• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Just watched Star Trek: The Motion Picture...

I was also surprised to see Isaac Asimov in the credits, but when I think about it, TMP does have a resemblance to "2001: A space Odyssey". Also, the story is so good Sci-Fi, that looks very Isaac Asimov-ish, or Arthur Clarke-ish. Star Trek is not used to take itself as seriously as a Sci-Fi, as the movie did.
 
Making the most expensive movie in history with the stipulation that it had to please and be understandable first and foremost to fans of a cancelled television series was a recipe for disaster. They pulled it out - barely - but there's no way the process here could have produced a great movie.
 
Don't forget, though, that it was an extremely popular canceled series. I'm guessing you've already heard the old story about how the network switched over to the new demographic rating system right after they canceled it, and immediately realized that according to that system, it had been one of their best shows. And after it was canceled, it did miraculously well in ratings, often beating out new material.
So, in that sense, making a movie with the intention of pleasing fans of that caliber of series wouldn't be much different than making a movie based on, say, Lost (which was also "canceled"). Or, erm, Sex and the City (of course, I'm not arguing that produced a great movie, just a very profitable one).

And then again, if their first and foremost goal was "to please and be understandable... to fans of a cancelled television series," would they have hired a two-time Academy Award winning director who knew jack squat about the series? I would doubt it. Their first goal was to make a great movie; whether they succeeded at that is a matter of opinion, but I think the evidence indicates that was their goal.
 
I think the point was to show both of those things. By establishing how huge the Enterprise is, and then showing how incredibly vast V'Ger is in comparison, makes V'Ger seem all that much more impressive.

Both of those things do come across, but I have to believe that there was a better way. Contact showed the scope of Earth relative to the universe in about four minutes. Star Trek: The Motion Picture takes about 30 minutes to make that same point.
 
Don't forget, though, that it was an extremely popular canceled series. I'm guessing you've already heard the old story about how the network switched over to the new demographic rating system right after they canceled it, and immediately realized that according to that system, it had been one of their best shows.

A "best show" for targeting certain demographics with disposable income to please advertisers, perhaps, but TOS only gained general popularity and recognition via the early evening syndicated reruns over the next decade. All the movie needed was for each half-curious member of the general public who was familiar with ST to check out the new movie once and they had their audience.

Sadly, when most people went to the cinema they found a film that didn't resemble TOS enough in all the right places.

Luckily for me, I loved it!
 
Despite all the problems with the production of TMP and the incredible amount of pressure they were under to meet their deadline, it is still my favorite Star Trek film. For me the sequels pale in comparison.

Here are links to a 5 part interview with host Tom Snyder and guests DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, Walter Koenig, Harlan Ellison, and Star Trek Convention Organizer Al Schuster on the "Tomorrow" show which originally aired on February 04, 1976 at 01:00 AM on NBC. In it De Kelley says that he heard from Gene Roddenberry that they have a start date for the Star Trek film of July 15th, but they still do not have a script.

In part 3 of the interview, De Kelley says "there are 79 episodes and the fans each have a favorite one so how can you make a movie to please everyone?", I am paraphrasing.

In Walter Koenig's non-fiction book "Chekov's Enterprise" (which chronicles the making of TMP from his point of view) he said about TMP, "we have a 3 act play without a third act", while they were filming it.

That being said, I would agree there is room for improvement to TMP. Some people complain about the pace of TMP, but the second pilot ("Where No Man Has Gone Before") was slow too and did not air as the premiere episode because it was thought to be too expository. Yet, I still enjoy it as well.


Navigator NCC-2120 USS Entente
/\
 
Last edited:
Don't forget, though, that it was an extremely popular canceled series. I'm guessing you've already heard the old story about how the network switched over to the new demographic rating system right after they canceled it, and immediately realized that according to that system, it had been one of their best shows.

That's the not-unbiased version told long after the fact by some of the principals. The actual fact is that the series didn't have the numbers to stay on the air, and the syndication numbers were remarkable but nowhere near justifying the risk of making what would turn out to be the most expensive Hollywood film in history. This is why all plans previous to greenlighting ST:TMP had been for a more modestly budgeted feature.

The studio really lucked out that this flick eventually earned money for them. As it was, the future of Trek was in serious doubt for quite a while; Nimoy has accurately described the state of Star Trek after TMP as that of a "beached whale."
 
The actual fact is that the series didn't have the numbers to stay on the air, and the syndication numbers were remarkable but nowhere near justifying the risk of making what would turn out to be the most expensive Hollywood film in history.

Cleopatra?

