• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Star Trek III-Your Opinions

Joel_Kirk

Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
From a filmmaking standpoint, it was a fun, 80s sci-fi; it continued the somber feel of the second film.

The effects were good, and the story definitely worked.

Of course, I know of the politics behind-the-scenes combined with various fan reactions that brought Spock back (which, according to director Nicholas Meyer, defeats the purpose of the second film with Spock's sacrifice)...

Sidenote: This was the 'moment in time' when TJ Hooker was on the air; and Leonard Nimoy and Willam Shatner were actually in an episode together in a Shatner-directed the episode.

Back on the film itself:
-I was disappointed with Kirstie Alley not returning, but Robin Curtis was passable.

-It was cool seeing Tribbles making a cameo.

-It was cool seeing Robert Hooks as a Starfleet Admiral (at the time I didn't know who he was; his son Kevin directed the Wesley Snipes film, Passenger 57...and the cheesy, sloppy Strictly Business that introduced a young, gorgeous Halle Berry to the masses)...

-I did like the family aspect of the film; all cast members had something to do.

-Nichelle Nichols loves to keep the skirt and boots alive; she wears an outfit off-duty, and designed(or helped designed) a Starfleet version for this film...*rooooowr* :biggrin:

-I didn't realize until a couple of years later that John Larroquette(sp?) was one of Kruge's Klingon...

-I do blame Nicholas Meyer for those uniforms....ugh....

Other than that, it's a good, standard film. It tells the story; no more, no less.

(I recall that was the year of Superman III and Supergirl as well; not too mention, Jaws 3-D)...
 
I've always felt this is a much better movie than it has any right to be.

Think about it: Killing off Spock, especially as it happened in TWOK, is pretty solid drama. Bringing him back is anti-drama, and anticlimactic - not only does it rob the previous movie of its potency, it doesn't have a lot of drama by itself as a concept.

So they up the stakes as much as possible, kill off Kirk's son, blow up the Enterprise, and don't let us actually see the Spock we know and love until the very end of the movie.

The end result is a pretty fun and effective movie. It's not one of the best Trek films - it's strictly middle of the road - but it's not one of the ones that blows chunks, either.
 
I find much to like about it, but...I don't know. It's pretty low down there on my list of Trek films. It's good, but not amazing.
 
Lurches from fantastic---the mind meld, the stealing enterprise, the Fal-tor-pan ceremony, glorious death spiral of Enterprise to

awful------all of Starfleet as morons, terrible 'planet' set, stupifying change in Saavik to full vulcan mode, ridiculous 'deax ex machina' Spock revival, terrible space 'battle',
etc
 
It was...ok...it was a by-the-numbers film to get Spock back.

The FX were good for the most part, but I hate the ILM warp drive streak effects...until JJs film.
 
Like Kegg says, this film is a lot better than it has any right to be. Not only because they correctly realize that they couldn't bring back Spock for free (thus the death of David, the destruction of the Enterprise), but also because it gives every member of the cast something memorable to do. In many ways, it's the only memorable ensemble movie with these characters until J.J. Abrams' Star Trek. Add to that what is probably one of Shatner's more memorable performances in the series, and James Horner's score that has all the right links to the previous film, but still manages to break new ground (new if you haven't heard any of the Horner scores that would rip this one off in later years, of course), and you have a solid film.
 
The FX were good for the most part, but I hate the ILM warp drive streak effects...until JJs film.
The ILM warp streak is a very low-budget effect. It's just airbrushed artwork that is uncovered frame by frame. Blah.

Even when I saw the film in the theater I found it a downer. I liked a few moments, but it was just flat.
 
We go from Star Trek II--that is, rubbish with a couple of redeeming points but not enough to save it--to Star Trek III, which is a decent movie, that's just that: decent.

Recasting Saavik as Robin Curtis is one of the film's best points for me. She fit the role better, generally had a better Vulcan presence, and was a fair sight prettier.

The very end and the destruction of the Enterprise were really great, but I thought the Spock aging parts...objectively speaking, I want to say they were handled well, but personally, they weren't fun to watch.

So much of the movie just passes by without me feeling much of anything. The only real exceptions being the Enterprise exploding, the "Klingon bastard" scene, and the very end with Spock.

It's okay, and a definite step up from II, but nowhere near as good as IV or VI.
 
I have always enjoyed the film. I agree that it does take away from the ending of II, by bringing him back. But, one thing it does convey is the sorrow that Kirk and crew have for the loss of their friend. I think the cast did a wonderful job of portraying this, especially early on. Another thing that this movie shows is that Kirk is the ultimate tragic character. He constantly seems to be losing that which he cares about: his best friend, his son, and ultimately his ship.
 
Kirk ditches his uniform for a leather jacket, steals the Enterprise, heads for the planet forbidden, blows up the Enterprise, and kicks a Klingon's ass on an exploding planet...

As Friday night pizza and beer movies go, you could do worse.
 
A waste of a film. Added nothing, undid the events of the previous film, looked like shit, sounded like shit.
 
Coincidentally, I reviewed it just this morning. This was my first viewing of it since STXI so I was anxious to see how it would hold up in light of the Nuverse. (Btw, ST II goes wonderfully with STXI; all the Kobashi Maru (SP?) references are spot on.)

