Star Trek, The Motion Picture help

[katefan]

Hello!

I have been writing articles for The Agony Booth for a few months now. I write recaps for Star Trek, The Animated Series (The Survivor, How Sharper Than A Serpent's Tooth) and have a new one in the works. But I am thinking of writing a more serious article defending Star Trek, The Motion Picture. I am a big fan of the movie but it seems to always get panned by people for one reason or another.

What I was hoping people here could do is explain if they dislike the movie, then why they do. I would very much appreciate it.


Thank You,

Tom

[stitch626]

Not a problem, good idea.

I have many minor issues with the movie, though I wouldn't say I dislike it. It still is better IMO than TPM.

Issues:
1) Uniforms look (and according to the cast were) horrid to wear. And are ugly too.

2) Sooooooo slowwwwww. The bit showing the new Enterprise, while beautiful at first, dragged on for way too long (though I loved it as a kid because Star Trek was the only thing I would sit through... odd child). And the entrance and travel through V'ger was way too long as well. They tried too much for a 2001 feel...

3) The story was bland. Nothing really changed from start to finish except a few deaths. Other than showing the Enterprise on the big screen, there was nothing that needed more than a 5 minute summery.

4) The uniforms were... wait, did that one.


Overall, IMO its the slowness and the meh story that hurts the movie the most.

[McAvoy]

Watch Sfdebris review on the movie.

Pros:

1. The Enterprise. Nuff said.

...and thats about it. However you could say in the context of the time period of when it first came out, it was great to see more Trek. Nowadays people put it in the context of the other movies.

Cons:

1. The pacing. It's so slow in every single scene.

2. Kirk. He is an asshole in the movie.

3. Uniforms. Personally I didn't mind the look but the color of it. They could have added stuff to it.

4. For the big get together for the movie, aside from McCoy, Spock and Kirk, the others really didn't have alot to do.

[katefan]

Thanks, guys! I appreciate your insights. I forgot SF did a review of the movie, I'll give it a look.

[Teaos]

Yeah SFDebris covers it well, its a episode stetched into a movie with horrid cinimatography.

[Atekimogus]

From todays view it isn't really understandable why the movie is soooo slow sometimes but I can only imagine that the long scenes showing the Enterprise etc. simply were fanservice for the former audience.
I mean those were people having pretty much waited for the movie for a decade I guess they could have made a 30min. flyby of the Enterprise and still they would have liked it. (And credits were credits are due, from a technical point of view the scene still looks fantastic. Imho the ship never looked so "real". Even with todays special effects they just cannot make it look so real. Well...they could...but then they ruin it completely with so much lens flare, nebulas, shaky camera and colours that you would never guess we are supposed in deep space).

What also stands out imho is the producation value. There are so many tiny details in the sets and if you have a bit of background info like from "The art of star trek" they really put a LOT of thought into everything, from future recreational activities to how the loading bay is supposed to work. Lot of this stuff was either cut or you blink and you miss it but sure as hell they made those movies back then with quite a bit more love than most of todays crap.

Also, I recently watched the "directors cut" which is quite a bit shorter and I actually found it quite entertaining. They trimmed it down quite nicely and added a nice VGer cgi in the end, quite the superior cut imho.

It has glaring weaknesses, that is true but it builds the foundation all the following movies can grow on.