The War On Terror meets The Final Frontier and asks the most important question of all time.
What does God need with a starship?
This article comes fromDen of Geek UK.
Thats about all anyone remembers from the infamousStar Trek V: The Final Frontier.
Over the years, the tale has grown in the telling.
Some called it one of the worst films of all time, others call it a box office catastrophe.
It is remembered merely as a vanity project gone horribly wrong.
But ask yourself this.
What does God need with a starship?
Can you answer it?
Can you understand the question?
To dismiss it out of hand is to dismiss the opportunity to think.
Do not turn your brain off.
Star Trek V: The Final Frontieris the ultimate question.
What does God need with a starship?
To answer it, we need religion, politics, philosophy, and the human condition.
It is an exploration not of space, but of existence.
These goals are accomplished, although how well accomplished is left as an exercise for the viewer.
Superficially,Star Trek Vis a mess.
But then again, if youre watching superficially, perhaps youre already missing the point.
This is not an adventure story.
This is a biting, vicious allegory of religious extremism.
Relevant now perhaps more than ever, as it shows startling parallels to the current war against Islamic State.
But now, in the modern world,Star Trek Vfinally makes sense.
This is not the film you were warned about.
This is not a film where the Enterprise literally goes looking for God.
It is right wing.
The undulating success ofStar Trekmeans the franchise is hard to predict, even retrospectively.
In actuality, the late 80s nearly saw the death of the franchise.The Next Generationdidnt hit the ground running.
AfterStar Trekstock had been so high in 1986, 1987 saw it crashing back to Earth.
So what better than to wheel out the original crew for another film?
That should fix everything, right?
Well, problems emerged from the start.
The special effects problems were notorious.
ILM reportedly demanded an extortionate amount of money, and Shatner was forced to look elsewhere.
The climax had to be butchered to account for the million-dollar rockman suit simply not working at all.
read more: The Star Trek Movies You Never Saw
His storycrafting, too, was not at fault.
His idea was dark, subversive, but literal.
They travel to Eden, only to find it resembles Hell.
To say Paramount hated the idea was an understatement.
Everyone aside from Shatner despised the idea.
It seems, therefore, that the filming script forStar Trek Vwas basically the first draft.
Not all of the comedy was a misfire.
But there is a purpose to these scenes that is important.
McCoy is… well, McCoy.
So what of Sybok?
At least, in a way.
However, over time this change actually has benefited the film enormously.
One could even claim he is radicalizing himself.
Of course, Starfleet are in a bind.
Am I saying thatStar Trek Vshould be treated in the same way as1984?
But perhaps if I had more courage I would say yes.
The plan, as presented, does not work.
Sybok is gambling that the Federation will show up, and wont simply beam the hostages off the surface.
If the Klingons or Romulans show up, its likely theyll just glass the whole planet from orbit.
Its not like anyone even cares about the so-called Planet of Intergalactic Peace.
It should be intragalactic or interstellar.
Im not entirely sure that wasnt deliberate.
A single line about a magnetic shield would solve all problems.
His plan A was to radicalize the ambassadors and have them take over the Enterprise.
A finished script would have made it explicit.
On Nimbus III a battle erupts.
What is interesting about the battle is that Syboks reaction is it wasnt bloodshed I wanted!
Actual guns too, not phasers.
One of them even has a minigun.
Yes, but it is important to note that he believes what he says.
He believes he is a peaceful man and all others are violent, as all extremists do.
Safely aboard, Sybok begins radicalizing everyone in sight.
His techniques are the same used by any religious fanatic hoping to draw people to their cause.
The best, though is yet to come.
McCoy is plagued with guilt about the death of his father, or rather the euthanasia of his father.
To make matters worse, soon after a cure was found.
A doctor put in the position of doing the right thing yet causing a needless death?
Yeah, thatll screw you up.
His next attempt is with Spock, who he believes hides the pain of his dual heritage.
In fact, he is utterly wrong Spock carries the old pain but has long since dealt with it.
