Re-Watching Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
– October 20, 2011 8:00 amPosted in: Movies
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
Written by: Harve Bennett
Produced by: Harve Bennett
Directed by: Leonard Nimoy
Stardate: 8210.3
Enterprise returns to Earth to be decommissioned, with Kirk and the crew still mourning Spock. A visit from the Vulcan's father, Sarek, offers some hope that their friend is only mostly dead–just before Spock gave his life to save the ship, he mind-melded with Dr. McCoy to implant his living spirit, or katra, in the doctor's head. Kirk decides to go to the Genesis Planet to retrieve Spock's body and take him to Vulcan, but there are two problems: Starfleet has classified Genesis as off-limits, and they don't have a ship to get them there.
It takes a team effort from the old gang to steal the Enterprise from spacedock, but soon they're on their way to Genesis, where Dr. David Marcus and Lt. Saavik have discovered a young Vulcan boy. The life-forming matrix of the planet has regenerated Spock's dead body, but the planet is unstable, causing him to age at an accelerated rate. To make matters worse, the Klingons arrive on the scene to learn the secrets of Starfleet's powerful new weapon.
Kirk arrives to find his son, Saavik, and a rejuvenated Spock held hostage by the Klingons. The enemy captain, Kruge, has David killed to force Kirk to surrender. To protect the lives of the others, Kirk agrees to give up his ship, but he has one more trick up his sleeve. He engages the self-destruct and beams down with his crew to Genesis, leaving Enterprise to blow up along with most of Kruge's boarding crew. Kruge joins them on the rapidly deteriorating planet to demand information about Genesis from Kirk. The Klingon commander orders the other prisoners beamed up to the Bird of Prey, and he and Kirk tussle while the planet tears itself up around them. Kruge falls into a river of molten lava, and Kirk tricks the remaining Klingon aboard the Bird of Prey into beaming him to safety.
Now in control of the Klingon ship, Kirk and the human crew rendezvous with Sarek and Uhura on Vulcan. The difficult and risky fal-tor-pan ritual succeeds in reuniting Spock's katra with his restored body. He slowly begins to remember his final moments and recognize his old friends. Spock lives!
It's a commonly accepted truth that the odd-numbered Star Trek films are bad and the even-numbered ones are good, which generally seems to hold true even through the Next Generation era–until we reach the disappointing Nemesis. But in my opinion, that isn't the only exception to the "rule." On this re-watch, I realized that Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is largely undeserving of its bad rap.
I'm as guilty as anyone for not liking it as much as the others, but you certainly can't lump it in with The Motion Picture and The Final Frontier. Rather, I think the main problem with TSFS–and there are a few problems–is that it followed Star Trek II. It would be difficult for any Star Trek film to match the high quality of The Wrath of Khan, not to mention meet the inflated expectations of fans.
It doesn't entirely fall into the "middle movie syndrome" that plagues many film trilogies. Though II, III, and IV do complete an overall character arc, The Voyage Home has a distinct plot that simply follows the events of TSFS, while TSFS cannot exist independently of TWoK. They even open TSFS with the final moments of TWoK, making it a kind of coda to the preceding movie.
Though TWoK is considered a true adventure movie, in the vein of the high seas exploits of Captain Horatio Hornblower, TSFS is even more of an adventure. It features a lot more swashbuckling, for one thing, and it can even be considered to be an action movie. There are two incredible sequences that I absolutely love in this film, which really make the movie for me: the theft of Enterprise, and her destruction.
It's no surprise that those two key plot elements are so focused on the ship, arguably the real star of Star Trek. The opening narration of the series is, "These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise…" Not, "I'm Captain James T. Kirk, and these are my tales." As important as her captain and crew is, they aren't indispensable; It doesn't matter if your commander is Christopher Pike or James Kirk, but you couldn't have had the show without Enterprise. I mentioned in my last review that seeing her so badly damaged in battle with Reliant provoked an emotional response; well, seeing the ship destroyed has as much impact, if not more impact, as seeing Spock die.
Enterprise is the common link among the crew on Star Trek. We saw in TMP how Kirk, Spock, and McCoy drifted apart when they were no longer serving together on the same ship. Learning that the ship is going to be decommissioned drew them all together in this movie for that toast at Kirk's apartment, and stealing it from spacedock required all of their unique skills and connections. Sure, Kirk inspires loyalty in Scotty, Chekov, Sulu, and Uhura–just as the desire to help their friends Spock and McCoy does–but I think it's Enterprise that commands the most loyalty. She brings them together once again for one final adventure, and she goes out in a blaze of glory befitting her storied past. Even though she looks different post-refit, this is the Enterprise we all watched on television and through two films, and it's hard to say good-bye.
Even Kirk is stunned by what he has done as they watch the broken Enterprise burn up in Genesis's atmosphere. He reacts with a quiet horror and regret that we rarely see once he has made a decision. I would argue that this is the first time Kirk has faced death, because he was directly responsible for it. He has learned that the only way to win the no-win scenario is to give up the thing he holds dearest–not just the son he barely knew, but his ship. It's also poetic that as Spock gave up his life to get the ship "out of danger," she has repaid that sacrifice with her own in order to save his life.
We've seen Kirk threaten the self-destruct before, with almost this exact same sequence, but this time it's no bluff. It's an act of desperation, and one we thrill at because of its tactical genius. But until we see the ship go down, we're hoping that somehow she will survive, largely because Kirk has set up this expectation. He has cheated and won before, and we can't believe he would actually go through with it. I can't speak for other fans, but the destruction of Enterprise was one of the most affecting things I've seen in any of the films, particularly the explosion of the Bridge and saucer section. I was surprised by how quickly it's over, because I remember it vividly, in slow motion, the way we remember so many awful moments. Though I imagine we'll compare it more thoroughly to the loss of the Enterprise-D in Generations in a later re-watch, there really is no comparison: This sacrifice is much more powerful and the loss has more meaning, partially because the original Enterprise has so much more history behind her, and partially because the crash in Generations was pointless and stupid.
