Indeed. I agree.
SF Lit Author John Scalzi Picks Best Trek Movie Directors
- Thread starter Ryan Thomas Riddle
- Start date
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I don't know what version of TMP you were watching, because it sure isn't any of the ones I've loved and hated all these years. I find Wise's work on the film to be deeply flawed, both conceptually and in execution. He can't be blamed too deeply for the latter, since the production was so troubled (well, maybe he DOES need blame for that too ... he replaced Joe Jennings with Michaelson and had Kline try to duplicate ANDROMEDA STRAIN look but without that film' 'snap.') The diopter stuff that worked on ANDROMEDA and HINDENBERG just looks like distracting mush on the TMP sets.
The color scheme and costume stuff Wise wanted worked against engaging the audience, especially on a film Par wanted to appeal to everybody, so he wasn't even the studio's guy (at least here, as opposed to AMBERSONS), and he certainly wasn't GR's either.
There are a few good live-action moments, but his mishandling of Shatner is tragic ... why does neophyte Meyer figure out how to reign Shatner in, and yet seasoned pro Wise just lets him act out?
On the contrary, sir, I don't know what version of TMP *you* have been watching.
There are *some* poorly executed split diopter shots in ST:TMP, but also many good ones. Critics just ignore the hits and count the misses; in this case, however, that may actually be a compliment to Robert Wise and Richard Kline, since the majority of the diopter shots are beautifully integrated, and, as the typical diopter shot should be, virtually undetectable. Wise and Kline were up against some very tight conditions (in more ways than one) when making the film. Lesser people would have crumbled. It is a testament to their talent that they overcame the majority of the hurdles and delivered a film with great scope and poetry.
Wait, what? I have always found the production design and art direction of ST:TMP -- costumes, sets, models, paintings, overall design aesthetics, etc., including the colour scheme and visual tableaux -- to be highly engaging; stimulating, in fact. If the average viewer didn't like it, too bad. Then again, it was the highest grossing Star Trek film until "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home", so it seems Wise and his people did something right.
Maybe because, in as much as Wise, or his picture, has been charged with misrepresenting, dulling down or losing the nature of "The Big Three", and, by extension, the appeal of TOS, the truth is that Wise actually allowed the actors to play to their strengths, facilitating opportunities for the authentic selves of Kirk, Spock and McCoy to shine out, when pertinent, in various parts of the movie? To me, ST:TMP is much more like the series it derives from (albeit on a much grander scale) than the subsequent films, ranging from the major exploration motif and humanistic core of the movie, to the soft, figure-hugging, semi-casual uniforms; the incorporation of Alexander Courage's original theme music; the clean, ascetic ship interiors; the rich bevvy of characters, new and old; and yes, the finely-tuned ebullience and effrontery of Kirk, mixed in with a new level of anxiety owed to the character's time out of the chair.
By contrast, Nicholas Meyer may well have tried to "reign Shatner in", or "wear him down" (as, I think, Meyer puts it in the DVD commentary), and he may have crafted a performance better suited to his material and approach, but it's also in his film that William Shatner bawls out, "Khaaaaann!", a moment that has been chopped up and parodied to the point of dessication. This seems to jar with the sombre Kirk we see in the rest of the film, as well as muddy the notion that Kirk is actually one step ahead of his tormentor and has already planned to be rescued, and so feels intrusively like melodrama for melodrama's sake. Granted, the notoriety of this moment is, then, down more to the strained story and Meyer's ham-fisted direction than William Shatner's propensity for scenery-chewing (letting the moment ring out in space, where "no-one can hear you scream", as the tagline to Ridley Scott's "Alien" chillingly put it a few years before, is not exactly the height of tasteful restraint, and only serves to make the picture look dated compared to its forebears), so what does that say about the thinking behind the movie and the sensibilities of Meyer himself?
Last edited:
Am I the only one who finds Kirk shouting "Khan!!!" actually good?
Never bothered me--and I took the echo against Regula to be poetic juxtaposition rather than scientific inaccuracy but so what if it was? Things had been going rumble, twang and boom in Star Trek's space since "The Cage."
