dhmac

I think you're exhibiting the confirmation bias fallacy here. How often is Khan mentioned in any other ST film aside from TWOK? How often is Commander Kruge mentioned in any ST film aside from TSFS? How often are humpback whales mentioned in any ST film aside from TVH?

Movies, even in a movie series, are mainly plot-focused and only mention previous movies in the series if the plot of the current movie requires it. Otherwise, they are all self-contained as much as possible and make no off-hand mention of anything from other movies.

Ranger

With most posters saying TMP was better, I guess I'll try to watch it again. It's been about 10 years since I saw it. I still saw V a few months ago on TV.

And yes the Spock half-brother thing pissed me off, too.

wishbone

Finished the second half of TMP and watched V last night -- V is just a silly mess. Thankfully Nicholas Meyer returned for VI and ended the original movie series on a high note.

Josh-da-man

II leads directly into III, III leads directly into IV, and VI deals with the fallout from the death of David in III.

TheBang

David's death caused the Klingon moon to explode?

DynamicKnight

It did lead to Kirk's hatred of Klingons and how the log was used against him in the trial.

PatD

Admiral Cartwright from Star Trek IV reappears in Star Trek VI in a much less flattering light.

There are a lot of tie-ins in the four Nimoy/Meyers movies. As I said: almost a movie series within a movies series. I and V are the odd men out.

Shannon Nutt

Yes, and there was going to be even MORE as the character of Valeris was originally written to be Saavik. How powerful would the story been if they had went ahead with that idea?!

Supermallet

Don't forget the callback to II in VI:

Scotty: ...then we're dead.
Spock: I've been dead before.

Mattflix

In part 5, McCoy says he liked Spock better before he died.

Meglos

At the end of V, Kirk says, "I lost a brother once. I got him back."

Also, this is a somewhat nerdy observation (in a Star Trek thread? Go figure!), but the sound effect that plays in the background whenever Sybok reveals someone's pain in V, is re-used during Spock's meld with Valeris in VI.

dhmac

You miss my point. I and V are standalone movies in the series, so share no plotlines with other movies in the series. All of the movies are plot-driven and only mention stuff from other movies if it has any bearing on the plot of the current movie. The idea in Hollywood is to try to make movies as standalone as possible so that audience member who didn't see previous movies in the series can still enjoy the movie without being lost.

For a good example, that's why Gillian (Catherine Hicks), who was such a major part of ST IV, never was mentioned in a Star Trek movie ever again. It's because her character had nothing at all to do with the plots of those later movies, so why risk confusing an audience by mentioning her at all? It has nothing to do with if the movie is considered "good" or not (and ST IV is considered "good"), it has everything to do with the plot. You confuse no mention of a major character from a previous movie (the main cast who are in all the movies don't really count in this regard) as some sort of dislike of that previous movie. But the fact is it's just that current plot has no need of it.

dhmac

All plot-driven. It's not done because the filmmakers liked some of the movies and hated other ones, as PatD basically claims.

Double_Oh_7

Ooh, great title for a Big Bang Theory episode.

B5Erik

The failures of Star Trek V were less William Shatner's, and had more to do with Paramount pulling the rug out from under him. The budget was cut from the previous movie (the biggest Trek hit to that point, and they slash the budget for the next one), and when Shatner ran out of money (due to the reality of filmmaking) Paramount still wouldn't give him more, so he and the production staff had to quickly come up with a compromise ending (cheap to film) that wasn't what anyone wanted.

Conceptually, Trek V is one of the most ambitious of the series. It had some very funny jokes, and a light, fun atmosphere - but the script was a little too Ghostbuster-ish in style and the (lack of) budget really hamstrung Shatner. Nimoy had more to work with on III and IV. If the studio had hired Nicholas Meyer to write ST V based on Shatner's concept it could have been a great movie, but they went cheap and went with a comedy type writer instead.

It wasn't Shatner's fault that the studio screwed this movie up.

wishbone

Kirk's somewhat gleeful delivery of, "General Korrd's military strategies were required learning when I was a cadet at the Academy. When they put me out to pasture, I hope I fare better than Korrd," in Star Trek V seemed an odd contrast to his general disdain for all things Klingon in Star Trek VI with the callback to Star Trek III and the death of his son.

Meglos

Less "gleeful" and more wistful and bemused. And then there's that moment in V where the Klingon Bird of Prey saves him from "God". Kirk thinks then that they are going to kill him and he calls them "Klingon bastards".

Double_Oh_7

I don't think the rock creatures Shatner wanted would have made the movie any better.

Josh-da-man

I think it's sort of interesting how each of the six Star Trek movies each captures a certain aspect from the original series:

I - A sense of wonder and confronting the unknown
II - Action/Adventure
III - The familial connection between the crew
IV - Comedy
V - The Hot Mess of the third season: Budget cuts, pretentiousness lack of direction
VI - Political allegory

B5Erik

It wasn't just the lack of budget for that. The whole thing was scaled back about 15% from STIV. Adjusted for inflation that meant about a 20% cut in real spending power from the previous movie - and Shatner was saddled with a comedy writer writing the final script. Nimoy got Meyer. Big difference.

Shatner's basic premise and story outline were very good. With the right producer and writer working with him STV could have been one of the better Trek films. Instead, the studio and Harve Bennett treated the thing like a throwaway and didn't do much to rein Shatner's slapstick tendencies in other than cutting his budget.

Nichelle Nichols actually said that she was surprised at how good Shatner was as a director because she was dreading working on the movie going in. Nimoy got a ton of studio/producer support when making III & IV. Shatner got very little.

I don't blame Shatner for the shortcomings of STV. For that I blame Harve Bennett and the studio execs at Paramount.

Supermallet

But the real question is, do you blame the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?

Numanoid

I think V has some great directorial choices, particularly in the framing of some shots. The entire approach to, and landing on, Sha-Ka-Ree sequence has shot after shot of beautiful framing and fluidic camera movements. That push-in to the rear of the bridge while everyone is transfixed on the viewscreen, to reveal the bird-of-prey coming into sensor range (unnoticed), while Goldsmith's score swells is one of the best shots in the history of Trek.

To boil it down, I'd rather sit through Star Trek V a dozen times rather than sit through a Star Wars prequel once.

gmanca

Yet Shatner kept the stupid slapstick in, especially the "I know my way around this shi... DOINK!" bit which conveniently moves the plot along. I praise his work on the concept but some of the execution relies on Shatner being able to know what works and what doesn't as far as tone.