Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 7:36 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

- If there is one FX shot they added that totally ruined it for me it was this one. I never wanted to see the entire VGER vessel, and seeing it destroyed the impression in my mind of the immense size of VGER. If i never see the entire vessel i always wonder just how enormous it is, and that is far better than seeing it on screen.

How does it destroy the the size of the ship? We see the Enterprise cruising over her and looking smaller than a micro machine. Plus the size of the vessel itself was always set in stone since the Enterprise travels from behind the vessel all the way to the front where it is brought inside. It's that view screen shot of the V'Ger vessel when Spock says "Captain, we've been seized by a tractor beam." that you get the overall shape of the vessel. This shape of the vessel is confirmed to be that way when we see the tactical screen of V'Ger transmitting it's signal to Earth.

So in conclusion, the shape, size and look of the V'Ger vessel was always there, they just didn't get around to actually showing it. And to the credit of the Director's Edition, the reveal of V'Ger's vessel doesn't happen until the final act, so the overall mystery of what this vessel actually looks like occurs when we know enough about it to come conclude that it would look exactly the same way as it does in here.


Because sometimes less is more. Something no one in Hollywood understands anymore. Showing the whole ship lost it's awe and mystery. We never saw the full design to my recollection. Not sure what you saw in tactical screens. Also the new shot just didn't look right. Was it a one on one perspective of Vger and Earth? Was Vger closer to the camera? It looked to close to Earth. Like a parked car right outside of a store front.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 7:37 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

I must be one of the very few that was never bored while watching this film. (That's not to say I didn't cringe at a few things, or that some aspects of the production could have been better.) But I was enthralled from the opening of Ilia's theme to the conclusion of the end credits. Sadly it was the death of science fiction film making.

Sadly it was the death of science fiction film making--

This is an interesting statement. Can you expand on that idea?

 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 7:45 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

I must be one of the very few that was never bored while watching this film. (That's not to say I didn't cringe at a few things, or that some aspects of the production could have been better.) But I was enthralled from the opening of Ilia's theme to the conclusion of the end credits. Sadly it was the death of science fiction film making.

Sadly it was the death of science fiction film making--

This is an interesting statement. Can you expand on that idea?


There were a lot of thoughtful and interesting Science Fiction films in the past which explored a lot of ideas about humanity and science innovation. Forbidden Planet, 2001, Silent Running, Star Trek TMP.

The biggest complaints about Star Trek the Motion picture were that it was too slow, didn't have enough action, and lacked a villain in the traditional sense. From that point forward almost all Sci Fi films became "war " stories or "personal revenge" stories. Science fiction used to be awe inspiring, now its just action adventure.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 7:56 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

I must be one of the very few that was never bored while watching this film. (That's not to say I didn't cringe at a few things, or that some aspects of the production could have been better.) But I was enthralled from the opening of Ilia's theme to the conclusion of the end credits. Sadly it was the death of science fiction film making.

Sadly it was the death of science fiction film making--

This is an interesting statement. Can you expand on that idea?


There were a lot of thoughtful and interesting Science Fiction films in the past which explored a lot of ideas about humanity and science innovation. Forbidden Planet, 2001, Silent Running, Star Trek TMP.

The biggest complaints about Star Trek the Motion picture were that it was too slow, didn't have enough action, and lacked a villain in the traditional sense. From that point forward almost all Sc Fi films are "war " stories or "personal revenge" stories. Science fiction used to be awe inspiring, now its just action adventure.


Wow, pretty excellent idea, I agree here, and appreciate your help on the 'less is more" remark too. Yes, When I think about it Sci-Fi other than Star Trek has become alien attacks and humans fight back and we have seen it over and over again. Alien might have been the turning point in that direction. It is interesting that 1979 brought us these two films ST TMP and Alien. The first had a wonderment and exploration and hopeful romantic view of space, whereas the second told us that space is full of horror and death and torment.

I was thinking that the J.J. Abrams films have unfortunately taken the combat/action way for Star Trek and I still watch them, but they are action pictures now and they do not have the heart or philosophy or wonder that they once did.

Filmmakers cannot speak the language of awe,wonder or the natural romance of space it seems. Perhaps there are a few exceptions like Solaris remake a few years ago, someone else can bring up a couple more? Well Hyams made 2010 which was a commercial failure, they remade The Day the Earth stood still, that was a failure. So yes, I think we have a case that non-combat sci-fi is a no-go and when it is attempted now it is pretty much a failure commercially. So if a 2001 or a Star Trek TMP were tried now, it would never get past the script stage.

