How was TMP received at the time?

[TalkieToaster]

I think the second thing may explain the first thing. You should watch 2001 straight at least once.

Or just read the book. Doing that helped me "get" the story just fine, and made future viewings of the movie easier to understand.

I disagree. I think Clarke's work, especially his sequel books, demonstrate that he only grokked the surface level of what Kubrick was doing. Clarke's much too literal.

I disagree. I think the 2001 novel is great, and the 2010 novel is brilliant(2061 and 3001 not so much). I think Clarke was great at conveying a sense of awe and wonder in his writing.

I think people sometimes make it seem like you can only like the 2001 movie or book; either the book is too literal or the movie is too nonsensical. Personally, I think the two complement each other well and do a great job of telling the same story in different ways.

 

[Maurice]

I merely said that IMO Clarke didn't quite grok what Kubrick was doing and explanations were too literal. I wasn't critiquing the other books.

 

[pfontaine2]

With regards to TMP, it took me 30 years to finally watch the movie and accept it as a stand-alone movie without all the baggage that the original Star Trek TV show brought with it.

Anyone who was buying Starlog magazine before the film came out knew how much everything was changing with the Star Trek movie. I certainly would have been very happy if they were still flying around in the exact same Enterprise, wearing the exact same costumes and walking around the exact same sets. I really just wanted more of the Star Trek I grew to love.

I wanted to like TMP but for me it was just too different. Kirk had no sense of humor, Spock was cold and everyone else just looked like they were "working", not "exploring". Sure the situation was tense but a little bit of the old Star Trek humor would have been appreciated.

30 years (or so) after the fact, I purchased the Blu-Ray disk of TMP and watched it again for the hundredth time. Perhaps because the BluRay disk looked so good but I was suddenly able to relate to this movie which is in essence about having a mid-life crisis. All three males leads want to regain the one thing they desire most in their lives. For Kirk, it's command of a starship. For Spock, it's coming to term with his human half. For Decker, it's regaining lost love.

It makes sense that I had to be in my 50's to have this revelation. The 16 year old "me" couldn't relate to a story about having a mid-life crisis and was let down by all the physical changes. The 50 year old "me" now finds the movie quite lyrical, potent and relevant in my life now that I too am no longer young and am starting to be more self-reflective about my life. I just needed 30 years to finally be able to see how relevant this movie really was for me.

 

[Memory Alpha]

While I like TMP for what it is, I think it was probably a bit too transcendental for 1979, which might be why a movie like TWOK was the follow-up. I had always heard that TMP came off in 1979 a lot like it comes off now, although I was way too young then to even have known what it was. It isn't the tracking shots and slower pace, but the heavy philosophizing, the metaphysical, the stoic proceedings, and Spock's questions about where best he fits in. That ALL might have played better at the beginning of the decade than at the end. And Remember that Star Wars had just come out too.

2001 was great on a lot of levels for its time, IMO.

 

[TalkieToaster]

I merely said that IMO Clarke didn't quite grok what Kubrick was doing and explanations were too literal. I wasn't critiquing the other books.

Sorry for misinterpreting.

While I like TMP for what it is, I think it was probably a bit too transcendental for 1979, which might be why a movie like TWOK was the follow-up. I had always heard that TMP came off in 1979 a lot like it comes off now, although I was way too young then to even have known what it was. It isn't the tracking shots and slower pace, but the heavy philosophizing, the metaphysical, the stoic proceedings, and Spock's questions about where best he fits in. That ALL might have played better at the beginning of the decade than at the end. And Remember that Star Wars had just come out too.

2001 was great on a lot of levels for its time, IMO.

I always found it ironic how much TMP emulated 2001 considering it was made to capitalize on Star Wars. It would've made more sense from a commercial standpoint if they'd gone with the TWOK style from the start.

 

[gottacook]

I always found it ironic how much TMP emulated 2001 considering it was made to capitalize on Star Wars. It would've made more sense from a commercial standpoint if they'd gone with the TWOK style from the start.

As a big 2001 aficionado, having seen it every chance I got starting as a preteen in 1968 (i.e., probably 7 times by 1975 - no home video in those days), and owner since 1970 of The Making of Kubrick's 2001, I have to say that until I started visiting this site, I had never heard of the idea of TMP emulating 2001, nor thought of it myself - and I still don't buy it.

As for whether a different story might have been used for the first Trek feature, wasn't it always a given that because the idea of doing a feature evolved from the Phase II TV series, the pilot for that series would be adapted into the feature?

 

[Memory Alpha]

You can draw lines between 2001 and TMP. Thematically and broadly, both movies wonder if the next big step in evolution isn't some state of existence beyond the linear, finite, rational, physical. Heady stuff. It's a huge theme in 2001.

