ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

Updated on July 26, 2016
Is that god!?!   O.O
Is that god!?! O.O

In Living Color's second star trek parody

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

Director: William Shatner

Writers: Gene Roddenberry, William Shatner, Harve Bennett, David Loughery

Cast: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, David Warner, Laurence Luckinbill, Charles Cooper, Cynthia Gouw, Todd Bryant, Spice Williams-Crosby, Rex Holman, George Murdock

Synopsis: Captain Kirk and his crew must deal with Mr. Spock's half brother who hijacks the Enterprise for an obsessive search for God.

MPAA Rating: PG

Note: In honor of the upcoming new film, "Star Trek Into Darkness", I've taken it upon myself to review every film adaptation of the "Star Trek" franchise; with the notable exception of the 2009 reboot because I already reviewed it.

God in Star Trek (Warning: Might be highly offensive to religious beliefs or lack thereof. Parental Discretion is Advised)

Damn it Jim! You're a starfleet officer! Not a filmmaker!

Is there a god out there? Is there a divine omnipotent being out there that created the heavens and the universe? Or perhaps it's all superstitious nonsense? Who knows? However, I would like to point out to my readers that any criticism I cite in this review does NOT reflect my viewpoints on religion and/or god. No, anything I say is geared specifically towards critiquing the film itself, as I have no intention of commenting on the concept of religion during this review.

Moving on. I should say something about the title of this film. Granted, I'm sure the filmmakers, at the time, didn't know if there was going to be another movie or not after this one, but anytime you hear the words "FINAL" in any movie title, then it kind of leads most people to believe that this is the final movie in the franchise. Therefore, when "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" came out, it just makes it a bit misleading to most moviegoers that aren't familiar with "Star Trek." Sure, it might make sense to hardcore Trekkies, but from a casual moviegoer's perspective, it just comes out as being confusing.

Don't get me wrong, I don't plan on deducting any points for the title, but it's worth pointing out. As for the story of this movie, it essentially picks up after the fourth one. The crew of the enterprise is on shore leave, while Scotty (James Doohan) stays behind for repairs. Unfortunately, Captain Kirk (William Shatner) and his crew are forced to cut their off time short, when a rogue Vulcan kidnaps three ambassadors for the federation, Romulus, and the Klingon empire.

To make matters worse, the enterprise is nowhere near in top critical condition for this mission, as the Klingons are still gunning to take out Kirk by any means necessary. However, through a series of events, we come to find out that the rogue Vulcan is Sybok (Laurence Luckinbill), who happens to be Spock's half brother. Unlike Spock (Leonard Nimoy), Sybok is ruled by emotions rather than logic, and seeks to steal the enterprise to talk to god. Yes, you read right. The god.

And, I'm not speaking spiritually either, nor am I speaking in a metaphorical sense. No, they literally say that Sybok is looking for the god in this movie. The very same god that many readers probably heard and/or read about it text books. Gee....I wonder how this will end...

As I mentioned before, I'm not here to comment on the concepts of religion, nor do I care to comment on my thoughts on god. No, as I stated earlier, my only business is to review the movie at hand. Therefore, that's what I intend to do, and nothing more.

First of all, I don't mind movies that bring up the ideas of god and/or faith, but "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" brings it up in such a nonsensical way that it comes off as silly. The film talks about faith, and the concepts of god, but it never explores those ideas in an interesting way. Nor does William Shatner even attempt to challenge the concept of faith either; which makes it rather boring to watch.

The story takes almost an eternity to get going, as over half of the damn film is nothing but exposition. And to make matters even more frustrating, it's not even set up that well for general audiences to get into it. Plus, that's not even counting the severe plot holes, and the poor character development throughout the film.

And, don't even get me started on Shatner's p*** poor dialogue in this film, as it's just plain awful. One scene for example while Kirk is mountain climbing with his bare hands; with no safety harness. Gee, I guess he's a real macho man. Anyways, Spock flies up to check up on him using a pair of rocket boots, and says, "I don't think you understand the gravity of your situation." You get it? Gravity! Gee, this is one of those lame jokes that you can't help but wonder what the hell Shatner was thinking, when he wrote the damn script. Granted, the last movie had a lot of humor in it too, but at least it was cleverly written. Whereas the jokes in this film, it just comes off as being borderline campy to just straight up stupid.

As for plot holes, I'll admit that maybe I'm missing something here because I don't know everything about "Star Trek" lore, as I'm only a casual fan of the franchise. However, how the hell can Sybok make those images that people have in their heads come to life? Not just for the person whose head it's coming out of, but for everyone else to see as well? Granted, I know a lot of Trekkies might chime in telling me some techno babble on how it's explained in other "Star Trek" mediums and etc. However, if it's not explained in the actual film itself, then it doesn't make any sense; hence you alienate the possibility of acquiring new audiences to get into the series.

Take a film like "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" for example. Granted, the movie was geared primarily to appeal to diehard Trekkies, but it still left enough exposition to where newcomers could still follow it as well; hence making it a great film. Whereas "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier", they never explain once how Sybok has that kind of capability; which is weird considering over half the damn movie was nothing but exposition.