The studio really lucked out that this flick eventually earned money for them.

While the film received a very mixed response, in no way was it a financial flop. Rather the reverse. To use a comparison, it did about the same amount of business as the recent STXI did (STXI edged it out slightly).
 
the second pilot ("Where No Man Has Gone Before") was slow too and did not air as the premiere episode because it was thought to be too expository.

Not true. It didn't air first because NBC wanted to kick off with a scary monster SF episode (ie. "The Man Trap") and one with the correct new main cast in it, ie. DeForest Kelley.
 
The actual fact is that the series didn't have the numbers to stay on the air, and the syndication numbers were remarkable but nowhere near justifying the risk of making what would turn out to be the most expensive Hollywood film in history.

Cleopatra?

ST:TMP knocked off Cleopatra to hold the record for most expensive film ever completed outside the Soviet Union for quite a few years (the cost of the Russian version of War And Peace is still disputed).

While the film received a very mixed response, in no way was it a financial flop. Rather the reverse. To use a comparison, it did about the same amount of business as the recent STXI did (STXI edged it out slightly).

Eventually. When it closed first run in the U.S. it had pulled about 56 million dollars - it was a money-loser that would turn out to pay out over time.
 
That's the not-unbiased version told long after the fact by some of the principals.

That's the version that's told in all the non-fiction books about Trek from the early-to-mid 70's, by people other than the principles. How much shorter after the fact can we get?

The actual fact is that the series didn't have the numbers to stay on the air, and the syndication numbers were remarkable but nowhere near justifying the risk of making what would turn out to be the most expensive Hollywood film in history.

Are you including the cost of the abortive second series and previous movie attempts (as they did)? Talk about "after the fact."
 
If it was a bad movie, it would not have gone on to be such a success because nobody would have wanted to rewatch it or buy it. Certainly every professional review I've ever seen ranks it as good but not great. TWoK, TVH, TUC, and FC are typically the only Trek movies that score better than that. I expect that NuTrek will beat it for all round entertainment value as well.
 
I really enjoy TMP and it is one of my favorites. I love all the scenes showing how the original crew got back together. Once Spock gets on board, a great scene by the way, is when the movie slows down for me. But even though it is a slow moving picture I really do like it a lot because it does have some great character development. I still get thrilled when we find out V'ger was Voyager VI.
 
The actual fact is that the series didn't have the numbers to stay on the air, and the syndication numbers were remarkable but nowhere near justifying the risk of making what would turn out to be the most expensive Hollywood film in history.

Cleopatra?

ST:TMP knocked off Cleopatra to hold the record for most expensive film ever completed outside the Soviet Union for quite a few years (the cost of the Russian version of War And Peace is still disputed).

You are not adjusting for inflation. Cleopatra was the all-time most expensive movie until 2007's Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End. Though expensive for its time, at no time was TMP the most expensive movie ever made.

Even when you don't adjust for inflation, TMP was never the record holder. In 1979, TMP's budget was $46 million. The previous year, Superman: The Movie's budget was $55 million. Superman held this unadjusted record until 1988 when Rambo III came out.

Link.

I can't comment on War and Peace, as I don't really know much about Soviet cinema.

Eventually. When it closed first run in the U.S. it had pulled about 56 million dollars - it was a money-loser that would turn out to pay out over time.
It had a budget of $46 million. If it earned $56 million, I wouldn't necessarily call that a money loser. They basically broke even. The total BO for TMP is $139 million. How many times was this re-released for it to earn extra BO cash that was almost twice it's initial run?
 
the second pilot ("Where No Man Has Gone Before") was slow too and did not air as the premiere episode because it was thought to be too expository.

Not true. It didn't air first because NBC wanted to kick off with a scary monster SF episode (ie. "The Man Trap") and one with the correct new main cast in it, ie. DeForest Kelley.

Therin of Andor,

With all due respect, according to the Memory Alpha website and the book "Inside Star Trek: The Real Story", what I orginally posted about the second pilot is true.

Here is a link to it on Memory Alpha and I pasted it below.


Background Information

The second pilot

This was the second Star Trek pilot. However, it aired as the third regular series episode, after "The Man Trap" and "Charlie X". In their book Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, Robert H. Justman and Herbert F. Solow explain that because this segment was "too expository" in nature – a common fault with pilots – it would not have made a good premiere episode for the series.


Navigator NCC-2120 USS Entente
/\
 
Last edited:
You are not adjusting for inflation. Cleopatra was the all-time most expensive movie until 2007's Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End. Though expensive for its time, at no time was TMP the most expensive movie ever made.

