 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 28, 2016 - 4:53 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
Continuing my re-evaluation of the Trek movies, we come to the last movie featurepingnthe full original cast.
Have to say I'm not a huge fan. For starters, after the excellent location work in the previous two movies, we are now back to another studio-bound movie. Apart from a few quick shots from the second unit on the ice planet, every single scene looks obviously like the backlog on which it was shot.
The story itself is actually pretty good, but it is ruined by some quite abysmal dialogue - if you thought the Melville quotes in Trek II were bad, this is 10 times worse.
Shatner is as ever great and ai like that McCoy is front and centre in this one too. But contrasting their acting is the quite terrible Kim Cattrell (who is usually very watchable but is totally miscast here). In a part which is so obviously Saavik-lite, Valeris is just an abysmal character played without any conviction at all, and badly acted to boot.
Talking of boots and bad acting, kudos to Walter Koenig who, after five previous films of amateur acting, manages to plumb new depths of ineptitude in his performance. His "if the boot fits" scene is so embarrassingly bad, it would have been cut from a kid's fan movie (it isn't helped by the fact that the sticky patch for the gravity boot to stick on against the locker door couldn't be more obvious if it was painted fluorescent green with the words "look! Cheap practical effect coming here!!!").
Add to all of this a score which is unspectacular and derivative and some quite shockingly bad direction from Nick Meyer and you have a Trek film that really is rather average.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Eef shoe feets, vhear et."
Well, I think that was actually better than the no attempt whatsoever "acting" scene from TFF when he is in the captain's chair talking to Sybok, "No, wait."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Eef shoe feets, vhear et."
Well, I think that was actually better than the no attempt whatsoever "acting" scene from TFF when he is in the captain's chair talking to Sybok, "No, wait."
7 movies and Koenig's performances were always utterly terrible. So many scenes to pick from to highlight his lack of talent, not a single frame that counters that argument.
We're it not for the fact that Koenig fitted the casting requirements for season 2 of TOS (young, Beetles-like) then surely his career would have been limited to commercials for Preparation-H and the like. Although painful though his performances are, I doubt he could have convincingly portrayed someone with haemeroids.
What is this, some kind of "trash Koenig" contest? Do you feel smart when you come up with clever new ways to put someone down? When is it enough? How tiresome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"7 movies and Koenig's performances were always utterly terrible."
Shouldn't that comment read, two TV seasons, plus seven movies?
I apologize to you, dear Sigeron Holmes, but I have to agree with Mike about Koenig's Chekov. From beginning to end, his performances always grated on me like chalk screeching on a blackboard.
However I disagree with Mike's take on this movie.
I adore it, warts and all!
And, I found Walter to be a better actor when he appeared in Babylon 5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 28, 2016 - 7:43 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jeyl
(Member)
|
For all it's faults (and they really don't bother me), I do love the message of this movie. How does one cope with change in such drastic ways that it goes against your character? For Kirk, peace with the Klingons is absolutely unacceptable. Not only did Commander Kruge murder Kirk's son for no reason, but the Empire itself stood by Kruge's actions and labeled Kirk a conspiring terrorist. Wow. It's not hard to understand why Kirk would be ticked off about this.
And hats off to Nicholas Meyer for not recycling the same old story from The Wrath of Khan. Usually when you bring back talent to save your franchise, the standard order is to do the same thing that you did originally. That's not what we got with VI and I cannot wait to see what he's going to contribute to Star Trek: Discovery.
Back on VI, I simply love the theme of the movie. How do seasoned characters go through drastic changes that they feel are against their character? It's something that we're all too familiar with in this world since it's an ever changing one. And like Star Trek VI, real people oppose real world changes even when it's clearly a sign of positive progress. Using the phrase "The Undiscovered Country" is appropriate especially when you look at more of the quote.
