Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home's Recent Activity - Spout

Film:Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:06:10 GMT

Title: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Year: 1986
Director: Leonard Nimoy
Plot: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) concludes the story arc begun with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) and continued in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984), but on a wholly new, different, and upbeat note. As the movie opens, months have elapsed since the events in Star Trek III; Admiral Kirk (William Shatner), McCoy (DeForest Kelley), Scott (James Doohan), Sulu (George Takei), Uhura (Nichelle Nichols), and Chekhov (Walter Koenig) are marooned in self-imposed exile on Vulcan, along with the resurrected and regenerated Spock (Leonard Nimoy, who also directed). While Spock tries to sort out the Vulcan and human halves of his resurrected psyche, the others prepare to return to Earth to face a brace of charges by the Klingon Empire and Star Fleet over events on Genesis. Taking off in their commandeered, jerry-rigged Klingon ship, they head to Earth, not knowing that a new crisis could destroy their home world -- a huge, immensely powerful alien probe has entered the galaxy and established a position near Earth, disabling every vehicle and installation in its path with its energy and communication output, and has ionized the entire atmosphere and started vaporizing the oceans, leaving the planet only hours to survive. Spock determines that the probe is sending out signals to another intelligent terrestrial life form, humpbacked whales, which no longer exist. Using the gravity slingshot time-warp effect (established early in the original series) to travel back into Earth's 20th century, Kirk and company land in 1980s San Francisco to try and bring humpbacked whales to the 23rd century, to respond to the probe. Thus starts a surprisingly breezy, light-hearted, yet serious odyssey through the past (comparable to the best work of the original series), as the crew learns to deal with exact-change buses, angry drivers, punk-rock enthusiasts and other elements of '80s life, and Kirk tries to persuade a scientist (Catherine Hicks) of his good intentions for two whales in captivity. The screenplay, co-authored by Steve Meerson, Peter Krikes, Nicholas Meyer, and Harve Bennett (from a story by Nimoy and Bennett), is the cleverest and most sophisticated of all the Star Trek movie screenplays, recalling some of the elements of Meyer's earlier time-travel movie Time After Time and also anticipating the feel and tone of the series Star Trek: The Next Generation (which would be on the air not quite a year later). Nimoy's direction offers a combination of brisk pacing and a deep love of the characters and the actors, as well as a serious appreciation of the humorous aspects of the script, and Shatner gives his best performance of any of the movies. ~ Bruce Eder, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 67
Number of Lists: 21
Number of blog posts: 5
Number of discussion threads: 5
SpoutRating: 3

