"In Thy Image" at "Unseen Elements"

[Christopher]

Here's a perfect example of the concepts not translating to the screen very well with STTMP. In the book, Roddenberry spent some time describing how Deltan women were overpowerlying sexual to human men. On the screen, we see a bald woman exuding no sexuality.

Persis Khambatta... exuding no sexuality??




Have you had your vision checked recently?

She states her "oath of celebacy is on record" with a bit of a thick accent that was hard to hear in the theater. It had no meaning. We see all the male crew members on the bridge snap their heads around to look at her and the we can't figure out why. If I hadn't read the book, this whole scene would have been a mystery.

The downplaying of Ilia's sexuality was not the fault of the filmmakers, but of the studio, which insisted on a G rating based on the absurd prejudice that science fiction is kid stuff. Given freer rein, it's a certainty that Roddenberry would've played up Ilia's sexuality very heavily onscreen. (The only other feature film Roddenberry produced, Roger Vadim's Pretty Maids All in a Row -- also scripted by GR -- was a dark sex comedy that was one of the first mainstream feature films to show frontal female nudity after the MPAA instituted the R rating that permitted it.)

The endless trip around the Enterprise in spacedock

Which meant a lot to many ST fans back in 1979, when they got to see the old girl on the big screen for the first time ever. It was an unapologetic fanwank, but the fans were entitled to one. It was a celebration of ST's return, of its arrival in the realm of big-screen, big-budget moviedom. After three decades of medium-budget films and TV shows, it's hard to realize what that meant for ST at the time.

The endless trip through Vejur (and some really bad special effects)

I find that maybe more inexplicable than your reaction to Ilia. The V'Ger flyover is still the most breathtaking, awe-inspiring visual-effects sequence I've seen in my entire life. It was brilliantly executed using state-of-the-art technology, and it still holds up as a work of cinematic art today.

Not to mention, in both cases, Jerry Goldsmith's magnificent musical accompaniment. I'll never understand how people can find it tedious to listen to that.

In the original cut, you could not tell what Vejur was (in the director's cut, they finally show Vejur for about 10 seconds)

The story made it entirely clear what V'Ger was. Knowing how it was shaped wasn't important.

Besides, it's unfair to criticize the original cut, because it was a cut that was never intended to go out to theaters. It was a rough cut that still needed to have finished effects added, extraneous footage trimmed, and the temp sound effects track replaced with a fuller version. Unfortunately the rigid contract with the theaters forced the filmmakers to release the film unfinished. So many of its flaws are due to circumstances beyond the filmmakers' control. Robert Wise hoped they would get to complete the final edit and replace the rough cut with a proper cut (since back then, films tended to stay in theaters for months or years rather than mere weeks like today), but they never got to. The Director's Edition from 2001 basically completes the film the way it was meant to be completed 22 years earlier.

The rumour that he ghosted the TMP novelization started because the French translation of the first edition had a typographical error on the title page, which left out a chunk of the correct screenwriters' and novelist credits.

Also no doubt it was partly due to confusion between the Star Trek and Star Wars novelizations, which came out two years apart. I figure people remembered that Foster had ghosted the Star ____ novel in the late '70s, but got confused about which one it was.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Persis Khambatta... exuding no sexuality??




Have you had your vision checked recently?

I'm with you. And I thought that Persis's accent and voice added to that sexuality/sensuality.

Similarly with Kirstie Alley's Saavik. I was ready to hate her character... until we hear her voice in the opening test bridge scene.

 

[TigerOfDarkness]

Besides, it's unfair to criticize the original cut, because it was a cut that was never intended to go out to theaters.

But it was the cut that went out to the theaters and was presented to the audience as the Star Trek movie.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Besides, it's unfair to criticize the original cut, because it was a cut that was never intended to go out to theaters.

Well, it's unfair to blame the director for the circumstances that were beyond his control, but criticizing the film in general terms is fair game.

 

[Christopher]

What I meant is that the discussion was in the context of how well concepts from the script had been translated to screen, and since the original cut was interrupted before that process of translation had been completed, it can't be taken purely as evidence of the filmmakers' skill in achieving that goal. It was a rough cut that by all rights should never have been seen by the public, so I think it's only fair to grant them a do-over and not judge them on the basis of their interrupted first try.

