Why is everyone more robotic than V'Ger in TMP?

[Pauln6]

And what I'm saying is not an impression but actual knowledge. There are plenty of older fans who hated TMP. You and I love it, but many of our contemporaries and seniors do not.

Fan opinions have never, ever been uniform across a generation, and they never will be. There have always been disagreements and arguments, lovers and haters of any new production, no less 40 years ago than today. Fans aren't the Borg. We have individual opinions.




Many of them, sure, but again, it's unwise to generalize. I grew up in the '70s and '80s, but I love '40s movies. Some people like retro stuff.

It often surprises me how modern and nuanced a lot of older movies seem. Even now, I have two friends my age with opposing tastes in movies and I can often gauge what I might think of it based on their opposing tastes. More to the point, neither one particularly likes TMP. It lacks action and explosions for one and lacks darkness and character depth for the other. Both are very casual viewers of Trek, and one loves Discovery, so there you go.

 

[Armus]

Very good points. TMP has always produced a variety of reactions. Subjective tastes aside, you have to be blind to dismiss the scope and artfulness of TMP's visual accomplishments. There's a level of verisimilitude in TMP that can't be denied.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Remember the humans in 2001: A Space Odyssey? They weren't emotional at all. That was done on purpose - the actors were instructed to speak in strange, stilted, detached fashion, like characters from Dragnet. It's because the humans in that film simply aren't important - artificial beings like HAL have more emotion.

Maybe that's also the case in TMP. That one's all about V'Ger.

 

[Pauln6]

Remember the humans in 2001: A Space Odyssey? They weren't emotional at all. That was done on purpose - the actors were instructed to speak in strange, stilted, detached fashion, like characters from Dragnet. It's because the humans in that film simply aren't important - artificial beings like HAL have more emotion.

Maybe that's also the case in TMP. That one's all about V'Ger.

See, now I watched 2001 on the big screen and I was taken aback at how detached the human crew were. Arthur C Clarke was a very detail oriented writer. I suspect the point he was trying to get across was that anybody who would have to crew a lonely ship for over a year would have to be someone who is content with their own company and doesn't crave companionship. I don't think the same should be said of Starfleet, but I appreciate 2001's attempt at characterisation compared to say, Prometheus, where the crew were antagonistic, unprofessional, lacking all scientific method and any quarantine protocols.

There's a lot to like in TMP's clinical approach to the problem but these are friends and colleagues so, yeah, there should have been a bit more casual interaction between them.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ IIRC, the idea for the 2001 characters to be emotionless came from Stanley Kubrick. They're not quite that robotic in the novelization.

 

[Pauln6]

^ IIRC, the idea for the 2001 characters to be emotionless came from Stanley Kubrick. They're not quite that robotic in the novelization.

Yes, that's equally possible . There is more dialogue in the novel.

 

[Defiler-Of-Redshirts]

The simplest answer is that the cast said they weren't having fun and their job was tedious.

 

[plynch]

The real astronauts came across as very stoic and professional in the conversations with CapCom in tne 60s and early 70s. Think of "Houston, we have a problem."

 

[Christopher]

The real astronauts came across as very stoic and professional in the conversations with CapCom in tne 60s and early 70s. Think of "Houston, we have a problem."

Which was actually the even more understated "Okay, Houston, we've had a problem here." The movie punched it up to be more dramatic.

 

[Antonovus]

The real astronauts came across as very stoic and professional in the conversations with CapCom in tne 60s and early 70s. Think of "Houston, we have a problem."

I thought TMP was quite novel. The stoic acting did mine real astronauts and the cerebral nature of 2001 A Space Odyssey. They did not have as much of an idea about actual astronaut behavior at the time of TOS, or at least they did not take it seriously. On the other hand, I am also a fan of the Wrath of Khan. I appreciate the diversity of Trek. Its variety is what keeps bringing me back and breeding discussions such as this one.

