What are your thoughts/opinions on Star Trek II, III, and IV aka the Project Genesis and Spock Saga

[urrutiap]

Basically Star Trek II, III and IV are one continuing trilogy involving Spock and Project Genesis.

What are your personal thoughts or opinion on the stuff that went on in the trilogy? Kirk and gang while they did have a little downtime rest a little bit in the beginning of Star Trek III they were pretty much on the go right away. at least they had two new ships.

1. the klingon ship
2. the Enterprise A which was pretty much the same as the original Enterprise but probably had better shields or whatever

 

[dupersuper]

2 and 4 were classics, 3 suffered in comparison but was still good.

 

[Kor]

USS's Grissom and Excelsior were also new designs.
TSFS could have been stronger. But I like the world-building aspects of seeing more of the Klingons and them getting a proper language.

Kor

 

[urrutiap]

its funny that "Tiny" Sulu and Scotty scoffed at how "advanced" the Excelsior was but then later on Sulu became captain of that ship.

By the way Im not a Star Trek ship tech uber geek or whatever but how was the Excelsior better anyway?

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I don't think we ever got any indication of how the Excelsior and Enterprise compared, except that the Excelsior was bigger, newer, and they were hoping it could go faster with its new transwarp drive. Whether it could or not is a mystery.

 

[fireproof78]

By the way Im not a Star Trek ship tech uber geek or whatever but how was the Excelsior better anyway?

Transwarp drive.

 

[Jeyl]

For me, it's tough to call these films a trilogy because I consider Star Trek VI to be a fantastic continuation of the story where IV left off but based solely on the three films? Yeah. I absolutely loved how it all turned out. I mean, everyone thought the franchise was over with The Wrath of Khan and they somehow managed to continue the story in a meaningful way that still carried the themes and character dilemmas that TWOK established.

 

[DonIago]

While the story arc wasn't entirely intentional at the time it was written, in retrospect it just makes me more annoyed that nothing similar was ever attempted during the heyday of TNG/DS9/VOY.

TSFS is a bit of a meh film uplifted by some spectacular sequences, but between TWOK and TVH you have some of the best Trek drama and comedy perhaps in the entire franchise. The ending of TWOK, for my money, remains a height of the franchise to this day.

 

[Jedi Marso]

These were three of the best Trek movies. I'm not as big a fan of TVH as some, but I recognize its quality in terms of the other stuff we've seen in the franchise. VI ought to be included with these three, as I think someone mentioned above.

TWOK was some of the best Trek laid down on either the big or small screen.

 

[somebuddyX]

I love II and I like IV a lot (loved it as a kid) but III I always thought could have been better. I don't like the Genesis sets and the Saavik/David story with Kruge but I really like everything else, except for the fact Uhura doesn't come with the boys to Genesis. It does weird me out sometimes that from II to V it takes place over about four months or so. The stealing of the Enterprise is one of the best scenes in the entire franchise.

 

[DonIago]

I don't think you've got that quite right...I think Kirk's narration in TVH says they've been on Vulcan for three months, for instance.

 

[Daddy Todd]

I don't think you've got that quite right...I think Kirk's narration in TVH says they've been on Vulcan for three months, for instance.

So, what, maybe 3 weeks between II & III, then 3 months on Vulcan, time travel during their trip to Earth (returning to their time in virtually the second they left.) The trial, followed by the new ship (which, really should have taken YEARS, but movie time =/= real time.) Then a quick shakedown of the E-A, then the one with “god.”

More than 4 months, but still less than a year.

 

[somebuddyX]

I don't think you've got that quite right...I think Kirk's narration in TVH says they've been on Vulcan for three months, for instance.

Yeah but II takes place over a couple of days, and then it's straight back to Earth, then straight back to Genesis. Then the the three month gap. Then time travel back to Earth for a few days, then a hearing, then two weeks and then V. I was going to originally say six months but that felt too long. But my bigger point that I was alluding to but didn't really say was that from II to V it's seven years in real life, and I guess more with pre-production on II, and sometimes it's just interesting that four of the films might have taken place in the same year.