In fact, nothing drives the idea of the crew growing older more than the announcement that Enterprise is being mothballed, and the prospect of her ending up as a museum piece. It's cutting when Morrow tells Kirk, "Jim, the Enterprise is twenty years old. We feel her day is over." Never mind the fact that she was just refit and defeated a much newer ship in battle. He may as well be telling Kirk that he's too old, confirming the Admiral's worst fears. Stealing Enterprise is more than finding a way to get to Genesis–there were easier ways to do it–it's a big "screw you" to Starfleet, and a chance to thumb their nose at the next generation that's meant to replace them, Excelsior and her stuffy captain. If the future of Starfleet and the universe rests in the hands of captains like Styles, then they want no part of it, and they're going to rescue Enterprise from her own terrible fate too.
I guess some other things happen in this movie, but they're less interesting and goofy at times. Genesis ends up being a kind of fountain of youth, but as is always the case, it comes with too high a price. The Klingons are threatening enough, and even Christopher Lloyd is passable as a Klingon commander, but they really need to stop putting Kirk into hand-to-hand combat. That's no way to settle a fight, especially at his age. The most surprising thing for me, which I realized years after seeing this for the first time, is that Saavik and Spock have sex right on screen, and the movie still had a PG rating!
The only other flaws in this movie is that it's a little dated, even more so than its sequel, which takes advantage of that dating for comedic effect. In just the last ten years or so, which is probably when I last saw TSFS, the idea that Kirk is reviewing video tape footage, complete with static, is laughable. Similarly, as funny as it is for the Excelsior to stall out, the sputtering engine sounds are a little jarring and pushes the film's humor closer to campy than it should be.
One other observation that gave me pause: when Kirk, McCoy, Sulu, Chekov, and Uhura all gather to commiserate about Enterprise, they're all wearing clothing that vaguely aligns with their cultures, which seems strange to me, if only because Kirk is wearing something that looks like a track suit. Their casual clothing later isn't much better, and taught me a valuable lesson: choose your wardrobe carefully, because you might be stuck wearing the same clothes in the next movie.
Overall, TSFS was not as bad as I was expecting, based on my own recollection and the lowered appreciation that most fans have for it. Most of the dialogue is terrific, and as tense and action-packed as the film is, it's also damn funny–maybe as funny as TVH. Plus, any Star Trek movie where the crew steals a starship from under Starfleet's nose and then blow it up, and Spock gets some action, earns a spot near the top of my list.
Eugene's Rating: Warp 4
Torie Atkinson: In some ways, Star Trek III doesn't fit the mold of anything else in Star Trek. It's deeply sentimental, a paean to friendship and loyalty. The crew discovers no new planets or life forms and they flat-out mutiny against their sworn agency, the Federation. Morality and a personal sense of right and wrong trump intergalactic peace and the greater good. No one really saves the day, and by the time the credits roll the casualty list includes an entire ship's complement of innocent bystanders as well as Kirk's son. The spiritual and mystical aren't supremely advanced computers or space douches or even rogue Nazi sympathizers, but observable and real. Basically, it's just weird.
Even on re-watch I love the first hour of the film. It feels like a requiem, solemn and contemplative, yet somehow not depressing. The replay of the death scene (in blue, for some reason) is a mistake–without the rest of Khan building up to it loses most of its emotional impact–but from there, the story flows beautifully. All of the characters feel haunted by Spock's ghost, Kirk and Bones especially (and somewhat literally). Kirk's response to the cadet's request for a party, that they have paid for a celebration in dearest blood, still gives me shivers. Saavik and David's discovery of a life form on Genesis and their pursuit of the mystery remains exciting. I still thrill at the appearance of Sarek, and the mind-meld between him and Kirk is one of the most moving scenes in Trek.
DeForest Kelley absolutely shines in this movie. It's a delight to see him playing Spock, and just playing generally. I hadn't realized until his scenes how underutilized he was throughout the series and how much he comes into his own in the movies from here on out. He has such talent, yet even in III he's second fiddle to a largely absent Leonard Nimoy. When Kirk finds him in Spock's room I get genuinely spooked, and his comedy scenes, including an otherwise silly Mos Eisley take-off, elevate the movie beyond camp. A bittersweetness permeates each of his appearances, too. When McCoy isn't losing his mind, he finally admits how much he cared for Spock, and how sorry he is to have lost him. He gets a jibe in here or there (I love the line about the mind meld being a perverse kind of vengeance), but he and Kirk might have bonded over the loss. I felt the McCoy-Kirk friendship overall was artificially downplayed in order to make the Kirk-Spock one true pairing work. It's a real shame. Nevertheless, his scenes are true highlights.
The Enterprise herself also looms largely in the film, and it's high time she did. When they pull her into spacedock all battered and bruised, she reminded me of Kirk. Everyone else believes her days are over. Admiral Morrow says as much, and encourages her crew to move on to bigger and better things. Enterprise has been the crew's (and the audience's) constant companion for twenty years, though, and that's something worth holding onto even in an ever-changing world. The scene where our heroes hijack the ship to go after Spock is one of my absolute favorites in all the movies. Scotty's sabotage always felt a little off, but I love Uhura giving that jerk a taste of adventure, and Kirk and Sulu's dramatic rescue of poor McCoy. The air escapes from that tense balloon when their major obstacle is a set of doors (seriously?!?!), but it was fun while it lasted.
I am still so disappointed by how the movie handles the destruction of the ship itself. The self-destruct sequence is actually pretty awesome as an idea, but none of the characters have a chance to say goodbye to the ship, even in some small way. It would have been a great opportunity to include a delicate touch here or there, or show some of the emotion that these people would be experiencing. After all, they're destroying not just their ride home but their home. Instead it's all over in the blink of an eye, with no response from anyone whatsoever. By hour two of the film, the threads have begun to unravel.
The weakest link here is Christopher Lloyd, and it will always be Christopher Lloyd. I'm a devoted Back to the Future fan, but his presence as Kruge is a terrible piece of miscasting. Kruge is probably the lamest villain in Star Trek. (Yes, lamer than the rock monster.) Lloyd lacks the menace to be a convincing adversary while Kruge has absolutely zero motivation for his actions. He's a plot coupon because the story needed some obstacles. The way he murders his girlfriend is supposed to be chilly and unsettling, but it just strikes me as short-sighted. Why send anyone but a dolt to retrieve this data if it's so secret that no one can look upon it and live? The destruction of the Grissom is, again, necessary for plot purposes, but entirely senseless. If one well-placed torpedo can obliterate an entire Federation vessel, they had better go back to the engineering drawing board. (Also, how does Kirk not see the wreckage when he arrives?) The most ridiculous scene is David's death, though. Why would Kruge murder the only scientist who can tell him something about Genesis?
