TMP was the best Star Trek picture

[Pauln6]

Yeah, shorter or fewer reaction shots, and shorten the V'Ger flyover to still showcase the vastness but without dragging out each shot. Apart from that, it just needed one or two more scenes of some humour and/or interaction of the supporting crew.

By comparison, I was watching one of the Phase II fan episodes and there was a scene where Uhura, Chekov, possibly Sulu, and I think Peter Kirk are in the Rec Room taking a break and they lament the last time they got any sleep. It was short scene that added a bit of character and humour, and underlined their sense of camaraderie.

 

[Vger23]

I agree for the most part (just rewatched it after not having seen since its original release in '79). I had forgotten how good this one actually is and the visuals are bang-on excellent. My only real criticism is its length; if TPTB had sheared off around 15-20 minutes it would be near perfection imho.

I actually really like the pacing, but I know it's not for everyone. There's something about the slower pace and the music that really helps TMP be an immersive, enveloping experience for me.

 

[Pauln6]

I actually really like the pacing, but I know it's not for everyone. There's something about the slower pace and the music that really helps TMP be an immersive, enveloping experience for me.

For the most part I agree. But I'd love a HD version of SLV with complete FX shots and even I think the flyover was dragged out.

 

[cosmic mouse]

I actually really like the pacing, but I know it's not for everyone. There's something about the slower pace and the music that really helps TMP be an immersive, enveloping experience for me.

I hear you on the immersive part since that's pretty much exactly how I felt towards the end once the crew entered the cloud. It's mainly the pacing during some of the other parts of the film that I thought could have been improved upon slightly, but that's a small gripe. TMP is very close to ST II in terms of being my favorite franchise film. I think Khan still holds the top spot, but barely. And I just found out about the director's cut, so I probably need to seek that out.

 

[STEPhon IT]

The pacing on Robert Wise revision, sorry the Director's cut is what was seen in movie theatres in 1979, is a lot better I think, but I don't think the cgi added to the film, it doesn't blend well. Still think the musical score is best thing going for that film.

 

[Maurice]

First Contact was the best Trek movie. Back to the question at hand: faster pacing.

TMP is the second-slowest movie I've ever seen, after 2001: A Space Odyssey. In both cases, you could easily cut parts away and lose nothing. Not a single line of dialogue or action, just removing parts of establishing shots (and most of the 2001 psychedelic trip part - that thing should last 5 seconds, not 10 minutes or so).

If that's the case the breadth of your film watching experience must be very narrow. If you think those movies are slow, try watching a Tarkovsky film or something by Terrence Malick.

And the idea of cutting the stargate to 5 seconds makes it basically a car stepping into a driveway shot, which utterly misses the point of the while thing. Kurbrick himself said that "nothing important in conveyed through dialog" and that it's the visuals that tell the story, which is not necessarily friendly to audiences used to having the plot spelled out to them.

 

[Xhiandra]

If that's the case the breadth of your film watching experience must be very narrow. If you think those movies are slow, try watching a Tarkovsky film or something by Terrence Malick.

And the idea of cutting the stargate to 5 seconds makes it basically a car stepping into a driveway shot, which utterly misses the point of the while thing. Kurbrick himself said that "nothing important in conveyed through dialog" and that it's the visuals that tell the story, which is not necessarily friendly to audiences used to having the plot spelled out to them.

Condescending much?


Also, apparently, I disagree with Kubrick on this point. Random flashing lights for minutes on end do not a great intellectual point make, no matter how arrogantly they're backed up.
And "nothing important is conveyed through dialog" seems like an ice-cream koan.
In fact, the mere continued existence of literature proves it to be... as does the fact that he said it, rather than expressing it with coloured dots presented in a specific order.

 

[Kor]

The idea is "don't tell what you can SHOW," as this is a visual medium that should do its utmost to communicate things visually.

Kor

 

[Maurice]

Condescending much?

You're the one who said TMP was the second slowest films you'd ever seen, and, as there are scads of movies which are objectively slower, you are either exaggerating or you haven't seen a wide range of films. Which is it?

Also, apparently, I disagree with Kubrick on this point. Random flashing lights for minutes on end do not a great intellectual point make, no matter how arrogantly they're backed up.

