Chuck: "The biggest sin of Star Trek 3 is that it's an okay film, with a brilliant epic trapped inside, begging to be let out."

I think Star Trek 3 is really underapreceated. It is one of my personal favourites.

"I choose the danger" proof that despite how grudging he may make it appear Macoy truly has a deep respect and friendship for Spock. Nice to show something only hinted at in the tv show

I never saw the destruction of the Enterprise as being tied to the past it's prime metaphor but rather that they were willing to sacrifice everything, their careers, their ship, and etc for a friend.

Klingon son, you've killed my bastard!

I love this film - a movie I had to go back to watch AFTER IV back in the day, only to discover how much I'd fallen back in love with Star Trek. David's death - as felt through Kirk - was so touching, and that wonderful ending with Spock starting to recall surrounded by his friends.

Still has some of my favorite scenes and lines in the franchise: "... and if my the grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon." Theft of the Enterprise. "... the more they overtake the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain." This one is an important one to me as a professional in the IT industry: increasing complexity increases the chance of failure. The destruction of the Enterprise.... which at the time of my first watching was as much a character as Kirk, Spock and McCoy. "... what you had to do, what you always do... turn death into a fighting chance to live." "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.": a statement on friendship and self-sacrifice, in opposition to Spock's "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Still brings tears to my eyes.

"how many have died due to your impatience?" If David hadn't used Protomatter - and somehow kept his mother and the rest of the team from noticing - they never would have gotten to stage 2 (Genesis Cave) and Starfleet would never have assigned the USS Reliant to look for a planet for Stage 3. Thus, his impatience is why the Reliant visited Ceti Alpha V, and everything that happened in TWOK.

People diss this movie forgetting it was a hit at the time it came out. No one thought it was as good as 2 but it was not thought of as a failure. So much so Nimoy had full creative license for part 4. This personally is my 3rd favorite star trek movie after 2 & 6

"Gentlemen, your work today has been outstanding. I intend to recommend you all for promotion... in whatever fleet we end up serving."

We watched the same movie and had a different experience, although I agree with you about Kirk offering Kruge his hand toward the end. As to Kruge, he orders the death of a Klingon woman he loves, he executes his officer and is about to execute another ("Say the wrong thing!" as he points his disruptor at him), he fights to the death an alien life form for fun, and, when he hears Kirk tell him that he just had Kirk's son killed, he calmly says, "There are still two more down on the planet." Yet you want something more to define him as a villain? Also, finding Spock's coffin empty is fine underplayed as it is. Showing some sort of resurrection would have taken away the mystery. Also, during that scene we would have to watch the body turn into a baby so, when they find the child Spock the audience would not have been surprised. I enjoyed III and think it is an under rated film.

Its interesting to watch the Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock back to back, as II seems to deconstruct elements of the original series, while III overtly celebrates them. WOK has a villain born out of the hero's mistake, young captain Kirk reduced to an old admiral at a desk, the peaceful Federation seeming a bit more militarized, the great Enterprise as a training vessel, an operatic tone, a major character like Spock having to sacrifice himself without an easy way out, and a bittersweet ending that could have reasonably been the conclusion for the crew. SFS on the other hand though seems like a big TOS tribute. A devious (yet somewhat nuanced) Klingon villain with a nefarious plot, Kirk breaking the rules, big ensemble moments with the crew, wacky aliens, the Pon Farr scene, a tribble cameo, Sarek's return (complete with mind meld), a self destruct sequence code right out of "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", an old fashioned Kirk fist fight in the climax, a Spock eyebrow raise to conclude the film, and a promise that the adventure will continue. I think that's why I can enjoy III so much even with its flaws. After the cold and drawn nature of TMP, followed by the acknowledgement of the time that's passed in WoK, III finally feels like the more adventurous Star Trek film that still avoids falling into farce or pure spectacle like other entries in the series later would. It may lack the cinematic scope of the Motion Picture or the same kind of execution of themes present in Wrath of Khan. but in a lot of ways its an effective translation of the really enjoyable elements from TOS.

It’s one of my top 3 ST films to be honest

I watched Diamonds Are Forever today. I'm left with a similar feeling, with it coming after On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

I’m angry at all these copyright complaints because it has made Chuck have to keep re-recording these reviews. Thanks to that, we’ve lost the parable of Thrust Barcode!

Your channel is just so good.

Yeah, telling Kruge the planet is unstable and destroys itself after a while is just a bonus for a powerful weapon.

