The '80s obsession with dolphins/whales is odd, in hindsight.
The films as TOS episodes....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
The '80s obsession with dolphins/whales is odd, in hindsight.
But it wasn't just an eighties thing. Flipper had his own TV show in the sixties, Namu the Killer Whale had his own movie in 1966, you had Day of the Dolphin in 1973 . . . trust me, people were into dolphins and whales before the 1980s.
As for time travel. . . well, that's simply a matter of taste, not economics. Personally, I think time travel has a pretty good track record when it comes to Trek. Besides the eps already mentioned, you also have:
TOS: "All Our Yesterdays"
TNG: "Yesterday's Enterprise," "Tapestry," FIRST CONTACT.
DS9: "Little Green Men"
VOY: "Future's End," "Relativity."
NuTrek: STAR TREK (2009)
All great movies or episodes, in my opinion.
Last edited:
And, y'know, the whales?
That sounds rather similar to the plot of the Irwin Allen-produced TV movie Time Travelers (1976), in which two scientists go back in time to 1871 Chicago (just before the great fire) to try to find the cure for a mysterious and deadly disease.
Oh, and DDT is a generic chemical name, not a trade name.
And that explains why I am not a creative writer. Everytime I have tried it's come off as derivative and cliched... I have the Time Travellers movie on DVD, but completely forgot about it. Come up with what I thought was a comparatively original idea, and it turns out that I was influenced by a movie I had seen once... four years ago.
It should be noted that the "Scooby Doo" unmasking was not in the theatrical version of TUC. As far as everyone knew, it was just some anonymous Klingon.
Also, the idea of Arne Darvin having been "surgically altered to appear human" only came about decades later in DS9's "Trials and Tribble-ations." From a TOS point of view, in which there is no such thing as bumpy klingons, lots of Klingons could pass for a typical human just by shaving the goatee off, trimming the eyebrows, and changing out of that Klingon military uniform.
For public awareness of environmental issues, it's easier to get the general populace to care through awareness of "flagship species" such as whales, polar bears and elephants, rather than some moss or microscopic fauna that may be absolutely vital to the ecosystem but not as "cute."
Kor
It's funny, I was 12 when TMP came out, and it wasn't until visiting Trek websites almost twenty years later that I'd heard of it being a rehash of "The Changeling". To me it was always more reminiscent of "The Corbomite Maneuver" because most of it was the crew spending time on the Enterprise, facing a giant alien ship and trying to figure out what they wanted, how to talk to them, etc.
Now I see it as more a mix between those episodes because ultimately what V'ger wanted was the same as what Nomad wanted. But there's more time spent doing the "Corbomite Maneuver" thing.
Now I see it as more a mix between those episodes because ultimately what V'ger wanted was the same as what Nomad wanted. But there's more time spent doing the "Corbomite Maneuver" thing.
^ I really enjoyed TMP when it first came out on Pearl Harbor Day of 1979. I was 13 then, and yes, it was tremendous fun. It was also a feeling of accomplishment and redemption of sorts, because the original STAR TREK was "back" (sort of) after ten years.
The criticism was there, though, from the early 80s forward. I remember that as well. My initial excitement was dampened by sentiments being expressed through magazines like STARLOG, David Gerrold's THE WORLD OF STAR TREK book, and the like. The "Where Nomad Has Gone Before" sentiment stung, though I have to admit it was valid.
This thread is interesting to me because it is looking at all the STAR TREK movies through a television lens. Over the years, starting with seeing TMP re-run on HBO and The Movie Channel and later on the ABC network in prime time, I kept getting the impression that the movies, for all of their super-expensive budgets, fancy sets, lavish guest stars, and Big Screen boldness, were really just overdone TV episodes. It made me wonder why Hollywood didn't save some money and just do made-for-TV movies or miniseries. Miniseries might have even improved the quality a little.