Spout Post: Movie Review: STAR TREK: IV: THE VOYAGE HOME

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:46:04 GMT

Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 9/11/2009 10:46:04 AM
Body: The fourth big screen installment in the Star Trek saga may be the most commercially popular of the series, but, like the previous film, can't break away from the time period in which it was made. The result? A light-hearted, "save the whales" message just tangentially taking place in the Trek universe.En route back to Earth from Vulcan, Admiral James T. Kirk (William Shatner) and the crew of the former U. S. S. Enterprise are warned away from the planet. An alien probe is evaporating the ocean and blocking out the sun while draining power from anything it meets. In their captured Klingon Bird-of-Prey, the crew journeys back in time to procure two humpback whales-the only creature which can answer the proBe-and return to the 23rd century.In Star Trek III, the production outfitted the new U. S. S. Excelsior in pink chairs, Chekov (Walter Koenig) in a pink jumpsuit and a snarky sense of humor, at least in some scenes. Here, instead of being confined to one or two scenes, the very plot of the movie is ripped from environmental organizations. In essence, The Voyage Home is a two hour advertisement on why the whaling industry is wrong. Now, certainly, it can be argued this is the most Trek movie of the first four, combining character moments, action and a positive social message. Yet, at the same time, it's impossible not to feel like we're being lectured, chastised and reprimanded by a group of our friends.There's another issue with the film, aside from the overly preachy tone of the plot. Well, it may not be an outright problem, just a deviation from where the series had been before. I'm referring to the humor quotient. From beginning to end, there's a cutesy feeling to the movie, as if everyone involved knew they were making a light flick. This isn't to say every story needs to be dark and heavy, but the tone simply feels like a throwback to science fiction films of old, with everyone cracking jokes and coming up with witty one liners. Let's remember their home planet is under attack and can be destroyed at any time. This isn't the time to be snappy. (The argument that humor is bourne out of desperate times may hold water after the threat is realized, but not before.)To simulate the time travel effect, the film uses an ethereal, nebulous vision with clay heads of the main crew, a body diving into the water and an undetailed clay-ish reproduction of a whale. Why? There's no good reason, other than the film had the budget to put it on screen. None of the time travel episodes of the series had the money to do this kind of effect or sequence. It just seems out of place in the context of the story and the series.That being said, some of the interactions can't help but elicit a chuckle simply because the script treats the crew as longtime friends capable of jabbing at one another goodnaturedly. Much like the television series, it's DeForest Kelley's Dr. McCoy who receives the lion share of these lines. His reparte with Spock (Leonard Nimoy)-especially en route to Earth-is among the best the script has to offer. Even if Kirk shouting "everyone remember where we parked" is the most quotable portion of the film, McCoy and Spock trying to discuss life and death without the good doctor having a "proper frame of reference" is more organic to the characters.Everything else about Trek IV is more or less above board. For the first time in the entire run of the series, each of the seven main characters gets something substantial and positive to do. While Kirk and Spock are off procuring the whales (the A-story), McCoy and Scotty (James Doohan) are tasked with creating an enclosure for the animals. Sulu (George Takei) commandeers a helicopter and Chekov and Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) find a way to repower the vessel. No one is stuck purely behind a console or left spouting technobabble. Rather, they all get something wholly unique and active to do.In the grand tradition of Trek, the film has a half-hearted "romance" between Kirk and Dr. Gillian Taylor (Catherine Hicks). It may be a bit of a misnomer to call it a romance, per se. They kiss only once, never actually have sex or express a romantic interest in each other. Instead, they're more like friends. She's fine in the role, confident and believable as a whale biologist, just wide-eyed enough about the 23rd century to be our proxy in this universe.(This is, obviously, a fish out of water story, no pun intended, for both the crew and Taylor. Each has to learn and adapt to their new environments. Naturally, most of the humor comes from the characters not knowing what to do-money is a foreign concept to Kirk and Spock, for instance. As mentioned before, this is the most Trek of the movies because of the subject matter but also because the crew is exploring a "strange new world.")So does Trek IV deserve all the praise it gets? Not really. It is a step up, production value wise, from the previous flick but also a step down in tone and seriousness when, in reality, it should have been just as dire as either Trek II or III. The film and script does get major points for utilizing the entire crew as well as anything before it, though.

