
TGFNM? Anyone know what that new zippy Internet acronym stand for? I do, it's: Thank God For Nicholas Meyer. Because we really wouldn't have Star Trek today if Star Trek the Motion Picture had been the true kick-start to the franchise. I can't think of any other film series, and this Trek series ran six films, that started off with THE WORST film of the bunch. It's a miracle we ever saw another Trek film after this one. Yes this film did make it's money back. But it certainly didn't leave fans wanting more. It certainly didn't leave Leonard Nimoy wanting more, the actor reportedly never wanted to play Spock again after this film. (which if you've seen this movie Spock is played as dead as fried fish. Which tragically enough went well with the entire tone of this movie...) Nicholas Meyer had to beg him to come back for the Wrath of Khan, and the only reason Nimoy did return was that Meyer promised to "kill" Mr. Spock.
My theory as to why The Wrath of Khan is generally accepted as the "best" Star Trek movie, (and it really is) is I think as terrific as that film was, it had a bit of a helping hand because it was light-years better than the film before it. No question. Nicholas Meyer saved Star Trek.
My experience last night with Star Trek the Motion Picture was exactly like the five other experiences I've had with the film before it. I fought my eyelids tooth and nail to keep the aperture above 50%. Unfortunately I couldn't always maintain perfect cognizance. Around the 15 minute mark I did fall asleep. That's 15 minutes folks, I can stay awake through a nightmare-sized overdose of Excedrin PM for 15 minutes. Not the case with Star Trek the Motion Picture. I woke back up around the 35 minute mark and did my very, very best to maintain consciousness. (I think the only reason I kept my eyes open through the rest of the film was due to Persis Khambatta's ridiculously short robe she wore after being abducted by V'Ger. I kept waiting for Capt. Kirk to tell her she dropped a nickel...)The number one reason why this movie never fails to bore the tears out of me, or anyone else lucid enough to watch it, is that it's so humorless, so zero-charisma, so dry, that a viewer enters his/her personal fugue state very early in the picture. Falling asleep seems programed into the film. I feel like I was attacked by a vampire last night. A vampire that first, put me in a deep, drooling, trance, and then sucked the joy and life right out through my bloodshot eyes. I feel drained this morning.
I think where Roddenberry and Co. went wrong with this film is that they put a ton of money into it. (only Star Trek Nemesis ever passed the record budget set by Star Trek the Motion Picture) most of it into special effects and model work, which looked really great. But they obviously became obsessed with showing off the expensive effects in the film. Star Trek the Motion Picture is 75% Enterprise flying into and through the "V'Ger" cloud ( just In case you haven't had the opportunity to see Star Trek 1 before, yes it's about a giant space cloud attacking Earth. Which really is every bit as boring as that plot promises) and 25% lifeless scriptreading by the actors, none of which share any real chemistry with each other. It's not just a boring movie, it's a boring Star Trek movie, and it's the series only really big miss as far as I'm concerned. Some fans would label Star Trek V: The Final Frontier as the black sheep of the flock. Not the case as it turns out, at least Trek V had it's funny moments. Star Trek the Motion Picture has no funny moments, it's just one epic drag...
And so ends Survival of the Snooziest. If I had to choose which film was harder to watch I might have to go with A Space Odyssey, if only because I knew more about the mythology and the characters of Star Trek and it made the movie slightly more interesting, if only by default. Make no mistake, both films were dry as Joan Rivers underwear, and there really is no winner in this contest. Me included.