|
|
Post by janntosh on Aug 16, 2021 14:03:27 GMT
pretty fun light entertainment but definitely a step down from Wrath of Khan. Spock's resurrection is a little convoluted and there are some other odd things. Kind of weird that Kirk seems to care more about Spock than his own son. I mean in the end he was told "you sacrificed your son" and he basically just brushed it off as just a necessary step. I mean I know you love the pointy eared guy but isn't your own flesh and blood more important? Also, was Spock planning to resurrect himself from the beginning? If so does that mean he was willingly putting McCoy's life in danger in order to do that? That seems kind of selfish doesn't it?
Did anyone get these feelings when watching?
planning to watch Voyage Home for the first time on its theatrical re release this Thursday
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Aug 16, 2021 14:10:14 GMT
pretty fun light entertainment but definitely a step down from Wrath of Khan. Spock's resurrection is a little convoluted and there are some other odd things. Kind of weird that Kirk seems to care more about Spock than his own son. I mean in the end he was told "you sacrificed your son" and he basically just brushed it off as just a necessary step. I mean I know you love the pointy eared guy but isn't your own flesh and blood more important? Also, was Spock planning to resurrect himself from the beginning? If so does that mean he was willingly putting McCoy's life in danger in order to do that? That seems kind of selfish doesn't it? Did anyone get these feelings when watching? planning to watch Voyage Home for the first time on its theatrical re release this Thursday I will never understand why Spock's body was needed before Kirk or anyone else was aware of his resurrection. As for Kirk's son dying, yeah I definitely agree. It gets even worse in Voyage Home when you consider how upbeat and chipper Kirk is acting for a man who's just lost his son.
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Aug 16, 2021 14:12:58 GMT
I liked it. Bucks the trend of the odd numbered Star Trek movies being bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Aug 16, 2021 14:18:49 GMT
I liked it. Bucks the trend of the odd numbered Star Trek movies being bad.
The only reason that notion exists is because Nicholas Meyer happened to be involved with all the early even numbered films and not the odd ones, and Meyer had a much better grasp on Star Trek than some of the other people involved at that point.
|
|
|
|
Post by claudius on Aug 16, 2021 14:40:33 GMT
Also, was Spock planning to resurrect himself from the beginning? If so does that mean he was willingly putting McCoy's life in danger in order to do that? That seems kind of selfish doesn't it? Did anyone get these feelings when watching? planning to watch Voyage Home for the first time on its theatrical re release this Thursday Spock never intended any resurrection. He just wanted to pass his Katra-soul back to Vulcan to be laid to rest. The novelization portrays that this was a usually safe possession for others but McCoy’s physiology caused it to become a unintended instability. Sarek thought Kirk had it, and didn’t seem concerned about Kirk acting healthy for one supposedly possessed. |
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Aug 16, 2021 14:45:46 GMT
Also, was Spock planning to resurrect himself from the beginning? If so does that mean he was willingly putting McCoy's life in danger in order to do that? That seems kind of selfish doesn't it? Did anyone get these feelings when watching? planning to watch Voyage Home for the first time on its theatrical re release this Thursday Spock never intended any resurrection. He just wanted to pass his Katra-soul back to Vulcan to be laid to rest. The novelization portrays that this was a usually safe possession for others but McCoy’s physiology caused it to become a unintended instability. Sarek thought Kirk had it, and didn’t seem concerned about Kirk acting healthy for one supposedly possessed. I think you're right. I guess it was just portrayed kind of awkwardly in the movies, which may have given off that impression.
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Aug 16, 2021 14:50:22 GMT
What's the consensus on Robin Curtis replacing Kirstie Alley as Saavik?
I thought she was fine in the role.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Aug 16, 2021 15:32:07 GMT
What's the consensus on Robin Curtis replacing Kirstie Alley as Saavik?
I thought she was fine in the role. Wasn't that Kim Cattrall? |
|
|
|
Post by claudius on Aug 16, 2021 15:42:14 GMT
She was Valerius in IV
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Aug 16, 2021 19:08:04 GMT
Meyer didn't want Curtis back--he wanted Alley-and when she didn't do it--they instead changed the character to a new one.
I thought Curtis was fine--but was Saavik a full vulcan? I thought she was half Romulan or something.
Some people work better as a full vulcan than others.
Spock's brother was terrible.
That guy made a very bad vulcan.
I did like that they used the original appearance of the Romulans in ST 6.
I am surprised they did that.
Because the Romulans were originally supposed to be indistinguishable from Vulcans.
The worst Romulan was Dina Meyer.
What a terrible choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by claudius on Aug 16, 2021 19:21:36 GMT
Saavik was originally written as Romulan-Vulcan But all references- including a post comment about her hybrid between Kirk and Spock after the Kobyashi Maru scene- was deleted. I believe Alley played her as such, with sprinklings of un-Vulcan like behavior (the tear). By the time of TSFS, she’s portrayed as full Vulcan, such as her cool comment to David’s death. Both novelizations play up the hybrid personality.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Aug 16, 2021 22:53:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Aug 17, 2021 12:05:21 GMT
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984), directed by Leonard Nimoy. This middle episode of an unplanned trilogy doesn't seem to get a lot of love from Trek fans, but has nostalgia value for me as the first film I owned on home video. In SuperBetamax! Is it any good otherwise? It has points in its favor: - Rather than something gradiose like preventing the spectacular crash of galaxies, it is about loyalty and friendship, giving us a chance to love the characters, not just their adventures.
