Thanks for posting this. It is fun to read first impressions of a movie we all know so well now. It’s a good article and the writer makes valid points, especially about the plot being a cross between a recycled episode (The Changeling) and 2001. I have always believed that the The Motion Picture would have been better if it hadn’t taken its visual and pacing cues from 2001.
My only issue with the piece is the bizarre headline. It’s an article about a movie, yet the headline doesn’t mention the movie. And why is this the definitive Star Trek article? I guess no one needed to write another one after this, so all those thousands of articles over the last 40 years were simply a waste.
It just seems like a weird headline on an otherwise solid article.
Thanks for posting this. It is fun to read first impressions of a movie we all know so well now. It’s a good article and the writer makes valid points, especially about the plot being a cross between a recycled episode (The Changeling) and 2001. I have always believed that the The Motion Picture would have been better if it hadn’t taken its visual and pacing cues from 2001.
My only issue with the piece is the bizarre headline. It’s an article about a movie, yet the headline doesn’t mention the movie. And why is this the definitive Star Trek article? I guess no one needed to write another one after this, so all those thousands of articles over the last 40 years were simply a waste.
It just seems like a weird headline on an otherwise solid article.
Thanks for you comment here! Well, this was from a college newspaper, so maybe he wanted his to be THE ONE everyone read! 😉