PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Aug 3, 2016 18:09:10 GMT -5
Looks like this original thread wasn't moved over from the old boards, so as I start making my way through all of the other Star Trek films I haven't seen (which is every one before JJ Abrams' reboot series), I figured I'd share my thoughts on each as I go along. My reviews may not be as in-depth as the ones by PG Cooper, but I hope they'll still be somewhat enjoyable. And feel free to chime in with your own thoughts as well.
So we begin my voyages back into the franchise with, of course...
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
With all my defending of the three recent Star Trek reboots brought to us by JJ Abrams, I figured it was high time I go back and experience what the "classic" era of Star Trek was like. And thus, we begin with 1979's Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
Looking back into the development history for this film, you'll find that the script was intended as the pilot episode for a follow-up TV series to the original until Paramount chose to use it as the screenplay for the movie, and that's the most glaringly obvious thing about The Motion Picture: its story is stretched way thin. It has the basis for some interesting ideas and a plot that could be tightly told in forty-five minutes to an hour, but the problem is that the movie is 130 minutes long. As a result, there's a hell of a lot of padding -- mostly made up of tedious establishing shots/sequences -- but that's not my only real issue with the film. The bigger one I have is that the film lacks any real sense of urgency given the stakes of the plot, and it can start to feel dull a lot of the time. Of course, this could be partly owed to the franchise's more contemplative outlook on science fiction themes, but there really should be more of a balance between philosophy/ideas and excitement, especially if you're bringing this to the big screen, and this is your first time doing so. It's obvious the filmmakers wanted to achieve something along the lines of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and while there's nothing wrong with that, I don't quite think Star Trek: The Motion Picture reaches those heights.
This film certainly isn't without its merits, however. This was my first experience seeing the original cast in the roles of the characters, and everybody's uniformly good. William Shatner is just the right amount of cheese and commanding presence as Kirk, Leonard Nimoy is great as Spock, and De Forest Kelley's performance as Bones reaffirms the fact that Bones is my favorite Star Trek character. There are a number of strong scenes/interactions between a lot of the characters, too. The film also builds up to an interesting and rewarding climax/payoff that makes a lot of the tedium somewhat worth it by the end.
Overall, Star Trek: The Motion Picture is an admirable and interesting effort, but also pretty tedious and full of dull stretches. However, I can safely say I'm looking forward to where they go from here.
**1/2 /****
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,647
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by PG Cooper on Aug 3, 2016 18:41:57 GMT -5
I see where you're coming from and agree, but not to the same extent. For me, the ideas the film is exploring actually become pretty fascinating and by the end I was on board. It's a sort of fascinating twist on a "man seeking God" story and it also has some cool visuals. It might even be in my top 5 of the series, but I also get why you don't really dig it. I look forward to seeing your thoughts on Wrath of Khan and the rest of the series.
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Aug 3, 2016 22:01:52 GMT -5
I definitely agree that the ideas the film presents and explores are very interesting, but I just feel that a tighter script that explored said ideas would've benefitted it more in the long run.
|
|
Justin
Script Supervisor
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 739
Likes: 355
Location:
Last Online Oct 17, 2017 12:05:25 GMT -5
|
Post by Justin on Aug 4, 2016 10:30:06 GMT -5
I get what you're saying.
Philosophical, hard sci-fi Star Trek is the Trek I've always loved, and this film fit the bill pretty well, even though it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. It's why I've been so hard on these new films. They don't totally grasp the spirit of the series.
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Aug 14, 2016 16:34:29 GMT -5
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Now that's more like it.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is one of those sequels with the reputation of being better than the original, and it's hard to argue against that. In fact, I almost wish this could've been the film Star Trek made its cinematic debut with instead of The Motion Picture, because it basically does everything I wish The Motion Picture would've done. The Wrath of Khan has a tighter and more balanced screenplay, an interesting villain, a pretty compelling plot and a better grasp on its characters. In fact, Wrath of Khan feels more like Star Trek's response to Star Wars, but at the same time, still maintains what seem to be the core elements of what make Star Trek, well, Star Trek.
I mean, how much do I really need to say here? It's obvious that the producers took all the criticisms of The Motion Picture and found ways to improve those aspects with Wrath of Khan without having to compromise the core values of the franchise. There's a well-struck balance between action/suspense and exploration/ideas throughout, and the film always moves along at a nice pace without it ever feeling like it's wasting time.
Ricardo Montalban makes for an intimidating and powerful presence as Khan. Now, of course, the comparison between Montalban and Benedict Cumberbatch is inevitable, and when comparing the two interpretations of the character, I have to give the edge to Montalban. In essence, Montalban's Khan feels like a more fleshed-out character than Cumberbatch's; we more fully understand his backstory and Montalban's performance feels more layered in some ways. Khan is very much in the tradition of great/memorable on-screen villains.
