i found this site with a very long, but very funny interesting review for this movie

sitehttp://www.jabootu.com/startrekv.htm

LOL, Meg! (Though I would've enjoyed it more had I not had visitors round all night to view our flat. Still, the circle of life and all that...)

I'd have enjoyed it more as well, had they actually bothered to get the facts right...

They call the Laughing Vulcan's Dog (sorry, don't know the character's name) "Vixis" throughout the review. Unfortunately, Vixis is the first officer of Klaa's ship.

Not to mention that it's "Sarek", not "Sarak".

Yeah i know aobut the mistakes, but it really didn't bother me. He has a lot more reviews. I think I'll start posing the relevant ones around the board.

Meg ...
despite this calloused review of the film, I find it to be one of DeForrest Kelly's most memorable filmed moments ... that of the scene where he is transported by Sybock to the time where he euthanasied his father. That alone is worth preserving the film in Trek lore and history.

I gotta agree with Meg, though - in fact, I posted the same link a few boards up. These are serious reviews, not just more Net snerks. The fact that the reviewer isn't a Trekker makes it a fun and interesting read no matter what you think of the film. (He catches quite a few intriguing nitpicks, too.)

But Meg, watch where you're posting those links, eh? The Jabootu reviews as a whole are worthwhile reading...as long as you're not a fan of the film in question.

The problem is not that the review is long. Putting aside spelling errors, misattributing the wrong names to characters, and false assumptions that the reviewer makes (He claims, fo reasons he doesn’t divulge, that the transporter is supposed to be the first system to be installed on a starship, and complains that the "portable replicator" Spock uses to produce marshmellows is never seen again, when nothing in the scene indicates that it's anything other than a storage device or marshmellow fabricator), the real problem is that he spends too much time dissecting almost every single scene, and each gag that he didn't find funny, which is not how a review is competently written.

I actually enjoyed the first section where he talks about what it was like in the theater with all the nerds (sounds a lot like when I wen to see The Empire Strikes Back Special Edition a few years ago), but a review, in my opinion, should state its main points, and then illustrate them with an example or two. He does this with the "Shatner ego" theme, which he illustrates with one or two anecdotes I found very interesting, but then he proceeds to describe in pointless detail, the composition and failed humor of

EVERY

SINGLE

SCENE.

Do we really have to know what Captain Klaa was doing when he decided to go to Nimbus III? Was mentioning the probe he destroyed really important? He also digresses way into left field when he tries to list all the TOS and TNG regulars with strained or estranged relationships with relatives, and then again in another direction when he describes how much he hates Wesley Crusher (ooh, how original!). You can write a review, or a tote board. Don’t confuse the two.

Don’t get me wrong, he pointed out about a dozen nits that I didn’t already have, and I included them in my Nitpick Document, but it’s not a review. It’s an MST-esque satirical play-by-play. I find it ironic that this guy thinks it’s funny to repeatedly joke about how much “pain” he’s in while watching the movie, in a review that takes up 20 pages in a Microsoft Word document. At least if I write a long review, the review will be an actual analysis of the movie, and not a dissection the complains about the humor of every single scene.

Another nit: are we really expected to believe that Spock can remember his own birth in such detail? Yes, there are some people who remember their own birth (Harry Kim even claimed to remember being in his mother’s womb), but to remember what his father said, and have even understood what he said, is just plain preposterous. (Ironically, this is the one scene that the reviewer at Jabootu thought was “neat.”)

Ken Begg: This idea, that we are all defined by one central, hidden painful event, is utterly ridiculous, not to mention insulting. I, for example, have led a relatively trauma-free life. And yet, according to this premise, I am as defined by my "hidden pain" as, say, a rape victim, or a concentration camp survivor.
Luigi Novi: The movie never states that every single person has such a pain, nor does it say that those who do are “defined” by it. I think the reviewer has misread the premise, which is that we are defined by both the joys in our lives and the pains. Perhaps the movie did not execute this point deftly enough, but Picard’s statement to the Koinonian at the end of The Bonding(TNG), and his experiences in Tapestry(TNG) did make this point better, though.

Ken Begg: Klaa knows that if he can defeat the fabled James Kirk, he will be heralded as the greatest Warrior in the galaxy. Of course, this would hold true for any Klingon Captain. So there’d likely be dozens of warships heading for Nimbus III, all looking to take out Kirk. Luckily for him (and for apparently no other reason than it’s in the script), Klaa appears to be the only Klingon to bother taking advantage of the current situation.
Luigi Novi: Because no such attack was authorized by the Klingon government. Klaa is the only one who chose to go against that directive.

Ken Begg: Then they review a "tape" of the kidnapper’s demands. (Would the word "tape" still be used in this context four hundred years from now?)
Luigi Novi: Given that Biblical and Shakespearean terms continue in general usage today, I’d say……yes.

Ken Begg: McCoy relives the end of his father’s life. Terminally ill, his wizened father is in great pain. For some reason, current medical science can do nothing more to diminish his agony (What about drugs?)
Luigi Novi: Perhaps David McCoy didn’t want to be doped up and addicted to them.

Ken Begg: And is this before "stasis", the Federation version of suspended animation, was invented?
Luigi Novi: What if it wasn’t? How long are you gonna keep someone in stasis? A year? Ten years? A hundred? No one had any way of knowing that the cure for David McCoy’s illness would be discovered soon thereafter.

Ken Begg: He wants to die, but taking him off life-support would violate McCoy’s oath and duties as a doctor.
Luigi Novi: This is never explicitly mentioned. It’s possible that Bones was reluctant to end his father’s life, and not that it had anything to do with his professional oath.

Ken Begg: Just when it seems that nothing is going to happen, the sky is blighted and the ground is rent. Giant stone columns thrust up from the earth, creating a circle around our little group. Apparently, God likes to make a showy entrance.
Luigi Novi: What, and a burning bush is a casual one?

Luigi Novi. Those are good points. I still thought the review was kinda funny, but to each his own.

Kerrim. There is one very long Superman VI review and 2 battlefield earth reviews.

If you check out the site they have more reviews for other movies that we don't have boards for like Can't Stop the Music, (Which luigi probably wouldn't like the running gag of renaming the title something like Please Stop the Music) Boxing Helena, Flowers in the Attic, Bats, Sextette, Sincerely Yours, and a bunch of others.

...the real problem is that he spends too much time dissecting almost every single scene...

Uh, Luigi? Pot, meet kettle. (Albeit I find you pretty funny too.)

Seriously...I don't always share Ken Begg's take on any given movie scene either. His reviews (to use the handiest term) are necessarily skewed to his particular POV, like most reviewers' are.

See, being a Bad Movie fan - note the capitals, it's that fandom's difference between Trekker/Trekkie - Begg's writing to a fairly specific audience, one that basically 'loves to hate' these movies and thus understands and sympathises totally when he gripes about them causing him pain. His dissection isn't pointless, just not your style, eh? Again, there are those who might object that funny headings on nit-picks are pointless, but that doesn't make 'em any less funny.
Actually, Begg writes with a sense of humour about his own failings as an author that I find rather charming...

In this case, he's not a Trekker, as one myself I disagreed with his interpretation fairly vehemently, and yes, I noticed a bunch of spots where he could have tightened up his overall grasp on Trek trivia; but - call me perverse - I found myself loving his ST:V review just because it was completely agenda-free.
There are days when I suspect that Trek fandom could stand to lighten up some - present company naturally excluded, which is why I like it here too.

...the running gag of renaming the title something like Please Stop the Music

Actually, by the time the reviewer (not Ken Begg) gets to For the Love of God Please Stop the Music and, a little later, I'll Give You $1 000 000 Just Please Stop... I defy anybody not to be in hysterics.

It's worth noting that ST:V is only one of a handful of 'questionable' films that the Jabootuites review; most are really, truly, unquestionably acknowledged as lousy, which may make the point-by-point dissection style easier to take.

and complains that the "portable replicator" Spock uses to produce marshmellows is never seen again, when nothing in the scene indicates that it's anything other than a storage device or marshmellow fabricator)

No, he says that it appears to be a portable replicator, and thus if so it's among the 'Stuff in Trek We Never See Again.

Luigi Novi:...the real problem is that he spends too much time dissecting almost every single scene...

kerri: Uh, Luigi? Pot, meet kettle. (Albeit I find you pretty funny too.)
Luigi Novi: Ha ha to you too, Kerri. Somehow, I had a feeling someone would try calling me on that.

But in my defense, I'd point out that I don't dissect every single scene when I write a review of a movie or episode.

Forget Klaa, what was Korrd's major malfunction? Why didn't he kill Kirk and Sybok in the shuttle, and have himself beamed to Klaa's ship with the body of Kirk? From there he could do several things. He could defeat Sybok's followers, and wipe out a "major" terrorist group. He could conquer Nimbus III, adding it to the Empire. He could attack the Enterprise, defeating the Federation's best ship. If he pulled off all three, he could go back to Qo'NoS in triumph. Even if he only accomplished one, he'd be back from oblivion by slaying Kirk. If he died, he would still have gone down in a blaze of glory. It's win-win for him.

