MovieChat Forums > Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) Discussion > Not a failure and not mediocre; here's w...

Not a failure and not mediocre; here's why

posted 2 years ago by Wuchak (8204)
26 replies | jump to latest

The Search for Spock is a great Star Trek picture embellished by the welcome return of Trek’s quirky brand of humor after two serious movies. The story expertly meshes comedic touches with dead-serious tragedy. It’s also enjoyable and compelling to witness Kirk & crew in the wry and unexpected role of Starfleet rebels, risking everything to honor their fallen comrade. Another highlight is the return of the Klingons as major villains, with upgraded make-up no less.

The only problem with this pic is revealed in the title — there’s no Spock. At least not until the very end; but the film does a fabulous job of instilling a sense of the Vulcan’s lingering presence throughout.

At the same time, this proves that Star Trek is greater than any one character: Just as Spock’s absence in this film doesn’t prevent it from being great, so Kirk’s absence from the main storyline in the 1st Season's “The Galileo Seven” doesn’t keep that episode from greatness.

The Search for Spock climaxes with the powerful image of Spock’s mates gathered around the freshly-resurrected Vulcan. This scene is well worth the wait; all Spock has to do is raise an eyebrow to fill the viewer with warmth and joy (and maybe a few tears as well).

Lastly, I gotta hand it to the creators for coming up with an inspired and (seemingly) credible way to resurrect Spock; the Genesis device was, by happenstance, the perfect catalyst.

Sadly, Star Trek III is inexplicably condemned by fundamentalist Trekkers as a failure or, at best, mediocre.

They’re wrong.

[–] Owlwise (1501) 2 years ago

I agree with you. An underrated, poignant film, and certainly worthy of Star Trek.

[–] nte1igentwon (935) 2 years ago

It suffered from the sheer greatness of TWoK. Any sequel following that beast was probably going to be handicapped critically off top.

[–] Wuchak (8204) 2 years ago

I totally disagree as TWOK is my least favorite of the Trek films for several reasons. The logical errors abound: Why is it necessary for so many senior officers to appear in a mere cadet simulation? Why use live explosives in a simulator? Are these officers actors in their spare time (Spock in particular hams it up)? How could Starfleet & their cartographers not realize that an entire planet is missing in the Ceti Alpha system? How could Chekov not realize this since he’s a navigator? Why didn’t Chekov realize that the Ceti Alpha system was the system in which Khan and his clan were marooned by his former captain (even assuming he wasn’t aboard the Enterprise during the 1st Season of the Original Series, he would've certainly gotten word it)? How did the multi-ethnic supermen of “Space Seed” turn into a bunch of blond Aryans? Why would Scotty melodramatically bring his wounded nephew to the Bridge instead of Sickbay (one of the lamest scenes in Trek history)? Why does the ear slug simply leave Chekov instead of killing him as the creatures did to 20 of Khan’s people? How could Kirk not notice that Spock, his right-hand man, had left the Bridge? Why doesn’t Spock just put on an environmental suit before entering the radioactive chamber?

As significant as some of these errors are, they could be ignored if the story itself was compelling, but I find it boring. Yes, there are some inspired elements that make it worth viewing, like the Genesis Project, and the second half finally gets interesting (up to Spock’s boring and cringe-inducing sacrifice anyway), but on a whole it’s a missed opportunity considering it's the follow-up of the exceptional "Space Seed."

IMHO "Star Trek Into Darkness" is, by far, the better film.

[–] strntz (11004) 2 years ago

Why does the ear slug simply leave Chekov instead of killing him as the creatures did to 20 of Khan’s people?

The slug left Chekov after Chekov was able to fight off Kahn's direct order to kill Captain Kirk. It looked to me that his emotional reaction to fighting and then beating Kahn's suggestion caused some kind of chemical reaction in Chekov's brain.

Why doesn’t Spock just put on an environmental suit before entering the radioactive chamber?

Not enough time. The Enterprise escaped the explosion with maybe a second to spare after it went to warp. Putting on the suit would have taken 30-60 seconds.

[–] Wuchak (8204) 2 years ago

The first one is a reasonable explanation, but it doesn't make up for the other issues noted.

Plus the fate of the ear slug raises further issues: In light of Star Trek's respect-for-all-life-forms philosophy, it's interesting that Kirk unhesitatingly slays the creature after it departs Chekov's ear. Roddenberry objected to this on the grounds that Kirk would not destroy a life form that had never been seen before or studied. He likened the Captain's actions to "an old woman trampling on a tarantula."

