The affirmation of a love ...

Star Wars was my first science fiction love. As I reflect upon it, I'm not certain whether it was 'true love', but it certainly had a lot of things that I've experienced in later life, when I thought I was 'in love'. Excitement, fascination and joy are just some of the descriptions I would use to describe how I felt about Star Wars and its two sequels. But like many 'loves' there was also disappointment and despair. After Return of the Jedi, Star Wars disappeared for 16 years.

When one love disappears invariably another one comes along ...

 

What happened between 1983 and 1999 was simple: Star Trek. 

 

My "interest" in Star Trek started in January 1980 when I saw Star Trek:The Motion Picture at the Forum Cinema in Brisbane, Australia. I had seen a few episodes of The Original Series. Channel Nine Brisbane used to play it at lunch-times on Sunday afternoons. I have an especially strong memory of seeing 'The Devil In The Dark' when Spock mind-melds with the Horta.

 

During the Summer school holidays my Aunt Maude used to look after my brother and me, as Dad and Mum were both working. I can't remember if it was suggested by someone else or it was me who did the suggesting, but my brother, Maude and I ended up heading in to Brisbane to see Star Trek:The Motion Picture. This was before suburban multiplex cinemas, so the only way you could see a new release film was to go to the Brisbane CBD.

 

The Forum Cinema, in Brisbane, as it was. The Cinema is no longer there, but my memory remains ...

My childhood recollections  about Star Trek:The Motion Picture were about how 'big' the film looked. Everything I saw in it made me feel as though what I was seeing could really be the the way the future existed. It's no surprise, the more I learnt about Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, that this was entirely deliberate. Roddenberry, as Producer of the film, made sure that his humanist 'hope-for-the-future' ideas were included into as much of the film as possible. 

The British quad version of the wonderful Bob Peak poster for the film.

 

 

So, what do I make of Star Trek:The Motion Picture today?

 

The film has been much maligned by many who have criticised it for its slow-moving pace and lack of a distinct antagonist. As a fan of Gene Roddenberry's ideas about the future, I love what Star Trek:The Motion Picture represents. That is, a genuine attempt to show that human kind will advance to the point where the possibility of danger does not need to be resolved through violent conflict. But, does that make it a either a great film or great science fiction?

 

If the film had been made before Star Wars, I'm certain it would have been met by a more favourable response but therein lies its problem. By December 1979, when the film was released, films were already being designed as fast-moving, large-screen entertainment pieces that pushed audience expectation. Steven Spielberg's Jaws had started the trend in 1975, Rocky smashed the $100million US domestic gross in 1976, Star Wars swept all before it in 1977 and both Superman & Grease dominated 1978. In 1979, the James Bond adventure Moonraker, Rocky II and Alien had shared the spoils at the Box Office all around the world.

 

The film's protracted development period probably didn't help set the production off on the right foot either. Paramount had originally intended the new Star Trek to be a follow-up to The Original Series with more contemporary stories and updated production values to appeal to a broader audience. Between 1976 and 1978, the production oscillated and eventually became a feature film. It started filming with an unfinished script, a Director and a Producer who didn't see eye-to-eye and at least one principle cast member who was a reluctant participant.

The big difference for me between Star Trek:The Motion Picture and Star Wars is the story. In my first blog, I wrote that the simplicity of the Star Wars story allowed George Lucas to push the design elements of his settings; making them visually different to anything previously seen. Star Trek:The Motion Picture, however, is a about humans in the future, so a conscious familiarity exists between the film and its audience. There's also far more going on inside the character's heads, so the dialogue and overall story end up with a far higher level of exposition. V'Ger as the antagonist doesn't make it any easier, as it turns out to be less-of-a villain than a misunderstood entity searching for its "creator". It's a great 'Star Trek' idea, but it's was a hard-sell for what was supposed to be the triumphant return of the Enterprise crew in a big-budget science fiction adventure film.

 

What ended up on the screen was certainly visually stunning. The film's effects sequences were shot in 65mm film which reduced the amount of 'graininess' in the effects compositing process and created a much cleaner, sharper image. Even today, I can't help but marvel at the grandeur of Kirk and Scotty arriving at the Enterprise via shuttlepod in an extended tribute to the ship's new design. The interior scenes are less epic and are let- down by the very bland colour palette that was used for the new uniforms and various ship locations. I always remind myself it was 1978 when the movie was filmed and, I guess, pastel was the colour trend of the time!

And what of the characters? Like I said, there seems to be a lot more going on inside their heads, so their motivations are not always clear. That's not a bad thing, but I'm sure it made it hard for the non-Trek audience to understand what the crew were doing. Even Trek fans found it hard to relate to their favourite Starship crew. Kirk and Spock, in particular, were written very differently to anything from The Original Series and the addition of +Stephen Collins as Decker and Persis Khambatta as Ilia meant there was even less screen time for the seven principle cast members to recapture the spirit of the television series.

One of the highlights of the film is the score. Jerry Goldsmith was already at the top of his profession when he composed the score for Star Trek:The Motion Picture. Film scores such as Patton, Chinatown, The Omen and Alien had displayed his diversity as a Composer. For Star Trek:The Motion Picture he delivered a score that provided emotion where little existed and gave the film an epic quality, especially when matched to the complex effects sequences provided by +Douglas Trumbull.

Ultimately, Star Trek:The Motion Picture falls short of being a great film and, due to its slow pacing, at times, commits the ultimate crime - it allows the viewer to become bored. As much as I want to recommend Star Trek:The Motion Picture to someone who's not interested in Star Trek, I don't. Its flaws outweigh its entertainment value, which is a shame. A lot of talent was involved in making this film and the finished product should have been better than what was released.

To address some of the film's short-comings, there have been two subsequent revised versions of the film released. The first was the 1983 television release, which incorporated additional scenes between the characters, adding a small amount of humour and humanity missing from the theatrical release. The second is the heavily-revised 2001 DVD 'The Director 's Edition' release, which Director Robert Wise oversaw and, is arguably, much closer to what he intended in 1979. This version features a many revised effects shots that help improve the scope of the film, especially those involving V'Ger. Of the three versions, this is the one I would most recommend.

Star Trek:The Motion Picture may not have been love at first sight, but in the January of 1980, it was my first taste of something that has been with me every day since then. To paraphrase the last line from the film - my adventure was just beginning.



The first day of the last 35 years

As my twin soon-to-be five year old sons run about our house with their array of Star Wars, Avengers & Spiderman Christmas presents, I find myself reflecting on the enjoyment provided by my love of all things science fiction.

I must admit that first and foremost, I am primarily a visual person, so my first reaction has always been about the visual impression something has created. Whether it be a movie, a television show, a comic book or a poster. However, I have over the years, read and enjoyed a diverse range of written science fiction, fantasy and horror that has challenged my imagination to work harder than it may otherwise have.

I've found it hard to know exactly where to start the process of reviewing, but the most obvious is +George Lucas' Star Wars. I was 5 when Star Wars was released in Australia and, to this day, I remember why I was so engaged by it.

First, was my Mother's objection to my brother and me seeing it. Even at 5, I figured if my Mother didn't want me to see it - it must be good.We were initially forced to see a re-issue of Snow White but, upon my Father seeing the preview, we saw Star Wars soon after at the Greater Union theatre in Hunter Street, Newcastle.

Second, was the corridor scene in the Rebel Blockade Runner. The opening scene with the Blockade Runner and the Star Destroyer was beyond me at the time, as I had no comprehension of what I was seeing. Once the action moved to the inside of the ship, with people, it all of a sudden became something real. I remember loving the outfits that the Rebel soldiers wore, the shoot-out with the Stormtroopers and, ultimately, Darth Vader's appearance!

Third, the toys!  The ongoing presence of the toys in shops, even after the movie had finished its theatrical run, was a reminder of what was so great about Star Wars. One of the big issues older fans had with Episodes I, II & III is that they were toy advertisements masquerading as movies. Perhaps the endless stream of merchandise over three decades has made older Star Wars fans a little cynical, but, as a kid, I never thought you could have too many Star Wars toys. in 1977, the action figures let you re-create the lightsabre duel between Ben and Vader in your own bedroom!

So, what do I make of Star Wars today?

To be fair, all entertainment should be reviewed as a specific thing produced at a particular time. The 1977 version of Star Wars should not be reviewed in comparison to other films. Times change, and production techniques for film and television have allowed for story-telling to take place against a much-broader technical canvas.

The 1977 version of Star Wars is a strong piece of film-making. It starts with a great opening sequence that concludes with Luke leaving Tatooine behind as he embarks on his quest to find Princess Leia with Ben, Han, Chewbacca and the droids. The Second Act sees Luke accomplish his mission to find Leia, only to be told that they must escape the Death Star and deliver its technical read-outs to a waiting Rebel attack force. The Final Act sees Luke, Han & Chewbacca deliver the knock-out blow to the Death Star and provide the Rebels with a much-needed victory against the oppressive Empire. The through-line of the story is Luke's journey from boy to man who discovers, through Ben Kenobi, that he is endowed with Jedi powers just like his late Father - Anakin Skywalker.

This is the great accomplishment of Star Wars - the simplicity of its story. In keeping the story simple and the characters motivations clear, George Lucas was able to create visually creative environments that had never before been put on film. The Mos Eisley Cantina scene is an example of this creativity at work. The scene itself functions as a means for Ben and Luke to hire Han and Chewbacca to get them off Tatooine, but what really makes it unique is the sights and sounds taking place all around these five characters. There's no need to go into the details, as anyone who has seen the film knows the scene well.

Another great accomplishment of Star Wars are the visual effects created for the film. George Lucas created Industrial Light & Magic specifically to handle the effects for Star Wars and his decision turned out to be a good one. While the tortured process of creating these effects has been well documented, the final product proved to be beyond anyones expectations. Unlike many films today, where the effects are used for the sake of an effect, Star Wars' effects are used in the first two acts as bridging tools to help link scenes. It's not until the Third Act that the effects take centre stage with the Death Star dogfight between the Rebel and Imperial ships. The film was recognised with a number of awards for its effects work, including the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects.

One of the less talked about accomplishments of Star Wars is the acting. While Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher work well as a trio, their performances are enthusiastic as opposed to nuanced. The real acting credit in the film goes to Alec Guiness, Peter Cushing and the vocal talents of James Earl Jones. These three performances provide a theatrical tone to their three respective characters, who may otherwise have come off as one-note supporting cast members. James Earl Jones' Darth Vader voice has gone on to become a cultural icon on its very own; these days even inhabiting such things as the Tom Tom GPS unit!

Finally, I can't finish this piece without reference to the John Williams' score. I remember seeing George Lucas interviewed about how John Williams was going to score The Phantom Menace. Lucas sat down to listen to what Williams had prepared for the opening story crawl and was surprised to hear the Main Title track from Star Wars. The music Williams produced for Star Wars has, like so many things from this film, become iconic.

There's been so much written about Star Wars and its success as both a piece of entertainment and a cultural phenomenon. Like so many people, it became the starting point for my love of science fiction. It's probably more important to me today than it was as a child. As a middle-aged man watching his kids recreate their favourite scenes with their new toy lightsabres it makes me believe that there's always the possibility for me to make a trip to 'A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away ...'