What's new

Star Trek III - no new cut (1 Viewer)

Dave Mack

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
4,671
When I saw that scene the 1st time, Dec. 7th, '79 at 12 years of age, the WHOLE audience was Completely in awe and silent... You could hear a pin drop. (Die-Hard Trekkers of course...) Also, MANY films from the pre MTV age seem VERY slow nowadays, 2001, anyone?!?!?!? (How long does it take Dave to rescue his fellow crewmember with the pod?) They can still be GREAT scenes!!!!!!!

D
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
13,328
I'm just gonna steal from myself to offer my reactions to the pro-ST:TMP arguments:

Defenders of ST:TMP like to tell us how intelligent it is, which implies that non-fans must be too moronic to comprehend its intricacies and depth. Feh! In truth, ST:TMP does possess a moderately intriguing story. The questions that surround V’ger seem interesting, and Spock’s relationship to the entity also had some potential. Add to this Kirk’s burgeoning midlife crisis and the interactions between Ilia and Decker and on paper, you have something.

Onscreen, the reality seems totally different. Through this “Director’s Edition”, Wise trimmed some scenes and added to others, but the overall effect made no difference. The movie still appears short on story and long on endless special effects shots.

Oh my, does ST:TMP pour on the visual imagery! The Enterprise doesn’t even leave port until 37 minutes into the movie, and much of the reason for that relates to the interminable loving glimpses of various elements. The movie should have been called Star Trek: Check Out Our Bitchin’ New Budget! It feels as though so much time was devoted to impressing us with effects that blow away those from the old show that no one bothered to notice how terribly boring they were.

This tendency does have its defenders as well. When I waited tables in college, I worked with a serious Trekkie, and he felt that the never-ending early shots of the Enterprise were warranted because the die-hard fans wanted to see them. I’m sure that’s true, and I’m also sure that they loved the intricacy of the imagery. However, it’s not good filmmaking. These shots – and many more like them throughout ST:TMP - do absolutely nothing to further the plot, and they slow down the movie immeasurably.

Frankly, ST:TMP has a story that easily could have fit into a regular episode of the show. In fact, what we find comes across as little more than a regurgitation of one of Trek’s basic plots. It features an apparently omnipotent force that has to be outwitted by Kirk’s ingenuity. We saw this tale many times during the original series, and ST:TMP does nothing to improve upon the plot.

If anything, it seems like a poor variation on the story, mainly because the film drones on for so long. Some wags have dubbed this film Star Trek: The Motionless Picture, and it’s hard to disagree with them. The movie moves so slowly, and little really happens. The picture’s more about reaction than action. While I didn’t expect it to be a slam-bang, Star Wars-esque affair, it should have struck a more satisfying balance.

That would have to wait for the film’s sequels, all of which improved upon this clunker. Yes, I include much-maligned efforts such as 1984’s Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and 1989’s Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. For all their faults – and they do include many – they simply felt more like real Trek than did ST:TMP. The latter came across like imitation Trek. The series was always accused of being too serious and without humor, but that wasn’t the truth. However, ST:TMP offered Trek foes evidence of their theory with its flat pacing and lack of charisma.

Despite its recycled plot and frighteningly slow progress, I could have gotten into ST:TMP had it displayed any sign of the original show’s spark. However, that wasn’t the case, as the long-time collaborators in the cast seemed to be virtual strangers here. I got no sense of the original show’s fine camaraderie or spirit, as everyone appeared morose and unenthusiastic. The scenes that focused on Kirk, McCoy and Spock – the triad at the heart of the old series – came across as bland and drab.

Nimoy seemed most unhappy to be on the set; he constantly looked like he really didn’t want to be there. In his 1995 autobiography called I Am Spock, Nimoy claimed that he was happy to do the flick, but he made his concerns known:

Once filming commenced, it seemed like we actors stood forever on the bridge of the Enterprise, staring at a blank screen, which later would be filled with wondrous special effects. This work was very tedious, and frankly, not much fun. What was this gloom? This depressed atmosphere? This lack of attack, fun, élan?

I think it came out of a sense that we were doing something Historic and Important. Somehow, although the TV shows depended heavily on the day-to-day energy of the creative community – writers, directors and actors – the movie seemed to have been taken out of our hands. And our energy was sapped by an unwarranted reverence. We were passengers along for the ride on a voyage we could never quite fully manage or understand.
Of the movie’s premiere, Nimoy added:

shots…

Eventually, the special effects became downright tedious. A great cheer came up from the audience when the ship went into warp speed, but unfortunately the story never really took flight – and the chemistry between the characters was never taken advantage of.
And those comments essentially encapsulate everything that’s wrong about Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It stand as a monument to special effects wizardry, as it looks about 10 billion times better than anything we ever saw on the original show. However, it fell so deeply in love with those visuals that it left room for little else, and the wonderful spirit the cast displayed on the series was nowhere to be found.

