WoK was almost like a reboot of TMP if you think about it!

[Christopher]

I don't understand this criticism. First I don't think it's the case that a movie HAS to be epic, there are plenty of examples to the contrary.

Well, no, a movie doesn't have to be epic, but it should tell a story that is important to the characters. In theory, a movie should depict the most important event in its characters' lives, or at least a major, life-changing event. An episodic series is a different matter, because you typically preserve the status quo (although that's less true now than it was when TOS was made). In more modern terms, I think it was Joss Whedon who said that a TV episode is a question but a movie is an answer. That is, an episode of a TV series (the modern, more serialized kind) moves the storyline forward a bit but is setting things up for later payoff. A movie should be more about the payoff, the resolution.

So a movie can have a small, personal story, but it should be one that's important to the characters' lives, one that changes their status quo. This is where Insurrection fell short; ultimately, there was little sense of any meaningful impact on the characters' lives. The filmmakers started out with ambitious plans to do Heart of Darkness in space and maybe even force Picard to kill Data, but they ended up with a film where Picard's only arc was that his life had become too cluttered and he needed to learn to slow down and appreciate existence.

But at any rate, I didn't mean that TFF was less epic, just that it actually took Star Trek back to its roots, with exploring the unknown rather than dealing with politics, a battle with an old foe, rebelling against Starfleet etc.

Well, to an extent. Technically, their mission in that film was to free a group of hostages, and the exploration was done under coercion by the antagonist. So it's not entirely a return to Trek's roots.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I don't think movies are purposefully made to be "epic". I think that is a word (some would say overused these days) used by fans and critics to describe well made films that have some kind of resonance with them. I think Meyer and Bennett went into the production of The Wrath of Khan wanting to make the best movie they could make and spent time going through the source material to make it so (couldn't resist). Much like Nolan and Goyer with "Batman Begins". Meyer and Bennett did their homework and ended up with a film that most fans have described as being the best Star Trek film to date. It has elements that we can relate to and as I said resonate with.

I never said that "years have passed" was the explanation for all the changes made between the two movies, I was implying that was the in-universe explanation for the changes. In one of the audio commentaries Meyer states that one of the major changes he wanted to make was to establish Starfleet as a military organization with clear cut military uniforms, ranks, pips, etc. I believe at one point he even jokes that he wanted the officers to salute each other but Gene wouldn't go for that.

 

[Warped9]

Whenever I look at the look of the films TWOK-TUC for some reason I feel we were getting a version of the Honor Harrington books.

 

[The Overlord]

I remember reading an article on that back in the day, about how the Trek movies were never really like the original show, just "boldly going" on some exploratory mission, encountering a new species, etc.

It was more like dealing with threats or crises, more took place on Earth, more politics involved, etc. Ironically, the most loathed one of the films, TFF may be the one most similar to TOS, in the sense of "random adventure story" where they journey into the unknown in the form of going beyond the Great Barrier.

That's because a TV show is different from a movie. A movie has to tell an epic tale, something that really tests the mettle of the characters, not just a two hour run of the mill Star Trek episode. That was the problem with Insurrection, it felt like a long episode of TNG rather then an cinematic epic. With a TV show you have time to tell more off beat stories, with a movie, you don't have that time.

I don't understand this criticism. First I don't think it's the case that a movie HAS to be epic, there are plenty of examples to the contrary. But at any rate, I didn't mean that TFF was less epic, just that it actually took Star Trek back to its roots, with exploring the unknown rather than dealing with politics, a battle with an old foe, rebelling against Starfleet etc.

How many sci fi movies are not epic and have worked? Perhaps epic is the wrong word, but a Star Trek movie should more meaningful then some random episode where the Holodeck breaks down or they use technobabble to get out of some anomaly. Sure you can exploration, but the story for the movie should be something with real impact, not some 2 hour version of a middle of the road episode of Star Trek.

 

[sonak]

I don't understand this criticism. First I don't think it's the case that a movie HAS to be epic, there are plenty of examples to the contrary.

