Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Ask the Tropers is for:
- General questions about the wiki, how it works, and how to do things.
- Reports of problems with wiki articles, or requests for help with wiki articles.
- Reports of misbehavior or abuse by other tropers.
Ask the Tropers is not for:
- Help identifying a trope. See TropeFinder.
- Help identifying a work. See MediaFinder.
- Asking if a trope example is valid. See the Trope Talk forum.
- Proposing new tropes. See TropeLaunchPad.
- Making bug reports. See QueryBugs.
- Asking for new wiki features. See QueryWishlist.
- Chatting with other tropers. See our forums.
- Reporting problems with advertisements. See this forum topic.
- Reporting issues on the forums. Send a Holler instead.
Ask the Tropers:
resolved "A time to kill": From Questionable trope entries to a questionable page overall. Film
So...I noticed the page for A Time to Kill was made years ago by erforce, who's account was deleted a while ago. Overall, the way it was all written sounds weirdly apologetic to the two white supremacists while overtly critical to Carl and the protagonists of the film.
I'll be very honest; I'm unfamiliar with the policy in regard to entries with tropes like Black-and-Gray Morality, if any, so I will need the perspective or knowledge of fellow tropers on this one.
I was looking through the page, and then I noticed the entries done for Black-and-Gray Morality, and I noticed this:
* What the men did to his daughter was undoubtedly reprehensible, but did that give Carl Lee the right to take their lives? If it had been a black rapist getting shot, would there be as much discussion? What if it had been your child? Well, much depends on the personal standpoint.
I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this entry, aside from the obvious whataboutism, but there's something that seems a bit off.
I'm also thinking, upon second inspection, it's not just the entries for that trope that are the only problematic thing about the way this page was written. Again, alot of this was edited by other tropers, but I do know that it wasn't really altered so much as it was broken up into smaller entries from what Erforce originally had written. There's more than what I've listed here, but that can be seen on the page itself.
Overall, what should be my next step of action with this? More importantly, what does everyone else make of how this page was written?
Edited by Stardust5099openStrawman Has a Point in Godzilla King of the Monsters 2019 Film
Troper Derv0s B 2 added this to Strawman Has a Point in the YMMV page of Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019):
"A surprising number of viewers reacted this way to the government's Gotta Kill 'Em All demands regarding the Titans. Said viewers argue that while the ending proves The Extremist Was Right, with what little the human race knows about the Titans at the film's start, the demand comes off as highly understandable. Of course, this argument ignores the fact that Monarch have already established before the film's start that the Titans are ecologically essential, and that the government are basically getting it into their heads that they somehow know better than the professional Titan experts."
I think the fact that the entry argues with itself disqualifies it for the trope. What do you say?
resolved A troper added information that is irrelevant / too early to tell Film
I was checking out the King Richard page, and noticed that Troper ovskii
added further information on Win Back the Crowd in the YMMV.King Richard page. The entry originally spoke solely about Will Smith's performance earning back respect from fans and critics after having a spotty filmography as of late. The information that was added earlier today by ovskii has entirely to do with the Oscars controversy.
Since (1) the Oscars just happened this past Sunday — not even a week has passed as of this original post — and I've seen various ATT posts and forum posts here on TVTropes discussing how the controversy is still too soon and recent to say anything about Smith's legacy, and (2) the added information is irrelevant to Smith's performance itself, should that added information still be there, or should it be deleted?
Here is the information added by ovskii: "[...] Sadly, and completely independent of his performance, his popularity dropped dramatically on the very night of his Oscar win, due to him assaulting Chris Rock on stage over a joke about his wife, which then led to Smith resigning from the Academy in shame a few days later."
UPDATE: To any moderator who sees this: request to close out this post as resolved?
Edited by mouschilightopenProblematic entry Film
The YMMV page for the Black Panther film has the following entry under Alternate Character Interpretation:
- Is Killmonger a Death Seeker? Besides refusing medical help after his defeat, he always chooses the self-destructive path. He kills his girlfriend and burns the sacred garden, implying that he isn't interested in having an heir or leaving a legacy for himself even though he's a prince with a legitimate claim to the throne. Furthermore, despite having the skills and connections, Killmonger also chose not to follow a more heroic career like becoming a costumed vigilante, entering politics or starting his own company, thus denying himself the chance to help others and live a life of luxury without the needless deaths. The fact that Killmonger pursues self-defeating atrocities implies that he doesn't care about what happens to himself so long as everyone experiences his suffering. This only makes his evil plan more horrifying in hindsight, since it amounts to a murder-suicide as he intentionally wants millions of innocent lives to die alongside him.
