Review: Star Trek The Motion Picture December 17, 2006
by J.L. Garner , Filed under: Feature Films (TMP-NEM), Review , trackbackFor weeks without TOS-R episodes to review, TrekMovie.com will instead review a Trek film to see where it went right and where it went wrong, and what Trek XI can learn from it.
The year: 1979. Ten years had passed since NBC cancelled “Star Trek” and in that time it had become a hit in syndicated reruns. A growing fan base began holding conventions and were continually teased with the posibility of a return of their heroes from the 23rd century. After a short lived animated series in the early 70s, Paramount Paramount greenlit a low-budget “Trek” film entitled “Planet of the Titans.” About two weeks before “Star Wars” exploded onto American movie screens in May 1977, Paramount pulled the plug and then a few months later committed to bringing back “Star Trek” as a TV show. “Star Trek II” (which would have included all the original stars except for Leonard Nimoy) would be the cornerstone of a new ‘Paramount Network’. No sooner did Paramount move on that project then they did a complete about-face, killing the new network, canceling “Phase II,” and transforming its two-hour pilot script “In Thy Image” into a big-budget motion picture. The script was heavily rewritten, Nimoy came back to the fold, and legendary Oscar-winning director Robert Wise took the helm. And the rest, as they say, is history.
A film with BIG promise
“Star Trek: The Motion Picture” has a big, promising opening. Or, rather, its opening promises us something big. The film starts with an overture, something seen in only a handful of movies since the death of the big Hollywood musicals and Cinerama epics. This alone signals that we’re in store for a BIG. FUCKING. EPIC. The pacing of the film’s opening sequence quickly disabuses you of the expectation that "The Motion Picture” will be “Star Wars” starring William Shatner as Luke Skywalker. The deliberate camera movements and the intricately detailed models of the Klingon ship and the Epsilon IX station make it abundantly clear that this movie is channeling Stanley Kubrick, not George Lucas.
While the film as a whole comes across as very stilted, things get off on the right foot with lots of excellent character conflict. Spock is cold and distant, having just finished studying how to purge his emotions. Kirk is restless and obsessive, itching to get out from behind his desk. A new character, Decker, is justifiably edgy toward Kirk, having had his command taken away by the same self-centered egoist who recommended him. The character conflicts are actually more interesting than the plot itself. For the opening third of the film, the characters drive the story along pretty well. Once they reach their destination and allow the plot to kick in, everything grinds to a screeching halt. Toward the end, things pickup again, and the characters are back to their old selves, but by now most of the film’s momentum is irretrievably lost. Even the great mystery of V’Ger doesn’t pan out; our heroes travel to the heart of the ship, only to find that this huge vessel threatening the Earth is really just a lost space probe called Nomad that’s searching for its inventor, Jackson Roy Kirk. Or something like that.
ok…it’s big…we get it
A failure to meet its promises
The big problem with “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” isn’t that it promises and then fails to deliver the moon. No, the big problem is that it didn’t even deliver on the very modest promises of its creators.
While there will be plenty of special effects, they’re related to the characters — they’re part of the dramatic integrity, not an end in themselves. They won’t take over the picture.
- Gene Roddenberry, New York Times: January 1979
After losing 8½ minutes of my life traveling through V’Ger without adding any understanding to the mystery, I really wanted some of what the Great Bird was smoking
I wanted to develop characters more strongly and establish chemistry between them. I thought it needed more emotion and feeling to make the story more believable. ‘Close Encounters’ had an interesting beginning, but fell apart in the middle.
- Robert Wise (on his tweaks to the TMP scrpt), NYT: Jan 1979
Yeah, well, guess what, Bobbo… so did your film.
feel the passion
Playing it safe
For a movie that wants to be epic, “The Motion Picture” betrays its TV roots by playing safe with the characters. Decker and Ilia are our easily disposable guest stars; if they hadn’t changed the costumes you could imagine both sporting red shirts. Both Kirk or Spock would have been a more suitable candidate to merge with V’Ger, but they were needed for potential sequels. Spock still did have a rewarding character arc, but Kirk’s was too easily resolved; with Decker now evolved into a higher state of being, there’s no question over who gets the center seat. This risk aversion is a problem that has continually marred “Trek” over the years, and hindsight makes it disappointing that Roddenberry didn’t have the guts to make a truly radical change, instead of just giving us lovely scenery.
That’s not to say all the problems with “The Motion Picture” were big; many were smaller problems that take you out of the film for one reason or another. The uniforms look like pastel polyester pajamas. I don’t care what Jesco von Puttkamer said about what we’ll be wearing in the future, they look stupid. Cinematographer Richard H. Kline’s decision to use a split-diopter lens in various shots on the bridge makes some scenes look disorienting. And while I like Hal Michelson’s set designs in general, his decision to have all the lighting in the corridors emanate from down near the floor makes the ship interiors look gloomy and dark. The film also got a lot of little things right. TMP established a new and frightening look for the venerable Klingons that became the basis for many a beloved character for the next two decades. And although the shots of it lingered a bit long, the newly ‘refit’ Enterprise was truly an awe inspiring site. And of course the Goldsmith score also became a new standard for Trek, even used as the theme for the Next Generation.
do not adjust your glasses…it is supposed to look that way
A hit…and a miss
“Star Trek: The Motion Picture” was one of the big hits of the 1979 holiday season, yet despite its success, the future of any “Trek”projects remained uncertain. While it made a lot of money, its box office take ($82 million) didn’t reach the heights of “Star Wars” ($307 million) or" Superman” ($138 million). The film had been very expensive ($30 million), a matter that was only compounded when Paramount decided to tack on the cost of the abortive “Planet of the Titans” and “Star Trek II” projects, bringing the costs up to $45 million. Roddenberry’s behind-the-scenes battles with screenwriter Harold Livingston didn’t help the production, either; Livingston quit and came back four times, and the script was being rewritten on an almost daily basis. Despite its deliberate pacing, the film itself was a rush job, as Paramount made the foolish decision to lock it into a specific release date early on. This required many special effects sequences to be left incomplete, and left the film without a proper sound mix, with the result that it seems eerily quiet at times. In 2001 fans did finally get rewarded with a ‘Directors Edition’ of the film, where Wise was allowed to ‘finish’ his epic with new edits and new CGI special effects.
While the fans were happy to see Trek up on the screen again, the film also left them with mixed reactions. Was this really the "Star Trek” of their earlier years? It didn’t necessarily leave viewers exhilarated and eager for more the way “Star Wars” did. Critics were also mixed; they certainly recognized the film’s technical accomplishments, but also quickly saw the flaws. In his review, New York Times critic Vincent Canby called the dialogue “banal” and Roddenberry’s vision of the future “tacky”, and judged that the film owed more of its success to special effects artists Doug Trumbull and John Dykstra, and production designer Michelson, than it did to Roddenberry, Wise, or Livingston.
In the end TMP was successful at bringing Trek back from the dead, but that’s about all it did. To this day, the film remains the most ambitious of the franchise, at least in its attempt to give some scope to the fictional universe. Yet for all that ambition, it never seems to reach as high in what really matters: the story and characters. Ironically, it would be the second, less ambitious film – one that didn’t directly involve Roddenberry –that finally delivered on those essentials.
all agree…the upgraded Ent is a thing of beauty
Lessons for Trek XI
Looking forward to J.J. Abrams’ “Star Trek XI,” the main lesson of “The Motion Picture” is to keep the characters and story central to the film at all times, and to not allow the special effects and sets overwhelm it. A vision of the future is pointless if you don’t have a compelling story to tell, and well-motivated characters to do things in it. If you’re going to introduce a story arc (e.g., Kirk competing with Decker for the center seat), then actually resolve it rather than giving yourself an easy out. Don’t be afraid to put the main characters in jeopardy, either. Obviously Kirk and Spock have to survive so they can return in “Star Trek XII,” but Abrams shouldn’t be afraid to make the audience worry a little (like he did with Ethan Hunt in the last act of “Mission: Impossible III”). Put our heroes in some real peril, not the two-bit cheesy-ass non-peril they found themselves in here. And for the love of Jesus, don’t let Paramount screw you over with the accounting.
Special thanks to Dennis Bailey who provided background information from a fan’s perspective. Other background information was taken from the book “Phase II: The Lost Series” by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens. The Roddenberry and Wise quotes came from a January 21, 1979 New York Times article entitled “At Last, All Systems Are ‘Go’ for ‘Star Trek,’” by M.L. Stein. Imagery courtesy of TrekCore.com
J.L. Garner dabbles in film criticism from time to time, and is co-moderator of the Trek Movies forum at TrekBBS.
Loading ...