Over all it did very well. I enjoyed seeing this older McCoy again and comparing him with Nu-McCoy. I found myself wondering if the bar he solicits a ride to Genesis at is the same as we saw in the NuVerse, only later. Blah, blah, blah, gush, gush, gush.

Only one bit of dialogue took me out of the story - "Money you name, money I got!" that made me pause to think of Nu McCoy [apparently] joining Starfleet because he now was, thanks to his X-wife, broke.

Other than that it remains the Classic I remember it to be and will revisit it again in the future.
 
It is interesting to note: Shatner seems very subdued in this film. (He was also subdued in II as well).

I don't know how many takes Nimoy did of various scenes, but Nicholas Meyer noted that Shatner's delivery changed when he was bored...

***

Another note, although I didn't realize it at the time (and technically it wouldn't be known in Trekdom for sometime): The Klingons would become a cliche after this film, and would become the default villains, and default race...

Obviously to many of the posters here, it was to be the Romulans that were the main antagonists rather than the Klingons....

Of course James Horner's music is cool...(Again, according to director Meyer, by the time VI rolled on, Jerry Goldsmith and James Horner were too expensive for the production)...

Adding a note on Robin Curtis: Of course it was the ears, the eyebrows, the long hair, the Vulcan/Romulan demeanor (yes, the Romulan part still isn't 'cannon'...er, 'canon')...but it was that leather Starfleet vest that did it as well....

Hmmm...lol

***

I do wonder how things would have transpired in later years of Trek since Spock turned up in TNG, and nuTOS....

To the posters:
Good mixture of thoughts and ideas, btw...
 
Absolutely no way is Star Trek III a better film than Star Trek II...unless you're smokin the Klingon Krack pipe.

And Kirstie Alley looked drop dead sexy in Star Trek II -- especially in the turbolift with Kirk with her hair down...she was SMOKIN in that scene! I really missed her in Star Trek III. It's funny though...Robin Curtis is very pretty as *herself*...but she did nothing for me as Saavik.
 
And Kirstie Alley looked drop dead sexy in Star Trek II -- especially in the turbolift with Kirk with her hair down...she was SMOKIN in that scene! I really missed her in Star Trek III. It's funny though...Robin Curtis is very pretty as *herself*...but she did nothing for me as Saavik.

Agreed!

27zi1w0.jpg


The one redeeming part of Star Trek III, for me anyway, is the introduction of the Excelsior class--although I admit Capt. Styles' bridge was pure cheese. It was much improved by the time Sulu took command of it.
 
Compared with the other Trek movies, I think that TSFS is an average film - not one of the worst movies, but not among the best either.

The stealing the Enterprise scene, however, is my favorite Trek movie scene.
 
In my opinion, STIII is a mixed bag.

On the one hand, it has a rare poetry and poignancy to it that almost allows it to kiss the greatness of TMP, at times, but as a complete artistic entity, it isn't remotely on the same level, and is actually a great deal weaker than some of the other entries in the ST canon. Yet there is still something special to it. In some ways, I think Leonard Nimoy outdid Nicholas Meyer, especially in his handling of the trip to, and subsequent ritual on Vulcan. Similarly, he enlivens the film with the theft and destruction of the Enterprise, which is a true highlight of the "Genesis Trilogy", and moments that could rightly be described as William Shatner's all-time best acting (the look of commitment on his face before Kirk gives the order to go to warp in the former, and Kirk's entirely credible and gut-wrenching response to his son's death before the latter). The film also tries to give each character his or her moment to shine at spacedock, which puts it above both former movies in this respect. I also really appreciate the dramatically heigtened sense of lighting and colour that Nimoy and DP Charles Correll bring to the picture. It's much more of a looker than TWOK. Finally, there is the pleasure of seeing Mark Lenard back as Sarek, who must be one of the most formidable actors in ST's history (and there have been a few). Then there is the heightened bond between Spock and McCoy (and Kirk and Spock, if it could be heightened more than it had already been, that is). As usual, DeForest Kelley delivers a performance full of grace, timing and wit, practically bringing his character's symbiosis with Spock full circle. How could this man take a line like, "I choose the danger," and make it sound so full of import? Oh, and ... "It's his revenge for all those arguments he lost!" They NEVER dropped the ball with McCoy. On the other...

Everything that's a credit to STIII is its downfall -- and more besides. For example, while the improved lighting brings more life and colour to the movie, it also feels overdone and, at times, totally absurd. Take this shot of Kruge's boarding party being blown to hell as the Enterprise carks it: http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tsfshd/tsfshd1263.jpg I must have missed Kirk's order to "Activate Disco Dome". Then there is Mark Lenard, who for all the excellence he brings to the picture is still, ultimately, saddled with exposition, which is made worse, in my estimation, by Nimoy choosing to focus on his wrinkled, sinuous lips during his mind-meld with Kirk, as well as a silly follow-up scene in which Nimoy recycles footage, complete with edits, from TWOK, as Kirk searches for clues to Spock's fate. A further problem is the new sets -- specifically, the set(s) for Genesis, as well as the Klingon and Excelsior interiors -- which look cheap in the extreme. In fact, the Klingon and Excelsior interiors are pretty obnoxious, ignoring the major aesthetic innovations of TMP and regressing ST to the comparitive infantilism of 1960's TV-bound TOS (or worse). Then there's Kruge, an implausible and undercooked antagonist, especially after Khan (who was also badly botched in the previous movie). Then again, I do love Christopher Lloyd. Kruge's speech about "the flag of the Federation [fluttering in the breeze]" is fantastically delivered. I crack up every time I hear that line. Terrific character actor. Lloyd does the best with a skimpy role. However, Nimoy can't avoid indulging himself, from a pointless scene involving Kruge's pet to a needlessly melodramatic scene where Kruge kills his lover. It feels like he was trying to add some meat onto a pretty thin bone.

Also, on a much deeper, almost spiritual level, the destruction of the Enterprise, while suitably violent and melancholic, leaves a bitter, nihilistic aftertaste. In TMP, the refitted Enterprise seemed to be the pinnacle of engineering, and was so new that it hadn't been fully tested, leading to some real and almost-real fatalities, before being properly balanced and brought into line. In other words, a formidable machine that, after a tricky pregnancy, was essentially born again. But in the very next movie, it had suddenly become a training vessel, nothing more, and in TSFS, we're told that Starfleet considers it old and useless, before it's stolen for one last hurrah and unapologetically blown up (and as a quick-fix solution at that). This is a mortal insult to Gene Roddenberry, Robert Wise and all the talented arts and crafts people that worked on the first film; a film that stressed the Enterprise's newness and its place in the pantheon, and strongly implied it would get more than its share of days in the sun. Really, this is a larger point than I can articulate in one post, much less one paragraph, but Harve Bennett and Nick Meyer drove a stake through ST's humanism, and its attedant features, which Nimoy followed through to its natural conclusion, rather than ameliorating or resisting, when he contrived to dispose of the ship's beauty, first in dialogue, then in actually having it destroyed. Had the Constitution-class Enterprise stayed dead, its destruction would at least have had resonance through any remaining sequels, instead of it being copied and pasted with a new filename, as if the old was lost but conveniently backed up (like Spock and his katra). While contrived to feel sadly beautiful, there's something cynical, if not actually vulgar, about III and IV's attitude to ST's leading lady.

After TMP, for me, the films are what they are -- relatively mediocre, half-hearted stabs at immortality. There is virtually none of TMP's grandeur or intelligence in any of the sequels, and certainly none of its care or precision. Equally depressingly, if not worse, is the way all the optimism and confidence in the human mission that TMP masterfully conveyed was so casually jettisoned in TWOK, never to be seen or heard from again, except in faint, pathetic burping noises from time to time (on the big screen, at least). If anything, Shatner's derided TFF comes the closest to TMP's heightened scope, but that's another story. It is an unutterable sin, and a tragedy of almost epic proportions, what happened to ST. And it's something that says so much about our present human condition, mired as it is in capitalism and ignorance. I say all this not to preach so much as to impugn my own opinion of STIII. I do not hate the other films or anything like it (though I do come close with the last three ST movies, but once again, that's another story). I just try to see them for what I think they are. But they still have things to offer and I enjoy watching and discussing them, from time to time. If there is any consistent triumph of all the movies (the TOS ones, at least), then it's the actors and the characters, which are worth returning to and remembering, when all is said and done. They lift the movies up, even if they are unable to redeem their excesses and their inadequacies. It sounds corny, but for all their faults, the TOS movies, and the human souls that inhabit the soulless spaces, will probably always have a piece of my heart.
 
Last edited:
:)
IMO

Kristie Alley's performance total eclipsed Curtis's appearance. The pon farr scene with Alley would of been "hot dirty sexy" with Curtis it was just awkward. Alley could have easily became a regular part of Kirk's command crew. She would have been a plus during both Voyage Home and Undiscovered Country. Watching Alley as Saavik play opposite Kim Cattrall as Valeris a definite bonus.

The prime fault in the movie was a missing scene with Kirk. Kirk is a decisive charactor, but I felt there should have been at least a short scene with Kirk experiencing regret over the choices he was making. After his meeting with the admiral, when he tells his officers that he was going anyway, I would of had him step alone into the turbo lift, the doors close and Kirk is facing the Star Fleet emblem on the inner surface of the doors. Kirk's face could of shown to mixure of emotions before settling on resolve. This very brief scene was missing.

The "space pirate" that McCoy meets in the disco bar, his make up was over the top. Klingon commander Kruge was a high point. We're introduced to the Bird of Prey which can not only become invisible but also change size on command. Sarek and Kirk played well in their time together.

Over all, much better than the Star Trek bench mark movie of Final Frontier.


27zi1w0.jpg


"Spock, inform the crew, I'm about to have turbo lift sex."



T'Girl
 
I enjoy it. When I watch it now, I typically skip past the early Genesis planet bits.

I don't care for Reverend Jim as the Klingon. Lots of actors out there who would have killed it without his baggage.

Joe, dead
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top