Review ST II, III & IV as ONE STORY...

[Chrisisall]

As a continuous story, it rocks, and rocks hard IMO. An epic that spans the Ceti-Alpha system, the Mutara Nebula, Vulcan, Earth, and Earth of the past! Bad guys Khan & Kruge are malicious, new character Gillian is excellently realized, Kirk goes through Hell, and comes out in one piece, Spock & Sarek grow as characters, Starfleet honours Kirk with a demotion...!!!
Taken as a single tale, the IS no better Trek IMO.

Your review?

 

[Kegg]

It gets sidetracked into the past and light comedic tone in the third act and changes villains with each act break. As a single story, it's a trifle odd.

 

[Chrisisall]

It gets sidetracked into the past and light comedic tone in the third act and changes villains with each act break. As a single story, it's a trifle odd.

Yes, exhillerating, isn't it!

 

[Christopher]

It's not a single story so much as a trilogy -- three separate stories that combine into a larger narrative. Though I suppose it could be perceived as a kind of picaresque tale, a story tracking its heroes through a series of adventures.

What I like about it is how the titles of the three films work so well as descriptive chapter titles. One film depicts the wrath of Khan, the next portrays the search for Spock, and the final one chronicles the voyage home.

 

[Chrisisall]

It's not a single story so much as a trilogy -- three separate stories that combine into a larger narrative.

Yeah, like the Back To The Future movies, Star Wars 4, 5 & 6, or LOTR. And, regardless of your assessment of ranking, it's in the league. Pretty good considering the financial limitations in comparison, eh?

 

[Kibbin]

While I like each of these movies, in varrying degrees I don't like them as a trillogy (which I have done in a sitting once) for the reasons mentiond above, rapid shifts in tone diffrent villains etc etc. I prefer to think of them as a series or an arch rather than one whole thing in the same way as BTTF like Chrisisall says (but not the Star Wars OT, I think that actually works well as a complete story just set over a large amount of time and not encompassing everything)

 

[Chrisisall]

While I like each of these movies, in varrying degrees I don't like them as a trillogy for the reasons mentiond above, rapid shifts in tone diffrent villains etc etc.

the Star Wars OT, I think that actually works well as a complete story just set over a large amount of time and not encompassing everything

I get what you're saying, but, give me some editing equipment & I could make one 4 1/2 hour fairly seamless movie out of 'em.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, like the Back To The Future movies, Star Wars 3, 4, & 5, or LOTR. And, regardless of your assessment of ranking, it's in the league. Pretty good considering the financial limitations in comparison, eh?

Don't you mean Star Wars 4, 5, and 6?

It's not quite like the BTTF trilogy, because that really does work as one big story, particularly the last two, which were originally going to be just one film but became so big that it had to be split in two. As for LOTR, it's an adaptation of a literary work that was written as a single novel but was so long that the publisher chose to split it into three volumes. Not the same thing as ST II - IV, which is three distinct stories that connect into a larger sequence. (In fact, that's the strict definition of the word "trilogy" -- not just one big story told in three parts, but three distinct stories that connect together.)

 

[cultcross]

I think II and III don't work very well back to back. With time in between to let Spock's death sink in, they work great. But if you watch them through as one thing, Spock dies and about 10 minutes later, he's back. The emotional impact of II is significantly lessoned. Oh, and Carol's absence is much more noticeable too.

 

[Harvey]

I don't think it's that dramatic. Spock doesn't return in the form of Nimoy until the very end of the third film. And he's still coming to terms with his death and new life in the fourth installment. You may as well be upset that the destruction of the Enterprise is reversed by the movie that follows, too.

Still, I like to take some time between each film. There's probably a few weeks gap between 2 and 3, and 4 begins a few months after 3.

 

[Chrisisall]

Don't you mean Star Wars 4, 5, and 6?

OOoops! Thanks. Too much holiday cheer, I guess!

In fact, that's the strict definition of the word "trilogy" -- not just one big story told in three parts, but three distinct stories that connect together.

But if you watch them through as one thing, Spock dies and about 10 minutes later, he's back. The emotional impact of II is significantly lessoned. Oh, and Carol's absence is much more noticeable too.

That all can be covered by dissolves & voiceovers.

 

[Chrisisall]

There's probably a few weeks gap between 2 and 3, and 4 begins a few months after 3.

Hence my proposed dissolves & voiceovers!

 

[Kegg]

It's sort of a duology with the trilogy aspect being a B-plot of the last movie, also. While The Search for Spock's main plot grows organically from the events of TWOK (it's the most direct sequel we've had in Trek films to date), TVH continues from the premise left at the end of TSFS but is mostly about the crew solving an entirely unrelated problem, with the loose ends from the previous picture wrapped up at the end of this one.

Structurally that'd go against most all trilogies in Hollywood, like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, where the third movie is the big cathartic Event the previous two films have been building up to, a conclusion of plot threads very much in the foreground.

 

[Chrisisall]

Structurally that'd go against most all trilogies in Hollywood

Which is why it is superiour.

 

[Christopher]

Of course, there's also the discontinuity of Saavik suddenly changing her appearance between parts 1 & 2, but then, Back to the Future has the same problem with Elizabeth (even to the point of having two different actresses in two versions of the same scene).

 

[Chrisisall]

Of course, there's also the discontinuity of Saavik suddenly changing her appearance between parts 1 & 2,

Who? Robin Alley?



Seriously, if you consider how they wrote themselves into a corner with 2, I have mucho rrespect for Bennett for being able to write his way out of it with 3.
4 was a fun additional adventure & a very cool coda.

 

[JarodRussell]

Seriously, if you consider how they wrote themselves into a corner with 2

Wrote themselves into a corner? How so? With Spock's death?

While I like TSFS and the movies that followed, I also wish we had gotten TOS movies without Spock, and no reset button.

 

[Chrisisall]

Wrote themselves into a corner? How so? With Spock's death?

Yep. & Kirk accepting it.

 

[RyuRoots]

Wrote themselves into a corner? How so? With Spock's death?

Yep. & Kirk accepting it.

How so? He DIDN'T have to accept it since there was a reset button thanks to Genesis...I mean Plot Device Planet.

Viewed as a single narrative, it's a mess. You have the only interesting thing about 2 ruined by 3, and the buildup from those two pushed aside until the very end of the largely disconnected 4.

 

[Chrisisall]

Viewed as a single narrative, it's a mess. You have the only interesting thing about 2 ruined by 3, and the buildup from those two pushed aside until the very end of the largely disconnected 4.

Viewed as a single narrative, it's a success. You have the only unacceptable thing about 2 fixed by 3, and the buildup from those two intriguingly pushed aside until the very end of the hugely entertaining 4.

It's all a POV, now isn't it?