EARLY ACCESS - Star Trek III: The Search For Spock is a PERFECT Star Trek Movie | NEW Star Trek fans Discuss
Added 2023-09-28 19:29:48 +0000 UTC
Comments
Gentlemen, as a Star Trek fan from September 8, 1966 (I was 8 and my mom made Star Trek night family TV night from day one) I liked TMP as a resurrection of a show I was never expecting to see new episodes of. But we fans all knew it was an imperfect start. But I loved movies 2, 3 and 4 tremendously. It's a wonderful story arc, and Nimoy's direction on TSfS and TVH is fabulous. And regardless of what others say, I think Christopher Lloyd made a fantastic Klingon. I never understood those "the odd numbered movies suck" sentiments. The Search for Spock is GREAT! Sorry you'll have to slog through Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (to be fair, Shatner's directing shouldn't be judged by this; he had to deal with too much studio interferance and budget cuts), but in my opinion Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country is another great one!
Blane Mather
2023-10-01 17:50:49 +0000 UTCI think it was Harve Bennett who said that in order for Spock to come back to life, Kirk would have to sacrifice a great deal. So Kruge's purpose is mainly to rob Kirk of his son and has ship, so that Kirk does not restore everything and everyone to their natural place.
Numinous2019
2023-10-01 15:42:58 +0000 UTCWrath of Khan was so far leaps and bounds in substance and acting above anything Star Trek had ever put out, there was very little way to follow it up and be as successful. I believe Paramount also had the habit of increasing and then decreasing each Trek movie budget, so 3 and 5 both look cheap imo.
StonyD
2023-10-01 11:31:01 +0000 UTCThe critics didn't go crazy for it either. I'm going to stand by my opinion that it is Christopher Lloyd that hurt the reception. He doesn't really have a grand scheme, Kirk isn't even aware of him for most of the movie. It keeps the stakes low because nobody has real motive in this conflict. Khan of course there is huge motivation on the villain's part and the battle is necessary. With Lloyd it is almost like his character is a coincidence; he wasn't even looking for Genesis at the start.
Ken R
2023-10-01 03:37:15 +0000 UTCTo answer your question about why the fans do not like ST3 as much as ST2 or at all, and why we like 2 better than 3, I think there are 2 main reasons: 1. They destroyed the original Enterprise, which was like a character itself among all the other familiar characters. I remember that being a like a gut punch when I first read it in Harve Bennett's original story treatment and saw that on screen. (btw, the Romulans were supposed to be the original villains, not the Klingons, which is why the ship they use is a Bird of Prey with a cloaking device, but Nimoy and others thought the audience would be more familiar with the Klingons, so Bennett changed them for the script). 2. TWOK hit almost all of the notes that we fans remembered from TOS, with the possible exceptions of a few minor things like not enough for Sulu & Uhura to do and no big face-to-face fight with Khan. When we first saw TWOK after TMP, the overwhelming fan reaction was "THIS was the film they should have made in the first place, not that human-less, nonentertaining POS they spent $40 million on!" TMP left such a bad taste in fans' mouths and TWOK was such a beautifully written, shot, and executed piece of Star Trek that it holds great fond memories for us as old fans, even with the death of Spock. TMP lacked a soul, particularly with the main characters and their interactions. TWOK nailed that. Plus, Ricardo Montalban gives such a tour de force performance and he had been acting in many films and TV shows for 40 years by the time they made TWOK - it truly is the magnum opus of his career.
Collin Freeman
2023-09-30 18:47:20 +0000 UTCI was so happy to see how much you enjoyed this one. I think it’s the best of the 2,3,4 trilogy. Though all are good. To me this one hit all the trek points perfectly.
Crankygrandma
2023-09-29 04:07:07 +0000 UTCSearch for Spock has always been my favorite of the Trilogy. It feels the most like the series, drawing inspiration mainly from Amok Time, not just for its Vulcan content but for the theme of Kirk willing to sacrifice his career for his friend. Remember, how in Amok Time, the jerky Starfleet Admiral is telling Kirk he has to have the Enterprise on some planet for some silly ceremony but Kirk tells McCoy that Spock has saved his life a dozen times and "isn't that worth a career? Besides, he's my friend." The crew stealing the Enterprise is one of the best scenes ever, and the scene where they blow it up could only have been surpassed had it been the original series ship instead of the "refit"/totally different looking one. I think most people dismiss this one is 1) for the convenience of saying, "all the even ones are good and all the odd ones are bad", and 2) because they think it hurts Wrath of Khan in some way. It doesn't. It makes Khan better in the way that Back to the Future II made Back to the Future better. I also think that Khan is hyped up too much. It's a great, well-written movie, but what makes it seem better is that is gave fans something more recognizably Trek than the first film, which was drained of color, character, and charm. But I think all three movies in the Trilogy are great, but the middle film, like with Empire Strikes Back, just seems so personal, so character driven, so full of memorable moments, that is is the best for sure.