This is extremely good timing given what went down in Star Trek Discovery at the time this review was released on YT.

Proto-matter was a weak point for me too. I would've made the reason the experiment is going wrong because Genesis just exploded in open space instead of hitting an existing planet or moon like planned.

"Those Klingon sons, they killed my bastard"

Even though this started the "odd numbered films suck" trope, it's still better than all the TNG, and Ahbrams movies.

Loved your review and you are so right! Looking at the novelization of Star Trek III, there was so much potential that was not tapped for this story and hence had lost an opportunity. I think when they let Nimoy direct, Harve Bennett and Nicholas Myers should have been closer to the production. STIII is my favorite of the series due mostly to the soundtrack but it showed the crew of the Enterprise going of the scanners to save Spock. And that was fascinating to watch.

Your analysis has helped me to appreciate this film. Bit silly? Maybe. But still, it has great moments and the other films would feel incomplete without it.

glad to see you’re still posting content. Waxing nostalgic about older Trek is all the enjoyment I get out of Trek nowadays. STD is just to badly written and all over the place for me to enjoy, god knows I tried.

It’s no wrath of khan, but I really enjoy this movie

Star Trek III is one of the best in the STO movies. It needed more editing, though. Looking from an outside perspective, the Klingons in the film had a legit reason to go to Genesis because it represented an existential threat to them. Commander Kruge goes rogue (not stated in canon though) to find out what is going on and to "seize" the Genesis information to level the playing field and will sacrifice his crew to save the Klingon empire in honor reflecting the quote: "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". However, Kirk disobeys Starfleet and steals the Enterprise to save Spock, the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. Also, Kirk protects the Genesis information and kills all but one of the Klingons in the process. They still have what could be considered a super weapon to annihilate whoever they please. I have always been intrigued by how Starfleet is portrayed as the "good guys", when in fact it could be argued that they are colonizers, while the Klingons are depicted as bad guys. this movie blurs the line between good and bad. While the Klingons are the protagnatistists, are they really "bad" when looked at from the Klingon's perspective? That's what is interesting to me in this movie.

I really love hearing about Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.

Thanks for this. I've loved this movie since I was but a wee nerd, yet always had an odd feeling about it. You have correctly identified that odd feeling .

Underrated. It fits well with 2 and 4.

While I would agree that this film is the lesser of the 2,3,4 trilogy, I somehow find this film so much more rewatchable than 4; I suppose the abundance of humor is not so rewarding on multiple viewings. Whatever the reason, this film has an ace performance from Christopher Lloyd.

I like Search for Spock. Was it great? I guess not, but I enjoy it. It was a necessary movie to bring back Spock and set up for The Voyage Home. I immediately recognized Christoper Lloyd. He's funny. John Larroquette too.

Sulus cape was truly a Look and a half.

Excellent critique! Despite being a long-time Trekkie, I only recently saw Star Trek III. I went from being thrilled to have another Star Trek adventure to enjoy to feeling weirdly disconnected from the events of the movie. I think you've nailed the cause: Significant, meaningful events weren't given the focus they deserved. Destroying the Enterprise and killing Kirk's son, in particular, lacked focus. I also think that the sudden shifts from tragic events to lighthearted quips made the lack of focus worse. The movie pays lip service to those tragedies -- "What have I done?", "Klingon bastards," and "Goodbye, David." -- but those come amid jokes and distractions -- "I'll kill you later," and such. Where Star Trek II builds up to its crucial moments, Star Trek III just sort of has them *happen*. I also felt that Kruge was missing something. Perhaps motivation? For all that he is driven and ruthless, and wants the power of Genesis, I have little idea what he wants to accomplish with that power. "Conquer everything and everyone," I suppose. Where Khan wants revenge for being stranded and losing his wife, V'GER wants to find its creator, and Chang wants to prevent peace between the Federation and the Klingons, Kruge wants Genesis because he wants Genesis. I think that style of motivation would work better for me if we saw him constantly challenging and fighting his crew to prove his dominance -- if his worldview were that "only the strongest can be allowed to survive," or some such. As-is, he punishes failure. So, he values discipline and obedience. But does he want to impose that discipline and obedience on people outside of his crew? We only know that he will do whatever it takes to get Genesis. He doesn't kill David; he has David killed. David isn't killed because he's the creator of Genesis; he's killed because he happens to be there when Kruge is threatening Kirk. Kruge also doesn't seek Kirk out; Kirk just happens upon him. His villainy is essentially a drive-by shooting. But it could very easily have had much more intention to it. Or, more could have been made of the drive-by nature of their encounter. As-is, the movie rushes off to bring Spock back. I wonder whether removing David's death or the destruction of the Enterprise would have worked better for me. That way there might have been more focus on whichever happened.

