TMP Myths Debunked via Return to Tomorrow and Beyond

[Maab]

Quite frankly, the presentation of the footage (test footage?) on the Director's Cut DVD is rather creepy-looking...from what I recall it looked like empty space suits floating around...

There are 5 tests in all, and in two of them the spacesuits ARE empty.

Maab

 

[Ssosmcin]

I can't remember where or when, but I remember reading more than one unflattering review of the film criticizing the fact that the movie does everything possible, including tons of makeup tricks, to try to hide the fact that the cast was older.

Never saw that anywhere. Unless it was jibes at Shatner's then-new-and-improved dark toupe.

I'm pretty sure I read an interview with Harve Bennett about how he felt TMP used "Vaseline on the camera lenses" to hide the actor's ages and specifically mentioned Nimoy's "bee stung lips." He then went on to say he felt the characters needed to age, hence the story of Kirk's mid-life crisis.

 

[Maurice]

Harve Bennett wasn't there for TMP so he was hardly an authority on what happened.

 

[Vger23]

I can't remember where or when, but I remember reading more than one unflattering review of the film criticizing the fact that the movie does everything possible, including tons of makeup tricks, to try to hide the fact that the cast was older.

Never saw that anywhere. Unless it was jibes at Shatner's then-new-and-improved dark toupe.

I'm pretty sure I read an interview with Harve Bennett about how he felt TMP used "Vaseline on the camera lenses" to hide the actor's ages and specifically mentioned Nimoy's "bee stung lips." He then went on to say he felt the characters needed to age, hence the story of Kirk's mid-life crisis.

That definitely sounds familiar. I think there was mention of other tricks as well.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Harve Bennett wasn't there for TMP so he was hardly an authority on what happened.

Of course not. He was in "bash TMP mode," as usual, when talking about his contributions to TWOK and the movie series' rejuvenation. I'm just saying, that's where some of this "information" probably comes from.

 

[Kruezerman]

Rewatching TMP now, boy were there a lot of rough cuts and scenes. Why is it when we see Kirk first on the bridge, the area around his head is blurred out?

 

[Firebird]

Rewatching TMP now, boy were there a lot of rough cuts and scenes. Why is it when we see Kirk first on the bridge, the area around his head is blurred out?

That's either a split diopter shot, or they used a lens with a short depth of focus. In either case, it was likely an on-set decision by Wise and Kline, so I don't think it really qualifies as a rough cut. It was an intentional artistic choice.

 

[Harvey]

Indeed, they discuss the use of the split diopter in Return to Tomorrow.

I really dislike the way it's used throughout most of Star Trek--The Motion Picture, though. Most of the time it's a poor substitute for true deep focus; on the bridge set it's especially distracting. Wise used it to much better effect in The Andromeda Strain.

 

[Firebird]

Indeed, they discuss the use of the split diopter in Return to Tomorrow.

I really dislike the way it's used throughout most of Star Trek--The Motion Picture, though. Most of the time it's a poor substitute for true deep focus; on the bridge set it's especially distracting. Wise used it to much better effect in The Andromeda Strain.

It floors me that both films were shot by Richard Kline, and yet he didn't seem to be able to use the same tools to a similar effect in TMP.

 

[inflatabledalek]

I'm about 50 pages into the book and thus far am enjoying it immensely.

But I'm not sure this automatically debunks anything that later interviews are contradictory on. From my understanding the book is the result of contemporary interviews done for a magazine that never happened that would have been effectively a promotional piece for the film.

So it's understandable that a lot of the quotes are going to put a bit more of a positive gloss on things. To take the example offered in the original post, it would be natural for the sound editor to say "We deliberately went for a more muted soundscape for this film as opposed to the TV series" rather than "Yeah, bit shit isn't it? We just ran out of time".

Equally, Phillips is going to be too much of a professional to say "We just drowned the cast in make up because they've aged yo", he'd not want to piss off actors by making them look dependent on his skills.

That's not to suggest both those stories (and any others) aren't completely true, but I suspect the truth actually lies between them and later, more retrospective (and possibly exaggerated) versions.

Certainly if they weren't over making up Shatner in this film (and considering his Movie Memories book makes it clear Shatner went through hell doing just about everything else trying to look like he did ten years earlier I don't think he'd have objected to the make up as an easier way of aiding the cause than dieting and working out) they must have really undermade him in the other films because I thought he looked absolutely plastered on the blu ray compared to Khan.

Plus, in HD it's often fairly noticeable in the original series that Shatner is wearing more make up than the other (human) male regulars, so Philips may have had a different definition of "Normal" make up for Kirk than we might think of.

Of what I've read so far, one thing that struck me as odd was Takei's claim that in an earlier version of the script it was established he was a Captain and had just taken a temporary demotion to help out in the crisis, and what a shame it was this was lost.

I'd not heard this before, and was always under the impression that the "Sulu is a captain just slumming it for Kirk today" idea- and the arguments it caused- started with the next film. Has anyone seen this script? Or is this just George making something up as he begins cheer leading his own idea?

 

[Nightowl1701]

I'm gonna assume he's talking about either The God Thing (which, if I recall, ended with Sulu being bisected to death) or Planet of the Titans (less likely, as it too was set three years after TOS and Sulu didn't have time to make captain).

 

[Timby]

Certainly if they weren't over making up Shatner in this film (and considering his Movie Memories book makes it clear Shatner went through hell doing just about everything else trying to look like he did ten years earlier I don't think he'd have objected to the make up as an easier way of aiding the cause than dieting and working out)

Anything in Shatner's "Memories" books outside of the direct quotes from other parties is highly suspect.

