I love all the TOS/TNG films but even I have to admit that the first film has have some quite long, drawn out sequences of effects and music, and the characters were a bit robotic and toned down compared to the original TV series or Wrath of Khan.
Combined with the drab uniforms and dull bridge lightning, it could be an issue for some people.
Theatrical vs. Directors Cut, that's the issue.
The Directors Cut, which Robert Wise him self supervised, is also how he originally visioned the movie and it is also one heck of a lot better than the Theatrical version.
What is different in the Director's Cut?
shareWhoa, where to begin with the differences Directors vs. Theatrical, because the way they put together the Directors, there it has become a whole new movie.
It is something that really can't be fully explained, its a must see for your self, because the changes are found all the way threw the movie with added scenes, shortened scenes, reedited scenes, better CGI etc.
It's not enough for some people just to have preferences. They need to reduce the worth of any other people's potential alternate preferences.
"I don't need to believe it's real. I just need to believe it."
Star Trek: The Motion Picture has a very slow, dry (all of the actors including William Shatner, seem for the most part, muted), glacial pace w/o much sense of urgency. Basically, it seems like it was trying to be the next 2001: A Space Odyssey or a big budgeted, feature length remake of the Season 2 episode "The Changling". There really isn't much of a substantial plot (it's literally, a one hour TV pilot for the cancelled Phase II TV series, padded out) once you get past the crew resembling and them getting to V'ger. Basically, all that it has going for itself and holding itself up are the terrific (for their time) special effects and Jerry Goldsmith's music.
sharePretty much this, TMP was written to be like 2001 but Star Wars had made audiences want more action driven Sci-Fi. It's well made but at times it seems to be just trying to get as many "oh wow" Fx's in as possible and it seems to be padded out. They are meant to be responding to an urgent threat to Earth yet the pace of the story just never seems to relay that.
It's definitely one that hardcore Trek fans can appreciate, particularly the sub plot over Spock but if you're not then it can seem boring.
Omg soooooo boring
shareStar Trek: TMP isn't a bad movie, it just hasn't aged very well. It's one of those movies that you really have to be in the right frame of mind and temperament to truly enjoy. It isn't a tit for tat action-adventure film like The Wrath of Khan, or a fish out of water comedy like The Voyage Home. TMP is instead just a very ponderous (for a lack of a better word), atmospheric, low-key, late '70s sci-fi movie.
shareI appreciate it as a fan, I even prefer the extra long version from the 90s VHS sets. But I appreciate it more from a superfan level, getting the depth with the characters and the ship.
As a movie, on its own, it's too long and padded. If they cut most of the Broken-Enterprise stuff from the beginning it would probably have been better received. They don't even reach VGer till something like 45 minutes in. Whenever I have insomnia or need to switch back from graveyards to days for work it's a go-to for background play to fall asleep.
Very simply put not enough Phasers, Photon Torpedoes and T and A to make it more like the TOS that we know and love. I liked the movie OK but it's not the best in the series. 😵
Luke Skywalker, your Mom was hawt! Darth Vader
My problem with this film is the pacing. It's really not bad, but the pacing is pretty lousy.
share*the film itself Isn't bad, but the pacing is lousy
shareMy problem with this film is the pacing. It's really not bad, but the pacing is pretty lousy.This. 100% on the money.
Because it isn't Star Trek. The Wrath of Khan is Star Trek. The Voyage Home is Star Trek.
TMP is a science fiction film, which happens to be set in the Star Trek universe.
I've said it before: try to see this movie as an intelligent science fiction movie, and not a Star Trek movie, and then it makes sense.
The Wrath of Khan is also an intelligent movie (maybe even more so than The Motion Picture), but it's an action/science fiction movie in the first place. The themes of life and death, or getting older, or the no win scenario, ... are more subtle and only grow on you when you watch it again and again (then you start noticing things like Paradise Lost, ...). And a casual viewer (a non Star Trek fan) sees it as action in space with the Star Trek cast.
TMP is the opposite: the philosophical aspects of the movie are right in your face. And for the viewer to understand the size and threat (and the mystery) of V'Ger, it HAS to be slow, otherwise it wouldn't work. See Alien=> deliberately slow, to make you uncomfortable / Aliens => right in your face. Jerry Goldsmith: unsettling, visceral, ... James Horner: fun, fast, traditional.
I'm just on my way up to Clavius.