RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,156
Posts: 5,344,129
Members: 24,600
Currently online: 686
Newest member: Lord Galen

TrekToday headlines

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Retro Review: In the Pale Moonlight
By: Michelle on Jul 19

Trek Beach Towel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 18

Two New Starships Collection Releases
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17

Giacchino Tour Arrives In North America
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17

IDW Publishing October Star Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Jul 16

Cho As Romantic Lead
By: T'Bonz on Jul 16


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 March 3 2014, 03:03 AM   #91
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: ST-TMP: your first time...

Warped9 wrote: View Post
One of the amazing things about TMP is that so much of it came together as it did considering all the bullshit that went into getting it made. By all rights it should have been a distaster...kinda like TFF.
Hmm. That makes me wonder what TFF could have been like if Robert Wise had directed it.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 04:01 AM   #92
Brutal Strudel
Rear Admiral
 
Brutal Strudel's Avatar
 
Location: Here, frozen between time and place, not even the brightest lights escape...
Re: ST-TMP: your first time...

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
There is conflict. Decker and Jim are vying for control of the ship. Each suggestion from Decker breaks down into a fight. It isn't until Bones threatens Jim that he stops it. Spock is not present for part of this movie. They argue over what to do next "Jim, what the hell kind of plan is this?!?" "This is how I define unwarranted!" "Belay that Phaser Order!" It's pretty straight-forward in 12 Angry Men, too.
Yeah, I saw TMP. I don't recall much yelling and screaming between the crew members. I never said there wasn't conflict. What I said was that there "practically" isn't any by comparison, and I even emphasized those words so that their effect wouldn't be lost. In other words, the interpersonal conflict in TMP pales by comparison with that in 12AM (hey, I'd never noticed that before; 12AM, how apropos!)
A critique leveled at TMP is that Decker seems to hate Kirk in one scene, next we see them sharing a grim joke about how weak their hand is. Again, though, I say this a strength. Decker is a professional first and foremost--the mission means more to him than command*. Plus, he and Kirk have a history--Kirk recommended Decker for the Enterprise and, if we go beyond the screen, Will is Matt's son and Kirk was friends with Matt Decker, deeply respected him, suggesting that Kirk may have taken a similar interest in Will's career that he did in Garrovick's or Bailey's. The simmering, conflicting emotions of resentment and respect seems very real to me, made stronger by the fact that Decker only let's it show three times--and the last time he does it, he's not angry about losing the Enterprise. He's angry about losing Ilia--grief-stricken and yet he goes right back to doing his job.

Decker is perhaps the most Trek of Trek guest stars--he really belonged in that seat and we believe it.

*Contrast this with Riker and Jellico in "Chains of Command," Exhibit A in how poorly TNG handled conflict (although Boma in "The Galilieo Seven" is easily as bad--Boma wasn't the second lead) and why I can't take Riker seriously.
__________________
Once every lifetime, we're swallowed by the whale.
Brutal Strudel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 04:07 AM   #93
Brutal Strudel
Rear Admiral
 
Brutal Strudel's Avatar
 
Location: Here, frozen between time and place, not even the brightest lights escape...
Re: ST-TMP: your first time...

trevanian wrote: View Post
Harvey wrote: View Post
David Lynch's Dune. Some people like it, I guess. I haven't seen the longer version, but I've seen the theatrical cut, which Lynch saw fit to leave his name on, and it's a terrible mess.
I think it is a lovely mess myself, but then again, I like ACTION JACKSON.

I always liken the movie to a black hole, with Kyle sucking the life out of all the talented actors around him (he's great in TWIN PEAKS, but here he is just utterly uncharismatic.) Add to that the exposition issues and the all-over-the-place effects and the inconsistent score, and you still have something with really nice art direction.

I watch the long version about half the time. It is a scream, since you have blueonblue eyes switching back to brown from cut to cut, plus there is concept art over the ENDLESS prologue that looks like something out of a Saturday morning catechism class (catholic sunday school for those fortunate enough to not be in the know.)
I liked Action Jackson too--love Carl Weathers. I also like that Paul in the movie is depicted as he is in the book: avid, curious, strong-willed but fully cognizant of his place in House Atreides and the Imperium and, later, Fremen society. The Paul in the SciFi mini-series is written and played like a sullen, spoiled punk--at least he is at first.

A comparison could be drawn with first season Kirk and what we hear of his formative years versus NuKirk but I ain't opening that can of Regulan bloodworms...
__________________
Once every lifetime, we're swallowed by the whale.