The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveler returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
And isn't that what the bad guys in this film are doing? These characters have been in conflict with each other for so long that they've let it define who they are. Just look at how Chang relishes in his warrior status. To him, a warrior with no enemies is a person with no purpose. That's a pretty unique character motivation, especially for Star Trek.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing my re-evaluation of the Trek movies, we come to the last movie featurepingnthe full original cast.
Have to say I'm not a huge fan. For starters, after the excellent location work in the previous two movies, we are now back to another studio-bound movie. Apart from a few quick shots from the second unit on the ice planet, every single scene looks obviously like the backlog on which it was shot.
The story itself is actually pretty good, but it is ruined by some quite abysmal dialogue - if you thought the Melville quotes in Trek II were bad, this is 10 times worse.
Shatner is as ever great and ai like that McCoy is front and centre in this one too. But contrasting their acting is the quite terrible Kim Cattrell (who is usually very watchable but is totally miscast here). In a part which is so obviously Saavik-lite, Valeris is just an abysmal character played without any conviction at all, and badly acted to boot.
Talking of boots and bad acting, kudos to Walter Koenig who, after five previous films of amateur acting, manages to plumb new depths of ineptitude in his performance. His "if the boot fits" scene is so embarrassingly bad, it would have been cut from a kid's fan movie (it isn't helped by the fact that the sticky patch for the gravity boot to stick on against the locker door couldn't be more obvious if it was painted fluorescent green with the words "look! Cheap practical effect coming here!!!").
Add to all of this a score which is unspectacular and derivative and some quite shockingly bad direction from Nick Meyer and you have a Trek film that really is rather average.
I agree with almost all of this. My nitpicks:
- I thought Kim Cattrall was okay. Like Nimoy, she's playing an imaginary kind of person, a Vulcan, so being mannered and artificial kind of comes with the territory. It's hard to be "genuine" when you're supposed to play an unreal kind of person. But I thought she managed it.
- Walter may be the worst of the supporting cast (ST2 "The trrricorder MUST be BRRROKEN!!!"), but he is not alone. Sulu, Uhura, and (on a hit-and-miss basis) Scotty were terrible too. Something about the way they made the classic-cast sequels (fast and cheap) allowed the supporting actors to be terrible.
I just saw THE WOLF OF WALL STREET on cable, and the even smallest roles in that film were played just fine. So how come Martin Scorscese can get good performances from the leads right down to background actors, but the classic-cast Star Trek films have four speaking parts done so badly? So stiff, so rusty.
My guess is that they shot these ST films with no rehearsals, no workshops, no preparation of any kind. On KING KONG, Naomi Watts and Jamie Bell had a three-second dance routine in a montage sequence aboard ship. They worked on it for two weeks so they'd have some dance steps worth shooting. Serious film making involves a lot of cast prep, and Star Trek's first six films did not do that, apparently, at all.
They didn't take supporting performances seriously any more than they cared about technical plausibility. In ST 5 the Enterprise has 78 decks, and the center of the galaxy can be reached in hours. The classic-cast Star Trek films were made with very little care, concern, or respect for the subject. They did not sweat the details, large or small, and it showed throughout.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 29, 2016 - 5:01 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Last Child
(Member)
|
A Spock who man handles a women.
Well... she *was* a violent, cold blooded murderer who was in on a plot and was withholding information that could put a stop to an intergalactic war. Do you really have a problem with Spock reading her thoughts against her will when so many lives are at stake?
He reacted overly emotional, and it was completely out of character.
It wasnt out of character, it was developing the character. Firstly, Spock is Valeris' mentor so his anger isnt at some random Vulcan- he's been betrayed on several levels. We see earlier his humanesque direction when he lets his hair down privately with her, "Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end." Perhaps it's Sybok's Katra talking. And at the end, he get's his cake and eats it with his, "If I were human I believe my response would be 'go to hell.' If I were human...." Well, he's half-human.
When Spock appears in a ST:NG 2-parter, he's gone further in this direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