Who said it was supposed to be intellectual? You're imposing intent where none was stated. Kubrick steadfastly refused to discuss what 2001 was "about" because he wanted people to have their own experiences rather than "shackle" them to a meaning. All he said was the film is largely intended to be a visual experience. The "plot" such as it is in service to that. I daresay the stargate was not intended to be an "intellectual" exercise but a sensory one, doing what was possible in 1967–8 to convey the idea of passing through something hitherto foreign to human experience.

You didn't like it, so be it. No one's arguing taste.

In fact, the mere continued existence of literature proves it to be... as does the fact that he said it, rather than expressing it with coloured dots presented in a specific order.

Rubbish. This is like saying music doesn't work because we don't use musical notes to discuss it.

 

[Valenti]

Kubrick is right. I think story should come first and Trek should be plot driven rather than character studies. TNG started with action as GR liked but is was gratuitous explosions followed by scenes after scenes that should have been cut. Get right into the story I say. Future speak and philosophy is fine. I could listen to it all day but it doesn't make for good Star Trek which GR said was action adventure, not drama, though it was overly dramatic with personal ethical dilemmas and stakes for our heroes. Though there is the rare action of the mind story like DS9' 'Duet' and even TOS' 'The Menagerie'.

 

[Xhiandra]

The idea is "don't tell what you can SHOW," as this is a visual medium that should do its utmost to communicate things visually.

Kor

Yes, and I agree with "show, don't tell", but the sequence we were discussing doesn't show much, except for flashing colours.
One could pretend there's deep symbolism in the specific colours that appear at what point, but I'm pretty sure it's just random.

You're the one who said TMP was the second slowest films you'd ever seen, and, as there are scads of movies which are objectively slower, you are either exaggerating or you haven't seen a wide range of films. Which is it?

I've seen some movies. I never counted. I'm not sure there's much to feel superior about based on the number of movies seen.

I was mostly refering to the barb about "audience that need to have the plot spelled out for them", which was completely unnecessary and beside the point.
That particular sequence of 2001 has no plot in it, spelled out or not and, as I said, I doubt there's much symbolism intended in it.

By the way, just as for TMP, I still like the movie (and most Kubrick movies). But there are undeniable pointless longueurs.

Rubbish. This is like saying music doesn't work because we don't use musical notes to discuss it.

Only in response to someone saying that nothing important is conveyed in speech, only in music.

 

[Valenti]

Though silence conveys and means a lot in music too and actions speak louder than words, etc..

 

[jaime]

Speaking for myself I'll give a couple of examples of where time could have been shaved off to tighten the activities therein:

1. when the Klingons are getting enveloped by the cloud at the beginning there is s scene where a couple of crew members are observing via view screen/monitor. This lasts for several seconds from memory and imo really adds nothing since the viewer has already seen what happens from a different vantage point

2. multiple pan shots of the bridge that involve no dialogue or action pertinent to the plot (I can recall a few specifically, esp in the first 30 minutes or so of the film)

3. slightly shortening the briefing scene...

...and other similar shots. I don't think I'd be in favor if removing any one scene in its entirety, but shortening some of the shots with little or no dialogue or plot-advancing activity would have cinched things up a bit. All except for the slower shots once the crew enters the cloud around V'ger. Those were excellent, imo, for the visuals, etc.

1.Builds the sense of power for Vger and horror for the station crew. They are powerless to intervene, and their massive edifice is next. They are next. It’s Ripley staring at the Alien, Lá,Bert screaming and staring at it and Parker. It’s a reaction shot that shows you a powerless character staring at horror and knowing it’s next. It’s also why you get the blaster beam sound and the shot of Vger just sitting there like nothing has happened as if to say ‘and what’.
2. They show the set and build the world of this a,ázimo technologically advanced future. Even in 79 that alone was still a wow factor. Film was still primarily about visual imagery.
3. That’s again about powerlessness but also about determination. Here is your hero here is his crew. He’s going to do something about this.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Douglass Trumbull understood why the film was slow, because it was the producers intent from the start. A gift to Trekfans to see the new Enterprise traveling in it's motion picture glory. It may have been slow pacing for modern audiences like me but I wonder what were the interpretations of the film from movie goers from 1979.

