A TOS (only) fan's reaction

[Admiral Buzzkill]

(2) Why would it make sense to have the words "Star Trek" on the movie if it was so god awful in the first place?

I know what you mean, though "The Motion Picture" isn't that bad Vance.

Well, it was bad enough to diminish the value of the name Star Trek considerably in the public eye. The studio wouldn't spend the kind of money necessary to make real movies on the Franchise again for quite a while after that.

The difference between pre-Abrams Star Trek movies and this one is that "Star Trek" now means "something I want to see" to people other than hard core fans.

 

[iguana_tonante]

tl;dr

 

[Geckothan]

The pace was just overwhelming and left no room for emotional impact or meaningful scenes.

Perhaps you weren't paying attention to the first ten minutes of the film which is going down as one of the most memorable scenes in Star Trek films or even franchise history.

I thought I mentioned that the opening scene was one of the very few highlights in the movie for me, but I guess I forgot.

 

[Cryogenic]

(2) Why would it make sense to have the words "Star Trek" on the movie if it was so god awful in the first place?

I know what you mean, though "The Motion Picture" isn't that bad Vance.

Well, it was bad enough to diminish the value of the name Star Trek considerably in the public eye. The studio wouldn't spend the kind of money necessary to make real movies on the Franchise again for quite a while after that.

Actually, I see it as being the other way around: TMP was simply too good for the average ST fan, never mind the non-fan, and Paramount, quite rightly from its perspective, slashed the budgets on subsequent movies to get a bigger win-fall, if cheap as chips would garner equal profits and bigger acclaim, which TWOK proved to be true; the only deficits in this outcome being to cinematic excellence, high-brow expression, big themes thoughtfully rendered and the whole heart and humanity of ST, which, true to its ethos, was in the process of emancipating itself, before being shot down, then stripped, flayed and beaten almost to death by the hacks that Paramount warmly welcomed through the gates.

The difference between pre-Abrams Star Trek movies and this one is that "Star Trek" now means "something I want to see" to people other than hard core fans.

That opinion has some currency to it (pun intended). Unwittingly or not, you have just testified to the stupidity of the masses, and conceded that Abrams' Trek is lowest-common-denominator fluff designed to close the mind and open the wallet, which it has already done, and is continuing to do, quite nicely. The commercial juggernaut of modern-day Trek is back, and with a vengeance, alright.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Actually, I see it as being the other way around: TMP was simply too good for the average ST fan, never mind the non-fan,...

Nope, it's a mediocre film at best - which is why virtually no one except a few hard core Trek fans consider it better than mediocre.

Unwittingly or not, you have just testified to the stupidity of the masses, and conceded that Abrams' Trek is lowest-common-denominator fluff..

Unwittingly or not, you have just testified to the arrogance of some Trek fans, who persist in the notion that they are smarter, more perceptive and/or have better taste than people in general - despite being unable to produce any supporting evidence for that belief.
.

 

[number6]

Actually, I see it as being the other way around: TMP was simply too good for the average ST fan, never mind the non-fan,...

Nope, it's a mediocre film at best - which is why virtually no one except a few hard core Trek fans consider it better than mediocre.

Unwittingly or not, you have just testified to the stupidity of the masses, and conceded that Abrams' Trek is lowest-common-denominator fluff..

Unwittingly or not, you have just testified to the arrogance of some Trek fans, who persist in the notion that they are smarter, more perceptive and/or have better taste than people in general - despite being unable to produce any supporting evidence for that belief.
.

^ This

TMP had a weak and derivative storyline. I think some people have a soft spot because it was the first. As someone who saw it on its opening night, I was very excited to see this film, but very disappointed that it was essentially a remake of The Changeling with a lot of shots of slackjawed crewmembers gaping at a viewscreen for a half hour.

Trek XI brought the fun and adventure back to the Trek films..certainly the film didn't delve that deep into the psyche of Star Trek, but it certainly scratched the surface enough in the right ways to please fans and non fans.