Why didn't he kill Kirk and Sybok in the shuttle, and have himself beamed to Klaa's ship with the body of Kirk?

Perhaps he respected Kirk as a fellow warrior.

He could conquer Nimbus III, adding it to the Empire.

Thus angering two rival galactic civilizations. Even a Klingon knows two against one are bad odds.

He could attack the Enterprise, defeating the Federation's best ship.

Thus reigniting the long-standing war, which the Klingons may or may not be able to sustain, judging from the speed that the detonation of Praxis sent the Empire teetering into insolvency.

Even if he only accomplished one, he'd be back from oblivion by slaying Kirk.

Perhaps only among the hard-liners like Klaa who see Kirk as a murderous villain. I suspect Gorkon and others among his government might not have been as pleased.

I doubt that he could defeat the Enterprise anyway. Wasn't he under Sybok's influence by then?

As for not being able to sustain the war, Praxis handn't gone yet so there problems wouldn't be as bad.

Someone Else: Perhaps only among the hard-liners like Klaa who see Kirk as a murderous villain.
Luigi Novi: Nothing indicated that Klaa wanted to best Kirk because he saw him as a murderous villain, but as a famed Starfleet captain whose death would make Klaa the greatest warrior in the galaxy.

Someone Else: I suspect Gorkon and others among his government might not have been as pleased.
Luigi Novi: The Klingon ambassador was enraged at Kirk being let off with only violations of Starfleet regulations in ST IV, and vowed there would be repurcussions if Kirk were not extradited to the Klingons. He can't say all this unless he's representing Gorkon.

I stand corrected.

Perhaps Gorkon came to power after IV and before V, but we have no evidence for that in the films (he may have just come to power right before VI).

Is it just me, or is the film's prologue a blatant copy of homage to a similar scene from "Lawrence of Arabia"? (where Sherif Ali makes his long-distance entrance on horseback)

Of course, Sybok doesn't shoot J'Onn for using the well, but still...

Or was he on a camel? I can't remember.

Gorkon's daughter said: (and i'm paraphrasng)"If Praxis hadn't exploded, then maybe my fathers ideas might not have found expression..."

Based on her words, I say that gorkon already felt that war-mongering needed to end but wasn't sure how to initiate change.

So Kaptain Klaa probably wouldn't go to StoVoKor since he would be dishonoring the Klingon Chancellor if Kirk was Killed

P.S.

Also what kind of salute was used in the end? Was that Nazi like?

NANJAO - Could Mr. Shatner or David Loughery have named "Paradise City" after a Guns N Roses song of the same name? (The song is on the 1987 album "Appetite for Destruction," which also contains the classic "Sweet Child O' Mine.") Maybe in the fight scene in the bar they could have played "Welcome To The Jungle"?...

I was bothered, too, about Spock's alleged birth in a cave, because Vulcans would surely have allowed Amanda to give birth in a hospital. However, let me throw some ideas out here.
Let's say that this wasn't a trick by Sybok, and this is how Amanda gave birth.
What do we see? Amanda and what appear to be Vulcan priestesses in a cave. Nowhere is there mention of this ocurring on Vulcan. Sarek could have been an ambassador on a mission to another planet, and sometime during this mission, with his very-pregnant wife and her preistesses accompanying him, she went into labor too soon, while the party was on the run from Orion pirates, thus no drugs for the pain, and the cave location.
This couldn't be a memory of Spock's. He's a newborn, and couldn't possibly have such a memory! He's just a little blooby lifeform just 10 seconds out of the womb, with an IQ of 5. Could little Sybok have been present, outside of view? This would make it Sybok's memory, not Spock's, and as such, then it could be a trick of Sybok's.
There was a weird Y2K mistake after Stephen Mendenhall's post on February 24, 1999. 'Anonymous' posted next, and the date is February 7, 2036! I'd say that that would make Anonymous our first time travelling nit-picker!
Anyways, Stephen noted that Pioneer 10 could only be one hundred billion miles from Sol, and shouldn't be anywhere near Klingon space. Anonymous replied saying that Pioneer 10 must have fallen through a wormhole. I'm wondering what a wormhole is doing so close to Sol, and if it was a natural or artificial one. Obviously, somebody must have picked up Pioneer 10, took it for a ride, and dropped it off near Klingon space, for whatever reason. Dang, those Orion pirates, again!

Why did McCoy have to let his father suffer through his illness, then put him out of his misery? There should have been a way to put his father in suspended animation, wait for a cure, and revive him. At the very least, he would be out of pain.

Forgot to mention also that Spock could have easily shot Sybok in the arm or leg or shoulder. That would have taken the fight out of him long enough to be jumped and put in the brig.
We know Kirk's pain (the murder of David), Spock's (an outcast at one time, but he's over it), and McCoy (the euthanasea of his father), but I wonder what Sulu, Chekov, and Uhura's were? I would guess that maybe Uhura wished she'd met a nice guy and had a kid, but what could the other's have been? Could Sulu have been estranged from his daughter, Demora, at that point? Could Chekov still be regretting not staying with Irina Gallilulan (sp?) from 'The Way To Eden'?

In the novel version, Sulu's was the death of a woman who owned a store on the planet he grew up on. When Sulu was a child, the planet was attacked and she was fatally injured while Sulu was in the store. He tried to run home and get help for her but got lost. When his mother finally found him and brought they got back there the woman was dead. Sulu had blamed himself for her death, but Sybok brought him back to that moment to make him realize that she was dead before he ever left the store. It wasn't his fault she died.

The book didn't go into Chekov's or Uhura's pain. Scotty's was the death of his nephew.

Um, I don't think that Sulu had a daughter at this point. I got the impression it idin't happen untill after he left the enterprise, thus Kirk's ignorance of her existance in "Generations."

The word "brought" should not be in the above post. I was trying to reword the sentence and got distracted. My job has to come first after all

Um, I don't think that Sulu had a daughter at this point. I got the impression it idin't happen untill after he left the enterprise, thus Kirk's ignorance of her existance in "Generations."
- Zarm

Assuming Sulu's daughter was in her 20's in Generations (which takes place 2293/94), she would have been born in the early-mid 70's, which puts it shortly after the Enterprise's original five-year mission (ended in 2269). ST5 takes place in 2287 (only 6-7 years before Generations). So unless she's half-Klingon (with accelerated growth), I'd say she existed then.

And Kirk was very much aware of Demora's existence in Generations. He comments about how long it's been since he's seen her (Chekov makes a hand gesture that she was "this" big) -- a comment o how much time has passed.

Scotty's was the death of his nephew.

Fine and dandy, but Sybok never got a chance to show him. When Sybok took over, Scotty was out cold (in a Jeffries tube?) somewhere. That's why he was able to help Kirk, Spock, and McCoy escape.

"In the novel version, Sulu's was the death of a woman who owned a store on the planet he grew up on." - Chris Todaro

I thought the planet Sulu grew up on was Earth. I know that in STAR TREK IV The Voyage Home he refered to San Francisco as "my Hometown". I suppose it's possible he was born there, but was raised off-world.

If memory serves, he says he was born there, but makes no reference to having been raised there.

Yes, he did say he was born there. As for Demora, the Chronology (and I assume, therefore, the script for Generations), assumes she was 22 at the time of Generations, and so conjectures that she was born in 2271. The Chronology states, however, that it is not clear whether she was born before or after the events of ST The Motion Picture (which is set in the same year), or the start of the conjectural post-refit five-year mission under Kirk's command.

Yes, he did say he was born there. As for Demora, the Chronology (and I assume, therefore, the script for Generations), assumes she was 22 at the time of Generations, and so conjectures that she was born in 2271. The Chronology states, however, that it is not clear whether she was born before or after the events of ST The Motion Picture (which is set in the same year), or the start of the conjectural post-refit five-year mission under Kirk's command.

Peter David's novel The Captain's Daughter, which takes place after the TOS portion of ST Generations, features a flashback framing device establishing Demora's mother, her meeting Sulu, and her childhood, though, of course, it isn't canon.

"I suppose it's possible he was born there, but was raised off-world. "

In one of the other novels, he said he was born in San Francisco, but raised on another planet (The name escapes me.).


As for the Scotty pain, in the novel Sybok showed him his pain right after he woke up in sick-bay when Uhura was climing all over him.

"In one of the other novels, he said he was born in San Francisco, but raised on another planet (The name escapes me.)."

Interesting. However, I do not consider the novels to be canon. So...

Neither do I, but I do find some of the details they add to the movies entertaining.

In fact, the novelization of Star Trek V makes the story and the out of character actions of some of the people in the movie seem almost plausible. It's definately better than the movie.

