STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Forum dedicated to discussion of movies and television.
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

Image

In general, STAR TREK: The Motion Picture is mostly recognized for being beautifully rendered, with a superb soundtrack. It is also commonly described as being boring and poorly paced.



What are your thoughts on this film, which is as controversial among Trekkies as it is ancient?
User avatar
AstroWarped
Super Elite KISS Fan
Super Elite KISS Fan
Posts: 1802
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:34 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by AstroWarped »

The Director's Cut improved it nicely! Can't wait for the 4K sets!
User avatar
Pete2174
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 3589
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:07 am
Location: Ok UK!

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Pete2174 »

Looks beautiful. Boring as fuck.
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

STAR TREK puts its special effects people to work, bringing V'GER to persuasive life. And they do it ... the old fashioned way ...

0ut of fiberglass!

Image

V'GER's hind end, which lights up. Where Enterprise first approaches, once its entered the cloud, then flies up and over ...

Image

Something asociated with V'GER's imaging system that Spock flies through ...

Image

Richard Taylor talks about items used to design the living machine ... models/sketches ...

https://forgottentrek.com/designing-the-living-machine/
User avatar
Samurai_Futaba
Welcome To The Show!
Welcome To The Show!
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:19 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Samurai_Futaba »

The Jerry Goldsmith score for the film is musical perfection to me. That score brings me to tears with its beauty. The film itself tho, for me personally, ranks dead last for the TOS film series but gets higher in rank when the Next Gen films enter the fold (i hate that the fans were cheated out of a DS9 movie).

Leonard Nimoy himself in later years wasn't pleased with the first movie and his frustration is still apparent when he spoke about it.

User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

Yes, much of what the T0S movie franchise became, was all in the name of satisfying Lenny! However -- reportedly -- he found the uniforms from The Motion Picture to be ... "cool." And I find myself in complete agreement. We get to see him in Vulcan attire, even, when he first appears. Steeped in the throws of logic and in his own otherworldliness ...


User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

You'll be often hard-pressed to find any true connoisseurs of the film (<--Boomers or Gen-Xers) or often dubbed (even by the main OS cast) as "STAR TREK: The Motionless Picture".

😴

However, I have also observed primarily younger TREK fans taking a real liking to the film, but obviously long after-the-fact. And really, no matter what the film would've entailed originally, etc. it was pretty much guaranteed to make a fortune (circa 1979). Perhaps the truest testament as to how extremely popular the OS became & really was in actuality.

Problem being Paramount spent too much on it (& significant amount of time to develop something to follow the OS); although, still came-out a box-office winner & despite the initial overall negative reaction from its fan-base.

😐 1979-'80...🥰 2021
Last edited by jkiss on Fri Aug 27, 2021 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Bruce wrote: Fri Aug 27, 2021 11:29 am Yes, much of what the T0S movie franchise became, was all in the name of satisfying Lenny! However -- reportedly -- he found the uniforms from The Motion Picture to be ... "cool." And I find myself in complete agreement. We get to see him in Vulcan attire, even, when he first appears. Steeped in the throws of logic and in his own otherworldliness ...
If you like what you're generally seeing with TMP, maybe check-out "SPACE: 1999" (Season 1). Undoubtedly, all eyes were on this show when they were trying to drum-up something to follow 'the original series'.

And definitely there was 'significant rivalry' among fans of those series (1999 versus TREK), during the 1970's. I certainly recall many heated arguments among teenage boys over it all; of which of course quite often got totally out-of-hand.

"SPACE: 1999" (complete) @ 1080p via Shout Factory (legal stream)

💡
User avatar
Samurai_Futaba
Welcome To The Show!
Welcome To The Show!
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:19 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Samurai_Futaba »

jkiss wrote: Fri Aug 27, 2021 1:53 pm You'll be often hard-pressed to find any true connoisseurs of the film (<--Boomers or Gen-Xers) or often dubbed (even by the main OS cast) as "STAR TREK: The Motionless Picture".

😴

However, I have also observed primarily younger TREK fans taking a real liking to the film, but obviously long after-the-fact. And really, no matter what the film would've entailed originally, etc. it was pretty much guaranteed to make a fortune (circa 1979). A perhaps the truest testament as to how extremely popular the OS became & really was in actuality.

Problem being Paramount spent too much on it (& significant amount of time to develop something to follow the OS); although, still came-out a box-office winner & despite the initial overall negative reaction from its fan-base.

😐 1979-'80...🥰 2021
A close friend of mine who was super deep into Trek fandom attended the gala premiere, I want to say in Washington D.C. but I could be wrong. She had a wonderful time and said it was beyond exciting to see NEW Star Trek with all the beloved, familiar characters on the big screen. Later on when she watched it again by herself without the warm fuzzy glow of the premiere, it lost its effectiveness. Harlan Ellison wrote with very amusing vitriol about the first movie and how he was briefly recruited into submitting a treatment for it.

All that said, I really love the TV spots for the film.

User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Samurai_Futaba wrote: Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:44 pm
jkiss wrote: Fri Aug 27, 2021 1:53 pm You'll be often hard-pressed to find any true connoisseurs of the film (<--Boomers or Gen-Xers) or often dubbed (even by the main OS cast) as "STAR TREK: The Motionless Picture".

😴

However, I have also observed primarily younger TREK fans taking a real liking to the film, but obviously long after-the-fact. And really, no matter what the film would've entailed originally, etc. it was pretty much guaranteed to make a fortune (circa 1979). A perhaps the truest testament as to how extremely popular the OS became & really was in actuality.

Problem being Paramount spent too much on it (& significant amount of time to develop something to follow the OS); although, still came-out a box-office winner & despite the initial overall negative reaction from its fan-base.

😐 1979-'80...🥰 2021
A close friend of mine who was super deep into Trek fandom attended the gala premiere, I want to say in Washington D.C. but I could be wrong. She had a wonderful time and said it was beyond exciting to see NEW Star Trek with all the beloved, familiar characters on the big screen. Later on when she watched it again by herself without the warm fuzzy glow of the premiere, it lost its effectiveness. Harlan Ellison wrote with very amusing vitriol about the first movie and how he was briefly recruited into submitting a treatment for it.

All that said, I really love the TV spots for the film.

I saw it during its original theatrical run as well, but I wasn't exactly a TREK fan, either. However, TMP in particular, definitely warmed me up to becoming more of one. And really, where it all goes freezingly north is upon the 'Enterprise' encountering V'GER. The pace is too slow, but just the same, all this fantastic SFX footage to show-off. The studio wanted as much of it shown as possible, people-be-dazzled, etc.

I strongly believe if the film (or the assembly) was recut by someone that's truly gifted; it'd be a whole different (& overall better) story.

🤔
Last edited by jkiss on Fri Aug 27, 2021 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

Samurai_Futaba wrote: Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:44 pm I really love the TV spots for the film.
Paramount Pictures spared no expense, apparently, in promoting this STAR TREK film! For that unmistakable voice belongs to none other than the greatest director, producer, writer and actor of Hollywood's Golden Age: the Legendary Orson Welles ...

