ROTTEN TOMATOES: Trekking With Tim, Day One: Star Trek: The Motion Picture Comments

Trekking With Tim, Day One: Star Trek: The Motion Picture

by Tim Ryan | April 23, 2009

Summary

RT Editor's log, Stardate 1321.7: These are my voyages on the Starship Enterprise. My 11-day mission: to explore the strange world of the Star Trek film franchise, to seek out a new understanding of the venerable sci-fi series, to boldly go where I have never gone before. First, a little about me, and why I think I'm particularly suited to this project: I am a Star Trek agnostic. However, I can't deny that Star Trek continues to exert a powerful hold on the collective pop culture consciousness, as evidenced by the buzz surrounding J.J. Abrams' forthcoming reboot. Thus, I have immersed myself in Trek lore, and I will attempt to evaluate the series' 11 films with a mix of Spock-like logic and Bones-esque vigor. Back to Article

(1-46 of 46 posts) | Reply

ledawg1138 writes:
on Apr 23 2009 05:17 PM

FIRST! (As far as I know.) Yes, all day I've been waiting for this. Watching, waiting, realizing I should leave and come back and check. AND I"m BACK!

Anyway, this is a bad way to start off the films. If you're just getting into Star Trek, you'd never know the crew had such great chemistry. Leonard Nimoy said in "I Am Spock", "It was joyless" and called it "The Motionless Picture". And I agree. It' just eye candy. In short, 5/10. Good job, I'll keep reading your take.

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Apr 23 2009 05:22 PM

2/10

Horrible. Boring. Nimoy's ranking is dead-on.

(Reply to this)

ARTaylor writes:
on Apr 23 2009 05:53 PM

A well known nickname of the movie among TrekkIEs is Star Trek: The Motionless Picture.

I personally don't mind it. It's not bad, but not good. Just uninteresting. The only thing I really enjoy is the updated Enterprise, which is still my favorite design of all of them. Otherwise the movie is pretty forgettable. If they had continued making the movies like this the series would definitely be dead by the third movie and we never would have gotten TNG. Thank God Nicholas Meyer saved the franchise.

(Reply to this)

damvbat writes:
on Apr 23 2009 06:21 PM

This review makes me want to rewatch these movies again

(Reply to this)

Tim Ryan writes:
on Apr 23 2009 06:43 PM

In reply to this comment (#2437401)
Thanks, man! That's what I'm going for. Check the schedule to see when I'll be watching what if you want to follow along.

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Apr 23 2009 07:08 PM

Wrath of Khan is my favorite. I was pretty young when I saw it. That whole thing with putting that insect into their ears, etc., freaked me out. It would have been the perfect film if there was a way to get Tatoo in there. . .

(Reply to this)

Shawndorman writes:
on Apr 23 2009 07:16 PM

Star Trek TMP is quite a dilemma...I can't blame you for not enjoying it. Although I find the movie strangely endearing (as a kid, I couldn't get enough of it...don't ask me why), there's no doubt that it's incredibly boring. Whenever I'm up at an ungodly hour of the night and can't get to sleep, I just pop this baby in the DVD player and by the extended introduction of the Enterprise, I'm out.

Another interesting fact is that the woman who plays Stephen Collins wife on 7th Heaven has a supporting role in Star Trek IV the Voyage Home. I guess the producers of the show were big fans?

(Reply to this)

niall1 writes:
on Apr 23 2009 07:26 PM

k star trek: tmp isnt THAT bad..its definitely not the final frontier..which is terrible..

cant wait for more of these

(Reply to this)

anglefans2008 writes:
on Apr 23 2009 07:30 PM

A friend of mine recommended me a HOT place *** Richsearching com *** She has been intimate with someone who she gets to know on this site. It's easy as apple pie because the members there looking for guys who can spend on them.

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on Apr 23 2009 07:32 PM

In reply to this comment (#2437447)
Maybe you couldn't get enough because it was STAR TREK! I used to watch Batman Forever all the time because I wanted Batman, and looking back I find it's pretty bad. You may have watched Star Trek: The Motionless Picture because it was Star Trek, so you were blinded. It carries the Star Trek name, so why not? But, that's just me going into the whole thing deeper.

(Reply to this)

reavus4983 writes:
on Apr 23 2009 07:42 PM

I've been a Star Trek fan since I was 4, have seen every movie multiple times. This one I've never made it through awake. Never. It's not even Star Trek. It's like 2001 starring William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy. I don't even consider it part of the series.

(Reply to this)

AniMill writes:
on Apr 23 2009 08:00 PM

I believe the fans called it: "Star Trek - The Motion Sickness"

The "2001 meets Kirk/Spock" was right on. This was an attempt at making a Thinking Fans movie, and failed utterly. It's a great example of what happens when people are given too much budget and control - chaos. Whereas, "Star Trek - The Wrath of Khan" is the perfect example of what happens when people work under extraordinary restrictions, as that film was forced to work to share sets and reuse & reduced effects - this all helped to drive a film that relied more upon its story and characters than its visuals.