Spout Post: A fun "Trek" in time

Fri, 08 May 2009 01:42:05 GMT

Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 5/7/2009 9:42:05 PM
Body: It has been a few months since members of the late "Starship Enterprise" had gone to the "Genesis Planet" to bring the reanimated body of "Spock" (Leonard Nimoy, who also directed the film) back to "Vulcan" so it could be reunited to its' "katra", the "Vulcan" living spirit. Now they are refurbishing the captured "Klingon" vessel so the crew can face charges brought against them after they went to the restricted planet despite being ordered not to go. Meanwhile, in another part of the "United Federation of Planets" territory, a huge probe of unknown origin is playing havoc with the systems on "UFP" ships in its path. The probe eventually reaches Earth, and causes even more havoc as the transmissions from it are focused on the oceans. Back on the "Klingon" ship now manned by the "Enterprise" crew is listening to the multiple distress signals caused by the probe, followed by by the probe signal, which "Spock" studies and discovers that, in the right condition, the transmissions resemble the songs of whales -- specifically the songs sung by the long extinct humpback whale. "Spock" then hypothesizes that only the humpback can respond to the probe. "Admiral James Kirk" (William Shatner) then makes the decision to go back in time to the 20th century to get a humpback whale and bring it back in hopes that a humpback from the past can give the right response to stop the probe from inadvertently destroying the planet. Unlike the previous films, as well as the ones after it, this one is more lighthearted. Even though the plot is pretty serious in nature, the movie is a bit on the comical side. The reason for this is because of what are suppose to be unintentionally humorous moments the famed crew of the "Enterprise," which was destroyed in the immediately previous movie. The cast, like the film, are less serious on this one. With the lines and situations they are in, it's just fun to watch them. The two that really stand out are Nimoy and Shatner. Other cast members also have their moments. One memorable scene that was real humorous featured "Uhura" (Nichelle Nichols) and "Chekov" (Walter Koenig) where they are asking people how to get to the naval base in Alameda. What makes this particular scene humorous is that the two are in character as they ask for direction to unsuspecting people on the street as they are filmed by a hidden camera. Other jokes are pretty dated only thanks to advances in technology since this film was released. One thing that stands out is the special effects, some of which barely stand up to the years. Guess what? "George" and "Gracie" are not real humpbacks. They are actually four-foot long motorized models put into scenes onto blue screens during post-production. However, there are shots of real humpbacks to help with the illusion that they are real whales. The costumes are a little dated as well, mostly because of the scenes in the "past." The costumes the main cast wear are somewhat dated only because the fans are now use to seeing the costumes used since "Star Trek: The Next Generation" began. There are also some great makeup effects with many of the background characters in the scenes in the "present". Although the masks look a bit cheaper than those seen today, they are still really good and quite impressive in many instances. One touching moment in the movie is at the very beginning, when the cast and crew pay tribute to the crew of the NASA shuttle Challenger, which blew up during launch only 10 months before this film was released to theaters. This is basically the only serious moment in the entire movie. There is one big continuity error during the scene of "Kirk's" dream as they are traveling back in time. During this sequence, we hear various lines from the movie -- and some of them are heard much later on in the film. Non-fans will probably enjoy this film, but not as much as the fans of the franchise. The only real references to previous versions of "Trek" is to the movie just prior to this one. So, I would recommend it to both, but to non-fans to a lesser degree.

