Star Trek 2, 3, 4 and 6 seemed to have running themes and an ongoing story, which Star Trek 1 and 5 don't really fit into. It seems like you skip those two films because don't really fit with the other 4 films. So are Star Trek 1 and 5 essentially irrelevant?
Are Star Trek I and Star Trek V essentially irrelevant?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
That's my sense as well. It's no coincidence that they're also the weakest of the TOS films. Star Trek II doesn't even reference the first movie. Star Trek III wasn't great but it was a direct sequel to II and therefore remained more relevant. Star Trek VI - the second best of the films - actually makes more sense if you skip over V, because of Kirk's continued prejudice against Klingons, which seemed to be cured in V.
Well gee wiz, just because they are standalone stories doesn't make them irrelevant. You could reason that there is a disconnect between movies I and II because 15 years elapses between them. And movie V... well... maybe movie V is irrelevant. 
Actually, movie V references Spock's death and rebirth.
Actually, movie V references Spock's death and rebirth.
A
Amaris
Guest
I have grown to appreciate ST:TMP, and I adore ST:TFF, so for me, they're not irrelevant at all. In fact, for me, ST:TFF speaks to me on a greater level than any of the other TOS films, much as I love them.
TMP, while it's a very slow moving film and not the best of Trek, isn't irrelevant. It doesn't follow the arc of 2, 3 and 4, however the events of TMP still are important to the Trek universe overall.
Now FF is a different story, for me personally. Mostly because of stuff that happens directly in the movie that flies in the face of canon established previously (such as Spock's sudden brother and the deck numbers, etc...). Events that occur in FF, also stay in the movie. I can't remember anything from that movie being referenced outside of the movie in the rest of the Trek universe. Imagine Trek without FF and nothing changes. TMP has relevance beyond just the film itself. For example, a lot of people speculate that the race of machines that V'ger met, were in fact the Borg.
Now FF is a different story, for me personally. Mostly because of stuff that happens directly in the movie that flies in the face of canon established previously (such as Spock's sudden brother and the deck numbers, etc...). Events that occur in FF, also stay in the movie. I can't remember anything from that movie being referenced outside of the movie in the rest of the Trek universe. Imagine Trek without FF and nothing changes. TMP has relevance beyond just the film itself. For example, a lot of people speculate that the race of machines that V'ger met, were in fact the Borg.
The Spock we meet in ST II is a very different person to the one we knew in TOS. He became that person during TMP, following both his attempted Kolinahr and his mind meld with V'ger.
Well, 2-4 and 6 defintiely have linked story elements and you could happily watch them without watching 1 & 5. I don't think that makes the other movies irrelevant, just unnecessary to the stories featured in the linked movies. Personally, I'm very fond of the motion picture and it features some elements that I wish had been carried forward to the later movies.
I get this point of view and remember a friend of mine's reaction to the fact they were going to make a Star Trek VI. How happy he was that the film carried on the themes of the II/III/IV trilogy.
I'm sure he didn't regard TMP as irrelevant. It's a missing link between the TV show and the films, once they properly got into their stride.
I have no say in the matter, but wherever Star Trek goes next, I'd sooner the last film turns out to be the first chapter in another loose trilogy - building on the differences established. Rather than a sidestep like TMP or TFF, that's convienently forgotten about. The new universe shouldn't be exactly like the one they went out of their way to avoid being part of. If that happens, they'll have forgotten the whole point of why they just didn't go for a straight prequel.
I'm sure he didn't regard TMP as irrelevant. It's a missing link between the TV show and the films, once they properly got into their stride.
I have no say in the matter, but wherever Star Trek goes next, I'd sooner the last film turns out to be the first chapter in another loose trilogy - building on the differences established. Rather than a sidestep like TMP or TFF, that's convienently forgotten about. The new universe shouldn't be exactly like the one they went out of their way to avoid being part of. If that happens, they'll have forgotten the whole point of why they just didn't go for a straight prequel.
Last edited:
I enjoy The Motion Picture and as noted it's a nice gap-filler between the 2-4 arc and the series. Five I don't care about at all though and it's the only TOS film I'm not bothered about owning. I was pretty disappointed that 5 didn't follow-on from the previous films; I was hoping for a Klingon War film given the reference by the Ambassador at the beginning of ST:IV.