Comments»
Simply put the real problem with Star Trek: The Motion Picture, it was a very bad story – poorly written.
Despite the fact V’ger had accumulated all thet was knowable,it still needed to seek the creator to find it’s identity.
I remember being very disappointed when the new Star Trek series did not come off and it was announced that it was now going to be Star Trek-The Motion Picture. I really wished that they had done the series, even without Nimoy. That being said, I went to the movie about a dozen or more times when it came out and even though the next few movies were more interesting story-wise, I still have a certain amount of affection for the The Motion Picture. I think I replay it more often than any of the other movies. Even though the uniforms were changed too drastically from the TV series, I still like them better than the burgundy ones that came later.
I love TMP for many reasons as well, i love the klingons, the enterprise, spock\’s arc, mccoy\’s beard, the radiation suits, the giant auditorium, the music, the spacedock, and its just great to see Trek get the epic treatment.
but in the end it is really a film only a Trek fan can love. It just failed to build a mainstream fanbase like Star Wars did, it was a bit too far up its own navel. I admire it for its ambition, but it also failed to be a true intellectual equal to 2001. So in the end it was caught between those two films in this nether region.
I purchased the Directors Cut and found it more suitable and easier to watch… but it was all still very sterile.
The editorial seemed to agree with all I thought of the film… no surprises. However, I do have a problem with a column that is presented as a serious review but the writer cannot find a substitute for the F word.
There’s no need for that.
Actually I agree with #5, there is no need for a legitimate article and to drop the “F Bomb”. TrekMovie isn’t just some random jerk’s blog, we’ve established ourselves as being a great source for Trek news and editorials.
well the average age of a Trekkie is in his mid thirties…i think people should be able to handle it. I debated cutting it, but in the end I chose to leave it in because I thought people would understand it in the context it was meant.
and I dont want to see this whole comments section derailed into obsessing over a single word….if you really dont like it email me and explain how it offended you.
In many ways this film singularly represents every conceptual notion Star Trek has ever striven for, yet sadly that is the duel-edged sword of the films inception, as well as reception.
It is Homereseque’ in it’s epic narrative and drive, seeking to expand human consciousness and not blind the senses with useless violence or more mundane abject human responses.
That is the only fundamental flaw with this majestic film- it doesn’t resonate with a watered down low brow audience.
This is very much the “thinking man’s” Trek film that asks the bigger questions and unfortunately, that is also it’s greatest weakness, as the majority of movie goers don’t attend films for personal introspection or to be changed, they attend a film for simple escapism.
Star Trek- The Motion Picture is by far the most visually dynamic and adult of the film entries, easily transporting the viewer to a truly actualized 23rd century. The production design and visual aesthetic alone of this film merits distinction not only among other Trek films but movies in general.
From the alien in appearance Klingons, to the fabulously refitted Starship Enterprise, to the vague and nebulous Vejur asking the same questions humanity aspires towards, this film featured a bold and daring departure from anything Trek had previously attempted, despite the shortsighted comparisons to earlier episodes such as “The Changeling,” which only resembled this film topically and superficially.
I think personally this film gets the bad reputation it does merely because of the comparison to Star Wars it endured when it was first released.
This film has no true nemesis or villain, the circumstances and consequences serve as the primary antagonist.
Roddenberry and Livingston wanted to ask some big questions, as a result, an audience expecting Errol Flynn like derrings do was set up for dissapointment.
I believe anyone that watches this film with no pre-concieved expectations and simply accepts the film on it’s own merit is in for a wonderful surprise among the annals of Trekdom. The film dates very well and has a timeless epic feel that the future films lack severely.
ADD individuals should avoid this film like the plague. It has a deliberate methodical pace and doesn’t bombard you with mindless candy to numb the senses such as a Matrix, or other explosion laden film.
This film is the polar opposite of “The Wrath of Khan”, in that circumstances not people, propell the story forward. This is not a detriment to the film, but rather a different approach to telling a story.
For an excellent companion peice to this film, I highly recommend the official novelization by Roddenberry that provides many invaluable insights into the characterization and more obscure lore of his creation.
I have always been an advocate for this film and it remains probably my favorite Trek film above even “The Wrath of Khan.”
Despite the flaws I still like TMP. Gene even ripped it off and turned it into TNG. Ilia and Decker became Riker and Troi. He even took the theme.
Anyway having seen TMP in the movie theatre in 1979, I liked the 8 minutes of Starship porn. Seeing the Enterprise on a huge screen was just awesome.
There were also great character bits as well. McCoy’s “I know engineers, they love to change things”, to the classic banter between McCoy and Spock. I think what gets lost is that the character arcs, these are not the familiar characters we all knew until the very end.
The film also has the best shot of the Enterprise warping out at the very end of the picture.
If they wanted to be more “Star Wars” then they should have copied “The Doomsday Machine”, and not “The Changling”. At least they had the courage not to turn Trek into Star Wars and went with a more intellectual film however flawed it turned out to be.
It fell short. It was great to see Trek on the big screen. It led to other Trek films and spin off’s. It was great… I loved it. Still do.
Thanks for the review, J.L.
You provide a good, concise context surrounding Star Trek: The Motion Picture. However, I am disappointed that you didn’t discuss the actual story in detail. Yes, we all know what the story is, but from a film critic’s perspective, what does that story matter, if at all? Since we’re allowed to write comments, allow me to pick up that issue.
I think TMP’s plot is vintage Star Trek. Conceptually, Roddenberry kept true to the Original Series tv show by having the characters face a “force” of nature, a tidal wave that required reasoning and logic to combat. Whether that makes for compelling storytelling is the trick, as many feel TMP failed to nail the dramatic tension despite the plot involving the imminent peril of planet Earth. But again, the focus throughout the movie was the riddle of V’Ger. And like I said above, the concept reveals Star Trek’s unique take on science fiction. The problem was that it was too awesome of a riddle. Not in terms of difficulty, but in terms of scale and scope, V’Ger took away the levity and warmth that allowed these characters to charm their ways into our collective consciousness from the tv show. V’Ger was not a cackling villain that would rouse Kirk to kick his ass. V’Ger was a non-belligerent foe. Thus, TMP is a very sober movie.
Personally, I disliked TMP when I first saw it. I didn’t hate what I was watching, I was upset that the characters were so bland when I had seen them full of life elsewhere. I think it was ten years ago when I sat down to watch it again that it started clicking for me. Yes, I’m a Trek fan, I’m not an objective person by any stretch, but then so are we all. But what impressed me when I revisited the movie was what initially put me off to the movie: the scope of the story. This is an incredibly imaginative tale. Its ambition overwhelms because no movie, save for 2001: A Space Odyssey, had tried to take science fiction to the masses with such ardent devotion. TMP was literally the anti-Star Wars. As a piece of popular entertainment, TMP is a dismal failure. As a thoughtful story that is philosophically poignant, I think TMP is on the money. It’s an older person’s Trek. It’s not an adventure on the high seas like Star Trek II: TWOK (which I love as well). A better script could have made this movie more watchable and entertaining. I agree, the tension is not there as we’re accustomed to from genre movies.
That being said, TMP is unapologetic SCIENCE-fiction. We will likely never see a Star Trek movie with the same ambition and scope as Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Whether you enjoy the movie or not, one must agree that TMP reveals the heart of Gene Roddenberry’s vision of Star Trek.
Josh T.
I was busy writing my comment and I didn’t read yours until after I was done. It seems like we’re on the same level in terms of appreciation for TMP. I see we used different words to say a lot of the same things. Cheers!
Yes Adam this film is a little jewel amid the sea of filth that is movieland.
NO film captured my imagination more than this film as a child, and that is a claim I do not make lightly.
Not to toot my own horn but if anyone would be interested in seeing my painted canvas reproduction of Bob Peaks wonderful poster art, simply E-mail me.
Such is the degree this film inspired me.
Josh T., count me in as interested in seeing that art.
I’m a HUGE Bob Peak fan. Are you familiar with his unused concepts for Star Trek VI? Some of them look awesome. How do I email you?
JoshuaVance1701@aol.com
Yes Adam I recently discovered them, as well as the unused poster art of Trek II and III. I have seriously been considering one of those as my next project.
re: #10
Thanks for the kind words, Adam. You should have seen what I originally turned in… Anthony did a fantastic job of whittling my verbose essay down to what you now see.
I think you nailed TMP’s problem, and I tried to touch on it (albeit a bit flippantly) with that GR quote from the NYT interview. The best TOS episodes had the characters facing these “forces of nature” as you describe them, but those episodes also kept the characters in the foreground. Furthermore, we relate to the questions the story is raising about this week’s issue or philosophical question by how we the audience connect with Kirk, Spock & McCoy as they face it themselves. If the characters are taking a back seat to the special effects (which they did, despite what GR said), most of the audience members — even the lowest common denominator ones who are suffering from unmedicated ADD — will start to feel disconnected from what they’re watching.
