• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

ST-TMP: your first time...

Here's a little something I quickly worked up comparing each film's budget and world box office take and then adjusting both for inflation.



In this light TMP made a shitload of money and ranks in the top three for the most financial successful of the Trek films. The difference among the top three films is negiigable. All the other films rank significantly lower.

In terms of return on budget TWOK is the runaway winner earning back eight times its budget. Of course, its budget (as well as TSFS) was significantly less than TMP's because of the re-use of established sets and other resources.

Ranked in terms of world box office:
STID
TMP
ST09
TVH
TWOK
FC
TSFS
GEN
TUC
TFF
INS
NEM

Ranked in terms of return on budget:
TWOK
TVH
TSFS
TMP
TUC
FC
GEN
ST09
STID
TFF
INS
NEM
 
While TVH seems to be a favourite of many and TFF a least favourite I actually rate TFF over TVH. There's just too much crap in TVH. I find TVH embarrassing and TFF a noble failure with some redeeming qualities.

Hmm. It's interesting how people can come up at this from completely opposite directions. I adore TVH and can watch it endlessly, but I can't stand TFF which I watch only for research purposes--and only when I absolutely have to.
 
Off to get educated about how to live in a world three centuries removed from the one she knew? I hate TVH almost as much as I hate TFF (I like my Star Trek--oh, how do I say this?--not stupid) but that line never bothered me.

Of course she needs to catch up, that's not the point. The point is that she doesn't mention the whales. The whales are forgotten by this point. They're just a MacGuffin to be sure, but at this point we learn that so is Gillian. She's superfluous to everything, even the whales. You'd think that she'd at least mention how she can't wait to get back to them.

I gotta agree, it would have been more satisfying for Gillian to remain in the 20th century looking after her cause (saving the whales), informed ever more so by her knowledge that they *do* die out in the future. It'd be in character, too.

Am I right in thinking somebody (the novelization?) hand-waved it away as her being useful in the 24th century, being one of the few people with the specialist first-hand knowledge to lead a new whale breeding programme? Shame that wasn't mentioned in the movie either. Or was it? :confused:
 
I gotta agree, it would have been more satisfying for Gillian to remain in the 20th century looking after her cause (saving the whales), informed ever more so by her knowledge that they *do* die out in the future. It'd be in character, too.

Well, to be clear, I didn't say that either. All I said was that it's ridiculous that she leaves everything behind to come to the future only to totally forget about the whales. Either option, staying in the past to try to change history or coming with George and Gracie but actually to be with them, makes more sense than the half-baked seemingly tacked-on ending for Gillian that we got. The freaking guest-star of the film deserves better than what we got. I'm sure people will argue that they never said she wasn't staying with the whales on her science mission, but the point is that it was completely out of character not to mention that, if she was in fact going to be with them.

Edit: Gillian doesn't have to go to the whales either. She's entitled to change her mind and go off flying around the galaxy to learn about the future, and maybe, if George and Grace are being honest, Gillian reminds them too much of captivity. In any case, my point is that, given everything that transpired before, the whales still deserved final mention before Gillian exits stage left.
 
Last edited:
Well, Gillian said she was off to her ship. She didn't say starship or even space ship. I assumed she meant ship, as in "travels on water." Unlike radio, which is probably mostly used in the 23rd Century with subspace as a modifier, the term "ship" could still refer commonly to boats--like the one Scotty bought just before the Sarek-Gorkon peace initiative pulled him out of retirement.
 
She referred to it as a "science vessel" and said "see you around the galaxy." I'm pretty sure she meant a starship, and never had any reason to think otherwise.
 
....Devil there, not the shaggy demon we got. Geez, for a Hollywood film, that idea was edgy enough to probably offend all the folks who boycotted LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST and THE RAPTURE.

Yeah., but it's a big "so what"? So, you discover there is a God, and...?

Start even bigger theological wars than we already had over him, I guess. (point taken, okay?)

I meant as in a dramatic "and...?" what does this mean for the story? :)
 
She referred to it as a "science vessel" and said "see you around the galaxy." I'm pretty sure she meant a starship, and never had any reason to think otherwise.

I always assumed she meant spaceship and I suspect that was what was intended, although I'll grant that there's some wiggle room there if you really want to look for it.

As a general rule of thumb, however: When somebody on STAR TREK mentions a "ship," they're probably not talking to about going to sea! :)
 
...unless they are marine biologists who just followed two whales they viewed as their children three centuries into the future but okay.
 
When Star Trek - The Motion Picture first premiered in December, 1979 I was already 20 years old, and about ten years after I started watching TOS

TMP was coming at the close of a drawn out decade where the last new Trek onscreen had been TAS five years ealier. Five years can seem like an eternity to a teenager. Before TMP when I had been in high school there had been some buzz about the forthcoming feature. But the only advance information we could get was in sci-fi and fantasy magazines, occasional newspaper articles and feature articles in magazines like Starlog and Omni. One might also pick up some news at conventions, which was something I wasn't frequenting yet. Whatever articles (and photos) we ran across could be considered gold since information could be scant compared to what we can learn about a film today before it's released.

