Star Trek: Original Motion Picture Collection (The Motion Picture / The Wrath of Kahn / The Search for Spock / The Voyage Home / The Final Frontier / The ... Captains Summit Bonus Disc) [Blu-ray]

Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Sometimes referred to as Star Trek: The Motionless Picture or Kirk and the Seven Dwarfs, the first cinematic outing for James T. Kirk and the crew of the U. S. S. Enterprise is perhaps the closest to Gene Roddenberry's series as any of the subsequent movies. There is, of course, one massive problem with adhering to a television formula instead of modifying it to work on the big screen: the budget. Star Trek was always filmed on a shoe string, cobbled together from leftover pieces of other productions or with Styrofoam rocks, always with an eye toward the bottom line. With an enhanced budget and run time, the feature decides not to expand the universe, but keep it the same, making for a decidedly claustrophobic 135 minute run time.

When an alien cloud of immense energy and size plots a course for Earth, Admiral Kirk (William Shatner) takes the helm of the newly refitted Enterprise. The cloud, known later as V'Ger, has swallowed up three Klingon battlecruisers and a Federation science station. What is it and what does it want? Kirk must find these answers while fending off Will Decker (Stephen Collins), the man he demoted to take command of the ship, or else Earth will disappear, too.

One of the biggest issues with the picture is the lack of warmth exhibited by the main cast toward one another, despite having served together during the original five year mission. It's only in the first 45 minutes or so of the film where any sense of friendship can be found. There is a sequence between Scotty (James Doohan) and Kirk as they travel to the Enterprise via shuttle in which their past is used to full effect. There's an emotional connection between the two, as evidenced by the way the subordinate Scotty can tweak Kirk just a little bit. That kind of interaction is largely missing from the movie, leaving the action cold and unfeeling. Isolated moments seem to have been randomly dropped into the script when someone figured out the character interplay was missing. Notice Kirk winking at Chekov (Walter Koenig) on the bridge and McCoy (DeForest Kelley) verbally jabbing at Spock during one of the interminable scenes of exposition. But that's basically it. Nothing from Sulu (George Takei) or Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) to indicate a long-term friendship made it into the theatrical cut. (The Director's Cut and various TV cuts rectify these problems somewhat.)

Another issue are the overlong and indulgent effects sequences. To be fair, they are pretty spectacular when the score by Jerry Goldsmith is taken into account. Even thirty years after the movie premiered, there isn't anything like seeing the Enterprise for the first time during Kirk and Scotty's tour of the outside, complete with bombastic music as the front of the ship is seen for the first time. Similarly, he creates an electronic-sounding motif for the V'Ger cloud, partly futuristic and partly "of the time." Those starship flybys or beauty shots inside V'Ger don't serve to enhance the story; rather, it feels like Roddenberry chose to include them in the script because he didn't have the money to do so in the series. But at what point do they help the story...and when do they bring it to a screeching halt?

Then there's a problem with the pacing. To be blunt, after the Enterprise exits a wormhole, the movie comes to a standstill. Nothing of any interest happens for the next hour. Instead, everything that happens is as compelling as watching paint dry. The Enterprise bridge is the center of the action, with cut away reaction shots of the cast taking the place of genuine action. Of course, this is a money-saving technique used in the series to ratchet the tension. Here, it turns out to be simply boring. When the action shifts to other areas of the ship, director Robert Wise isn't able to infuse them with any sense of urgency. The lack of a strong interpersonal dynamic comes into play here, too.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture in its theatrical form isn't a terribly good movie. It plods from point A to point B in a mostly logical manner, throwing random plot points in just to bring kinetic energy to the screen. If the Enterprise sets had been compelling to look at, this may not be that much of a problem. But the 1960's technicolor gives way to drab monotone sets and costumes, removing any sense of visual stimulation. When the actors are forced to service the story instead of the story serving the actors, a movie can't help but fail. Just about the only thing the film has going for it is the aforementioned score and good-looking effects shots (and "old friends" reuniting), there's something terribly wrong.

