TMP's Transporter Accident on Loop is the Stuff of Nightmares

[jackoverfull]

The aging theme was at the core of TWoK, while on TMP they tried everything to make it look almost no time had passed from the series for the crew, to make them look young.

In any case, visually TMP is certainly impressive, but the script is a mess both in characterization and pacing, movies 2 to 4 works better in almost any regard in a theater.

I really don’t see the problem with Kirk being at a different point in life: it’s 10-15 years later in story, one wouldn’t imagine an admiral doing a captain’s job forever, right? It wasn’t even implied in the first movie that Kirk would remain in command for long afterwards, it’s only widely accepted fanon.

 

[Timo]

TWoK no doubt tries to be a reboot, an attempt to "be more like it", and for that reason already actively ignores anything relating to TMP. It just stops short of being in contradiction.

Certainly it's clear that the makers of TMP had no idea how to make a Star Trek movie, and ended up with this cheapo if expensive Italo-StarWars-clone that misses all the pertinent points. But without TMP, Paramount couldn't have figured out how not to make a Star Trek movie; they got right the parts they are allowed to play with (characters aging, say), and the ones they are not (you can't do hyperrealistic, basically steampunk technology as a storytelling hindrance if a glorious eye-catcher; you can't try more mature pacing; or any sort of turning the professionalism knob towards "realistic" and away from "deadpan fantastic").

It's just that Paramount could have chosen a different tack and distanced the Star Trek films from the TV show for good. Would that have been profitable? TMP was hugely expensive because it paid for a string of mistakes. Another from the same mold might have made pure profit against merely the expenses of filming itself. But repeating a mistake is a gamble, and Paramount churning out ever-cheaper Trek films worked out in the end, probably bringing in more dough than one or two TMP style sequels ever would have.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[fireproof78]

It's not continuous -- are you saying that doesn't matter? I feel it ought to. Just a bit. Kirk is a drab shell of a man at the start of TWOK. This is more or less the total opposite to the way he's portrayed at the end of TMP. We watch Kirk restoring himself to wholeness and happiness as TMP unfurls, only for him to land straight back in the same place (no: a worse place) in TWOK. That isn't so much carrying on from TMP as completely redoing it from scratch to fit a shallow purpose. Much like a political coup, the new group comes in and erases the history of the old, but isn't above stealing and repurposing much of the existing infrastructure and achievements, of course.

This assumes much and implies sinister intent which was not present. They simply told a different style story within the limits they had, like TOS did.

It's one way. But not necessarily a great way. Not when you're painting with the broad canvas of cinema. TMP was a proper cinematic outing. TWOK and the rest are more like charming TV movies. There's quite a dip in quality and texture. The Melville quotes, for example, are dumb compared to the original context. Khan wants to chase Kirk "round the moons of Nibia and round the Antares maelstrom and round perdition's flames" before he gives him up? That's nice. He basically cripples his ship ten minutes later, then skulks around a boring moon/planetoid, and finally chases Kirk into a (wildly unrealistic) nebula and dies: all in the same unexciting star system. Hardly the epic quest to slay a white whale full of meditations on life, death, and the vagaries of the universe as in the original "Moby-Dick".

Why would I compare to the original context? The quotes work within the film's context, and within the film's own theme.

Not that I fully understand Khan's motivation but wanting to hurt Kirk seems to be the way. Which, again, will work for some, and not for others.

It's poorly handled in general in the Meyer-Bennett films. It has little to no dignity or grace or prestige about it. This is a gross departure from the careful, grandiose, and nuanced way it is portrayed in TMP. It went from being a gleaming jewel of great engineering and architectural beauty -- practically a humming, living machine in its own right -- to little more than a tatty, dirty, ugly tinderbox.

Again, rather extreme rhetoric for simply a different approach. The Enterprise is a prop for the story. Treating it like a living machine is outside of the realm of TOS in my opinion.

Football and other dumb crap works for a lot of people. I'd rather Star Trek be more than fast food posing as something nutritious. They took a sledgehammer in TWOK to crack a nut. Worse, they did it quite deliberately and were clearly proud of their "accomplishment". The themes, values, and perspectives of TOS and TMP were not respected. They wanted some little submarine thriller dressed up as some tawdry literary allegory and that's what they made.

Star Trek has always been entertainment, fast food. The themes of TOS were respected just fine, especially since one of the first TOS episodes was a submarine thriller. TWOK, for all its detriments, got Star Trek.