I’ve always preferred the original show to The Next Generation because of that chemistry. Admittedly, the performers on the newer program can act rings around those found on the old one, but I never felt they were able to duplicate the fine spark the original showed. There was a sense of fun, excitement and distinctive character that seemed to disappear somewhat on later iterations; for all the talent involved, they never came across with the same spunk and charm.

Unfortunately, neither did Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and it made the original cast look nearly embalmed. As a Trek fan, I owe the film a debt of gratitude, for it essentially resurrected the franchise and allowed us to partake of the many more satisfying efforts that came over the last 22 years. Nonetheless, it remains a bloated and boring flick, and though I appreciate director Robert Wise’s attempts to tighten the film, he didn’t succeed; the “Director’s Edition” seems as dull and pointless as ever.
 

Coressel

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 26, 1999
Messages
699
Through this “Director’s Edition”, Wise trimmed some scenes and added to others, but the overall effect made no difference.
Then how do you account for an anti-Trekkie like me actually liking the movie now that it's been changed a bit?
I think it makes a tremendous difference. I can actually WATCH the film now.
 

Dave Mack

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
4,671
Once again, just to play devil's advocate, 2001 could easily have been a 1 hr. movie too. Take out the FX and then what? I think that's the feel Wise was going for. Sure TMP is not in the same leauge and not a masterpiece, but what the hell are the STARGATE and Trip to the space station sequences in 2001? FX sequences, nothing but. And they are MUCH longer than TMP's criticized sequences.
It's kinda refreshing to see an image actually last on the screen for more than 5 seconds which is virtually unheard of nowadays unless you're watching a period piece or an art film.
On a big screen, (at the old Loewe's 86th st. in manhattan... sigh) it gives the eye a chance to wander around the image and check things out and they are gloriously composed images.
I feel that the "tour" Scotty gave Kirk makes sense in the dramatic context. The ship was always Kirk's real love, his soulmate. He headn't seen it in years and us die-hards hadn't seen it in years.
How lame would it have been if Scotty had stupidly and obviously pointed out the differences in the ship design..?
"... and here, Admiral, is where we decided to angle the connecting arms of the Nacelles backwards to further increase the ...."
Just some thoughts....
I always considered the Enterprise a character. Not just a vehicle ala the earlier Star Destroyer comments.
:)
 

Jonathan Perregaux

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 10, 1999
Messages
2,035
Real Name
Jonathan Perregaux
I wouldn’t be so quick to knock “slow” movies. In response to the Devil's Advocate, the act of cutting 2001: A Space Odyssey down to one hour would tear out its very soul. It is the journey itself—not the destination—that is important to this film. If you rush past everything without allowing your mind to become saturated with the experience, you would be missing the whole point.
The human brain, despite is wondrous complexity, is a slow, plodding device that assimilates and stores information at a relative snail’s pace. We can only experience what it is like to exist by using all of our senses and intellect to store, with some effort, the sum totals from all the important events in our lives into the labyrinthine electrochemical data banks residing within our skulls. Movies like 2001 play off this very human quirk by immersing us at length within fantastic events that become, over time, ever more “real” with each passing minute. The slow steady pacing of 2001 is necessary for our minds to adjust and become fully absorbed by this strange encounter with the future. When we are through, we have truly “lived” the film. That’s one reason why it’s so bloody brilliant.
A film like 2001 is a moving, breathing, challenging work of art that demands that you experience it, not simply watch it.
Some of the same holds true for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which is a well-intentioned effort but badly made (despite having Robert Wise at the helm). It suffered greatly from a runaway production, impossible-to-meet deadlines, bad acting, mediocre writing, and (initially) some really terrible editing. It was essentially doomed from the start. In this instance we have a film which used slow pacing for all the wrong reasons and the result was utter tedium. Whereas 2001 succeeded, ST:TMP stumbled.
 

Tim_Prasuhn

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
206
Nimoy has said that the destruction of the Genesis planet while Kirk and Kruge are fighting was supposed to be way more spectacular, but the mechanised set pieces malfuncioned and it degenerated into a simple fist fight. I think a little bit of digital tweaking could take care of that.
 

