At the end of the Spock in Sickbay scene, Chekov, referring to Decker and Ilia, states "They are in engineering." But, we never saw the scene. Here's what happened, along with some other goodies you may or may not know about.

And, I don't know if this nit was fixed on the "Director's Edition" DVD. I noticed it in theaters, and it came back to me when I watched the theatrical cut on HBO Family this afternoon. The lettering on the side of the Engineering hull (that says "Starship USS Enterprise - United Federation Of Planets") doesn't match between the Enterprise model, and the section that was built for the close-up when the travel pod docks into it.

Actually, in regard to above, I should have said, "The position of the lettering doesn't match." The typeface is the same.

I believe that when Persis Khambatta died in 1998, she was broke. According to IMDB, she had to sell her stove to pay the bills. Her career after ST-TMP never really took off. One of the few good movies she did, Nighthawks, bombed. And, she did a mega-bomb titled Megaforce.

The music when the Enterprise is flying over V'Ger echoes one of Bernard Herrrmann's scores for Alfred Hitchcock. IIRC, the classic Vertigo.

So how fast is full impulse power? The official Star Trek site seems to think it's about a quarter of light speed: click here.

But in this film, Kirk has the following line: "Impulse power, Mr Sulu. Ahead, warp .5." Then the impulse engines fire up and the Enterprise leaves Earth. This means that full impulse power must be at least half light speed.

I've always assumed that full impulse power was a fraction under light speed. If it is as low as a quarter of light speed, as the official site claims, what power do starships use to travel at sub-light speeds above full impulse?

According to the (non-canon) TOS Tech Manual, warp 0.5 is .125c

At one point, Spock had the last line in the film ("A most logical choice, Captain.") I wonder if it was Shatner's nitpicking that eventually had him get the last word. More here.

Statisically speaking, STTMP was the HIGHEST money maker of all the Star Trek movies

Is that pre inflation or post inflation?

Is that box office vs. budget? It made the most profit?

It made the most profit.

I don't know about the inflation factor.

It was 28 years ago today that ST-TMP opened. And, I'm sure everyone who worked on it took a sigh of relief when it did, as they worked on the movie until the last minute. No nitpicks, just wanted to note that. (Jeez, that makes me feel old. I was 25 when this movie opened. Now...well, you do the math.)

I was in high school. I took a girl to see it on a date (she was also a Trek fan).

Even after the movie was over?

Well..... I almost wasn't Trek fan after that, either

Here's "In Thy Image", which (as you all know) evolved into this movie.

hmmm... I didn't think it was possible for a relationship to develop from Star Trek...

My wedding this November says otherwise. (Though to be fair, it began with Star Wars, it was largely grown and nurtured in Star Trek, and the composer of this film's music, Jerry Goldsmith. Heck... we're mostly bonding over Season 1 of the Remastereds this month!) :-)

If anyone's interested, today marks the 29th anniversary of the release of STAR TREK The Motion Picture. I always thought it was a helluva coincidence that it debuted on Pearl Harbor Day.

Live long and prosper.

How was the wedding, Zarm?

Wonderful, thanks ScottN! (As opposed to the reception, which was filled with many awkward silences- as the DJ had NO IDEA what he was doing... ;-) )

Well, Mazel Tov! (that's hebrew for Good luck and congrats!). May you be as happy as Mrs. ScottN and I are.

Thank you, once again! And may that happiness continue long and blissfully for you and your bride!

JM Hickey: I also recall hearing that Rodenberry considered a time travel story for the movie, where someone goes back and prevents JFK's assassination, which damages the timeline and forces the crew to travel back in time to correct it; i.e., ensure that the president dies. I think this plot was rejected early on, but Rodenberry continued to pitch it repeatedly for many later projects.

Phil mentions this in, of all things, his X-Files Nitpickers' Guide, in the section about the episode "Tales of a Cigarette-Smoking Man." In that episode, as XF fans may recall, the Smoking Man is shown to be--possibly--the true assassin of JFK. The episode is told as a series of disconnected segments about world events, and that segment's title mentions Dealey Plaza. Phil writes that when he saw that flash up on the screen, he got a bad feeling, and he thought of the story about Roddenberry and his insistence on a time-traveling story involving the crew stopping the assassination. Presumably he (GR, not Phil!) pitched these ideas in the period between TMP and his death, when he was listed on each successive movie as something like "Executive Creative Consultant", a title with (obviously) no real power.

Question: if my knowledge of the inner real-world workings of Trek is right, GR had total control of TNG for at least the first few seasons. I wonder why he didn't do a two-part episode with his pet story line?

Simon Maxwell: So how fast is full impulse power? The official Star Trek site seems to think it's about a quarter of light speed....But in this film, Kirk has the following line: "Impulse power, Mr Sulu. Ahead, warp .5." Then the impulse engines fire up and the Enterprise leaves Earth. This means that full impulse power must be at least half light speed.

I don't think that one can infer, because of this, that full impulse = 0.5c. The TNG tech manual, while non-canon, makes some very good points about sublight travel. Anyone familiar with Einstein's equations on space-time dilation would realize that, as one approaches c, both time and space contract. The tech manual mentions this and how disruptive high-sublight travel would be in terms of keeping ships synchronized to a central time zone. Therefore, the tech manual suggests that full impulse does not refer to the literal maximum output of the impulse engines, but to the maximum advisable sublight speed of 0.25c, just as the website says.

Of course, the impulse engines would no doubt be capable of higher power outputs, and in cases of necessity, one might choose to travel at a faster sublight speed (such as the "warp [zero] point five" that Kirk orders, which is presumably 0.5c). In TMP, Kirk mentions there is a risk to engaging the warp drive while still in the solar system; presumably he ordered a higher-than-normal sublight velocity to enable the Enterprise to get as far away from Earth as possible in a short period of time before engaging the warp drive.

Question: if my knowledge of the inner real-world workings of Trek is right, GR had total control of TNG for at least the first few seasons. I wonder why he didn't do a two-part episode with his pet story line?

No, GR didn't have control over TNG. In fact after TMP he was given a position that prevented him from being able to interfere with the films or (as it later turned out) the new TV series. While he did have a considerable amount of input especially for the first two seasons - GR wrote the pilot script for TNG, as well as coming up with many of the characters - most of his role was in setting up the tone of the Trek Universe not individual episodes. After TMP Paramount didn't want GR directing or producing Trek because they felt (Probably correctly) that he would spend far too much money making slow moving and rather dull episodes - the dullest season of TNG was its first, which re-used a lot of older scripts that had been written for an earlier attempt to make another Trek series prior to TMP.

