In Defense of Star Trek V

[Swiftbow]

So, this is a topic I've wanted to write about for awhile, because, as flawed a movie as Star Trek V is, I still like it. And I think SF Debris has overlooked an aspect of it that helps a LOT with the characters.

It's been brought up in multiple reviews (referencing interviews with Shatner) that Sybok is not using any kind of mind control, and, thus, the characters are betraying Kirk via their own free will, and thus betraying their own characters.

I don't think that's the case. And I think it's illustrated by what Kirk says, and by a TOS episode (The Enemy Within).

Sybok's "power," as described, is to mindmeld with a person, find their pain, share it, and thus, effectively remove it. Is not "pain," very much similar to the "evil" Kirk from The Enemy Within? I posit that it is. The negative aspects of oneself that are nonetheless critical to being who you are.

So, with one's pain removed (or, at least, dampened to a huge degree), the people Sybok has melded with are NOT mind controlled, but would be just like "good" Kirk. Wanting to please, wanting everyone to get along, and very, VERY suggestible, as they are nearly unable to make decisions on their own. Sybok, as the strongest will nearby when they are rendered to this state, gives them new purpose: help your friends feel as peaceful as you do now.

None of the crew want to HARM Kirk or the others, after all. They just want to help them "understand." And this brings us to Kirk himself. The only person in the crew who has previously experienced what having his negative side removed truly means. That's why he KNOWS that he "needs his pain." He even spells it out: It's what makes him who he is. Without their pain, NONE of the crew are who they really are.

Sybok's failure with McCoy and Spock still works, too. Spock's mental resistances are extreme, so Sybok can't simply dig in his mind like he can anyone else. Thus, his failure to actually identify Spock's REAL pain. He can't find it, and he fails to do anything with it.

McCoy is closer to what we see happen to the others. But he's also not alone when Sybok works on him like the others are. He's able to resist, at least enough to maintain his sense of self. But it takes Kirk's impassioned speech to bring him back.

As they pass through the Barrier, it seems like the crew might have jumped back to Kirk if he'd implored them, but by that point, they're all more invested in the adventure than they are in turning around. Or that's the way I see it. (The "Where No Man Has Gone Before" on the steering wheel is poignant here.)

Anyway, to me, the biggest flaws of the movie are toward the end. "God" or whatever is an interesting idea, as a completely hostile energy being, anyway. I like the idea that maybe he's actually Satan, sealed away from the galaxy, where only brave (foolish?) mortals can free him from. But he's defeated rather easily (one torpedo? lame) and the Klingon baddie is nearly pointless. But I love the camping scenes, and the other characters do get some nice moments to shine, too. (Chekhov on the conn, Sulu piloting skills, Scotty being badass all over the ship until his one oops. And, dammit... I like Uhura's fan dance. It's stupid, but I still like it.)

For me, Star Trek V is definitely better than The Motion Picture, which I think is a betrayal of Kirk's character for half the runtime, and commits the cardinal sin of being one of the most boring movies ever made. And I think it's better than Star Trek III (though it's close), mostly because 3 directly contradicts plot elements from Wrath of Khan. The protomatter thing comes from nowhere, and makes no sense considering the Genesis Cave (which should have broken down ages ago if they were actually using that shortcut). And killing David the way they did felt a little like cheap drama. (Also, Kirstie Alley's Saavik is SO much better than Robin Curtis'. Probably because Alley protrayed her as half-Romulan (as intended) whereas Curtis definitely goes for the full Vulcan.) But I'm getting distracted... this is meant to be about The Final Frontier.

I'm quite curious what other people think. I'd be surprised if I'm the first to write this, but I haven't seen an analysis like this anywhere else.

[Link8909]

Something I appreciate about Star Trek as a franchise is that everyone has their favourites, that there's not a wrong way to enjoy Trek.

Personally The Final Frontier isn't a film I'd go back and watch, and I feel it's flaws outlay its strengths, for me it's biggest sin is the treatment of The Original Series crew when they "share their pain" and basically the overall "Kirk can do no wrong" mentality brought on by William Shatner's ego, and the Klingon Captain who chases them was lame.

However I do agree that are still great character moments in the film, as you said Sulu's emergency landing and Scotty's rescue are great, I love the beginning with them camping, not only for seem the crew taking some R&R (something that they rarely do, and I wish their were more times we saw The Original Series crew in low stakes stories like "The Trouble With Tribbles"), but for a genuinely great character moment for Kirk with his "I've always known I'll die alone" line and how much faith he has in Spock and McCoy.

And this is definitely going to rustled someones jimmies, I acutely really like the idea of Sybok, a Vulcan that expresses emotions is a great idea, so much so that I even made my First Officer in Star Trek Online be a Vulcan that followed in Sybok's footsteps*,and I think it helps that Laurence Luckinbill played him rather than Sean Connery, with Connery all you would have just seen is Connery, while Luckinbill allowed the character of Sybok to stand on his own, plus Luckinbill's portrayal of Sybok who is in love with his own emotions is enjoyable to watch.

*https://www.deviantart.com/link8909/art ... -864368933

[MerelyAFan]

Its hard for me to give the mind control plot the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the supporting cast because quite frankly it doesn't really feel like the movie itself is all that interested in the likes of Uhura, Chekov, or Sulu to begin with. If they were really given their own individual little stories like in IV or consistently effective moments like in III, I'd be inclined to maybe view their defection to Sybok a bit more generously. As is it does feel like they're just noise in the overall glorification of Kirk and given that Nimoy and Kelley flat out refused to let their characters turn on him, I'm even more skeptical about attributing the latter two's resistance as a strength of the writing.

