Comedian Patton Oswalt explains why 1979’s Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a terrible science fiction film. Gene Roddenberry’s original groundbreaking Star Trek disappeared from TV screens in 1969. But ten years later the sci-fi franchise would get new life with the release of a feature film appropriately entitled Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Production on this first Star Trek big-screen endeavor famously ran into multiple roadblocks, including huge problems with its special effects. The resulting film did well enough at the box office, grossing $139 million on a budget of $44 million, but nevertheless disappointed a lot of fans with its super-serious take on Trek. The movie has undergone reappraisal in recent years however, and now has many defenders who claim its deliberate pace and heavy tone are actually virtues rather than mistakes.

Related: Star Trek's Original Movie Plans Would Have Been Better Than The Motion Picture

One person not buying this Star Trek: The Motion Picture upward reappraisal however is comedian Oswalt. In a video piece for GQ breaking down his personal five best and worst sci-fi films, the Eternals star took a phaser to the 1979 big-screen Star Trek effort, slamming it for failing to capture the spirit of the Star Trek TV show. He said:

Star Trek: The Motion Picture is oatmeal-colored uniforms on a gun-metal colored ship. Everyone's in a bad mood. Nothing really happens. They get to this thing at the end where it's a Voyager spacecraft but it thinks it's God and you're like, "I've seen this plot a million times." In fact, I think that was a plot of the Star Trek show. I'm glad that Star Trek: The Motion Picture exists though, because it is such an absolute failure in adapting the source material that it made them go make Wrath of Khan. The Wrath of Khan should basically be called, "Sorry about that first one. Here's the second one. We'll make it really good." I don't think you have to have expertise in the source material, but you have to have a sense of fun and a sense of joy, know at least what the core of the engine that makes it tick is, and know how to use that. That you need. It's beige people on a gray background in a bad mood for two and a half hours. That's what they should call Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Beige Trek.

Oswalt’s Star Trek: The Motion Picture takes indeed point up many of the same issues that have been remarked upon by the film’s detractors over the years: slow pacing, a space-god story that feels overly-familiar and a general lack of fun in the handing of the characters. The film’s defenders however will argue that the movie’s awe-inspiring effects and heavy philosophical ideas make it worthwhile even though it arguably does a bad job of capturing the feel of the original show. As Oswalt himself remarks, the second Star Trek film, 1982’s Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, was more of a fun Trek adventure, even though that film became quite emotional as well.

The takeaway from the whole history of Star Trek ultimately is that the franchise is expansive enough to facilitate a lot of different takes when it comes to storytelling and character approach. It’s possible to make a fun, whiz-bang outer space adventure like Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. It’s also possible to make a time-travel story that veers into comedy like Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Or even a political thriller like Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. 1979’s Star Trek: The Motion Picture happened to take a more 2001-style angle on sci-fi, going for a sense of wonderment and philosophical stimulation. That approach just happens to not work for many Star Trek fans, including Oswalt. But the Star Trek buffet thankfully includes plenty of other items for those who find Star Trek: The Motion Picture a bit sterile and ponderous.

More: Star Trek Theory Claims Kirk Was Killed & The Movies Aren't Real

Source: GQ/YouTube