Call Me!

I understand where you’re coming from with the director’s edition of TMP. Belatedly adding TOS sound FX and toning down the cold-shouldering animosity between the main characters really helps make it feel more like Star Trek.

I think for me, I’ll always remember it as I first saw it when I was a child: pompous, self-righteous Goldsmith score, endless music and exterior shots, really ropey voice audio – it still sounds like there’s something wrong with the voice recordings.

But, for me, TOS was a blood and thunder series that teetered on melodrama, full of energy, action, sex and romance. TMP is just so cold and is clearly a template for the coldness of the TNG characters. Unquestionably, TMP demonstrates an aspect of TOS, but it lacks many elements that to me feel like ‘proper’ Star Trek!

Sorry to see you get called a TNG fan, by the way. That’s like a fan of Frank Herbert’s novels being accused of being a fan of Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson’s books!

The truth is, much of what GR said in his later years was ripe with some rather revisionist outlooks on many issues. He even hinted, at one point, that not only did he not consider the post TMP feature films as canon, but the 3rd season of TOS as well!

It should be remembered that the way he envisioned his Federation in the 1960’s (TOS) was much different than the way he imagined it 20 years later (TNG). It ultimately moved from the vision of a future in which mankind did not (as feared in the mid-60’s) destroy itself, but instead—united to conquer hunger and the social ills which plagued the mid-20th Century, as well as to explore the “final frontier”—to one in which Roddenberry’s personal view of a “utopia” was actually a reality.

I choose to take his later comments with the proverbial “grain of salt”.

#95—Dom, while I share your affinity for TWOK (my personal favorite), I have to disagree with your assessment of TMP.

I think it was the best science fiction story of any of the Trek films. I also feel that the character interaction (particularly between Kirk, McCoy, and Decker) was more “classic Trek” than you give it credit for. And Spock’s journey in TMP towards discovery of who he is and what his place in the Universe should be is a wonderful story, IMO, and Spock’s “close encounter” with V’Ger is the defining moment in which he finally becomes comfortable in his own half-human skin. The result is the Spock which we would come to know in later films. TMP was also the beginning of an arc for James Kirk, one which would not be resolved until the end of TVH, when Kirk is once again given the task of commanding a starship and her crew.

I think that TMP is a great film, particularly when viewed in director’s cut form. Although I acknowledge that mainstream moviegoers did not appreciate it as I do, it is still my second favorite Star Trek film. It wasn’t the ideal formula for a big budget production, I suppose—not enough action, I guess.

Only a Star Trek fan could appreciate its cerebral plot and its timeless theme. John and Suzie Public want “blood and guts” drama…and that was the more medicore budgeted TWOK.

Sorry for the caps Anthony (bows head contritely, mumbling under her breath…).

Good points. I think any half decent film can blow away any ‘geek’ view of Trek. Like you say, three of the TOS movies had definite crossover appeal. A new film with an A-lister up-and-comer director, the Asian guy from American Pie and Sylar from Heroes will garner even casual attention. And let’s not forget the marketing campaign will be much more brash and less geeky than past trailers.

JWM (92) ‘It’s often overlooked by the fan base — that GR felt that the Trek movies were too militaristic and that Starfleet should have been less formal. As I recall, his final notes on Star Trek VI included a request to cut the briefing scene’

But you have to remember that Roddenberry’s own foray into Trek movies was an embarrassment that was arguably far more rigid and formal than the later films with their miltary outlook.

In TMP, the characters were so dehumanised that they were virtually machines. Roddenberry’s ‘pure’ view of Trek was a failure, compared with that of the committee that made Trek in the 60s (Coon, Meredyth Lucas, Solow, Fontana, Ellison, Bloch, Sturgeon . . .) and also portrayed Starfleet as a military organisation.

Thing is, people like militaristic stuff in movies: it’s cool! In the 80s, my generation was brought up on action adventure series mostly populated by badass Viet Nam vets. It’s my generation that’s now coming into its own in this business. very few of us liked the vacuous, touchy-feely ‘dramas’ that proliferated after the 80s shows ended.

Rodders may have become anti-military in his later days, but the more militaristic portrayal of Trek worked well with cinema audiences, giving them something ore recognisable to latch on to than some sort of weird, informal spacefaring cult that doesn’t get paid! Not to mention, in action-orientated films, that militarism and efficiency ratchets up the tension to almost unbearable levels.

Is there anything in Trek cooler than Horner’s music kicking off and the cadets banding together, loading photon torpedoes and preparing to kick Singh butt?

I thought I made it quite clear that was a “generalization”. Still, it is what drives the voting habits of many people on both sides who wish to “protect” what is the fruit of their hard work. My own family is divided politically, but definitively along economic lines—according to their own household income.

There are issues which get people riled up around the dinner table and on the internet, and issues which get people in the voting booths. Despite much of the rhetoric, money (and particularly, who should be taxed in what manner) does more of the latter than you seem to acknowledge.

#93—I enjoyed the first X-Men movie. My appreciation started to wane from there. I still think ‘Wolverine’ will do well, just not well enough to prevent STXI (or Zero, whatever) from taking over the number one spot the following week.

And to toss in here, I’m a lifelong comic book fan who read the X-Men title for years and was a devoted Wolverine fanatic. I won’t even go see Wolverine, because I KNOW it will be a waste of my time.

My experience has been completely different than yours. Reading between the lines, you’re advancing a voting stereotype that is patently untrue as well.

As for Trek politics, it’s always been interesting to me — and it’s often overlooked by the fan base — that GR felt that the Trek movies were too militaristic and that Starfleet should have been less formal. As I recall, his final notes on Star Trek VI included a request to cut the briefing scene.

“Easy enough to spot. How? The moment you started talking….”

As usual, you’re so far off it isn’t even funny…well, it is kind of funny.”

Lmao.

I don’t think so! TNG lost me at “Farpoint”. I have always been a 23rd Century Trek guy (even before it was decided that the TOS-era was the 23rd Century)……always.

“…and stick to what you know best, whatever that might be.”

People? Consumer marketing? Sales? I’m pretty sure that’s what I was doing.

And I never put Trek in the same ballpark of general interest as Batman. Where would you even get that? Star Trek doesn’t have to do over $900 million. That’s ridiculous. Nor does it have to have Star Wars numbers.

Don’t confuse my thoughts about potential success with a prediction that STXI will topple industry giants.

My point is that STXI will have plenty to offer fans of movies in general….first class effects and action sequences, a charismatic cast, an enormously popular director and creative team, and a story-telling style which is distinctly modern.

Yes…there are preconceived notions about Trek. So what? They are not asking the average moviegoer to change their religious beliefs, or even to switch banks. You are overestimating that as an obstacle to making money with a movie. Plenty of people will be convinced to spend $20 and a couple of hours of their time. I have no doubt of that.

‘Wolverine’ is coming off of a weak review of X-Men3, and doesn’t bring any “punch” with its choice of director. It will debut at numer one, but the following week will belong to JJ Abrams Star Trek. It doesn’t matter that it probably won’t hold the #1 spot beyond that week. With the kind of turnout at the box-office prevalent in May, one week is all it takes.

One week. That’s it, followed by a top 3 showing in the following two weeks to close out the month.

No amount of sarcasm or negativity on your part is actually going to make that a bigger obstacle, nor will it make ‘Wolverine’ into a great movie that will carry the number one spot for two weeks.