Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2016 - 4:15 PM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

Continuing on with my re-evaluation of the Trek movies, Trek IV is a film which has grown on me over time.

I hated it when I first saw it at the cinema. But over the years I've actually learned to love a lot of it.

The faults it has are many and major. Nimoy's direction is still terrible, Walter Koenig is still an abysmal actor, some of the designs are a bit questionable (the Vulcan engineer's hats are unintentionally hysterical) and the score is just unbelievably bad (and not just the main theme rehash of Lord of the Rings / Hell Fighters / Battle for the Planet of the Apes but also other cues, like the embarrassing oompah oompah crap when they rescue Checkov from hospital).

But th characters work so tremendously well together, Shatner and Nimoy have amazing chemistry (and the funniest lines in the entire series) and the film's eco theme - whilst a little heavy handed - is pretty relevant stuff. And Catherine Hicks is just an absolute joy (the way she delivers her last line "I'll find you" is incredibly sexy).

In the hands of a competent director - rather than Mr Point-the-camera-and-shoot Nimoy - this would have been a great Trek movie. As it is, it's still a really good one, certainly the most fun of the series, with some hugely feel-good moments.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2016 - 4:15 PM   
 By:   henry   (Member)

This one I love!

 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2016 - 4:41 PM   
 By:   Justin Boggan   (Member)

I didn't like this film when I originally saw it, and just appreciated the humor. As time has moved on, I find that I hate the film, but love most of the humor. It's a terrible film wrapped in some good crew interactions. The real highlight, Rosenman's terrific score, one of his best.

However I need to copy and paste what I wrote at another message board in regards to the worst villain:

I'd have easily said the Borg queen and the supremely stupid Shinzon, but I think something has in my mind more recently edged them out -- and that's no mean feat considering how utterly shit the aforementioned are.

I know, what in the world could edge those out? The the fallic whale probe (probably soon to be banned from the board like the penisrock, since, well, it looks like a giant...).

At first glance it appears to be nothing more than a probe that simply wanted to re-establish contact with one species of whale (fuck all the other whales, right?). But with broader thought, this is an evil villain.

Think about it. A giant probe -- regardless of whether or not you can say how sophisitcated it is or whether or not there was any life on board -- that dampens and harms life on any vessel nearby yet seems oblivious to it, invades areas of inhabited space without announcing itself or it's intentions, heads straight for the heart of Starfleet, causes terrible window-breaking weather, starts draining the planet of the very habitat the species of whale lives in, while desvestating the planet and causing a planetary distress call.

Never mind that the probe doesn't seem to give a fuck about the other whales in the ocean or other species for that matter, it's destroying the place that species of whale lives in. Even if it found one (arguing in this sake that it wasn't extint) and the whale survived, it would be a small condolence to the species; the ecological habitat would be laid waste, the food supply of the species would be laid waste, and the planet would likely not recover from the event, which could cause massive shifts that would end up killing off the whale, including drastic weather dips from blocked out sun. And what about intelligent life? Never mind that fucking stupid comment from Spock about "human arrogence", what about the arrogence of that alien life? Kill everything else in an attempt to contact one species, including the food and home of that species, in order to brielfy re-establish contact?

Probe: "Hey, you still there?"

Whale (translated for you): "Yeah. Holy shit -- you destroyed my home! And I can't find any food!"

Probe: "Great to hear from you. Bye-bye!" leaves.


Further more, who knows how many other inhabited planets this probe has devistated to re-establish contact with a species of whale, or bird, or rat and so forth. It's an intersteller war machine that kills planets to check up on it's pen pal.


No intelligent, well-meaning, caring race would design such a monster.

 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2016 - 4:44 PM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

Star Trek intentionally or not became the sum of all it's parts. Hard sci-fi, comedy, action adventure, camp. This outing was a sci fi comedy and I loved it. I think the score worked in context of the film, and it has the best rendition of the TOS theme I've ever heard. I thought Nimoy improved tremendously between Search for Spock and Voyage Home. I'm sure I could nitpick a few things if I put enough thought into it, but nothing comes to mind at this moment in time.

Edit: As far as the illogical motivations of the probe. I just don't take it to seriously. This is a "fun romp" first and foremost.

