Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Empire Admin -> Star Trek: The Motion Picture (18/8/2007 2:32:42 AM)

Post your comments on this article




dhollseed -> This is hypnotic epic Star Trek (18/8/2007 2:32:42 AM)

The problem with it is is that it cannot match the classier TV episodes for story-telling. Where it fails on memorability and impact it makes up for in dreaminess and intoxication.




Private Hudson -> RE: This is hypnotic epic Star Trek (18/8/2007 4:39:28 AM)

I love the Motion Picture!

In fact I detest the new Director's Cut and instead love the TV version that includes the classic bit after Kirk and Decker argue when Bones talks of declaring Kirk unfit for command.

This was the 1983 version which ran for well over 2 hours. It is long, but it makes the story more complete.

The new cut gets to V'Ger far too quickly, as I remember watching the older versions and it did seem an adventure. It was an epic journey.

That makes it more interesting and exciting.

The Human Adventure is Just Beginning....

I love that ending.




HIGHLANDER -> RE: This is hypnotic epic Star Trek (21/8/2007 9:15:17 PM)

I watched it for the 1st time the other day and on the whole i didn't like it. It starts off pretty well but with too many sequences where bugger all happens which are accompanied by the deafening tones of the Star Trek theme (which i do like, but it's used far too much in this movie) make it a bit of a labour to watch. While it is not as bad some would have you believe, in my view it still stands as the weakest Trek movie (yes, even worse than the Final Frontier). I enjoyed the early scenes in the preperation of the Enterprise's voyage but as a film experiance it just left me unsatisfied and disaponited as a whole.




marky_77 -> RE: This is hypnotic epic Star Trek (21/8/2007 11:06:17 PM)

the weakest of the original films. very slow and not a lot happens. not a good recipe that.




shool -> RE: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (31/8/2007 4:32:49 PM)

One of the weaker Star Trek Films. Not dire, but not great.




Funk_Knight -> Epic Trek (13/5/2009 9:19:40 AM)

If you like to think as well as feel then you will like this film. Big concept and Idea. It is more 2001 than Star Wars. Yes it is long and slow paced, but so what? Some films are meant to be. It's probably too sterile for most, but it is the only EPIC Star Trek made, including the new film. Subsequent 'sepcial editions' have more character moments - some are the best in the whole series icluding some classic exchanges between Spock and McCoy. This is not a summer blockbuster nor fast paced actioner - but a deep thoughtful Trek. True Science fiction.




bobbyperu -> The Directors Edition - (26/6/2011 11:40:09 PM)

I hadn't seen this since it's release in 79 - Recently seen Robert Wise's Directors edition and was very suprised how good it was - Yes it is nothing like the TV show but I found that to be a god thing - Yes it is still flawed but sometimes with some films flaws don't bother me as much as others - It's slow and ponderous but I didn't mind at all - My favorite Star Trek film by a long shot - It's never going to be for everyone -




the film man -> Star Trek: The Motion Picture Review (19/12/2011 2:35:16 PM)

Not a great start to the Star Trek movie franchise.




Phubbs -> RE: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (28/6/2012 4:35:41 PM)

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

To think this this film came out when I was just one year old, just like 'Star Wars' which came out a year before I was born, makes me think.

I'm not a Star Trek fan and never have been although I did always enjoy the films with the original crew, never got into any of the TV series. I always preferred the Star Wars franchise for many reasons but one is because it always looked so superior. The first Trek film really does show the difference between the two franchises, not taking anything away from ST but it always did look more plastic and obviously fake.

The effects in this first film are a mixed bag really, the sequences towards the finale inside 'V'Ger' don't look too bad (nice '2001' type fantasy lighting effects), various ship shots look nice throughout and the costumes although drab don't age too badly. For the most part though this film has aged badly if we're honest about it, I don't wanna keep comparing it to SW but there is a clear difference in quality which still stands to this day.

What I did always like about Trek was the way it tries to be realistic or at least approach things in a realistic fashion. The start of the film is almost done in a Kubrick style with some nice camera work. Not sure if they are merely homaging or copying '2001' but you can see the influences in one sequence as we are treated to grandiose panorama of the Enterprise as she sits in her docking bay accompanied by a stirring Trek instrumental score. I do like the way Wise gave the film a slow pace, lots of character and background building alongside plenty of mission dialog and technical problems that might occur in reality for such a scenario.

The film was criticised for this slow unadventurous style but I like it, its one of the more realistic Trek films and could almost be tagged as 'serious sci-fi'. Another aspect of this film and other Trek films I like is the plot. Seems straight forward enough as the team are sent to intercept a mysterious alien phenomena heading towards earth, but I liked how the plot has its intriguing twist at the end. Its not groundbreaking but it just makes you think a little, right up to the very end your unsure what the hell will happen, how 'Kirk' will save the day and what's the deal behind the alien cloud thing, that's good movie making.

