Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

re-watched Star Trek III: The Search for Spock tonight

this picture has a mixed-to-bad reputation because it is thematically weaker than the previous and following entries in the series

but it also has some major interconnected plot flaws: neither what’s going on with Spock’s katra/McCoy/the reborn Spock nor what’s going on with the Genesis planet is sufficiently developed

we might give the Vulcan spirit magic a pass because it’s just pulpy plot conceit — but in a Star Trek picture, where the audience can be expected to think critically about such things, there are some nagging questions: is a “katra” a bio-physical idiosyncrasy of Vulcans? like, do humans have katras? is a katra incompatible with human physiology and does that explain the danger to McCoy? if not, why is McCoy in danger? how much time does McCoy have? if this state is endangering him, why is this not portrayed at all after the scene in the bar? is the “reborn” Spock actually Spock or is that a separate, unique person, like a clone, with his own right to develop an independent personality? or is it just a body missing its “soul” (katra)? if this “reborn” Spock is just a shell then why spend so much time developing the relationship between it (him?) and Saavik?

I could go on but the point is simple: this stuff is fairly important to understand what is going on and how the audience is supposed to feel about it and yet it’s hardly covered at all

now, onto the problems with the Genesis Planet: by contrast to the katra issue, we have some explanation here inasmuch as we learn that David has unethically cut corners to realize the Genesis Project and the result is that the Genesis Planet is rapidly deteriorating — turns out, life from not life was too good to be true

this is an extremely important theme, both abstractly and visually

visually, one cannot help but notice that the Genesis Planet (following the scene in the Genesis Cave in Wrath of Khan) is portrayed with the imagery of the biblical Eden, a.k.a. Paradise

but immediately, we see that there is trouble in Paradise: it’s snowing in the desert, the only other (than Spock) animal life on the planet is ugly and monstrous, the wind is blowing at gale force — by the end of the film, the planet is portrayed as apocalyptic with most of the vegetation removed and the ground cracking open and fire and lava everywhere

so here we have the evocation of the biblical/literary reference to Paradise Lost, which is a story about how mankind loses a gentle, beautiful home in God’s garden because of sin, and the sin in this case seems to be that David used something called proto matter to make the Genesis Project work

Saavik really lays into poor David about this, insinuating he is responsible for death and suffering, and David himself seems motivated to redeem himself by attacking the Klingon, thereby sacrificing himself so that Saavik and reborn-Spock aren’t chosen to die

... but why is using proto matter bad? Savvik says it’s unethical — but why? and who died as a result of David’s choice? is she saying that if he hadn’t cut corners, no one would think Genesis was successful, so Khan and Kruge would not have killed people trying to get it? that’s an outrageous stretch

so we have a typical “Paradise Lost” scenario but with no meaningful sinfulness to justify it and this is doubly problematic because the rapid development of the Genesis Planet is linked to reborn-Spock’s rapid development and the danger of the planet tearing itself apart would by implication also mean reborn-Spock would also die, although that’s academic since anyone on the Genesis Planet when it blew up would die

and here again, we go back to the katra problem: why does taking Spock off of the Genesis Planet mean reborn-Spock suddenly not suffer from the rapid development/deterioration problem caused by David’s “unethical” use of proto matter?

there are little problems with the film (how did space pirate slobs obtain the top secret report from Kirk on the Genesis Project?) but these can be overlooked; the Katra-Paradise Lost problems, however, cannot be overlooked because they are essential to the overall themes of the picture

by the end of Wrath of Khan, Kirk lost his good friend but gained a son and Spock’s legacy lives on in his chosen protege Saavik—this expresses the themes of that movie well: the older generation is passing away but the deep friendship and wisdom of that generation have produced a hope for the future

but in Search for Spock, David dies for reasons that don’t make much sense and Spock returns for reasons that don’t make much sense and, worst of all, the film is structured so that these puzzling events are the main point of the plot and theme, and they are apparently linked, through vaguely, (non)explained reasons

so we just can’t coherently conclude that Search for Spock is a good or even OK film; it just doesn’t make enough sense to be a meaningful story

let’s move on to why Search for Spock is nonetheless an enjoyable movie

foremost, the characters are given a lot of good moments that make us feel the closeness and attachment to them that matches out nostalgia for the “good old days”

sometimes this is a matter of tiny details, like wardrobe: McCoy is dressed like a cowboy, Chekov looks like an Old Country peasant, and Sulu is wearing something vaguely inspired by a kimono — our characters HAVE character, even down to their outfits

in any case, the cast feels like a family — OUR family — not despite but because the family is missing one of its members; the movie even begins with this theme, with Kirk ruminating that the Enterprise feels like a house with no children and then, meaningfully, corrects himself: “no, it feels emptier than that”

Kruge is also a great villain

he is thoughtful and subtle

for example, when Kirk accuses Kruge of violating the Fed/Klingon treaty in an act of war, Kruge immediately ripostes, “don’t lecture me” and counters that the Federation has made a doomsday weapon

Kruge is really compelling, almost on the level of Khan in ST2

finally, the action is fun and exciting

stealing the Enterprise is such a great mini adventure with our beloved characters doing smart things and working together to express their friendship but also make us like them more because they are competent and noble

the fight between the Enterprise and the Bird of Prey is a micro-battle but it is just as clever as the scene in ST2 when Kirk and his crew use the command prefix to lower the Reliant’s shields; this time, Kirk and his staff keep their cool and are so experienced and competent that they immediately size up the threat and turn Kruge’s advantage of surprise completely around on him — and then we go into a tense double bluff where Kirk wants Kruge to believe the Enterprise can blow him out of the sky while Kruge leverages his captives planetside

this is as good as any military/diplomatic conflict in any Star Trek media, just superb and all paced in a way that is so smooth it’s easy for the audience to take it for granted (which presumably most watchers do, since no one talks about this even though we all talk about the same stuff in ST2)

finally and most importantly, Search for Spock captures the feel of TOS better than any other Star Trek

this is because it has a perfect blend of humor, tension, warmth, and spirit of adventure

so while ST3 is not a good movie, it is a really lovely movie for Star Trek fans

for the sake of completeness, I will say ST5 (another not very good movie) almost achieves this but tips the balance too heavily to nostalgia masquerading as spirituality and/or philosophy

