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:   Mar 8, 2008 - 8:12 AM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)

Taking another look at the "possibilities" always there:



we’d say there were Two:

First, recruiting



And his vast production expertise (from his stellar television background) to contribute a radical revamping of the bloatedness that plagued, as someone once dubbed it, STAR TREK: THE MOTION-LESS PICTURE.



And, above all, beaming aboard Nicholas Meyer’s directorial and writing acumen to guide



THE WRATH OF KHAN,





have a pivotal scripting contribution to



then turning right around and completing the cinematic hat-trick co-plotting with Nimoy and directing THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY







(to say nothing of providing inarguably the breakthrough showcase for James Horner



and



These gentlemen (behind the scenes) restored the vision and focus sorely lacking in the grandiosity that grounded the first film,



and paved the pivotal way for everything coming afterwards smile

 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 8:16 AM   
 By:   That Neil Guy   (Member)

I've often considered writing a note to Nicholas Meyer with that simple sentiment: Thanks for saving Star Trek.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 8:34 AM   
 By:   Tall Guy   (Member)

Taking another look through clean specs,
we’d say there were Two...



Ten, nine, eight, seven, six....

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 8:44 AM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)

Okay, wise guy:



so just what is it yer tryin' to say? ... wink

 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 8:45 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

The only ones who saved Star Trek is when they took away Roddenberry's creative control.

 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 8:53 AM   
 By:   Charles Thaxton   (Member)

I wasn't aware it "needed" saving.

Am I the only one here who actually enjoyed STAR TREK:THE MOTION PICTURE? So there wasn't a lot of action and shoot 'em ups....big deal. It was a more intellectual piece of scifi. Plus the incredible WOW factor of seeing the Enterprise on a 70mm screen in near life-size proportions accompanied by Jerry's sublime score in 6 channel surround (at least at the Newport Beach Cinema) The V'ger Cloud and flyover sequence was custom made for the same audience members who went to see 2001's light show in an "altered state". (I can vouch for it's effectiveness) smile

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 9:28 AM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)

If you're taking "saved" literally, you're misconstruing the entire salvo. To deny there were serious deficiencies in the first film (the ridiculous lack of adequate preparation and post-production time, the endless demands and rewrites, ect) isn't to negate what worked (with Goldsmith's masterpiece being, to our mind, the singular most successful element -and even THAT didn't emerge full-blown without revisions).

[ Oh, and, yeah, we caught its original release on Hollywood Boulevard, too, so we can vouch for your passionate pronouncement re how pleasurable it was to witness WAY UP HIGH. ]

Despite the money made, there are those who continually need to be richly reminded there was considerable trepidation in the Paramount executive suites about making another film UNLESS it could be brought under control budget-wise (which Harve's television background particularly qualified him for) along with a stronger storyline more in keeping with what the audiences (and the principal actors themselves) recognized would be necessary - hell, absolutely essential - if the rebirth was to continue.

That's all we're saying and we do so with the cautionary caveat nothing's so untouchably sacred



it can't be vastly improved upon. Olive branch? ... wink

 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 9:41 AM   
 By:   Charles Thaxton   (Member)

I actually preferred the uniforms of the first film over those awkward, sweaty-looking red tunics and marching band pants.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 9:53 AM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)

Actually so do we



but we also understand (and agree) with Meyer's revamped vision having attire more in keeping with the disciplined dictates



of Starfleet ...

 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 10:01 AM   
 By:   Misanthropic Tendencies   (Member)

Although I love Treks II - V (yes! Final Frontier!) and I do like TMP a lot (it was more Silent Running/2001-ish than Star Wars, which is why it has not been thought kindly of by the majority), I think Undiscovered Country was not very good and paved the way for the disasters of Generations onwards.

I do love those Trek II uniforms, so much so I considered getting me, my friend and my fiance's brother-in-law in movie uniforms for my impending wedding! They are so smart. I've never dressed up in a movie costume (except when I was ten years old and was dyed green and wore ripped shirt and trousers as the Incredible Hulk for a fancy dress show on horseback) but these are the best costumes EVER.

Needless to say, we're not wearing Trek uniforms but normal suits.

 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 10:11 AM   
 By:   SheriffJoe   (Member)

Star Trek - The Motion Picture was an excercise in sterility. The lighting, the constumes, the set design...was an attempt to bring the sensibilities of 2001 to Trek. There was very little emotion in it at all (as if Wise was filming the story from Spock's POV entirely). Truly, it was the genius of Jerry Goldsmith who brought passion to the film in the form of his musical score.

Nicholas Meyer brought a sense of drama back to Trek and I would just drool over the thought of what he might have brought to Trek TMP...how much warmer it would have been...alas...

Horner and Meyer "saved" Trek to an extent...I agree wholeheartedly. Swashbuckling adventure and intense drama, along with topical storylines, were what the Star Trek experience was all about (and should have always BEEN about!).