Star Trek III was basically a TOS episode with a film's budget.

17:35 this scene was the Kobayashi Maru, a no-win situation. Instead of responding to a ship's distress call, they're responding to Spock's. Kirk improvises so many times here - abandons the Enterprise, blows it up, gets Spock, and captures a Bird of Prey to escape an exploding planet.

Star Trek three the search for SpockThere’s a great movie I loved it you got me hooked on to Star Trek

I agree with what your saying though there are a few things I find this film possibly does better than the others. Probably because they had an increased budget due to the success of ST2 but the sets and lighting (especially inside the ships) are beautiful. The Klingon theme song and the introduction of the Klingon bird of prey is fantastic. Shatner sells the death of his son and wonder if falling out of his chair was in the script. But the whole thing should been grander. Maybe Nimoy felt self conscious about directing himself as a Christ like figure. Anyway love the enterprise escape scene and the first 3 or 4 scenes with Kruge.

I remember thinking as a kid that Kruge (somehow) turned into a sun. 🤣🤣

I don’t know mate, I appreciate your analysis but still think this is a pretty solid sequel, especially considering what it was following. Despite The Voyage Home being far more successful, I prefer this.

If we ever have to go back into lockdown, I am re-writing this movie’s script for fun.

TSFS wasn’t about adding frivolous weight to every facet of the plot. The actors didn’t need to overdo the drama of the Enterprise burning up. The audiences were aghast enough. (I remember). Like Star Trek II, it was about peeling away layers of Kirk, and revealing that he really wasn’t a great person. He was a lonely person, adept at leading men, and poker. But in the end, had a very focused intent that caused him great loss. Spock, and Bones, were literally all he had in life, by choice. He knew he had a son, yet abandoned him. He had to live with those choices, even when presented with opportunities for redemption.

Regarding the odd / even curse, here's my take on the matter or whatever it's worth. I think there is truth to it and I think that it's usually a victim of its own success combined with just cursed shooting. Coming off an incredibly popular TV show and a popular convention circuit, Star Trek 1 was roddenberry's Lucas moment. He had fair to complete control, less an aspect of the villain of the piece, and the movie was more in line with what he always envisioned. But it was overly long, self-indulgent, and overly cerebral for a movie. They learned a lot of lessons from the first movie, so the second film was a tighter more personal story. Star Trek 3 much like one, came off of a highly successful film and was written along the lines of public pressure because of how to ended. As a result it tends to be a little rushed a little too light on subject matter, and doesn't have a lot to show for itself. Star Trek 4 picked up on what people saw as the best moments of three, namely Weird Science, a lot of character development, and some humorous touches. As such Star Trek for emphasize those and was I think the most commercially successful. At this point, Star Trek was a proven Powerhouse, Shatner was at the top of his game, and disaster was born. I have Star Trek movie memories and I have the novelization of Star Trek V, and I can tell you that the script was pretty solid, the story is pretty good, and it actually addresses some of the themes that Roddenberry always wanted to address but was never able to pull off. Sadly Shatner was very new to the process made some less than Adept decisions, and kind of got taken for a ride by the company that won the bid to do his special effects. I suggest reading both books to get a full picture, but essentially the people who won the contract based on the demo reel turned out to be one person operating out of his garage and the video was a complete fluke in terms of quality. Star Trek 6 learn from the same lessons as the prior even films, focused on a tighter more personal story and much like 2 it focused on the concept of growing old and change. Star Trek generations was again much like the other odd films born out of a desire to capitalize on popularity of now the Next Generation, and a pressure to pass the torch. To my mind that is the only odd number film that is truly a bag of garbage. The story is an incoherent muddled mess, the attempts to knit together the two generations, a totally unnecessary item, is very reminiscent of George Lucas and his insane prequel trilogy. Learning from the lesson, again the next film first Contact was a tighter film with a more narrow Focus for a story. While perhaps not terribly original it is the best of the Next Generation films. Then we come to Insurrection. Which is a possible story but is essentially an overlong TV episode with very little in the way of depth and a plot that is surface-level at best. The special effects are good, the acting is good, the very blunt and simplistic plot is probably the simplest plot out of anything Star Trek. Nemesis, while thematically a retread of Star Trek II, I still found to be a great story and more similar to Star Trek 6. Here the romulans get a highlight reel oh, you get a real feel for their Machiavellian Behavior, and the story has some honestly well done moments. Star Trek reboot number one is a good film, but is marred by stylistic choices like excessive lens flare, and much like the prequel trilogies of Star Wars, overly reliant on a way to reference as many Star Trek points as possible. I personally quite like the film and I like the idea of an alternate timeline because there's no way they can continue with the original franchise due to the lack of quality TV shows, and this allowed them to continue. Into Darkness is a good film, but intentionally a retread of Star Trek II, with multiple references to that story but how it's different this time. It's sort of breaks the trend / curse because it's probably the weakest of the three. In my mind Star Trek Beyond was the best of the new trilogy. Something that I know puts me in a minority. And I think it completes the break of the curse. No, the plots not exactly the deepest in the world. It's more popcorn but to me it's very similar in theme to the stories of the original TV show. Some good Sci-Fi ideas, some silly references to Modern Times, And an overall sense of fun. sadly, with the death of the actor who played Chekov, I wonder what the future will bring. The substandard offerings Paramount has put out lead me to believe that this is the end of the Star Trek franchise. Oh, there will still be books and probably TV shows but nothing is going to have the same Quality and energy. Now there is no longer a curse about numbers but more a lack of Desire. Discovery is another reboot that completely drags the Star Trek Legacy through the mud, and Picard was written by somebody who's never seen any of the TV show and the studio had no desire to continue any plot points that have percolated through the franchise from day one

