What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[JonnyQuest037]

TMP is the only film from the first 10 films that actually feels like a big budget movie.

I agree. I don't think that TMP is a good movie, but it has a scale and a scope that the others don't.

It's also a very different animal than the 60's TV show. It's aim was closer to 2001: A Space Odyssey than TOS.

Yes. That's its biggest problem, IMO. It's trying to be 2001 instead of TOS.

Someone put together a "modern trailer" for The Motion Picture and it's awesome.

WTH? They got rid of the Jerry Goldsmith score (the one element of TMP pretty much everyone agrees is spectacular) and they replace it with that generic pap?

It's interesting in the ways it's flawed.

I agree. TMP is, at best, an interesting failure.

One of the central reasons TWOK saved the franchise was its return to the soul and heart of its main characters' interaction and challenges through difficult / dark times, much like the best of TOS.

Yes. One of my big problems with TMP is that both Kirk and Spock are nigh-unrecognizable versions of the characters we saw on TOS. Kirk is grumpy, stressed, humorless, and territorial, and Spock is in heavier denial of his emotions than he ever was on TOS. They don't have same dynamic or any of the back and forth they had with McCoy on the series, and after ten years, the filmmakers should've tried to give us at least a little of that, even in a story that was largely about the characters regaining the dynamic they had in TOS. McCoy is still recognizably himself in TMP, but he just doesn't have anyone to bounce off of anymore. That's perfectly illustrated by the scene (scenes?) where McCoy just walks onto the bridge, says nothing, and walks off again a couple of minutes later.

Yes, TWOK is much more of a shoot-'em-up than TMP was, but the reason audiences responded to it more positively is because they got the Kirk/Spock/McCoy dynamic absolutely right. We've got a scene of McCoy calling Kirk out on his shit ("Dammit, Jim, what the hell's the matter with you?"), some great Spock & McCoy snipes ("Jim... Be careful." / "WE will!" / eyebrow raise), and a couple of touching Kirk and Spock scenes. The character interactions are perfect.

 

[Shawnster]

Yes. One of my big problems with TMP is that both Kirk and Spock are nigh-unrecognizable versions of the characters we saw on TOS. Kirk is grumpy, stressed, humorless, and territorial, and Spock is in heavier denial of his emotions than he ever was on TOS.

The character moments in TMP are the scenes I like the most. My favorite scene is the Kirk, Spock, McCoy moment in the observation room that starts with Kirk frustratingly asking Spock to "Please, sit down." Another favorite moment is McCoy telling Kirk to stop pushing.

But I can understand where you are coming from. There are great character moments in TWOK.

 

[Praetor]

I think the double-edged sword in TMP was that part of the point of the plot was that a lot of things had changed and Kirk in particular didn't like it. Unfortunately, I think that meant a lot of the audience members didn't like it either...

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

And for the “early PBS spaceflight special” thing — uh, sure, I’m sure there must have been some special like that, with drama and the aforesaid moral dilemma; no doubt I just missed it.

The point is that TMP was not a dramatic story, but came off like an instructional, sterile travelogue lacking the most important elements which made TOS a cultural phenomenon, which would not have happened if it had been like TMP.

I mean, TOS' original idea was as an action adventure series, so moving away from that is always odd to me.

Agreed.

Star Trek could espouse such values even with action elements, including recognizing when such ideals are valuable and when more direct action is necessary.

As seen in "A Taste of Armageddon" (for just one of many TOS episodes), where a rather weighty moral dilemma had necessary action supporting / bridging its overall message.

It always amazes me how quickly Trek installments get dismissed for daring to have action, while people ignore the foundation of Star Trek is action/adventure with social commentary and an optimistic viewpoint on human growth and potential.

From observation over the decades, that anti-action opinion took root during the TNG era (ignoring any action-oriented episodes), as if ST was meant to be like that series' first season and TMP, when a casual viewing of TOS leads to a far different conclusion about what elements were always a part of Star Trek.

Yes. That's its biggest problem, IMO. It's trying to be 2001 instead of TOS.

..and 2001's mystery--tied to the history and destiny of man--actually had a point to make through Bowman finding himself pushed toward aforementioned destiny seeded from the beginning ("Dawn of Man"), which was set to change "future" man's reality.

TMP?

