Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) movie review - Sneak Previews with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel

This is the original review of Star Trek: The Motion Picture by Siskel & Ebert on "Sneak Previews" in 1979. All of the segments pertaining to the movie have been included.

[@alanfoster6589]

After I wrote the story (based on an idea Roddenberry supplied), I became an instant non-person around the production. Wanted to work on the script, never got the chance. I wanted V'ger's design to take after the work of the French comic artist Phillipe Druillet. That idea also went nowhere.

[@ZIALANDER63]

Even in retrospect I enjoy the film. It's a wonderful idea, especially since both Voyagers are still in space and have gone further in space than any other object from Earth. This could still come true. Messages in bottles DO get found.

[@PaulSmith-qs1es]

I love Druillet. I wish they'd film the Ring Cycle with his designs.

[@alanfoster6589]

@@PaulSmith-qs1es Not gonna happen, but one can wish....

[@PaulSmith-qs1es]

@@alanfoster6589 Some day I will gain access to the Library of Babel and be able to watch Druillet's Ring Cycle, Jodorowsky's Dune, the second half of Bakshi's Lord of the Rings cartoon, and read the rest of Mervyn Peake's Titus books, Dune 7 in Frank Herbert's own words, the sequel to Dead Souls, Love's Labour Won, the lost Greek drama (and particularly the lost plays of Aeschylus's Prometheus trilogy), and the remaining 18 books of the Faerie Queene.

[@alanfoster6589]

@@PaulSmith-qs1es While you're at it, find the lost orchestral score to Havergal Brian's 4½ hour cantata Prometheus Unbound.

[@rburley204]

Although initially disappointed when this was originally released, the movie has grown on me over the years! Not the worst in the series and definitely had the best musical score of any of the movies. Jerry Goldsmith was another musical genius!

[@CeeLiberty]

The scene where Kirk sees the Enterprise for the first time is just priceless (including the soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith!)

[@MrRodzilla]

it goes on too long

[@Fiveash-Art]

@@MrRodzilla No it doesn't.

[@MrRodzilla]

@@Fiveash-Art time it

[@TsiratiugZ]

Was Bones taking part in a Bee Gees cover band when Kirk pulled him back into service?

[@paulwalsh2344]

Naw he was the hippy leader of a 70's style sex cult.

[@Tuning_Spork]

McCOY (with guitar): Aw, blame it all... CHAPEL: ...blame it all... McCOY: ...on the nights in sick bay... CHAPEL: ...blame it on the nights in sick bay

[@zenpaganwarrior]

Lol...or, had he become the guru of some medical cult out in deep space?

[@ViktorBiohazard]

70's in 23th century. LOL

[@purefoldnz3070]

c'mon its not like what he was wearing was a....Tragedy! Aaah!

[@purpletomatocinema]

this is how you do a review, short, sweet and to the point. You don't need to recap the entire movie nor have some silly sketches to prove how entertaining you are.

[@PrinceAppalling]

You seem to have quite a bit of nostalgia for these two critics.

[@Fiveash-Art]

Nostalgia critic is pretty entertaining, but I definitely agree with you about the skits. They're incredibly annoying. Doug is a funny dude though.

[@MattMcIrvin]

I'm fascinated by how much of the discussion here was about whether the special effects were "good enough", when in hindsight, the special effects seem mostly fine to excellent (certainly far better than anything on the beloved original series) but the problems of the movie are all about pacing, and making the highly abstract themes and 2001-like ambiance work with these familiar TV characters. I've always found this movie oddly beguiling but I know it's far from perfect, and whether it's as good a spectacle as "Star Wars" seems entirely beside the point. The movie's best sequence is Spock's solo flight into the heart of V'Ger, because it's a perfect marriage of the most eye-popping visual effects in the film, and a character we love behaving 1000% in character. Spock has to do this because he's Spock and it's the kind of thing Spock does. And we all know it.

[@amoeba1533]

I find this movie SUPERB! And I think those who call it "booring" or "slow" are nothing but drongos who can't get enough guns, stunts, car chases, and explosions.

[@thiscorrosion900]

The arcade game was better, honestly. I recently screened a newer DVD of the film on my home theater system maybe a year ago, and it was enjoyable, not nearly as slow as I'd recalled it as being. It's not a bad film, just a bit overlong, perhaps. The FX weren't bad at all. However Star Trek II is still the gold standard as far as I'm concerned. Just got the Director's Cut blu ray and screened that again, well, some of the production design (interiors) doesn't hold up even with that movie, but overall it's the best Trek film, I think.

[@lizardmanYTMND]

They spent a lot of time talking about the special effects because that's what the movie was selling. Star Trek: The Motion Picture was the most expensive movie ever at the time and people wanted to know what they spent the money on. Look up the TV spots: there were *entire* commercials consisting completely of special effects and not a single shot of any actors. It's a fair critique.

[@aliensoup2420]

The more these two talk the more they betray their buffoonery. Even today fans are still gushing over the space dock sequence when Kirk first sees the new Enterprise. And the shots of inside Vger are still jaw-dropping.

