love

Author Topic: Star Trek  (Read 25102 times)

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #20 on: April 05, 2018, 07:18:58 AM »
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Robert Wise, 1979)

My familiarity with Star Trek is minimal, especially as it pertains to the original cast and adventures, so take this review from that perspective. Entering into the realm of discussing the Star Trek universe is a daunting task, given the passionate fans and decades worth of discussion already on record. My review is a mere whisper among the cacophony of Trekkie dialogue. Okay, I just wanted to use the word “cacophony”. But the point remains that as this journey kicks off, what I would most like to add to the discussion is the perspective of a n00b, someone being introduced into this for the first time, long after it became popular. With that in mind, I am sure I will be comparing what I saw and felt to preconceived notions of what Star Trek might mean to me, what it might mean to others. As I go through these films, I hope to gain some greater understanding of their cultural importance and what makes them, and the characters therein, so appealing to the masses. In essence, why should I too become a Trekkie?

Well, without much background to go on, having never seen the original series, or any of the original films before, I was taken by surprise by Star Trek: The Motion Picture on a number of levels. Let’s get this out of the way, sort of like a band-aid: I did not enjoy my experience with Star Trek: The Motion Picture. However, I hold out hope that after this introductory film (for me), and a little back and forth discussion I will find much more bountiful entertainment in the films yet to come. This film picks up, I take it, after the events of the television series, as a now Admiral Kirk (William Shatner) takes over the Enterprise from now Captain Decker (Stephen Collins) in order to guide his crew (George Takei, DeForest Kelley, Nichelle Nichols, Walter Koenig, James Doohan) in a mission to solve the mystery of an ominous, unknown cloud making its way toward Earth.

I guess the best place to start would be to talk a little bit about expectations versus reality, and I mean to not bring the film down in any way where it differed from my expectation. That comes later. First of all, I was very taken by how slow moving a film this was. I was not expecting non-stop, edge-of-my-seat action, but Star Trek: The Motion Picture is an extremely slow and reflective film, for better or worse, making it much more akin to the sci-fi stylings of something like 2001: A Space Odyssey than the action-adventure of Star Wars. I know Star Trek is not Star Wars, and that is the appeal of many of its fans, but I was certainly expecting a little more action that what we get here. The slower pace and lingering shots certainly help with forming the mysticism surrounding this film, the Enterprise, and the ominous cloud, however at 130 minutes I can confidently say that the film likely could have lost 30 minutes with ease.

The lack of fun throughout the film was a disappointment that butts up against my expectation that at least the interplay between characters would be funny or interesting. Instead I was treated to a a film that very much feels like an extension of the television series in that the characters are established, as are the relationships for the most part. Which again is fine for an existing fan, but to someone new to the universe and trying to get into the film series, it becomes a great hurdle to jump over. There are the occasional quips between Kirk and some of the others, but none of it pops, there’s nothing of note here as none of the characters seem to have any sort of character arc throughout the film. Instead, they are merely soldiers on a mission. This lack of connection I felt to the characters became problematic as the film vied for my attention, vied for my investment in the outcome of the impending cloud. I really blame a poor screenplay for this lack of character, as the screenplay also lacked for big ideas too. There is very little excitement or even intrigue for long stretches in this film, making it a slog to watch. And perhaps worst of all as a result of somewhat nothing characters here, hardly anything is asked of the actors in their performances. I wanted to see Shatner do something. I wanted to see Nimoy do something. It’s all so blank.

I don’t want to make the blank statement that I hope the whole series is not like this, as perhaps it will be. Instead, I hope that there is a little more fun and stakes going forward, more room for the characters to shine over the story, and even if the tone and pacing is to remain, at least now I will be prepared for that type of movie and might be better prepared to enjoy something like that. Of course, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was not all disappointment, as there is plenty to applaud in this film as well. As a science fiction film, it often lives up to the imagination expected to be at play within the genre. The production design for instance is spectacular for its representation of both the ship and outer space in general, especially the way the cloud envelopes spaceships, or who its nebulous-like coloring is so impressively beautiful. Going hand-in-hand with the production design are the special effects. While they may be a little obvious and cheap at times, one must realize CGI was not a thing back in 1979, and appreciate the imagination and ambition behind many of these effects. In general they are fairly impressive, and Wise uses them to his advantage in being able to tell the story visually the way he wants to.