 

[Christopher]

But I'm not sure this automatically debunks anything that later interviews are contradictory on. From my understanding the book is the result of contemporary interviews done for a magazine that never happened that would have been effectively a promotional piece for the film.

I don't think that's correct. Cinefantastique's analyses, as I recall them, tended to be rather more critical and in-depth than just promotional fluff. Starlog, its main competitor, tended to be positive and enthusiastic in its coverage of new stuff, but I had the impression that CFQ's coverage had more of a hard-hitting edge.

So it's understandable that a lot of the quotes are going to put a bit more of a positive gloss on things. To take the example offered in the original post, it would be natural for the sound editor to say "We deliberately went for a more muted soundscape for this film as opposed to the TV series" rather than "Yeah, bit shit isn't it? We just ran out of time".

Granted, that is possible. I don't think that was CFQ's editorial slant, but it's possible that the interviewees themselves may have wanted to cast the film in a positive light, especially if they had a financial stake in its success.

Equally, Phillips is going to be too much of a professional to say "We just drowned the cast in make up because they've aged yo", he'd not want to piss off actors by making them look dependent on his skills.

Again, I've been following TMP since it came out, and I don't recall ever hearing anything about the cast being overly made-up until this very thread. Even if there were an attempt to make them look younger, seriously, why is that a bad thing? The film is explicitly set just two and a half years after the end of the five-year mission, so the characters actually were younger than the actors playing them. How is it remotely wrong for the makeup artist to follow the intention of the script? If you want to criticize someone for the decision to make them younger, criticize the writers for making that story choice.

 

[Nightowl1701]

Certainly if they weren't over making up Shatner in this film (and considering his Movie Memories book makes it clear Shatner went through hell doing just about everything else trying to look like he did ten years earlier I don't think he'd have objected to the make up as an easier way of aiding the cause than dieting and working out)

Anything in Shatner's "Memories" books outside of the direct quotes from other parties is highly suspect.

True, but I do tend to believe that particular part, since Shatner was in great shape in TMP and stayed so through at least TSFS.

 

[inflatabledalek]

But I'm not sure this automatically debunks anything that later interviews are contradictory on. From my understanding the book is the result of contemporary interviews done for a magazine that never happened that would have been effectively a promotional piece for the film.

I don't think that's correct. Cinefantastique's analyses, as I recall them, tended to be rather more critical and in-depth than just promotional fluff. Starlog, its main competitor, tended to be positive and enthusiastic in its coverage of new stuff, but I had the impression that CFQ's coverage had more of a hard-hitting edge.

Oh sure, but equally, as you say further down, they're dependant on the interviewee, and if they're in a "This is my current job, I have to play nice" mood that'll still have an impact on the results they get. After all, the only reason most of the people involved are giving their time for these interviews is to promote the movie, historical accuracy wouldn't be any higher on their list of priorities that it is for an actor twenty years later who has developed an anecdote based on what plays best to convention audiences.

Again, I've been following TMP since it came out, and I don't recall ever hearing anything about the cast being overly made-up until this very thread. Even if there were an attempt to make them look younger, seriously, why is that a bad thing? The film is explicitly set just two and a half years after the end of the five-year mission, so the characters actually were younger than the actors playing them. How is it remotely wrong for the makeup artist to follow the intention of the script? If you want to criticize someone for the decision to make them younger, criticize the writers for making that story choice.

Oh, I'm not critiscing Philips at all, I do think trying to pretend so little time had passed was a mistake and isn't pulled off very well in the film itself but the guy would have just been doing his job (and I'm not calling him a liar, despite how Shatner looks to me in the final film I'm certainly no make up expert. I'm just saying these interviews aren't automatically more truthful than those done years later).

 

[Harvey]

I've read the first two parts of the book so far. The interviews have struck me as awfully candid about the whole process, at least so far. Everyone has their own agenda and point of view, of course, which sometimes leads to conflicting accounts. But I don't get a sense that anyone is lying about their intentions as they were rushing to finish the film to make themselves come off better. There are numerous accounts of things that were dropped in the hurried post production process, and plenty of despair that they didn't have more time. So why lie about the sound mix?

 

[Firebird]

I've made it through the entire book, and from what I can tell, no one really pulled any punches. At one point, Doohan was already shitting on Shatner & Nimoy's involvement with the writing process. Of course, he was "attempting" to be tactful and not naming names, but the interviews with Bob Wise and Harold Livingston that are interspersed around his comments show loud and clear who he's referring to.

Of note is an absence of any kind of obvious malice toward Shatner from Takei, Nichols & Koenig that would be commonplace in later years. Makes me wonder when they all actually got on the anti-Shatner train?

The most damning part for the movie is the candid opinions on the cast and crew on the finished film during the epilogue. They're... painfully honest.

 

[Botany Bay]

Makes me wonder when they all actually got on the anti-Shatner train?

'89. After TFF flopped, there was a jaw-dropping interview from Jimmy Doohan from memory, who was scathing of Shatner's direction. Then the floodgates opened.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Makes me wonder when they all actually got on the anti-Shatner train?

'89. After TFF flopped, there was a jaw-dropping interview from Jimmy Doohan from memory, who was scathing of Shatner's direction. Then the floodgates opened.

That might've been in the press. However, they'd already been telling anti-Shatner stories at conventions long before that.

 

[Khan 2.0]

1st time I ever read anything antiShat was in the VI CFQ issue - an article titled Mutiny on the Enterprise. I remember being shocked at how Doohan ripped into him. kind of spoiled the kirk/scotty relationship abit for me as after that whenever I watched the movies id think 'heh Scotty hates kirk'