The Making Of ST-TMP....

[Warped9]

I'm currently rereading the novelization and I'm nearing the end. There are ideas and subtleties in the book (partly due to omniscient narrative) that could have enriched the film if they had been incorporated into the story.

Perhaps that's why being familiar with the book in the back of my mind I'm filtering what I see onscreen with some of that knowledge. But in fairness if you're not familiar with the book then what you see is what you get and you could feel the film leaves you wanting.

 

[BillJ]

I'm currently rereading the novelization and I'm nearing the end. There are ideas and subtleties in the book (partly due to omniscient narrative) that could have enriched the film if they had been incorporated into the story.

Perhaps that's why being familiar with the book in the back of my mind I'm filtering what I see onscreen with some of that knowledge. But in fairness if you're not familiar with the book then what you see is what you get and you could feel the film leaves you wanting.

I've never made it past the first few pages of the novelization and I still think Star Trek: The Motion Picture is one of the best films ever made. YMMV.

 

[Galileo7]

I'm currently rereading the novelization and I'm nearing the end. There are ideas and subtleties in the book (partly due to omniscient narrative) that could have enriched the film if they had been incorporated into the story.

Perhaps that's why being familiar with the book in the back of my mind I'm filtering what I see onscreen with some of that knowledge. But in fairness if you're not familiar with the book then what you see is what you get and you could feel the film leaves you wanting.

I've never made it past the first few pages of the novelization and I still think Star Trek: The Motion Picture is one of the best films ever made. YMMV.

Agreed, I too think TMP is one of the best films. I read the novel back in 1980, after seeing the film on December 7th 1979 and there is so much in the novel that adds to what we saw in TMP. I enjoy the movie and the novel too.

 

[Indysolo]

A lost featurette on making the film: http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011...cture-watch-a-lost-making-of-the-movie-video/

It appears found to me.

That video is fascinating because it shows so much stuff that isn't in the original movie. It focuses on the aliens which were intentionally hidden, it shows Klingon ships blowing up, it has memory wall footage, the original Vulcan matte paintings and the wing walk is slightly differently designed.

Neil

 

[Procutus]

Agreed, I too think TMP is one of the best films. I read the novel back in 1980, after seeing the film on December 7th 1979 and there is so much in the novel that adds to what we saw in TMP. I enjoy the movie and the novel too.

We did it in reverse order, Galileo; I read the novel at the very end of November when it was released, but didn't see the movie until a month later on Decemember 23 (for some screw-ass reason, it wasn't released in Cleveland until two weeks after the national premier... Go figure).

Though the style of the novel was quite different than today's Trek lit, I found it to be extremely thought-provoking and greatly enhanced my enjoyment of the film.

 

[Galileo7]

Agreed, I too think TMP is one of the best films. I read the novel back in 1980, after seeing the film on December 7th 1979 and there is so much in the novel that adds to what we saw in TMP. I enjoy the movie and the novel too.

We did it in reverse order, Galileo; I read the novel at the very end of November when it was released, but didn't see the movie until a month later on Decemember 23 (for some screw-ass reason, it wasn't released in Cleveland until two weeks after the national premier... Go figure).

Though the style of the novel was quite different than today's Trek lit, I found it to be extremely thought-provoking and greatly enhanced my enjoyment of the film.

Procutus , agreed , the novel and TMP film are extremely complementary of each other. The novel explores scenes that might have been included in the film, but were not.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And ST09 is the perfect example of slavishly pandering to the lowest denominator and cliches---it's shows TOS as what a lot of folks think TOS was like as opposed to what it really was

Sorry, been watching Trek since the very beginning of TOS and ST09 captured a great deal of the spirit of that series that no previous TOS-based movie managed - and the sequel TV shows certainly didn't.

You've got it backward - the TOS that you go on about in these forums is what you would prefer to think that series was like, not what it really was about.

I still don't really know why lots of Trek fans feel threatened by this film giving people "the wrong idea about TOS" - so what??

Some fans have control issues and an unjustified sense of ownership where Star Trek is concerned. Any energy spent fretting over the reputation or public image of Trek would be better exerted in a worthwhile cause.

 

[number6]

the TOS that you go on about in these forums is what you would prefer to think that series was like, not what it really was about.

...

Some fans have control issues and an unjustified sense of ownership where Star Trek is concerned. Any energy spent fretting over the reputation or public image of Trek would be better exerted in a worthwhile cause.

This.

 

[Warped9]

Sorry, been watching Trek since the very beginning of TOS and ST09 captured a great deal of the spirit of that series that no previous TOS-based movie managed - and the sequel TV shows certainly didn't.

You've got it backward - the TOS that you go on about in these forums is what you would prefer to think that series was like, not what it really was about.

Some fans have control issues and an unjustified sense of ownership where Star Trek is concerned. Any energy spent fretting over the reputation or public image of Trek would be better exerted in a worthwhile cause.