I always wonder how the story would have panned out without Kruge. With a better villain, or simply Esteban as the by-the-book counterpoint to Kirk's recklessness, the film would have been stronger. There's no reason for Kirk to fear Kruge, but there's every reason for him to fear Esteban and the Federation. Admiral Morrow tells Kirk that his emotional behavior will cause him to lose everything, and he's right: Kirk loses his son, his ship, and his rank (though we don't know that until the next film). I know the movie wanted to end on a high note, with the return of Spock, but it really needs some kind of denouement on Kirk's part as he tries to put together the pieces of his broken life. We don't get to see him grieve for David in any meaningful, personal way, which oddly makes sense since we don't see him interact with David at all in a meaningful, personal way. His death feels like an arbitrary new source of angst for Kirk. Perhaps they felt they had to re-up the stakes after killing Spock in the last movie, but by hour two Search for Spock just feels emotionless all around.
The B-plot, with Saavik and David and baby Spock on Genesis, never lives up to the A-plot. Robin Curtis is absolutely awful as Saavik. She's as blank as baby Spock. Kirstie Alley always had that hint of mischief, the curiosity and emotion broiling beneath the surface. Curtis is just dead; she has the robotic delivery of a customer service representative. Things only get worse when Kirk and Kruge show up on the surface of the Genesis planet. Their planetary fistfight is ridiculous, and yet doesn't manage to be as cringe-worthy as some of the dialogue. "I…have had…enough… of you!" should go down in history as one of the worst villain send-offs.
David Marcus, on the other hand, isn't remotely interesting enough to hold his own. Any meaningful message to be cleaned from his amoral use of protomatter just seems like a kid doing something stupid rather than an actual warning about rushing scientific progress. Where's his mother in all this? Shouldn't the other Doctor Marcus be interested in what her invention created? And wouldn't she like to know what happened to her son? What's protomatter, anyway, and why is it so ethically dubious? Shortcuts, shortcuts, shortcuts.
Industrial Light and Magic did the effects this time, but you would never guess these were the folks who worked on Star Wars. The effects here are atrocious. You can see lines around the Enterprise in the space shots (it looks like they stickered it over a film cell), and the phaser blasts and planetary backdrops look cheap and fake (though they're outstanding compared to the animatronic space pooch, which the less said about the better). The only thing worse is the sound effects, which jolt you right out of the movie with their absurdity. At least they saved the costumes from the last time around.
Is it flawed? Yes. Is it terrible? Absolutely not. At heart, The Search for Spock is about friendship and the lengths we go for the people we love. Loving someone means allowing him or her the chance to wound you, deeply. Sarek forces Kirk to relive that moment in Engineering, the most painful moment of his life, while at the same time implying that their friendship was not, as Kirk believed, fully reciprocated. If it had been, wouldn't he have chosen Kirk for his katra and not McCoy? Kirk loses his friend over and over again: not just in his mind's eye reliving that day, but each time he believes he hears him in McCoy's voice, or has a creeping doubt that Sarek may have been right about their friendship.
Losing Spock meant losing a part of himself–"the noblest part of me." I love the line at the end that the cost of finding his friend pales in comparison to the cost of not finding him: his soul. It's beautiful. They are Gilgamesh and Enkidu; Sam and Frodo. Friendships like that are rare, but timeless and transcendent.
Torie's Rating: Warp 4
Star Trek III was greenlit the day after Star Trek II opened, and was always intended to conclude the events of TWoK and bring Spock back from the dead. Though Spock's name is included in the title, Leonard Nimoy was only heard but not seen for most of the film. Instead, this time around he was active behind the camera as the film's director, after Nicholas Meyer turned it down because he thought Spock should remain dead.
Nimoy nearly didn't get the job, because studio chief Michael Eisner was under the mistaken impression that he hated Star Trek. However, along with producer Harve Bennett, who also wrote the screenplay, Nimoy was, of course, uniquely suited to maintaining the tone and themes of Star Trek and directing the Vulcan's anticipated return.
Bennett wrote the script in six weeks, working his way backward from the final scene to the ending of TWoK. Nimoy wanted the film to be "operatic" in scope, and helped develop the screenplay using the original series episode "Amok Time" as a source of inspiration. Because he considered the outcome of the film to be somewhat predictable, Bennett decided to shock audiences by destroying the Enterprise. To catch new theatergoers up on the events of the prequel, he drew on his television background and began the film with a "Previously, on Star Trek…" that replayed the final moments of TWoK.
The film nearly made back its entire budget of $17 million in its opening weekend, a slight improvement over TWoK, and it ultimately grossed $87 million worldwide; though it falls short of the runaway success of its prequel, it was nonetheless a success.
Best Line: SAREK: My logic is uncertain where my son is concerned.
Other Favorite Quotes: MCCOY: How can you be deaf with ears like that?
KIRK: Yes, poor friend. I hear he's fruity as a nutcake.
KIRK: Gentlemen, your work today has been outstanding. I intend to recommend you all for promotion … in whatever fleet we end up serving.
KIRK: My God, Bones. What have I done?
MCCOY: What you had to do. What you always do. Turn death into a fighting chance to live.
MALTZ: I do not deserve to live.
KIRK: Fine, I'll kill you later.
KIRK: Because the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.
Trivia: There is an extended pause in the opening credits between William Shatner's credit and DeForest Kelley's—where Leonard Nimoy's name would have appeared.
The original outline for the film was titled "Return to Genesis."
Romulans were intended to be the villains of this film, but the studio preferred the more recognizable Klingons and Nimoy thought they would be more "theatrical," thus an early draft of the script identified the Klingon Bird of Prey as a stolen Romulan vessel, since the model had already been built—according to Nimoy's design suggestions. You can still see the feather detailing under its wings.
The self-destruct sequence is copied word for word from the same sequence in the original series episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield."
Edward James Olmos was Nimoy's first choice for the role of Kruge, but Paramount wouldn't allow it. Olmos later went on to play Commander Adama in the Battlestar Galactica revival by Trek veteran, Ron Moore. Christopher Lloyd was Bennett's preferred choice.