Well, no, a movie doesn't have to be epic, but it should tell a story that is important to the characters. In theory, a movie should depict the most important event in its characters' lives, or at least a major, life-changing event. An episodic series is a different matter, because you typically preserve the status quo (although that's less true now than it was when TOS was made). In more modern terms, I think it was Joss Whedon who said that a TV episode is a question but a movie is an answer. That is, an episode of a TV series (the modern, more serialized kind) moves the storyline forward a bit but is setting things up for later payoff. A movie should be more about the payoff, the resolution.

So a movie can have a small, personal story, but it should be one that's important to the characters' lives, one that changes their status quo. This is where Insurrection fell short; ultimately, there was little sense of any meaningful impact on the characters' lives. The filmmakers started out with ambitious plans to do Heart of Darkness in space and maybe even force Picard to kill Data, but they ended up with a film where Picard's only arc was that his life had become too cluttered and he needed to learn to slow down and appreciate existence.

But at any rate, I didn't mean that TFF was less epic, just that it actually took Star Trek back to its roots, with exploring the unknown rather than dealing with politics, a battle with an old foe, rebelling against Starfleet etc.

Well, to an extent. Technically, their mission in that film was to free a group of hostages, and the exploration was done under coercion by the antagonist. So it's not entirely a return to Trek's roots.

This is not to take away from Insurrection's flaws and failures, of which there are MANY, but there's definitely meaningful impact on the characters in terms of Riker and Troi. Insurrection is the film where they finally get together, and in Nemesis they're getting married.

 

[sonak]

That's because a TV show is different from a movie. A movie has to tell an epic tale, something that really tests the mettle of the characters, not just a two hour run of the mill Star Trek episode. That was the problem with Insurrection, it felt like a long episode of TNG rather then an cinematic epic. With a TV show you have time to tell more off beat stories, with a movie, you don't have that time.

I don't understand this criticism. First I don't think it's the case that a movie HAS to be epic, there are plenty of examples to the contrary. But at any rate, I didn't mean that TFF was less epic, just that it actually took Star Trek back to its roots, with exploring the unknown rather than dealing with politics, a battle with an old foe, rebelling against Starfleet etc.

How many sci fi movies are not epic and have worked? Perhaps epic is the wrong word, but a Star Trek movie should more meaningful then some random episode where the Holodeck breaks down or they use technobabble to get out of some anomaly. Sure you can exploration, but the story for the movie should be something with real impact, not some 2 hour version of a middle of the road episode of Star Trek.

As I wrote, I didn't mean to imply that I thought TFF wasn't meaningful, just that it gets back to the roots of TOS a little more than some of the other films before it. But as Christopher points out, the "boldly going" in that film is coerced.

 

[Christopher]

This is not to take away from Insurrection's flaws and failures, of which there are MANY, but there's definitely meaningful impact on the characters in terms of Riker and Troi. Insurrection is the film where they finally get together, and in Nemesis they're getting married.

In retrospect, sure. But within itself, Insurrection specifically leaves it ambiguous as to whether their renewed involvement will continue or not.

RIKER: Do you think when we get away from this metaphasic radiation it'll change the way we feel?
WORF: Your feelings about her have not changed since the day I met you, Commander. This place just let them out for a little fresh air.

If anything, Worf's statement there implies that those feelings have only been temporarily "let out" and things will soon go back to normal. So it wasn't until NEM that there was actually a decisive change made in Riker and Troi's relationship. Within INS itself, there's no evidence that it's anything more than a "duration of the episode" thing, like Data and Tasha in "The Naked Now" or Riker and Ro in "Conundrum."

Now, I'm saying this as someone who likes INS. Aside from the gratuitous tacked-on action and the cavalier abandonment of Data's emotion-chip arc, it's a nice, thoughtful little film. But it is a valid point of view that it feels more like a 2-hour episode than a feature film.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Nick Meyer did mention using Horatio Hornblower as an inspiration for working on The Wrath of Khan and after seeing the Gregory Peck movie a few months ago for the first time I can understand why now. The similarities between movie era Kirk and that film's version of Hornblower are telling. I've not read any Honor Harrington books but she seems like a female sci-fi version of Horatio.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Edit: As an aside, the script for TWOK was originally called 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture II.'