Image

Here, he (briefly!) notes the folly of the Human Race ...



In the 1930's, Orson's radio broadcast of H.G. Welle's War of the Worlds was so realistic, many panicked, catching it after it had begun! Having believed it to be a genuine news report on genuine Martians landing on Earth. Before UFO's fell into the purview of crackpots and attention seekers, it was generally accepted that our Solar System was teeming with life, among the populace.
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

jkiss wrote: Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:28 pm If you like what you're generally seeing with TMP, maybe check-out "SPACE: 1999" (Season 1). Undoubtedly, all eyes were on this show when they were trying to drum-up something to follow 'the original series'.

And definitely there was 'significant rivalry' among fans of those series (1999 versus TREK), during the 1970's. I certainly recall many heated arguments among teenage boys over it all; of which of course quite often got totally out-of-hand.
Upon your recommendation ... your findings ... I investigated, according to your suggested parameters

Image
Image

I am quite taken by the extensive use of neutral colors and the minimalistic design approach, overall. The "sterile" look, I guess. The tone of the show is exactly what is required. And Martin Landau definitely had the authority that the part needed -- he's very good as the leading man. Most impressed by his performance. Likeable cast, otherwise. Definitely showing promise ...
User avatar
Tail of a hurricane
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 8561
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:04 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Tail of a hurricane »

Not a fan. It was trying to copy "2001 A space odyssey ".
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

These flyby's are all extraordinary for their own reasons. And they are, by no means, the entirety of them. They are but examples of just how epic STAR TREK: The Motion Picture is. Not continuing the film series in this style was a mistake -- they'd stumbled by going cheap and campy, afterwards. This -- THIS!! -- is STAR TREK done right. Just take a look ...

Klingon Attack

The Enterprise

Spock/V'Ger
User avatar
Pete2174
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 3589
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:07 am
Location: Ok UK!

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Pete2174 »

Bruce wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 8:47 am These flyby's are all extraordinary for their own reasons. And they are, by no means, the entirety of them. They are but examples of just how epic STAR TREK: The Motion Picture is. Not continuing the film series in this style was a mistake -- they'd stumbled by going cheap and campy, afterwards. This -- THIS!! -- is STAR TREK done right. Just take a look ...

Klingon Attack

The Enterprise

Spock/V'Ger
If they’d continued making Trek films like TMP, they’d have killed the product stone dead.
User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Tail of a hurricane wrote: Sat Aug 28, 2021 6:46 pm Not a fan. It was trying to copy "2001 A space odyssey ".
Yes, but once Doug Trumbull was involved, really no helping that. And he wouldn't have been in the first place, had Robert Abel & Associates been able to meet their SFX deadlines. For anyone that doesn't know, John Dykstra (Apogee) & Doug Trumbull (Future General) were brought in basically at the last second to complete all the SFX shots Robert couldn't deliver in time. And little remains of what Robert's crew did for the film; aside from production design.

Paramount Pictures had Doug 'locked-up' in a contract they wouldn't him let him out of. And Doug was able to negotiate getting himself out of by agreeing to do TMP. If not for TMP, Paramount execs were very content to have Doug mindlessly twiddle his thumbs, but still be at their beck & call.

Stanley Kubrick had been quite busy attempting to stop "SPACE: 1999" from even staying in production (a few years earlier). Alleging '1999' (Gerry & Sylvia Anderson) were ripping him off ('2001'), completely. And them using Brian Johnson (SFX) was another problematic factor, in all that.

💡
Last edited by jkiss on Mon Aug 30, 2021 2:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Bruce wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 8:47 am These flyby's are all extraordinary for their own reasons. And they are, by no means, the entirety of them. They are but examples of just how epic STAR TREK: The Motion Picture is. Not continuing the film series in this style was a mistake -- they'd stumbled by going cheap and campy, afterwards. This -- THIS!! -- is STAR TREK done right. Just take a look ...
Paramount Pictures had the rights to TREK on the silver screen & Gene did for television. Paramount execs had enough of Gene, during TMP & he was pretty much pushed-out of having any real part of it, anymore (for subsequent films). Everywhere he wanted to go with it would have to wait, until TREK's return to TV with TNG.

Paramount wanted to spend far less, but still meet fan expectations & if they didn't, still quite pleased with themselves for spending far less.

🤔
User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Bruce wrote: Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:50 pm
jkiss wrote: Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:28 pm If you like what you're generally seeing with TMP, maybe check-out "SPACE: 1999" (Season 1). Undoubtedly, all eyes were on this show when they were trying to drum-up something to follow 'the original series'.

And definitely there was 'significant rivalry' among fans of those series (1999 versus TREK), during the 1970's. I certainly recall many heated arguments among teenage boys over it all; of which of course quite often got totally out-of-hand.
Upon your recommendation ... your findings ... I investigated, according to your suggested parameters

Image
Image

I am quite taken by the extensive use of neutral colors and the minimalistic design approach, overall. The "sterile" look, I guess. The tone of the show is exactly what is required. And Martin Landau definitely had the authority that the part needed -- he's very good as the leading man. Most impressed by his performance. Likeable cast, otherwise. Definitely showing promise ...
Not something that American audiences ever warmed-up to; unfortunately, without overwhelming success in the US, the plug was pulled. American Sci-Fi fans, wanted more TREK TV, period. And that was that.

I thought the first season was extremely well-done. And at that point, the most expensive show ever produced for television (250K US per episode). The second season would be more like TREK & of course, in an effort to try to appease or lure US TREK fans, unsuccessfully.

Plus, the past '1999 vs. TREK feud' was definitely the first time I witnessed how 'extremely n' overly passionate' Sci-Fi fans were about it all. And once again, another testament as to how outrageously popular TREK really was. Although, I personally sided with the '1999' fans, but if I was around it wasn't very hard to get these guys to stop from punching each others lights out. Maybe more so a harmless 'Sheldon Cooper punch', but still a punch, nonetheless.

And '1999' was one of the shows that typically scared the living hell out of American children. I recall a few boys I babysat weren't allowed to watch the show for that very reason; despite the fact, they still very much wanted to from like, behind the couch.

😬
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

Image

This is a rare case of where the deleted scenes would've been a benefit to include in the film. The project, as a whole would've benefitted from judicious editing, as well. But orher than that, the mystery, the majesty, the scope of The Motion Picture was the path to follow. The Search for Spock certainly applied all this, as it pertained to the Vulcan way. But the Original Series films were a very mixed bag, indeed, for having lost sight of grand fascades and big emotions. At one point, the STAR TREK people are literally out to save the whales! Ah, the foolishness ...

Image
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

jkiss wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:38 am unfortunately, without overwhelming success in the US, the plug was pulled.
Image

Ah, well. There are other kinds of success. The daughter of the two stars, actress Juliet Landau, sneaks onto shows I'll find myself watching, every Now & Then ...

