I have got quite a weekend ahead of me

[Therin of Andor]

It seems like the prints of STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN had the roman numeral added early on in its first run.

Correct. The earliest prints, for major cinemas, were 70mm (?) and a few weeks into the run, these were replaced by 35mm (?) prints (which did have the "II") - and the original ones went off overseas for our international premieres. A few weeks into the Australian run, we, too, had "II"s on our prints.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

I would never pick a fight with Lokai, of course, but the problems with the pacing of TMP (e.g., reaction shots of the crew gaping at the viewscreen) were obviously acknowledged by the director himself, else there'd be no Special Edition. Nor were some effects shots complete in time for the 7 Dec 79 release date (too long a story to get into here), which the DE also addresses.

If Paramount could have postponed the release date to make these tweaks in '79, perhaps TMP would have been considered a success by more of the fans who had waited so long for it and (despite their disappointment) saw it more than once in the theater, as I did. The good things about it were indeed the visuals and music - surely not the script.

To be honest, I think the DC takes a wee bit of shine from the movie. Yes, I believe Robert Wise did state the DC was his preferred version of the movie, but I dunno, maybe the years and years of "Slow Motion Picture" bitching and whining may have influenced him. Whether that's true or not, it doesn't necessarily mean the new version is superior to the old - the CG reveal of V'Ger is quite crappy and extraneous for example, but I agree some of the FX "fixes" and addtions were great (CG Spock walking up steps on Vulcan).

I for one love the reaction shots, and for me, they add a lot to the epic feel of the film. Not directing this to you at all, gottacook, but I sometimes feel people are literally browbeaten into submission reference the "slowness" of the movie - or the "endless reaction" shots.

 

[JarodRussell]

What I love are people who glorify 2001 as brilliant and then criticize The Motion Picture for being slow.

 

[Alrik]

What I love are people who glorify 2001 as brilliant and then criticize The Motion Picture for being slow.

You owe me a new keyboard. But how completely true.

 

[number6]

What I love are people who glorify 2001 as brilliant and then criticize The Motion Picture for being slow.

2001 is an apple and TMP an orange.
The pacing of 2001 was part of the storytelling process. There isn't any spoken dialog through the first third of the film. The TMP sequences were long to pad the film for lack of story. TPTB wanted to see all the money they spent on the screen. It didn't help that TOS was an action adventure series. The pacing of the movie was antithetical to the feel of Star Trek. It also didn't help that the story was a rehash of an episode.

 

[gottacook]

To expand on what number6 wrote:

The reaction shots in 2001 were very few, extremely brief, and stylized with unusual color filters: Dave's reactions to what he sees in his travels through the 'star gate.' One could almost call these a parody of the SF-film reaction shot.

That is, 2001 was more concerned with showing us, the audience, wondrous things (the Blue Danube sequences, for example) which were ordinary, even boring, occurrences for the people in the movie. Those sequences were much longer than the 'star gate' sequence. By contrast, TMP (by including x number of traditional reaction shots) is about showing the crew wondrous things, with the audience along for the ride. This is the qualitative difference to be considered here.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

TMP (by including x number of traditional reaction shots) is about showing the crew wondrous things, with the audience along for the ride.

Yep, that's great, love it - an integral aspect of Star Trek for me, explore strange new worlds, seek out new life, to boldly go etc. My understanding is, certainly from the perspective of TOS, the crew are not indifferent, blasé and perfunctory - but experience a genuine sense of wonder. I love going along for that ride with those wonderful characters.

 

[gottacook]

Lokai - yes, but... the two long sequences in TMP that are full of reaction shots (I don't recall their relative length in the original cut versus the director's edition, but they're both rather long) concern (1) Kirk getting his first(?) close-up look at the refitted Enterprise in orbit, and (2) the exploration of the Vger interior. Both sequences are stuffed with reaction shots, yet only the latter fits with what you describe.

I guess I'm reacting equally to both sequences' overlength, at a distance of 31 years, and what I'm trying to recall is how I felt about the Enterprise sequence when I first saw it: Was it overkill to someone like me, bereft of new Trek since 1969 (other than the cartoons and the mid-1970s Kirk-and-Spock drug abuse radio ad)?

Maybe it felt just right, in December 1979, to luxuriously observe the ship's exterior at great length; it was great modelmaking, after all. But the same sequence now feels overlong, and Kirk's many reaction shots feel unnecessary.

However - to the extent that you're correct and that the crew's reaction to wondrous new things is indeed a great part of what Star Trek is all about, the producers of TMP would have perhaps been wise to cut the script by half. I almost wouldn't mind all the Vger reaction shots if it weren't for the dialogue in response (from the silly "now that we've got them just where they want us" to the ridiculous "Radio!?" as though the crew had never themselves used the term subspace radio, etc.)