Yes. One of my big problems with TMP is that both Kirk and Spock are nigh-unrecognizable versions of the characters we saw on TOS. Kirk is grumpy, stressed, humorless, and territorial, and Spock is in heavier denial of his emotions than he ever was on TOS. They don't have same dynamic or any of the back and forth they had with McCoy on the series, and after ten years, the filmmakers should've tried to give us at least a little of that, even in a story that was largely about the characters regaining the dynamic they had in TOS.

The Big Three were reduced to characters in name only--all to be used as tour guides through Roddenberry's often empty search for a "big idea" he never defined with any sort of interest for the audience, specifically, the TOS fans.

but the reason audiences responded to it more positively is because they got the Kirk/Spock/McCoy dynamic absolutely right. We've got a scene of McCoy calling Kirk out on his shit ("Dammit, Jim, what the hell's the matter with you?"), some great Spock & McCoy snipes ("Jim... Be careful." / "WE will!" / eyebrow raise), and a couple of touching Kirk and Spock scenes. The character interactions are perfect.

...which critics and audiences applauded as part of Star Trek "coming back" and the films finally "getting it right".

 

[1001001]

The character moments in TMP are the scenes I like the most. My favorite scene is the Kirk, Spock, McCoy moment in the observation room that starts with Kirk frustratingly asking Spock to "Please, sit down." Another favorite moment is McCoy telling Kirk to stop pushing.

But I can understand where you are coming from. There are great character moments in TWOK.

I think TFF had the best character moments of all the films.

 

[cooleddie74]

TFF is peak Classic Troika even if the story isn't peak Trek.

 

[Praetor]

I'll toast a marshmelon to that.

 

[FredH]

I mean, TOS' original idea was as an action adventure series, so moving away from that is always odd to me. Star Trek could espouse such values even with action elements, including recognizing when such ideals are valuable and when more direct action is necessary.

It always amazes me how quickly Trek installments get dismissed for daring to have action, while people ignore the foundation of Star Trek is action/adventure with social commentary and an optimistic viewpoint on human growth and potential. Also, that humanity, in order to grow, has to first encounter WW3 and a "post atomic horror," per TNG.

Not for daring to have action; for having it without the ideals first. There’s nothing wrong with The Wrath of Khan — in character terms, I actually think TMP and TWOK form an excellent (if probably unintended) two-part character arc, and The Search for Spock continues it (WITH the ideals — after everything, Kirk is still willing to reach out to the guy who killed his son. When he keeps attacking anyway, then he kills him. That compares favorably with, say, the end of Insurrection, where they’ve shifted away to “fuck him, he’s the bad guy, don’t try”).

 

[fireproof78]

Not for daring to have action; for having it without the ideals first.

I don't fully see the difference. One can have ideals and still have action. Robau, in 09, acts out of a ideal of protecting his crew and recognizing the limits of his ship. So, I think there are times that action is necessary.

 

[FredH]

I don't fully see the difference. One can have ideals and still have action. Robau, in 09, acts out of an ideal of protecting his crew and recognizing the limits of his ship. So, I think there are times that action is necessary.

And I’m not denying this?

 

[fireproof78]

And I’m not denying this?

No, but sometimes the action comes first. Not the ideals being espoused first.

 

[FredH]

No, but sometimes the action comes first. Not the ideals being espoused first.

I feel like we’re getting into the semantic weeds here? I’ve no objection to action + ideals. Most of Trek is that. I don’t think we’re disagreeing about that. But a Trek story that doesn’t have or at least imply the ideals in there somewhere — even in the breach sometimes, like “In the Pale Moonlight” — isn’t much of a Trek story. (And yes, there’ve been stories like that.). And I’m disagreeing that the action is an essential element, as opposed to a common one; whereas the ideals are.

 

[fireproof78]

I feel like we’re getting into the semantic weeds here? I’ve no objection to action + ideals. Most of Trek is that. I don’t think we’re disagreeing about that. But a Trek story that doesn’t have or at least imply the ideals in there somewhere — even in the breach sometimes, like “In the Pale Moonlight” — isn’t much of a Trek story. (And yes, there’ve been stories like that.). And I’m disagreeing that the action is an essential element, as opposed to a common one; whereas the ideals are.

It is semantics, because I think, in my experience, some (note, not you), that any action is dismisses the ideals, while ignoring that ideals can be shown through action.

