list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Star Trek V: The Final Frontier on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Star_Trek_V_The_Final_Frontier/32736/default.aspx Title: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Year: 1989
Director: William Shatner
Plot: Kirk (William Shatner), McCoy (DeForest Kelley), and Spock (Leonard Nimoy) are enjoying a vacation in Yosemite National Park when duty calls. Vulcan cult leader Sybok (Laurence Luckinbill) and his followers have invaded a "planet of peace," where delegates from hostile races co-exist in a sort of intergalactic United Nations. Ordered to quell the crisis, the Enterprise crew discovers that it's a ruse perpetrated by Sybok, who takes over the ship, piloting it toward the "Great Barrier," an energy field at the galaxy's rim. Sybok, who is revealed to be Spock's half-brother, possesses the ability to help people face their "inner pain." He also believes that God lies beyond the Great Barrier. Once arriving there, however, Sybok and the Enterprise crew discover only an imprisoned alien entity. Shatner wrote the story and made his directorial debut with the film, failing to ape the success that his colleague Nimoy enjoyed with his pair of "Trek" directing forays. ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 26
Number of Lists: 12
Number of blog posts: 3
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:06:09 GMTStar Trek V: The Final Frontier1989William ShatnerKirk (<a href="/players/P___111030/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>William Shatner</a>), McCoy (<a href="/players/P____37451/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>DeForest Kelley</a>), and Spock (<a href="/players/P___104553/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Leonard Nimoy</a>) are enjoying a vacation in Yosemite National Park when duty calls. Vulcan cult leader Sybok (<a href="/players/P____43646/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Laurence Luckinbill</a>) and his followers have invaded a "planet of peace," where delegates from hostile races co-exist in a sort of intergalactic United Nations. Ordered to quell the crisis, the Enterprise crew discovers that it's a ruse perpetrated by Sybok, who takes over the ship, piloting it toward the "Great Barrier," an energy field at the galaxy's rim. Sybok, who is revealed to be Spock's half-brother, possesses the ability to help people face their "inner pain." He also believes that God lies beyond the Great Barrier. Once arriving there, however, Sybok and the Enterprise crew discover only an imprisoned alien entity. Shatner wrote the story and made his directorial debut with the film, failing to ape the success that his colleague Nimoy enjoyed with his pair of "Trek" directing forays. ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide26Tag Target (>10)1232http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t33592fgvrl.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Star_Trek_V_The_Final_Frontier/32736/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2009/9/28/44045.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 9/28/2009 9:45:47 AM
Body: The fifth Star Trek film, The Final Frontier, is widely considered to be the worst of the original six and a contender for worst of all eleven entries in the franchise. That is a distinction this production doesn't deserve. Certainly, this story about the Enterprise being hijacked in the search for "God," has its faults. But it's nowhere near the unwatchable mess some people will claim. While it is true the visual effects are substandard for a Trek feature and the humor reeks of the writers trying too hard AND some of the devices used to get the Enterprise on its way are circumspect, this outing retains one of the most important parts of the previous entry: the focus on the relationship between Kirk (William Shatner), Spock (Leonard Nimoy) and McCoy (DeForest Kelley).With a story by Shatner, Harve Bennett and David Loughery, Star Trek V tries to replicate the success of Star Trek IV by taking a lighter, more laid back approach to the material. This is often cited as one of the main downfalls of the movie. Whereas the interplay between the characters in 1986 San Francisco felt organic to the storyline of the film, it's gratuitous, forced and demeaning to everyone involved. In the open, Kirk is freeclimbing El Capitan in Yosemite National Park. At one point, Spock begins a conversation with him while using booster boots. When Kirk falls, Spock does his best Superman impression to catch him, including raising his arms above his head before diving. Moments later, Kirk jokes about dropping in for dinner. While the original series always had a playful dynamic between Spock and McCoy, it was very rarely humorous for the sake of humor. That ends up being the biggest problem with the finished product.But that's not to say its the only problem. Various critics have pointed to Laurence Luckinbill's Sybok as partly to blame for the perceived failure of the film. He does the best he can with the limited role the script gives him. No one-specifically Shatner, Bennett and Loughery-gives much thought to explaining how he makes people confront their darkest secrets or why this makes them devote themselves to the cause. It just happens, making the rest of the crew turn on Kirk. This Sybok isn't a stereotypical bad guy like Khan; rather, he is the catalyst for the story. The real adversary comes in the form of Klingon Captain Klaa (Todd Bryant), a character so misbegotten and one note he shouldn't be given a second thought. (Hint: Kirk's actions in Star Trek III continue to haunt him.) It's impossible to imagine how this script ever got approved, let alone into production. From beginning to end the crew is treated as second rate buffoons all because someone feels it would be funny and provide the audience a laugh. When this happens, no one is actually laughing with the characters. We're laughing AT them which has the effect of simultaneously demeaning the 20 plus of development the actors have put into them. A host of other, ancillary characters might as well be thrown out the airlock: Sybok takes three diplomats hostage and, combined, they have about three useful lines in the entire film. None are given anything especially meaningful to do and, therefore, are maddening to see standing around with nothing to do.