 

[JarodRussell]

Maybe it felt just right, in December 1979, to luxuriously observe the ship's exterior at great length; it was great modelmaking, after all. But the same sequence now feels overlong, and Kirk's many reaction shots feel unnecessary.

Opinion. Don't get me started on what feels unnecessary in 2001.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

What I love are people who glorify 2001 as brilliant and then criticize The Motion Picture for being slow.

TMP is 2001 dumbed down for the literal-minded.

It's hardly a "finely-crafted film." The art design is imaginative and in some cases beautiful. The opticals are all over the place - some great, some visibly rushed. The performances are for the most part undistinguished, no more than one would expect from a '70s TV movie. Scripted dialogue is leaden. Direction is old fashioned and ponderous. Editing is clumsy. And the movie is dull and not at all smart.

Nice fly-around the Enterprise, which pleased some .001 percent of the folks who paid to see it.

 

[drazzz52923849]

I love how off topic the threads on this site get.

 

[RAMA]

Well what did YOU think and why haven't you seen them before?

 

[drazzz52923849]

I liked them all very much. i was not at all disappointed.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

Maybe it felt just right, in December 1979, to luxuriously observe the ship's exterior at great length; it was great modelmaking, after all. But the same sequence now feels overlong, and Kirk's many reaction shots feel unnecessary.

Opinion.

Correct. QFT.

What I love are people who glorify 2001 as brilliant and then criticize The Motion Picture for being slow.

TMP is 2001 dumbed down for the literal-minded.

It's hardly a "finely-crafted film."

I don't agree.

 

[JarodRussell]

there was no "II" in the original theatrical prints, nor in any of the ads before it opened. It's regrettable that even in the Director's Cut of the DVD, the "II" that was added for the first home-video release in the 1980s still appears in the opening titles. The "II" belongs on this film as much as the name "Ronald Reagan" belongs on Washington (DC) National Airport.

It wasn't just added for the video release. The initial prints omitted the II, but later prints included it. It had a II when I saw the film late in the summer.

According to TV spots, it already had a II before it was released.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PfCm7xwnUE

 

[Greg Cox]

Only slightly OT: Did anyone else catch this exchange on BIG BANG THEORY last night?

"Have you seen Star Trek: The Motion Picture?"

"No."

"Don't. It's terrible."

Ouch!

 

[JarodRussell]

Only slightly OT: Did anyone else catch this exchange on BIG BANG THEORY last night?

"Have you seen Star Trek: The Motion Picture?"

"No."

"Don't. It's terrible."

Ouch!

Is Dennis a writer on that show?

 

[number6]

What I love are people who glorify 2001 as brilliant and then criticize The Motion Picture for being slow.

TMP is 2001 dumbed down for the literal-minded.

It's hardly a "finely-crafted film." The art design is imaginative and in some cases beautiful. The opticals are all over the place - some great, some visibly rushed. The performances are for the most part undistinguished, no more than one would expect from a '70s TV movie. Scripted dialogue is leaden. Direction is old fashioned and ponderous. Editing is clumsy. And the movie is dull and not at all smart.

Thank you!! I felt that way when I saw it on opening night.
The cinematic style dated the look of the film when it came out.
Though as a younger fan, this was our opportunity to see something new for the first time. Perhaps those who watched the series in its original run may feel less so.. For those of us who came into it only through the reruns, we never had the experience of seeing it as it "happened" originally. After years of watching reruns and reading books, the anticipation for TMP was like the Beatles reuniting when you never got to see them.

That made it worth the trip for me. Many times!!
But....

It was ponderous and pompous in its presentation and it really didn't need to be.
They sacrificed a lot of the character of the original show to be able to show the level of SFX they always wanted with virtually unlimited funds.. a shit ton of money went into that. The underlying story about getting the old gang back together was interesting enough, but the V'ger aspect of the plot was a clunky retelling of the Changeling. No one in the theatre missed that, nor did they miss the painfully lengthy flyover scene. While I would be the first to admit that it looked f*cking badass on the bigscreen, it could have been cut in half.

Nice fly-around the Enterprise, which pleased some .001 percent of the folks who paid to see it.

Now, you're just being cynical!! You know if you ask ANY fan they'll tell you it was totally worth it, even the 12th time they paid to see it!!

 

[number6]

I liked them all very much. i was not at all disappointed.

The first four generally define the essence of what TOS was all about, pretty much the way First Contact does for TNG.

 

[Harvey]

According to TV spots, it already had a II before it was released.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PfCm7xwnUE

The prints with the II were struck ahead of the release date, so it's possible they changed their minds about the title soon enough to change the marketing materials, but not the prints (until three weeks later).