| Author |
Message |
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:11 pm Post subject: [HDnet] Star Trek: The Motion Picture |
|
|
It has to be one of the worse movies I have ever seen. I think I said this when I watched it in theaters during its original release. It was so bad that I refused to own in on VHS tape, DVD, and not Blu-ray. And now I have re-affirmed my position while attempting to watch it from time-shifted recording via HDnet.
Did Paramount really think they had something with this movie during the same era as other science fiction pictures of the time? The acting, sets, costumes, and direction and bad acting was all terrible. This was barely a B-movie made for TV. In fact, ST:TMP was so bad it enhanced my positive impression of ST:TWOK even more.
Who the heck though the footie leisure uniforms were what we'd be wearing in the ST future? No matter how bad the current, most recent ST movie may be, it can't be anywhere near as terrible as this POS.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wan,
At the time it was released I liked it...We are talking 1979 here, only 2 years after the original Star Wars, it was also geared to a public that hand not had a new Star Trek episode for 12 years. The 15 minutes of flying around Enterprise was perhaps a bit too much however for many Trekies that had never seen the exterior of ship in such detail it was somewhat entertaining. Personaly I think the dialog was much better in STTMP then any of the Star Wars movies. My favorite scene was when they went into worm-hole effect, that was cool at the time...and quite terrifying.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
Last edited by MikeEby on Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kal
Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bucketfoot
Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 698
Location: Centennial, CO
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I always thought it was a great story, but the acting was pretty bad. But then again (no offense as I do like him) what do you expect from William Shatner 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dturco
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 3778
Location: Eastern Shore Maryland
TV/Projector: Runco DLP VX-3000i Marquee 9500 parts doner
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am a huge Star Trek fan. And I hate to agree with Wan on this but I gotta. ST TMP is not that good, it's lame, and I have thought so from the day it was released. They could have done much better. They fell short on it.
The new Star Trek movie is good, in fact it's very good. I have seen it 3 times, I have pre ordered the Blu-ray.
The first time I saw it I was torn because it did a major shift in characters and I was against the changes. But as I could not get it out of my head I went back and found the, "Ahaa moments" and felt better about it. On the third view I was able to enjoy it for what it is, a well done movie that has a lot of action and decent story line to help carry Star Trek where it needs to go, in a more hip and fresh direction for the "next generation" of fans who don't care about the Star Trek heritage, but just want to be entertained. I think it does that well.
2001 is an awesome movie, thought provoking and incredible well shot.
I love older movies that are ground breaking or thought provoking. Generally I look past the obvious flaws and look for story, camera work, and even the acting to carry the movie, but I just can't with the original ST TMP. I have it and have watched it about 5 times and it just never changes my feelings at all.
To sum it up The new 2009 Star Trek Great  The old Star Trek TMP 
But I do like most of the other ones.
I just had to edit The Stark[s] idkh I typed it
_________________
Firefly rules. Can't stop the signal.
http://www.hulu.com/firefly
Last edited by dturco on Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
emdawgz1
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 7949
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I saw it when i was 10... at the time i thought it was a bit contrived.. "V-ger" that wasn't hard to figure..
But it was '79. Paramount thought they were doing the project a good turn, Director Robert Wise (academy Award winner) and writer Alan Dean Foster (Alien, Outland)....
_________________
Follow my blog
www.thesinglebrother.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dturco
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 3778
Location: Eastern Shore Maryland
TV/Projector: Runco DLP VX-3000i Marquee 9500 parts doner
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| emdawgz1 wrote: | I saw it when i was 10... at the time i thought it was a bit contrived.. "V-ger" that wasn't hard to figure..
But it was '79. Paramount thought they were doing the project a good turn, Director Robert Wise (academy Award winner) and writer Alan Dean Foster (Alien, Outland).... |
Yep, it was contrived and it was a direct rip- off of the Original series episode, NOMAD.
_________________
Firefly rules. Can't stop the signal.
http://www.hulu.com/firefly
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yup, I agree 100% with dturco. I was a huge rabid Star Trek fan and I was looking forward to it eagerly. What a letdown! Such a ponderous and pompous mess. And not even an original story, since as Dave said they totally ripped off NOMAD and stretched it out into a 2hr movie. Bleah.
Thank God they didn't give up after that. TWOK made up for TMP.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kal wrote: | I didn't mind it either.