During production, a fire on the Paramount lot caused minor damage to the Genesis set. William Shatner, in full Kirk costume, helped put the fire out, so they wouldn't miss a shooting day that would delay his commitment to returning to film T.J. Hooker.
The U.S.S. Grissom was named for Virgil "Gus" Grissom, who died in a pre-launch test for Apollo I on January 27, 1967.
Chekov speaks Russian for the first time in the series, when he detects a life form reading in Spock's sealed quarters. His line to Scotty translates as "I'm not crazy. Well, look!"
The toast in Kirk's apartment to "absent friends" is a traditional toast of the Royal Navy.
Judi Durand, who provided the voice of the spacedock computer in this film, later played the voice of Cardassian computers on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, as well as the Starfleet computer voice for the Star Trek Scene It? DVD game.
Leonard Nimoy provided the voice of the Excelcior's turbolift, but it was credited to his pseudonym "Frank Force." This name was also used to disguise the fact that Nimoy would appear in the film, with the adult Spock listed as the character "Nacluv" in the script and call sheets.
The destruction of Enterprise was also meant to be a surprise, but Paramount's promotional campaign teased the "death of the Enterprise."
Grace Lee Whitney, who played Yeoman Rand on the original series, has a cameo in the spacedock scene when Enterprise arrives, shaking her head when she sees the damage to the hull. Tribbles also make a cameo appearance in Mos Eisley the bar.
The Excelsior was supposed to appear in TWoK as Captain Sulu's first command, but the plotline was dropped.
Marc Okrand had to rewrite the Klingon language to compensate for actors flubbing their lines.
An early draft of the screenplay indicated that the engine core was destroyed in the self-destruct, resulting in a matter/antimatter explosion. This was later changed to having the primary and secondary hulls explode, but ILM delivered effects according to the original script, which were still partially used in the final film.
Previous post: Re-Watching Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
Next post: Re-Watching Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
Tags: death, fully clothed man-wrestling, Genesis, handwaving mumblemumble, klingons, loyalty, mind meld, sabotage, starship jacking, transwarp drive, Vulcan magic, Vulcan sex
About Eugene Myers & Torie Atkinson
EUGENE MYERS has published short fiction in a variety of print and online zines as E.C. Myers. He is a graduate of the Clarion West Writers Workshop and a member of the writing group Altered Fluid. When he isn't watching Star Trek, he reads and writes young fiction. His first novel, Fair Coin, is forthcoming from Pyr. TORIE ATKINSON is a NYC-based law student (with a focus on civil rights and economic justice), proofreader, sometime lighting designer, and former Tor.com blog editor/moderator. She watches too many movies and plays too many games but never, ever reads enough books.
1. ccradio
Posted October 20, 2011 at 10:00 AM
I have to agree with Christopher Lloyd's being miscast in this. How many people nodded in agreement with the stand-up comic (whose name escapes me) noting that Lloyd sounded a little too much like he was doing his Reverend Jim character from Taxi?:
"Uhhhh…*sigh*…Admiral Kirk?…You won't give me the Genesis device?…Okey doke!"
I was able to give this a re-watch last weekend (one of the cable channels was running II, III and IV in sequence, repeatedly), and agree that it really does have a worse reputation than it's been given, even by me. While it loses its focus here and there, it still manages to hold up pretty well despite some clumsy stuff.
Also: I didn't realize until recently (and upon watching more closely) that Maltz, the remaining Klingon who is fooled into beaming up Kirk and Spock 2.0, was played by John Larroquette.
2. DemetriosX
Where the film really falls down is the McGuffin, which was forced on them by Leonard Nimoy not being able to make up his freaking mind. "I am not Spock. No, wait! I am Spock." Star Trek without Spock is hard to imagine, but in terms of narrative Meyer was right. Still, they had to have some way to bring Spock back and they did the best they could.
The casting was also spectacularly bad. I love Christopher Lloyd, but all I could ever see was Jim Ignatowski with some latex shit on his forehead. It's not like he can't do serious. Go watch his scenes in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, but he's awful here. Robin Curtis is also bad. Her acting style is reminiscent of Keanu Reeves, in a way. Wooden would be a step up. Kirstie Alley had done a terrific job, but she decided she wanted to be paid as much as Shatner. Bad move. And the guy playing David is so vapid and 80s preppy it's almost a pleasure to watch the Klingons kill him. He would have fit in so well on the planet where they wanted to kill Wesley for stepping on the grass, or maybe Angel One.
But yeah, a lot of the writing was tight. One thing that always stood out to me was the way Kirk tries to sit down in the command chair and misses after the Klingons kill his son. I'm not sure I buy his emotional connection to someone he didn't even know about until a few months earlier, but it's an excellent note.
3. S. Hutson Blount
Posted October 20, 2011 at 12:15 PM
I have to disagree with the central thesis of the review: TSFS *does* deserve the slights against over the years. Where TWOK felt solid beneath the opposing scenery-chewing of Shatner and Montalban, TSFS seems silly and inconsistent. The individual good lines and eyeball kicks do not gel into a coherent whole.
Watch this film and tell me how big a Klingon Bird of Prey is. You can't, because it radically changes size in essentially every scene. Also, the fact that the script was originally written for Romulan antagonists and then hastily changed continued to plague the franchise into the Next Generation and beyond.
Robin Curtis also contributes to some of the thrown-together feel, by not being Kirstie Alley in any way.
The scenes on Earth manage to be embarrassing for everyone involved.
I will agree that the even/odd thing doesn't really hold true. You're about to review The Voyage Home, which I didn't like at the time and hasn't grown on me any since.
4. bobsandiego
A few months ago I found an excellent deal on Star Treks II, II, and IV on blu-ray and purchased the set even though I already had II and IV on DVD. Naturally with II in hand I gave it a re-watch.
It does suffer in the reviews because it followed Khan, nearly anything would have. It's not the pile of steaming crap that V is and has much more character and story than I, however it is still a deeply flawed film.