 

[The Comedian]

Anyone who complains about husbands and wives talking on communicators obviously has niether wife nor cell phone.

 

[Franklin]

Unwittingly or not, you have just testified to the arrogance of some Trek fans, who persist in the notion that they are smarter, more perceptive and/or have better taste than people in general - despite being unable to produce any supporting evidence for that belief.
.

This is from "Remembering Gene Roddenberry" on startrek.com:

As its community of fans knows, Star Trek is more than a franchise of television shows and movies. It is more than escapist entertainment. It is a concept, one intentionally designed to — in Roddenberry's own words — "ultimately change the face of America" (from "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen E. Whitfield & Gene Roddenberry). Originally pitched as "Wagon Train to the stars," Star Trek was really a vehicle for Roddenberry to comment on contemporary issues under the guise of science fiction. He could never speak directly about politics, sex, race relations, and the futility of war on television during the 1960's. "But Gene was able to take these subjects and change them up; he gave them monsters, put people in funny clothes, and painted them funny colors, and he got away with everything. Frankly, the censors didn't understand it, so they let it go," said his widow, Majel Barrett Roddenberry, in this month's issue of Star Trek: The Magazine (October 2001).

I suppose it can be fun to try to sell outsiders on the idea that TOS was something better. Something special. But fans must remember to never fall for your own propaganda. Let's all be honest with each other, we know too much to believe the claptrap in that quote. It was good TV. But, groundbreaking? Thought provoking? Eh. Those were externalities when they applied at all. Frankly, I'm comfortable with it just being a very good "Wagon Train to the stars."

 

[Vance]

Heh... debatable.

But if "Star Trek" was supposedly so awful that the name itself was poison.. why did Abrams want to cash in on the name?

 

[JarodRussell]

Only a fan would dismiss TMP just because it's a remake of The Changeling. Non-fan audience doesn't care.

 

[Franklin]

Heh... debatable.

But if "Star Trek" was supposedly so awful that the name itself was poison.. why did Abrams want to cash in on the name?

I don't think anyone is saying it's poison. Just that it had worn out. It wasn't fun any more. The "brand" was too far removed from the source (TOS), too.

In my opinion, Roddenberry took TMP too seriously and forgot to have fun (in the story and with his characters). What Abrams remembered was TOS was about the characters having fun (so to speak). Fun as in, even when running from a Gorn or facing Trelane's noose, you knew Kirk wouldn't want to be anywhere else or doing anything else. That was the hook in Trek for many of us. As Orci says in a promotion for the DVD, these characters oozed charm. If Abrams had come out with a TMP-like movie, my guess is it would've bombed.

 

[number6]

Only a fan would dismiss TMP just because it's a remake of The Changeling. Non-fan audience doesn't care.

A non fan would dismiss TMP as boring.

 

[JTK1]

I have now seen this film.

Star Trek, the movie, is big, loud, dumb fun. In other words, it totally obliterates the thing that set Star Trek apart from Star Wars- its brain.

Yep, and that is what almost killed Trek its brain.


Beats the hell out of the just plain dumb in the last couple
of films !

 

[Cryogenic]

Actually, I see it as being the other way around: TMP was simply too good for the average ST fan, never mind the non-fan,...

Nope, it's a mediocre film at best - which is why virtually no one except a few hard core Trek fans consider it better than mediocre.

You're wrong on both counts. TMP is far from mediocre, and even some casual fans of ST like it, including my own father.

Unwittingly or not, you have just testified to the stupidity of the masses, and conceded that Abrams' Trek is lowest-common-denominator fluff..

Unwittingly or not, you have just testified to the arrogance of some Trek fans, who persist in the notion that they are smarter, more perceptive and/or have better taste than people in general - despite being unable to produce any supporting evidence for that belief.

I'm not sure I persist in that notion. In any case, I warmly welcome anyone to read my posts and come to their own decision regarding my attitude(s).

TMP had a weak and derivative storyline.