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I've always thought Shat's 'omigod' in TMP's transporter was a worse line reading than anything in Khan, though his 'omigod' when finding Chekov and Terrell in that film is also really lousy (nobody is as good as Leslie Nielsen in POSEIDON.)
It's the face being made that really sticks badly in Khan ... the echo sound is actually pretty effective, especially in the right theater.
Even Shatner, just months after shooting TMP, admitted in the SHATNER WHERE NO MAN book that he would have played things differently on that film if he had it to do over, and this was in early or mid 79, well before the film came out. If Shatner was already considering his choices invalid, that really points up that Wise should have exerted his directorial prerogative to make him play things right, especially given the film's tone and approach, which are at odds with the acting-out aspects.
Art direction wise, I think most of TMP is really really off-putting. The diopter stuff could have worked in a different lighting/color scheme (I was only distracted by one or two shots in HINDENBERG, whereas on TMP it was -- and still is on homevid viewing -- a near-constant state), and the crew must have known that. The idiocy of having to lower the set lighting to something like 20 footcandles so that the lights on the consoles would show up on film is staggering ... when you read that the buttons were melting and so the electricity had to be reduced, it makes you wonder what level of craftsman was employed on the film, and whether Wise was firing the wrong people. Letting the look of your movie be dictated by 1979's state of the art equivalent to xmas tree lights is deeply flawed thinking.
As for the money it made ... if ANY trek film, even one as disappointing as Wise's, had come out in 76 or 77, it would have made tons more than TMP (PLANET OF THE TITANS is the project I feel that would have had the best chance, a fun-dumb that would have had some quality elements from Kaufman and some unique visuals courtesy Ken Adam and Jordan Belson.) TMP was coasting in after SW, so the money it made, given the long anticipation, was a given, just not as great as it could or should have been, and the film's boredom level scared general audiences off for quite awhile (the better part of a decade), so that is hardly an endorsement either.
Having said all that ... if you check back over the months or years, you'll see I'm one of the biggest proponents here of TMP (though obviously with major caveats ... and TMP is, along with TWOK and TFF, the only Trek movie I really really like out of the 1-10 bunch.) I love most of the score, and the visual effects work was largely glorious to my eye, and even though some of the unused Abel notions for vfx sound wonderful on paper, I still have doubts that they could have ever realized them on film, so the Trumbull stuff is damned amazing, especially given the time frame. There is stuff that SHOULD work and doesn't, like 'this simple feeling' -- and my thought is that it doesn't work because it is something that rings true in a movie that for most of its runtime, does NOT ring true, so it is only valid in the big trek picture, not in TMP itself.
I have read that some thought Wise may have just not taken this pic seriously ... I don't believe that (he put too much time and energy into it), but he seems to have inflicted his own kind of storytelling template on the thing, perhaps again to TMP's detriment. A short time after TMP came out, I had a realization about its similarities to ANDROMEDA ... both have main heros who, in the end, don't really do all that much to save the day, whereas the younger guy in each pic gets all the action. McCoy is treated like the female doctor in the other film, largely as comic relief, though her epilepsy could resonate with Spock's walk and brainfreeze. I jotted down a lot of notes for a paper, but never did much with it, because I realized just in thinking along these lines, it was evidence that the picture was flawed on more than just the CHANGELING ripoff level that everybody was talking about. It was a Wise template superimposed on the TREK universe, and it just didn't fit. It could be that Livingston could have written a good Wise movie, or a barely adequate Trek movie, but he certainly couldn't deliver on both of those levels, esp with GR messing the script up.
You have entirely missed what I was driving out. I wasn't impeaching that moment for scientific accuracy, but for its stylistic qualities. Do I personally find it bad? Actually, I'm kind of ambivalent about it. I thought it worth bringing into the discussion, however, as a counterpoint to the claim that Meyer reigned Shatner in, and, by implication, that his film doesn't contain any moments of unguarded emoting, or, in common parlance, cheese.