TMP is anything but irrelevant. If anything, it contains the one event that's had more lasting impact than anything else in any Trek movie: Spock's epiphany about the value of emotion. In every Star Trek production where Nimoy's Spock has appeared from TWOK all the way through the 2009 film, he has been portrayed as a character who's at peace with himself, who's restrained in his emotional expression but not actively resisting or denying his emotions, who advises others that logic is not the end-all and be-all of wisdom and that it can be okay for a Vulcan to feel. And that comes directly from what Spock went through in TMP, completely changing him from the insecure, brooding young Spock who was constantly at war with his emotional side.
Is there anything else in any Trek film that's had such a lasting impact? Sure, Spock died in the next film, but it was reversed by the very next movie, and it essentially had no lasting consequences. The Enterprise was destroyed in the third movie, but then they got another one that looked just like it. Chekov moved to another ship, but then he came back. Sulu got another ship, but that was the last TOS movie. Kirk died, but that was after the last TOS movie, in a time when he'd already been presumed dead anyway, so it can't really be said to have that great an impact. The TNG crew lost their ship, but then they got another one. Riker and Troi got a new ship and Data died, but that was the last TNG movie. Essentially, every other major change in the Trek movies was quickly rendered irrelevant and devoid of consequences either by its reversal in a later film or by the cessation of the film series as a whole. But Spock's life-changing epiphany in TMP has affected every Spock story for the subsequent 30 years.
TMP has lasting impact in a lot of other ways, too. It was the first Trek production to include a security chief (Chekov) among the regular cast and a dedicated tactical station on the bridge, a precedent followed in every subsequent series. Its characters of Decker and Ilia were revamped into TNG's Riker and Troi. It established San Francisco (and specifically the Presidio) as the home of Starfleet Command for the first time. More fundamentally, it was our first glimpse of Earth in the Federation era, setting a precedent for Earth-based stories which was followed by multiple subsequent films and episodes. It thoroughly reinvented ST production design and technology design in ways that have influenced all subsequent productions. It brought Jerry Goldsmith into Trek for the first of many times and introduced his main title theme, which is almost as closely associated with ST as the Alexander Courage theme.
So if anything, I'd say that TMP is still the most important and influential Star Trek film to this day. Only TWOK and ST 2009 come close to the same level of impact. Their impact may be more obvious than TMP's, but not quite as pervasive.
Is there anything else in any Trek film that's had such a lasting impact? Sure, Spock died in the next film, but it was reversed by the very next movie, and it essentially had no lasting consequences. The Enterprise was destroyed in the third movie, but then they got another one that looked just like it. Chekov moved to another ship, but then he came back. Sulu got another ship, but that was the last TOS movie. Kirk died, but that was after the last TOS movie, in a time when he'd already been presumed dead anyway, so it can't really be said to have that great an impact. The TNG crew lost their ship, but then they got another one. Riker and Troi got a new ship and Data died, but that was the last TNG movie. Essentially, every other major change in the Trek movies was quickly rendered irrelevant and devoid of consequences either by its reversal in a later film or by the cessation of the film series as a whole. But Spock's life-changing epiphany in TMP has affected every Spock story for the subsequent 30 years.
TMP has lasting impact in a lot of other ways, too. It was the first Trek production to include a security chief (Chekov) among the regular cast and a dedicated tactical station on the bridge, a precedent followed in every subsequent series. Its characters of Decker and Ilia were revamped into TNG's Riker and Troi. It established San Francisco (and specifically the Presidio) as the home of Starfleet Command for the first time. More fundamentally, it was our first glimpse of Earth in the Federation era, setting a precedent for Earth-based stories which was followed by multiple subsequent films and episodes. It thoroughly reinvented ST production design and technology design in ways that have influenced all subsequent productions. It brought Jerry Goldsmith into Trek for the first of many times and introduced his main title theme, which is almost as closely associated with ST as the Alexander Courage theme.
So if anything, I'd say that TMP is still the most important and influential Star Trek film to this day. Only TWOK and ST 2009 come close to the same level of impact. Their impact may be more obvious than TMP's, but not quite as pervasive.
What Christopher said. I love all TOS films and TMP will always a special place in my heart: I saw it the second day it was playing. It was great to see all our old friends again: after a rough start with my undergraduate studies, the film made me feel all was really right with the world once again.