TMP suffers from a bit of “kid in the candy store” — GR has a budget as big as an entire season of TOS at his command, he’s got two of the industry’s hottest special effects artists working for him (Doug Trumbull, who worked on “2001,” the film he wants to emulate, and John Dykstra, who worked on “Star Wars,” the film Paramount wants him to emulate)… so he goes for the whole schmeer and we get 8-1/2 minutes of pretty lights and colors and George Takei staring slack-jawed at the screen.
But how does this help solve the riddle of V’Ger? What is it in aid of? When it’s over, all we know is that V’Ger is really, really big. But we knew that before they did the flyover, so we’ve just wasted 8-1/2 minutes.
I’ll be honest… my prose is very rusty, and I haven’t ever really written a review like this before, where it needs to serve so many masters all at once — “historical” context, plot synopsis, actual criticism, examination of how it affected the franchise, plus a “lesson for J.J.” — so this is a formula that I’m exploring as I work on these reviews. By the time I get to NEM, I should have it down pat.
The Decker/Ilia link to the larger version of the image doesn’t work.
I STRONGLY encourage anyone in college or otherwise studying to have Goldsmith’s score playing in the background whilst doing so, a study indicated orchestral classical music enhances learning, and I can personally attest to that.
cardinal biggles (J.L.),
Yes, you’re right, Gene Roddenberry’s production was “excessive” to say the least. Nick Meyer has often said that he thinks art thrives on thrift, and he may have a point in some respects. But that naive “kid in the candy store” feel to TMP has grown on me as I’ve aged. And you’re right to mention that the refit-Enterprise was one of the best things to come out of TMP. It is the F-14 of starships– they’ll never make one that’s both modern and classic like that beauty.
I look forward to more reviews from you. However, I am sorry you have to review Nemesis. I mean, just save time and use the Jay Sherman line from “The Critic”: “IT STINKS!”
I can also attest to that. Jerry Goldsmith and John Williams got me through many a late-night cram session or term paper.
Adam (re: #18),
I think the happy medium — which we never really achieved on any Trek film — is probably half of GR’s naive wonderment, and half of Meyer’s thrift and pressure. I have no idea how you achieve such a thing in practice, but on paper it should work.
As for Nemesis, that’s not a bad idea. Alternately, I might photograph a dog relieving itself on a fire hydrant and just submit that.
I was a senior in college when the 20th Anniversary TMP soundtrack came out. I owned the prior release, but when I got that disc, I pretty much lived in that sound for weeks. I can listen to that score wall-to-wall without skipping a single track. In fact, I repeat tracks if I’m really feelin’ it that day! Goldsmith’s TMP score surpasses all other Trek music. As for study music, I’ll take your word for it, I was busy playing GoldenEye and StarFox while listening to that music. What? I was a SENIOR in college! It was a busy day if I was wearing pants.
cardinal biggles!!!!
Bwahahaha! That’s friggin hilarious. Phew, good one…
Oh, as a suggestion for a “lesson for JJ Abrams” maybe cite other movies that might translate well into a new Trek outside of the series. For the past couple of years, I’ve been telling people that MASTER AND COMMANDER has the makings of an awesome Star Trek movie, despite the obvious differences in setting. It is both sweeping in scope and has characters worthy of the adventure. And Russell Crowe as the new Kirk would simply rock (I know it ain’t happening, but don’t sue me for having an opinion, people).
Star Trek X-The Wrath of Shinzon ,
failed utterly for a variety of reasons that Sherry Lansing and Ricky boy Berman completely overlooked including but not limited to:
1. If you borrow from your own well of creativity, you are already doomed.
Nemesis was a carbon copy of Khan, and not even a good one.
2. When you kill off a major character, and NO ONE cares, that’s typically a bad harbinger your film failed and you probably shouldn’t have done it.
When Spock died in ‘82, I heard people SOBBING in the theater. Not that sniff sniff passive whimpering, I mean outright SOBBING. Like “Passion of the Christ” sobbing. Spock died = Our old friend died.
3. To feature villains everyone wants to see a villians, as relegate them to background characters in favor of their mongoloid trisby 21 cousins, is assisine.
4. Dune Buggys are cool. Dune Buggys in the era of star travel SUCK.
5. Picard isn’t THAT important to hatch a 20 year in the making plan to sample his DNA then later on use the Clone to infiltrate the Federation.
Horrible backstory plotting.
6. Does the Enterprise in the Next Generation era EVER come out on top of a fight?? I mean really. The D is annihilated by a peice of shit Bird of Prey. The E by Borg, and plastic surgery guys, and Remans, and…..
7. Stuard Baird is an excellent film Editor.
Stuard Baird is a shitty film director.
The ‘79 movie was boring plain and simple.
The refit Enterprise rocked however and never looked as good since.
ST:TMP is still my most favorite of all the Trek Films. The music, the PURE science fiction story, and the way it was made, 100% EPIC. I love seeing our heroes in that larger than life setting.
One thing I would really like to see is this movie given the same “Re-master” that the Star Wars Trilogy recieved. If they could go back and remove the black matte lines and all of the scratches and pieces of dirt on this Film I would be thrilled. The Star Wars movies look like they were realeased yesterday, absolutely pristine. ST:TMP deserves this same attention.
While the 2001 Director’s Edition looks good it could be a BILLION times better.
I really like TMP. I think it has a big-screen presence and majesty, and feels like an “event” in a way that a lot of the later Treks don’t. I really like the character moments between Kirk and Spock, and I think the story is a great one about expanding consciousness and what makes humans special.
All in all, this is my second favorite of all the Trek movies, after Wrath of Khan. It’s vastly underrated.
The story was poorly developed, maybe a bit recycled. Still, it was that BOOST that created the franchise of today.
SPECUALTON:
If ST:TMP and been SPEXTACULAR, as if ST: TWOK had been the first TREK movie, what would Star Trek of today have looked like?
Food for thought…eh?
Like many others here, ST:TMP holds a special place in my heart. Despite its sometimes vast flaws and its ponderous pacing, TMP tried and succeeded in showing us the 23rd century as a real place. The details were so subtle and so complete that I really felt like I had been taken into the future. I still feel that way when I watch the movie today, and the Director’s Edition only made that aspect of the film better.
I fell completely in love with the Enterprise refit and it remains my favorite design. The pains the filmmakers went through to make the Enterprise real, the sheer hugeness of the vessel and its elegant beauty have never been equaled, not in any Trek film nor in any other genre project since.
In my opinion, the problems with TMP started with Roddenberry himself. He was determined to make Star Trek his way, the way he had originally envisioned it back in the 60’s, as a vehicle for social and philosophical expression. The trouble is, Roddenberry’s Star Trek, while intellectually stimulating, is boring as hell to watch. Remember, it was NBC that insisted that more action be injected into the TV show, and by the time TMP was released in theaters, that’s what people expected to see. That isn’t what they got, however. Look at the first two seasons of ST:TNG and you’ll see the pattern again. There are many stimulating ideas in those episodes, but they are dull, dull, dull. This is why ST:TWOK gets more critical kudos; it has ideas that are ripe for discussion AND it’s got some ripping good action to boot. TWOK may not have the epic feel of TMP, but the story moves at a much better clip and there’s a real sense of jeopardy involved.
So, TMP may not be a Star Trek film for the masses, and it may be too slowly paced to keep many people interested, but it is a gloriously rich film in many other respects, and that’s where it redeems itself. It may not be the best Star Trek film, but it is a great film, just the same.
ST TMP was CINEMA! Remember, up until 1979, all we had to watch were poor quality re-runs on TV or the occasional 16 mm print at a convention. What Wise understood was that this was a cinematic event, and he took that to the nth degree with spectacular visuals that stayed on the screens for not just seconds, but minutes.
On TV today, these visuals lose their impact, but on a widescreen projected from a 70 mm print – That was amazing! I can vividly recall the details of the Klingon battle cruisers, the spinning tracking shot of the ships as they encouter VGer – that booming Goldsmith score drawing to intensity as the Klingons meet their fate.
ST TMP was made as a real MOVIE in every sense visually. And yes it was flawed but it did the trick for me way back when and millions others as well.
I have never seen af Trekmovie as big, as exciting, as true to the original series as ST TMP. Never ever since ST TMP have the Trek Cast been as wonderful as in ST TMP
Has anyone else noticed Klingons since that film don’t quite have the same presence and awe, and sheer alien feel?
I think Fred Philips makeup applications were far more intimidating than the later incarnations. The white contact lenses especially.