It's my hope that the new Star Trek has the perfect balance of story/characters/visuals...

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on Apr 23 2009 08:01 PM

In reply to this comment (#2437463)
That's enough out of you.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Apr 23 2009 08:07 PM

It was pretty disappointing, there was a director's cut right? I don't think I ever saw that cut, but yeah the motion picture was pretty mediocre.

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on Apr 23 2009 08:14 PM

In reply to this comment (#2437497)
It wasn't that much better.

(Reply to this)

g.mauler writes:
on Apr 23 2009 08:22 PM

Yep, beautiful, boring picture. But I can't believe no one's mentioned those pajama-uniforms. What were the costume designers thinking???

(Reply to this)

screwhead100 writes:
on Apr 23 2009 08:51 PM

i cant wait til they do this for the terminator movies, even though there isnt as many......

anyways, i cant wait to read up on the reviews for all of these b/c i never really got into the star trek lore and i want to give it a chance.......

(Reply to this)

scifimark writes:
on Apr 23 2009 09:17 PM

Actually the background of it really makes sense. I thought the movie was alright but the special effect scenes are boring and way to long. Also i remember i watched it with my dad and he said when i watched it was basically the same as one the original episodes. It was the episode dont know what it was called but the one with NOMAD and i cant disagree. Its essentially the same story with minor modifications.

I give the movie a 4/10

(Reply to this)

Jared A. writes:
on Apr 23 2009 09:27 PM

Every once in a while I'll pop in ST:TMP just to watch the effects. Which are stunning. One of the most beautiful Sci-Fi films ever made. If only the story and characters were on the same level. But god this sucker is boring. The characters (if you can even call them that from this film) act differently and much blander than they have ever been before or since. Perhaps the worst jumping on point in all of Star Trek. But look at it this way Tim, it's all up hill from here (until 5 at least...)

(Reply to this)

sunsaz writes:
on Apr 23 2009 10:24 PM

The only things that this film contributed to the series was the Jerry Goldsmith score/future TNG theme and a cinema-ready Enterprise. Other than that, the series could've done without this entry. ST2 would've been a perfect and seamless way to kick off the ST film series IMO.

(Reply to this)

Trufire writes:
on Apr 23 2009 11:16 PM

I give the movie 5/10. Yeah the movie has even the least ADD person checking their watch from time to time but the movie looks good. A cerebral journey that the crew had never before really tried. Was it boring. Pretty much. But it was done on a grand scale and made the most of what it was given.

(Reply to this)

Accursed A. writes:
on Apr 24 2009 12:02 AM

I mainly watch this one for Jerry Goldsmith's score. It's an amazing piece of art that makes the yawn inducing travel through V-Ger way easier to bear. I like the interplay between Kirk and Decker, the effects and the Voyager twist at the end.

But the whole thing has a huge superiority complex I just can't get past. It's like every scene in the movie is made just to show how much smarter it is than you are. I call it the "Alien Star Trek" because it has very little humanity in it. 7/10(2 of that 7 comes from the score)

(Reply to this)

Zeiram D. writes:
on Apr 24 2009 02:13 AM

While Star Trek has not always worked on the small screen, the movies have always had a powerful narrative force behind them. I feel that they are more impressive as a whole, when looking at the entire story as a continuous thread up to Star Trek VI and even into Generations. Star Trek: The Motion Picture may be the most dated of the first six films, but its also the most intelligent, the most Trek like and the most cerebral. Also, the recent director's edition of the movie is impressive despite the film's often snail-crawl pace (which I rather like before I get jolted into part II). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home remains one of the greatest fantasy films of all time. And one of my favorite films. I feel that these early films have been vastly underrated over the years and hopefully the new Blu-Ray releases will provide them a much needed life support as they are showcased for new audiences... Well, then again except for Part V. Even as a self-proclaimed Trekker; I've tried to watch it so many times and failed. Yes; the Final Frontier sucks donkey sh^t. Sorry Shatner.

(Reply to this)

Looselycult writes:
on Apr 24 2009 05:40 AM

I haven't seen this movie since 1979. I was nine and I had watched a few of the original series episodes and really liked them, plus I was coming off a Star Wars and the BSG (original) high. So I was nuts for just about anything Scifi. I wasn't bored with the movie when I saw it because it was so visually arresting. I'm sure I would be now. The biggest pull for me when I saw it, was the new Enterprise. The refitted Enterprise is probably my favorite spaceship in all of science fiction. The Next Gen ships were just too big and overwhelming. I can't wait to see the new film just for the Enterprise. Overall though I would have to say the best thing about "Motion Picture" was that it paved the way for "Wrath O Kahan".