Putting on the suit would have taken 30-60 seconds.

This occurred to me, but it's the 23rd century and there would presumably be a quick suit-up precaution available for just such emergencies.

[–] strntz (11004) 2 years ago

Sure, but all movies fail in some regard if we really think about it. I went to both when they premiered and enjoyed both, but generally speaking, people were raving when leaving Wrath. Sometimes, people want less cerebral entertainment.

I have to attend to my brother's medical issue right now, but I'll give your list another sniff and see if I can add something more.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

"IMHO "Star Trek Into Darkness" is, by far, the better film."
Oh... FUCK RIGHT OFF, WUCHAK!!

I was all prepared to debate you considering TWoK, but you completely shot yourself in the foot with THIS ASININE STATEMENT!

[–] Wuchak (8204) 2 years ago

Oh, look, a Trek Fundamentalist who staunchly opposes the newer films and denounces anyone who dares to appreciate them. (rolling my eyes).

Here's my take on "Into Darkness":

Abrams and his writing team had the monumental task of following up a tremendously successful film. They had to build on the predecessor while attracting new fans. As such, the movie had to stand on its own without relying too much on the 2009 flick. As far as I'm concerned, they succeeded in spades. As great as "Star Trek" (the movie) was as a reboot of the series and an introduction of a new cast playing the original characters in their younger days, I like "Into Darkness" even more.

Being made by the same creative team that produced "Star Trek," "Into Darkness" has the same feel, except that the viewer is now used to the new cast (assuming they saw the first film). These actors are the characters and, without exception, they own their roles. Plus the introductions are out of the way so viewers are freed-up to enjoy a whole new story set on the solid foundation already laid. Like the previous film, "Into Darkness" expertly meshes elements of numerous genres into a cohesive whole. It’s a sci-fi space adventure with doses of drama, action, suspense, war and romance. In a sense, it tries to be all things to all people and somehow miraculously succeeds. Whatever you’re in the mood for, it’s here.

The idea of introducing a younger Khan at a much earlier date than in “Space Seed” was brilliant. Not only do we get Khan as the antagonist, we also get Klingons and a rogue Starfleet officer to boot. Furthermore, the continuity with the Original Series & films is great. With the presence of Khan there are obvious parallels to Star Trek II, but in my humble opinion it’s leagues better. It just has more drive and pizzazz, not to mention a more interesting story.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Yes, I'm a Trek fundamentalist... so what? Abrams is shit, Kurtzman is shit, and everything they've done is shit.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I've just actually read your gush and you sound like a complete SHILL for that shitty STID movie!

With TWoK there was drama, suspense, even a little horror, and the tension of submarine-like warfare with the starships in the nebula was absolutely first class. Ricardo Montalban is a much better Khan than that twat Benedict will ever be, and the story didn't need additional antagonists at all. And the sacrifice of Spock is much, much more poignant and heartfelt than the so-called sacrifice of Kirk in STID which is reversed before the end of the movie! Plus, Khan had an excellent reason for revenge in TWoK, the details having been covered in the TOS episode Space Seed, and Montalban exhudes charisma and villainy in equal doses. Even the item that Khan was after, the Genesis Device, was a very intimidating superweapon that had initially beneficial aims.

Sorry, Wuchak, but for you to defend that STID rubbish over the superior original is just blinkered and very short-sighted at best.

[–] Wuchak (8204) 2 years ago

Obviously TWOK worked for you, and many others, but not me. "Space Seed" is one of the top TOS episodes, but I've always found TWOK a disappointing sequel. The story is dull to me although, as I said, it works up some interest in the second half before Spock's boring, cringe-inducing death scene.

Here's a minor example from the first act: Kirk, McCoy, Sulu and Uhura space-jet out to Captain Spock’s Enterprise for an inspection and training cruise. This sequence lacks interesting dialogue and seems to go on forever — 6½ minutes, in fact — not to mention it was unnecessary as a similar (overlong) sequence occurred in the first film. It’s redundant.

Another example is Khan, one of Trek’s all-time great villains. Although Montalban had a weak script to work with, all things considered he did an excellent job as the vengeful genetically-engineered superhuman. Roddenberry bluntly (and rightly) pointed out that Montalban saved their asses. The Khan featured in the film is fairly dull and one-dimensional whereas the Khan introduced in “Space Seed” was deeper and much more interesting. Thankfully, a new team was able to capture this quality in Khan’s next appearance in "Into Darkness"—31 years later.

