Are Star Trek I and Star Trek V essentially irrelevant?

[arch101]

[/QUOTE]
And Spock's epiphany... "I should've known." That is an immensely powerful and moving moment. And it's arguably the most important moment in Spock's entire life. It's the foundation of everything that follows for Spock, of the way Nimoy has played Spock ever since. [/QUOTE]

I always felt that his almost exasperated exhale of "logic and knowledge are not enough" was also a big moment for him. A public admission that he had been wrong about how he had chosen to live his life to that point and an acknowledgment that a change must be made if he's to be the person he wants to be. Either way, big moments for the character. For this and all the other reasons Christopher mentioned, TMP has a vast relevance over all of Trek. As for grouping, however, I would almost group TMP with TOS, not with the other 5 films. The time period the films take place in support this. TMP is a transitory piece between TOS and the later "Genesis Trilogy" movies. I would argue that if we could lose a film and not lose very much, TFF could be pushed out the airlock.

 

[BriGuy]

I think in the context of the movies, the answer to this question is pretty simple - yes, TMP and TFF don't have any relevance in the overall stories, characters progression, etc. shown in the other films.

You might like stuff in TMP and TFF, but if someone new to Trek were to watch all the movies but those two, there wouldn't be anything relevant missing - they can get into II, III and IV without seeing any of TMP. TUC makes total and, as has been said, maybe better sense without TFF.

Their content, and what transpires within them, has no bearing on the rest of the franchise.

 

[Christopher]

As for grouping, however, I would almost group TMP with TOS, not with the other 5 films. The time period the films take place in support this. TMP is a transitory piece between TOS and the later "Genesis Trilogy" movies.

I think the word you want is "transitional." "Transitory" means fleeting, having no lasting impact -- which would essentially be agreeing it's irrelevant, and that's the opposite of what you're saying.

I think in the context of the movies, the answer to this question is pretty simple - yes, TMP and TFF don't have any relevance in the overall stories, characters progression, etc. shown in the other films.

You might like stuff in TMP and TFF, but if someone new to Trek were to watch all the movies but those two, there wouldn't be anything relevant missing - they can get into II, III and IV without seeing any of TMP.

I don't think that's a legitimate way of defining it. You could watch all of TOS and skip "City on the Edge of Forever" without believing you've missed anything. You could watch DS9 and skip "The Visitor" and "In the Pale Moonlight" without believing you'd missed anything. Heck, you could probably watch TNG and VGR and skip all of DS9 and not believe you'd missed anything (that Bashir guy and that Quark guy were just one-shot guest stars like anyone else). The illusion that you haven't missed anything important isn't the same as the reality. TMP is entirely relevant to what comes after in a lot of ways, as I discussed much earlier in the thread and as several others have agreed. I reject the argument that if you can pretend these movies didn't happen, that reflects some kind of truth. It's merely a plausible lie.

 

[BrownShatner]

I always thought it was strange that TWOK begun with a remake of TMP's opening.

Kirk: I'm aging but want to get back in command
Fly-around of Enterprise in Space Dock
Scotty: Welcome aboard Admiral
The Enterprise is the only ship in the sector!

In a conventional sequel, they would have skipped all of this and just begun with Kirk in the chair. That they went to all this trouble seems to indicate the TWOK producers were aiming for a soft-reboot.

 

[sonak]

I always thought it was strange that TWOK begun with a remake of TMP's opening.

Kirk: I'm aging but want to get back in command
Fly-around of Enterprise in Space Dock
Scotty: Welcome aboard Admiral
The Enterprise is the only ship in the sector!

In a conventional sequel, they would have skipped all of this and just begun with Kirk in the chair. That they went to all this trouble seems to indicate the TWOK producers were aiming for a soft-reboot.

I think it was more "let's just ignore TMP." The TWOK approach was 180 degrees away from TMP, and fortunately the movie series never went the TMP route again.

