TMP is the best film. It is not 'tedious' at all

[ChallengerHK]

Sure. That's a valid example of a modern art approach. However, I think you're setting up a false dichotomy by implying these sorts of things would be out-of-place in the mainstream world.

See, the thing is, I'm not setting up anything, at least at this point. I'm trying to get an answer to a question (and a question that seemed to me to be fairly simple). The data from that question might be later used to set something up.

From my point of view, it's as if I said "Kirk was Captain of the Enterprise during TOS. Did you like that he was in charge?'

Your first response would be "But what if he wasn't?" Sure, why not? Interesting question, and it might have interesting responses, but it's not an answer to my question.

Your next response is "Other people might have made better Captains." Maybe. Maybe not. Still interesting to explore, still not an answer to my question.

My question was "Can something without a character, without dialog, without conflict be said to constitute a story?" Your responses are along the lines of "Conflict can be subtle" and "People can interpret non-characters as characters." Both of those things are true. Neither is a response to my question.

My guess is that you're coming from the place of "the reader/viewer creates the story," but what this really means is that the creator set up a situation over which the reader's/viewer's personal story can be enacted in the reader's/viewer's mind, a blank canvas, if you will. That story will still have characters, and my guess is that it will have conflict, although it may exist without dialog.

 

[DonIago]

I would say that it's entirely possible to have a story without character or dialog. But it is likely diffiult to write such a story and more difficult to write such a story that others will generally find compelling.

It's difficult to imagine Star Trek without Kirk or a Kirk-like character as captain. The easiest alternate option to imagine is Pike, and even that substitution sends things spinning off into a radically different alternate timeline.

 

[Cryogenic]

My question was "Can something without a character, without dialog, without conflict be said to constitute a story?" Your responses are along the lines of "Conflict can be subtle" and "People can interpret non-characters as characters." Both of those things are true. Neither is a response to my question.

Maybe I swerved from your question a little. Though you were really posing a hypothetical situation that doesn't apply to TMP -- because TMP clearly has a story, characters, dialogue, and conflict. Anyway, to reprise your original post and the question you put forth:

I was at WorldCon in 2014. I attended a talk by some professor (don't recall his name), and I think his words have a direct bearing on this thread.

I'm purely paraphrasing here; I didn't take notes or anything like that. The gist of his presentation was that writers have been told, for many years, that a story has to be about characters in conflict. He argued that there was no reason for this to be true, and that a satisfying story could be told without characters at all, let alone conflict, or motivated action/reaction. I'm vague on this part, but he had an example, and I want to say it asomething like "An asteroid is kicked out of its orbit, spends millennia in a highly elliptical orbit, and then falls into the gravity well of a planet, where it impacts the surface, causing a great explosion."

What do you think? Is that a story you would enjoy reading in, say, Analog?

What you have written there isn't really a story. It's more of a premise. In TMP terms, it could be re-written as follows: "A space probe is swallowed by a black hole or other distortion in spacetime, spends millennia exploring and cataloguing the universe after being upgraded by a race of machines in some far-off portion of the galaxy, and then begins a return journey to Earth, seeking its creator." Or a less spoiler-ish version: "begins a return journey to Earth, apparently determined to swallow any obstacle in its path." That description alone does not constitute a story. It is more the impetus for a story to commence.

My guess is that you're coming from the place of "the reader/viewer creates the story," but what this really means is that the creator set up a situation over which the reader's/viewer's personal story can be enacted in the reader's/viewer's mind, a blank canvas, if you will. That story will still have characters, and my guess is that it will have conflict, although it may exist without dialog.

Well, in part, the reader/viewer does create the story. We are storytelling creatures by habit. Stories generally need a measure of dialog and conflict for people to invest in them, but not always -- or, at least, not in the ways we have recently become habituated to them. Consider the silent film era. It is possible to create a more rawly visual experience and still generate a progression of mood/theme/intent that people can engage with. Cinema is, after all, a visual medium. But note that I wrote "in part".