By the way, I just remembered that Sulu gave that piece of information in the novelization of Star Trek IV.

definitely

Here's something that's always bothered me. Klaa is hell-bent on attacking the Enterprise and killing (or at least defeating Kirk). As he plots his attack at Nimbus III, his ship intercepts the communications between Kirk's shuttle and the ship, and Klaa realizes that Kirk is on the shuttle. At this point, he targets the shuttle. Now, I'm no expert, but how could any Klingon call this an honorable kill? Basically, Klaa intends to decloak at the last second and blast a defenseless shuttle? Is that really a victory over a great warrior?

Some would point to Worf's comment in "Way of the Warrior II" (DS9) that "In battle, nothing is more honorable than victory." Despite the fact that this statement is pure revisionist B.S. designed to ease the Klingon "code of honor" strictures on the writers, this statement was referring to an all-out combat. Klaa is not seeking to vanquish a force or a race; he is targeting one man. Therefore, I think the nature of the kill would come into play here.

Here's something that's always bothered me.
Luigi Novi: Only that one thing?

Just curious. Does anyone think there was something, romantic that is, going on between Dar and Talbot? They were practically holding eachother in the end with Talbot telling Korrd he's amazed "about how far we've come in a short length of time" or something like that.

What Kirk SHOULD HAVE done was have the Enterprise fire its phasers down onto the planet surface (wide field stun like they did in "A Piece of the Action" to stun the mobsters) then go down in a shuttlecraft to the planet surface and get the hostages.

Luigi Novi: The movie never states that every single person has such a pain, nor does it say that those who do are “defined” by it.

Uh, actually I believe Sybok repeatedly says "Each man hides a secret pain." I assume he meant "each person", just as Star Trek's tagline really means "Where no human has gone before", not just the males. Kirk also says that it is the pain which makes us who we are. I'd say that is a clear indication that we are defined by our pain.

Ken Begg: He wants to die, but taking him off life-support would violate McCoy’s oath and duties as a doctor.
Luigi Novi: This is never explicitly mentioned. It’s possible that Bones was reluctant to end his father’s life, and not that it had anything to do with his professional oath.

In "The Gift," The Doctor indicates that "if a patient told me not to treat them, even if the situation were life-threatening, I would be ethically obligated to honor that request." I'd say that the situation with McCoy's father falls under that statement as well. His father openly asks him to "release me". I think its fair to assume he means let him die, not just turn him loose onto the streets in his present condition. This, to me, shows that the elder McCoy is telling his son not to treat him, even though the situation is life-threatening.

Ok, now for some more basic nits.

How exactly does Sybok's power work? Not whether it is coercive or not, How does it actually function? Vulcans are only mildly telepathic and can typically only do such things through mindmelds (i don't remember where that was stated, but I think it was a canon source). How did he access the pain in J'Onn's mind? Or McCoy's? Or Spock's? He didn't mindmeld with them. Is he just guessing?

Why oh why did scotty walk into that outcropping in the tunnel? It was literally two inches above his eye. A little too much whiskey, perhaps?

Why didn't Kirk call for more torpedo bombardment when it was clear the creature survived?

That's all for now.

-JM

This is never explicitly mentioned. It’s possible that Bones was reluctant to end his father’s life, and not that it had anything to do with his professional oath. - Luigi Novi

In "The Gift," The Doctor indicates that "if a patient told me not to treat them, even if the situation were life-threatening, I would be ethically obligated to honor that request." I'd say that the situation with McCoy's father falls under that statement as well. His father openly asks him to "release me". I think its fair to assume he means let him die, not just turn him loose onto the streets in his present condition. This, to me, shows that the elder McCoy is telling his son not to treat him, even though the situation is life-threatening. - Justin M

I think you may be misunderstanding Luigi.

He suggests (in response to Ken) that McCoy's struggle was a personal one, not a professional one. That his concern was in losing his father, not in violating his oaths as a doctor.

The struggle most people would be having to do something that would hurt/cause them to loose someone they love and hold dear to themselves.

My major problem with the story is that only in the end, does anyone question the existence of God. I can't believe there wouldn't be any atheists in the 23rd Century.

Where does anyone at the end of the film question the existence of God?

Kirk kinda does I guess. If you interpret some of his lines the right way. Of course what bothers me is that the suppossedly intelligent and rational starfleet officers are duped by the god hocus pocus and sybok's mindtricks so easily. Kirk appears to be the only one who even fights it slightly and McCoy and Spock are only along for the ride. That may just be Kirk's hero factor (along with Shatner's touch) kicking in and all but I would think that people would have outgrown the need for religion and all by then, That was one part of Roddenberry's vision that I really liked.

I think NGen is thinking about the Observation Lounge Area where everyone is drinking and McCoy asks, "Do you think God is really out there?" In which Kirk replies, "Maybe he's not out there...but in here (points to chest) the human heart."

I agree that everyone else being duped so easly by the fake God. These guys have met Apollo, seen shapeshifters and the Squior (sp) of Gothos. Surely they shouldn't so easely think someone is the God just because of his fancy light show.

Oh and Luigi, no one questioned God's existance, that's NGen's point. We don't have any athiests at any point during the story saying "Is this guy serious, looking for God? What's next the quest for the Easter Bunny?"

Of all people, I would have expected Spock to be more questioning of the God concept. Not only is he a science officer, but I wasn't aware of Vulcans' belief in God.

TRIVIA

The soundtrack for "Star Trek V" was the LAST "Star Trek" soundtrack to be put on 33 1/3 RPM

In the scene where "da boys" are around the campfire singing Row, Row, Row Your Boat, they attempt to entice Spock into joining the song by singing in round ... (i.e., McCoy sings the first verse, Then Kirk sings the first verse while McCoy moves on to the second, etc.) ... however, McCoy and Kirk sing it wrong as a round.

Here is how the song should be performed:
1. McCOY: Row, row, row your boat
2. McCOY: Gently down the stream
KIRK: Row, row, row your boat
3. McCOY: Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily
KIRK: Gently down the stream
(Spock should begin now)
4. McCOY: Life is but a dream
KIRK: Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily

In actuality, McCoy sings the first AND second verse before Kirk ever joins in ...

1. McCOY: Row, row, row your boat
Gently down the stream
2. McCOY: Merrily, Merrily, merrily, merrily
Life is but a dream
KIRK: Row, row, row your boat
Gently down the stream

This causes McCoy to repeat "Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily" ALONG WITH Kirk (which should never happen while singing in round) when the song falls apart and they query Spock as to why he didn't join in.

I know its a teeny-weeny nit, and it can be easily explained away as Kirk and McCoy being tipsy on Tennesee Whiskey, but still ...

And by the way, is there a difference between Tennessee Whiskey and Bourbon? McCoy offers Spock his flask of Tennessee Whiskey, and Kirk refers to it as "Bourbon and beans, an explosive combination". The main difference between whiskey and bourbon is the aging process, in which bourbon is aged in charred oak barrels.

from the website http://www.webtender.com/db/ingred/159

A Tennessee whiskey is for the most part very similar to bourbon, but there are some differences. It must be made from a mash with at least 51 percent single grain, usually corn. The distillate must not exceed 160 proof, it must then be aged in oak barrels for at least two years, and the final product must not be diluted to less than 80 proof (40% ABV).

This tells me that Kirk does not possess the palate to tell the difference between a liquor that has been aged in oak barrels or one that has been aged in charred-oak barrels (the main difference between whiskey and bourbon).

Next item (which has probably been touched on in past postings) ...

Kirk, Spock and McCoy (thanks to Scotty's jail break) are in Turboshaft 3 and decide to scale the shaft in order to reach the Forward Observation Lounge to send a distress signal. Kirk and McCoy begin ascending the ladder, but Spock disappears through a doorway. Sulu and company arrives and persues Kirk and McCoy, and then Spock appears (from above, no less) wearing his thruster boots and announces, "I believe I have found a better way".

If Spock was able to NOT ONLY find a pair of thruster boots AND make his way above Kirk and McCoy without detection, isn't it reasonable for him to take a moment at a nearby comm station to send a distress signal, and thus negating the reason for the "long and dangerous climb"?

ALSO ...
The scene where Sybok reveals Spock's birth ...

MIDWIFE: Sarek, your son.
SAREK: ... so human.

In defence of Spock's Vulcan (i.e. logical) upbringing, HOW in heck can Sarek make such a statement? The newborn child has easily recognisable "Vulcan" ears and no visible (as far as the movie camera is concerned) green tint to the skin ... does he (as his facial expressions suggest) SMELL a difference? IF so ... is this a Vulcan ability the Trekkers haven't yet delved into?

Perhaps Vulcan infants look nothing like human infants. For example, maybe Vulcan infants are green-tinted, and so Spock had a more human complexion.

Fred, Broken Bow(ENT) established that Vulcan females have a far more sensitive sense of smell than humans. Did Sarek have a certain operation early in life?

I just had a thought, has anyone seen the new DVD and know if it explains the "marshmelon" nonsense?

No.

That was explained in the novelization, however. According to it, Spock, after being told they would be going on a camping trip, searched through the ship's computer for any pertinent information about what a camping trip would entail. McCoy had reprogrammed the computer to tell Spock that one of the rituals involved in camping out is roasting "marshmelons", not "marshmellows". It was done as a prank. (Hence Bones' smile when Spock talks says, "marshmelons".) You've gotta wonder how Bones had the technical know-how to reprogram the computer for that joke. Must have gotten Scotty's help for it.