Image

You know there was no mix-up at the hospital, when she was hatched -- she looks just the eff like her parents (like Sophie with Gene)!
Eddie Van Hazel
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 8013
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2015 4:30 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Eddie Van Hazel »

Saw it in theater back then. Wasn't a big Star Trek fan.

Slow paced and boring.
User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Bruce wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 3:18 pm You know there was no mix-up at the hospital, when she was hatched -- she looks just the eff like her parents (like Sophie with Gene)!
Yes, definitely no mix-up (looks just like her Mother), much like Uma Thurman's daughter as well, plus even with one my own. 🪄

🪞.😮
Bruce wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:15 pm This is a rare case of where the deleted scenes would've been a benefit to include in the film. The project, as a whole would've benefitted from judicious editing, as well. But orher than that, the mystery, the majesty, the scope of The Motion Picture was the path to follow. The Search for Spock certainly applied all this, as it pertained to the Vulcan way. But the Original Series films were a very mixed bag, indeed, for having lost sight of grand fascades and big emotions. At one point, the STAR TREK people are literally out to save the whales! Ah, the foolishness ...
Those films were simply cash cows for Paramount. All they needed to really do was keep the OS main cast together, plus be sure 'Industrial Light & Magic' (SFX) was ready n' willing to go.

Both Bill & Leonard knew they had a ton of bargaining power because they were so totally essential. And used that to their overall advantage, basically taking the film franchise over or each took turns steering it in the direction they personally wanted (along w. Nicholas Meyer).

2, 4 & 6 were the ones that were a hit with people in general, including fans. 3 & 5 performed poorly compared at the box-office, theaters weren't all that jam-packed for either of them. I didn't care for 3 & 5 much, myself.

Some of the ideas & overall visuals were above grade for 3/TSFS, but that whole resurrection of Spock was too loosely written. Newest supporting characters were too weak or disposable (Saavik & David). And maybe all something that came-off better on paper than on screen, still way better than 5/TFF did.

Spock's TWOK death & funeral was good for a few laughs with times at the theater; in commonly observing droves of grown men 'struggling' (even intensely) to hold back their tears. However, nothing like "E.T. the extra-terrestrial" with entire audiences balling their eyes-out.

With TMP, a lot of that additional footage is incomplete in some way. I highly doubt the studio will ever release anything more considered 'unfinished'. Nonetheless, they should & just so fans can see for themselves what all else there was.

🤔
Last edited by jkiss on Tue Aug 31, 2021 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

You bring up some excellent points, there. Hard to argue with any of it. There's another thing ...

The Motion Picture, The Search for Spock and The Final Frontier all have spirituality as either the main thing about them, or as a secondary driver of the story. The Search for Spock had such a great opportunity to explore it, further than it did. But they figured nobody gave a shit about that, I guess. Just unkill Spock.

Also, it might've been a concern, a 'fear,' of getting too detailed with describing the Vulcan faith, because it might end up making Spock look foolish, somehow. That this guy the movie's making such a fuss about comes from a laughable home planet. Then again, the script is very lean. Very sparce, overall. Everything is just to advance the story to the next set of variables. Even when a scene, or the film, would greatly benefit from more interaction. Nope! Nope ... just say what it takes to get us off the subject and move on.

The Final Frontier, strangely, is the one that expands on Vulcan religion. In a way that nobody wants to watch, but ... And it is Spock, in TMP, who realizes V'GER's need for a spiritual life. Now, Jim jumps right in on that, like he knew it all along. But it takes Spock to voice it, first. I guess STAR TREK felt that if it was Spock talking about faith in these films, it would piss off the fewest people.
User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Bruce wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:51 pm You bring up some excellent points, there. Hard to argue with any of it. There's another thing ...

The Motion Picture, The Search for Spock and The Final Frontier all have spirituality as either the main thing about them, or as a secondary driver of the story. The Search for Spock had such a great opportunity to explore it, further than it did. But they figured nobody gave a shit about that, I guess. Just unkill Spock.

Also, it might've been a concern, a 'fear,' of getting too detailed with describing the Vulcan faith, because it might end up making Spock look foolish, somehow. That this guy the movie's making such a fuss about comes from a laughable home planet. Then again, the script is very lean. Very sparce, overall. Everything is just to advance the story to the next set of variables. Even when a scene, or the film, would greatly benefit from more interaction. Nope! Nope ... just say what it takes to get us off the subject and move on.

The Final Frontier, strangely, is the one that expands on Vulcan religion. In a way that nobody wants to watch, but ... And it is Spock, in TMP, who realizes V'GER's need for a spiritual life. Now, Jim jumps right in on that, like he knew it all along. But it takes Spock to voice it, first. I guess STAR TREK felt that if it was Spock talking about faith in these films, it would piss off the fewest people.
‘A clever presentation & exploration of contemporary societal issues in a futuristic context’ or TREK on television. And on TV is where TREK works the best or to say if it’s not at least doing 'all that' it’s spinning its wheels.

I didn’t feel any of the TNG films worked at all, aside from “First Contact”, even then it’s basically ‘a monster movie’. However, TNG as a TV series did work, perhaps even better than before or originally (or OS).

And its successor ‘DS9’, worked maybe the best it ever did, once they found where its strengths were in expanding to a TREK stylized universe of a soap opera. I don’t know if I’ve seen ‘all’ episodes, but probably close, maybe 80%-90% of them & same goes for TNG.

I didn’t care for “Voyager” at all. I didn’t like any of the characters, either. I thought the later combination or pairing of ‘Seven-of-Nine w. Doc’ was its sole salvation or single strength. I'm guessing I've seen only half of the episodes; doubtlessly, no real desire to see anymore or the rest.

“Enterprise” wasn’t all that wonderful initially; although, something that got better as it went along. Over the course of watching the entire series on DVD, I warmed-up enough to the main characters that it was enjoyable to a certain degree, even interesting enough. I already liked Scott Bakula from previously watching "Quantum Leap", years before. And the only reason I gave it a break or another chance, whenever I thought it was sucking too much to bother continue it.

I’ve seen episodes of “Discovery”, maybe about a dozen or so. No real verdict on it, yet, either (their CG looked good). And haven’t watched “PICARD” at all as of yet. All something I will eventually get to & no big rush for me; as it’s all a matter of having the time & even being in the right mood or frame of mind for it. And with studios putting these box-sets (along w. streaming options) out shortly enough afterwards, usually that’s how I get to watching these new/newer ones or ‘binge watch’ a series, nowadays.

I first noticed TREK all-the-way back in 1967 or '68. And saw all OS episodes (including the '70's era 'animated series'), during the 1970's, really only because many of the boys I babysat totally insisted on watching it, without fail. No changing their minds about it, either; although, I did often enough try to. Plus, I've seen every TREK movie, original theatrical run.

Nevertheless, despite all that, TREK still isn't my favorite, recognized it can be good, but not at all my biggest Sci-Fi themed preference.