You're right that TMP does benefit, in retrospect, from its uniqueness. But that needn't have been the case in 1980 onwards. They could have done better. They didn't want to.

"Done better" is again, relative. Star Trek is a variety platform, designed to be able to tell multiple different types of stories. You can have "Balance of Terror" (a submarine style story) and "Trouble with Tribbles" (a situational comedy) in the same franchise.

The same way it is ridiculous that TWOK is used as a benchmark for Trek movies, so too is using TMP. TMP is a further departure from TOS than TWOK, though TWOK also departed somewhat.

But, the larger themes of aging and feeling stagnate are ones that highly resonate within stories. I don't think one is better than the other in terms of TWOK or TMP. It's just different.

I really don’t see the problem with Kirk being at a different point in life: it’s 10-15 years later in story, one wouldn’t imagine an admiral doing a captain’s job forever, right? It wasn’t even implied in the first movie that Kirk would remain in command for long afterwards, it’s only widely accepted fanon.

Exactly so.

I find the time gap between TOS to TMP more implausible.

 

[Cryogenic]

This assumes much and implies sinister intent which was not present. They simply told a different style story within the limits they had, like TOS did.

I made an analogy with a political coup. My analogy fits because that's what actually happened. A new team of people was brought in and the head of the old regime was given a tactical discharge. In other words, he was replaced. But it was made to seem like the new films still had his approval. And the new people repurposed and reappropriated many assets developed for TMP, but for the most part in a shabby and inferior way.

Producer Harve Bennett even boasted he could make five TWOKs for one TMP -- a boast lacking all foundation and accountability and demonstrating extreme ignorance of the filmmaking process where many assets are carried over. He and Paramount basically colluded with one another in underhandedly disregarding how TWOK leaned on the development costs of TMP just to get made at all. It's known as Hollywood accounting.

A fuller paragraph from TMP's Memory Alpha page:

Three years later, the studio made a big deal out of the fact that The Wrath of Khan, still produced under the auspices of Michael Eisner, was realized under its tight budget of approximately US$11.5 million, which officially (considering the worldwide box-office gross of US$97 million) makes this film the most profitable outing in the entire film franchise, putting Roddenberry in an even worse light. (Cinefantastique, Vol 12 #5/6, p. 52; et al.) This too has to be taken with a grain of salt, as that film made use of many visual, and special effects elements – both commonly responsible for the largest part of a science fiction production budget, as it already had been for the Original Series – previously produced for the Motion Picture, the studio models, props and sets in particular and even including the reuse of entire visual effects sequences, thereby realizing huge savings in effects costs not incurred, known in business economics as "opportunity costs". Common GAAP's have it elsewhere in the corporate world, that these costs should have been charged in proportion against this film and in the same proportion deducted after-the-fact from the Motion Picture – or put more simply, amortized over both productions. As stated above, the studio actually did charge in full all costs made for every single prior revitalization attempt to the Motion Picture, further hinting at information manipulation, an industry phenomenon known as "Hollywood accounting". While Roddenberry was effectively put out to pasture, Eisner went on to become the, up to that point in time, highest paid media executive in history, when he switched over to The Walt Disney Company in 1984, receiving over $40 million in 1988 alone.

Back to your good self:

Why would I compare to the original context? The quotes work within the film's context, and within the film's own theme.

Quote mining from an earlier literary source invites comparison. "Moby-Dick" is a far more sophisticated and trenchant work of meditative fiction. I gave that particular dialogue example to show how impaired it is compared to the scope of the original. Khan boasts he'll chase Kirk half-way across the galaxy, echoing the impossible quest and insane hubris of Captain Ahab in Melville's novel, but Kirk comes straight to him ten minutes later and their entire engagement takes place in a single unremarkable star system. This would be like Ahab spotting the white whale around an atoll half an hour after setting sail.

Not that I fully understand Khan's motivation but wanting to hurt Kirk seems to be the way. Which, again, will work for some, and not for others.

One person wanting to "hurt" another is hardly the basis of an interesting or edifying story. It's what billions of people are doing to each other on social media every day. Some unswerving, unreachable maniac driven by vengeance alone is hardly a realistic or compelling take on the human condition. TMP offered a much more mind-expanding threat with V'Ger. TWOK showed a crazy moron with a mullet desperate to inflict psychopathic levels of harm. Yet his cruelty and malice have little organic grounding.

