Still better than Jar Jar Star Trek.
At least it had something to say. And wasn't about mindless action and character made out cardboard.
shareYou mean it feels like art rather than plastic, sitcom level bubblegum?
MovieChat Forums > Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) Discussion > Still better than Jar Jar Star Trek.
ST5 might have had some silly moments. But at least ST5 didnt have this sh!t.
http://www.futuredude.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/star-trek-2009-ki rk-big-allergic-reaction-hands-in-sick-bay-with-bones.jpg
[deleted]
It still a stupid moment and frankly Star Trek (2009) is a stupid movie. This at least tries to be more than a stupid action film. It just wasn't very well executed. It still should at least get props for trying. Star Trek (2009) doesn't even try and feels like it was written by a 16 year old. McCoys euthanizing his father is more powerful than anything in either of JJ Star Trek movies.
shareThe worst part of Star Trek V...http://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/star_trek_v_ver1.jpg!
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
[deleted]
The purpose of the Star Trek 2009 was to entertain audiences
So you assign a purpose to Star Trek 2009 that applies to every film ever made? So deep.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it? share
Why yes, didn't you know that prior to 2009 films *weren't* meant to entertain audiences. Hence hasty remakes of the likes of Spiderman, Batman, Superman and, of course, Star Trek. Audiences may now, for the first time, feel entertained, and not have to think too hard between 'splosions. And as for the new Star Wars movie? Who needs a story if you have enough lens flare?
shareWhatever Star Trek V was attempting to do, it failed miserably.
That's a myth. "The Final Frontier" (TFF) made twice its expense in the USA box office alone. The reason it didn't make a lot of money overseas was because it was released to video instead of theaters in many countries.
It has flaws -- too many ill-fitting goofy scenes and an ending that fizzles out due to cost cuts as filming progressed -- but that's different than "failing miserably." share
"Whatever Star Trek V was attempting to do, it failed miserably."
That's a myth. "The Final Frontier" (TFF) made twice its expense in the USA box office alone. The reason it didn't make a lot of money overseas was because it was released to video instead of theaters in many countries.
His comment had NOTHING to do with box office, so not sure why you replied with a comment about box office. He was talking about what the film hoped to be, what story it hoped to tell, what themes it hoped to explore, etc.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it? share
His comment had NOTHING to do with box office
It may or may not of, since he didn't specify. But thanks for pointing that out because it did occur to me while I was responding, but posted anyway.
Regardless, in my humble opinion the film delivers on many fronts. No other Trek film showcases the character interplay of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy troika to the level of intimacy shown in "The Final Frontier," and only "The Voyage Home" exceeds the joyful energy of the characters (not including the reboots, which also score high in this area). As far as the spirit of exploration goes, "Star Trek V" delivers because no exploration is greater than the quest for ultimate reality and the (possibility of a) Supreme Creator. And many other important themes are touched on: personal pain, healing, faith, family, love, fanaticism, the desire to know ultimate reality (absolute truth), God, false beliefs, loyalty, repentance and forgiveness. Name another film in the series that addresses so many weighty topics and yet remains entertaining.
It's too bad that they fumbled the ball with the campy elements (some of which work) and ran out of the money necessary to give us the dynamic ending Shatner wanted. As it is, the ending just fizzles out and it sank the picture.
share
The alternate timeline movies are way better than this one. JJ Abrams and the other people he tends to team up with (Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, etc.) always do quality work. Stop trying to compare the original series and movies with the newer ones as they are completely different animals as so to speak. Instead of complaining about what they aren't, enjoy them for what they are and be glad that there are still Star Trek stories being made for the big screen. The costumes, makeup, special effects and sets are excellent and there are lots of great performances.
shareJJ Abrams and the other people he tends to team up with (Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, etc.) always do quality work.
