I just realized why I rate TMP as the best movie!

[Kegek]

Sharr Khan said:
I don't take it as a given that "2001" is the best in science fiction either or rather I don't take Clarke as our default golden measure here.

Well, 2001 and Arthur C. Clarke are certainly among the best of the genre in the film and literary world.

There's alot more to an interesting thoughtful story then getting all the "science right" (which TMP not matter what would fail anyhow...)

True. While the film aspires to present its scenario in science-fiction terms more realistically than many of the other films, it still has the basic impossibilities and impluasibilities of warp drive, aliens who are just humans with pointed ears, and so on.

But did does succeed with sci-fi in the world of ideas. The concept of the living machine that needs to evolve, and so on, is well executed. And, of course, it is a stupenduous visual feast - brilliant set, costume, and modelwork, and an evocative score by Goldsmith.

TMP first and foremost fails for me as entertainment its true reason for being, this is its most unforgivable sin.

I find the film immensely entertaining. It's a bit like Forbidden Planet, I can just put it in and enjoy it. Yes, it's no Forbidden Planet, but I don't need to clear my mind like I do when I watch 2001.

Best analogue here when "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" (well many of the prequels) made an attempt at political commentary - it was totally out of place in the Star Wars universe the same as these supposed "higher aspirations".

Probably the most interesting thing in the prequels were their unsubtle stabs at political commentary. Wrapped in a soulless vaccum of colourless characters and gaudy effects, at least there was something pointing in a potentially interesting direction.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Since the show had been off the air for ten years, and the sizes of both the screen and the budget were increasing, it was natural for them to try to "reinvent" the world depicted in the show, the same way they reinvented the look of the Enterprise. Plus, it wasn't going to out-action/adventure Star Wars, so it did things differently in order to stand out in the sea of Star Wars imitations that existed at the time.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Dane_Whitman said:
I especially have difficulty with this in "The Final Frontier", which is made harder knowing he [Shatner] directed it himself.

Agreed; he really nailed the other characters, but got Kirk wrong.

Terrible movie.

No.

In VI however it feels more like Kirk & the Gang again

Like hell. Kirk & gang weren't rapists.

 

[Nebusj]

Sharr Khan said:
Trek could be serious, but usually there was an amount of lightness there as well which is so lost in TMP (I find the title a put off as well - but that's another thread).

But that lack of lightness -- the casual and friendly feeling poking out only in moments -- is part of the story of the movie. Much of the film has a theme of learning to be comfortable being yourself while still striving to transcend it. That Kirk-and-company are still learning how to speak to one another is part of that theme.

 

[RyanKCR]

Nebusj said:

Sharr Khan said:
Trek could be serious, but usually there was an amount of lightness there as well which is so lost in TMP (I find the title a put off as well - but that's another thread).

But that lack of lightness -- the casual and friendly feeling poking out only in moments -- is part of the story of the movie. Much of the film has a theme of learning to be comfortable being yourself while still striving to transcend it. That Kirk-and-company are still learning how to speak to one another is part of that theme.

Except McCoy. He never changes: "Why is any object we don't understand always called a thing?"

"...and they probably redesigned the whole sickbay too. I know engineers, they love to change things."

"Isn't it lucky we just happened to be heading your way?"

"...what do you suggest we do...spank it?"

"Your child is having a tantrum."

 

[aridas sofia]

I'm trying to recall the amount of humor in some of my favorite episodes. Like "The Corbomite Maneuver" -- the only humor in that episode was between Kirk and McCoy in sickbay, and strongly resembled the repartee between them in the transporter room and officer's lounge in TMP.

And what of "Balance of Terror"? Or "The Doomsday Machine"? No humor there.

To quote Yoda, "Humor does not a good Star Trek episode make."

 

[Sharr Khan]

Probably the most interesting thing in the prequels were their unsubtle stabs at political commentary. Wrapped in a soulless vaccum of colourless characters and gaudy effects, at least there was something pointing in a potentially interesting direction.

Despite the fact that I own them all - GL's sudden political awareness really grates on me. Once agian this sudden "relevance" serves to distract rather then enhance for me.