Again, rather extreme rhetoric for simply a different approach. The Enterprise is a prop for the story. Treating it like a living machine is outside of the realm of TOS in my opinion.

No, not really. It was their bloody home for three years on television; and, by extension, the viewer's. Even the turbolifts gave a pleasing and eerie hum when in use. The fact you call the Enterprise a "prop" says it all.

Star Trek has always been entertainment, fast food. The themes of TOS were respected just fine, especially since one of the first TOS episodes was a submarine thriller. TWOK, for all its detriments, got Star Trek.

You're conflating entertainment with fast food. I never did that. Entertainment can be deep, thoughtful, and moving. Or it can be vulgar, simplistic, and coarse. There is also more to cinema than just "themes". Artisan properties and raw craftmanship also matter.

"Done better" is again, relative. Star Trek is a variety platform, designed to be able to tell multiple different types of stories. You can have "Balance of Terror" (a submarine style story) and "Trouble with Tribbles" (a situational comedy) in the same franchise.

Yes, I hear this all the time. "Star Trek is a broad church. It is a format for telling many different kinds of stories." And the quality of the storytelling can -- and should -- be judged in turn.

The same way it is ridiculous that TWOK is used as a benchmark for Trek movies, so too is using TMP. TMP is a further departure from TOS than TWOK, though TWOK also departed somewhat.

TMP is a better "benchmark" because it represents an extremely high level of thought, care, attention, and dedication to craft. It is a gleaming new document for the series: a revised "constitution" (like the Enterprise herself). TWOK (no offence) is just some low-budget TV movie sequel.

But, the larger themes of aging and feeling stagnate are ones that highly resonate within stories. I don't think one is better than the other in terms of TWOK or TMP. It's just different.

Well, obviously, I do think one is better than the other. TMP's story hooks are much better motivated, in my opinion, by the context that TMP presents. In TWOK, the characters are conveniently a lot older, with an alleged time-jump that supposedly justifies the difference.

The very fact that all of the same crew/key personnel can just be reassembled (and who are apparently all killing time training the same class of cadets) is also super convenient. Yes, that also happens in TMP, but TWOK, according to the common defence, is set a whole decade later -- and they're all still waiting around, ready for their next space mission together (minus Chekov, who gets thrown back into the mix anyway), huh?

Believability is stretched very far in TWOK. The TOS characters are just artificially forced to be a certain way to suit a contrived agenda: "Look! Kirk and his crew are together again. But this time, their bones are creaking." Really hard to believe after the gleam and polish and youthful tenor of the preceding film.

I find the time gap between TOS to TMP more implausible.

Well, they had been off the screen for a good ten years. Perhaps TMP should have been set a smidgen more into the future. But TWOK is just a total hatchet job of what TMP set up: that this is a very big universe and "the human adventure is just beginning". I won't say that the sequels entirely abandoned the premise. I mean, there is some poignancy to the other installments, and a touch of cosmic paint here and there. But there is also a lack of virtuosity and cinematic largess to the other films. Only TMP registers as distinctly cinematic or has any real opulence about it.

 

[jackoverfull]

One person wanting to "hurt" another is hardly the basis of an interesting or edifying story.

Seemed to work pretty well in Shakespeare.

Honestly, I’ll take TWoK’s script over TMP’s any day. Yes, there are issues, yes, the science is bollocks and yes the movie was obviously made with a lower budget and TMP’s cinematic sequences are incredible, but for me the movie works and works very well, while TMP, with its plodding pace and obviously hacked together rewrites, doesn’t.

 

[fireproof78]

Quote mining from an earlier literary source invites comparison. "Moby-Dick" is a far more sophisticated and trenchant work of meditative fiction. I gave that particular dialogue example to show how impaired it is compared to the scope of the original. Khan boasts he'll chase Kirk half-way across the galaxy, echoing the impossible quest and insane hubris of Captain Ahab in Melville's novel, but Kirk comes straight to him ten minutes later and their entire engagement takes place in a single unremarkable star system. This would be like Ahab spotting the white whale around an atoll half an hour after setting sail.

Whether it invites comparison or not is not really my point. If it works in context then it works, comparisons or not.

One person wanting to "hurt" another is hardly the basis of an interesting or edifying story. It's what billions of people are doing to each other on social media every day. Some unswerving, unreachable maniac driven by vengeance alone is hardly a realistic or compelling take on the human condition. TMP offered a much more mind-expanding threat with V'Ger. TWOK showed a crazy moron with a mullet desperate to inflict psychopathic levels of harm. Yet his cruelty and malice have little organic grounding.

