• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

A Sense of Cosmic Scale (in the TOS/TNG movies)

eyeresist

Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Trying to get my thoughts in order...

Over the weekend I watched four Trek films: 5 (The Final Frontier), 6 (The Undiscovered Country), 7 (Generations), and 8 (First Contact). I hadn't seen any of them for at least a couple of years, and I found my reactions to some had changed, and some had stayed the same.

TFF I still like, though of course it has serious flaws of structure (too jokey in the middle, and the journey to the God planet too short and easy). But I like the character stuff, and the way they are tearing down idols in the manner of TOS.
TUC I find I like less than I did in younger years: apart from dinner with the Klingons and the "are we obsolete" scene, I find it hard to like. There are a lot of things about it that niggle at me, but then we could say that of almost any Trek film. I haven't been able to figure out why this one rubs me the wrong way, but there it is.
GEN was a lot better than I previously thought; much has been made of the plot problems of the Nexus and Kirk's death, but if we can accept these then there is a lot to like. The first 40 minutes are great; after this the level remains, on average, very good. We could wish for Kirk to end another way, but the intentions of the writers and actors were sincere, and I find that counts for something.
FC doesn't impress me as much as it used to, now that I've become familiar with its plot; the various strands of the plot don't add up to a lot, and I find I don't much care about Picard or Data's encounters with the Borg. (And once again the "we don't use money in the future" speech seems unbelievable to me)

Now, what elements are there in common among the films I like, and the films I don't? I think a large part of it may be the question of scale, both physical and thematic.

TUC and FC feel relatively small in scale:
Despite the distances supposedly travelled in TUC, it seems like all the locations are in ready reach of each other (Earth, Kronos, Rura Penthe, Khitomer), and travel between them is easy and brief. The Kronos court room, the mines, and the conference hall all feel too small in scale (though for some reason the Klingon ship interior is HUGE). The interior of the Enterprise is widely explored, but only in the bathetic search for boots (and mashed potatoes).
FC is set on Earth, admittedly Earth of the past, but as usual with time travel stories the mechanism is basically 'press X for past, press Y for future'. The lack of effort in the travel means I don't feel impressed by the change in time-location. Also, the new Enterprise feels very cramped and small in scale for some reason.

Both these stories are very grounded in politics and military operations. Cochrane's flight should be an exception to this, but unfortunately it is commandeered by Riker, who barks orders at Cochrane and gives off the attitude that space flight is mundane.

TFF and GEN by contrast deal with larger things:
In TFF, Nimbus III feels like a neglected outpost very remote from civilization. Just the look and attitude of things there suggest it's a long difficult journey to reach it. The subsequent journey to galactic centre is sadly much too easy, but there is still a sense of moving from one kind of space to a very different one, and then stepping onto an alien world.
GEN has its roaming anomaly, which regularly traverses the entire galaxy every few years. The initial encounter has an impressively vast appearance, and the later stellar cartography scene gives a sense of the interstellar distances and forces that are involved in this story. The crash of the saucer-section is not as impressive as the film-makers hoped, and neither is the part of the story set in the Nexus, but the mountain peak Soran has chosen as his launch site is convincingly arid, rugged and remote.
There is also an unusual sense of temporal scale, with long-lived (immortal?) characters connecting the two periods of the story, and Kirk meeting Picard not by travelling through time, but by a kind of shortcut through "God's waiting room".

In contrast to the previous mentioned films, TFF and GEN are concerned with metaphysical themes:
TFF is essentially about a religious pilgrimage, along the way raising questions about the nature of God and faith, and the necessity of suffering, and it also touches on Vulcan philosophy.
GEN too is essentially a religious investigation: what is Nexus if not a physically observable Heaven? The harmonious wish fulfilment of heavenly life is compared unfavourably with the potential moral advancement of reality, in which suffering is balanced by the possibility of "making a difference". Confining the minds of those caught in the Nexus, Heaven is smaller than the universe, rather than being infinite.

I guess we can deduce from my speculations the sorts of stories that interest me. Although I'm not much interested in morality tales of the 'tolerance=good!' sort, I like stories that reflect on the nature of life and humanity. OTOH I imagine that these same contemplative aspects might be, for other Trek fans, irrelevant or even a source of distaste.

I'd be interested to read people's thoughts on this aspect of these films.


EDIT: Following discussion below, it seems I need to be more succinct. So, what I'm asking is: Which films feel grander in scale, and why?
 
Last edited:
If I understand your question, it's basically asking which movies you thought were more epic in scope?

