orderandlaw

So I am sitting around watching HBO, and for some reason they are showing Star Trek V The Final Frontier. I realized that this movie really has some shitty acting and directing. Sorry to Bill Shatner, he truly does have a place in my heart, but wow this movie is just plain awful. I love it. Deforest Kelley has bad vains and cannot do anything but yell. There are dirt roads built into Shaka-ri, or eden or whatever your deity's home is. In fact, there is a whole dirt road intersection directly in front of the camera. It's great.

TGM

This movie certainly did suck, although I thought DeForest Kelley's performance when he was confronted by his dying father was a fantastic piece of acting.

ken_572002

If you could cut out about 30 minutes of some truly awful bits (Uhura's feather dance, the row-row-row your boat scene, etc), this movie actually would have made a decent 60 minute episode. And it still has a soft spot in my heart, seeing as it was truly the first Trek film made, with a souped-up audio. Until this film, the previous 4 films soundtracks were basically glorified mono.

Jason

That's like saying Enterprise is better than TOS because it was shot in widescreen.

Super X

Or that Voyager was better than the original series because the special effects were better.

planetaire

Uhura + 20 years + naked dancing in the twilight = Star Trek V

Ha ha, Spock and his jetboots. What trouble will they get into next?

I think I'm gonna roast a marshmelon now. Better than dinner in a bag. Oh wait....

Brack

This was the first indication of the decline in popularity of the original Star Trek cast. Oh well.

hdtv00

Decline, nah so out of 5 movies at that point it was the worst, big deal. It does have some great moments as well though, some you never see in any other trek moment.

The only thing that totally sucked about this was the ending, you ramble on about god the whole movie you damn well better deliver. I do still like the moment where James T Kirk has the balls to question god...funny to me.

Brack

I'm talking about box office performance. True VI bounced back a little, but after IV did over $100m, you can see their popularity was declining a bit.

Sean O'Hara

What the hell are you people talking about? There was no Star Trek V -- they decided to skip straight to VI.

You're probably the type of people who think there are sequels to Highlander.

raven56706

also the enterprise moved weird in the movie

Brack

Even the original Highlander is only okay.

das Monkey

For as bad as this movie is, I've always had a soft spot for its central themes of friendship.

das

Doughboy

Aside from a few Kirk-Spock-McCoy moments and Jerry Goldsmith's score, this movie is a complete waste of time.

Like the previous poster, I prefer to pretend this entry never happened. I only own II, III, IV, and VI on DVD. Come to think of it, even V ignores continuity. Kirk seems cool with the Klingons at the end of the movie, yet in the beginning of the next film, he's back to hating them again.

Ranger

Come on, this part was great.

mwbmis

I don't think you can fully equate the popularity of the original cast with the popularity of IV. The reason why it did that much business was b/c it was a crossover hit due to the comedic elements of it's fish-out-of-water storyline. You didn't need to be a Star Trek fan to enjoy it. In contrast, I love VI, but even though it's a very good cold war analogy the plot is a story about the Federation and Klingons...not about Kirk and Spock running around 1980's era San Francisco looking for humpback whales.

I don't think there was any real way to pull off another comedic toned movie for V; they would be betraying the fan base, and it would have seemed a cheap move made solely to capitalize on the success of IV. Now, V didn't work anyway, but it was almost certain to do less business than IV. IMO, IV is also the most dated of the movies today b/c it's set in the 1980s as opposed to be just being filmed then.

Brack

You don't have to be a Star Trek fan to enjoy any of the Star Trek movies. I never was a fan of the show. And Part IV was the best Star Trek movie.

mwbmis

Part IV was the most comedic Star Trek film, thus it had the most crossover appeal. It was also my favorite as a kid in the 80s, but today as a Star Trek fan I fully consider both II and VI to be superior films.

I'm not denigrating IV; I'm just disputing the notion that the subsequent films did less dollars b/c the popularity of the cast was declining. Star Trek V failed because it wasn't a very good movie.

Brack

Well, the grosses were declining after IV. Like I said before, VI bounced back to III's b.o., but $74m in '91 is not similar to $76m in '84 (part III). I'm not saying it was a dramatic decline, but a decline nonetheless.

tommyp007

I guess I'm one of the few who like this one

Brack

^^^ It's watchable.

mwbmis

Yes, IV did more business, but the point is that IV did more business because of the type of good movie that it was. It succeeded more than the others due to the comedy, thus giving it more crossover appeal. It made more than any previous or future Star Trek movie by bringing in more non-fans. I vaguely remember back around that time their trying to figure out how to keep those fans. Ultimately, I don't think it was possible, because to stay with the comedy would have in a sense betrayed the series. V ruined all hope of keeping the non-fans because it was at best mediocre. VI was generally a big success with the hardcore fans but was more limited in crossover appeal because of it's subject matter.

Brack

I wasn't disputing your point about IV. I was comparing III to VI.

Doughboy

I'd even consider III to be superior to IV. I liked The Voyage Home, but it hasn't aged as well as some of the other entries. Plus I'm not too big on Leonard Rosenman's recycled score for the film(ironically he was the only Star Trek composer to get an Oscar nod).

Brack

Well, I consider II, III, and IV to be one big movie. They are the Spock trilogy as far as I'm concerned.