🤔
Last edited by jkiss on Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

STAR WARS is my preference. The first 3 STAR TREK films were all that was any good, really. Every villian in every Trek movie ever since The Wrath of Khan has been similarly obsessed, to the detrement of their respective stories. Its stale. All that made them work was their casting. Remarkable actors, every single one of them.

The STAR TREK series, plural, that followed have each had an amazing cast. Wasted, actually, on shows trying to be TNG and not succeeding at it. Always with the same production, same designers, same costume & makeup people, the same stories ... the shit gets old quick. Oh! But DISCOVERY has its people curse and swear ... even Starfleet people!! Yeah ... it still sucks. Picard sucks. The new cartoon sucks.

The STAR TREK reeboot movie was decent, only because their only objective was to do the crew. To recast beloved, iconic characters. And they did that. The movies that followed all suck. STAR TREK: The Motion Picture legitimately attempted to be larger than life. Even (slightly) ahead of its time. Whether it actually managed that, the attempt itself produced a project of such eyecandy, that its still a joy to behold. The soundtrack is still amazing. And the main characters are very much as they were in the TV series, before the soft reboot with Khan.
User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Bruce wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:32 pm STAR WARS is my preference. The first 3 STAR TREK films were all that was any good, really. Every villian in every Trek movie ever since The Wrath of Khan has been similarly obsessed, to the detrement of their respective stories. Its stale. All that made them work was their casting. Remarkable actors, every single one of them.

The STAR TREK series, plural, that followed have each had an amazing cast. Wasted, actually, on shows trying to be TNG and not succeeding at it. Always with the same production, same designers, same costume & makeup people, the same stories ... the shit gets old quick. Oh! But DISCOVERY has its people curse and swear ... even Starfleet people!! Yeah ... it still sucks. Picard sucks. The new cartoon sucks.

The STAR TREK reeboot movie was decent, only because their only objective was to do the crew. To recast beloved, iconic characters. And they did that. The movies that followed all suck. STAR TREK: The Motion Picture legitimately attempted to be larger than life. Even (slightly) ahead of its time. Whether it actually managed that, the attempt itself produced a project of such eyecandy, that its still a joy to behold. The soundtrack is still amazing. And the main characters are very much as they were in the TV series, before the soft reboot with Khan.
If Gene had been far more clever, he should've insisted the studio 'go to series' immediately following TMP. And argued since the sets, costumes, etc. were going to be all there & scripts already developed ("Phase II"), 'let's knock 'em out with a blockbuster & hit 'em all again on television'.

It would've worked probably, simply appealed to Paramount execs' greed to 'have it all'. Plus of course, got it all signed n' sealed, etc. (including the OS cast) before the completion of TMP (circa mid ’78). And TREK fans would've all been beamed-up to 2nd heaven, etc. for the 1980-'81 television season.

Leonard would've been the only real holdout; as he was incredibly jaded over that he had been basically typecast (& nobody thought of him as anything else other than Spock). Anyhow, additionally, promise to allow him to have significant input into the scripts, plus even write & direct (x number) of future episodes.

And if Paramount execs were smart (since the direction is now a hit movie & then straight to a hit TV series), they could've said to Doug, "We'll let you out of the contract with us providing to you agree to do the film & entire subsequent TV series." Allow Doug a reasonable budget to develop his camera technology further (or 'Showscan' 70mm @ 60 fps), etc. Plus, even allow him to shoot the series (&/or next film) with it all, eventually, humor him.

Buyout Doug's company 'Future General' (or buy a large enough stake in it) & make it the official special visual effects house for Paramount, but keep him on as President CEO (or in a role/something of the equivalent).

And that way, Nicholas Meyer would just been 'nobody', plus stayed nobody & Gene would’ve been still sitting in the Captain’s chair. 😅

🤔
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

I love the uniforms in STAR TREK: The Motion Picture. They're quite wonderful and I wouldn't have changed a thing about them. That said, the cast from the television series only got and stayed in shape for this film because of the hope that its success would (re)launch their careers. This really only happened for Shatner & Nimoy.

So, the remaining cast said effit, and let themselves go. This meant that the TMP uniforms would not have worked for TV. Seeing them clinging to Uhura's sagging teats and Scotty's beer gut would've been bad for ratings. A nice, thick, crisp wool uniform would be on order regardless. The actors were not going to train like astronauts for a fantasy series. They eventually stopped taking the movies seriously. By Star Trek 5, nobody gave a shit, anymore. The acting became broad ... and cartoonish. The TV show based on TMP would likely have suffered the same fate ...
User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Bruce wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 3:39 pm I love the uniforms in STAR TREK: The Motion Picture. They're quite wonderful and I wouldn't have changed a thing about them. That said, the cast from the television series only got and stayed in shape for this film because of the hope that its success would (re)launch their careers. This really only happened for Shatner & Nimoy.
I'm guessing Gene would've had enough set-extras/eye-candy filling-out those highly innovative 2273 uniforms, even a few beamed-off fresh from the ole casting couch.

🛋️.😘.💃

Image

Image

Sylvia Anderson would've approved, too. 👌🏻 And her swinging husband Gerry as well. No stopping the sexual revolution @ Pinewood, either. 😂

👩🏻‍🦰😮👨🏻‍🦲

I was watching an unaltered or non-corrected (or no digital filters, etc.) scan of a 35mm theatrical print, but only at 720p. And I noticed a few funny new things; as do I almost always with busy-busy films much like TMP:

Image

Sticking-out her tongue & during the live update, plus immediate subsequent destruction of 'Epsilon 9'. 😋 "On report." 💣

Image

I can only imagine what this crew member was really thinking here, but I'm sure it's probably hilarious. 😆

Image

'82 AUs' in diameter?! 😮 What about that even more sexy looking Starfleet outfit behind him? 😏 Where the heck did she get that?! 🤨

Image

I noticed this engineer's hairdo, pretty much the same deal as 'former' Nurse Chapel, but still obviously within regulations. 👩🏻‍🦱✅

🕵️‍♀️
User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Bruce wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 3:39 pm So, the remaining cast said effit, and let themselves go. This meant that the TMP uniforms would not have worked for TV. Seeing them clinging to Uhura's sagging teats and Scotty's beer gut would've been bad for ratings. A nice, thick, crisp wool uniform would be on order regardless. The actors were not going to train like astronauts for a fantasy series. They eventually stopped taking the movies seriously. By Star Trek 5, nobody gave a shit, anymore. The acting became broad ... and cartoonish. The TV show based on TMP would likely have suffered the same fate ...
I recall a lot not working on TV & quite especially by the 1980's. What a terrible decade for television, if not the very worst of, but coming from someone that truly desisted it. And to the point, I could've even won an award for doing so. If it wasn't for MTV, not sure what I would've done...

And so for that reason alone, I would've personally welcomed a new TMP-themed TREK TV series (circa early '80's). 🤗

🥱 I doubt it would've been consistently good as well; nonetheless, far better than the near constant airwave torture that was to come.
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

Those screencaps are interesting, never noticed any of that. Here's a very curious one, indeed -- its all make-believe, folks!