 

[FredCFO]

Persis Khambatta... exuding no sexuality??




Have you had your vision checked recently?

Yes to both -- she exuded no sexuality. Sorry, bald women have that effect on me.

The downplaying of Ilia's sexuality was not the fault of the filmmakers, but of the studio, which insisted on a G rating based on the absurd prejudice that science fiction is kid stuff. Given freer rein, it's a certainty that Roddenberry would've played up Ilia's sexuality very heavily onscreen. (The only other feature film Roddenberry produced, Roger Vadim's Pretty Maids All in a Row -- also scripted by GR -- was a dark sex comedy that was one of the first mainstream feature films to show frontal female nudity after the MPAA instituted the R rating that permitted it.)

I don't think a G rating had anything to do with this. They shaved her head.

Which meant a lot to many ST fans back in 1979, when they got to see the old girl on the big screen for the first time ever. It was an unapologetic fanwank, but the fans were entitled to one. It was a celebration of ST's return, of its arrival in the realm of big-screen, big-budget moviedom. After three decades of medium-budget films and TV shows, it's hard to realize what that meant for ST at the time.

A 15 minute travelogue was just way too long.

I find that maybe more inexplicable than your reaction to Ilia. The V'Ger flyover is still the most breathtaking, awe-inspiring visual-effects sequence I've seen in my entire life. It was brilliantly executed using state-of-the-art technology, and it still holds up as a work of cinematic art today.

The colors were drab --- light blues, greys. For something that was supposed to be a machine, it looked organic. OK, it is supposed to be alien, but it didn't have to be drab.

Not to mention, in both cases, Jerry Goldsmith's magnificent musical accompaniment. I'll never understand how people can find it tedious to listen to that.

Big Jerry Goldsmith fan, but it would have been nice to have more original themes. We had to wait an hour to hear a slowed down version of the orginal theme. The movie should have lead off with Alexander Courage's original them. IMO, the best track was "Klingon Battle".

The story made it entirely clear what V'Ger was. Knowing how it was shaped wasn't important.

Since film is a visual medium, it is very important.

Besides, it's unfair to criticize the original cut, because it was a cut that was never intended to go out to theaters. It was a rough cut that still needed to have finished effects added, extraneous footage trimmed, and the temp sound effects track replaced with a fuller version. Unfortunately the rigid contract with the theaters forced the filmmakers to release the film unfinished. So many of its flaws are due to circumstances beyond the filmmakers' control. Robert Wise hoped they would get to complete the final edit and replace the rough cut with a proper cut (since back then, films tended to stay in theaters for months or years rather than mere weeks like today), but they never got to. The Director's Edition from 2001 basically completes the film the way it was meant to be completed 22 years earlier.

Sure you can criticize that, since that is what everyone saw. Besides, it wasn't general well known what was going on with the production schedule. Because of all the missteps, they only had three weeks to edit instead of the usual six months. The director's cut cleaned some things up, but they should have reduced the run time. Instead it went from its already bloated 132 minutes to 136 minutes. It could have been reduced to 90 minutes.

 

[Christopher]

Yes to both -- she exuded no sexuality. Sorry, bald women have that effect on me.

The top of her head was not where my attention was...

Personally, I think a shaven head can be very sexy on a woman, if her head is nicely shaped. It's good to open yourself to exotic possibilities.

A 15 minute travelogue was just way too long.

It's incompetent and dishonest to make up random statistics to make your points. The Enterprise flyby sequence was only 6 minutes long, and that's including the dialogue in the travel pod.

The colors were drab --- light blues, greys. For something that was supposed to be a machine, it looked organic. OK, it is supposed to be alien, but it didn't have to be drab.

What the hell?? You say the special effects are bad because you didn't like the colors?????

And what the hell is wrong with it looking organic? That was the whole bloody point -- that it was something beyond a mere machine, that it was such an advanced machine that it had grown around the Voyager 6 core like a living thing.

Neither of those criticisms has anything to do with the quality of the photographic effects work created by Douglas Trumbull and John Dykstra. They aren't bad special effects just because a couple of their design aspects don't appeal to your narrow tastes.

