Since When Is The Motion Picture A Good Trek Film?

[Nerys Myk]

The script for TMP probably needed at leat one more re-write. (or chucked all together) Past and future installments of Trek have handled the themes presented with more success. Nomad, M-5, the Whale Probe and HAL were much more interesting machine intelligences than V'ger. TWOK's Admiral Kirk was closer to TOS than TMPs Admiral Kirk. I enjoyed Spock's "awakening" in TSFS and TVH more than the one in TMP. McCoy was probably the best written character and Kelley's performance was spot on. Though I never seen a McCoy performance by Kelley that wasn't good. Even in TFF he rose above the material.

At best TMP was a 2001 wannabe in a world redefined by Star Wars.

The whale probe? Really?

Yeah, its whale language message was better written than the Ilia-unit's dialog.

If Star Trek pretended to be something written by Arthur C. Clarke more often, it'd be a better franchise.

Yep.

Nah, badly written pseudo-Clarke stories are bad. A pig wearing lip stick comes to mind.

 

[Gepard]

The whale probe? Really?

Yeah. Because unlike TMP, TVH was smart enough not to focus enough time on it that we would realize it was without substance.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Sorry, TVH is a lousy movie--the only thing it has going for it is that it isn't TFF.

These aren't revisionist ideas, either--I felt pretty much the same in 1979, 1986 and 1989.

But I do find it an eye-opener that Trek is comparable to a pig. When your expectations are that low, I guess any sign of true ambition is gonna be pretty offensive.

 

[Possum]

I just watched TMP (Director's Cut) for the first time since the late 80s yesterday. I haven't watched any of the movies in a long time and am rewatching them. I felt that TMP was trying to say "take me seriously!" to the movie and sci-fi people.

This movie was better than I remember when I was in my teens. The things I appreciated more:

-The uniforms- Kirk's admiral uniform especially. It reminded me of the uniforms in TNG and DS9. The other uniforms I could live with but it'd been nice if they'd been a tad brighter.

-DeForest Kelley- true bright spot in the whole movie. He was the only one who seemed to have stepped right from TOS. Also like that Dr. Chapel was given some screentime- can't hardly remember her at all in the later movies.

-Spock's storyline

-Stephen Collins/Decker- I remember really not liking his character when I was younger. Not because he wanted to keep the Enterprise but he just seemed bland to me at the time. Sort of the same way I don't recall liking Kirk's son- I'll have to see what I think of him after I get the movies watched. I liked him more since I could understand his motivations better and since I seen Collins in other things (7th Heaven) and got a kick out of him. Wish they'd given him and Kirk another scene together but the movie didn't seem to want to spend anytime on characters.

-The music- I must admit I hadn't realized the music had been reused for TNG. I was like WTF?? when I started the movie last night and heard the theme.

Main Annoyances

-The music/sound effects/speaking. Is it necessary to have the speaking voices so muted that when characters are talking you have to turn the volume way up then down when the music/sound effects start? I hate to have the volume in my hand and have to continually fool around with it.

-The pacing- mainly going through the V'ger cloud. I didn't begrudge the shots of the Enterprise though. I actually fast-forwarded a bit in the cloud. I also had the Okuda text commentary going too or I might have been doing a bit more fast-forwarding.

-Found Ilia more annoying than when I was younger. Hard to understand her speaking and didn't add anything to the movie. Her role honestly could have been given to one of the main cast members to give them something to do. V'ger could have taken Sulu, Chekov, or Uhura over- through mind control or something (TOS has done it before) instead of turning the character into an android. Decker could have been given a different motivation for joining V'ger.

What I felt this film was missing was the interaction between the characters- that is what I truly loved TOS for. I feel that TMP didn't get the spirit of the human connection at all. Which is ironic because you have Spock saying "this simple feeling" and I didn't find much feeling in the film at all.

I would love it if the next Star Trek movie could be a happy medium of TMP and STXI.

 

[Bones2]

I watched the Motion Picture the other day with a couple of friends. One of them fell asleep (yes, literally), and the other one found it even more hilariously tedious than I do. One thing I'd not really noticed before is how many reaction shots there are. It's ridiculous. Of all the Trek films, this is the only one I'd really call bad.