Image

The crew shown in the Rec Room briefing scene were a motley crew, consisting of some actors/models and a shitload of regular fans, friends and relations of cast and crew. This may explain some of the goofs you posted, but extras don't always give it the gusto required, also. Here's "Scotty" with two of his offspring to find stuff to do, in a moment ...

Image

STAR TREK TMP: The Television Series would likely not exist in as flattering a form as the movie did. Shatner would have wanted too much money. The Motion Picture put him on the map and Nimoy had it in his contract that whatever Shatner made/got to do (like directing) he got to do -- and vice versa.

It was not until STAR TREK 6, I believe, that DeForest Kelley made a cool one million ona project ... ever. Even so, without Nimoy or Shatner onboard, Kelley likely would not be either. A show with just Sulu, Uhura, Chekov and Scotty, though ... oh, I don't know. Would audiences even want to see them as underlings to some no-name captain? Would the production value of those great sets and outfits offer enough incentive?

Image

Were I in charge, I'd say, "lets just try selling this stuff off, and work on something else, instead. Maybe come out with another cheap-looking, boring-ass STAR TREK cartoon, like they did in the Seventies."
User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Bruce wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 7:10 pm Those screencaps are interesting, never noticed any of that. Here's a very curious one, indeed -- its all make-believe, folks!

Image

The crew shown in the Rec Room briefing scene were a motley crew, consisting of some actors/models and a shitload of regular fans, friends and relations of cast and crew. This may explain some of the goofs you posted, but extras don't always give it the gusto required, also. Here's "Scotty" with two of his offspring to find stuff to do, in a moment ...

Image

STAR TREK TMP: The Television Series would likely not exist in as flattering a form as the movie did. Shatner would have wanted too much money. The Motion Picture put him on the map and Nimoy had it in his contract that whatever Shatner made/got to do (like directing) he got to do -- and vice versa.

It was not until STAR TREK 6, I believe, that DeForest Kelley made a cool one million ona project ... ever. Even so, without Nimoy or Shatner onboard, Kelley likely would not be either. A show with just Sulu, Uhura, Chekov and Scotty, though ... oh, I don't know. Would audiences even want to see them as underlings to some no-name captain? Would the production value of those great sets and outfits offer enough incentive?

Image

Were I in charge, I'd say, "lets just try selling this stuff off, and work on something else, instead. Maybe come out with another cheap-looking, boring-ass STAR TREK cartoon, like they did in the Seventies."
Yes, I'm aware of the detail & a super close friend tried to be an extra for that 'Rec. Room scene', but couldn't find a costume that fit well-enough before they were totally gonzo or snapped-up by everyone else pouring in. However, she did get a good look around, not at all an easy thing to do, either.

She wasn't at all a TREK fan; nevertheless, I did inform her they were going to be filming, etc. & with her being in such close proximity thought it'd be hilarious if she magically turned-up in that one as well. And it would've been, at least to friends alike & of course, me too. Plus, for another really funny reason, but maybe some other time...

Both Gene & Bill were lucky they could even pay their monthly bills, each consistently teetering on the verge of personal bankruptcy (circa 1970's). And was actually surprised that Bill was once living in his pickup truck 'for awhile' (circa 1972); as it was really all he had left to his name.

Leonard was doing alright & mainly because of "In Search of..." (1977-'82); of which, wasn't all that bad, either. I didn't mind tuning-in for that one, if it happened to be on; although, it wasn't like he was swimming in cash w. anything. The rest of the bunch, were simply lucky to be called back, period (for anything at all).

They all would've signed to a new TV series, easy-peasy, all would cave. Would the quality been there? Not without Doug or John, few could produce visual effects to that level & that few really only being themselves. Everything else was still being done 'the old n' hard way'; even including "SPACE: 1999", "ALIEN", also OO7's space shuttlin' "MOONRAKER", etc.

With that stated, Paramount execs should’ve made life far easier on themselves by asking Doug to direct TMP, in the first place. And as that was what he really wanted, to direct for Paramount Pictures. I'd bet Doug would’ve taken on an additional TV series had he been treated as he believed he should’ve been, like ‘Gold’. They even camera teased him with the prospect of directing TMP, but of course, execs didn’t putout.

😤
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

Many (most?) of the extras in the front row are doing their best to hide their 'camel toe' as those polyester pants hide no secrets.

Image

And if STAR TREK TMP TV came to fruition, presenting itself as a Space: 1999 variation, who knows? If the writing was in shape, perhaps it would've had a good run. Trekkies are fiercely loyal, even if they aren't plentiful.

Image

Saying of Space: 1999, here's Martin Landau, during one of his spins in his moonbuggy ... filling his lungs with that good ol' lunar air. So impressed am I by the very quality of Landau's performance, here, that I've started taking an interest in his filmography. Thank you, for introducing me to this very fine actor.
User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Bruce wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 10:25 pm Many (most?) of the extras in the front row are doing their best to hide their 'camel toe' as those polyester pants hide no secrets.

Image

And if STAR TREK TMP TV came to fruition, presenting itself as a Space: 1999 variation, who knows? If the writing was in shape, perhaps it would've had a good run. Trekkies are fiercely loyal, even if they aren't plentiful.

Image

Saying of Space: 1999, here's Martin Landau, during one of his spins in his moonbuggy ... filling his lungs with that good ol' lunar air. So impressed am I by the very quality of Landau's performance, here, that I've started taking an interest in his filmography. Thank you, for introducing me to this very fine actor.
Yes, basically a "SPACE: 1999" inspired TREK TV variant or hybrid; featuring the highest quality visual effects that can be attained. And along with an outstanding level of overall production design, etc.

Let's be consistently serious enough & as the episode subject matter demands or requires for 50 minutes. And let's just forget all that womanizing, plus related, like 1999 usually did, if compared. Leave that tiring baggage for OO7 or on NBC with "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century".

For that to of really transpired, Gene needed be delegated strictly to a Producer's role (w. certain restrictions) & not an Executive Producer's role. And as like with the pervious thread whether or not 'Kirk would snog it', more like 'would Gene snog it'; as that's 'where much of all that' was coming from, quite directly.

And you're welcome. They all sure didn't award Martin an Oscar for nothing. I don't recall ever meeting anyone else that was so ultra passionate n' totally absorbed with the craft of being an actor or acting. All something that came clear across the couple times I heard him speak live about the subject.

🎯.🏆
Last edited by jkiss on Mon Sep 06, 2021 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

Image

Alright ... now, I've gotta mention the aliens!

STAR TREK: The Motion Picture seemed to only feature extraterrestrials that looked entirely, or 99.9% Human, like Ilia and Mister Spock. But if you look closely, particularly at the Recreation Room sequence, you'll find more artistically derived species, mixed in amongst the others.

Image

Not quite the STAR WARS Cantina scene, but they are worth noting. Unfortunately ... they're just masks, most of them, so not much by way of reaction shots, under all of that plastic ...

