StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The first part of the look at Star Trek: The Motionless Picture, with silly costumes and huge chunks of nothing.

Video

Ah yes The Motion Picture. Some parts of that movie dragged as bad as 2001 did...

"And as you can imagine, the blue cloud so infuriates them, that they start firing a bunch of torpedoes into it".

Chuck, I don't know where I would be without you to make me laugh...

ROFLMAO - that use of Disco Inferno was hilarious. Also loved the Doctor Who gag, though I think you should've used Tom Baker, like Family Guy

The 70s John Pertwee intro works better because it more closely resembles the warpy-snorpy ribbon-tube that the Entrerprise goes through. Tom Baker's intro had a TARDIS going through a silver TARDIS-shaped tube. Doesn't really fit.

And, yeah, I do like the jokes and merciless ripping into the franchise. My favorite was, "I'm going to take a nap." *THEME MUSIC*

Chris OFarrell wrote:Ah yes The Motion Picture. Some parts of that movie dragged as bad as 2001 did...

Expect that 2001 did not drag at all. Every scene perfectly balanced and and thoroughly considered. Sure it is slow paced, but that is not the same thing as dragging. Every time I put it in my BD player I can't stop watching until the end. No other scifi movie does that to me. Now, I realize that some peole don't agree with. That's fine but their loss.

TMP on the other hand... Yes, some of it dragged pretty badly, especially in the original theatrical cut. The "director's cut' (or whatever it is called) is much better, however, and apart from the Enterprise flyaround scene it is now a fairly good proper slow paced scifi film. It gets almost no added value from being a Star Trek film, and I suspect that it might have been a better movie with some other cast. Most of the TOS cast seems to be quite uncomfortable returning to their old roles.

TMP is so bad the last time I tried to watch it, a normal person going in and out of the room COULD NOT TELL TIME HAD PASSED. Look, Kirk and Spock and McCoy staring at WIERD SHIT on the viewscreen. They had to ask if we'd paused it while they were away.

Great review and double points for the use of the Monk title theme!

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

Chris OFarrell wrote:Ah yes The Motion Picture. Some parts of that movie dragged as bad as 2001 did...

Expect that 2001 did not drag at all.

Excuse me? 2001 made TMP look like an action movie. The vast majority of 2001 was nothing whatsoever of consequence happening when anything happened to begin with.
And that's from someone who HATES TMP (at least the theatrical release, never seen the Director's Cut). Patently silly uniforms, no bridge noises, the movie's only saving graces were the soundtrack( primarily what would eventually become the TNG theme) and the absolutely positively beautiful refit E-Nil.

In 2001 the slowness is arguably thematic; in TPM it's just self-indulgence.

I have no trouble with the pacing in TPM really.
And I don't care if the slowness of 2001 was intentional. It was still bad storytelling.

Batman wrote:I have no trouble with the pacing in TPM really.
And I don't care if the slowness of 2001 was intentional. It was still bad storytelling.

You are under the mistaken if common notion that everything in motion pictures has to sacrificed at the altar of simply telling the story. Movies are not books or rather they are not just a modern form of the ancient art of storytelling; they can be much more. Of course 2001 still DOES tell the story and does it superbly, but the story is not only what actually takes place in the plot. A good cinematic story is much more than just going through the plot. That is what Stark meant when wrote that the slowness is thematic.

I personnally thought that You would do Generations or First Contact first when he first did Movie Reveiws as you made comments on these. After this are you going to move onto Wrath of Khan and so forth Cronologically or are you going to skip ahead to something else?

Zor

I'm something of a fan of TMP. Yes, it's slow, and weird, and it doesn't really have a plot, and what plot there is just sort of ends right before the credits roll. But there's something unique about the way it looks and feels; it's so very unlike any of the Trek that followed, and the closest you're going to get to seeing Phase II in practice.

The pacing, the tone, the themes, even the scale of the movie are all on a different level than anything Trek that came before or after, so even if it fails as a movie, I still like it as an experience.

Bounty wrote:I'm something of a fan of TMP. Yes, it's slow, and weird, and it doesn't really have a plot, and what plot there is just sort of ends right before the credits roll. But there's something unique about the way it looks and feels; it's so very unlike any of the Trek that followed, and the closest you're going to get to seeing Phase II in practice.