Rocket Robin Hood
2023-09-29 03:06:44 +0000 UTC3 was my favorite as a kid. I think the lesser reputation it has comes down to, for some people, the movie feels a bit like a story chain, and then and then and then, as opposed to the more clear cut “chess match” of Wrath of Khan. But it’s definitely a strong movie. And keep in mind this is back at a time when most franchises didn’t have tons of continuity between films (video was in its infancy, so it was a risk to assume your audience would be “caught up” beforehand). 1- has a reputation for being boring, which it definitely is if you watched it on a vhs/tiny TV, and that’s how the bulk of people experienced it for decades. 2- great movie, but also gets an inflated reputation for “saving the franchise”. 3- mixed reception, and for people that love 2, there can be an attitude that 3’s entire point is to undo 2 (I would adamantly disagree). 4- great, gets a reputation as the “silly one”, and it definitely broke out in popularity among non-trekkers, but I would argue that the storytelling in it is ingenious. 5-6- you’ll have to see.
Stuart Arbury
2023-09-29 02:15:09 +0000 UTCThe general consensus on the movies, as I see it, is "the even ones are good and the odd ones suck, except Search for Spock, but that one's still only okay". I've consistently heard it acknowledged as at least a partial exception to the "odd ones suck" rule. As for why it's seen as "just okay", I'd say it's because the different parts of the plot are somewhat disjointed. Kirk and crew don't set out to save Spock, but just to deliver his body and soul to their proper resting place. The fact that it's actually possible to bring him back is just a massive stroke of luck. The Klingons have no connection to the Spock storyline, and are in the movie just to be an obstacle. Likewise, the Excelsior serves no plot purpose outside of the sequence of stealing the Enterprise. It all works together well enough to make for a fun adventure that I appreciate more now than I used to. But it doesn't have as much thematic cohesion as the other movies do. So the reputation is that its plot is a bit clunky, But as you pointed out, the other way to view that is that it's true to life. Sometimes obstacles just come up, and they're not necessarily tied together in a nice neat explanation.
Jeff Cornell
2023-09-29 02:05:27 +0000 UTCTo answer your question about why this movie isn’t praised more, I suspect it’s a matter of contrast. By now, you’ve enjoyed the fourth film. The second and fourth films likely just stand out more.
Geoffrey Linehan
2023-09-29 01:32:19 +0000 UTCAbout the Enterprise being too old, here’s something interesting. A fewest fans have pointed out it’s actually thirty years old, making an even better case for retirement. There’s a cancelled series of books called Best of Trek. They reprint articles from the Trek magazine. These are submitted articles by fans for fans. One is about the timeline of the ship. It points out that the ship had at least four years with April in command, eleven years with Pike, five with Kirk. There had to be two -and-a-half years of refit. Then fifteen years between the show’s first season that includes Space Seed and Wrath of Khan. It’s more like thirty years. The twenty years seems more like quick math between 1966 and 1984 (Search For Spock). Same with Space Seed (1967) and Wrath of Khan (1982). Kirk hasn’t seen Khan in 15 years, he says. They forgot about Pike’s 11 years.
Geoffrey Linehan
2023-09-29 01:14:40 +0000 UTCNimoy admitted it wasn't decided until late in the writing, which character would get the knife in the back. Regarding the age of Enterprise, it was actually around 45 years old at that time. Perhaps the C in C meant it been 20 years since its last refit.
Mark Chrisco
2023-09-28 23:55:18 +0000 UTCThe star was there already. We see it during the battle when Reliant circles back and takes out the Enterprise's port-side torpedo bay. The Mutara nebula was sucked up by the Genesis wave (which is why it disappears entirely). Same for Regula 1 and the Regula planetoid. It was all sucked into the Genesis wave to create the planet. That is a good point. Carol Marcus goes out of her way not to call it that. She refers to it as a "device." The prop was designed with the thinking that it is a torpedo, or at the least "launched as if." Bottom line though, I don't think Kruge is nearly as villainous when you pull back and consider what the Klingon and Romulan perspective would have to be. Galactic controversy? No kidding!