The editing is a bit choppy around the rocket boot escape sequence in the ship, as you can tell they recycle some of the same footage over again during that scene. Plus, the visual effects are inconsistent at best throughout this whole film. Granted, during some scenes, it's impressive like when they actually do meet the alleged god figure. But in other scenes, it just comes off looking laughably cheap; which is sad considering how all the prequels featured vastly superior visuals.

Of course, another thing that bothered me about the script is the total lack of logic in this film. During the beginning, they clearly explain that the enterprise is not even close to being ready to handle any kind dangerous situation, and they're severely understaffed to boot. Granted, this might be forgivable if they were the only ship close enough to save the kidnapped ambassadors in time, but that's not the case either. No, the jacka** Admiral that assigns Captain Kirk this mission explicitly says that there are other ships close by, but they're not as experienced.

Um...quick question. If all you need is Kirk because of his experience, then why not just take a ship that's fully staffed and operational, and then have Kirk serve on that ship temporarily instead? Wouldn't that make a lot more sense? Hell, for plot convenience, they can even have his main enterprise crew join him on a new fully functional ship for this mission. Afterall, "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" proved you can still have a successful "Star Trek" movie without having them serve on the enterprise ship per say. Therefore, this little plot device alone makes zero sense from any kind of narrative standpoint.

(Warning: These next two paragraphs contain spoilers) Another pointless thing about this movie is the scene where Sybok and his followers force Kirk to pilot a shuttle back to the enterprise, before they're shot down by Klingons. During this scene, it's already established that the Klingons want to kill Captain Kirk for no other reason than to prove they're great warriors. Plus, it's also established that the Klingon ambassador becomes hypnotized by Sybok's influence to follow him, and he's on that shuttle craft with them, during that same scene. My only question is this. Since it's very obvious that the Klingon ambassador outranks the captain on the Klingon ship, then wouldn't have made more sense for them to try to have the ambassador contact the Klingon ship first? That way he can order them to stand down.

I know a lot of die hard Trekkies will bring up stuff like how Klingons wouldn't stand down because of their warrior like heritage, pride and etc. However, I would like to point out that Spock convinces the Klingon ambassador to do that anyway in a later scene, and guess what? The Klingon ship stands down. Gee, I wonder why they didn't do that in the first place...

In the end, I could go on all day on how much the script for this movie reeks of mediocrity, but I'm sure readers get my point by now. Overall, this is arguably the worst "Star Trek" movie that I've ever seen next to "Star Trek: Insurrection." Granted, the film does have a lot of interesting ideas, but it's never fleshed out that well, nor do the characters ever get developed in an interesting way. In fact, I would dare even say this is possibly more boring than the first movie ever was. If I never see this film again, then it'll be too soon, as it's not even worth viewing at a rating of one out of four.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • Stevennix2001 profile imageAUTHOR


      7 years ago

      It would really depend on who you ask. For me personally, I started off watching the next generation series and the movies featuring the original cast, and got through those just fine, when I was a kid. However, most trekkies will tell you it's better to start off with the original series first, and then the movies featuring them before watching the next generation series.

      It really depends on you. However, the original series and the next generation both have their own style though. If you're into the campy western theme of wagon trail into the stars of the original series, then you can probably stick with those. Or with the next generation, you can just stick with those if you want a more serious science fiction drama. It's up to you. You can watch either of those series, and get through it just fine without really having to watch the other. Although I wouldn't recommend the spin-off shows unless your willing to watch all of them along with the original series and next generation series because there's a lot of references to them.

      my best advice as far as the movies go, you can pretty much skip "Star trek: The motion picture", as none of the sequels ever mention the events that happen during that movie. From there, you can probably watch like "Star Trek II" to "Star Trek VI." However, I would try to look up the original Star Trek episode entitled "Space Seed" first before viewing any of the movies, since that introduces Khan in the series.

      However, if you don't want to watch the original episode entitled "space seed", then you should still be able to watch those 3 films okay, as they do explain it well enough to where newcomers can still follow it. it's just that if you do see that episode, then it'll just give you more insight on who khan is, and why he hates kirk so much.

      As for the movies featuring the next generation cast, it's a bit more complicated. You can watch "Star Trek: Generations" if you want without knowing too much about the original series as long as you have a general idea who the characters are, or at least heard of them. As for "Star Trek: First Contact", you can probably still get through that one without seeing the next generation series, as the story is still set up well enough for newcomers. however if you have seen the next generation series, then you'll just have a deeper understanding about it. As for the other two films, "Star Trek Insurrection" and "Star Trek Nemesis", that gets a bit more complicated. I wouldn't watch those two unless you've seen not only the next generation series, but the other spin off shows too like "Deep Space Nine" and "voyager."

      if you still don't want to watch all those Trek movies, then the only other options I can recommend are two.

      One, although "Star Trek 4" does have certain plot threads that relate to what happened in part 3, you can still get through that one without knowing anything about "Star Trek" at all. In fact, that's why it's considered the best of the movie series.

      Or you can just simply watch the reboot by J.J. Abrams, as he even admitted that his Trek movies take place in an alternate timeline, so you really don't need to know anything about the series in order to get into it. Plus, it's a lot more action packed than the previous films.

      Anyways, I hope that helps ash, and thanks for stopping by to read my hub. :)

    • ashkeogh profile image


      7 years ago from London- England

      Hey I am new to the franchise except trying the original and next gen series without liking them, other than those what order should I watch the movies and series in to make sense, thanks.


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)