The problem with Next Gen was that it no longer felt like an intimate family gathering each week we tuned in. Enterprise was again made sterile and bright. Where was the passion that drives man to explore strange new worlds? The passion that urges him to seek out new life and new civilzations? The passion to risk his life to boldly go where no one has gone before?

THAT is what is needed...and if a reboot will acknowledge that, then I am all for it. Perhaps it will be JJ Abrahms who will save Trek now, as Meyer and Co. did over twenty-five years ago.

I await with baited breath and fingers crossed.

Joe

 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 10:14 AM   
 By:   Scott McOldsmith   (Member)

Who saved Star Trek?

The fans. No shit.

The fans saved the series from (possible) early cancellation.

When the show was axed, the fans kept it alive for 10 years in syndication. Paramount saw money to be made and bankrolled a film. It was a critical failure, but the fans made it a hit. Cha-ching!

Paramount saw a virtual bottomless pit of profit, so they gave the fans a movie more in line with what they wanted. Fans loved it.

Doesn't matter who Paramount put in charge, if the fans were not there willing to support and pour shitloads of money into the Paramount bank accounts, then Star Trek would have had the lifespan of Firefly.

And when the fans got tired of the "same old" thing in the laster years, we stopped supporting them.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 10:24 AM   
 By:   MarkB   (Member)

Paramount saw a virtual bottomless pit of profit, so they gave the fans a movie more in line with what they wanted. Fans loved it.

Actually, I think Paramount just wanted a cheaper second movie. The fans were lucky that Bennett wanted to give them a movie more in line with their expectations.

Mark

 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 10:32 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

The problem with Next Gen was that it no longer felt like an intimate family gathering each week we tuned in. Enterprise was again made sterile and bright. Where was the passion that drives man to explore strange new worlds? The passion that urges him to seek out new life and new civilzations? The passion to risk his life to boldly go where no one has gone before?

I disagree. Its easier to say that TOS was superior to TNG for the quality of the writing - but TOS lasted three seasons as opposed to TNG's seven.

While I can't defend every single episode of TNG I can say episodes like "Measure Of A Man", "The Defector", "Sarek", "Family", "The Nth Degree", "Darmok", "Ethics", "The Inner Light", "Chain of Command" and "Frame of Mind" are just as good as anything any Star Trek show has ever produced.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 11:46 AM   
 By:   Corbyn Pellonpaa   (Member)

Am I the only one here who actually enjoyed STAR TREK:THE MOTION PICTURE? So there wasn't a lot of action and shoot 'em ups....big deal. It was a more intellectual piece of scifi.

"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" is EASILY the best film of the series.

Sterility?

I think not. Simply because people aren't wearing their emotions on their sleeves doesn't make the movie sterile...

 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 12:06 PM   
 By:   Charles Thaxton   (Member)

You want sterile....watch SPACE 1999 year one wink

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 12:51 PM   
 By:   Cryogenix   (Member)

.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 3:59 PM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)

Starfleet Announcement:

We're gonna seriously amend our original title to so there's not an endless litany regurgitating familiar history about the letter-writing campaign, the cartoon version of the show and other imperishable aspects of the legend.

Repeat: we're talkin' about the film franchise only - kapish?

And we definitely (nay, rather defiantly) don't hold truck with the thought The Undiscovered Country is the weakest; not only is it a nifty allegory and morality tale (which has always, its charismatic original cast briefly aside, been Trek's greatest strength when the writing matched the concepts) but it introduced a villain second only to Khan in our estimation:



To say nothing of a brand-new character key to the central mystery behind it all:



(Tho we DO wish those racy photos Kim Cattrall allegedly took on the bridge of the Enterprise that Nimoy supposedly confiscated had somehow surfaced.



Talk about Star Trek YUM ...

 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 4:16 PM   
 By:   Ebab   (Member)

If “Star Wars” had taught us only one thing it’s how to integrate the special effects shots seamlessly and casually into the flow of the cut. With “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” we found ourselves back with the old and dignified way of Sci-Fi storytelling: Effects shot (space ship approaching, as seen through a display screen or from a neutral position somewhere in space) – reaction shot (crew member getting tense) – effects shot (space ship exploding) – reaction shot (crew member dropping jaw) – etc. etc. … “Star Wars” and its seamless dynamic of interaction and intercutting had made this formerly canonical editing pattern seem painfully staged, static and obsolete. There was no way of ever going back to it without appearing dated and flat. You were no longer “there”.

 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2008 - 7:38 PM   
 By:   Paul MacLean   (Member)






I could never believe that a spacefaring crew, who get hurled to and fro when their ship is attacked, would wear uniforms covered with al those jagged, pointed, metal insignias.

The TMP uniforms were blander, and looked like track suits...but to me they were more plausible attire for characters who live in close quarters, climb in and out of Jeffries tubes and generally need clothing which is easy to move around in. Those fancy Star Trek II uniforms are better suited to Star Fleet banquets and the parade ground.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.
Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.