Hmm, TMP would probably be the "textbook" choice, but it feel so forced, like we are spoon fed the concept that "V'Ger is looking for God the same way we are" etc etc.

TFF on the other hand, asked the same question but in a more organic way. One of the biggest reasons I consider this to be my favorite Trek movie.

I don't think Generations approached the theme from the same angle. In Generations, we are told specifically that the nexus is just a scientifically quantifiable phenomenon, and therefore even if it's "heaven" like, it's only so in a scientifically accepted way, kind of like a holodeck, but one that reads your mind as opposed to you actively programing into it what you want to see.

For that reason, the movie did not resonate with me at all.

All the other Trek films were not epic at all in scope IMO. They are all about mundane villains, and are simplistic in theme.
 
If I understand your question, it's basically asking which movies you thought were more epic in scope?
I guess I'm asking people to look at the "weight" of the different films, and see if they think my concept is valid, or if there's another way they'd prefer to look at things.

I don't think Generations approached the theme from the same angle. In Generations, we are told specifically that the nexus is just a scientifically quantifiable phenomenon, and therefore even if it's "heaven" like, it's only so in a scientifically accepted way, kind of like a holodeck
I agree the scientific basis undermines the "Heaven" idea. However, what it represents to Picard, Kirk and Soran is a possibility of eternal perfect happiness, so their reactions still relate to questions of whether we should live for this life or the next, for our own happiness or that of others.

Regarding TMP, I agree the "looking for God" idea was a bit heavy-handed in execution, but still interesting as a way of exploring artificial intelligence. I found Decker's "ascension" more problematic, if only because we don't really know what happened to him. The idea that he must have become part of a superior consciousness is debatable - he might have become just another "data pattern" in V'ger's memory gallery.
 
The probe outright says "to join with him" and "V'ger and the creator will become one". If it meant "reduce the creator to data patterns" it would have said so, as it's quite literal.

I honestly don't know what you're asking, and I suspect you don't, either. In one message you say you're "asking people to look at the 'weight' of the different films" but in the original post you go on about how much of the locations we see and the sense of how far people travel and how remote some places feel. What is it you actually want people to discuss? All of those things?
 
Last edited:
Well, as stated, traveling far and wide is just one way of providing scope. But it's a very effective way. Merely quoting fictional distances won't do, though: distance has to be made visual. This is where films like ST:Into Darkness excel, by creating a massive visual distance between Nibiru, Earth and Qo'noS - and when they minimize physical distance by making travel times very short, it's of relatively little concern.

I'd assign a lot of "weight" to ST:ID for the great use of epic visuals, and again I don't measure epic with a literal yardstick: immense Klingon ruins are cool, but visual scale is also created by the way the ominous Klingons themselves are filmed. And a big volcano erupting is hot, but so are red trees - and the greatest scale comes from how makeup and VFX artists working within the Trek limitation of using humanoids still manage truly alien faces with alien eyes and subsequently a very alien overall impression.

Trek is a visual phenomenon first and foremost, so that's what creates "weight" for me. Talking about God may be interesting to some, but it's epic only if God looks divine. I'm not sure whether ST:TFF or "Tapestry" does a better job there... But I do appreciate the DS9 depiction of divine beings, and consider that "pocket epic", FWIW.

Timo Saloniemi
 
If I understand your question, it's basically asking which movies you thought were more epic in scope?
I guess I'm asking people to look at the "weight" of the different films, and see if they think my concept is valid, or if there's another way they'd prefer to look at things.

I think I misunderstood my own question here :confused:
Thematic content is a factor, but it's a subset of a larger issue, which is mostly to do with an epic sense of physical scale, in distances travelled, and otherness of destinations reached.


What I'm asking is: Which films feel grander in scale, and why?

I agree with Timo that STID had a great sense of "bigness" about its set pieces (especially the spaceships), but I'm not sure the sense of distance came across. They got back to Earth awfully quickly!
 
I think Star Trek 09 feels the most expansive of all the films in terms of scope. We visit three different planets (Earth, Vulcan, Delta Vega), Iowa shipyards, San Francisco, Vulcan caverns, and we visit the interiors of four different ships (Enterprise, Kelvin, Narada, Jellyfish), and miscellaneous other locations. And these locations are frequently BIG. I think STID comes in a close second. The other films all just feel small, even TMP. The sets are mostly cramped and frequently soundstagey. There are rarely crowd scenes or big vistas. TSFS feels particularly teeny.
 
The only films which look and feel truly epic are the big budget ones: The Motion Picture, Star Trek and Into Darkness.

I'll disagree with Maurice and say Search For Spock gets an honourable mention, for epic vistas like the spacedock and the Vulcan scenes at the end.
 
In some respects TUC and FC deal with things we already know about. We know that the Klingons and Federation will become closer allies due to TNG, same sort of thing with FC we know that humanity will take a key place on the galactic stage in the centuries to come.

So it might be fair to say TUC and FC deal with events which will shape the galaxy, whilst TFF and GEN deal with events which shape our characters.
 
The Star Trek Films "Epic-ness," scale of 1-10:

TMP: I'd say a solid 8+. With V'ger, a god-like machine, threatening to wipe out Earth, the stakes can't be much higher. Being the first movie, this hadn't been done in Trek before...at least in the movies. Plus, the first on-screen reunion of the TOS cast, in a refit Enterprise. Hell, the 10 minute flyby alone was epic. First view of Vulcan in a film...great. First, view of the modern Klingons...for its time, awesome. The FX largely hold up, too, IMHO.

TWOK: Definitely a 10, for me. My all time favorite Trek film. Kept all that worked in TMP, and revamped all that didn't. On a fraction of the budget of TMP, it delivers pure awesome. Classic "frankenstein" plot: when man gains god-like power of creation, should man play GOD? Also, the themes of dealing with aging, death, and revenge. Not only is it the best Trek for me, it is among the best sci fi, hell, best movies for me.

TSFS: This drops down to an 8. Still one of my favorite Trek films, and themes of dealing with the past actions and their consequences (Kirk leaving spock on genesis, David's short cut biting him...both Genesis as a failure and how the Klingons perceived it as a thread), and loss (death of David, loss of the Enterprise). Loyd as Kruge was great. Personally, I prefer Robin Curtis's Saavik. Just its epicness suffers, simply for being the one that follows TWOK.

TVH: Pretty decent movie, Solid 7. Not my favorite, but far from the worst. It should feel more epic: Kirk and Crew time traveling to save Earth (yet again) from another machine threatening to destroy Earth. Probably the fact that it is almost a little too light-hearted is the reason it looses point for Epic-ness.

TFF: Eh, just didn't do it for me. Very flawed movie, but does have great character moment, particularly the Sybock/Spock birth scene, and Sybok/McCoy father's death scenes are the highest points, IMHO. The comedic points were just silly. I think we all knew they weren't really going to meet God. Probably a 5.

TUC: it was...OKAY. I want to give it more, but it feels like a 6 for epic-ness. Scenes were great, like Spock VS Kirk debate on saving the Klingons, seeing Sulu as Captain of the Excelsior, final space battle scene, and the final scene of the Enterprise and crew, great cameo by Michael Dorn. We are already kind of spoiled on how the peace turns out for the Feds and Klingons, and we knew it was the last TOS movie, so its going to have a happy ending. Maybe that's why the stakes don't seem that high.

Generations: Very flawed. Epicness just seems like about a 5. Should have been higher with legend meeting legend, but the issues I have with the film just hobble it too much. See here for my issues with the film. http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=259207&page=11

FC: Definitely an 8. Borg threatening Earth, Picard's Ahab complex, time travel (at this point, this trope starts to wear thin for me), but simply was blown away when I first saw it in theaters. I think it holds up for the most part

Insurrection: ugh. A 3, I suppose? Hard for me to really care about a planet we never heard of, with a fountain of youth story, and the greed and treachery that goes along with it. The second film featuring a rogue Admiral. It just seemed more like a generic filler episode with better FX, than a movie.

Nemesis: Probably a 7. I think my critical view has softened considerably over the years. OK, I was never a fan of the idea of having a Picard clone that looks nothing like Picard. I think they must have been thinking that glomming onto the Star Wars AOTC movie was a good idea. Clones were the in thing, i guess. Thing is, Star Trek TNG, especially did the evil twin thing to death. Lore (I guess Data is a triplet?), Riker (I guess Will was the evil twin), Riker & Pulaski having been cloned in season 2, and now Picard. Picard hot rodding in a dune buggy? Remans (a la Nosferatu) were an utter dissapointment: they would have worked as some other species, but Remans? But it did give us the Riker-Troi wedding (I actually enjoyed that), the opening shot of the Romulan senate was grand, Enterprise warping upside-down was a great shot, the final space battle was pretty cool, and the very end, even though it rips off TWOK a bit, Data's sacrifice was touching.

Trek '09: Wow, this one was an 11 for epicness, simply because it was a reboot. FX were grand. All the actors did a stellar job. I went in expecting to hate it, but just was blown away. Destruction of Vulcan: ballsy! Earth being next: very epic, even if this is technically the 4th time earth has been saved in the movies, if you count Nemesis.

STID: Talk about a polar opposite of my reaction to Trek '09. I went in thinking it would kick even more ass, but I just hated it. In the interest of being fair and plagiarism aside, though, it's epicness is pretty high. I give it a solid 8. FX of the Enterprise rising from the water, awesome. The appearance of the Vengeance. A ship appearing doesn't get more epic than that. Debut of the new klingons, I was so curious what they would look like: they pull off a fresh new look, yet totally familiar, simultaneously. And I have to admit CumberKhan was good in it.
 
Insurrection ... The second film featuring a rogue Admiral.
I never saw the Admiral as a rogue, but more a servant of the Federation Council acting under orders.

By the middle of the movie it was obvious (to me) than the Admiral had no control over events, no one was listening to him, not the Sona, not Picard and Riker.

:)
 
Insurrection ... The second film featuring a rogue Admiral.
I never saw the Admiral as a rogue, but more a servant of the Federation Council acting under orders.

By the middle of the movie it was obvious (to me) than the Admiral had no control over events, no one was listening to him, not the Sona, not Picard and Riker.

:)

I dunno, I guess that is one way to look at it. :)

The way I interpret it is Admiral Dougherty was put in charge of relations with the Son'a and assessing the Ba'ku situation on the planet Ba'ku. Starfleet gave him approval to do what needed to be done, but I always interpreted it as Starfleet not being apprised of the entire situation. His motivation? Well, he seemed to have a side deal with Ru'Afo to study/duplicate the effects of the anti-aging properties of the planet. I think it was a case of a crusty old admiral abusing his power, to become young again, and justifying it to himself by thinking he was doing the "greater good," by relocating the Ba'ku, but Ru'Afu was just playing him, so he could get Dougherty's help taking over the planet. Had the Feds known the entire story, I doubt they would have gone along with Dougherty. That was why he was trying to prevent Data narcing him off, in the first place, which brought the Enterprise on scene.
 
The only films which look and feel truly epic are the big budget ones: The Motion Picture, Star Trek and Into Darkness.

I'll disagree with Maurice and say Search For Spock gets an honourable mention, for epic vistas like the spacedock and the Vulcan scenes at the end.

^This. If we're going to give them scores for 'epic-ness' here's mine.

TMP 10
TWOK 7
TSFS 6
TVH 5
TFF 5
TUC 6
GEN 7
FC 7
INS 4
NEM 6
ST09 10
STID 9
 
What I'm asking is: Which films feel grander in scale, and why?

By that criteria I would only include TMP, TUC and FC, all dealing with weighty personal themes and the survival-or for TUC, chance for great improvement-of the heroes' society; TWoK comes close in being a basically simple story but the subplots and relationships are quite deep and meaningful; TVH doesn't make it for being so light in tone and the rest feel pretty small-scale.
 
Not every film ever must be "epic" in order to be wortwhile. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, arguably the best film of the twelve made thus far is almost entirely not epic, yet still remains a powerhouse of entertainment and thrills.
 
I'll disagree with Maurice and say Search For Spock gets an honourable mention, for epic vistas like the spacedock and the Vulcan scenes at the end.
Yes, ILM's contribution to TSFS was terrific.


Not every film ever must be "epic" in order to be worthwhile. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, arguably the best film of the twelve made thus far is almost entirely not epic, yet still remains a powerhouse of entertainment and thrills.
For me TWOK is epic. One man's fury, enough to fill the universe! "Elemental" is what it is.


In some respects TUC and FC deal with things we already know about. We know that the Klingons and Federation will become closer allies due to TNG, same sort of thing with FC we know that humanity will take a key place on the galactic stage in the centuries to come.

So it might be fair to say TUC and FC deal with events which will shape the galaxy, whilst TFF and GEN deal with events which shape our characters.

Good points!


TFF is an odd case, as obviously it should have been much larger in scale towards the end. Obviously there are reasons that didn't work out, but also starting with the mountain climbing scene gives the climax a lot (too much?) to live up to.
 
First Contact should feel gran but it just doesn't for me. The space battle is far too short and the new Enterprise isn't given nearly enough screen time. Instead we walk around on soundstage earth for an hour.

TMP and ST09 get my votes for reasons others have described.

TWOK feels grand because of the implied distances covered and travel time. Lines like "we're all alone out here", "we weren't expecting [Reliant] for another two months", and Sulu's announcement of Enterprise's arrival at Regula underscore this for me. The film also breaks a lot of new visceral ground for Trek.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top