Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
Aug 17, 2021 13:56:17 GMT
Catman 猫的主人, vegalyra, and 1 more like this
Post by drystyx on Aug 17, 2021 13:56:17 GMT
This is actually a much better film in every respect to Star Trek II, and Star Trek II was pretty good.
Much of what you say is actually what makes it better. The characters and their struggles. It's losing his son, his only son, that is internally a personal killer to the hopes and personal loves of Kirk, that make him realize that he isn't a "god", that no one has the personal right to play God in "doing the right thing".
"The lives of the many" vs. the "life of the one" becomes a moral pursuit of one's soul to not leave one soul behind if one has the "resources, ability, power, talent, stewardship, and gifts" to rescue that one.
It's the basis of firefighters risking their lives. They aren't supposed to do it in a "doomed cause", but they do it when there is a legitimate chance of rescue, and suffer personal loss quite often to save someone who is a stranger. That's what it means to be "civilized" and to be worthy to be in the presence of the good God. It's a trait of the good God, and the spirit isn't alien to the presence of the good God when the spirit tries to adhere to the spirit of the good God.
If anyone doesn't like the idea of a "good God", or denies the existence of a "good God", quite understandable, then it's still a "good Nature" vs. a "bad Nature". Kirk ultimately finds he chooses the good over the bad.
Whether it is a "good God" or a "good Nature" is not even 1/100,000,000,000 as important as choosing the "good".
Star Trek II is basically just a high adventure story. It's a good story, but it has no depth. It's very basic. It's fun, and well done, and the actors ham it up. It's quite enjoyable.
Star Trek III has a ton of human interest. The son's imperfection, the son's admission to imperfection, the son sacrificing himself to save a young woman who doesn't even mind being sacrificed, and the way we get not only the doctor giving us the "comic relief" but also being a very three dimensional character in doing so.
We knew there was something that Spock told the doctor at the end of Star Trek II. It was quite noticeable when Spock touches McCoy in that Vulcan way and says "Remember", so the end of Star Trek II told us how important Dr. McCoy would be in Star Trek III, but we weren't sure what it was. It came together pretty quick near the beginning of Star Trek III when Spock's father questions Kirk, and we know it's McCoy he needs to question, and we're hoping he can discover that fact that is obvious to us as viewers, but can't be obvious to the characters.
The characters don't just "jump" to the correct conclusion. They have to get there by accident as well as deduction. There is a lot more mortality in this one. That's what makes Star Trek III and Star Trek V the best of the Trek movies. The lead characters aren't "demi gods" over whom there is no doubt of their success, but instead mortals like everyone else.
Much of what you say is actually what makes it better. The characters and their struggles. It's losing his son, his only son, that is internally a personal killer to the hopes and personal loves of Kirk, that make him realize that he isn't a "god", that no one has the personal right to play God in "doing the right thing".
"The lives of the many" vs. the "life of the one" becomes a moral pursuit of one's soul to not leave one soul behind if one has the "resources, ability, power, talent, stewardship, and gifts" to rescue that one.
It's the basis of firefighters risking their lives. They aren't supposed to do it in a "doomed cause", but they do it when there is a legitimate chance of rescue, and suffer personal loss quite often to save someone who is a stranger. That's what it means to be "civilized" and to be worthy to be in the presence of the good God. It's a trait of the good God, and the spirit isn't alien to the presence of the good God when the spirit tries to adhere to the spirit of the good God.
If anyone doesn't like the idea of a "good God", or denies the existence of a "good God", quite understandable, then it's still a "good Nature" vs. a "bad Nature". Kirk ultimately finds he chooses the good over the bad.
Whether it is a "good God" or a "good Nature" is not even 1/100,000,000,000 as important as choosing the "good".
Star Trek II is basically just a high adventure story. It's a good story, but it has no depth. It's very basic. It's fun, and well done, and the actors ham it up. It's quite enjoyable.
Star Trek III has a ton of human interest. The son's imperfection, the son's admission to imperfection, the son sacrificing himself to save a young woman who doesn't even mind being sacrificed, and the way we get not only the doctor giving us the "comic relief" but also being a very three dimensional character in doing so.
We knew there was something that Spock told the doctor at the end of Star Trek II. It was quite noticeable when Spock touches McCoy in that Vulcan way and says "Remember", so the end of Star Trek II told us how important Dr. McCoy would be in Star Trek III, but we weren't sure what it was. It came together pretty quick near the beginning of Star Trek III when Spock's father questions Kirk, and we know it's McCoy he needs to question, and we're hoping he can discover that fact that is obvious to us as viewers, but can't be obvious to the characters.
The characters don't just "jump" to the correct conclusion. They have to get there by accident as well as deduction. There is a lot more mortality in this one. That's what makes Star Trek III and Star Trek V the best of the Trek movies. The lead characters aren't "demi gods" over whom there is no doubt of their success, but instead mortals like everyone else.