The idea that Killmonger is a Death Seeker may be a valid interpretation, but the entry doesn't make its case very well. Most of what it says simply applies to villains in general not using their skills in a better way, and while Killmonger may be willing to die if necessary, he doesn't seem to see his cause as self-destructive. The specific examples the entry cites don't support this either (burning the garden does not affect his ability to have children, and killing his girlfriend was done in order to kill Klaue, which his entire plan depended on). The last sentence seems especially problematic, as it states this interpretation as though it were fact.
Edited by Javertshark13openDesignated Hero and Villain in Wonder Woman 1984 Film
The YMMV page of Wonder Woman 1984 places both Wonder Woman and the Cheetah as Designated Hero and Villain, respectively, under the following arguments:
- Designated Hero: At its worst, the film makes Steve Trevor out to be more of a heroic figure than Diana herself, particularly where it comes to Steve's situation. From using the body of the "Handsome Man" for sexual activity without any ability to consent (which is sexual assault and/or rape) to her reluctance to ever let this nameless man have his own life back instead of keeping Steve possessing him, she is rather selfish overall, with it being Steve insisting on her going to save the world from catastrophe. Much like the prior film chronologically, she only allows someone or something she truly desires to leave when the object of desire itself says so while telling of her heroism, showing that if she actually has a possible penalty to her actions personally on an emotional level, she would more likely not suffer said consequences at the expense of the world unless forced to.
- Designated Villain: Barbara's wish to be like Diana is completely understandable given her circumstances. She's overlooked by almost everyone at work despite her positive qualities such as her sweetness and her knowledge. She had to rely on Diana to save her from a rapist, with the only lesson said rapist learned from the encounter was that Barbara was powerless on her own. Steve then tells Barbara and Diana that anyone who made a wish on the stone must renounce it regardless of their reasons for making the wish. Diana agrees with Barbara that they just can't do that; they are both reluctant to renounce their wishes. It doesn't help that Barbara's wish is corrupting her mind, while Diana's own wish is for reasons that seem frivolous in the big picture (see Designated Hero). Adding to all of this is that Barbara's less-sympathetic moments only ever kicked in during moments when selfishness would be a natural reaction. For what it's worth, Diana never sees Barbara as a villain and keeps trying to reason with her; Barbara momentarily stops attacking Diana on seeing the latter renounced her wish.
Okay, I have to ask, are these arguments valid? I did watch the movie, personally I believe these arguments to be flawed. The movie goes out of its way to make Wonder Woman realize it's selfish of her to keep her wish, especially because of the price she has to pay. As for Cheetah, she she never visibly renounces her wish even after seeing the consequences the collective wishes of humanity are having on the entire world.
I know that YMMV pages are meant to be opinionated, but it looks like there are people who using this particular YMMV page to voice their grievances with this movie and I would like to remind everyone that TV Tropes and the Internet are not your personal echo chambers you can use to say whatever you want and not expect any consequences.
So, what do you think?
Edited by MasterHeroopenRegarding the main ''Endgame'' quote Film
There seems to be an Edit War regarding the main quote for Avengers: Endgame but it primarily has to do with satisek repeatedly changing the main quote to "Part of the journey is the end." This happened four times already even after the tropers tried expanding Iron Man's initial quote.
The previous quote before the change is: "We lost. All of us. We lost friends. We lost family. We lost a part of ourselves. Today, we have a chance to take it all back. You know your teams, you know your missions. Get the stones. Get them back. One round trip each. No mistakes. No do-overs. Most of us are going somewhere we know. That doesn't mean we should know what to expect. Be careful. Look out for each other. This is the fight of our lives... and we're gonna win. Whatever it takes."
Which quote do you guys do you think best describe the movie itself? Personally, I like Captain America's quote much better.
Edited by Loekman3openWeird trope entry Film
Pokémon Detective Pikachu has a strange, semi-gushy entry on Revisiting the Roots that doesn't seem to fit any of the various cleanup threads, so I brought it here. It reads like it was written by someone dissatisfied with current Pokemon games or someone attempting to justify everything dark in the trailers with evidence from various Pokemon media, while the Detective Pikachu game itself doesn't really have any of that, and Pokemon media after Gen 1 have had those things even though in the franchise as a whole they're uncommon (Team Galactic killed a Clefairy and presumably a bunch of Magikarp, Ghetsis as mentioned tries to attack you directly, a couple Sun and Moon anime episodes were all about people and Pokemon that died, etc.).