Agree to disagree pretty much at every point.

No, not really. It was their bloody home for three years on television; and, by extension, the viewer's. Even the turbolifts gave a pleasing and eerie hum when in use. The fact you call the Enterprise a "prop" says it all.

Says it all for what? That the Enterprise is a vehicle (pun slightly intended) for conveyance to the adventure and not a character? Perhaps "prop" is a poor wording, but it isn't a character.

Also, I already said it was treated poorly.

You're conflating entertainment with fast food. I never did that. Entertainment can be deep, thoughtful, and moving. Or it can be vulgar, simplistic, and coarse. There is also more to cinema than just "themes". Artisan properties and raw craftmanship also matter.

Yes, that is what entertainment is-fast food. It can be many things to many different people, but ultimately it is there to entertain, to satisfy in the moment. And that is OK that entertainment does so.

Ultimately, for me, I do not want entertainment to be deep because it comes across as pretentious. Thoughtful and moving are highly subjective since I can be just as moved by a 2 minute short as I can a full film experience.

Yes, I hear this all the time. "Star Trek is a broad church. It is a format for telling many different kinds of stories." And the quality of the storytelling can -- and should -- be judged in turn.

Indeed, yes. And I think that TMP are two different stories, and thus comparing them is not helpful for me.

TMP is a better "benchmark" because it represents an extremely high level of thought, care, attention, and dedication to craft. It is a gleaming new document for the series: a revised "constitution" (like the Enterprise herself). TWOK (no offence) is just some low-budget TV movie sequel.

I see no reason to compare one against the other. TMP works on some levels and doesn't on other. TWOK works on some levels and fails at others.

Only TMP registers as distinctly cinematic or has any real opulence about it.

And that opulence feels like extravagance and does not feel warm or inviting for myself to return to it. If that is "cinematic" then it is not for me.

TMP is grand, sweeping and visually large. TWOK is far more down to earth, visceral and moody, very much in to the characters. Both have their place in Trek.

 

[Cryogenic]

Seemed to work pretty well in Shakespeare.

That's taking my remark out of context. I was responding to the idea that one character wanting to hurt another is good and interesting by itself. My argument is simply: a story needs to have a pinch more sophistication and depth than that. It's not the conceit you use. It's what you do with it that counts.

Honestly, I’ll take TWoK’s script over TMP’s any day. Yes, there are issues, yes, the science is bollocks and yes the movie was obviously made with a lower budget and TMP’s cinematic sequences are incredible, but for me the movie works and works very well, while TMP, with its plodding pace and obviously hacked together rewrites, doesn’t.

The script of TWOK certainly isn't terrible. It was obviously written with an ear for dialogue. But TMP's has a "radio drama" purity about it and clicks with the epic presentation of the finished film very well. I think people only perceive rewrites because they know about TMP's bumpy production history. The screenplay is very focused and coherent. And as for pacing: where you see plodding, I see stately and contemplative.

Whether it invites comparison or not is not really my point. If it works in context then it works, comparisons or not.

Which is a subjective matter. You say it works, I say it leaves something to be desired. And I like how you flash the word "pretentious" up lower down. That could honestly be said about a film trying to sell its villain as clever and educated, and trying to burnish the film entire, by having him portentously paraphrasing an epic American novel like "Moby-Dick" -- and, in my opinion, not doing a particularly great job of it (the obvious skill of the actor aside).

Says it all for what? That the Enterprise is a vehicle (pun slightly intended) for conveyance to the adventure and not a character? Perhaps "prop" is a poor wording, but it isn't a character.

Also, I already said it was treated poorly.

Why can't a complex piece of technology be a character? Something as magnificent as the Enterprise deserves to be treated in a graceful and dignified manner. TMP got this right.

Yes, that is what entertainment is-fast food. It can be many things to many different people, but ultimately it is there to entertain, to satisfy in the moment. And that is OK that entertainment does so.

Ultimately, for me, I do not want entertainment to be deep because it comes across as pretentious. Thoughtful and moving are highly subjective since I can be just as moved by a 2 minute short as I can a full film experience.

Yes, these things are subjective. But "entertainment" is a wide umbrella. The plays of Shakespeare and contemporaries like Christopher Marlowe were written and performed as entertainment in their day. Entertainment can have loftier and more ennobling layers. I like how you automatically equate depth with pretentiousness. You're setting a low bar in advance.

