In my quest to watch all of Star Trek in story-order during the last few years (I had only seen random episodes and films growing up), getting to The Motion Picture was a big highlight! I had only seen glimpses of it before.

Wrath of Khan is a better action-adventure film, sure, but it's lighter on the sci-fi and feels smaller, less grand, especially since it lost that epic music theme and replaced the great costumes of TMP with ugly red sweaters and turtlenecks.

Not just you, although I also like WoK quite a bit, and I acknowledge that the red uniforms are way too military-like for the universe Roddenberry imagined.

My wife was not raised in a remotely trek environment (reference any post I've made about my inlaws), and when I watched WoK with her to prep her for the new Into Darkness flick, she was so thrown out of the film by Montalbon's sweaty chest she made me stop the film half way through.

She was, of course, depressingly enthralled with Cumberbatch in STID.

It's been a really, really long time since I saw it (35 years? maybe only 30), but I vaguely remember the part that killed me was the LSD-inspired space stuff (lots of colors, just music, no dialogue).

Never watched the movie, but the equivalent section in the book convinced me that I'm more of an Asimov guy than a Clarke guy. My powers of visualization are terrible.

(I missed all you guys. I don't know a thing about Destiny, but I'll stop by more often for the OT threads.)

In my quest to watch all of Star Trek in story-order during the last few years (I had only seen random episodes and films growing up), getting to The Motion Picture was a big highlight! I had only seen glimpses of it before.

Wrath of Khan is a better action-adventure film, sure, but it's lighter on the sci-fi and feels smaller, less grand, especially since it lost that epic music theme and replaced the great costumes of TMP with ugly red sweaters and turtlenecks.

Not just you, although I also like WoK quite a bit, and I acknowledge that the red uniforms are way too military-like for the universe Roddenberry imagined.

This. I haven't read the book or seen the sequel (and will remedy both soon), so I can't say that I "get" whatever was going on. I assumed that was part of the point. You're supposed to try and reach your own conclusion.

But you aren't. A conclusion and a statement was made by him with his choice of imagery and sound. Everything up to that point also matters. It's deliberate. Kubrick was incredibly intentional as a filmmaker. Everything, even the tinniest details had meaning within the frame. In all his films. It's incredible. He always had vision and voice. That is the opposite of 'leaving it up to you to interpret'.

Imagine you are talking with someone who speaks Mandarin. You don't know Mandarin. And so you don't understand them. You don't speak the language. Well, Kubrick was such a genius he spoke a different visual language. But once you learn it, you can converse and understand.

....yes and no.

There are very specific things meant by what happens to Bowman in the novel. You certainly can reach those meanings by interpreting the film, but I wouldn't say that would be the only valid interpretation of what we're shown at the end.

Auteur theory is cool but only takes you so far.

Not a single person in the world found that film even the slightest bit exciting or bearable.

Hah, with a recommendation like that I might just have to give it a go. I liked the director's Ghost Dog back in middle school or wherever I was. At the least, it might be something good to work to. :)

I instantly fell in love with the art direction (Ralph McQuarrie from Star Wars had a big part to play in that) and the music of the Motion Picture (which is the first use of the theme that would become TNG's intro music). I think I was crying as much as Kirk in the ten minute montage of the Enterprise at space dock.

Wrath of Khan is a better action-adventure film, sure, but it's lighter on the sci-fi and feels smaller, less grand, especially since it lost that epic music theme and replaced the great costumes of TMP with ugly red sweaters and turtlenecks.

Also, I should note I'm a bigger fan of the ST:TMP Director's Cut, which has a better pacing. It's still quite slow and steady (just how I like it - falling asleep to a Middle Earth Extended Edition is a weekly tradition around here) but it feels a little more to the point. It's worth checking out if you liked elements of the TMP.

If you're a philistine.

I loved the book, but the movie was the one film I've EVER seen that I fell asleep in a theater while watching. Slow burn, indeed.

That's the Kubrick Curse for me too. No matter how "great" and "groundbreaking" his films are, they're so dang boooooooooring to sit through. I'm not one of the Michael Bay types, but things in Kubrick's films drag on way, way too much (especially when he goes into the pointless slo-mo or long music-driven scenes). It's a commitment to sit through his films, but it pays off, for the most part.

You want sleep-inducing film, though? Try sitting though "My Dinner With Andre". Cure for insomnia right there...

