Since When Is The Motion Picture A Good Trek Film?

[GhostFaceSaint]

I wonder if anyone remembers that Gene Roddenberry personally hated "The Motion Picture", he was really angry at paramount for how it was edited together. If you don't believe me go to your local library, check out the novel "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" by Gene Roddenberry and read his notation in the first few pages of the book, you will be surprised.

"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" was considered so boring by Paramount that the original plans for its sequel was to end Star Trek with II later called in the theaters "The Wrath Of Khan", a film that saved Star Trek!

 

[Sovay]

I don't think nostalgia has anything to do with it. I watched absolutely all ST in sequence, so finished TOS and moved onto all the movies. I watched the director's cut and yes, it is a good film. In fact it's fantastic, it's one of my favorites! It was good sci-fi, and it was true to TOS.

 

[Joker]

I wonder if anyone remembers that Gene Roddenberry personally hated "The Motion Picture", he was really angry at paramount for how it was edited together. If you don't believe me go to your local library, check out the novel "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" by Gene Roddenberry and read his notation in the first few pages of the book, you will be surprised.

"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" was considered so boring by Paramount that the original plans for its sequel was to end Star Trek with II later called in the theaters "The Wrath Of Khan", a film that saved Star Trek!

Any chance you could type it out here?

 

[Chrisisall]

I don't think nostalgia has anything to do with it. I watched absolutely all ST in sequence, so finished TOS and moved onto all the movies. I watched the director's cut and yes, it is a good film. In fact it's fantastic, it's one of my favorites! It was good sci-fi, and it was true to TOS.

Wow,my first day lurking & posting, and already I found a peep with whom I have 100% agreement.

 

[GhostFaceSaint]

I wonder if anyone remembers that Gene Roddenberry personally hated "The Motion Picture", he was really angry at paramount for how it was edited together. If you don't believe me go to your local library, check out the novel "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" by Gene Roddenberry and read his notation in the first few pages of the book, you will be surprised.

"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" was considered so boring by Paramount that the original plans for its sequel was to end Star Trek with II later called in the theaters "The Wrath Of Khan", a film that saved Star Trek!

Any chance you could type it out here?

Yeah I could go look it up, it is at my library after all, and then I will copy the text in question on this thread for all to read.

 

[Maurice]

I wonder if anyone remembers that Gene Roddenberry personally hated "The Motion Picture", he was really angry at paramount for how it was edited together. If you don't believe me go to your local library, check out the novel "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" by Gene Roddenberry and read his notation in the first few pages of the book, you will be surprised.

I read the novel back in late 1979 and I don't recall that at all.

"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" was considered so boring by Paramount that the original plans for its sequel was to end Star Trek with II later called in the theaters "The Wrath Of Khan", a film that saved Star Trek!

That's a rather skewed take on the events. Certainly many at Paramount considered it boring, but TMP was a big enough success to warrent a follow-up, but the desire to control costs led to the use of the TV division people. The cheapness of TWOK allowed it to make a tidier profit, even though TMP had bigger box-office. They didn't plan sequels to end with TWOK, they just made *a* sequel, and if it didn't perform, that woulda been that.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I wonder if anyone remembers that Gene Roddenberry personally hated "The Motion Picture"

Huh?

He "hated" that Paramount held him responsible for the film's failings, but he was the Executive Producer and, as such, the buck stopped with him. (Paramount's only main fault lay with locking in an unchangeable premiere date with cinemas.)

If you don't believe me go to your local library, check out the novel "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" by Gene Roddenberry and read his notation in the first few pages of the book, you will be surprised.

I have both the US and Australian editions and neither express hatred of the movie or hatred towards Paramount.

Both editions feature a fictitious preface from Admiral James T Kirk himself, and then a preface with the "author" (ie. Roddenberry) writing of himself in a fictitious way, since he mentions that he was personally selected by Kirk to write the novelization of the ship's mission logs of the V'ger incident... because GR had been "somewhat a key figure among those who chronicled his original five-year mission in a way which the admiral has criticized as inaccurately 'larger than life'."

Where's the GR "hate" for the movie?