I can live with Christopher Lloyd as the klingon (and if you watch John Larroquette is there as the sole surviving Klingon crew member. hmm We don't hear a peep about him in IV, guess the Vulcans do play rough) but the silly way they brought Spock back was just too stupid and done for low melodramatic plot points. Really, he's a baby again? Where did the mass go? then he grows up very very fast (where did the mass come from?) because his life is linked to the planet. Really? Question for teacher, if his life is linked to the planet why did he live when the planet died? The recasting of Saavik was stupid. Really why did it have to be Saavick in that role? Pull her out replace her with a new character and does anything of importance change? A new character would have been a big improvement over a damaged old one.
5. Ludon
Am I the only one who heard Kirk's conversation with Admiral Morrow as Morrow telling him (without saying it) 'Go ahead and do what you have to do, but do it knowing there will be consequences.'? If you listen to the words he used when summing up Kirk's career the words like 'logic' seem more fitting to Spock's career. To me, the look on Kirk's face during the scene seems to support this. Then there's Kirk's response "I hear you." From the first time I saw this movie I've read this scene this way.
Another scene I've read differently was the exchange between Kruge and his girlfriend. She was warning Kruge that these people had seen the information. She was a klingon and she was being true to her Commander and to the Empire. Yes, it was cold by our standards bit it worked because we (at the time of this movie's release) knew very little about the klingons.
Kirk settling into the Captain's Chair just as the Excelsior Captain says over the open channel "Jim, if you do this you'll never sit in the Captain's Chair again." was a gag I thought was underplayed just right.
6. NomadUK
Nothing much to add. I haven't had a chance to re-watch this film, but I remember thinking it was okay but not all that great. The Saavik recasting has already been remarked upon, and it was a big mistake. Lloyd as a Klingon was okay; the campiness of his final disposal was a bit much.
I didn't find the theft of Enterprise all that exciting or believable; it seemed very high school to me. I mean, seriously, if you're going to steal a starship, shouldn't the effort required be something on the order of at least a Mission: Impossible or Ocean's 11? I'm not even asking for The Sting or Topkapi or Inside Man; just a slightly plausible caper would be good enough.
And as for the self-destruct sequence … well. You know, if you're going to blow up your starship, you just switch off the containment fields in your antimatter fuel cells, and let 'er rip. The result will be one helluva big bang, not the strange disintegration effect that goes on and on and on. Not to mention the prompt radiation that would probably fry anyone standing on the planet's surface in line-of-sight. Look at the dome explosions in Silent Running: they did those right.
Anyway, meh. A disappointing follow-up to TWoK, but entertaining enough. It's pretty much downhill from here on out, if I recall correctly.
7. EngineersMate
When I went to see TWOK, I'd heard the rumours about Spock's death so, although I found those scenes very moving, they weren't a surprise.
I went to see TSFS without the slightest idea that the 'Enterprise' was going to be destroyed. When the crew left the ship I still expected that – even with the slim time they had – they would find a way to stop that self-destruct. When the ship blew up, it therefore had a much, much bigger impact on me than Spock's death – I couldn't believe they'd done it. Every time I rewatch the film, a part of me still hopes that this time they'll find a way to save the ship :-)
Overall, I enjoy the film, I've never understood why it gets lumped in with the other 'odd numbers'. I like the humour and the character interactions, the fact that everyone has an important part to play.
Something I've never heard being commented on is that Scotty gives McCoy the circuits from 'Excelsior' with his right hand. Given how many years Jimmy Doohan had been carefuly concealing that hand from the cameras – not just in Trek, but in everything he did on screen – that must have been quite a moment for him. I know he obviously got more relaxed about his hand after that – witness Trek V (if you can) and 'Relics' – but this was a first and I wonder how much persuasion was needed from Nimoy for him to do that.
8. Eugene Myers
@1 ccradio
I don't think Lloyd was necessarily miscast. He hams it up a bit, but Kruge is kind of a campy villain anyway. I mean, he has a pet! It's just hard to buy him as a competent adversary to Kirk, especially after Khan…who may not have been especially competent, but he was driven and had an actual plan, sort of.
For some reason, every time I'm reminded that John Larroquette was in Star Trek, I immediately forget it again.
@2 DemetriosX
I don't buy Kirk's attachment to Marcus, but I love how Shatner plays that scene. Nimoy supposedly told him to react however he wanted, but it isn't clear if he intended to fall into his chair heavily, or if he missed it by (happy) accident.
@3 S. Hutson Blount
You're absolutely right about the Romulans. They just didn't know what to do with them until well into TNG's run, but they've never played quite right in the movies. And I hate the whole development with the Remans.
@5 Ludon
Though I don't think the Admiral was giving Kirk unofficial permission to do what he wanted to, I do think he knew Kirk well enough to realize that he wouldn't just drop it. Kirk very obviously seems to be placating the Admiral, and I thought Morrow fell for it. He probably never expected Kirk would ever attempt to steal a starship, in any case.
However, your explanation about Kruge's girlfriend makes a lot of sense! That never made complete sense to me, since I thought he was going to kill her because she'd seen it… But couldn't he beam her over, under the pretense that she was going to pick up their payment, and then blow the ship up?
@6 NomadUK
For some reason, I always like scenes where a crewmember uses specialized knowledge to pull off something like that, like on TNG when Picard is able to fend off thieves on his own, or Wesley rigs site-to-site transporters and corridor shields to evade game-addicted personnel. This is as close to Kirk's Seven as we get, and it does work for me. I imagine all the real security was on Excelsior, since Enterprise was mostly written off already. In retrospect, it does seem silly that it all comes down to whether they can get through the doors in time, but Scotty's a miracle worker… I guess he's just so awesome, it's almost too easy.
And yes, the explosion is ridiculous, but the lingering "death" not only looks damn cool, it's also more affecting, in my opinion.
It's pretty much downhill from here on out, if I recall correctly.
I look forward to disagreeing with you!
@7 EngineersMate
Somehow I missed that in the movies… But was it Doohan who was trying to hide his hand, or the Paramount execs? Did he also try to hide it in other roles he played?
@6 NomadUK Not to mention the prompt radiation that would probably fry anyone standing on the planet's surface in line-of-sight. Actually I once did a back of the envelope calculation on the hard radiation given off in a matter/anti-matter event. I had a story I was working on and I wanted to get a rough idea just how far away in space an unprotected human needed to be to have a survivable dose of radiation from the event. My rough figure for a grams of conversion was 28 kilometers. Since the radiation innesity drops off with the cube of the distance it falls rather fast.