Enterprise didn't lose in its battle with the Bird of Prey because it was obsolete, it lost because it was still crippled from its battles with Khan, and because it had no crew during Star Trek III. The same with having to sabotage the Excelsior; that and because the Excelsior was a far more powerful ship.

You're guilty of the same thing you said Savik was when she said people had died because he was impatient. Even if the Enterprise wasn't being mothballed, Kirk would've blown up the ship. He didn't blow it up as an admittance the Admiral was right.

The problem with the movie is it underplays the true throughline of the trilogy's story. Namely, the Kobayashi Maru scenario. Yes - it is remembered in places, and McCoy's reference back to it does effectively rescue the Enterprise's 'death scene', but a far superior opportunity is squandered by only using the callback for those moments. The points is this: during the entirety of Star Trek III, the audience should be utterly convinced that Kirk is going to die. Everything in the film should have been retooled slightly to create this impression. We should be certain that the point of the story is Kirk will sacrifice himself to bring Spock back. During production, the studio should even have released false leaks and rumours suggesting Shatner wasn't going to do another movie after this one. The plot should play out with Kirk and the Enterprise both having reached the end of their lives. Kirk's character should be much more obviously linked to the fate of his ship, and there should be a definite sense that Kirk's intention when returning to Genesis is to provide Khan with a belated victory. Kirk should be going to the Genesis planet suspecting he will never return. The death of his son, the discovery of a living Spock, the conversation with Sarek, plus the fact that Spock melded with McCoy instead Kirk should all be used as tools to ratchet up the likelyhood that Kirk practically *wants* to die on Genesis. Spock taught him that there is no real way to cheat a no win scenario, and Kirk's purpose in rescuing Spock is to acknowledge that lesson. The story should culminate in the destruction of the Enterprise - that scene should come much later and include the fact that the ship cannot blow itself up unless someone remains on board. Naturally - Kirk is the person to stay. Then - after the rest of the crew are captured and Kruge is standing victorious on the Genesis planet with the reincarnated Spock, the audience discovers (similar to the big reveal of the Shawshank Redemption) that in actual fact Kirk had not been planning to sacrifice himself at all. Instead - as always - Kirk has found a third option and wasn't killed along with his ship. Kirk emerges to challenge and defeat Kruge, saves Spock, and vindicates his original method of overcoming the Kobayashi Maru. That's the opportunity that was missed by this movie. Kirk should teach us that he is more than his ship or captaincy. He ALWAYS finds a third option and a path to victory. His solution to the Kobayashi Maru is actually objectively better than Spock's - it is the human spirit's solution of never giving up. In my humble opinion, that's the great movie that is hiding inside this decent one.

