check out the vid i posted in post #291 it does a very good job of explaining why TMP is a VERY worthwhile science fiction, if not 'technological horror' film classic.
But, has Paramount started working on the 4K version of the Director's Cut or are these just rumors? Has any actual job been done to release it or not?
I would say this film (which was a substantial box-office smash, lest we forget) is rated about right: It's a 'for-fans-only' kind of Star Trek film, with a fairly dull, slow-moving story, which largely fails to capture the characters who made the TV series successful. It's generally not a good thing when the emotional highlight of the film is at the 1/4 point as the ship leaves dock. It basically gets more boring as it goes, with no climax to speak of. That said, there is something about this film I like. It's probably the fact that it is absolutely nothing like any other Star Trek film to follow. It's more like a mid-70s sci-film in tone than an 80s-film, and it's kind of dark (visually and thematically).
This thread essentially WAS dead (no posts since last July) until you decided to revive it a few days ago. And now you’ve decided it should be locked? That’s puzzling to me. My own opinion of the film hasn’t changed. It’s tedious, unoriginal, and (most puzzling of all) lacking in the qualities that made the TV series great.
So was Spock. He got better. The uniforms are fine*, though somebody really should have invested in a cup for Stephen Collins. If you know, you know. *Kirk's admiral's uniform at the start of the film is sharp as hell.
Jesus- I watched it twice ( over a span of twenty years )- how many more chances am I supposed to give this movie.? It's an ok film- but the best thing about it is that it relaunched Star Trek, leading to more movies and TV shows.
As I may've noted in this thread, from 1991 through maybe 2001, I'd watch "TMP" every couple years. I'd always think "it's gotta be better than I remember, right?" And it never was! Think I've only watched it twice from 2001 to date: the Director's Cut DVD in 2001 and the Blu-ray in 2009. I'm not averse to yet another look at it, but since I started writing reviews, my "spare time" viewing time is nil - if I'm in front of a TV, it's because I'm watching something to review, not for funsies!
Eh, films are the products of the time in which they were made: it reflect the sensibilities of 1979. They don't have a crystal ball and can't predict how people were really going to dress in the year 2300. I don't think it's unoriginal in that it continues the adventures of the characters we saw in a TV show from about a decade earlier. I agree that parts of it are very boring, but if you go back to the reviews of 1979, a lot of critics felt the film did have a "sense of wonder" and a sincerity not often found in science fiction of the time. Look at it this way: it's a much better film than Logan's Run, Black Hole, Zardoz, Rollerball, Buck Rogers, and a dozen other films from the same era. (I'd totally agree it's not even close to Alien, Close Encounters, or Star Wars.)
It’s unoriginal in the sense that its plot is recycled from two episodes of the old TV series. I would not agree it’s a better film than Logan’s Run. At any rate, saying it’s better than several other mediocre films is setting a low bar. Star Trek was one of the best TV series of the 60s, so it was reasonable to expect the film to be as good as the best science fiction films of the day. And as I noted, the most puzzling thing is not that it’s bad, but the way in which it is bad... the fact that it is so different from the series in tone and style, lacking any of the best qualities of the series.
There will always be individuals who are intolerant to contact lenses, no matter how advanced the technology is/will be. It's just a fact that will never change. The same can be said of implants. This is why eye glasses will always be around. Always.
The technology is imperfect as of today and 90% of people who have had the surgery are forced to wear eye glasses again.
Yes where many other things (viruses, heart conditions, wounds) are healed magically within seconds, why not eyes?
I like the film much better that I used to. If it means anything it is my favorite of all the soundtracks and a good system test record.
Not indicated for presbyopia, unless you use monovision, but then you're limited to about a diopter of near focusing power, good for roughly 70cm to 100cm, depending on reserve accommodation, pupil size, light level, etc. Pharma is working on it, but 'Retinax 5' is still a ways off into the future. A Review of Pharmacological Presbyopia Treatment Best regards, Robert Martellaro
If they can beam someone up and down they can make glasses obsolete. I'm thinking there is a strong optometrist community here that will stop at nothing to keep glasses around in outer space.
There are theories floating around that Star Trek: the motion picture was heavily influenced by Space 1999 which ran a few years before it's release. I would say you can see the influence in the pacing and costumes- of course Trekkies tend to get inflamed by such an opinion- but I think it holds up that there is SOME influence- probably to the detriment of the movie ( I'm a big fan of Space 1999 though ).
Let's agree to disagree. For those following along, there's a terrific book about the production of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, based on a series of articles that were originally supposed to appear in Cinefantastique magazine around 1980-1981, but for reasons unknown never did. Apparently, they weren't able to get photo rights, but they do have more than 650 pages of text, which is a pretty remarkable (and thorough) story: https://www.amazon.com/Return-Tomorrow-Filming-Motion-Picture/dp/098391754X I thought I knew quite a bit about the film, but this mammoth book reveals a lot more than I'd ever heard of. It's amazing this has been out for a few years with very little publicity; the details just on the disastrous VFX done by Bob Abel & Associates are worth the price of admission.
