How did TMP get a G rating?

[CorporalCaptain]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

I think everything combines to tell us: space travel is both exciting and very, very dangerous. Humanity will prevail. And can technology be trusted.

The resonance is there. And intentional. I seem to recall many mentions in the articles of the day mentioning Director Robert Wise's vision for the future portrayed by the movie. "The Andromeda Strain" is eerily similar in many ways. It's partly why he was chosen for the job.

I wasn't speaking just of danger in the abstract, or of the fallibility of technology, so I'm not convinced that I was sufficiently clear in what I was referring to.

The Andromeda Strain is one my favorite science fiction movies. The Day the Earth Stood Still is great fun, too. I'd watch a double feature of both of them back to back ten times over before sitting through the entirety of TMP once, anymore, especially the DE, although parts of TMP are magnificent, and I rewatch them all the time (transporter accident included).

[Therin of Andor]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

I wasn't speaking just of danger in the abstract, or of the fallibility of technology, so I'm not convinced that I was sufficiently clear in what I was referring to.

So how blatant did you want the message to be to make it seem more intentional?

[MacLeod]

Harvey wrote:

---

Of course the movie ratings system in the United States is subjective (no idea how it works overseas). There's no formula for how a rating is determined, just a board of MPAA raters who decide based on...well, however they feel (with an unhealthy dose of influence from the major studios based on whatever marketing decisions they have made).

Kirby Dick's documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated is probably the best source of information about the contemporary ratings system, although it is a few years old now (2006).

I found this which goes through some of the differences between the BBFC (Uk) and MPAA (U) rating bodies.

http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/mpaacomparison

[CorporalCaptain]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

So how blatant did you want the message to be to make it seem more intentional?

What message do you think I'm talking about, but more importantly, what in the film intentionally conveys this message?

[Therin of Andor]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

What message do you think I'm talking about

You suggested "It's a missed opportunity that nothing in the film suggests that any such resonance is actually intentional", so I'm seeking clarification as to what you meant.

more importantly, what in the film intentionally conveys this message?

Surely the director's choices intentionally convey a film's messages.

[CorporalCaptain]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

You suggested "It's a missed opportunity that nothing in the film suggests that any such resonance is actually intentional", so I'm seeking clarification as to what you meant.

Surely the director's choices intentionally convey a film's messages.

Let's make sure we are on the same page, OK? Could you please paraphrase what it is that I said in my first post that the film fails to convey a connection between, which I called a missed opportunity.

Then, could you please point to me where the film makes that connection explicit? You already assured me the connection was intentionally made in the film; please show me where.

[Christopher]

^He didn't say the connection was made explicit in the film. He said there were resonances and that they weren't there by accident. Something can be implicit yet still intentional. It's called subtext.

[CorporalCaptain]

Christopher wrote:

---

^He didn't say the connection was made explicit in the film. He said there were resonances and that they weren't there by accident. Something can be implicit yet still intentional. It's called subtext.

Is there anything that can back up this subtext? Commentary? Interviews? Anything?

[Christopher]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

Is there anything that can back up this subtext? Commentary? Interviews? Anything?

Huh? You were the one who brought up the thematic resonance between the transporter accident and the whole V'Ger thing in the first place. So you're already fully aware of the subtext. The only question, then, is whether it was intended by the filmmakers or a result of your own interpretation. Subtext can be either or both. Sometimes it can be consciously inserted by the filmmakers, and sometimes it can be more unconscious but still reflecting the general ideas and goals they have in mind.

[Therin of Andor]

^Thanks Christopher.

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

Is there anything that can back up this subtext? Commentary? Interviews? Anything?

Well, I didn't invent it in my head. As I mentioned, interviews with, and about, Wise's directing of TMP published in 1979 and 1980, I guess. Almost any issue of "Starlog" in the year leading up to the premiere.

I fear we ain't getting anywhere. Forget I ever asked you to clarify your earlier post. Obviously, I did not understand it.