Indeed, yes. And I think that TMP are two different stories, and thus comparing them is not helpful for me.

You're right. They're very different. We can agree to that extent.

I see no reason to compare one against the other. TMP works on some levels and doesn't on other. TWOK works on some levels and fails at others.

That's a thought-terminating tautology that doesn't grapple with anything. You can say that about any two objects and blur all distinctions.

And that opulence feels like extravagance and does not feel warm or inviting for myself to return to it. If that is "cinematic" then it is not for me.

Who said you can't have both? If Science-Fiction doesn't have a touch of extravagance to it, there's little point in any being written. There's a lot about the universe we don't understand. And to the extent we do understand it (or think we do), the possibilities for life and other configurations of "being" are mind-blowing. I like my science-fiction to reflect that.

TMP is grand, sweeping and visually large. TWOK is far more down to earth, visceral and moody, very much in to the characters. Both have their place in Trek.

Yes. TWOK is more coarse and earth-bound. Not a bad thing in and of itself. But it basically dragged Star Trek into the dirt; when, in the previous film, it was clearly star-bound. Not a small difference and not one that should be left unremarked upon. And TMP does a good job with a bunch of characters. The idea that it's all or mostly visual spectacle is a strawman. It's everything good about Star Trek writ large.

 

[Pauln6]

Whether it invites comparison or not is not really my point. If it works in context then it works, comparisons or not.

Agree to disagree pretty much at every point.

Says it all for what? That the Enterprise is a vehicle (pun slightly intended) for conveyance to the adventure and not a character? Perhaps "prop" is a poor wording, but it isn't a character.

Also, I already said it was treated poorly.

Yes, that is what entertainment is-fast food. It can be many things to many different people, but ultimately it is there to entertain, to satisfy in the moment. And that is OK that entertainment does so.

Ultimately, for me, I do not want entertainment to be deep because it comes across as pretentious. Thoughtful and moving are highly subjective since I can be just as moved by a 2 minute short as I can a full film experience.

Indeed, yes. And I think that TMP are two different stories, and thus comparing them is not helpful for me.

I see no reason to compare one against the other. TMP works on some levels and doesn't on other. TWOK works on some levels and fails at others.

And that opulence feels like extravagance and does not feel warm or inviting for myself to return to it. If that is "cinematic" then it is not for me.

TMP is grand, sweeping and visually large. TWOK is far more down to earth, visceral and moody, very much in to the characters. Both have their place in Trek.

I agree that there is little point in doing a direct comparison because they work on very different levels, but then so do people's tastes. I would have liked TMP to have a bit more character emotion and interaction and a bit more drama and peril before the finale. I would have liked TWoK to have more internal consistency, greater attention to detail, and fewer plot holes.

I suppose I would have liked a TMP trilogy followed by a TWoK trilogy.

 

[fireproof78]

Why can't a complex piece of technology be a character? Something as magnificent as the Enterprise deserves to be treated in a graceful and dignified manner. TMP got this right.

I didn't say it couldn't. I just don't feel the need to treat an object as a character. Grace and dignity can be used without treating it as a character.

Yes, these things are subjective. But "entertainment" is a wide umbrella. The plays of Shakespeare and contemporaries like Christopher Marlowe were written and performed as entertainment in their day. Entertainment can have loftier and more ennobling layers. I like how you automatically equate depth with pretentiousness. You're setting a low bar in advance.

I don't automatically equate depth with pretentiousness. I equate an entertainment piece claiming depth as pretentiousness.

That's a thought-terminating tautology that doesn't grapple with anything. You can say that about any two objects and blur all distinctions.

Because it ultimately is subjective as to what I am deriving from the work. If I don't enjoy it then all the beauty is ultimately meaningless to me.

Who said you can't have both? If Science-Fiction doesn't have a touch of extravagance to it, there's little point in any being written. There's a lot about the universe we don't understand. And to the extent we do understand it (or think we do), the possibilities for life and other configurations of "being" are mind-blowing. I like my science-fiction to reflect that.

I disagree that science fiction needs a touch of extravagance. You can reach for concepts without being extravagant.

Yes. TWOK is more coarse and earth-bound. Not a bad thing in and of itself. But it basically dragged Star Trek into the dirt; when, in the previous film, it was clearly star-bound. Not a small difference and not one that should be left unremarked upon. And TMP does a good job with a bunch of characters. The idea that it's all or mostly visual spectacle is a strawman. It's everything good about Star Trek writ large.