I have several editions of the "Guinness Book of Records" that disagree with you. They put ST: TMP as defeating "Cleopatra" for the crown.

The previous year, Superman: The Movie's budget was $55 million. Superman held this unadjusted record until 1988

The budget on "Superman" was for two movies being made at once.
 
I've been revisiting the movies recently as well, mostly the Blu-Ray theatrical versions. For the most part, I prefer the versions I saw and enjoyed in the theater. None of the expanded versions did anything substantially positive to the originals - except for TMP. After months of rewatching the BD theatrical cut, I decided to pop in the Director's Cut re-edit.

Like any re-edit and restoration of a Star Trek work, complete with new effects, people either loved it or hated it. I loved it. This isn’t the thread to go into a detailed critique, and it's been done before anyway. But let me say that I enjoyed both versions. Each has flaws, but in all, they are the same story. Yes, it's a slow movie. This was the 70's, and super fast paced SF films didn't take hold yet. Star Wars was still an anomaly. Alien, Close Encounters, The Black Hole, were all deliberately paced. TMP was working just fine until the two (count 'em, two) V'Ger flyovers in a row. At about 5 minutes apiece, you're talking a ten minute look at special effects which, honestly, aren't worthy of that much awe. They don't move the plot along, there's almost no dialog, and they just grind the film to a halt. You could compress them into a two minute sequence and still have the scale of V'ger established. Since we never learn what most of that stuff is we're looking at, it's pointless. The only thing that works in those scenes is Jerry Goldsmith's score.

The only long effects sequence I feel was justified was the slow flight around Enterprise in drydock. In context, it makes sense and even as a kid in the theater, I enjoyed it. It had been 10 years without new footage of the old girl, and we were taking this tour with Kirk. So, that was fine. Other, long establishing shots of space stations (Epsilon 9 and the orbit station) could have been trimmed, since nobody really cared about random space stations. Now, if you discount those shots and the two V'Ger flyovers, then you have a film that's not all that slow. It's not an action adventure, it's not meant to be. It's a journey of discovery. Whether or not it succeeds is not the point. If we don't go in expecting an action piece, then this is a fine film. Many of the original episodes were dramatic rather than action packed. TMP is as valid an "episode" as any of them.

I enjoy the film and revisit it regularly. It is also the only Trek movie to take place in this particular era, during the presumed "second five year mission." The uniforms, which succeed and fail at the same time (great use of TV era rank braids, not to crazy about seeing Decker's Dick, the stirrups were funny, but I liked the Admiral uniform and Kirk's short sleeved shirt), are never seen again. The rec room was amazing and I wish we had more scenes in there. Really, it's the only Trek film to feel like and honest to God movie. It feels epic, thanks to Robert Wise. Could have done with out the funky blurry lenses though. I forget what they're called, but they keep the subject in focus, but blur around them. Very odd.
 
You are not adjusting for inflation. Cleopatra was the all-time most expensive movie until 2007's Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End. Though expensive for its time, at no time was TMP the most expensive movie ever made.

I have several editions of the "Guinness Book of Records" that disagree with you. They put ST: TMP as defeating "Cleopatra" for the crown.
The previous year, Superman: The Movie's budget was $55 million. Superman held this unadjusted record until 1988
The budget on "Superman" was for two movies being made at once.

If you are going to look at it like that, then the budget for TMP is misleading considering it also included all the false starts on new Trek series including the almost-made-it-to-series Phase II.

And it still doesn't take inflation into account in regards to Cleopatra.

according to the Memory Alpha website

Memory Alpha is a wiki and can be overwritten by anyone.

True, but the MA page supplies a reliable source for it's information, namely the Inside Star Trek written by the people behind the show. :shrug:
 
If you are going to look at it like that, then the budget for TMP is misleading considering it also included all the false starts on new Trek series including the almost-made-it-to-series Phase II.

The difference is that "Superman: The Movie" and "Superman II" were both released, but "Phase II"'s mis-starts were accumulated funds that were part of TMP's pre-production budget. Lots of movies waste budget on development of sequences, sets, costumes and failed SPFX that don't end up in the final print, but still must be accounted for somewhere.

the MA page supplies a reliable source for it's information, namely the Inside Star Trek written by the people behind the show. :shrug:
And, IIRC, previous works by other people behind the show had a different, long-standing opinion: Gene Roddenberry in "The Making of ST", David Gerrold in "World of Star Trek", and others perpetuated the suggestion that NBC had demanded to start TOS on TV with a "B.E.M." ("bug-eyed monster") episode and featuring Dr McCoy, not Dr Piper.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top