[@Fiveash-Art]

@@aliensoup2420 I could look at that enterprise scene over and over .. Taking in that beautiful score. Watching Kirk see his woman for the first time in years. It's a fitting tribute to the fans. The complainers be damned because they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

[@StillLateToTheParty]

Shatner in his prime. I’ve always thought of this more as a symphony with amazing images than a movie

[@ricardocantoral7672]

You can call that film.Peter Hutton, Aldo Tambellini, Lutz Mommartz, Jem Cohen, they all have made films that have no narrative or actors.

[@pheonix5597]

"Booring"? .. . depends WHAT you consider EXCITING in the first place. Now personally I happen to find ohhhh guns, stunts, car chases, crashes, and explosions pretty dull myself, so I don't miss THAT shit one bit when watching THIS film.

[@juststatedtheobvious9633]

I found the rambling misanthropy and puddle deep sexual metaphor didn't blend well with all the random body horror... Great screensaver though.

[@silikon2]

It's subjective what is boring but The Voyage Home had less violence and horror than this one and is much less boring to me.

[@juststatedtheobvious9633]

@@silikon2 To be fair, I think they're talking about the kind of mindless action where the only thing happening is an editor desperately trying to save the movie and failing.

[@TheRestartPoint]

I love the effects, the music and the thoughtful story. I put this in a similar class to Blade Runner, a sumptuous film which doesn't need a complicated plot. These kind of films are all about being thoroughly and convincingly immersed in the sights and sounds of another reality while forgetting your own, and this film succeeds in doing that for me, every time I see it.

[@bozotheclown169]

it mustve been such a thrill for trekkies to see little clips of the long awaited movie. the new uniforms. bang up to date sets etc.. and Shatner!!

[@jackiescanlon]

Worth watching if only for Jerry Goldsmith's majestic score.

[@paulwalsh2344]

OH wait, what about the phenomenal reveal of the gorgeous Starship Enterprise ! ? ! That was absolute movie making magic !

[@robertwiegman1]

I agree. Score is best part.

[@CaptainSpalding72]

Wrong. Its a fine film

[@CaptainSpalding72]

Not only.

[@CapnSlappypants]

One of the greatest scores ever composed by Jerry Goldsmith.

[@RealmMan]

You can tell this is a workprint by the lack of complete sound effects

[@PaulSmith-qs1es]

I thought this was one of the better Star Trek films, and I like that it doesn't have a villain. Although certainly not as good, it's a bit more like Solaris where it's about exploring and understanding, which is a far more worthy plot for sci-fi than an adventure film but in space.

[@gutz1981]

What is odd about this movie, they were still close to looking like how they did when the show ended (Obviously a little older). But come Star Trek 2, they looked so much different it felt very removed from the show and felt like its own new thing. Not a bad thing mind you. But had this film put them back in their old uniforms, I could see it being more related and close to the show than any movie that came since in terms of appearance.

[@OuterGalaxyLounge]

It's called the '80s, which tried to update for the time but ended up having the opposite effect of looking even more dated in the long run. You see that with most of the film scores of movies at the time as well.

[@DamienDrake]

Every movie score is dated, as are their movies. The current period will be remembered as the Age of Ostinati and Chords.

[@09rja]

Damn it Bones.....I need you.......BADLY. Ok Jim, we'll get a room. :)

[@batgiant3535]

It was a great movie. You don't need a Darth Vader in every movie. Not all aliens are evil there are many good ones like in close encounters, or E.T. So many critics and people were way too hard on this movie. Sorry, it was a great film on so many levels

[@patrickriley674]

Bat Giant I don’t remember the aliens in Close Encounters being evil...🤔

[@batgiant3535]

@@patrickriley674 thank you for pointing that out i meant not all Sci-Fi films need villains. I hope all aliens in the the universe are not evil. Thank God for movies like E.T. or Close encounters

[@batgiant3535]

@@patrickriley674 I corrected that error

[@phyein4815]

I agree I think this is an underrated film.

[@ralphreinert]

I was 15 in the May of 1979. My friends and I were big fans of the TV reruns of Star Trek and had loved the 1977 movie Star Wars. We eagerly awaited the release of the combination of two of our favorite entertainment icons. We were extremely disappointed on all fronts. For one thing this new movie seemed to be a leisurely retelling of the Star Trek episode The Changeling, the special effects were mainly long and drawn out shots of the new Enterprise, and the movie itself was rather slow and boring. Thank goodness The Empire Strikes Back came out in 1980 and The Wrath of Khan rescued Star Trek in 1982.

[@sebulia1]

Interesting that the clips use the rough original production sound, not the actual soundtrack of the finished film.

[@ianwestc]

This immediately stuck out to me, viewing this ... 40 years later. Playing the movie main theme when Spock arrives (he had his own music). But playing the romantic love theme of Ilia when McCoy greets Spock on the bridge is hilarious.

