Star Trek V versus Attack Of The Clones

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Both very flawed film, but which one do you like better.

I definatly prefer Star trek V, which is a very flawed film

failed script

For instance, a lot of effort is made of setting up the situation with the Federation, Romulan and Klingon ambasadors and then they are all but neglected for the rest of the film.

Illfaited concerpt

The Enterprise on route to Paradise, to meet God?

That's not what Classic Trek was about, i think nobody watching the film ever didn't expect the God creature to be real.

bad special effects

OK, a few moments are visually interesting, but they cannot even make the Enterprise going to Warp look believable.

TNG was doing better in it's first season.

Clumsily directed scenes

Worst of them being the Turbolift scene, were you can see the shadow of the pole suspending Shatner and Nimoy, while we are supposed to believe they are flying.

I know Shatner was a first time director, but Andrew Laszlo had been shooting films for over 20 years.

Scotty banging his head on a bulkhead

Yet, for all these faults, and more, it's not a boring film, like AOTC.

And it has a heart.

This was the first Trek film I ever saw, although i already knew TNG very well, the characters of Kirk, Spock and McCoy were all but unknown to me.

Yet, i cared about them, they were smart, witty and exiting.

Those scenes with them around the camp fire, OK, they have nothing to do with the rest of the film, but they are great.

AOTC, for all it's technical marvels cannot compeat with 3 aging men trying to sing Row row row your boat and roasting Marchmellons.

Stefancos- who's not sure if this poll has any use....

[Lurker 5]

There is no contest. Trek V is the superior film. It didn't make me hate the entire franchise. It has heart, as you said. It's never boring. Amateurish and sloppy, but not boring. AOTC commits the cardinal sin, by being dull.

Neil

[Guest]

ST V also boasts a great Jerry Goldsmith score that needs to be reissued as a complete score.

Shatner's direction is at times clumsy (a lot of running around....he's in TJ Hooker mode during those action scenes) but he sure as hell makes up for it in the brilliant scene with Bones and Spock during Sybok's trip into the past scenario. McCoy coming to grips with his father's euthenisia is a stand-out.

To have Sulu fall off a horse and shoot a few phasers....thank God he was given EXCELSIOR in ST 6....and the love interest between Scotty and Uhuru was better fleshed out in the book than it was on screen. And to have a naked Uhuru made me cringe. Now a naked Captain Janeway....I'd have paid big money to see that.

The FX are crap because ILM was doing INDY III and BACK TO THE FUTURE II or was it III???

Sybok was interesting but I never believed in his conquest for GOD. A passionate Vulcan as Bones claims earlier on. I have believed it if he was on a search for Bill Shatner's waistline.

I enjoyed Bill Shatner's directorial debut and wishes he'd direct more. His TJ Hooker-directed episodes are good if they were ever on TV again.

Hitch, toasting marshmallows in Yosemite National Park with Sharon, my new blonde bit-on-the-side.

[Hitch 57]

ST V also boasts a great Jerry Goldsmith score that needs to be reissued as a complete score.

Shatner's direction is at times clumsy (a lot of running around....he's in TJ Hooker mode during those action scenes) but he sure as hell makes up for it in the brilliant scene with Bones and Spock during Sybok's trip into the past scenario. McCoy coming to grips with his father's euthenisia is a stand-out.

To have Sulu fall off a horse and shoot a few phasers....thank God he was given EXCELSIOR in ST 6....and the love interest between Scotty and Uhuru was better fleshed out in the book than it was on screen. And to have a naked Uhuru made me cringe. Now a naked Captain Janeway....I'd have paid big money to see that.

The FX are crap because ILM was doing INDY III and BACK TO THE FUTURE II or was it III??? The gravity boots sequence that had McCoy and Kirk hanging onto Spock inside the Enterprise was badly edited. As they shoot upwards from Sybok's horde, they pass the same deck TWICE. Though ST 6 has to be the worst edited movie to come out of Hollywood. I'd personally hang all those Paramount executives.

Sybok was interesting but I never believed in his conquest for GOD. A passionate Vulcan as Bones claims earlier on. I have believed it if he was on a search for Bill Shatner's waistline.

I enjoyed Bill Shatner's directorial debut and wishes he'd direct more. His TJ Hooker-directed episodes are good if they were ever on TV again.

[Morn 8]

Hmm, AOTC has better FX, some fun action scenes and a Williams score. But it's disjointed and makes no sense as a full movie. Trek V is an entertaining movie with a decent story..... just lacks everything else, rather tricky question. But I guess Trek V wins.

