[Enters stage left, dusts off soapbox. Mounts.]
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Joshua Bell wrote:
> Insurrection falls beneath the other odds since it simply isn't an epic
> tale. It's a fine 2-hour episode, but it's just not a movie-quality
> experience. Generations is similarly weak but has more oomph behind it in
> terms of scale. TMP fails primarily due to the weak pacing and general
> unwatchability of the movie.
[Blasphemes.]
Star Trek the Motion Picture is actually the best of the movie series, or
if not the best, then on a par with STII. STI is an wonderful example of
the "big idea" Star Trek formula; STII is a wonderful example of the
"action and intrigue" Star Trek formula. The rest of the movies are
variously amusing, intriguing, adrenaline-pumping, even thoughtful
(or utterly inane)--but none rise above the level of sit-com
(except perhaps STIV, which I suppose falls in the category of the "big
statement" formula).
For my money, STI is best for a couple of reasons, not the lest of which
is sentimentality (I saw it when I was 10 or 11 and at an early peak of ST
mania). 1. V'ger is extremely cool. Bigger, scarier, and more awesome
(if less gruesome) than the prancing Borg. 2. No holodeck gags. 3. The
first appearance of "real" Klingons, and not a touchy-feely Klingon in
sight. 4. STI is where we are introduced to the coolest version of the
Enterprise to date, and it is the movie in which the Enterprise is most
awe-inspiring as spectacle. 5. Spock is allowed to be more Vulcan here
than at any other time. I call that a good thing. 6. Did I mention "No
holodeck gags?" 7. It's actually acknowledged that our main characters
must get older and, though they cling to cinematic life, should expect to
be supplanted as time goes on: they should be expected to grow.
Detractors complain about the slow pace, but the music is wonderful and I
think it lends the movie a bit of a "2001" kind of feel (which I like).
They also say the acting is stilted, but at least it isn't reduced to
smarmy mugging for a fanboy audience whom the producers have realized will
be an eternal cash cow. Is Kirk worse than, say, Riker? Hardly.
And everybody goes on about Picard's Shakespearean chops, but Spock would
kick his ass any day of the week. Or Data's ass. Or Worf's ass
(why the hell does Worf lose pratcially every fight he's ever
in?). Actually, there's a whole long list of asses Spock ought to have
had an opportunity to kick.
(For an interesting contrast: compare the ST:TNG TV shows with Spock
cameos to those without. The degree to which Spock elevates the tone of
the series--forces the writers to elevate the tone of the series--proves
that old Trek is best.)
As for the other movies... ALL of the ST:TNG movies suck, period. After
three movies they still can't get the damn makeup right, and what's with
the die-cast chromed USS Enterprise in Insurrections? Please. The
Enterprise is titanium white with just a faint hint of blue, period. In
Generations, they killed the wrong character: Riker should have died, and
long ago. Kirk may be the great gigolo of the galaxy, but at least he's
not the galaxy's most mewling momma's boy. Contact is a little better
than the other two--the Borg are a comforting and familiar antagonist--but
for every scene of Worf and Picard kicking tin-plated Borg butt, we're
forced to endure Riker at al. tromping through the green forests of earth.
Blech. Insurrection again suffers from way to much Riker, way too much
"paradise found & lost" themery (always one of ST's weakest plot devices),
horrible makeup all around, and execrable "a one-hour TV episode stretched
out to two" writing.
STIII basically has no reason to exist except to set up STIV and to cause
Kirk grief over a son that had no reason to exist in STII (the rescue of
Spock, since it's inevitable, is utterly incidental to the plot despite
being the primary motivation). Moreover, has the outrageous
immorality of the suggestion that it's appropriate for Kirk's son to
be sacrificed for the recovery of Spock never struck anybody? It's
like saying Abraham should have killed Isaac and taken the ram home
with him instead. The message is supposed to be, "Comrades die in
arms, and we accept this as a price for fostering the next
generation," not, "Better to lose a son than to lose my old shipmate
and be forced to grow up as a father and as a man." One could read
STIII as a subversive statement, I suppose: arrested development is
the price of having a group of eternal champions. STIV is a pretty good
flick and a nice homage to the occasional time-travel pieces found in the
old-Trek TV series, and I like the environmentalist slant, but as an
experience it doesn't really compare to either STI or STII. The less said
about STV the better. STVI is a pretty good action movie and helps set up
some later history, but by now the actors are clearly tired and the inane
"mugging for the fanboys" feel persists. The pretense that any of the
original crew are expected to stay at their posts is long gone, except
perhaps for Captain Sulu, the only cast member aside from Spock that is
allowed to "grow up."
>
> Everyone knows that a "Director's Edition" of ST:TMP is coming out on DVD
> later this year, yes? Essentially they'll be making the movie the director
> wanted to make but wasn't allowed to due to budget and time. The cut will be
> much tighter, more energetic, and completed effects will (in theory) blend
> seamlessly. The creative forced were apparently trying very hard on the last
> one, knowing how badly the SW Special Edition effects clash.
The last time I looked, Gene Roddenberry was dead. And he had a pretty
free hand creating STI, otherwise it wouldn't have had that slow artistic
pace that that latter-day ST fans always complain about; otherwise, the
studio would have cut a lot of the movie. Thus any director's cut of STI
must be a cut by the owners of the current franchise tailored to the
tastes of the current ST market, which overall prefers TNG to old Trek,
and not a faithful rendition of Roddenberry's wishes. Or so I strongly
suspect. So how the #*^! do they know what Roddenberry would want at this
point? The video release has been the "director's cut" for the last 15-20
years, as far as I'm concerned, because Roddenberry got footage added
that had been omitted from the theatrical release.
[Dismounts soapbox. Brushes off footprints and lifts it. Exits stage
right.]
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