I don't know if that makes any sense and that might be hair splitting.

 

[FredH]

It is semantics, because I think, in my experience, some (note, not you), that any action is dismisses the ideals, while ignoring that ideals can be shown through action.

I don't know if that makes any sense and that might be hair splitting.

Well, I appreciate your noting that I’m not saying that. Fair enough.

(I mean, I can even admit there are very occasional episodes where the ideals don’t enter in much, and we just have to kill a space monster to save more lives—“Obsession”, “The Immunity Syndrome”, “Operation: Annihilate!”—but I think Trek would be a very different franchise if those were the norm instead of being, as they are, outliers.)

 

[Commander Troi]

Someone put together a "modern trailer" for The Motion Picture and it's awesome.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I love that one. I love this one too.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Those are both pretty cool. I love the creativity our fandom can show.

The Day the Earth Stood Still is one of the few, true sci-fi movie classics--not just a "good" film, but a classic.

This we agree on. I haven't even bothered to try to watch the remake.

in character terms, I actually think TMP and TWOK form an excellent (if probably unintended) two-part character arc, and The Search for Spock continues it

Agreed, especially for Spock.

 

[fireproof78]

(I mean, I can even admit there are very occasional episodes where the ideals don’t enter in much, and we just have to kill a space monster to save more lives—“Obsession”, “The Immunity Syndrome”, “Operation: Annihilate!”—but I think Trek would be a very different franchise if those were the norm instead of being, as they are, outliers.)

I mean, it was that way from the get go with "The Man Trap." No attempt to negotiate, just need to kill the monster. Ideals are wonderful things, but they have to run up against the reality of our humanity in the face of danger. What tends to happen in Trek is that we are so beholden to the ideal, that it becomes black and white with no attempt to keep hold of the principles in one hand and recognize the need of action in the other.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

..and 2001's mystery--tied to the history and destiny of man--actually had a point to make through Bowman finding himself pushed toward aforementioned destiny seeded from the beginning ("Dawn of Man"), which was set to change "future" man's reality.

TMP?

The experience of living cannot be reduced to logic and data.

It's the textual point made repeatedly throughout the film. Spock could not find meaning to his life by purging his emotions and embracing only logic. Despite being a perfect replica, the Ilia probe did not resemble Ilia until her memories became animated by Decker's stimulation of the probe's senses. V'ger itself could not realize its potential until joining with an organic lifeform, a human.

TMP was no 2001, but it still had "a point," a specific thematic motif that was consistently revisited and concretely expressed.

 

[fireproof78]

The experience of living cannot be reduced to logic and data.

It's the textual point made repeatedly throughout the film. Spock could not find meaning to his life by purging his emotions and embracing only logic. Despite being a perfect replica, the Ilia probe did not resemble Ilia until her memories became animated by Decker's stimulation of the probe's senses. V'ger itself could not realize its potential until joining with an organic lifeform, a human.

TMP was no 2001, but it still had "a point," a specific thematic motif that was consistently revisited and concretely expressed.

Man, this feels so topical to discussions around AI. I might rewatch TMP once my house is done to break in the TV.

Followed by 2009.

 

[FredH]

I mean, it was that way from the get go with "The Man Trap." No attempt to negotiate, just need to kill the monster. Ideals are wonderful things, but they have to run up against the reality of our humanity in the face of danger. What tends to happen in Trek is that we are so beholden to the ideal, that it becomes black and white with no attempt to keep hold of the principles in one hand and recognize the need of action in the other.

Though I think it’s very important: Right there at the beginning of the show, when we kill off the monster like a million space stories before, Kirk expresses sadness about the necessity, about what’s been lost, “thinking about the buffalo”. It’s not a triumph, like killing the cloud creature or the space amoeba are; it’s a sad necessity, and a loss to the universe. That’s Star Trek. It’s not that destruction is never necessary, it’s that it isn’t something to celebrate. Acknowledging that is what makes something like “The Devil in the Dark” possible later. Especially since the salt vampire was just trying to survive; it was a local threat to anybody nearby, but it didn’t threaten the whole galaxy like the amoeba did or the cloud creature eventually would have. Given time, they could have found another solution, but it was attacking right then and there was no time. So: a necessity, but a tragedy, which at least potentially could have gone another way.

 

[fireproof78]

That’s Star Trek.

Interesting.