Star Trek - Space: The Final Frontier

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Star Trek TMP is a great looking film. The sets and special effects look outstanding. The musical score is also terrific

That said, I find the film to be drag. I've talked to fans that defend it as being closest to the feel of the old show and to a point that is true, but in a more long and drawn out way.

Star Trek has usually been at it's best when it is people talking and debating. That's part of what made the show and the franchise work. However, it only works if they are talking about things that are actually interesting. None of the topic, the reveal at the end, or even the character interactions are that interesting.

I don't care about V'ger, I don't care about Deckard or the bald lady, and Kirk, Spock, and McCoy not being on the same page for most of the film took me out of it too.

I also wasn't a fan of them trying to hide that the actors has aged. It made it feel less genuine.

And this film also went a little too far to glorify the special effects shots. Like I said, they look great but they also really drag the pacing of the film down when they linger on the Enterprise for about 40 seconds too long.

Compare that to Wrath of Khan where age, death, rebirth, and revenge were front and center in the film. Even the discussion Kirk, Spock, and Bones talking about Genesis felt more at home with Star Trek and was at least interesting to listen too.
 
Flexo said:
I just... largely agree with you except the 2 & 6 not really being trek films.

Much of 2 is evocative of Balance of Terror with a touch of the ultimate computer.

6 easily fits in with journey to Babel and the enterprise incident.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I'm sure you can make a fair arguement.

I view 'Balance of Terror' as being more of an allegory to the Cold War. Thus, aligning more to the themes of Trek(social commentary). The Romulan Commander is portrayed more empathetically than Kahn. Kahn, even though we understand his motivations, he still is a terrifyingly maniac hell bent on blind revenge....

The messages of Wrath of Kahn are more 'universal' than Trek specifically. You can know absolutely zero about Star Trek and understand its themes/characters. Largely because its a movie and knows its a movie. It has different constraits than a television serial. Not to mention, action is a signifigant driving function of the film(specifally with its pacing)....

You make a good point with 6. Perhaps, its the nature of the film, being such an obvious reference to the cold war and many of the trappings/aesthetics of political thrillers of that time(Tom Clancy comment)....
 
Last edited:
Ihavetinyweewee said:
Fair enough, I'm sure you can make a fair arguement.

I view 'Balance of Terror' as being more of an allegory to the Cold War. Thus, aligning more to the themes of Trek(social commentary). The Romulan Commander is portrayed more empathetically than Kahn. Kahn, even though we understand his motivations, he still is a terrifyingly maniac hell bent on blind revenge....

The messages of Wrath of Kahn are more 'universal' than Trek specifically. You can know absolutely zero about Star Trek and understand its themes/characters. Largely because its a movie and knows its a movie. It has different constraits than a television serial. Not to mention, action is a signifigant driving function of the film(specifally with its pacing)....

You make a good point with 6. Perhaps, its the nature of the film, being such an obvious reference to the cold war and many of the trappings/aesthetics of political thrillers of that time(Tom Clancy comment)....
Click to expand...
Well I brought up balance of Terror for the starship combat. If you want to talk about themes and characters, then I can bring up the doomsday machine which is a literal Moby dick episode (down to the machine being whale shaped). ;) ;)

I'd argue 5 is the least consistent trek movie (not counting bad robot) given that it's plot had more in common with an animated episode than a live action one...

Star Trek (TAS): The Magicks of Megas-tu

Star Trek Reviews
sfdebris.com
 
Flexo said:
Well I brought up balance of Terror for the starship combat. If you want to talk about themes and characters, then I can bring up the doomsday machine which is a literal Moby dick episode (down to the machine being whale shaped). ;) ;)

I'd argue 5 is the least consistent trek movie (not counting bad robot) given that it's plot had more in common with an animated episode than a live action one...

Star Trek (TAS): The Magicks of Megas-tu

Star Trek Reviews
sfdebris.com
Click to expand...

Ironically, 5 is a very Trek film, its just an awful one. Its a very good concept, with a terrible script. Made even worse with Shatners atrocious directing(the man couldn't frame simple shots)and story ideas....

Its too bad for Laurence Luckinbill, who is wonderful in it. Every time he is on screen, its like he is acting in a different movie...
 
Ihavetinyweewee said:
Ironically, 5 is a very Trek film, its just an awful one. Its a very good concept, with a terrible script. Made even worse with Shatners atrocious directing(the man couldn't frame simple shots)and story ideas....

Its too bad for Laurence Luckinbill, who is wonderful in it. Every time he is on screen, its like he is acting in a different movie...
Click to expand...
Now here is where I would bring up the crew - who risked their entire careers for Kirk & Spock just 2 movies earlier, just up and betraying them over a dime-store preacher.

At least when the show did that it had the sense to get the crew stoned off a bunch of alien plants.
 
Flexo said:
Now here is where I would bring up the crew - who risked their entire careers for Kirk & Spock just 2 movies earlier, just up and betraying them over a dime-store preacher.