 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2016 - 6:26 PM   
 By:   Adam.   (Member)

I took my parents to see this film on Christmas Day 1986. I had already seen it a few times. The theater was packed for the early afternoon showing. Everyone was in a good mood and the crowd laughed heartily and we all had a blast. Even my mom liked it. It's a crowd pleaser. I appreciated the pre-credit dedication to the Challenger crew. Very thoughtful.

 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2016 - 7:54 PM   
 By:   johnjohnson   (Member)

Continuing on with my re-evaluation of the Trek movies, Trek IV is a film which has grown on me over time.

I hated it when I first saw it at the cinema. But over the years I've actually learned to love a lot of it.

The faults it has are many and major. Nimoy's direction is still terrible, Walter Koenig is still an abysmal actor, some of the designs are a bit questionable (the Vulcan engineer's hats are unintentionally hysterical) and the score is just unbelievably bad (and not just the main theme rehash of Lord of the Rings / Hell Fighters / Battle for the Planet of the Apes but also other cues, like the embarrassing oompah oompah crap when they rescue Checkov from hospital).

But th characters work so tremendously well together, Shatner and Nimoy have amazing chemistry (and the funniest lines in the entire series) and the film's eco theme - whilst a little heavy handed - is pretty relevant stuff. And Catherine Hicks is just an absolute joy (the way she delivers her last line "I'll find you" is incredibly sexy).

In the hands of a competent director - rather than Mr Point-the-camera-and-shoot Nimoy - this would have been a great Trek movie. As it is, it's still a really good one, certainly the most fun of the series, with some hugely feel-good moments.


I seem to recall we saw this on the opening night at The Empire.

 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2016 - 7:25 AM   
 By:   FredGarvin   (Member)

I think it's also the most beautifully shot of all the Star Trek movies. Very epic, realistic aesthetic.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2016 - 10:48 AM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

I think it's also the most beautifully shot of all the Star Trek movies. Very epic, realistic aesthetic.

I wouldn't disagree with that - certainly it is the only one which has bits that actually look like a cinema film rather than a TV movie.

 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2016 - 11:06 AM   
 By:   RoryR   (Member)

I kind of have the opposite reaction. I liked the movie when it originally came out. It was very entertaining back then. But it hasn't aged well for me. I find it's general humorous tone a little tired and too obvious now. Maybe if it had been scored by Goldsmith I'd like more of it, but I don't know. I just find now that if I try watching it my attention soon drifts. I think I could happily live out the rest of my life and never see it again.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2016 - 11:06 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

I think it's also the most beautifully shot of all the Star Trek movies. Very epic, realistic aesthetic.

I wouldn't disagree with that - certainly it is the only one which has bits that actually look like a cinema film rather than a TV movie.


Don Peterman was nominated for an Oscar for his cinematography on this movie.

Here is some good info on Peterman and this and other good work he did.

http://www.icgmagazine.com/web/remembering-don-peterman-asc/

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2016 - 11:21 AM   
 By:   lars.blondeel   (Member)

If the purpose of a movie is to entertain, then this one surely delivers ! That's the point, no ?

 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2016 - 11:31 AM   
 By:   RoryR   (Member)

If the purpose of a movie is to entertain, then this one surely delivers ! That's the point, no ?

Yes, but often what entertains on first viewing isn't as entertaining upon repeated viewings. That's how you know what's a good movie in your own estimation -- how often you can watch it and yet never get tired of it.

For me, I got tired of ST IV a long while ago.

 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2016 - 11:33 AM   
 By:   Justin Boggan   (Member)

If one really wants to be a blasphemous Trekkie, they could say there really wre only three good Trek movies.....

 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2016 - 11:59 AM   
 By:   David Sones (Allardyce)   (Member)

What I enjoy most about IV are the character developments and the resolution of storylines that began in II. How can you not get a thrill when the crew sees the new Enterprise in space dock. Every time I saw this movie in a theater, that moment made people cheer more than I've ever heard in a Trek audience. There's a lot to love about IV. And thank goodness the Eddie Murphy casting idea didn't happen; I like Eddie, but it would have been an entirely different movie and probably not for the better.

I also like the notion in IV that the "villain" is basically ourselves...

