The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > General Star Trek Discussions > Films > Movies (I - X) > Star Trek The Motion Picture bad or good
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-22-2011, 01:42 AM
starwarsrcks's Avatar
starwarsrcks starwarsrcks is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 3,062
Smile Star Trek The Motion Picture bad or good

what did you personally think of TMP bad or good
__________________



Space is disease and dangerous wrapped in darkness and silence-Leonard Bones McCoy
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-22-2011, 04:31 AM
NCC-73515's Avatar
NCC-73515 NCC-73515 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 7,207
Default

When I was a kid: very bad.
Now: quite good!
__________________


"English! I thought I dreamed hearing it!"?
Khan, Space Seed (TOS)

Brought to you in living color by NCC.
-= first fan member =-

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-22-2011, 05:40 AM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,458
Default

I loved ST:TMP when it first came out. As a kid, the first few minutes of the movie captured my imagination....seeing the new Klingons doing battle with V'ger was awesome, and still my favorite part of the film

With ST:TMP Special Director's Edition, I was blown away again...and then getting to see the original theatrical release on Blu-Ray...I was almost in tears, the quality was just spectacular.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-22-2011, 06:38 AM
Steve Gennarelli Steve Gennarelli is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Land O Lakes, FL
Posts: 112
Default

I love just about anything "Star Trek"...After all, we've all watched "The Apple" and other "poor" episodes a few dozen times each.
So that being said, I enjoy watching "Star Trek: The Motion Picture".
But to answer the question, good or bad, I guess it would be more truthful to say "Bad".
The "Star Trek" movies really hit their stride with #'s 2-4 and they hit on a creative windfall due mainly to the contributions of Harve Bennett and to a slightly lesser extent, Nick Meyer.
"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" has a beautiful look at times and Jerry Goldsmith's score is probably the saving grace of the picture. But the core of the story is pretentious and the payoff at the end is as pleasureable as a flat soda. I don't think Roddenberry had the foresight/vision to make a 2 hr "Star Trek" celebration. Bennett knew how to pull it together and only "Trek V" could be considered a failure, but that was more Shatner's baby than Harve's.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-22-2011, 11:34 AM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,985
Default

Probably my least favorite Trek movie outside of the visuals. It's at least a three way tie between this, V, and Nemesis.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-23-2011, 02:20 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

I wasn't sentient when this movie came out
I think it was a very very poor idea for a Star Trek Movie or any movie. But it's not the worse film in Trek.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-23-2011, 03:07 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

It's probably more bad than good really.

These days I consider it the first Trek reboot (one that failed and had to be corrected by Bennet and Co later) thanks to the ground up redesign and rebuild of everything visually from TOS and also the abandonment of anything that remotely made TOS what it was apart from the central characters. Not that reboots are bad, but this one simply wasn't well done and what annoys the most is that it was botched by the show's own creator.

Flat, ponderous, probably with a touch of unwarranted self-importance over what is essentially a paper thin plot (itself recycled from TOS anyway) the strongest thing going for it is the superlative effects and for actually having the feel of a major movie. But good as they are, there's not much else to really get excited about.

But, on the other hand, it was successful enough at the time to warrant Paramount giving it a second chance..........where some of the damage was successfully reversed in TWOK.

At the end of the day, without TMP, we wouldn't have any of the rest!
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-24-2011, 02:55 AM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
It's probably more bad than good really.

These days I consider it the first Trek reboot (one that failed and had to be corrected by Bennet and Co later) thanks to the ground up redesign and rebuild of everything visually from TOS and also the abandonment of anything that remotely made TOS what it was apart from the central characters. Not that reboots are bad, but this one simply wasn't well done and what annoys the most is that it was botched by the show's own creator.

Flat, ponderous, probably with a touch of unwarranted self-importance over what is essentially a paper thin plot (itself recycled from TOS anyway) the strongest thing going for it is the superlative effects and for actually having the feel of a major movie. But good as they are, there's not much else to really get excited about.

But, on the other hand, it was successful enough at the time to warrant Paramount giving it a second chance..........where some of the damage was successfully reversed in TWOK.