Image

These are but a few, but there was probably 20, or so. Why weren't they given loving closeups? I don't know. Maybe Wise & Roddenberry were afraid of having Kirk's crew briefing become a movie within a movie. No matter. I find these to be quite a sight ... and not altogether uninteresting!

Image
User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Bruce wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 5:21 pm Image

Alright ... now, I've gotta mention the aliens!

STAR TREK: The Motion Picture seemed to only feature extraterrestrials that looked entirely, or 99.9% Human, like Ilia and Mister Spock. But if you look closely, particularly at the Recreation Room sequence, you'll find more artistically derived species, mixed in amongst the others.

Image

Not quite the STAR WARS Cantina scene, but they are worth noting. Unfortunately ... they're just masks, most of them, so not much by way of reaction shots, under all of that plastic ...

Image

These are but a few, but there was probably 20, or so. Why weren't they given loving closeups? I don't know. Maybe Wise & Roddenberry were afraid of having Kirk's crew briefing become a movie within a movie. No matter. I find these to be quite a sight ... and not altogether uninteresting!

Image
One thing that stands-out from the past, as in with "STAR WARS" (1977 original), American theater audiences really had a lot of laughs over the creature cantina scene. And something George wanted to actually avoid, as he wanted to it all to look believable or convincing as possible. Quite distressingly, he felt that some of what was shot in England wasn't good enough (or appearing more like a rubber mask costume party) & did reshoot portions of it later back home. Notwithstanding reshoots, his (then) wife still had the final say over the original theatrical cut.

I’m guessing probably even something Bob wanted to avoid as well. With an ultra-serious scene (crew witnessing the derezzing of 'Epsilon 9'), unravels setting the appropriate tone by showing a close-up of someone that might even look like a 'dick-headed alien monster' or to say a shot that takes audiences out of the film. Suspension of disbelief being undermined; also a real modern problem with over-the-top CG & a current staple of Superhero films or even J.J. Abrams himself.

Anyhow, Bob used the most 'far-out' ones primarily as 'set dressing' or aliens that simply fill-out the background or a crowd, just as he should've.

Edward James Olmos had it written in his “Battlestar Galactica” (re-imagined) contract, that there weren't ever to be any aliens showing-up on the series or he'd be straight-out the nearest airlock. I’m glad he did & simply because some of these aliens are far too hard on the eyes to see all that much of regularly. And something that often enough grated on my own nerves with TREK; although, there are certainly those that really enjoy that entire aspect (like a fun trip to an exotic otherworldly zoo, almost).

However of course, I'm not failing to see them working perfectly as devices to explore contemporary cultural or religious differences, world conflicts, etc. And this is all something TREK just does & maybe it’s even the 'best of with' at least from an American perspective.

🤔
User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Bruce wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 7:10 pm Those screencaps are interesting, never noticed any of that. Here's a very curious one, indeed -- its all make-believe, folks!

Image
💡 The mystery 'even more sexy Starfleet outfit', but in white with added badges (never noticed the flare, not before a zoom):

Image

🥁 The UHD is now out (first 4 films):

Image

💿.🥳
User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Image
Above excerpt: ST:TMP Novelization by Gene Roddenberry

Something we discussed a bit in an earlier thread; as to what the hell was Decker even thinking, in regard to the Ilia probe? Undoubtedly, this all was written by Gene himself, not ghostwritten by Alan Dean Foster (nor anyone else) as many have falsely claimed, in the past (on the web). I've read the novelization only once before (circa Oct. '82); a hardcover from the ole public library. And so, don't easily recall the extreme detail, obviously, plus consequently, decided to just give it a second reading.

Anyway, all very interesting, also some of what is there was indeed scripted; however, either not filmed/dropped from later revisions or even cut from the final film assembly. Most definitely, there are instances of both that I can find within the novelization; of which Gene was legally bound to write n' deliver (after being effectively dismissed from the production, circa Oct. '78).

🔎.📙.📑

Additionally, with the mystery outfits or the 'off-duty garb'; there weren't any other scenes besides with the Ilia probe that required those particular costumes. And Ilia's probe outfit was jazzed-up from what the base was originally. Basically, it appears since there was no real use for them, it was simply decided they'd be repurposed mainly for ‘Epsilon 9’ crew (to get their money's worth), late in the production. All 'Epsilon 9' interior footage was shot at the tail-end of principal photography (circa early '79).

Those 'extras' became 'on-duty garb' & added Starfleet badges, also pants for female personnel. 💡.🥼
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

I never believed that Gene Roddenberry did not write the novelization to the film. For one thing, he was a writer and the project was mostly his baby. And for another, it was a way to make more money. We’re talking about the same guy who wrote never-heard lyrics to the STAR TREK TV theme, so that he always got royalties from soundtrack sales. The Decker & Ilia love scene you posted, your right — that’s pure Roddenberry! Glad it wasn’t in the final thing. The rest of the film is so sexless, it would’ve felt like it belonged in another movie.

The UHD restoration does seem remarkable! Will have to investigate. The Ilia alternative outfits were reused! How about that? Was not aware of that aspect. It’s quite something, how gorgeous Persis Khambatta was. Seems she should have been more employable, been in more films. That’s the curse of STAR TREK for you: star in it and it will eff up your career. Agreed about your earlier comments regarding aliens. Often unavoidable in sci-fi fare, but always coming off as an elaborate Halloween costume. The aliens in the STAR WARS prequels are beyond mythical, for example. What reality could any ever hope to be found in? None, I’m sorry to have to say ...
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

I just wanted to add that, as per your previous CGI comments. I think the problem is time and money. Close enough is quickly promoted to good enough because it’s expensive, time consuming and the deadlines are just ridiculous. Besides that, audiences don’t care (that much). On this very board, I read praises for ABBA’s “abbatar” spectacle, when it looks atrocious. if people want the results of something bad enough, they’ll take it in almost any condition ...
User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Bruce wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 1:20 pm I never believed that Gene Roddenberry did not write the novelization to the film. For one thing, he was a writer and the project was mostly his baby. And for another, it was a way to make more money. We’re talking about the same guy who wrote never-heard lyrics to the STAR TREK TV theme, so that he always got royalties from soundtrack sales. The Decker & Ilia love scene you posted, your right — that’s pure Roddenberry! Glad it wasn’t in the final thing. The rest of the film is so sexless, it would’ve felt like it belonged in another movie.

The UHD restoration does seem remarkable! Will have to investigate. The Ilia alternative outfits were reused! How about that? Was not aware of that aspect. It’s quite something, how gorgeous Persis Khambatta was. Seems she should have been more employable, been in more films. That’s the curse of STAR TREK for you: star in it and it will eff up your career. Agreed about your earlier comments regarding aliens. Often unavoidable in sci-fi fare, but always coming off as an elaborate Halloween costume. The aliens in the STAR WARS prequels are beyond mythical, for example. What reality could any ever hope to be found in? None, I’m sorry to have to say ...
According to the novelization, Decker 'never got it on' with Ilia in the first place. And what her 'oath of celibacy' was all about; as lines cut from the film assembly somewhat explains after her declaration, that basically 'Deltans' weren't ever to take advantage of an sexually immature species (humans being one, Gene himself being another as far as Persis herself may've been concerned).