[Lurker 5]

The FX are crap because ILM was doing INDY III and BACK TO THE FUTURE II or was it III???

Last Crusade and Ghostbusters II I think were the films.

And what's wrong with Trek VI's editing?

Neil

[MrScratch 294]

Trek V is a terrible movie... its better than Phantom Menace but not better than Attack of the Clones. I vote for Clones!

[Melange 446]

I'll save everyone the trouble. Both are very poor films

But Jerry's wonderful score to ST-V is a fav of mine. :

And Johnnys score to AOTC did'nt do very much for me.

[Guest]

Hmm,even with the hacked up score,bad acting and weak dialogue,AotC manages to be very entertaining (and I loved it on IMAX).Some great SFX,sound effects,action scenes,and incredible detailing in every frame.Star Trek 5 is just a waste if time,I don't even watch it when it airs on TV.

K.M.

[Guest]

Both very flawed film, but which one do you like better.

I definatly prefer Star trek V, which is a very flawed film  

failed script

For instance, a lot of effort is made of setting up the situation with the Federation, Romulan and Klingon ambasadors and then they are all but neglected for the rest of the film.

Illfaited concerpt  

The Enterprise on route to Paradise, to meet God?

That's not what Classic Trek was about, i think nobody watching the film ever didn't expect the God creature to be real.

bad special effects

OK, a few moments are visually interesting, but they cannot even make the Enterprise going to Warp look believable.

TNG was doing better in it's first season.

Clumsily directed scenes

Worst of them being the Turbolift scene, were you can see the shadow of the pole suspending Shatner and Nimoy, while we are supposed to believe they are flying.

I know Shatner was a first time director, but Andrew Laszlo had been shooting films for over 20 years.

Scotty banging his head on a bulkhead

 

Yet, for all these faults, and more, it's not a boring film, like AOTC.

And it has a heart.

This was the first Trek film I ever saw, although i already knew TNG very well, the characters of Kirk, Spock and McCoy were all but unknown to me.

Yet, i cared about them, they were smart, witty and exiting.

Those scenes with them around the camp fire, OK, they have nothing to do with the rest of the film, but they are great.

AOTC, for all it's technical marvels cannot compeat with 3 aging men trying to sing Row row row your boat and roasting Marchmellons.  

Stefancos- who's not sure if this poll has any use....

I can't believe what i'm about to say, but I agree again with our fellow member.

Klesko24

[NeejaHalycon 0]

I have to go with Trek V. At least the performances are watchable, with a couple classic Kirk-Spock-McCoy moments. Kirk's speech about his "pain" is the only really bad scene. Also, I love Sybok's bit about Columbus, the sound barrier, and warp speed. I think of that everytime someone says that it's impossible to go faster than the speed of light.

Finally, it is a great score, and it does deserve a full release. I especially want the cue with the The Mountain Theme at the end.

[Lurker 5]

At least the performances are watchable

Spock: "You must allow us to act."

Kirk: "Let me do something!"

Speaks volumes about the film.

Neil

[Justin 2]

It's hard to say. They both are really crappy films. I'm a bigger Trek fan then I am a Wars fan. The trailers for V were acctually kind of interesting. Overall I'd prefer to watch AOTC. It's sad I know but at least I can get a kick out of Lee's performance and the SFX.

Justin -Who thinks parts of AOTC are a lot worse than V.

[Guest]

I'm going with Melange on this one. They both had a lot more potential. Then again, so do a lot of movies that wind up failing miserably.

Both have great scores. Both are entertaining. But that's about the only things they have in common.

STV was better-written, performed more competently, and never really got boring.

AOTC had a bigger budget to make nearly everything in the film aesthetically better, it had the Jango-Obi-Wan fight, and we got to see one of the most evil villains in history (if you can call him a villain) start to lose it and get his reputation for evil.

Whatever one film is lacking, the other supplies. Even though it sounds like they complement each other, they don't. If you put the two together, they correct each other's flaws, but they don't make each other better. If you put the two together, they are still far behind from being as good as movies like American Graffiti or Braveheart.

[Uni 306]

This was tougher than I thought it would be....

Neither film stands up well to multiple viewings, so in the end I had to go with my impressions from the initial viewing of each. I remember seeing the trailer for STV and getting really juiced about seeing the movie (yes, it was a cool trailer, Justin...!). Then I had to sit through the movie itself. I can't express the disappointment I felt. I kept waiting for it to get good, for the story to start getting interesting, for the action scenes to get exciting, for the--but it never happened. The stuff that was supposed to be funny rarely got laughs, whereas the rest of the film--the serious stuff--earned unintentional laughs (or were those groans...?).