Your traffic light example from earlier doesn't apply directly to blockbuster filmmaking. It shades into the visual process, and the way we impute meaning onto abstract things, but watching a traffic repeatedly cycle from red-to-green/green-to-red isn't much of a story by itself. Where's the dilemma? Where's the conflict? Yes, we actually need a few more ingredients to bring a story to life, despite the fact that intense concentration/meditation on a single object may give emotional and intellectual insights into the world or into the person (i.e., the reader/viewer) having a worldly experience ("Every object, well contemplated, opens up a new organ of perception in us" -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe).

In that regard, your hypothetical scenarios may illuminate some aspects of the cinematic process as a storytelling apparatus, but they cannot possibly constitute a well-structured story by themselves. They are more like hooks or pillars on which stories and dilemmas can be hung or built. That said, exploration of the unknown constitutes the greatest story there is, and if some conventional aspects of drama or story-building are discarded or muted along the way, I don't think that means a storyteller has failed -- perhaps they have actually succeeded in imbuing their story structure with added depth and meaning, or shaped those story events in such a way as to enhance viewer participation. Not everything need obey the same rules. Sometimes, it might be desirable to journey somewhere by cruise ship; other times, it might be better or more rewarding to go by canoe.

 

[ChallengerHK]

Maybe I swerved from your question a little. Though you were really posing a hypothetical situation that doesn't apply to TMP -- because TMP clearly has a story, characters, dialogue, and conflict. Anyway, to reprise your original post and the question you put forth:

Just a bit . And again, I'm not about proving, or even arguing anything at the moment. I'm collecting data. Do people think of that as a story? Do people think of that as a satisfying story?

What you have written there isn't really a story. It's more of a premise.

Or, a very valuable lecture in a physics class.

Well, in part, the reader/viewer does create the story.

In part we do. I would guess that that internal storytelling, aka head canon, is the factor responsible for most canonical debates.

Your traffic light example from earlier doesn't apply directly to blockbuster filmmaking.

Interesting to me that you felt the need to qualify that statement with the word "blockbuster." Feel free to illuminate that thought process; I'd like to hear more.

In that regard, your hypothetical scenarios may illuminate some aspects of the cinematic process as a storytelling apparatus, ... Not everything need obey the same rules.

There are elements here that I would love to explore, but I'm holding off to see if anyone else responds to the initial question.

 

[Cryogenic]

Just a bit . And again, I'm not about proving, or even arguing anything at the moment. I'm collecting data. Do people think of that as a story? Do people think of that as a satisfying story?

The problem is: there isn't even any flesh on that bone. As I said, it's more of a premise; and even if we agree for the sake of an argument that it's a story, what about all the particulars? Stories live and die on their fine details.

Interesting to me that you felt the need to qualify that statement with the word "blockbuster." Feel free to illuminate that thought process; I'd like to hear more.

I qualified because TMP is clearly a blockbuster film. That it goes about some things slightly differently to your average blockbuster entertainment (then and certainly now), doesn't make it bad or wrong.

There are elements here that I would love to explore, but I'm holding off to see if anyone else responds to the initial question.

I understand you wanting to gather more data (echoing V'Ger), but you might find yourself coming up short. Especially if you're not willing to admit that you might have started off with a strawman.

 

[ChallengerHK]

I understand you wanting to gather more data (echoing V'Ger), but you might find yourself coming up short. Especially if you're not willing to admit that you might have started off with a strawman.

I couldn't have, because I didn't start off with an argument. The prof in my story certainly had an argument, to be sure. I would say that you're creating that story reader . You sense an argument and want badly to respond to it. I may have an argument later, but I don't think it will be the one you're anticipating.

 

[Firebird]

1. She worked closely with Kirk and knows he forgets to eat in a crisis (Corbomite Manoeuvre)
2. His current yeoman would have been Decker's and would not have any insight into his foibles.
3. She sometimes delivers food to her friends when off duty (Man Trap)
4. She sometimes manufactures flimsy excuses to hang out with decision makers when she could easily have taken instructions over the intercom (Corbomite Manoeuvre, Balance of Terror etc).

That’s a fair description of whatever her assigned duties might’ve been as a yeoman 5+ years before the events of TMP, but it’s not consistent with what subsequent transporter chiefs have done. Did Miles O’Brien ever get put on coffee duty whenever he wasn’t on shift in Transporter Room 3?

