Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by JT Perfecthair, Nov 8, 2013.
The Vorcha Class should have been introduced sooner, and then perhaps used more consistenty. It always struck me as being a much closer 'successor' ship to the classic D7, in both practicality and overall asthetics. Unlike the B-O-P, it was immediately and obviously a Klingon ship.
Realistically Kruge's ship really ought to have been written off as being a stolen Romulan ship (as it had been in an earlier draft). But the problem is TSFS fumbles the play by having Kirk and Sulu discuss it as "a Klingon Bird-of-Prey", stating emphatically that it is indeed a Klingon ship, despite it evidently having much more in common with the Romulan vessels on TOS, IMO. And then TFF commits a further foul by then showing other Klingons using the same ships as part of a routine duty.
IIRC The Next Generation tended to favor the use of stock footage of the Klingon ships from The Motion Picture in its earlier seasons, largely ignoring this so called Bird-of-Prey altogether (it wasn't until the likes of "Sins Of The Father" that we saw 24th century Klingons using B-O-P variants).
I dunno, I never liked TNG's Klingon ships either. They were so blocky and cluttered, with none of the elegance of the D-7. Matt Jefferies had his own special style.
I do agree Christopher, but it's more the general lines of the ship I was talking about. The Vorcha is clearly 'inspired' by the original D7 in all the important ways that TSFS's Bird-Of-Prey clearly wasn't.
I've also observed that the D-7 and K't'inga-class seemed much more Klingon in their use. Rather than resorting to cloaking technology- which fits Romulans more than it does Klingons- these ships are usually seen moving directly toward whatever they're attacking. My first memory of any Klingon ship is the three battle cruisers seen at the start of TMP.
I'm remain skeptical that Wise's involvement was as much as the DE makers claim. The fact that his commentary track and press appearances are obviously scripted does not give me confidence that he was driving that particular bus. Some people disagree, and they're welcome to their informed opinion.
I lay most of the blame for the DE's failings at Sharpline's doorstep for not having done their homework (they really didn't) and for engaging in pointless revisionism and fan-wank that does a disservice to the original artists who worked on the film.
Yes--George Lucas wanted retro sci-fi adventure through the myth strainer of Lord of the Rings, which was the polar opposite of the films Christopher mentioned, along with other productions such as Logan's Run or The Island of Dr. Moreau (curiously, both starring Michael York). Whether the message was strong, or overshadowed by spectacle, messages in sci-fi was the only route for nearly every major film of the decade. It was a miracle TMP and Alien managed to stay in this vein in the wake of Star Wars.
Phase II had been in development, but SW shifted the aim toward the big screen, so at any time, the PTB could have forced all involved to get the SW feel, instead of TMP's philosophical exploration. That's why I believe it was a miracle TMP--flawed as it is--held on to its own identity instead of being....Battle Beyond the Stars or Battlestar Galactica.
"The Motion Picture" sounds stilted, but I can see why they'd want ST in the title and something else to distinguish from the show. But it was aiming more for cinema than "the movies," hence the semi-stilted choice.
I think Superman would be a stronger titled just "Superman." There was no recent tv show to distinguish it from and "the Movie" seems anti-climactic, both in meaning and rhythmically. "Superman": wham! a great word, sound-wise. Supermanthemovie kinda peters out. And with all the promotional work, everybody knew it was a movie.
Why in the name of God am I writing about the cadence of the title of a 1978 movie? Oy. Off to do something real. Be well, all.
Actually, the on-screen title of the 1978 film is simply "Superman". Short and sweet!
I think it was still in more common use back then, since there were more people around who'd grown up in the early days of film when "motion picture" was used more often than the shorthand "movie." It was considered a classier term, while "movie" was seen more as slang. At least, that was my impression.
Actually there was a current TV show featuring Superman, namely Superfriends. Plus the George Reeves The Adventures of Superman was in pretty constant syndication back then. And of course more people read comic books back then because the distribution monopoly hadn't happened yet and thus comics were still widely sold in drugstores and department stores rather than just in specialty shops where only committed comics fans would ever know they existed. So Superman was a regular media presence in several forms; it simply isn't true that the movie was filling some long-standing void.
And really, I don't understand the "everybody knew it was a movie" argument. I mean, people know Batman: The Animated Series was an animated series, but I've never heard anyone object to the title. And there are plenty of other TV shows based on movies called The Series. Such descriptors are useful, because it's not just about "informing" people of what something is, it's about distinguishing different branches of a franchise for general and long-term reference. Certainly it's useful in retrospect to talk about Superman: The Movie or RoboCop: The Series or the like so that it's instantly clear what subset of the franchise I'm referring to. It's certainly handier than talking about "Star Trek" and having to add words to specify whether I'm referring to the original series or the 2009 movie. This kind of subtitle is useful and practical and I don't understand the objections.
