A TOS (only) fan's reaction

[Therin of Andor]

how is TMP better than Star Trek XI

Mmmmm. Well, as I just said in a previous post, TMP is my favourite Star Trek movie of all time - my favourite movie of all time - but JJ's ST is a very close second.

Why is TMP better? Well, it has a certain majesty to the way it was filmed. It was treating TV material to the benefits of a huge motion picture budget, and a three-to-six month principal photography shoot - when the cast were used to filming a one-hour episode in less than ten days. It was reuniting a cast who hadn't worked together in a decade. And the production design and direction put me, a lowly member of the audience, who knew very little about the characters and their previous adventures, onto that ship!

It's hard to describe, and it was made worse in 1980 when I couldn't find many TOS fans who actually liked TMP. For me, who was also lucky enough to have already read the novelization! - it became a film that fully submersed me in the action.

JJ went quite close. While I never felt I was on that ship, I really did relate to the characters, and felt their losses - of lives they would never get to experience due to the changed timeline.

Both films rely on a lot of nostalgia value, both plundering it to make us relate to the material, and rejoicing in it without a hint of self-consciousness, but TMP pips JJ at the post for the way it affected me as an audience member. Mind you, I was a naive 21 yo watching TMP, and a more seasoned, very Trek-knowledgeable 50yo watching ST XI.

 

[SheliakBob]

The Canon Wars! The Canon Wars are heating up again! Over the top, lads! Fix bayonets! Charge!
...
oh bother.
don't have the energy to fight this out all over again. I lost. Plain and simple.
I hate The Abomination with great good vigor, don't get me wrong, but I just don't have the stomach for endless rounds of shallow fun vs change vs tradition vs the pain in my eyeballs. blah blah blah.
I'm with ya' boys. In spirit.
In practice, there's just no way to make The Abomination go away anytime soon. Might as well suck it up, find something or other to enjoy about it and save your strength for round two, when the blasphemous sequel inevitably curses our screens.
There are some cool aliens, a hot green chick, things blow up, beauty shots of a seriously unbeautiful hogship (your mileage etc.) and some bits of not really that bad acting.
We get Robau! And a sulking psycho Romulan that I can at least empathize with.
*waves white flag*
gonna sit this one out. sort of. from here on, that is. yup.

 

[Blue_Trek]

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

That statement is opinion with NO supporting evidence, I am old enough to have seen it in the theater in late 1979, NEVER in my entire life was I more disappointed with any movie, and that's a lot of movies, some really crappy ones too. But the level of expectations verses the quality and story was never wider, which contributes to my current perspective.

You offer no proof, I on the other hand will.
From a major movie tracking site.

So I guess you might be part of the 2.5% then?

 

[StarTrek1701]

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

That statement is opinion with NO supporting evidence, I am old enough to have seen it in the theater in late 1979, NEVER in my entire life was I more disappointed with any movie, and that's a lot of movies, some really crappy ones too. But the level of expectations verses the quality and story was never wider, which contributes to my current perspective.

You offer no proof, I on the other hand will.
From a major movie tracking site.

So I guess you might be part of the 2.5% then?

QFT.

TOS only fans need to learn that this is a new century, a new faster way of life has permeated throughout the world, people are no longer locked in one motion, they can choose their own motions. Star Trek needed to be brought up to speed for the fast audience, not keep it gathering dust like the stories of yesteryear.

Star Trek has been given a new life. Deal with it.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Although I loved the movie myself, I can still understand what Beaker was bitching about in his post.

As well, this other review of the movie I came across while 'Net surfing brings the opinion into sharp focus:

Intimate. That’s the first word that comes to my mind when I attempt to analyze J.J. Abrams’ take on the now forty-three year old space western. Much has been made about how and why his predecessors, Brannon Braga and Rick Berman, failed in the years lacking the late Gene Roddenberry’s guidance.

There is the obvious intimacy between James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto). In order for a relationship to be meaningful, there must be tension for the actors’ natures to work against. If the franchise had grown stale, Braga take note, it’s because the characters lacked meaningful, realistic bonds forged from idiosyncratic dissonance and character flaws… with one exception: In Star Trek: First Contact, arguably the only good movie of “The Next Generation,” there is a scene in which the talented Alfre Woodard verbally jabs Picard and reveals his hypocrisy, causing him to unravel. But following that, we were given a universe in which it seemed everybody pretty much agreed with and/or liked each other, and no truly devastating conflicts of personality ensued. We should have known that Spock was really thinking outside of the frame when he said to Kirk in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, “Could it be that we two, you and I, have grown so old and so inflexible that we have outlived our usefulness? Would that constitute a joke?”

In this re-imagined timeline, changed for plot reasons that I consider less important and partially so because every other review published will tell you about them, Kirk and Spock’s destinies are pushed apart by happenstance (some will argue it is a Deus ex machina… but isn’t life full of them?). Their personalities become diametrically-opposed, yet the cause is something they have in common. This is only the catalyst for a film with intimacy on more levels than any other “Trek” outing prior. Kirk and Spock are constantly shown invading each other’s personal space.

