Star Trek

1180 readers

1 users here now

/c/StarTrek: Your safe harbored Spacedock in these Stellar Seas!

Fire up the inertial dampeners, retract all moorings and clear space dock. It's time to boldy go where no one has gone before!

~ 1. Be Civil. This is a Star Trek community and lets keep that energy. Be kind, respectful and polite to one another.

~ 2. Be Courteous. Please use the spoiler tags for any new Trek content that's been released in the past month. Check this page for lemmy formatting) for any posts. Also please keep spoilers out of the titles!

~ 3. Be Considerate. We're spread out across a lot of different instances but don't forget to follow your instances rules and the instance rules for Lemmy.world.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Was Forced To Follow A Strict William Shatner Rule. [It's all about Kirk all the time.] (www.slashfilm.com)

submitted 5 months ago by FlyingSquid to c/startrek

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"The approach we were told to take is that Kirk really had to be the one to lead everyone. [...] Not necessarily that he had to actually have the idea to do something, but it had to appear as if he has the idea."

Krikes recalled how illogical the mandate was, and how, when you watch the film, you can see how Kirk has been arbitrarily inserted into various scenes where he doesn't belong. For example, there's a scene near the end of the movie in which Spock (Nimoy) has a conversation with his father Sarek (Mark Lenard). Kirk is present in the background, watching the conversation. There is no reason for him to be there. But, golly, that's what Paramount wanted.

...

"I think the perfect example in the movie is when Spock goes into the belly of the Bird of Prey to use the computers and learns that the sound is whale songs. It's Kirk who has the idea to go back through time, although Spock is the one who plants the suggestion in Kirk's mind. Kirk verbalizes it, and that's the way it had to be played. We were told Bill had to be the leader at all times. In that scene, if you're reading it, you say, 'It's Spock's idea,' but on film, Spock's discovery that it's humpback whales is not as important as Kirk's idea of going to get them."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If you have fun watching it, then go for it. The whole Shatner focused thing makes a lot of sense. He would setup shots in minutes instead of the industry norm of hours just for that focus.

[–] FlyingSquid 10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

You're thinking of Star Trek V, which Shatner directed and is, indeed, a stinker of a film.

This is Star Trek IV- the one with the whales. Most people consider it one of the best Star Trek films despite its flaws.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

star trek iv and v is what firmly cemented the idea that the even numbered trek films were better.

[–] FlyingSquid 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Although you wouldn't believe how many Star Trek V defenders I have met over the years. Which is why, I assume, Sybok got a mention in SNW.

[–] kaitco 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

How do they defend it?

I’m generally curious about what they liked about it and how they frame it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'll give it a go:

I like that it's about exploration. Even if it's Sybok forcing the expedition to begin with, Kirk does ultimately make the choice to go along with it. No other Trek movie is actually about seeking out a strange new world.

I like the shore leave scenes. I hear a lot of complaints about them, but I appreciate spending a little time with the our characters just being dysfunctional friends.

I like that it makes full use of DeForest Kelley. His "pain" scene is excellent, and his frequent exasperation with Kirk is sold very well throughout the film. Say what you will about Shatner's ego, but he gets that Kirk can be a petulant child at times, and needs McCoy to verbally smack some sense into him, as in the brig scene.

For that matter, I like Kirk's pain speech. A little sermonising, maybe, but that's Trek for you. It works well enough considering that two films ago this man was forced to abandon his estranged son's corpse on an exploding planet. Insisting on holding on to that pain is substantial, but very Kirk.

I enjoy the entire meeting with God. A little goofy, but terrifically quotable.

I do see plenty of faults. A lot of the humour doesn't land. Introducing our new hero ship as a piece of junk is immediately off-putting. The Scotty/Uhura pairing comes out of nowhere and ultimately goes nowhere. The ground assault sequence was disappointingly underwhelming. The effects are weak af, and if I saw it on release in theatres I'd probably feel pretty sour towards the apparent trajectory of the series towards something that felt more direct-to-video.

But I never have a bad time watching it. The good outweighs the bad for me.

[–] kaitco 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

These are all fair points. I might give it another shot, but my first watch was rather rough.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah, I'm clearly in the minority, and I might just be too forgiving of the TOS era movies. I'm certainly not as inclined to give a break to Insurrection or Nemesis. But if you do give it another chance, I hope you enjoy it a bit more this time!

[–] FlyingSquid 1 points 5 months ago

A lot of them like the religious criticism (which I think is heavily watered down by that alien not being the mythical god of either Vulcan or Earth), they liked the idea of a Vulcan pro-emotions cult, and I'm sure some of them like pew pew space battle with the Klingons.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yep... sorry about that. Early morning brain took over.

[–] FlyingSquid 3 points 5 months ago

Happens to the best of us. The fact that there are six TOS movies alone doesn't help.