 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was a cartoonist for CINEFANTASTIQUE magazine back in those days, and they were doing behind-the-scenes reporting on all of the TREK films. HERE is what they reported, in 1988:
Due to the boxoffice strength of Star Trek IV, Shatner cut a deal with Paramount to direct and star in Star Trek V, landing him 20 million to direct, plus 20 million to star. The deal also forked over 20 million apiece for Nimoy and Kelley.
That's an 80 million dollar flick....BEFORE one foot of film was shot, one costume stitched, one effect produced, one note of score composed...BEFORE anything was done.
THEY COULDN'T AFFORD Industrial Light & Magic! They could only afford to pony up for Associates & Ferren! Bran Ferren had NEVER produced ANY effects on the scale of a Trek film!
THAT'S why Trek V is a visual embarrassment.
THREE OLD GUYS pocketed the cash needed to make the film great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I pretty much agree that Trek V has its good and bad points. A mixed bag. A lot of wonderful sequences, mixed together with a lot of poor ones.
However...Trek V has the WORST LINE I have ever heard in ANY movie...EVER!
"What does God need with a Starship?"
REALLY???
WHO is responsible for such terrible grammar?? The line should read:
"WHY does God need a Starship?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Grammer" is not correct spelling. (That's what the squiggly red line underneath it means.)
I think what Star Trek V did most for me was to make me appreciate Nimoy as a director.
When poor wheelchair-bound Gene Roddenberry enlisted Isaac Asimov to explain to Shatner why his proposed plot idea was not good science fiction, Shatner should have heeded the advice. The Enterprise crew had already "found God in space" in the first movie (itself practically a remake of an OS episode).
The problem with any such story is, it's not really going to turn out to be God, but rather some other thing, like a malfunctioning Earth space probe, for instance. Any resolution, short of an insane one, is by necessity going to turn out to be some kind of cheat.
It's not ambitious, but foolhardy. Pointless. Dumb.
Jerry Goldsmith's heroics are the main source of enjoyment in it for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 24, 2016 - 10:36 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Lee S
(Member)
|
I was a cartoonist for CINEFANTASTIQUE magazine back in those days, and they were doing behind-the-scenes reporting on all of the TREK films. HERE is what they reported, in 1988:
Due to the boxoffice strength of Star Trek IV, Shatner cut a deal with Paramount to direct and star in Star Trek V, landing him 20 million to direct, plus 20 million to star. The deal also forked over 20 million apiece for Nimoy and Kelley.
That's an 80 million dollar flick....BEFORE one foot of film was shot, one costume stitched, one effect produced, one note of score composed...BEFORE anything was done.
THEY COULDN'T AFFORD Industrial Light & Magic! They could only afford to pony up for Associates & Ferren! Bran Ferren had NEVER produced ANY effects on the scale of a Trek film!
THAT'S why Trek V is a visual embarrassment.
THREE OLD GUYS pocketed the cash needed to make the film great.
The total budget for the movie was $30 million and it went $2 million over that. DeForest Kelley made $750,000 and had to go on strike in order to get that much. Shatner and Nimoy made a few million each, but nothing like $20 million. There were certainly budgetary missteps, but the "three old guys" didn't cause them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THREE OLD GUYS pocketed the cash needed to make the film great.
To make the film great, you need to make the script great. Throwing money at it isn't the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 25, 2016 - 7:02 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
I was a cartoonist for CINEFANTASTIQUE magazine back in those days, and they were doing behind-the-scenes reporting on all of the TREK films. HERE is what they reported, in 1988:
Due to the boxoffice strength of Star Trek IV, Shatner cut a deal with Paramount to direct and star in Star Trek V, landing him 20 million to direct, plus 20 million to star. The deal also forked over 20 million apiece for Nimoy and Kelley.
That's an 80 million dollar flick....BEFORE one foot of film was shot, one costume stitched, one effect produced, one note of score composed...BEFORE anything was done.
THEY COULDN'T AFFORD Industrial Light & Magic! They could only afford to pony up for Associates & Ferren! Bran Ferren had NEVER produced ANY effects on the scale of a Trek film!
THAT'S why Trek V is a visual embarrassment.
THREE OLD GUYS pocketed the cash needed to make the film great.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Uh, no, absolutely absurd, these numbers are far away from correct.
They did not pay Shatner $40 million. And Nimoy and Kelley were never paid that much either. The total budget for V was about $30 million.http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Trek#tab=summary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 25, 2016 - 8:22 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Hurdy Gurdy
(Member)
|
"Now, to appreciate this movie you need to understand some of the background politics that occured during the shoot"
-----------------------
Sorry Mike, but you're on a loser right there!!
There must be thousands of films that coulda, shoulda, woulda if their auntie had been their uncle!
What ends up onscreen with STV is a, admittedly, cheesy/enjoyable load of bunkum with a fantastic score, but it's a dog anyway you look at it.
To me, only STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE ever truly felt like a cinematic work.
WRATH OF KHAN is loads of fun, but borderline TV movie. Same with 3 and 4.
Not until J.J's STAR TREK 2009 would I FEEL another STAR TREK film that had real cinematic values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 25, 2016 - 9:22 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
I was a cartoonist for CINEFANTASTIQUE magazine back in those days, and they were doing behind-the-scenes reporting on all of the TREK films. HERE is what they reported, in 1988:
Due to the boxoffice strength of Star Trek IV, Shatner cut a deal with Paramount to direct and star in Star Trek V, landing him 20 million to direct, plus 20 million to star. The deal also forked over 20 million apiece for Nimoy and Kelley.
That's an 80 million dollar flick....BEFORE one foot of film was shot, one costume stitched, one effect produced, one note of score composed...BEFORE anything was done.
THEY COULDN'T AFFORD Industrial Light & Magic! They could only afford to pony up for Associates & Ferren! Bran Ferren had NEVER produced ANY effects on the scale of a Trek film!
THAT'S why Trek V is a visual embarrassment.
THREE OLD GUYS pocketed the cash needed to make the film great.
Sorry Christopher but this is totally inaccurate.
Firstly, Shatner & Nimoy had, for years, a "favoured nation" agreement with Paramount which demanded parity on everything - so Shatner taking the director's chair for Trek V was a contractural obligation that would have been triggered two films previously, when Nimoy directed Trek III.
And the figures you are talking about are just plain wrong. Not sure where you got them from but they are simply untrue.
And quite simply ILM were working to capacity on other movies when Trek V went into production. Certainly, Paramount went with Associates & Feran because they were cheap but it was as much to do with ILM's lack of availability as a budgetary constraint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