Yes, that moment has a degree of silliness to it. I don't find it detrimental to the film, though. Like I said, Wise, I think, allowed the actors to perform, to some extent, exactly as they did in TOS, which, in Shatner's case, meant certain exaggerated looks, inflections and exclamations he's somewhat known for. His line in TWOK, "My God, Carol! Look at it!" is almost as bad. I think there's something about invoking the name of a supernatural omnipotent being that makes it awkward for any actor to sound natural, let alone the ever-punctuating Shat.
I've not read the book, so I'll have to plead ignorant regarding Shatner's exact remarks. However, let me say this: actors (and other artists; in fact, all human beings, generally speaking) tend to be their own worst critics, if not enemies. I'm aware that ST:TMP was a troubling shoot, and that many people had issues of one kind or another. I know that Leonard Nimoy also thinks unkindly toward TMP, charging that "the people [i.e. the characters] got lost", or words to that effect. I understand where he's coming from, but I disagree. I suppose this comes down to the auteur theory versus the intentional fallacy -- what an artist was trying to do, or thinks they did or didn't do, is one thing, and, for me, too constraining (though I value the artists' thoughts, of course); all that matters, and all that can matter, when all is said and done, is my impression, or yours, or your friend's, or whomever it is that is watching and receiving the art, for art is a very personal thing.
I couldn't disagree more strongly.
There were gross technical limitations inherent to what Wise and Co. were attempting to do, but it doesn't follow that their efforts were stupid or for naught. Anyone can be an armchair critic in these matters, but we weren't there, and I doubt any of us has the expertise to light and frame a motion picture movie, least of all a high budget, cutting-edge Science Fiction feature film. To these eyes, ST:TMP looks the best of the ST films, by a country mile (that doesn't mean I'm not fond of the other entries; by and large, I am). Have you seen the way TMP looks on Blu-ray? Forgive my appeal to sentiment, but, in my estimation, it looks tremendous (the transfer has its flaws, but the picture quality finally allows one to apprehend the beauty of the cinematography; I've always thought the "Director's Edition" DVD master is pretty appalling). Maybe you think the lighting of the bridge, once they travel into V'Ger, is too subdued? I LOVE it!
Yes, I just knew you would say something like that. Technically, I can't disprove your statements, but I can refer you to the box office figures, as collated at Box Office Mojo: to the nearest million, TMP made $82 million, TWOK made $79 million, TSFS made $76 million, and the TMP beater, TVH, made $110 million. I daresay that TMP's takings were propped up by the buzz from SW, and the fact that TMP was the first Star Trek production since TOS was cancelled, so there is great validity to what you've said. On the other hand, if TWOK and TSFS, TWOK especially, were such markedly better movies, and TMP this bloated monstrosity, why could they not match, let alone exceed, its takings?
I don't know why I'm arguing monetary figures with you, though. To me, the amount of money an artistic entity makes is not necessarily a good -- or, in fact, any kind of -- indicator of its quality. Generally speaking, I don't argue from popularity or look for safety in numbers. Were "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Blade Runner" or, to use a contemporary example, "Speed Racer", critical darlings or massive money-spinners? The general public has continually shown a a pretty dismal appreciation for handsomely-crafted, thoughtful, intelligent and seminal Science Fiction and Fantasy pictures. I think this speaks to ignorance of art and science in general. How many people, for instance, have even heard of, let alone seen, Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent Of Man" or Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" (to my mind, the two greatest documentary series ever made)?
You're using the mentality of the herd to back up your own opinion, which I disdain. Personally, I'm glad that Robert Wise didn't make a movie that capitulated to the superficial whims of the average movie-goer. Not every film has to or should appease. For mass appeal, we have the alacrity of STIV:TVH (which I love), as well as the bubblegum schlock of STXI (which I hate). Occasionally, I like Star Trek to be a little more -- and Robert Wise made it a lot more.
OK.