YARN
Fleet Captain
Not really. Spock in the series is more balanced than the Spock in TMP. Spock dies in part II, so when we get to part IV with Spock coming to terms with his emotions "Tell her I feel fine" we know that he has been through a lot.
You could skip TMP without sensing any loss of continuity.
I don't agree at all. The Spock of TWOK is a serene, balanced individual who's clearly surmounted his younger self's struggle with his emotional side. He has no problem engaging in the sentimental act of giving Kirk a birthday present, something his younger self would've scorned as a pointless ritual, and openly professes his friendship, something his younger self did occasionally but never so casually.
Sure, maybe you could assume that he just somehow loosened up in the intervening 15 years or so, but TMP actually shows you how it happened. The Spock that Nimoy plays in TWOK and in everything since then is directly informed by what Spock went through in TMP. It may be subtextual, but it's there.
I think the missing crucial ingrediant of TWOK (if it was the first flick) is that it doesn't establish what all the characters have been doing since the series ended. Just by watching TWOK alone, you'd think that Spock and McCoy stayed in Starfleet all these years and stayed in their exact same positions except for Spock stepping up to Captain. If i was watching TWOK as the first movie and saw that Spock was commanding an old training ship (even if it was the Enterprise), I might question why that's all he's accomplished if I didn't know that he'd taken a break from Starfleet in the intervening years. After all, he does look significantly older than in TOS.
But that would be a minor thing. As for Spock's personality in TWOK, I really don't get the sense that he was too different from how he was in TOS. Even in the series, he showed his humanity a lot more when it was just him and Kirk. Take away TMP, and audiences would see a Vulcan who's perhaps loosened up a bit from the series, but isn't out of character at all.
But that would be a minor thing. As for Spock's personality in TWOK, I really don't get the sense that he was too different from how he was in TOS. Even in the series, he showed his humanity a lot more when it was just him and Kirk. Take away TMP, and audiences would see a Vulcan who's perhaps loosened up a bit from the series, but isn't out of character at all.
In different circumstances during the original series, Spock was shown to be "serene" yet in touch with his emotions; I'm thinking of the "Thank you, Doctor - I will have a brandy" scene in "Requiem for Methuselah," wherein Spock essentially gives in to his astonishment at seeing all of the creative work produced by Leonardo, Brahms, et al., on this obscure, almost uninhabited planet.
Also, some of the points raised earlier about the importance of TMP would have been equally true if (for example) TWOK had been the first film: our first sights of Earth and of Starfleet facilities in San Francisco; new production design, costumes, etc.; a new composer whose work would long be associated with Star Trek (i.e., James Horner).
Also, some of the points raised earlier about the importance of TMP would have been equally true if (for example) TWOK had been the first film: our first sights of Earth and of Starfleet facilities in San Francisco; new production design, costumes, etc.; a new composer whose work would long be associated with Star Trek (i.e., James Horner).
In a word -- "No."
Sir Rhosis
Sir Rhosis
Agreed.
IMHO both TMP and TFF are important parts of the narrative continuity of the Kirk era Star Trek movies.
But it was not the first film. The question is not whether we can posit an alternate universe wherein TMP didn't exist; the question is whether the film that does exist is "irrelevant" to the subsequent 32 years' worth of the franchise. And the answer to that is an emphatic "no." Whether one personally enjoys the film or not, one does not have the right to rewrite the facts and pretend it didn't have an impact. Whatever its flaws as a story, it had enormous influence on Star Trek as a franchise, and it deserves recognition for that.
Also, if TMP hadn't happened, TWOK would not have made the same choices. It was Gene Roddenberry's idea to put Starfleet Command in San Francisco, and Roddenberry had minimal involvement in TWOK. The production design in TWOK was drawn heavily from the sets and miniatures created for TMP; without that precedent, the low-budget TWOK wouldn't have looked a fraction as good (although it still looked cheap next to TMP). And James Horner just doesn't compare to Goldsmith in terms of talent or influence on the franchise. Horner did two movies and that's it. Goldsmith did five movies, his TMP theme was used for TNG, and he did the theme to Voyager.
Hell, without TMP, there wouldn't have been a Trek movie franchise at all. At most, it would've come back as TV movies or a revival series.
Similar threads
- Locked