Overall, Star Trek: The Motion Picture is an experience worth having, and it does play like an experience. While it may not have been quite what I was expecting going into the film, I can appreciate everything it brings to the table while also criticizing it as a rather poor narrative film. I think it’s main faults are simply not being able to fully stand on its own. When taken from that perspective, the characters are too thin, which makes my investment in their successes or failures much more flat than they ought to be for a situation like this. I felt like I had to fill in the blanks on my own far too much. That being said, I am intrigued enough by what I know of the characters, and what I know of Star Trek in the first place to want to find out what a truly great Star Trek film might look like. And I really do hope that adventure awaits me ahead in this marathon.

★★ - Didn't Like It
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #21 on: April 05, 2018, 07:31:41 AM »
It's basically all up from here, and a lot more fun.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #22 on: April 05, 2018, 02:32:03 PM »
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Robert Wise, 1979)        5/10

Even though I am not versed in the original television series, I appreciated that this film was so clearly made for the fans and not for the widest possible appeal. You know it who it's for by the way the characters are introduced, the way the camera lingers on the spaceship and the music stokes the embers of an old fire... the intent is clear. It's the film declaring that your heroes which you loved, which you haven't seen for 10 years, have returned for another adventure. My relationship with these characters is too new and undeveloped for these rousing moments to have affected me, but I like that it's the kind of film that goes for for that sort thing.

As an example, there is a simple scene early on in which Kirk is being shuttled over to the Enterprise by Scotty. From the time the Enterprise first appears in the window of the shuttle to when they actually dock is a full 5 minutes of screen time. It's a mix of slow shots panning over the hull of the vessel, intercut with Kirk staring at it. His expression conveying the history and memories associated with the ship. A stirring moment for a fan, but for me that 5 minutes feels long. It is long! 5 minutes in screen time is a lot. So depending where your coming from the early pacing can feel slow.

The ship does look great though.

Things go on in this way for the first third or so of the film. Many respects are paid. They do finally depart on their mission though. They are ordered to intercept and investigate this mysterious, possibly hostile, space cloud headed straight for earth. For me that's when the film gets going and when I got plugged in.

In terms of getting to know the characters better, there are some you do, and others you don't. Uhura, Chekov and Sulu don't say or do much except to execute Kirk's commands and repeat back to him what he's ordered. "Full Ahead, Captain", "No response, Captain", etc. Scotty and Bones do more talking, but they really aren't involved in the story either. Their mere presence would be enough for fans I suspect, because they will know all the times the character has proven themselves, and don't need convincing of their importance. For me they may as well have been nameless, and the film doesn't involve them enough to have me become attached.


To be honest, my interest in the film was pretty well entirely plot-driven. The primary characters were my eyes and ears to what was happening, but in spending all that time together I can't say as I left the film feeling any more endeared to them then when I began. It makes me reflect on Guardians of the Galaxy and how much I came to love those characters in the span of a single film. It can be done. But then again, we're in a different era. Characters in sci-fi are expected to have more dimension now, and not merely be a means to an end.

And if that's the case then you better have one heck of a plot to sustain the movie on. In that regard I think this is an okay-to-good film. The reveal at the end, which was a complete surprise to me, definitely elevated my opinion of things. I wondered how I had never had that part spoiled before. Even without ever watching Star Trek TOS you pick up all kinds of things about it just through external references. The ending to this movie is just the kind of detail I would've expected to learn in that way.

Spock's motivation in this movie is really vague and imo left unanswered. He mentions things like sensing a consciousness in this mysterious cloud. And we see that he cannot go through with that religious ceremony at the beginning of the film because he senses something out there. We're given to feel as though there is some sort of reckoning that is going to take place. Something Spock must confront once and for all. When he rejoins his old crew he does so with his own priorities. But in the end what comes of it? He contributes to resolving the mystery of the space cloud, but what about on a personal level? I don't feel like we ever learn whether his particular needs were fulfilled or not.