(A word about the special effects. Things like phaser blasts and transporter beams are just fine. It's the outer space effects which leave much to be desired. Color schemes appear to be all wrong with the Enterprise almost glowing. And for anyone paying attention, it's not hard to imagine the models being filmed on a soundstage. That's how fake they look.)The real issue with the entire Sybok story isn't even a revelation which seemingly comes out of left field. No, it's more basic than that. The finale doesn't work in any way, shape or form. Whatever the reasons, it is far too perfunctory without a sense of real tension. Most certainly the lack of a main "bad guy" doesn't help The Final Frontier at all. Kirk is forced to fight against non-corporeal entity with no personality in a battle that lasts an whopping three minutes. Each of the successful Trek movies has an adversary the audience can root against, someone the hero can physically fight against. Here, Kirk is hopelessly outmatched and only really prevails on accident.Trek V continues the trend of giving each of the main characters something to do other than punch buttons and follow orders. In the open, Sulu and Chekov (George Takei, Walter Koenig) are shown to take shore leave together while, at the same time, Uhura and Scotty (Nichelle Nichols, James Doohan) share a couple quality moments on the bridge. Mind you, Trek IV did a much better job in this area. And because the characters get small moments to themselves, the movie ends up feeling more well rounded. There's also a rousing score by Jerry Goldsmith. But then, that's to be expected.Come to think of it...maybe this is the worst of the original six movies.
]]>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:45:47 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog9/28/2009 9:45:47 AMThe fifth Star Trek film, The Final Frontier, is widely considered to be the worst of the original six and a contender for worst of all eleven entries in the franchise. That is a distinction this production doesn't deserve. Certainly, this story about the Enterprise being hijacked in the search for "God," has its faults. But it's nowhere near the unwatchable mess some people will claim. While it is true the visual effects are substandard for a Trek feature and the humor reeks of the writers trying too hard AND some of the devices used to get the Enterprise on its way are circumspect, this outing retains one of the most important parts of the previous entry: the focus on the relationship between Kirk (William Shatner), Spock (Leonard Nimoy) and McCoy (DeForest Kelley).With a story by Shatner, Harve Bennett and David Loughery, Star Trek V tries to replicate the success of Star Trek IV by taking a lighter, more laid back approach to the material. This is often cited as one of the main downfalls of the movie. Whereas the interplay between the characters in 1986 San Francisco felt organic to the storyline of the film, it's gratuitous, forced and demeaning to everyone involved. In the open, Kirk is freeclimbing El Capitan in Yosemite National Park. At one point, Spock begins a conversation with him while using booster boots. When Kirk falls, Spock does his best Superman impression to catch him, including raising his arms above his head before diving. Moments later, Kirk jokes about dropping in for dinner. While the original series always had a playful dynamic between Spock and McCoy, it was very rarely humorous for the sake of humor. That ends up being the biggest problem with the finished product.But that's not to say its the only problem. Various critics have pointed to Laurence Luckinbill's Sybok as partly to blame for the perceived failure of the film. He does the best he can with the limited role the script gives him. No one-specifically Shatner, Bennett and Loughery-gives much thought to explaining how he makes people confront their darkest secrets or why this makes them devote themselves to the cause. It just happens, making the rest of the crew turn on Kirk. This Sybok isn't a stereotypical bad guy like Khan; rather, he is the catalyst for the story. The real adversary comes in the form of Klingon Captain Klaa (Todd Bryant), a character so misbegotten and one note he shouldn't be given a second thought. (Hint: Kirk's actions in Star Trek III continue to haunt him.) It's impossible to imagine how this script ever got approved, let alone into production. From beginning to end the crew is treated as second rate buffoons all because someone feels it would be funny and provide the audience a laugh. When this happens, no one is actually laughing with the characters. We're laughing AT them which has the effect of simultaneously demeaning the 20 plus of development the actors have put into them. A host of other, ancillary characters might as well be thrown out the airlock: Sybok takes three diplomats hostage and, combined, they have about three useful lines in the entire film. None are given anything especially meaningful to do and, therefore, are maddening to see standing around with nothing to do.(A word about the special effects. Things like phaser blasts and transporter beams are just fine. It's the outer space effects which leave much to be desired. Color schemes appear to be all wrong with the Enterprise almost glowing. And for anyone paying attention, it's not hard to imagine the models being filmed on a soundstage. That's how fake they look.)The real issue with the entire Sybok story isn't even a revelation which seemingly comes out of left field. No, it's more basic than that. The finale doesn't work in any way, shape or form. Whatever the reasons, it is far too perfunctory without a sense of real tension. Most certainly the lack of a main "bad guy" doesn't help The Final Frontier at all. Kirk is forced to fight against non-corporeal entity with no personality in a battle that lasts an whopping three minutes. Each of the successful Trek movies has an adversary the audience can root against, someone the hero can physically fight against. Here, Kirk is hopelessly outmatched and only really prevails on accident.Trek V continues the trend of giving each of the main characters something to do other than punch buttons and follow orders. In the open, Sulu and Chekov (George Takei, Walter Koenig) are shown to take shore leave together while, at the same time, Uhura and Scotty (Nichelle Nichols, James Doohan) share a couple quality moments on the bridge. Mind you, Trek IV did a much better job in this area. And because the characters get small moments to themselves, the movie ends up feeling more well rounded. There's also a rousing score by Jerry Goldsmith. But then, that's to be expected.Come to think of it...maybe this is the worst of the original six movies. http://www.spout.com/blogs/wraithtdk/archive/2008/3/27/26676.aspx Post By: WraithTDK