The project was called that, but there were many script treatments, including one with the return of Khan, one with a weather-making machine, one with a young male Vulcan called "Dr Savik", and one featuring the return of Dr Janet Wallace ("The Deadly Years") and her son-with-Kirk, David Wallace. All of these concepts were then cobbled together into "Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country" (sometimes reported as "The Uncharted Continent"), then "Star Trek: The Vengeance of Khan" (including the model ships released by Corgi UK), then "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" (including the initial release prints and the novelization), then finally "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan".

 

[Christopher]

It seems pretty clear that a title like "Star Trek: The Motion Picture II" was nothing more than an in-house placeholder title for the early states of the project, not something that they ever intended to use for marketing purposes.

 

[Captain Mike]

But why would you consider it a reboot?...Same characters, same actors (although thrown ahead to show how much they have aged), same ship even after the first film, I would say the sets since they had been ravaged ( hence the Captain's chair being stolen). It would have been different if they had the same as (2009).

 

[Christopher]

As I said, "reboot" doesn't exclusively mean "changing the cast and continuity." That's just one type of reboot, the kind that fandom associates most strongly with the term in the wake of Battlestar Galactica. But as far as studios and filmmakers are concerned, a reboot is anything that takes a fresh, revisionist take on a concept and thereby (hopefully) restores its lost or waning popularity.

 

[Captain Mike]

As I said, "reboot" doesn't exclusively mean "changing the cast and continuity." That's just one type of reboot, the kind that fandom associates most strongly with the term in the wake of Battlestar Galactica. But as far as studios and filmmakers are concerned, a reboot is anything that takes a fresh, revisionist take on a concept and thereby (hopefully) restores its lost or waning popularity.

Then in between IV and VI should be considered a "reboot"? They all chose different directions that took the direction in a different way. I still disagree.

 

[Christopher]

Well, it's not like the original poster was stating this as a matter of fact. Hell, it says right in the title, "almost like a reboot." So you're making this far more black-and-white than it needs to be. The point is simply that TWoK appeared to be an effort to distance itself from TMP and make a fresh, more successful start, which is true. You're getting too hung up on the label and overlooking the real point.

 

[Commodore_Rook]

Would TWOK have been so well received if they stuck with the TMP uniforms??? I LOVE the monster Maroons. Probabaly the best uniform ever in Trek. Also, it allowed the little "trick" in the teaser with Saavik as "Captain", since we had no idea what those odd rank pins ment on the shoulders. If we still had the TMP uniforms, we would have relized immedatly she was NOT the Captain.

 

[Therin of Andor]

it allowed the little "trick" in the teaser with Saavik as "Captain", since we had no idea what those odd rank pins ment on the shoulders. If we still had the TMP uniforms, we would have relized immedatly she was NOT the Captain.

Exactly. I loved the TMP uniforms, and they made so many! With the high probability that "Phase II" would still be green lit after TMP's cinema run, Roddenberry had channeled a lot of budget into getting costumes made that could be used in the TV show (where the budget would be lower.)

When the "It's A Wrap!" eBay auctions were on, a few years ago, they were getting rid of dozens and dozens of beautiful, casual Starfleet uniform tops with the Epsilon 9 insignia, even though only a handful of those were viewed in the film. The shirt I won is raw silk! A beautiful timeless piece of clothing! Even decades later, they could have done a whole ST series set on a TMP-era space station and never need to make a new costume!

But yeah, when Saavik introduces herself as captain, we are sucked right in! Very clever to have a brand new set of rank pins - that were never fully explained until we'd seen several movies and could start working them all out. And also clever dyeing lots of unwanted TMP outfits to create the cadet uniforms.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I think a more appropriate term to describe the Meyer/Bennett films would be as I mentioned in my first post a reconstruction of the franchise because that's essentially what it comes down to. They used all the same characters, same ship, same universe but changed the visual aspects. It's not a straight up "reboot". A reconstruction.

 

[starfox]

After thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that I would've been happy if Wrath of Khan was the ONLY Trek film ever produced. I think it was better than all the others combined. Even if the final battle was silly by taking Khan's "2-dimensional thinking" literally.

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ I don't think that's silly at all. It was taking advantage of something Khan didn't consider because despite his superior intelligence he still did not have any space combat experience. It is just another example of one of my favorite lines in the film where Kirk says "We're still alive because I knew something about how these ships work that Khan didn't."

 

[JarodRussell]

Would TWOK have been so well received if they stuck with the TMP uniforms???

Umm, yes?