Steven Johnson
2023-09-28 22:57:58 +0000 UTCI don’t think a star system was actually destroyed. The new star and planet were created out of the Mutara Nebula. (Although… that programming doesn’t exactly square with the search for a dead planet like Ceti Alpha VI, which already had its own star. Meh… I blame protomatter.) It’s very Klingon-ish that the first thing Kruge thinks of is a weapon, not what the creators of Genesis intended at all. Kruge is the only character who calls the Genesis Device a “torpedo.”
James H
2023-09-28 22:47:50 +0000 UTCGotcha, I see how that can be confusing. For reference - EARLY ACCESS = YouTube video UNCUT REACTION = our full unedited reaction that requires syncing
Josh (Target Audience)
2023-09-28 21:45:23 +0000 UTCMaybe I’m just being a dunderhead. I find “early access” ambiguous. Put me down as a doofus.
Aramis Calcutt
2023-09-28 21:39:39 +0000 UTCWe already do this? The first few words in the title of the posts describe what it is. UNCUT REACTION or EARLY ACCESS to a YouTube video.
Josh (Target Audience)
2023-09-28 21:37:39 +0000 UTCYears later, I thought that one thing I wished that they had done in Star Trek III, maybe just for the fans, was put out a casting call for a bunch of the actors who had played minor speaking or non-speaking crew roles in the original series. What if there was just one or two short scenes where one them recruits Lieutenant Leslie, Lieutenant Hadley, Kevin Riley, and a bunch of other background characters to help out, and they stick them down in the Enterprise's engineering and life support areas? Maybe they should have put acting science officer Chekov on the Genesis planet with David and Saavik now that I think about it? I like Wrath of Khan better for a number of reasons. I did not know that Spock was going to die; there was no Internet back then. Ricardo Montalbán as Khan is such a great combination. There have been lots and lots of great Klingons, but there is only one Khan. The sequence where Kirk uses the prefix code to lower Reliant's shields is just about my favorite Star Trek scene ever. I guess that scene does not seem that strange today at all, but when the movie came out in 1982 personal computers with no power were new things and no one in the general public knew much about modems until 10 or 15 years later. That scene seemed like the greatest magic trick ever. Personally, I think Wrath of Khan and its Kobayashi Maru story is a great message as no one can cheat life, and life is what you make of it while you are still living. The two movies are almost like one big movie jammed together. They open the 8th season of Seinfeld talking about the two movies throughout that season's first episode; you might want to watch that.
Chtphr Rrr
2023-09-28 21:21:16 +0000 UTCHere is a little nugget for you: Saavik was originally going to appear in a third movie, but the producers decided to replace her with a different character. I think you’ll figure out who/why once you see the movie.
Aramis Calcutt
2023-09-28 21:19:49 +0000 UTCTo me the biggest noticeable difference with respect to the casting change is that Kirstie Alley sort of oozed sexuality as Saavik, so it was more believable that Kirk and McCoy had such strong reactions to her, like when she is in the turbo lift in gym clothes and loose hair. Robin Curtis, while also beautiful, doesn’t have quite the same aura.
Aramis Calcutt
2023-09-28 21:18:04 +0000 UTCA request: when you post these, can you give them clear labels up front, such as “post-watch review,” “full-length reaction,” “edited for YT reaction,” etc.? Because otherwise I get confused when I see the same title information. Maybe there could be easy abbreviations for each type? Maybe “Review,” “Synch Watch,” “Edited React”?
Aramis Calcutt
2023-09-28 21:13:59 +0000 UTCGreat discussion guys :)
Andreas Schmitt
2023-09-28 20:42:48 +0000 UTCYeah, Nick Meyer was not keen on the resurrection aspect.
Steven Johnson
2023-09-28 20:24:21 +0000 UTCGood thoughts, thanks!
