his character climbing rocks or scrambling to avoid an angry alien than to attempt some metaphysical answers.

Oh, and this film ruined the song 'Row, Row, Row Your Boat' for me.

Blame was also placed on lack of money for better FX at the climax, but I really don't think that would have helped. The inclusion of more belligerent Klingons here is proof of that. Shatner took the unimpressive way Klingons were depicted in Star Trek III and presented them here in an even more brutishly clownish manner. The tough aliens are little more than an on-going joke in this film (Klaa! — the strongest Klingon around these here parts!). Of course, much of the film comes across as a parody, a joke.

This should have been the death-knell of the film series, but they managed to bring them all back together for a classy finish in the next one, The Undiscovered Country (1991).

BoG's Score: 5 out of 10

RiffTrax,with Mike Nelson, riffing on the 5th Trek film's early scene:

_________RiffTrax w/ Mike Nelson - Star Trek V


Galaxy Overlord Galactus

Last edited by Bogmeister on Sun May 19, 2019 11:49 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Starship Navigator

Joined: 19 Feb 2015
Posts: 594

PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry Bud but this movie... was pure gagh. And that would be insulting a Klingon delicacy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Galactic Ambassador

Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 2884
Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2019 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I won't ever be a champion of this movie as I found it quite disappointing in the franchise.

However, I was impressed with the exterior movie set of Paradise City.

Fun Facts } The set was constructed in the Mojave for $500,000. It took 5~weeks to build in 100 degree heat.

I always thought that it was a shame that sets like this one are usually demolished right after filming.

Be nifty if other movie or TV companies could utilize such expensive sets. And they could modify the set as needed for a different production.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Space Ranger

Joined: 18 Jul 2022
Posts: 120
Location: NW Florida

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2022 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

STV is a case where it *might* benefit from a director's cut like they did with STTMP. I'm sure they could improve the FX, and might be able to create the original ending with CGI.

I've no doubt that Shatner SHAT the bed with most of his choices, but the studio didn't help.

The existing FX are simply terrible, but that is the studio's fault as well, partly because they had loaned the Enterprise miniature out for someone to use as decoration at their kid's bar mitzvah (if I remember correctly) and they'd spray painted the model silver. So it had to be stripped and repainted at great time and expense. Plus, the FX house didn't have any blue screen experience at all, mostly just practical, in-camera effects.

There are a couple of nicely scripted moments but they are very few.

A former friend of mine was invited to an early screening of it and upon its later release said "oh, they changed some didn't really help"; but he still loved the film over all the other Trek films at the time Confused

"Have you never wondered what it would be like to walk between the ticks and tocks of Time?"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Galactic Ambassador

Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 2884
Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Nitpickers Guide:

At the beginning of this movie, a Starfleet Commander claims they must send Kirk, because he's the only experienced commander available. So what justification are they using to send the Enterprise?

Why doesn't Starfleet put him in charge of the Excelsior?
It's docked right beside the Enterprise, and last we heard, it was in pretty good shape. (True, Scott removed a few key computer components in order to disable the ship's engines, but couldn't they be put back?)

Doesn't Sybok understand Starfleet technology? On the surface of Nimbus III, Spock uses a tricorder to locate the kidnapped ambassadors. Couldn't a normally functioning starship do the same with its sensors from orbit? Couldn't a normally functioning transporter pluck the hostages from danger without sending anyone to the surface?

Kirk makes a pitiful showing as an infantryman in this movie. He manages to get inside the city where the rebels hold the ambassadors, and then both he and his troops seem to forget that they possess superior firepower. The rebels defeat them with guns that shoot little rockets!
Why doesn't Kirk just have his men put their phasers on stun, wide field, and shoot everybody (just as he did in "The Return of the Archons")?

Doesn't it make more sense to sort through the bodies after you've established control?

As Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Sybok fly down in a shuttle to investigate the planet, "God" takes control and lands the vessel for them. Oddly enough, the four humanoids must walk a fairly long distance to get to the meeting. It sure seems like "god" could have parked a little closer. It's not as if the lot is full or anything.

After "God" fires his first lightning bolt, Kirk's shirt shows char marks in the front and the back. Does that mean the bolt went all the way through him? And if it did, why isn't kirk dead?

At the beginning of the movie, a close-up clearly demonstrates that Spock's boots fire downward. Yet he saves Kirk by grabbing the captain's ankles while both of them are upside down. Wouldn't the boots accelerate instead of brake their descent?

As Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Sybok disembark from the shuttle on the surface of the planet, the crew of the Enterprise watch their progress. Just where is this picture coming from? "God"-cam?

These photon torpedoes must not be as powerful as we've been led to believe. "God's" meeting place takes a direct hit, and the stone pillars still exist. I would have thought that one torpedo would have vaporized the whole area. Of course, then our heroes would die as well.

Thoughts: So it looks like this movie has a long list of plot holes, Bud, just as you state ST: TWOK & ST: TUC do. I still am in shock that you find this film superior to either of those movies, which are the two best ones of the six made with the original cast in my humble opinion.

Much of the humor is sophomoric. Scotty walks into a overhanging section in the access tunnel and knocks himself out cold! Worthy of a Three Stooges short, not a Trek movie.
Sulu & Chekov, walking like Groucho Marx, shadow a Klingon woman! Lame-o.

The old trope that Kirk is the ONLY commander available for this all of Starfleet? Sigh.

William Shatner did work hard to produce/direct this film, as you say, and was up against obstacles beyond his control. While I can sympathize with him for all that, I still can't just give him a pass and say this is a fine film. It just is not, no matter how much everyone in front of, and behind, the camera sweated blood, sweat, and tears to get this film made. It either works or it doesn't, and this movie has never worked for me from the day I first saw it in the theaters until today.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Star Trek Movies and related subjects All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group