I, too, had reservations when seeing some of Ralph McQuarries concept paintings early on, but as the realease drew nearer and Phase II pics started surfacing as well as lastly actual TMP shots then I started to feel more reassured.

The anticipation was almost unbearable. Star Trek was then (and remains still) my favourite television series. It consumed me and I soaked up every scrap pf knowledge and trivia I could lay my hands on. You can be assured I was there on opening night.

Over the years I've seen TMP (in vaious versions) numerous enough times. Last year is when I most recently revisited the DE version. Looking back my feelings haven't changed much although in some respects I like the film more now than way back in '79. I see it in a somewhat different perspective that allows me to appreciate some things that might not have registered consciously originally.


Opening night:

The opening credits with the main title theme. Stirring with a touch of bombast. But I will say I missed the familiar Star Trek fanfare (which we'd hear next in TWOK).

Without question TMP was visually breathtaking. This was Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek writ large. Today we can be almost desensitized to the splashy and polished f/x of contemporary visual spectacles---practically anything that can be imagined can be realized. But back then you simply couldn't have been prepared for the opening sequence of three detailed Klingon battle cruisers approaching the Vger cloud. Then we got to see the new look Klingons. And then we got to hear them speak in their own language (with English subtitles). :techman:

It..was..mind-blowing.

You're still absorbing that opening sequence when you find yourself on Vulcan. Here Vulcan seems more alien than it did in "Amok Time" and certainly more expansive. The music feels appropriately strange...and then the Spock and the Vulcans are speaking their own language. :techman:

You've just been repeating "Holy shit!" to yourself during the first several minutes of the film when you next find yourself at Starfleet Central in San Francisco. And the audience erupts when Admiral James T. Kirk appears on the screen, completely drowning out the film. :techman:

Things slow down a bit broken only by a cheer for the appearance of Commander Montgomery Scott. What follows is a mixture of silent and whispered "OMG!" throughout the crowd...

The refit Enterprise is revealed.

Today there can be a lot of groaning over this scene. Contemporary audiences don't seem to really care for it. But there is context at play here. Today most SF tech in film and television, no matter how cool looking, is still basically hardware to the creators and the audience. And that includes pretty much every Trek ship since the film era of including each successive new version of Enterprise after the refit. But to starving Trek fans this was the reveal of one of TOS' most popular characters: THE starship Enterpirse.

It..was..gorgeous! And many of us felt like Kirk as he looked over the new ship. And as then no succesive Trek ship has managed to look so nice on the screen.

The WTF moments would slow down after these incredible sequences broken by successive cheers for the reveal of each familiar character from TOS, but most particularly for McCoy and Spock. The Vulcan shuttle sequence was also wicked.

It's not long after this that TMP started to run into trouble. It never got bad, but it could start to drag, most notably during the Vger flyover sequences. Back then as an awed 20 year old I couldn't yet articulate what was wrong, but now I can say it needed to be edited and it needed more character drama to offset and liven up the proceedings. Not necessarily action in the conventional sense of run-and-jump and phaser battles, but in the character sense alike some of TOS' best moments. The film didn't back up noticeably until our heroes finally come face-to-face with Vger.

Just prior to that sequence I still recall one distinct moment of disappointment with the f/x: the moment the crew go out on the hull. The scaling and perspective were so poorly done and in such constrast to what was otherwise a spectacular looking film.

My mind was spinning when I left the theatre. In many respects I was blown away with what I had just seen. But that said I still recall a measure of doubt over something (at the time) I couldn't put my finger on.

Even with my misgivings I was ecstatic that live-action Star Trek was back. The ending sequence left little doubt in my mind that further adventures would follow, only it remained to be seen what form they would take. In the iterim I read quite a few of the subsequent Trek novels being published as if they were picking up where TMP left off.

Over the years my opinion of the film wavered as I was exposed to ever fading prints of the film on television. It became more sterile and monochrome looking. Eventually I picked up a VHS release of the SLV cut seen on television. The picture and colour looked much better and the addition of previously cut scenes helped alleviate some of the protracted f/x sequences. But it wouldn't be until seeing the DE version that I would really start to appreciate the film on a level more like how I felt in 1979. And in some respects even more so. The editing certainly tightened things up. I still regret the missing extra character drama, but that's something you can't cgi into a film.

A few years later in 1982 I went to the premiere of TWOK. That, too, was a mixed experience. It was definitely more energetic than TMP, but I really didn't care for the new look of the uniforms and the somewhat retro approach Nicholas Meyer layered into it. At the time I thought, even with my criticisms, TWOK was better in overall execution. But since those days my opinioned has swung. Now TMP is the film I prefer and TWOK comes in a conditional second.


Anyone else recall their first time?

FicPic27.jpg

As a child who was 12 at the time, and had only seen TNG season 6+7 on Fox 45 WBFF, I rented my first Trek movie from the library Star trek 5. The fist time I saw the Enterprise, I said aloud thats not the enterprise. This Star Trek was different than what i was used to. I didnt understand how they were in dif time peroids and alll
 
TUC's final budget was absolutely 30 mil, not 27, which was the point of departure for the budget, the number at which it got greenlit. That's all direct from Steven-Charles Jaffe, speaking the same month the film went into theatrical release.