ST3 isn’t pretentious in the slightest (hello TMP); it knows exactly what it is and hits all the right notes for Star Trek fans without trying to appeal to the wider audience that may or may not (probably will not) become Star Trek fans after seeing this film

I think whether someone is a TOS fan is the key feature for what you conclude about Search for Spock; if TOS is your jam then you will feel a lot of affection for this deeply flawed but totally genuine movie

ST3 is a movie about loyalty — the good of the one outweighs the good of the many

and it rewards loyal fans

it should be required viewing for anyone who wants to make more Star Trek media

Almost had me thinking that this was a thoughtful, considered bit about ST3 then this:

Kruge is really compelling, almost on the level of Khan in ST2

Then I knew you were trolling us. You are a monster on par with someone who puts strawberry jelly on a PB&J sandwich instead of grape.

It’s one of my favourites, mostly because it was the one the telly always showed when I was a Snivellin’ Lirrul Grot.

Sure. They show Wrath of Khan now and again. But every time they did, my family were off doing something. And I remember, because for some reason, we were always in a specific Chippy, getting our dinner, and it was on their telly.

Which is weird. Because the chippy was in Blackhall, and wasn’t near our house, or either of my grandparent’s houses (all of which had Chippies nearer them).

Weird the stuff you remember.

Kruge is super great. I think he gets misremembered as bad because people just recall it was Christopher Lloyd and assume that means it was Doc Brown as a Klingon and just silly. But Lloyd gives a wonderful performance and the character is quite well written.

I dunno. As I recall there are some good bits in the film, and some terrible bits. But it suffers because the before and after are so brilliant, and it's the important link between them.

It rightfully takes its place as the best of the odd-numbered ST films (and is better than the worst of the even-numbered, 10).

 Manchu wrote:
I think he gets misremembered as bad

I never said he was bad but Kruge, sir, is no Khan Noonien Singh*.


*Original not Benadryl Cucumberpatch Edition.

 Manchu wrote:
Kruge is super great. I think he gets misremembered as bad because people just recall it was Christopher Lloyd and assume that means it was Doc Brown as a Klingon and just silly. But Lloyd gives a wonderful performance and the character is quite well written.

One part with Kruge that always stood out to me was the part where he blasts the gunner for destroying the Grissom. This isn't the typical Khorne Klingon, he actually has some depth and cunning, something that's rarely showcased in Trek villains in later films.

Yes — contrast with Klaa in ST5. He’s just a meathead.

Hey, I will hear no more of this Klaa bashing. Klaa's such a strong villain he made a satellite scream like a little child!

Klaa's determination is his most admirable trait. Look at his first officer, and all he could think about was combat. He's either a eunuch, which would explain the anger, or MASSIVELY dedicated to combat.

 Ahtman wrote:
You are a monster on par with someone who puts strawberry jelly on a PB&J sandwich instead of grape.

My wife does this and tbh it has put significant strain on our marriage.

Seedless blackberry is the only logical choice.

Why WHY did that satellite scream when it got hit?

"Directed by William Shatner."


I assume it's some sort of joke at V'Ger's expense.

 Ouze wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
You are a monster on par with someone who puts strawberry jelly on a PB&J sandwich instead of grape.

My wife does this and tbh it has put significant strain on our marriage.

Ha!

Grape Jelly belongs back in the past - you know, once you get beyond 6th grade!

Anyway, Manchu, you've given the desire to watch Star Trek III again (maybe) - and that itself is a pretty impressive feat!

 Manchu wrote:
Kruge is super great. I think he gets misremembered as bad because people just recall it was Christopher Lloyd and assume that means it was Doc Brown as a Klingon and just silly. But Lloyd gives a wonderful performance and the character is quite well written.

He actually creates the stereotypical Klingon people think of for everything since. And he's just a great bad guy.

Come to think of it Kruge was our first real look at a Klingon commander since TOS. There were some shown in The Motion Picture but they are just there briefly and none of them are given character.

Klingons: Oh look giant space cloud!

Giant Space Cloud: PEW PEW

Klingons is dead

The main thing from TMP was the aesthatic change from TOS.

 Frazzled wrote:
He actually creates the stereotypical Klingon people think of for everything since.

This is also how I MISremembered the character, as a glory hound like the ones who would appear so regularly in TNG. But Kruge has a lot of the old “Space Saracen” cunning of the swarthy, mustachioed TOS Klingons. And a shade of nobility inasmuch as Kruge is actually doing something quite bold and brave (risking a galactic war) for a pretty damn good reason (the Genesis Project creates a huge gap in the Fed/Kling arms race). The worst excesses of TNG-era Klingons find their origin in the aforementioned Captain Chad Klaa in ST5. But we def agree here:

And he's just a great bad guy.

 Ahtman wrote:
Come to think of it Kruge was our first real look at a Klingon commander since TOS.

And first look at a Klingon female ... ever? NM, there’s Mara from Day of the Dove.

 Alpharius wrote:
Anyway, Manchu, you've given the desire to watch Star Trek III again (maybe)

It’s not as bad as you remember!