I've made my overall opinion of Clones no secret around here, certainly. But I do recall my initial reaction to the film--not to mention my first post about it here--and I'm not ashamed to say I did enjoy that one the first time around. I was able to suspend my disbelief (sure, it took and industrial-size crane to do it, but at least it got off the ground). I felt that the campiness from the original trilogy had filtered into it on some microscopic, unconscious level. There's no question about it being one of those flicks that you walk away from wondering just what it was you were having so much fun with; the "substance" of it dissolves almost as soon as you leave the theater. However, at least I got to enjoy it while I was there. In STV, my heart began sinking from the first few minutes, and like the Titanic, it was completely submerged in about two hours.

- Uni

P.S. The fifth big-screen installment of Star Trek made one of the best Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes ever. Some of the best lines I remember:

- The three shadows chanting Rocks, rocks, rocks, rocks! every time anything resembling stone appeared on screen--which was pretty often.

- McCoy looking at his dying father: "My God, I've forgotten how to act!"

- When the curved monoliths rise out of the ground on the destination planet: "The Spare Ribs of God!"

Hilarious.

[Lurker 5]

That's not a real episode of MSTie, but a fan produced entity.

Neil

[ymenard 54]

Sorry but no Trekkie in the world will be able in my mind to prove me that ST:V is actually a watchable movie. AOTC is like Citizen Kane compared to ST:V!!! (except for Goldsmith's score, that's the only acceptable thing about that movie)

[NeejaHalycon 0]

Spock:  "You must allow us to act."

Kirk:  "Let me do something!"

Speaks volumes about the film.

Neil

I laughed out-loud at this, but I'm not sure why.

[Guest]

OK, OK... AOTC may be the worst Star Wars movie to date, (I'm very skeptical of E3, it BETTER be good) but it was at least watchable.

And still... IMO, the worst SW film is better than the best ST film. For me, it's that way at least.

Star Trek movies are so boring to me. I loved the comedy in 4 and liked 3 and the one where Kirk died (I lost count, what was it, 203?), but still... the others are an interesting, (well... sometimes boring) 2 or so hours.

[Guest]

That was me, Chris Chrushercomix. I sign in and still?

[Joel 0]

I agree with Chris actually...as bad as AOTC was, i can never remember really enjoying any star trek films except for first contact, which, in my opinion is the best Trek film. I've watched many ST films on TV and i watched the most recent two at the movies, but i've hated all of them accept first contact. So my vote goes with AOTC.

[Joel 0]

oops, hehehe...i used 'accept' instead of 'except'

please just ignore my spelling errors...

Joel-who is now very concerned about his English SAT exam's next month...

[Ren 75]

ST V

[Lurker 5]

oops, hehehe...i used 'accept' instead of 'except'

please just ignore my spelling errors...

Joel-who is now very concerned about his English SAT exam's next month...

In the future, you can just use the "edit" feature to fix your posts, instead of padding your post count by pointing out your horrendous use of the english language.

Neil - being an ass

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

And being a very good ass too.

Stefancos-

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Star Trek V is such a bad film, even worse than Nemesis, which has an advantage in production values, but nothing else.

AOTC is a visual feast that is devoid of a soul. Unlike Chris' undying devotion to all things Star Wars, any rational being would realize that Wrath of Kahn, Search for Spock, Voyage Home, and First Contact are all better films, on almost any level.

So neither film is very good, I will choose the lesser of two evils and say AOTC is the better film, but not by much.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Even Star trek V has good parts, don't tell me that you of all people were not the slighest bit moved by the campfire scenes?

Stefancos- who played Star trek Nemesis and CMIYC today, and frankly preferred Nemesis.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Even Star trek V has good parts, don't tell me that you of all people were not the slighest bit moved by the campfire scenes?  

Stefancos- who played Star trek Nemesis and CMIYC today, and frankly preferred Nemesis.

Yes I was moved.... to get up and change the channel.

Joe, not surprised Stefan prefers Nemesis, since Jazz is a style that

Steef probably has little exposure to.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Wrong, Joe, my mother is a big fan of jazz and Blues, i have been exposed to it all my life.

I really like CMIYC, and i'm sure it's perfect for the film.

But i do not yet consider it a great score.

Yep, 2002 was definatly a substandard Williams year.

Atleast we got 2 good Goldsmith scores.

Stefancos- who really likes the Fathers theme.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Atleast we got 2 good Goldsmith scores

wrong Stefan, at least you think so, I think Goldsmith is total crap of late.

Joe, who is torturing himself by viewing Battlefield Earth.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Well opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one.