Wan: What do you think of 2001: A Space Odyssey?
Kal |
Funny you should ask. 2001 is one of my all time favorite movies. ST:TMP came after Star Wars, as Mike points out, and a lot longer after 2001.
To me the story was silly. I can now see where ST:TNG got the idea of an all-powerful Borg. Thank you, Voyager!
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dturco wrote: | | I am a huge Stark Trek fan. And I hate to agree with Wan on this but I gotta. |
I, too, am a huge Star Trek fan. heck, I still have the blue prints for the original Enterprise, floor by floor! I do have the even-numbered movies on Blu-ray, DVD.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
emdawgz1
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 7949
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To me thats strange.... the only way i could see watching 2001 is drunk or high.... 
_________________
Follow my blog
www.thesinglebrother.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zaphod
Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 2002
Location: Cloverdale
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="emdawgz1"]I saw it when i was 10... at the time i thought it was a bit contrived.. "V-ger" that wasn't hard to figure..
quote]
i always liked Mad magazine's take on "V-ger" being Voyager with some of the letters obscured.
"A superior intelligence that can't dust?!"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dturco
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 3778
Location: Eastern Shore Maryland
TV/Projector: Runco DLP VX-3000i Marquee 9500 parts doner
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| emdawgz1 wrote: | | To me thats strange.... the only way i could see watching 2001 is drunk or high.... |
Ya know John for someone WHO has NEVER smoked weed, you mention being high a lot 
Wan, I have the pewter model of the Enterprise NCC 1701-D on it's stand with red bejeweled Nacelles, and Gold main deflector. 
And of course I have the firefly class ship SERENITY too. 
_________________
Firefly rules. Can't stop the signal.
http://www.hulu.com/firefly
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
John, did you ever read the book of 2001? Without reading the book, IMHO 2001 *is* only good for watching high. Watch the pretty lights, because the story doesn't make a damn bit of sense. But after reading the book, the movie made MUCH more sense. The movie just leaves out too much background detail or assumes you can guess it from visual cues.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| emdawgz1 wrote: | | To me thats strange.... the only way i could see watching 2001 is drunk or high.... |
LOL...When I ripped my copy of 2001 to my server I first thought the rip was bad....seems like it has about 4 minutes of black screen at the start...and yes it is BLACK on a CRT.
Dropzone pointed me to this website that makes 2001 a lot more understandable.
http://www.kubrick2001.com/
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Interesting. Somebody put a helluva lot of work into that. I don't completely agree with all of it -- e.g. I think the first monolith triggered the apes' evolution, just like the last monolith triggered the Starchild's evolution -- and some of the analysis might be reaching a bit, but overall the ideas are right. The book gives more detail and background but without the analysis.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
emdawgz1
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 7949
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dturco wrote: | [
Ya know John for someone WHO has NEVER smoked weed, you mention being high a lot
|
I got a contact high once at a YES concert.... no thanks.
_________________
Follow my blog
www.thesinglebrother.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
emdawgz1
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 7949
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | John, did you ever read the book of 2001? Without reading the book, IMHO 2001 *is* only good for watching high. Watch the pretty lights, because the story doesn't make a damn bit of sense. But after reading the book, the movie made MUCH more sense. The movie just leaves out too much background detail or assumes you can guess it from visual cues. |
I find Arthur Clarke boring as Heck! I did read 2010... zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
_________________
Follow my blog
www.thesinglebrother.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | John, did you ever read the book of 2001? Without reading the book, IMHO 2001 *is* only good for watching high. Watch the pretty lights, because the story doesn't make a damn bit of sense. But after reading the book, the movie made MUCH more sense. The movie just leaves out too much background detail or assumes you can guess it from visual cues. |
Its funny you mention this. The book 2001 actually came out after the movie, but the movie was based on another book called Sentinel.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| emdawgz1 wrote: | | garyfritz wrote: | | John, did you ever read the book of 2001? Without reading the book, IMHO 2001 *is* only good for watching high. Watch the pretty lights, because the story doesn't make a damn bit of sense. But after reading the book, the movie made MUCH more sense. The movie just leaves out too much background detail or assumes you can guess it from visual cues. |
I find Arthur Clarke boring as Heck! I did read 2010... zzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
I was surprised they left the Chinese out of the movie 2010. BTW, did you go on to read 2061?
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
