«

"Snake" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Jay Stewart wrote:
> > Any extra effort on this film would be akin to polishing a turd. Though
it
> > would be shinier, it would still be a turd...
>
> I don't know. The book, for instance, is must better than the movie.
> The movie has a good premise. If certain flaws are corrected (re-edit
> for characterization, which is one of TFF's main problems) I think that
> it could hold up well. It is possible that Shatner's sense of humor
> came through too strongly in TFF, therefore distorting the characters in
> an effort to bring the lightheartedness that Shatner, personally, may
> have wished for. Looking back, IMHO the major problem with the movie is
> that nobody truly behaves and reacts to things in the manner that we
> think they should, after 25 years of knowing these people.
>
> The characters show a lot of fun - the turbolift shaft scene, Spock
> catching Kirk during the rock climbing, the brig scene, 'The right tool
> for the right job', (squeak, squeak) 'I miss my old chair', log book
> entry scene, Scotty in the Jefferies Tube...but therefore when dramatic
> scenes were called for ("Excuse Me: What does God need with a
> starship?") we have been seeing so much levity that we can't take the
> drama seriously.
>
> The story, the premise, is somewhat sound but after delivering so many
> light hearted scenes our minds just can't form around the drama. After
> watching Uhura do her flash dance, in a lighthearted manner ("Hello,
> Boys!", delivered a la Mae West), are we supposed to take the Klingon
> battle scene and shuttlecraft crash re-entry seriously? The Klingon
> commander himself what too lighthearted, and the only thing that even
> made that scene dramatic and believable was Chekov's 'Now!' and the
> Klingon's "Oh, he's good!". That's the dramatic climax of the scene,
> while the shuttlecraft entry into the bay SHOULD have been a scary,
> dramatic scene.
>
> You're right - with better effects the shuttlecraft scene, for instance,
> could take on the life or death, action-packed drama scene it SHOULD
> have been. But, they ended up with lousy effects (sparklers for the
> ripped-off nacelles) and tried to make up for it with creative camera
> cuts. It wasn't enough.
>
> I think if that scene is reshot with more and better effects, for
> instance, showing the shuttlecraft doing MAJOR damage to the bay (and
> itself) before being brought to a halt, then Enterprise engaging warp
> (and the Enterprise shown at better angles, with a scene brought in of
> the phototorp launch and trajectory, and then showing the Enterprise
> JUST missing the 'torp) that scene would be fantastic. As it stands,
> Snore.
>
> It should have been a major edge-of-your-seat event. As filmed - with
> cheap effects, covered up by only camera cuts - it just flashes by.
>
> I'm not a Shatner detractor. Nor am I a Shatner supporter. What I do
> understand, after seeing this man in MANY circumstances, is his FANTASIC
> sense of on-screen humor - which completely flashes most people by.
> They think he's hamming or overacting, but in actuality he's trying to
> show his fun side. He tries to sneak that in as much as possible. He's
> Canadian but acquired an American sense of humor - kinda loud, out front
> and flashy.
>
> The same happened to Stewart. When he first arrived in America (I saw
> him at a personal appearance during the first year of TNG) he was
> British all the way - formal, and in comparison to the typical American,
> stiff. When the crowd started doing an Arsenio Hall on him - 'Woo hoo
> hoo!!' cheering - he answered "We are not amuzed".
>
> Yeah, that's a direct quote.
>
> Now?? He's practically a pratical-joker. He laughs, cracks jokes often
> and frequently, and can be a big kidder. He's loosened up - and has
> even commented, years ago, that exposure to Americans has done that to
> him. We're generally a very open, talkative and friendly people.
>
> Shatner's the same way - more, he's been here longer. Even in TekWar he
> was kinda fun in character.
>
> Anyway, if TFF can be repolished with re-editing and new effects I
> think, based upon what the book could do with the premise - you just
> might find it an OK movie.
>
> But all this is just MHO. Your mileage may vary. Feel free to shoot me
> if I'm in left field here. But, then again, I'm *always* in left field.

Great post, Snake. Best read I've had in quite a while.

Jay Stewart wrote:

> Great post, Snake. Best read I've had in quite a while.