The pacing, the tone, the themes, even the scale of the movie are all on a different level than anything Trek that came before or after, so even if it fails as a movie, I still like it as an experience.

In other words it's a proper slow paced science fiction movie in the same category as 2001, Silent Running, Blade Runner (yes, it's slow paced too by modern standards) or Gattaca and not an adventure, action flick, comedy or something closely related to the the Star Trek universe. The only other Star Trek movie which could have been something like that was Generations but the execution sucked and it ended up being worse than some two-parter episodes of the series.

That said, the original cut of TMP sucked big time. It was nearly roughcut-like and it totally ruined the pacing. Slow movies have a pacing too you know, it's just not fast pacing

In other words it's a proper slow paced science fiction movie

It's a slightly broken slow-paced SF movie. The execution is there but without the plot needed to justify it.

Strange. I have audio, but no video. Probably a network thing (I'll try again from home), but that's just weird.

Ted C wrote:Strange. I have audio, but no video. Probably a network thing (I'll try again from home), but that's just weird.

There's no video after the credits until the Paramount logo. It threw me too, but the video comes back in later.

It's there, that's the movie playing. Yes, what some people think is a video error is, in fact, Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Your honor, the prosecution rests.

Wasn't there a starfield during the overture? Or does it just not show up at that resolution?

It's a very sparse starfield.

I thought the video was broken too, after first, until I actually thought back to ST:TMP. Then I realized what was happening and knew we were in for a good 'un.

Sonnenburg wrote:It's there, that's the movie playing. Yes, what some people think is a video error is, in fact, Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Your honor, the prosecution rests.

Case closed... give 'im the chair.

I really did not remember that particular bit of nothing happening for so long. Extremely tedious "flying through the spooky cloud" sequences that accomplished nothing? Yes. Three minutes of basically black screen? Not so much.

I didn't remember the overture until I watched the director's cut DVD and then I remembered the overture seeming kind of cool when I was a kid and waiting for the movie to start. It was a little old fashioned at the time but still kind of cool. I can see how it would annoy the fuck out of anyone trying to watch it now. It still ran a little long even then.

One thing with TMP that ends up hurting it is also old school. Old school visual effects wank. Meaning that the director knows you are coming to see something cool so he shows it and shows it and shows it. I remember this movie getting a little boring when I saw it in the theater but it was also kind of scary and suspensfull when they went into V'ger.

I really liked the scene near the beginning with the Klingons but after that it does seem like not much interesting happens for a long time. I also think that's still the best appearance of the old Klingon ships. The detail is great, plus it looks like they try to suggest that the reason the ships are built the way they are is because it's built around a big fucking "gun". Notice how the fore and aft torpedo ports line up with each other. I also like the visible scorch marks around those ports.

I liked that they added some visible internal volume to the ship. Helps get across how big the ship is even if having such a large space with high ceilings seems a bit wasteful.

The uniforms are horrible, except I kind of like the look of a couple of Kirk's variant uniforms. Anytime he's not in all grey he looks pretty good. I guess the white just makes me think of Navy uniforms. Otherwise the uniforms suck. Form fitting jumpsuits are just dumb things to wear if you are going to have to move much at all. Try raising your hands over your head with one of those on.

Oh yeah. TMP was helped a tinseey bit when I first saw it because there hadn't been any new Trek in ages. So in that regard tooling around the outside of the ship didn't seem as bad as it does now. Plus the whole Klingon thing was much cooler too since everything was new and better about them. Ships were cooler. They were different and funky looking plus they spoke a different language than they did in the show. Which reminds me, TMP also shows the universal translator doing it's thing, not the instant English that is back by TWoK.

I enjoyed your review, and this is from someone who's a fan of the movie. (Far from the best Trek, but also far from the worst.)

I think I'm forgiving of it because 1) I think the VFX and the music are genuinely amazing and 2) it is more "Trek-ish" than most of the movies...that is, they had to come to understand an unknown presence rather than fight some screenwriter's poor excuse for "the next Khan."

I must agree though that I never understood why they would shove Bones into the transporter after that frankly terrifying accident had just happened! Talk about bizarre.

I should have put down my soda when I heard the theme to Monk. I paid for my hubris when I did a spit take during the Disco Inferno bit.