(Reply to this)

BUCK69 writes:
on Apr 24 2009 05:55 AM

In reply to this comment (#2437921)
It is cereberal, but the first time I saw it, just seeing everyone together again, made it bearable. The effects were state of the art and the score is spectacular. One thing that hasn't been mentioned, there was a Trek episode called "The Changeling" which had a similiar theme to the Motion Picture's story.

(Reply to this)

brian b. writes:
on Apr 24 2009 06:22 AM

It is a better film that it gets credit for. The pacing was intentional, and you can see this pacing in other films by Robert Wise. This is not an action picture. If you sit down with the right attitude, relaxed and in the mood to be soak it in it is really pretty good. It effectively transports you into an outer space feel and wraps you up in that world. The effects are really spectacular and different than the fast paced and digitized stuff these days, and the sets and music are terrific, and the widescreen cinematography is interesting and beautiful throughout the picture.

(Reply to this)

Chris C. writes:
on Apr 24 2009 07:20 AM

Tim,

Make sure you watch the original series episode "Space Seed" before you watch The Wrath of Kahn. It sets up the whole plot of the movie and will make for a much better experience overall. This is my favorite of the Star Trek films so I think you'll enjoy it but you need to do it right.

(Reply to this)

collex writes:
on Apr 24 2009 07:21 AM

It's been a couple of year since I've seen this one, but I always quite appreciated it. Sure, it's a slow movie, but there's a lot of things I love: V'ger and its origins (I found that twist a pure piece of genius), the score, the effects and the relaxing feel you get from it.

The first time I watched it, I was maybe what, 10? And I had never seen much of the TOS before (maybe one or two episode). I had seen First Contact before, however. So it was my introduction to the world of TOS and I didn't find it hard to be sucked in.

(Reply to this)

GeminiSixty6 writes:
on Apr 24 2009 08:10 AM

I like the review Tim. I think you hit it dead on. It really does feel like a continuation of the series, and not really the good stand alone blockbuster that they wanted it to be. They did focus more on the ship than the characters, but that's probably more of what the fan boys wanted, and they had to spend that money right? Anyway, the most memorable thing for me is the score. I love it, and still to this day. Looking back at it now I really do like the idea for the story and the vision they had, but the film really just drags....

(Reply to this)

Mr.SAM writes:
on Apr 24 2009 09:49 AM

4/10. That's mostly for the score, Jerry Goldsmith composed one of his best scores for the motionless picture. Klingon theme - priceless!

IMO it's the second worst Trek film, the first being V of course. Too cerebral for me. It lacks energy and excitement, which are all the right ingredients I expect from a satisfying Trek film. Still, it launched the Trek films and I have too give it credit for that.

(Reply to this)

Shawndorman writes:
on Apr 24 2009 09:55 AM

In reply to this comment (#2437469)
haha you're exactly right, ledawg. It was Star Trek and it was the only movie I had of the series, so I would just wear the VHS tape out. I was the same way with Batman Forever too.

HOWEVER, TMP does have redeeming elements, including the amazing score by Jerry Goldsmith, and this is why I can't really say I dislike it.

(Reply to this)

coffeekev writes:
on Apr 24 2009 09:56 AM

I'm sure it's been said many times, but the main problem with this first film of the series is how much screen time is given to Jar Jar.

(Reply to this)

Accursed A. writes:
on Apr 24 2009 10:04 AM

In reply to this comment (#2438468)
I laughed.

(Reply to this)

Dave J. writes:
on Apr 24 2009 12:25 PM

The problem with the Star Trek movies for the exception of the Undiscovered Country is that they're all feel like 45 minute episodes that were stretched into 2 hr movies. I feel that the producers were capitalists and had the option to continue with the excellent running television series and figured that they could make more money by stretching them not a bit but a bit too long. The movies offered some interesting ideas but they sure as hell take a long time to make it's point. Because it's Gene Roddenburry's creation , they should've allowed him to return it back to television which solidified his name in the first place. Now half of it's original characters are dead including the creator, the movies will never be the same again.

(Reply to this)

TheInnkeeper writes:
on Apr 24 2009 12:53 PM

I agree that it's slow and lacks any sort of characterization, but this was the only one I had growing up, and I watched it continuously. It's still one of my favorites... it feels the biggest, and the effects are mind-blowing to this day.

(Reply to this)

TheInnkeeper writes:
on Apr 24 2009 12:54 PM

Also, Jerry Goldsmith's score was unforgettable.

(Reply to this)

Mopo 1. writes:
on Apr 24 2009 02:07 PM

I happened to like this film. Sure, it is slow and had some issues, but as long as you are in the right mood it is not too bad. I thought it had a similar feel to Blade Runner and 2001 (imo).