 

[Ssosmcin]

This "trilogy" was unintentional but still a great ride. Much like the Back to the Future films, the "first" movie was not meant to kick off a continuing narrative, but was successful enough to demand a follow up. I will say Star Trek III is miles better than Back to the Future Part II but like that film (or any true middle chapter), it's hard to accept as a standalone movie. It cannot exist without the previous film and is not resolved until the following. Both films push the story forward and do amazing amounts of world building in their run times. However, where BBTF ends with the next film, TSFS lays the groundwork for a franchise. I submit that TSFS brings more to the entire Star Trek table than TWOK did. It may not compare favorably to the masses against the film which bracket it, but it has broad shoulders and remains my favorite of the films. It does a lot of heavy lifting.

Star Trek III was the last dead serious film in the run, one of the last to be made almost exclusively for the fanbase. If you didn't see the previous film or have an attachment to the characters, this film was probably lost on you.

 

[urrutiap]

I dont think Uhura would have been useful if she beamed down to the Genesis planet before it blew up. she would probably have gotten killed by the Klingons or fall to her death during one of the planet's earthquake moments or whatever.

I love II and I like IV a lot (loved it as a kid) but III I always thought could have been better. I don't like the Genesis sets and the Saavik/David story with Kruge but I really like everything else, except for the fact Uhura doesn't come with the boys to Genesis. It does weird me out sometimes that from II to V it takes place over about four months or so. The stealing of the Enterprise is one of the best scenes in the entire franchise.

 

[Ssosmcin]

I dont think Uhura would have been useful if she beamed down to the Genesis planet before it blew up. she would probably have gotten killed by the Klingons or fall to her death during one of the planet's earthquake moments or whatever.

Well, not really because Harve Bennett wouldn't have written that. She simply would have contributed to the landing party as much as Scotty, Chekov or Sulu: not much at all. Another sad face when they find David, another hostage for Kruge, another cast member on set.

However, it would have made more sense for her to be there to handle comms instead of Chekov. Instead of Bennett effectively removing the only female and person of color in the original cast (intentionally or otherwise making it a Boys Only jaunt), he could have placed her at her station, put Scotty where he was, get Chekov at science (since they made a point of him going there at the start) and McCoy standing next to Kirk. He didn't need a station, he was the precious cargo.

 

[PCz911]

III was weak.
- The way robin curtis was brought in and directed essentially killed the character for me.
- They should have left spock dead. It seemed a cheap money grab / bait &switch to suddenly resurrect him and took away much of the gravitas of II.
- deforests acting was excruciatingly bad. Again, a direction from Leonard?

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Star Trek III was the last dead serious film in the run, one of the last to be made almost exclusively for the fanbase. If you didn't see the previous film or have an attachment to the characters, this film was probably lost on you.

I don't know, I feel like Star Trek III was probably my introduction to the entire concept of Star Trek and I don't remember it being all that hard to follow. The film does a good job of setting up the characters and getting viewers up to speed on everything they missed. It even has a clip at the start showing who Spock is and why Kirk would care about them. Sure it's obvious that it's a middle chapter in a larger story, but I read comics so it wasn't the first time I'd jumped into a story halfway through, and I was completely invested in what was going on once I realised it had four starships, one of them commanded by Doc Brown.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Yeah but II takes place over a couple of days, and then it's straight back to Earth, then straight back to Genesis. Then the the three month gap. Then time travel back to Earth for a few days, then a hearing, then two weeks and then V. I was going to originally say six months but that felt too long. But my bigger point that I was alluding to but didn't really say was that from II to V it's seven years in real life, and I guess more with pre-production on II, and sometimes it's just interesting that four of the films might have taken place in the same year.

My only issue with the timeline is that the passing of years is obvious on the actors. Plus, during the three months on Vulcan, none of them gets a change of clothes.

 

[Daddy Todd]

My only issue with the timeline is that the passing of years is obvious on the actors. Plus, during the three months on Vulcan, none of them gets a change of clothes.

I'm pretty sure Chekov does! But you're right about everyone else.