Last edited by Brutal Strudel; March 3 2014 at 04:19 AM.
Brutal Strudel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 04:22 AM   #94
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: ST-TMP: your first time...

Brutal Strudel wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
There is conflict. Decker and Jim are vying for control of the ship. Each suggestion from Decker breaks down into a fight. It isn't until Bones threatens Jim that he stops it. Spock is not present for part of this movie. They argue over what to do next "Jim, what the hell kind of plan is this?!?" "This is how I define unwarranted!" "Belay that Phaser Order!" It's pretty straight-forward in 12 Angry Men, too.
Yeah, I saw TMP. I don't recall much yelling and screaming between the crew members. I never said there wasn't conflict. What I said was that there "practically" isn't any by comparison, and I even emphasized those words so that their effect wouldn't be lost. In other words, the interpersonal conflict in TMP pales by comparison with that in 12AM (hey, I'd never noticed that before; 12AM, how apropos!)
A critique leveled at TMP is that Decker seems to hate Kirk in one scene, next we see them sharing a grim joke about how weak their hand is. Again, though, I say this a strength. Decker is a professional first and foremost--the mission means more to him than command*. Plus, he and Kirk have a history--Kirk recommended Decker for the Enterprise and, if we go beyond the screen, Will is Matt's son and Kirk was friends with Matt Decker, deeply respected him, suggesting that Kirk may have taken a similar interest in Will's career that he did in Garrovick's or Bailey's. The simmering, conflicting emotions of resentment and respect seems very real to me, made stronger by the fact that Decker only let's it show three times--and the last time he does it, he's not angry about losing the Enterprise. He's angry about losing Ilia--grief-stricken and yet he goes right back to doing his job.

Decker is perhaps the most Trek of Trek guest stars--he really belonged in that seat and we believe it.

*Contrast this with Riker and Jellico in "Chains of Command," Exhibit A in how poorly TNG handled conflict (although Boma in "The Galilieo Seven" is easily as bad--Boma wasn't the second lead) and why I can't take Riker seriously.
My point is that you can't hold 12AM up as a model of how Star Trek can work confined to the bridge, full stop.

It's not that ST lacks character drama. ST has character drama. But it doesn't have that type of character drama, in which the lion's share of the dramatic tension derives from conflict among the characters, and therefore it can't stay confined to a single room and draw upon that sort of character drama within the main cast. It's simply not there.

To say, "But Star Trek has character drama," is to totally miss the point that 12 Angry Men is not a model for how Star Trek could work among the bridge characters confined to the bridge or any other single room for all but a few minutes of the film or episode. That's what this whole sidebar has been about:

HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Structurally, there's a problem in that, once the setup is accomplished, the vast majority of TMP takes place aboard the ship,without them beaming down to any interesting locations or settings. Which can make all those bridge scenes seem a bit visually monotonous and claustrophobic. You need more variety and, yes, color and excitement.

By contrast, in WoK, you also have the desert wastes of Ceti Alpha V, the spooky confines of the Regula space station, the lush natural beauty of the Genesis cavern, etc.

Speaking from experience, I often try to get the captain and crew off the bridge as fast as humanly possible, so I'm not stuck with talking heads staring at a screen.
I don't think this is a problem with the film. I point to 12 Angry Men as an example. 8 minutes of the movie wasn't around a black-and-white table. It is nothing but dialogue describing a crime and good acting. I think Star Trek could've done the same thing. I've always been drawn to stories like telling one across a campfire.
The point is that what works for 12AM does not work for TMP. It can't.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 06:58 AM   #95
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: ST-TMP: your first time...

gottacook wrote: View Post
Someone above noted the exploratory nature of the mission, the focus on learning about V'ger rather than defeating it per se. But these moments are the source of some of the worst dialog among the bridge crew. Kirk's "Radio?!" for example, as though the term
had never passed his lips before.
I think that line totally works because they're facing this giant living machine with "unbelievable technology" and it's using a method of communication that to them would seem like a message in cuneiform delivered on a clay tablet. It's not what he expects at all.
__________________
* * *
"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 March 3 2014, 07:39 AM   #96
Brutal Strudel
Rear Admiral
 
Brutal Strudel's Avatar
 
Location: Here, frozen between time and place, not even the brightest lights escape...
Re: ST-TMP: your first time...