I also liked how there was a very uniform appearance to all Klingon ridges, as opposed to the more individualistic foreheads that came later.
Additionally, whose idea was it to dumb down Klingons and make them barbaric and aggressive?
In TOS and this first feature, Klingons though the heavies, were portrayed as intellectual equals to any Federation member, never snarling or grimacing to show pointed teeth-
Consider if you will the transmission made by the Imperial Klingon Commander from the ill-fated cruiser Amar:
“Intruder unidentified – believe luminescent cloud to be enormous powerfield surrounding alien vessel, our sensor scans unable to penetrate….Imperial Klingon Cruiser Amar continuing to attack.”
Spock could have very well made this statement.
The wholesale dumbing down of Klingons in later versions dramatically undermined the spirit of their villiany.
Gone were the shrewd, plotting, fiendish, machiavellien Klingons only to be replaced by snarling, Conan-like Barbarians fueled only by battle and
“Honor.”
Honor?
The Klingons never valued honor, Klingons routinely practised DIS-honorable acts, to serve their greater purposes. Klingons were never stringently observant of the concept of honor.
In an effort to give Klingons more dimension and depth in later incarnations, they were robbed of their unique and singular dispositions as those with no scruples or integrity.
Kruge and his merry band began this watered down approach to Klingons, to be followed by a return to form as brilliantly portrayed by John Shuck, the elegant, eloquent, Klingon Ambassador in Trek IV.
Trek V gives us morons again, pretending to be Klingons, again followed by a more elegant, refined villian in the form of Chang in Trek VI.
With the advent of “The Next Generation” Klingons are all over the place, you have Worf with his preoccupation for self discovery and personal enlightenment, Gowron with his flair for dramatics and crude expressionism, etc etc.
John Colicos served as the archetypical model for Klingons utilizing Coon’s magnificent writing. This pattern should have remained consistent throughout all of Trek’s incarnations.
Kor, Kang, and Koloth with all dignified, articulate, shewd, cunning, calculating villians that NEVER defiled themselves by resorting to grunts and growls.
Lur’sa and B’etor, I’m sorry were the absolute LOW in Klingons. If Kang of old had seen one of these skanks he probably would have disrupted her and asked “What the hell was THAT Kirk?”
But back to my original point, the Klingons of “The Motion Picture” had a brief appearance, but maintained the cold, calculating disposition first established for the characters, while Phillip’s enhanced their alien presence dramatically with the new makeup.
That first slow pan and zoom on the Commander demonstrated immediately these guys had been in space WAY too long patrolling that damn border and as intended, you felt like you are suddenly in an enemy submarine.
Mark Lenard is AWESOME.
Sarek, Romulan, and Klingon Commanders.
The best thing about TMP is that it stands alone as a piece of sci-fi, and doesn’t feel like it has to belong to Trek.
Josh, Adam Cohen, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I think we all can make the same analysis of Star Trek: TMP, however what will differ between afficionados and haters is the conclusion. Yes, this movie is not about characters first and foremost. Yes, this movie is very visual. Yes, the plot is not as intricate as some movie plots are. However, I do not agree that this means TMP is a boring special effects galore (something many people say about 2001, too, btw). I think people saying that are either not seeing and/or not appreciating the missing piece of the puzzle here: this movie is about something bigger than characters, special effects or plot: it is about the human nature, it is about philosophical issues, about the questions of Why and How and To what effect. It goes so big in scope that for a (low brow) mainstream audience it is just intangible – they only see the surface, its beautiful core lost in translation for them. It chooses a visual approach to deliver its musings, messages and ultimately, sense of wonder, like 2001 (though in a less figurative way), and if we say Star Trek was based on Forbidden Planet, this movie is dead-on, presenting the most “literary science fiction” translation to the big screen of any Trek movies. TMP is intellectual, serious, aloof, and NOT very concerned about marketing its points in the easiest way – it wants the viewer to discover the truths hidden within, and thus, is most intellectually challenging (I prefer for the original over the DE for that reason, which gives a lot of unnecessary explanations). Of course, this is opposed to mainstream cinema where people go in to get entertained. Meaning, that you don’t get this movie doesn’t mean this movie is dumb or a creative failure. It maybe just isn’t a movie for you. It’d probably better fit an art film festival, where you can find many movies like this with an even more enigmatic and elusive nature (Tarkovsky, anyone?)
So what’s the bottom line? This movie is not for everyone. It requires your attention and dedication, and inspires your imagination in return. And guess what, that’s why it’s my favorite Trek movie.
The human adventure is just beginning!
This review could have been written without the profanity. There are kids reading these reviews, too. Let’s set an example, shall we?
Interesting review, that’s made me think about these films again.
I remember ST:TMP was one the videos my parents rented when they put one of these fancy-pants VHS video recorders on our TV rental bill way back in 1984. My brother and I were told not to talk about our video machine, because other kids might think we were showing off.
My memories of it include that we didn’t know about the tracking control and the pitcure was all over the place and we took the tape back for a replacement.
As an eight-year-old child who loved Trek for its colour and adventures, TMP was a shock. The opening overture went on and on. Then came the titles, white on black with this loud oh-so-pompous music. Then came an intriguing sequence with these animal-like aliens who were nothing like Klingons. But the scene is scary – it’s up there with TWOK for space being a big terrifying place full of unknowns. Sadly, TMP’s ‘true’ sequel-cum-remake, Star Trek: The Next Generation was never as sinister.
I agree with the earlier post that the Klingons were clearly more intelligent in this film. Watching the opening of TWOK, without knowledge of subsequent Klingon portrayals makes the Kobayashi Maru scene far more scary.
Then we get all these people wearing pastel Starfleet uniforms that just seem wrong. And, jeez! what’s with the sound? Everyone’s voices are really muffled, yet harsh!!
Then Kirk turns up on Earth, looking much the same as ever, but in a weird uniform and talks to a Vulcan who isn’t Spock (Spock’s on a very alien looking planet Vulcan, not being very Spock-like.)
Then we get a long sequence where Kirk beams (using a completely different sound and visual effec)t to meet this geezer with a moustache who my Dad says is Scotty (’No way!’ I think. ‘He’s too old!’) and they spend ages travelling around a ship that is obviously the Enterprise, so why don’t they get on with it? And where are the orange dots on the birs that stick out the back?
My main feeling, then, as now, was one of alienation, watching TMP. It’s a flawed, grandiose science fiction film, rather than a Star trek film! The characters aren’t the same, all being more like Soviet characters from Cold War thrillers. There’s no colour in this interpretation of Trek. The film’s intellect is as ice-cold as Spock seems to have become.
I just couldn’t understand how my Kirk, Spock and McCoy, who I loved watching on TV, had become these cold, distant people, whose friendship seemed to have faded along with the shades of their uniforms. The Enterprise, also, was big, grey and alienating.
Looking at TMP now, especially the vastly-improved Director’s Editon, I do rather like the film. While it includes many classic Trek elements, it sits awkwardly in the series as a whole. It’s so different from anything before or after and does kind of fall apart at the end.
At the same time, the actors are still trying to act, rather than play themselves. As the TOS films went on, the performances broadened and coarsened to the point of parody – a bit like the Klingons, really. Scotty, is a believeable engineer in this film, Spock is a believeable half-human struggling with his inner turmoil. Admiral Kirk is a tough, career-minded opportunist. McCoy and Chapel are convincing MDs. I can believe that all these characters do these jobs.On that level, looking at TMP and TWOK without reference to the rest of the films, TWOK could convincingly be set in the same universe as TMP.
With Trek XI on its way, I wonder how the film can be taken. I want it to be as cinematic as TMP, with characters who are convincing Starfleet officers. But I wan’t the warmth of the character interplay seen in ST:TOS and in STII and STIII.
TMP and I will always have a strange relationship. Standing alone, it’s very impressive, in the same way a uniformed Soviet general is impressive and rather intimidating. I believe that, had this film been made as Star Trek Phase II: In Thy Image, with Phase II’s 60s-ish sets, the series would have tanked and damaged Star Trek’s reputation.
The film does merit considerable rewatching and, in the event of a new TOS film being made, I consider this film to represent a vital peice of research.
ST:TMP is a great example who just how visually and intellectually ambitious Trek can be, genuinely moving beyond the television screen and being genuine cinema, which probably only TWOK, in spite of its TV references, can also claim to be.
All in all, a glorious, flawed interpretation of Star Trek.
TMP has grown on me over the years, particularlly since the 2001 release of the Director’s Edition of the film. I think that the DE makes the film far more watchable to a broader audience…
However, I genuinely agree that the story is far too much a rehash of “The Changeling” with touches of “The Doomsday Machine” and other TOS episodes that it feels totally forgettable.