Oh thank you! (blush)

Great analysis. Keep in mind though that most of the (often
ill-advised) humor in the film was added by David Loughery in a late
rewrite. Shatner's original, as I understand it, was straightforward
drama -- however, after the success of the humor-ridden ST IV,
Paramount said, "ah ha! Star Trek's supposed to be funny!"

And so it goes.

Shane Johnson


On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:58:33 -0400, Snake
<> wrote:

>Jay Stewart wrote:
>> Any extra effort on this film would be akin to polishing a turd. Though it
>> would be shinier, it would still be a turd...
>
>I don't know. The book, for instance, is must better than the movie.
>The movie has a good premise. If certain flaws are corrected (re-edit
>for characterization, which is one of TFF's main problems) I think that
>it could hold up well. It is possible that Shatner's sense of humor
>came through too strongly in TFF, therefore distorting the characters in
>an effort to bring the lightheartedness that Shatner, personally, may
>have wished for. Looking back, IMHO the major problem with the movie is
>that nobody truly behaves and reacts to things in the manner that we
>think they should, after 25 years of knowing these people.
>
>The characters show a lot of fun - the turbolift shaft scene, Spock
>catching Kirk during the rock climbing, the brig scene, 'The right tool
>for the right job', (squeak, squeak) 'I miss my old chair', log book
>entry scene, Scotty in the Jefferies Tube...but therefore when dramatic
>scenes were called for ("Excuse Me: What does God need with a
>starship?") we have been seeing so much levity that we can't take the
>drama seriously.
>
>The story, the premise, is somewhat sound but after delivering so many
>light hearted scenes our minds just can't form around the drama. After
>watching Uhura do her flash dance, in a lighthearted manner ("Hello,
>Boys!", delivered a la Mae West), are we supposed to take the Klingon
>battle scene and shuttlecraft crash re-entry seriously? The Klingon
>commander himself what too lighthearted, and the only thing that even
>made that scene dramatic and believable was Chekov's 'Now!' and the
>Klingon's "Oh, he's good!". That's the dramatic climax of the scene,
>while the shuttlecraft entry into the bay SHOULD have been a scary,
>dramatic scene.
>
>You're right - with better effects the shuttlecraft scene, for instance,
>could take on the life or death, action-packed drama scene it SHOULD
>have been. But, they ended up with lousy effects (sparklers for the
>ripped-off nacelles) and tried to make up for it with creative camera
>cuts. It wasn't enough.
>
>I think if that scene is reshot with more and better effects, for
>instance, showing the shuttlecraft doing MAJOR damage to the bay (and
>itself) before being brought to a halt, then Enterprise engaging warp
>(and the Enterprise shown at better angles, with a scene brought in of
>the phototorp launch and trajectory, and then showing the Enterprise
>JUST missing the 'torp) that scene would be fantastic. As it stands,
>Snore.
>
>It should have been a major edge-of-your-seat event. As filmed - with
>cheap effects, covered up by only camera cuts - it just flashes by.
>
>I'm not a Shatner detractor. Nor am I a Shatner supporter. What I do
>understand, after seeing this man in MANY circumstances, is his FANTASIC
>sense of on-screen humor - which completely flashes most people by.
>They think he's hamming or overacting, but in actuality he's trying to
>show his fun side. He tries to sneak that in as much as possible. He's
>Canadian but acquired an American sense of humor - kinda loud, out front
>and flashy.
>
>The same happened to Stewart. When he first arrived in America (I saw
>him at a personal appearance during the first year of TNG) he was
>British all the way - formal, and in comparison to the typical American,
>stiff. When the crowd started doing an Arsenio Hall on him - 'Woo hoo
>hoo!!' cheering - he answered "We are not amuzed".
>
>Yeah, that's a direct quote.
>
>Now?? He's practically a pratical-joker. He laughs, cracks jokes often
>and frequently, and can be a big kidder. He's loosened up - and has
>even commented, years ago, that exposure to Americans has done that to
>him. We're generally a very open, talkative and friendly people.
>
>Shatner's the same way - more, he's been here longer. Even in TekWar he
>was kinda fun in character.
>
>Anyway, if TFF can be repolished with re-editing and new effects I
>think, based upon what the book could do with the premise - you just
>might find it an OK movie.
>
>But all this is just MHO. Your mileage may vary. Feel free to shoot me
>if I'm in left field here. But, then again, I'm *always* in left field.