"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" was considered so boring by Paramount that the original plans for its sequel was to end Star Trek with II later called in the theaters "The Wrath Of Khan", a film that saved Star Trek!

Huh?

"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" was considered a financial success, despite its huge - for the time - budget and the four or five months it took to earn its total box office take. It was considered to be boring by some fans and professional critics, sure, and Paramount was sure that a film could be made more economically and more exciting, especially by re-using the existing sets, models and stock footage. They decided to get the TV arm of Paramount Studios to make a telemovie (that became "The Wrath Of Khan"), in the hope that if it turned out well, it would be distributed theatrically outside of the US. The same strategy had worked well for "Battlestar Galactica", "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century", and "Mission Galactica: The Cylon Attack". During its filming, Paramount decided that they should ramp up the marketing after all, and release it theatrically everywhere.

It's not true to say that they expected to finish off Star Trek with ST II. But each ST movie was negotiated as a standalone film. TMP was to be "the" ST movie. The rest were done as "just one more".

In fact, if ST II had stayed a telemovie, it may have been swiftly followed by more telemovies utilizing the twelve spare "Phase II" scripts already stockpiled, since they were all Spock-less scripts anyway!

 

[GhostFaceSaint]

I wonder if anyone remembers that Gene Roddenberry personally hated "The Motion Picture", he was really angry at paramount for how it was edited together. If you don't believe me go to your local library, check out the novel "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" by Gene Roddenberry and read his notation in the first few pages of the book, you will be surprised.

"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" was considered so boring by Paramount that the original plans for its sequel was to end Star Trek with II later called in the theaters "The Wrath Of Khan", a film that saved Star Trek!

Any chance you could type it out here?

Yeah I could go look it up, it is at my library after all, and then I will copy the text in question on this thread for all to read.

So I went to my local public library (Mesa County Public Library) to check this book out only to find it listed as "Missing" (figures), so in order to find out if my memory is correct I need to go to some bookstores tomorrow morning; Tuesday, to look for the movie novel but I have a feeling that the book is long out of print!

So since I don't expect to find this book now does anyone else have a copy of this book at their local library with the preface to either confirm or disprove what I remember about this topic (I am not referring to the Kirk interview just the preface)?

 

[Therin of Andor]

So since I don't expect to find this book now does anyone else have a copy of this book at their local library with the preface to either confirm or disprove what I remember about this topic (I am not referring to the Kirk interview just the preface)?

What am I, chopped liver?

I have both the US and Australian editions and neither express hatred of the movie or hatred towards Paramount. As I said, both editions feature a preface with the "author" (ie. Roddenberry), but he's writing of himself in a fictitious way, since he mentions that he was personally selected by Kirk to write the novelization of the ship's mission logs of the V'ger incident... because GR had been "somewhat a key figure among those who chronicled his original five-year mission in a way which the admiral has criticized as inaccurately 'larger than life'."

There's no GR "hate" for the movie in the Author's preface. The movie hadn't even come out when GR wrote this book, and both of its prefaces.

And there's no Kirk "interview". It's supposed to be Kirk's own preface, preceding GR's preface.

 

[Chrisisall]

I have the novel somewhere around here (in a box with convention stuff no doubt), and I've read it, and NOWHERE was there any reference to the movie at all, much less any negativity towards it, if memory serves.

 

[TigerOfDarkness]

Kirk's preface IIRC says something along the lines of "despite what you might see in other versions of the story, this version is accurate." Maybe that is what GhostFaceSaint is refering to?

 

[RyanKCR]

Kirk's preface IIRC says something along the lines of "despite what you might see in other versions of the story, this version is accurate." Maybe that is what GhostFaceSaint is refering to?

That is actually referring to the TOS where Kirk and Co. were made into legends. Kirk was saying that this event (the V'ger crisis) and how it has been reported is more accurate because of the input of those involved.