Agree to disagree. TWOK has the high points of Trek as well.

And, I didn't say TMP was "only a visual spectacle" since it is still being discussed at length. However, what it does with the characters is lacking for me. And that's why I find it lacking as entertainment. It isn't engaging for me at the human level. TWOK, for all it's struggles, has those beautiful character moments, those limits of humanity, frailties and grappling with things that many humans currently grapple with. It's more relatable to me, very human, and very grounded. I want to connect with these characters. TMP takes that warmth away and its painful because it's like seeing a friend from high school and there's just nothing there. They changed. And that's OK, because people do that. But, that doesn't mean I have to keep that relationship going.

Though, more pointedly, I find neither particularly enjoyable on rewatch so its not a fair comparison anyway.

I agree that there is little point in doing a direct comparison because they work on very different levels, but then so do people's tastes. I would have liked TMP to have a bit more character emotion and interaction and a bit more drama and peril before the finale. I would have liked TWoK to have more internal consistency, greater attention to detail, and fewer plot holes.

I suppose I would have liked a TMP trilogy followed by a TWoK trilogy.

Yes, well put, indeed. That is my point summed up quite nicely. I don't want to compare the two at all. Two different pieces telling two different tales.

Demanding they match against each other is silly, at best.

 

[jackoverfull]

That's taking my remark out of context. I was responding to the idea that one character wanting to hurt another is good and interesting by itself. My argument is simply: a story needs to have a pinch more sophistication and depth than that. It's not the conceit you use. It's what you do with it that counts.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your point then.
Khan has motivation: taking revenge on Kirk. It’s wrong, it’s dangerous for himself and both his follower and the Enterprise’s crew lampshade that he would be much better off by taking the Reliant and go subjugate a planet, but it’s certainly understandable: it’s human.

The script of TWOK certainly isn't terrible. It was obviously written with an ear for dialogue. But TMP's has a "radio drama" purity about it and clicks with the epic presentation of the finished film very well. I think people only perceive rewrites because they know about TMP's bumpy production history. The screenplay is very focused and coherent. And as for pacing: where you see plodding, I see stately and contemplative.

Well, TMP was the first thing of Star Trek I ever saw and I clearly remember how bored and frustrated with the movie I was back then, both during it and afterwards. The following night I saw TWoK and that changed everything.

It was only many years later, with the internet, I discovered the troubled story behind the movie, but that the script was fundamentally flawed, with too little happening for too long, was clear long before that.

Why can't a complex piece of technology be a character? Something as magnificent as the Enterprise deserves to be treated in a graceful and dignified manner. TMP got this right.

It must be pointed out: the whole emotional impact of blowing out the enterprise in the third movie comes exactly out of it being seen as a character.
It’s not as important in TWoK, sure, but neither is in many TOS episodes: it was just not relevant for the story.

On the cinematic side, surely it’s not filmed with the same grace, but that’s mostly down to budget and the Enterprise model being a particularly challenging one to film. Even so, the battle scenes were literally the best space battle scenes out back then, with the hull damage being done on screen and the explosions. All in all, the only TOS movie that falls short in the FX compartment, imho, is the fifth one, due to a series of unlucky happenstances.

 

[Pauln6]

I was so stoked about TMP. There was so much memorabilia. All those intriguing aliens. I was obsessed with it because I was unable to go and see it. I actually saw TWOK first and saw TMP SLV on TV. I remember my reaction distinctly: "That wasn't what I was expecting!"

I was disappointed that the aliens didn't feature more heavily and there was no Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, or Black Hole style shoot out at the end, but I loved it.

 

[Cryogenic]

I didn't say it couldn't. I just don't feel the need to treat an object as a character. Grace and dignity can be used without treating it as a character.

When you're handling something with grace and dignity, especially a large, complex, futuristic object like the Enterprise, you are automatically treating it as a character. So my point, quite simply, is that they didn't handle it with grace and dignity. The Enterprise became just a thing. The only time there is any elevated beauty is arguably -- perversely -- when Kirk blows it up in ST III and watches it descend through the atmosphere of the Genesis planet.

I don't automatically equate depth with pretentiousness. I equate an entertainment piece claiming depth as pretentiousness.

It wasn't clear based on what you said:

Ultimately, for me, I do not want entertainment to be deep because it comes across as pretentious.