Live long and prosper.

Actually, McCoy bribed a technician to reprogram the computer.

Isn't it "marshmallow" not "marshmellow".

>Yeah, man! I just ate one and whew it's all mellow now<

I dunno if this has been mentioned before or not or lost in the big NC collapse several years ago but today I just out something very interesting about this movie when I looked at Sean Connery's info on IMDB:

Was the original choice to play Sybock in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989). The words in the film "Sha Ka Ree" are a play on of his name.

Did any of you already know about this? I find it rather humorous.

Yes. As a matter of fact, I thought it was discussed here. Guess it was lost in the Great Collapsing NitCentral Disaster of 2000.

[ObHitchhikers: What a NitCentral is, or why it should choose to collapse in 2000 is a mystery]

Can't believe I never sounded off on this. Perhaps I did, and it was lost in the purge a while back. (I checked the archives, too.)

This one is part of my DVD collection, so I've seen it more than twice. Hated it the first time (in the theater), but on subsequent viewings I can find flashes of brilliance that hint at what it could have been.

The Good: Some fine acting by the main characters. This is the last time that I saw traces of the old Kirk from the TV series. A few finely filmed scenes -- the "Give me your Pain" scene with the main characters was nicely understated. The character interplay was some of the best of the entire series. Some cinematography and composition of shots was quite nice. The music was awesome! I went to Amazon and immediately bought the soundtrack.

The Bad: Probably more than I want to detail here (and most mentioned above, anyway). The sloppy editing and continuity, some very forced humor, the ridiculous rock-climbing and turbolift shaft rocket-boot scenes, etc, etc. I'm absolutely sure that Shatner came in on time and under budget. One nit not mentioned is in the turbo-shaft scene, McCoy and Kirk actually step on Spock's boots for support, while he holds them one in each arm. Yet on the downward view, you clearly see that they are not stepping on his boot. When it cuts back & forth a few times, that also switches.

The Ugly: The cringe-inducing "Uhura on the sand-dune" dance. Spock saying "marshmellons". (You shouldn't have to read the book to get the joke.) The really crappy special effects. As they flew over Sha-Ka-Ree they even used a distorted electron microscope shot as a landscape.

Still, I'm glad I got it. This one has grown on me since I first saw it.

I'm absolutely sure that Shatner came in on time and under budget.

According to Nimoy, that's one of the problems with the film, and it harks back to the old days on the Trek set when the lights went out at 5:07 (???), regardless of whether or not they were done.

ScottN- think it was 6:18pm., no matter what.Eddie Milkis or one or 1 of the staff did that.,

Tng quits anytime after 10pm some days, I read

Maybe a few "old" nits ... but new to me.

1. The Reason Sybok Left Vulcan
Early in the movie, Spock claims that Sybok was banished from Vulcan for his belief that the key to self knowledge was emotion, and NOT logic. Yet, later when Sybok announces to the crew of his intent to journey to the center of the galaxy in search of Shakari, Spock claims that this was the reason Sybok "left" Vulcan ... huh? Wasn't Sybok banished? It doesn't sound voluntary to me. Although, simply stating that he "left" could include being banished, I suppose, it seems a terribly wide swing in meanings on our exacting Spock's part.

2. No Response from the Klingons
Kirk on the bridge, just returned from shore leave, asks Bob - "Have the Klingons responded?", and Bob replies, "No, but you can bet they will". However, the only Klingons to respond were the ones under the command of Klaa, who was acting on his own (as stated "not authorized"). Yet, it could be that, like Kirk, Klaa's ship was "the only one in the quadrant".

3. The "Marshmellon" from Hell
* The Campfire Scene*
Spock announces that he is preparing to toast a "marshmellon", skewers it onto a stick and thrusts it over the campfire. After a few seconds of dialogue, Spock removes it from the fire to tell Bones about the ritual of the sing-a-long. The very next scene shows Kirk and Bones reminiscing about their love of the sing-a-long, and Spock's "marshmellon" is immediately back dangling over the fire. It remains there, even dipping closer to the fire at one point, for at least one and a quarter minutes, whereupon it should've become a burnt cinder. Yet, when the scene changes from McCoy's chiding about having a good time singing to a reverse shot of Spock, his "mellon" is instantly retracted from the fire and is as pristinely white as when he skewered it onto the stick. The very next shot has Kirk and McCoy (over Spock's shoulder) and his "marshmellon" once again is instantly back into the fire.

Fkidd: Kirk on the bridge, just returned from shore leave, asks Bob - "Have the Klingons responded?", and Bob replies, "No, but you can bet they will". However, the only Klingons to respond were the ones under the command of Klaa, who was acting on his own (as stated "not authorized"). Yet, it could be that, like Kirk, Klaa's ship was "the only one in the quadrant".

Or the Klingons are just that uncaring/incompetent. "Well, I guess we should send a ship." "What's that? Klaa's already over there? Well then, he can do it. Onto other things!!"



Those crazy 23rd century marshmellons ;)

Those crazy 23rd century marshmellons..
Not in the horribly framed copy that HBO Family is running as I write this. When Spock takes the "marshmelon" out of its holder, the print is cropped so close to Spock's face that the "marshmelon" is out of frame as Spock is showing it to Kirk and McCoy.

Ya know, you would think that Kirk could have spoken a little friendlier to Spock, when the former was climbing El Capitan. ("Why don't you go pester Dr. Mc Coy"?) After all, it wasn't long before then that Kirk put his career and even his life on the line for Spock.
Spock's eyebrows in the shuttle, as he and the rest are going to the Enterprise-A, are thicker and longer than they were in the campfire scene.

no new SFX can save this turkey. its a wonder this bomb didnt kill off the franchise then and there.

"Or the Klingons are just that uncaring/incompetent. "Well, I guess we should send a ship." "What's that? Klaa's already over there? Well then, he can do it. Onto other things!!" "

More like, "Korrd, who we don't really like and who is so out of favor that he's stationed on Nimbus III, is in trouble on a planet we don't give a (redacted) about? Anyone free nearby? Well tell K'plop that when he's done mining that gaseous nebula that he should go check it out."

Also, the Enterprise took care of the situation pretty fast. The Klingons might not have gotten there in time. Klaa's ship must have been pretty close to Earth if he's blowing up a Voyager probe. Which might be why he got there so quickly.

Pioneer 10, not a Voyager probe.

Caithan Dar must not be very important...no Romulan ships were spotted making any kind of rescue

*slaps self on head*

Thanks ScottN. I knew that, I really did. Promise.

One odd thing I remember was prior to the movie even hitting the screens. I had gone to the movies, and during the coming previews before the main attraction, the trailer for V:The Final Frontier started. It was a few seconds into it before one even knew that it was for a new Star Trek film, but once realized by the folks, there was sort of a collective 'groan' reaction from many of the theater-goers. Back during coming attractions for IV:The Voyage Home, I remember the feeling of approval from the people and one got the sense from the audience that many of these folks seemed likely to maybe go to see it. Looking back on it now, It seemed, at least to me, that the eye-rolling reaction to V:The final Frontier just seemed to come out of nowhere. As far as I remember at the time, Star Trek was in pretty good standing, public-perception wise. I don't believe a never-before seen scene of Kirk spinning his head and Spock saying "Greetings, Captain." was enough to sour people on its own.

Did I miss something that was obvious to everyone?

Maybe it was simply Trek overload. The first five movies were released in a 9-year period. That's fast for any big-screen franchise.

Saw this on another forum. Don't believe this is what the film makers intended for one second but it does make more sense than the actual film.

The whole movie was a dream. Think about it:

- All the nonsense happens between the camping scenes.

- The events of the movie are a reflection of Kirk's fears: being put back into action while he's unprepared, getting screwed by Starfleet, losing his crew and losing, above all, his friends.

- Events from the camping trip are mirrored in the dream: the fall from El Capitan/the fall from the turboshaft, musing around the campfire/musing around the steering wheel.

- The broken and unreliable Enterprise is another fear of Kirk; that no ship can live up to the original.

- The movie follows dream logic: characters appear when needed (Spock in the turboshaft, Scotty in the brig, Spock in the BoP) and reality warps to accommodate the "story" (70+ decks, the mysterious wheel room, unicorns).

- Kirk ate gods for breakfast, so it's no surprise they show up in his dreams. The fight against "god" is Kirk's subconscious idea of a generic adventure. Likewise, a Klingon is his idea of a generic villain.

- In the end, Spocks saves his ass, just like he saved Spock's.

When you look at the movie as a nightmare, a reflection of Kirk's subconscious fears and desires, it actually, somehow, makes *more* sense. In fact, it starts making a *lot* of sense

Life is NOT a dream.

Re: The Dream.

That's the best explanation I've heard about this movie so far!

