test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb)
steampunker7
Member Posts: 507 Arc User
Geek debate time.
The TOS Star Trek films are, in many respects, a really remarkable bit of cinematic happy accidents. With no real planning or forethought they ended up forming a solid myth arch, one film linking to the next, carrying their stories and characters through what would end up being the some of the greatest and darkest moments of original Enterprise's voyages. Wrath of Khan starts the ball rolling, bringing back an original series villain for a roaring rampage of revenge and sees the heroic sacrifice of one the series' icons. Search for Spock has Kirk and Co turn renegade, suffering further losses as they symbolically journey to hell to get their fallen comrade back. The Voyage Home sees them doing the impossible to save the Federation and their return to grace. And the Undiscovered Country caps the series as the crew faces changing times and gives them one last hurrah and a final send off.
Then there's Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Star Trek V, the red headed stepchild of the Star Trek films. Let's be frank here folks. No matter how you cut it, no matter how forgiving you are to it, Star Trek V is, to put it mildly, a bad movie. Making a long, complicated, and rather heartbreaking story short, it is a badly conceived, poorly realized, and fatally flawed cinematic mistake. Often regarded as one of the serious low points in the film franchise and bearing the dubious distinction of being the movie that almost killed it, Star Trek V one of those films we almost wished hadn't happen and often do our best to pretend didn't.
And yet...
I was thinking about this movie the other day. I was thinking about its history, its structure. I was mulling all the many things that went wrong and the few that went right. I was looking at its cinematic siblings and tallying up why they are better regarded, even with their own similarly glaring flaws. Yes, it's the worst of the lot, but is there really no place for this film? Does it really deserve to be completely swept under the rug and forgotten? That's when it hit me: there is a way to count The Final Frontier among its kin. There is a way to include this film in the series that not only fits it in to the rest of the story but also help mitigate some of its more egregious problems. "How so?" you may ask? Well, sit your blue TRIBBLE$ down and take notes. Genius is about to pontificate.
One of the biggest problems with Star Trek V is how out of place it feels compared to the other movies. As I said II, III, IV and VI all have such a tight continuity and so many recurring and interlocking themes that V feels like it was made in a vacuum. It directly references no events from the films before it and is not mentioned by anything after it. You can literally pluck it right out and nothing is lost or gained.
However, in a weird recursive way, this means that its placement in the overall franchise myth arch is fluid. Its story could have happened at just about any point. What exactly forces it to be the fifth story in the franchise? Better question: Aside from the age of the actors and one or two throw away lines, would it not actually make more sense if Star Trek V was seen as the FIRST movie of the series?
Now stay with me here. I'll admit it's not a perfect fit. However if seen with broad strokes Star Trek V actually makes more sense if viewed before the rest of the films. Some of its more glaring inconsistencies can be overlooked, some of its undeveloped plot points are explored later on, and it actually starts to play into (or foreshadows) some of the events in rest of the films. If one were to take Star Trek V as the first film of the series and then go to II, III, IV and VI, consider the following:
- With its odd mix of the profound (The Enterprise crew searching for "god") and humor (Scotty bumping his head) Star Trek V introduces the new look and general aesthetic of the films while still retaining the...ahem, camp undertones of the original series. This makes it a better bridge between the series and films than The Motion Picture.
- The Enterprise being in shambles at the start of the film makes sense since it could have been in the middle of being refit and also helps justify why she looks so different between the TV show and the movies.
- The brief glimpse of the Excelsior in space dock, and not using her for the mission, now makes some sense since she would still be under construction at this point.
- Kirk's lament about General Korrd ignobly being "put out to pasture" takes on a bit more resonance. Aging and change would end up being central themes to the subsequent films. Kirk's actions in particular could be seen as a willful act his part to avoid being shuffled aside as the General was.
- Bones mentions at one point "I thought men like us don't have families." In Wrath of Khan we find out Kirk DOES indeed have a family, and he's not exactly on the best of terms with them.