Probably harder to gauge it now since it's been so long ago, and it's sequel-- The Wrath of Khan-- was a superior film from many fans and non fans of Star Trek.

 

[jaime]

Douglass Trumbull understood why the film was slow, because it was the producers intent from the start. A gift to Trekfans to see the new Enterprise traveling in it's motion picture glory. It may have been slow pacing for modern audiences like me but I wonder what were the interpretations of the film from movie goers from 1979.

Probably harder to gauge it now since it's been so long ago, and it's sequel-- The Wrath of Khan-- was a superior film from many fans and non fans of Star Trek.

I was too young for its release in 79 (I was born at very close to the same time as the movie. I am Vgers peer group XD) but by the standards of its day, for its genre, it’s really not that slow. Look at Alien or Outland...Silent Running...Blade Runner....it was a medium about its visuals then, sometimes the point of the picture was the picture.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Strange, but I don't find those films you mentioned slow pacing, because the plot and the characters were interesting and I was engaged to the storyline. TMP had characters, for me, were not themselves and I struggled to focus on who I should be focusing on since Ilia and Decker were standouts in a film which should have been primarily on Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.

 

[Maurice]

I was mostly refering to the barb about "audience that need to have the plot spelled out for them", which was completely unnecessary and beside the point.

Now you're misquoting me. I said "...which is not necessarily friendly to audiences used to having the plot spelled out to them." I suggested that most audiences aren't used to the kind of film that 2001 is, which is entirely different than the pejorative suggestion that they require handholding. That would be condescending.

 

[jaime]

Strange, but I don't find those films you mentioned slow pacing, because the plot and the characters were interesting and I was engaged to the storyline. TMP had characters, for me, were not themselves and I struggled to focus on who I should be focusing on since Ilia and Decker were standouts in a film which should have been primarily on Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.

Maybe it’s because you come to it with the TOS trinity in mind. I didn’t, TOS wasn’t easily available for a period, so best I had was the James Blish books and I think by the time I saw TMP, I had already gone through early TNG and the other movies. Your Trek socialisation is different basically. Outland has impossible to relate to characters, and Blade Runner is my all time favourite film...but relatable characters? Nah. I can’t even work out how that would work, because everything relatable in any given character in that film has something so unrelateable attached. Apart from maybe Rachael. A bit.

 

[Pauln6]

Maybe it’s because you come to it with the TOS trinity in mind. I didn’t, TOS wasn’t easily available for a period, so best I had was the James Blish books and I think by the time I saw TMP, I had already gone through early TNG and the other movies. Your Trek socialisation is different basically. Outland has impossible to relate to characters, and Blade Runner is my all time favourite film...but relatable characters? Nah. I can’t even work out how that would work, because everything relatable in any given character in that film has something so unrelateable attached. Apart from maybe Rachael. A bit.

Blade Runner is a work of art and the performances are so incredibly nuanced that you can see new layers with every viewing. Nimoy's performance is similarly impressive and Khambatta's performance is underrated but many of the other performances in TMP are rather flat. So TMP is visually entrancing but lacks the characterisation of Blade Runner.

 

[2takesfrakes]

I must confess ... when his woman gets zapped off the bridge (we can only presume killed), Decker's only annoyed, rather than horrified, or shocked or whatever. Ilia's reaction to getting zapped was spot on, though! Persis totally sells the scene. William Shatner brought back Kirk from the series in a way he gave up on ever after for reasons I can't even begin to guess at. Call it his acting "instincts," maybe, but they were at the expense of Kirk's original persona. But in TMP ... Shatner shines! Leonard Nimoy plays Spock differently, even when he's back to his "old" self. Bones and the 2nd Bananas step right in and deliver as they'd always had. In fact, I like Nichelle's acting in TMP, I think it's some of her best. She's very naturalistic and "real" with it, as opposed to, say, TUC, where she employs this unrelentingly mystical acting. TMP really brings back the original characters, whilst TWoK brought back the spirit of the series, better ... at the expense of characterisation.