If the threat had been something different… then the movie would have been far better… and I mean FAR better.
Rob+
Despite its obvious flaws, still one of my favorites. I remember attending opening night that Friday back in November 1979 at my theater. It certainly felt like a big event and it was very exciting. It was the first time I saw people actually dressed like Star Trek characters and that was a little scary,but that’s another story… The Directors cut by Robert Wise was welcomed and his reworking of the special effects via CG helped the picture. But, for me, the biggest problem with this film was that sleep inducing voyage through V’Ger. I swear I heard snoring in the theater. I remember thinking “when is the going to end?”. Between that, and those wide-eyed, bridge reaction shots I don’t know what was more painful. I still have a problem with it. You could lop 10 minutes off of that and I don’t think you’ll lose a thing. As much as an improvement as the directors cut is, I’m surprise Robert Wise didn’t think that sequence needed work as well (as in shortened). Regardless, it was the first , it was fun. and I still enjoy watching it – before bedtime.
Everyone has some interesting takes on TMP. I fall in the camp of finding this movie so dramatically improved with the directors cut, that it ranks among my favorites now.
Robert Wise said in an interview, that it wasn’t only the effects that had gone unfinished when TMP was released, it was also the editing, and the sound editing, which speaks to tinny sound of the film, and the sterile long silences between dialogue.
Despite some moments of really bad acting in the wormhole sequence, (where bad acting is provided to you in slow motion for 10 minutes) and some embarrasingly dated clothes and sets (Kirk’s quarters and the game room look like a 70’s Hilton lobby), TMP comes back together as a much tighter and richer film experience in the Directors Cut.
I’m assuming most of you have seen this version of the film. Many of the awkward pauses have been cut out. I believe the endless trip through the V’Ger cloud may have even but cut back some, but not sure about that.
I appreciate that the sterility of this movie might have been both deliberate and unintentional all at once. The larger message of the movie of course being that the “core trio” have lost touch with eachother and are lost. Spock is lost in his logic, Kirk is lost in his command, McCoy is lost to a lesser degree, and serves a bit more as the glue bonding Kirk & Spock. Vger of course is lost and searching too, creating the parallel between plot and character.
The unintentional side of this is that these actors are brought back together in a very different circumstance and time and have to recreate the chemistry they had with a lot of pressure riding on their success.
In the end, the directors cut serves to alleviate the sterility and pacing of the film. It doesn’t solve all of its problems, but I can sit back and watch this movie now, and feel like it’s actually connected.
People were ranking their faves in a previous thread. I have to consider 2, 3 & 4 as one long movie really, but for sake of ranking here goes:
Voyage home
Search for Spock
WofK
TMP
First Contact
Honestly, the rest of em (undiscovered country included) leave me flat.
Doug
The motion picture (in it’s original form) is one of my favourite movies. A true scifi space opera wich Hollywood gives us too rarely (2010 / Solaris) ever since.
TMP has well drawn characters, a cold and uncanny atmosphere and a well defined technical side.
The story is really amazing and exciting, and V’Ger was one of the best ideas Trek ever had (including Nomad ;-) )
Last but not least the symbiosis between Goldsmiths musical score and the motion picture was perfect.
In short… a perfect movie!
But what they did for the director’s edition I can’t forgive. The Vulcan scenes were wonderful. Same to the newly integrated space f/x. But the sound was an insolence. For example… replacing the harsh alert sound with that of the old series was more than silly. Same is true for adding the vintage bridge sound effects. Oh my… it destroyed the whole feeling of the movie.
I hope for a new dvd containing the original movie version some time. I’ll buy it for sure ! ! !
It’s Star Trek Phase 2 in movie form: a frightening glimpse of what Roddenberry had in store for taking the guts out of his own creation in Next Generation.
re 40:
Wow, I am really shocked.
The ambient sound from the original series was one of my favorite inclusions into the directors cut. I’m truly surprised that a fan of Trek in any incarnation could find their addition objectionable. I was always thrilled when a classic sound effect made it’s way into a later series or film.
Again going back to the director’s comments, these sounds were always meant to be included, but they lacked the time to finish the sound editing.
I think these sounds are an integral and original part of Trek. They are unmistakable.
Doug
I see there may be a bit of a divide here, between those who saw it in the movie theater and those who didn’t. (In my case, I couldn’t, because i was still a fetus when this movie hit the theaters.)
I do appreciate TMP for what it is: a deeply flawed but well-intentioned attempt by Roddenberry to finally show us all what Trek would have been like without “interference” from those meddlesome NBC execs. It does raise interesting philosophical questions, but it does so in a cold, self-important way that fails to engage the audience.
My journey to appreciating TMP is similar to Doug and others… when I watched it on VHS, I was bored out of my mind and ended up playing MST3K with my brother. The Director’s Edition was a dramatic improvement, and suddenly the film shot up my list from the bottom of the pack to near the top. The improvements to the DE are nothing short of astounding. They don’t fix all the flaws, but they do bring the film a long way towards being more like the Star Trek we know and love, and less like a boring, pretentious art film.
“Again going back to the director’s comments, these sounds were always meant to be included, but they lacked the time to finish the sound editing.” (Doug, #42)
They were actually going to use the old TOS effects on the bridge? I would have preferred that they came up with something different, because the TOS effects do take you out of it just a bit during some of the non-dialogue scenes.
And I also have to confess a sentimental attachment to the harsh, mechanical annunciator and the Red Alert that sounded like a radiation alarm that they used in the theatrical version.
re 45.
Ha, that’s funny regarding the red alert sound. I’ve taken the day off from work today to finish up some christmas stuff, and now I want to watch TMP!!
I read an interview w/ R. Wise shortly before the release of the directors cut, and talked primarily about being thoroughly dissatisfied with his experience on TMP. The three things I remember most were about the sound effects, the horrible cut of the film (in his estimation) and the lack of completed effects.
He said the bridge sounds and claxon as originally appeared were not meant to be in the final cut. They were filler sounds, i guess like a temp track or something.
I’m going to see if I can find the interview. Doug
Btw… I saw TMP in the theater opening night when I was like 11. :)
Here’s one interview that speaks a bit about the dissatisfaction with the sound mix. I think I may be piecing together information in my head from different interviews.
http://www.dvdcreation.com/2002/10_oct/features/startrek_directorscut.htm
Doug
Here’s another link.
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/community/chat/archive/transcript/4256.html
i can’t find the quote about the original (or a recreation of the original) sound effects being used. It may have been someone else who said that, or it’s somewhere I can’t find it.
Maybe Daren Docterman knows if he’s reading these threads…?
Doug
I saw this movie in the theatre – yes I was very young.
What seems “bland” to some (especially today) I found enthralling and enjoyable then – as well as the many times I’ve seen it since. TMP is the foundation for all modern Trek and otherwise mostly agree with Adam Cohen’s comment above. The graphics in TMP (and 2001 for the matter) seem ponderous today, but in the age of Typewriters and mainframes my father tells me they were ‘wonderous’.
TWOK was a bigger hit and more memorable. There’s nothing wrong with TWOK as a movie either (it’s my favorite). Business realities be as they may, but frankly, I couldn’t care less how big a financial success a movie is or how many tickets were sold — so long as I personally enjoy it.
I personally believe it is possible for a Trek movie to be made with a small budget and be excellent (ala Solaris).
I’m mixing my genres here a bit…but ST:TMP suffered from the same expectation problems as The Hulk. In 1979, the audiences had to have been expecting Star Trek: The Klingons Strike Back. They got a thought provoking character study instead…which is what the original was really all about. You can count on one hand (and maybe a couple of fingers) the number of episodes that featured “epic” space battles and swashbuckling.
The audience for The Hulk must have been expecting Marvel Team-Up or Spiderman 1.5. They got Ang Lee’s character study on inner demons and repressed memories.
Throw out expectations and watch both movies again and try to apprieciate them on their own merits. They hold up pretty well.
#3 I agree!! And I felt the same way when Paramount was jerking everybody around — series, mini-series, feature film?
If Star Trek Phase II had been made, we would have had a TON more original crew than what we ended up with…and who knows? Who is to say Nimoy wouldn’t have eventually joined the cast — had it been successful?
I have the Star Trek Phase II book and it has synopsis of the episodes that were written for it…”Kitumba” would have been our first look at the Klingon Empire and it would have been an interesting episode.
TTM
The problem with the original klaxons is that it seems stupid for a loud robotic voice to bark out ‘Intruder Alert! Intruder Alert! Intruder Alert! ‘ only for Sulu to turn around and tell Kirk ‘Intruder alert!’
The premise, in my opinion, was fine…it was a classic TOS plot. It didn’t bother me so much that it resembled a mixture of The Changeling and The Immunity Syndrome.