- One of the most egregious missed moments, knowing what Kirk's undisclosed "secret pain" is, actually becomes part of the series' themes. While he refuses to share it with Sybok, an exchange between Kirk and Carol Marcus in Wrath of Khan hints their parting was...less than amicable but still mutual. This suggests that Kirk's "secret pain" may be regret for ultimately choosing his Starfleet career over his family and not being there for David growing up. If that is the case then David's death in Search for Spock becomes even more tragic and Kirk's animosity toward the Klingons in Undiscovered Country carries even more weight.
- We get to keep the very moving and powerful scene delving into McCoy's backstory and why he is as passionate as he is. This is one of the best bits in the film and it feels a shame to lose it.
- By keeping a cool head while distracting Sybok and getting the Enterprise out of the line of fire Chekov would end up being promoted to Commander and made first officer of the Reliant.
- For inspiring Korrd and getting Captain Klaw under control at the end, Spock would end up being promoted to Captain and put in charge of the Enterprise.
- For successfully recovering the Nimbus hostages and finally breaching the Great Barrier Kirk would end up being promoted (or kicked upstairs) to Admiral. This would ultimately be a double edged sword though as, now a desk jockey, he is off the front line and thus a touch more humbled when we see him again in Wrath of Khan.
- The general lower quality of the film can be partially forgiven by letting us (the viewers) pretend that the film makers were still "getting their legs" bringing TOS to the big screen. It now feels more like a shaky first start than a mid-season slump. We can thus take more enjoyment in subsequent films knowing the worst is safely behind us and that the characters and stories will (for the most part) get better as we progress.
Now make no mistake, this doesn't "fix" the film itself. We will still have to contend with the Scotty/Uhura romantic plot tumor (I sometimes think that Lt. M'ress was intended for that but they couldn't get the rights or something.) We still have the infamous fan dance scene and honestly, did Sybok really not ask himself just once what "god" would need with a starship? But if seen as the first film coming off the original series I think its missteps and sins become a little easier to stomach and the few good bits it has (and yes, there is actually some good in it) get to shine a just little brighter.
Other thoughts?
The TOS Star Trek films are, in many respects, a really remarkable bit of cinematic happy accidents. With no real planning or forethought they ended up forming a solid myth arch, one film linking to the next, carrying their stories and characters through what would end up being the some of the greatest and darkest moments of original Enterprise's voyages. Wrath of Khan starts the ball rolling, bringing back an original series villain for a roaring rampage of revenge and sees the heroic sacrifice of one the series' icons. Search for Spock has Kirk and Co turn renegade, suffering further losses as they symbolically journey to hell to get their fallen comrade back. The Voyage Home sees them doing the impossible to save the Federation and their return to grace. And the Undiscovered Country caps the series as the crew faces changing times and gives them one last hurrah and a final send off.
Then there's Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Star Trek V, the red headed stepchild of the Star Trek films. Let's be frank here folks. No matter how you cut it, no matter how forgiving you are to it, Star Trek V is, to put it mildly, a bad movie. Making a long, complicated, and rather heartbreaking story short, it is a badly conceived, poorly realized, and fatally flawed cinematic mistake. Often regarded as one of the serious low points in the film franchise and bearing the dubious distinction of being the movie that almost killed it, Star Trek V one of those films we almost wished hadn't happen and often do our best to pretend didn't.
And yet...
I was thinking about this movie the other day. I was thinking about its history, its structure. I was mulling all the many things that went wrong and the few that went right. I was looking at its cinematic siblings and tallying up why they are better regarded, even with their own similarly glaring flaws. Yes, it's the worst of the lot, but is there really no place for this film? Does it really deserve to be completely swept under the rug and forgotten? That's when it hit me: there is a way to count The Final Frontier among its kin. There is a way to include this film in the series that not only fits it in to the rest of the story but also help mitigate some of its more egregious problems. "How so?" you may ask? Well, sit your blue TRIBBLE$ down and take notes. Genius is about to pontificate.
One of the biggest problems with Star Trek V is how out of place it feels compared to the other movies. As I said II, III, IV and VI all have such a tight continuity and so many recurring and interlocking themes that V feels like it was made in a vacuum. It directly references no events from the films before it and is not mentioned by anything after it. You can literally pluck it right out and nothing is lost or gained.