If I were a jerk I'd step in here and say that everyone knows that Korny has the worst taste in movies, but I'm not a jerk.

MY DINNER WITH ANDREW is one of my favorites. Bought the criterion version a few years back.

I tried watching it twice with a dear friend (and fellow film aficionado), since he loves it, and had a lot of trouble keeping my eyes open. My friend thought I was joking around as I struggled to keep my eyes open, but I dropped like a rock after what felt like an eternal struggle.

We tried watching it again the next day, and when Dude B got to the part of his "story" where he was inside the hole, I asked to check how much longer the film was, saw the remaining time, and Nope'd so hard that I might have offended my friend a bit. But c'est la vie. That "film" is the equivalent of modern art for me: Pretentious garbage by and for pretentious folk ("Sawdust" is a DBO-friendly term that comes to mind).

Of course, maybe I just don't "get" it, but it is what it is... Some people don't like "Battlefield Earth"...

Some of it might be sentimental for me. I was eighteen or so when I first saw it. I was discovering films that weren't shown at the mall. I'd never seen anything like it.

I loved the book, but the movie was the one film I've EVER seen that I fell asleep in a theater while watching. Slow burn, indeed.

That's the Kubrick Curse for me too. No matter how "great" and "groundbreaking" his films are, they're so dang boooooooooring to sit through. I'm not one of the Michael Bay types, but things in Kubrick's films drag on way, way too much (especially when he goes into the pointless slo-mo or long music-driven scenes). It's a commitment to sit through his films, but it pays off, for the most part.

You want sleep-inducing film, though? Try sitting though "My Dinner With Andre". Cure for insomnia right there...

If I were a jerk I'd step in here and say that everyone knows that Korny has the worst taste in movies, but I'm not a jerk.

MY DINNER WITH ANDREW is one of my favorites. Bought the criterion version a few years back.

I tried watching it twice with a dear friend (and fellow film aficionado), since he loves it, and had a lot of trouble keeping my eyes open. My friend thought I was joking around as I struggled to keep my eyes open, but I dropped like a rock after what felt like an eternal struggle.

We tried watching it again the next day, and when Dude B got to the part of his "story" where he was inside the hole, I asked to check how much longer the film was, saw the remaining time, and Nope'd so hard that I might have offended my friend a bit. But c'est la vie. That "film" is the equivalent of modern art for me: Pretentious garbage by and for pretentious folk ("Sawdust" is a DBO-friendly term that comes to mind).

Of course, maybe I just don't "get" it, but it is what it is... Some people don't like "Battlefield Earth"...

This. I haven't read the book or seen the sequel (and will remedy both soon), so I can't say that I "get" whatever was going on. I assumed that was part of the point. You're supposed to try and reach your own conclusion.

But you aren't. A conclusion and a statement was made by him with his choice of imagery and sound. Everything up to that point also matters. It's deliberate. Kubrick was incredibly intentional as a filmmaker. Everything, even the tinniest details had meaning within the frame. In all his films. It's incredible. He always had vision and voice. That is the opposite of 'leaving it up to you to interpret'.

Imagine you are talking with someone who speaks Mandarin. You don't know Mandarin. And so you don't understand them. You don't speak the language. Well, Kubrick was such a genius he spoke a different visual language. But once you learn it, you can converse and understand.

You want sleep-inducing film, though? Try sitting though "My Dinner With Andre". Cure for insomnia right there...

You want sleep-inducing film, though? Try sitting though "My Dinner With Andre". Cure for insomnia right there...

The "My Dinner With Andre" episode of Community however is hilarious.

I loved the book, but the movie was the one film I've EVER seen that I fell asleep in a theater while watching. Slow burn, indeed.

That's the Kubrick Curse for me too. No matter how "great" and "groundbreaking" his films are, they're so dang boooooooooring to sit through. I'm not one of the Michael Bay types, but things in Kubrick's films drag on way, way too much (especially when he goes into the pointless slo-mo or long music-driven scenes). It's a commitment to sit through his films, but it pays off, for the most part.

You want sleep-inducing film, though? Try sitting though "My Dinner With Andre". Cure for insomnia right there...

If I were a jerk I'd step in here and say that everyone knows that Korny has the worst taste in movies, but I'm not a jerk.

MY DINNER WITH ANDREW is one of my favorites. Bought the criterion version a few years back.

As a comic counterpoint, try MY BREAKFAST WITH BLASSIE.