GR was many things, and he certainly had a strong vision as to what the Trek Universe was and should have been like. What he wasn't was good either with money or (by the late 1970's onwards) in understanding the pacing required of films or TV shows. For this reason he was put into a position where pacing and money was out of his hands.

All of which is ironic, first because TOS was (of course) made on a small budget and second because many of the concerns Paramount had about GR , and their reasons for keeping him away from the day to day running of the franchise, would be exactly the same things they themselves would be accused of on both Voyager and Enterprise as well as all TNG films. Namely that they were spending large sums of money to produce films and episodes that were, well, rather dull.

Re: the warp speed, under the old system it was the speed of light times the warp factor cubed. So warp 0.5 is not 0.5 c, it's 0.5^3 = 0.125, or 1/8 c.

Today is the 30th anniversary of the release of Star Trek - The Motion Picture. Mark Altman marks the anniversary with an article on Trekmovie.com here. (I also think that there should have been a special commemorative DVD and Blu-Ray release. But, I guess we ain't getting them.)

Here's some behind the scenes stills from the making of this pic. Note the pics where Shatner is blowing into Harold Livingston's ear, and Stephen Collins and Persis Khambatta digging into their respective birthday cakes.

I also recall hearing that Rodenberry considered a time travel story for the movie, where someone goes back and prevents JFK's assassination, which damages the timeline and forces the crew to travel back in time to correct it; i.e., ensure that the president dies. I think this plot was rejected early on, but Rodenberry continued to pitch it repeatedly for many later projects.

I never believed that old wive's tale. It was probably a fake story put out by Paramount to discredit Gene Roddenberry

Actually, it was reported in the December 1976 issue of Crawdaddy. Now, it is possible it was a fake story planted by Paramount, but it was published three before ST-TMP was released. You be the judge.

Live long and prosper.

Yeah, I bet Paramount planted it. They needed something to get rid of Gene Roddenberry when they no longer wanted him.

The reason is, I believe, although they tolorated him because he created something that made the studio a lot of money, they didn't respect him. Gene was too independent, too much of a free thinker. He wasn't a good little studio drone like others (hello Rick Berman). So Paramount cooked up this little story and planted it, so they could make him look like a fool. That gave them the ammunition to move him out, after Star Trek: The Motion Picture came out.

I see even Wikipedia has bought into this lie, see their entry on GR. Of course, ANYONE can edit a Wiki article, so you can't trust it. Gene was not removed from the movies because of the JFK thing, because that never happened, Paramount made it up. The real reason is because they went over budget on ST: TMP. Another fault of Paramount as they went with an unrealiable company for the F/X. Poor Gene just took the fall for their blunder.

Despite all that, ST: TMP did make a LOT of money, thus they knew they had a good thing with Trek movies. People may like Harve Bennett's movies better (and to give the man credit, he did do a good job), but Gene Roddenberry opened the door for him with the first movie. Paramount can't take that away from Gene.

Paramount was a huge lumbering dinosaur that couldn't accept that it was the 1970's, not the 1940's. The days when the studios had abolute power were LONG gone. And it seems they still hold to those ancient ideas, even though they fell over fifty years ago. It's no wonder they're always on the brink of bankruptcy. It seems the studio changes hands everytime you turn around (with CBS now being the owners, I wonder what poor sucker will be next)!

Couldn't find a mention of such a script in the Crawdaddy issue. (It mentions that the script Roddenberry submitted sounds a bit similar to STAR TREK VI.)

But I doubt Paramount wanted to get rid of Roddenberry. Certainly not in the late '70s. 20th Century FOX just had mega-success with Star Wars. Columbia did well with Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Paramount had a ready to be made sci-fi film in STAR TREK. They knew Roddenberry would be essential to the success of the film. Moreover, according to the Wiki article you mention, the JFK story was not submitted for ST-TMP, but for STAR TREK II.

Finally, it should be noted that Gene Roddenberry stayed at Paramount and TREK until 1988, before the second season of ST:NG. (And it was only because of a writer's strike that Gene did not retain control of the show.)

And then there's also the fact if Paramount really wanted to get rid of Gene Roddenberry, they didn't have to discredit him. They could've just fired him.

Live long and prosper.

But I doubt Paramount wanted to get rid of Roddenberry. Certainly not in the late '70s. 20th Century FOX just had mega-success with Star Wars. Columbia did well with Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Paramount had a ready to be made sci-fi film in STAR TREK. They knew Roddenberry would be essential to the success of the film. Moreover, according to the Wiki article you mention, the JFK story was not submitted for ST-TMP, but for STAR TREK II.

As I said, they kept him around because they needed his talent. However, they were ready to drop him like a hot coal once his usefulness to the studio had ended. They could have out fired him, but that's not how these guys operated, they were more like sneaky politians that studio execs in many ways. Better to make him look like a fool and ease him out, rather than just booting him out openly.

As for the Wiki article, once again, any Tom, Dick, or Harry (or Paramount exec) can edit a Wiki article.


Finally, it should be noted that Gene Roddenberry stayed at Paramount and TREK until 1988, before the second season of ST:NG. (And it was only because of a writer's strike that Gene did not retain control of the show.)

Yes, but he no longer had any creative control over the movies. I get the feeling, from what i read, that Star Trek V would never have reached the screen had Roddenberry been in control (whether that's a good or bad thing, you be the judge). Also, by the late 80's, his health was starting to fail, so that was the main reason he eventually handed NextGen over to Rick Berman.

No, I am convinced that this JFK story was just that, a story. Gene's official biography makes no mention of it, and you think they would include it (they included a lot of his character flaws, after all).

As I said, they kept him around because they needed his talent. However, they were ready to drop him like a hot coal once his usefulness to the studio had ended.

How is that different from how Hollywood handles anything?

They could have out fired him, but that's not how these guys operated, they were more like sneaky politians that studio execs in many ways. Better to make him look like a fool and ease him out, rather than just booting him out openly.

Can you give me a for instance where this has been done before? Hollywood's general modus operandi has been to simply fire anyone they didn't want to work with. The discrediting usually comes in the aftermath.

Gene's official biography makes no mention of it, and you think they would include it (they included a lot of his character flaws, after all).

Which biography - Joel Engel's or David Alexander's? Alexander's is the official bio and tends to more apologetic than Engel's.

Given some of the stories Roddenberry did create for TREK (the clunky "Omega Glory" comes to mind), I can well believe that Roddenberry may have come up with the JFK story. I really don't feel Gene was a great writer. He was a great Idea Man in that he could refine some ideas. But I don't think he was a great writer.

Live long and prosper.

I've never read the Engel book, so I can't comment on it.

Gene may have had his flaws, but Paramount owes him a great debt of gratitude. Without him, there would have been no Star Trek? He gave the studio something that generated a lot of money, and they should have treated him better.

It's no wonder they're (Paramount) always on the brink of bankruptcy.
Since when? In the mid-to-late 1970's, Paramount was making money hand over fist, with huge hits like Chinatown, Death Wish, Saturday Night Fever, Grease, the first two Godfather movies and Foul Play. They had some flops, like 1974's The Great Gatsby (a better picture than it's been given credit for, and I'm not so sure it was a financial flop, even though it was a critical one) and 1976's Lipstick. It was the profits from hits like those mentioned above that helped finance ST-TMP.

It seems the studio changes hands everytime you turn around (with CBS now being the owners...)
Actually, Viacom owns Paramount now; they split from CBS and became two separate companies (Viacom and CBS Corp.) a few years ago. Viacom owns MTV Networks (MTV, VH-1, Nickelodeon etc.) CBS owns the CBS network and the Showtime cable channels. Which had first dibs on Paramount's movies until 2008, when the crybabies at Viacom started the Epix channel (which practically no one carries) because of a dispute over licensing fees for the studio's movies.

The real reason is because they went over budget on "ST: TMP". Another fault of Paramount as they went with an unrealiable company for the F/X. Poor Gene just took the fall for their blunder.
I've always agreed with that. Paramount went with Robert Abel and Associates for the effects for ST-TMP partly on the basis of a late 70's 7-Up commercial they did. Plus, they probably submitted the lowest bid. The Paramount suits eventually realized that Abel was in over his head, and with nine months to go before an ironclad release date, they basically handed Douglas Trumbull (who had also bid on the ST-TMP job) the store to get the effects done. Roddenberry unfairly took the fall for it. He did plead with the Paramount suits to postpone ST-TMP's release, but as it was unchangable, his pleadings fell on deaf ears. Trumbull and his collaborators did get an Oscar nomination for their efforts. (Alien won.)

Yeah, and instead of stepping up and admitted they'd screwed up, Paramount threw Gene to the wolves.

Obviously they were so determined to cover their own a**es that they were willing to destroy the reputation of a good man to do it. No doubt that is part of the reason they cooked up this JFK story.

"No doubt that is part of the reason they cooked up this JFK story." - Tim McCree

So you're calling this a Paramount JFK Conspiracy? ;-)

It was the film studio on the grassy knoll. ;-)

This is great. For $5K, you can own a limited edition, excruciatingly detailed replica of the refit U.S.S. Enterprise from this movie. If I didn't have the expenses from my divorce, I'd jump on this at warp speed. If you want it, and can afford it, go for it, as it's a limited edition run of 250. More here.

This month the Nostalgia Critic is reviewing the odd-numbered Trek movies, starting with TMP.

Here is the original script of the Memory Wall sequence, with photos, before Douglas Trumbull requested that it be completely overhauled.

Well. Here I am. Finally. And after all this time, this is what I have to say about what I call "The Motionless Picture".

It was too long. And it wasn't the good kind of long, where things are happening that makes me want to keep on watching. There have been other long films that actually held my interest, so they didn't seem overly long to me.

And it was EXTREMELY boring. I once complained about that on another site. Some guy tried to defend the film by basically saying that yeah, it's boring by today's standards, but in the late 70s, it was fine. This guy clearly had no concept of what an actually entertaining movie was, or he hadn't actually seen any, as I explained that TMP is boring IN GENERAL, by the standards of ANY time period in Hollywood's history. He still didn't seem to get it. Oh well, his loss I guess.

And now, the Really Big Problem. The whole cast is stiff, wooden, and unemotional. Stephen Collins as Matt Decker was especially bad. I can't help but wonder if perhaps Robert Wise told him to be as wooden as possible so it would seem as if his character was completely lacking a personality. I dont know if that was the case, of if it was written in the script for him to be this way. Also, Collins would say about his role years later that he severely disliked working on the film and that "the cast are not the buddy-buddy friends that they want everyone to think they are". Well, we already knew that Takei loathed and detested Shatner, and how the others weren't exactly fond of him either. Therefore, that wasn't a real big surprise to be revealed, in my opinion.

As for the uniforms...grey and pastel? What was that about? Good thing it didnt last!

Also, I truly believe that the wrong man was selected to direct this. Apparently Wise had no sense of humor, is what I read somewhere. Which is why he made Grace Lee Whitney look the way she did as Janice Rand, for the two minutes she was actually in this. Frumpy and unattractive. He did that because she and someone else played a joke on "old man Wise" which he did not take kindly to, so he made her do that. What a jerk.

In closing, I do not consider this one of the better Trek films. And as for V'Ger having encountered "a machine-dominated area of the galaxy" that was speculated to have been the Borg? Well, that's only in non-canon Trek, the "Expanded Universe", if you will. It isn't canonical. It's only speculation!

Excuse me, Collins was *Will* Decker, not Matt. That was his father, who perished battling the planet killer (Doomsday Machine).

---

quote:

As for the uniforms...grey and pastel? What was that about?

---

This may be cooler than cool. LaLa Land Records has released the complete Jerry Goldsmith score for TMP. (Apparently the 20th anniversary CD release in 1999 wasn't complete.) It includes alternate cues, including the rejected cue for "The Enterprise." A snippet of which was heard on disc 2 of the "Director's Edition" DVD. More here.

The Bob James version of the movie's theme is worth the price of discs alone.

Hope you ordered it, Benn. I just did, as it's a limited edition of 10,000, and I don't want to be shut out. There are so many things great about this release, starting with the labels on the discs. Which look like the top of the Enterprise's saucer section. The cast photos are great, too - Kirk on disc one, Spock (a publicity still I've never seen) on disc 2, and Ilia on disc 3. The booklet with the set sounds wonderful. I ate up every tidbit of information I could find on this movie before and after release. Still do.

Not yet, I haven't. I hope to by the end of the month. (If I'm lucky there's any left.)

Check out this "Shatner's Toupee" page for a "hirsute" analysis of ST-TMP. Note the photo halfway down of Persis Khambatta's head being shaved; that's makeup artist Fred Phillips doing the honor.

By the way, Adam, I got my copy of the Special Edition of the soundtrack a couple of weeks ago. Kinda wish they'd've included the 45 version of Bob James' recording of the STAR TREK - The Motion Picture theme. And eliminated the Shaun Cassidy song. Still, overall, it's a great collection. Just wish I'd known about the STAR TREK V double disc set before it sold out.

Live long and prosper.

From TrekMovie, here's a 33rd anniversary salute to TMP, and a 21st anniversary salute to Star Trek VI.

You're the one with the brains here. I'm watcnhig for your posts.

This is still my favorite Star Trek film. Despite obvious imperfections, it remains the film that "feels" the most like the original Star Trek. Moreover, it is alone in the ST cinematic canon in NOT being essentially an action film with sci-fi trappings...it really IS a science fiction film, though with obvious derivative elements (from "The Changeling", as everyone knows).

It is so widely disliked, I know...but a reevaluation is called for. The script is intelligent, the story is compelling, the concepts are still provocative and the movie is still visually appealing and intellectually challenging.

I am curious if anyone else secretly loves this movie as much as I do......

I really wish people would just stop badmouthing Gene. Give it up already, he's been dead for nearly twenty years. Granted, he was not the best writer or producer of television that there ever was, but he was no worse than the people who eventually took control of his creation after his passing. And don't get me started on the kind of job *they* did.....

A 1970's flashback, including a preview of TMP, and a couple of articles about 1970's conventions (some of which I attended) can be found here. Scroll down and check out the pix of Shatner and De Kelley in those (hideous) 1970's clothes.

The theatrical version is now available as a stand-alone Blu-Ray. Previously, it was sold only in a six-pack with movies II through VI. More here. A packaging nit - It appears a Klingon ship is chasing the Enterprise, or at least orbiting a planet, on the disc cover. As you know, neither of those incidents occurred in the pic.

The Blu-Ray give you details you never saw before. For instance, as Kirk and Scotty's travel pod turns and docks, the red stripe on the engineering hull is not fully red; it starts off as green. The dim lighting on the bridge is more apparent than in either the VHS or DVD versions.
The Blu-Ray also contains a commentary track by Mike and Denise Okuda, Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, and Daren Dochterman. It's not that informative, and gives only a little insight into the background of the film. In fact, they frequently mock and make fun of the flick, especially in comparing it to "The Changeling". The readout similar to the old "Burger King" logo on Uhura's console is alluded to once or twice.
The detail of the Blu-Ray is pretty apparent in the Rec Deck scene. Individual faces are more prominent. Denise Okuda was an extra the day the scene was shot. Try to pick her out. You just may be able to.

And, the Blu-Ray packaging lists the film as "Unrated". What's up with that? The movie was released with a "G" rating in 1979, and the Blu-Ray contains that same cut. Maybe Paramount is a bit embarassed about the "G" rating. And, isn't it a violation of MPAA rules to re-release a film that first had a rating as "Unrated"?

As a theatrical release? Probably. Issuing the film on DVD or Blu-Ray or similar media? Apparently not. Look at the fact you can buy unrated versions of such films as The Dictator and American Pie.

And many other films as well. It seems to me that Paramount's home video division was in denial, or even ashamed, about the film's original "G" rating.
Here's a page with old magazine clips pertaining to this movie. What interested me is the links (there are, IIRC, nine of them) to articles detailing the gestation of Star Trek - Phase II, and its transition to this movie. To say it was chaotic is an understatement.

The Ilia probe refers to the crew of Enterprise as 'carbon based units'. She really should call them 'water based units', or 'oxygen based units', since our bodies contain far more of those than of carbon.

one review complained about "the sexual politics behind Ilia's creation".
What do they mean?

Yes, this movie has its flaws, but I like it.

Judi...Ilia's oath of celibacy.

Maybe this has been noted before, but by an incredibly remarkable co-incidence, the mechanical alien race that took and upgraded the Voyager probe apparently speaks and reads English. They understood the letters on the outside of the probe were the name of the probe and were able to give it an English phonetic pronunciation - Vee-jur. What are the odds? Wonder if they also read any of the other writings that might've been on or inside Voyager?

On "The Turnabout Intruder" board, John A. Lang mentioned that Christine Chapel's hair was brown rather than blonde in that ep. It's brown in this movie, too. Guess Christine got tired of being a blonde.

Speaking of hair, this isn't really a nit (though it could be), but the toupee William Shatner wears in this film is the worst one he wore in any of the following six STAR TREK movies he appeared in, much less any of the episodes of the original series. I've always been annoyed at how high up his forehead the toop was worn in STAR TREK the Motion Picture. You'd think that in the TREKverse, they'd've made better, less noticeable hair pieces than that.

"Live long and prosper."

Maybe this has been noted before, but by an incredibly remarkable co-incidence, the mechanical alien race that took and upgraded the Voyager probe apparently speaks and reads English. They understood the letters on the outside of the probe were the name of the probe and were able to give it an English phonetic pronunciation - Vee-jur. What are the odds?

Actually, it makes perfect sense. V'ger's first probe took a lot of information from Enterprise's computer before Spock smashed it. It also took Ilea as it left, another source of information. Using that information, V'ger could piece together a good knowledge of english and was able to read, for the first time, the letters on the original probe's casing. And the reason that it called itself V'ger instead of Voyager is due to the fact that the letters 'oya' were obscured by dirt and corrosion.

The Blu-Ray give you details you never saw before...
So did last night's telecast on one of the Epix HD channels. During the travel pod scene, you can see that a few wrinkles are starting to form under Shatner's eyes, most noticably his left. The Shat was 47 when he shot this flick. (Geez. I'm older than that now. )
Rating nitpick (again) - Epix assigned a "PG" rating, for mild violence, to their broadcast of TMP. Even though it was the theatrical cut, which had a "G" rating; the "PG" was given to the Director's Edition.

A behind-the-scenes book about the making of TMP, titled "Return To Tomorrow" (why does that sound familiar? ) will be published in October. This book was originally supposed to be published in Cinefantastique magazine as a multiple issue back around 1981, but that never happened. More here.
I remember subscribing to CFQ on the assumption that I'd receive the issue during my subscription. Needless to say, that never happened, and CFQ is no longer published. I've been waiting 30 years for this. Better late than never, I guess.

"Mr. Decker" was a very bad boy.

Well if the news coming out of the States is true I guess we wont be seeing Star Trek: The Motion Picture on tv anytime soon.

Lots of news about Stephen Collins this week; none of it good. Collins was fired from Ted 2. I gather he didn't have a big role in it, but he was dropped nonetheless. And, UP, a small cable channel, has pulled its daily run of Collins' series 7th Heaven. Where he co-starred with Star Trek IV's Catherine Hicks.

Judi recently wrote:

---

quote:

Well if the news coming out of the States is true I guess we wont be seeing "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" on tv anytime soon.

---

Here's Harlan Ellison's review of TMP, which was published in Starlog in early 1980. Ellison's statement about a complete stranger commenting on Shatner's toupee is in the first paragraph on the second page. (My own copy of the mag must be somewhere in my closet; I know I never threw it out).

Interesting read. A great deal of what was wrong with the movie came from the fact that it was not finished at the time of its release. A completely edited version with completed sounds and visuals has been released in 2001, and it looks and sounds much more polished than the original theatrical version.

That being said, the scenario, writing and acting issues Ellison speaks of here are still present, obviously. Still, I have a soft spot for that movie. They were trying to make something that looked like Star Wars, but felt like Star Trek, and they were obvioulsy doomed to fail. It's a lesson SOMEONE obviously learned, because the second movie, Wrath of Khan, was vastly better, and much more HUMAN, to echo Ellison's wish at the conclusion of his review.

Here is something I have just noticed. When the first Vger probe arrives on Enterprise's bridge, you can see that it defines the meeting edge of two misaligned images of the bridge. You have a view of the bridge and its occupants on the left, then the bright vertical probe, and another, different view of the bridge on the right. It is really obvious as the probe glides left and right over the scenery, at least it is very obvious in the version I have just watched. Has this been pojnted out before? There are so many nits listed about this movie, I don't have the patience to read through all of them.

---

quote:

When the first V'ger probe arrives on Enterprise's bridge, you can see that it defines the meeting edge of two misaligned images of the bridge....Has this been pointed out before?

---

Was rereading the novelization and while most nits are for the book, there was one that might apply to both.

When does Kirk tell Scotty to abort the self-destruct? Is there a jump cut where we can assume he did this?

I am unclear on that. Kirk could have ordered the self destruct cancelled after he returned to the ship and before he reached the bridge. Or Scotty could have cancelled it on his own initiative after V'ger vanished and was no longer a threat. There was plenty of time in the movie for either action to occur without us actually witnessing it.

That, or it completely slipped the writer's mind.

Possibly.

I would check the film, but I only have it on tape and didn't feel like fast-forwarding for half an hour to get to that point. (Even in fast-forward it's a "slow-motion picture". Bah dump bump! ;-)

What I remember of the movie was V'ger starting to evolve & Kirk, Spock & McCoy starting to move away, then a cut to them on the bridge, which would leave Kirk with time to give the abort order.

The novelization, on the other hand, has Kirk tell Spock they have three minutes till Scotty presses self-destruct, the business with getting the NASA code to V'ger, then a description of Kirk, Spock & McCoy heading back to the ship with Kirk & McCoy passing out because the V'ger-created oxygen field is disappearing and Spock pulls them into the access hatch, but no word about cancelling the self-destruct.

So it's definitely a case of the writer forgetting in the novelization, but my memory of the movie was hazier.

The self-destruct subplot was cut from the theatrical version. It was included in the 1983 "Special Longer Edition" tape, and the 2001 "Director's Edition" DVD. It was never shown on screen if and when Kirk aborted it; I assume he could have when he, Spock and McCoy were running (like mad) back to the ship.
Epix has been running this movie a lot lately. Three times today, in fact. Paramount really shot themselves in the foot by not ponying up the extra bucks to render the "Director's Edition" in HD. Then they could be running that version on their Epix channels, and selling it on Blu-Ray, instead of the theatrical version.

A short behind the scenes film can be viewed here. It includes footage of Persis Khambatta getting her head shaved for the first time.

Here's IFC's highly amusing promo for their run of the Trek films. You gotta dig that new "attachment" to the main hull of our favorite starship.

Of course, kids today will have absolutely no idea what that attachment is.

On the 36th anniversary of the release of this picture, the Daily News has put its unflattering 12/8/79 review on-line. Here it is.

"Den of Geek" has published a history of this film's troubled history. And, there was more than a little bad blood from Leonard Nimoy at the time. Including Nimoy's threatening to fire his agent if Star Trek was ever mentioned again. More here.

From You Tube - Here is footage taken from the 12/6/79 premiere. Check out late in the tape, when we see De Kelley with a cigarette (at about the 13-minute point), and Nimoy being quite diplomatic about his availability to do the film.

Don't get Youtube at work. Is that the one where Nimoy says that mail service between Earth and Vulcan is slow?

No. That was at the March, 1978 press conference announcing the film. Nimoy (with a mustache he would keep until Wrath Of Khan started shooting in late 1981) in the video posted above simply stated that he was unavailable to do the planned 1977 Trek project (not mentioned, but obviously Phase II) due to his commitment to the Broadway play Equus. When his Broadway run was done, he then was available, and did the film. We know now that the road back to Spock had a lot more speedbumps. Including a lawsuit from Nimoy to Paramount over the use of his likeness as Spock; he wouldn't read a script until that suit was settled.

Keith Alan Morgan: When does Kirk tell Scotty to abort the self-destruct? Is there a jump cut where we can assume he did this?

I have just re watched the movie with the relevant scene. Kirk calls Scotty and orders him to implement Starfleet order two zero zero five. Scotty asks "When?", Kirk replies "On my order." Subsequently, Kirk never has to give that final order, so the self destruct doesn't have to be cancelled and everyone is safe. Mystery solved.

Benn wrote, some years ago:

---

quote:

The JFK story was not submitted for ST-TMP, but for STAR TREK II.

---

Thanks, Francois. :-)

From Shatner's Toupee, here's speculation on what William Shatner might have looked like if he had kept the toupee style for this movie he wore in the series.

Well, this fan-made trailer makes this seem like a much better movie.

https://youtu.be/C75dPdKIzmE

Funny.

I don't know if it's been pointed out already, but exactly HOW did Spock intend to stop himself before he went splat against the back wall of that compartment he rocketed himself into?

Despite the critical reviews, this movie did make money. It was not a box office bomb like Final Frontier and Nemesis were.

The only real problem was the overreliance on special F/X.

After Kirk and Scott arrive on Enterprise, as Kirk is looking over the redesigned cargo bay, we hear a voice announcing a few times that a travel pod is now available at cargo six. However, the port Scott has docked at is clearly labeled five.

Either the bloke doing the announcing is bad at math, or another pod docked at the same time at cargo six.

Truth be told, I've seen this nit pointed out before.

ST-TMP will return to theaters for a special two day (September 15 and 18) run, in celebration of its fortieth anniversary. Fathom Events is sponsoring; check their website for further updates. I'm there, dude.

40 years!?

I remember seeing this when it first came out.

Feeling old yet?

Saw the movie tonight. Brought me back to December of 1979. When my hair was its original color, and I didn't need bifocals nor the two prescription meds I now take.
One of the best aspects of the screening was hearing Jerry Goldsmith's wonderful score the way it was meant to be - clear as a bell, on big speakers in a theater. Also, watching the movie on DVD or Blu-ray can't compare to the big screen. Especially in the details on the Enterprise or (especially) the Klingon ships. I'm spoiled now; my discs won't be good enough anymore.

I agree.

A new coffee table book (read - high $$$ pricetag ) about the art and visual effects of TMP is to be released imminently. Specifically 9/1/20. More on that here. If bookstores aren't yet open in your area (there's a free standing Barnes and Noble close by; I'm not sure if they've reopened from the pandemic. Malls are still closed) make sure your Amazon account is up to date.

41 years now, since this movie came out (feeling old yet).

And, here's a review of the book I noted above. The review (and maybe the book; I haven't bought it yet) gives Robert Abel a lot more credit for his work on the film than I've seen anywhere else over the past 41 years. Even in the film itself; Abel's credit is a throwaway line, in smaller font than the rest of the credits, almost at the end of the credit roll.

Thanks for the link.

A neat video showing what a new Trek series intro would look like, that was created by someone who merged the TOS opening credits with the TNG credits and the TNG theme, which is actually the STTMP theme, but with the STTMP Enterprise. Whew!

https://youtu.be/TjP6MzyNAOA

The Director's Cut of the Klingon V'Ger battle (if you can call it a "battle")

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbG3N51MEjM

Yeah, TNG got their theme from this movie.

A model of V'Ger, as seen in the Director's Edition, was released for the movie's 40th anniversary in 2019. The model is not 82 AU's long, but is substantial enough. More here.

Wasn't it the cloud that surrounded V'Ger that was 82 AU?

82 AU would be around twice the distance to Pluto. (Sounds like V'Ger was compensating for something.)

Yes it was, in the original version. In the director's cut version released in 2002, the size of the cloud is reduced to "only" 2 AU, although other versions still retain the 82 AU figure. Which size is actually canon is uncertain.

Fun Astronomical Fact. Since an AU is the distance of the Earth to the sun, 2 AU would basically be the size of Earth's orbit.

82 AU is roughly the size of Pluto's orbit.

Bit big to fit in someone's house

'82 AU is roughly the size of Pluto's orbit.'

And the Klingons shot just 3 photon torpedoes into THAT and thought they'd dealt with a new enemy? As KAM would say, "Okaaaay..."

For that reason, I'm going to theorize that those weren't just ordinary torpedoes, but something very, very substantial...and were treated like the dandruff of an unwanted date!

Well, to be fair, it was the energy cloud that was 82 AU in diameter.

Of course, there never was a Voyager Six.

It just occurred to me that whether or not the cloud was 82 AU's as filmed or 2 AU's (updated), photon torpedoes don't exactly travel at warp 8. Which means they'd just be flying into the cloud and into the cloud and into the cloud for hours before they would have hit anything. Imagine a D7 firing torpedoes at Pluto, but on the complete opposite side of the planet's orbit. The Klingons would be in for a loooong wait for their weapons to detonate-- however the whole attack on V'ger took just a few minutes.

I thought Photon Torpedoes were described as a "matter/antimatter bomb in a warp capable casing"

Just googled this;
It takes 5 and a half hours for the light from the Sun to reach Pluto. Placing Pluto on the opposite side of the Sun, and a torpedo traveling at warp 1 means it would take over 11 hours for it to hit Pluto.
As they said in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy; space is big. Really big.
And the cloud was really, really big, so the Klingon torpedoes shouldn't have hit anything by the time they altered course after firing a measly three photons at V'Ger. They should have just been flying on and on and on inside the expansive cloud that took up 99 percent of the shape of V'Ger.

This whole scene could be taken away and nothing substantial would be missing. The movie could have easily opened on Earth, with Kirk ad Co. finding out about the cloud and such.

The only reason those Klingons are in this movie is to show off their new look.

After twenty years, a Hi-Def version of The Director's Edition of TMP is in the works. A 4-K remaster, specifically. More on that here.

V'Ger mistakenly believed that the carbon-based humans were not true lifeforms, and were an infestation plaguing the 'living' Enterprise.
ERRRT! Wrong, V'Ger! Humans ARE lifeforms.

Which makes me ask...if V'Ger's knowledge spans the galaxy, as Spock suggests, what else did it get completely wrong? How much of that 'knowledge' is machine-mind baloney?

This movie is 42 years old, but we can still find new nits.

And, yesterday was the 42nd anniversary of this film's opening. Here's the review from The Hollywood Reporter.