Of course, Hollywood saw dollar signs and it was all a business decision and not a creative vision. As previously pointed out in this thread, the comparisons to TOS stories should make it clear that while the movies were lavish in their special effects and guest actors, etc., they were far too often lacking in originality. They really did not have that much to say that was fresh and new, and I think this undercut the whole franchise. Which was the better TNG adventure: "The Best of Both Worlds" or GENERATIONS? The movie came only four years after the two-parter, so it wasn't like the studio waited too long. I would argue that "The Best of Both Worlds" captured more of the audience's imagination that most of the TOS-based or TNG-based movies ever could. "The Best of Both Worlds" was a great story, filled with gripping drama and character development, and punctuated by "Family", a sequel of sorts. (Ironically, Michael Piller had to call up Rick Berman and get Berman's permission to move forward with "Family" according to CINEFANTASTIQUE magazine, because Hollywood in those days was still averse to hourlong television dramas becoming serialized like a soap opera. This underscored Hollywood's creative problem with the STAR TREK franchise, as nobody seemed to realize that TMP2, 3, and 4 were already serialized much as the STAR WARS movies were.)
But this thread simply confirms to me that the movies, right through the 2009 JJ movie, were all simply overblown, over budgeted TV shows put on the Big Screen. It really isn't that hard to imagine them as TV episodes or miniseries, since there seems to be something fundamental about the characters and the framework of the STAR TREK Universe that is tied to video and not film.
CINEFANTASTIQUE gushed with praise about how TNG regularly presented "feature-film quality" in which was extolled as "one of the best hours on television", but just a few years later it was clear that once you put those same characters onto the Big Screen, the movie theater simply becomes a big family room and the screen becomes a huge, super-high-def TV. It always looked funny because it was awkward.
STAR TREK, in all its forms, was never going to be anything more than a TV show. Sure, you can spend millions of dollars, re-invent the Enterprise, and make a thunderous roar that will sound odd when rerun on TV years later. You can even make lots of money doing it. But in the end all those lavish FX, guest stars and studio tricks don't change what TREK really is, and ever shall be: Jiffy Pop time in your living room.
The criticism was there, though, from the early 80s forward. I remember that as well. My initial excitement was dampened by sentiments being expressed through magazines like STARLOG, David Gerrold's THE WORLD OF STAR TREK book, and the like. The "Where Nomad Has Gone Before" sentiment stung, though I have to admit it was valid.
This thread is interesting to me because it is looking at all the STAR TREK movies through a television lens. Over the years, starting with seeing TMP re-run on HBO and The Movie Channel and later on the ABC network in prime time, I kept getting the impression that the movies, for all of their super-expensive budgets, fancy sets, lavish guest stars, and Big Screen boldness, were really just overdone TV episodes. It made me wonder why Hollywood didn't save some money and just do made-for-TV movies or miniseries. Miniseries might have even improved the quality a little.
Of course, Hollywood saw dollar signs and it was all a business decision and not a creative vision. As previously pointed out in this thread, the comparisons to TOS stories should make it clear that while the movies were lavish in their special effects and guest actors, etc., they were far too often lacking in originality. They really did not have that much to say that was fresh and new, and I think this undercut the whole franchise. Which was the better TNG adventure: "The Best of Both Worlds" or GENERATIONS? The movie came only four years after the two-parter, so it wasn't like the studio waited too long. I would argue that "The Best of Both Worlds" captured more of the audience's imagination that most of the TOS-based or TNG-based movies ever could. "The Best of Both Worlds" was a great story, filled with gripping drama and character development, and punctuated by "Family", a sequel of sorts. (Ironically, Michael Piller had to call up Rick Berman and get Berman's permission to move forward with "Family" according to CINEFANTASTIQUE magazine, because Hollywood in those days was still averse to hourlong television dramas becoming serialized like a soap opera. This underscored Hollywood's creative problem with the STAR TREK franchise, as nobody seemed to realize that TMP2, 3, and 4 were already serialized much as the STAR WARS movies were.)
