I've really grown to genuinely love "The Search for Spock."

It's not one of my faves, but I agree the score is great - especially in the Stealing The Enterprise scene, which I think is one of Trek's best sequences.

 

Not to cross the streams, but I just figured out why I loved The Rise of Skywalker.

In Star Trek III the world becomes a little bit less believable. (Why do you steal a ship like the Enterprise when you only need to get five people from here to there and in secret no less?)

But the cast is amazing. The emotional heart of the story has arguably never been better. The movie moves along at a great clip and never makes anyone look stupid (except Starfleet, see my first part about believable).

I'm on the minority that loves Christopher Lloyd. He's kind of the prototype biker Klingon and usually people like that kind of thing.

Shatner was never better. (You Klingon bastards notwithstanding. It was a dumb line.) His scene with Sarek is one of my favorite in the entire series.

Over the years I find myself more forgiving of this film's flaws than The Undiscovered Country.

I have less fun living in the 23rd century but I have a fantastic time hanging out with the Enterprise crew. The adventure continues.

 

I loved it when I first saw it but after I thought about it I just don't feel the same.

I know this isn't really the way trends go but I liked the premise of Star Trek and this movie is really where the premise is thrown away for the "characters of Star Trek" to take over. Yes, it's them still, but there's no more exploring or meeting new people or even a routine military exercise. It's just all about them and Star Fleet is suddenly, from top to bottom, full of morons and idiots.

 

I'm not sure I understand the complaint. It was an unsatisfactory movie because it focused on the characters and their relationships? I've heard a lot of people object to a lot of things regarding Star Trek in my life, but that is a definite first.

I'd also argue strongly against the idea that the "Star Trek premise" (if there is such a singular thing) is absent. We have the Grissom literally exploring a strange new world. We travel to Vulcan, which was the only planet besides Earth that the Enterprise visited more than once in the show. We have devious back-stabbing Klingons to defeat. We have the crew trying to save their friend against all odds. These elements were all mainstays of the original series.

And I also don't agree that everyone in Starfleet is an "idiot or moron."

Styles is a dick. That doesn't make him an idiot. He acted competently trying to stop the Enterprise, and had no way of knowing the transwarp drive was sabotaged. I'm not sure how he acted like either an idiot or a moron.

Morrow isn't an idiot at all. He is prudent and pragmatic and tells Kirk what he needs to hear. He gives the crew their orders and even the significant context associated with them. Morrow is concerned about upholding Federation Council orders (his job) and keeping the peace (also his job), not caving in to Kirk's personal requests. Not seeing an idiot or moron factor here.

The only boob is really Estaban, who seems to have graduated from the same command school as John Harriman, and also failed "Raising Shields When Klingons Decloak 101" in his first year.

EDIT:
I'd additionally argue that the two TOS films that actually stick closest to the "Star Trek premise of exploring" are TMP and TFF which, ironically, are generally the films that get crapped on the most by fans and general audiences alike. The reality is that Star Trek is not about "exploring" nearly as much as people like to pretend it is.

 

They did? Are you including “Yesteryear” in this?

What the movies are really missing is that feeling of being in deep space which the show had. I think it would have been great if the movies had never shown earth except in TVH.

 

Nope, just TOS. Amok Time and Journey to Babel (which everyone forgets because there isn't a scene on the surface).

 

^What a technicality.

 

I think I know what you mean, but, at least to me Star Trek is at its best when it's about the characters.

 

It's not a technicality! They went to Vulcan...!

 

It's because the World is entirely about the characters in this film. They stopped being people with jobs who had adventures. They became epic figures.

Chekov asks "Will we get another ship?" A week ago they didn't serve on the same ship. What would they need a ship for? They might be wondering what their next jobs are, sure.

I love the movie as I said, but this is when the movies totally lost the world and it became entirely about the character's wacky adventure.

 

But I think that's okay because it make Star Trek III pretty unique. In fact, Star Trek II-IV was really Trek's first foray into the realm of "continued character-driven storytelling," and for the first time, it made the franchise feel that much more real and interconnected.

 

I still don't think I fully understand.

It's a movie that should be about the characters, not the world they exist in.

 

It's about the characters in a believable(ish) world. If it's not about the world they exist in it's not Star Trek. Kirk's not an admiral in a space faring navy anymore. He's an intergalactic hero.

 

I'll have to disagree here then.

 

I've mentioned this before, but I think Star Trek III gets severely overlooked regarding the amount of world-building it established. Up to that point, we had seen VERY little of the universe Kirk and company inhabited. We take it for granted now, because we've seen 100's and 100's of hours of Trek since TSFS premiered, but at the time, this was the most expansive look at the Trek universe we had ever had.

Think about all the things that TSFS showed established, or expanded upon:
1. The Excelsior-class, which went on as a mainstay all the way through the rest of the films and the 24th-century television shows.
2. Earth Spacedock, which is now iconic.
3. The Klingon Bird-of-Prey, which became synonymous with the primary Trek villain for almost 2 decades.
4. The Oberth-class starship, which was a very unique Federation design.
5. Transwarp drive
6. Certain elements of Vulcan culture and society (Fal Tor Pan, Mt Seleya, the concept of a Katra, etc.)
7. Established the Klingons, in terms of refining / defining their behavior and appearance, as they would be known for virtually the rest of the life of the franchise
8. First depiction of a Federation Starship self-destruct
9. Considerable expansion of Sarek's character, who would become much more important to the franchise after this film
10. This would set up Kirk's continued hatred / distrust of Klingons, which became a key character trait in the next films.

Again, up to this point, we had nothing that even came close to this. The other two films did a fair amount of world-building, but not nearly as much as we saw in TSFS. The designs and other elements introduced in this movie had a significant impact on the look and feel of the franchise for the next 20 years.

 

Absolutely agree. It amazes me how some look back on this movie and say that it feels cheap. But, honestly, stop and look a moment. Look at all the sets that were built for that movie. Some like to say that Discovery was insane to include the Enterprise bridge or that in the Short Treks, it'd be too expensive to replicate DS9, if they were to visit. Do people not remember how we practically got a new bridge on an almost regular basis? And ST3 is a perfect example of that.

 

8., First depiction of a completed Federation Starship self-destruct

 

Star Trek III: Kirk's Emo Phase

Seriously, though, that is one badass leather jacket he wears in this film.

 

I think Shatner's portrayal of Kirk in TSFS is the best of the entire franchise. It was a masterful, nuanced performance.