So i used to like Star Trek V when i was younger and now i find it almost unwatchable it is so bad. — Page 4

FanFiltration said:

I don't think William Shatner did that bad of a job directing the actors.

This is true, however Shatner should never be allowed to direct himself in anything ever again.  I can't remember which part it was precisely, but there was one moment during the film that made me laugh out loud because Shatner just overdid it so much.  I know he's never been known for being a great actor by any means, but most of the other directors throughout Trek's history have done a good job of keeping his overacting in check ... but that doesn't exactly work when he himself is the director.

skyjedi2005 said:

In my opinion despite its flaws the motion picture feels like the cerebral star trek i like. 

I think it is the best of the original six films despite its slow pace.  It basically was trying to be another 2001.

That's part of the problem. 2001 is a severely overrated movie. I find The Motion Sickness pretty much unwatchable, and Wrath of Khan not much better.

ChainsawAsh said:

FanFiltration said:

I don't think William Shatner did that bad of a job directing the actors.

This is true, however Shatner should never be allowed to direct himself in anything ever again.  I can't remember which part it was precisely, but there was one moment during the film that made me laugh out loud because Shatner just overdid it so much.  I know he's never been known for being a great actor by any means, .

You obviously aren't up to date with recognition he's received for Boston Legal. Won one Golden Globe for Boston Legal and one Emmy. Nominated for three other Emmies for Boston Legal. Won another Emmy for playing the same character on The Practice. Nominated for Screen Actors' Guild award for Boston Legal.

It think it was Nick Meyer who said that they often had to do countless takes until Shatner would get frustrated and finally deliver a performance they could use.

I don't know how anybody can sit through Ricardo Montalban's performance as Khan without feeling the need to vomit. It's easily on the level of Palpatine in the later part of ROTS.

Vaderisnothayden said:

ChainsawAsh said:

FanFiltration said:

I don't think William Shatner did that bad of a job directing the actors.

This is true, however Shatner should never be allowed to direct himself in anything ever again.  I can't remember which part it was precisely, but there was one moment during the film that made me laugh out loud because Shatner just overdid it so much.  I know he's never been known for being a great actor by any means, .

You obviously aren't up to date with recognition he's received for Boston Legal. Won one Gloden Globe for Boston Legal and one Emmy. Nominated for three other Emmies for Boston Legal. Won another Emmy for playing the same character on The Practice. Nominated for Screen Actors' Guild award for Boston Legal.

 

Um ... I watch[ed] Boston Legal.  I enjoyed it very much.  And I don't think Shatner deserved any of those awards, as his performance as Denny Crane was just as overacted as anything else he's ever done.  That's not to say I didn't love every second he was on screen - I just don't think his performance was award-worthy.

And just because someone wins awards for acting doesn't immediately mean they're a good actor, which is something that's a matter of opinion anyway.  That's like attacking me for hating Million Dollar Baby because it won the Oscar for Best Picture.

--edit--

And I'm shocked that you defend Shatner's performance while saying Ricardo Montalban's is vomit-worthy.  They both over-acted the shit out of their respective roles, but each was enthralling to watch in his own way.  I would never have changed a thing about Montalban's performance as Khan, in Space Seed or Wrath of Khan.  (I'll never understand how his hair went from black to blonde, but whatever - it's the Saavik eyebrow thing all over again.)

The plot for the final act of Star Trek V is rather similar to Who Mourns for Adonais? .

The God thing could even be a member of the same race.

I think there's enough there for a dedicated fan to do a Revisted style redux.

The film will never be a classic but it's nowhere near as bad as some people make out, neither is Nemesis which almost identical to the current film which everyone seems to be getting so excited about (even if it was a virtual remake of TWOK).

First Contact on the other hand is vastly overated, it's basically a remake of Aliens (which was a remake of THEM!) it still got some nice bits in it but it did also introduce the bloody Borg Queen which contributed to the dilution of all that made those Cyberman/Cenobite hydrids so chilling in the first place.

Other than TMP all the Star Trek films were just glorified television episodes (usually rehashes of OS episodes, even TMP is guilty of that but at least it looked cinematic, but lacking any of the originality of the mother series) including the Colonel Abrams one.