10. NomadUK
bobsandiego@9: Cube? Square, surely? And I'm figuring they must have many kilogrammes — maybe tonnes — of antimatter aboard that thing for the energy output required.
11. bobsandiego
@10 NomadUk.
for a circle you would square the distance, for a sphere you use the cube, Kilograms? E=MC(squared) adds up awfully fast. I seriously doubt the need for tonnes of the stuff lol
12. Lemnoc
Not much to add here, except to note that as STII raised an aspect of Kirk's personality to the level of iconic with the "No Win Scenario" tale, STIII raises Scotty to the level of iconic with the whole "Miracle Worker" shtick, an aspect that really takes hold and takes off in the following film.
As I noted in an earlier thread, TOS really didn't go out of its way to portray Kirk as an exceptional commander even among his peer group of Starfleet captains (the hint was there he was a special man even among special men, but unemphasized), TOS never said much about Scotty other than he was a hardheaded and fiercely competent engineer. Was he better than other engineers of his class? Here, his gifts are purported to the stuff of legend.
In TOS, he was a character of the second tier, marginally ahead of those of the third tier like Sulu and Uhura, and primarily because he was not infrequently placed in positions of command or countermand. This movie begins the arc that moves Scotty up into the higher atmosphere of a beloved character of the franchise, until he is nearly considered a fourth member of the Triumvirate.
bobsandiego@11: Surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2; the radiation front is a spherical wavefront whose area increases as the square of the distance; thus the intensity of the radiation decreases likewise (it's not distributed uniformly within the sphere, but on its surface).
And, yes, E = mc^2, but it takes a kilogramme of mass to get the equivalent of a 50 megatonne nuclear explosion, which we (well, the USSR) have managed to do in an uncontrolled fashion. The amount of energy required to accellerate a mass such as Enterprise to anywhere near lightspeed, much less to faster than light speeds, can be assumed to be quite huge, which is why antimatter was posited as the fuel in the first place. To keep that puppy humming for a five-year mission, I would have assumed quite a substantial quantity of antimatter. When Kirk says that imploding the engines could result in them all going up in the biggest ball of fire since the last sun in those parts exploded, he wasn't kidding.
Posted October 21, 2011 at 1:32 PM
you are correct, I was thinking volume and it would be the sphere's surface.My memory if foggy on exactly the figures I did but I did use a small amount of anti-matter (grams) for the asteroid mining station in my story, I still don;t think Enterprise has tonnes of the stuff. Sureley even if she needed lots they'd refule and not carry enough for the entire 5 year mission.
bobsandiego@14: I think grammes might well be fine for a mining station — after all, it doesn't have to go anywhere.
Since it's not really clear what the energy requirements for warp drive are, it's all a matter of speculation, really. I don't have a good feel for whether relativity is bothered with even for sublight speeds, but the impulse engines alone will generate an explosion of around 100 megatonnes (see 'The Doomsday Machine'), which is the equivalent of a couple of kilos of mass right there. The antimatter in the ship's engines was 'deactivated', and so did not contribute to that energy total, and we have to assume that the warp engines require far more energy than the impulse engines.
Anyway, I think it's safe to say that it would be a goddamn big fireball, and not what we saw on the screen.
One explanation for the poor villainy of Kruge may be that Roddenberry wasn't very fond of Klingons, considering them stock bad guys and a violation of his noble (and drama-free) universe. In TNG's first season, Worf was primarily a background character to illustrate that the race had been tamed to Star Trek standards, and did little more than growl and behave like a surly and easily baited dimwit. Roddenberry and his team were probably likewise predisposed to cast a Spaceman Jim as a unidimensional and unibrowed adversary.
The casting of Edward James Olmos, and his severely underplayed characterizations, would have been brilliant, IMO. One of his most notable performances at this point in his career was his spooky and menacing (and brilliantly underplayed) presence in Bladerunner.
I imagine only after some gifted writer grafted the Japanese warrior code on to the Klingons, providing them some nobility, did Roddenberry relent in his general hostility toward the (popular with fans) race.
It would be interesting to see some comparison between GR and Geo. Lucas in their vast misunderstanding of what it was that made their franchises popular among fans, and how their "creative oversight" often trammeled those elements.
@ 15 NomadUk
Oh hale yeah it would be one big flashly ball of fire, not a fragemented hull. There are some absolutely lovely footage of high altuitude nuclear burst on a blu-ray called "Trinty and Beyond" narrated by — wait for it — William Shatner. That's how it would have looked.
(In my story i had two characters riding a mass catapult to escape the antimatter blast, sadly the story ended up looking too much like an alien clone so I junked it.)
18. EngineersMate
# 8 "was it Doohan who was trying to hide his hand, or the Paramount execs? Did he also try to hide it in other roles he played?"
Jimmy was very conscious of his damaged hand and tried to conceal it in every role he played – that's clear from his book. Watch, for example, his Outer Limits episode – he plays a detective and at one point he says "I have a warrant"… and pats a non-existent right-hand upper pocket with his left hand.
19. Ludon
@8 Eugene
Do you think that crew would have let her go to "get the payment"? They were already upset. I think she and Kruge were banking on that crew not believing that hostile action would be taken with her still on the ship. As I said. She was a Klingon and she was being true to her Commander and the Empire.
Regarding my earlier comment about a plausible caper, Jo Walton has an article on Tor.com regarding her dislike of heists in the SFF genre, with an apropos headline image.
21. ccradio
It's kind of a shame that Doohan worked so hard to conceal his hand. Given that Scotty was an engineer, it would have been perfectly in character for us to see a guy with a missing finger. Accidents do happen from time to time, after all. Give it a throwaway line of backstory and it's a done deal.
22. Torie Atkinson
@ 1 ccradio
Seriously? That's John Larroquette? Whoa.
Now you've brought back all those weird memories of Night Court.
@ 2 DemetriosX
Lloyd doesn't even look like he wants to be there. An excellent little note you noticed, though. Even if David is a preppy jerk that Kirk barely knows.
@ 3 S. Hutson Blount
You wound me, sir! :)
@ 4 bobsandiego
I still don't get the accelerated baby thing. And even if he's only lived long enough to score, don't you think some mental development would have taken place, thus making our heroes decision to reinstall the backup ethically dubious?