Spout Post: 10 Films That Saved Their Franchise

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:00:44 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/27/2009 9:00:44 AM
Body: Though the third Fast and the Furious installment, Tokyo Drift, wasn’t a huge box office disappointment with its $63 million domestic gross, it was significantly less successful than its predecessors, The Fast and the Furious ($145 million) and 2 Fast 2 Furious ($127 million). A fourth film would normally see an even bigger drop in box office receipts, but next week’s Fast & Furious has a good chance of actually being the highest-grossing film in the series yet, due to the return of original cast members Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordanna Brewster and, most importantly, Vin Diesel. With the expectation that Fast & Furious will be enough of a hit to save the franchise, we take a look at ten other films that similarly kept their respective series going, either because of an increase in profits or a surprising increase in quality, following one or many disappointing installments. Batman Begins (2005) It’s appropriate to begin with the film that has “begins” in the title. Also, this is one of the more obvious examples (it’s also the first in alphabetical order), but it almost seems to count the least, because while it did lift the Batman franchise back up, both in terms of box office and quality, after Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the character isn’t much in line with the previous installments. For all the difference between Burton’s and Schumacher’s pairs of films, they are of the same continuity, for the most part. Still, compared to attempted reboots like Superman Returns and Punisher: War Zone, Batman Begins is a real savior; just imagine if it had failed, and we’d never have gotten The Dark Knight. Goldeneye (1995) and Casino Royale (2006) While Casino Royale is another obvious choice and could very well have been the only James Bond film on this list, it’s worth including Goldeneye, too, because after the disappointing 007 films starring Timothy Dalton, this installment boosted the franchise’s profits way back up and thankfully knocked Moonraker off the highest-grossing-Bond movie throne. Beginning a more action-packed run with new lead Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye was a terrific addition to the series even if it led to a subsequent drop in quality where spectacle took precedence over story. Fortunately, a decade later Casino Royale came in and saved the franchise once again. Halloween H20 (1998) Thanks in part to the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who was joined by a crop of young, likable stars including Michelle Williams, Josh Hartnett and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (not to mention LL Cool J), Halloween H20 was a huge success and a huge breath of fresh air after a number of unwatchable (even with Paul Rudd) Halloween sequels. This film did the Superman Returns thing, too (and first), where it jumped back and ignored all the terrible installments, treating them as having never happened. It wasn’t great, but it was better, and for the first time, a Halloween sequel grossed more money than the original (since that time, the remake has replaced H20 at the top). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Following two adequate but not great Harry Potter adaptations from Chris Columbus, the series got a huge makeover and new life when Alfonso Cuaron took on the third film. Though some of us may think it a tad overrated and not actually as great as the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was undeniably important in showing that the franchise could (and would) mature along with its characters. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) It wasn’t necessarily because Heather Langenkamp returned to the series, and it wasn’t necessarily that this second sequel took in so much money (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge had already out-grossed the original). After a darkly shot and depressingly non-scary sequel, Dream Warriors did the best thing a horror franchise can do (in our opinion): it turned it into a fantasy film that combined the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and superhero movies. Without this refreshing installment, we children of the ‘80s might not have continued following the franchise so enthusiastically. Mission: Impossible III (2006) This J.J. Abrams-directed installment may have been the lowest grossing of the franchise, but it is the best of the three. Coming off the sloppy and confusing disasters that were Brian De Palma’s original and John Woo’s sequel, that may not be saying much, but shockingly it is an exceptional action film. Part of its favor is of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain (and as Ethan Hunt disguised as the villain wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask), but overall the film was more critically lauded than the first two films, and in spite of its being a box office disappointment, M:iI:III may have saved the franchise simply on the merit of its reviews (or, is a fourth installment merely being made because Hollywood has nothing better to do?). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) and Star Trek: First Contact (1996) Many Trekkies would note that every other installment in the Star Trek franchise saves the series, and it’s generally understood that even-numbered films are always better than odd-numbered. Many Trekkies would also argue therefore that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be on this list for initially saving the series following a relatively weak start. But we non-Trek fans have to point to The Voyage Home for bringing in us kids who cared more about humpback whales than space battles. Or, at least that seems to be how this installment managed to become the (still) highest-grossing Trek movie. Unfortunately, there were no sea mammals in any of the subsequent sequels and it wasn’t until the Next Generation TV cast got their own movie (as in, not shared with the original crew) that another installment, First Contact, out-grossed all other sequels (except the always-reigning whale-filled one, of course) and appeared to temporarily save the franchise once again. Later this year, we’ll get to see if J.J. Abrams’ reboot, Star Trek, has any ocean life and/or what it takes to jumpstart the series, too. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) It made the least amount of money of the three Star Wars prequels, but Attack of the Clones was the trilogy’s saving grace, because after the “George Lucas ruined my childhood!” disappointments of The Phantom Menace, this second (or fifth?) installment of the franchise got the old fans excited again by alluding to (and leading in the direction of) more characters and events of the original movies, while overall featuring a better plot and more satisfying action. It helped, of course, that Jake Lloyd isn’t in it and that Jar-Jar isn’t quite as prominent. If it hadn’t been so good, many of us would have never bothered with Revenge of the Sith. In a way, it’s to the other two prequels what Empire Strikes Back was to the other films of the first trilogy, though it’s not quite worthy of such a favorable comparison. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Re:The Problem with Time Travel