I guess what I am saying is that I think it makes sense if you view her as a character with her own motivation rather than a cipher.

That still doesn’t make sense in terms of the organization of Starfleet as depicted in the franchise. As an officer on a ship, you don’t follow your own motivation and do whatever you want, you’re assigned duties and you perform them. Her doing her assigned job doesn’t make her a cipher.

 

[ChallengerHK]

That’s a fair description of whatever her assigned duties might’ve been as a yeoman 5+ years before the events of TMP, but it’s not consistent with what subsequent transporter chiefs have done. Did Miles O’Brien ever get put on coffee duty whenever he wasn’t on shift in Transporter Room 3?

That still doesn’t make sense in terms of the organization of Starfleet as depicted in the franchise. As an officer on a ship, you don’t follow your own motivation and do whatever you want, you’re assigned duties and you perform them. Her doing her assigned job doesn’t make her a cipher.

My interpretation of the transporter is that they were not generally kept powered up, in a state of readiness, with an operator just standing there in case somebody wanted one. If that is the case (and it is definitely an "if"), it would make sense for her to find some other way to be of use, all the more so during a crisis.

It's also possible that there are other transporter rooms, primed, crewed and ready to go, and that during that hypothetical scene she might be off duty, still looking for some way to be useful.

Finally, it could be something along the lines of "Jim, I got myself a cup of coffee and I thought I'd get you one too. I know how you are."

Granted, neither of these is a really optimal explanation. I'm sure it's obvious from my previous comments, but I value just about any attempt to add humanity and human interaction to the movie. Even if it goes from 0 to 1, instead of 10, that's progress.

 

[Cryogenic]

I couldn't have, because I didn't start off with an argument. The prof in my story certainly had an argument, to be sure. I would say that you're creating that story reader .

I'm reading into your intent in invoking that unnamed professor in the first place. And almost every post in a discussion constitutes an "argument", of sorts -- even if, sometimes, people use cloaking devices.

 

[Pauln6]

That’s a fair description of whatever her assigned duties might’ve been as a yeoman 5+ years before the events of TMP, but it’s not consistent with what subsequent transporter chiefs have done. Did Miles O’Brien ever get put on coffee duty whenever he wasn’t on shift in Transporter Room 3?


That still doesn’t make sense in terms of the organization of Starfleet as depicted in the franchise. As an officer on a ship, you don’t follow your own motivation and do whatever you want, you’re assigned duties and you perform them. Her doing her assigned job doesn’t make her a cipher.

I think we might be talking at cross purposes. My suggestion was that she wasn't actually on duty at that point so she had no assigned duties. She was offering to get Kirk some food on her own time because she knows what he's like (same as obsessive Sulu) and it gives her an opportunity to be nosey. Don't forget how long it took to reach V'Ger and the fact that the ship was not on alert. Everyone gets a break.

And then one of the reasons I included her in the Memory Wall scene was because she was transporter chief as trying to set up a relay inside V'Ger seemed like it would be something sensible to attempt.

 

[ChallengerHK]

I'm reading into your intent in invoking that unnamed professor in the first place.

Exactly. Trust me, if I remembered who he was, I'd post his name. I'm sure I could find it if I searched diligently, but frankly, I don't care. I don't sense that his ID has any bearing on his argument. Unless you're saying that I'm making him up, but even then that would be a difference to my motivation, not a difference to the argument itself.

Not, the question is purely philosophical. Was that a story? And you have responded. And thanks.

 

[Pauln6]

My interpretation of the transporter is that they were not generally kept powered up, in a state of readiness, with an operator just standing there in case somebody wanted one. If that is the case (and it is definitely an "if"), it would make sense for her to find some other way to be of use, all the more so during a crisis.

It's also possible that there are other transporter rooms, primed, crewed and ready to go, and that during that hypothetical scene she might be off duty, still looking for some way to be useful.

Finally, it could be something along the lines of "Jim, I got myself a cup of coffee and I thought I'd get you one too. I know how you are."

Granted, neither of these is a really optimal explanation. I'm sure it's obvious from my previous comments, but I value just about any attempt to add humanity and human interaction to the movie. Even if it goes from 0 to 1, instead of 10, that's progress.