 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 8:26 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

Filmmakers cannot speak the language of awe,wonder or the natural romance of space it seems. Perhaps there are a few exceptions like Solaris remake a few years ago, someone else can bring up a couple more? Well Hyams made 2010 which was a commercial failure, they remade The Day the Earth stood still, that was a failure. So yes, I think we have a case that non-combat sci-fi is a no-go and when it is attempted now it is pretty much a failure commercially. So if a 2001 or a Star Trek TMP were tried now, it would never get past the script stage.

Forgot to mention 2010. A film I enjoy a lot and another good example. You are correct those previous films would never get past the script stage today. Its also interesting you bring up the polar opposites of TMP and Alien. Two excellent films that had two very different things to say. Both are good. Whats not good is the ditto head mentality in Hollywood today. There is no originality at all. Music, trailers, movie posters, everything is a clone of one another.

Edit: Regarding the expression of awe, wonder and natural romance- sadly audiences don't care for such things all that much. So film makers don't go there anymore. Another good example would be the fly by of the Enterprise in TMP. For some of us it was awe inspiring, for many others a snore fest.

 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 8:30 AM   
 By:   Jeyl   (Member)

Not sure what you saw in tactical screens.

This.



That's the outline of the vessel if you were to look at it from the front. It's the same thing that we saw here except much closer.





- It is my feeling that I really did not want to understand VGER

So you don't want to understand V'Ger. How? Did you not finish the film? V'Ger is revealed to be a Voyager 6 probe that NASA launched from Earth that was thrown to the other side of the galaxy where it encountered a planet full of living machines. I think the mystery surrounding V'Ger is dead at that point.

 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 8:32 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

Not sure what you saw in tactical screens.

This.

That's the outline of the vessel if you were to look at it from the front. It's the same thing that we saw here except much closer.
.


Interesting never made that connection! Thxs for the screen shot.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 9:45 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Not sure what you saw in tactical screens.

This.



That's the outline of the vessel if you were to look at it from the front. It's the same thing that we saw here except much closer.





- It is my feeling that I really did not want to understand VGER

So you don't want to understand V'Ger. How? Did you not finish the film? V'Ger is revealed to be a Voyager 6 probe that NASA launched from Earth that was thrown to the other side of the galaxy where it encountered a planet full of living machines. I think the mystery surrounding V'Ger is dead at that point.


Well, knowing that it was actually Voyager 6 at its heart, and that is was modified by something it met does not really equal understanding the entire physical vessel that it was, and the fact that it ascended to a 'higher form' in that light show does not nullify my pleasure in the previously mysterious massiveness of the physical form. I would rather not see the physical ship in the shot approaching earth, and it looks cruddy anyway. I can see you are not going to agree with me, and I am fine with that.

 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 10:49 AM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)



In other words a Lucas style abomination! Other than the male computer voice I would not have changed a thing. And quite frankly I even miss the dorky computer saying, "Red Alert! Red Alert! We're on Red Alert!" The male computer voice in Iron Man is just as annoying but no one has a problem with that.


Wwwhhhhaaatttt???? Jarvis is fantastic!!!

 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 10:53 AM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

- I've never seen the Dirxtor's Cut so would appreciate soneone talking me through the changes.

While the Director's Edition doesn't change the story, it does feature many alterations that gives the film a sense that it's actually finished. Here are some of the big changes.



Thanks for taking the time to set that out Jeyl - it sounds very interesting. I especially like what you say about the sound mix.

I'm also glad the wormhole sequence was fixed - the original edit always bothered me hugely. The asteroid really never looked like a threat to the Enterprise and ai hated the way the explosion seemed to destroy the wormhole too.

What I am gutted about though is that they didn't use digital FX to fix McCoy's joke-shop false beard!!!

 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 11:03 AM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

No mention of ST:TMP is complete without citing the worst delivery of dialogue in sci-fi movie history when the Federation outpost at the start of the film has just watched the destruction of the Klingon ships and an "actress" who clearly did her audition for Gene Roddenberry horizontally says:

"It will pass in to Federation space fairly close to us"

 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 11:26 AM   
 By:   welwynfilmstudios   (Member)

No mention of ST:TMP is complete without citing the worst delivery of dialogue in sci-fi movie history when the Federation outpost at the start of the film has just watched the destruction of the Klingon ships and an "actress" who clearly did her audition for Gene Roddenberry horizontally says:

"It will pass in to Federation space fairly close to us"


I remember that classic Clive James review of the film with Janet-Street Porter. What was the name of that programme?