However, in a weird recursive way, this means that its placement in the overall franchise myth arch is fluid. Its story could have happened at just about any point. What exactly forces it to be the fifth story in the franchise? Better question: Aside from the age of the actors and one or two throw away lines, would it not actually make more sense if Star Trek V was seen as the FIRST movie of the series?
Now stay with me here. I'll admit it's not a perfect fit. However if seen with broad strokes Star Trek V actually makes more sense if viewed before the rest of the films. Some of its more glaring inconsistencies can be overlooked, some of its undeveloped plot points are explored later on, and it actually starts to play into (or foreshadows) some of the events in rest of the films. If one were to take Star Trek V as the first film of the series and then go to II, III, IV and VI, consider the following:
- With its odd mix of the profound (The Enterprise crew searching for "god") and humor (Scotty bumping his head) Star Trek V introduces the new look and general aesthetic of the films while still retaining the...ahem, camp undertones of the original series. This makes it a better bridge between the series and films than The Motion Picture.
- The Enterprise being in shambles at the start of the film makes sense since it could have been in the middle of being refit and also helps justify why she looks so different between the TV show and the movies.
- The brief glimpse of the Excelsior in space dock, and not using her for the mission, now makes some sense since she would still be under construction at this point.
- Kirk's lament about General Korrd ignobly being "put out to pasture" takes on a bit more resonance. Aging and change would end up being central themes to the subsequent films. Kirk's actions in particular could be seen as a willful act his part to avoid being shuffled aside as the General was.
- Bones mentions at one point "I thought men like us don't have families." In Wrath of Khan we find out Kirk DOES indeed have a family, and he's not exactly on the best of terms with them.
- One of the most egregious missed moments, knowing what Kirk's undisclosed "secret pain" is, actually becomes part of the series' themes. While he refuses to share it with Sybok, an exchange between Kirk and Carol Marcus in Wrath of Khan hints their parting was...less than amicable but still mutual. This suggests that Kirk's "secret pain" may be regret for ultimately choosing his Starfleet career over his family and not being there for David growing up. If that is the case then David's death in Search for Spock becomes even more tragic and Kirk's animosity toward the Klingons in Undiscovered Country carries even more weight.
- We get to keep the very moving and powerful scene delving into McCoy's backstory and why he is as passionate as he is. This is one of the best bits in the film and it feels a shame to lose it.
- By keeping a cool head while distracting Sybok and getting the Enterprise out of the line of fire Chekov would end up being promoted to Commander and made first officer of the Reliant.
- For inspiring Korrd and getting Captain Klaw under control at the end, Spock would end up being promoted to Captain and put in charge of the Enterprise.
- For successfully recovering the Nimbus hostages and finally breaching the Great Barrier Kirk would end up being promoted (or kicked upstairs) to Admiral. This would ultimately be a double edged sword though as, now a desk jockey, he is off the front line and thus a touch more humbled when we see him again in Wrath of Khan.
- The general lower quality of the film can be partially forgiven by letting us (the viewers) pretend that the film makers were still "getting their legs" bringing TOS to the big screen. It now feels more like a shaky first start than a mid-season slump. We can thus take more enjoyment in subsequent films knowing the worst is safely behind us and that the characters and stories will (for the most part) get better as we progress.
Now make no mistake, this doesn't "fix" the film itself. We will still have to contend with the Scotty/Uhura romantic plot tumor (I sometimes think that Lt. M'ress was intended for that but they couldn't get the rights or something.) We still have the infamous fan dance scene and honestly, did Sybok really not ask himself just once what "god" would need with a starship? But if seen as the first film coming off the original series I think its missteps and sins become a little easier to stomach and the few good bits it has (and yes, there is actually some good in it) get to shine a just little brighter.
Other thoughts?
Post edited by steampunker7 on
0
Comments
On the other hand, Nichelle Nichols' 56-year-old thighs.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
It is unfortunate there are so many flaws to this movie, ruining it as a whole, when it also had one of the most moving and powerful scenes of ANY Trek movie.