Well, 2001 and Arthur C. Clarke are certainly among the best of the genre in the film and literary world.

I'm sure it succeeds far better in the literary world. Still not the stick by which I measure my enjoyment of science fiction or fiction in general.

But did does succeed with sci-fi in the world of ideas. The concept of the living machine that needs to evolve, and so on, is well executed. And, of course, it is a stupenduous visual feast - brilliant set, costume, and modelwork, and an evocative score by Goldsmith.

I really like the overture...
It still for me spends way to much time showcasing its FX and not getting to its story (the limited story that is there). I really hate the Enterprise flyby - introduce me to the "upgraded" Enterprise in action not flying around it.

You're right it is no "Forbidden Planet", at least FP explored its ideas and they seemed organic to what was going on. People spend way to much time gawking in this movie.

I won't comment on the costumes, I would have made those less pajama like (a problem Trek's been trying to get over for awhile now) not to mention stand out from the sets more.

McCoy is actually the only relatable figure in this piece. I also can't believe they went through such hoops to make Kirk a "Capitan" either when he could have just as easily taking command as an admiral - as I understood it they changed this because they feared the fans would not care for an Admiral Kirk in command so they went through gymnastics to reduce Decker in rank.

I suppose this is all a matter of tastes and perceptions. My perception of this film is colored by having read the novel the same is true of Trek V - but with an inverted effect on how I view the film.

Sharr

 

[trevanian]

Yule Gibbons said:
I'm trying to recall the amount of humor in some of my favorite episodes. Like "The Corbomite Maneuver" -- the only humor in that episode was between Kirk and McCoy in sickbay, and strongly resembled the repartee between them in the transporter room and officer's lounge in TMP.

And what of "Balance of Terror"? Or "The Doomsday Machine"? No humor there.

To quote Yoda, "Humor does not a good Star Trek episode make."

You forget Spock and Bailey with all the having your adrenal gland removed stuff? Or Scotty to Spock: May heaven have helped your mother.

DOOMSDAY MACHINE generates some of the best nervous laughs in all of TREK: Gentlemen, I suggest you beam me aboard ...
and
Scotty, I think its great. Scotty get us out of here.

BoT has got some feeble attempt at humor with Rand reporting near the end, but hey, BoT, like DOOMSDAY, was pretty great trek for me.

I think most of great trek DOES have a strong flavor of comedy, usually during Gene Coon's reign. Humor that comes out of character interaction/conflict really was a TOS mainstay in my opinion.

 

[aridas sofia]

Well, Trev, my point is that TMP's tone is very first season. Right down to Shatner's stilted acting. And I think you'll agree that humor isn't what made the first season great. It was a very well conceived sense of believability -- all that research paid off. The cast hadn't been together long enough for it to seem too chummy. It still had an air of professionalism, just as you'd expect form people that have to deal with life and death decisions every day. Sure -- they have fun and laugh. But when the shit hits the fan, the fun stops.

 

[Kegek]

Sharr Khan said:
Despite the fact that I own them all - GL's sudden political awareness really grates on me. Once agian this sudden "relevance" serves to distract rather then enhance for me.

To be fair, it wasn't sudden. Lucas says he plotted the political aspects out in the seventies and it was influenced by Nixon and Vietnam, which in context it really appears to be. (Nixon and Vietnam by way of exaggeration and conspiracy theory, anyway). His first sci-fi film THX 1138, was also quite politically aware. Issues of the corruption of power is at the heart of the light/dark force metaphor. So this isn't new... it's just more overt. Now, it being overt may not in itself be a good thing - the earlier films worked as broad strokes of good versus evil while the prequels had labrynthine political machinations that were thinly veiled commentaries. But it's the reverse of being the worst thing about those films.

I'm sure it succeeds far better in the literary world. Still not the stick by which I measure my enjoyment of science fiction or fiction in general.

And that's just a matter of taste. I've enjoyed 2001 and Clarke since boyhood.

I really like the overture...

On this, we agree. I wish every Star Trek movie had an overture. I wish more movies in general had overtures. I say get rid of those goddamn beer commericals at the start of movies and give me my overtures back.