Josh (Target Audience)
2023-09-28 20:14:18 +0000 UTCHarve Bennett was in a pickle. He wanted Nick Meyer to write and direct 3, and he flat out refused. So he wrote the screenplay himself. A producer today would never do that. And for someone who was mainly a producer and not a writer, its a pretty damn good script considering. Bennett wrote it backwards because he had no idea where it was going to go. So he started with “Jim. Your name is Jim”. And wrote backwards to the beginning so it would make sense. Ingenius, and creative.
Chris S.
2023-09-28 20:11:24 +0000 UTCYep, there was also a scene extention there where Saavik also reflected "It's just a little joke" back at Kirk/David.
Steven Johnson
2023-09-28 20:10:16 +0000 UTCAlso, you gotta see this awful trailer for the movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCgWzlxnqhc Harve Bennet was devastated to see they gave away the death of the Enterprise.
Steven Johnson
2023-09-28 20:09:03 +0000 UTCThats interesting. I never knew that. There was a scene cut at the end of WOK, where Kirk officially introduces him to Saavik. I believe Kirk says with a smirk “we learn by doing”. But it was cut because it jusr didn’t fit with the scene and tone.
Chris S.
2023-09-28 20:05:43 +0000 UTCI’m with you on that. Underrated film.
Chris S.
2023-09-28 20:03:20 +0000 UTCTwo points, and these are directed more at Josh. 1, on why people don't like Spock as much as Khan... Khan, is the big reason. In terms of the way the script is written, I think its fair to say that Wrath of Khan is probably a less messy script. Where as, you could say of Spock it has a little more mess to it... Also, I've heard people say they don't like the tone. It is a very funereal... Fugue... Requiem... It's got that tone, and of course it does. Spock's not there. Star Trek isn't Star Trek (no offense to my fellow Trek fans who love the other shows mor ethan TOS) without Spock. 2. On Kruge. I do understand what you mean about Kruge, but dare I say he's actually got more depth to him than he gets credit for? He's an antagonist, sure, but you do have to look at what Genesis looks like to other species. SUDDENLY there's this huge explosion, an entire star system is destroyed and rebuilt by the Genesis Wave. Suddenly, everyone is aware of this "super weapon." Absolutely scary shit for the Klingons. Going back to TOS, Errand of Mercy. We have this exchange: KIrk: You're the ones that issued the ultimatum to withdraw from the disputed areas. Kor: THEY ARE NOT DISPUTED! THEY ARE CLEARLY OURS... and you step in with some kind of trick? In Day of the Dove, this exchange between Kirk and Mara. We have always fought. We must. We are hunters, Captain, tracking and taking what we need. There are poor planets in the Klingon systems. We must push outward if we are to survive. KIRK: There's another way to survive. Mutual trust and help. I think when Harve Bennet wrote TSFS he was keenly thinking back on those episodes. When Kruge calls Kirk, the Federation "A gang of intergalactic criminals" I don't think he's being hyperbolic. I think he really believes that. Of course, going into TVH, which you guys have already watched we hear similar beliefs from the Klingon Ambassador "We deny nothing..! We have the right to preserve our race!" Not really a criticism, I just thought I'd point it out. TSFS has always been up there for me. I like the core of it, which is the friendship. The repeat of the needs of the many is also relating to his friends. The entire crew said "Screw it, we'll give up our careers to save our friend." You'll note not one of them even hesitates. Kirk even gives them a chance to back out. And they don't even acknowledge it. The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. And it's true. Even in real life. We've all known someone who's down on their luck, and hurting... and friends and family (the many) come together to help (the one.) It touches my heart. Which is why I love it. I also love that they had the balls to nuke the Enterprise and kill David. They DID NOT KNOW where they were going next. So they ran the risk of writing themselves into a major corner there if things didn't work out somehow.
Steven Johnson
2023-09-28 20:01:04 +0000 UTCFans were insanely angry that they blew up the Enterprise in this movie. That might have been one of the reasons for the bad feelings.
Aramis Calcutt
2023-09-28 19:56:29 +0000 UTCBased
Josh (Target Audience)
2023-09-28 19:53:00 +0000 UTCIf I recall correctly, in the book adaptations of the movies, Saavik and David were lovers.
Aramis Calcutt
2023-09-28 19:40:03 +0000 UTCSweeeet
James Bottas
2023-09-28 19:39:11 +0000 UTCWhile I believe 2 is the best TOS movie, ST 3 certainly puts the lie to the "odd movie bad" trope.
Chuck Rice
2023-09-28 19:31:54 +0000 UTC