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:16:37 GMT

Post By: rjsprague
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 12/22/2008 8:16:37 AM
Body: [quote user="Dr_Gor"] You haven't seen a lot of Star Trek , have you Ryan. I don't remember the title but there was an episode of the ORIGINAL series starring a VERY young Joan Collins (mmmmm...) where Kirk and the boys discover an old guy on some obscure planet who calls himself "The Timekeeper" or something like that. This guy has a portal-like device, that is about the size of a doorway in your home, that is much like the Stargate only smaller... You stand there and watch a bunch of random scenes of various moments from different times and different worlds (including Earth!) and if you jumped through that portal you would end up exactly when or where ever was showing on the screen at that time! The problem was that the screen changed rather often and quickly! In other words you could take a dive at the portal and it could change before you hit it! Kirk "accidentally" stumbles into this thing and is transported back to Earth in the 1930's or 40's where he meets a hot young chickie who he would like to get to know a little bit better, if you know what I mean, and when he saves her from getting hit by a bus he comepletely fucks up the space-time continuum and then realizes that he must go back and make things right. There was the TNG movie that you mentioned AND Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home ... You know... The one with the Klingon ship and the whales? There were some other examples that I cannot think of right now... (I can't believe I am having to EXPLAIN this to a "Sci-Fi" fan!) ... < GOR > [/quote] Well who remember every random episode of the original Star Trek? Especially since I'm only 25 years old. I haven't even SEEN every episode of that show. Good call on the Voyage Home though I have seen that one multiple times, but it simply slipped my mind. I often forget the names of movies I find forgettable...

Spout Post: Re:The Problem with Time Travel

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:56:38 GMT

Post By: Dr_Gor
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 12/19/2008 4:56:38 PM
Body: [quote user="rjsprague"] [quote user="Dr_Gor"] [quote user="rjsprague"] I've recently been watching Heroes, which resulted in some poor sci-fi trivia, and something, actually many things, bother me about the series. One of the biggest issues is time travel. I feel like the ability to travel in time is too common, and that it is often very poorly explained because explaining it is too complex, but understanding the ramifications of allowing such a device to exist in film or television can be even more confusing. Needless to say I'm fairly disappointed with Heroes' treatment of time travel. I wanted to know if anyone felt there were films in which time travel was used that didn't result in conflicts in the logic of events, etc. Preferably it would be used intelligently, unlike Hiro Nakamura's brainless journeys through the space/time continuum. [/quote] Two words ... Star Trek ! [/quote] What the hell are you talking about Gor? The only time travel can recall in Star Trek is First Contact, the next gen film where they go back in time to when that guy creates the first warp drive. I thought that was done fairly well, mainly because they only time-traveled once, but still there is an issue with all of this if you take the time to think about it. For instance, if two guys from the future go back in time and cause some great event to take place then they've changed history right? Unless the future me exists already in the "space/time" continuum it couldn't have gone back in time to do something that would affect me right now. This is obviously a pretty ridiculous flaw. [/quote] You haven't seen a lot of Star Trek , have you Ryan. I don't remember the title but there was an episode of the ORIGINAL series starring a VERY young Joan Collins (mmmmm...) where Kirk and the boys discover an old guy on some obscure planet who calls himself "The Timekeeper" or something like that. This guy has a portal-like device, that is about the size of a doorway in your home, that is much like the Stargate only smaller... You stand there and watch a bunch of random scenes of various moments from different times and different worlds (including Earth!) and if you jumped through that portal you would end up exactly when or where ever was showing on the screen at that time! The problem was that the screen changed rather often and quickly! In other words you could take a dive at the portal and it could change before you hit it! Kirk "accidentally" stumbles into this thing and is transported back to Earth in the 1930's or 40's where he meets a hot young chickie who he would like to get to know a little bit better, if you know what I mean, and when he saves her from getting hit by a bus he comepletely fucks up the space-time continuum and then realizes that he must go back and make things right. There was the TNG movie that you mentioned AND Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home ... You know... The one with the Klingon ship and the whales? There were some other examples that I cannot think of right now... (I can't believe I am having to EXPLAIN this to a "Sci-Fi" fan!) ... < GOR >

