[Saquist]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

Yep, The Voyage Home is a fantastic Trek film which holds up well to this day. I just watched it a few weeks ago and still thoroughly enjoy it.

Why is that movie so rewatchable?

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Because it's a well written, enjoyable film.

[omegaman]

The TVH rocks because its lighthearted comedy.

[samwiseb]

What the heck, I'll bite this one.

TVH is the only ST film besides II and ST09 that places its characters first. VI and FC are both runners up in this regard, however both films suffer from character manipulation by plot mechanics. For that matter, even II and ST09 -both of which are arguably more character driven films than IV- don't go completely unscathed.

IV is also the only 'ensemble cast' ST film to date. TNG credited itself for having this quality. DS9 later realized it in actuality. But TVH started the trend.

It is a comedy, but in the more traditional sense of the word. It does not resort to slapstick, like virtually every ST film that has followed (including ST09). Like a lot of classic comedies (see Shakespeare), TVH is fairly lighthearted in tone overall, but opens up in a state of chaos and unrest. It's got the dry wit of Nick Meyer for most of its middle act (It's probably fair to assume that 'Professor' Eddie Murphy, and his cat who vaporized the whole apartment after pawing around with a phaser, both went the wayside after Meyer came aboard). The absence of music throughout much of the picture adds to an overall sense of naturalism.

Its story does not get bogged down in clunky exposition. II and ST09 are the only other ST films that can claim this. Maybe III as well. As time travel stories, IV and ST09 both cleverly avoid bringing up such 'weighty' issues as time paradoxes (which, really, lack a degree of dramatic substance if there isn't anything personal at stake).

IV doesn't bother to explain its mysteries, namely in regards to the alien probe. ST of this time didn't feel the need to explain everything. Who sent the probe? Why does it matter? (Sure, we could have Michael Westmore come on and design some dolphin-foreheaded alien humanoids for us. Or while we're at it, why not some meaningless technobabble 'explanation' for how the probe can transmit -let alone receive- whale songs hundreds of lightyears across the soundless vacuum of space. Or how about a more 'beleivable' method of time-travel, like a TNG-style temporal rift. I'm just saying we could add such details... if we really wanted to.)

Of the first ten films, IV has the most consistently-high production values. Much of this is attributable to filming on location. However all the location shooting in the world won't save you if you don't have a 'camera eye' or your studio sets are not at least almost equally up to par (Insurrection, please take note). The transition from 23rd century to 20th century Earth is virtually seamless, making the 23rd century more believable by extension.

On a similar note, IV is also probably the only 'prime-universe' ST -except for maybe Generations- in which the visual mise-en-scene does not suffer noticeable holes or gaps in spatial continuity. (The worst offender in this regard would by STV, when both 'God' and the landing party do an exceptionally poor job of pretending to occupy the same general space. I think the implied line-of-sight abruptly shifts no less than a half dozen times in that one scene).

Perhaps most appreciable of all, STIV is a film unlike any that would be made today, or even fifteen years ago when FC came out. In its casual story premise, but also in its overall pacing. Even if you make another ST film with no villain (and I won't be one to argue whether such an achievement is even practical fow such a movie nowadays), you won't make another one like this.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

That sir is a very good post

[kevin]

Yeah, it's kinda hard to then just say anything much else.........................oh well, I'll go with 'ditto' then.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

Sure, just think of it as free therapy...................

That's a pretty strange and pointless remark. I am sure you wouldn't appreciate such a reply if you tell us why you dislike VOY, would you?

Originally Posted by omegaman

When you think about the movie it feels and behaves like an extended movie trailer.
I don't believe the next one will be slower or allow more in-depth character development. There will be surprises (with little backstory or explanation). Essentially the characters will be simply dropped into a new storyline and have heaps of grief dumped on them until they win out. Action will be what the next movie about and I doubt very much that we'll ever see anything in the style of TMP. Maybe a TVH though. J.J does have a terrific sense of humor.

Well said, it feels indeed like a long movie-trailer, like there is only icing and no cake.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

That's a pretty strange and pointless remark. I am sure you wouldn't appreciate such a reply if you tell us why you dislike VOY, would you?

I should probably use smiley's more often.....................obviously there's a translation error at times.

If it be needed to clarify and contextualise, I can only infer it makes Zim feel better to vent his anger every wee while here about the film in the way he does so if it does make him feel better then why not continue that when he's thought of more reasons. Like a form of ritual.

Gets it out the system. Don't we all do that?

[horatio]

Sorry, stupid Horatio doesn't always get the humour.

[kevin]

Actually though, the last time I was watching the film there was something else I personally liked about it, not related to story matters but as a sideways observation about the visual scope and scale of the film.

We saw quite a bit of the alt-Trek 'universe' in one film that we never saw in other films or were spread out over years of viewing. We see huge futuristic Earth cities in San Francisco, but also see more expansive vistas of more rural areas (dirt roads, remote bars, excavations) and regions on Earth within the Iowa set scenes. And within them we see things like those distant shadowy edifices on the horizons (are they cities? power plants? combinations? Who knows, but they tantalise in a sort of 'what are they all about' way). We also see Starfleet yards and construction plants, ships half built, giant gleaming Space Stations, dorm rooms, great starships and shuttles zooming around in space around them.

I think we actually see more variety of and environs on Earth than we do in almost all TOS and the TOS films combined, because they mostly stuck to San Francisco and shots of Starfleet HQ/GG Bridge etc. And yet it's all very much in the background, just alluding to the larger civilisation at play on the planet.

That doesn't even start to cover the beautiful Vulcan city (did we ever see a Vulcan city before? I don't think we did, even though we visited Vulcan a couple times), alien vistas, life forms etc in the film.

I found it's glimpse of Earth quite tantalising..................it's a shame I don't want them to have any scenes set on it in the sequel!