About as "weak" and "derivative" as "City Lights", or "Fantasia", or "Forbidden Planet", or "Lost In Translation", or dozens of other masterpieces of cinema crafted by visionary artists who know the difference between literature and film and have divined lasting art.

I think some people have a soft spot because it was the first.

The first, the greatest and the only one of any real cinematological merit.

As its community of fans knows, Star Trek is more than a franchise of television shows and movies. It is more than escapist entertainment. It is a concept, one intentionally designed to — in Roddenberry's own words — "ultimately change the face of America" (from "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen E. Whitfield & Gene Roddenberry). Originally pitched as "Wagon Train to the stars," Star Trek was really a vehicle for Roddenberry to comment on contemporary issues under the guise of science fiction. He could never speak directly about politics, sex, race relations, and the futility of war on television during the 1960's. "But Gene was able to take these subjects and change them up; he gave them monsters, put people in funny clothes, and painted them funny colors, and he got away with everything. Frankly, the censors didn't understand it, so they let it go," said his widow, Majel Barrett Roddenberry, in this month's issue of Star Trek: The Magazine (October 2001).

I suppose it can be fun to try to sell outsiders on the idea that TOS was something better. Something special. But fans must remember to never fall for your own propaganda. Let's all be honest with each other, we know too much to believe the claptrap in that quote. It was good TV. But, groundbreaking? Thought provoking? Eh. Those were externalities when they applied at all. Frankly, I'm comfortable with it just being a very good "Wagon Train to the stars."

Have you seen Gene Roddenberry's first television series, "The Lieutenant"? Have you seen his original pilot for TOS? Have you read his extensive production notes and memos for TOS and TMP? Have you actually watched the first two seasons of TOS and TMP with any level of scrutiny? Obviously not.

Incidentally, your polemic is tired and obvious, not to mention anti-intellectual and vaguely fascistic. Self-improvement is at the very heart of Roddenberry's ST, so what you're saying goes against the very fabric of what you profess to admire. It seems you're one of many people who inherently fear and dislike substantive change, but to deny growth is to deny the human spirit, wholly and absolutely. TMP is both about that and the product of it. If I happen to be in a minority of Star Trek fans -- and I know I am -- then so be it.

 

[Sky]

If I needed one word to sum up Star Trek XI, it would be "mindless" or "empty". That's not to say the movie isn't fun. If you turn your brain off and enjoy it for what it is (a big, dumb summer movie pretending to be a Star Trek production), it's not so bad but if you're watching it expecting to see Star Trek, you're in for a disappointment.

Yup.
I was very very enthusiastic about Star Trek XI - before I saw it. I watched the trailers a gazillion times (and told myself not to worry - of course they'll put the flashy stuff in the trailer and the story will be in the movie), speculated, stayed away from spoilers, enthused, and bought myself a train ticket to travel to another country just because they had the premiere first.

My disappointment was huge. I got no feel of Star Trek from the movie. There was no emotion in it. Besides the OK beginning sequence (if one can look past the dumb pregnant ladies on starships issue) the movie failed to move me. It was clumsily enough written that even Spock Prime's scenes did not touch me at all.

I really really hope the next film will be better. But I'm not going to get all excited about it again beforehands.

(By the way after hearing me go on and on and on about the new Trek film my non-fan husband accompagnied me to the premiere. It was the first Trek film he ever saw and he hated it. I showed him TMP for contrast the next day and he loved it. Me, I find TMP tedious at times, but do recognize that it is immensely better than XI.)

 

[startrekrcks]

fool can't cope with change

 

[startrekrcks]

how is TMP better than Star Trek XI

 

[M'Sharak]

fool can't cope with change

Not sure at whom this is directed, but name-calling is considered poor form and is against Board Rules. Please desist.

And try to avoid double-posting, when you can simply edit your first post to add further material.