I've never understood why a TV show-turned-movie being an "extended episode of the series" is a bad thing.  People complained that all the first X-Files movie was was a long episode - but isn't that basically what you'd want to see?  A feature-length installment in the series?  If you try to make it too different you run the risk of it not being enough like the series it's based on.

And I don't see how you can say that TMP isn't a "glorified television episode" - it's painfully obvious that that movie was intended to be a TV episode, but got a lot of extra B.S. added to it to pad it out to a feature-length story.  If any of the films deserve that title, it's TMP.

I think when people got to a cinema they want to see a piece of cinema, if they want to watch television they will stay at home and watch television.

The rules for cinema drama are very different from that of television.

It's largely a question of scale, even an intimate piece of cinema should approach the small with a greater richness and depth than television can afford.

With something with the scope of space opera there should be a more epic sweep in a cinema presentation than in television.

What can only be achieved in a few key places in a long running show should be the full focus of a cinema film.

C3PX said :

Interesting take on First Contact being a remake of Aliens, and Aliens being a remale of THEM!. I have seen all three movies, and acknowledge that there is a similar theme, but I have a hard time seeing them as "remakes". They all fit into the us vs. the hoards of monsters! sub-genre of sci-fi/horror, but I think the similarities of the three end there. Movies with this theme are fun to watch, so tons of them have been made. It is exciting to see your protagonist survive against the odds when vastly outnumbered, and it is entertaining to watch as all the characters but the main ones get slowly picked off one by one. There are countless movies with this theme.

A survivor of a previous encounter with a deadly enemy, suffering from nightmares and survivor guilt and the distrust of people above them in the chain of authority, is plunged back into another encounter in an isolated community. The enemy infiltrate the hero's stronghold converting a large area near a reactor into a hive, capturing comrades with an eye to reproduce. They kidnap a key character and in rescuing said character the hero encounters a previously unseen Queen controller version of the enemy.

Aliens or First Contact?

Aliens resembles THEM! in various other ways, it's also rather like the Doctor Who story The Ark In Space.

skyjedi2005 said:

If you were unaware he is supposed to be channeling the character of Ahab from Hermann Melville's Moby Dick.  Much like Patrick Stewart does in star trek first contact.

You know they are referencing actual literature in these films.  like William Shakepeare's plays. Dante's inferno, Paradise lost by milton.  hermann melvilles moby dick, a tale of two cities by dickens and so forth.

 

No amount of channeling Ahab justifies obscene painful hamming like that. The same character was also annoying as hell (and full of the same sort of hamming) back in the original episode he first appeared in. Patrick Stewart actually played Ahab once and thankfully he didn't do it like that.

Nor does referencing literature make up for all around bad film-making. Saavik was good in Wrath and Spock was good and his death was well done, but otherwise the film was badly made and sometimes damn near unwatchable. I'll never uderstand the love the film gets, nor why some people seem to be able to bear Khan and not regurgitate their last meal while watching his antics.

FanFiltration said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

I don't know how anybody can sit through Ricardo Montalban's performance as Khan without feeling the need to vomit. It's easily on the level of Palpatine in the later part of ROTS.

 

Knife in the heart! He was an actor of his time. It was just so clasic how he did it. His performance could just take me back to so many great T.V. villains, that Montalban's Khan became a combination of them all. For me, that made him become that much more of a powerful foe for Kirk.  Ricardo Montalban just had that X factor. I can't put my finger on what it was, but it worked for me.

"Great tv villains" that maybe would be best forgotten?

ChainsawAsh said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

ChainsawAsh said:

FanFiltration said:

I don't think William Shatner did that bad of a job directing the actors.

This is true, however Shatner should never be allowed to direct himself in anything ever again.  I can't remember which part it was precisely, but there was one moment during the film that made me laugh out loud because Shatner just overdid it so much.  I know he's never been known for being a great actor by any means, .

You obviously aren't up to date with recognition he's received for Boston Legal. Won one Gloden Globe for Boston Legal and one Emmy. Nominated for three other Emmies for Boston Legal. Won another Emmy for playing the same character on The Practice. Nominated for Screen Actors' Guild award for Boston Legal.