😆

And with those outfits, they were partly returned to original condition after screen use. Patches, badges, etc. were all removed, but the costumes themselves typically still had evidence of having something previously sewn into the fabric. These can be observed within online archives of past Hollywood auction sales.

🥼.🔍

Persis was a real oddball or to say she wasn't compatible enough with Hollywood. I'm sure many perceived her as simply trouble & far too unpredictable. Whatever games she was playing were likely going to become potentially dangerous ones. An affair with the likes of Henry Kissinger (or Ted Kennedy) is right-off the charts & a massive red flag in general. Nobody wants to deal with any of that, too political, etc.

🤔
Bruce wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 9:15 pm I just wanted to add that, as per your previous CGI comments. I think the problem is time and money. Close enough is quickly promoted to good enough because it’s expensive, time consuming and the deadlines are just ridiculous. Besides that, audiences don’t care (that much). On this very board, I read praises for ABBA’s “abbatar” spectacle, when it looks atrocious. if people want the results of something bad enough, they’ll take it in almost any condition ...
Once Pandora's Box has been opened it cannot be closed. They do it simply because they can or have the ability with nobody saying they can't. And probably very true audiences in general really don't care; as if they did, those types of movies wouldn't be continuously breaking box-office records.

I wouldn't be surprised if someday in the future, real on-screen actors & actresses won't even be required; too expensive, too troublesome, etc. Hollywood movies may eventually become CGI affairs, completely. And most people will be just fine with it & perhaps there will be a virtual counterpart to nearly everything. It might become the most preferred or a popular preference, even with sex itself.

I know with myself concerning CGI, my subconscious mind knows that it isn't real or even real objects (or digitally unprocessed ones) I'm seeing. And it usually isn't convincing enough (no matter how awesomely detailed) or even impressive enough to me compared to actual physical objects, but I wouldn't say always.

And when it goes in the realm of the overly fantastic, I simply tune it out by default ...every character flying around, dozens upon dozens of skyscrapers crumbling simultaneously, etc. "STAR TREK: Into Darkness" was far too much of that, just don't buy into it; in that 'absolutely anything' could happen or even should.

😐
Last edited by jkiss on Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

I was only aware of Persis being married, briefly, to some dude who looks like Decker. Was not aware of her other daliances! Or, of her ... shenanigans. Thats celebrities for you. When they are young, hot, rich and famous, they have to invent problems for themselves to balance it all out.

Balance between reality and fantasy is whats needed with CGI in movies. Part of the problem is that 'they' pay no attention to scale. Depending on the shot, its hard to tell which is bigger, the Enterprise, or the planet? CGI creatures frequenty look like dolls, like in Planet of the Apes. They should've used a combination of guys in ape suits on set and CG enhanced faces. And when its used to depict people, they often look 'bloodless' as with Star Wars: Rogue One. Grand Moff Tarkin looks like a CPR mannequin! This is a great article on the problems with CGI ...

https://www.cinelinx.com/movie-news/mov ... -prequels/
User avatar
B5Erik
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 15643
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:46 pm
Location: www.VistaRecords.us & Vista Records Radio on YouTube

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by B5Erik »

I've always said there's a really good hour and 45 minute film in ST: TMP.

Cut down two scenes by half (the trip around the Enterprise, and the trip into V'Ger) and you've cut over 10 minutes of dead, lifeless screen time.

The Director's Cut is much better than the Theatrical cut, but I'd take that Director's Cut and slice out more of the slow, boring stuff to bring more of the focus on the characters.
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

Imagine Lando Calrissian raking his gaze over his reunited Falcon to swells of music for 5 minutes in Empire Strikes Back. Only in a Star Trek movie could you get something like that -- but I love it. I also love these Motion Picture trading cards!

Image

Nothing pictures captioned with these ponderous, pretentious titles ...

Image

How do these hacks sleep at night?
Haha ...

Image

Star Trek's official website schooled me on these fine items in this interesting article on the subject ...

https://www.startrek.com/article/star-t ... ding-cards
User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Bruce wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:24 pm I was only aware of Persis being married, briefly, to some dude who looks like Decker. Was not aware of her other daliances! Or, of her ... shenanigans. Thats celebrities for you. When they are young, hot, rich and famous, they have to invent problems for themselves to balance it all out.

Balance between reality and fantasy is whats needed with CGI in movies. Part of the problem is that 'they' pay no attention to scale. Depending on the shot, its hard to tell which is bigger, the Enterprise, or the planet? CGI creatures frequenty look like dolls, like in Planet of the Apes. They should've used a combination of guys in ape suits on set and CG enhanced faces. And when its used to depict people, they often look 'bloodless' as with Star Wars: Rogue One. Grand Moff Tarkin looks like a CPR mannequin! This is a great article on the problems with CGI ...

https://www.cinelinx.com/movie-news/mov ... -prequels/
I can see Persis was legally married three times (to Americans in 1981 & 1984 + to a Canadian in 1986). 👰🏾.🔍

Persis supposedly had the "Charlie's Angels" TV role replacing Shelly Hack; unfortunately, she leaked it far too early to press overseas & Aaron Spelling was totally furious, in response. And so, he blacklisted her for not following strict protocol; ultimately, awarding the role to Tanya Roberts, instead. Anyway, it turned-out to be the show's fifth & final season, primarily due to low ratings.

😡.👩🏻‍🦰

She also wouldn't commit to rescheduling a trip back to India to be readily available for OO7's "Octopussy". And consequently, producers gave away her role to Maud Adams (making her a two-time 'Bond Girl' baddie). It might’ve been due to the fact she needed coronary bypass surgery & returned to India for that prescheduled 'lifesaving' medical procedure (root cause being a car accident in Germany, circa 1980).

😪.💓

And yes, proper & consistent scale is another problematic issue with CGI. J.J. Abrams' TREK was a notable offender on that count. I don't have any serious bones against CG; although, I generally believe it should be commonly executed far more wisely, skillfully, even more tastefully. I guess I don’t like feeling being zapped straight into an overly busy n’ ridiculous videogame & one I wouldn’t ever really care to play, either.

However, there are certainly those that want exactly just that, but in my own case, I’m simply a representative of the minority. 🤒
Last edited by jkiss on Thu Sep 16, 2021 1:06 am, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

Persis was quite a handful, it sounds like!
... chok fulla surprises ...

Image

I'm not anti-CGI either, and agree that it should be applied tastefully. Unfortunately ... the temptation is too great not to overdo it. If used in a more subtle fashion, there'd be no deliniation between fantasy and reality in film. It would look absolutely real. All of it. But ... nothing exceeds like excess. And I think Hollywood gets nervous if big, event movies aren't sufficiently over the top,

Saying of being over the top. I revisited this video that was posted earlier in this thread ...