 

[Warped9]

"The Motion Picture" (AKA: "Where Nomad Has Gone Before")

Apologies to all those who disliked the Enterprise external tour. That scene was put in the film for me. (one who thinks the Enterprise was as much a character as K/S/M)

 

[GhostFaceSaint]

Well anyway the first film first edit was incomplete. Robert Wise didn't get to edit the fist film because there wasn't time the production was a near disaster and there was never any exterior shot of V'Ger as it approached Earth; the cloud was supposed to dissipate and we were supposed to be able to see the exterior of V'Ger but we didn't, Wise said it on the DVD that he wanted us to finally see the monster. After Bennet and Roddenberry fired the first special effects company they were so late in the production that they didn't have time to properly finish the film with the new company. Right after the special effects were considered passable they canned the film and sent it to the premier without Wise even seeing the product.

Star Trek the Motion Picture was dissapointing to Trekkies and Trekkers but seeing any new Star Trek after ten years was what they wanted was something new and that is the only reason the film was a financial success. My father who also loved Star Trek considered the first film to be disappointing visually as well as story wise and this man also didn't like "The Wrath Of Khan" because he said they were recycling an old episode "Space Seed" in Khan. I don't agree with him about Khan but I understand his reasons for disliking the visuals on the first film he expected more visual detail in the close-ups of the Starships however I am satisfied with them.

Star Trek's first film and its near disastrous production became a bad memory for Paramount who planned to stop making films after the second motion picture, they figured that people could only take so much before getting bored, but fortunately Bennet found Nicholas Meyer and Star Trek was saved with "Wrath Of Khan".

 

[Maurice]

Well anyway the first film first edit was incomplete. Robert Wise didn't get to edit the fist film because there wasn't time the production was a near disaster and there was never any exterior shot of V'Ger as it approached Earth; the cloud was supposed to dissipate and we were supposed to be able to see the exterior of V'Ger but we didn't, Wise said it on the DVD that he wanted us to finally see the monster. After Bennet and Roddenberry fired the first special effects company they were so late in the production that they didn't have time to properly finish the film with the new company. Right after the special effects were considered passable they canned the film and sent it to the premier without Wise even seeing the product.

Star Trek the Motion Picture was dissapointing to Trekkies and Trekkers but seeing any new Star Trek after ten years was what they wanted was something new and that is the only reason the film was a financial success. My father who also loved Star Trek considered the first film to be disappointing visually as well as story wise and this man also didn't like "The Wrath Of Khan" because he said they were recycling an old episode "Space Seed" in Khan. I don't agree with him about Khan but I understand his reasons for disliking the visuals on the first film he expected more visual detail in the close-ups of the Starships however I am satisfied with them.

Star Trek's first film and its near disastrous production became a bad memory for Paramount who planned to stop making films after the second motion picture, they figured that people could only take so much before getting bored, but fortunately Bennet found Nicholas Meyer and Star Trek was saved with "Wrath Of Khan".

Ok, you might as well stop right now. You aren't getting these events right at all. In fact, that you mention Bennett in association with TMP, a film he had nothing to do with, fairly well illustrates that you've got your facts skewed. Your post is so full of errors I would scarcely know where to begin, but the biggest and most ridiculous is the idea that "they canned the film and sent it to the premier without Wise even seeing the product." Wise didn't have an opportunity to sneak/screen the film with an audience, which is an entirely different thing.

 

[GhostFaceSaint]

Well anyway the first film first edit was incomplete. Robert Wise didn't get to edit the fist film because there wasn't time the production was a near disaster and there was never any exterior shot of V'Ger as it approached Earth; the cloud was supposed to dissipate and we were supposed to be able to see the exterior of V'Ger but we didn't, Wise said it on the DVD that he wanted us to finally see the monster. After Bennet and Roddenberry fired the first special effects company they were so late in the production that they didn't have time to properly finish the film with the new company. Right after the special effects were considered passable they canned the film and sent it to the premier without Wise even seeing the product.

Star Trek the Motion Picture was dissapointing to Trekkies and Trekkers but seeing any new Star Trek after ten years was what they wanted was something new and that is the only reason the film was a financial success. My father who also loved Star Trek considered the first film to be disappointing visually as well as story wise and this man also didn't like "The Wrath Of Khan" because he said they were recycling an old episode "Space Seed" in Khan. I don't agree with him about Khan but I understand his reasons for disliking the visuals on the first film he expected more visual detail in the close-ups of the Starships however I am satisfied with them.