I agree. Especially with the "life is a dream", "life is NOT a dream" lines. Besides, McCoy wouldn't go off and follow Sybok just because he had to relive his father's death. Again if this is a Kirk nightmare, he would have the fear that McCoy would abandon him.

It also explains the cruddy SFX in the movie, dream images are rarely lifelike or realistic.

That even explains the TOS sound effect used for the firing of the torpedo on Sha Ka Ree.

That even explains the TOS sound effect used for the firing of the torpedo on Sha Ka Ree.
That's ridiculous! Sound doesn't travel in space! ;)

I don't have a problem with Sulu and Chekov getting lost in Yosemite. Put them on a starship and have them navigate from Nimbus to the center of the galaxy, okay. But to expect them to have perfect navigational skills planetside, in a place they've obviously never been to, is silly. That's like saying navigators on present-day naval vessels and airliners are incapable of getting lost in a city or park they've never visited.

Kirk enters the bar unarmed-- not even a native rifle in hand.

It's surprisng that the SFX company didn't give the ships any kind of texturing and shadowing in what's obviously a very dark place and at times a place with lots of flashes and lighting. You'd have thought the previous 4 Trek movies, not to mention Star Wars movies and tv series like the original Galactica would have given them a clue as to how to create the look in space.

I guess the thrill of beating Starfleet was a short-lived one for the followers on Nimbus that weren't given a ride on the shuttle. Klaa showed up and they had to leave Nimbus immediately, and when the Enterprise arrives at Sha Ka Ree Scotty is still working on the transporter.

It's a funny scene, but the 'jail break' was done 'old school' with an explosive, instead of a nice, neat, quiet phaser that used to be able to melt steel in seconds and create a clean oval opening in walls.

It makes complete sense for Spock to be the gunner. Remember ST III and the 'lucky shot' from Kruge's gunner that blew up the Grissom, instead of just damaging the engines? Kirk AND the god-creature would make two Big Time Hits for the Klingon that took them both out. If you were Spock would you trust some Klingon to get it right?

And speaking of Spock, what's with the 'd**n you, sir' he levels at Koord? I know Spock is a little more human these days, but that's pushing the envelope. He was experimenting with 'colorful metaphors' earlier because they were in the 20th century and he wanted to fit in, but he's back home and back to normal now, so swearing shouldn't be something he'd casually utter.

I'm sure everyone's wondered what Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov's pain must be. I can only guess at the other two, but I'll speculate that 'Piotr', Chekov's supposedly imaginary brother from Day of the Dove was real, but perhaps died in childbirth, perhaps even as a twin. The fact that Sulu revealed Chekov to be an only child could just be his repeating what Chekov once told him, hence Chekov's secret pain.

Okay, maybe Uhura's secret pain is that she tried out for the Pussycat Dolls 2265 or the Spice Girls Version 2265 and didn't make the cut!

I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I actually like Brian FitzGerald's idea that this whole movie is a Kirk dream. But I'm a hardcore Trekker and it's all canon to me; 18 years later and I can pretty well accept Sybok as a half-brother. Somehow, it's just not anywhere as controversial as a black Vulcan.

I find it strange that Shatner was given as low a budget as he got; you'd have thought that with the success of ST IV the budget would get bigger.

It's the god thing, of course you can't dump any more money than necessary into something religious...

>It's a funny scene, but the 'jail break' was done 'old school' with an explosive, instead of a nice, neat, quiet phaser that used to be able to melt steel in seconds and create a clean oval opening in walls.>

Scooty couldn't use s phaser. It would set off the alarms. (I wish I had a pot to vaporize right now.)

Steve McKinnon - I find it strange that Shatner was given as low a budget as he got; you'd have thought that with the success of ST IV the budget would get bigger.

The budget did get bigger for this movie, but only by $2.8 million. The execs probably looked at the last time they gave the Trek producers a blank check (i.e. The Motion Picture) and decided not to do it again. Considering that St:2, 3, and 4 were all done on fairly tight budgets and were all well-written and successful, why would Shatner need more money? Just my thoughts.

While that's true about the phaser, wouldn't an explosion powerful enough to do the same thing also show up on sensors?

Of course, this is Scotty we're talking about - the Chief Engineer of the starship, Enterprise. He could easily have deactivated any security alarm that would have detected a phaser in use aboard ship or an explosion.

Live long and prosper.

More stuff...
The shuttle crashing through the hangar deck shouldn't have lasted as long as it did (about 8 seconds), since the deck looked quite short from the first arrival after Uhura returned Kirk and the others from the campsite.
Also, Plan B, as in Barricade; I find it odd that in the 23rd century a leather-link net would be used to stop a runaway shuttle, when a tractor beam could do a better job.

Previous discussions about the height of the Enterprise (Deck 70???) didn't include one main factor. The guys travelled straight up, and the only area of the ship that's truly high is from the belly of the secondary hull to the top of the saucer, through the dorsal neck, and anybody looking at the model can tell there can't possibly be 70 decks there. Although not canon, the blueprints of the TOS Enterprise list the saucer as decks 6 and 7, the large bulge deck 5, and the oval dome decks 2, 3, and 4, with the bridge, deck 1, on top. That design would leave out the top 5 decks of the ship, pushing the total even closer to 80 decks!

I recently bought the 2-disc DVD, and one of the bonuses is an interview with Spice Williams (Vixis) and Todd Bryant (Klaa). I can tell you now that back then Bryant looked NOTHING like anyone could imagine under that Klingon face. He was your average muscular blonde surfer dude, and nowadays is still youthful looking, reminding me of a younger Dennis Quaid. Spice still looks okay, but WOW, does she need to lay off the caffeine! She was REALLY cheerful and giddy and pawing Bryant!

Maybe somebody can clear up a mystery for me regarding this DVD. There are interviews with Shatner and Harve Bennent on it that were filmed back in 1989. I gotta wonder where these interviews were intended to be shown (a tv speacial perhaps?). There were no DVD's in 1989 with extras like this, so why were they even filmed?

Anybody know how to get to the alleged Easter Egg on this DVD?

I like the movie, but it's not exactly full of unique ideas;

-Nimbus III is a barren desert planet; so was Ceti Alpha V from ST II.
-The adventure involves a relative of a crewmember, namely Spock's half-brother, Sybok, who later is killed; in STII we meet Kirk's son, David, and in STIII he's killed.
-The Enterprise is attacked by a Klingon Bird of Prey; same thing happened in STIII.
-A Klingon captain, Klaa, takes on the Enterprise for personal gain without permission from HQ; Kruge did the same in STIII.
-A 23rd century seedy bar is seen here with lots of aliens; we saw a cleaner establishment in STIII with lots of aliens.
-Sybok's followers are dressed in ragged clothing; Khan's followers were in rags, too, in ST II.
-The Enterprise enters a mysterious swirling, gaseous phenomenon, namely the Great Barrier at the center of the galaxy; in STTMP they entered V'Ger's mysterious, gaseous outer core.
-The Enterprise is launched out of drydock, without a full crew and with the ship incomplete; same thing happened in STTMP.
-In STV, Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Sybok approach an area encirlced by rocky pillars, and when it appears the God creature arrives in a blinding white light; in STTMP Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Decker and Ilia approach an area encircled my metalic pillars, and when Decker and Ilia merge it's in a blinding white light.

How do we know that Kruge's actions weren't sanctioned by his HQ? ST:IV would seem to suggest that they were, as Klingon representatives defended his actions before the Federation Council.

Maybe they only defended him because they believed, as Kruge misktakenly believed, that the Genesis Device was a 'Genesis Torpedo', with an intention of erasing Klingon worlds from existence, rather then creating new ones for colonists as Carol Marcus stated in her proposal.

Look at Congress; the Republicans or the Democrats will defend a senator accussed of wrong-doing, even if he had his or her own interests in mind rather than the party's, and the party seems to have no choice but to defend them, even if evidence shows their guilt.

Kruge took the data transferred from Valkris and then showed it to Maltz and Torg, and told Torg, "Share this with NO ONE!" as if he wanted it for himself. He never took the data back to Kronos, because he headed directly for Genesis.
Valkris, although possibly a Klingon government agent, was sacrificed not for the Empire but for Kruge's quest for 'ultimate power' for himself.

Mike Nelson has an MST3K-style riff on this one on Rifftrax. You pay for the mp3 (usually $2.99), download it, then play it along with the movie. It has some simple syncing techniques.

This particular one has the added bonus of Kevin Murphy as well (Tom Servo).

They've recorded tracks for V, VI, and VII, in fact.

Sybok needs a starship to get from Nowhere III to the center of the galaxy, which sets up what we'll generously call 'the plot' for the movie. How did he get to the planet in the first place? Could it be... a starship? If this wasn't the first place he stopped after his banishment, he should have already had plenty of opportunities to get his hands on a ship. If not, he could have just used his 'secret pain' routine on whoever sent him from Vulcan to Nimbus and taken that ship. If it works on the Enterprise crew it's got to work on expendable extras.

Also, presumably there was a ship in orbit at the same time as the opening scene, given the Romulan ambassador had just arrived. Why not steal that ship?