The biggest issue I had with this film was the Voyager/V'ger twist. Are you telling me that a super advanced civilization can't read? I don't know this for sure, but wouldn't Voyager's name be in the software or somewhere else on the structure?

Oh well, I guess it is just a movie...

(Reply to this)

Peng writes:
on Apr 24 2009 03:25 PM

What version is everyone (and Tim Ryan) watching? The original or the Director's Cut in 2001?

(Reply to this)

Tyrant writes:
on Apr 24 2009 04:56 PM

This is my least favorite Star Trek film... booooooring. I couldn't keep my eyes open during the Enterprise's opening scene (how long was that? 20 minutes? did we really need to see it pulling out from 1230 angles?)

Ugh. Glad The Wrath of Khan made up for this one.

(Reply to this)

krusty_kanuck writes:
on Apr 24 2009 06:15 PM

I think I semi-enjoyed the first 20 or so minutes of this film, where the three klingon cruisers get vaporized along with a massive space station. Then the scene with the Enterprise going to warp speed and torpedoing a comet/asteroid. The rest was a sleeper and required constant fast forwarding on my DVD/VHS to get near the end. I second the pajama suits they wore for this film, they were very 70s disco type. Thankfully they got ditched for the more majestic red uniforms for the remainder of the films.

Something along the way with these trek movies became diminished though... I still remember the first three trek movies showing the enterprise going to warp speed in a blaze of rainbow light and the photon torpedos being shot out of the torpedo nacelles with a big sparkly red light. Then suddenly the ships were simply dashing off the screen in future movies (and TV) and the torpedos became a little spec of red in a background of stars. Didn't look as impresive or majestic anymore...

(Reply to this)

Chris K. writes:
on Apr 25 2009 08:47 AM

The problem with ST:TMP was the way it was edited...Roddenberry & Co. ran out of time and didn't get to finish effects for a few scenes (which were later corrected a la CGI in the Director's Cut edition), let along pare the thing down to a watchable length. The lack of editing is evident in all the back and forth shots between Kirk's face and the Enterprise sitting in dry dock around Earth; and between crew members reactions and V'ger on the bridge's view screen. Nevertheless, it's not a bad story, even with pajama uniforms.

(Reply to this)

Dave J. writes:
on Apr 27 2009 01:46 PM

In reply to this comment (#2438611)
I'm just pointing out by making the "Motion Picture", they could've made almost 3 insighted episodes out of it. The reason they're fans is because of the long running tv series and not because of movies.

(Reply to this)

ploodie writes:
on May 01 2009 06:18 AM

I can understand people's lack of appreciation for this film. Of the entire series, it is the most hard-core Science Fiction, with emphasis on the SCIENCE. I think the Trek series on TV and the subsequence films really thrived off of Kirk battling it out with various enemies. But in TMP, there is no identifiable "villain" - rather, it is this freakish entity. Despite the human form it takes later in the film, its hard to identify with an entity.

Nevertheless, this movie also touches on my nostalgia as I have very trace memories of my Dad taking me to see it when I was five. I remember the Wormhole sequence severely freaked me out, as did the electric probe that invaded the bridge.

The recent directors cut had some new effects shots that corrected some shots they simply ran out of time and money to do the way they wanted to in the 70s. What I like, though, is that unlike Lucas who digitally raped his original creations, Wise used only elements that would have been available in the 70s - the result is some really cool shots that don't stand out like a sore thumb.

(Reply to this)

Alex C. writes:
on May 05 2009 02:24 PM

It took a long time for the Enterprise to get into Viger then when crew man #8 kisses the bald chick there is a bright light and Viger just disappears and we are left staring at the Enterprise. What the hell happened to Viger? That's it, that's the end of the freaking movie?

(Reply to this)

Gary Makin writes:
on Oct 13 2009 05:08 PM

TMP was the first Trek that I liked (age 15), and I'm still fond of it. It has a sense of wonder about it (like 2001 and Close Encounters), and is cinematic and epic; more so than any of the sequels, until Star Trek 2009. The superb FX and music are the real highlight - admittedly, characterization is minimal; but you could argue that the characters were already well established.

A flawed film to be sure, but still solid and interesting.

(Reply to this)

Gary Makin writes:
on Oct 13 2009 05:09 PM

TMP was the first Trek that I liked (age 15), and I'm still fond of it. It has a sense of wonder about it (like 2001 and Close Encounters), and is cinematic and epic; more so than any of the sequels, until Star Trek 2009. The superb FX and music are the real highlight - admittedly, characterization is minimal; but you could argue that the characters were already well established.

A flawed film to be sure, but still solid and interesting.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links