"* Revisiting the Roots: The trailers may look out of place with the tone of the main-series games, but they're not too far removed from the anime, manga and games of the original generation, which feature gunsnote An episode of the anime involved the Safari Zone warden utilizing guns heavily, including holding Ash at gunpoint and shooting at Team Rocket, which led to 4Kids skipping over it entirely, profanitynote it's always been in the anime's Japanese dub, realistic violence in Pokémon battlesnote an infamous scene in the manga involves Blue's Charmeleon slicing an Arbok in half and disemboweling it, deathnote besides the aforementioned Arbok, the Lavender Town mission in the Kanto games involves a Mercy Kill on the spirit of a Marowak killed by Team Rocket, and villains using Pokémon to directly attack humans and human citiesnote unlike Mewtwo's destruction of his lab and the siege of Saffron City, non-Pokémon battle violence in the games is either offscreen or unanimated (with some major exceptions, like Ghetsis in Pokémon Black 2 and White 2)."
Any ideas as to what to do with it?
Edited by lalalei2001openCommon Knowledge in Man of Steel Film
Five years after its release and Man of Steel still causes controversy in this very website. Troper Tuvok deleted the Common Knowledge entry in the movies YMMV page.
The entry said: "The final fight scene with Zod has garnered this reputation. People generally describe it as the fight destroying the entire city with Clark being responsible for most of the destruction and being completely indifferent to the rest. In reality, most of Metropolis is left completely untouched and the destruction seems worse than it is because of the focus given to it and the fact that the film doesn't hold back from showing how terrifying it is from a civilian perspective. Similarly, Clark is personally responsible for almost none of it as much of it was done by Zod's world engine or Zod himself and Clark did make an effort to lead him into space and even made a point of avoiding buildings when he punched him at one point. As for claims of indifference, he was busy trying to stop Zod to begin with who wasn't exactly an easy opponent."
Tuvok justified the deletion with: "The damage was calculated as quite large and city wide as shown in B v S , as well as the Director addressing it [1]
. Snyder wanted there be consequences for hero interactions. ‘’’I wanted a big consequence to Superman’s arrival on earth. Certainly, Batman v. Superman sort of cashes in all its chips on the ‘why’ of that destruction.’’’ Which would signify the damage was large. It was also calculated by various outlets [2]
Done by the Watson Technical Consulting to assess the cost. So confirmation the destruction was city wide, the main critisim during the fight was Clarke punching through flying through various building with no indication of making an effort to check damage caused. Making out with his girlfriend with the city in waste in the background did not help."
I must protest the deletion because Common Knowledge is about correcting and clarifying details about a story that average viewers might not be aware of and Tuvok's reasoning is about reaffirming something the viewers already know. Yes, there is an estimation to the city's damage but there were parts of the city that were largely untouched during the climax. Yes, Superman's fight with Zod caused damage but Superman attempted to limit the damage by fighting Zod in the sky. As for claims of indifference, Superman was busy fighting Zod, so it's not like he was shown not caring about civillian casualties.
What do you think?
Edited by MasterHeroopenNot sure about where information has been coming from for Avengers Infinity War. Film
- Lantern Jaw of Justice: Played with. He's a space tyrant with a god complex, but he still features a well defined jawline that you'd see on the various heroes to illustrate he's a Well-Intentioned Extremist meant to be a Foil to the good guys.
- Well-Intentioned Extremist: This version of Thanos is driven to stop what he believes will eventually become an apocalyptic Overpopulation Crisis. By using the Infinity Gauntlet to wipe half of intelligent life, he'll be saving the other half from using up their natural resources faster than those resources can be replenished.
- Freudian Excuse:
- The majority of his species died after an Overpopulation Crisis led them to use up all the natural resources on his homeworld of Titan. Thanos believes it's his duty to stop such a tragedy from ever happening again... even if it means wiping out half the universe to save the other half.
- He was also ostracized during his childhood due to his genetic deformity, which played a major role in shaping his personality.
