The Voyage Home: Star Trek in name only?

[Green]

marsh8472 that is for sure. Many have said that for years. I have no problem with that.
A change of pace was fine from all the death, etc.
I would have preferred any of the other types of shows that trek pulled off well in the series -- rather than a contemporary comedy. No one died in Amok Time or Metamorphosis or Corbomite or Mirror or Court or Menagerie. I wish they had done something entirely different -- just not a time travel comedy!

The title of this thread mentions "in name only"

A part of me thinks of the Enterprise as a character. I guess I also dislike that, that character, the Enterprise is absent. I know it's kind of corny and maybe cliché to call the ship a character -- but I kind of feel I got gypped seeing a Trek movie without the ship. They showed little of the ship in "City...", but then next week we are back onboard. But we basically go from 1984 to 1989 without seeing the Enterprise. And then in 1989 it's mocked for half the movie.

Maybe in that sense I feel it's Trek in name only. Virtually no Enterprise.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

And on the last thing, Meyer did not have that scene in earlier drafts and he has stated they asked him to add more funny bits and he felt that was a reasonable place to insert one. It was not something he wanted there on his own.

Adding the scene in a later draft doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't want the scene in movie at all. Maybe that was one of his favorite scenes in the movie, but he just didn't happen to think of it until later. It happens.

I remember in reading in some book or article about STVI about Nichelle Nichols' objections to that scene. Nichols thought that Uhura probably would have been able to speak Klingon on her own (she had a point there), and questioned why they were looking up the translation in books instead of via computer (Answer: Because it was funnier that way). Meyer's response was something along the lines of, "Please, Nichelle. Don't argue with me about this." (I'm paraphrasing from memory here, so I may be off on the exact wording.)

I took that to mean that Meyer was confident that the scene would work as a comedic beat in the film, even if the logic wasn't airtight. So it doesn't sound like something that was added in over his protests to me. I suppose you could also interpret that sentence as, "Look, I don't want to shoot this stupid scene either, but I have to, so let's just get this over with and hope we lose it in the editing, okay?" but considering all the budget battles Meyer had on that film, I doubt he'd waste much time or money shooting a scene he didn't believe in.

The annoying thing is, I definitely remember reading this passage somewhere, but I can't find it in any of the books I have immediately at hand. The story isn't in Meyer's A View From The Bridge or Shatner's Star Trek Movie Memories that I can find. Maybe I read it in the STVI issue of Cinefantastique.

 

[Timewalker]

That said, rewatching it last night, I couldn't help but feel it was really un-Trekky. Yes you have the cast, and they get in good fitting lines, especially in the interactions between the newly reborn Spock and McCoy, and McCoy's scenes in the hospital are classic Bones. But the rest of the film - thematically and the entire thing behind it - just feels like a typical mid 80s comedy movie which just happens to have the TOS cast. It feels almost at times like a parody of Star Trek. Yes, there's a funniness to the fish out of water aspect of the film with the crew not understanding the 1980s but I feel it panders to the lowest common denominator. The overall plot - that there's a probe wanting answers to a question and is threatening Earth until it gets those answers - is basically a rehash of V'Ger in lesser form. Seeing the crew act like fish out of water is interesting to a degree but it stands to make them look like bumbling fools. Consider in comparison City on the Edge of Forever, when Bones, Spock and McCoy travel back to 1930. An even more primitive time than the 1980s yet Kirk seems almost enamored, comfortable there, besides his growing infatuation with Edith Keeler. He quickly lends to blend in and adapt to the period and even is going with Edith to see a Clark Gable picture. Here, Kirk seems to truly not understand anything about the time period, and seeing Kirk out of his element and almost bumbling around is kind of an insult to the character.

Why should Kirk understand the 1980s? In Voyager, Tom Paris understands the 1950s. When they traveled to the 1990s, Paris had several moments of getting tripped up on slang, because he was unfamiliar with that decade.

And there's a considerable difference between arriving in a relatively quiet part of town in the 1930s and a busy, chaotic, noisy part of San Francisco in the 1980s. Even I wouldn't be able to easily cope with that environment, and I was in my early 20s when that movie came out.

Also, it's 1986 and there's no sign of the Eugenics Wars tearing apart Earth? What gives?

The Eugenics Wars didn't happen until the 1990s, on the other side of the planet.

And yes, TFF is cursed with way to much comedy despite many good dramatic scenes.