At the end of the day, without TMP, we wouldn't have any of the rest!
Regarding how Roddenberry himself could've botched the movie, I've never had a clear picture of how much of classic TOS -particularly in regards to the chemistry of its characters- was really his to begin with. Certainly he created the characters; I take nothing away from that. But people like Gene L Coon, DC Fontana and others are usually credited for helping to flesh them out... beyond what Roddenberry alone might have intended. He strikes me as more of a 'conceptual' writer anyway... better with ideas than with characters or nuance. Even TNG, arguably the 'truest' incarnation of "Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry," shows this pattern as it moves into its middle years and other people start to take over the show.

I have heard Roddenberry was once interviewed saying that he thought TMP was still the best of the five films (VI might have been going into production by that point; I don't know). He acknowledged it was a 'slow' film, and that it could have come out a lot better, but presumably gave no indication that he ever thought anything was missing from it character-wise. Whereas things he 'objected' to in the sequels (beyond their overall militaristic tonality) seemed largely incidental... such as Kirk phasering the eel after it comes out of Chekov's ear.

To me TMP is very much "Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry," in the same vein as 'The Cage' and TNG (particularly in its first two seasons). I also see it as being the polar opposite of ST09 in this regard, to the point that maybe I finally understand some of the derision toward the latter.

ST09
I see as being almost 'pure' TOS... much moreso than any of the STI-VI films prior. The negative side of this (so far) is that the elements that make it pure TOS, are the very elements that prevent it from being a STII or a STIV (the two films that I consider to have surpassed their episodic TV roots -at least thematically- without sacrificing the familiar Kirk/Spock/McCoy chemistry). But ST09 also couldn't be "Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry" in the sense that 'The Cage', TMP and TNG were. And it doesn't earn enough intellectual points to qualify as the 'compromise' between 'STcbGR' and NBC that classic TOS tried to be (I expect this will change with the next film).

I personally love TMP, but more as proto-TNG than as TOS. And most of the things that I love about it, are things that would not have applied had it remained a pilot to the aborted Phase II. I love the Enterprise, the Klingon ships, the space stations, and all those visual elements of the rebooted universe they continued to build upon until ENT ended in 2005. I love how awesomely huge the ship seems, moreso than any film afterward (even Khan, despite using a lot of the same footage), and how drastically the exterior lighting changes after leaving the inner planets (most sci-fi films never get this right, and certainly no other ST has).

And I love the 'darker' moments of Goldsmith's score... the low, dissonant foreboding strings that convey the empty menace of outer space, beginning from just before Spock shows up en route to V'ger. I think only Ron Jones, during the earliest years of TNG, has ever since managed to lend ST that same eerie, it's-dark-in-deep-space menacing vibe. Even though he is no Jerry Goldsmith or James Horner.

Mostly I love it as an experience in sights and sounds... and that it uses visuals rather than words to realize Roddenbery's future utopia for the audience (lucky thing too, since Patrick Stewart was not on hand). The main complaints against the movie... that it feels stiff, wooden, often lacking in character, etc, I would have to say I think also very much apply to 'The Cage' and a lot of early TNG, including the pilot. And socially Asperger-ish dialogue like "my oath of celibacy is on record, Captain" easily ranks up there with "offspring as in... he's Adam. Is that it?"


I really don't like the pastels either. Bathe the Enterprise interiors in them warmer TWOK 'battle alert' reds any day.

Quote:
But, on the other hand, it was successful enough at the time to warrant Paramount giving it a second chance..........where some of the damage was successfully reversed in TWOK.

At the end of the day, without TMP, we wouldn't have any of the rest!
And perhaps that's why I can be more forgiving of 'The Cage', TMP, or even early TNG than I am, say, of Voyager. In the case of TMP, it took what might otherwise have been a sterile follow-up TV series, compressed it into a single movie, blew it up into something cinematically and poetically epic, and solidified Paramont's need to get rid of Roddenberry all in one blow. TOS had evolved into something more organic and iconic than I think he could manage without some old help, and I don't think there was Ever Any Way that a new TV or movie series would have flourished with those characters under his helmsmanship. He was better off rebuilding 'his' ST from scratch with TNG, and neo-TOS did better off without him.
__________________


Last edited by samwiseb : 01-24-2011 at 03:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-24-2011, 10:28 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samwiseb View Post
Regarding how Roddenberry himself could've botched the movie, I've never had a clear picture of how much of classic TOS -particularly in regards to the chemistry of its characters- was really his to begin with. Certainly he created the characters; I take nothing away from that. But people like Gene L Coon, DC Fontana and others are usually credited for helping to flesh them out... beyond what Roddenberry alone might have intended. He strikes me as more of a 'conceptual' writer anyway... better with ideas than with characters or nuance. Even TNG, arguably the 'truest' incarnation of "Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry," shows this pattern as it moves into its middle years and other people start to take over the show.
Yep, I can see where it is you are coming from and you're totally right that TOS was the product of more people (and perhaps in some ways more talented people) than Gene Roddenberry was because I think you're quite correct that GR was the 'ideas' man.

