Okay, no, I have no idea. I just ordered it (this book). But I have to say I think it will be a great read. I`m someone who thinks Robert Wise and crew did a brilliant job bringing the show into film *without* much comedy (aptly so in the face of such a galactic armageddon).
Sidenote - funny to think about the big deal stirred up regarding the cost of this production, given the bar these days.
I'll buy the book, too. Although I've warmed to the film over the decades, I still can't say I like it. I do have the Director's Cut DVD and I think it's an improvement over the theatrical version. I just think it's a bad film that has some good stuff in it. Brilliant score. Spectacular visual effects. A few random scenes I like. The tour around the Enterprise with music swelling is unforgettable. It's when the Ilia Probe shows up the film takes a nose dive and never recovers. Painful to watch from that moment on. I still watch the film once a year for the things I do like in it but were I a film critic I'd still have to give the thumbs down.
The tour around the Enterprise with music swelling is unforgettable. It's when the Ilia Probe shows up the film takes a nose dive and never recovers. Painful to watch from that moment on. I still watch the film once a year for the things I do like in it but were I a film critic I'd still have to give the thumbs down.
It seems to me Wise took the opportunity to portray Starfleet as a very business-like functional community, which was something of a revelation at the time. The few scenes with the hustle and bustle of San Francisco where people were milling around portrayed a sense of scale in the 23rd century. But then, the Star Trek original series nearly always had Kirk or crew members generally embarked in various romantic entanglements and the Decker/Ilea relationship was, I think, Robert Wise remaining as true to that aspect of the original series as he could get. Everything about Ilea, including presentation, was a hark back, as they say. The way it came over either worked, or, it didn't.
Hi, everybody. I assume you've seen the post by Lukas which announced the book and provided a ink to info about it at Creature Features, the publisher.
There's now a link on that thread to an interview I gave with one of the Trek sites. And soon, several Trek sites will be posting excerpted highlights from the book, and of course we'll provide links to those as well. Meanwhile,
Nightingale --
I'd be happy to help you. What would you like to know?
No, seriously, I`m hoping to glean some indication of how everyone (apprehensively?) viewed the grand undertaking they were on, given both what Trek has meant and the scope & theatrical immensity of the story. Interplay between main characters notwithstanding, I always thought Trek was truly at its best when grappling with the mightiest of moralities, anachronisms, and the boldness of Right and Wrong. Shatner`s Kirk is the core of my own principles.
So yes, thanks for holding onto those notes and for finally putting them out.
I'm interested in this book even though I think ST:TMP is a very very flawed movie that's gets much more wrong than it does right.
Without a doubt the music is superb (I've yet to meet a soundtrack collector - even a non-Goldsmith fan - who disagrees) and the production design is top notch. For the most part the FX and model work are both excellent and some of the costumes are pretty cool too.
But man alive does the film drag on and on, mainly because it is just a film about people looking at things. Kirk looking at the new Enterprise (a scene which, although nice for Trekkies and music fans, goes on far far too long), Kirk and crew looking at the view screen (which they do a LOT) or looking at the Ilea Probe wandering around the ship and then finally Kirk and co looking at V'Ger. It is just incredibly dull, No matter how pretty the graphics look on the view screen or whatever.
ST:TMP teaches a lesson that all screenwriters should learn from; gaseous cloud thingies are neither threatening or scary and should never be set up as the principle villain of a movie (alas the writers of Green Lantern and the 2nd Fantastic Four movie do not seem to have cottoned onto this).
I'm interested in this book even though I think ST:TMP is a very very flawed movie that's gets much more wrong than it does right.
Without a doubt the music is superb (I've yet to meet a soundtrack collector - even a non-Goldsmith fan - who disagrees) and the production design is top notch. For the most part the FX and model work are both excellent and some of the costumes are pretty cool too.
But man alive does the film drag on and on, mainly because it is just a film about people looking at things. Kirk looking at the new Enterprise (a scene which, although nice for Trekkies and music fans, goes on far far too long), Kirk and crew looking at the view screen (which they do a LOT) or looking at the Ilea Probe wandering around the ship and then finally Kirk and co looking at V'Ger. It is just incredibly dull, No matter how pretty the graphics look on the view screen or whatever.
ST:TMP teaches a lesson that all screenwriters should learn from; gaseous cloud thingies are neither threatening or scary and should never be set up as the principle villain of a movie (alas the writers of Green Lantern and the 2nd Fantastic Four movie do not seem to have cottoned onto this).
For me it's like a stroll through an art museum. Yes lots of looking, but so beautiful. But I do wonder if I would feel the same without Goldsmith's exceptional score. It really carries the film. It's almost a live action version of Fantasia.
@ 2:28 That's the orbital office complex not Epsilon 9 Space Station. Half that stuff never made it in the final cut or was lost in the background. (Thank gods)
- ST:TMP teaches a lesson that all screenwriters should learn from; gaseous cloud thingies are neither threatening or scary and should never be set up as the principle villain of a movie (alas the writers of Green Lantern and the 2nd Fantastic Four movie do not seem to have cottoned onto this).
What about the cloud creature from TOS' Obsession? What about the fog from the movie The Fog?
And I can assure you when I watched this movie at the age of four, this was one of the scariest movies I had ever seen. The cloud very anonymous, imposing and dark. The shot of the lighting effects that indicated a plasma bolt was on it's way made me cover my eyes whenever I saw lightning. And even today at the age of 30, I still find the cloud threatening and scary.
- ST:TMP teaches a lesson that all screenwriters should learn from; gaseous cloud thingies are neither threatening or scary and should never be set up as the principle villain of a movie (alas the writers of Green Lantern and the 2nd Fantastic Four movie do not seem to have cottoned onto this).
What about the cloud creature from TOS' Obsession? What about the fog from the movie The Fog?
And I can assure you when I watched this movie at the age of four, this was one of the scariest movies I had ever seen. The cloud very anonymous, imposing and dark. The shot of the lighting effects that indicated a plasma bolt was on it's way made me cover my eyes whenever I saw lightning. And even today at the age of 30, I still find the cloud threatening and scary.
But yeah, the film is a mess to behold.
The cloud was very ominous, threatening and mysterious. It also had shape and form. It was also enhanced a great deal by the score and sound effects. I absolutely loved the Vger cloud.