As a CPO, Rand really should have been in the background in engineering in the second half of the movie. I was tempted to try and Deepfake Grace's face onto Terrence O'Conner (Ross) when she asks about the self destruct but her face is at an angle for much of the exchange and there aren't many female engineers in TOS so it seems a shame to strip one out.

 

[Cryogenic]

Exactly. Trust me, if I remembered who he was, I'd post his name. I'm sure I could find it if I searched diligently, but frankly, I don't care. I don't sense that his ID has any bearing on his argument. Unless you're saying that I'm making him up

Nope. Not saying that. I was just suggesting that we can't know too much about the professor's motivations if we don't have a name to go by, or any background to look into. As a result, we have to take what you're saying on faith. In addition, you can't have invoked this unnamed professor or his supposed viewpoint for no reason at all.

 

[ChallengerHK]

In addition, you can't have invoked this unnamed professor or his supposed viewpoint for no reason at all.

I also didn't have to say that it was at WorldCon. But no, the point of calling him a professor (which he was) and saying that he was at WorldCon (which he was) was to say "This isn't just some guy spouting off. Presumably, he has some idea of what he's talking about." Doesn't make him right or wrong, but it gives weight to his words in that they're worthy of serious consideration.

I was just suggesting that we can't know too much about the professor's motivations if we don't have a name to go by, or any background to look into. As a result, we have to take what you're saying on faith.

You do. Or not. It's the same with any story. "Once upon a time..." Did the Bears find Goldilocks asleep or not? Assuming that it's entirely fictitious, is the story still worth paying attention to for other reasons?

 

[Cryogenic]

I also didn't have to say that it was at WorldCon.

Indeed. But location and date, while useful, still leave the professor unnamed.

But no, the point of calling him a professor (which he was) and saying that he was at WorldCon (which he was) was to say "This isn't just some guy spouting off. Presumably, he has some idea of what he's talking about." Doesn't make him right or wrong, but it gives weight to his words in that they're worthy of serious consideration.

Maybe. It's also an argument from authority, though -- not always a bad thing, but usually a touch spurious. That said, if this professor is presumably a professor of the arts/humanities, it's generally in their job description to offer alternative and even extreme points of view -- which, again, isn't a bad thing by default, but it can be hard to apply their ideals in the real world.

You do. Or not. It's the same with any story. "Once upon a time..." Did the Bears find Goldilocks asleep or not? Assuming that it's entirely fictitious, is the story still worth paying attention to for other reasons?

Sure. What I meant was: we have to take your claims about what the professor was driving at (by way of example) on faith. I wasn't questioning the reality of a professor you claim to have met coming out with a particular example (or set of examples) you gave a reconstruction of. I was saying we have to assume you have faithfully reconstructed his basic position in your recapitulated example.

 

[ChallengerHK]

Sure. What I meant was: we have to take your claims about what the professor was driving at (by way of example) on faith. I wasn't questioning the reality of a professor you claim to have met coming out with a particular example (or set of examples) you gave a reconstruction of. I was saying we have to assume you have faithfully reconstructed his basic position in your recapitulated example.

Correct. I could have just said "Consider this scenario." Either way, the scenario and the interpretation of same stand on their own merits.

With that, I think that particular horse has been beaten to death.

 

[Firebird]

She was offering to get Kirk some food on her own time because she knows what he's like (same as obsessive Sulu) and it gives her an opportunity to be nosey.

How much would Rand really know Kirk, though? If we look at her screentime in the show before the movie, she was really only on the Enterprise for the first half of the first season, ca. 2266. TMP takes place somewhere in the vicinity of 2272-2273, effectively making 6-7 years since Rand directly served with Kirk as a yeoman for only half a year. (Kirk has a succession of different yeomen over the next few years, so I don't lend credence to the idea of her being on the ship offscreen during that whole time). I don't know about you, but I don't remember jack about someone else's daily routine that I only worked with for a few months if I haven't seen them in a couple of years, let alone 6-7. Kirk was Rand's boss and commanding officer, not her boyfriend.