I admire what they tried to do with ST:TMP. The material got a first class sendoff with regard to scope and cinematagraphy. I still remember standing in line to see it on opening day and I was PUMPED!!!!
Is the film perfect? Of course not…it’s a flawed film. I actually like the reviewers suggestion that Kirk or Spock should have melded with V’ger and become the “higher lifeform”. My vote would have gone to Spock as that would have solidified his arc in the story. Plus, even if it would have been written to be Spock, that would not preclude his return in the sequel. In fact, it would have been a good basis FOR the sequel. Also, If they would have shot and added Andy Probert’s storyboarded sequence of the Klingon ships rematerializing near Earth at the end of the film (with the saucer separation) that would have added some bang to bookend the beginning of the film.
The film just needed some tweaks in the story/writing. Using the same premise, better pacing, and more conflict and jeopardy (as the reviewer pointed out) a great film could have been the final result just as easily as a mediocre one.
The production design, the sets, the visuals…all great! I actually know Richard Taylor who worked on the visual effects for Robert Abel and Associates and that company put in some quality design work that remained a fixture of Trek for years to come. I agree the costumes left a LOT to be desired. Something like the TNG uniforms (the Theiss ones) would have been better.
I do like the Director’s Edition much better than the theatrical release though.
TTM
What can I add to the thoughtful comments already said.
I’ve been ambivalent about TMP since I saw it at age 15 in the theatre. I thought it was trying too hard to be 2001 while forgetting the action/adventure aspect of TOS. To me TOS is Action/Adventure Space Opera – Hornblower in space are GR originally pitched it. In the 70s GR had to find a handle to keep talking about Trek during time in the wilderness. His angle became ‘Star Trek’s Positive Vision of the Future’. I never bought this. Star Trek’s future includes many wars and tragedies.
Add a script that’s a mash up of The Changeling and One of Our Planets is Missing (TAS), production design that throws out everything from TOS except Uhura’s ear piece, and some dodgy SFX to GR ‘Vision’ and you get TMP.
It’s really hard to like TMP but in a way I do. It was great to see my old friends on screen again. I enjoyed the Klingon attack at the beginning. The DE was a big improvement in many ways.
It’s telling that the only thing carried over to future Trek projects were the FX models and the theme music.
Star Trek TMP would have been an excellent premiere episode for Star Trek phase 2 .but in their haste to capitalize on the success of Star Wars Paramount hastily expounded on a TV episode and had everyone running around like maniacs to meet a theatrical release commitment of Dec. 7, 1979.One needs to see it for what it is.A brilliant but drawn out premiere TV episode for Trek’s return.
StarTrek TMP, however, is the most TREK-like of all the movies.Thats why I like it.STAR WARS influenced cinema SO much after 1976 that Star Trek lost itself in the quest for STAR WARS formulaic sucess.
I remember reading in Starlog (I think) when Roddenberry and Wise went to see how the effects were coming. At the time they had hired someone whose name escapes me at the moment, who had never actually done movie effects but had created those cool 7UP ads from the mid-70s. He had had over a year on the project and to their horror only had 16MM Black and White prints to show for it! So with 6 months left to go and Paramount not budging on the release date enter Doug Trumbull and team.
I was also a big fan of the “Overture” at the front of the movie. I hadn’t sat through it since I saw the original that is until I bought the director’s cut.
Mr Garner states that the characters of Ilea and Decker were disposable?Wasn’t there a sub plot involving unfufilled love between the two?V’ger was forced in a way to filter what was happening through the Ilea probe as it was at the same time looking to leap beyond logic and find higher meaning.
#56…Robert Abel and assoc.?
It is one of my favorite movies to just put on as background sound while I’m in another room doing something else. I have no idea why.
Does anybody remember Kirk’s line when the trasnporter accident occurs in the beginning? It’s not in the Director’s cut (so it was in the theatrical cut maybe?), but after the screaming and gurgling noises cease, Shatner says “Oh my God” with no emotion, almost perfunctory in fact. I always crack up when I hear that line.
And then he says the same line in the same way in Star Trek II when he finds Terrell and Chekov on the Regula space station. “Oh my God.” Does Bill hate saying that line and decides to kill it on purpose? I wonder…
He says something about the vulcan’s (Xon?)family being reached through the vulcan consulate.Later Kirk expresses his desire to replace him with another vulcan.
I enjoyed this film when it first came out. I also enjoyed the directors cut on DVD. It is long but
a good kind. I hate the seven second edits in the
newer films. With all its faults this film allows you
time to soak up the vistas. It has one of the best
film scores ever by Jerry Goldsmith and visuals
that have not been topped by CGI. Yes it could
have been a better film. It still a fun watch and
it played at a theatre here for over a year, so
it must have had something going for it.
A wonderful movie in many ways, a terrible move in many ways. I agree with so many of the comments above. I liked the movie, but also immediately recognized it’s flaws. It was a time where many original fans just wanted to see the characters again, but as we walked out of the theater and the excitement started to wear off, we then started with the analysis. It continues to this day!
The Directors Cut is much better for me for a multitude of reasons. The Klingon ending mentioned above would have made it better, ejected Klingons about earth mixing it up with the Enterprise during the ending! It would’ve helped…..
As mention above, the Klingon characteristics changed from the series to the movies, spin-off shows, etc. In the series the Klingons were deceptive and aggressive. Honor as a basis for their people? That belonged to the Romulans in the original series, at least we saw that in “Balance of Terror”. In the spin-off shows the general characteristics of the Klingons & Romulans were flipped. Personally, I would have like to have seen it remain as it was during the series.
Um.also Starfleet communicates back that “what we got back didn’t live long-fortunately” then Kirk reassures yeoman Rand who was transporting,that there was nothing she could have done….If memory serves .
JON
I remember those lines that you mentioned too. But I can remember it as clear as day about 5 years ago, I was in a hotel room in Tampa, watching TMP on HBO and Kirk gave that “Oh my God” line. I started cracking up, turned off the tv and went to the beach for the remainder of the day. Ah, Florida…
I remember Roger Ebert’s review of ST:TMP, and he actually took a swipe at all the critics who were so hard on it – saying, “What are you people expecting, Shakespeare?” He went on to give it a rather decent review, certainly so in comparison to most others.
I’ll always wish ST II had been the first movie released, and I think the entire Trek movie franchise would have taken a different direction. But, that said, we’d not have had Jerry Goldsmith’s awesome Trek score…
-David
Beats hanging around schine dorm at UB in 1982.
I saw TMP in the theater at the age of 18 and was pretty disappointed–I loved the look, the effects and the score but found most of the “character” material stiff and uninvolving–McCoy’s lines would often get huge laughs, but more because the audience was just itching for something human to respond to than because the lines were so great.
I don’t think they found a way of merging the story and characters the way the best TOS episodes did (”Corbomite Manuever” is another clear source for this story, and there’s more great character moments in any five minutes of “Corbomite” than in the entire length of TMP). I’m glad that it established such a beautiful look for the future, although a lot of that was thrown out in later movies.
The biggest tragedy the more I learn about it is that they never made “Planet of Titans.” This was a Star Trek movie that would have been directed by Philip Kaufman of The Right Stuff. The one time I interviewed him he denied it, but I had always heard that his introduction of Chuck Yeager coming out of a desert dust storm on horseback was originally intended to be the introduction of Dr. McCoy in the film! Now THAT is the epic, mythic sensiblity that should have been explored more in these movies.
Jimmy Garner I loved your F BOMB and don’t you change a thing, baybeeeeeee.
best!!
=h=
For more on the effects and the story of Robert Abel’s aborted concepts, go here
http://www.robsacc.nl/ottens/forgottentrek_interview-taylor.html
The movie has a story about individuals looking for meaning; Kirk is seeking worth in command; Spock is seeking emotion,; Decker and Ilia are seeking love, V;ger is seeking answers. A very personal, mature story which is the essece of what Trek is about. It is like the cage, all silver and subdued, there’d no ‘red’ in it, like the 2nd pilot changes. incredible models and effects; the stuff they left out (Memory Wall) would have been fantastic. My favorite; it holds up to multiple viewings. Last time Enterprise is super powerful. Biggest box office, TV hit and still sells on Amazon. Unfairly maligned then and now. The ship itself, to me, is the most impressive bunch of sets I’ve ever seen in a movie. They should have gotten an Oscar for the warp core alone. Khan has the color and feel of Trek, lacks in heart. As I remember I felt nothing for it until KIrk was in danger in the cave, but I like it. TMP is core philosophy Trek, and all roddenberry had to do to get critical praise was two hours of phaser battle (like the TV guys did for 15 years); he deserves credit for creating his dream and sticking to it; and it succeeded anyway.
