Star Trek V - great Star Trek movie, or the GREATEST Star Trek movie?

It had a decent story, some truly great moments, and some pointed insights. "Why does god need a starship?"

There are some good moments and some bad ones. If you are ever up for it, watch the movie with William Shatner's commentary. It's... Interesting.

At the end of the day, as Kirk notes, what Sybok is selling isn't worth buying.

Does








God







Need




With







A







Starship??

want...





my pain.


I...









NEED...










my pain.

I hate Rick Berman for raping TNG in those movies.

Uhura's fan dance, Scotty banging his head on a bulkhead, Sulu and Chekov getting lost in a forest were really stupid. And the FX were even cheesier than the original TV show.
The scene that I strongly recall was McCoy and his dying father. The Sybok character was also good.

This bears repeating:

William Shatner as Kirk.

Leonard Nimoy as Spock. (Not Spock Prime.)

DeForest Kelley as Bones.


Which means I'll watch it.

Shatner. Nimoy. Kelley. Doohan. Nichols. Takei. Koenig.

And no bloody substitutes.

Not that these are sucky actors, but rather the production company determined to make a Trek movie no matter what will provide a script that is perfunctory at best, full of awkward excuses for lines that might have sounded like good ideas in the writers' meetings.

I think this syndrome has tainted the entire run of the movie franchise--there are even hints of it in the new AbramsTrek.

But as you say, Kirk, Spock and McCoy together means that I'll watch it, and find something in it to enjoy. This number five movie just made me look a lot harder. There's a whole lotta suck to wade through for a thin, thin payoff.

The trouble is, sending up the characters in the process rarely works, which was done in trek V, to a much lesser extent in VI, IX, and X... VII gets it right with Data's emotion chip (it's in-character), but Trek VIII sends everybody up with silliness.

The 2009 movie does pick up on Trek V's style of making self-parodies out of the characters and re-uses some of the same ha-ha-bonk bits Trek V loved to play with. If only those scenes were funny in 1989. (Note to JJ NOT-SO-DYN-O-MITE: They're still not.

ST:2009 is cringe-worthy garbage.

But it made money, so Paramount is happy.

I may be a minority, but AbramsTrek sucks.


Oh, at least the big piece of blinky light plastic that acted as an engine room in Treks VIII-X looked more realistic than some abandoned high school boiler room, the sort most often found in movies heckled my MST:3K... note, that big piece of blinky plastic looked so fake... Trek II had the best engine room design, if you're looking for something that looks futuristic and not one big piece of plastic or anything that doubles as a swimming pool water filter/reconditioning system...

I thought it was mainly just pathetic. The spark of life that kept Wrath of Khan so watchable disappeared in the very next movie, and was only recovered--a bit--by Undiscovered Country, which wisely embraced the elderly status of its stars rather than trying, ludicrously, to deny it.

What I like most of all about Abrams' new movie is that it has a pulse. The breakneck pacing wasn't always effective, and the need to reestablish origins for well-known characters felt highly artificial. I can understand that mucking about with Scripture is going to rub some fans the wrong way, fans who don't want to see important elements reimagined (I don't mean to be condescending at all, I get this). In my view, the franchise had previously descended so far into self-parody that I was okay with seeing a completely new take on it. I was ready, and went into the theater with shields lowered, so to speak.

I'll hope to see more story in the next, with twists and turns and even a bit of mystery. And more for Uhura to do. Much more.

On a related (I promise) note, could I ask how you feel about Tenacious D?

of Star Trek V: The Gerontology Frontier

It had one good scene with McCoy, but the 'What does God need with a star-ship?' scene is too silly to be effective.
Now I use 'God from Star Trek V' to describe any hopelessly stupid plot device.
'Please...not in front of the Klingons.'

By "polished" I mean the script... I noticed the effects looked a step back, but the only one that was cringe-worthy is when the Klingon ship fires a bolt and the way the Enterprise takes off - it was either a poorly made effect or it was supposed to be a joke that the ship moves *just in time* like that...

In that mess is a potential for a good movie, and I liked the ending with Kirk suggesting about the Spirit being in all of us...

And production delays and mandates and budget cuts from Paramount had not helped either...

Yet I'd much rather watch it over that tripe made in 2009... "Nemesis" as well, and when not stealing scenes from every other trek film or tv show, the 2009 movie felt like "Nemesis" redux (big romulan ship and all that)...

"Nero"... ugh. I swear, next movie's baddie will be "Caesar" and be just as shallow, because mainstream audiences need to understaaaaaaaand it... :eyes: (Hey, people, sci-fi was never for mainstream people... go back to your soap operas and reality shows, please. Don't dumb down our genre...)

was Spock and Sybok. It put the episode "The Way to Eden" in an interesting new light.
Do you reach?