But this thread simply confirms to me that the movies, right through the 2009 JJ movie, were all simply overblown, over budgeted TV shows put on the Big Screen. It really isn't that hard to imagine them as TV episodes or miniseries, since there seems to be something fundamental about the characters and the framework of the STAR TREK Universe that is tied to video and not film.
CINEFANTASTIQUE gushed with praise about how TNG regularly presented "feature-film quality" in which was extolled as "one of the best hours on television", but just a few years later it was clear that once you put those same characters onto the Big Screen, the movie theater simply becomes a big family room and the screen becomes a huge, super-high-def TV. It always looked funny because it was awkward.
STAR TREK, in all its forms, was never going to be anything more than a TV show. Sure, you can spend millions of dollars, re-invent the Enterprise, and make a thunderous roar that will sound odd when rerun on TV years later. You can even make lots of money doing it. But in the end all those lavish FX, guest stars and studio tricks don't change what TREK really is, and ever shall be: Jiffy Pop time in your living room.
You might be able to say the same for most movies, not just the Star Trek movies.
It's like the majority of TV comedies today, with their small number of fixed sets and two camera set ups, are really just televised stage plays
Star Trek was conceived for the small screen. It's concept was fashioned to allow for telling a variety of stories. To that end I stringly believe that's where Star Trek's best work has been done because the television concept allows for greater creative freedom to tell more kinds of stories.
The films lose something in the translation because you keep trying to make it bigger and bigger. You keep trying to make it into something it's not and ultimately fall into a formula of expectations.
Whatever enjoyment I've gotten from the films is nowhere on the same level as that I got from Star Trek on television.
The films lose something in the translation because you keep trying to make it bigger and bigger. You keep trying to make it into something it's not and ultimately fall into a formula of expectations.
Whatever enjoyment I've gotten from the films is nowhere on the same level as that I got from Star Trek on television.
I've been a fan for over twenty years and the first time I heard the "Where Nomad Has Gone Before" schtick was two weeks ago on this forum.
I suppose TMP is a matter of taste. I really enjoy the film even with it's slower pace. It really conveys a sense of awe. There are tons of beauty shots in the film; and those shots of the Enterprise flying past V'Ger are great at conveying the mind blowing scale of the thing.
But If I'm going to pick an original crew film to watch, it will either be The Wrath of Khan or The Motion Picture.
For what it's worth, I was in college and attending sci-fi conventions at the time, and I can testify to hearing that joke tossed around a lot back when the movie first came out, which, granted, was more than thirty-five years ago, so it was possibly before your time.
Maybe it became less of a cliche over the years . . . .
Last edited:
I heard "Where Nomad Has Gone Before" decades ago, too.
Turns out the TVH makers had to use FX and VFX for practically every shot on the whales in part because they couldn't find footage that fit their story needs. Would have been even less likely in 1968. They'd likely have had to use model whales.
I find this thread interesting because it was the original series big screen movies that got me interested in Star Trek in the first place.
I was aware of Star Trek before then. Heck, I was born about a couple of weeks before the original series premiered in 1966. And one of my earliest memories was watching it on black and white TV and asking my mom why the man with the pointy ears never smiled.
I was aware of Trek and had a passing knowledge of what it was about, but I could take it or leave it.
But in my senior year of high school, I saw either the 2nd or the 3rd movie on videotape, it was 1984. And I was hooked. I started watching the re-runs and reading the Trek novels. I saw the episode about Nomad before I watched The Motion Picture, because I watched the movies out of order. And I noticed the similarities right off the bat.
I was aware of Star Trek before then. Heck, I was born about a couple of weeks before the original series premiered in 1966. And one of my earliest memories was watching it on black and white TV and asking my mom why the man with the pointy ears never smiled.
I was aware of Trek and had a passing knowledge of what it was about, but I could take it or leave it.But in my senior year of high school, I saw either the 2nd or the 3rd movie on videotape, it was 1984. And I was hooked. I started watching the re-runs and reading the Trek novels. I saw the episode about Nomad before I watched The Motion Picture, because I watched the movies out of order. And I noticed the similarities right off the bat.
Similar threads