Exactly. Why would the most advanced tech he's encountered since the Guardian of Forever use so crude a method of communication? I know all about telegrams but if I received one in this day and age, I'd say, "Telegram?" exactly as Kirk said "Radio?"
__________________
Once every lifetime, we're swallowed by the whale.
Brutal Strudel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 01:54 PM   #97
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: ST-TMP: your first time...

The story within TMP could have been told in an hour. And if shown on television it would work as is. But the tension and drama presented in TMP isn't really sufficient to be stretched to two hours. You need something more.

And I say that as someone who likes the film.

Interesting to ponder "what if?" Robert Wise had been involved earlier. Or if Paramount had simply been able to make up its mind sooner rather than wasting all that time and money on Phase II.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?

Last edited by Warped9; March 3 2014 at 02:07 PM.
Warped9 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 03:40 PM   #98
Khan 2.0
Commander
 
Khan 2.0's Avatar
 
Location: earth...but when?...spock?
Re: ST-TMP: your first time...

Its funny when you think Star Wars was out just 2 years earlier and the success of that prompted Paramount to switch from doing the Phase 2 series or low budget tv movie to the big movie. one of the inspirations for Star Wars was obviously star trek with its action packed romp style...so fans will have been expecting and wanting the Trek movie to jump straight back into that feel.....yet Star Trek TMP shunned that in favour of a lofty 2001 vibe...with time its interesting to see it as a more realistic 2001 version of Trek as theres Wrath of Khan etc to enjoy but its easy to imagine the disappointment fans mustve had in 79 when theyd been waiting for the movie for the best part of a decade.

The anticipation of a huge budget Star Trek movie (with all the original cast) mustve been off the scale - esp with Star Wars just out near enough the previous year whetting everyones appetite for colourful space action ...they mustve been expecting epic space battles, phaser fights and Kirk Fu, nasty creepy aliens, klingons kicking ass, Kirk Spock Bones jokes/banter, that eerie uncanny Twilight Zone vibe alot of the season 1 eps had, light comedic moments, red/gold/blue uniforms similar to the tv show, colourful Ent interiors, beaming down to alien planets (all done on a bigger scale/more realistic) ....and instead they got 'Star Trek A Space Odyssey' or 'Star Trek Phase 2 The Movie'

I wonder what the reaction would’ve been had it been the movie version of the TV Star Trek?
It probably would’ve made Star Wars box office
Khan 2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 04:12 PM   #99
SPCTRE
Weltmeister
 
SPCTRE's Avatar
 
View SPCTRE's Twitter Profile
Re: ST-TMP: your first time...

Warped9 wrote: View Post
The refit Enterprise is revealed.

Today there can be a lot of groaning over this scene. Contemporary audiences don't seem to really care for it.
I wasn't even born when TMP premiered but I love the refit reveal.

I think whether or not anyone likes that lengthy scene is down to whether or not one enjoys starship porn.

And Jerry Goldsmith.
__________________
"To hear some incensed fans tell it, The Sims 4 without pools or toddlers is a barren hellscape, an empty, rotten womb where fun is but a dim memory. I think those people might be overreacting just a smidgen bit, but you know, everyone’s got their priorities." - Nathan Grayson
SPCTRE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 04:13 PM   #100
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: ST-TMP: your first time...

I myself was not a fan of Star Wars when it came out. Even at only 18 a lot of it struck me as silly (in comparison to Star Trek). That opinion still holds today even though I can now take SW for the romp that it is. But despite what a lot of SW fans have projected into it it's not that deep. There's no real meat to it.

From what I recall there really wasn't an expectation for TMP to be like SW, but a lot of fans could have been hoping for something like a cinematic version of "The Doomsday Machine."

TMP is something that I think perhaps works better now than it did in '79 because the expectations are no longer there. You can judge it on its own merits. As I said upthread it could well be that GR and Wise eschewed using SW as a template to aim for something different, which is much like what TOS often aimed to do. Also the kind of story Paramount seemed to be looking for a Star Trek feature was bouncing around for years and long before SW happened along and it wasn't anything like SW.

Star Wars was like Flash Gordon. Star Trek was more like The Outer Limits and The Twilight Zone or cinematically like The Day The Earth Stood Still, Forbidden Planet and Planet Of The Apes.

That said there are Trek fans who simply revel in spaceship battles and such. But those things were always contextual in TOS. Unlike a lot of action films, be they sci-fi or otherwise, TOS didn't come at action from the angle of trying to fit a story around the action. The idea was to have a story that plausibly includes action in it.