I literally have no idea what you mean. There's a difference? Really? I have always loved this moment. In fact, the last time I watched, it actually brought a tear to my eye. It's not only a very moving moment, but is, in many ways, the peripeteia of the movie. It crystallises everything that has come before and portends the way the conflict will be resolved, and the person who has this revelation is the person who needed it most. Very beautiful. The moment also works as an expression of TMP's twin extremes: it is an encapsulation of the intimate and the epic; this "simple feeling" that Spock describes and shows is both simple and anything but. It is also a leitmotif that runs throughout the film. For example: Scotty touches Kirk's arm in a reassuring gesture that the Enterprise will be ready and launch on time, while later on, McCoy beams aboard, as crotchety and irascible as ever, and Kirk powerfully extends his hand, imploring, "I need you! Damn it, Bones, I NEED YOU!" The moment between Spock and Kirk has, thus, been carefully, almost subliminally, anticipated, and is a fulfillment of a tension running the length and breadth of the picture.
You don't believe that, but you'll give it lip service any way? Personally, I think you're a little conflicted about loving TMP or hating it. I don't think Wise "inflicted" anything on the picture, either.
Right. Directors have certain ideas and concepts that they tend to repeat and restate, like painters or composers. For example: the "leaving home" motif is present in all of George Lucas' feature films ("THX 1138", "American Graffiti" and "Star Wars" [and to greater or lesser extents, the sequels/prequels]), while some critics have noticed that Stanley Kubrick tends to refashion the same idea in different contexts, like the "group violence" motif (in "2001", the man-apes batter a helpless individual of their species; in "A Clockwork Orange", the droogs bludgeon innocent civilians, and later, a former member of their group; in "Full Metal Jacket", the marines beat another marine as punishment while he's lying in bed, and so on). I don't know what this means for Robert Wise and his approach, other than Wise being true to himself and committed to making the best movie he possibly could, according to his eccentricities and predilections.
Gotcha. I never minded a little cheese in Star Trek.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
CRYOGENIC,
Yes, I am absolutely and TOTALLY conflicted in my views over TMP. That's kind of the point; it is horrible to have to dislike so much in a flick where there are things I love, and maybe more importantly, things I really WANTED to love. I'm enjoying this discussion, please don't take anything personal, it certainly isn't intended as such, though I can't ever divorce my thoughts of Wise from his part in trashing AMBERSONS ... it is so huge and bad in my mind that I practically have to rewatch my beloved DAY THE EARTH for the 100th time to get my head clear on the subject!
I have seen frame grabs of the blu-ray, and it, sadly, fits exactly into this schizophrenic view of TMP; brightness and edge detail is great, but the 'interior of the subject is blurred/softened with DNR to the point that it doesn't even look like film anymore. Yhe same thing happened with PATTON, and I won't even look at frame grabs of that, because I don't want to scar my psyche with bastardization of a film that IMO was VERY well shot to begin with (unlike TMP, which I find to be a series of wrong calls throughout -- and it isn't really armchair quarterbacking to critique bad cinematographic choices when you are thinking this same way in 1979 while watching the film for the first time.)
I mentioned the lighting issues regarding set buttons and such before, but even worse IMO is Kline slavishly taking up the PD's notion of lighting from the floor, which is absolutely what you do NOT do when you're trying to make people look good (except maybe Jack Nicholson.) Michaelson trying to come up with a look for the show is enough to poison it right there, as it is (as I have pointed out in dozens of threads) rather difficult to read a clipboard when the light is coming from the floor, unless you are laying upside down in your chair. The film cheats on this, so that a lot of light comes from the side as well as the floor, but that too is unflattering, because it is a soft light that doesn't chisel the features. The lighting is damning to aging actors, but in total contrast to the makeup, which is a total sop to aging actors ... result - you have soft unflattering light that highlights makeup on aging actors. Again, wrong choice atop wrong choice. The 1980 calendar has the quintessential bad lighting moment for me, the pre-warp discussion between bones & kirk on bridge ... rarely has Kirk ever looked worse, and not in any dramatic way, just an offputting one. For all the crazy 7 shadow lighting of Finnerman or Francis on TOS, there was still good contrast and deep rich shadows, not the mushy halfwaytovideo look that is often the case on TMP.
