RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,647
Posts: 5,428,375
Members: 24,810
Currently online: 584
Newest member: Damix

TrekToday headlines

Trek Messenger Bag
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

Star Trek Live In Concert In Australia
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 1 2013, 10:24 PM   #16
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: The Motion Picture question..

Plus, V'ger was essentially trapped in this universe and needed to evolve in order to transcend it...so first, the end of TMP was "exit, stage right" for V'ger from our level of being. Even if that weren't the case, why would it cyber-implant into humanoids when it had the ability to digitize life forms and make wholly perfect, super strong biomechanical copies complete with memories? It's utterly illogical, as Spock would say.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 1 2013, 10:28 PM   #17
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The Motion Picture question..

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
TMP isn't enough like the series or the following films to be a "fitting" first Trek movie. I still like it, but it's more like an odd AU than a piece of the puzzle.
That's one of the things I like about TMP, it feels like a transition piece.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 1 2013, 11:12 PM   #18
gottacook
Commander
 
Location: Maryland
Re: The Motion Picture question..

A dissenting opinion:

There's no way I could endorse the idea of TMP being a good start, or any kind of start, to the Trek movie series. So many things went wrong in the script process of TMP that it's a wonder that any of the actual filming and postproduction turned out well. What's more, the actors had to endure long scenes of reacting to special effects that hadn't been created yet, and by some combination of that and Wise's direction, there's no fun in their performances. The restart of the series in 1982 - and recall, please, that the initial TWoK release prints did not include "II" in the title - did not have these problems, whatever one might say about what was lost when one or another element of TMP wasn't retained.

Credentials, of sorts: I own the TMP and TWoK director's edition DVDs, as well as the TMP (color) Fotonovel; also saw the first eight movies in theater (II and III on premiere day) as well as the first network broadcasts of TMP and TWoK.
gottacook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2013, 12:15 AM   #19
The Old Mixer
Vice Admiral
 
The Old Mixer's Avatar
 
Location: Connecticut
Re: The Motion Picture question..

On an in-universe level, I think it "fits" in that it's the only installment of its particular era in the official chronology, and thus our only glimpse into that era. Story-wise, though, one could skip from TOS to TWOK and not miss a thing.
__________________
50 years ago on July 6: A Hard Day's Night premieres in London.
The Old Mixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2013, 07:23 PM   #20
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: The Motion Picture question..

I've always seen TMP as the first Star Trek reboot, with another reboot following a couple years later with TWOK.

I've always had a soft spot for TMP. Unlike the other films, TMP actually feels like it takes place in the future. My biggest problem with the film is just how ugly and drab everything is. TMP isn't the worst Trek film, but it's definitely the ugliest.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2013, 09:46 PM   #21
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The Motion Picture question..

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
I've always seen TMP as the first Star Trek reboot, with another reboot following a couple years later with TWOK.
Pretty much.


I've always had a soft spot for TMP. Unlike the other films, TMP actually feels like it takes place in the future. My biggest problem with the film is just how ugly and drab everything is. TMP isn't the worst Trek film, but it's definitely the ugliest.
I actually think Nemesis is the ugliest Trek film.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2013, 11:35 PM   #22
SchwEnt
Fleet Captain
 
Re: The Motion Picture question..

One specific factor raises TMP's standing in my opinion--

With each subsequent ST film that AGAIN features an evil villain bent on destruction and AGAIN a space battle climax... TMP goes up a little more in my rankings.

TMP remains a highpoint if only to remind me that a Star Trek film does NOT need to be about evil supervillains and space battles EVERY TIME.
SchwEnt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2013, 04:33 AM   #23
gottacook
Commander
 
Location: Maryland
Re: The Motion Picture question..

SchwEnt wrote: View Post
With each subsequent ST film that AGAIN features an evil villain bent on destruction and AGAIN a space battle climax... TMP goes up a little more in my rankings.
Although I find the Big Villain plot very tiresome myself, it must be remembered that if not for the return of Khan in TWoK - featuring the first Trek battle scenes since "Elaan of Troyius" in December 1968 - none of us would likely be here on this BBS.

Moreover, TMP does share one big element with the last three movies (as well as with TVH and First Contact): Earth itself is threatened, big time. I'm as tired of that as I'm tired of Big Villainy.
gottacook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2013, 04:50 AM   #24
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: The Motion Picture question..

gottacook wrote: View Post
Although I find the Big Villain plot very tiresome myself, it must be remembered that if not for the return of Khan in TWoK - featuring the first Trek battle scenes since "Elaan of Troyius" in December 1968 - none of us would likely be here on this BBS.
In live action, the Klingons and V'GER battled in TMP.

Perhaps you mean a battle involving the Enterprise? TAS had plenty of space battles. And while it's true that there weren't a lot of ship-to-ship space battles in the third season of TOS, The Tholian Web has a higher production number than Elaan of Troyius.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2013, 05:51 AM   #25
gottacook
Commander
 
Location: Maryland
Re: The Motion Picture question..

Yes, "Tholian Web" was produced later, but "Elaan" aired later - and yes, I was counting only non-animated battles involving the Enterprise. Nonetheless, a grape Nehi for you.
gottacook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2013, 06:20 AM   #26
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: The Motion Picture question..

gottacook wrote: View Post
Nonetheless, a grape Nehi for you.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 24 2013, 11:05 PM   #27
Corylea
Lieutenant
 
Corylea's Avatar
 
Location: Boston area, USA
Re: The Motion Picture question..