 

[Antonovus]

Also, I forgot to point out that Ilyia was literally turned into a robot. (Pronounced row but)

 

[Antonovus]

I actually rewatched the commentary to TMP after seeing this post. The commentators noted that a lot of the coldness and disconnectedness had to do with the fact that the characters' had been long absent from each other. They had to acclimate to each other, as if you were meeting an old friend after a long time.

Though I will point out that the characters were a little robotic after losing Ilyia. In TMP defense, they are all awed by the sublimity of V'Ger.

 

[grandmoffjon]

I think the differences from other-Trek are two-fold: stylistically and narratively and both come in sync by design. In terms of style, the performances are more underplayed than usual, in line with the big 70's austere sci-fi style introduced in 2001 (though I've always been of the impression that that austere style in Kubrick's film is a critique of the dehumanization of the modern society), but not robotic. There's a lot to read into those performances, they merit attention to be rewarded (doesn't the whole TMP?), a lot of nuance, nothing is said in an obvious manner... Shatner, particularly, does a lot of heavy lifting, in little gestures. The way he says "will you sit down" at Spock in their first scene, for example, he's clearly begging for the man to open up... the sign of relief of his face in the "this simple emotion" convo says it all, the evolution of his relationship with Decker, learning to measure himself against him... one just needs to pay attention, if you're up for it. TMP doesn't make it easy, but I'm personally glad it doesn't! This brings me to the story, I'm sure a lot of people were disappointed back in 79 that they didn't get the Kirk & Spock in the big screen that they remembered but the story purposefully put them out of sync... Spock, trying to become a pure Vulcan by purging all emotions only returns to himself after the mind meld with V'Ger, Kirk, an awkward, somewhat paranoid captain lacking confidence after years behind the desk only finds his footing when his crew is whole again and he's forced into a battle of wills against the Illya probe/V'Ger, McCoy, at a lesser extent, called to adventure against his will, takes some time to be his quippy self... Decker is somewhat sufficient, a proto-Ryker lacking some extra charm but he's not robotic at all, just too serious, the rest of the crew don't have much to work with but they're the same, really... the movie is the journey of these characters rediscovering themselves so they can be the crew of old again. A sort of story apt for a TV pilot (wink, wink). Maybe it wasn't what some people wanted but maybe that's a good thing... well, it certainly wasn't for it's sequels' budgets but I like that TMP is its own thing.

 

[Christopher]

(though I've always been of the impression that that austere style in Kubrick's film is a critique of the dehumanization of the modern society)

I see it more as just the professionalism of astronauts, with the austerity being because they're on a spaceship and things need to be clean and efficient.

 

[grandmoffjon]

I see it more as just the professionalism of astronauts, with the austerity being because they're on a spaceship and things need to be clean and efficient.

Well, the severe austerity is present before we get to the Discovery One. Before that, the whole sequence with Dr. Floyd, specially is conversation with his daughter really informed me of that idea.

 

[Christopher]

Well, the severe austerity is present before we get to the Discovery One.

Yeah, but they're on a space station and then the Moon. It's all the same kind of controlled outer space environments, so their portrayal would've been informed by the real space program.

 

[grandmoffjon]

I do need to revisit that film but since we're talking about civilian interactions, so to speak, from those early scenes I immediately got a sense that there was more to that than just efficiency and control.

 

[XCV330]

Kelley holds everything together, acting wise, in TMP

 

[USS Triumphant]

For the record, I'm 44, and I don't like TMP and never have. It's a beautiful movie with a lot of great elements - but the pacing kills it for me. I love the refit Enterprise. I could have done without 12 minutes of continuous beauty shot, though.

^ IIRC, the idea for the 2001 characters to be emotionless came from Stanley Kubrick. They're not quite that robotic in the novelization.

And my understanding is that a lot of the things that annoy me about the pacing and other directorial choices in TMP are owed to the studio/director/somebody trying to recapture the success of Kubrick's 2001 movie. Which I also found brilliant but plodding as hell.

 

[plynch]

Eyes Wide Shut and Barry Lyndon also have kind of cold people. Was that a Kubrick thing? Oh, Cockwork . . . hmm. Must mull.