And it seems to me that Nimoy's overselling it, a bit, his criticisms of The Motion Picture.

His complaints are many and varied, but the one that he's most concerned with seems to be the relative lack of humor in the film. No doubt, colored by his success with The Voyage Home. Fish out of water movies like Crocodile Dundee, Coming to America and even Back to the Future used that winning formula. As well, Nimoy directed Three Men & a Baby, which followed the same pattern and made a killing. So anything not like that seems to have been viewed -- after the fact -- as a lesser quality production. Which I find to be a rather biased and unfair comparison.
User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Bruce wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:02 pm Persis was quite a handful, it sounds like!
... chok fulla surprises ...
It really looked as if Persis was doing everything she could to conceal her 'heart condition'; at the cost of alienating everyone, plus to the point of appearing to be overly fickle. She was also avoiding roles that would require any nudity. And in-turn, Persis blew-off the female lead in both "Cat People" & "Conan the Barbarian" (those films did good business).

Basically, TMP put her front-&-center with American + International audiences. Persis couldn't have been more prominently featured, in a more seen film than TMP at the time. That was it. She really flubbed-up her window of opportunity, but undoubtedly her own untimely health problems got in the way. Jerking around the OO7 people wasn't the smartest thing to have done. And much like with getting herself fired from "Charlie's Angels" before even filming an episode.

Persis was told (circa early '81) by a Doctor she may only have three months to live, if she didn't begin treatment of her life-threatening heart condition. Most certainly, explains her overly erratic behavior around this time; in marrying a stuntman/flop actor after knowing him only less than two weeks. And one of her reasons cited was she felt they were 'lovers in a past life'.

Anyhow, she was going through men like water in the desert. I suspect Persis' affair with Ted Kennedy (US politician) nearly finished her off, completely. She eventually returned to India with her tail between her legs (circa mid '80's).

An extremely ambitious woman, a wannabe Hollywood diva; however, more so often came-off like a-fish-out-of-water. You know like Eddie Murphy's character in "Coming to America". Nonetheless, highly exotic in overall appearance, but problem being after practically entire Planet Earth had seen her TMP; next-to-nobody recognized Persis once her hair had grown back.

And so, definitely Gene's shaving her whole head idea of his ended-up being a double-edged sword; although, he probably wouldn't have let her have the part unless she did exactly that. An interviewer noticed in her bedroom (circa Apr. '81), a huge poster of herself as the Ilia probe. It also read (in black felt marker) near one of the bottom corners:

"To my dream alien, Love Gene" 💖.😛

👩🏽‍🦲.💃🏽.🎬
Last edited by jkiss on Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:47 am, edited 11 times in total.
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

No, Gene -- leave this one undefiled by your middle-aged, adulterous ... probe! You and your damnable casting couch!!

Image

Why did Roddenberry have to be so lecherous? How is it that Nurse Chapel failed so miserably in keeping him sufficiently sated ... and completely satisfied? Perhaps she was up to the challenge, until Persis came along to erode, compromise -- and violate -- their sacred trust ...

Image

Truly an exceptional beauty in all her states: bald ... coiffed ... and everything in between. I can only imagine that her Hindu beliefs are what prevented her from revealing all to her cinematic audience around the world. Having a heart condition so young, though, with so much going for her, must've driven her to distraction. Undoubtedly, contributing to her reputed malfeasance.
User avatar
jkiss
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by jkiss »

Bruce wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:02 pm

And it seems to me that Nimoy's overselling it, a bit, his criticisms of The Motion Picture.

His complaints are many and varied, but the one that he's most concerned with seems to be the relative lack of humor in the film. No doubt, colored by his success with The Voyage Home. Fish out of water movies like Crocodile Dundee, Coming to America and even Back to the Future used that winning formula. As well, Nimoy directed Three Men & a Baby, which followed the same pattern and made a killing. So anything not like that seems to have been viewed -- after the fact -- as a lesser quality production. Which I find to be a rather biased and unfair comparison.
None of the OS cast really have said anything all that positive about the film; although, always in hindsight. And what he is really complaining about there was the fact Paramount execs wanted that 'General (or all ages) rating', no matter what. Bob was fully made aware of how important that was, but it was another unfortunate circumstance (aside from putting an emphasis on showcasing visual effects) that ultimately led him to make such poor decisions, in the editing room.

And with Bob (& execs) not knowing where 'the humor' was coming from exactly, didn't want to have to only later struggle to 'decipher' something that wasn't scripted, originally. Plus, with Gene previously attempting to inject his own perverse sexuality into the script & whatever else, they were all out of patience, Bob at his wits' end. It was Bob that cleverly orchestrated Gene being dismissed from the production & effectively banned him from soundstage sets.

Anything that could've been perceived as being overly offensive was removed from the film. In keeping with the OS tradition of a 'red shirt security officer' drawing 'the shortest straw', two security guards rush onto the bridge when V'GER's light probe first intrudes. And one guard was 'derezzed' (or 'reduced to data patterns' much like Ilia would soon be) by the intruder in retaliation, after having a hand phaser hastily fired directly at it.

However, problem being that cast member was African American & they didn't want him to be seen as the 'new face (or color) of the redshirts' (even though different colored & newly designed security uniforms). Various reasons have been given for its exclusion, but this reason I believe was the primary one & why audiences will 'never' see this particular dropped filmed scene.

Paramount will give every reason they can why TREK fans cannot ever see it, except the real one; the scene wasn't complete or it created a continuity issue, etc. A scene that still amounts to something that could be easily interpreted as being highly controversial (& racially insensitive), even in the present.

🤐
Last edited by jkiss on Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

Star Trek of old, in particular, seems to have liked making such a selling point of how "inclusive" the show was. Well, ok Star Trek, as your going out of your way to make such a fuss about it, whats your angle? Lip Service is the angle. It wasn't organic to the company culture producing it. There's 2 people of color, relegated to the status of glorified extras:

"Hailing frequencies open, Captain."

"Aye, Captain ... warp factor one."

Show after show. Season after season. Yeah, you Star Trek people sure are inclusive, just like you said. Glad you pointed that out about yourselves. Then the movie comes along and in typical Hollyweird fashion, worry more about killing off an unnamed extra played by someone of color, than writing for characters of color. The shit's weak.
User avatar
Bruce
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10150
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: STAR TREK: The Motion Picture

Post by Bruce »

Just a light piece of trivia, in contrast to what we've been talking about, so far ...

Captain Kirk's got a nephew in the original series played by Craig Huxley. Peter Kirk is shown here, bedridden, because Bones kept him in a coma the whole show. These alien blobs had embedded their painful stingers in his spine ...

Image

This guy patented a type of musical instrument called the blaster beam. Its a literal beam made of metal, 12 - 18 feet long. Its strung with guitar strings and pickups that produces a pecular bass sound. This was used to define V'GER's theme and found its way in the first four movies. Its also used in Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, for Jango Fett's sonic bombs in the asteroid belt. Its a small world, showbiz, or so it seems like ...