- Adaptational Heroism: In the comics, Thanos is a Death worshiper who killed half the universe as an offering to his "love". In the MCU, Thanos is a true Well-Intentioned Extremist who believes killing trillions is a necessary evil to "save the universe from itself" and protect trillions more from resource wars, overpopulation, and permanent environmental damage to their own homes.
Where has this information been coming from? I have not found any sources for this anywhere other than this site. I'm tempted to say this might be fake, as the movie hasn't come out yet for starters.
openStranged By the Red String, HTTYD: Hidden World Film
"Not only is applying this to a couple of animals weird on itself but a solid third of the movie is dedicated to the courtship. If you don't like it, put it in broken base, but this does not fit SBTRS"
So I added this example because, while the movie's about Toothless and the Light fury, it's not about their courtship; they have one scene dedicated to their courtship. They pretty much fall in love at first sight, have their four minute "first date", and the rest of the movie is about their relationship taking precedence over literally every other character, relationship, priority, and theme HTTYD has ever presented to us. Thoughts?
Edited by SpacecoyoteopenEdits to YMMV/TheForceAwakens Film
I noticed on The Force Awakens that Clint Rider deleted a bunch of articles/commentary criticizing the identification of Rey as a Mary Sue as well as added some equivocating language that "In general, there are valid argument that can be made either way, but are likely to still attract criticism."
In general, he basically deleted everything criticizing criticism of he movie, especially if directed against MRA types. And changed some entries to be more critical toward the movie.
His edit reason is "What "controversy?" Glorified muckrakers making clickbait headlines aside (And the Fury Road boycott never happened, the only evidence of its existence was said muckrakers who are known for lying), Furiosa got next to no criticism. Also, I don't see the point of actually including Waid and Del Toro's comments as their own thing- the point is already made enough as is."
Edit- Incidentally, was looking at some of their recent edits and while the example itself probably violated The Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement, on Ghostbusters (2016), there was an entry about how the attacks on Leslie Jones by Milo Icantspellhislastname and his followers finally got him kicked off of twitter, he deleted the entry and gave this edit reason: "Debatable, given how Leslie Jones has a lot of skeletons in her own closet, especially in relation to doing the exact same things Milo did. If you wanna say stuff like that, then politely take it to your tumblr."
So yeah, my MRA alarm is going off.
Edited by Hodor2openActor Allusion clarification Film
SOLVED: Production Throwback
Can Actor Allusion be also applied to the director or is it strictly for actors?
In Conspiracy Theory, one of the scenes has the characters hide in a crowded cinema, where they are screening Ladyhawke. Both were directed by Richard Donner and he picked the screened movie himself as a joke.
Edited by TropiarzopenIs Harry Potter an Adaptational Badass? Film
Much like the DC Extended Universe, the Harry Potter saga is no stranger to controversy and this time I wanna focus on our boy Harry
. His character page lists him as an Adaptational Badass under the following conditions:
- In the first book, Harry is barely able to hold off Quirrell, with the effort nearly proving fatal. In the film, Harry kills Quirrell with relative ease, and is still on his feet before being downed by Voldemort's soul when he escapes.
- When confronted by Snape in the Shrieking Shack in the third film, Harry sends him flying into the wall with an Expelliarmus from Hermione's wand, which is supposed to be more difficult with a wand that hasn't chosen him. In the books, this same effect was achieved by him, Ron, and Hermione trying to disarm Snape simultaneously.
- In the fifth book, his duel with the Death Eaters in the Ministry had him fumbling spells a few times including reversing his own spell by accident. The film portrays him as being far more competent overall.
I have to ask: are these entries valid? Adaptational Badass has seen a lot of misuse in recent years and the AB page has a paragraph that says: At its core this causes a significant dissonance with those familiar with the original character. It is not about a change in personality (Martial Pacifist to Blood Knight), method of fighting (defensive Simple Staff to offensive BFS) or battlefield intelligence (Dumb Muscle to Genius Bruiser), but in terms of how relevant they are in a fight. The key is how they are able to navigate through the story. Consider as a result of Power Creep, Power Seep that Superman himself has varied from simply "above human" in strength to near godlike, but he has always been Superman.