As a Trek Fundamentalist, you consider this blasphemy, so I understand your ire. While I'm not a big on "Beyond," I think the first two reboot films were precisely what the franchise needed.

With the presence of Khan in "Into Darkness" there are similarities to TWOK, but in my humble opinion it’s all-around superior. It has better drama, more pizzazz and is vastly more compelling. I even prefer "Nemesis" to TWOK and very much so.

But if you think TWOK is an untouchable masterpiece I'm fine with that. More power to ya. I'm just pointing out the issues I have with it and backing it up with evidence from the film itself, like the eye-rolling scene where Scotty melodramatically brings his wounded nephew to the Bridge instead of Sickbay.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

"Spock's boring, cringe-inducing death scene."
Really? I would call THAT blasphemy. Nimoy wasn't even sure he was going to return to Star Trek at all, that's why it was filmed. It really could've been the last of Spock.

"Here's a minor example from the first act: Kirk, McCoy, Sulu and Uhura space-jet out to Captain Spock’s Enterprise for an inspection and training cruise. This sequence lacks interesting dialogue and seems to go on forever — 6½ minutes, in fact — not to mention it was unnecessary as a similar (overlong) sequence occurred in the first film. It’s redundant."
WHAT training sequence was in Star Trek: The Motion Picture? Please remind me, I seem to have forgotten.

"The Khan featured in the film is fairly dull and one-dimensional whereas the Khan introduced in “Space Seed” was deeper and much more interesting."
Maybe because Khan had been driven insane by the loss of his wife among many of his followers who died because of catastrophic climate change due to a nearby planet exploding.

"I even prefer "Nemesis" to TWOK and very much so."
Oh GOD, don't get me started on that TRAINWRECK! Easily TNG's worst movie by FAR, and the death of the honourable Data to be replaced by an inferior copy was acid to the taste!

"But if you think TWOK is an untouchable masterpiece I'm fine with that."
Actually, TWoK is not my favourite TOS movie, neither. In that case, it's a toss-up between 3, 4 and 6, with 1 being my "cerebral" choice.

"Scotty melodramatically brings his wounded nephew to the Bridge instead of Sickbay."
I always thought that Scotty needed the bridge crew and the new recruits to see personally the human cost of battle on a starship. I honestly don't think that Scotty would've done so if his nephew was even more injured.

[–] strntz (11004) 2 years ago

"Scotty melodramatically brings his wounded nephew to the Bridge instead of Sickbay."
I always thought that Scotty needed the bridge crew and the new recruits to see personally the human cost of battle on a starship. I honestly don't think that Scotty would've done so if his nephew was even more injured.

That one is really really indefensible IMO. Scotty wasn't himself a new recruit who might have freaked out after the attack. He was a veteran starship engineer with commander rank who had seen it all while also serving under Captain Kirk. For Scotty to drag that dead or dying kid to the bridge instead of sickbay made no sense at all.

[–] Wuchak (8204) 2 years ago

that's why it was filmed. It really could've been the last of Spock

So what? It doesn't change that it was a dull, cringe-inducing sequence. Whatever interest I had in the story up to that point suddenly ended. The way the similar sequence is done in "Into Darkness" is way more effective IMO.

WHAT training sequence was in The Motion Picture? Please remind me

Forget the training, I was referring to space-jetting around the Enterprise and appreciating it with awe. The first film already had such a lengthy sequence.

Your explanation about Khan is good (and obvious), but that doesn't change that he's a one-dimensional and boring character compared to "Space Seed" and "Into Darkness." Although, of course, Montalban looks great in the part. As Roddenberry said, "He saved their asses."

it's a toss-up between 3, 4 and 6, with 1 being my "cerebral" choice

Hmm, I had you pegged wrong; my apologies.

I also greatly appreciate the oft-maligned first film.

Easily TNG's worst movie by FAR, and the death of Data to be replaced by an inferior copy was acid to the taste

It borrowed elements of TWOK, but I think it's significantly better; and my second favorite of the TNG films.

The lengthy space battle in the final act is second to none in the franchise. But that's not the main reason I like it.

I like the whole exploration of the conflict of flesh (Shinzon) and spirit (Picard) and the debate over nature (Picard) vs. nurture (Shinzon), or is it nature (Shinzon) vs. nurture (Picard)? Like "Generations," it entertains while delving into deeper themes, although Generations is superior. (I think "Insurrection" is the least of the TNG films).