I dislike many qualities of other trek film shoots as well ... the ones I think are good in terms of cinematography are TFF and GEN, though parts of SFS are well-shot too, but sabotaged by Nimoy's visual lameness. TWOK often uses dynamic engaging angles (something else I dislike about most TMP), but the film has a softness that hurts it a little, along with the filmstock issue. But even with TFF and GEN, there is a huge dif in theatrical presentation ... I saw TFF at three different theaters and it looked great at all of them, but GEN was so dark in every theater I thought it was mis-shot ... then I saw the laser and realized it was the theaters that had screwed up. That's an aspect to apply to all video revisits of trekfilms, to judge them fairly.
We'll agree on letting the dollar issue stuff go, as I don't care about popular opinion on any of this stuff (else I wouldn't mention my love for TFF!) ... the numbers you reference, though often invoked, aren't ones that jive with stuff I've seen elsewhere (adjusted for inflation, none of these things have come close to TMP, TVH included), but I do think TMP -- for WHATEVER reason -- scared the general public off Trek for awhile, and it could be that only homevideo is what jazzed people up enough to reexperience trek theatrical by the time of TVH (that and the fish out of water thing that was so popular back then with SPLASH and BACK TO THE FUTURE and others, some of which were also shot with terrible smoky cinematography like TVH.)
I've interviewed several people who worked on TMP over the years (sadly, all vfx folks), mainly because b-t-s on that is something of an obsession for me, and I do a bit of writing that brings me into contact with DPs and fx supervisors so it gives me an excuse to go off on a tangent (how I got Stetson to talk about TMP was that I interviewed him about his part in SURROGATES, for example.) What strikes me is that in nearly all cases, even though it has been 20 to 30 years in these cases, they all have very clear memories of certain aspects, like the TMP experience was more vivid in some way than other shows. Even a guy who worked on both the Abel and Trumbull fx crews, who hasn't even been in the fx biz since HUNT FOR THE RED, was amazingly clear in his recollections of both the political scene and the artistic intent on the show. When somebody can tap this well for print w/o fear of lawsuit, there might be a decent archival record of TMP emerging ... either that, or we have to wait for Preston Neal Jones to publish his 1600 pages on TMP that were developed for CFQ but are sitting dormant someplace.
Yes, I am absolutely and TOTALLY conflicted in my views over TMP. That's kind of the point; it is horrible to have to dislike so much in a flick where there are things I love, and maybe more importantly, things I really WANTED to love. I'm enjoying this discussion, please don't take anything personal, it certainly isn't intended as such, though I can't ever divorce my thoughts of Wise from his part in trashing AMBERSONS ... it is so huge and bad in my mind that I practically have to rewatch my beloved DAY THE EARTH for the 100th time to get my head clear on the subject!
I have seen frame grabs of the blu-ray, and it, sadly, fits exactly into this schizophrenic view of TMP; brightness and edge detail is great, but the 'interior of the subject is blurred/softened with DNR to the point that it doesn't even look like film anymore. Yhe same thing happened with PATTON, and I won't even look at frame grabs of that, because I don't want to scar my psyche with bastardization of a film that IMO was VERY well shot to begin with (unlike TMP, which I find to be a series of wrong calls throughout -- and it isn't really armchair quarterbacking to critique bad cinematographic choices when you are thinking this same way in 1979 while watching the film for the first time.)
I mentioned the lighting issues regarding set buttons and such before, but even worse IMO is Kline slavishly taking up the PD's notion of lighting from the floor, which is absolutely what you do NOT do when you're trying to make people look good (except maybe Jack Nicholson.) Michaelson trying to come up with a look for the show is enough to poison it right there, as it is (as I have pointed out in dozens of threads) rather difficult to read a clipboard when the light is coming from the floor, unless you are laying upside down in your chair. The film cheats on this, so that a lot of light comes from the side as well as the floor, but that too is unflattering, because it is a soft light that doesn't chisel the features. The lighting is damning to aging actors, but in total contrast to the makeup, which is a total sop to aging actors ... result - you have soft unflattering light that highlights makeup on aging actors. Again, wrong choice atop wrong choice. The 1980 calendar has the quintessential bad lighting moment for me, the pre-warp discussion between bones & kirk on bridge ... rarely has Kirk ever looked worse, and not in any dramatic way, just an offputting one. For all the crazy 7 shadow lighting of Finnerman or Francis on TOS, there was still good contrast and deep rich shadows, not the mushy halfwaytovideo look that is often the case on TMP.