 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 12:20 PM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)



I remember that classic Clive James review of the film with Janet-Street Porter. What was the name of that programme?


Was it Saturday Night People?

 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 12:23 PM   
 By:   welwynfilmstudios   (Member)



I remember that classic Clive James review of the film with Janet-Street Porter. What was the name of that programme?


Was it Saturday Night People?


I thought it was...confused

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 12:56 PM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

No mention of ST:TMP is complete without citing the worst delivery of dialogue in sci-fi movie history when the Federation outpost at the start of the film has just watched the destruction of the Klingon ships and an "actress" who clearly did her audition for Gene Roddenberry horizontally says:

"It will pass in to Federation space fairly close to us"


per IMBD - there is your answer:

Michele Ameen Billy
Actress
Trivia:
Was screenwriter Harold Livingston's secretary when she was cast in Star Trek: The Motion Picture where she met and later married associate producer Jon Povill.

 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 1:09 PM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

No mention of ST:TMP is complete without citing the worst delivery of dialogue in sci-fi movie history when the Federation outpost at the start of the film has just watched the destruction of the Klingon ships and an "actress" who clearly did her audition for Gene Roddenberry horizontally says:

"It will pass in to Federation space fairly close to us"


per IMBD - there is your answer:

Michele Ameen Billy
Actress
Trivia:
Was screenwriter Harold Livingston's secretary when she was cast in Star Trek: The Motion Picture where she met and later married associate producer Jon Povill.


Thank you! I've always wondered. And it had to be really didnt it?

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 1:11 PM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

No mention of ST:TMP is complete without citing the worst delivery of dialogue in sci-fi movie history when the Federation outpost at the start of the film has just watched the destruction of the Klingon ships and an "actress" who clearly did her audition for Gene Roddenberry horizontally says:

"It will pass in to Federation space fairly close to us"


per IMBD - there is your answer:

Michele Ameen Billy
Actress
Trivia:
Was screenwriter Harold Livingston's secretary when she was cast in Star Trek: The Motion Picture where she met and later married associate producer Jon Povill.


Thank you! I've always wondered. And it had to be really didnt it?


yes, you called that one Mike. I am sure she was at least a great secretary.

 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 1:36 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

No mention of ST:TMP is complete without citing the worst delivery of dialogue in sci-fi movie history when the Federation outpost at the start of the film has just watched the destruction of the Klingon ships and an "actress" who clearly did her audition for Gene Roddenberry horizontally says:

"It will pass in to Federation space fairly close to us"


per IMBD - there is your answer:

Michele Ameen Billy
Actress
Trivia:
Was screenwriter Harold Livingston's secretary when she was cast in Star Trek: The Motion Picture where she met and later married associate producer Jon Povill.


Thank you! I've always wondered. And it had to be really didnt it?


yes, you called that one Mike. I am sure she was at least a great secretary.


Ha, yeah that was a classic dead pan line! I thought that was Shat's wife. Who was Shat's wife at the time? The one that replaced Ilia when she got sucked up by the energy probe?

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 1:39 PM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

No mention of ST:TMP is complete without citing the worst delivery of dialogue in sci-fi movie history when the Federation outpost at the start of the film has just watched the destruction of the Klingon ships and an "actress" who clearly did her audition for Gene Roddenberry horizontally says:

"It will pass in to Federation space fairly close to us"


per IMBD - there is your answer:

Michele Ameen Billy
Actress
Trivia:
Was screenwriter Harold Livingston's secretary when she was cast in Star Trek: The Motion Picture where she met and later married associate producer Jon Povill.


Thank you! I've always wondered. And it had to be really didnt it?


yes, you called that one Mike. I am sure she was at least a great secretary.


Ha, yeah that was a classic dead pan line! I thought that was Shat's wife. Who was Shat's wife at the time? The one that replaced Ilia when she got sucked up by the energy probe?


Yup, she was the replacement navigator, and a rather fetching one herself as well. Ilia was pretty, but ya know, in a bald way.

 
 Posted:   Apr 18, 2013 - 2:01 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)


Yup, she was the replacement navigator, and a rather fetching one herself as well. Ilia was pretty, but ya know, in a bald way.


Thxs, I knew his wife had a cameo somewhere in the film. Poor Persis. I remember reading she went temporary blind because of the bright stage lights at one moment in time during filming. She was a remarkably attractive bald women. (RIP) And yes Shat's wife was fine too. wink

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.