 

[Warped9]

At the time I was 18 and it was new live-action Star Trek. It was the original idea writ large and with more detail. I liked quite a lot of it even as I felt something was off. But importantly it was a return and continuation of the universe and characters I loved.

I like the film a lot more now than I did initially. I think the DE fixes many things that irked me initially, including the pacing of the film.

I wasn't aware of any general dislike of the film. Maybe some disppointment, but not all-out dislike.

I think if they had managed to inject more humanity, more character drama into TMP it could have made a better overall impression. There have been many comparisons of TMP with 2001, but as challenged as TMP might be in terms of lacking character drama it has far more humanity than 2001. And that's due greatly to our familiarity with the characters and Trek's universe.

As it is I think TMP is generally more accessible to adults than younger audiences. Even back in the day. TWOK is a more accessible film in general because it emphasizes more conventional action and adventure--it's closer to what's usually expected from a "sci-fi" flick. Hence it's not surprising it is more broadly accepted.


Today I was reminded of TMP and 2001 when I went to see Interstellar. Like TMP and 2001 before it Interstellar is a film with big ideas, and it handles those big ideas with a deft hand and a good dose of character and humanity which keeps it grounded and quite accessible. And like 2001 and TMP Interstellar is not a fast paced film--it's nearly three hours and unfolds its story in its own way. But for me it works successfully.

Interstellar is the kind of film TMP could have been, but fell just short.

 

[NewHorizon]

Interstellar is the kind of film TMP could have been, but fell just short.

That's what I was hoping for. I'm going to see Interstellar on Tuesday. Interstellar sounds like the kind of film I had been hoping for from JJ and his crew, sadly it never happened.

 

[Warped9]

Interstellar is the kind of film TMP could have been, but fell just short.

That's what I was hoping for. I'm going to see Interstellar on Tuesday. Interstellar sounds like the kind of film I had been hoping for from JJ and his crew, sadly it never happened.

You will never get a film like Interstellar, particularly a Trek film, from JJ.

 

[gottacook]

You can draw lines between 2001 and TMP. Thematically and broadly, both movies wonder if the next big step in evolution isn't some state of existence beyond the linear, finite, rational, physical. Heady stuff. It's a huge theme in 2001.

Sure there's that common theme, but to me TMP and 2001 are about as different from each other as (in the realm of time-travel stories) Back to the Future and Time After Time; one is not reminiscent of the other.

2001 is all about mystery - in fact the last words of dialogue are "its origin and purpose: still a total mystery" (the taped message to the crew that plays just after Dave deactivates HAL, concerning the lunar monolith). The audience is left to make up its own mind about what happens to Dave, and to Earth for that matter, in the final "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite" section that immediately follows.

TMP, by contrast, has the bridge crew saying things like "we've witnessed a birth" (well, duh) of a new life form that is now (conveniently) off in some other dimension. Oh, and by the way, they've saved Earth from destruction (unfortunately something that happens way too often in future Trek movies). Spock's back, everything's cool, "Thataway," and finally a slogan about the human adventure that we've already seen on the damn posters outside the theater. Nice and neat.

TMP and 2001 are also very different with respect to music. The two movies might have been more similar if Alex North's original score hadn't been rejected by Kubrick in favor of the R. Strauss, J. Strauss, Khachaturian, and Ligeti recordings he'd been using in assembling rough cuts. This choice to use exclusively preexisting music was radical; I can't think of another example this early (not counting Fantasia). Even The Graduate, with its predominance of Simon & Garfunkel songs, also included original music by Dave Grusin in at least three important scenes.

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

Star Trek: The Motion Picture reminds me more of The Andromeda Strain in its approach rather than 2001, though I'm sure much of that is due to Robert Wise directing both.

 

[Praxius]

You can draw lines between 2001 and TMP. Thematically and broadly, both movies wonder if the next big step in evolution isn't some state of existence beyond the linear, finite, rational, physical. Heady stuff. It's a huge theme in 2001.

Sure there's that common theme, but to me TMP and 2001 are about as different from each other as (in the realm of time-travel stories) Back to the Future and Time After Time; one is not reminiscent of the other.

2001 is all about mystery - in fact the last words of dialogue are "its origin and purpose: still a total mystery" (the taped message to the crew that plays just after Dave deactivates HAL, concerning the lunar monolith). The audience is left to make up its own mind about what happens to Dave, and to Earth for that matter, in the final "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite" section that immediately follows.

TMP, by contrast, has the bridge crew saying things like "we've witnessed a birth" (well, duh) of a new life form that is now (conveniently) off in some other dimension. Oh, and by the way, they've saved Earth from destruction (unfortunately something that happens way too often in future Trek movies). Spock's back, everything's cool, "Thataway," and finally a slogan about the human adventure that we've already seen on the damn posters outside the theater. Nice and neat.