At least when the show did that it had the sense to get the crew stoned off a bunch of alien plants.
Click to expand...
Wasn't it that Sybok(implied or not)was hypnotizing them?

Its stupid anyways, but I thought the film had internal logic...

I remember now : Sybok took away their personal fears which bread absolute loyalty(which makes no sense)

Lets not talk about 5 anymore...
 
Last edited:
Ihavetinyweewee said:
Wasn't it that Sybok(implied or not)was hypnotizing them?

Its stupid anyways, but I thought the film had internal logic...

I remember now : Sybok took away their personal fears which bread absolute loyalty(which makes no sense)

Lets not talk about 5 anymore...
Click to expand...
For those who do want to talk about it...

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

Star Trek Reviews
sfdebris.com

For TNG films...
Generations is almost a direct sequel to the series.
First Contact is their Wrath.
Insurrection is most like the series (but isn't much of a movie).
Nemesis is least like the source because it tries so hard to be a TOS movie like some weird cargo cult.
 
Julia Fortune said:
Really?

The movie has some good scenes, don't get me wrong, but it could've been half the runtime and you'd lose basically nothing.
Click to expand...

Do you mind expanding on this? Cause I don't see much fat in 'Wrath of Khan'.

It seems very economical with its run time.
Unless, you're looking for a plot driven film instead of a character driven one. The movie plays much with a sense of dread. So it does slow down, at times, to build tension.

I mean would you say 'Predator'(6 minutes shorter)is too slow? That you can cut half of its run time?

Whether its an all time great film or not, is largely a bullshit conversation anyways. Its trying to be objective over something subjective(waste of time)...
 
Last edited:
Ihavetinyweewee said:
Do you mind expanding on this? Cause I don't see much fat in Wrath of Khan.

It seems very economical with its run time.
Unless, you're looking for a plot driven film instead of a character driven one. The movie plays much with a sense of dread. So it does slow down, at times, to build tension..

Whether its an all time great film or not, is largely a bullshit conversation anyways. Its trying objective over something subjective(waste of time)...
Click to expand...
I watched it once years ago, and all I remember is being on my phone most of the time and missing nothing because barely anything that matters happened unless Khan was on screen or Spock was dying.

Edit: Oh, and was Kirk's son in this movie? I don't remember, but if that was this one, I paid attention during that part too, even though it was stupid.
 
Julia Fortune said:
I watched it once years ago, and all I remember is being on my phone most of the time and missing nothing because barely anything that matters happened unless Khan was on screen or Spock was dying.

Edit: Oh, and was Kirk's son in this movie? I don't remember, but if that was this one, I paid attention during that part too, even though it was stupid.
Click to expand...

If you didn't really pay attention? How can you make an objective opinion? Especially in regards to its run time?

As I said, Its not really a plot driven film, its a character film. The plot is fairly basic and just acts as a glue. Its 'Moby Dick' intertwined with themes about mortality and friendship

The movie is all about character moments: the hearbreaking scene with Scotty and his young crew subordinate for example...

" He stayed at his post. When the other trainees ran..."

I mean have you ever seen. 'Das Boot?" Its just three hours ,of guys in utter terror , in a tin can...

Edit: In response to your edit, I now believe you're trolling. If so, bravo...
Prepare for the the screetching of autistic Star Trek spergs. I've said my piece...
 
Last edited:
Julia Fortune said:
I watched it once years ago, and all I remember is being on my phone most of the time and missing nothing because barely anything that matters happened unless Khan was on screen or Spock was dying.

Edit: Oh, and was Kirk's son in this movie? I don't remember, but if that was this one, I paid attention during that part too, even though it was stupid.
Click to expand...
Yeah... If you didn't actually watch it seems like the point is invalid. You may as well just read the Wikipedia page for the plot then and be done with it.
 
The thing is, I didn't even have to pay attention and I still have a fairly solid memory of the film. If it's a "character over plot" film, that's a problem, a bunch of character moments strung together is boring, and so is this movie. It might be able to work if the characters were better, I guess? But OG Star Trek doesn't have strong characters, it has strong archetypes.
 
SkeletonBias420 said:
What a weird takeaway about Geordi being born in Somalia. AFAIK the writers decided he was born in Somalia because they wanted to make a point that even the most backwards, fucked-up parts of Earth had integrated into society, not OMG blaCk MusLimS.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that just because he was born in Somalia, doesn't mean he was actually Somalian. Geordie's parents were both StarFleet officers, so they were probably just stationed there.
 
I kind of like 5. It has important stuff like climbing rocks, kicking gods in the dick, and giving speeches about how great being a flawed human is.
 
XYZpdq said:
I kind of like 5. It has important stuff like climbing rocks, kicking gods in the dick, and giving speeches about how great being a flawed human is.
Click to expand...
Is 5 Final Frontier?

I like it too. It's kind of reetarded, but in a charming way. By charming, I mean it's not about fucking whales.
 
Star Trek V is one of my favorite Trek movies. The story was basically a longer TOS episode. I like that level of friendship that they build throughout the years and it's also one of the rare movies with a cast of old actors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom