There’s no question about what the best Star Trek movie is. But debate rages over which is the worst.
Surprisingly for a long-running Hollywood franchise, a frontrunner for the least enjoyable Star Trek movie also happens to be the series’ first.
With that rather inflammatory intro out of the way, It would be sci fi malpractice not to admit that Star Trek: The Motion Picture isn’t a bad film. It’s a competently made, rather accomplished film whose reputation suffered from misguided direction and mismatched promotion.
What does that mean? To understand the tough spot that the movie’s production team was in, you have to consider the year it was made: 1979. The original Star Trek run lay a decade in the past, well before Cultural Ground Zero froze artistic change. In that decade Big Men With Screwdrivers sci fi had fallen from the position of dominance it had enjoyed since the 1950s.
And it was all the fault of another science fiction franchise that exploded onto the scene two years before ST:TMP’s release.
More on that later.
To be sure, Star Trek: The Motion Picture comes off as awkward to contemporary audiences. Heck, it came off as weird to this Gen Y reviewer back in the day.
But there’s good reason for this movie’s off-beat presentation.
For starters, it didn’t begin life as a feature film project. Paramount’s original idea was to launch its own TV network. That was back in the early 70s, when starting a fourth network would have been a huge deal, beating Fox by almost two decades. Their planned network would have shown classic Paramount movies, but its main draw was slated to be a continuation of the original Star Trek series subtitled Phase II. It would have reunited most of the old cast – with the notable exception of Leonard Nimoy, who was in the midst of litigation with Paramount. And it was to feature new sets and a redesigned starship Enterprise.
Two unforeseen events scuttled plans for Star Trek: Phase II.
- Plans for the Paramount Network fell through. The studio still tried shopping the show around to other networks, but then …
- Campbellian sci fi was swept aside by the little pulp adventure flick that could, aka Star Wars.
The runaway popularity of George Lucas’ brainchild spurred Paramount to scrap their Phase II idea and rework the two-hour pilot script into a two-hour and eleven-minute movie.
Its status as a TV pilot adaptation goes a long way toward explaining ST:TMP’s weird pacing. The only other entry in the franchise that manifests a worse case of TV series two-parter syndrome is Insurrection, which I remain convinced was planned as the finale – premiere bookend for a speculative 8th season of TNG.
Seeing ST:TMP as a long television episode makes sense of the whole enigma. The original series always owed more to Asimov and Clarke than Howard and Burroughs. In fact, Isaac Asimov served as a science consultant on The Motion Picture.
So what happened was the producers, writers, and directors made a 60s style hard sci fi movie with special effects more befitting a pulp actioner of the 80s. And they marketed it that way, too.
And the SFX investment paid off. This movie still looks gorgeous more than 40 years later. A shocking number of the visuals rival scenes that came out of the series’ later installments in the 90s.
The phrase “a feast for the eyes” gets thrown around a lot, but in this case it’s true. And it alone saves ST:TMP from being the worst in the franchise.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for other key aspects of the film.
You probably think I mean the pacing.
But I don’t. The camera lingers over some sequences a bit too long, but it never commits the mortal movie sins of being confusing or outright boring. Just a bit awkward at times.
No, this movie’s biggest flaw is the acting.
That’s not to denigrate the actors. They voiced concerns about the script but those concerns were ignored. So they did the best with what they had.
Also factor in that Shatner was nervous about resuming his iconic role after ten years, and Nimoy wasn’t too thrilled to be there in the first place.
The result is that the actors aren’t allowed to be their beloved characters, and it comes through big-time.
On average, the performances here feel like a half-cooked mix of those from the original series and the middle films, where the cast hit their stride.
Kirk’s main arc is a great example. He barges onto the Enterprise in Act I, takes command from Captain Decker, and demotes him to Commander. The writers try to lampshade it as Kirk being uniquely qualified to command the Enterprise, which is inexplicably the only Federation starship available to defend Federation Headquarters from an alien existential threat. But they undermine their own argument by pointing out time and again that Kirk is unfamiliar with the redesigned Enterprise.
Such as when his insistence on rushing repairs causes two of his crewmen to die in a grisly transporter accident.
To which he hardly reacts at all, only telling the transporter chief that it wasn’t her fault.
Yeah, we know, Jim. It was your fault.