If there are any complaints I have about The Wrath of Khan, it's actually one of the same main complaints I have with Into Darkness: the impact of the film's big death feels lost on me. It's easy to understand why, though. Seeing as how I'm not a longtime Star Trek fan and thus this is only my second time seeing Leonard Nimoy as Spock, his death scene honestly really didn't affect me. It's well-acted, sure, but I just can't get invested in the death of a character whom I've only seen twice now and who didn't seem to have that much screentime to begin with.
So, overall, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is very much an improvement over The Motion Picture and some clear evidence as to why this franchise has endured for so long.
***1/2 /****
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,298
Likes: 6,762
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Doomsday on Aug 14, 2016 16:37:07 GMT -5
The death also didn't affect you because you know the next movie is called The Search for Spock.
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Aug 14, 2016 16:53:47 GMT -5
That too.
|
|
Justin
Script Supervisor
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 739
Likes: 355
Location:
Last Online Oct 17, 2017 12:05:25 GMT -5
|
Post by Justin on Aug 14, 2016 18:27:00 GMT -5
It's better to have watched the TOS beforehand.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Aug 14, 2016 18:58:38 GMT -5
Does Into Darkness seem doubly lame to you having seen the original Khan and seeing how weirdly they tried to echo it?
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Aug 14, 2016 19:33:54 GMT -5
Honestly, and this isn't me just being stubborn...no, it doesn't. It IS more obvious to me now why longtime Trek fans have such vitriol for Into Darkness, especially since I now see that they did just straight up lift the death scene and the minutes leading up to it from Wrath of Khan, but it just doesn't bother me nearly as much as it does everyone else. Sure, they could've either handled it better or just not do it at all, but I guess I'm just largely indifferent about it. The scene, I'd say, probably works better within the context of Wrath of Khan, though.
But seeing Wrath of Khan doesn't affect my enjoyment of Into Darkness whatsoever. For me, both films still work for their respective approaches they each take to basically the same story.
|
|
thebtskink
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jul 2000
It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.
Posts: 19,462
Likes: 4,984
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 13:57:17 GMT -5
|
Post by thebtskink on Aug 14, 2016 20:26:14 GMT -5
I'm a big fan of movies that echo classic literature, and the parallels, subtle and overt references to Moby Dick in Wrath of Khan are what make it for me.
Montalban is a killer Ahab.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,770
Likes: 8,646
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:47:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Aug 14, 2016 21:39:00 GMT -5
The death also didn't affect you because you know the next movie is called The Search for Spock. I'm sure the death scene worked in 1982, but the sequel totally destroyed it. Not JUST because they brought him back, but because bringing him back stole the spotlight from more important stories.
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Aug 30, 2016 13:43:00 GMT -5
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
So from what I can tell, The Wrath of Khan was the beginning of a trilogy of Star Trek films within the ongoing franchise. That actually makes sense, considering that The Motion Picture was an extended pilot episode rushed into production. Anyway, coming off the high of The Wrath of Khan, we have The Search for Spock, an installment that mostly seems to have been met with a chorus of "meh", but I actually found myself enjoying this film fairly well.
Now, is it as good as The Wrath of Khan? Not really, but there's still quite a bit in The Search for Spock to get on board with. For one, the plot feels fairly tightly-structured and the film doesn't overstay its welcome. The screenwriters are able to pace the plot at a good pace and ensure that the film is never boring. It's also clearly a continuation of The Wrath of Khan in more than just the obvious way, and seeing some of the plot points from that film continue on is interesting. Obviously, I think the most compelling aspects of the plot are the ones involving Spock, in both body and mind. The thread involving his body is a natural continuation of the Genesis arc in Wrath of Khan, while the thread involving his mind is a really intriguing one that also involves my favorite Star Trek character, Bones. These are some emotional/human-driven elements that help balance out the more lofty science fiction elements, and it all helps the film retain an overall tone that I imagine classic Star Trek fans would appreciate. Speaking of the more humanistic elements of the plot, another thing about the film I liked is how we see all the other main characters deal with the loss of Spock. It provides a number of strong scenes throughout.
So, all of the aspects relating to the titular search are pretty well-done. However, not everything work. Specifically, there's a subplot involving another villainous Klingon (played by Christopher Lloyd) that feels like it's in the movie solely for there to be an antagonist to have to fight. I'll admit it does provide the film with some good-enough set-pieces, but at the same time, it pretty much just feels like a retread of stuff we've already seen done better just one movie ago. Also, the character isn't that compelling.
Directorially, Leonard Nimoy shows some skill, though. While it may not be as strong as its predecessor, The Search for Spock is still good overall and a nice addition to the franchise.
***/****
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,298
Likes: 6,762
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Doomsday on Aug 30, 2016 16:48:14 GMT -5
If anything brought Search for Spock down for me it was the actress who played Saavik. I dunno what Kirstie Alley was doing at the time in order for her to be replaced but the new actress was very stiff, very wooden and played it almost like she was a new character to the series. I still very much enjoy the movie though, probably more than it deserves.
