Star Trek: The Motion(less) Picture?

Few media franchises have been able to capture the imaginations of several generations as much as Star Trek. It's one of the biggest cult phenomenons of all time. Since its debut in September of 1966, it has completely changed the course of science fiction, and continues to inspire a whole host of technological innovations such as cell phones and voice controlled computers. It was also the first major television program to present a world where multiculturalism and equality was not only seen as a strength, but vital for mankind's survival and eventual exploration of the final frontier. The show had a humble three season run, and a small but notable group of original fans. When the show ended in 1969, a renewed interest in science fiction and space exploration emerged due to the recent moon landing (most of TV shows of the 60s centered around Westerns). It was after this period that NBC began to show reruns of the episodes, thus fostering a whole new batch of fans.



The first full-fledged Star Trek Convention took place in 1972, and shortly thereafter, the Star Trek Animated Series returned the franchise to the small screen. By this time, it was easily the biggest science fiction franchise of all time and started to really make its presence known in broader pop culture, even to the point of NASA naming one of its premiere space shuttles after the famed starship Enterprise  in 1976.





By this point, it was clear to NBC executives that a new live action show would be a good investment and plans were eventually set to release the sequel show Star Trek: Phase II in 1977. During development, the science fiction world was shaken harder than it had ever been with the unexpected, but gargantuan release of Star Wars. This sci fi titan encouraged the producers of the Trek show to invest in a movie instead, since Star Wars was able to rake in so much money at the box office. Before Star Wars, the prospect of releasing a science fiction movie was seen as a major gamble. Lucas was only able to do it because his film American Graffiti did so well, and thus was given the privilege to make whatever he wanted.



The release of Star Wars was also partially responsible for growing the Trek fanbase even larger than it already was. Before the age of commercial home video release, many Star Wars fans would have to wait years before seeing the film again after its original run. As Star Trek was still on TV with reruns, many people would watch it in order to satiate their newfound appetites for science fiction. Thus with this new unexpected move, the producers at NBC expanded the script of the pilot episode for Phase II into something that would be suitable for a feature film. With the entire cast of the original show signed on to reprise their roles, and with Academy Award director Robert Wise on board with the project, the show appeared to be in the best possible hands for success. Star Trek: The Motion Picture was set up for cinematic greatness... but



When the film finally came out in 1979, it was met with lukewarm critical response, and underperformed at the box office raking in 139 million, compared to Star Wars' 775.5 million. Why was this? It had more than quadruple the budget that Star Wars had, was directed by one of the greatest filmmakers of the 20th century, and it featured the beloved cast-members who had become icons of the 1960s. The problem lied with the overall focus of the film. Let me explain:

Creator Gene Roddenberry was always keen to tell thought provoking, and highly cerebral stories. He liked to dig deep in the psychology of the human experience and evoke various epochs of human history and paint allusions to mythology and great literary epics. The problem was that this type of storytelling wasn't usually the most commercially popular Star Trek thematic structure, and by this point, Roddenberry should have been aware of how it had backfired in the past. For example, the very first Star Trek pilot in 1964 was rejected by NBC because of how cerebral it was and were gracious enough to allow Roddenberry a second chance, with a 1965 pilot that was more character driven and had an action oriented plot. Roddenberry was able to tell his cerebral stories multiple times throughout the course of the show, but he did so usually in the mix of more action oriented episodes, and even still, the cerebral episodes were still very character driven. Throughout the course of the show, it should have occurred to him more than it seemed to at the time, that people were more connected to the characters and their relationships with each other more than the complicated stories and the various references to the classics of ages past. And certainly, none of the appeal from the very start had anything to do with expensive special effects. The fact that the first Star Trek movie is so obsessed with dazzling the audience with images more-so than the development of these beloved characters was one of the biggest criticisms of the film. And especially as it was acting as a bit of a response to the immense popularity of Star Wars, it is baffling that they would make the Trek film so meditative and methodical rather than intense and mesmerizing the way Star Wars was. Also, Star Wars was another case where the characters were really the heart of the action. None of those groundbreaking special effects would have meant a thing if the audience didn't care about what Luke Skywalker was doing, or about the workings of the Force, or how the Rebellion was to defeat the Empire once and for all. The special effects added a nice frosting to an already delicious cake, whereas Star Trek: The Motion Picture seemed to like a half-baked flavorless cake with a copious amount of frosting in order to compensate. Because of its slow pace, many commentators then and since have labeled it Star Trek: The Motionless Picture.



So what was the objective of Roddenberry's decision to make the movie in this manner? Many people have speculated that instead of imitating Star Wars with its action oriented plot and lighthearted atmosphere, he used another epic science fiction film 2001: A Space Odyssey as its main inspiration. Knowing Roddenberry's style it is easy to understand why. 2001 was basically an epic poem from antiquity but on film and exploring the entirety of human evolution in one fell swoop. It started with proto-human primates in Africa more than 4 million years ago and chronicled the advancement of human intelligence and technology in the form of a relationship between humanity and an unseen ultra-advanced alien species that has helped drive human evolution with the use of monoliths that somehow aid in human development. The film also deals with the danger of technology growing into weapons (as evidenced by the first "tool" being a weapon itself) and the danger of creating Artificial Intelligence which lacks the basic human psychological filter that discerns between ethics and logic. The film was controversial when it was first released, but despite that, it quickly became highly respected and was soon considered one of the greatest films of all time, as well as a major influence aesthetically on Star Wars.



It is highly likely that Roddenberry wanted to recapture some of this magic by introducing some of Trek into it. After all, 2001 seems like something Roddenberry would have come up with. The plot is even quite similar. It features this mysterious but highly destructive cloud that is on a direct course for Earth. When the Enterprise intercepts it and investigates, the crew realizes that the cloud is intelligent and run by some sort of machine. When they travel into the heart of the cloud, they discover that it is in actuality one of the Voyager probes sent into space (the real life ones that NASA launched around the time the film came out) and it somehow evolved during its journey and attained a type of consciousness. It was on a path for Earth because it was looking for its creator, which is actually quite a neat concept because in reality that has been the objective of humanity since our earliest abilities to rationalize. While this is a thought provoking plot in its formative shell, the actual implementation of these ideas and the execution was simply not what either Star Trek fans nor average moviegoers were expecting to see. They wanted to see a return to the playful banter between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, and explore the characters in a deeper way than the television show was able to do, whereas Roddenberry was less concerned about progressing the story of the characters and more concerned about creating an epic film that would surpass both 2001 and Star Wars, and he unfortunately failed in that pursuit.



Luckily for Star Trek, this hardly put the series in any considerable danger because Paramount soon greenlit a smaller budgeted sequel that would change up the leadership and produce a film that was closer in touch with both the original series, and with the sensibilities of a Trek film that was lighter and more fun. The result was the highly praised Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan which did several things. It continued the famous Khan storyline from the original show, deepened the character of Kirk as we are introduced to his former romantic partner Carol Marcus and their son David, and took a major risk and raised the stakes by deciding to kill off Commander Spock in a climactic sacrificial gesture to save the crew of the Enterprise. The action was palpable and the literary and historical allusions were much more contained and palatable. Keen viewers could notice that it was essentially a retelling of both Moby Dick and A Tale of Two Cities, and there were some intelligent set designs that made the Enterprise resemble a submarine. Many people considered this to be the film that the first entry in the series should have been, and has been credited by many fans as revitalizing the series. It was this film that launched five more films: Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. These films also helped Trek return to the television screen with the launch of Star Trek: The Next Generation in 1987, which lasted for seven seasons and then spawned many more films and series that continue even to this day.



While personally I really like Star Trek: The Motion Picture and really relish those overly cerebral storylines, I completely understand why it failed. Fans want to see the characters they love do something important, and many felt that The Motion Picture was highly lacking in that regard. I do think the negative reaction was a bit undeserving though. Personally I feel like there was an attempt to add some flair to the development of these characters. For example, we learn early in the film that Spock has failed a very important Vulcan ritual that is meant to finally purge all emotions. His failure is significant, because Spock (who is half human/ half vulcan) has always attempted to downplay his humanity. This failure only adds to that internal conflict. We also see Kirk struggle with his increasing age, and his fleeting years a Starship captain... although I will admit this is done much more effectively in Wrath of Khan where it is given much more of a spotlight to shine.



In the end, most fans can enjoy both films nowadays, even though the favorite will always be Wrath of Khan. Star Trek has always been lucky enough to course correct when things go wrong. It may take a failure of some kind, but its longevity is a testament to the power it has over people. Let's just hope future Star Trek storytellers keep the deep love for the characters in mind as their ultimate priorities, so we can keep on learning about and exploring this rich expanded Universe.