-------------------- Sheridan: "Well, as answers go, short, to the point, utterly useless and totally consistant with what I've come to expect from a Vorlon..." Kosh: "Good." Sheridan: "I REALLY hate it when you do that..." Kosh: "Good."
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
MIB
Ex-Member
posted
*sigh* Yeah. At least we will get to see some of those cool things in the directors cut version of TMP. When is that coming out???
IP: Logged
posted
Erk. The first time I saw TMP, I didn't notice it, but the second time I did: The movie is sloooooooooowwwww... The VFX may be good, but they take up way too much time.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I like The Motion Picture. I can't wait to see the special edition version whenever it comes out. Of course, I'm going to need to bum a DVD player off of someone.
I'd also like to say that, as far as exterior shots go, I prefer the cloud V'Ger over that fish V'Ger. But the interior sketches that guy had were pretty neat looking.
posted
It's not just slow, it's boring. Ironically, considering the "human adventure is just beginning" line, there's no real "humanity" in the film. It's cold. The characters aren't displaying any of their friendly TOS camaraderie (apart from possibly Scotty in the shuttle, and McCoy and Spock RIGHT at the end). While the SFX are lovely (I do adore that pan around the Enterprise. Lovely music, and lovely ship), it's not an engaging film to watch.
In a lot of ways, ST V is superior. Sure, the SFX are largely shit, and the plot makes no sense. But, at it's corse, that film is about 3 friends, wheras TMP is about SFX.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
quote: It's not just slow, it's boring. Ironically, considering the "human adventure is just beginning" line, there's no real "humanity" in the film. It's cold.
I'm bettin you didn't like 2001: A Space Odyssey either?
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
posted
i take TFF over TMP anyday. I actually enjoyed TFF where i fall asleep watching TMP. hopefully this new version will be a bit better.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Actually, I'm not a big fan of 2001, but that's not the point. 2001 was a stand alone film. One of the things it was trying to do was represent space travel as realisticly as possible. It was also a Kubrick film, so expecting it to have any heart is daft...
But TMP wasn't a stand-alone film. It was a spin-off from a TV show that ignored a lot of the things that made the show a success in the first place. TOS was many things, good and bad, but it was never a graphical showcase, and it was rarely boring ("Spock's Brain" might be awful, but it's awful like TFF is awful. It's so bad it's fun.)
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
posted
Personally, while I find this stuff interesting, I am still dubious that Able and Associates would have gotten it done in time or with the required quality. I've got an email in with Andy Probert to ask him about the accurancy of some of the statements in the piece.
Furthermore, I don't like the V'ger design Taylor proposed. It looks like a chromium squid. It's a boring shape with a really pedestrian maw design. I'm much more partial to Syd Mead's (used) design, which also looks a lot like an organic shape...
...and also has those reall cool mechanisms at the maw and at the internal "orifice".
You can see that the "sphere" Taylor mentions in his design also appears in Mead's design as well.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
posted
Okay, I really can't sit by and let you rag on LEGENDARY sci-fi classics without saying a word, can I now?
Well, I'll keep it simple instead:
Along with Star Wars, 2001 and ST:TMP are two of the defining films that have made sci-fi cinema what it is today. And furthermore, they happen to just be two of my personal favorite films in general, as well!
But, as I said: To each his own.
[Edit: You filthy rotten sons-of-blah...blah...blah..."You really piss me off, Jim." etc...etc...FRIG...FRIG...FRIG...etc...etc...etc...BASTARD...FRIG...FRIG...etc...etc...]
[ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
2001 is a maddening film for people who expect a traditional narrative.
For good or bad, we're all conditioned with narrative rules and rules for what movies are supposed to be. Movies are treated like a genre novel, with its own specific conventions: three act structure, protagonist with problem to solve, character development, etc. But there's no reason a film has to be that. It's just what we're used to, and what the market finds sells the best.
And when the genre conventions in American film are effectively reduced to "action, comedy and tragedy," it doesn't leave room for anything else. (Thank goodness we don't expect paintings to all fit into such narrow confines, or we'd have a country where on every wall hangs a bucolic Norman Rockwell-esuqe scene or some other singular style.)
2001 doesn't fit into the "entertainment film" genre. The dialogue conveys only the deadness of the souls of the people (which is the point)...their lack of essential life and humanity.
The real story of 2001 is all in the images. When I stopped trying to be "entertained" by the film and just let the visuals wash over me, then I "got" it.
Getting back to Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the film wants to be 2001 on one level, but it also wants to be that typical genre film on another level. It's not willing to surrender the audience to the visuals and let their power alone drive the story, and it's not willing to let the characters drive the story either (as in the traditional Hollywood film).
That it tries to be both is part of the reason it doesn't quite work.
How's that for bringing it all back on topic?
P.S. After reading 2010 and 2061, it became clear to me that even Arthur C. Clarke never understood what Kubrick was aiming for in 2001. Clarke was too wrapped up in the gee whiz science and missed the whole odyssey aspect of it.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Printer-friendly view of this topic