@ 5 Ludon
You know, I read that scene entirely different. I felt that Morrow was telling Kirk as an older admiral to another older admiral, don't do this. Your days are spent, don't fuck up what you've worked so hard for–trust me, I know. I'm intrigued by your reading, though, and I'll have to watch it again to see if I can see what you do.
As for Kruge's girlfriend, it makes no sense to me. Of course they've seen the information. Why send anyone who can't?
@ 6 NomadUK
The theft the Enterprise still works for me because I assume that in Starfleet this has pretty much never happened, especially right from spacedock. The sheer ballsiness of it! Why bother to secure something so well-guarded and surrounded by morally upstanding Starfleet dudes?
@ 12 Lemnoc
I think that hits on one of the great strengths of the movies in general: they really let the "second tier" characters shine. Aside from the holy trinity, the rest of the cast gets a lot more room to play around, use their skills, and contribute meaningfully.
Another excellent point. When I first started watching TNG, I loathed Worf and the other Klingons. They were mostly one-dimensional racial stereotypes. But Ron Moore gave them some honor, and they emerged by the end as equally nuanced and interesting as the puny humans.
Edward James Olmos would have been amazing. Or maybe not. I mean, the part itself was really terrible.
torie@22: Well, there was that little kerfluffle with Spock stealing Enterprise to take Christopher Pike back to Talos IV … with the entire crew (sans Kirk) along for the ride! But maybe they'd forgotten about that one.
25. Dep1701
Some thoughts addressing issues brought up above:
1 ) To me, one of the weakest parts of this movie is the pacing. I find that after the Enterprise is destroyed, I find the last part somewhat anticlimactic, particularly after they reach Vulcan. I mean, I enjoy the warm fuzzy ending ( with the wonderful snippet of the television main title quoted in the music ), but I kinda lose interest 'til they get to it.
2 ) Even back when this movie was new, I felt it looked a bit cheap. The interior of the "Merchantman" looked like an afterthought, the bridge of Excelsior was particularly awful – straight out of T.V.'s "Buck Rogers", and although the Genesis planet sets might not have looked out of place on television, on the big screen they looked … well, like 'sets'. Also the computer graphics used on the screens throughout looked embarrassingly 20th century, even in 1984 ( as if Starfleet had dug up some old Apple computers to use – and dig that primitive tape cassette thing that Valkris used to transmit the Genesis info…YEESH! ).
3 ) I too missed Kirstie Alley as Saavik, and felt that Robin Curtis was bland, but that should really be partially blamed on director Nimoy. In many interviews Curtis said that any time she would try to interject any hint of emotion into her performance, Leonard would make her play it down.
4 ) On the subject of Nimoy's direction, you can tell that, while he improved significantly in the next feature, here he was still 'getting his space legs'. I found some of his choices a little wince-worthy at the time, particularly the closeups on eyes and lips during the mind meld. Again, while that would have probably worked quite well on television, on a big theatre screen it looked very odd.
5 ) Like Torie, I was particularly bothered by the "convenient" pseudo-science that is used to explain why the Genesis planet was unstable ( and why Spock was reborn and aging with it ). I understand from interviews with Bennett that he wanted to make sure that the Genesis effect could not work…it was just too big an idea that they would have to keep dealing with in any future films. Okay, I'll give him that, but his writing was at best, sloppy.
So, David added 'protomatter' to the matrix…umm, what about the other scientists involved with the project? Were they completely oblivious to this, or did they agree to go along with it? I dunno, but it seemed unlikely to me that Ms.No-Nonsense Carol Marcus would have agreed to a cheat like that. What did David do? Sneak into the kitchen while everyone was asleep and pour a little into the mixture? It doesn't seem believable that no one would have detected it.
I always thought that a plausible explanation for the Genesis planet being unstable was that it created a whole planet out of the material found in a Nebula, rather than terraforming an existing one, as it was designed to do. I also always hated that they manage to rescue Spock at exactly the same age he was when he died. That's when I finally threw up my hands in frustration with the story. The script just seemed too obviously rushed and cobbled together in order to make certain events happen in a certain way.
Although, I still like the movie, I really wish that much more time and a bit more money had been spent on this sequel. After the tight drama of "TWOK" this was something of a letdown.
26. Eugene Myers
@25 Dep1701
I rather liked the unusual closeups, but I've only ever seen this film on TV (tragic, right?) so I can imagine it would play quite differently on the big screen.
Interesting point on wanting to make Genesis impossible; I kind of wondered why they never bothered to revive the project. But considering how controversial it is, and how much trouble it caused, that would understandably give Starfleet pause from pursuing it further. But why wouldn't their enemies make protomatter weapons? The device is still great at destroying stuff. I also don't know how David could have done this secretly. I always figured Carol was the project leader.
And I agree that it's awfully convenient that Spock escapes from the planet at exactly the right age!
27. glorbes
Despite its flaws, I really enjoy this movie. It was a favorite when I was a kid (I got the move boxed set when I was ten, and this was right after Khan as my most rewatched sequel). Watching it now does kind of take some of the luster off, but I do have to disagree with comments on the effects…I think most of the space shots look great, and that matte 'halo' that was referred to is also quite evident in the Star Wars films pre-special edition…it was one of those technical problems that didn't really get resolved until computers replaced models. I also love the multitude of starship designs introduced, and despite what some have said about Kruge and the Klingons, I always really enjoyed them in this movie. The production value does seem to be a tad cheesy in spots, but that is more a fault of the sets than a failure of the visual effects.
Of course, as many have said, the great strengths of ST III are the character moments. This movie really is just a blast to watch.
@ 25 Dep1701
I don't mind the eye close-ups during the mind-meld. But you're right about the whole protomatter thing. I mean, I never got the sense David was the lead researcher, so to speak, that these decisions would be his, and it makes no sense that his mom would go along with something like that.
@ 27 glorbes
Surely you can't defend the Klingon space dog, though, right?
29. DRickard
The most ridiculous scene is David's death, though. Why would Kruge murder the only scientist who can tell him something about Genesis?
It's been a long time since I've seen this, but if memory serves…
I don't think Kruge had figured out who the people on the planet were: they certainly wouldn't have voluntered that info, and they never look like they've been subjected to interrogation.
I'm pretty certain Kruge left it up to the guards on the planet to decide who would die.
