Yeah, that's the one aspect of those videos I didn't like, but they still summedup the flaws in the movies well.
TMP Appreciation
- Thread starter Newt
- Start date
I quite like the comm chatter of Epsilon IX. I always wondered what Columbia and Revere would have looked like if they'd been developed for TMP in 1979. Also loved Epsilon IX computer voice.
That's definitely not bad. I was just thinking more of the TMP design aesthetic, like with the TMP nacelles.Something like this I would hope:
Oh. I just checked. That's what it looks like for real. Okay cool! https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/USS_Revere
I really thought they didn't want to use any TOS stuff in TMP.
It was part of a decent sized amount of Star Trek Technical Manual / Star Trek Bluefprints references in the film. (You didn't even mention the Entente.)
They did NOT want any TOS stuff in the film. I gather there was various pushback about even including TOS photos in the promotional material. There is the TOS Enterprise on the rec deck. That's it. The Director's Edition has a little more. Which I object to if your goal is "This is the film we would have finished in 1979 if we had had more time" because they could have gotten another year and they would not have had TOS sound effects or a TOS shuttlecraft. (I don't think they went back to using TOS sound FX until Star Trek FOUR.)
But as for other ships (that we never see)? The refit Enterprise is supposed to be the first ship to have THOSE engines. So if we ever saw another Fed starship it would presumably have had "older" engines. Or at least different ones.
Recently rewatched TMP for the first time in ages. Upon reevaluation, the Slow Motion Picture is an epic film visually and sonically. The story itself and pacing ding it a bit.
During this rewatch I remembered a drinking game we played a couple of times in college in the late 90s. Whenever McCoy walks out of the turbolift onto the bridge and says nothing and turns around to leave, do a shot. If he says anything or does anything to impact the scene, it doesn't count. Did they have to get Deforest contractually agreed upon screen time? It does happen a decent number of times. Ha;
During this rewatch I remembered a drinking game we played a couple of times in college in the late 90s. Whenever McCoy walks out of the turbolift onto the bridge and says nothing and turns around to leave, do a shot. If he says anything or does anything to impact the scene, it doesn't count. Did they have to get Deforest contractually agreed upon screen time? It does happen a decent number of times. Ha;
As an aside, I've always found it interesting that TFF has more than one instance where they use sound effects straight out of 2001: A Space Odyssey. The one that jumps out at me the most is on-board the shuttlecraft as they are going down to Sha-Ka-Rhee when you hear sounds from the Discovery pods.
Saw it seven times in the Theater when it premiered.
I continue to wonder what Star Trek looks like in the alternate timeline where it continued on from TMP in much the same vein as that film, instead of going the TWOK route. (Please don’t bother with the snarky unthinking drive-by variations of “Nothing, ‘cause it was boring and died!”, okay?)
That footage, minus the Trek World framing, has been shared a number of times over the years.
Maybe the film series would have been more in the vein of hard sci-fi?
That’s very much what I would have wanted! (Which is not to say I disliked the series we got; I don’t, and I love The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock as much as anyone. But yeah, a Real SF series would have been nice; but I guess that wouldn’t have had mass appeal.)
Regarding the mass appeal thing, I hate to keep sounding like a broken record, but TMP was massively successful. In particular, it made more money than TWOK. The problem on the profitability side was that it got saddled with all the production costs of the failed Phase II series, so when you see huge budgetary figures for TMP, it's because of that. However, adjusted for inflation, TMP was the most financially successful Trek film of them all until the J.J. Abrams film in 2009.
I think the "more hard sci fi" route would have been better for the TNG movie series where they kept trying to awkwardly turn Picard into an action hero.
I agree. However, while TNG did do some hard sci-fi shows, Patrick Stewart unfortunately would have never agreed to that for any of the movies.
So I recently acquired the Original 6 movie set on 4k/Blu Ray. (I have been watching Star Trek in production order starting with TOS, followed by TAS so now I'm on to the movies). As part of my watching I am chosing the theatrical cuts of the movies vs the directors for TMP, TWOK and TUC.
So after watching TMP Theatrical cut I asked myself: What did fans dislike about this movie?
Yes some of the Effects looked bad (notably the shape of the Enterprises hull after the heroes, Decker and Ilia exit the ship to see "V'ger". I know this was redone). but the movie itself holds up quite well. The acting and dialogue arent as stilted as I recall and even the other effects look really cool, especially the travel through V'ger.
Now onto pacing: the movie didn't seem to drag as much as one might have been lead to believe. I found the buildup to V'gers reveal to be important adding to the mystery of what V'ger is and showing its immense complexity. Even the lauded/despised Enterprise inspection wasn't that drawn out (I timed it, less than 5 minutes).
In all if I had to think of why fans hated it I would agree with Bernd Schneiders assesment: fans were expecting an TOS episode pacing and Star Wars level action. Granted after watching the opening of the Klingon ships engaging with this mysterious cloud and the intensity of that scene, followed by the urgency of the Enterprise launch one might have been led to believe we are about to experience an awesome space battle, but instead are treated to a philosophical movie questioning life. In this TMP is the most Hard sci-fi movie in the franchise and clearly takes its cues from 2001 (the greatest sci-fi movie bar none). In all I enjoyed it and have found myself returning to TMP frequently and each time finding more within the movie to examine.
So after watching TMP Theatrical cut I asked myself: What did fans dislike about this movie?
Yes some of the Effects looked bad (notably the shape of the Enterprises hull after the heroes, Decker and Ilia exit the ship to see "V'ger". I know this was redone). but the movie itself holds up quite well. The acting and dialogue arent as stilted as I recall and even the other effects look really cool, especially the travel through V'ger.
Now onto pacing: the movie didn't seem to drag as much as one might have been lead to believe. I found the buildup to V'gers reveal to be important adding to the mystery of what V'ger is and showing its immense complexity. Even the lauded/despised Enterprise inspection wasn't that drawn out (I timed it, less than 5 minutes).
In all if I had to think of why fans hated it I would agree with Bernd Schneiders assesment: fans were expecting an TOS episode pacing and Star Wars level action. Granted after watching the opening of the Klingon ships engaging with this mysterious cloud and the intensity of that scene, followed by the urgency of the Enterprise launch one might have been led to believe we are about to experience an awesome space battle, but instead are treated to a philosophical movie questioning life. In this TMP is the most Hard sci-fi movie in the franchise and clearly takes its cues from 2001 (the greatest sci-fi movie bar none). In all I enjoyed it and have found myself returning to TMP frequently and each time finding more within the movie to examine.
I loved TMP, I wasn't expecting Star Wars.
Even though it's not as fast-paced as movies like Star Wars (earning it the "Motionless Picture" moniker at the time), it's pacing isn't terribly different from the other high concept science fiction films of the time. I also have the pet theory that the clunky Special Longer Version, which was the only way to watch TMP for almost 20 years, made people misremember the pacing of the theatrical version as well.
Sadly, no — I remember soon after the film came out, long before it would ever come to television or video, people (mostly other kids my age) talking about how boring it was, because the Enterprise never did anything except with that one asteroid, they didn’t fight the Klingons, etc. I liked the pace just fine (still do, though I think the “ABC cut” adds valuable stuff the film doesn’t need but certainly makes good use of, and is thus my favorite). People definitely thought it was slow — though sure, that’s probably both because (a) a lot of them were expecting Star Wars with Klingons, and (b) sure, I can see how things like the Flyby, the cloud transit, or the V’Ger flyover could be boring if you’re not emotionally invested in them. (I was, and loved them, but it’s legitimate for people not to. I guess.)
How many times out of 79 episodes does the Enterprise fight with anyone?