Now setting my own issues with TWOK aside it still isn't like SW. There is nuance and substance to TWOK that just isn't in SW. The action presented in TWOK fits the story and presented in a (somewhat) more credible manner than it is in SW. Granted some fans might not see that because to them spaceships shooting at each other is good enough, but the distinctions are there.

I don't think it likely that we could have had or really expected a Abrams' approach to Trek in '79. I don't mean such a sharp reboot (and TMP was in some measure a reboot), but I mean in overall tone and approach. JJtrek is also a product of evolution as films have become ever more faster paced over the years. The kind of pacing seen in JJtrek and other contemporary action-y films wasn't really yet around in the '70s, at least to my knowledge.

When I look back, for myself, I see certain films as signpost in the evolution of action in films: Star Wars, Die Hard, Terminator 2, The Bourne Identity. And no doubt there are films I'm overlooking or have never seen myself. I cite those examples because they appeared to become templates for what followed. But regardless of the examples we do see an evolution of pacing and overall tone.

The expectations of film are also different from television particularly with sci-fi and films with visual spectacle to them. I am wondering if those distinctions could be beginning to blur with more and more people watching television on big and wide flatscreens. The canvas for television has drastically changed in the past 10-15 years. Television programming is now being made in the same widescreen format as cinema. That could bring a different level of expectation to television that simply didn't exist, or even have been considered, when we had the 4:3 aspect ratio and a screen no bigger than 27-32ins.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?

Last edited by Warped9; March 3 2014 at 04:34 PM.
Warped9 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 04:13 PM   #101
Brutal Strudel
Rear Admiral
 
Brutal Strudel's Avatar
 
Location: Here, frozen between time and place, not even the brightest lights escape...
Re: ST-TMP: your first time...

Warped9 wrote: View Post
The story within TMP could have been told in an hour. And if shown on television it would work as is. But the tension and drama presented in TMP isn't really sufficient to be stretched to two hours. You need something more.
An hour? I don't see it--110 minutes, 100 minutes at the least. That takes out 20 or thirty minutes. Honestly, I don't think it can afford to loose that much. Some of the reaction shots and some of the effects shots from the Vejur flyover and (if you must) some of the shots of the Enterprise in drydock would tighten pacing immeasurably, two or three fewer "there is an object in the center of that cloud and pacing would tighten a great deal.
__________________
Once every lifetime, we're swallowed by the whale.
Brutal Strudel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 04:30 PM   #102
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: ST-TMP: your first time...

Brutal Strudel wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
The story within TMP could have been told in an hour. And if shown on television it would work as is. But the tension and drama presented in TMP isn't really sufficient to be stretched to two hours. You need something more.
An hour? I don't see it--110 minutes, 100 minutes at the least. That takes out 20 or thirty minutes. Honestly, I don't think it can afford to loose that much. Some of the reaction shots and some of the effects shots from the Vejur flyover and (if you must) some of the shots of the Enterprise in drydock would tighten pacing immeasurably, two or three fewer "there is an object in the center of that cloud and pacing would tighten a great deal.
I'm not talking about editing the existing film as is. I mean the essential story it's telling. We already have a TOS example with "The Immunity Syndrome." If you drop the early sequences on Vulcan and Earth you effectively have a bottle show in TMP. It could easily be rewritten as a one hour story.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 04:37 PM   #103
Brutal Strudel
Rear Admiral
 
Brutal Strudel's Avatar
 
Location: Here, frozen between time and place, not even the brightest lights escape...
Re: ST-TMP: your first time...

It could but it would have to lose so much of its thematic richness.
__________________
Once every lifetime, we're swallowed by the whale.
Brutal Strudel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 05:14 PM   #104
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: ST-TMP: your first time...

Brutal Strudel wrote: View Post
It could but it would have to lose so much of its thematic richness.
Yes, but we're getting to the heart of the matter. A story that could fit into fifty minutes of television needs more if you're going to stretch it into a two hour feature. You said yourself maybe you could edit TMP down something much tighter, but if you have to fill that two hours what do you need to put in there to keep people engaged?
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 05:29 PM   #105
RandyS
Vice Admiral
 
RandyS's Avatar
 
Location: Randyland
View RandyS's Twitter Profile
Re: ST-TMP: your first time...

I was nine years old, and already a lifelong Star Trek fan, thanks to my mom, who was a fan since 1966. She took me, my little brother, (who was three then), and several cousins to see the movie sometime during the Christmas break in 1979.

Beyond that, I remember nothing about it.
RandyS is online now   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 07:58 PM.

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