I thought TMP's figure was pretty solidly 44, that 35 was just for the production w/o other charges.

Also, the gross figure for TMP worldwide that was bandied about endlessly in 80-81 was 175 mil. I have no idea how to reconcile that with this 139 number everybody has now.

Mike Minor claimed TWOK came in at 13 mil because of all the insane overtime to get sets ready to shoot each day, since Par didn't allot enough stage space. Unsubstantiated, i guess ...

I've seen claims that TFF ran to 33 mil. The number for INS seems high, as the reshoots ran the budget up to 68, not 70.





Here's a little something I quickly worked up comparing each film's budget and world box office take and then adjusting both for inflation.



In this light TMP made a shitload of money and ranks in the top three for the most financial successful of the Trek films. The difference among the top three films is negiigable. All the other films rank significantly lower.

In terms of return on budget TWOK is the runaway winner earning back eight times its budget. Of course, its budget (as well as TSFS) was significantly less than TMP's because of the re-use of established sets and other resources.

Ranked in terms of world box office:
STID
TMP
ST09
TVH
TWOK
FC
TSFS
GEN
TUC
TFF
INS
NEM

Ranked in terms of return on budget:
TWOK
TVH
TSFS
TMP
TUC
FC
GEN
ST09
STID
TFF
INS
NEM
 
Yeah., but it's a big "so what"? So, you discover there is a God, and...?

Start even bigger theological wars than we already had over him, I guess. (point taken, okay?)

I meant as in a dramatic "and...?" what does this mean for the story? :)
Ummm ... changes your worldview? 'Character grows richer upon reflection,' or one of those studio reader-style quotes that sound like that?

And anyway, it is that you discover Satan, and God exists only by implication. So the existence of God is validated indirectly.

This is a weird conversation for somebody who hasn't intentionally set foot in a church in nearly 40 years except for funeral services.
 
TUC's final budget was absolutely 30 mil, not 27, which was the point of departure for the budget, the number at which it got greenlit. That's all direct from Steven-Charles Jaffe, speaking the same month the film went into theatrical release.

I thought TMP's figure was pretty solidly 44, that 35 was just for the production w/o other charges.

Also, the gross figure for TMP worldwide that was bandied about endlessly in 80-81 was 175 mil. I have no idea how to reconcile that with this 139 number everybody has now.

Mike Minor claimed TWOK came in at 13 mil because of all the insane overtime to get sets ready to shoot each day, since Par didn't allot enough stage space. Unsubstantiated, i guess ...

I've seen claims that TFF ran to 33 mil. The number for INS seems high, as the reshoots ran the budget up to 68, not 70.

FYI. I have the APRIL 12, 1991 Budget for Star Trek 6 right here in front of me. Even then it was projected to cost just over 30mil. Add any additional overages over the remaining 7 months of post and you've easily into the low 30s.

ABOVE-THE-LINE TOTAL 10,008,007

PRODUCTION TOTAL 15,857,139
POST PRODUCTION TOTAL 3,370,641
OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL 921,031
BELOW THE LINE TOTAL 19,148,811

TOTAL BUDGET 29,127,811

OVERHEAD COSTS 1,100,000

NEGATIVE COST (GRAND TOTAL) 30,227,811
 
Last edited:
Start even bigger theological wars than we already had over him, I guess. (point taken, okay?)

I meant as in a dramatic "and...?" what does this mean for the story? :)
Ummm ... changes your worldview? 'Character grows richer upon reflection,' or one of those studio reader-style quotes that sound like that?

And anyway, it is that you discover Satan, and God exists only by implication. So the existence of God is validated indirectly.

This is a weird conversation for somebody who hasn't intentionally set foot in a church in nearly 40 years except for funeral services.

I know what you mean. I suppose searching for "God" or "Eden" resonates if you're religiously inclined. But from where I was sitting it was like the Enterprise was going in search of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster. It was hard to take it seriously.
 
I don't believe that searching for, and especially actually finding, God or Satan is something that Star Trek could pull off in a commercial feature film, without pissing a lot of people off.
 
I don't believe that searching for, and especially actually finding, God or Satan is something that Star Trek could pull off in a commercial feature film, without pissing a lot of people off.

That and I think it's still a story dead-end. The journey has to be about these people searching for or denying the truth and what finding or failing to find "God" means to them or fails to teach them. But that's not what the story is about, which is why the idea wouldn't have worked with the story as-is. It requires a different narrative.

For me the real meaty story there is how does a scientific society deal with a religious zealot, where "reason" doesn't work because proof denies faith. THERE is some character conflict and a theme worth exploring.
 
I don't believe that searching for, and especially actually finding, God or Satan is something that Star Trek could pull off in a commercial feature film, without pissing a lot of people off.

Besides, everyone would just accuse them of ripping off The Black Hole. :)
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top