Sybok could have flown to Nimbus III in anything from a personal shuttle to a cargo hauler. What he wants is something powerful enough to punch through the interference at the galactic core. That means a starship.

Good point on the Romulan ship, though they might have just sent her in a passenger ship since its supposed to be such a bad posting.

Marshmellons?

you complain about my bad gammer n tiping and sintaxxxx.

, btw ,I got an A in English in grade school.

"Marshmellons" is correct for STV because it's was something said by Spock around the campfire.

Is it just me or does Uhura sound like Eartha Kitt when she says, "Hello, boys!"

I dunno, but I thought the scene in which she tied up Batman and Robin was a bit over the top.

Just got us an official Kraft Star Trek V Marshmallow Dispenser off of E-bay. It's signed by captain Kirk. :-)

Just got us an official Kraft Star Trek V Marshmallow Dispenser off of E-bay. It's signed by Captain Kirk.
I got two when they were first offered by Kraft in the summer of 1989. Cheap; I think they were a dollar or two apiece, with the UPC codes from Kraft Marsh-Mellon packs. (I was on vacation with my then wife, who was pregnant at the time. I stuffed myself with marshmallows like there was no tomorrow.) One I opened, one I didn't. I still have them (the dispensers, not the wife) two decades later. And, IIRC, the signature is from Admiral Kirk. But, Kirk wasn't an admiral in the movie; we all know he was made a Captain at the end of Star Trek IV.

The inevitable has happened: The agonybooth has posted an enjoyable if longwinded review of this pic (agonybooth.com)

Although sadly, I feel like it's not one of their better efforts; very by-the-numbers and missing some obvious jokes.

Kinda like Star Trek V. ;-)

Here's a more forgiving review of this pic than the Agony Booth (or Jabootu, or almost anybody else over the past 20 years) wrote. What was reviewed was the Region 2 Blu-Ray, btw.

I recently watched a great review of this film here. Basically the reviewer pins down pretty much everything that I think is wrong with this film.

The biggest one is that it's basically a love letter from writer/director William Shatner to his character of James T Kirk. Everyone around Kirk seems to be either incompetent or ready to turn on him in a second. The origional idea was that Kirk looses everyone, including Bones & Spock. That was changed only because Nimoy & Kelly flat refused to do the film if their characters fell for Sybock's pain removal con.

Which brings us to another point; that whole "secret pain" thing doesn't really make sense; it's basically the idea that everyone has one secret pain that is so overwhelming that if you remove it they will quite literally follow a nut-bag cult leader into hell. Even characters like Uhura, Chekov & Sulu turn on Kirk over this. Plus there's the whole idea that everyone has 1 specific pain that causes them so much grief. In the case of McCoy's euthanasia of his father it makes sence. It even ties into his character previously admonishing Kirk's free-climbing a mountain since he now feels that human life is far to precious to risk on silly stunts. But the idea that everyone has one such pain doesn't make sense. Neither does the idea that Uhura, Chekov & Sulu would turn on him so easly. Just 2 movies ago they were willing to help Kirk steal the Enterprise, throw away their careers & risk going to prison to help Kirk return to Genesis. Now they turn on him after some Vulcan Dr. Phil does some BS therapy with them.

Per Shatner, Sybock was based on those televangelist con men who were all over TV in the 1980 & so good at using cheap parlor tricks to separate the faithful from their money. But once again you now have loyal, beloved, crew members becoming nuts who would turn on Kirk because Pat Robertson/Oral Roberts told them to. The fact that McCoy & Spock resisted shows that it wasn't mind control Sybock was using. That I could buy, Sybock was using some form of mind control to turn everyone against Kirk; but the central plot was that people were choosing to follow him of their own free will.

Apparenly Gene Roddenberry was not too thrilled when he heard about this movie. Sybok bothered him because he didn't think the fans would like for this half-brother of Spock to be pulled out of thin air (and he was right). Of course, by then, Gene was no longer calling the shots on the movies, so he couldn't stop it from being made.

Final Frontier would be the lowest grossing of all the Trek movies, holding that record for 13 years until Nemesis in 2002.

Although, I will give the film one defense for it's goofy, out-of-character characters, a manic, overacting Kirk, and a crew that seems a bit on the incompetent side...

Technically, it's been less than a year (or so) since TWOK. Spock died earlier the same year that this film takes place in. The assumed timeline is more or less:
Khan attack out of nowhere, kills spock, cripples the enterprise.
Days later, the Enterprise is stolen, destroyed, Kirk's son is killed, the crew is exiled to Vulcan.
Three or four months later- the entire time spent working hard to refit a Klingon BOP and dreading the impending court martial (I.e. No time for rest), the group has to travel back in time to save Earth and deal with multiple chaotic situations. This leads directly to a shakedown cruise- but presumably a short one (a month or two at the most, probably much shorter as the ship was in no condition to operate on it's own for a week, much less months), since everything's malfunctioning- and again, not a remotely relaxing or enjoyable one, as everything's falling apart around them. So that gives us the potential of anywhere from 5 months or so to maybe 8 or 9, assuming a long shakedown and a long stay on Vulcan. 1/2-3/4 of a year filled with all of that chaos, loss, recovery, change, and stress.


Why is Checkov so goofy and quick to give in? He's still recovering from a major head trauma!

Why is Spock so out of touch about 'marshmellons,' his relationship with Kirk, etc. but still knows some- but not all- classic literature? Because he's still re-learning all of his knowledge- he was re-educated on some materials ("All I ask is a tall ship...") but many random bits of trivia (Marshmallows, Row, Row, Row, etc.) picked up during his life- including the closeness of his friendship with Kirk- are still being remembered or re-learned.

Why is Kirk so hyperactive-crazy? Because he's lost everything in the last year- Spock, the Enterprise, his son- has been through nearly non-stop stress and chaos, been involved in fate-of-the-crew life or death situations multiple times and the fate of Earth a few... and is on the verge of a mental breakdown!

The whole crew has been strained to breaking, and desperately need a vacation... explaining their performance and personalities in this film! :-)

The use of cathode-ray tube displays on the Enterprise (and elsewhere) is starting to date this movie. These days, it's pretty much impossible to find a new tube-TV set or CRT computer screen; everything's gone to flat panel now.

The CRT issue is somewhat ironic; older productions (TOS and 2001, for example) look better than their more modern counterparts because they used mattes and rear projection to simulate flat video displays. The "better looking" CRTs with actual graphics look dated, as you say.

Dour Walker, who goes by the name The Nostalgia Critic, helped create the media reviewing site That Guy With The Glasses.com. He just did a series of reviews of the odd-numbered Trek films for his "Star Trek Month" theme. I have been a big fan of his for about a year now, I discovered his reviews by accident by way of YouTube, and I got to meet and talk with him for a few minutes last summer in Canada. He had never really been that much of a "Trek geek", he himself admitted this, but he felt it was time to feature the worst of the movies, them being, for the most part, the odd-numbered ones. But like I said a while back, the fact that Nemesis bombed as badly as it did, it totally eliminated the idea that the even-numbered films were the good ones. Well, these days, we all now know that isn't true!

Anyway, the Critic reviewed the first five odd-numbered films. And he reserved special critisism for The Final Frontier. I always knew that it was bad, but I had not seen it the whole way through for many years. So, with his review, he reminded all of us just why it is that the fifth film is truly the very worst of the TOS-era movies.

I remember when Phil said this of TFF in his Guide. "Gene Roddenberry considered much of this film to be apocryphal. I understand that, many executives at Paramount in 1989 who saw who poorly the film did probably want to believe that the movie never happened. As far as I'm concerned, that's too bad. It was on the screen. It cost lots of money to make. Paramount is still *selling* it. It's canonical!"

Well, Phil has me there. TFF is indeed a film that exists within the established canon. But that doesn't mean that it was any good or that I have to worship at the feet of Shatner and kiss his behind for bringing forth to the world a true cinematic masterpiece. He didn't. So I won't!

As for *canonical* Star Trek, I've already expressed my opinion that the J.J.-helmed movie is not a part of it. I stand by that, I shall never waver from it, no matter how many people are going gaga over the young hot crew or the cool new effects. It just doesn't *do it* for me, you know what I'm saying?

One thing that really ground my gears was when Kirk declared that he didn't want his pain taken away, that he "needed his pain", somehow making his character superhuman somewhat. That, along with numerous other liberties taken with Kirk's character and his repeated bizarre personality quirks during the film's various dilemmas, only existed in this film as a result of Shatner's insistence. And they, along with other things like the three-breasted cat lady and Uhura dancing nearly naked in the desert were typical directorial touches made to the film that really made it extremely irritating to watch and listen to.

I'll say it one more time: Brian F. said at one point that this film was "Shatner's love letter to Kirk". I wholeheartedly agree, and my response to Andrew G's defending of this film, (as evidenced with many of the above posts on this thread) well, I'm just going to say that he's entitled to his opinion (see my review of the 2009 film to translate what that statement *really* means!)

