From what I recall, that was more in the late 60s and early 70s. By 1979, most new G-rated movies (not re-issues) were kid oriented.
Star Trek- The Motion Picture Appreciation Thread
- Thread starter Vger23
- Start date
From what I recall, that was more in the late 60s and early 70s. By 1979, most new G-rated movies (not re-issues) were kid oriented.
There was still a lot of "family" film demo. Movies like Star Wars pushed the PG more into the "everybody" range. From about there forward studios started doing SOMETHING to get their otherwise G rated film into a PG bracket. The sequel to The Black Stallion comes specifically to mind where one character swore one time for just that reason. In 1979 it was fine that the original was G. And a hit.
Keep in mind, this was when Airplane was a PG movie. Not a movie you'd take the whole family to. (Someone just did an article on what you could do in a PG movie back then that you'd at least get a PG-13 for now.)
It was a little surprising that Paramount held TMP to a G, even then though.
The website www.filmratings.com provides a comprehensive database of MPAA ratings. From my cursory scanning of 1978 and 1979, most non 'family' (mainly Disney type) films rated G were documentaries (ABBA: the Movie) or Sunn Classics pseudo documentaries.
So, in counterpoint to this thread, I watched the DE the other night. I love this movie. I do.
But my family (two kids, <10) have been watching the Star Trek movies. My boy figured out that if there was a 2, there must be a 1. My wife has told him "That's the boring one." So I thought I'd watch the "less boring" version, the DE. (I need to take my own mix of DE / original. Spock needs to cry, and the shots of the Enterprise coming out of the wormhole and "receiving" the whiplash probe are indispensable. But I'll keep most of the orginal mattes. Including the one of the Enterprise with the missing BC deck. It looks so much more grand than the "correct" one in the DE.)
SO:
From the cloud scene until Ilia is abducted the movie STOPS. Not slows down. STOPS. I actually appreciate the cloud scene more than the Vejur flyover. The cloud has an almost Fantasia like quality of image and music. And obviously the craftsmanship of Vejur is mindblowing. I understand the cinematic device to show you (after showing you just how huge the Enterprise is for comparison) how off the charts big Vejur is.
But this is the one section of the film that can be chopped in half. For a start. Probably more than in half.
The music is some of the most amazing music ever composed for a film. And there are two or three shots that are just jaw dropping. (The TEENY Enterprise flying away from Vejur is one.)
I'd say that with some major editing on this chunk of film (which is over 15 minutes long) the movie would have had a hugely different reaction even back in 1979.
The pacing of the rest of the film is fine. I mean, it's not a zippy film and it isn't meant to be.
But if you're not me (us?) I can't imagine this section of the film to be even remotely bearable. I would argue that this section alone gives TMP the reputation of being "The Motionless Picture".
(And I still love it.)
But my family (two kids, <10) have been watching the Star Trek movies. My boy figured out that if there was a 2, there must be a 1. My wife has told him "That's the boring one." So I thought I'd watch the "less boring" version, the DE. (I need to take my own mix of DE / original. Spock needs to cry, and the shots of the Enterprise coming out of the wormhole and "receiving" the whiplash probe are indispensable. But I'll keep most of the orginal mattes. Including the one of the Enterprise with the missing BC deck. It looks so much more grand than the "correct" one in the DE.)
SO:
From the cloud scene until Ilia is abducted the movie STOPS. Not slows down. STOPS. I actually appreciate the cloud scene more than the Vejur flyover. The cloud has an almost Fantasia like quality of image and music. And obviously the craftsmanship of Vejur is mindblowing. I understand the cinematic device to show you (after showing you just how huge the Enterprise is for comparison) how off the charts big Vejur is.
But this is the one section of the film that can be chopped in half. For a start. Probably more than in half.
The music is some of the most amazing music ever composed for a film. And there are two or three shots that are just jaw dropping. (The TEENY Enterprise flying away from Vejur is one.)
I'd say that with some major editing on this chunk of film (which is over 15 minutes long) the movie would have had a hugely different reaction even back in 1979.
The pacing of the rest of the film is fine. I mean, it's not a zippy film and it isn't meant to be.
But if you're not me (us?) I can't imagine this section of the film to be even remotely bearable. I would argue that this section alone gives TMP the reputation of being "The Motionless Picture".
(And I still love it.)
The problem with the V'GER flyover is that Spock, namely, doesn't know what he's looking at and - OK? - AND he's the one with the mind connection to the damn thing!!! Just to have Spock break in and comment that this is the doohickey and that's the whatchamacallit at certain instances would've helped. Instead, we're abruptly forced out of watching a movie, and we're suddenly in an Art Gallery, looking at Syd Mead abstracts for a quarter of an hour. It's important that V'GER preserve as much mystery as possible, we all know that. But Spock's special knowledge of it was desperately needed and called upon, here, but we're left looking out the car window watching scenery pass by. It was probably Roddenberry's handiwork, but I want to blame Robert Wise. It's the only shortcoming of an otherwise epic and - surprisingly - charming movie.