I dislike many qualities of other trek film shoots as well ... the ones I think are good in terms of cinematography are TFF and GEN, though parts of SFS are well-shot too, but sabotaged by Nimoy's visual lameness. TWOK often uses dynamic engaging angles (something else I dislike about most TMP), but the film has a softness that hurts it a little, along with the filmstock issue. But even with TFF and GEN, there is a huge dif in theatrical presentation ... I saw TFF at three different theaters and it looked great at all of them, but GEN was so dark in every theater I thought it was mis-shot ... then I saw the laser and realized it was the theaters that had screwed up. That's an aspect to apply to all video revisits of trekfilms, to judge them fairly.
We'll agree on letting the dollar issue stuff go, as I don't care about popular opinion on any of this stuff (else I wouldn't mention my love for TFF!) ... the numbers you reference, though often invoked, aren't ones that jive with stuff I've seen elsewhere (adjusted for inflation, none of these things have come close to TMP, TVH included), but I do think TMP -- for WHATEVER reason -- scared the general public off Trek for awhile, and it could be that only homevideo is what jazzed people up enough to reexperience trek theatrical by the time of TVH (that and the fish out of water thing that was so popular back then with SPLASH and BACK TO THE FUTURE and others, some of which were also shot with terrible smoky cinematography like TVH.)
I've interviewed several people who worked on TMP over the years (sadly, all vfx folks), mainly because b-t-s on that is something of an obsession for me, and I do a bit of writing that brings me into contact with DPs and fx supervisors so it gives me an excuse to go off on a tangent (how I got Stetson to talk about TMP was that I interviewed him about his part in SURROGATES, for example.) What strikes me is that in nearly all cases, even though it has been 20 to 30 years in these cases, they all have very clear memories of certain aspects, like the TMP experience was more vivid in some way than other shows. Even a guy who worked on both the Abel and Trumbull fx crews, who hasn't even been in the fx biz since HUNT FOR THE RED, was amazingly clear in his recollections of both the political scene and the artistic intent on the show. When somebody can tap this well for print w/o fear of lawsuit, there might be a decent archival record of TMP emerging ... either that, or we have to wait for Preston Neal Jones to publish his 1600 pages on TMP that were developed for CFQ but are sitting dormant someplace.
Every time someone gets angry in a movie it's cheese?
I'm enjoying this discussion, too.
It seems you have a deeper emotional investment in the subject matter than I do (though my own isn't necessarily inconsiderable).
Isn't it interesting how they've already re-made "The Day The Earth Stood Still" and now "The Andromeda Strain"? I guess that that boy Wise had something inferior minds thought they could recapture, or, at the least, somehow milk. Talk about missing the woods for the trees.
Yes, since I don't yet own a Blu-ray player, I'm going on frame grabs, too. The DNR is very apparent, and while I should recoil in horror, I actually find it very welcome in ST:TMP, as strange as it seems to me that I should even think of confessing that. Almost every frame, based on the 100+ captures I've looked at, makes me feel like I'm peering into a world through polished glass, and everything in that world looks equally pure and radiant. In TMP's case, I really feel the elimination of grain brings the clean lines and colours of the film into sharper relief, making the film's environments more tangible and real. To other minds, I suppose it should be the opposite, but here, I think, less is more. With paneling, chairs, consoles, uniforms and so on so darn clean and free of impurities, it makes the Enterprise look perpetually new and super advanced, which I find entrancing. Far from looking clinical, the future of this Star Trek film, and only this Star Trek film, looks remarkably well engineered and maintained, and has a spare beauty I could just drown in. For me, TMP is literally reborn. I can't wait to upgrade to Blu-ray!