[@k1productions87]

Not only different soundtrack, but different takes of the scenes entirely. None of the clips were the same ones actually used in the film

[@CaminoAir]

At the time the special effects were widely regarded as (mostly) of an extra-ordinarily high standard, even if the film suffered from far too many lengthy scenes of them. I think both Siskel and Ebert seriously misjudged this aspect of the movie. Maybe they meant that spacecraft model work was familiar enough that they wanted to see something different. They really should have been clearer in their words if that was the case. And mention the Goldsmith music for goodness sake, unless both critics think that didn't stand out enough either!!!

[@OuterGalaxyLounge]

Roger, within his limits here, is right. This was not a great film, but is a very good one for anyone interested in the questions it poses about the ultimate and sometimes unintended consequences of our own technological advances. Who, other than the most simple-minded, wants their science-fiction to have black-and-white baddie villains and tiresome lowbrow shoot-em-up action instead of an adversary that might be more complex in nature? I liked the contemplative and thoughtful tone of this film and wish more sci-fi was like this instead of like Star Wars, which I think a lot of people were wanting here, forgetting the whole point of Star Trek which is to pose more interesting philosophical questions about us and our place in things. This movie is a hybrid between the more realistic adult-oriented fare of the '70s which predated the somewhat ruinous effects of Star Wars on motion pictures and the need to technologically upgrade the visuals to keep people's attention.

[@comicbookninja5268]

good points. it's an actual science fiction movie that ask questions about what it means to be human and not just an action movie dressed in sci fi clothes.

[@k1productions87]

@@comicbookninja5268 Exactly why I feel even though The Motion Picture was not as good of a "movie" as Wrath of Khan,... Motion Picture was still the superior "Trek" of the two. That being said, the only one that succeeds in being both a great movie and Trek at the same time was Voyage Home :3

[@ymir162]

Star Trek was always at its best when the guys were outmanned and outgunned and their ship was falling apart and they had to THINK their way out of a tough situation.

[@k1productions87]

​@@ymir162 Not always. "Balance of Terror" was a great episode, and the Enterprise easily outmatched the slow Romulan Warbird. But the tough situation to think out of was preventing all out war while still stopping the intruder before more lives were lost. Plus the mental chess game between Kirk and the Romulan Commander, and the respect for each other that the confrontation gave. "You and I are of a kind. In a different reality I could have called you friend"

[@forestgeorge8855]

To hear Persis talk without the voice effects as the probe - shows how robotic she was trying to act before they put the filters on. Awesome job.

[@Fiveash-Art]

She's such a gorgeous woman.. Sad she left the world when she was so young.

[@ConradSpoke]

It's hard to believe that 2001 was only 11 years old.

[@rmurphy440m]

Thanks for uploading these Eric! It's nice to see these two in top form!

[@mediasawdust2458]

I always considered this movie to be like a long episode. Not a great one but it still has the best Klingon scene ever filmmed.

[@amaxamon]

Yes! Before they were turned into Viking bikers in space. I got tired of all the fur vests & bloodwine & sub-Wagnerian nonsense, "we shall sing a song of our victories har-har-har!"

[@joegrennon]

I liked it. It feels like Star Trek to me.

[@ricardocantoral7672]

@@amaxamon Your post made me LOL ! 😂

[@briannewman532]

Your point about the Klingons is spot-on. They have never been portrayed better than the few brief scenes in this movie. They seem appropriately "alien", and there is a great deal of subtle world building going on without any blatant attempts to do so. I found them fascinating in a way that they have never been since.

[@diaz5292]

Fix the damn soda machine!! C'mon! Its 1979, there's stagflation going on! We can't afford to be wasting all that grape soda, for Pete's sake!...lol

[@kaboken2325]

Im actually impressed at the 70s automation

[@braydynniewiadomski4006]

Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of the world to save mankind from death and hell and offer instead the gift of forgiveness and eternal life. He was buried for three days and rose from the dead on the third day according to the scriptures. Repent and believe on His name and you will be saved! God bless you and your family in Jesus mighty name.

[@Fiveash-Art]

I love grape soda.

[@maskedmarvyl4774]

Wow, Gene was a real twit in this review. Star Trek fans didn't watch the show for the special effects or to be "dazzled"; we watched them for the conflicts between the characters, and in how we would react to alien situations we can't control. Yes, the film was drab and went on too long, and the special effects were too much the same; it could have used more color. However, the most important element is that the emotional stakes should have been heightened more than they were. Roger was right in his assessment of why fans watched the show.

[@rustincohle2135]

Doesn't matter. This movie still sucks.

[@Fiveash-Art]

If it wasn't Woody Allen , John Travolta in his white disco suit or some pretentious foreign romance movie he wasn't having any of it. Siskel was always an old lady when it came to his reviews.

[@Fiveash-Art]

@@rustincohle2135 Nope. It's a great movie.

[@rustincohle2135]

@@Fiveash-Art Yea, even after 45 years, it's still only 53% on Rotten Tomatoes with an average rating of 5.9/10. And the user rating from regular moviegoers is even lower (42%, average rating of 6.2/10). And on Metacritic, it's only 50/100 and regular moviegoers on IMDb only rate it a 6.4/10. So, yea, even regular viewers don't think much of this "great movie" as you call it.