Dave Mack

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
4,671
Jonathan, are you mad? Did you read my post? I was DEFENDING films like 2001. My point was, those sequences "could" simply be reduced to being described as purely FX scenes. That's really all they are. I LOVE 2001. Think its great. But how can you knock the Docking scene in ST TMP unless you knock those 2 sequences in 2001 which don't even have the emotional connection. Kirk seeing the enterprise for the 1st time in years has some dramatic narrative emotion. What emotion does the "trip to the space station" in 2001 have connected to it dramatically? NONE! We haven't even met the character travelling yet!!!
And yet it fits perfectly into the film!
And Eric, I said "it's refreshing to see AN IMAGE last onscreen for more than 5 seconds." An image means an image, 1 shot, 1 cut. NOT a scene!!! So the 5 minute comment kinda doesn't make sense, eh???
If you are gonna cut and paste and comment on somebody's opinion at least take the time to figure out what the person was saying!!!
For the life of me, I have never understood that...
When someone thinks something different, they can't just state their opinion in a post, they have to "snip" lines from other people's comments and then DIRECTLY contradict them, line for line, without even taking the time to step back and see the other person's comments in total.
And any TRUE old school ST fan would KNOW that the enterprise is a character. Have you never seen "The Naked Time"???
When Kirk gets infected, what does he talk about?? THE SHIP!!! "I give, she takes...!"
He even laments that he can't truly appreciate the beauty of his yeoman because of the ship and his duty to and love of her....
Sheesh...!
:) D
 

Jeff Kleist

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 4, 1999
Messages
11,266
Here's the difference:

2001- Designed to be a 2.5hr acid trip

Star Trek- Supposed to be Wagon Train to the stars, instead tried to be 2001 and failed. TMP is a SEQUEL to that, and had a certain structure it had to apply

That's why ST 2 is so good. The Cowboy is still there along with the serious SF
 

Jonathan Perregaux

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 10, 1999
Messages
2,035
Real Name
Jonathan Perregaux
Jonathan, are you mad? Did you read my post? I was DEFENDING films like 2001.
Dave, I was merely countering your "Devil's Advocate" point of view. I could tell you were defending 2001 (as well you should), but I wanted to further underscore why that film worked so much better than ST:TMP.
Hmmmm... it seems like a lot of posters here are talking about Star Trek III for some reason. :)
 

Dave Mack

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
4,671
True, John.
I was just using that as an example.
Of course I agree that 2001 is a superior film but the trip to the space station sequence is purely an FX sequence...
And once again, there is ZERO dramatic emtional resonance. It's just a ship going to the station.
Kirk seeing his old ship, (Love) again has some resonance. McCoy even says it.. "It's an obsession..."
That's all.
For me, that 1st time seeing the ship in Dec. '79 was beautiful. And every trekker I knew felt the same way. Now, if one was NOT a fan, of course I can understand....
:) D
 

Rex Bachmann

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 10, 2001
Messages
1,972
Real Name
Rex Bachmann
Colin Jacobson wrote:


Quote:



The movie should have been called Star Trek: Check Out Our Bitchin? New Budget! It feels as though so much time was devoted to impressing us with effects that blow away those from the old show that no one bothered to notice how terribly boring they were.





Michael Eisner has said on more than one occasion that the motivation for putting the movie into production was his and other Paramount executives' "frustration" at seeing the Star Wars megagrosses and knowing that they had their own "franchise", but not being able to capitalize on it right away. ST:TMP was first and foremost considered, like many of today's "megamovies"---unlike 2001---a marketing opportunity ("So we'll put a film around it later.") Their idea was to "out-Star Wars" Star Wars, so it's no accident that you may get that feeling.

In fact, it dawns on me---and this may be entirely inaccurate, so I'm not swearing by it---that here ST may have started yet another Hollywood trend: blockbusters first and foremost as "marketing opportunities".

Keep in mind that ST:TMP kept going back and forth as a motion picture or as the pilot for the anchor of a proposed "fourth network". Poor (or uncertain) advertising revenue prospects, plus successes for many of the then new FX sf theatricals, finally convinced the low-risk cowards in Paramount management to go with the theatrical-release option.

Not a great picture, but a serviceable and highly derivative one. If that's a crime these days, then every major studio's plenty guilty.

ST III: I'll buy the special DVD (eventually), but it is not a picture in any way to get excited about. It trivialized the dramatic events of its predecessor and otherwise covered no new ground while stocking itself full of tacky, "easy", crowd-pleasing one-liners. It's a pure symptom of Hollywood's cynical sequelitis.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,811
Messages
5,123,601
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
1
Top