In lighting from the floor: When I think of floor lighting, I now think of STXI and that absurdly bright, heinously overdone eye sore of a bridge. How could any human being function for any reasonable length of time in a place like that? I don't have a problem with the way that TMP or its bridge was lit. I imagine that reading from a clipboard/data PADD or whatever wouldn't be a problem in this future; I'm sure the display device would adjust itself according to the ambient light and the specific needs and desires of the reader (indeed, I'm sure ambient lighting could be adjusted around an individual, by the 23rd Century, on a highly advanced starship, too -- I mean, we can do that now, can't we?).
In the lighting of actors: You indict the use of soft light, but isn't it hard light that's unforgiving to the human face and exposes crags and imperfections? I think the actors are brilliantly lit in TMP, start to finish. After you commented on it, I went to Trek Core and looked at stills of Bones and Kirk in their pre-warp discussion, and I have to say that I don't see a single problem with it. Rarely has Kirk looked worse? I'm actually struck by how youthful he looks. Even just three years later, in TWOK, he appeared a lot older, in my opinion. Now, yes, there is some stylistic lighting on his face as Bones is cautioning him, but I take this to be a conscious decision to emphasise the dubious drive of the character, which at this point in the story is compelling Kirk to make extreme demands and clouding his judgement (hence Bones' private rebuke).
After the cinematography of TMP, I am most impressed by the cinematography of TSFS, TFF and GENS -- the same pictures that you are! I must also add TVH. Now, this *is* a case where DNR destroys important subtlety, since the smokey interiors of the Klingon Bird Of Prey need that grain to be present (and, in general, the aesthetics of the film don't lend themselves to the pure look that works so well, in my opinion, for TMP).
I must contest you on your assertion that TWOK uses "dynamic engaging angles". Really? If anything, it's the most staid-looking of the TOS movies, along with TUC, Meyer's other film (surprise, surprise). The camera is, pretty much, always positioned at eye level, with little variation in elevation or angle. Meyer also reverts to simple TV tropes, like (and this is one of those exceptions) turning the camera on its side in a wide shot of the bridge, to simulate the Enterprise being hit. In Meyer Land, the camera is neutered and visuals are second class citizens. By contrast, there's always some sort of "edge" with the work of Wise and Kline, with both the actors and their environment emphasised, or de-emphasised, in a series of ways, and the result is profoundly more cinematic.
Man, don't get me started on Nick Meyer! What the HELL did he do to the bridge? Y'know, TMP has a colour scheme that it adheres to slavishly. Everything is very sleek and well-defined: the Enterprise is a pearlescent white; V'Ger is forbidding blacks and dark blues; carbon units wear refined and elegant pastels; Starfleet interiors are olive green, pure white and powder grey; buttons, displays, devices and tactile items light up in primary colours; geometry-wise, Vulcan is a mixture of untamed, uneven rocks and repeating, hexagonal logic; Starfleet is a series of 90-and-45-degree surfaces with bilateral symmetry and the occasional curve; and V'Ger is a gothic wonderland of spheres, blocks, spikes and tendrils of mysterious energy. It's a symphony of wonders. But Meyer destroyed all of that and Trek has limped lamely on ever since.
Just what in the world do you call a bridge with brown-green walls, turquoise chairs and actors dressed in Horatio Hornblower maroon tops and black trousers? A bloody mess, that's what I call it. As if that tawdry combination wasn't a big enough headache and wince-inducing unholy alliance from the depths of hell, Meyer compounded things by moving the science station from behind the captain's chair to the captain's right, simultaneously destroying the symbolism of science being central to the human mission, *and* ballsing up the mirrored interior of the bridge, which, in turn, mirrored the larger ship of which it was a vital part and whose symmetry it was a tribute to. On top of that, the turbolift doors both got a shitty label, and both on the right door, another asymmetric f*ck-up, while the walls were stupidly augmented with fire extinguishers (once again, a 23rd Century starship ought to already have a much more advanced fire and chemical suppression system), and the wall displays had these utterly pointless and ugly 3D-block tumours stuck on their edges. Also, if I were the captain, I'd find it unnerving to know that someone is nominally stood directly behind me, at a station previously occupied by science officer who was sat, granting me a slice of serenity, and avoiding the possibility of some mouth-breather respiring, and even gobbing, all over me.
