You know I like this film but one major problem I have with it is that the characters don't seem to do much during the movie.
Since When Is The Motion Picture A Good Trek Film?
- Thread starter Similitude
- Start date
Indeed; I once read a review that described the movie as 'watching the cast of Star Trek watch Star Trek', due to all the time spent showing our characters stare agape at the viewscreen 
Not presently. But I've read materiel that speculates it could happen within the next few decades and perhaps likely before mid century.
And whoever or whatever named it bothered to read the probe's plaque and tell the probe what its name was - but not to brush some grime off of it so that it could be read properly?
I always thought that was a big weak point in the film...that V'ger even knew its name. At what point did it figure out the English alphabet? When it sucked the Enterprise computers? Dirty letters aside, it was just a dumb leap in logic.
They simply should have that part of the plaque obiterated by a micro-metorite or something and it used the part of the name that was left.
They could have fixed that in the DE with CGI and editing & had Kirk simply figure out what it was without having to wipe off the dirt.
They could have fixed that in the DE with CGI and editing & had Kirk simply figure out what it was without having to wipe off the dirt.
I inwardly grin when Kirk is reading the plaque: 'V...o...y...a...g...e...r... Voyager!'
It feels like a clip from Sesame Street. This episode brought to you by the letters...
It feels like a clip from Sesame Street. This episode brought to you by the letters...
ScatmanRescueMe
Lieutenant Commander
^^Wow no-one ever mentioned that before in the last 5 posts of this very thread.
Last edited:
In which case, as Voyager clearly hadn't learned everything, it shouldn't be returning to Earth. Kirk should have told it "you have failed to fulfill your prime directive, go away and learn everything and then come back". 'Course if they did that, people might start saying TMP is like The Changeling....
I think it's an okay Trek film, though I like TWOK much better. As others have mentioned, the final version of the script and the pacing suffer significantly. The visuals are really great, but they drag on too long in some parts. I'll admit it's hard for me to see it as a "thinker's" movie, because it doesn't spend enough time on the basic philosophical question presented - is there something "more" to existence than we've discovered?
If the "is there nothing more?" question is central to TMP, it is interesting to look at the answers the characters find to it.
The movie makes it clear that Kirk wants the Enterprise, to be in command, surrounded by his friends and going out to explore the unknown.
Spock wants to deal with the divisions beween his human and vulcan sides.
Decker wants to command the Enterprise, though possibly he wants to command A ship, not necessarily specifically the Enterprise.
V'Ger wants something more than it has, but doesn't know what it it.
At the end. Kirk gets exactly what he wants, for him there is no need for anything more.
Spock attempts join with V'Ger but is rejected though in the process learns to embrace his two sides and unify them. Like Kirk he really had what he wanted all along, he just needed to see it.
Finally, Decker joins with V'Ger and is accepted - maybe they will get to find out if there is something more.
As well as 2001, this invites comparison betweem TMP and The Wizard Of Oz. For Kirk and regular crew, the characters travel to try and find what they need, only to discover they had it all along.
Only Decker and V'Ger actually get something new from the encounter.
The movie makes it clear that Kirk wants the Enterprise, to be in command, surrounded by his friends and going out to explore the unknown.
Spock wants to deal with the divisions beween his human and vulcan sides.
Decker wants to command the Enterprise, though possibly he wants to command A ship, not necessarily specifically the Enterprise.
V'Ger wants something more than it has, but doesn't know what it it.
At the end. Kirk gets exactly what he wants, for him there is no need for anything more.
Spock attempts join with V'Ger but is rejected though in the process learns to embrace his two sides and unify them. Like Kirk he really had what he wanted all along, he just needed to see it.
Finally, Decker joins with V'Ger and is accepted - maybe they will get to find out if there is something more.
As well as 2001, this invites comparison betweem TMP and The Wizard Of Oz. For Kirk and regular crew, the characters travel to try and find what they need, only to discover they had it all along.
Only Decker and V'Ger actually get something new from the encounter.
Here's an article/review of TMP I was reading the other other day which expresses some (though not all) of it's appeal - The Definition of Unwarranted: Appreciating the Slow, Boring Star Trek Movie
^^ Interesting. And very much in line with what I've been talking about with some folks i work with.
With mainstream film makers there seems to be a tendency to treat film like television for sometime now. Basically you can't count on audience's attention spans. If it ain't loud and fast and flashy then they don't believe anyone will sit through it. There's also this notion that movies can't be more than one thing as opposed to works that have done well being more than one thing.
You can have adventure and drama and humour and thoughful exposition all in one package. You just have to know how to do it and have the ambition to reach for it. Entertainment is often more satisfying when it's multilayered.
With mainstream film makers there seems to be a tendency to treat film like television for sometime now. Basically you can't count on audience's attention spans. If it ain't loud and fast and flashy then they don't believe anyone will sit through it. There's also this notion that movies can't be more than one thing as opposed to works that have done well being more than one thing.
You can have adventure and drama and humour and thoughful exposition all in one package. You just have to know how to do it and have the ambition to reach for it. Entertainment is often more satisfying when it's multilayered.
Exactly. There's a lot wrong with TMP but those flaws are easily brushed aside by all that is right with the movie. It is still the most ambitious and most psychologically complex of the Trek films.
Last edited:
Of course the strength of TMP is that it's "cinematic". But that's also the film's huge weakness, you get the obvious sense that they are simply trying too hard to make Star Trek fill up the big screen.
You can almost imagine Roddenberry saying "I'll show them! I'll prove Trek is more than just rubber alien fistfights and cardboard sets!" It just reeks of overcompensation. (And I say this as a fan of the film.)
However, on the other hand, if they hadn't taken the high-budget big-screen spectacular route, perhaps the entire Trek movie franchise would have never gotten off the ground. TMP certainly served it's purpouse by getting Star Trek back into business. There it was, the Enterprise, big and beautiful and filling up the screen. Even if TMP was a critical flop, it clearly proved the concept had potential.
You can almost imagine Roddenberry saying "I'll show them! I'll prove Trek is more than just rubber alien fistfights and cardboard sets!" It just reeks of overcompensation. (And I say this as a fan of the film.)
However, on the other hand, if they hadn't taken the high-budget big-screen spectacular route, perhaps the entire Trek movie franchise would have never gotten off the ground. TMP certainly served it's purpouse by getting Star Trek back into business. There it was, the Enterprise, big and beautiful and filling up the screen. Even if TMP was a critical flop, it clearly proved the concept had potential.
Similar threads