 

[Grant]

"Beeelaaaaay thaaaaaaaaaaaat phaaaaaser ordeeeeer!"

Even the dialogue is slow. People fell asleep during the flybys

It was always considered slow. The fact that it was called slow in 1979 when almost all movies had a slower pace is especially telling.
I happen to like slower movies, but trek isn't the corect franchise for this type of pretentous message movie.
Roddenberry bragged how proud he was that they solved the problem 'with no shooting' ala' star wars.


As if the simple fact that there were no phaser blasts at the climax made it a good movie.
Devil in the dark solved the problem without killing the adversary, but it was compelling and had great character bits and suspense. Maybe they should have sent a remote cam into the tunnels and had Kirk & Spock stare amazed at their monitor for 15 minutes. Oooh spooky.


Saw the damn thing 7 times in the theater so i can verify it's not a great movie.

If you didn't like it, why did you see it seven times in the theater?

Good question.
1. I was a fan from 1970 and I wanted to see NEW Trek
2. I loved the FX and was elated to see a big budget trek
3. I thought it would be the last time I'd see new trek EVER (& home video was still in the future)
4. I loved the music and the scope.
5. I wanted to see sequels and I thought spending money on the movie would aid in getting a sequel made(it worked)
6. Unlike the regular episodes which were on all the time, I thought i'd only see it again once or twice on TV, edited down.
7. Seeing weak trek is still better than Charlie's Angels and other TV of the era and better than a lot of other movies out at the time. IT'S TREK---that makes it worth seeing.

 

[JohanKoch]

TMP is not a great film. I appreciate it a little more now than I did in the past, but it will never rank up there with the best.

What I find amusing is that TMP and Trek 11 are almost diametrically opposed films, the reverse images of each other. While Trek 11 is exciting, action-packed, funny, and fast-paced, TMP is slow, ponderous, and deadly-serious. TMP has more of a "Trek" feel, with a high-concept sci-fi plot that feels true to Star Trek's origins. Trek 11, on the other hand, is more of a generic action film and less conscerned with big issues (destruction of Vulcan notwithstanding).

I prefer Abrams-Trek, just because it is a more exciting moviegoing experience, but I hope the next film takes at least a few lessons from TMP and "classic" Trek. Pike talked about Starfleet being a "humanitatiran and peacekeeping armada". I'd like to see more of the humanitarian and peacekeeping side, and less blowing things up.

 

[TigerOfDarkness]

I prefer Star Trek as Star Trek. If I wanted "2001", I'd watch "2001".


J.

Indeed. Trek isn't really high concept SF or hard SF, it should play to its strengths.

 

[Hober Mallow]

TMP easily trumps mindless slam-bang shoot-em ups like "First Contact."

The only thing I couldn't stand about TMP was thankfully removed for the Director's edition. I'm talking, of course, about the annoying dude computer voice: "EE-MER-GEN-SEE... A-LERT! EE-MER-GEN-SEE... A-LERT!"

 

[QuasarVM]

2001 is a hundred times more boring than ST:TMP.

TMP is, was, and ever shall remain an excellent Trek film.

Just because some of you have the attention spans of a gnat doesn't make TMP a bad film...and it's not bad just because you don't like it (for whatever reason).

You have a right to not like it. I don't like TFF, Insurrection, or Nemesis because I think they are crap -- but that's just my opinion. I'm not saying for God and everyone that they are crap.

So, just watch the rhetoric.

And am I the only one who doesn't think 2001 is all that great? Sure, it's interesting and thought provoking, but once I saw it I never felt compelled to watch it over and over again.

Still, I recognize it as a groundbreaking film.

 

[Hober Mallow]

And am I the only one who doesn't think 2001 is all that great?

It's the greatest SF film ever made. IMO, it's the only film that can really be called true science fiction.

2001 is a masterpiece. ST:TMP is just a film I like.

And yes, TMP did copy 2001. But it was still at least an actual attempt at SF, something Trek rarely does these days.

Sure, it's interesting and thought provoking, but once I saw it I never felt compelled to watch it over and over again.

2001 is a far more focused story than TMP. I never get tired of watching it. Still, TMP is second favorite Trek film, right behind TWOK.