And the whole scenario is just a heavy-handed way to set up the conflict between Kirk and Decker.
Bear in mind that Kirk is supposed to be the movie’s protagonist. The whole movie, right up till the last few minutes, is driven by what Jim wants.
Yet Kirk’s initial act of swooping in to pretty much steal Decker’s ship makes us root for the latter.
If I were made captain of the Enterprise, and then the guy who recommended me for the post came back and said, “On second thought, I don’t feel like giving up command. Move over. Also, you’re busted down a rank,” I would not take it half as well as Decker did.
You can bet I’d be on the horn to Star Fleet Command saying, “It’s still his first day back, and this guy already Cronenberged two officers and came within a hair of losing the whole ship in a wormhole. Can we transfer him to the ship with no hard edges, all padded surfaces, and rubber torpedoes?”
But Decker proves himself the bigger man, follows orders, and saves everyone every time.
It’s interesting that his character formed the basis for William Riker, because in stark contrast to Decker, Riker is always wrong.
Decker is like Super Riker.
It sucks that they killed him off by having him merge with an A.I. waifu to form a posthuman space baby.
And there’s that Clarke influence again.
The score is also killer, though. It marks the debut of the song that Gen X and Gen Y think of as “The Star Trek Theme.”
But the next entry in the series somehow manages to have an even better score.
In fact, it’s not only the real best Trek movie hands down, it’s a contender for all-time best sci fi movie and best sequel in any genre.
More on that later.
While you’re waiting, check out my hit novel series inspired by the “Star Trek of Japan.”
Kirk era Star Trek films are my favorite Star Trek, no contest. The Motion Picture is good start, but Wrath of Kahn really set the tone and pace for the films. Gotta hand it to the writers, though, they did a good job of turning a pilot into a feature film. Also, I agree that Decker’s fate was a bummer, I wanted more of him
I’ll touch on this more in my WoK review, but full marks to Harve Bennett, who took over lead writing duties. The first thing he did was go back and watch the whole original series from start to finish. That was when he noticed that the episode Space Seed left a loose end dangling. So Wrath of Khan is a sequel to that episode, not TMP.
Whenever I introduce someone to The Original Series (TOS), I make them watch “Space Seed,”‘and them “Wrath of Kahn.” From there a viewer can explore the rest of the series at his leisure. WoK’s importance to Star Trek can’t be underestimated. I’m looking forward to reading your review.
That’s a good viewing order!
TMP has probably the single most horrific Trek moment with the transporter malfunction resulting in two gruesome deaths. It seemed like something out of a Cronenberg film. Especially considering how it basically comes out of nowhere and isn’t really relevant to the plot (except to bring back Spock.)
Outside of that, what struck me about the movie is how cozy it feels because it is more methodically paced. It’s an easy movie to fall asleep to and I don’t exactly mean that as an insult.
Some call Star Trek hard sci fi. Others a space western. I’ve said for years that Star Trek is a horror series.
And yes, TMP is cozy as all get out. I love putting it on in the background while I’m working on something else.
I saw both this and some of TNG when I was a kid and that chased me away from the franchise for nearly two decades. I felt uncomfortable watching ST as a kid and I could never pin down why. There was something “wrong” that I couldn’t put my finger on. It was only then when I finally saw II, III, and IV many years later that I finally understood its appeal. It’s hard to state how bad of a first impression the franchise made to a lot of Gen Y kids, I never even had friends that liked it, which is probably why it’s never been one of “ours” the way it still is to many older audiences.
Looking back now, I think my gut instinct that something was deeply wrong with the whole franchise was correct, but I can now appreciate certain aspects of its appeal. I’m also not surprised it turned into the mess it has been today, though it is funny that more ST actors than SW actors were willing to call it out for what it was warped into.
That said, Galaxy Quest and DS9 are still the best things to come out of this franchise’s existence, and both of them are far different from Roddenberry’s original intent. That has to mean something. I don’t think it’ll ever regain its peak popularity again, especially as 20th century materialist thought continues to circle the drain, but it does have a good things about it worth exploring in the future.
Lastly, have you seen the original trailers for the old TV series? It was not advertised as Big Men with Screwdrivers back in the day. It was advertised as space adventures into the unknown. Even back then, they knew the TV audience would not be receptive to Campbell’s mutation. They never will be. Traditional pulp adventure was what solid, and still does, to mainstream audiences.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xnLmmUw4QE
There’s a reason that the Star Trek Trilogy is II, III, and IV, not I, II, and III.