[@Fiveash-Art]

@@rustincohle2135 Someone who still thinks Rotten Tomatoes scores mean a damn thing. 😂,, Guess what? Even if those numbers were accurate I wouldn't care anyway. I don't care what most people think because they're stupid.. and I certainly don't care what critics think because they're being paid for their opinions. I make up my own mind about things. "The majority is always wrong; the minority is rarely right."

[@christopherthorkon3997]

I loved Roger Ebert and his reviews, but I find it hilarious that he loved Star Trek The Motion Picture but didn't like Blade Runner. Wow.

[@daniverse9625]

He didn't love The Motion Picture, he liked it. Also he gave Blade Runner the same rating (3 stars), but admitted like every critic at the time he found it very confusing.

[@PaulSmith-qs1es]

I liked Star Trek The Motion Picture and not Bladerunner. Bladerunner has good production design and no script. It's also really annoying that it threw away the idea of the book (that humans will empathize with machines that are just machines and have no emotions) and replaces it with pretty much the opposite.

[@linkbiff1054]

Actually Roger did like all cuts of Blade Runner. It’s Gene that didn’t

[@nickb9718]

I also prefer Star Trek Tmp over Blade Runner. Blade Runner is really good but I prefer this movie and it's themes.

[@ricardocantoral7672]

Blade Runner is a bore.

[@ForceMaximus84]

The most interesting thing about this review? Hearing the original production audio.

[@southpakrules]

*The slow motion picture.

[@jakeschutz6342]

This movie (the one they reviewed) was essentially a first cut. Anyone not immersed in trek but interested in the history of troubled movie productions would do well to read up on this movie. Bob Wise pretty much rode on the plane with the print used at the premiere because they were so down to the wire in terms of finishing the movie. If they released the director's cut of this movie as it should have been in 1979 I think the reviews for it would have been kinder. That they actually were able to cobble together a watchable movie given the constraints they were under is a miracle on its own to be honest.

[@wkanost]

I maybe wrong but it sounds like a lot of stage noise. I think these “clips” were issued before the dubbing was finished.

[@blaketindle4703]

Well the mistake of not having an iconic villain was definitely rectified in the second movie! “KHAAAAAAAN!!!”

[@richardb6260]

It wasn't trying to be Star Wars. It didn't need a villain. It was trying be more like 2001. Though they had no hope of reaching the high bar of 2001, it gets points for trying and not being just an outer space shoot'em up.

[@mrnocal]

I agree with Siskel on this one. It was like a high school reunion where they served TV dinners. I was totally bored by the movie.

[@mynameisgladiator1933]

When I was a real little kid, I used to love star trek - the tv show in the 60's. By 1979, our whole country had moved on. This movie was really bad. I remember the huge controversy about the special effects and they still didn't do it right. You're in space for goodness sakes. You can make it look anyway you want and that is what they came up with. The days of campy, moralistic tales were over. No one wants that. This movie confirmed that.

[@rosario508]

I was a little kid and I hated it. I even thought to myself (And I'm paraphrasing here) "This is one of the most boring pieces of shit I've ever seen."

[@wordman3624]

Thank you for posting these reviews.

[@paulwalsh2344]

I am an old school trekkie and I loved Star Trek: TMP... but I confess, I really, REALLY LOVE it on DVD when I can FF the V'ger flyover scenes. The score was FANTASTIC. The model shots and reveal of the gorgeous USS Enterprise was AWESOME... SUBLIME... MOVIE MAKING MAGIC ! ! !

[@k1productions87]

I have always had some very raging ADD, it was very hard for me to sit through certain movies,... but THIS movie.... for some reason, I could watch it again and again and again and remain captivated by it. And now today as an older man approaching middle age, I am still captivated for different reasons. Especially flying through the cloud, those layered airbrushed animation segments are absolutely GORGEOUS

[@Fiveash-Art]

I can't believe they were talking about the effects being mediocre ... Yes, the V'ger scenes are some of my favorite from any sci-fi movie ... It still holds up. Beautiful movie.

[@braydynniewiadomski4006]

Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of the world to save mankind from death and hell and offer instead the gift of forgiveness and eternal life. He was buried for three days and rose from the dead on the third day according to the scriptures. Repent and believe on His name and you will be saved! God bless you and your family in Jesus mighty name.

[@brutallyhonest123]

The special effects comparison to 2001 is interesting considering it was released 11 years prior to Trek TMP

[@DamienDrake]

This is bizarre. The clips use production audio and are slathered with music from other scenes.

[@dngillikin]

Siskel and Ebert (and other critics) were probably provided with Electronic Press Kits (EPKs with a selection of clips cleared for use) and given that TMP was shipped to theaters still wet, there probably wasn't time to put together a polished sounding EPK for the critics.

[@CaminoAir]

This was standard practice for promotional clips at the time. Music was included for emotional impact, as the scenes were taken out of their context in the film and therefore they needed reinforcing.

[@DamienDrake]

Having seen the movie at least a dozen times, it's bizarre to hear Goldsmith's music where it wasn't intended. I hadn't thought of the rush to release that the film got as the catalyst for the oddly incomplete clips.