A lot of V is carried by Luckinbill whose strong performance as Sybok feels like something out of a much more cohesive movie. There are some interesting ideas there (secret pains and quest for god), but it never really feels like it can do real justice to those concepts and the overly comedic tone undermines a great deal of the mood it could hypothetically achieve. Whatever one might say about the wasted potential of SFS, it hits its emotional beats far more consistently and I feel affected by the major moments.

The one thing I'll give Final Frontier is that the overall experience in watching it is better than various other dubious Star Trek films. It doesn't do nearly a big a disservice to characters as Generations and Nemesis, isn't as boring as Insurrection, and isn't drowning in dumb action pieces like Into Darkness. Fittingly enough in terms of comparison its like a bad episode of TOS vs a bad episode of the later ST shows; both are fairly lousy but one can get some enjoyment out of the former's silliness. I may not like V, but I'm not really unhappy watching it either.

[Nealithi]

The concept in V of there being a well being behind a very dangerous wall in the heart of the galaxy. And someone thinking it is God has some merit. Finding that the path is not a test to see who can get in, but a method to keep that being in and Kirk's armour piercing question. "Why does god need a starship?" Are great send ups. This wasn't anyone's god. It was closer to their interpretations of the devil and its prison that of hell. All good stuff. I can even get the Nimbus concept. X world with no real value but we put an ambassador there anyway because eh we are trying. Not bad on paper.
But much of how the movie was pieced together felt like a mess.
The klingon bird of prey captain felt tacked on and less military and more biker gang in execution. If he had been less an out for personal glory in killing Kirk and more a dedicated officer following orders to put down terrorists. I think the scenes would have been more powerful. Including Spock's growl that the ambassador is that captain's superior officer.
And make Sybok's influence be mind control. He can claim it is not all day long, because he is deluded. But have Spock mention that yes it is. Everyone under it is susceptible to his suggestion. That is why vulcans don't do that form of mind meld. And the movie would hold the major themes and quashed some of the worst protests. At least in my opinion.

[Ixthos]

[...]

Sybok's "power," as described, is to mindmeld with a person, find their pain, share it, and thus, effectively remove it. Is not "pain," very much similar to the "evil" Kirk from The Enemy Within? I posit that it is. The negative aspects of oneself that are nonetheless critical to being who you are.

So, with one's pain removed (or, at least, dampened to a huge degree), the people Sybok has melded with are NOT mind controlled, but would be just like "good" Kirk. Wanting to please, wanting everyone to get along, and very, VERY suggestible, as they are nearly unable to make decisions on their own. Sybok, as the strongest will nearby when they are rendered to this state, gives them new purpose: help your friends feel as peaceful as you do now.

None of the crew want to HARM Kirk or the others, after all. They just want to help them "understand." And this brings us to Kirk himself. The only person in the crew who has previously experienced what having his negative side removed truly means. That's why he KNOWS that he "needs his pain." He even spells it out: It's what makes him who he is. Without their pain, NONE of the crew are who they really are.

[...]

Quick side note, but in addition to this didn't Spock do this exact thing to Kirk in Requiem for Methuselah, taking away Kirk's pain, or at least making him forget it, possibly then also causing Kirk to see this sort of act as dangerous?

[Artabax]

The Crew are

very, VERY suggestible, as they are nearly unable to make decisions on their own.

This looks exactly like mind control. Main characters resist mind control because they are main characters is straight out of Pitch Meeting https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... ch+meeting

I love ST5 precisely because God is killed by Logic ie Spock. That glory forgives all of the movie's sins.

[Beastro]

I liked it for the failed international colony bit. It was the first real foray of Trek into the less than ideal aspects of international politics and how not everything touched by the Federation was nice and perfect. The colony is very much a prototype for the Maquis in how it's set up, then abandoned.

[AndrewGPaul]

This one is a bit of a guilty pleasure for me. The films (in a somewhat random order) were my introduction to Trek, along with the novels and novelisations, with their 70s Frazetta-style covers. The novelisation works better than the film, I think. There’s more backstory about the colony and the three ambassadors, and the effects aren’t as dodgy.

[Mindworm]

I liked it for the failed international colony bit. It was the first real foray of Trek into the less than ideal aspects of international politics and how not everything touched by the Federation was nice and perfect. The colony is very much a prototype for the Maquis in how it's set up, then abandoned.

The problem with the imperfect Federation angle in V is that it was hammed up to ninety simply to show Kirk off as the all-conquering hero able to overcome any obstacle. Given what we saw of Nimbus and the Enterprise the Federation wouldn't even rise to Somalia levels of good governance, never mind an inter-stellar nation.

[Link8909]

This one is a bit of a guilty pleasure for me. The films (in a somewhat random order) were my introduction to Trek, along with the novels and novelisations, with their 70s Frazetta-style covers. The novelisation works better than the film, I think. There’s more backstory about the colony and the three ambassadors, and the effects aren’t as dodgy.

I have a very similar thing with Generations, I still love that film despite its flaws as it was the first piece of Star Trek thing I'd even watch, and it got me into Star Trek and made me a fan.

I liked it for the failed international colony bit. It was the first real foray of Trek into the less than ideal aspects of international politics and how not everything touched by the Federation was nice and perfect. The colony is very much a prototype for the Maquis in how it's set up, then abandoned.

The problem with the imperfect Federation angle in V is that it was hammed up to ninety simply to show Kirk off as the all-conquering hero able to overcome any obstacle. Given what we saw of Nimbus and the Enterprise the Federation wouldn't even rise to Somalia levels of good governance, never mind an inter-stellar nation.

True, I'm always fine with showing that the Federation doesn't have a perfect system much like with abandoning the Federation colonists in the Demilitarized Zone because of an unfair treaty with the Cardassians to maintain peace in the short term, but it's more of the mentality as to why we are seeing the state of Nimbus to show how awesome Kirk is that I feel was an issue.