Syboks superficial savior undone by his brother, who sees through the illusion.
Kirk too sees through it, but in a different way.
He needs his pain, as do we all.
Radicalization preys on the weak, whether that means intellectually, socio-economically, or emotionally.
In McCoy we see weakness, but an understandable one.
That he is not utterly converted is because his ties to Kirk and Spock are stronger.
Ive been to anti-radicalization training (twice, actually), and this is exactly the strategy that works.
Finally, the encounter.
We learn that Syboks plan was to steal a starship and take it to God.
He has constructed a narrative whereby he is Gods messenger and will deliver all to paradise, literally.
The location of God is a problem, however.
Firstly, it is beyond The Great Barrier, secondly, it is at the center of the galaxy.
Theres got to be a fan theory in there somewhere (and there are several non-canon novels).
The second problem is more difficult to overcome.
Eden itself is another desert.
Kirk is not impressed, but Sybok is enraptured by the vista.
Man creates God in his own image, does man create heaven to look like his home?
What an intriguing thought.
Jerry Goldsmith didnt agree.
The miniature epiphanies, however, invoke the methods of Syboks radicalization, in the seat of his power.
Yet all the evocations are quite intentional.
Then there is God himself.
Yes, we see God.
A kindly white man with a beard who asks an awful lot of questions for someone supposedly omniscient.
What does God need with a starship?
What does God need with anything?
What does an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient entity need with his own, mundane creation?
Why do we exist, if God is all existence.
What does God need with a starship?
Has there ever been a more piercing question in cinema?
Can you answer it?
What does God need with a starship?
You dont know, do you?
You cant, its one of those questions like what is the sound of one hand clapping?
and where do you get off thinking sound only exists because you’re able to hear it?
In short, a piercing philosophical question, but with enough intelligence to promote thought rather than flippancy.
What does God need with a starship?
Not just an unknown unknown, but an unknowable unknown.
Donald Rumsfeld would be impressed.
Of course, this isnt God.
This is God at least as listed in the credits.
This is an attack on religion.
Specifically on the Abrahamic ones.
Uncomfortable, but intentional.
Still, this is not an attack on any one religion.
In fact, this is not just an attack on theism in general.
It is also an attack on atheism too.
Ill ask you again, what does God need with a starship?
If you want proof of God, what proof would be acceptable to you?
Of course, there is no proof of God, not that it matters.
God defies proof and defies the scientific method.
One can no more prove the existence of God than disprove the existence of God.
Yet the nature of the scientific method is that only disproof exists.
What does God need with a starship?
A question so profound, one wonders if the answer is not 42.
But God is not God.
He seeks solace and forgiveness in the arms of his former enemies.
And thus the divisions are shown once again.
Sybok strengthens his resolve.
That the God he knew from belief is not the God of reality is no problem.
Sybok believes his God is the true one.
Therefore, it is only logical that he should radicalize God.
One cannot kill an ideology so easily as to point out the hypocrisy involved.
Asking what God needs with a starship only gets you so far.
Kirk, on the other hand, has a different plan.
One cannot kill an ideology, but a precision strike can accomplish enough for now.
But, as Syboks ideology continues, interstellar cooperation ensues.
The Klingons finally kill God with an airstrike.
International unity, superior air power, and commitment to the cause are the way to defeat an ideology.
Well, that and wiping out the leaders.
Still, we all know, Kirk got shitdone.
Is there a real life Kirk to draw parallels to?
As it is, were done.
Friendship builds resolve, exposes darkness and defeats evil.
True friendship means acceptance, not change.
Catharsis, not salvation.
Resolve, but without violence.Trekideals to the core, but perhaps not the most important.
Superficiality is a sin.
Syboks undoing was taking the superficial as something more.
A superficial understanding of God without considering the underlying motives.
A superficial understanding of the human condition, without the contradiction.
To concentrate on the superficial without examining the essence of the moment is to fail.
The worst science fiction film of all time?
No, far from it.
In fact, this, for me, might just be one of the greatest.