In terms of filmmaking: The look and feel of the ship interior and uniforms were pretty boring. Lot's a gray. On the other hand, everything not involving the ship was quite striking. The strange space vistas, and landscapes they encounter, and other phenomenon, they all evoked a sense of wonder, and I thought the score in those moments added great atmosphere.

That's beautiful.

The Wrath of Khan is the better film, by reputation, and I suspect it will be a richer, more character driven story. So I look forward to that. I would like to see these characters pressed harder and learn more about them. As for this film, it's a fine start.



I'll be back in bit to read and comment. :)
« Last Edit: April 05, 2018, 02:39:42 PM by smirnoff »

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #23 on: April 05, 2018, 02:48:53 PM »
It sounds like we mostly agree on the film here, which is comforting to hear since I didn't much care for it. We both seemed to hone in on the film skipping over the character beats in favor of other things, though you more eloquently express this as welcoming to the fans, and as a fan of many other things I can come from a perspective, as you do, where this would be an endearing feature to the film. For us, who are new to the series and characters, it does play out as more of a frustration.

I'm also very glad you mentioned the score, since I failed to. It's a very good example of what Jerry Goldsmith is best at. It doesn't hide in the shadows, it's often played as the centerpiece of many sequences and soars as a result. I've often found that the film scores of science fiction films are often some of the best I've heard for their audacity in being bombastic and a feature of the film as opposed to a simply a supplement.

As for the reveal at the end, the evil being Voyager coming home is a nice twist, but as I mentioned my struggle to connect to the characters and their journey, by that point I had found myself more disinterested and ready for the movie to be over.

I think we can both agree there will be multiple movies in this marathon that should prove to be better than this one, even without having seen most of them.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #24 on: April 05, 2018, 04:42:23 PM »
It sounds like we mostly agree on the film here, which is comforting to hear since I didn't much care for it. We both seemed to hone in on the film skipping over the character beats in favor of other things, though you more eloquently express this as welcoming to the fans, and as a fan of many other things I can come from a perspective, as you do, where this would be an endearing feature to the film.

We'll give it the benefit of the doubt anyways. :)) It would be interesting to hear from anyone who can recall seeing this film from the perspective of an established fan, and whether these moments play as we imagine they might. MartinTeller, Sandy or someone else might be able to comment from that point of view. Did y'all get the warm-fuzzies from this film?

Quote
I'm also very glad you mentioned the score, since I failed to. It's a very good example of what Jerry Goldsmith is best at. It doesn't hide in the shadows, it's often played as the centerpiece of many sequences and soars as a result. I've often found that the film scores of science fiction films are often some of the best I've heard for their audacity in being bombastic and a feature of the film as opposed to a simply a supplement.

I was particularly fond of the personality he gave to the space cloud. Those deep resonant twangs are very ominous, as you say. Watching the Enterprise drift through the caverous looking interior of the mysterious thing, and hearing those sounds... it's quite striking and a little spooky. It leaves you with that feeling of wonder and respect for the hugeness and mysteries of the universe. Amidst the slow pacing it does, thankfully, strike that note successfully (if accidentally) from time to time. :)

Quote
As for the reveal at the end, the evil being Voyager coming home is a nice twist, but as I mentioned my struggle to connect to the characters and their journey, by that point I had found myself more disinterested and ready for the movie to be over.

I wonder how things may have been improved scirpt-wise had that reveal come much sooner. Something akin to Matt Damon unearthing (err... un-MARSing) the rover in The Martian. It's a neat reveal but like you say, maybe too late for such a sluggish story. Better to strike while the iron is hot sort of thing.

Quote
I think we can both agree there will be multiple movies in this marathon that should prove to be better than this one, even without having seen most of them.
Absolutely. It's hard to imagine any of the future films feeling quite so flat as this one in regards to its characters.



