One faction welcomed the return of their favorite franchise, even in this less-than-perfect form. In the wake of "Star Wars," it was only natural that Star Trek would return to take advantage of the growing sci fi marketplace. And sometimes, this faction argued, returns begin awkwardly. (I agree. Any "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode featuring Commander Riker sans beard is evidence of that.) So no, these fans said, the 1979 movie wasn't stellar. But it was a start.Another faction, however, dared called a spade a spade. And this faction had a notable leader: Harlan Ellison. The renowned author reviewed "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" for the April 1980 issue of Starlog. Sadly, I lack the issue, but the Starlog Project summary offers this glimpse of Harlan's review:
The mark of Gene Roddenberry's limits as a creator of stories is heavily, indelibly, inescapably on this production. … The script has all the same dumb flaws that were perpetrated in the series … with bigger, prettier pictures. … The basic story, for all its 'latest state of the art' and its tricked-up trekkiness, is Gene's standard idea, done so often in the series: we go into space, we find God, and God is (pick one) malevolent, crazy, or a child.
Harlan's piece seemed to equally infuriate and encourage longtime Star Trek fans, as evidenced by letters printed in the June 1980 issue. The movie's defenders were understandably upset. Joycelyn Yee of Hawaii said Harlan's review made her feel "sick and disillusioned."
Everyone knows that heroes are hard to come by these days; must we abandon Star Trek's heroes and heroines, too? Perhaps this is the wrong analogy, but it's like being told that there is no Santa Claus.
Some letter writers, though, applauded Harlan for taking his stand. Stephen Cook of Ohio noted that he was initially "spellbound" by the franchise's Silver Screen debut.
But as I left the theater, I suddenly realized that I and every true Trek fan had been ripped off. As I later read in Mr. Ellison's review, all this movie had been was a glorified version of the old series, and I hadn't waited all this time just to see more reruns!
Jackie Johnson of California split the difference, writing of Harlan's review, "Sometimes I agreed, sometimes not." On one key point, though, Jackie hoped all could agree.
I agreed that too many people are doing the "let's-not-do-the-movie-any-harm" bit. Where do these people expect improvements to come from?
Mercifully, improvements did come. Three years later, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" was just a memory and "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" was breathing some desperately needed life into the franchise.
2 comments:
Of course, anything Harlan Ellison says should be taken with a grain of salt. He did initially write The City on the Edge of Forever and nearly disowned it when Roddenberry and crew re-wrote it with thematic concerns and budget constraints.
Since that time, Ellison has had an axe to grind as far as anything Roddenberry was concerned. Having that knowledge, this dig from him is not a surprise.
Thanks for the link to my Starlog Project. Ellison had a number of controversies in the pages of Starlog (such as, should the magazine have censored his swear words in his first interview with Starlog, his argument with Mark Hamill, and his interview in #100-101in which he bashed various popular film projects and Starlog itself).
But this ST: TMP review was probably his biggest controversy. As for me, I thought his critique was harsh but largely correct. But it also overshadowed two other negative interviews of the Trek film by editor Howard Zimmerman and David Gerrold.
Starlog loved Star Trek – it started out as a one-shot magazine devoted to Trek – but it wasn't afraid of being blunt about its failings.
Post a Comment