I speak, of course, of the scene where McCoy chooses to release his suffering father. "Why did you do it?" "To preserve his dignity." Brilliant performance by Deforest Kelley, and such a soul-wrenching dramatic scene!
Also of all the TOS movies, I'd have to say that in this one Spock is the most like "himself", most like the Spock we knew from TOS albeit older and wiser.
Even though I'm not a TNG fan, I even enjoy the TNG movies intensely.
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
This above.... and how did "god" lock himself into the center of the universe? Did he go on a bender and lose his keys? Why would "god" need keys anyways?
If this being trapped in the center of the universe is not god, then what or who is he? Does Q know about him? Is it the Devil? If so, where is God? and is the center of the universe the bottomless pit since it is a black hole? In which case how can its floor be covered in burning pitch?
R.I.P
(In retrospect that must have been the one thing JJ watched, explaining why he made Scotty into a clown in JJ Trek.)
Because it makes you see Nichelle Nichols' bare 56-year-old thighs.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
For the love of all thats holy (and not trapped at the center of the universe), STOP!
Its gonna give me nightmares.....
R.I.P
Actually, it DOES reference previous events, quite succintly.
McCoy at the campground, "I liked him better before he died."
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Actually, it would explain the scientifically nonsensical barrier at the center of the galaxy. Whoever or whatever put him there didn't want him getting out, and didn't want anyone stumbling over him. Foundry bait!
As for the OP, you make some good points. Final Frontier is kinda crummy no matter how you cut it, but it would have been a better first movie than fifth movie. It probably would have killed the franchise if it really had been the first movie, but still.
Also, Enterprise-A.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
The effects are just a minor problem in V. Shatner was the real problem. Whoever greenlighted his script should have known better. Shatner wouldn't even watch the scenes back because he hates watching his own performances. So who was critiquing his work? The Uhura fan dance was a joke made by one of his "co-writers", that Shatner decided was actually a good idea. The premise was awful (but considering all the God-obsession of Trek, fitting), but the writing was the biggest offense. We all love Shatner here, but really he needed some oversight on that project.
That being said, I really want Kirk's "Go climb a rock" T-shirt in STO.
As I recall "God" said that he needed a starship to get off that planet because someone or something imprisoned him there several millennia ago or something. I wonder if it as Q lol?
A Romulan Strike Team, Missing Farmers and an ancient base on a Klingon Border world. But what connects them? Find out in my First Foundary mission: 'The Jeroan Farmer Escapade'
That's the direction the novels went, though I never liked how much the novels boiled so many unrelated things down to Q, Borg, or both. This is one of the less objectionable instances of it, but the practice in general bothers me. I feel it shrinks and cheapens a universe rich with wonders natural and artificial to attribute so many of those wonders to so few sources.
But I digress. Star Trek V's a good example of an idea that's put through the wringer too long. With the series, there's the infamous "wall of writers." In some episodes, an idea is redone and rewritten so many times that the writing credit fills the screen and sometimes has multiple screens during the pre-credits scene. Most of these episodes show really cool ideas, but the product is almost universally TRIBBLE.
STV comes from an idea that Roddenberry was bouncing around since TOS season 1: To have the crew meet the literal unambiguous Judeo-Christian God (for a self-styled secular humanist, he had some weird religious hangups he tried to use Star Trek to work through). Exactly what he wanted to happen then varies based on who's telling the story, and ranges from questionable but respectable to hilarious blasphemy.
He pushed it through the entire series, it was part of his Phase II pitch, he wanted it for the first motion picture, suggested it as a way to bring back Spock, and finally got somebody to agree to it for STV.
At some point in production, though, somebody realized that what they were doing never ended well - even a serious, reverent treatment of the Christian mythos had to walk some very fine lines, and there was no way having God and Captain Kirk sharing the screen was going to be serious and reverent. And just in case nobody had this conversation on their own, the whole Last Temptation of Christ (a serious and reverent movie that crossed those fine lines in a runaway train on fire) fiasco would have played out in the middle of it.
Regardless of how they came to that discussion, the result was that Judeo-Christian God became Vulcan god became Vulcan devil became generic space-god became generic godlike being. At this point the idea had been rehashed and altered several times over and the one unique part of the original idea had morphed into a Star Trek cliche.