Spout Post: Star Trek Trailer is Confusing. Clip of the Day

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:00:48 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/17/2008 4:00:48 PM
Body: After watching the new Star Trek trailer leaked on YouTube and coming away completely confused, I was happy to discover that the spot was receiving a proper, official release this morning. But after also watching the higher-quality version on Apple.com, I’m not any more enthused. It still looks cluttered with too much CG and potentially weak direction — kind of like the first Star Wars prequel, of which I’m also reminded thanks to that lame, child version of James “Siberius” Kirk. And it still lays on the characters and sets up the plot as messily as possible. Worst of all, it doesn’t at all pique the interest of a non-Trekkie like myself. I know, looking at the recent marketing of Twilight and Watchmen has informed me that the first trailer is for the fans and a later spot will be a better introduction to the characters and will feature more appealing elements for newbies. But I figured that teaser trailer we saw way back in January was the one for the followers. There’s not much time left to get me, a guy who has only seen Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (and only for the whales), fully excited. Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that this movie isn’t still arriving this Christmas, and so there’s plenty of time between now and May 2009 for Paramount to release another trailer that will woo me sufficiently. Hopefully presenting me with better views of both Winona Ryder (is that actually her laying down in the white outfit?) and villain Eric Bana (am I the only one who thinks that shot of him too much resembles Zachary Quinto as Spock?), not to mention the principal crew of the Enterprise (more Simon Pegg especially). However, if the trailers keep on seeming directed primarily at the Trekkies, Paramount might want to expect another disappointing box office take from the franchise. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Re:Screams in the Movie Theater

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 00:21:05 GMT

Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 3/28/2008 8:21:05 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] So do you find Star Trek IV to be a horror film? I wonder what you would think of Werckmeister Harmonies.[/quote]Ha! But seriously, whales floating in space gives me the creeps. Was that a motif in a comic book, maybe a Nintendo Power exclusive serial about Star Fox? The reference is rattling around somewhere in there. I'm going to take a deep breath and then click on Werckmeister Harmonies.

Spout Post: Re:Screams in the Movie Theater

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:38:45 GMT

Post By: Risselada
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 3/28/2008 11:38:45 AM
Body: [quote user="SkyPilot"]As for me, I think I'm more frightened of whales than sharks. I know this isn't rational, that whales might even protect me from a shark, but ever since I was little boy I've been terrified of whales, especially the sperm whale and the blue whale. Did any of you guys collect Zoobooks? I still have the whale one, and some of those illustrations give me the chills every time I look at them. I've been known to let loose a little "ah!" if I come across a picture of a whale by surprise. To this day I get nervous watching the scenes with Monstro in Pinoccchio.[/quote]So do you find Star Trek IV to be a horror film? I wonder what you would think of Werckmeister Harmonies.

Spout Post: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:08:25 GMT

Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 3/14/2008 11:08:25 AM
Body: Star Trek IV: The Voyage HomeI've been watching the Star Trek films sequentially and for the first time. I think I feel as though each one gets better and better. Not that I feel this one is anywhere close to a masterpiece, but it's nice that they were able to have a little bit of fun with it.In the commentary they say that Harve Bennett wrote the scenes where the crew are in their own time and Nicholas Meyer wrote all the stuff where they are on Earth in the 1980's. It certainly feels like two different movies. Kind of strange that there seems to be humor in one world and not the other. Why does it make the future seem like it's so humorless? Apparently people in the future no longer swear or understand sarcasm. It's hard to believe that we could change so much, but maybe if we were to meet other life forms.... whatever.The most amusing parts of this are of course those interactions between the crew of the Enterprise and people from 1980's Earth. Spock swearing, Scotty talking into a computer mouse, Bones fixing some old woman's kidneys, Chekov asking people on the street where to find nuclear vessels in his Russian accent.I'll have to see if the trend of me enjoying each Star Trek movie more and more continues. I doubt it since I've heard the fifth one is one of the worst.Rating: 7/10

Spout Post: Re:Re:Re:Re:Re: best star trek movie?

Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:30:10 GMT

Post By: Risselada
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 10/1/2007 1:30:10 PM
Body: [quote user="TheWorkingDead"]That's true, to a point. Television no longer needs to revert to the status quo every week. Look at Lost, or Heroes, or hell, even The Next Generation(they killed Tasha Yar in the first season) or DS9(which changed monumentally throughout it's seven year run). I know this is now and that was then, but by the time the movies came around, I just felt they should have decided to ramp things up. It just wont ever not feel like a cheap shot that they killed Spock, only to bring him back at the beginning of the next film. What I think happened, actually, was that they killed Spock, not knowing that another movie would happen. And when part three came around, they'd written themselves into a corner and couldn't imagine doing the movie without Leonard Nimoy. It is also worth noting that part II was co-written and directed by Mr. Nimoy. [/quote]I think you meant to say that Part III was co-written and directed by Nimoy.Anyways, what apparently happend from what I heard was that after the first movie Nimoy was sick of the Star Trek and the Spock character. And he said that he wasn't going to be in the second movie. But of course everyone else involved in making the movie didn't want to to make a new one without addressing Spock. And eventually they convinced Nimoy that if he would come back and do a second movie, they would kill off his character so that he wouldn't have to do any more. They probaby offered him a ton of money too. Anyways Nimoy agreed. And I guess while he was working on the movie he fell in love with Spock and Star Trek again. So much so that he wanted to be in and direct a third one. So apparently it was actually Nimoy's idea to do that thing where he puts his hands on McCoy's face at the end of the second movie and says "remember". He thought maybe there was a possibility that in the future they might be able to bring back Spock and he didn't know how, but he tried to slip things in like that so that they might help to write a story line later.I'm pretty sure if Nimoy was gun-ho about Star Trek the whole time, they never would have thought of writing a movie where his character apparently dies. Heck a signifcant number of fans said they were going to boycot the movie when they found out that Spock was going to die in it, unless the studio would agree to not have Spock die in the movie. Maybe that controversey ended up making more money for the movie, but the point is it wasn't something they would have thought up if they didn't have to to keep Nimoy on for one more movie.

Spout Tag:love

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT

love
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

Spout Tag:funny

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:58 GMT

funny
Number of films tagged: 609

Number of people who tagged: 316

Number of times used: 942

Spout Tag:Classic

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:30:46 GMT

Classic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 313

Number of times used: 1454

Spout Tag:comedy

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:38:30 GMT

comedy
Number of films tagged: 1087

Number of people who tagged: 253

Number of times used: 1342

Spout Tag:family

Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:00:49 GMT

family
Number of films tagged: 6289

Number of people who tagged: 227

Number of times used: 1139

Spout Tag:romance

Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT

romance
Number of films tagged: 7163

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1005

Spout Tag:friendship

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:20 GMT

friendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 980

Spout Tag:action

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:49:02 GMT

action
Number of films tagged: 319

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 460

Spout Tag:sci-fi

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:33:53 GMT

sci-fi
Number of films tagged: 217

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 375

Spout Tag:cute

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:46:12 GMT

cute
Number of films tagged: 210

Number of people who tagged: 98

Number of times used: 314

Spout Tag:time

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:27:45 GMT

time
Number of films tagged: 310

Number of people who tagged: 79

Number of times used: 101

Spout Tag:timetravel

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT

timetravel
Number of films tagged: 449

Number of people who tagged: 55

Number of times used: 114

Spout Tag:travel

Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:40 GMT

travel
Number of films tagged: 46

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 91

Spout Tag:underrated

Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:34:46 GMT

underrated
Number of films tagged: 139

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 156

Spout Tag:sequel

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:25:48 GMT

sequel
Number of films tagged: 126

Number of people who tagged: 46

Number of times used: 171