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
TMP isn't enough like the series or the following films to be a "fitting" first Trek movie. I still like it, but it's more like an odd AU than a piece of the puzzle.
I agree. People went to see the first Star Trek movie because they liked TOS, and then what we got was ... nothing like TOS. Kirk isn't at the top of his game, Spock is off trying to starve his emotions into submission, and the characters spend WAY too much time staring at the viewscreen in awe and way too little time interacting with one another or trying to solve the problem. It felt to me as if the special effects were the star of that movie, and the human stars were extras in their own film.

And while "The Changeling" was a reasonably good TOS episode, it wasn't top-ten material. Why make an entire movie based around the same story? Plus, I thought "The Changeling" was actually a more interesting version of the story.

I think it's fascinating the way the creators of some of the most beloved science fiction series seem NOT to understand what they themselves have made or why people liked it. Roddenberry gave us a Star Trek movie that many fans disliked, and George Lucas gave us a second Star Wars trilogy that's almost universally regarded as much weaker than the first one. How could they create greatness and then not quite understand what they, themselves have made? Just one more way in which people are really interesting.
Corylea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 24 2013, 11:56 PM   #28
urbandefault
Captain
 
urbandefault's Avatar
 
Location: Chicken pot, chicken pot, chicken pot pie!
Re: The Motion Picture question..

I was disappointed with TMP when it debuted. Except, of course, for the new ship. The flyaround could almost have been the whole movie as far as I was concerned.

But when TWOK premiered I was ecstatic. The old chemistry with the main characters was back. It felt like Star Trek again, but with the cool new ship.

I still watch that TMP flyaround with eyes wide, just like when I saw it for the first time on the big screen in 1979.
urbandefault is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 25 2013, 08:23 PM   #29
FormerLurker
Fleet Captain
 
Re: The Motion Picture question..

Corylea wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
TMP isn't enough like the series or the following films to be a "fitting" first Trek movie. I still like it, but it's more like an odd AU than a piece of the puzzle.
I agree. People went to see the first Star Trek movie because they liked TOS, and then what we got was ... nothing like TOS. Kirk isn't at the top of his game, Spock is off trying to starve his emotions into submission, and the characters spend WAY too much time staring at the viewscreen in awe and way too little time interacting with one another or trying to solve the problem. It felt to me as if the special effects were the star of that movie, and the human stars were extras in their own film.

And while "The Changeling" was a reasonably good TOS episode, it wasn't top-ten material. Why make an entire movie based around the same story? Plus, I thought "The Changeling" was actually a more interesting version of the story.

I think it's fascinating the way the creators of some of the most beloved science fiction series seem NOT to understand what they themselves have made or why people liked it. Roddenberry gave us a Star Trek movie that many fans disliked, and George Lucas gave us a second Star Wars trilogy that's almost universally regarded as much weaker than the first one. How could they create greatness and then not quite understand what they, themselves have made? Just one more way in which people are really interesting.
As long as it's understood that while GR and GL may seem to not get what made the originals so beloved in the first place, it should also be understood that they cannot be said to have made them wrong.

The simple fact is that while we, the fans, are dissatisfied with the end result, they the creators made exactly what they set out to make. Just because we would have done it differently doesn't mean they did it incorrectly. In fact, simply by not being GR or GL, we are the ones who would have made them wrong. We can really only complain that there was too little fan-service in TMP and the prequel trilogy.
FormerLurker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 25 2013, 10:45 PM   #30
Lance
Commodore
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: The Motion Picture question..

Corylea wrote: View Post
People went to see the first Star Trek movie because they liked TOS, and then what we got was ... nothing like TOS. Kirk isn't at the top of his game, Spock is off trying to starve his emotions into submission, and the characters spend WAY too much time staring at the viewscreen in awe and way too little time interacting with one another or trying to solve the problem. It felt to me as if the special effects were the star of that movie, and the human stars were extras in their own film.

I think it's fascinating the way the creators of some of the most beloved science fiction series seem NOT to understand what they themselves have made or why people liked it. Roddenberry gave us a Star Trek movie that many fans disliked, and George Lucas gave us a second Star Wars trilogy that's almost universally regarded as much weaker than the first one. How could they create greatness and then not quite understand what they, themselves have made? Just one more way in which people are really interesting.
It isn't so much that Roddenberry "didn't understand what he had created" back in the 1960s. It's that he didn't want to simply rehash it. He wanted to take it in a new direction. A conscious choice.

In terms of a difference in tone, I do think the script's origins as a TV pilot are at least partially to 'blame' for it being different to TOS. A lot of time and money had already been sunk into developing the Phase II concept, to 'adapting' the Star Trek format to what audiences in the late 1970s might expect it to be, taking into account how television had evolved in the ten years since. So, when the pilot was green-lit as a theatrical movie instead, they were effectively being told to shift gears... but Roddenberry, understandably, wanted to try and retain something of what he'd been working towards those couple years working on developing his concept to it's next stage. He might still have had an eye on maybe reviving the Phase II concept too, and was simply working towards that goal rather than trying to recapture something he'd already done ten years before.

I say that not as a criticism. I say it as an observation. Gene's parameters of what he wanted Star Trek to be had changed, and he was entitled to explore where those changes took him and his concept. George Lucas must have felt the same way with Star Wars. As he developed his prequel trilogy further, he evidently was taken by certain ideas that wouldn't have occured to his younger self, but which intrigued him at that point in his life, and he wanted to see where those ideas would take him within the boundries of his writing. Some people may not like the end result of Lucas' reimagining, they might not like what Gene Roddenberry did with TMP. But they are both 100% what the creators intended them to be. The fact that the audience may not have been completely on board with that development is neither here nor there.

Last edited by Lance; December 25 2013 at 11:03 PM. Reason: clarification of point
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.