The lack of fun throughout the film was a disappointment that butts up against my expectation that at least the interplay between characters would be funny or interesting. Instead I was treated to a a film that very much feels like an extension of the television series in that the characters are established, as are the relationships for the most part. Which again is fine for an existing fan, but to someone new to the universe and trying to get into the film series, it becomes a great hurdle to jump over. There are the occasional quips between Kirk and some of the others, but none of it pops, there’s nothing of note here as none of the characters seem to have any sort of character arc throughout the film. Instead, they are merely soldiers on a mission. This lack of connection I felt to the characters became problematic as the film vied for my attention, vied for my investment in the outcome of the impending cloud. I really blame a poor screenplay for this lack of character, as the screenplay also lacked for big ideas too. There is very little excitement or even intrigue for long stretches in this film, making it a slog to watch. And perhaps worst of all as a result of somewhat nothing characters here, hardly anything is asked of the actors in their performances. I wanted to see Shatner do something. I wanted to see Nimoy do something. It’s all so blank.

That hits the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. I'm very much on the same page with my experience. Where is that bold swagger and intensity which every impression of Captain Kirk is based on? Where is the gravitas of Spock or the humour or sarcasm of Bones or Scotty? Knowing the context in which this film was released, one wonders if everyone forgot how to play their characters in the 10 years since they last appeared on screen. I don't really think that's what's happened but it's hard not to think it. I would agree with you that there is a weakness in the serious script, and possibly someone with no ear for banter deciding which take to use or when to call wrap on a certain scene, because boy are these dialogue sequences ever bland.

Quote
Overall, Star Trek: The Motion Picture is an experience worth having, and it does play like an experience. While it may not have been quite what I was expecting going into the film, I can appreciate everything it brings to the table while also criticizing it as a rather poor narrative film. I think it’s main faults are simply not being able to fully stand on its own. When taken from that perspective, the characters are too thin, which makes my investment in their successes or failures much more flat than they ought to be for a situation like this. I felt like I had to fill in the blanks on my own far too much. That being said, I am intrigued enough by what I know of the characters, and what I know of Star Trek in the first place to want to find out what a truly great Star Trek film might look like. And I really do hope that adventure awaits me ahead in this marathon.

Maybe starting out so weak will be for the best. Bring our expectations right down to almost nothing. Now if we come across a film with even a hint of personality and emotional heft we'll be over the moon about it. :))



I suppose something should be said about Captain Decker. :)) Boy, things go sideways for him pretty much immediately. Outranked and bumped from command, then an old love interest appears, then she gets vaporized by a lightning bolt on the bridge, comes back as a space-cloud emissary, and he decides he's just gunna go become a space-consciousness with her for eternity. Phew. I mean I get being smitten with her, she's quite the attractive and leggy figure wearing nothing but a space-blazer, but Decker falls for her hard. How does he know what he's signing up for even? I don't think I'd be bold enough to make the same choice in the end, lol. From a script writing pov it smells of convenience. A quick easy way to make the Decker-problem go away. A bit of tough sell in the moment.

Antares

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 5013
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #25 on: April 05, 2018, 07:36:34 PM »
Being a child in the sixties, growing up with TOS, and Mr. Spock being my favorite character on TV, maybe I can give you a bit of perspective, as to why the film was made this way. TOS first aired in 1965, a time in this country when racial divisions were at the forefront of societies ills. The Vietnam war was just starting to ramp up, and the protests associated with it, were on the horizon. Baby boomers, who were spoon fed on syrupy movie musicals and banal family comedies in their youth, were eager to destroy the status quo going forward. Star Trek allowed them to envision a world of racial harmony, where only peace and logic ruled the day. Fast forward a decade, and Star Wars mushrooms like an atomic blast on the horizon of pop culture. Most people who grew up on Star Trek, 2001: A Space Odyssey, or read anything by Isaac Asimov, looked upon Star Wars as a cheesy B-grade western, taking place in space. The funny thing is, is that Gene Roddenberry, the producer who created Star Trek, sold it to the network, by describing it as Wagon Train to the stars!  ;)  The producers of this film tried to distance themselves, from being looked upon as cashing in on the Star Wars craze, at the time. They wanted it to be more cerebral, and also to facilitate good word of mouth by trekkies, make it more friendly to them, than newcomers to the series. They knew that with the staggering amount of TOS fans out there, it was going to be a success. The screenplay, basically takes one of the series programs from season 2, and modernizes it a bit, to allow the ending in the film.