He did have problems when it came to detailing or fleshing out those ideas. And the people you mentioned then came to the fore. This is something that's raised many a question in my head that will never, ever be answered nowadays.

Quote:
I have heard Roddenberry was once interviewed saying that he thought TMP was still the best of the five films (VI might have been going into production by that point; I don't know). He acknowledged it was a 'slow' film, and that it could have come out a lot better, but presumably gave no indication that he ever thought anything was missing from it character-wise. Whereas things he 'objected' to in the sequels (beyond their overall militaristic tonality) seemed largely incidental... such as Kirk phasering the eel after it comes out of Chekov's ear.

To me TMP is very much "Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry," in the same vein as 'The Cage' and TNG (particularly in its first two seasons). I also see it as being the polar opposite of ST09 in this regard, to the point that maybe I finally understand some of the derision toward the latter.
I've never heard that quote myself but I can completely where your argument comes from around it.

Quote:
ST09 I see as being almost 'pure' TOS... much moreso than any of the STI-VI films prior. The negative side of this (so far) is that the elements that make it pure TOS, are the very elements that prevent it from being a STII or a STIV (the two films that I consider to have surpassed their episodic TV roots -at least thematically- without sacrificing the familiar Kirk/Spock/McCoy chemistry). But ST09 also couldn't be "Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry" in the sense that 'The Cage', TMP and TNG were. And it doesn't earn enough intellectual points to qualify as the 'compromise' between 'STcbGR' and NBC that classic TOS tried to be (I expect this will change with the next film).

I personally love TMP, but more as proto-TNG than as TOS. And most of the things that I love about it, are things that would not have applied had it remained a pilot to the aborted Phase II. I love the Enterprise, the Klingon ships, the space stations, and all those visual elements of the rebooted universe they continued to build upon until ENT ended in 2005. I love how awesomely huge the ship seems, moreso than any film afterward (even Khan, despite using a lot of the same footage), and how drastically the exterior lighting changes after leaving the inner planets (most sci-fi films never get this right, and certainly no other ST has).

And I love the 'darker' moments of Goldsmith's score... the low, dissonant foreboding strings that convey the empty menace of outer space, beginning from just before Spock shows up en route to V'ger. I think only Ron Jones, during the earliest years of TNG, has ever since managed to lend ST that same eerie, it's-dark-in-deep-space menacing vibe. Even though he is no Jerry Goldsmith or James Horner.

Mostly I love it as an experience in sights and sounds... and that it uses visuals rather than words to realize Roddenbery's future utopia for the audience (lucky thing too, since Patrick Stewart was not on hand). The main complaints against the movie... that it feels stiff, wooden, often lacking in character, etc, I would have to say I think also very much apply to 'The Cage' and a lot of early TNG, including the pilot. And socially Asperger-ish dialogue like "my oath of celibacy is on record, Captain" easily ranks up there with "offspring as in... he's Adam. Is that it?"


I really don't like the pastels either. Bathe the Enterprise interiors in them warmer TWOK 'battle alert' reds any day.

And perhaps that's why I can be more forgiving of 'The Cage', TMP, or even early TNG than I am, say, of Voyager. In the case of TMP, it took what might otherwise have been a sterile follow-up TV series, compressed it into a single movie, blew it up into something cinematically and poetically epic, and solidified Paramont's need to get rid of Roddenberry all in one blow. TOS had evolved into something more organic and iconic than I think he could manage without some old help, and I don't think there was Ever Any Way that a new TV or movie series would have flourished with those characters under his helmsmanship. He was better off rebuilding 'his' ST from scratch with TNG, and neo-TOS did better off without him.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-23-2011, 03:50 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

While talking about and comparing Trek movies a friend of mine once said that TMP doesn't count, meaning that as first reboot of the franchise (nice observation, Kevin) it is kind of an anomaly. It might be bad but somehow we can forgive it easier than in the case of later bad movies like TFF or NEM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:05 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.