Anyway, I grew up hearing it called Superman: The Movie, so the modern tendency to refer to it as just Superman sounds weird to me. Different people perceive things differently.
I couldn't stay away, SuperTrekFriends.
So why do I think it is called "Superman: The Movie"? Posters? Novel?
Is STTMP really "Star Trek" on-screen?!
Yes, most of the posters, ads, and promotions did call it that, and there was a standard logo with that title: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gbTz7r-mj...ACfA/sSwbXTIGHyw/s400/Superman+movie+logo.jpg
It didn't have a novelization per se; rather, its tie-in was an original novel based on the comics continuity, Superman: Last Son of Krypton by Elliot S! Maggin, aka The Best Superman Novel Ever Written in the History of Ever. (The text of which used to be available online, but apparently the site that hosted it was having major security issues and is now under reconstruction.) But the novel does use the Superman: The Movie logo on the cover to promote the bonus photo section inside, and there's an ad on the back page promoting the "Superman: The Movie soundtrack." Although on the page before it there's an ad for various nonfiction tie-ins which refer to it as "the SUPERMAN movie" or just "SUPERMAN."
Nope, it uses a solid-white version of the familiar Star Trek: The Motion Picture logo.
However, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was originally titled just Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan onscreen.
I don't know if this was mentioned at all, as yet, but I'll still throw this in, anyway. During the Sixties, Seventies and early Eighties, studios were still promoting many of their pictures using poster art that was actually drawn and painted. Bob Peak, whom I am very inspired by, as an artist, had done more than a number of those posters. These would include SUPERMAN: The Movie, STAR TREK: The Motion Picture, STAR TREKs II, III, IV and V. When TUC came together, unfortunately, Bob Peak had expired. But he'd been entrusted to do many great movies posters for alot of years. I think he was wonderfully talented and that prism effect poster for TMP was just as memorable as the soundtrack is ...
Yes, I was happy to see a new, 24th-century Klingon vessel finally come along, after three seasons of TNG using century-old leftovers from the films.
The D-7 looked just fine on TNG, though. I assume that as they were using shots from TMP, there were reasons that they couldn't do original model work with it on the show.
And by the time that film came out, they'd also shown it still in use in the 24th century (Season 2, "A Matter of Honor").
I do wish movie studios still did painted movie posters. I assume knocking together a twenty second photo montage in Photoshop/Paintshop Pro/whatever art package is cheaper than commissing an actual artist, but it just isn't nearly as asthetically pleasing IMO.
I totally agree with you, Lance! I don't know what else to add, you said it so well. All of these photo montages look paintshopped to the umpth degree and I just don't enjoy looking at it. I look at the painted STAR WARS poster for EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and I think, "holy crap! The original to this belongs in a gallery!" and an image like that, to me, at least, is very memorable. Whether it makes me want to go see a movie, I don't know ... probably not. But if I'm in the market for a movie like that, then yes, the poster will certainly be of interest to me. STAR TREK III's movie poster happens to be my favorite and it just looks incredible. And despite the fact that it was a very stylized painting, it so represents the conents of the movie and does it so well, that my appreciation for it only grows. Movies are a great medium for artists of ALL types - and I hope that could still include Traditional Art. I think it should!
^ One thing I did appreciate about 'The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull', and even the Star Wars prequels to that matter, is that Lucas and Spielberg did employ painted movie posters. I hope the Disney guys do the same for the upcoming movie (I don't doubt that JJ might prefer it, being the afficionado of the series that he apparently is, but whether "the suits" up there in the House of Mouse think it's a good idea is another matter).
I wasn't gonna bring this up AGAIN,but since you mention KANE ... Wise is also the guy who didn't save a workprint of Welles' cut of AMBERSONS and was the major participant in the subsequenb butchering of the film. I can understand him wanting to keep his job and do what the studio told him, but to not keep and/or smuggle out the original cut was disgraceful, and historically, probably one of the greatest losses to cinema ever. So I don't think his having edited KANE (which he did made SOME creative contributions to, in addition to just splicing ends together) is any particular get-out-of-jail free card for any later sins.
THE GOD THING was a staunch Wise defender, but I'm sure he could weigh in with tons more about the DE and exactly whose hands were all over it, if he were still posting here.
Separate names with a comma.