Purists may claim it is the closest to Roddenberry's original series, which would be a completely fair assertion. It is the most "science fiction" of the entire movie run, it is not as militaristic or action-adventure as the others and has a compelling story: the melding of humanity with machines (which would later be seen in the Borg). As much as the original pilot, "The Cage" with Jeffrey Hunter, as derided as a cerebral production, The Motion Picture is even more so with lots of talking, reacting and things happening to the crew instead of the crew acting. It tries to be an adult science fiction film along the lines of 2001 as a counterpoint to Star Wars, but the finished product leaves out the best things of the series in favor of blandness.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
What a difference one movie makes. When we last left the big screen crew of the Enterprise, they had just completed one of their most visually boring assignments in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. This time out, everything that went wrong in that story is fixed, making Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan the beginning of a new kind of Trek incorporating the interpersonal elements from the series and an epic, action-adventure yarn.

As Commander Chekov (Walter Koenig) and the crew of the USS Reliant are searching for a planet to test the Genesis Device-a new technology which creates life from lifelessness-they stumble across Khan (Ricardo Montalban), a genetically enhanced "superman" whom Admiral Kirk (William Shatner) banished to a distant world years ago. Hellbent on revenge, he commandeers the vessel and goes after Kirk, who is battling growing another year older while on a training cruise with the Enterprise.

From the get go, Khan is a more kinetic flick, especially in scenes taking place on one set. Think of the middle of The Motion Picture, when the movie is largely stagnant without a sense of purpose or any palpable energy. Even in the climactic battle here, director Nick Meyer pits Kirk vs. Khan against one another, not in hand-to-hand combat, but across viewscreens. The two characters never share a scene together, yet their energy exudes off the screen. The camera is almost constantly moving, providing some of that kick, though its also the way the actors interact with one another. Gone are the long scenes of emotionless exposition in favor of the shared history between them informing the performances. Small moments which serve to strengthen their interpersonal bonds are littered throughout the script: a minor touch here, Spock calling Kirk "Jim" there, a mention of "Bones" or "Scotty"...things like that remind the audience at every turn these people have been friends for years. It only serves to create new layers to the story.

Trek II also serves to throw an additional element into this universe not previously seen: the idea the characters are growing older and their acceptance of that. It seems like small potatoes, sure, but in the original series and the first movie, great pains were taken to show the crew not aging. This will be an important element through the sixth and final Kirk-era movie. What this does is help ground the movie in some sort of reality, to show the characters deal with the same types of issues as the people watching the adventure. (A similar case can be made for the introduction of David Marcus, Kirk's son, which is one of the few weak links in the movie.)

Then there's Khan, perhaps the most bad ass villain Trek has ever come up with. Appearing only once before in the classic episode "Space Seed," Ricardo Montalban is an enormous force in the film everyone is forced to make way to him. There simply isn't an actor on the screen who can stand toe-to-toe with him as he spouts lines from Shakespeare while exacting revenge on Kirk. The reasons aren't important; what we need to know is he harbors a grudge against the admiral and has the might and brainpower to do something about it. Some may say Montalban overacts, chewing the scenery from start to finish. I'd argue differently, saying his is a commanding performance symbolic of the high energy we've already talked about.

To save budget, certain effects shots were reused from the first movie, notably of shuttles, flybys and the Enterprise "turning on" running lights. Whatever money is saved there is spent later in the film, with one of the most impressive battle sequences filmed purely with models and no computers. The Enterprise and Reliant play a cat-and-mouse game in a nebula, flying over one another in numerous sequences, like two submarines feeling out their opponent. The grand majesty of both vessels, combined with the beautiful space feature, shows something Trek rarely does: Federation on Federation action.

I mentioned the idea of Kirk's son being introduced in this movie. Merritt Butrick isn't a bad actor per se, nor is the storyline all that surprising (considering the number of woman Kirk bedded in the series); it simply feels manipulative toward the audience. As if the writers told themselves they needed for us to care about the scientists making the Genesis device and thought to make the head researchers relatives of a crew member. That uses quick characterization instead of building the character from the ground up. A slight cheat, but not a huge problem.