Star Trek review by Rubin Safaya

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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

Even some casual fans like it?

High praise, indeed.

If the movie had really been any good, it would have been liked a great deal by some significant percentage of the previously non-fans who paid to see it.

See, people who like movies will generally like good movies. People who pay to see a movie are predisposed to like it. The movie has to lose them - it has to really disappoint them - for them to walk out disliking it.

TMP managed that. It was stilted, plodding, poorly assembled, pompous, built upon a simple-minded story that struggled to sound profound without having any significant content, hobbled by flat TV-level performances by a cast that was unable to carry a major motion picture and captained by producers and a director who appeared to have slept through a decaded or two of cinema history.

A hard core Trek fan will argue that ST:TMP was better than mediocre, but it's really hard to find many other people who will give it the benefit of the doubt - not the critics, not the general audience. It's been forgotten by most everyone but trekkies, except as the punch-line to an occasional in-joke about nerds. Because it wasn't a very good movie.

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).

I have.

 

[Cryogenic]

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

Even some casual fans like it?

High praise, indeed.

I was speaking colloquially. I believe it's accurate to say that my father has a deep affection for it, though by and large, he's not a man to lavish praise. What's with the smug attitude, by the way? You're quick to accuse others of the same, so why don't you clean up your own backyard first?

If the movie had really been any good, it would have been liked a great deal by some significant percentage of the previously non-fans who paid to see it.

Most people don't understand Science Fiction or cinema. Given that TMP was, and is, a hard-nosed fusion of both, the general reaction is totally normal. If you need mass opinion to back up your own, bully for you. Some people are more secure in their tastes, interests and beliefs, however.

TMP managed that. It was stilted, plodding, poorly assembled, pompous, built upon a simple-minded story that struggled to sound profound without having any significant content, hobbled by flat TV-level performances by a cast that was unable to carry a major motion picture and captained by producers and a director who appeared to have slept through a decaded or two of cinema history.

The fly-by of the Enterprise alone qualifies as "significant content", in my opinion. The beauty of a film is never in its story, but in its telling; form gives meaning, or in the words of Roger Ebert, "a film is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it". This is true of all art, of course, but it is especially true of film, since film combines so many fields and disciplines. As for your other charges:

To my mind, "The Big Three" -- Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley -- give expert performances in the movie, forming a tight nucleus, while Stephen Collins and Persis Khambatta are engaging newcomers, with a certain warmth and nuance that is under-appreciated, even by some of TMP's fans. I have no idea what you mean about the film's producers and directors sleeping through "a decaded [sic] or two of cinema history", and I'm not sure I desire to find out.

A hard core Trek fan will argue that ST:TMP was better than mediocre, but it's really hard to find many other people who will give it the benefit of the doubt - not the critics, not the general audience. It's been forgotten by most everyone but trekkies, except as the punch-line to an occasional in-joke about nerds. Because it wasn't a very good movie.

Well, you can keep beating that drum if you wish. It won't change anything. Frankly, I don't care what the general take on a film or piece of art is. It's nice when other people like what I like, but it's superfluous to requirements. That's where a lot of people go wrong, on the Internet and out in the world at large.

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).

I have.

Undoubtedly.

 

[Middle Earther]

To the OP: Thank you for not liking this film!! I'm with you 100%!!

 

[Blue_Trek]

TMP managed that. It was stilted, plodding, poorly assembled, pompous, built upon a simple-minded story that struggled to sound profound without having any significant content, hobbled by flat TV-level performances by a cast that was unable to carry a major motion picture and captained by producers and a director who appeared to have slept through a decaded or two of cinema history.

Ahhh that's why I never liked TMP, or maybe I just hated that they made a hot chick bald, and that just ended it for me right there.
Sometimes it's the little things that trigger the hate fest, you just never know sometimes.

 

[PhasersOnStun]

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.

I thought that TMP was "where Nomad has gone before," not The Changeling...Or maybe it was The Changeling, starring Nomad?

Trek XI brought the fun and adventure back to the Trek films..

You know, some TOS Trek fans really hate "I, Mudd," "Trouble With Tribbles," and the other episodes of TOS that were played for broad comedy. I think some people just need their sci-fi (maybe art in general) to be ponderous, dark, and deep. Personally, I like that kind of art too...but I also like the fluff.

 

[imranbecks]

Star Trek XI is a great Star Trek movie on its own right and is perfect for the generation we live in now. Producers and studios these days are going for a box office hit, so the movie is made the way it is. If Star Trek XI was made like the Star Trek movies in the past, they wld never be a hit and do well in the box office like Star Trek XI has..

So TOS fans who really despise the movie should just move on and admit the fact that this is the Star Trek of this generation. An alternate reality, a whole new Star Trek. Either way, I'm just glad Star Trek has come back to life thanks to J J Abrams..

 

[startrekrcks]

it is Star Trek for a new generation of fans and I think all the cast did really well it is like I was watching younger versions of Kirk,Spock,Scotty,Sulu and the rest

 

[Franklin]

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.