Bwahahahahaha! Don't make me laugh. Lindelof, Orci, and Kurtzman are all attached to some sheer crap at the cinemas. Big budget, glossy, flashy, polished turds such as the Transformer movies, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Prometheus. They don't do their homework, think that lazy screenplays equal an attempt at being profound, and generally only care about overblown action scene first and story second. These guys don't fight for quality like writers in generations past have done, but instead are lapdogs for studios that deliver exactly what the demographic reports tell them to do.
Instead of complaining about what they aren't, enjoy them for what they are and be glad that there are still Star Trek stories being made for the big screen.
Yes, yes, reward mediocrity with your hard earned cash. Robots like you are the real problem, for as long as studios have you for a customer, they no longer need to try. If you have no quality standards and willfully accept crap, then you can never expect to receive anything better.
The costumes, makeup, special effects and sets are excellent and there are lots of great performances.
Without a compelling story, none of those things matter.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it? share
Without a compelling story, none of those things matter.
Exactly. There was nothing wrong with the costumes, makeup or special effects in the Star Wars prequels either. Didn't exactly help, though, did it? share
Lindelof, Orci, and Kurtzman are all attached to some sheer crap at the cinemas.Big budget, glossy, flashy, polished turds such as the Transformer movies, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Prometheus . . Robots like you are the real problem, for as long as studios have you for a customer, they no longer need to try.
Hmm; well I cant stand the Transformers movies, really enjoyed the 2009 ST, and generally enjoyed ST:ID and Prometheus despite some major reservations. What does this make me? Be I robot or man? Maybe some kind of cyborg?
Cool. Wonder if I'm immortal?
-------------------------
I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone. share
Solar Sailor, your post was the best thing I've read in a long time. You're so right about mediocrity being praised simply because it's what is out there. For years I've been sick of the conveyor belt that has become Hollywood. Instead of thinking of a great idea and putting time and effort to make something new, fresh, etc, they continue to pump out remakes, sequels of movies 20 years gone, and storylines that are as fresh as a 4 year old carton of milk. Unfortunately, these movies have the biggest audience in America where laziness is a trait to be admired and followed. Instead of boycotting Hollywood's lazy attempts at "art," they'd rather pay the 10 bucks (and then another 20 to get junk food) to see a movie.
shareLabeling this a 'Merican problem is lazier than someone picking Movie A You Don't Approve Of over Movie B You Think Is Bitchin'. Take a look at the year-by-year and all-time box-office champs in pretty much any country you care to look at, and you'll find a lot of the same titles pop up. Apparently there's a lot of cultural overlap among the lazy consumers of the world, at least among those who can afford to go to the movies a few times a year. Maybe Kenyans are a sophisticated bunch when it comes to film, but when a wide release only plays on a dozen screens in all of West Africa, it's hard to tell.
Look, I agree with you to a point. I wish there were fewer Smurfs and YA adaptations in theaters instead or more more adventurous fare, but that's just not reality. It never has been and never will be. Familiarity sells, to a point, whether you'r talking about movies, food, clothes, or whatever. The vast majority of movie-goers every-damn-where on the planet just want a few laughs and/or a diversion for a couple of hours. It's not that they're necessarily too stupid and/or lazy to choose something different; they just don't care that much. Film is not a big deal to them.
And so what? I have a couple of bro-in-laws who are big gun guys. They subscribe to gun magazines, own multiple guns, and like to go a-shootin' on the weekends and hunting every now and then. Me; I'm not anti-gun. I just don't care. Nothing about the subject appeals to me. So, when we get together they don't ask my opinion on Browning's latest line of boom-sticks because it's openly acknowledged that my opinion would be uninformed and worthless.
Does that make me lazy or stupid? On that one topic, maybe, but in general? The fact that relatively few people in Iowa, Texas, or North Carolina would choose some edgy art film over "Explosion: The Movie Pt XXVI" or "Bankable Comic Buddy Cop Picture" doesn't mean they're all lazy and/or morons. It means that the edgy art film is specifically made for adventurous film buffs, be they 'Merican, Costa Rican, Finnish or Estonian. Careful with those sweeping generalizations.