Great Abel interview. Very informative.
To me, TMP is the most timeless of all the films.
Watching it today certainly does NOT give one the sense that this was a film made in the late ’70s. (TWOK screams 80’s by comparison.) The feeling of the film is not unlike Wise’s Andromeda Strain- sterile and clinical, logical, methodical. Actually, for the storyline, (for better or worse) this approach works well.
I saw it in the theater and was blown away by the effects (though rushed) and score, as many were. Yes, the “human element” was in short supply, but I believe the film has gotten better with age- and certainly more so with the DE release.
Could it be that TMP was ahead of its time? In retrospect, I say yes.
#71 Dr Image. Nicely said! I completely agree. A very under appreciated film by many…yet still holds the highest grossing Star Trek movie of all time.
#70.
Heh, I conducted that interview…LOL!!!
THEETrekMaster
I was 15 when I stood in line to see TMP. For the prior few years, I was on Paramount Picture’s mailing list for the film. Got all manner of publicity stills, memos, posters and a Western Union telegram when the final green-light was given.
I was heart-broken in the theater.
It was like the seed pods from Invasion of the Body Snatchers stole the crew. And the ship! Similar, but not my old friends. Dom’s comments about the Soviet style are appropos. Watching that film reminded me of the Gulag Archipelago, which I was reading at the time. It also reminded me of the Star Trek comic books which were “sort of like” Star Trek but really were not Star Trek.
TMP is a science fiction hypothesis loosely based on Star Trek. It isn’t even all that much of a fiction story since they constantly seem self-impressed with their philosophizing.
Especially hard to take was the silly end-of-movie dialog about “giving birth” and “The Human Adventure is Just Begining”. What human adventure? We just watched two hours of the inner workings of several machines! (Enterprise, V’ger and Ilia. You might also say the whole crew were rather machine-like for that matter.)
Watching the film today, with significantly lower expectations, it is easier to be kind to it. Goldsmith’s score is one of my favorite compositions and the Enterprise fly-bys are simply gorgeous. But the philosophy is too Eastern, too pedantic, and too 1960s bong-hit to be interesting. It is simply a boring variant of Roddenberry’s “We Are Our Own Gods” twaddle as seen in The Cage, Genesis II, Planet Earth (or whatever it was), Questor, TNG, blah blah blah.
One also wonders at the great denoument of Decker’s space sex with a robot chick. Poor GR… oversexed to the end.
Already been said well by others, but:
a) STTMP gave us the new Enterprise, IMHO ties with Discovery for the best movie ship EVER ( cue Comic Book Man voice ) … just beautiful from every angle.
b) It is the only film that feels like … a major motion picture. For all its faults it does have that epic / event feel that you can’t recreate in a sequel, For as much as there has been some high quality Trek writing over the years, you can only really threaten Earth once, you can only blow up your ship once and you can only kill off one of your main characters once …. once you’ve done it every other attempt is gonna be a cheap rewrite.
#75
You must have missed the part where a human being transcended tangible reality, melded with two other individual consciousness, and departed for other planes of reality and existence completely impercievable to humanity.
THAT is a human adventure just beginning.
I see no justifiable reason to be a minimalist.
The concepts of this film are no more “Eastern” or “Soviet” like than the dumbed down entirely WESTERN machinations of stripping individuals down of their individual dispositions and rebuilding them into a pre-selected institutionalized automaton such is found in the United States MILITARY or CHURCH where people obey without question, sacrificing their own ethics and independent mindset to support a group conscience.
On the contrary, this film asks the oldest of questions transcending cultural identity and nationalism. It asks the fundamental human questions common to everyone, everywhere, everywhen.
Only the pompous, condescending, Western culture has the audacity to come from a 200 year point of view and presume to lecture cultures that have existed thousands of years on what constitutes “right” and “virtue.”
As I said earlier, this film definately is not for the cattle mentality.
The directors cut made a big difference for me, still a little stale in parts but overall it flows better.
I do think one thing in trek history should have been linked to this movie, we never found out what vger became……I thought this could have been a cool origin for the borg. Robot chick+Decker+ vger+time travel=Borg
I am among the minority of Trekkers who actually prefer this film over the others. IMHO, the uniforms of this movie looked better and were more *functional* than the “high school band uniform” we were stuck with for the remainder of the TOS cast films.
I feel that Star Trek: TMP suffered a similar fate as “The Cage”, in that it was too philosophical/intellectual for the average movie-going person.
The use of the ‘f’ word is inappropriate for a review such as this in this forum. There are plenty of other non-vulgar words that would get the point across.
I have mixed feelings on TMP, recently, about 6 months ago, I bought both TMP Director’s Cut and Flash Gordon(the Queen version)… I traded both away later, but only regretted Flash, as I found out, it’s actually harder to find than I had thought. The Director’s Cut perhaps improved it some, but it still was dull in many ways… and not because it reached for an epic, non-stereotypical feel, unlike later films, which seemed to playing too close to formula.
TMP did give us a great many things, an alternate vision of Star Trek, that as some have said, almost seems like another possible timeline. Bumpyheaded Klingons, which at first I balked at, but now see as a very needed morph… And I agree with others, that the Klingons became bastardized, almost to a “TrailerPark” Klingon, such as Kruge, and that dim-bulb in Star Trek V. Thankfully, Star Trek VI revised them a bit back towards respectibility, even if there was some hamfistedness still apparent. My only successful, in my opinion, model building experience, ever, was of the Klingon Cruiser from TMP. :-D
I hope that JJ brings an epic scope back to Star Trek… but forgoes the plodding dullness that sapped TMP’s brilliance. We don’t need some scenemunching villianary to justify an exciting movie… no TWOK clones. I never saw Nemisis, perhaps affraid to… and I only saw clipped parts of Resurrection, which I also had forsworn… All I expect from the new movie is a good story, perhaps new territory mixed with old, and good characterization.
I’m with you McFibberich
The Klingons were much better used occasionally as in the Star Trek series. I didn’t really like the way they were portrayed in the movies, especially V and VI. And I really did not care for the exploration of their ‘culture’ as in Next Generation. Got to be overexposure.
35, 80 and 82, I agree. What was otherwise a good review was ruined with the vulgarity. Using words such as that is a good indication that the reviewer has a limited vocabulary and hasn’t mastered the language. A good or even competent reviewer wouldn’t have to resort to that. “Adult” is not synonymous with “Vulgar.” Show a little maturity instead of the lowest common denominator stuff – it befits a Trek fan.
Since TomBot2006 mentioned it, here’s my two credits on what JJ Abrams needs to take from the previous TOS Trek films to make ST XI work.
TMP: The grand scale and epic feel of starships in flight and incredible music.
TWOK: Action! Jeopardy! Honest character interaction.
TSFS: Sacrifice, loss and putting everything on the line for someone you love.
TVH: Fun, a sense of not taking everything too seriously.
TFF: The thrill and danger of exploration.
TUC: A threat not just to the main characters, but to the Federation (or perhaps the galaxy) as a whole. BIG DANGER!
If the film has all of that, then we’ll have ourselves on hell of a Star Trek film.
#84 – That was my objection to the language. It’s not that I can’t handle the word “fuck”, I use it all the time in my private life — in the colloquial. But that is not how I write, I’m college educated and have a fairly large vocabulary, nor is it how I would like to be represented to the public.
Hmmm….
Observations and thoughts on the review and the comments…
…A fairly accurate review cheapened by profanity. And I, being 45, can “handle it”… but some of our younger posters didn’t need it and it wasn’t necessary to impart the opinion or the reviewer.
… A “thinking man’s film”..No. It tried to be and overran itself with excessive FX, flat performances and a convoluted message of aging, the quest of knowledge/self and a need to be taken seriously as a “good story”. It tried to answer the questions it posed… and failed in a rain of sparklies. The thinking “men” who made it didn’t demonstrate forethought, fiscal responsibilty, good direction or timing.
… some posters assuming they were the only ones who “understood ” the message and the rest of the movie viewers were bovine or low brow. I won’t touch that one…
…Music. The theme and overture were wonderful. My adult kids marveled at the overture and afterward they felt it helped them get into the mood and allowed them to relax and better view the film.
… The “icons”… little chemistry between the Kirk, Spock and McCoy.
… Critiquing the other series in the posts…. why? Was Picard in the movie and I didn’t see him? Back to the old, tiring Trek vs. Trek crap that invades every single thread by the same people. We understand you hate or feel threatened by or underwelmed by Star Trek:(___________). But it need not be in every post.
… Was it Trek?…. Canon-wise , yes…. but other films did a far better job of feeling like the “old friend” I went to see. Not a cold and sterile non-adventure.