I thought that TMP was "where Nomad has gone before," not The Changeling...Or maybe it was The Changeling, starring Nomad?

Trek XI brought the fun and adventure back to the Trek films..

You know, some TOS Trek fans really hate "I, Mudd," "Trouble With Tribbles," and the other episodes of TOS that were played for broad comedy. I think some people just need their sci-fi (maybe art in general) to be ponderous, dark, and deep. Personally, I like that kind of art too...but I also like the fluff.

And, you can lump TVH into that "what some fans hate" pile, too. Of course, TVH was the highest-grossing Trek movie until ST09. Go figure.

I've always seen TMP as an incredibly flawed attempt to make Trek serious science fiction. In 1983, if they had decided to take STII further in that same direction, in my opinion, that would've been the end of the franchise.

The characters simply weren't real people suited for a quasi-literary sci-fi approach. They were action-adventure heroes who need an action-adeventure genre in which to flourish. Meyer understood that. Abrams understood that.

TMP is an "arty film" with some wonderful starship porn. But its Jim Kirk is the kind of man I might stand next to in line at Starbucks, not the man of action who does ridiculously heroic things like bringing whales back to the 23rd century. Now that's entertainment!

 

[JarodRussell]

I like TNG and DS9 much better than TOS, and still TMP is a better movie compared to Trek 09.

 

[Broccoli]

I like TMP a lot. I like the whole hard sci-fi style to it. Personally, I think it worked. The director's cut is nicely put together making for a tighter film.

However, lets not kid ourselves, TMP was a clusterfuck on the production side. The fact that it turned out the way it did was an utter miracle. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about.

I thought that TMP was "where Nomad has gone before," not The Changeling...Or maybe it was The Changeling, starring Nomad?

Nomad and "The Changeling" were not separate episodes. Nomad was in "The Changeling".

Of course, TVH was the highest-grossing Trek movie until ST09. Go figure.

Actually, TMP was the highest grossing Trek film until ST09.

 

[PhasersOnStun]

I thought that TMP was "where Nomad has gone before," not The Changeling...Or maybe it was The Changeling, starring Nomad?

Nomad and "The Changeling" were not separate episodes. Nomad was in "The Changeling".

Of course you're correct. After I posted, I realized my error—What I meant to write was "...Metamorphosis, starring Nomad? "

Metamorphosis was the episode in which the non-corporeal "companion" who loves Zephram Cochran (in a far younger and more stoic version than James Cromwell in First Contact) inhabits the body of The Actress Of The Week™ in order to experience being human and a real, honest-to-God lover of her dear Zephie. That element of the story also echos in TMP, in which Nomad—Err, V'Ger—inhabits the body of the nubile Sinead O'Conor-esque actress to explore the Enterprise.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Star Trek XI is a great Star Trek movie on its own right and is perfect for the generation we live in now.

it is Star Trek for a new generation of fans

And here I thought I sold this generation short. If bright lights and big explosions really were to this generation what literate, relevant and artistic discourse was to my generation, then I would despair for the future of this world. Happily, I have greater faith in this new generation than that.

 

[Cryogenic]

I'm a 20-something STXI-hater, by the way.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Star Trek: The Motion Picture pretends profundity by throwing around underthought - well, "ideas" probably isn't the right term; the movie throws around underthought phrases as if they're somehow significant.

The most obvious is the central conceit of a "living machine." Now, there are contexts in which that phrase might represent some worthwhile idea, but in terms of how ST:TMP fails to investigate or elaborate upon it, it means no more or less that something like "subatomic waffle iron" or "self-rinsing avocado windshield."

 

[Devon]

And here I thought I sold this generation short. If bright lights and big explosions really were to this generation what literate, relevant and artistic discourse was to my generation, then I would despair for the future of this world. Happily, I have greater faith in this new generation than that.

Right. The younger generation likes this film, the older generation likes this film. Perhaps it is most others who are fully capable of looking past the "bright lights," and it is people such as yourself who can not?

Star Trek: The Motion Picture pretends profundity by throwing around underthought - well, "ideas" probably isn't the right term; the movie throws around underthought phrases as if they're somehow significant.

The most obvious is the central conceit of a "living machine." Now, there are contexts in which that phrase might represent some worthwhile idea, but in terms of how ST:TMP fails to investigate or elaborate upon it, it means no more or less that something like "subatomic waffle iron" or "self-rinsing avocado windshield."

And some of the "deep" messages that some claim to have gotten from TMP, when revealed to us, aren't really deep or anything useful.

In fact, this is one thing that some Trekkies who proclaim that Star Trek should have a message and supposedly "always had one" seem to not get... messages should be useful, at least. This is something that most of Star Trek's "messages" have failed to do. Therefore I am under the very safe assumption that these particular Trekkies simply want anything that they could perceive as "intelligent philosophy" merely for the sake of claiming that Star Trek has them, not because they actually represent anything intelligent or useful that we don't already know about through life experiences (if those messages are even relevant in that respect.)