 

[Christopher]

^Unfortunately. TMP was the most cinematic Trek movie until 2009, the one that felt the most like a truly epic movie rather than an elevated TV episode. It was Star Trek aspiring to be 2001, to be smart, sophisticated science fiction. Thanks to TWOK, Trek movies ended up getting forced into the action-movie cubbyhole instead, and several of them suffered for it due to the pressure to shoehorn in gratuitous fights and space battles.

 

[RyanKCR]

I've compared all the following films to TMP and find them all lacking. I would to have seen where it would have went. I liked Ex Machina. Great follow up to TMP. I would love to see more serious, non-action driven Sci-Fi in the movies.

 

[Herbert1]

I don't agree that the "Slow Moving Picture" or "Where Nomad Has Gone Before" should have been the model for a movie series.

It seems to me that Star Trek: The Motion Picture is to the film series what "The Cage" is to the Star Trek series. "The Cage" was criticized as "too cerebral" and Roddenberry didn't give them what he had promised which was a science fiction action adventure program. In "Where No Man Has Gone Before", Roddenberry delivered on expectations.

In a similar way, Producer Harve Bennett returned Star Trek on the big screen to a science fiction action adventure.

Further, Paramount wasn't going to spend another $45 million for a sequel. Harve Bennett said that he could make 5 pictures with that budget. To keep costs low, Bennett recycled models, props, sets and previously shot footage. Nicholas Meyer went one step further by making TWOK Horatio Hornblower in space.

Although Spock's epiphany makes TMP relevant to the development of the Spock character, the film is otherwise dull and wrapped up in its own importance. It was made after Star Wars in a time when studio executives mistakenly believed that if they threw special effects at it the movie would be a hit with audiences. Even with box office receipts of $139 million, the movie did not meet expectations.

 

[Herbert1]

Double post.

 

[The Overlord]

As for grouping, however, I would almost group TMP with TOS, not with the other 5 films. The time period the films take place in support this. TMP is a transitory piece between TOS and the later "Genesis Trilogy" movies.

I think the word you want is "transitional." "Transitory" means fleeting, having no lasting impact -- which would essentially be agreeing it's irrelevant, and that's the opposite of what you're saying.

I think in the context of the movies, the answer to this question is pretty simple - yes, TMP and TFF don't have any relevance in the overall stories, characters progression, etc. shown in the other films.

You might like stuff in TMP and TFF, but if someone new to Trek were to watch all the movies but those two, there wouldn't be anything relevant missing - they can get into II, III and IV without seeing any of TMP.

I don't think that's a legitimate way of defining it. You could watch all of TOS and skip "City on the Edge of Forever" without believing you've missed anything. You could watch DS9 and skip "The Visitor" and "In the Pale Moonlight" without believing you'd missed anything. Heck, you could probably watch TNG and VGR and skip all of DS9 and not believe you'd missed anything (that Bashir guy and that Quark guy were just one-shot guest stars like anyone else). The illusion that you haven't missed anything important isn't the same as the reality. TMP is entirely relevant to what comes after in a lot of ways, as I discussed much earlier in the thread and as several others have agreed. I reject the argument that if you can pretend these movies didn't happen, that reflects some kind of truth. It's merely a plausible lie.

Except those episodes were good, frankly I don`t think TMP is a good movie at all and frankly neither does a majority of movie critics: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_the_motion_picture/

Its a slow moving, has a stupid plot, just seems like a sad rip off 2001, isn`t very interesting, has pointless special effects shots that add nothing to the plot, its not good from a basic cinematic standpoint. Its one of the worst paced movies I have ever scene and it doesn`t really go anywhere, when has V`Ger or Decker ever been mentioned in Star Trek canon ever again? Its attempts to be cerebral are pretentious and laughable bad.

This review goes into more detail on why it sucks, but frankly there is reason why a lot of people put it among the bad star trek movies:

http://sfdebris.com/startrek/film1.asp

If Star Trek TMP was a good film, the series wouldn't have needed a minor reboot with TWoK.