It was cursed with way too much BAD "comedy." This is the only TOS movie I nearly walked out of in disgust, for the snide "comedy" scenes and the preachiness of it. About the only redeeming scene I can think of is the tragic circumstances of McCoy's father's death.

It just finishes what TSFS started which is pretending the show/movies are about these seven characters and that's all we need for a good story. So at the end there are no supporting characters to bother with, they have a seemingly identical ship and they are all back in their "proper chairs".

Who else are the Star Trek movies about? David was killed off, and I'd rather watch paint dry than sit through another viewing of Robin Curtiss' cardboard "acting."

AI never watch the end of TWOK and fail to wonder what might have been if they hadn't been obsessed with restoring the status quo.

May I recommend fanfic? There are some very good stories that have addressed Spock's death and not resurrected him.

By TUC, they course-corrected and the movie had about the same amount of humor as TWOK or TSFS.

I am trying, and failing, to recall anything about that movie that was genuinely funny without also being snide or racist.

...Where in the world did you get that idea? That scene wasn't "forced" on Meyer. He co-wrote the script and directed the film. Nichols objected to the logic of it, but Meyer said that it would be an endearing & funny moment. He was right.

If this is true, he was wrong.

 

[Green]

I remember in reading in some book or article about STVI about Nichelle Nichols' objections to that scene. Nichols thought that Uhura probably would have been able to speak Klingon on her own (she had a point there), and questioned why they were looking up the translation in books instead of via computer (Answer: Because it was funnier that way). Meyer's response was something along the lines of, "Please, Nichelle. Don't argue with me about this." (I'm paraphrasing from memory here, so I may be off on the exact wording.)

I took that to mean that Meyer was confident that the scene would work as a comedic beat in the film, even if the logic wasn't airtight. So it doesn't sound like something that was added in over his protests to me. I suppose you could also interpret that sentence as, "Look, I don't want to shoot this stupid scene either, but I have to, so let's just get this over with and hope we lose it in the editing, okay?" but considering all the budget battles Meyer had on that film, I doubt he'd waste much time or money shooting a scene he didn't believe in.

The annoying thing is, I definitely remember reading this passage somewhere, but I can't find it in any of the books I have immediately at hand. The story isn't in Meyer's A View From The Bridge or Shatner's Star Trek Movie Memories that I can find. Maybe I read it in the STVI issue of Cinefantastique.

I also remember that exact quote. I also long ago forgot where from. My memory tells me he had gotten instructions and it was forced on him -- but that's just my memory and I could be wrong. I am pretty sure he was told to add comedic bits, but I don't have any idea where those articles might be either.

I know he co-wrote it and no doubt he liked it better than if some outsider had just handed him some pages with "funny" stuff. Did he write the "Cinderella" part? I don't know, but that doesn't work for me either.
"Guess who's coming to dinner is ok", I guess. But it was more the way the cast was winking a little at the screen. A lot more than they did in TWOK and TSFS. I mean, the characters are witty and funny and even occasionally silly as in Tribbles, but in TUC it should have been a little more sophisticated wit and less rolling eyes and less of the slightly hammy line readings than we got. I really do think they thought we would enjoy that stuff more than we actually did. LOL

 

[Green]

Who else are the Star Trek movies about? David was killed off, and I'd rather watch paint dry than sit through another viewing of Robin Curtiss' cardboard "acting."

I figure I am in the minority but I like the actual crew beyond the seven to be involved. I remember the conventions where the cast was treated as heroes and icons for the little bits they did on the series. I like them, but I like the whole crew to be seen and for several to have lines and contribute.
Nobody -- I know of --wanted any more of Nimoy-coached cardboard Saavik. That's my point. They were determined after TWOK to reset. Dump Carol, Kill David, replace Alley with balsa wood and NOT introduce anybody new. Then run with the aging cast till you can't anymore. Some people don't mind that, but I do mind it. I think a younger cast should have been phased in. Minority opinion for sure.

 

[Commander Kielbasa]

Who else are the Star Trek movies about? David was killed off, and I'd rather watch paint dry than sit through another viewing of Robin Curtiss' cardboard "acting."

I figure I am in the minority but I like the actual crew beyond the seven to be involved. I remember the conventions where the cast was treated as heroes and icons for the little bits they did on the series. I like them, but I like the whole crew to be seen and for several to have lines and contribute.
Nobody -- I know of --wanted any more of Nimoy-coached cardboard Saavik. That's my point. They were determined after TWOK to reset. Dump Carol, Kill David, replace Alley with balsa wood and NOT introduce anybody new. Then run with the aging cast till you can't anymore. Some people don't mind that, but I do mind it. I think a younger cast should have been phased in. Minority opinion for sure.