Stefancos- who knows he's no more right or wrong then Joe.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

I hate jazz typically, but I really like CMIYC. Someone here described it as jazzy rather than actual jazz, so maybe that's why.

Ray Barnsbury

[Wojo 2,453]

Why are we comparing Star Trek V to AOTC and not to TPM ?

Oh wait.

The Final Frontier beats both.

[Lurker 5]

Joe, who is torturing himself by viewing Battlefield Earth.

Hey, a new poll! What's worse Attack of the Clones or Battlefield Earth?

Neil

[JoeinAR 1,949]

What's worse Attack of the Clones or Battlefield Earth ?  

Battlefield Earth by a long shot, though at least John Travolta had fun with his role, something Ewen McGregor and Natalie Portman could at least try to do next time.

Joe, who thinks EM and NP are terrible actors.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Attack of the Clones,

but you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to find a film I like better.

[Guest]

I'm glad you clarified that you meant Battlefield Earth the movie and not Battlefield Earth the novel. As flawed as the movie may appear to be to the average viewer, I find it at least respectable. It attempted to condense the first half of what I found to be a very engaging, interesting, and well-written novel, all 1048 pages of it. True, it's far fetched, sure it's impossible, but that's what makes it good science fiction. I was not able to put it down two years ago when I picked it up.

The movie does not begin to do justice to the book, and I'd love to someday see a Sci-Fi mini-series try to adapt it faithfully, like they've done with Dune. The performances and effects were all laughable, at best, and this was not the labor of love that TLOTR or Spiderman or X-Men or Harry Potter were. Such a movie will, of course, never happen, because Hubbard invented a religion of which Travolta is a leading advocate, and therefore the critics find the two, Hubbard and his religion, inseparable, even though this book was written before his religion was organized. I don't know a thing about it, nor do I want to, but I do know that Battlefield Earth THE NOVEL is good old-fashioned science fiction that I couldn't put down. The ending had my jaw through the floor, I could not see it coming and it was really well planned out.

The book was only six bucks at WalMart, and it ranks up there among my favorite, next to JP, HFRO, TLOTR, the Shaara & North and South literary trilogies, et al.

The movie, I'll prolly never watch again, at least not sober.

[Wojo 2,453]

That was me, friends, defending Battlefield EarthTHE NOVEL. I'm in a computer lab on campus and I logged in, but it must not have registered or something screwed up...grr...

C'est la vie, non?

[Rogue_Leader 2]

As flawed as the movie may appear to be to the average viewer, I find it at least respectable

You found it "respectable"???

BATTLEFIELD EARTH!?!?!?!

You joking? Dude that was the worst movie of 2000 when it came out.

-Rogue Leader who is not surprised this guy posted as a "Guest" ashamed to reveal his true identity!

[Wojo 2,453]

As flawed as the movie may appear to be to the average viewer, I find it at least respectable

You found it "respectable"???

BATTLEFIELD EARTH!?!?!?!

You joking? Dude that was the worst movie of 2000 when it came out.

-Rogue Leader who is not surprised this guy posted as a "Guest" ashamed to reveal his true identity!

Hey buddy, did you read the damn book?

If you didn't, then it's obvious why you wouldn't find one iota of respectability in it.

I posted as "Guest" simply because I was in a computer lab and logged in on the main page, but when I tried to quote a previous message, it logged me out, forcing my long post to be rendered as from "Guest." I am insulted that you would insinuate that I should find shame in respecting Battlefield Earth for attempting to adapt Hubbard's novel to the big screen. It's a huge undertaking and was seriously blinded by Travolta's own personal opinions, namely, the film was biased by his post-BE-Hubbard-esque opinions, and what he thought would be funny.

I never saw the need to praise the movie as being among the best of the year 2000. You must not have read my entire post, you missed my final point in which I said I would probably not watch the movie again simply because it is so heavily flawed and riddled with bad dialogue, poor acting, lousy effects, and loud score. Well, all but one the third of those could describe Attack of the Clones, but that's not the point. The point is that only someone who read the novel Battlefield Earth could ever hope to appreciate the movie Battlefield Earth, and that is only with a heavy heart, a sigh, and a wish that it had been executed much better, like the labor of love that translated into The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and X-Men.

Rogue Leader, you have demonstrated to me just how narrow your vision is when you are unable to respect another person's opinions of a movie they can barely appreciate, yet still not totally enjoy.

Read the book, then we'll talk, ok?

I'm not ashamed.

I am Darth Wojo.

And yes, the avatar is the shield power-up from the Descent computer games.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Darth I think you took that a little bit too personal.