IMHO Data's fate at the end of "Nemesis" is way more compelling and moving than the similar scene in TWOK. Think about it, Data becomes the Christ figure by making the ultimate gesture of love and loyalty; an android, no less.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Data's actual sacrifice is not the problem, I know that Spiner was visibly aging and didn't want it to carry over into Data, an "ageless" android, or so they said.

My problem is B-4, a "replacement" already waiting in the wings for later.

[–] Wuchak (8204) 2 years ago

Being a machine, B-4 could've been improved in the months/years to come with new chips or technology. In other words, he would've advanced into the Data that perished, possibly even becoming a superior replacement.

[–] strntz (11004) 2 years ago

The reason I don't re-watch this film is because of the exchange of life the story offers.

In order for Kirk to get back his best friend, his son dies in exchange. Whereas Spock coming back from the dead allows me to rewatch Khan knowing Spock will return in the next movie, there is no return for Kirk's son David. That just bothers me. That Klingon bastard killed his son.

Now I do know this is on me and not a criticism of the film's quality, but I wonder how many people also don't like this film because of the swap of David's life for Spock's.

[–] Wuchak (8204) 2 years ago

The creators needed to illustrate that it was a life or death situation, such as in the TOS episodes where red shirts perish. Like the red shirts, David is a peripheral character and therefore expendable (as far as the writers are concerned). True, he's Kirk's son, but we only know him from a few scenes in the second & third movies.

Besides, his death fuels Kirk's prejudice toward the Klingons, which naturally provides dramatic tension for Star Trek VI in which the Federation and Klingons try to unify.

[–] strntz (11004) 2 years ago

All that is true (which is why I quoted "Klingon bastard"), but it doesn't change the problem I personally have with Kirk rejoicing that Spock returned from the dead but then loses his son. It's why I don't find enjoyment in rewatching this film and which is why I would much rather watch The Voyage Home (no one dies).

[–] Wuchak (8204) 2 years ago

One of the reasons I appreciate TSFS so much is that it places our beloved characters in the role of rebels against the the Federation, risking everything to possibly save their dear comrade.

[–] strntz (11004) 2 years ago

"Genesis is planet forbidden!!!"

[–] prometheus1816 (1053) 2 years ago

Then you don't understand the meaning of the Kobiashi Maru test from WOK. Remember Saavik asks how Kirk did on the test, and Kirk kind of laughs it off. McCoy tells her Kirk reprogrammed the simulator so it was easy for him to win. In this real life thing with what was happening down on Genesis, Kirk couldn't reprogram the simulation and therfore his actions had real life consequences. And those consequences killed his son. Also remember the conversation between David and Carol on Regula I. He called Kirk an "overgrown boyscout." He was showing a lot if Kirk's hubris there. He also reprogrammed the Genesis device using protomatter therefore displaying the very same behavior he chided Kirk for. Instead of waiting for Kirk to formulate a plan to rescue Saavik, Spock and himself he acted like that boyscout. While it saved Kirk, The Enterprise, his crew many times. This time it couldn't save his son.

[–] strntz (11004) 2 years ago

Then you don't understand the meaning of the Kobiashi Maru test from WOK.

I certainly don't know how you came to that conclusion. I thought I was pretty clear - I don't like the film because Kirk gets back Spock but loses his son in exchange. The story reason makes no difference.

I also don't like Brussels Sprouts and never will, no matter how good they are for me.

[–] prometheus1816 (1053) 2 years ago

I never thought I'd like mushrooms, asparagus, broccoli, squash, yams, and a lot of other vegetables.... but here's the thing, I eventually grew to love all of them and eat each one at least once a week.

For you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LlZJFfJyxk

So based on that, I thought it was pretty clear in my post that you clearly do not understand that David to a degree caused his own death due to his being exactly like Kirk, something Saavik pointed out to him before they left the Grissom. David was to blame, not Spock. Kirk lost his son because of David's trying to be like his father, not because Kirk did anything to cause it.

[–] strntz (11004) 2 years ago

OK, I get it now. I LOVE this movie... The scene with David dying is great. Thanks for clearing that up.

[–] prometheus1816 (1053) 2 years ago

Of all the ST big screen ventures, this is my favourite of all. The stakes, the relationships, the camaraderie, the heart..... it's all there. And this movie is the one time I felt Shatner wasn't phoning it in. The scene where Kirk is left to guess which one the Klingons killed, then when Saavik informed him it was David..... The way Shatner allowed Kirk to have those vulnerabilities carried much more insight into Kirk's character than any episode of the original series, or any if the films he was in. Also it dealt less with The Federation and more with the human relationships this crew had formed. It also has a starship theft from spacedock for crying out loud.