It would've also played for some interesting dynamics. The conflict between Decker and Kirk in TMP for example works well. Saavik as portrayed by Alley being trained to be Spock's protege was interesting. Since the arch of II-VI was about the character's aging it would've made more sense to see them relate/interact more often with the "younger generation" so to speak. A 1980s version of Chekhov - who was the kid crewman in the 1960s series - would've been interesting in the movie series. He could've become a new beloved character.

Or, since they had a higher budget, they should've brought back Arex from TAS.

 

[Vger23]

Who else are the Star Trek movies about? David was killed off, and I'd rather watch paint dry than sit through another viewing of Robin Curtiss' cardboard "acting."

I figure I am in the minority but I like the actual crew beyond the seven to be involved. I remember the conventions where the cast was treated as heroes and icons for the little bits they did on the series. I like them, but I like the whole crew to be seen and for several to have lines and contribute.
Nobody -- I know of --wanted any more of Nimoy-coached cardboard Saavik. That's my point. They were determined after TWOK to reset. Dump Carol, Kill David, replace Alley with balsa wood and NOT introduce anybody new. Then run with the aging cast till you can't anymore. Some people don't mind that, but I do mind it. I think a younger cast should have been phased in. Minority opinion for sure.

I agree with you in concept, but I think the difficulty was that they already had the "beloved 7" and it was increasingly difficult in a 109 min film to find enough meaningful work for each to have the spotlight. When you add a Decker, Ilia, Saavik or Valeris...I'm sure it was felt that it took away from the focus on the existing family.

If you think about TMP, for example, Decker and Ilia were far more meatier characters than Chekov, Sulu or Uhura.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I think a younger cast should have been phased in. Minority opinion for sure.

I agree. It would have been really interesting to see Saavik and David form the nucleus of a new crew for the Enterprise. Every time I rewatch TWOK, I wonder what would have happened if they'd kept those characters around for longer and introduced a few others over the years. If Nimoy had chosen to keep Spock dead, I bet they would have stuck around.

But I'd imagine that a combination of the particular stories the filmmakers chose to tell, and Shatner & Co.'s concerns about being upstaged in their own movies conspired to keep those characters limited-run ones.

 

[Steve Gennarelli]

Leonard Nimoy and Harve Bennett were essentially producing "Star Trek" after the successes of II and III. It was the two of them who decided it was time to get away from the serious drama and gravitas of what had occurred in the 2 prior films. It was time to lighten things up as Mr. Nimoy said so frequently back then. They decided on a time travel story...2 young writers Meerson and Krikes wrote a script and later on Nicholas Meyer came on board and re-wrote the "earthbound" portion of the movie. I think Mr. Bennett may also have written some of the space scenes IIRC.
I've always felt this was the best film of the series, because you didn't have to be a hardcore fan to understand or to follow the plot. This film made "Star Trek" as a feature film much more accessible to the non-Trek fan who may want to see this through word of mouth and that's exactly what happened.
As to one of the prior comments that this somehow turned off the typical loyal "Star Trek" fan, I really find that hard to believe. If you have a heart and a soul, "Star Trek IV" is such a lovely film and its another great homage to the classic series which back then was only celebrating its 20th anniversary. It was truly the major success of Trek IV that spawned TNG and you know the rest of the story....

 

[cgervasi]

This is only 6 years before. To use a real life analogy, consider the build up from 1933 to 1939 to World War II, or from 1900-1914 to WWI. I would've imagined that Earth (in the timeline Star Trek exists in) would've been a much more turbulent and restless place in 1986 with a global conflict less than a decade away and all of these petty tyrants and would-be kings rising up all over the globe.

They made grim headlines for the newspaper shown in the film. One was "Nuclear Arms Talks Stalled".

 

[cgervasi]

It was time to lighten things up as Mr. Nimoy said so frequently back then.

I remember seeing him say that in interviews. I agreed, after having Spock die and then Kirk's son die in Spock's resurrection, it was time for a light-hearted story.

 

[2takesfrakes]

The Voyage Home is STAR TREK in name and every other way. The problem with it is that it's just not very good. There's a "rushed" feel to the proceedings, like "get it in the can, quick and dirty." There's no nuance to anything; all of the lines are just delivered straight. The film is surprisingly "flat" for that very reason. There's no irony in the humour, no intelligence, or real wit.