Smirnoff mentioned the 5 minute long inspection of the ship. Back in the mid-sixties, there was no High Definition TV, hell, most people didn't even own a color TV yet. We all watched reruns of Star Trek, over the next ten years, predominantly on small, portable 18 - 21" B&W televisions. When Star Wars appeared, and the evolution of special effects was comparable to Chuck Yeager breaking the sound barrier, only 44 years after the Wright Brothers. Trekkies salivated like Pavlov's Dog, in anticipation over seeing what the Enterprise would look like in glorious wide screen color. This is why this scene is sooooooo loooong. They deserved it, they kept Star Trek alive.

Trust me, the second film is much more action packed, and you'll definitely like it better. But I recommend you both find the episode that the next film is based upon, and watch it. It will help you understand and enjoy it more. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708447/
Masterpiece (100-91) | Classic (90-80) | Entertaining (79-69) | Mediocre (68-58) | Cinemuck (57-21) | Crap (20-0)

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #26 on: April 05, 2018, 09:19:47 PM »
That's some quality context, Antares! I hadn't even considered the visual circumstances under which most fans would have come to know Star Trek. These days the cost barriers to having an in home experience as big and impressive as a theatre experience is pretty much gone. But this was back when "the big screen" was truly the big screen. I can see now why that would've been such a special sequence. An important "first" for the series. Joining the big leagues as it were.

With Star Wars and Close Encounters finishing 1 & 2 to years earlier in the box office I guess that went a long way to convincing producers to throw some money at this project. What surprises me to read is that the budget for Star Trek was $45M and the budget for Star Wars two years ealier was $11M. To look at them I would have guessed Star Trek cost less, by a lot.

...

Just been reading the very long wiki article on ST: The Motion Picture, trying to suss out what it could cost that much more. I never really did figure it out but the section on the film's score has a few interesting details. It actually mentions that 5 minute sequence:

Quote from: wiki
The approach of Kirk and Scott to the drydocked Enterprise by shuttle lasted a ponderous five minutes due to the effect shots coming in late and unedited, requiring Goldsmith to maintain interest with a revised and developed cue.

It doesn't contradict the spirit of your argument, but it's interesting to read that there may have been external forces which dictated the scene going on quite so as long as it did.

I'm also discovering the instrument that makes that sound was developed specifically for this film. Called a Blaster Beam. How fun. Also, it's played with "an artillery shell casing". :))


1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #27 on: April 05, 2018, 10:19:47 PM »
Star Trek's Even-Odd popularity. There's a point deep into the series where that rule flips, but we'll get to that later.

My overall opinion of the Star Trek films is that with all films before the reboot, the bad films are not as bad as their reputation and the good ones are not as good. Only that one rule flipper is truly as bad as its reputation. For now, it means that I don't mind this first adventure, which I remember as the one that comes closest to real science. Because of that it's going to be slower for this series and because of its origins it's going to be more reverential. There are 3 different versions of the film 132m, 136m and 143m. I've seen the 136 version which I remember had longer shots of the Enterprise being introduced, but I knew and accepted that going in. I think the filmmakers didn't want to copy Star Wars, like every other sci-fi film of that time, so it ran went in the opposite direction.

The flatness of the characters is something that was pretty much hated by all, including the fans. It's something that gets corrected immediately and as the series goes on, even the bad films usually have some good banter.

Quote
Star Trek: The Motion Picture is an experience worth having, and it does play like an experience.
This nails it. What I like about this film is that it's different from the others, upending expectations and trying something rather than playing it safe and throwing in the best stories from the TV show.


smirnoff, you mention Guardians of the Galaxy, but have you (either of you) seen Galaxy Quest? It's an important alternate view of Star Trek.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #28 on: April 05, 2018, 10:27:54 PM »
By Grabthar's Hammer, of course! That's some top 100 material. :)

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #29 on: April 06, 2018, 07:45:37 AM »


The world's largest steel guitar!

smirnoff, you mention Guardians of the Galaxy, but have you (either of you) seen Galaxy Quest? It's an important alternate view of Star Trek.

I have seen Galaxy Quest, and while it has been some time, I remember really liking it.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

 

love