I was clearly joking. Well OK half joking. I will admit the movie is a complete piece of garbage IMO with no redeeming aspects. However, when I made the comment about you not logging in because you were ashamed to admit your defense of the film, that was just a joke. I realized you were just "logged out" by the system. Sorry if that offended you. It was merely a joke. Nothing personal.

Look as for your above comments about showing the film respect for "what it attempted to achieve", SORRY PAL! Look I don't care what the hell a movie is "attempting". All that matters to me is what is up there on the screen at the end of the day. With Battlefield Earth is was 2 hours of pure cinematic shit. Pure and simple. Sorry if you disagree. Phantom Menace "attempted" to expand the SW Saga and enhance it. What it ended up doing was brining shame to the SW name. Its not what you plan to do, but what you ACTUALLY do that matters to me.

OH and BTW why should I even give the film respect for trying to bring Battlefield Earth to the screen? Its not like this is "War and Peace" dude! Its just some cheesy ass sci-fi novel. Your probably the first person to speak of the book in such high regard I've ever heard from who wasn't some kind of Scientologist freak like Travolta.

Look in the end I am sorry if you took offense from my previous comments or the comments in this post personal I apologize. Its not my intention to insult you. I am merely stating my feelings that the movie is a TOTAL TRAIN WRECK! Nothing is gonna make me change my mind on that. Sorry.

-Rogue Leader who wanted to be nicer with that post but just couldn't when commenting on a "Film" (can't believe I called it that) that makes The Phantom Menace look like The Empire Strikes Back!

[Guest]

I saw battlefeild earth when i was 10, and i didn't mind it when i first saw it, but i re-watched it just recentlyon TV and it amazes me how i ever thought it was OK! That film looks like a pile of dung to me now. I would prefere AOTC over Battlefeild Earth without any worries.

[Justin 2]

The book is better than the film. Although I don't really care for the novel either.

Justin -Who prefers AOTC too BF.

[Lurker 5]

Battlefield Earth was a great book. The movie is just pure 100% junk.

Neil

[Uni 306]

OH and BTW why should I even give the film respect for trying to bring Battlefield Earth to the screen? Its not like this is "War and Peace" dude! Its just some cheesy ass sci-fi novel. Your probably the first person to speak of the book in such high regard I've ever heard from who wasn't some kind of Scientologist freak like Travolta.  

Once again, you've levelled judgement on a book you haven't even read--which, as it happens, is not just some "cheesy-ass sci-fi novel." In a sense it's sort of the War and Peace of the science fiction category, a broadly engaging piece of work that's sweeping in its scope, brilliant in its satire (especially concerning economies), exhilirating in its action, and wickedly funny. (And no, I am not a "Scientologist freak like Travolta." Far from it.)

Your reputation as literary critic is only going to get progressively worse as long as you insist on weighing in on books you haven't even read, RL. :roll:

As for the movie, was every bit as horrendous and nearly unwatchable as everyone says. Sorry, Wojo....but I can't bring myself to respect the attempt to bring it to the screen, even after reading the novel, when the attempt produced such gut-wrenching results on every level. It should never have been done. I'd watch both AOTC and STV a hundred times each before I subjected myself to even one more idiotically-tilted camera shot from Bunglefield Earth.

However, for those of you who haven't read it--and are perhaps holding out on the basis of Roger Christiansen's disaster--give it a try. Now's a great time for it; they just came out with the 25th Anniversary hardcover edition. It was too beautiful to resist, so I picked up yet another copy of the book. One of these days, I'll have to read it again....

- Uni

[Guest]

Allow me to condense how I feel about the movie:

[quote="Darth Wojo & Darth Wojo as Anonymous"]

...flawed [is]...the movie...the movie does not begin to do justice to the book...the performances and effects were all laughable, at best....the movie, I'll prolly never watch again, at least not sober...I would...not watch the movie again simply because it is so heavily flawed and riddled with bad dialogue, poor acting, lousy effects, and loud score...only someone who read the novel Battlefield Earth could ever hope to appreciate the movie Battlefield Earth, and that is only with a heavy heart, a sigh, and a wish that it had been executed much better, like the labor of love that translated into The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and X-Men.

[Morn 8]

What's wrong with sci-fi novels.

[Guest]

What a cheap attempt to pull Star Wars down to Star Trek!

Even the worst of Star Wars is lightyears ahead of Star Trek!

Ano Nym

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

If that were so then there would not be 7 people here who disagreed.

You don't like my poll, don't vote in it.

Stefancos- not surprised by the outcome so far.

[Morn 8]

I think this poll shows the result of unwarrented social aversion to Trek.