The only jokes that really play are the "double dumbass" cabbie, Spock's swim in the whale tank and when the whaler's arrow bounces off the BoP hull. Even when the punk on the bus gets neck-pinched, the editing, the timing is all wrong and the punk's overreaction is inappropriate. The joke is that Spock's doing the pinch, not in how the punk takes it ... so, Nimoy kind of screwed that joke up.

Gillian is sweet, but her motivations for befriending Kirk make no sense, whatever. It's just "in the script." So, it never plays ... she's just The Whale Lady, so she's kept around, by default. But overall, the humour is this old-timey, granny kind of jokiness that comes off in a very lame way. If STAR TREK wants to go the comedy route, then great ... fine ... but actually be funny. You know? Don't be 'afraid' to be ...

 

[Smellmet]

The Voyage Home is STAR TREK in name and every other way. The problem with it is that it's just not very good. There's a "rushed" feel to the proceedings, like "get it in the can, quick and dirty." There's no nuance to anything; all of the lines are just delivered straight. The film is surprisingly "flat" for that very reason. There's no irony in the humour, no intelligence, or real wit.

The only jokes that really play are the "double dumbass" cabbie, Spock's swim in the whale tank and when the whaler's arrow bounces off the BoP hull. Even when the punk on the bus gets neck-pinched, the editing, the timing is all wrong and the punk's overreaction is inappropriate. The joke is that Spock's doing the pinch, not in how the punk takes it ... so, Nimoy kind of screwed that joke up.

Gillian is sweet, but her motivations for befriending Kirk make no sense, whatever. It's just "in the script." So, it never plays ... she's just The Whale Lady, so she's kept around, by default. But overall, the humour is this old-timey, granny kind of jokiness that comes off in a very lame way. If STAR TREK wants to go the comedy route, then great ... fine ... but actually be funny. You know? Don't be 'afraid' to be ...

Oh I don't know about that, I thought the humour was pretty decent, in a kitsch 80's way, which the film was. I loved the 'do you like Italian' scene, that usually gets the biggest laugh from me. I think a lot of it was played straight deliberately, ('one damn minute Admiral' etc) or they'd just end up mugging at the camera. It was certainly better judged than the majority of the humour in TFF, which just made the crew all look like buffoons. I can't say I'm TVH's biggest fan, I prefer the more serious outings, but I enjoyed the humour in it.

 

[Steve Gennarelli]

Paramount actually gave them a decent budget for this film compared to the previous 2. A lot of the humor is natural and comes from our love for the characters. Like when Spock rips off the part of his robe and makes a head band. Its funny because its so natural and its Spock.
The byplay between Kirk and Bones and Spock and Bones is also so natural and unforced. They are old friends who have fun together and also get on each others nerves, as Bones ends up saying in the next film.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Oh I don't know about that, I thought the humour was pretty decent, in a kitsch 80's way, which the film was. I loved the 'do you like Italian' scene, that usually gets the biggest laugh from me. I think a lot of it was played straight deliberately, ('one damn minute Admiral' etc) or they'd just end up mugging at the camera. It was certainly better judged than the majority of the humour in TFF, which just made the crew all look like buffoons. I can't say I'm TVH's biggest fan, I prefer the more serious outings, but I enjoyed the humour in it.

You bring up a very good point about 80's kitsch, regarding the humour of The Voyage Home. It's a product of its time, but still ... not all from The Eighties had that. The classic horror movie American Werewolf in London, for example, has some terrific humour in it and it's even older than TVH. The script for STAR TREK IV was also kind of rushed, as I understand it, because it had gone through several rewrites, before Nicholas Meyer was called in, at the last minute to deliver a completed screenplay. Some of the throw-away lines and little moments are endearing, though.

Like when Kirk's advising Spock not to swear anymore, because he's not good at it and Nimoy delivers this wounded-sounding "... I see," as if he'd been proud of himself for fitting in, this whole time. The movie was certainly successful, for its time, we all know that -- but I consider that a fluke. Maybe TVH had competition that was weaker? Maybe families felt that TVH was safer to take their little kids to, because of the promise of no deaths and far less destruction? Maybe the Marketing Dept. at Paramount promoted the show with different tactics? Whatever it was, I seriously doubt it was on the relative 'strength' of the material. There were likely other, outside, factors involved ...

