The STAR TREK III-Love & Appreciation Thread

I would make a 'rank the scores' thread, but how the heck do you rank TMP? It's so different from most of the others. ...and I'm afraid of the shellacking Generations would take, cause I love it.

 

I've learned to appreciate the movie a lot in the last year or so. It's oddly placed between The Wrath of Khan and The Voyage Home, but it serves as the bridge for those two movies.

Hell, I even made this a few weeks ago.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv4w11CaSwo[/yt]

 

Nice. So Harrison is Maltz, long stranded on Vulcan come back to exact his vengence.

 

Or Kruge, but you get the gist.

 

This one was always a mixed bag. I would say that Kurge was one of the best villains on Star Trek, Christopher Lloyd is the man .

Now having said that, its really painful to watch the Enterprise destroyed and I did not like Curtis taking over for Alley. STIII ended what might have been from the end of STII. I get the general sense that they were going to start phasing in new cast members, slowly phasing out the old crew. But STIII obviously ended that as David was killed, Savvak was reduced to a shell of herself and the Enterprise was destroyed.

 

I really like TSFS, but a few things about it bother me. The whole "conflict with Starfleet" aspect of it just feels contrived. The admiral is irrationally rigid for no reason other than to set up conflict. Plus, Grissom was already THERE. Shouldn't Kirk just go to Morrow and just say "hey, can you tell J.T. to beam up, Spock? Ok, thanks."

 

Well, he did have orders from the Federation Council that only the science team had permission to go to Genesis.

 

right, but Spock's circumstances presented a unique case which should have allowed for exception. He was a famous and influential Starfleet officer whose dad was a major ambassador. Having the council still deny a simple trip to Genesis just seems like putting artificial obstacles there for the sake of plot. And I still don't know why they didn't just ask Esteban to pick him up while he was there.

 

You know, I watched it the other day and something occurred to me. There is a line from Sarek that implies Vulcan isn't part of the Federation...

Wouldn't Kirk and Sarek's government be the same one?

 

If you are talking budget, STIII has a planet, falling apart, with fire and breakaway sets, I don't remember THAT in STII. Also, besides the Genesis cave in II, there are NO other 'exteriors' required, smart for a film to be shot on a TV movie budget. That is not the case for STIII. Nimoy and crew had to simulate 'all varieties of land and weather' on a modest budget. STIII also has more new ship designs, like them or not.

ST IV was a masterpiece and the best thing to happen to Star Trek since the second season. It brought the franchise to a whole new mainstream audience and made a ton of money, and may very well could be the reason Paramount green lit STTNG.

How anyone can dismiss Nimoy's directing contributions to Star Trek is beyond me. Without him we wouldn't have had the same ST IV or VI, THAT is a pretty good track record, not to mention other bankable film success. Three men and a baby is a classic

PS. ST V stinks, and you know it

 

For the record, that film would be Funny About Love (1990).

 

I'll take these points in reverse order, just cuz.

ST V tries, and it succeeds for me at least as often as it fails, which puts it way ahead of the Nimoy films.

I'm sure TVH's success IS why we got TNG ... but I don't want to go off on another essay about how ModernTrek (with the exception of DS9) was mostly a waste of time.

TWOK had the Genesis tape, which is more production value in its own way than all of the damn planet stuff in SFS. Spending as much as they did on spacedock and all the new ships is part of the reason the planet stuff looks so weak, they didn't have the resources to do it all, especially since you have the whole 'procession on Vulcan that got cut' which was major dollars down the drain (even vfx work for that part of the film was mostly completed before it was dropped.)

Sort of half on the subject ... I was rereading an old CINEFANTASTIQUE -- it is the TREK MOVIE TRILOGY issue, mostly about SFS, some about TVH and with a Meyer interview -- and that had a Deforest Kelley interview. In it, he mentions that they actually shot a bar fight sequence but that it didn't turn out right and they then decided to not reshoot it. He actually gives specifics in terms of the waitress failling into one guy and such.

Has ANYBODY ever seen any stills from this 'missing' scene? I've never seen it in any script, but then again, the scripts available for SFS seem to be of the 'after the movie is done' variety instead of working versions.

 

The bar fight was actually detailed (quickly) in the DC comics adaptation of the movie. That's all I know of it.

 

From the Revised Final Draft, October 7, 1983

 

Thanks, hard to tell from that if we missed out on a TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES level scuffle or something more modest in scope. I guess along with the Vulcan procession, these are things we won't see until well after Nimoy's passing.

 

I'd love to see the rough cut of Star Trek III. I read the script, and there are many bits that didn't make it into the final film - such as Kirk consoling Bones as they're flying to Vulcan.

During the "Stealing the Enterprise" sequence, there is a section of music after McCoy's breakout that was scored, but not used - 20-30 seconds of footage, I think. A brief fight, I think.

I love Nimoy's direction in 3 and 4. One aspect I like about ST3 is the use of color. Lots of bright colors in the lighting - reds, pinks, greens, all very vivid. Nice contrast to the washed out look of TMP.

 

Well, to each their own, I'm glad you can enjoy ST V as much as you do, and for me the II III IV trilogy will always be a high point for the franchise. It's fun talking about these films for me anytime, brings back a lot of good memories.

As far as the planet stuff, it's not simply that the money to do other stuff took away from the Genesis Planet set, there is a huge budget differential between going on location and shooting on set, any set. They could have thrown a million more dollars at the Genesis set and it wouldn't have looked much better. Unfortunately with today's fx tools, they could shoot some second unit stuff on location and seamlessly merge that with the live action and make Genesis look like something from Lord of the Rings instead of movie set.

 

Maybe it's just because it came out when my family was really into renting videos, but I think every other trip to the rental place I brought home The Search for Spock and it became one of my favorites.

It doesn't fit the mold of most Trek adventures, and I think that's its strength. It's the people we know being forced out of their comfort zones.

 

You're almost certainly right about all that. I remember reading that the original SFS plan involved shooting Genesis in Hawaii and possibly Mt St Helens (!!!) and Vulcan in Red Rock Valley or some longtime Western movie locale, but budget issues scotched all that early on.

I'm kind of torn on the 'how convincing do you need to be' thing, because I deeply believe what Joe Jennings said (according to Mike Minor anyway) is right, that to postulate a whole new world with its own unique virgin ecosystem, but then deliver a touched up version of our own planet with all the erosion and signs of being tampered with, is NOT GOOD SCIENCE FICTION.

But it is hard to argue with films that combine deftly-integrated location work with clever and imaginative VFX touches. And part of my problem with SFS is that it seems like the budget is shrinking as the movie progresses, going from some expansive (if unconvincing) Genesis stuff to the mountaintop on Vulcan, which looks like BAD DAY AT STRATOS ROCK if you know what I mean. Maybe if they kept the big procession with the big head sculptures it would have helped.