 

[Franklin]

Have you seen Gene Roddenberry's first television series, "The Lieutenant"? Have you seen his original pilot for TOS? Have you read his extensive production notes and memos for TOS and TMP? Have you actually watched the first two seasons of TOS and TMP with any level of scrutiny? Obviously not.

Incidentally, your polemic is tired and obvious, not to mention anti-intellectual and vaguely fascistic. Self-improvement is at the very heart of Roddenberry's ST, so what you're saying goes against the very fabric of what you profess to admire. It seems you're one of many people who inherently fear and dislike substantive change, but to deny growth is to deny the human spirit, wholly and absolutely. TMP is both about that and the product of it. If I happen to be in a minority of Star Trek fans -- and I know I am -- then so be it.

No one has ever said that he didn't try to put on a good TV show. Quite a few stories did try to aspire to good human values. But self-improvement is hardly a deep topic, nor one exclusive to Trek in any form. Nor was he the only producer exploring that idea in TV in the 1960s.
It's fine that it's there in Trek. It's certainly what gives what could've been merely space opera the legs it's had. But it's also hardly like TOS is the show that opened the way for shows like All In the Family or M*A*S*H.
That said, to revel in Trek like it's more than the sum of its parts is about the same as waxing rhapsodic about a bottle of mainstream merlot. Personally, I'll just enjoy the merlot for what it is. It's not fine cognac. And, it's fine with me that it's not. It's just a nice wine.

As far as denying growth and sustantive change goes, to say Trek ended with TMP (where have I heard that before?) is to deny growth and substantive change. I was very skeptical of ST09, but the characters I saw on screen were generally well-treated and a joy to see again. Thank God TOS can live beyond almost 50 year-old TV episodes.

 

[Therin of Andor]

To the fans of the movie that defend it by attacking the other well regarded Trek movies and saying that they're "just as dumb as XI"; while the other movies may not be masterpieces themselves, they at least feel like Star Trek productions, don't make you feel like you're being patronised and don't leave you feeling empty and unsatisfied when they're finished.

You know, TMP is still my favourite Star Trek movie of all time - my favourite movie of all time - but JJ's ST is a very close second. I also thoroughly enjoyed ST II, III, IV, and much of VI.

When I joined ST fandom in 1980, I had diehard TOS people telling me that TMP left them feeling "empty" and "unsatisfied". I spent many months trying to defend a film that all of my new friends thought was a boring piece of crap. I heard the exact same criticism from others re ST II (in fact, there's a whole thread on this over in the ST Movies section). Ditto ST III. Other fans have told me that they felt ST IV was a dumbing down of the franchise for the masses and that it left them feeling "patronised", "empty" and "unsatisfied".

You'll never please 100% of fandom with a ST movie, but this one probably went closer to that 100% than any other. Its high rating over on Rotten Tomatoes still staggers me. The backing of Leonard Nimoy was also significant. I also find it ironic that so many people now look back on TMP with a quirky fondness. That film that scoffed at as "The Motionless Picture" now has a secret niche in many TOS fans' hearts.

I've actually spoken to numerous Sydney celebs and society folk who were at the Opera House world premiere of JJ's ST and they said that the praise for the movie, from the 2000 invited guests (and lucky 200 ST fans who were able to buy tickets to the premiere online), was almost universal. Standing ovations in many sections of the Concert Hall. Those society folk then went forth on Twitter, and their Facebook, MySpace sites and spread positive vibes to the world! Brave JJ and Paramount! Imagine if those 2200 people had hated the movie with a passion. Nobody was paying them to be positive about the film.

JJ promised us a ST movie that would reach beyond existing fandom, and get people talking positively about ST again. He achieved that. I felt it was a successful emotional rollercoaster of a movie; Ghoulothan and A Beaker Full of Death managed to not be affected by it. C'est la vie, I guess! Every time I see the opening scenes I choke up. So do my friends. Nero's attack on Vulcan was unexpected and with amazing consequences. I find it hard not to be emotionally compromised!

If you didn't get anything out of the movie, I can only say you seem to be in a minority. And better luck next time?