Her also attempting to be nosey doesn't sound right to me, either. She's not part of the command structure of the ship, and with a fresh-out-of-dock ship like the Enterprise in the middle of a crisis the magnitude of V'ger, I'd imagine she'd be more focused on her duties, especially with a transporter known to have problems. I also have the impression that the ship was put into service so quickly that it probably doesn't have a full crew compliment, so it's entirely possible Rand is pulling extra shifts to make up for shorthanded crew. The whole Enterprise part of the story really only takes place over the course of a couple days anyways, so I just don't know what kind of spare time there would be to socialize when all of this is taken into account.

No offense intended on my part, but these traits you're putting onto Rand sound out of character to me, and I'm just not following the ways you're justifying it.

 

[DonIago]

Yeah, I'm all for Rand getting more than a cameo as the transporter chief who killed two people (if you want to interpret the scene that way), but I'd prefer not to see her playing yeoman in the process.

 

[Pauln6]

How much would Rand really know Kirk, though? If we look at her screentime in the show before the movie, she was really only on the Enterprise for the first half of the first season, ca. 2266. TMP takes place somewhere in the vicinity of 2272-2273, effectively making 6-7 years since Rand directly served with Kirk as a yeoman for only half a year. (Kirk has a succession of different yeomen over the next few years, so I don't lend credence to the idea of her being on the ship offscreen during that whole time). I don't know about you, but I don't remember jack about someone else's daily routine that I only worked with for a few months if I haven't seen them in a couple of years, let alone 6-7. Kirk was Rand's boss and commanding officer, not her boyfriend.

Her also attempting to be nosey doesn't sound right to me, either. She's not part of the command structure of the ship, and with a fresh-out-of-dock ship like the Enterprise in the middle of a crisis the magnitude of V'ger, I'd imagine she'd be more focused on her duties, especially with a transporter known to have problems. I also have the impression that the ship was put into service so quickly that it probably doesn't have a full crew compliment, so it's entirely possible Rand is pulling extra shifts to make up for shorthanded crew. The whole Enterprise part of the story really only takes place over the course of a couple days anyways, so I just don't know what kind of spare time there would be to socialize when all of this is taken into account.

No offense intended on my part, but these traits you're putting onto Rand sound out of character to me, and I'm just not following the ways you're justifying it.

Obviously everyone's interpretations of characters are their own and you are entitled to dismiss my justification if it doesn't fit your own head canon but I did try my best to consider the on screen evidence in addition to her background. If you are unwavering in your belief that they worked together for 6 months, she left the ship, and they never spoke again until TMP then stick to your own interpretation and enjoy!

I've always thought that Rand was a gold mine to be developed so I took the crumbs we got from TOS and looked at her original dialogue in the early script as well as other scenes that showed the bridge crew on a break on the Rec Deck plus Rand manning Uhura's station because she was on a break. Humans take breaks, other characters take breaks, ergo, Rand can take a break. Spending her break mothering Kirk 'like old times' seems COMPLETELY in character to me personally and entirely consistent with the line she was given in the original script. Rand is reminiscing like the audience.

Her intended back story in TOS was that she would become more of a confidant for Kirk. I have assumed that over the years their relationship has matured somewhat towards that original stated goal for no other reason than it makes her more interesting and frees up the potential dialogue a bit. If you hate the idea of Rand and Kirk being anything other professional, despite her original character background, feel free to go on hating!

She was incredibly deferential to Kirk but more free with Sulu in TOS. Her appearances with Sulu on Excelsior, including World Enough and Time, demonstrate an easier, more equal relationship as well. I wanted sassy Rand to liven things up so I needed to move her relationship with Kirk on to a new level, more akin to the Scotty-Kirk dynamic (deferential but willing to speak up) purely to achieve that goal. That's very consistent with the original stated intent for the character. I'm not going to put a straitjacket on her just because she's a woman who once had a crush.