It still for me spends way to much time showcasing its FX and not getting to its story (the limited story that is there).

The beautiful FX is, however, much of the story. Especially V'Ger. The idea of V'Ger being something strange, alien, enormous - this is conveyed by image. V'ger's cold and mechanical nature - a downward glance from Khambatta, shimmering strings ending in a low, metallic rumble from Goldsmith. The film is a story in pictures and in music first and foremost. The dialogue is at its best when dealing with philosophical ideas, it can become a bit clunkier elsewhere.

I really hate the Enterprise flyby - introduce me to the "upgraded" Enterprise in action not flying around it.

It is a duet. A romance. A waltz. Kirk, and the Enterprise, and Goldsmith's score. I love every minute of it.

You're right it is no "Forbidden Planet", at least FP explored its ideas and they seemed organic to what was going on. People spend way to much time gawking in this movie.

I'm less interested in their gawking then what they're gawking at. Apogee really outdid themselves for this film, and it shows.

I won't comment on the costumes, I would have made those less pajama like (a problem Trek's been trying to get over for awhile now) not to mention stand out from the sets more.

Wise had the costumes toned down so people would focus on the character's faces, not their costumes. I think it was a wise choice, and I love the sombre, laboratory-like aesthetic in the ship, including the pajamas. My other favourite uniform is TNG's - so my position on 'should the uniforms look like pajamas' should be obvious.

McCoy is actually the only relatable figure in this piece. I also can't believe they went through such hoops to make Kirk a "Capitan" either when he could have just as easily taking command as an admiral - as I understood it they changed this because they feared the fans would not care for an Admiral Kirk in command so they went through gymnastics to reduce Decker in rank.

I think it was explained better when this was a pilot script; apparently his rank change is consequent on him getting this job. Or something like that. I found the most relatable characters to probably be Decker and Ilia, actually. McCoy was alright in this film, but a little stiff. He said 'Captain sir' way too much. Since when did he start saying that?

I suppose this is all a matter of tastes and perceptions. My perception of this film is colored by having read the novel the same is true of Trek V - but with an inverted effect on how I view the film.

I've read the 'In Thy Image' script, this has also coloured my view. Not particularly negatively, though.

 

[RyanKCR]

The reason for McCoy's "captian, sir" was his needling Kirk. He guessed Kirk wrested command of the Enterprise back and wanted Kirk to know that he was not happy about this. He felt Kirk was thinking more of himself then of the mission.

 

[Deleted 2]

As I've said before in other threads, I don't think sci-fi movies are automatically intelligent because they're slow, have little dialogue, and have lots of pretty pictures.

2001 is very bad in this way; people who claim to have gotten profound ideas from it generally seem to have used it as a sort of mirror for their own narcissism.

TMP, at least, has content. That still doesn't make it particularly profound.

 

[Kegek]

Zero Hour said:
2001 is very bad in this way; people who claim to have gotten profound ideas from it generally seem to have used it as a sort of mirror for their own narcissism.

Pretty much. Though I gather you posess that popular stigma associated with narcissism. Narcissism is a glorious thing; I'm an evangelizing narcissist.

But to be slightly more serious, film is very much a visual medium. Many great films, including of the sci-fi variety, have communicated their messages and drama largely through pictures. 2001 is a classic example, the silent Metropolis another. Absence of dialogue and pretty pictures don't make a film automnatically intelligent, nor does lots and lots of dialogue. It's a case-by-case basis; the content, not the nature of the content.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Zero Hour said:
As I've said before in other threads, I don't think sci-fi movies are automatically intelligent because they're slow, have little dialogue, and have lots of pretty pictures.

2001 is very bad in this way; people who claim to have gotten profound ideas from it generally seem to have used it as a sort of mirror for their own narcissism.

TMP, at least, has content. That still doesn't make it particularly profound.

You pretty much summed up some of my feelings here.