I fully concur with Roger Ebert in his review when he said "Of all the Star Trek movies, this is the worst.", even though he doesn't know much about or really understand Trek, he nailed it right on the head with that one. He also had another amusing observation concerning the Klingons' involvement in the movie's weak and mediocre plot: "Do we REALLY have to see the mighty Klingons reduced to the status of guests at a cocktail party?" BOOM! goes the dynamite!

Also, as a result of this boredom-inducing snorefest made me thoroughly loathe that stupid stinking "Row Your Boat" ditty. Sometimes, I hear it sung by the Big Three in my nightmares!

That should of course be "Doug" Walker. Please forgive me! (And he's a really nice and cool guy, too!)

This is not just for Andre, but everyone else who hates this movie...

Actually I find the continuing slagging of this movie to be a 'boredom-inducing snorefest '. Yea, yea, yea, people don't like it, yada-yada-yada, Row-Row-Row-Your-Boat blah, blah, blah, whatever. Heard it many, many, many times, enough already.

I'd do something about the person that's tied you to your chair and is forcing you to watch it, because I find it pretty easy to ignore stuff that I hate to think about, and don't need to slag it.

Roger Ebert? Whatever. I have my own brain and opinions and don't need a critic to decide what I like or dislike.

Not a great movie, yes, but please go right ahead and make your own Trek blockbuster if it's so easy.

Ahh yes, another "if you dont like it then do something that's better" post. I stopped being affected by or concerned with cop-out attitudes like that about a decade ago.

A lot of people said that they didnt like ST V, especially after it came out over 20 years ago. As one article put it at the time, "The Old Guard Stumbles, The New Wave Triumphs", as it was referring to the failure of the fifth film and the increasing popularity of TNG which was entering it's third season and was finally out of it's awkward phase. Shatner went on record many times saying that he hated TNG and that they couldn't compare to the original. He even made Wil Wheaton cry one day on the Paramount lot. Gene was furious when he heard about this, even he was aware of the Shat's planet-sized ego and the fact that he was convinced that nothing that came after TOS could possibly be worth anything or be worth watching. Well, he sure was proved wrong when his "love letter to James T. Kirk" bombed due to a weak and lukewarm script as well as just plain lousy and unconvincing special effects. Shatner even tried to blame the film's failure all on Paramount, but they were having none of that. I am extremely glad that he was totally pwned the way he was by having his lame and dumb film flop and The Next Generation move boldly into it's third, and many people say best and most successful season. Hurray for Picard and Co.!

And yeah, nobody has EVER "forced" me to watch a bad movie. What exactly is your point with that, anyway? I don't think your argument has any merit, quite frankly. I suppose I just have less of a tolerance for banality and mediocrity than others do. But dont take it personally or anything. It's just a TV show, after all.

That's pretty much all I have to say about this. •••• it up, get over it, and get on with your life, I always say!

---

quote:

I fully concur with Roger Ebert in his review when he said "Of all the Star Trek movies, this is the worst," even though he doesn't know much about or really understand Trek...

---

Here's an interview with Laurence Luckinbill, in which he discusses the movie, Messrs. Shatner and Nimoy, and tries to explain why Sybok's hair was shorter on the trip to Sha-Ka-Ree.

"Back in 1979, Ebert gave a positive review to TMP, going so far to say that he was a fan of the series. At the same time, Gene Siskel gave that movie a negative review." - Adam Bomb

I see. Thanks for providing this information. I have read Ebert's reviews of the first six Trek movies, and he seemed to be pretty fair-minded with his critiques. I am not sure what he thinks of the TNG-era films, however.

As for Siskel (RIP), the only reviews he ever did that I read were when he had a column in TV Guide in the mid-late 90s. And I had seen many episodes of "At The Movies" he and Ebert had done. I, like many others, was saddened by his death.

Anyway, I suppose I was somewhat mistaken when I said that Ebert did not know much about Trek. I admit that. Thanks again for the info, Adam!

---

quote:

Why is Chekov so goofy and quick to give in? He's still recovering from a major head trauma!

---

The music cue heard when the Enterprise is first shown in Spacedock here was taken from an unused cue for Spock's arrival on the Enterprise in TMP. (That factoid came from the booklet included in the June, 2012 La-La Land Records release of the complete score). How apropos - recycled music heard over recycled footage.

The Blu-Ray disc contains two commentary tracks - the track that Shatner and his daughter Liz recorded for the 2003 special edition DVD, and a track with the same crew (Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, Mike and Denise Okuda and Daren Dochterman) that recorded the track for the TMP Blu-Ray. The Reeves-Stevens et al track is a lot more serious and positive about this movie than their track for TMP. And, unless I misheard, Shatner indicated that ST V was DeForest Kelley's last performance. The Shat-Man's memory must have been going downhill when he recorded that track; he seemed to have forgotten about Star Trek VI.

Also, in the commentary, the Shat-Man couldn't remember the name of the actor playing J'onn. Hey Shat - he was Rex Holman. You probably had a hand in casting him. You worked with him in the first episode ("Spectre of the Gun") shot for the third season of TOS back in the summer of 1968. Also, it was his last film role.

From Trekmovie, here's a 25th anniversary (yes, it has been that long) look back at Star Trek V. Which, BTW, the Epix channels have been playing to death lately.

"I liked him better before he died." - McCoy

A very 20th century bar code can be seen on the back of the bottle of Dr. McCoy's "secret ingredient" (namely the bottle of Jack Daniels that Kirk takes a swig from.) That's best seen on a Blu-Ray viewing or an HD broadcast.

More verses to "Row Row Row Your Boat" can be heard in the 1952 Cary Grant family flick Room For One More. Whether the verses were from the song originally, or written specifically for that movie, I don't know.

Here's another, and pretty forgiving, opinion of this film from Den Of Geek.

And, here's another essay in defense of TFF.

In the early part of the movie, we see Klaa destroying either Pioneer 10 or 11. Those probes are moving at about 12 km/sec, in the late 23rd century they will be around 4 light days away from the Sun. That's well inside the Federation. Heck, it's well inside the Sun's Oort cloud. Do the Klingons really have ships patrolling in the very heart of Federation space? That would be like the Soviet Union patrolling the streets of Washington DC at the height of the Cols War.

This script needed some serious rewrites.

One word.... Wormhole. [yeah, yeah, I know...]

A wormhole is the most likely explanation.

Of course, once thing that the fans hated was the idea that Spock had a half-brother that was never even hinted at before (even Gene Roddenberry himself didn't like it).

They could have kept Sybok, but they should have made him a childhood friend of Spock's. That would have made a lot more sense.

Of course, thirty years later, STD gives us Commander Mary Sue... Ah, don't get me started!

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

If only STD had heeded the words of George Santayana, a philosopher, essayist, poet and novelist that gave us that famous quote.

But, then, Miss Frowny-Face Traitor is only ONE problem out of a MULTITUDE of things wrong with STD..

Another thing I'd fix is how fast they got to the center of the galaxy. It should have taken them years.

Once again a wormhole would have fixed that.

Fair enough.
However, considering our multitude of nits, this might have been just as loathed by fans as it is without Shatner's contributions.

There were some factors that were out of Shatner's control.

For example, the humour that seemed out of place (like Scotty knocking himself out like that) was because of Executive Meddling on the part of Paramount, that, since the previous movie was so funny, this one must be too.

However, the big problem was that Shatner had ideas, but didn't have the needed budget for them. No doubt today CGI might have helped, but such things were not possible 30 years ago.

Still, this movie is Citizen Kane compared to STD.

As a Star Trek fan, I just want to say that nothing justifies this movie's character of Sybok, Spock's alleged brother.

Yes, they should have ditched the brother and focused on the three-breasted catgirl. ;-)

And then STD says Spock has a human step-sister, Commander Mary Sue.

BULL****!!

Fans didn't buy Sybok, thirty years ago, and they don't buy Commander Mary Sue now.

Of course, it's not like the CBS Swindlers give a damned about the fans.

This summer will be the 30th Anniversary of the release of this movie.

30 years of Sybok existing? You'd think the fan base would have accepted him by now!
Still, his existence and back-story is much more acceptable compared to Mary Sue on STD.

Sean "Smeghead" Moore has reviewed this movie:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOTRvr-0ae8


He and I are on the same page about one thing, a lot of their problems would have been solved by CGI. However, that kind of CGI just wasn't available in 1989.

Here's some background on the Hiroshima song behind Uhura's fandance.

Shatner is a good indication of why actors shouldn't be directing when they haven't been trained for it for years beforehand.

Well, if Star Trek had had a full third season he would have directed one of the last episodes.

Also IMDB shows he directed 10 episodes of TJ Hooker.

I believe he may have directed some plays as well, but I'm not sure where to verify that.

I think mainly that while an okay director he just wasn't strong enough to overcome a weak script and the other production problems this movie had.

Also IMDB shows he directed 10 episodes of TJ Hooker.

He did. So he did have some directing experience under his belt, albeit television, not feature films.