Star Trek's first film and its near disastrous production became a bad memory for Paramount who planned to stop making films after the second motion picture, they figured that people could only take so much before getting bored, but fortunately Bennet found Nicholas Meyer and Star Trek was saved with "Wrath Of Khan".

Ok, you might as well stop right now. You aren't getting these events right at all. In fact, that you mention Bennett in association with TMP, a film he had nothing to do with, fairly well illustrates that you've got your facts skewed. Your post is so full of errors I would scarcely know where to begin, but the biggest and most ridiculous is the idea that "they canned the film and sent it to the premier without Wise even seeing the product." Wise didn't have an opportunity to sneak/screen the film with an audience, which is an entirely different thing.

Teach me for using wiki as a source Roddenberry was producer, duh! But I am not wrong about the events leading up to the films release, my sources are George Takei's autobiography "To the Stars: The Autobiography of George Takei, Star Trek's Mr. Sulu", James Doohan's audobiography "Beam Me Up, Scotty: Star Trek's "Scotty" In His Own Words", various interviews with Robert Wise from various magazines as well as the DVD commentary on "Star Trek The Motion Picture: The Director's Edition", various Star Trek books on the feature films including "Making of the Trek Films" (Gross, Edward), "Special Effects of Star Trek" (James Van Hise).

I have done my homework, I have read the books, so besides forgetting that it was Roddenberry that produced the first film where am I wrong? What others errors have my history skewed? What are your sources, have you even done any reading on this by the various people involved in Star Trek? Or are you just going by your impressions of the Star Trek franchise, and please if you answer give me a source for what you are talking about so I can go look it up myself.

My point the production on the first Star Trek film was not rosy but a near disaster, I have heard nothing else from anyone who worked on this film on this subject. I have not however heard who might be at fault in the production problems but I do sort of wonder if Gene might have been in over his head going from "Star Trek Phase II" a TV production into the full blown big budget film production.

 

[Maurice]

GhostFaceSaint. You're new here, so I don't expect you've seen the numerous postings and discussions about the production of TMP on this board over the last few years. In particular, the users Trevanian and The God Thing know their stuff about TMP, and I know a fair amount. We've haggled over the making of that film and the merits of its immediate sequel many times. As to refrences, in about two minutes I could pull out everything from The American Cinematographer article about TMP, Cinefex #1, Susan Sackett Starlog columns about the making of TMP, the Making of books for TMP and TWOK, and about 30 contemporary magazine articles from the times those films were in production, including large articles on the costume and prop design. I also happen to be personal friends with a couple of people who worked on the film.

None of this is to say I know everything. I don't. But based on all I've read and the accounts I've heard I can tell you there are lots of differing stories of what happened on the films. But if there's one thing I've learned studying films is that people, and particularly actors, tend to take what they thought might be happening and tell it as if it was actually what occurred.

As to that Paramount was "thinking" I think it's fairly safe to say that only the executive level people of the film might be privvy to that. If Jefferey Katzenberg or Michael Eisner or some other executive said something like, "We were sure TMP was going to be the only Star Trek film," (not that he did) I'd give it a lot more weight than Shatner or someone not plugged into Paramount management.

Finally, Hollywood norm is to fold or strike (demolish) sets at the end of a production, so to the fact the Trek sets were left STANDING after each film wrapped, I think, is the clearest and least ambiguous clue we have as to what Paramount's intentions were. It's most plausible to assume they kept the sets around in hopes each film would do well enough to merit a sequel.

 

[Chrisisall]

Finally, Hollywood norm is to fold or strike (demolish) sets at the end of a production, so to the fact the Trek sets were left STANDING after each film wrapped, I think, is the clearest and least ambiguous clue we have as to what Paramount's intentions were. It's most plausible to assume they kept the sets around in hopes each film would do well enough to merit a sequel.

Logical.
WAAAAY back then, we had no internet. But we had conventions.
The way I remember it (if memory serves) is that the word was that there was always hope for a next film, even after TMP.

 

[plynch]

To answer the title of the thread:

Since 1979.

 

[Chrisisall]

To answer the title of the thread:

Since 1979.