Also, I've always believed that Adaptational Badass applies when the character, in his/her entirety, becomes a badass in the adaptation, not when he/she is given small moments of badassery, even when he/she is already a badass in the source material. So, what do you think?
resolved Work with no tropes found Film
Madras Cafe had no tropes listed when I stumbled upon it via Wiki Walk. I've added one from the trope I found it from but it needs more, I've not seen it myself so I'm in no position to add insight on it, and I don't know where else to bring this up (Needs More Wicks seems to be cases of trope pages needing listing, not works).
openRed Zone Cuba entries Film
The YMMV page for Red Zone Cuba has the following entries for Designated Hero and Unintentionally Unsympathetic:
- Designated Hero: The main characters are entirely unsympathetic, particularly Griffin. He is supposed to be viewed as a put-upon everyman who just suffers from poor impulse control, but is instead portrayed as a selfish, violent, and hypocritical murderer and rapist. When the work page describes Griffin as "one of the most disturbingly realistic portrayals of a sociopath in film", something went wrong.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Griffin was meant to be seen as a mostly decent person who was down on his luck and held back by a Hair-Trigger Temper, and what happens to him at the end of the movie was supposed to be tragic and thought-provoking. However, he does nothing even remotely heroic or altruistic at all throughout the entire story; anything he does that seems so (asking for water for a sick man in a POW camp, or treating the wife of said sick man nicely) is merely calculated to advance his own agenda. Griffin was supposed to have fallen beyond sympathy when he rapes a blind girl and murders her father, but he failed to establish any sympathy to lose by that point.
The entries don't cite any evidence that Griffin was meant to be sympathetic, and having seen the uncut film, it doesn't come off that way at all. He comes off simply as a Villain Protagonist who's driven by greed and gets his comeuppance at the end. No one in the film expresses sympathy for his death, and aside from grim music briefly playing when he's shot down, there's no hint of it being meant to be tragic. Also, his line that he wants to "go legit" is followed by him saying, "I don't want any bulls chasing me," so in context it's clearly Pragmatic Villainy rather than him wanting to redeem himself.
It's worth noting that Coleman Francis's films in general are dark and gritty, and tend to focus on unsympathetic characters, so this may simply be his Signature Style, and Griffin being the Villain Protagonist may have been mistaken for the film portraying him as the hero. Can these be cut?
Edited by Javertshark13openHarry Ellis Whitewashing/Edit War Avoidance Film
On Characters.Die Hard, mattc0tter re-added some whitewashing/ACI of Harry Ellis
that I previously deleted on account of the movie never showing Ellis to be anything other than a selfish prick. I do not want to get in an edit war over this, but I want to make very clear that having seen the film, Ellis' benevolent intentions are ACI at best.
openFilm/TheBatman concerning edits Film
Edit: Was tired when I wrote this this morning, edited to explain their edits.
Jeyeraj has some concerning edits on Film.The Batman 2022 and Characters.The Batman 2022. In the movie Selina decries that Rich Privileged White guys are the ones running Gotham. I'm not gonna say that black people can't be racist against white people (I don't like that prejudice plus power definition outside of academia), but this really doesn't feel like that. In the universe of the movie, that's an objective fact, most of the people in power are privileged white people. I'd need more to say she's racist towards white people. He insinuates in his edits that this makes her a bigot. Finally he insinuated that the Riddlers were occupy wall-streetesque, when I felt they were more QANON ajacent..
I just also found an edit where he posted about the Videogame.Ready Or Not and Kotaku's criticism of the games school shooting level. He talks more about the article than the game itself in the edit, which is trivia at best. His criticism of the article definitely seems to be political in nature.
There's also this edit on Film.Black Widow: %%"Their" or spoilering the pronouns would give away the reveal that Taskmaster isn't a man, as the film presents her until the reveal.%% (They are talking about taskmaster). And in that edit they changed the pronouns of the example from "their" back to "his". Taskmaster in the film is a women. I felt like it was perfectly valid to use "their" pronouns to disguise the gender.
I definitely feel like he's editing with an agenda.
Edited by jjjj2openWeird reorganization on What an Idiot!.Saw Film
Recently, Ansongc2000 has done a reorganization process for What an Idiot!.Saw that I find rather weird. To wit, not long beforehand, I had created folders for each film to concur with the first "In General" entry added to the page, especially as some of the film sections were already quite long by then. Then Ansongc walked in and added a decent bunch of new examples (while also removing or rearranging a few existing ones without much explanation other than them being "bad") for the first seven films, while also grouping them in a single folder and leaving Jigsaw and Spiral with their respective folders; they also removed the "Series-wide" and "By movie" headers I added to split the "In General" folder and the movie-specific ones in their own parts. In fact, they relegated the "By movie" name to the new folder for the first seven movies, even though it doesn't make sense when put alongside the Jigsaw and Spiral folders with their respective films' titles.