 

[Smellmet]

You bring up a very good point about 80's kitsch, regarding the humour of The Voyage Home. It's a product of its time, but still ... not all from The Eighties had that. The classic horror movie American Werewolf in London, for example, has some terrific humour in it and it's even older than TVH. The script for STAR TREK IV was also kind of rushed, as I understand it, because it had gone through several rewrites, before Nicholas Meyer was called in, at the last minute to deliver a completed screenplay. Some of the throw-away lines and little moments are endearing, though.

Like when Kirk's advising Spock not to swear anymore, because he's not good at it and Nimoy delivers this wounded-sounding "... I see," as if he'd been proud of himself for fitting in, this whole time. The movie was certainly successful, for its time, we all know that -- but I consider that a fluke. Maybe TVH had competition that was weaker? Maybe families felt that TVH was safer to take their little kids to, because of the promise of no deaths and far less destruction? Maybe the Marketing Dept. at Paramount promoted the show with different tactics? Whatever it was, I seriously doubt it was on the relative 'strength' of the material. There were likely other, outside, factors involved ...

I'd argue that 'fish out of water' films were pretty big in the mid to late eighties, with stuff like crocodile dundee, big, back to the future etc, so I think the powers that be pitched it just right for the audiences at the time. Yes it seems dated and corny today, but I don't think it seemed that way back in '86.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

The movie was certainly successful, for its time, we all know that -- but I consider that a fluke. Maybe TVH had competition that was weaker? Maybe families felt that TVH was safer to take their little kids to, because of the promise of no deaths and far less destruction? Maybe the Marketing Dept. at Paramount promoted the show with different tactics? Whatever it was, I seriously doubt it was on the relative 'strength' of the material. There were likely other, outside, factors involved ...

The movie was more successful than the others because of two big reasons: 1) It was funny, and 2) The time-travel to the present day made it much more accessible to the general public. These two factors gave it great word of mouth. People went back to see it multiple times, and recommended to their friends.

 

[Steve Gennarelli]

It's just a good movie. I think it still holds up well today.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

That's exactly how I feel. It's not bad. It's very well made. It's well written for what it is. I tend to watch them all I order and I don't avoid it. To me it's just kind of innocuous. It just finishes what TSFS started which is pretending the show/movies are about these seven characters and that's all we need for a good story. So at the end there are no supporting characters to bother with, they have a seemingly identical ship and they are all back in their "proper chairs".
And in TFF we once again start with just the crew and the ship is a mess and 15 minutes to get on with the movie after hilarious antics. I never watch the end of TWOK and fail to wonder what might have been if they hadn't been obsessed with restoring the status quo.

I don't think Harve Bennett was "obsessed with restoring the status quo" so much as he was reticent to do anything that would antagonize Gene Roddenberry and the Gang of Four, all of whom were active on the convention circuit and had a free platform to criticize Bennett to their hearts' content. I think Bennett very definitely went into Star Trek II with the intention of bringing fresh blood into the franchise to give it longevity (as he would try again with his "Starfleet Academy" prequel), but then getting criticized by Roddenberry in the fan circuits gave Bennett pause, as did the actors' veiled threats that fans would stay away if they weren't in the films. Little wonder, then, that Bennett ended up restoring the status quo; it wasn't just the "path of least resistance," it was the path of least pain.

IMHO, one of the best things Bennett could have done in 1981 was to say, "George, you don't want to do Star Trek II? I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps some day in the future we'll have the opportunity to work together," and then hand all of Sulu's part to some twentysomething actor making his/her first film instead of working up until the film began shooting to secure his services for a role that wasn't worth all of that effort. But Bennett believed fans wanted to see the "Big 7," and after Roddenberry's campaign against the film in the fan press he was convinced he had to keep the actors and Roddenberry happy in order to keep the fans from rioting, to the detriment of his films. Bennett never seemed to realize that none of the roles, not even Kirk, really, were irreplaceable.

 

[Steve Gennarelli]

Allyn, I liked you post very much but that last comment I can't agree with.

"none of the roles, not even Kirk, really, were irreplaceable".

Are you being serious ? I know there was a salary dispute with Shatner prior to
"Star Trek IV"...but if they had hired an actor comparable in age and experience...
oh let's say James Franciscus or Richard Chamberlain as James T Kirk....the fans would have
been outraged. Same with Nimoy or Kelley assuming they were alive and healthy.