Post To: WraithTDK Blog
Post Date: 3/27/2008 6:08:13 PM
Body: Shatner: good in front of the Camera. Poison behind it. 'nough said.
]]>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:08:13 GMTWraithTDKWraithTDK Blog3/27/2008 6:08:13 PMShatner: good in front of the Camera. Poison behind it. &#39;nough said. http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2008/3/14/26208.aspx 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
]]>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:08:25 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog3/14/2008 11:08:25 AMStar Trek IV: The Voyage HomeI&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s so humorless? Apparently people in the future no longer swear or understand sarcasm. It&#39;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&#39;s Earth. Spock swearing, Scotty talking into a computer mouse, Bones fixing some old woman&#39;s kidneys, Chekov asking people on the street where to find nuclear vessels in his Russian accent.I&#39;ll have to see if the trend of me enjoying each Star Trek movie more and more continues. I doubt it since I&#39;ve heard the fifth one is one of the worst.Rating: 7/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/1/8/23624.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/8/2008 12:01:13 PM
Body: With the New Hampshire primary upon us, and in response to the results of last week’s Iowa Caucus, I’ve been thinking about the possible influence of pop culture on Democratic voters. Is it possible that Obama performed better than Clinton because 24 is a more popular TV show than was the short-lived Commander in Chief? The former has so far featured two African American Presidents, played by Dennis Haysbert and D.B. Woodside, while the latter was about a female President, portrayed by Geena Davis. The next season of 24, which is set to premiere once the WGA strike is finished, will actually feature a female President, played by Cherry Jones, but it may be too late. Americans could already be set on nominating a black man, because they’re more familiar with seeing such a President on both the big and small screen. And what a crop of African American actors we’ve seen as the leader of the United States: Morgan Freeman (Deep Impact); James Earl Jones (1972’s The Man); Tommy ‘Tiny’ Lister (The Fifth Element); Chris Rock (Head of State); Terry Crews (not so well known, but extra points for playing a porn star-President in Idiocracy); and of course Haysbert and Woodside. Now, let’s see who we’ve got for white female Presidents: Polly Bergen (1964’s Kisses for My President); Lisa Simpson (in a flash-forward episode of The Simpsons); Dulcie Smart (a TV movie called Post Impact); Ernestine Barrier (1953’s Project Moon Base) and of course Davis. Which group has more star power? Exactly. Even Robert Zemeckis chose to exclude the female President featured in Carl Sagan’s novel Contact when the director made his film version. Anyway, Clinton at least has a better chance than an African American woman. The only black female Presidents I can find in TV and film include one played by Melanie Henderson on an episode of The Electric Company and reference to one in a deleted scene from Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, which features the woman as an added fifth face on Mount Rushmore. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:01:13 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/8/2008 12:01:13 PMWith the New Hampshire primary upon us, and in response to the results of last week’s Iowa Caucus, I’ve been thinking about the possible influence of pop culture on Democratic voters. Is it possible that Obama performed better than Clinton because 24 is a more popular TV show than was the short-lived Commander in Chief? The former has so far featured two African American Presidents, played by Dennis Haysbert and D.B. Woodside, while the latter was about a female President, portrayed by Geena Davis. The next season of 24, which is set to premiere once the WGA strike is finished, will actually feature a female President, played by Cherry Jones, but it may be too late. Americans could already be set on nominating a black man, because they’re more familiar with seeing such a President on both the big and small screen. And what a crop of African American actors we’ve seen as the leader of the United States: Morgan Freeman (Deep Impact); James Earl Jones (1972’s The Man); Tommy ‘Tiny’ Lister (The Fifth Element); Chris Rock (Head of State); Terry Crews (not so well known, but extra points for playing a porn star-President in Idiocracy); and of course Haysbert and Woodside. Now, let’s see who we’ve got for white female Presidents: Polly Bergen (1964’s Kisses for My President); Lisa Simpson (in a flash-forward episode of The Simpsons); Dulcie Smart (a TV movie called Post Impact); Ernestine Barrier (1953’s Project Moon Base) and of course Davis. Which group has more star power? Exactly. Even Robert Zemeckis chose to exclude the female President featured in Carl Sagan’s novel Contact when the director made his film version. Anyway, Clinton at least has a better chance than an African American woman. The only black female Presidents I can find in TV and film include one played by Melanie Henderson on an episode of The Electric Company and reference to one in a deleted scene from Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, which features the woman as an added fifth face on Mount Rushmore. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/future/MemberTagFilms.aspxfuture
Number of films tagged: 492