Is there any problem with this movie? Purists may say it took Trek away from what it was to what it would eventually become: more militaristic, less exploratory. There may be minor quibbles with the story-like how Khan recognized Chekov when the latter wasn't part of the main cast during the first season-but this is as perfect as big screen Trek gets. James Horner's score provides a new twist on classic themes while creating a signature sound which he'd echo in other genre pieces, notably Krull; Trek II also creates the backbone for a trilogy of movies continuing the story about family, Spock's death and his rebirth?

I barely mentioned that, now didn't I?

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
Among the original six Star Trek films, there is a myth that the even-numbered films are the best while the odd-numbered pictures...lack something. This assessment may not be 100% accurate, based on how the film series ends with Nemesis, but with 1983's Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, the theory is alive and well.

Immediately after Admiral Kirk's (William Shatner) defeat of Khan and the death of Spock in the previous film, the Enterprise is set to be decommissioned while Doctor McCoy (DeForest Kelley) seemingly begins to loose his mind. It is revealed Spock transferred his living spirit into the doctor and now both parts of the Vulcan need to be reunited. A couple problems stand in the way: a Klingon captain hellbent on discovering the secret of Genesis, Spock's body lying the newly created planet and a starship Enterprise in desperate need of repair.

The Search for Spock isn't a bad movie. True, there are elements-most notably in the production design-that don't work and a few ill-considered script moments better left on the cutting room floor. But by and large, the middle installment in the II-III-IV trilogy is more maligned than it should be. Writer/producer Harve Bennett had the unenviable task of not only following up the successful Wrath of Khan, but also providing the majority of the actual story content for the three films. Think about it: in a standard movie, the second act is where the hero encounters all manner of roadblocks in order to complete the mission in the first act (in this case, ST II). That's all this movie is: one roadblock after another. While there is a definite beginning, middle and end to the story in the film, it's hard to jump right into the action with a brief recap of Spock's death at the outset. The emotional punch is gone, in other words.

Again, that's not necessarily something to hold against this picture. There are other aspects of the production wholly unique to The Search for Spock which don't work. Despite a real world reason for using sound stages to stand in for the Genesis planet exteriors, any scene on the planet surface can't help but feel claustrophobic and, well, fake. Chekov (Walter Koenig) parades around in a hideous pink-ish jumpsuit while his compatriots are clad in their usual uniforms. The Excelsior, a new starship design to the Trek universe, is beautiful on the outside yet turns out to be strangely antiseptic on the inside. (The captain, Stiles, carries around a stick for some unknown reason.) It's as if Bennett had a plethora of ideas on making this universe more realistic and couldn't incorporate them very well.

The first two films in the series were nearly devoid of humor. Trek III sees the franchise utilize comedy moments seemingly as a test run for the next feature, The Voyage Home. Mind you, this isn't out and out comedy: it is completely organic to the story and characters themselves. When McCoy responds to Kirk using Spock's voice, he has a quip for the admiral keeping in character and minding their relationship.

Leonard Nimoy has a steady hand in directing the film, never drawing attention to a camera move or creating obnoxious camera angles. The audience sees exactly what we're supposed to see and nothing extraneous. He is hamstrung somewhat by the production budget and the indoor-for-outdoor filming. Had the production been able to go on location to Hawaii to film the Genesis planet, Nimoy could have created more dynamic shots instead of trying to cover up the sound stage itself. Still, he is able to generally make the supposed exteriors look relatively close to their real life counterparts, especially the Vulcan finale. There's a majesty to the Fal-Tor-Pan ceremony with a handful of extras and almost no dialogue; it's all Nimoy and composer James Horner's score who bring the sequence to life.

Critics like to disparage the performance of Christopher Lloyd as the Klingon commander Kruge. Some say he is comical, over-the-top and not a true Klingon. One has to remember, though, he is essentially the first modern day Klingon seen in Trek. Mark Lenard played the Klingon commander in the first motion picture, though he only had a five minute part. It fell to Lloyd to make the new costume and make-up his own, not to mention creating mannerisms and a general feel to the race. Plus, he was chosen for the part because of his theatricality. The only real critique of the character is that Kruge is one note with no background or personality. Being a single film villain as opposed to recurring character, that's not surprising. But it does make him superficial.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
The fourth big screen installment in the Star Trek saga may be the most commercially popular of the series, but, like the previous film, can't break away from the time period in which it was made. The result? A light-hearted, "save the whales" message just tangentially taking place in the Trek universe.