Sorry.
Well, people don't like films that move at a careful pace, much less don't have cheap jokes or things blowing up every five seconds. How many times, for example, have you seen people lay into the damn overture? I've certainly seen it more than once.
Sometimes, a little knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge at all. I sense, what could have happened to you -- could, that is -- is that you began seeing and reading things that appealed to your ambivalence, and, far from feeling more confident about one emotional perspective or the other, you started to feel less confident about where you stood on TMP than ever. It is natural, when one learns more about a film's production, even a relatively smooth and amiable one, that a certain mystique is gone, never to return, and the film loses that aura of innocence and magic it once had. It's happened to me, but I'm still able to suspend disbelief and enjoy (usually). I don't want to sound like an armchair psychiatrist, though.
I'd love to hear more about TMP. Love to, love to, love to. It's a shame that TGT doesn't post more often. And it's close to disgraceful that a lot of his posts are gone. I remember reading some stunning posts of his, back in the day. Wish I'd saved them. I'd welcome a book from him or anyone else with sufficient insight to make one worthwhile. All films have untold stories. In fact, the stories behind the making of movies are often far richer than the movies themselves. There is lots of untapped potential out there.
Post not POSTer. You crossed the line there. It's rude and presumptuous to postulate why people feel what they feel or think.
Wow! How thoroughly sagacious and reasonable of you.
Did you not read the words "could" and "armchair psychiatrist"? I was benignly speculating on Trevanian's position, further to his own words. Nothing rude or hostile was intended. If anything, I was trying to throw Trevanian some breadcrumbs to see if he agreed or not. Perhaps the depth of our discussion is beyond you?
Only on the Internet could two people with opposing views happen to get on, for once, only for a moralising douche bag to come in with a couple of lines and try to turn it all to shit. Well done.
I like telling people what *I* think, not what they think. Doing the latter would be an extreme challenge to my narcissistic solipsism.
In my defense, I got a little irate. Apologies, Mr Sega. Must be because I'm a Nintendo fanboy? Oh, well. You're A-OK.
Now, can we get back to discussing why "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" is, irrefutably, the best motion picture of all time, or can't we?
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I take some blame here; I was typing a response that the 'post not poster' thing, saying it wasn't an issue to me, when my wife chased me off the internet last night. I thought I hit send to get the gist of it up, but I see no post so I guess it didn't go through.
CRY has a point, but for me the position he describes has happened on other films -- BLADE RUNNER is the one that came to mind, though after a few years I got clear on it and can re-love it again -- not with Trek stuff. I'm pretty used to 'too much information' being the norm, especially since I have a ton of movies spoiled just from covering them. I'll try to come up with some more to illuminate my mixed emotions on TMP, but my dog just started scratching the desk, so nature is calling.
CRY has a point, but for me the position he describes has happened on other films -- BLADE RUNNER is the one that came to mind, though after a few years I got clear on it and can re-love it again -- not with Trek stuff. I'm pretty used to 'too much information' being the norm, especially since I have a ton of movies spoiled just from covering them. I'll try to come up with some more to illuminate my mixed emotions on TMP, but my dog just started scratching the desk, so nature is calling.
And I'm so glad that you brought up Boston Legal, too. When he (intentionally) doesn't pull it off, they'll poke fun at his cheesy moments in its usual close-to-breaking the 4th wall kind of way. They have fun with his brand of cheese, and Shatner plays along with it! You've gotta love his sense of humor, really... that he can pull off real anger and intentional cheese is pretty skillful, imo.
I've personally never found that TMI has ever negatively affected my viewing experience of a film. The film either gels and works or it doesn't. Knowing how and why allows me to look back on it and say "Oh, I see why that bit ended up that way", but it doesn't change if that bit works or not.
Similar threads