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Aug 30, 2016 17:19:48 GMT -5
Yeah, I was wondering why they re-cast the role...
|
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Aug 30, 2016 17:36:03 GMT -5
Search for Spock is often underrated as it pales in comparison to its neighbors. But like you said, it's a three-star movie.
|
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,622
Likes: 3,182
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 13:45:46 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on Aug 30, 2016 17:50:21 GMT -5
I found it to be alright, but a bit forgettable and disappointing. I mean, this is a movie about Vulcans, about Spock, and with Nimoy behind the camera you would think there would be greater emphasis regarding insight and plot revolving around the Vulcan culture. But there really isn't. It has its moments, but it's a pretty middling movie that squanders potential to really open up the Star Trek universe. Plus the villain, as mentioned, is just sort of there. It's about as good as Beyond, but for different reasons.
|
|
Justin
Script Supervisor
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 739
Likes: 355
Location:
Last Online Oct 17, 2017 12:05:25 GMT -5
|
Post by Justin on Sept 5, 2016 17:15:09 GMT -5
Search for Spock isn't bad, and your rating is pretty appropriate. I thought Christopher Lloyd was distractingly goofy though.
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Oct 1, 2016 13:20:31 GMT -5
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
After two films that were structured more as action-adventure films, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home marks a change in pace temporarily for the franchise. Here, the emphasis shifts more to character, plot, ideas and especially comedy in what's considered to be the wrap-up film to the trilogy that began with Wrath of Khan. And I have to say, this mini-trilogy within the larger franchise has been pretty damn good overall.
The Voyage Home has no villain to defeat. Rather, the conflict of the plot comes from an ecological threat posed by the mysterious arrival and intentions of a new alien presence that's sending out signals which are threatening to permanently destroy Earth's ecological system. The crew of the Enterprise soon take it upon themselves to stop this from happening, and they must do so by traveling back in time to 1986 and retrieving a humpback whale, which Spock determines to be the origin of the strange alien signals.
I'll admit, when I first read the basic synopsis of this movie's plot, I was concerned that it might either come off as dull or hokey (in terms of the cultural clash), but fortunately, neither was the case. Instead, the script is able to maintain the right tonal balance of keeping the stakes prevalent while incorporating comedy and more light-heartedness than the last two films. Actually, The Voyage Home kind of resembles a heist movie in a way, given how the Enterprise crew has to find a way to snatch up a whale and get it back to their time. Seeing how the crew goes about trying to accomplish their mission is interesting, plus the script peppers in some good character moments and interactions, not to mention natural flourishes of comedy, and of course those lofty Star Trek ideas. Clearly, the filmmakers were using the plot as an indictment for the state of our affairs when it comes to treating the planet right, and it never feels too heavy-handed.
Once again, the cast does solid work, but it's Leonard Nimoy who especially deserves praise here, given the state of Spock at this point and how he's attempting to regain his locial/Vulcan tendencies, but as a director, Nimoy wisely never tries to go too far in showing that, nor does he overexaggerate the cultural humor of the crew being out of time. It's all smartly done.
Overall, I'd say The Voyage Home is another worthy entry into the franchise -- three in a row, starting with Wrath of Khan -- but I'm aware of the reputation that the next film, The Final Frontier, has.
***1/2 /****
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,770
Likes: 8,646
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:47:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 1, 2016 13:24:19 GMT -5
Star Trek: The Motion Picture, I think, is the best Star Trek movie. I'm in the minority on that. BUT, Star Trek: The Voyage Home is definitely my favorite Star Trek movie. I'm definitely NOT in the minority on that.
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Oct 1, 2016 13:33:14 GMT -5
Both movies are pretty similar in plot, but The Voyage Home is ultimately the more entertaining of the two.
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,647
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by PG Cooper on Oct 1, 2016 13:36:08 GMT -5
Voyage Home is wonderful. One of my favourites. Nimoy is hilarious in it.
|
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Oct 1, 2016 17:36:38 GMT -5
One damn minute, admiral.
|
|
Wyldstaar
Producer
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,900
Likes: 1,267
Location:
Last Online Nov 20, 2024 20:53:38 GMT -5
|
Post by Wyldstaar on Oct 1, 2016 21:22:43 GMT -5
Double dumb-ass on you!
|
|
Wyldstaar
Producer
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,900
Likes: 1,267
Location:
Last Online Nov 20, 2024 20:53:38 GMT -5
|
Post by Wyldstaar on Oct 2, 2016 1:07:03 GMT -5
Star Trek: The Motion Picture, I think, is the best Star Trek movie. I'm in the minority on that. BUT, Star Trek: The Voyage Home is definitely my favorite Star Trek movie. I'm definitely NOT in the minority on that. In the words of Mr. Plinkett, I like Star Trek: The Motion Picture because I can l leave the house in the middle of a scene, get the brakes fixed on my car, get a hair cut, go to the bank, and then come home and not miss anything.
|
|