The story made it entirely clear what V'Ger was. Knowing how it was shaped wasn't important.

Since film is a visual medium, it is very important.

Bull. You don't need to see a satellite photo revealing the shape of Manhattan Island in order to appreciate West Side Story. Honestly, these are some of the most bizarre, petty criticisms of TMP I've ever heard in my life.

 

[FredCFO]

It's incompetent and dishonest to make up random statistics to make your points.... What the hell?? You say the special effects are bad because you didn't like the colors?????...They aren't bad special effects just because a couple of their design aspects don't appeal to your narrow tastes.... Bull... Honestly, these are some of the most bizarre, petty criticisms of TMP I've ever heard in my life.

Gee, Christopher...it's nice to have an open discussion with you about Star Trek: the Motion Picture. Gene Roddenberry pitched how great Star Trek could be if only there were time, money, reduced censorship from a network, etc. This movie simply didn't do that. TOS stands as a classic on its own merits, some of the movies approach that ( II, IV and VI), TNG was able to do lot things the original couldn't (bigger budgets, longer run, no network interference, etc.), DS9, Voyager and Enterprise added things here and there.

• the criticism of the fly around of the Enterprise has been around since 12/07/79, it was criticized again when it was not dealt with in the director's cut
• the special effects were rushed due to production problems, the sound effects were minimal again because of the production schedule
• plenty of people have criticized Persis Khambatta and her makeup

Feel free to criticize my ideas, you don't have to criticize me.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Gene Roddenberry pitched how great Star Trek could be if only there were time, money, reduced censorship from a network, etc. This movie simply didn't do that.

For you.

It certainly did for me. And Christopher. And lots of other ST fans (and not-yet-ST fans till they saw TMP).

And lots of people found Persis/Ilia sexy.

 

[gastrof]

...Too bad the movie series did not lead off with TWOK.

It's been said that on the set of WOK, Dee Kelley said "THIS is Star Trek I."

Apparently he wasn't in love with the first movie either.

 

[Cyrus]

If the movie series had led off with TWOK then I probably wouldn't be on board as a hard core Trek fan. Come to think of it maybe that wouldn't have been such a bad thing.

 

[Therin of Andor]

If the movie series had led off with TWOK then I probably wouldn't be on board as a hard core Trek fan.

A lot of what I loved about ST:TMP was missing from ST II. In 1980, I was ready to see telemovies or features using the TMP cast, sets, costumes and aliens, and stories culled from the "Phase II" scripts.

 

[Maurice]

Personally, what was wrong with Persis as "sexy" was that she didn't have screen presence in the part...not that she had much opportunity to, with handful of lines before being reduced to a robot. On-screen charisma is not something everyone has.

I agree that seeing V'ger as a whole wasn't necessary. We never see Rosemary's Baby, right? In fact, as rendered in the DE it was really a flat reveal. Some of the other unused storyboards of it eclipsing the Sun, etc., were far more interesting and would have given you just enough of a look without destroying the mystery.

I have to agree with Therin...sure a lot of fans think that TWOK was the way to go, but a lot of other fans, myself included, didn't like that direction and were more interested in the direction that TMP was going.

 

[Lieut. Arex]

A lot of what I loved about ST:TMP was missing from ST II. In 1980, I was ready to see telemovies or features using the TMP cast, sets, costumes and aliens, and stories culled from the "Phase II" scripts.

An adaptation of "Kitumba" is something I would have liked to have seen as the second or third film.

As much as I like TWoK, in some ways it would have been better had that film not been made or rather made without Spock's death. I know that was a condition Nimoy set for doing the film, but the next two movies spend their time restoring the status quo as it was at the end of TMP--the crew whole and on the/an Enterprise--largely because one actor changed his mind. Two films wasted putting the pieces back in place with the second being a warm fuzzy reworking of TMP's basic plot with George and Gracie standing in for Decker and Ilia. "Out there. Thataway", "The Human Adventure is just beginning" was tossed aside for, literally in TWoK's case, TV movies at the theater. The films are small and cheap. Aside from TVH, there's essentially no location shooting and that only because the story takes place in 20th century San Francisco. Single ships are shown when fleets should appear (TUC). There's nothing alien, no pushing of a boundary, just inside baseball plots on a sound stage.