Keep saying it, Dennis. Maybe one day it'll be the way you like to think it is....

But I seriously doubt it.

 

[SMC]

 

[Therin of Andor]

But it doesn't address the postproduction's shortcomings or how the film was generally received and why.

How could it? It was published to coincide as closely as possible to the movie's premiere. March 1980 is the date, so it would have been in bookstores in the February.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Quite so, and I realize that. Clumsily I was just voicing aloud that it seems like something that should have been included, but obviously couldn't be. Of course, the book also glosses over many the headaches they went through to get to the feature film. (-:

I've just finished reading Star Trek - Phase II: The Lost Series by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens which gives something of a more blow-by-blow account of how things happened. But the most interesting for me was the fact that Paramount let the development of Phase II continue (and allowing escalating costs) for a time even though it had already been decided to make Star Trek into a full blown feature film. They were not yet prepared to publicly announce that their forth network plans with Phase II as the flagship series was a dead issue that wasn't going to happen and endure the embarrassment of trying to sell the series to one of the big three networks. Finally having the story In Thy Image in hand gave them an out to go for a feature film, but they hedged on announcing it until certain deals and details could be worked out to make certain the film could happen. They also had the nebulous idea that if the film were successful then the possibility remained to yet still have a new TV series to sell with established sets and half a season's worth of stories all ready to go.

Of course it didn't work out that way. In Thy Image eventually evolved into ST-TMP and did prove to be financially successful, but I suppose they decided that another film and later others was more lucrative than another series, that is until they decided to launch ST-TNG. And it's interesting how some of TNG echoes elements of what had been considered for Phase II if it had actually gone forward. Decker became Riker, Ilia became Troi and Xon became Data along with the rest of the crew echoing something of Gene Roddenberry's "new humanity" idea.

So in a broader sense Phase II eventually did happen only a decade later as Star Trek - The Next Generation.

 

[Procutus]

^


Not only that, but the TNG second season ep 'The Child' was a reworked Phase II script. I'm surprised that more of the 13 or so Phase II stories didn't end up as TNG episodes.

 

[Therin of Andor]

^
Not only that, but the TNG second season ep 'The Child' was a reworked Phase II script. I'm surprised that more of the 13 or so Phase II stories didn't end up as TNG episodes.

"Devil's Due".

 

[Procutus]

^
Not only that, but the TNG second season ep 'The Child' was a reworked Phase II script. I'm surprised that more of the 13 or so Phase II stories didn't end up as TNG episodes.

"Devil's Due".

Forgot that one!

 

[Warped9]

I've recently just finished reading a good book called The Greatest Sci-Fi Films Never Made by David Hughes. One chapter also chronicles the torturous path taken to eventually get to ST-TMP.

Actually it's fascinating (in a train wreck sort of way) to see what kind of stories get pitched and never make it to screen. Sometimes you find yourself screaming, "What is wrong with you guys? This coulda been awesome!" Other times you're thinking, "Thank God this didn't see the light of day!"

Star Trek, of course, suffered through these various incarnations as everybody has a different idea of what TOS was and nobody can decide what sort of thing should be done.

 

[The Castellan]

The book does lean to affirming my appreciation of TMP partly because it doesn't follow the usual movie sci-fi conventions. It's not about run-and-jump and space battles which Star Wars had just popularized. It's about something more which for me elevates it above the usual sci-fi feature.

Friend!

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

The book does lean to affirming my appreciation of TMP partly because it doesn't follow the usual movie sci-fi conventions. It's not about run-and-jump and space battles which Star Wars had just popularized. It's about something more which for me elevates it above the usual sci-fi feature.

I don't agree. I really like Star Trek - The Motion Picture, but its reputation among certain fans as some kind of intellectual highbrow science fiction movie is entirely undeserved. It's a visual feast, but there's not much substance there. It's not much more than a run-and-jump sci-fi movie without the running and jumping.

 

[Warped9]

^^ No one said it was intellectually highbrow. But it does explore ideas which is something Star Wars has never done, despite the pretentiousness of some of it fans claiming otherwise. Even Lucas said it was only meant to be fun.

 

[MLJames]

I've recently just finished reading a good book called The Greatest Sci-Fi Films Never Made by David Hughes. One chapter also chronicles the torturous path taken to eventually get to ST-TMP.

Actually it's fascinating (in a train wreck sort of way) to see what kind of stories get pitched and never make it to screen. Sometimes you find yourself screaming, "What is wrong with you guys? This coulda been awesome!" Other times you're thinking, "Thank God this didn't see the light of day!"

Star Trek, of course, suffered through these various incarnations as everybody has a different idea of what TOS was and nobody can decide what sort of thing should be done.

You should check out another book by Hughes in a similar vein, Tales From Development Hell. He looks into films that actually were made as well as those that weren't; among the ones he looks at are Tim Burton's Planet Of The Apes and Total Recall and its unproduced sequel.