> "ah ha! Star Trek's supposed to be funny!"
>
> And so it goes.

For me, the fact that it was always "human" was the thing that worked best. When you wander away from this delicate medium and force humour--as in Star Trek V--you end up with an akward mix. So much of Five's humour just clearly, IMO, wasn't.

This analysis of TPTB trying to force Five to be funny makes a lot of sense. Four's humour seemed to work for me because it seemed, well, rather natural--although some of the colourful metaphor lines did get milked a few extra times, along with those "Nuclear wessel" lines. But hey, it seemed to work.

s

S. David Yeoman wrote:
>
> > "ah ha! Star Trek's supposed to be funny!"
> >
> > And so it goes.
> For me, the fact that it was always "human" was the thing that worked
> best. When you wander away from this delicate medium and force
> humour--as in Star Trek V--you end up with an akward mix. So much of
> Five's humour just clearly, IMO, wasn't.
>
> This analysis of TPTB trying to force Five to be funny makes a lot of
> sense. Four's humour seemed to work for me because it seemed, well,
> rather natural--although some of the colourful metaphor lines did get
> milked a few extra times, along with those "Nuclear wessel" lines.
> But hey, it seemed to work.

And I'd have to agree, which is why I think they tried to direct ST5
into the lighthearted comedy realm. Like I said I've heard before:
"Come up with one good idea and you've employed half of Hollywood for
the next half decade". Comedy worked in ST because it was a natural
outgrowth of a situation; they weren't going for it as a plot device.
They injected humor where the average person, one who had a good sense
of humor, would themselves. No 'setup' - just a natural "humor"
reaction.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 01:51:23 +0000, Jay Stewart wrote:


>
> Any extra effort on this film would be akin to polishing a turd. Though it
> would be shinier, it would still be a turd...



Now that is a bit extreme. No need to insult "turds" here.
Manure does have some benefit to society, as it is a good
natural fertilizer for gardening and farming.

ST-V serves no real purpose for, nor benefit to, society.

Some have praised it for its humor. Okay, I guess if
3rd grade-level "fart jokes" and prat-falls fits your
definition of humor.....

(I have always felt that humor/jokes were out-of-place,
and downright offensive, in Trek...)

Sub-par performances (and that is saying a lot...for this troupe),
bargain-basement SFX, attrocious score, the WORST Klingons in
Trek history (even young "Alexander" was more manly than the
Klingons in ST-V).....


--

Greg Heilers
SlackWare Linux user

.....

"The way I see it, I figure the YANKEES had
something to do with it."

- Maj. Gen. George Pickett, when asked
where the fault lie for the Confederacy's
loss at Gettysburg

Greg Heilers wrote:

> Some have praised it for its humor. Okay, I guess if
> 3rd grade-level "fart jokes" and prat-falls fits your
> definition of humor.....

There was no actual "fart" in the movie. This was not Jar Jar stepping
in doo or getting a whiff of flatulance from a desert animal.

The TRUE reason Star Trek 5 failed was (sorry folks) Shatner allowing
himself to get away with a sub-par performance. Nick Meyer said on the
Star Trek II commentary that Shatner's acting gets better the more times
he is forced to do a scene. The scene in ST2 where Kirk says so deadpan,
"Here is comes" is a perfect example.

Meyer said Shatner kept "giving it away" that the Enterprise would
retaliate. He'd say, "HERE it comes!" or "Here IT comes." But after
doing it so many times, he'd get sick of it and finally say it right.
"Here it comes (I'm tired of this now)."

Star Trek 5 failed because there was no reigns on Shatner like Meyer (or
later Nimoy). He allowed himself to make a film where everything felt
forced. Thankfully, Nimoy and Kelly kept in character moreso than
Shatner did.


--
Gregory D. George

Email: http://www.ataritimes.com/email


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
- ||| ||| -
= ||| Visit The Atari Times Website! ||| =
- / | \ http://www.ataritimes.com / | \ -
= ATARI ATARI =
- DO+THE Buy Something Atari Today! HYPAT? -
= MATH http://www.ataritimes.com/store =
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-