I really don't know why the film had such a hard time upon release. It carries on from the classic TV show with everything you would expect but on a grander scale. The continuity from the TV show to the big screen is handled well I thought although I'm no Trek expert. You have the typical Trek visuals and sounds, the crew handle most of the action from the ships bridge through the good old big screen on the wall, everyone is present and correct doing what they do etc...

Sure its not an in your face phaser fest with hand to hand fights with large lizard men but I for one thought the serious route was a good way to go. The film does feel more of an exploration adventure, it takes its time, slowly builds, lots of space jargon...you don't know what their on about half the time but it just sounds good, I use my 'realism' card again.

Overall the special effects look fuzzy in places, lots of beige colour schemes going on with the ship and crew, plenty of nasty bluescreen evident I'm afraid but its still very enjoyable sci-fi. Star Trek has its own little niche of being semi serious and approaching everything logically but still utilizing just enough fantasy to make it a pleasant ride.




chris kilby -> RE: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (28/6/2012 7:31:14 PM)

Star Trek: The Slow Motion Picture.




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (28/6/2012 7:36:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

To think this this film came out when I was just one year old, just like 'Star Wars' which came out a year before I was born, makes me think.

I'm not a Star Trek fan and never have been although I did always enjoy the films with the original crew, never got into any of the TV series. I always preferred the Star Wars franchise for many reasons but one is because it always looked so superior. The first Trek film really does show the difference between the two franchises, not taking anything away from ST but it always did look more plastic and obviously fake.

The effects in this first film are a mixed bag really, the sequences towards the finale inside 'V'Ger' don't look too bad (nice '2001' type fantasy lighting effects), various ship shots look nice throughout and the costumes although drab don't age too badly. For the most part though this film has aged badly if we're honest about it, I don't wanna keep comparing it to SW but there is a clear difference in quality which still stands to this day.

What I did always like about Trek was the way it tries to be realistic or at least approach things in a realistic fashion. The start of the film is almost done in a Kubrick style with some nice camera work. Not sure if they are merely homaging or copying '2001' but you can see the influences in one sequence as we are treated to grandiose panorama of the Enterprise as she sits in her docking bay accompanied by a stirring Trek instrumental score. I do like the way Wise gave the film a slow pace, lots of character and background building alongside plenty of mission dialog and technical problems that might occur in reality for such a scenario.

The film was criticised for this slow unadventurous style but I like it, its one of the more realistic Trek films and could almost be tagged as 'serious sci-fi'. Another aspect of this film and other Trek films I like is the plot. Seems straight forward enough as the team are sent to intercept a mysterious alien phenomena heading towards earth, but I liked how the plot has its intriguing twist at the end. Its not groundbreaking but it just makes you think a little, right up to the very end your unsure what the hell will happen, how 'Kirk' will save the day and what's the deal behind the alien cloud thing, that's good movie making.

I really don't know why the film had such a hard time upon release. It carries on from the classic TV show with everything you would expect but on a grander scale. The continuity from the TV show to the big screen is handled well I thought although I'm no Trek expert. You have the typical Trek visuals and sounds, the crew handle most of the action from the ships bridge through the good old big screen on the wall, everyone is present and correct doing what they do etc...

Sure its not an in your face phaser fest with hand to hand fights with large lizard men but I for one thought the serious route was a good way to go. The film does feel more of an exploration adventure, it takes its time, slowly builds, lots of space jargon...you don't know what their on about half the time but it just sounds good, I use my 'realism' card again.

Overall the special effects look fuzzy in places, lots of beige colour schemes going on with the ship and crew, plenty of nasty bluescreen evident I'm afraid but its still very enjoyable sci-fi. Star Trek has its own little niche of being semi serious and approaching everything logically but still utilizing just enough fantasy to make it a pleasant ride.


Good review.

I personally have allot of time for the motion picture. I think it was harshly criticised and because of that it is, somewhat, underrated.




Spaldron -> RE: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (29/6/2012 12:35:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

Star Trek: The Slow Motion Picture.


Haha you're so original. Never heard that one before.




directorscut -> RE: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (29/6/2012 12:38:27 AM)

The best Trek by a fair distance. A true SCI-FI movie. Not an action movie dressed up in sci-fi clothing.

Truly CINEMATIC direction by Robert Wise, peerless SFX and one of the greatest film scores ever composed.






They could have kept the uniforms from the show though.