God, I feel old!
I was there, opening night, and to a much younger mind, this movie blew me away. Remember, kids, seeing a sci-fi TV series transferred to the movie screen was unheard of back then, so you'll forgive me if my younger 18-year old self gave the movie a 9 out of 10 back then!
How much did I like it? My friend watched it a week later and then launched into a tirade about how it was boring, and had too much special effects, and how they went into the cloud, then further into the cloud, and further into the cloud...
...and I hung up on him.
I called him right back (in a joking mood) and said laughing at him, "I'll give you one more chance to tell me how great it actually was!" I think I thought he was kidding, but he wasn't. And he was pissed off that I hung up on him.
With another point of view, I began to see the flaws in it, but still liked it enough to see it theaters again and rent the thing on VHS again and again and tape it on TV, before I bought the extended-version DVD set.
And then I read that Shatner fell asleep during the premiere and I began to question my sanity, er, rather, the movie.
A reviewer for either the Toronto Sun or Toronto Star gave it a bad review, even referring to the wormhole accident as a 'galaxy gravity pull', an expression you'll never find in the movie.
I forgot about it's anniversary date, so thanks, Tim.

seeing a sci-fi TV series transferred to the movie screen was unheard of back then

Didn't the pilot for Battlestar Galactica get re-released for theaters before this?

Of course British TV viewers would have experienced the Doctor Who movie around ten years earlier.

A reviewer for either the Toronto Sun or Toronto Star gave it a bad review, even referring to the wormhole accident as a 'galaxy gravity pull', an expression you'll never find in the movie.

That's what happens when a Not We dose a review.


Of course British TV viewers would have experienced the Doctor Who movie around ten years earlier.

Except that the movie Doctor Who was a different guy than the TV one.

Didn't the pilot for Battlestar Galactica get re-released for theaters before this?

Yup. If I recall, it played in U.S. theaters in the summer of '79. However, it had played in theaters in Europe prior to that. The movie version had a different fate for John Colicos' Baltar than what was in the televised pilot.

Very few TV series had made the leap to the big screen prior to TMP. Two I can recall off hand were the movie version of Batman (which was made to sell the series abroad) and Munster Go Home. (Some episodes of The Man From U.N.C.L.E. were cut together and released as movies in Europe).

That's right, guys, that's why I specified 'sci-fi' series. It must have been fanastic for Batman fans to see all the characters and gadgetry up on the Big Screen-- which is why STTMP was so special for me back then. Yeah, different Enterprise and uniforms but there's Kirk! There's Spock! There's McCoy! There's...! Who the heck is 'Ilia'?! But you get my point.
As for Galactica, my memory was that the movie came first, ABC bought it as a series, and they remade portions so that John Colicos could have a recurring part. So it's actually the reverse (if my memory serves); Galactica started on the movie screen and then wound up on TV.
And after one movie/pilot, the thrill isn't comparable to a long-time Trek fan, with years and years of viewing and reruns.
That being said, I couldn't wait for Galactica to be a series and...it lasted one season. Curse those Neilsen Ratings!

And this movie paved the way for the others that followed.

Some images from the upcoming 4K re-master of The Director's Edition can be seen here. The re-master will appear on Paramount plus, before a release on physical media.

Fascinating.

And, here's more on the upcoming HD version of The Director's Edition. It will hit Paramount Plus on April 5. Theatrical screenings will be held in May, and a physical media release is scheduled for September. In addition, the linked article states that a previously cut scene will be restored, since the elements have been found. I'm there, dude.

Like that movie isn't long enough as it is, without adding more scenes to it.

Nice that a forty-three year old movie can still bring in news.

I'm learning with this 4K release that much of the online media looks back on this film fondly, particularly the reedit Wise did back in 2001. So, I'm sure I will be watching it in the next few months to see what I think.

Enjoy the movie.

I'd guess a lot of that 'buzz' is for marketing purposes Josh. Having said that, I am looking forward to getting it on BRD in... September I believe it scheduled to release?

I know there is a long time rivalry between the two franchises, but the success of Star Wars did help pave the way for this movie.

Thanks to SW, big screen Sci-Fi movies became a thing again.

---

quote:

I know there is a long time rivalry between the two franchises, but the success of Star Wars did help pave the way for this movie.

---

I've never understood why there would be a rivalry between Star Trek and Star Wars, or any franchises for that matter.

I mean aside from situations like two shows running opposite each other so viewers have to choose one or the other. (Not such a big deal these days.) Or one show being cancelled to make room for the other. (Not really the show's fault, though.)

I can see people preferring one franchise to another, but an actual rivalry leaves me scratching my head.

It's a mystery for the ages.

It's like the rivalry between the Beatles and the Beach Boys, there was no clear comparison other than the groundbreaking musical talent and competing for money/chart space, but the rivalry was real and there. Lennon himself said Sgt. Pepper's was written in an attempt to outdo Brian Wilson, whom he considered a genius.

I'd say that's more artistic competition than rivalry.

It's common for artists to see another artist do something well and try to outdo it.

When I think of rivalry I see a hatred behind it, not admiration.

Original series Star Trek always seemed to be the focal point of science fiction rivalries down through the years, something I've seen since 1974 when Space: 1999 came out.
That show was compared to Trek, especially when it gained an alien, Maya, amongst its cast.
Then Star Wars came along and Trek was somewhat snubbed in favour of this big extravaganza, despite being completely different n tone and concept.
Then The Next Generation came out, and again original Trek was judged and passed over by a series that was supposed to be a part of its own franchise.
I've seen it firsthand, in numerous conventions I've gone to, where I saw less and less people in TOS and TOS movie costumes, and more and more in Star Wars costumes, then TNG costumes, and nowadays, everything under the sun.

But in all that time, I can't say I ever saw anybody wear an STTMP-era uniform at any sci-fi convention, or even specifically Star Trek, like Toronto Trek. I've seen photos from the movie's release with fans in such costumes, but nothing in person since. I've seen Wrath of Khan - Undiscovered Country-era uniforms, though.

This movie, regardless of how one feels about it, paved the way for all that came after.

Saw the Fathom Events Director's Edition screening tonight. The movie had a dedication at the very end, "For Bob". I assume it's for Robert Wise. For some reason, the Paramount logo from 1979 is used, not the current one. The scene in the officers' lounge was changed a bit. The window area was changed to match what was on the Enterprise model. The lounge was supposed to be right below the bridge; the scene now reflects that. (The original set was, in the words of Robert Wise, "thrown together". Probably from remnants of the large recreation deck set.)

Perhaps they used the 1979 logo because that's when the movie was released.

I thought of that. But, the 2001 "Director's Edition" DVD has the Paramount logo that was used at that time. I'll just consider the 1979 logo a retro touch.