Lessons for XI…. Chemistry, humor, timing and a story that suspends disbelief for 2 hours.
I never noticed the 12ft doors on the shuttlepod until now. Yep, where did they come from? Presumably stored at right angles and made out of memory metal…
At risk of being crusified I must say my main problem with TMP is it suffered from too much Roddenbery. Okay he created the show but it was many other people that really made it live. Go through all the most popular eps you’ll fail to find one written by the great bird of the gallaxy. In fact his eps are mostly at the other end of the scale[Omega Glory as a classic example].
I actually love the film but it is truely a flawed diamond but it did relaunch the franchise, I hope JJ can lead us to many new adventures.
I saw TMP on tv about 8 years ago.there was a scene where Kirk is leaving the ship in a spacesuit to retrieve Spock and the shot is unfinished.Kirk emerges from the underside of the hull and portions of the shot that were to be matte painted were clearly visible as set rigging that held together some elements of the hull shot.Anybody else notice that?
Well, I watched it again yesterday, after I finished some much needed Xmas shopping. The directors cut really is a different movie than the theatrical release.
It’s the movie it was supposed to be, and likely would have been with time to finish it. I watched with the commentaries on, and it’s clear the movie suffered on every level from not being finished or previewed.
And seriously, (with regards to Xai in post #87), some of the comments out there are really insulting. I don’t think people were too dumb to understand TMP either. The simple fact is TMP was incomplete, and not very good, despite all the nostalgia associated with seeing Trek again for the first time in over a decade.
If you’re a trek fan and you haven’t watched the directors cut, it’s well worth it.
Doug
Just catching up on the various threads I’ve missed due to a break. Last time I was here on 6th December, some wiseguy claiming to be Anthony posted a hoax message that the site was going to shut down shortly…what a shock I got that day folks…
I’d just like to say here that the late, great Robert Wise gave me a memorable and hotly anticipated movie from my youth with this…although I disliked the costume, colourscheme, set design changes…Ho hum.
Anyway, thank goodness for his improved Director’s Cut which in this particular case IS AN IMPROVEMENT…still a favourite watch of mine.
I liked the original cut, but most of the problems I had with with were corrected in the new director’s cut. I love the editing and pacing much better, the more natural-sounding effects from the original series, the new visual effects (and finally seeing what V’Ger actually looked like in an exterior long shot), all made it come together for me in a way it never did before. I actually watch it and enjoy it now. I could never go back to the original, rough and unfinished theatrical version.
One thing I’ll say about this movie, every time I see it, I see it in a different way. There is no doubt that the director’s cut is much better, but there was a lot of room for improvement. I thought the Kirk story was “right on”. I can see his character being exactly like that about the Enterprise (refitted or not). The Decker/Ilia thing was totally lame, though, as was the Voyager space probe thing. Even back when it came out in the theaters (and I was 13 at the time), I immediately thought of Nomad (hence, a retread). Oh well, THE moment for me is the Enterprise flyby. Some say that took too long, I say give me 10 more minutes of that and forget all the the V’ger effects. What a glorious look over the new Enterprise that moment was!!!
A bit off topic, but I just had to comment that Post #24’s comment:
“…..and plastic surgery guys…..”
Classic!
Note: **coming from a TNG and TNG movies fan**
The movie was about personal epithanies,but whatever happened to the V’ger,Ilea and Decker storyline?I assume V’ger transmitted the data to Decker then became some non-corperal entity.The movie doesn’t say.I suppose it’s open to speculation.Very inconclusive ending.
When you think of the fact that the main characters hadn’t been working together for a while, it sort of makes it easier to digest the awkwardness of the relationships as depicted. Perhaps this was unintentional on Wise’s part, but it works in context nevertheless.
TMP gets better with age.Will we be saying that about Nemesis?
I think not.
Time is showing that it’s a flawed masterpiece, not unlike Blade Runner.
I always liked the look of the original white and light colored uniforms from Star Trek TMP. The reminded me of the dress white uniforms of the US Navy.
But what I didn’t care for was the lack of color in the Enterprise sets. It was such an extreme change from the colorful sets from the original show.
Having both light colored sets and uniforms gave the Enterprise a very sterile look to me, and I’m glad they completely changed the sets in the following movies. But, I do wish they had kept the uniform design from TMP…I like them the best!
Mike :o
The uniforms of TMP were kinda 70’s futurism.The belt buckle-like feature was supposed to be self diagnostic mechanism to let oneself know biorythems and heath status.Speaks of very duty-centric scientific laboratory style business being conducted abord the ship versus the parade style uniform of the later movies.
#97 Dr.
The characters never truly “worked” together in the film. Intentional or not, it did not take advantage of one of TOS’s strengths…. the chemistry of the main 3. Very little humor, very little humanity. Decker was more human than the big 3. Even after Spock cried for V’ger, the relationships that built in the original TOS were not there. It was a film that wanted to be thoughtful and taken more seriously than Star Wars and was a let down for many because it failed in the attempt. It was as vanilla as the uniforms. It wasn’t truly TOS.
One reason it did as well as it did was that it was the first new live-action Trek in many years. Many people forgave the flaws because they needed to see their heros.
Your comment including Nemesis, while it IS your opinion, is out of context. Nemesis wasn’t reviewed here, and as I said in #87… why the comparison? Deflection? This still is not a Trek vs. Trek thread.
That movie was a flawed attempt at an “action” Trek and failed due to poor writing and direction.
All in my opinion.
As much as I’m a TOS purest…I must admit the Enterprise A first featured in Star Trek TMP is, by far, the best looking Enterprise of all!
For me it’s hands down the coolest looking “space ship” I’ve ever seen in any science fiction movie!
If I had an extra 100K in spare change laying around, I would have bid on this ship during the recent auction. It would have looked sooo cool hanging in my den!!
PS: Seriously though, It’s too bad the Enterprise A model and the TNG Enterprise model weren’t donated to the Smithsonian, like the original Enterprise was. This way all fans could see and appreciate them.
Merry Christmas!
Mike :o
Yeah I like the TMP-STIII Enterprise the best. Never was much of one for vaguely phallic orange bits on the nacelles!!
Ah, heck. I grew up with this film dangit I still have the urge to watch it every now and then. One of the fatel flaws however is that we spend about half of the time watching people “watch” what’s going on the main screen. I’m so glad they heard us and trimmed it down for the DE.
I will always stand by this film. I love the music, I loved the “Blue” colors, and the opening Klingong battle scene is both the creepiest, coolest and scariest moments I’ve ever seen in all of Star Trek. The Fifth Element even ripped that off!
And of course, if it wasn’t for this film, there would absolutely be NO Star Trek II. Period. And thank god Nicholas Meyer acknowledges that.
I will give kudos to the refit Enterprise. I love the ship in profile…. a functional sculpture. The pylons became wings and her proud stance is wonderful.
Hey I just wanted to say, be nice to GR. According Nimoy’s autobiography I Am Spock, the original special effects looked like crap, and the new ones were last minute. Unfortunately, the last minute crew made too much, and it was all he could do to shorten it down to 8 minutes
Although I didn’t particularly like TMP at first (I was a teenager when I first saw it on VHS) it has now become my favorite Trek movie. I’ve been watching it over and over. It is a very visual, unemotional movie, but hey, so is Kubrick’s 2001.
A lot of people complain that it dragged out too much. Example: there is a scene when Kirk is being transported to the ship. Yes it takes it’s time but I think they are forgetting that this was the triumphant return from cancellation so I guess they were trying to be grand about the whole thing.
Maybe there WERE some mistakes but each movie has a particular slant given which director takes the helm. To prove my point, look how many different opinions there are on all of the reviews of these movies. If any of us made the movie, there would be a lot of complaints like “I would not have done that” or “I would have done this”. We were fearfully and wonderfully made and it comes out in our varying opinions. Such is the spice of life, people.
kg
-This is not my favorite trek movie..The story works for 60’s..maybe…
ST-TMP still holds a special place for me. I remember the anticipation and finally seeing the film opening weekend, and just being thrilled to see the whole crew again. And with these amazing new designs and uniforms. The film seemed to hold closer to Gene’s vision of the continuing future than Bennett’s and Meyer’s did in II and III. For me, it feels the most like a motion picture feature than the later films. There was something magical about it at that time. Yes, it was slower, more ponderous, but I like it.
Flaws: rubbing off the cordite to spell Voyager, yeah, that’s slim. However, in ST II, “You thought this was Ceti Alpha 6?” was a pretty slim facet as well. All of the films have their issues, but ST-TMP stands out for me more for the environment, universe and technology of the future. And the crew was back on board the beautiful, new Enterprise. Yeah, I know, guilty pleasure.