Do you think that Trek’s relatively low appeal to Gen Y audiences explains Hollywood’s failure to fully skinsuit the movie franchise? ST 2009 now seems like an test run for what they achieved with TFA. But so far they’ve only achieved the same level of degradation with Trek in the streaming slums.
I see it much like how they warped Doctor Who. The pushback isn’t as noticeable with these as other subverted properties because Gen Y doesn’t really care about either on a wide level. However, they also failed extra hard because the older audience (the majority) is far more likely to turn off the TV/unsubscribe than Gen Y is. Which they have.
Star Trek’s last big audience demo is Gen X, just like SW’s is Millennials. Once those groups get too old, both will die off.
Good analysis! Great job putting into words what feels off and weird about this film. It has all the style of a crowd-pleasing romp but the substance provided by Big Men With Screwdrivers. And you are dead right about Kirk being written like an antagonist. A long time ago I described this movie to my friends as “two hours of Kirk entering a scene and screwing something up, with lots of nice special effects in between.”
I don’t remember where I read this (may have even been from you), but I’ve heard Gene Roddenberry described as the kind of creator that (wilfully?) misunderstands the appeal of his creation. He wanted to make utopian Big Men With Screwdrivers stories, but the audience for Star Trek wanted a military drama in space more than anything (though few would admit to this), hence the great success of Wrath of Khan when he was forced out of its production entirely.
Much appreciated. That is what an editor does.
The Trek films work best as submarine warfare in space. The production team figured that out with Wrath of Khan, which we’ll get into next.
To me the biggest turn off was the look of the sets and the costumes. They’re so sterile and colorless, unlike the original show or the movies that came after.
Good eye. The producers wanted to ape the cerebral style of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hence the clinical look.
Another subtle lampshade: Bones complains that the revamped sick bay looks like a computer center. In fact, the whole ship looks like a hospital.
I could hear that last picture.
This was definitely Gene Roddenberry’s 2001 A Space Odyssey, which isn’t what Star Trek is designed for. Those of us who waited a decade (without knowing if there would be any more Trek) for this movie appreciated it on the nostalgia level. We loved the 6 minutes of Geek porn that was Kirk’s trip to the Enterprise. We loved seeing Bones be Bones and Spock crawl back to being Spock. But yeah, it’s not the Trek we fell in love with.
I think TMP and early TNG made it clear that the Trek many old fans fell in love with was not the Trek post-TOS Roddenberry wanted to provide.
Definitely. Roddenberry was too far into his Great Visionary persona to care about what fans wanted. All those Con appearances had convinced him that he was the guru of a new enlightened future.
I saw I at the movie theater, and it was a spectacle but ultimately dull. Not because of the long sci-fi travel through the cloud but because it lacked scenes like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkJ3–2K7yo
Which is precisely what you describe above.
Yes! The scene you linked makes us instantly believe we are watching a tight-knit band of colleagues who’ve been working together for decades. Because by that point, the actors playing them had been working together for decades. The director got out of the way and let them be their characters. Which is what Robert Wise should have done.
It marks the debut of the song that Gen X and Gen Y think of as “The Star Trek Theme.”
Gen Y probably, but I suspect Gen X is more mixed…a lot of us watched Star Trek re-runs throughout the 70s and its theme is still the original. I was a tad surprised that TNG used the ST:TMP music when it launched.
And you’re right, Wraith of Khan did have an even better score. I would say it was the best score of any Star Trek film.
On the point of TMP’s history as a TV pilot, the old fanzine Trek had an article reassessing TMP when it was first broadcast on network TV. It made a point that the movie worked better on the small screen despite the big screen SFX. It’s been a minute since I read that in one of the “Best of Trek” paperbacks in the 80s, but I remember it hitting a lot of the same points you make.
Watching TMP on TV puts it back in the original show’s element and gets you focused on the story instead of visuals, which is very original series.
For a movie that has a common Star Trek theme of how awesome it is to be human, it’s weirdly cold. For fans of the show, it’s like reconnecting with old friends only to find that they’ve all turned into different, less interesting and likable people. Except Bones, he’s always fun.