If Robert Wise really thought giving the crew drab uniforms would somehow make the actors faces more noticeable my opinion of his directing skills has dropped. Usually the viewer pays attention to *where the camera is pointed* they could have been wearing the TOS outfits and the same effect could have been archived by simply, you know pointing the camera at their faces.

Sharr

 

[Kegek]

Sharr Khan said:
Usually the viewer pays attention to *where the camera is pointed* they could have been wearing the TOS outfits and the same effect could have been archived by simply, you know pointing the camera at their faces.

What about medium and long shots? The uniforms are bright, bright clothing does call attention to itself. It's logical enough.

 

[Sharr Khan]

What about medium and long shots? The uniforms are bright, bright clothing does call attention to itself. It's logical enough.

That never seemed to be an issue in the past or present of all movie making, otherwise costume designers would be required to go lowkey in most major films. See that's what I mean, its taking on airs of profoundness... its trying way to hard at it.

There's only one longshot I recall from the bridge and its right around where Illia is getting zapped. No one's doing much talking then.

And then the attention to F/X really does take you away from the actors in any event. What do I care about the actors faces by the time they discover the Earth probe at the center of all this F/X? By that point its academic.

Sharr

 

[trevanian]

Look at Wise's ANDROMEDA STRAIN and you can see the costumes-matching-walls thing when it works ... because there is some snap to the color (same cameraman too.) Even the diopter (split focus) stuff works better there because there is contrast in the sets and the lighting. The wishy washy contrast created by using soft fill (usually from the side) in TMP doesn't make that costume/wall thing work, and the idiocy of lighting FROM THE FLOOR on aging actors doesn't service anyone well.

I would have been happy with bright TOS-like uniforms, but to be honest, if they'd all looked like the penguin thing Kirk had on at first, I probably wouldn't have been all that pissed. As stupid as a tunic that looks like an untucked shirt is IMO, that one had some style to it.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Hey I would have been pleased if they looked a bit "Forbidden Planet" myself, since those uniforms have texture and are interesting to look at even though they're gray.

Chances are if you're doing a wideshot faces aren't your primary concern so that seems rather odd argument to assert that the costumes would draw away attention from the actors faces.

the obvious answer is, this was a popular design ethic of the time so of course Trek had to have in on it as well.

Sharr

 

[Kegek]

Sharr Khan said:
the obvious answer is, this was a popular design ethic of the time so of course Trek had to have in on it as well.

I think more important than its popularity is the use of such a style in Wise's previous science fiction film, The Andromeda Strain, as trevanian has already noted.

Forbidden Planet has a superb look, but it's a very 50s pulp look - like a cover of Astounding Science Fiction made into a movie. TMP goes for a different, more subdued visual style - all blues, greys and whites. I love that combination.

Incidentally, and this should come as no surprise, I consider Space: 1999 to have the best design aesthetic of any sci-fi TV show.

 

[Red Ranger]

Sharr Khan said:
Hey I would have been pleased if they looked a bit "Forbidden Planet" myself, since those uniforms have texture and are interesting to look at even though they're gray.

Chances are if you're doing a wideshot faces aren't your primary concern so that seems rather odd argument to assert that the costumes would draw away attention from the actors faces.

the obvious answer is, this was a popular design ethic of the time so of course Trek had to have in on it as well.

Sharr

Sharr,

I have to say that of all the TMP criticisms I've seen on this board, yours, in this thread in particular, resonant with me. I'm not a huge fan of TMP, and I think you've articulated many of the reasons why.

I have always maintained that the reason I don't like TMP is it tries to be hard to be 2001, a film I love. The costume design is horrible, and it's far too much like "The Changeling" with bigger sets, more FX, and too many staring reaction shots. The movie seemed to be designed just for design's sake, if that makes sense to anyone.

I much prefer TWOK, despite its overreliance on stock footage of the Enterprise. They thankfully redesigned the interiors of the ship as well as the costumes to a more vibrant color palette, and those films didn't suffer because they sacrificed the dull earth tones of the first film.

And to state the obvious, there is actual movement in the TWOK story, despite some of the nitpicking implausibiliities of just how far Reliant is compared to Earth, if they've really been "out there" searching for a site for Genesis.

Red Ranger