I know that the guard had picked Fake!Saavik & David got knifed trying to save her life.
So incompetence on Kruge's part–just not quite the incompetence Torie accuses him of.
@DRickard
While Kruge did not knowingly kill the sole prisoners who was on the genesis project he ordered the killing without knowing who his prisoners were. A major act of stupudiity as a commander in a combat situation. If you're going to kill prisoners to make a point make sure you know who they are so you can kill the less valuable ones. (after all not only was David a lead on Genesis, but he was your enemy commander's son. Not a commodiity to be tossed away lightly.)
31. NickM
Posted December 28, 2012 at 4:54 AM
I'm a big fan of this film, and because of how many people go for the "even #/odd # films" shorthand, I seem to rank this higher on my preference list than a lot of fans do. Though it sounds like among the crowd here, I'm not so far off the mark. And yes, while every other StarTrek film can be watched in its own little bubble and still succeed just about to its own limits, this one relies heavily on "TWoK". I would even go further to say that whenever possible, "TWoK" and "TSFS" should be watched as a double feature to really savor the entire storyline.
@Analysis: And yet, even with my previous sentence, I don't think that the 'previously on..' at the beginning was a mistake. I don't know if it sets up the pins for everyone, but it does for me.*
@Analysis: "Saavik and Spock have sex right on screen.." has it been so long that I've forgotten something that was overtly shown? Or are you referring to when the two of them do their Riff Raff/Magenta routine?
@5 Ludon: That is an interesting read on the Admiral Morrow conversation, something I hadn't considered before, but I can see that intention.
@6 NomadUK: *shrug* The Enterprise heist did not really bother me. You cite "Oceans 11", doesn't the planning & execution of that occupy pretty much the whole film? There's not time for anything like that if they're going to have any of the rest of "TSFS". And if you add it up, a fair bit of time is spent on it.
Kirk's line from the near-end monologue of "TWoK" about having to go back isn't just poetic sentiment; you can argue that it was the beginning of his heist plan. Scotty spends much of the return flight setting up the secret system that will allow Kirk to take the Enterprise back to Genesis alone. "You'll be fully automated by the time we dock.."
And you can add to it a number of scenes including the medical lab breakout, Uhura in the transporter room, and the Excelsior chase.
@25 Dep1701: I'm okay with the pacing until the Enterprise's destruction. Then, much as you say, it's a bit of a drag for me until they get to the restoration.
@29 DRickard/30 bobsandiego: Also been a while since I've seen it, but I agree that I don't think the Klingons know how valuable a hand they are holding. When she is on the communicator to Kirk, I believe Saavik was vague about exactly who David was, and Spock was only "a Vulcan scientist of your acquaintance". Kruge painted himself into a corner by threatening to kill a hostage, so someone had to be chosen. A bad move that they didn't know exactly how bad at the time.
*Lately I've found myself getting sniffley-wiffley over some of the recent "DoctorWho" character arcs, but "TWoK" was probably my first instance of a reaction like that. No matter how many times I watch "TWoK", I will still have that reaction. Even the music is enough for me- if I play "Battle in the Mutara Nebula" or "Genesis Countdown", I will end up reciting the lines under my breath and give myself the same reaction.
Something I also do when I hear the opening theme to "TSFS", reciting Kirk's log entry after the theme music winds down. Which, surprisingly, has not caused an embarrassing moment for me yet when I ride a Disney bus to the "Hollywood Studios" park and hear that piece of music on the PA system. Of course, that's only the 3rd most surprising piece of music I've heard on that bus route…
Posted January 2, 2013 at 2:32 PM
@31 NickM
Yep, I was referring to the gratutitous Vulcan finger-touching!
Okay, I'll bite. What are the 1st and 2nd most surprising pieces of music you've heard on the Disney bus?
Posted January 6, 2013 at 3:32 AM
@32 Eugene
To add a little context for those who may not know, Walt Disney World has a bus system that can take guests around among the 4 parks, all the hotels and some of the other places on the property (like Downtown Disney). Automatic recordings are triggered when you arrive at a new place, but most of the rest of the time is background music. On the buses going to the 4 parks, the music relates to where you're going: Magic Kingdom has a lot of classic ride music, Epcot has futuristic instrumentals, Animal Kingdom has a lot of African music, and Hollywood Studios has movie theme music.
So hearing the "Star Trek" music on that bus, or around the grounds of that park, makes sense in that it's movie/TV music, but odd since it's not Disney related. Even more odd was my #2 surprise: I'm quite sure that a time or two I've heard music from the "Harry Potter" films. Unexpected to get something from essentially a competitor.
But the biggest surprise is one that I've heard a few times on that bus line.. the theme from John Carpenter's "Halloween"! The first time was on a crowded bus, so I was standing. Background conversation was at a moderate level, but there was a speaker behind me so I could hear the bus music. And I got some serious chills when I felt like I was the only person on this bus who seemed to realize what was playing.
34. Anthony Pirtle
Posted September 4, 2013 at 9:22 PM
I have to agree with the assessment that this is a good, but flawed film. It's the first Star Trek movie I remember seeing in a theater, and as a nine year old I wasn't really sophisticated enough to appreciate its problems. I just had a blast.
Robin Curits was pretty darn flat as Saavik, and I think part of the reason is that Kirstie Alley always played her as part Romulan, as Nicholas Meyer intended. Leonard Nimoy decided he wanted the Saavik of his film to be vulcan through and through. I'm honestly glad that Saavik's role in the fourth film (where she was originally supposed to be carrying Spock's baby) was cut to a cameo, because she's just not as interesting as she was when Alley was playing her.
I have to take exception to the notion that Christopher Lloyd wasn't right for his role, though. Not because I disagree with you, but because I had a friend about fifteen years ago who was devoted to klingons, spoke the language, ended up meeting a klingon woman online and I think ended up going to Australia to marry her and have klingon children. He absolutely loved Lloyd's Klingon and thought he was one of the very best. Whether this has anything to do with the fact that my friend very closely resembled Christopher Lloyd I can't say…
Ranking (All) The Star Trek Movies | ★Bookmrkd
Ranking (All) The Star Trek Movies | Personal Injury Lawyer Team
Ranking (All) The Star Trek Movies | The Viral Beat