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 258

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:46:43 GMT492101258Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/religion/MemberTagFilms.aspxreligion
Number of films tagged: 1123

Number of people who tagged: 67

Number of times used: 176

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:31:00 GMT112367176Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/space/MemberTagFilms.aspxspace
Number of films tagged: 494

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 139

]]>Mon, 25 May 2009 14:36:30 GMT49454139Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/kidnapping/MemberTagFilms.aspxkidnapping
Number of films tagged: 2851

Number of people who tagged: 49

Number of times used: 172

]]>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:39:42 GMT285149172Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sequel/MemberTagFilms.aspxsequel
Number of films tagged: 126

Number of people who tagged: 46

Number of times used: 171

]]>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:25:48 GMT12646171Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/power/MemberTagFilms.aspxpower
Number of films tagged: 606

Number of people who tagged: 39

Number of times used: 104

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:43:55 GMT60639104Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/conflict/MemberTagFilms.aspxconflict
Number of films tagged: 1686

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 41

]]>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:01:49 GMT16862041Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hostage/MemberTagFilms.aspxhostage
Number of films tagged: 673

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 49

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:12 GMT6731949Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/alien-not-human/MemberTagFilms.aspxalien-not-human
Number of films tagged: 1385

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 24

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:23:54 GMT13851324Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/search/MemberTagFilms.aspxsearch
Number of films tagged: 2111

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 40

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:00:49 GMT21111340Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/exploration/MemberTagFilms.aspxexploration
Number of films tagged: 586

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 17

]]>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:08:54 GMT586917Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/spaceexploration/MemberTagFilms.aspxspaceexploration
Number of films tagged: 528

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 12

]]>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:02:46 GMT528812Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hijacker/MemberTagFilms.aspxhijacker
Number of films tagged: 203

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 10

]]>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:02:54 GMT203710Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/planet/MemberTagFilms.aspxplanet
Number of films tagged: 353

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 10

]]>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:02:14 GMT353610Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Why-God-Why/MemberTagFilms.aspxWhy-God-Why
Number of films tagged: 29

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 33

]]>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:14:01 GMT29633Tag