-------------------------
I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.
Yeah, but we're forcing those products on them. France is not having the same box office records we are. I'm just saying that America doesn't seem to have the artistic films any more that they used to from guys like Kubrick, David Lynch, Coppola's early stuff, Scorsese's early stuff, etc. Tarantino is about the only major film director doing anything unique. For other films like that it seems like you have to look at Asian or European film.
Just saying that I'm sick of the conveyor belt of Hollywood. That's what America is eating up. Your argument and defense is familiarity sells? So? Does that make it right? Does that mean, simply because it sells, that we should commend it and waste our money on it? You know what else sells? Cigarettes. You saying we should all applaud the tobacco company and buy their products? That's the whole point of my argument. The same movies are getting churned out year after year, and the American public willingly goes to see them. Why is that? Because it's easy and it's available. Some times I am guilty of that too. I almost went and saw the new 300 movie. The last movie I saw in theaters was The Hobbit 2, back in December.
As long as America continues to just pour money into these mediocre films that have little thought put into them, then we'll never see new ideas, or fresh ones. We'll continue to get the same product over and over again...and I guess you and your Browning loving 'Merican buddies are okay with that.
Sweeping generalizations? In most cases, I hate those. In this case...it's not so much a generalization when it's actually accurate.
Lazy, complacent, call it what you want, that's what it is.
Film is apparently important to you as an art form. Me too. However, it is not important to the majority of the planet, just as with any number of subjects certain humans are passionate about (guns, literature, food, music, theater, fashion, sports, etc). You're consuming film for a different reason than the target audience for all the repetetive genre fare.
Again, I'm sympathetic to a degree. My wife couldn't be more averse to "art" films, and anything not firmly in the "popcorn movie" realm is likely to be dismissed by her without a second thought. Early in our marriage I roped her into seeing a few left-of-center films, including some Tarantino. Didn't take. In fact, seeing Pulp Fiction, Dancer in the Dark, Re-Animator, and about 30 minutes of both Brazil and The Royal Tennenbaums only strengthened her resolve NOT to accompany me to, say, There Will Be Blood, The Grand Budhapest Hotel or Holy Motors. Maybe she'd gut one out for my birthday, if she were in a really, REALLY generous mood. Actually, no. Strike that; ain't happening. I think she's pretty typical, and not just of American audiences. Your average ticket-buyer in Germany or Vietnam isn't going to be down with sitting through Dogtooth.
Does this bother me? Well, occasionally, sure. But I've resigned myself to the reality that this is a preference. If you want to call it laziness, then you'd have to admit to being lazy for not making any number of consumer choices involving other things. And maybe that's the difference . . to most, this is simply a consumer choice; not a passion. Hollywood provides what it believes most consumers want. Though the US is where the money is now, this would be true anywhere in the world. Does Bollywood's output consist primarily of challenging, high-minded art?
My solution has been to (1) unpucker a bit and allow myself to enjoy some slick populist crap now and then, (2) use boards like these plus Netflix/Hulu etc to feed my search for more esoteric choices, and (3) raise my kids to appreciate all sorts of film. So far so good. I have a 17-year-old Kurosawa fan. Last week my 11-year-old happily sat through Umberto D with me. After watching The Hunger Games, I showed two of my daughters Battle Royale. This week we'll go see Divergent and maybe Captain America. No reason they shouldn't be able to enjoy any or all of the above without being accused of laziness.
-------------------------
I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.
Yeah, I understand. Funny you bring up German audiences...they are known for having some of the trippy ,artistic films out there, especially during the silent era with Murnau and Fritz Lang.
shareJJ Abrams and the other people he tends to team up with (Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, etc.) always do quality work.No, no they do not. Not even close. share
JJ and company seem to be motivated by "what seems cool", rather than coherent story.
"Live long and suck it, Zachary Quinto!"
[deleted]