MovieChat Forums > Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) Discussion > A big reason why Star Trek TMP didnt pul...

A big reason why Star Trek TMP didnt pull off Star Wars success


We all know the story, Paramount were umming and arring how to bring back Trek. A low budget movie or TV series before finally deciding on a 2nd tv show (Phase II), sets were built, scripts commissioned(some later used for TNG during a writers strike) everyone signed up bar nimoy,.. then SW came out and Paramount wanted a big proper movie scrapped the series and hired big name director , and it came out and was hit by negative reviews. It made 140m worldwide to SW's 700m (or whatever it did at the time minus all the reissue box office). TMP was still success just not on the level of SW

But why? Why couldnt Trek do what SW did? Sci Fi fans had been gagging for more Trek over the past decade and here it was in a no expense spared movie! SW itself was even part influenced by Trek (along with a mish mash of other stuff: LOTR, cliffhanger serials, Flash Gordon, Joseph Campbell, Kurosawa, religion etc)..

Well a big reason is SW tapped into the youth market, it was fun, FX like no one had seen since 2001, action packed like a comic book, and all the instant iconic stuff The Jedi,The Force, Darth Vader, ObiWan, The Droids, Millennium Falcon, XWings/Ties, DeathStar, lightsabers, etc,etc but at the centre of it all it had YOUNG, HOT, NEW stars in Hamill Ford Fisher for teens to obsess over pin up on bedroom walls,. Trek TMP had all the cool tech and mythology stuff of its own universe (like Wars) but had middle aged Shatner, Nimoy etc. yes they were YOUNG and HOT back in the 60s when they were early/mid 30s but here they were approaching 50 and despite bring in decent shape were looking every one of those years. To counter this the filmmakers realised they needed young blood so introduced two unknown young hot potential future stars (like Hamill Ford Fisher) in Stephen Collins , Persis Kambatta, ok all good fine but they SHAVED the head of the gorgeous Kambatta completely removing her hotness appeal and Collins was very bland in the role. (notice for the sequel they repeated the same set up but made sure to keep the hair on the hot actress!) so that added to the boredom/slowness/adultness of the movie (that would really only appeal to the nerdy hard core fan base) there was just nothing really to attract the young audience (teens, 20s) like there was with SW.

Look at how huge Titanic became, yes it was a mega budget version of the legendary tragedy with state of art FX, replica of the ship, great music/song but at the centre were two young hot stars for younger audiences to go nuts over (Leo became a phenomenon like a modern day young Elvis). And for when it came time to reinvent/reboot/prequalize Star Trek they obviously made sure to get young hot stars in the iconic roles (a young Brad Pitt like Kirk, the strangely attractive Sylar from Heroes as Spock, a hot Beyoncé like Uhura soon to be star of Avatar) and as a result ST09 became a bigger than expected hit esp in the states one of the biggest movies of the year.

So ultimately ST:TMP really needed some hot new stars to counteract the middleage-ness of the original actors, yes Collins and Kambatta but ffs keep her hair! And make the movie more fun, action, colour, sexy. more like the TV show. and probably would've made double what it did which would still have been about half of SW box office (yes they more or less did that for the sequels but the damage was already done with the 1st film)

reply

No Collins surely?

But yes, Kambatta with hair!

reply

Star Trek: The Motion Picture is adult science-fiction whereas Star Wars is space fantasy, big difference. I'd watch it any day over Star Wars. As far as adult science-fiction goes, I'd watch it over (the dramatically dull) 2001: A Space Odyssey.

make the movie more fun, action, color, sexy. more like the TV show


Actually, it's very much like the TV show (keep in mind that, out of the 79 episodes, there were only three comedic ones, including "The Trouble With Tribbles"). Watch the two pilots -- "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before"; The Motion Picture has a similar tone. It's the same with the first aired episode, "The Man Trap." Like “The Corbomite Maneuver” and “Metamorphosis," it's a mature, cerebral, sci-fi story with very little action.

Unlike Star Wars, it wasn't meant for kids (not that there's anything wrong with that, lol). Its depth is evidenced by the emotional wallop experienced when Spock grasps Kirk’s hand in Sickbay (truly revealing emotion) or when Spock weeps for V’ger and comments on its personal dilemma, not to mention Decker’s self-sacrificial fusion with the machine so that it may evolve to the next level of awareness.

As far as the box office goes, it was the most profitable of all the Star Trek movies featuring the original cast, which concerned the next dozen years; it even set a record during its opening weekend at the US box office. Also, consider the fact that The Motion Picture made more at the box office than the acclaimed films Alien and Apocalypse Now, which were released the same year.

Regarding "hot new stars," I'll take Persis Khambatta (Ilia-probe) over Carrie Fisher, bald or not. Who did 2001: A Space Odyssey have for feminine allure? Nada.

Conclusion: The Motion Picture towers alone, utterly unique in the feature film series — a profoundly spiritual triumph. Except for The Voyage Home, it's the best of the first six Star Trek films — and the only one with an undeniable cinematic awe in the manner of 2001 — with The Search For Spock on its heels.

reply

It's not that complicated. The problem was simply that "Star Trek, the Motion Picture" wasn't a very good movie, and "Star Wars" was a pretty good movie (I say that as someone who has always preferred "Star Trek" to "Star Wars"). It had nothing to do with the ages of the stars.

reply

Quick and solid truth right there

reply

The 1970s had settled into a string of crime, horror and generally dark films where having the bad guy win at the end was not uncommon. The sci-fi films up to then were generally serious and 'intelligent' in nature and then along came SW which was an adventurous 'popcorn' film and completely stirred up everything going on at the time and engaged with audiences of many ages. It was the film we didn't know we wanted!

ST: TMP has many well-known flaws but it certainly tried to carry on like SW hadn't happened. Too serious in tone, too slow, not enough going on or going places. I love both films in different ways but TMP's established property, amazing effects, beloved cast and great music could only take the film so far.

I heard the effects were completed so late that Wise simply couldn't get the time to edit them properly and they were just quickly put into the film, leaving Goldsmith to make it easier for us to sit through with the help of his wonderful score.

Then it was a rush job to get the films printed and flown to cinemas by the deadline, with the famous story being that the reels were still wet when they were being loaded into the projectors!

reply

Actually, it did. Overseas.

reply

This is my second favorite Star Trek film only after Wrath of Khan. One of the things that I liked above classic Trek was that they could do very different kind of stories. This was probably the most anticipated movie for me when it came out. I dragged my dad to the movie theater to see it with me.

reply

Wasn't wrath of Kahn a huge about face back to action and a huge success because of that?
Like they went all star wars to make up for TMP.
I like both just saying

reply