In other words, based on what you seemed to be implying, any time you detect depth, you equate it with pretentiousness. It's an automatic turn-off for you. Now it's apparently about what a piece of entertainment is "claiming". I didn't think pieces of entertainment claim things. But some are clearly more thoughtful and aspirational than others.

Because it ultimately is subjective as to what I am deriving from the work. If I don't enjoy it then all the beauty is ultimately meaningless to me.

Sure. That's actually a more direct and concrete claim. So why didn't you say that before? When people attempt to blur distinctions, it's normally because they're trying to muddy the waters and stop a conversation they dislike from taking place. Your earlier remark implied some sort of cultural relativism between TMP and TWOK. Yet it's clear you personally favour one over the other. Such tricks are therefore self-serving.

I disagree that science fiction needs a touch of extravagance. You can reach for concepts without being extravagant.

You can reach for concepts without being extravagant, but hard Science-Fiction comes with its share of extravagant hardware, extravagant situations, and extravagant speculation. The idea of travelling faster than light is very extravagant based on our existing understanding of the laws of physics. And yet all the Star Trek movies rely on the conceit of faster-than-light travel. Even a title like "The Wrath Of Khan" is arguably more extravagant than "The Motion Picture". One points to a broad cinematic experience, while the other suggests a complex examination of vengeance. I know which picture better justifies its title to me.

And, I didn't say TMP was "only a visual spectacle" since it is still being discussed at length. However, what it does with the characters is lacking for me.

You said that TMP is "grand, sweeping and visually large", while you contrasted TWOK against it and said the latter is "very much in to the characters". This implied you consider TMP mostly a visual spectacle; or a visual spectacle first and foremost. Stand by your words or choose better ones if that isn't what you mean?

And that's why I find it lacking as entertainment. It isn't engaging for me at the human level. TWOK, for all it's struggles, has those beautiful character moments, those limits of humanity, frailties and grappling with things that many humans currently grapple with. It's more relatable to me, very human, and very grounded.

Right. A Marxist/materialist reading of TWOK, or people's fascination with it, might suggest people find it relatable because we all live under the degrading yoke of capitalism and must contend with its myriad effects. Therefore, a movie about aging and "blood and thunder" struggle is innately more appealing than bold speculation about humanity's place in the cosmos and the unknown frontiers of existence. The latter is more a project for the 22nd Century and beyond.

But, of course, as you keep saying, these are different movies with different tones and aims. And while that is surely true, you don't seem to notice -- though Pauln6 did -- that different approaches appeal to different temperaments. Thus, there are some that prefer the more cosmic tone of TMP, and they might find that more applicable to their mental life than a grubby revenge movie like TWOK and its assortment of action-adventure sequels.

I guess what I'm saying is: Different courses for different horses. Dishonesty enters the frame, however, when you act like comparing them is futile, but then try and implicitly pass TWOK off as the superior one, with veiled hints that it's more grounded and normal and free of the pretense and aggrandisement of TMP. Just say you like one better and one is more Star Trek to you without the dishonest muddying.

I want to connect with these characters. TMP takes that warmth away and its painful because it's like seeing a friend from high school and there's just nothing there. They changed. And that's OK, because people do that. But, that doesn't mean I have to keep that relationship going.

Sure. I think the characters had to be a bit more inward and serious in TMP. By contrast, I find their chipper personalities in TWOK offputting. TMP reinvents the wheel (practically), and then TWOK immediately reinvents (or degrades it) again. It's too much. In TWOK, they were also obviously written and performed to be more "likeable", but that says nothing positive (for me) by itself.

Though, more pointedly, I find neither particularly enjoyable on rewatch so its not a fair comparison anyway.

Well, okay...

But what's the point of posting in a TMP thread, discussing these two films, if you don't even care very much for either one? I do care about TMP and that's why I'm here.

Yes, well put, indeed. That is my point summed up quite nicely. I don't want to compare the two at all. Two different pieces telling two different tales.

Demanding they match against each other is silly, at best.

No one is "demanding" that. You had to end on a condescending strawman. The movies obviously diverge. But the point (for some) is that they diverge so much that it's hard to see them as the same universe, and the relish that went into making TWOK and designing it to "correct" (and essentially obviate) TMP is extremely noxious (for some).

 

[fireproof78]

But what's the point of posting in a TMP thread, discussing these two films, if you don't even care very much for either one? I do care about TMP and that's why I'm here.