I would point out that Harve Bennett, the producer of some of the best Trek movies, also only did television prior to said movies.


I think mainly that while an okay director he just wasn't strong enough to overcome a weak script and the other production problems this movie had.

Indeed, there were a few things that were simply beyond Shatner's control.

Paramount slashing the budget and ILM being unavailable among them.

Yes, he does take some blame, but to say that it was all his fault, and his alone, is simply incorrect.

Star Trek V is better than the TNG films, i feel.

Not all of them.

This movie is better than Nemesis.

In fact, thanks to Nemesis, this is no longer the lowest grossing Trek movie.

And I'd rather watch this movie than any of the current rubbish that the CBS Swindlers are peddling.

Well, you're missing out on something great with Lower Decks, imho.

To each their own.

Well, you're missing out on something great with Lower Decks

Yeah, the background graphics are great!

The foreground characters and stories... not so much.

The script of this movie needed work.

However, not long after said script was finished, the 1988 writer's strike happened. They had no choice but to work with said script as it was.

Youtube to the rescue, again!
This video from 2017 improves the Enterprise's penetration of the Great Barrier.
Just 1 hour and 45 other minutes to fix!

https://youtu.be/oXque3_S7Eo

The movie was made 32 years ago, when CGI was in its infancy. Also, the company they used was second rated at best (they wanted ILM, but they were booked solid that summer).

I've seen Shatner get blamed for this, but this was one aspect that was beyond his control.

Also, the company they used was second rated at best...

Plus, IIRC, they were some 3,000 miles away from the action. The movie was shot in Hollywood, but the effects firm, Associates and Ferren, was located in New Jersey.

New Jersey!?

Yes, New Jersey. Specifically, Hoboken. A stone's throw from Manhattan. You can read more about that here.

They should have tried to find something closer, IMO.

When Kirk and Co. first enter the bar, Kirk gets into a fight with a Caitian woman. The fight end with said woman knocked out, floating face down in a pool of water. Unless someone pulled her out, when we weren't looking, the poor woman drowned (it's a known fact that you can drown in a few inches of water).

Heck of a thing to leave dangling, IMO.

When Kirk and Co. first enter the bar

Why does this sound like the set-up to a joke? "Kirk, Spock & McCoy walk into a bar..." ;-)

Technically speaking drowning is just getting water in your lungs. Lots of times in my life I've been coughing water out of my lungs while swimming. Which the Caitian isn't doing. She's just floating there, indicating that there is enough air in her lungs to keep her afloat. So her lungs have not filled with water.
No coughing, no sinking, so maybe she's playing possum & deciding on her next move?

Yes, but she was still face down in water. Her lungs aren't getting any new air. Unless she is indeed playing possum, or if someone pulls her out, she has only minutes to live.

As Kirk, Spock and McCoy sink ever lower in the turbo lift shaft, Kirk quips "Must have been the marsh-melons". Well, the marsh-melons I'm consuming as I compose this have "A Fat Free Food" on the bag. So there!

Oh now, this isn't 1991, we know that foods loaded with sugar are far worse for you than loaded with just fat.

Something was lost in World War III?

Yeah...'NEW COKE'!
Never saw that AGAIN!

When Sulu and Chekov get lost, Uhura calls them. They try to bluff their way through by saying that a snow storm is going on. Uhura then tells them it's 78 degrees.

Wow, that is either really, really hot, or someone forgot that, by the 23rd Century, it's all Metric. Uhura should have said it was 25 degrees.

Exceeeeept...
In 'Spock's Brain', Chekov reports that Sigma Draconis VI has "a high maximum of 40. Liveable', and he was referring to how it's cold now, but could warm up to a whole 40 degrees Farenheit.
Maybe they keep some metric in the future, like metres, but celsius might not survive to the 23rd century.

Now, he's my question; how long does Sybok's 'brainwashing' last? He convinces Sulu, Chekov, and Uhura to follow him to the center of the galaxy, which they do, but Spock rejects the mind control, and McCoy is changed, but his loyalty to Kirk and Spock seems to shock him (or guilt him) back to normal.
Will Sulu, Chekov, and all the others continue to live without their pain and in a idealized mindset to find God? They weren't on the planet, so they don't know everything that happened down there to shock them back to normal.

but Celsius might not survive to the 23rd century.

Except it's alive and well in the 22nd and 24th. All the shows from TNG on used Metric measurements.

I guess Fahrenheit is still active in Russia as far as Chekov is concerned, because as we all know, it was a Russian invention!

And it will make a supersonic man out of you!

I guess Fahrenheit is still active in Russia as far as Chekov is concerned, because as we all know, it was a Russian invention!

Invented by a little old lady from St. Petersburg.

Inwented by a little old lady...

FTFY.

Got it.

Don't know if anyone's mentioned this, but...

At the beginning of the film, when Klaa destroys Pioneer 10, he's in serious violation of Federation space.

Today, roughly 50 years after it was launched, Pioneer 10 is about 18 light-hours from Earth. 250 years from now, Pioneer will be about 108 light hours from Earth.

The Oort cloud extends up to about 2-3 light years from Earth.

Therefore, at the time Klaa destroyed it, Pioneer was still within the Sol system. And Klaa got close enough to use it for target practice?

OK, Merat noticed it in 2007. I just put the specifics of actual details in the above post.

Clearly the writer thought that Pioneer 10 would be a lot farther away that it really would be by the time the 23rd Century rolled around.

However, since we don't deal in reality here, two explanations come to mind:

1. It passed through a wormhole.

2. Aliens picked it up, looked it over, and discarded it. By then, they had travelled light years from Earth.

3. It got captured by the warp bubble of a passing ship and dragged along like a leaf behind a car. ;-)

4. It fell into the same 'black hole' that Voyager 6 did, and the machines of V'ger's planet said, "Whoawhoawhoa! We've already got a little guy from planet Earth to return to its creator! We'll take you as far as the Beta Quadrant, but after that, kid, you're on your own! Enough with orphans from Earth!"

And the funny thing is that scene could have been removed from the movie, and nothing substantial would be missing.

Or, if they had to have Klaa blow something up, just make it an asteroid, or a random piece of space junk. It didn't have to be Pioneer 10.

In the wake of the recent death of David Warner, Cynthia Gouw discusses a deleted scene from early in the movie. More on that here. (I'm sure the run time of 106 minutes was mandated by the studio, but would it have killed them to keep the two-minute scene in?)

It wouldn't have hurt to leave it in, IMO.

Adam-you just don't understand the studios(Don't worry--no one else does ).

The problem here is that it's all about the all-mighty dollar(always remember one dollar now is worth more than anything else later).

The road to profit is to resell the same old things as many times as possible.

To make this work you need to release everything one item at a time,them in sets, then in seasons,then in specialty sets for anything you can think of.

Then put energy thing on every format used, and replace them as soon as anything changes.

The you take all special features and directors cuts,deleted scenes --include them at first--now you can start reselling everything multiple times.

If you hit the point that nothing wise sell, sorry I'm not a pro--you wii need to find an expert to sell more.

I do not claim to be an expert-- but I have seen every rule I've quoted during my entire lifetime.

Could be.

It's the only way it seems to make sense.

You can also bring back the dead.

The Beatles break up.

John Lennon is shot.(Beatles can not regroup).

Someone wants more money.

Solution:take an old sub-par John Lennon song, record with new lyrics for the rest of the band.

Result: a "new" Beatles song and more profit.

Do I need to say more??

Back to Star Trek V.

Good for you.

The writer stretches some descriptions to make his point.
- Sybok is not a scientist. I don't know what he is, but nobody refers to him as any kind of scientist.
- The Stonehenge-type rocks that appear from the ground don't say 'temple' to me, nor is the area 'domed'.
- The alien does not 'try to kill everyone'. He zaps Kirk and then Spock as punishment for doubting him. He needed the Enterprise, so he wouldn't kill his new-found benefactors.
- Destroying the respective god-creatures is done two different ways. Yes, someone has to sacrifice themselves to do it ('Prometheus' has a spaceship collision, 'STV' has Sybok attack it, and then the Bird-of-Prey destroys it), but it's not the same method at all.

That's five mistakes in the article, and doesn't address the Spock/Sybok brother issue, the legion of followers Sybok gains through his powers, the shore leave shenanigans, the rescue of hostages, or the ever-present danger of a Klingon ship following the Enterprise. Where are the similarities in 'Prometheus'? Nonexistent, that's where.

So, there ARE a few similar elements, but the majority of the two movies are distinctly different.

Ok, what happened to Jeff's original post?

I happened.

Winters is persona non gratta in my forums.

What the other Mods do, or don't do, when he posts his rubbish in their forums is up to them, of course.

To be fair the article was from another website and wasn't written by him.

For future readers of this thread and to put my post into perspective, a writer tried to say that 'Alien: Prometheus' was a re-make of 'Star Trek V - The Final Frontier'. There are superficial similarities, but my post above cut his theory to pieces, because he made five glaring errors in order to make his (inaccurate) point.

Don't worry, Steve. It's all good.