- Kirk's deep grief is a new, affecting side to him. His voice-over personal log at the beginning of the film is unlike anything we've heard from him before.
- The humor comes along nicely. In my favorite bit, Kirk and crew have hijacked the Enterprise:
- The Spock and McCoy bickering always seemed like good-natured joshing and chafing to me, but perhaps there was deeper enmity underneath it. That gets healed here.
- They effectively mine the original series, bringing back Mark Lenard as Sarek and remembering the auto-destruct procedure.
- The Klingons begin to develop their own plot stream.
- The unexpected destruction of the NCC-1701 is an emotional jolt the first time you see it. That was pretty bold.
- James Horner continues his vivid music from the previous film.
Not so good: - This must be a record for most strained plot contrivance.
- The sound-stage planet is hard to believe (on the other hand: that's real Star Trek).
- Christopher Lloyd tears it up as the Klingon commander, but I can't help but see him as a comic actor. Same for John Larroquette, although his makeup is so elaborate I know him only by his voice.
- The broken down jalopy sound effects for the sabotaged Excelsior: ouch, that hurt. Transwarp drive never recovered.
- Judith Anderson is the least convincing Vulcan wise woman I have ever seen.
Spot young Miguel Ferrer as First Officer of the Excelsior. Grace Lee Whitney has a cameo as an observer when the damaged Enterprise returns to space dock, but is not credited as Janice Rand. Available on Blu-ray with two interesting commentary tracks. The first is an edited commentary with Leonard Nimoy and others. He says: - It is not true that he insisted on dying in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) and had it written in his contract. Michael Eisner believed it for a long time and kept him from directing.
- His instructions were to make the film theatrical and grandly operatic. He is happy with the results, given the severe budget constraints.
- He has nothing but praise for Shatner, Horner, Lloyd and many others. He says Lloyd gave an overpowering audition with chameleon-like flexibility. On using a comic actor for this role: "Type casting? Don't talk to me about type casting."
- He also praises writer Harve Bennett: "The franchise was a beached whale after Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979); Bennett got it floating again."
The second commentary is an excited, happy track by fans-turned-pro Ronald D. Moore and Michael Taylor. They think the film deserves more credit and point out its overlooked strong points. They say something interesting about Shatner: his performance has always been like a little boy's dream of a starship captain. As such, no one can do it better. 
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Aug 17, 2021 16:26:53 GMT
In Wrath of Kahn, a dying Spock logically explains his sacrifice as "The needs of the many, outweigh..." Kirk: "The needs of the few."
Spock: "Or the one."
At the end of Search for Spock, Spock asks Jim why they all did this to save him. Kirk replies (to my great delight), "Because the needs of the one... outweigh the needs of the many."
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Aug 18, 2021 7:56:26 GMT
I have mixed feelings about this film. On the plus side, the visuals and models are top class. We get to see Spacedock for the first time. The Excelsior-Class is also introduced, alongside the now famous Klingon Bird-of-Prey and it's the first time we get a detailed depiction of the redesigned Klingons that will feature so prominently in the various spin-off series' in the years to follow. James Horner's score is wonderful and gels nicely with his Star Trek II work.
Then there's the bad. Story-wise, the movie is basically one giant rewind button. The whole purpose is to undo the ending of Star Trek II, including writing off Genesis as an unmitigated disaster, and the katra premise seems a bit contrived. The Genesis Planet sets look fake and the Klingons just behave like a gang of Vikings. The 'cultural' aspects of their race won't be brought to the fore until TNG decides to develop them further. I also don't think it's particularly well-directed, bogged down with a certain TV movie feel. Nimoy lacks the visual flare and cinematic tastes of Robert Wise and Nicholas Meyer. Feels more like an extended big-budget episode than a big-screen release a lot of the time.
For the most part, I find it to be an entertaining film that nonetheless fails to match the standard set by its predecessors - though admittedly it outdoes The Motion Picture in its handling of the characters. Nimoy's next attempt will represent a huge improvement though.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Aug 18, 2021 7:58:38 GMT
What's the consensus on Robin Curtis replacing Kirstie Alley as Saavik?
I thought she was fine in the role. Felt like a different character to me. I preferred Alley, since she pulled off the inexperienced trainee officer vibe better. Curtis looked older and I found it difficult to buy her as the same character. As a Vulcan officer she was fine though.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Aug 18, 2021 13:46:55 GMT
This film went way over my head when it was a cable regular back in the mid 80s. Part 2 was easy for a youngster like me to “get” but this film had a lot of stuff that just whizzed on by me back then. As such I didn’t like it much. Now it’s one of my favorite of the early Star Trek films. I agree about the set looking design of the planet but that fits in nicely with the original series.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Aug 18, 2021 13:58:56 GMT
This film went way over my head when it was a cable regular back in the mid 80s. Part 2 was easy for a youngster like me to “get” but this film had a lot of stuff that just whizzed on by me back then. Funny, it was the same with me actually. When I was a kid, we had III on VHS but not II for whatever reason, so I'd watch III from time to time and really had no idea what I was watching.
|
|