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2016 - 12:06 PM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

What I enjoy most about IV are the character developments and the resolution of storylines that began in II. How can you not get a thrill when the crew sees the new Enterprise in space dock. Every time I saw this movie in a theater, that moment made people cheer more than I've ever heard in a Trek audience. There's a lot to love about IV. And thank goodness the Eddie Murphy casting idea didn't happen; I like Eddie, but it would have been an entirely different movie and probably not for the better.

I also like the notion in IV that the "villain" is basically ourselves...


I agree, it is a satisfying movie, probably because of being very down to earth, and it ties up some story lines without spelling it out. And I always thought that Catherine Hicks was great casting in this too, I thought she played that part very charmingly and full of compassion, a perfect strong female part to counter Kirk as well.

 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2016 - 12:17 PM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

What I enjoy most about IV are the character developments and the resolution of storylines that began in II. How can you not get a thrill when the crew sees the new Enterprise in space dock. Every time I saw this movie in a theater, that moment made people cheer more than I've ever heard in a Trek audience. There's a lot to love about IV. And thank goodness the Eddie Murphy casting idea didn't happen; I like Eddie, but it would have been an entirely different movie and probably not for the better.

I also like the notion in IV that the "villain" is basically ourselves...


I agree, it is a satisfying movie, probably because of being very down to earth, and it ties up some story lines without spelling it out. And I always thought that Catherine Hicks was great casting in this too, I thought she played that part very charmingly and full of compassion, a perfect strong female part to counter Kirk as well.


Gillian and Kirk's interaction was written exceptionally well. They were equals with their own legitimate concerns. Gillian wasn't a Mary Sue, nor was Kirk a chauvinist. Sure, both playfully flirted a bit, but it was charming with no sexual intent. The script didn't demean or over play either character.

Love the reveal of the new Enterprise and the accompanying music was magnificent. But I hate the "A". No reason for it whatsoever.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2016 - 3:15 PM   
 By:   Matt S.   (Member)

Love the reveal of the new Enterprise and the accompanying music was magnificent. But I hate the "A". No reason for it whatsoever.

That's an odd detail to fixate on. Why do you say there's no reason for the "A"? I mean, it's obviously done to differentiate the ship from the previous one, and they clearly wanted to keep the iconic NCC-1701 hull number. (I will admit it's a bit awkward, in that an "A" registry number denotes the SECOND ship rather than the first, but it's such a relatively insignificant detail I don't have any problem with it.)

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2016 - 3:27 PM   
 By:   henry   (Member)

Some trivia, Mark Mangini who won the Oscar for sound editing for FURY ROAD, also was nominated for this film!smile

 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2016 - 3:28 PM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

Love the reveal of the new Enterprise and the accompanying music was magnificent. But I hate the "A". No reason for it whatsoever.

That's an odd detail to fixate on. Why do you say there's no reason for the "A"? I mean, it's obviously done to differentiate the ship from the previous one, and they clearly wanted to keep the iconic NCC-1701 hull number. (I will admit it's a bit awkward, in that an "A" registry number denotes the SECOND ship rather than the first, but it's such a relatively insignificant detail I don't have any problem with it.)


Mostly for esthetics. I just don't like the look of it. As you said, it should be the Enterprise "B". Also weren't some US ship rebuilt after they sunk, and they gave them the same name without a letter designation? Finally wasn't the "new" Enterprise really the refit Yorktown, and they just changed the name and gave the ship to Kirk?

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2016 - 4:15 PM   
 By:   Matt S.   (Member)


Mostly for esthetics. I just don't like the look of it. As you said, it should be the Enterprise "B". Also weren't some US ship rebuilt after they sunk, and they gave them the same name without a letter designation? Finally wasn't the "new" Enterprise really the refit Yorktown, and they just changed the name and gave the ship to Kirk?


That's the unofficial, non-canon story (some sources say it was the USS Ti-Ho that was renamed).

I don't know about US Naval tradition....they reuse ship names, sure, but I think the hull numbers are always new. In subsequent shows, Starfleet ships always have new registry numbers for re-used names...the only ship with a letter designation is the Enterprise. There was a scene on TNG where Riker says the USS Yamato's number, NCC-1305-E, but I'm pretty sure that was retconned out in a later episode, and after that every new ship had a new number.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.
Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.