In addition, I don't assume that her fictional character left the ship just because she did not appear again due to real world issues. Nowhere in canon is that expressly stated and I am eternally frustrated that writers so rarely include Rand despite her being the most developed female character available in TOS. Chekov spends at least half of season one off camera assigned to a different department. She was no longer Kirk's yeoman but for all we know, Rand was promoted to CPO and was transferred to a supervisory role on the night shift in engineering. She could have been on board for the whole 5 years on a different shift in fact. Chief O'Brien is a great comparator in this regard, starting off at helm, moving to transporters, then engineering, and being retconned as a tactical specialist.

Personally, if I was so inclined, I would Deepfake her over the blonde extra at the engineering station on the bridge who appears in quite a few episodes of TOS. I would also add her into Kirk's memorial in Tholian Web. Maybe I'll do a fan edit of Wolf in the Fold and have McCoy mention she was the one who blew up Scotty. ;-p

Edit: I should add a caveat that while justifying my decision defiantly, which was largely based on the dialogue that was already available, the actual footage looks pretty terrible. :-D

As a further aside, there was a line of smut in the early script which I wish I knew how to include. It was when Kirk was offering to give Tasha a tour of the ship in sick bay, it went something like Chapel saying, "We will need to monitor everything they do on the ship," to which McCoy replies, "Everything?" A tongue in cheek reference to Kirk's (rather unjustified) legend as a horn dog.

 

[AnotherGalaxys]

I might have been willing to offer my thoughts on this, but your closing sentence led me to conclude that you don't have a genuine interest in discussing the subject. I would invite you to reword or retract it.

He has all the right to say that. Star Trek The Motion Picture has the true feeling that Gene Rodenberry could only put sometimes in TOS. He had to deal with the producer's censorship, but he was really brave and managed to give some of his ideals and vision to the better episodes.

Finally, when he was given the Executive Producer rank in Star Trek: The Motion Picture and after 10 years, he could bring all his futurist and optimistic vision. The Motion Picture is like the fulfillment of the ideas that were already present in the original series, but in a discrete way, mostly overshadowed by the action and creatures. One exception has to be The City on the Edge of Forever that was the masterpiece in the original series and it was a total trek episode, that contained the elements that would be present after, specially in The Motion Picture and TNG.

Besides that, The Motion Picture as he said, is the most cinematic movie in the saga. Instead of being a more action movie, it's a movie about the human spirit, about overcoming the challenges to advance and to learn more about ourselves and the universe. It's about thinking that all this crap that we have today with people killing each other, people in enormous mansions with millions of dollars while millions of people are without any water or food, will end someday so the humans have become an optimistic and united race that explores the universe.

The movie has the most beautiful music I've ever heard, from the Overture to the End Credits. The first 20-30 minutes are probably the best in all Star Trek. The editing, VFX, music, acting... is really impressive. Since when I was a child, I always loved how the epic optimisic music from the main titties finish and suddenly we see that mysterious cloud and the Klingon Ships with the new Klingon Theme. The following scenes with the Spock refusal to begin the total logic path, paving the way for his return to Starfleet. I remember the Vulcan Master telling Spock:
"I sense the consciousness calling to you from space. ...Your human blood is touched by it, Spock. You have not yet attained Kolinahr. He must search elsewhere for his answer. He shall not find it here. Live long and prosper, Spock.
And just after that we see the Federation Starfleet Command. That's truly amazing editing work, because what is calling for Spock is his desire to come back to Starfleet and with this friends on the Enterprise.

The Enterprise scene is my favourite scene in all Star Trek. The effect that it produce to me when I saw it for the first time is indescribable, it's epic, romantic, powerful, and really nostalgic in some way. You realize how people was thinking maybe star trek would never come back and then they see the enterprise again in all it's majesty. I've heard about the reactions in the theaters when that scene came in, and I wish I could go back to 1979 to be present in that moment.

From that vibrant 20-30 minutes, the movie moves more slowly, but it keeps the interest to the end, as there are some subplots going on besides the investigation of the cloud, like
Spock's relationship with V'ger, Ilia and Decker, Kirk taking back command... All together with the impressive visuals of the cloud and the Enterprise journey to the core. I really like that scene when Spock goes to the cloud inside without permission.

The ending is totally optimistic, when the movie ends it appears like the human progress and future is unstoppable, and that star trek is unstoppable. The crew is reunited again and the Enterprise is ready for the human adventure.