TMP and 2001 are also very different with respect to music. The two movies might have been more similar if Alex North's original score hadn't been rejected by Kubrick in favor of the R. Strauss, J. Strauss, Khachaturian, and Ligeti recordings he'd been using in assembling rough cuts. This choice to use exclusively preexisting music was radical; I can't think of another example this early (not counting Fantasia). Even The Graduate, with its predominance of Simon & Garfunkel songs, also included original music by Dave Grusin in at least three important scenes.

To me the similarities are not about the story or the musical score, the similarities are regarding how drawn out many scenes are than they needed to be and ended up being a bit boring in some areas.

When I want to watch a movie I want to be entertained and engaged into a story that makes me want to think, not a movie that puts me into a vegetative state with dramatic music and colourful visuals for extended periods of time.

 

[eyeresist]

Another significant use of music is that Richard Strauss's Also sprach Zarathustra explicitly establishes a parallel between the discovery of tools and the birth of the Star-Child.

It also associates the film 2001 with Nietsche's notion of the superman, which is about transcending one's limitations, as indeed humanity does through the course of the film.

OTOH I've read fans say that TMP is about human evolution, but one person bonding with a machine and then apparently disappearing from the universe doesn't really cover it.
Admittedly the ending of 2001 doesn't really show how these weird happenings will affect all humanity, but in the film context there is precedent for assuming it will (or might).

Star Trek: The Motion Picture reminds me more of The Andromeda Strain in its approach rather than 2001, though I'm sure much of that is due to Robert Wise directing both.

Andromeda Strain is a fine sf film, well worth watching. The DVD cover is totally deceptive!

 

[RyanKCR]

As I mentioned before I was about 8 or 9 when I saw TMP in the theaters. I had no real exposure to Star Trek before seeing it (maybe an episode or two in the background as my parents watched it.) As I can remember, Star Wars was the first movie I ever saw in the theater and it had me hooked. But then I saw TMP and it looked and "felt" different. I liked it more than Star Wars but Star Wars was bigger then and that was all I really had exposure to. By the time of Empire Strikes back I had seen Battle Beyond the Stars and Flash Gordon but kept thinking back to that other space movie that liked and wanted to see again. It was until it aired on ABC that I got to see it again and had to beg my mother to stay up to watch it.

No other sci-fi film has had such an effect on me and I keep trying to find another one like it. Some are close but it isn't the same.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I've told my story many times here. I came to TMP as a newbie fan in 1979. Absolutely loved it! Met a few others of similar background who had the same reaction. Met lots of diehard originals during 1980 and mostly they told me I'd never be a real fan if I thought TMP was good.

The experience seemed very deja vu when TNG and now with JJ's Trek.

 

[Praxius]

I've told my story many times here. I came to TMP as a newbie fan in 1979. Absolutely loved it! Met a few others of similar background who had the same reaction. Met lots of diehard originals during 1980 and mostly they told me I'd never be a real fan if I thought TMP was good.

The experience seemed very deja vu when TNG and now with JJ's Trek.

Us Hu'Mons are not used to change

 

[eyeresist]

I had a look at the remastered DVD last night (first 20 minutes). SO much better than the director's edition in quality - you know, the one where they actually added dirt to the new (unnecessary) CGI scenes to make them fit in visually. Those opening Klingon scenes look so much better now. Will improved image improve my opinion of the film? We shall see...

 

[TalkieToaster]

Except Kubrick himself said:

"I tried to work things out so that nothing important was said in dialogue, and that anything important in the film be translated in terms of action."

Agel, Jerome, ed. The Making of Kubrick's 2001.
New York: New American Library, 1970, p. 292
​

Make of that what you will.

I get that 2001 is a very-visually driven film, but if he wanted dialogue to be so unimportant then what about HAL? Visually he's just a series of cameras. Imagine how different his disconnection scene would've been with no dialogue.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Except Kubrick himself said:

"I tried to work things out so that nothing important was said in dialogue, and that anything important in the film be translated in terms of action."

Agel, Jerome, ed. The Making of Kubrick's 2001.
New York: New American Library, 1970, p. 292
​

Make of that what you will.

I get that 2001 is a very-visually driven film, but if he wanted dialogue to be so unimportant then what about HAL? Visually he's just a series of cameras. Imagine how different his disconnection scene would've been with no dialogue.

A better question might be why give the machine all the dialogue? Perhaps, that was Kubrick's point? HAL has the frailties and limits and the pathos of being unable to surpass them. HAL can only strike out and kill what he can't understand. He's the last monkey with a stick flailing away at a cosmos he can't comprehend. Dave can and ultimately transcends all that in his journey through the monolith.