Ah, I didn't know that.

What if this movie was actually an episode from season 14, in December 1979?
Youtuber FredFix posted this interesting 10:51 video, adding original series music over the movie music (or dead-air lack of music in important scenes), and vastly improves several scenes.
The second half of the video is better, especially scenes at 7:45 and 10:00.

https://youtu.be/nqGYpEmhHh0

Of course, if the series had continued, there would have been no movies.

And I doubt the full cast would have hung around for FOURTEEN seasons, but that's just a guess.

Mind you, this movie did start as a television episode. The pilot for the aborted Star Trek Phase II television series.

This happened because Paramount wanted to start their own television network (something they achieved with UPN, twenty years later) and wanted this to be their flagship show.

When the network idea collapsed, the pilot script was converted into this movie, and the rest is history.

I'm sure you guys have probably noticed the movie is reduced to 5 parts to fit it into TY episode size, and have probably gone and watched it from Part 1, but if not, here's the beginning.
Fredflix (not 'Fredfix as I first called him) has eliminated the whole Spock on Vulcan/Kirk regaining command/Enterprise wormhole sections to speed up the plotline.

https://youtu.be/Xioa26Wop_4

Interesting.

Den of Geek has an article comparing the three versions of this movie - the theatrical, ABC-TV and Director's editions. All of which are packaged together in a 4K Ultra HD pack. The article can be read here.

One things I have just noticed. The Klingon ship that actually fired on V'ger is the last one to be destroyed. You would think that V'ger would target the more hostile ship first.

V'Ger was in no danger.

It could take its time.

An interview by SyFy wire, with David Fein, concerning the 2022 Director's Cut update, can be read here.

Interesting.

Just incredible how they keep finding ways to improve this movie and give us things we've never seen before, after FORTY-THREE YEARS!.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's yet another version out in 2032!

Amazing, I know.

about to do a deep dive into this film. Worth it?

Yes

Go for it

When V'Ger takes Ilia, he takes all of her, clothes included. Why didn't the Ilia probe wear those clothes then? He had a pattern to follow, he did it to the point where he recreated Ilia's personality in the probe, so why did he consider those clothes unimportant?

It is strange.

The first ten films, including the TMP Director's Edition and extended versions of Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country, are now available for streaming on HBO Max. And, AFAIK, they will be until 6/1/23. So, if you have only Paramount+, and want to watch those movies, you're SOL. Unless you have the discs, of course.

No problem for me. I have the DVD's.

---

quote:

Mind you, this movie did start as a television episode. The pilot for the aborted "Star Trek Phase II" television series.

---

It's "genesis' (excuse the pun) was earlier than that. It was a story idea for Roddenberry's abandoned early '70s series Genesis II, titled "Robot's Return".

Or you could go further to the TOS episode, The Changeling.

From Blu-Ray.com, here's a review of the updated Director's Edition. Some material was carried over from the 2001 DVD release. If the HBO Max upload is any indication, the dim lighting is even more apparent than in any other version I have.

Interesting.

Forty three years ago today...you know the rest.

Almost forty-four years now.

Don't make me feel any older, my friend. On opening day, I was a month past 25. Now...you do the math.

Sorry about that, Adam.

@Adam, I was 17.

No need to apologize; just kidding around a bit.
A 1979 pic titled A Little Romance, starring Laurence Olivier and (a very young) Diane Lane turns up on TCM occasionally. I would like to watch it for one reason-why the score from this pic, by Georges Delerue, received the Best Original Score Oscar in 1980 over Jerry Goldsmith's superb score for TMP.

I was 13 when this movie came out.

I was 3 months old

I was 18, 6 months out of high school, and super-Star Trek obsessed with Star Trek being able to do no wrong.
You think I defend Star Trek, this movie, and William Shatner now? Ramp that up by a factor of 10 in 1979!

Here's another question for those old enough to be there in the theatre when it was first released-- how many times did you see it in the theatre in 1979/80?
I'm pretty sure it was 3 times for me, then I had to wait for the ancient VHS tapes to arrive at the ancient video stores.

3 times for me.

How many times did you see it in the theatre in 1979/80?

Seven times for me, between the first day of release (12/7/79) and the final day of showings here in the NYC area in mid-March, 1980. From Loew's State theater in Manhattan on day one, to a small second run theater in (IIRC) East Brunswick, New Jersey on the last day. And, I would sit through two screenings each time. Then, when I heard of the VHS release, I schlepped from downtown Manhattan (where I worked) to midtown. Video Shack specifically, as it was one of the few video stores at the time. And, I paid the full sell-through price. Which was at least $50, a nice chunk of change for a video back then. (Yes, I was more than a bit nuts.)

Then I bow down at your obvious enthusiasm for this movie!
Holy Moley! SEVEN times! No wonder the movie made $82,258,456 (according to boxofficemojo). It would have only made $82,258,400 without you!

And crew, those seven trips don't include two Fathom Events sponsored screenings. One in 2019, in celebration of the film's 40th anniversary. The second, in spring 2022, of the Director's Edition, prior to its streaming and 4K Blu-ray release.

Nice.

This may be the opening for the movie that some fans were expecting to see in 1979...

https://youtu.be/6fehZG2JOg0?si=hMeMVw9oFYM0SmSK

Would have been great, IMO.

I knew the anniversary was close, but I forgot that it was today! Or was it?
Google says December 6, 1979, imdb.com says December 8, and a look at a 1979 calendar shows Friday is December 7, which is the day when movies were originally released, weren't they?
Anyways, Happy 44th Anniversary STTMP!

I saw this movie when it originally came out, 44 years ago!

The premiere, with formal attire and all that stuff (do they still do that?) was December 6, 1979. Theaters started playing the barely completed film on 12/7. No advance press screenings were held, as the film simply wasn't ready.
Anyway, ditto to Steve's declaration. Happy 44th anniversary, STTMP.

Kicked off a decade of good Trek movies.

Gene Siskel's and Roger Ebert's reviews of the first nine Trek films are on YouTube. For TMP,, the preview clips supplied to critics were obviously rushed. It seems like alternate takes were used for the clips, the sound mix is poor, the on-set recorded dialogue was used, and the music cues were in the wrong places. And no, I won't tell their opinions of the movie; you'll have to dig it up for yourselves.

I'll try.