Too right 2Takes. I have to agree that basically I had no idea what I was looking at during the flyover - just like an abstract painting.
I know this is an appreciation thread but I'm going to give my impression . While watching the movie I had no idea what Vger was, just how big it was (really big obviously). Was it a great big cloud with mechanical components (the chambers where the Enterprise went through had to have some physical or forcefield in it to confine the Enterprise?. So maybe Vger was a cloud thingy measured in respect of AUs with some mechanical parts in the middle? and some forcefields at the edge of the cloud I guess to stop attack whatever.
Then you're starting to lose my feeble intelligence and attention span...
You go through Vger and see a lot of lightning stuff. What that? Its power supply? I don't know. All the lights. Its like driving down a country road at night. The relate able stuff for me was when we saw the baby Enterprise against Vger - even then it was in a fog.
Look I wish they showed graphic representation of the planet Vger came from or all the civilisations Vger had absorbed on its way to Earth (with some explanation from the crew or speculation) arther than all these lightning bolts and lights.
Take TWOK, very little money for special effects but so understandable. Nebua's look like that don't they? The Enterprise above the Reliant. No deep thinking required on my part.
Actually they present the "cloud" as a power field almost every time it is encountered and likewise they note that there is "something inside of it". They say this twice (I think) on Epsilon IX and again on the Enterprise.
When we see the "something" at the end of the cloud flythrough the whole tone of the movie shifts to "THIS IS IT!" The music changes, the way the thing is shot changes. It's shown like a castle (or a haunted house) looming up out of the fog.
Also, they DO show Vejur's planet. And Spock says "I'm seeing Vejur's home planet". And it looks like, well, a planet.
ST:TMP was my first foray into Star Trek many years ago. Though I found it a bit slow then, I really like the movie and it does have that TOS feel.
My complaint is I didn't see some cool version of the planet with some sentient machines doing cool things. Just some bluish black CGI thing (I know most true fans this is OK) but I think I represent maybe the lowest common denominator viewer and wanted something else like the CGI they used to show the Genesis effect (I know its dated now but I liked it then)
CGI? That entire sequence was done with miniatures and matte paintings by Douglas Trumbull's VFX people. IIRC, Robert Abel & Associates toyed with the possibility of computer graphics, but nothing was up to the task or had the visual quality necessary at the time.
I agree with Commishsleer that V'GER's home planet, as important as that is to it and it's motivations in this story, should've given audiences a view of some aspect of these Living Machines, even if it's just them looking busy in a non-descript artificial environment.
This realisation needs to be more Show and less Tell, because there's room for doubt that Spock knows what he's talking about, for sure. It seems pretty clear that these assumptions are simply how Spock figures it, instead of V'GER sending him messages, from afar. Also, there is concern expressed, particularly by McCoy, that Spock's under V'GER's influence. As well, if Spock sees what we the audience see, he's just looking at a precursor of The Death Star, here ... and there's no real way to tell what the hell's going on with it. The lights are on ... somebody's home ... that's about all we can really glean from it. Surely, for Spock to be railing on like this, in such detail, either he really is under V'GER's thumb, or his bird's eye view is dramatically different than what seems to be the case, onscreen.
It might've been helpful it the background was kind of filled with images like when Daniel does his Temporal Transporter thing. But, then again, this is Mister Spock & he's exhibited strange abilities, before. He knows things & does things that we just have to accept, at times, as what make him alien. I apply that to this scene, for myself, so it doesn't ruin it for me, at all. Still ... Spock's outfit should've had some TV on his arm, or some shit, at the very least, showing us these things. The spectacle of this sequence remains larger than life for me, though and it's terribly beautiful. As I say, a pick-up shot of some kind should've been inserted in there, but that's the movies, for you. Scotty should've taken his nephew to sickbay instead of the bridge, when he found him all bloodied-up, in the sequel as well, but that ... that's entertainment. What we crave for, inside ...
This realisation needs to be more Show and less Tell, because there's room for doubt that Spock knows what he's talking about, for sure. It seems pretty clear that these assumptions are simply how Spock figures it, instead of V'GER sending him messages, from afar. Also, there is concern expressed, particularly by McCoy, that Spock's under V'GER's influence. As well, if Spock sees what we the audience see, he's just looking at a precursor of The Death Star, here ... and there's no real way to tell what the hell's going on with it. The lights are on ... somebody's home ... that's about all we can really glean from it. Surely, for Spock to be railing on like this, in such detail, either he really is under V'GER's thumb, or his bird's eye view is dramatically different than what seems to be the case, onscreen.
It might've been helpful it the background was kind of filled with images like when Daniel does his Temporal Transporter thing. But, then again, this is Mister Spock & he's exhibited strange abilities, before. He knows things & does things that we just have to accept, at times, as what make him alien. I apply that to this scene, for myself, so it doesn't ruin it for me, at all. Still ... Spock's outfit should've had some TV on his arm, or some shit, at the very least, showing us these things. The spectacle of this sequence remains larger than life for me, though and it's terribly beautiful. As I say, a pick-up shot of some kind should've been inserted in there, but that's the movies, for you. Scotty should've taken his nephew to sickbay instead of the bridge, when he found him all bloodied-up, in the sequel as well, but that ... that's entertainment. What we crave for, inside ...