The wise thing to do with any script at that point is to put it out of its misery.
Nope. Sorry. Wrong. According to our friend, Wikipedia:
"Shatner conceived his idea for the film's story before he was officially given the director's job. His inspiration was televangelists; 'They [the televangelists] were repulsive, strangely horrifying, and yet I became absolutely fascinated,' he recalled.[15] Shatner was intrigued that not only did these personalities convince others God was speaking directly to them, but they became wealthy by what Shatner considered false messages. The televangelists formed the basis for the character 'Zar', later 'Sybok'. Shatner's first outline[16] was titled 'An Act of Love',[17] and many of its elements ? the Yosemite vacation, the abduction of Klingon, human and Romulan hostages on the failed paradise planet ? survived to the final film.[16] In Shatner's early draft, Kirk is overwhelmed by Zar's superior numbers of followers and Spock, McCoy and the rest of the Enterprise crew come to believe in Zar's divinity. Kirk feigns acceptance of Zar's beliefs to travel with him to the God planet, which to Shatner would be a desolate, fiery waste. When Kirk confronts 'God', the image of the being transforms into that of Satan, and Kirk, Spock, and McCoy split up in their escape. Kirk eludes capture but goes back to save his friends from being carried away to Hell."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_V:_The_Final_Frontier
If you have evidence, I welcome a rebuttal.
My main objection is with your categorization of the movie as being inspired by Roddenberry. I concede that the God-theme or Star Trek trope is an overused device, first used in "Where no Man has Gone Before," and present in Star Trek the Motion Picture. As one reviewer puts it:
"How many times does Kirk best a false God-like entity in the classic series? When you consider the premises of 'The Apple,' 'Where No Man Has Gone Before,' 'The Squire of Gothos,' 'Return of the Archons,' 'Who Mourns for Adonis?', or 'For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky' the answer is A LOT."
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/05/i-need-my-pain-reassessing-star-trek-v-the-final-frontier
However, Regardless of whether the Shat was inspired by these concepts does not mean that Roddenberry advocated for these themes in this movie. In fact evidence points to the contrary. Again from Wikipedia:
"Not everyone was happy with the story. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry objected to the characters' search for God in general, and more particularly, the idea of a God as portrayed by Western religion. One of Roddenberry's employees suggested some of his employer's animosity towards the story stemmed back to Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Roddenberry had wanted to approach that film with similar ideas that investigated the nature of God but was rejected by Paramount"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_V:_The_Final_Frontier#cite_note-shatnerkreski-229-27
Now most of the evidence in Wikipedia and elsewhere comes from Shatner, via his two books on the making of the Star Trek Movies.
http://www.amazon.com/Captains-Log-Shatners-Personal-Frontier/dp/0671686526
http://www.amazon.com/Star-Movie-Memories-William-Shatner/dp/0060176172
Without buying these books, it is difficult to properly assess their content. But I don't think it is unnatural to assume that Shatner as producer, director and co-writer of five is defensive of his concept. Again, I can't say this definitively, but lets speculate and look at this quote from another interview:
"My one-line idea was 'Star Trek goes in search of God.' Then I ran into flak .'Whose god? What god? We're not gonna alienate people.' Then someone came up with the idea, 'Well, what happens if it's an alien who thinks he's God' 'Then humanity thinks he's the devil by rejecting that he's God.' In order to get that movie made, I agreed to it, and that was a compromise. The difference between making a compromise and being political, or standing on your standards, where do you do that?"
http://www.blastr.com/2013-10-14/shatner-reveals-compromise-he-regrets-most-about-star-trek-v
So was the script edited or put through a wringer? Perhaps. Is that what doomed the movie? I would argue, not. Hevach is then spot on when he recognizes "At some point in production, though, somebody realized that what they were doing never ended well." Essentially I agree that there is something so troubling about the premise, that no amount of editing or money could have saved the film.