 

Um ... I watch[ed] Boston Legal.  I enjoyed it very much.  And I don't think Shatner deserved any of those awards, as his performance as Denny Crane was just as overacted as anything else he's ever done.  That's not to say I didn't love every second he was on screen - I just don't think his performance was award-worthy.

And just because someone wins awards for acting doesn't immediately mean they're a good actor, which is something that's a matter of opinion anyway.  That's like attacking me for hating Million Dollar Baby because it won the Oscar for Best Picture.

--edit--

And I'm shocked that you defend Shatner's performance while saying Ricardo Montalban's is vomit-worthy.  They both over-acted the shit out of their respective roles, but each was enthralling to watch in his own way.  I would never have changed a thing about Montalban's performance as Khan, in Space Seed or Wrath of Khan.  (I'll never understand how his hair went from black to blonde, but whatever - it's the Saavik eyebrow thing all over again.)

Firstly, I wasn't talking about whether Shatner's performance was good or not. You said he was never known for being a great actor by any means. This is a question of what he's known for, not how good I think he is. So I pointed out the acclaim he got for Boston Legal. Whether you think he deserved that acclaim is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is known as a good actor. Clearly a good share of people think highly of his acting, so he is indeed known as a good actor. And our opinions on the matter are irrelevant to that question.

Secondly, now that you bring it up, he was good in the role. And no it is not anything like Montalban's excruciating performance. Not everything that's labeled "overacting" is the same thing. Shatner's performance works and is appropriate for the sort of show Boston Legal is. Whereas Montalban's performance was incredibly annoying and makes it impossible to respect the story in the slightest. Shatner's performance isn't just heavy-handed hamming -it's a textured complex performance with subtle elements and with depth and humanity. Montalban's performance is just loud smug hamming beating the audience over the head. Massive difference.

And finally, I'm rather insulted that you seem to feel the need to explain to me the rather elementary principle that awards don't mean a great actor. I gave you no reason to assume I was thinking that way. I merely responded to a claim that Shatner was not KNOWN as a good actor by pointing out the acclaim he's received. So please try to get my meaning right before you assume I'm an idiot. 

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

C3PX said:

CompMovieGuy said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Final list:

- The Undiscovered Country
- The Wrath of Khan
- The Final Frontier
- The Voyage Home
- The Motion Picture
- The Search for Spock

Oh, and one last thing - how the hell did those whales breathe once they were beamed into the Klingon ship?

Now that looks a list of someone who actually watched the movies and not someone who just follows the sheep and says "all the even movies and then all the odds" with TFF being the worst, cause it fucking wasnt even close
....and you summed up 4 perfectly, IT WASNT GREAT so people need to get off the notion that it was

 

 

 

Holy shit it is the opinion police! They've discovered I never really watched Star Trek and only look to other people for my opinion! Run for it!!!

 

I think it is fantastic you like FF so much. But how exactly does that make those of us who don't sheep?

For a guy who face palms a lot, you sure make me feel like face palming. You seem offended at the idea of people liking other Trek films more than FF. It isn't a matter of intelligence or of being right or wrong. It is a matter of opinion. If I liked the movies I do just because everyone else does, then that would make me a sheep. Just because I happen to like the films in close to the same order that a lot of people do, does not make me, or any one else in the same position, a sheep.

Baaaaaaaaa!

 

Seriously? I mean, really? All this baaaaa ing and face palming BS is making me feel like I am back in kindergarden. Now would you kindly pass the glue?

You don't think it's fun to go baaaaa when people start talking about sheep?

Also, on the topic of sheep, research demonstrates that the majority of people are actually being sheep the majority of the time. That's how humanity works. We're  herd animals. People go along thinking they're thinking independently while actually following the signals and examples picked up from other members of the herd. And there's a whole lot of stuff people pick up and follow without being conscious of it. The nature of the beast. Thinking independently is a rather thankless pasttime that tends to earn the enmity of the herd. Because the herd prefers all herd members to play by the herd's rules, for smoother functioning of said herd.

When Worlds Collide :