Not to be too pedantic since people use CGI to mean VFX, which in that era were known as "optical fx" or just "opticals". And as to CGI it was a few years too early for anything approaching the Genesis Effect sequence.
As to portraying V'ger's home planet and the "living machines" I think people underestimate how difficult that would have been. They had a helluva time just trying to figure out how to portray the cloud, finally licked by Trumble's group using their "Compsy" multiple artwork system, and V'ger itself, which Syd Mead finally solved for them, although admittedly the rush to get the shots in the can meant the execution failed to be as exciting as his renderings. I mean, how to you portray "unbelievable technology"? Someone has to design it for the movie, and it has to look way more advanced that any of the Starfleet tech. What would that even look like? And whatever the design would have had to be something that could be been executed in models and paintings and optical trickery. Stanley Kubrick and Co. spent months trying to figure out how to portray aliens and alien tech for 2001 and finally just abandoned the idea because nothing they could come up with and film was convincingly alien or recognizable as anything but some abstract "what the heck is that?"
As to portraying V'ger's home planet and the "living machines" I think people underestimate how difficult that would have been. They had a helluva time just trying to figure out how to portray the cloud, finally licked by Trumble's group using their "Compsy" multiple artwork system, and V'ger itself, which Syd Mead finally solved for them, although admittedly the rush to get the shots in the can meant the execution failed to be as exciting as his renderings. I mean, how to you portray "unbelievable technology"? Someone has to design it for the movie, and it has to look way more advanced that any of the Starfleet tech. What would that even look like? And whatever the design would have had to be something that could be been executed in models and paintings and optical trickery. Stanley Kubrick and Co. spent months trying to figure out how to portray aliens and alien tech for 2001 and finally just abandoned the idea because nothing they could come up with and film was convincingly alien or recognizable as anything but some abstract "what the heck is that?"
Last edited:
Not at all. The problem these days is that filmmakers show too much to the audiences and nothing is left to our imagination. And that's why we are still talking about a movie done almost 40 years ago. It plays with our imagination on what the machines planet would look like and this is freaking brilliant! I really miss this aspect in current movies, where we don't need to think about them anymore.
I agree, completely, about how movies are completely overbearing, anymore. Everything is in your face, there's never any subtlety, because audiences are expected to be complete morons. If you look at movies from Hollywood's Golden Era, unless you're talking about serials, movies very rarely talked down to an audience. Look at, uh ... I don't know ... The Maltese Falcon. There is a lot of subtlety going on, throughout. It's a very nuanced movie and there was nothing special about its market. The Maltese Falcon was just another movie released to the general public, at that time. And it's revered as a Classic, today, by -- admittedly -- a knowledgeable audience, only. Most people today couldn't give two shits, it seems like and it's screwing it up for the rest of us.
Soundtracks have become a thick Wall-of-Sound from opening credits, to the last logo at the end, produced by composers who are nothing noteworthy. They're just "OK," that's about it. Again, if you look at movies from back when Philadelphia was still a prairie, What's Up, Doc? is a comedy without a soundtrack. There's music over the beginning & end titles (versions of the same song) and there's a couple instances of someone having a radio on, or music playing in the lobby, but that is all. There are no music cues to tell you, "Hey! Hey ... pay attention, now! There's a hilarious beat on its way ... here it comes ...!!!" None of that. And the movie's funny, enjoyable and memorable, without a conductor underlining the reasons why.
STAR TREK: The Motion Picture was not in a position to experiment with an absent soundtrack, thank Providence! Because what we got was absolutely gorgeous, obviously. Having said all of that, there are going to be times, where it's very important to explain to an audience. A director & producers and all that need to make sure that they over explain things in the shooting of a flick, and edit out what they don't need, because you can't always get these actors back, anyway, or the budgets not going to be there. But audiences might need that information, so it's best to have it. And voice-overs coming from Spock, especially, would've benefitted TMP, without compromising the integrity of the mystery or suspense "they" were trying to create in the scene. Not a lot ... !!! Just to have him note: "I BELIEVE we are passing over what MIGHT be one of V'GER's power generators" ... or whatever. And leave it at that. Even an Artist isn't a mind-reader and can't explain the intent of another Artist in his work. He can offer unique and useful insight and not "know." Sometimes, that's just what you need, though to start getting a grasp of the piece you're looking at.
Look at that quote! Gee ... I like typing the word "completely," don't I? Apparently so:
Hmmm ... "completely"
Hmmm ... "completely"
This is why the Dark Universe is in trouble IMO. For some reason, decision-makers think that Hollywood stars and set pieces with orgies of CGI are what make good horror movies, when in fact, unknown actors (who lives and who dies next?) and suspense created by our own imaginations are far more effective.
Similar threads