It kills me, and I think this true of Pocket's "non-fiction" books as well, that Paramount continually produced weaker films on tighter budgets and wondered why their returns diminished. Now they're lavishing time and money with XI trying to rebuild the very franchise they eroded away with a stream of conceptually safe, visually narrow, relatively low-budget films. All were enjoyable to be certain, at least in part, but looking back at the missed opportunities is sad.

 

[Christopher]

I understand why people like TWOK for its more character-driven storytelling, but it took the Trek universe in a fundamentally different direction from what GR wanted it to be. ST was created to be an adult-oriented, naturalistic SF drama, getting away from the fantasy and melodrama of other SFTV shows of the time and approaching the genre with the same grounded approach as a courtroom drama or hospital show. You can see it in the early first season especially, the sense of these people doing their daily jobs and leading their lives while just happening to be in space, the mundane banter about food and hobbies, the background texture of people doing maintenance and repairs. TOS drifted away from that somewhat as it went on, but that was the intent: science fiction as naturalistic adult drama.

And TMP tried to return to that, to some degree. It did disappoint in terms of character drama, but under Robert Wise's direction, it had the same sense of clinical, understated naturalism as Wise's The Andromeda Strain, and its design and conceptual work had a lot of realism and care in the technical detail.

But then TWOK came along and threw any trace of naturalism out the window. Scientific plausibility was utterly abandoned with the absurdity of the Genesis Device and with the transformation of space combat into a mix of a submarine movie and the Battle of Trafalgar. And instead of naturalistic, grounded character drama, we got cartoony melodrama and operatic extremes. The character of Khan, who'd been a rich, nuanced character in "Space Seed," a believably complex leader of men, was reduced to a one-dimensional scenery-chewing madman. Worst of all, in my view, the focus of the series was redefined from science-fiction drama with action elements to action-adventure space opera.

Sure, there's no question that TWOK made Trek far more successful. But it did so by changing it into something less sophisticated and less believable.

 

[TigerOfDarkness]

The Balance Of Terror is one of the most popular TOS episodes and is very much a submarine movie in space.

 

[Fedaykin]

The Enterprise "travelogue" is one of the most pleasurable sequences I have ever seen. I was only 5 when TMP came out, so I've only seen it on TV.(it's better on my big flatscreen now) I can only imagine what it felt like being a Trekkie back then and seeing your ship in such a wonderful scale, and looking like a real ship. I guess that sort of sequence doesn't fly nowadays, attention spans being what they are. people used to enjoy the grandeur of the big screen, and TMP kinda fits into that mindset.

I always liked the sci-fi aesthetic of TMP, as compared to the other films. I have to agree with Christopher Bennet that in a way, the films became less than what they could be, in relation to science fiction. Not saying they aren't fun, great movies...but TMP is really the only science fiction movie in that series.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

If the movie series had led off with TWOK then I probably wouldn't be on board as a hard core Trek fan.

A lot of what I loved about ST:TMP was missing from ST II. In 1980, I was ready to see telemovies or features using the TMP cast, sets, costumes and aliens, and stories culled from the "Phase II" scripts.

Fo' sure. "Kitumba" would've made a better sequel than TWoK. When I was a kid, I ate up the look, feel and melodrama of TWoK but as I grew up, I wanted Trek to return to the serious, adult-naturalistic science-fiction that it was in the early first-season (as Christopher points out). Something I craved from TNG and the various spin-offs, especially ENT which seemed to be perfect for a more naturalistic setting. It's something I hope Abrams inserts into his Trek movie (which seems to be his intentions).

What I loved about TMP and the early first-season episodes was that they put you there in that world and made it seem so believable. These people weren't icons, but just people who were good at their job and doing that job.

As for seeing V'Ger, not seeing the threat makes it far more scarier because the imagination fills in the blanks and that's more powerful than actually getting every little detail handed out as if it were going out of style. Think of all the horror movies that are far more scarier because we barely see the monster or not at all. As the old adage goes, sometimes less is more.