I enjoy discussion and interaction.

Neither of these films are Star Trek to me. But, interacting with people of different opinions is very Trek to me.

 

[Damian]

A bit late to the party here. Surprised because TMP is my favorite Trek film.

I've read some of the earlier comments about the scene and a few things that did bother me about it. First, as some have noted, I've always been perplexed how a starship can beam someone to a planet without a receiving transporter room, yet when they transport to a ship most of the time it seems to have to be to their transporter room.

Sometimes I'm sure it's for security reasons. You don't want someone just to beam on your ship unannounced or somewhere else on the ship without warning. If nothing else that would probably be bad starship etiquette

But even if we set that aside and assume they need the Enterprise's transporter to work in concert with Starfleet Command's I always wondered how Sonak and Admiral Ciana (based on the novelization) weren't told the Enterprise transporters weren't fully functional. Kirk knows he can't beam on the ship, you'd think word would have gotten around. And normally someone would contact the ship first before trying to beam aboard because, you know, etiquette. It's rude just to beam on a ship without telling them. In which case I'm sure someone on the ship would have said "um, yeah, not a good idea right now, sorry".

I'm a big horror/slasher film fan, so it takes a lot to get under my skin. The visuals of the scene were pretty tame, though the scream was disconcerting I'll admit. You know something bad has happened. The novelization of course gives a bit more detail.

I recall a scene from one of the TNG novels, I believe it was one of "The Genesis Wave" novels where there is a similar transporter accident and Vornholt goes into graphic detail about what happened. Basically what beams down is a lump of mangled flesh, still pulsating a bit as the life ebbs away, and you still see some skin and hair on the mound of flesh, and Vornholt I think even noted a bit of a sizzle sound coming from it . I have a strong stomach for movies but that was pretty graphic even for me (mind you, when it comes to real life I'm a wuss--if I ever saw what I see in slasher films in real life I'd probably be the first to ). But that's sort of the impression I get to what happened to Sonak and Ciana on their return.

 

[fireproof78]

I recall a scene from one of the TNG novels, I believe it was one of "The Genesis Wave" novels where there is a similar transporter accident and Vornholt goes into graphic detail about what happened. Basically what beams down is a lump of mangled flesh, still pulsating a bit as the life ebbs away, and you still see some skin and hair on the mound of flesh, and Vornholt I think even noted a bit of a sizzle sound coming from it . I have a strong stomach for movies but that was pretty graphic even for me (mind you, when it comes to real life I'm a wuss--if I ever saw what I see in slasher films in real life I'd probably be the first to ). But that's sort of the impression I get to what happened to Sonak and Ciana on their return.

Sounds about what I imagined. Ugh.

 

[Damian]

Sounds about what I imagined. Ugh.

I was looking at my Genesis Wave novels to see if I could find it--but I couldn't. There are 4 novels in that series and it was just a scene so hard to pick out among 4 books (and that's assuming I even have the right story--though I'm pretty sure that's the one).

But when I read it I couldn't help but recall the scene from TMP, and the brief description of it in the novelization.

I'll tell you, though, if I ever witnessed that I'd probably call the ship and ask them to send a shuttlecraft from now on (though I hate to fly so that probably wouldn't work either).

Like I said, I watch movies like Saw and the Texas Chain Saw Massacre so I'm no stranger to gore. But that description even made me go "damn John Vornholt, that was ".

 

[Cryogenic]

I enjoy discussion and interaction.

Neither of these films are Star Trek to me. But, interacting with people of different opinions is very Trek to me.

As is, apparently, negatively pontificating that people comparing one film against the other "is silly, at best", and trying to vitiate a lively dialectic. That hardly seems like a nonpartisan, good faith approach to me. But whatever.

 

[fireproof78]

As is, apparently, negatively pontificating that people comparing one film against the other "is silly, at best", and trying to vitiate a lively dialectic. That hardly seems like a nonpartisan, good faith approach to me. But whatever.

I find comparisons silly.

 

[Cryogenic]

I find comparisons silly.

Which proves you are injecting your bias rather than having an honest interaction and trying to learn in a disinterested way from other fans. The blind arrogance there is, well... astounding, frankly.

 

[fireproof78]

Which proves you are injecting your bias rather than having an honest interaction and trying to learn in a disinterested way from other fans. The blind arrogance there is, well... astounding, frankly.

Is there a benefit to comparisons?