 

[Psion]

Frankly, I hope that guy re-hydrates regularly to make up for all the spittle he seems to spew.

 

[arch101]

[/QUOTE]
I think the word you want is "transitional." "Transitory" means fleeting, having no lasting impact -- which would essentially be agreeing it's irrelevant, and that's the opposite of what you're saying.
[/QUOTE]

You are correct, sir. Thank You. I should know better than to post when pooped.
That's what I love about this board. Where else can I get a best selling author to proof my postings?

 

[Captrek]

TUC makes... as has been said, maybe better sense without TFF.

That, indeed, has been said, but I don’t believe the case has been made. Anybody care to make it?

"The Cage" was criticized as "too cerebral"

Since I started spending time here, I have learned that many of the celebrated bits of Trek lore I learned as a young man were in fact fabrications of Roddenberry.

I wonder whether this is another such example. “Too cerebral” strikes me as exactly the kind of criticism a show creator might make up to inflate his own ego and those of the show’s fans.

 

[Harvey]

Inside Star Trek: The Real Story claims the suits really did call the first pilot "too cerebral," but suggests this might have been doublespeak for too much eroticism, IIRC.

 

[sonak]

^Unfortunately. TMP was the most cinematic Trek movie until 2009, the one that felt the most like a truly epic movie rather than an elevated TV episode. It was Star Trek aspiring to be 2001, to be smart, sophisticated science fiction. Thanks to TWOK, Trek movies ended up getting forced into the action-movie cubbyhole instead, and several of them suffered for it due to the pressure to shoehorn in gratuitous fights and space battles.

if by "cinematic" you mean a pretentious, boring film shamelessly padded by special effects to make an episode script into a movie-length one than yes.


I guess we just disagree that TMP was "smart" sci-fi. The plot was a rehash of "the changeling" at any rate, with a different and better ending.

you can make smart cinematic movies that aren't tedious and slow.


oh, and TVH was VERY popular and had almost no action at all, so it's not about the action.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Christopher, I almost always respect your opinions and I've learned a fair bit about the franchise through your passed-on knowledge. That said, I'm not sure I agree with you that skipping "In the Pale Moonlight" wouldn't cause any problems for first-time watchers of DS9. Something big, something Romulan, happens in that episode that carries over into the remainder of the series.

</tangent>

Also, back on topic here -- I really don't care for sfdebris all that much.

 

[Captrek]

I just watched the first part of the sfdebris video.

It has an awfully long rant about how people who like TMP always maintain that people who don’t like TMP are simply in the wrong. I haven’t noticed that attitude coming more from one side than the other. People who dislike the film can be just as insulting toward those who like it. This very video spends more time talking about what’s wrong with the film’s supporters than what’s wrong with the film.

What do you think? Is it really as one-sided as the sfdebris guy claims, or is he just being a petaQ?

He also goes on and on about how the Enterprise fly-around is boring, as if this is some kind of objective fact, and rebuts straw man arguments defending the sequence. Personally, I love the sequence every time I see it, which is often, and never feel tempted to reach for the fast-forward button or go make a sandwich. I guess there’s just something wrong with me.

Yeah, I’m decided. The guy is a petaQ.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

It's definitely not that one-sided. I've seen that happen here and there but a lot of TMP fans I've met -- both IRL and online -- will just as soon point out some of what they consider the film's flaws as they will praise it. And a lot of them have stated that they can understand how it isn't for everyone but they like it because insert logic here.

 

[Captrek]

I get the feeling that this guy has had a lot of discussions with TMP fans, always behaves the way he does in the video, and comes away thinking, “TMP fans always think I’m a jerk and it’s because I don’t like the film,” but in fact TMP fans always think he’s a jerk and it’s because he acts like a jerk to them.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

He acts like a jerk to a lot of people. I'll never get the fascination with sfdebris, RLM, so on and so forth. The whole "tellin' it like it is" craze is borderline understandable, I guess, but so much of what they nitpick about is just going seriously overboard.