En route back to Earth from Vulcan, Admiral James T. Kirk (William Shatner) and the crew of the former U. S. S. Enterprise are warned away from the planet. An alien probe is evaporating the ocean and blocking out the sun while draining power from anything it meets. In their captured Klingon Bird-of-Prey, the crew journeys back in time to procure two humpback whales-the only creature which can answer the proBe-and return to the 23rd century.

In Star Trek III, the production outfitted the new U. S. S. Excelsior in pink chairs, Chekov (Walter Koenig) in a pink jumpsuit and a snarky sense of humor, at least in some scenes. Here, instead of being confined to one or two scenes, the very plot of the movie is ripped from environmental organizations. In essence, The Voyage Home is a two hour advertisement on why the whaling industry is wrong. Now, certainly, it can be argued this is the most Trek movie of the first four, combining character moments, action and a positive social message. Yet, at the same time, it's impossible not to feel like we're being lectured, chastised and reprimanded by a group of our friends.

There's another issue with the film, aside from the overly preachy tone of the plot. Well, it may not be an outright problem, just a deviation from where the series had been before. I'm referring to the humor quotient. From beginning to end, there's a cutesy feeling to the movie, as if everyone involved knew they were making a light flick. This isn't to say every story needs to be dark and heavy, but the tone simply feels like a throwback to science fiction films of old, with everyone cracking jokes and coming up with witty one liners. Let's remember their home planet is under attack and can be destroyed at any time. This isn't the time to be snappy. (The argument that humor is bourne out of desperate times may hold water after the threat is realized, but not before.)

To simulate the time travel effect, the film uses an ethereal, nebulous vision with clay heads of the main crew, a body diving into the water and an undetailed clay-ish reproduction of a whale. Why? There's no good reason, other than the film had the budget to put it on screen. None of the time travel episodes of the series had the money to do this kind of effect or sequence. It just seems out of place in the context of the story and the series.

That being said, some of the interactions can't help but elicit a chuckle simply because the script treats the crew as longtime friends capable of jabbing at one another goodnaturedly. Much like the television series, it's DeForest Kelley's Dr. McCoy who receives the lion share of these lines. His reparte with Spock (Leonard Nimoy)-especially en route to Earth-is among the best the script has to offer. Even if Kirk shouting "everyone remember where we parked" is the most quotable portion of the film, McCoy and Spock trying to discuss life and death without the good doctor having a "proper frame of reference" is more organic to the characters.

Everything else about Trek IV is more or less above board. For the first time in the entire run of the series, each of the seven main characters gets something substantial and positive to do. While Kirk and Spock are off procuring the whales (the A-story), McCoy and Scotty (James Doohan) are tasked with creating an enclosure for the animals. Sulu (George Takei) commandeers a helicopter and Chekov and Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) find a way to repower the vessel. No one is stuck purely behind a console or left spouting technobabble. Rather, they all get something wholly unique and active to do.

In the grand tradition of Trek, the film has a half-hearted "romance" between Kirk and Dr. Gillian Taylor (Catherine Hicks). It may be a bit of a misnomer to call it a romance, per se. They kiss only once, never actually have sex or express a romantic interest in each other. Instead, they're more like friends. She's fine in the role, confident and believable as a whale biologist, just wide-eyed enough about the 23rd century to be our proxy in this universe.

(This is, obviously, a fish out of water story, no pun intended, for both the crew and Taylor. Each has to learn and adapt to their new environments. Naturally, most of the humor comes from the characters not knowing what to do-money is a foreign concept to Kirk and Spock, for instance. As mentioned before, this is the most Trek of the movies because of the subject matter but also because the crew is exploring a "strange new world.")

So does Trek IV deserve all the praise it gets? Not really. It is a step up, production value wise, from the previous flick but also a step down in tone and seriousness when, in reality, it should have been just as dire as either Trek II or III. The film and script does get major points for utilizing the entire crew as well as anything before it, though.