Even if grouping the movies by major storyline can be reasoned because of Jigsaw and Spiral having time gaps with both the first seven consecutive films and each other, it leaves a somewhat disproportioned and confusing structure for me, especially as plenty of the first seven movies' sections are now as long as the ones that used to be the longest before Ansongc's edits (not to mention to aforementioned issue with the "By movie" name). Even though I did the previous structure myself, I honestly prefer that structure for a movie series' What an Idiot! page over the page's current one.
By the way, I informed Ansongc about this query via private message.
Edited by Inky100openSalvaged Story entries Film
On the YMMV page for the Black Panther film, several entries under Author's Saving Throw were moved to Salvaged Story:
- Following in the footsteps of the Vulture, the Grandmaster, and Hela, Killmonger was chosen as a deliberate attempt to create a sympathetic and memorable MCU bad guy after a string of widely-criticized and forgettable Generic Doomsday Villains. Given the amount of "Killmonger Was Right" memes currently circulating around the web, it's probably safe to say they succeeded and then some. Much the same goes for Klaue who became a fan-favorite as a Laughably Evil companion of Killmonger.
- The filmmakers have gone out of their way to avoid the continuity problems that have plagued the MCU. While the Marvel movies are widely praised, they have been criticized for Continuity Lock-Out and focusing more on setting up sequels. Black Panther functions as a self-contained story with almost no references to the previous film or characters outside of the news broadcast and Ross briefly recapping T'Challa's arc in Captain America: Civil War and the post-credits scene involving Bucky Barnes in Wakanda, thereby making it more accessible for casual fans.
- In the comics, M'Baku the Man-Ape is a savage, brutish Scary Black Man who dresses up as a gorilla, which brings to mind uncomfortable racist caricatures comparing black people to monkeys and apes. This movie doesn't use the "Man-Ape" moniker and downplays the gorilla imagery, while hitting him with a dose of Adaptational Heroism to turn him into an Anti-Villain who undergoes a Heel–Face Turn.
The problem is that none of these seem to fit the trope's current definition (which is about a problematic story element being explained) but rather focus on the film avoiding problems that previous entries had.
Edited by Javertshark13

13 days ago I removed the following from Star Trek V: The Final Frontier:
Now, it should be noted that the movie's failings aren't all Shatner's fault. We can also thank Executive Meddling for all the forced "humor", while the 1988 WGA strike short-circuited the screenwriting and the infamous Special Effect Failure was due to ILM being too busy with a few other projects to work on the film.
Still, the basic concept was Shatner's idea (although making Sybok Spock's brother was a Harve Bennett decision), and he knew about the studio's humor requirements before he even began work. Gene Roddenberry himself had expressed strong reservations about the pitch; he had good reason to be concerned, as he had previously written his own story
about the crew meeting God and hated the result. (Though it should also be noted that Roddenberry's own counteroffered idea was, as it had been since the second movie, for the Enterprise crew to go back in time and either stop or commit the JFK assassination.) But Shatner persisted with the idea of Kirk beating God. Star Trek and religious topics have always been uneasy bedfellows; Roddenberry's well-documented atheism practically forced the series to always turn whatever "God" it ran into (the being in this movie as well as the Q Continuum) into Sufficiently Advanced Aliens. Deep Space Nine is the only series to pull it off, and Trekkies are divided on even that. Nevertheless, many fans prefer to ignore this entry entirely and simply go from the fourth movie directly to the sixth. Frontier is also the only one of the original films to have never been given a Director's Cut; Shatner has always wanted to do it, but Paramount Pictures likewise refuses to let him.
This movie isn't a total write-off, though: Star Trek V also features plenty of Character Development scenes between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy (the Bookends with the three camping are quite enjoyable), a brilliant backstory scene involving McCoy and his father, and has a collection of well-imagined individual sequences such as Coming in Hot with a shuttlecraft. Consensus is that while Shatner's storytelling abilities might be a bit on the weak side, he certainly had an eye for good setpieces. Josh Marsfelder at Vaka Rangi, and his commenters, have much more to say about what is right as well as wrong with The Final Frontier
.
I left the following edit reason:
12 days ago The Amazing Blachman
added this:
With the following edit reason: