Rewatched TMP last night

[Greg Cox]

A while back, I checked out what I could find on the internet with regard to original TMP reviews from 1979. Positive ones, like Roger Ebert's, tended to compare it favorably to 2001, etc. The negative ones usually felt it was over-reliant on special effects or that the plot seemed lifted from old Trek TV episodes, but I don't remember a lot complaining about the pacing - the closest I can remember was one reviewer thinking there was a little too much of watching the crew react to stuff on viewscreens for his liking. Probably because movies (and TV) in general tended to be slower paced forty years ago.

But I'm with J.T.B. that there did seem to be a big backlash towards TMP in the 80s. I'm sort of curious of the demographics of such: was it largely from folks who were introduced to Trek through reruns as kids in the 70s, weaned on Star Wars, and "came of age" (if you will) as adolescents in the era of whiz-bang 80s blockbusters, which made TMP seem like even more of a dinosaur?

It's also possible that TMP suffered retroactively by comparison to WRATH OF KHAN. When TMP debuted, there were no other Trek films to compare it to, so sympathetic reviewers compared it to 2001.

(I also believe that there's a fair amount of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THIRD KIND in the movie's DNA, but that tends to be overlooked as people forget what a big hit CLOSE ENCOUNTERS was at the time.)

But when KHAN came out, the conventional wisdom quickly became that it was the better STAR TREK movie, so people started lauding KHAN at TMP's expense.

KHAN was the success, the movie that took the right approach, whereas TMP was a noble failure . .. .

 

[justaredshirt]

I just finished watching TMP aswell via netflix. I don't know what cut of the film they have but there are scenes both missing and ones I hadn't seen before. One example is the sickbay scene with Spock after he melds with V'gr is much longer than what I remember and I don't remember seeing the Spock tear scene. I know it's not the DE (its running time is to long) but seems like some hybrid of SLV and Original though I could be wrong its been awhile since I've seen the Original release. Anyone know what version Netflix is showing

 

[BillJ]

I just finished watching TMP aswell via netflix. I don't know what cut of the film they have but there are scenes both missing and ones I hadn't seen before. One example is the sickbay scene with Spock after he melds with V'gr is much longer than what I remember and I don't remember seeing the Spock tear scene. I know it's not the DE (its running time is to long) but seems like some hybrid of SLV and Original though I could be wrong its been awhile since I've seen the Original release. Anyone know what version Netflix is showing

Likely the theatrical edition.

 

[Warped9]

KHAN was the success, the movie that took the right approach, whereas TMP was a noble failure....

A matter of opinion. It's interesting how many people (myself included) find TMP has aged well enough while TWOK not so much.

In some ways I think TMP echoes "The Cage" in the sense that both tended to go against general expectations for visual SF in each of their respective eras. "The Cage" veered from the approach popularized with the Irwin Allen sci-fi shows and a lot of other film and television sci-fi of the period. "The Cage" went for more of the thoughtful approach as seen in The Outer Limits, The Twilght Zone and the better SF films. "The Cage" was well liked by NBC, but they had hoped for a bit more energy which they got with WNMHGB.

In like manner TMP didn't seek to emulate Star Wars, but went again for the more thoughtful approach similar to 2001 and Close Encounters.

But the followups to both differ. WNMHGB simply added more energy and character dynamic without sacrificing much (if anything) of intelligence. And, IMO, WNMHGB has aged quite well--perhaps better than "The Cage" actually. WNMHGB didn't change much beyond shuffling the cast which in itself brought much of the dynamic NBC was looking for. Shatner lights up the screen compared to Hunter. Shatner has good chemistry with Nimoy, and Spock beginning to be more defined helped as well. Also the characters of Mitchell, Dehner and Kelso help immeasurably with their performances in selling a believable setting.

TWOK doesn't bring much else to the table beyond added action. Indeed Meyer injected elements that feel less Star Trek than TMP, but because it's a rollicking action/adventure flick it feels more accessible and more like the popular Star Wars.

For me TMP is more like first season TOS while TWOK is more like second or even third season. There are things I like in TWOK, but there are also lots of things that bug me.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

TWOK doesn't bring much else to the table beyond added action.

Of course it does.

 

[BillJ]

KHAN was the success, the movie that took the right approach, whereas TMP was a noble failure....

A matter of opinion. It's interesting how many people (myself included) find TMP has aged well enough while TWOK not so much.

I think they've both aged well and both are incredibly entertaining, but different, Star Trek outings.

 

[J.T.B.]

He also did Run Silent, Run Deep, a film that had a not insignificant impact on TOS and TMP.

TMP has some very strong echoes of RSRD, which also involves a captain being replaced last-minute and continuing on as exec. Wise's other navy movie, The Sand Pebbles, has less obvious plot connections, but sometimes feels related as the first Wise/Goldsmith collaboration.

It's also possible that TMP suffered retroactively by comparison to WRATH OF KHAN. When TMP debuted, there were no other Trek films to compare it to, so sympathetic reviewers compared it to 2001.

[...]

But when KHAN came out, the conventional wisdom quickly became that it was the better STAR TREK movie, so people started lauding KHAN at TMP's expense.

KHAN was the success, the movie that took the right approach, whereas TMP was a noble failure . .. .

That's something of what I was trying to say before. For the vast majority of viewers, TMP was a three year old memory before they saw it again, which was on the small screen, with commercials. And while the theater-going, big screen, big sound experience could make up for a lot of defects, the contrast of TV TMP with the recent TWOK cinema experience was huge. Big enough, I think, for even people who had liked TMP to say "This was the movie I thought was pretty good back then?" I admit it, I did.

(I also believe that there's a fair amount of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THIRD KIND in the movie's DNA, but that tends to be overlooked as people forget what a big hit CLOSE ENCOUNTERS was at the time.)

It's well worth remembering. As I've mentioned before, the success formula for a science fiction movie was less clear-cut in 1979. Star Wars was huge, but Close Encounters was also a big hit. Logan's Run had been a big hit. 2001 had been a big hit the decade before and had made a lasting impact. Space exploration and alien life/intelligence were stronger currents in the culture back then. In hindsight, we know that space action/adventure was the surest path to commercial success, but it wasn't so obvious at the time.

 

[Greg Cox]

I think the CLOSE ENCOUNTERS influence can be seen in all the longish sequences of people gaping in awe at V'Gr.

Given that CLOSE ENCOUNTERS had made a bundle not long before, the studio could be forgiven for thinking that what the audience wanted was amazing special-effects light shows . ....

So they played up the expensive SFX at the expense of pacing and characterization.

 

[drt]

I think the CLOSE ENCOUNTERS influence can be seen in all the longish sequences of people gaping in awe at V'Gr.

Given that CLOSE ENCOUNTERS had made a bundle not long before, the studio could be forgiven for thinking that what the audience wanted was amazing special-effects light shows . ....

So they played up the expensive SFX at the expense of pacing and characterization.

Let's not forget that the "Jupiter and Beyond" act of 2001 was also a special-effect light show.

 

[gottacook]

It's also possible that TMP suffered retroactively by comparison to WRATH OF KHAN. When TMP debuted, there were no other Trek films to compare it to, so sympathetic reviewers compared it to 2001.

(I also believe that there's a fair amount of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THIRD KIND in the movie's DNA, but that tends to be overlooked as people forget what a big hit CLOSE ENCOUNTERS was at the time.)

But when KHAN came out, the conventional wisdom quickly became that it was the better STAR TREK movie, so people started lauding KHAN at TMP's expense.

KHAN was the success, the movie that took the right approach, whereas TMP was a noble failure . ..

* * *

I think the CLOSE ENCOUNTERS influence can be seen in all the longish sequences of people gaping in awe at V'Gr.

Well, it's possible-to-probable that the cast themselves (not just "people") thought TWoK turned out better. (I can't turn up the source, but in 1982 I saw a DeForest Kelley quote - in a magazine story, presumably - to the effect of "Now this is Star Trek.") So it's not necessarily a matter of public opinion alone. It might really be objectively true.

As for comparisons among 2001, Close Encounters, and TMP, I would only say they're similar to the extent that Doug Trumbull, master of the gosh-wow special effect, worked on them all.* If you saw Close Encounters in the theater, especially one with the sound turned up LOUD, you would know why it was such a big hit; the full reveal of the mother ship as it slowly rotates into landing position is more exciting than anything in TMP. Nor were there any long scenes of people gawping at a static effect - the little ships tended to move quickly, and the mother ship scenes were edited at a much faster clip than any V'ger or other exterior shot in TMP.

TMP's problem was rhythm (or pacing) more than anything. Brief glimpses of effects can be more effective than protracted views of same. TMP was stately - perhaps even had to be, given the nature of the script - and could not be exciting in the way TWoK was, and this would likely have been true even if TWoK had been G-rated.

*I'm also am one of the few(?) fans of Brainstorm, but primarily because I saw it in the theater, where changes in aspect ratio at crucial times (i.e., when someone is wearing one of the playback devices) aren't duplicated in the same way for home video: In the theater the image grew notably wider but not taller during these scenes, whereas on DVD the black bars at top and bottom simply increase in vertical depth, so that the image is "wider" by virtue of being squeezed vertically.

 

[Greg Cox]

I think the CLOSE ENCOUNTERS influence can be seen in all the longish sequences of people gaping in awe at V'Gr.

Given that CLOSE ENCOUNTERS had made a bundle not long before, the studio could be forgiven for thinking that what the audience wanted was amazing special-effects light shows . ....

So they played up the expensive SFX at the expense of pacing and characterization.

Let's not forget that the "Jupiter and Beyond" act of 2001 was also a special-effect light show.

True, although that was about a decade in the past by the time TMP went into production. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS had just come out about a year before.

But, yes, as noted above, the studio probably thought that gorgeous Douglas Trumbull SFX were what audiences seemed to want.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I saw Brainstorm just the other day on TCM. It's an important film, one I've always liked since seeing it in the theater, but I'm afraid it hasn't aged very well, really at all.

I agree that much briefer glimpses of the V'ger flyover would have worked much better, just so long as they had preserved the three shots of the Enterprise in close flyover.

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd1586.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd1621.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd1634.jpg

I love those, especially the last two.

 

[drt]

I think the CLOSE ENCOUNTERS influence can be seen in all the longish sequences of people gaping in awe at V'Gr.

Given that CLOSE ENCOUNTERS had made a bundle not long before, the studio could be forgiven for thinking that what the audience wanted was amazing special-effects light shows . ....

So they played up the expensive SFX at the expense of pacing and characterization.

Let's not forget that the "Jupiter and Beyond" act of 2001 was also a special-effect light show.

True, although that was about a decade in the past by the time TMP went into production. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS had just come out about a year before.

But, yes, as noted above, the studio probably thought that gorgeous Douglas Trumbull SFX were what audiences seemed to want.

Heh, I was agreeing with you - but more in the sense that maybe the studio thought that such was part of the audience's expectation for a "serious science fiction" film - as opposed to more action-oriented movies like Logan's Run or Star Wars.

I agree that much briefer glimpses of the V'ger flyover would have worked much better, just so long as they had preserved the three shots of the Enterprise in close flyover.

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd1586.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd1621.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd1634.jpg

I love those, especially the last two.

I think what makes those work is having Enterprise in context with Vger. I've often thought that the "flying through the cloud" sequence would have played better if, instead of just watching pretty images on the viewscreen, there were external shots of Enterprise penetrating the various cloud layers to better show the traverse.

 

[drt]

* oops double post *

 

[Greg Cox]

Let's not forget that the "Jupiter and Beyond" act of 2001 was also a special-effect light show.

True, although that was about a decade in the past by the time TMP went into production. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS had just come out about a year before.

But, yes, as noted above, the studio probably thought that gorgeous Douglas Trumbull SFX were what audiences seemed to want.

Heh, I was agreeing with you - but more in the sense that maybe the studio thought that such was part of the audience's expectation for a "serious science fiction" film - as opposed to more action-oriented movies like Logan's Run or Star Wars.

Yeah, we're basically on the same page here. I just think that CLOSE ENCOUNTERS influence on the V'Gr stuff gets underestimated in favor of citing 2001 sometimes, probably because 2001 has had longer legs, culturally. People forget what a big deal CLOSE ENCOUNTERS was at the time.

Come to think of it, even LOGAN'S RUN had a trippy laser-light sequence, when the City computer tries to probe Logan's brain near the end of the movie ....

 

[drt]

Come to think of it, even LOGAN'S RUN had a trippy laser-light sequence, when the City computer tries to probe Logan's brain near the end of the movie ....

Oh yeah, maybe the first use of actual holograms in a movie for the "THERE IS NO SANCTUARY" bits

 

[Greg Cox]

Come to think of it, even LOGAN'S RUN had a trippy laser-light sequence, when the City computer tries to probe Logan's brain near the end of the movie ....

Oh yeah, maybe the first use of actual holograms in a movie for the "THERE IS NO SANCTUARY" bits

Interesting. I didn't know that.

 

[eyeresist]

It's also possible that TMP suffered retroactively by comparison to WRATH OF KHAN. When TMP debuted, there were no other Trek films to compare it to, so sympathetic reviewers compared it to 2001.

(I also believe that there's a fair amount of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THIRD KIND in the movie's DNA, but that tends to be overlooked as people forget what a big hit CLOSE ENCOUNTERS was at the time.)

(I may have said this before, but...)
The late 70s really saw a big change in the way movies were made, chiefly in terms of pace. TMP is extremely slow in comparison with TWOK, but also in comparison with other fantasy adventures of the time, such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, Aliens and the Star Wars movies. I see it as really the last gasp of the big screen epics of the 50s and 60s: the Bible movies, the David Lean films, etc.

Close Encounters has been mentioned a lot as a point of comparison, but that film differs from TMP in some important ways:

1. Even though it's not action-packed, the directing style is much slicker than Wise's, full of little moments of crisis and suspense, and the staging is much less static.
2. The big light show at the end is an emotional pay-off to the journey of the film, whereas TMP's lacks dramatic content (it's ten minutes of one emotion), and is only a stop-off midway to the end (I'd compare it with the journey upriver in Heart of Darkness in that way).
3. Although we can talk about the emotional experiences of the characters in TMP, these things are really observed at arms length, brusque dialog in sterile corridors, whereas TWOK makes a point of getting us emotionally close to the characters from the beginning: Chekov's unexpected discovery of an old enemy, followed by helplessness and torture. Kirk traumatised and lost on his birthday, with his friends gathered round to comfort him. Scott's nephew joining him in the engine room (though they really needed a different actor).
TWOK takes place within an emotional, social world, whereas TMP takes place in a vacuum. This is part of the reason it's compared to Kubrick's 2001, but that movie was designed to be a philosophical, mystical experience in the vein of Olaf Stapledon, whereas TMP is at heart a Space Patrol adventure, which requires easier identification with the heroes than I think TMP allows us.

I'd say part of the problem is that TMP is a TV episode writ large, and in TV series of that time there was no expectation of character development. The heroes would face a problem, solve it, and finish up basically the way they started. It was TWOK which established a precedent for Trek movies being based in the emotional journey of the characters.

 

[gottacook]

We... reach, eyeresist.

 

[martok2112]

Come to think of it, even LOGAN'S RUN had a trippy laser-light sequence, when the City computer tries to probe Logan's brain near the end of the movie ....

Oh yeah, maybe the first use of actual holograms in a movie for the "THERE IS NO SANCTUARY" bits

Interesting. I didn't know that.

Didn't Logan's Run also receive an Oscar for that effect?