“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.”
star trek iv and v is what firmly cemented the idea that the even numbered trek films were better.
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.
How do they defend it?
I’m generally curious about what they liked about it and how they frame it.
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.
These are all fair points. I might give it another shot, but my first watch was rather rough.
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!
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.