[CorporalCaptain]

Christopher wrote:

---

Huh? You were the one who brought up the thematic resonance between the transporter accident and the whole V'Ger thing in the first place. So you're already fully aware of the subtext. The only question, then, is whether it was intended by the filmmakers or a result of your own interpretation. Subtext can be either or both. Sometimes it can be consciously inserted by the filmmakers, and sometimes it can be more unconscious but still reflecting the general ideas and goals they have in mind.

Right, sorry, I meant, of course, is there anything that can back up whether it was intentional, which is what this whole little side bar has been about.

Vague references to an interview about how Wise says that space travel is dangerous isn't what I'm looking for, or enough to convince me that the filmmakers were conscious of the subtext. Certainly, there was no evidence in the film that they were conscious of it, none that I could see. I simply said, in the beginning, that I found the lack of evidence that it was intentional to be, essentially, unfortunate.

[Christopher]

Does it really matter, though? Even if a creator isn't consciously, actively thinking "I want to insert this theme/subtext," it can still be a part of their underlying way of thinking about the project and its concepts. I've seen it said that often, a writer discovers the theme of a work after it's written. If it's too self-conscious and planned, that isn't necessarily a good thing, because that can make it contrived or forced.

[CorporalCaptain]

Christopher wrote:

---

Does it really matter, though? Even if a creator isn't consciously, actively thinking "I want to insert this theme/subtext," it can still be a part of their underlying way of thinking about the project and its concepts. I've seen it said that often, a writer discovers the theme of a work after it's written. If it's too self-conscious and planned, that isn't necessarily a good thing, because that can make it contrived or forced.

It's not bad if it wasn't in the film.

What I really meant is that I think it's a good thing to think about. I brought it up because I thought it was an interesting connection.

The main reason I think it was missed in the film is because in the Star Trek universe, ultimately the transporter is safe when operating as intended. McCoy's concerns about having his molecules scrambled are treated as an eccentricity, and the fact that TMP treats them that way is really my exhibit A that the film missed the connection between the transporter and V'Ger.

[t_smitts]

Admiral_Sisko wrote:

---

It's interesting that I should see this, because I was just reading Memory's Alpha's article about the late Commander Sonak, who perished in that accident. It was mentioned in the TMP novelization that the transporter accident actually inverted the bodies of Sonak and Admiral Lori Ciana, so that their internal organs were actually outside of their bodies when they rematerialized at Starfleet Headquarters. Not exactly the view I'd want to have were I working the transporter console that day.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say I can't watch it today, I say this much; As kid of proabably eleven first watching this, I have three recollections:

While not being frightened to the point of tears, nightmares, bedwetting, turning the movie off, or even averting my eyes, I remember being unsettled by that distorted scream, to the point of being relieved when the unfortunate pair vanished from the pad and it finally stopped. (In retrospect I wouldn't dare imagine what it must've been like for that guy at the other end who says "fortunately").

My other two recollections were 1) really liking Ilia in that skimpy bathrobe and being a bit disappointed at her disappearing at the end, and 2) "My God, these ship shots go on forever! Get on with it, already!!!"

Actually, in the intervening years, I wasn't entirely sure which of them that distorted scream belonged to. There's something eerie about the idea of a stoic Vulcan being driven to scream like that. (I know it was the female victim now).

As a side note, I prefer Robert Wise's assumption that the female victim was the ship's original navigator, rather than some admiral that Kirk was screwing. The crew's surprised reaction to Ilia's arrival (especially Decker) makes far more sense if she was a last-minute replacement.

[Therin of Andor]

t_smitts wrote:

---

The crew's surprised reaction to Ilia's arrival (especially Decker) makes far more sense if she was a last-minute replacement.

Except she'd already, presumably, been to Dr Chapel some time earlier - pre-flight medical assessments? - because Ilia "once mentioned" the significance of her Deltan headband.