Phubbs -> RE: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (29/6/2012 4:00:25 AM)

No...the uniforms were a bit too cartoonish for a semi serious sci-fi project...which this was.




jackcarter -> RE: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (9/7/2012 11:15:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

I really don't know why the film had such a hard time upon release. It carries on from the classic TV show with everything you would expect but on a grander scale. The continuity from the TV show to the big screen is handled well I thought although I'm no Trek expert. You have the typical Trek visuals and sounds, the crew handle most of the action from the ships bridge through the good old big screen on the wall, everyone is present and correct doing what they do etc...

Sure its not an in your face phaser fest with hand to hand fights with large lizard men but I for one thought the serious route was a good way to go. The film does feel more of an exploration adventure, it takes its time, slowly builds, lots of space jargon...you don't know what their on about half the time but it just sounds good, I use my 'realism' card again.


its probably down to the fact that Star Wars was out just 2 years earlier and the success of that prompted Paramount to switch from doing a 2nd tv series or low budget tv movie to the big movie. one of the inspirations for Star Wars was obviously star trek with its action packed romp style...so fans will have been expecting and wanting the Trek movie to jump straight back into that feel.....yet Star Trek TMP shunned that in favour of a lofty 2001 vibe...with time its interesting to see it as a more realistic 2001ish version of Trek as theres Khan etc to enjoy but its easy to imagine the disappointment fans mustve had in 79 when thats what theyd been waiting for for the best part of 10 years. the anticipation of a huge budget Star Trek movie with Star Wars just out near enough the previous year whetting everyones appetite for colourful space action...they mustve been expecting mass space battles, phaser fights, fist fights, Kirk Fu and drop kicks, nasty aliens, Kirk Spock Bones banter, that eerie uncanny Twilight Zone vibe alot of the season 1 eps had....and instead they got 'Star Trek A Space Odyssey'

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

The best Trek by a fair distance. A true SCI-FI movie. Not an action movie dressed up in sci-fi clothing.

Truly CINEMATIC direction by Robert Wise, peerless SFX and one of the greatest film scores ever composed.

They could have kept the uniforms from the show though.

maybe ST TMP would be hailed as a 2001 style SF masterpiece if it had been a non star trek movie set in the far future starring Paul Newman as the captain of a large interstellar space ship with someone like Christopher Reeve as his exo, Robert Shaw as the ships doc etc investigating ‘Vger’ – the monolith style threat to earth




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (22/8/2012 11:01:56 PM)

What always bugged me about this film was Roddenberry claiming that this was keeping to the spirit of the 60s show. No it wasn't - it really wasn't. Roddenberry changed, or bought into the fans hype about the show - which is why this movie, and the first season of TNG, are pretty bad.

I remember one of the writers relating story where they wanted Wesley to grieve over his dead father. Roddenberry decreed that there was no such thing as grief in the future, that mankind would have evolved beyond it. No conflict, no emotion.

That goes against the spirit of the show - which had Kirk, with Spock on one side, and Bones on the other. Natural conflict, and the message that mankind is at its best, when it learns to balance control and emotion.

That conflict is lost in TMP - it wants to be important but is far too stagey with actors that feel like they struggle to remember their old performances. There are some decent bits - Spock is great, and the spaceship shots, while going on too long, are stunning.

But it is bloated, and an uneventful fare. The big ideas in it were already explored in the series and in a much more fun manner.

Still, it is rather nice to look at on the big screen.

Khan is far better as it combines big ideas and actual excitment.




stimincr -> Best Star Trek NEVER Made (9/8/2013 4:11:56 PM)

This story is one of the best ever in the spirit of Star Trek... and the most poorly executed. OK, we all wanted some gee-whiz special effects, which were impossible on TV in the 60's, so forgive the few overdone special effects scenes. The whole melodrama of Kirk regaining command from a guy who felt trumped by a celebrity -- OK, good humanity aspect, but poorly written. And the whole romantic thing, with the Deltan psychology completely written out of the script so we're all left thinking WTF?

But, the story... Truly in the spirit of Star Trek. A rudimentary computer/spaceship travels across the universe and back again, gathering so much information and getting a complete set of upgrades from an advanced machine race that was obviously perplexed by any concept of a "meaning of life". They should definitely have spent much more screen time on this idea. Several scenes of a machine culture encountering a primitive machine from a distant planet full of organic life that had such alien notions as beauty, art, gods, imagination, etc. would have been awesome.

So the machines spend a lot of time and energy equipping Voyager with the means to continue its (now absolute) mission to learn as much as possible, become a sentient being, and go back to home base and ask why it exists? For what purpose?

It doesn't get any more old-school Star Trek morality play than that. You want a moronic shoot-em-up? I'm not knocking them, I love them too, they have their place. Go see Transformers, Clone Wars, or Chronicles of Riddick. When you're in the mood for a real story, hopefully somebody will have done a reset of Star Trek : TMP.

5 stars for the idea. 1 Star for the implementation.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.09375