 

[Gepard]

2001 is a far more focused story than TMP.

That's kind of damning with faint praise, when you think about it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

2001 is a hundred times more boring than ST:TMP.

TMP is, was, and ever shall remain an excellent Trek film.

Just because some of you have the attention spans of a gnat doesn't make TMP a bad film...and it's not bad just because you don't like it (for whatever reason).

.

Yet 2001 is a hundred times better.

TMP is a "bad film", not because of gnat like attention spans, but because its not written or paced well. The characters are off and the actors seem to know it.

And yes, TMP did copy 2001. But it was still at least an actual attempt at SF, something Trek rarely does these days.

I'd say its something Trek rarely did ever.

 

[Amaris]

I prefer Star Trek as Star Trek. If I wanted "2001", I'd watch "2001".


J.

Indeed. Trek isn't really high concept SF or hard SF, it should play to its strengths.

Bingo. Star Trek wins in the character department, making us love these people who live 300+ years from now.

And am I the only one who doesn't think 2001 is all that great?

It's the greatest SF film ever made. IMO, it's the only film that can really be called true science fiction.

2001 is a masterpiece. ST:TMP is just a film I like.

And yes, TMP did copy 2001. But it was still at least an actual attempt at SF, something Trek rarely does these days.

Sure, it's interesting and thought provoking, but once I saw it I never felt compelled to watch it over and over again.

2001 is a far more focused story than TMP. I never get tired of watching it. Still, TMP is second favorite Trek film, right behind TWOK.

Eh. 2001 is very good sci-fi, but I wouldn't call it the greatest. That's all a matter of opinion, of course.

J.

 

[TigerOfDarkness]

OK, just incase people get the wrong idea, I like TMP but I recognise it has faults.

Just because some of you have the attention spans of a gnat doesn't make TMP a bad film...and it's not bad just because you don't like it (for whatever reason).

I must object to the suggestion that if you don't like TMP, you have the attention span of a gnat. TMP defenders often suggest that TMP's deriders just want explosions and stuff. I can't speak for everyone but I find this offensive. No one would suggest that if you like TMP you must like being bored.

And am I the only one who doesn't think 2001 is all that great? Sure, it's interesting and thought provoking, but once I saw it I never felt compelled to watch it over and over again.

Still, I recognize it as a groundbreaking film.

2001 was groundbreaking, TMP attempted to emulate it and so isn't groundbreaking (although it probably did break new ground in not giving the audience what it expected).

 

[Warped9]

It's interesting what time and perspective can do. TMP, especially the DE cut, comes across today much better than when the film was introduced. It could still use some added character drama, but I like it even more now than I ever did.

 

[Gojira]

The only things TMP "made me think" were "good lord, when is this scene going to end?" or "YES. IT'S THE ENTERPRISE. I GET IT ALREADY" or other such things. I thought it was dull, plodding, and on par with "Threshold" for how much entertainment value it presented.

The first TOS movies I saw were IV and VI, both of which I loved. Then I finished TNG/DS9 and saw the TNG movies. Recently I've been going back to fill in the gaps I missed, now just needing to see III and V. I didn't care much for TWOK, but it's a masterpiece compared to TMP if you ask me.

Showing 4 minute look at the Enterprise in 1979 was a gift to the fans. I grew up watching TOS in the early 70s and the original show was very limited in how they could display the Enterprise. So for original Trek fans who saw TOS before ANY movie came out this was a real treat and still is. I think people need to see that scene in its historical context. No one had seen the Enterprise (or this new design) in such detail before.

I love TMP it is one of my top Star Trek movies. The directors cut is the best.

 

[ToddPence]

To compare it to STV is ludicrous...they aren't even close.

You're absolutely right. STV is a far more interesting, engaging, entertaining and meaningful film.

 

[M.Robison]

I like TMP, although could have done without the 25 min V'ger flyover..

Kidding...just kidding.

 

[Therin of Andor]

TMP has more of a "Trek" feel.

I became a ST fan because of TMP, having seen only a few TOS and TAS episodes, but for my first few years in fandom I was constantly being told that TMP was a bad film because it didn't have the correct Trek "feel".