[@ZenFox0]

Gene was such a stick in the mud sometimes. I still miss them both.

[@cliffordshafran9250]

It was just too slow-moving for me and lacked a compelling villian. The ideas were good, but the execution was just too slow. The pacing of II, III, and IV were much better, and of course II had the best villian.

[@patrickshields5251]

Clifford Shafran I didn't like it either. I'm surprised that they didn't review 1941 in the episode.

[@clintonwilcox4690]

I would argue that Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a legitimately good film. But it also illustrates why a movie like this wouldn't succeed in today's cinematic atmosphere. There was no compelling villain because, even though Star Trek has had its share of villains, Star Trek was always about ideas first. And in this case, V'Ger was the villain but not in the same sense that Khan was in Star Trek II. V'Ger posed a threat to Earth because they didn't understand it, and the Enterprise was sent to make contact and understand this threat.

[@deckofcards87]

@@patrickshields5251 1941 is the definition of a bomb. I suspect S&E dropped it from being reviewed because it was already getting bad press everywhere else.

[@ianwestc]

I think TMP is a legitimately good film, but it NEEDED a legitimately good editor. It needed a little bit of fat trimmed (every shot, not just sequences, but every shot in a sequence is held a little too long), and it also needed more characterization of the three TV series leads. Nimoy, Kelley, and Shatner all thought that the characters were too grim and dour to match who they were in the original series, but their objections were pretty much ignored.

[@CaptainSpalding72]

Its great.

[@blaketindle4703]

I just watched it for the first time and I enjoyed it. Certainly has some flaws, a bit boring in parts but overall a good movie. I especially liked Spock, and the surprise reveal at the end was really cool!

[@maskedmarvyl4774]

The movie was a huge disappointment. Making everything white and removing all of Spock's emotions (until he regains them at the very end) were mistakes. Also, the special effects were all the same, because of the shortness of time. Even the cast members at various times referred to the movie as boring! James Doohan admitted he actually fell asleep during the long, slow flyover of V'ger, and claimed that he had heard that Shatner did too. They should have focused on color and relationships, not awesome settings and special effects.

[@kevinkey9146]

Nota fan but some good acting by Leonard at 3:29. Yeah, he was happy to see old Bones...

[@theolamp5312]

Having loved the series, I liked the beginning when the crew came back together. After that, not so much. But, that was enough.

[@kali3665]

Dr. McCoy: Just a moment, Captain, sir!! I'll explain what happened. Your revered Admiral Nogura invoked a little-known, seldom-used "reserve activation clause." In simpler language, Captain, they DRAFTED me! Poor Bones, but it is one of my favorite moments in the entire movie canon. The original movie may not be the best, but the characters save it every time, and I really grew to love the movie over time. The introduction of the new Enterprise may have lasted a little too long, but after over a decade without new adventures of Captain Kirk and his crew, it was a joy to watch. I understand Gene's ambivalence here - I shared it for years - but the film does grow on you.

[@yogeshatrey1901]

I have never seen a single Star Trek episode, I watched the film and I don't know why this has so bad reviews, I found it to be a nice experience. Yes, it is not as good as Alien, Star Wars, and 2001, but it is still a nice little fun movie. Checked out Wrath of Khan and I have the same reaction to that. A good pleasant flick. What I don't understand is why people hate this one and like Wrath of Khan so much. Going to check out the rest of the flicks in the franchise soon.

[@k1productions87]

I am curious what you thought of Voyage Home. I acknowledge that Wrath of Khan may be the best "movie" but it is not the best "Trek", while The Motion Picture was a far better "Trek" while not being as good of a movie Voyage Home is the one that seemed to strike the perfect balance for me, both capturing what Trek is about while still being a truly wonderful film. I'd like to know your opinion on this as an outsider to the franchise.

[@ricardocantoral7672]

I would easily take The Motion Picture over A New Hope and most Star Wars movies.

[@eargasm1072]

This one is more ponderous with slower pacing....Khan is faster with more adventure, space battles plus more drama ie Spock's death. I still like this one a lot but Khan is better

[@mrchopsticks3]

Gene nailed this one. "Bloated" is the perfect word to describe it.

[@frankpalancio8471]

Ebert with the better review..... As usual

[@Sonnell]

Just shows why critics are useless and dumb. This is my favourite ST movie. I love how it depicts the fear from the unknown, how I can experience what it is like to meet a real alien. I love how it does not rush, does not include battle scenes just for the sake of it, I love how humans acts and feel like humans, and so on. The world is not 2 bits, not just black and white. Movies can be made about anything, not just those handful of genres, feelings, actions... Critics are okay to exist, but they should never forget that theirs are only one specific opinion, and they shall always alert the reader viewer of this.

[@gterrymed]

Dad fell asleep and was snoring loudly in the theater, nothing can save this film; its good in the sense that, "You gotta start somewhere;" All the Star Trek movies are GREAT, including this one, but nothing can save this one's overall nebulous quality. ❤

[@Fiveash-Art]

'Nebulous' is a great description for the critics still complaining about this movie.

[@gterrymed]

@@Fiveash-Art even Gene Roddenberry complained about it, are you going to go against him???? You can't be a Trekkie and disagree with Roddenberry! Your opinion must be aligned with the creator and the fans.

[@Fiveash-Art]

​@@gterrymed I'm not a 'Trekkie' , .. that would suggest that I adhere to cultish collectivist fanaticism for a product. I actually don't like a lot of Star Trek, but The Motion Picture is fantastic. I think Roddenberry is fine, but just because he didn't like the movie doesn't mean I can't. Roddenberry was also out to lunch about many things and comes off as sort a world government propagandist through most of his philosophical and political viewpoints. People who write the movie off as boring seem to have bad imaginations and attention spans. I feel bad for them they can't enjoy the movie. My opinion doesn't have to be 'aligned' with anyone's views but my own. Ridiculous argument you're making. 😂

[@gterrymed]

@@Fiveash-Art The Borg says you must not like this film! ASSIMILATE! 😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆

[@Fiveash-Art]

@@gterrymed That's what you sound like .. The Borg. 😂

[@sleuthentertainment5872]

7:17 And this was the right moment when mr. Spock was so tired listening Siskel and Ebert that he decided to interrupt the connection...

[@shaunguffey9199]

I guess the makers of Star Trek took this to heart and brought back one of the greatest, most charismatic villains of all time, in Star Trek II The Wrath Of Khan.

[@wardragonprime]

Never before has a movie been so loved! Never before has a movie been so hated!

[@rodolfoleyva5157]

I started watching Sneak Previews in the late 70's!

[@rollomaughfling380]

00:28 That lady with her thumb in the popcorn . . . Lawsuit.

[@TimeAxisMedia]

What Roger said at the end about needing a villain - its as if the filmmakers saw that and said yes....we need Kahn.

[@xr4ti548]

The special effects were pretty darn good for a 1979 film. But the slow pacing and dialogue heavy script is what bored most people.

[@xav9258]

As a huge fan of the TV show, it was just good to have the old gang back. I think II and IV are the best in the movie series.

[@PetePuebla]

Little kids would like it? I remember seeing this movie as a kid and found it completely boring. It wasn't as action packed like they said, and it was missing a villain. Star Trek followed it up very well with Wrath of Khan having plenty of action and a really really good villain.

[@PetePuebla]

Star Trek hit it out of the park with Wrath of Khan so much that they followed up the formula again with Star Trek 3 creating another villain and they done it again and again. The only thing is that the follow up villains weren't as great.

[@PointReflex]

To be fair the entire plot revolves around a philosophical villain instead of the average Darth Vader wannabe. In the film it is shown how a technological society formed entirely of machines (the borgs) could take a human probe (Voyager) and turn it into an advanced IA trying to fullfit its porpuse, find "the creator", in the same way humanity explored the universe trying to find the spark that started life. It is a slow film that lacked the chemistry between characters, but the overall plot and the special effects were well done, specially if we consider that the film was intended to be a new series before Lucas Film put Star Wars in the big screen. On a side note, the biggest failure is the lack of chemistry, the characters are too serious and never acted as they did in the original series, Leonard Nimoy said not so long ago that he indeed made his effort to portray Spock correctly, but the director and the producers forced him to change the performance in what we saw in the theatrical release. Of course the TV release of the film was modified and includes many original deleted scenes that have the chemestry between characters, and just for that, the average viewer (including fans) recognize that version as the superior one. It was a flawed movie, but not a complete waste.

[@n.d.m.515]

I remember seeing this as a young kid and loving it! The Klingons were an improvement, the Enterprise amazing, and it was great to see the gang back. Maybe it was too many years ago, but I don't remember any boredom despite my age.

[@k1productions87]

​@@PetePuebla You are forgetting the one instance where there was no villain - Voyage Home Even as the Whale Probe was destroying Earth's atmosphere, it was never treated as a bad guy to defeat, but rather a mystery to be solved, an unknown to be understood, and a question to be answered. Even the President said "There seems to be no way we could answer this Probe" instead of "defeat" or any variation thereof. Voyage Home is the one unique instance where a Trek film was both a good film and a good "Trek" at the same time. Wrath of Khan was definitely a good film (I'd say even a great film) but it falls a bit short on being what Trek is about, comparatively speaking. Voyage Home is also the only instance I am aware of where every cast member is given something important to do, rather than just sit at his or her console and say "Course laid in, Captain" or "Hailing frequencies open"

[@PetePuebla]

@@n.d.m.515 I did. There just wasn't enough action to entertain me as a kid. I found it boring. I think it tried to be like 2001. That movie doesn't appeal to kids either.

[@scottaznavourian5791]

7:10 thankfully they rectify that next time out

[@michaelperkowski641]

Liked Star Trek II the wrath of Khan better.

[@riley6863]

@7:16 Vger scrambles the signal.

[@JAGUART]

Loved watching these guys as a kid, until they both didn't like Bladerunner (1982) and it was the last straw and I didn't follow either of them for twenty years.

[@ricardocantoral7672]

TMP > Bladerunner

[@christinacascadilla4473]

How could anyone like that first “Star Trek” movie? Nothing happens!

[@ZenFox0]

It’s a mood piece.

[@TobeyStarburst]

Great movie.

[@AlanSmitheeman]

This motion picture works better as a TV movie than a theatrical release.

[@thebadgamer1967]

This movie reminds me of the the first season of tng, bloody awful and takes its self way too seriously.

[@williamhicks7736]

Very interesting how they chose to compare it to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Wars and Alien.... I never really thought about the first Star Trek film that way. I just considered it an extension of the television series, a continuation of sorts where we get to see Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the crew deal with a serious situation, where the stakes are huge. How is that not to be considered adventurous? Rob Ager from Collative Learning does an excellent analysis on this film: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4CQgpd3e6eUkJI&app=desktop

[@tmage23]

TMP was heavily influenced by 2001: A Space Odyssey. In fact, it was its primary influence. Everything from the cinematography, to the effects to certain aspects of the narrative were taken from 2001. The problem was that 2001 was no longer the major cinematic science fiction touchstone - it had been replaced by Star Wars which was louder, faster and a lot more fun. I still think TMP is very underrated. In fact it's one of my favorite sci-fi films but apart from the general themes of exploring the unknown, it has little in common with the original series.

[@mockturtlesuppe]

At least a couple of those comparisons were unavoidable, I think. Those on the artistic side of this movie were begging for it to be critically received the way 2001 was, and those on the business side were begging for it to be commercially received the way Star Wars was.

[@purefoldnz3070]

Star Trek TMP is way too sterile and self indulgent to be considered adventurous. All of the banter and human element is removed for a story about the Enterprise flying in a straight line. The visual effects though are superb.

[@ricardocantoral7672]

@@purefoldnz3070 I don't agree at all. TMP is about the journey into the unknown and discovering what is out there. The need for man's essential march into the future even when it looks incredibly threatening. Could there have been a little more warmth ? Of course. That doesn't mean I would reject this film entirely.

[@purefoldnz3070]

@@ricardocantoral7672 Yes but discovering whats out there just involves flying in a straight line and going through some strangely sphincter shaped orifices. I just ordered the 35 inch TMP Enterprise model so I do love the effects and craftsmanship in the film.

[@vintagetvandexciting]

"its isnt 'spock', its 'a-spoccckkk'!"-doug walker (the nostalgia critic)

[@mooseyman74]

Had this Captain Kirk figure as a kid, but the range of pyjamas could have been epic

[@amaxamon]

The visual FX are still amazing!

[@CaptainSpalding72]

Gene is wrong. Trek was set to return as a secone tv series, but paramount changed its mind and switched to movie mode. This is the result.... flawed, but beautiful film.

[@tnawcwvictoria]

I know the late Leonard Nimoy wasn't a fan of Star Trek: The Motion Picture when he said that it was about the ship and special effects, but not about the characters

[@ricardocantoral7672]

Actors only care about what they do in a film and not necessarily the quality of it. For example, Christopher Lloyd said that his favorite Back To The Future film was Part III because of what he did in the film.

[@scottyunitedboy2925]

A movie from the franchise that has improved as time has gone on- it''s clearly designed to be 'epic' and show off the far larger budget than the TV series. Nimoy, in an interview with the Emmy Foundation, has commended that the script was weak and lacked characterisation and to some extent he's right- it's lacking the charm and humour that the original series had. The Director's Cut in 2001 has substantially improved this and developed the quieter moments to a much better state.

[@canuck_gamer3359]

I find it so interesting that the two of them disagreed on this film but they both made statements that were exactly true and correct!!! How could they both be right if they didn't agree? lol. Gene talks about all the things that made the movie weak but Roger pointed out why fans of the series might like it but more amazing than that, listen to what he says at 7:07!!! In the next film they had a great villain and it was an amazing film, possibly the best Star Trek film of all! Fantastic!

[@ymir162]

Damn! You TOTALLY get what it was that made S & E so damned GREAT!

[@focalized]

I always thought the SFX were great. Comparing it to Star Wars or 2001 is not quite fair ground. Most of the memorable SFX in those films were simple really well done ship models moving through space with innovative camera action and superior sound design. The best at their time but still simple looking back. Star Trek has some crazy and complex looking sequences and designs. The Vger ship alone was amazing. Enough that they basically had to make an overly long sequence to showcase it. Overly complex but so were the exteriors of most Star Wars ships. And they were pretty much just a bunch of grey plastic glued together. I love the Star Wars and 2001 ships but Vger was some creative shit in a different way. The worst part of The Motion Picture I thought was the crew uniforms. They were some drab attire.

[@focalized]

Oh, and the new design for the Enterprise might be the most pleasing ships ever created to look at. As such they filmed an overly long sequence to show it off.

[@ymir162]

Hey, it was the '70's! Futuristic LEISURE SUITS!

[@brgrote]

I remember it was a very long movie when I saw it as a kid.

[@YMagoulo]

As a fourteen year old at the time I found it very cerebral.

[@wotdoesthisbuttondo]

This is a great review from both in terms of opinion and the studios listened.

[@rodmoore1577]

I don't think there has been any movie that's been remastered reissued and reviewed than this one. Maybe when the movie first came out it was far ahead of its time that it actually took time for people to really appreciate it. Now the movie that was considered slow plodding and boring is now seen in a completely different light. The passing of time changes a lot of things

[@mark11967AD]

As Gene said for kids.. I was about 12 it was a good movie. Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan everyone liked that one and that was the best of these retro films.

[@TheRmusser]

What did the dog think about the movie?

[@bareknuckles2u]

They both make good points.

[@vomithaus1]

We all took this movie for granted back in the day, that's why Gene gave it a thumbs down. Little did he know that soon 'bloated bore' would mean non stop CGI action and funny one liners. Every movie would have a villan, the stakes would extend to the universe itself and eventually nobody would care.

[@andysummersthxcinemaandmyc7748]

klingons are interfering with hailing frequencies 7:19 gene is a klingon lets leave it at that

[@akfreed6949]

I guess Roger's opinion is similar to Kevin Smith's AKA Silent Bob .

[@johns.8220]

TMP had a unique, interesting premise, with a palpable sense of adventure, risk, even suspense. But it ultimately tried too hard to be the next 2001. The over-reliance on special effects pretty much killed it- seemingly endless sequences of the characters gawking at weird psychedelic imagery on the viewscreen was like watching someone else watch Netflix. And none of the characters were compelling- the loveable heroes from the TV show suddenly became statuesque philosophers (only Bones in his grumpiness seems unchanged). I guess the writers hoped that the narrative would be intellectually stimulating enough to prop the film up, but in the end it was too heavy and limpid. In short, a very bold but very boring film. (but my god, Jerry Goldsmith's score might be the best film score ever. Just outstanding in every way.)

[@ricardocantoral7672]

I like the boringness ! Seriously though, even the execution is flawed, I felt the grand ideas of Trek throughout the film; the joy of exploration and pondering our place in the universe. I also felt that this, unlike the other Trek films, felt like a cinema experience. I enjoy the other Trek films but they feel like feature length TV episodes and that's not shocking considering who directed the film.

[@eeeecccc]

I saw this at 13 and fully agree with Siskel.

[@BradiKal61]

I liked this movie until I saw Wrath Of Khan, and realized all the stuff that the first movie was missing

[@escaperoomleander1948]

Anyone could easily produce an edit at least 10 minutes shorter with no loss of story.

[@ghostofpambo6266]

STTMP is a flawed film but shouldn't be dismissed. It has some wonderful moments.

[@maskedmarvyl4774]

And I think I re-learned something about Gene Siskel; he doesn't like people, and views emotions as slop..

[@theironclads]

A case of Star Trek repeating itself. The plot is a combo of the Trek TV episodes "The Changeling," & "The Doomsday Machine." Unoriginal.

[@cdbutler1204]

Umm....there’s a dog sitting behind Ebert at the end?

[@Botwin66]

Christopher Butler That’s Spot, The Wonder Dog. He was their mascot for a weekly segment called “The Dogs of The Week”, I.e. the week’s two worst movies.

[@ymir162]

That was Sparky the wonder dog, who used to introduce their "Dog of the Week" sequence.

[@SCYTHE2525]

Ebert guessed it backwards. Rather than critics looking for special effects and moviegoers looking for the movie it ended up being the other way around.

[@brennonguilbeau569]

0:17 Wow! $1.40 for two movie tickets!!

[@195511SM]

Not sure why, but I never got into the TV series. I think I was somewhere around 11 or 12 at the time. I liked THIS movie though......and saw a few of the later ones.

[@joevecchio6988]

It's not a GREAT movie but it's not a BAD movie. The best part about it is the outstanding soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith in my opinion

[@ymir162]

YES! The score was the absolute STAR of this movie! I have the soundtrack album in every format. A classic!

[@ShiftingDrifter]

Interesting that neither noticed that the plot was very unoriginally lifted from the TV episode "The Changeling" which annoyed me equally as much as the lengthy visual effects scenes of the V'ger cloud. Gene Roddenberry is always blamed for this film's faults, but in fact he only introduced a two-page story outline to Paramount-Disney, and from there the story and screen play were passed on to Alan Foster and Harold Livingston, then approved by CEO head Michael Eisner, so Roddenberry wasn't to blame for the sluggish story telling. Michael Eisner wanted to get Disney/Paramount in on the "Star Wars cash cow" of the late 1970s, and Paramount's ownership of Star Trek was his ace in the hole. So certain of a guaranteed payoff, Eisner handed a truck load of money to director Robert Wise and essentially said, "Make it happen."

[@captainharris8980]

As a fan I was very disappointed with this film. Long, over drawn out, boring, no shirt tearing fist fights for kirk, no blasting Klingons with phasers nor photons ... the old ST TV show wasn't a static contemplative film. It was an adventure series with some action and philosophizing.

[@robertwilson214]

Although slow,it's not as slow as 2001..that was like watching paint dry.