Executive Producer Robert Winters seems to confirm some of these ideas in his interview about Star Trek V:
" We had fun and felt good about IV, that wasn't the case on V. I think on V we were smoking our own press releases. We made the mistake of searching for god. That is what the first movie did. What did we think we were going to find? What did we expect? We were focused and we wrote a good script. Larry Luckinbill (Sybok) was terrific. There were a lot of good things about it. I think we were, not delusional, but we almost killed the franchise.
And, unfortunately I almost killed the franchise in terms of the visual effects. We felt like we got taken advantage of by ILM and so we shopped to go to other places. We found a guy in New York, Bran Ferren, who had a pretty good approach to doing the effects, but ultimately they were horrible. And the combination of a story that was not working, it just wasn't commercial, the effects were terrible -- we almost killed the franchise, it almost died."
And later:
"I don't agree that Paramount short-changed the movie. They didn't give [Shatner] as much money for the story that he wanted to tell, but remember Star Trek II was done for $12 Million, and III was done for just under $16 Million, and IV came in a million under budget at $21 Million -- I have a letter at home from the president of the studio that shows that. And I think we did the fifth movie at around or just under $30 Million, so it was more. But what he wanted to do was a big grander thing. But I don?t think more money would have made the movie better."
http://trekmovie.com/2010/06/30/producer-ralph-winter-on-star-trek-v-we-almost-killed-the-franchise/
still it was interesting in a way while the plot was as terrible as a person failing to beat their way out of a wet paper bag, i would say that it did explore some aspects of the crew that were not really known, why mccoy is so driven and on rails most time not far from flying off the tracks, or as he was talking to himself "You'll have a great time, Bones. You'll enjoy your shore leave. You'll be able to relax. You call this relaxing? I'm a nervous wreck. If I'm not careful I might end up talking to myself."
Spock's pain of his past, "Yes. I lost a brother once. But I was lucky, I got him back.".
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Common on now you read the book too. The Q did imprison him there. They also created the great barrier to keep out sevaral other bad omnipotent beings. The entity that fed off of War. (TOS: Day of the Dove) Also the Entity from TOS: And the Children shall lead. Are some of the beings that the Q had to deal with and Ban from the Galaxy.
Now ol Bill did write and I believe direct this film. He is why it failed. Have you ever read his Star trek novels? Now we love you Bill but there are things that you should leave to the professionals. I listened to the DVD commentary of this movie and his wife also had a big part in the making of this film. Someone that also had no previous experence in making a movie. I put it the same league as the TNG episodes that Johnathon Frakes (Riker) wrote and Directed.
In the context of the other media, some of which was fan written and an awful lot of the bad stories attempted to fill in the background of the main characters and were often as awful.
In that context actually the film was in line with what seemed to be the wanted kind of stories so not such a stretch for a not altogether dissimilar film to be written.
also, as much as Shatner portrayed clearly the role of his career, he was rather ego-centric about Kirk's importance and how McCoy and Spock were a part of that portrayal.
Though one thing always stuck in my mind. How did Kirk go from 'meh klingons' to "I hate klingons and it's printed on my underwear' in episode 6?
Sorry that was seriously lost in translation.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
I seem to recall something in the novelization about Carol Marcus being seriously injured in a Klingon attack, which sort of rekindled his hatred. Been a couple decades since I read that though. Update: found a sentence about it at Memory Beta:
In any case I think the implication is that quite a bit of time passed between Star Treks V and VI, after all the Enterprise senior staff went from just getting a new starship in V to being about to retire in VI. Lots more could have happened in that time period to make him renew his hatred of Klingons.
Special effects were definitely sub-par.
Overall, I found STV to be better than I, III, X (Nemesis) and XII (Into Darkness).
At least 3 years between them, probably more as Sulu was finishing a 3 year mission on the Excelsior at the start of VI. And I doubt he was promoted to Captain the instant V finished.
A Romulan Strike Team, Missing Farmers and an ancient base on a Klingon Border world. But what connects them? Find out in my First Foundary mission: 'The Jeroan Farmer Escapade'
"Star Trek: Rubicon" Season 1, Season 2 A new era, a new time, a new crew, a new ship, a new mission...
"I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment because it will never come again."- Jean-Luc Picard