I agree that Star Trek III is a little weak, but certainly not bad. The problem is with the writing, though thankfully competent directing and good acting saves the movie. It is still an overall good film and leagues ahead of any odd numbered film that would follow it. I do think that the story had a few problems, though. Harve Bennett did a great job on the trilogy overall, but he should not have been the final script writer. He is a good idea man, but the script needed a little more work. Some things don't flow well. For instance, Sarek is offended over the loss of the Katra, expressing that everything Spock knew and everything he was is lost. It is rather clunky in the way that this turns into having to go to the Genesis Planet to get Spock's body. Once learning that McCoy has the Katra, all that needed to happen was to have the good doctor delivered to Vulcan so that the Katra could be placed with all of the others from Vulcan who have passed on. When did it become neccessary to go get Spock's dead body? Obviously, the story needs to restore Spock, but the internal logic of the return to the Genesis Planet does not really make any sense. Another problem is Spock and the Genesis Planet being connected. Again, I understand that the end goal is to get the resurrected body and reunite it with the Katra, but details are again overlooked. Spock's body is recreated by the Genesis effect, so as the planet rapidly ages towards self destruction, Spock rapidly ages too. Well, why would getting Spock off of the Genesis Planet stop his aging? His body is now a part of the unstable Genesis effect and it is a part of his recreated DNA. He would continue to age towards death whether on or off the planet. These things are just glossed over or never addressed. It also wouldn't have hurt to show Captain Esteban as being more competent. I know they were probably going for a little comedy, but it is hard to buy into this guy as someone who would get command of a starship, even a small science vessel like Grissom. Saavik is a huge problem for the film. I have no qualms with Robin Curtis, but the simple fact is that Saavik played by Kirstie Alley made a big splash with fans. We loved her. Failing to get Kirstie back was a big mistake and Leonard Nimoy's decision to have Robin play her as a strict Vulcan only compounded the mistake, fundamentally changing the character to being unrecognizable. This was in no way the Saavik we last saw in Star Trek II. This is not Robin Curtis' fault, but instead the fault of how her character was written. Not going the extra distance to get Kirstie back really hurt the film.

"Other films attempted to re-tell Wrath of Khan and tried to repeat it's success." Let me guess, Star Trek: Nemesis?

Suffice to say, I disagree with you on the death of the Enterprise - I don't know how old you are, but I'm an old person now and there is an old-person saying: "Youth and exuberance are no match for old age and treachery". Excelsior is the younger and physically superior ship. The aging Enterprise and crew *can't* win in a head on fight, so they do what they must. As for the actual destruction - better to die the heroes death in battle than to be quietly mothballed and/or turned into a museum.

Morrow was the classic 80s police chief.

It's also a silly plot point that they were going to mothball the Enterprise after just 20 years. The US Air Force is still using B52s made in the 1950s, but are of course upgraded.

Wait... Is this a re-upload? Oh, wait... I'm a patron... Is this the one I already saw? Sorry. I'm getting old and confused! :P

"Great films don't need to be remade" tell that to Disney. The rat loves making live-action cash-grabs of beloved classics, and creating trash as a result.

i think i saw this video about 10 years ago

The only thing that takes me out of the movie is Kirk's backflip against Kruge in the end fight. Thankfully, a stunt double did this feat or Shatner's girdle would have exploded.

What Savvik is saying is that if David didn’t cut corners, Genesis would never have existed in the first place. She’s referring to all the people Khan killed on the Regula 1 station who were refusing to give up locations and secrets. People nobly died defending other’s ambition - mainly Carol and David’s. If he’d used sound science, Reliant would never have been on its scouting mission, thus never starting the events of STII. Just because others had no knowledge that he botched the science, doesn’t hide the fact that he did. Lol. That’s weird, weird logic. “Those who died” did in fact die because of Carol, and David’s ambitions, and actions. We do know using proto-matter was unethical - that’s revealed in Savviks line. Harve Bennett killed David as a penalty for screwing with nature, as stated by Bennett.

It is FAR from a bad film. I think it has some of the best scenes of all the Trek movies. I agree more depth is needed, but this is my fav of all of them. (STIV, in my opinion, is a poor follow-up and the worst of the trilogy)

Like or Dislike: Like. Excellent analysis through and through.

One thing that the movie never seems to cover is why they had to steal the Enterprise versus hiring or renting or buying just another ship. I can't see why you would have to steal a huge Heavy Cruiser versus buying something the equivalent to a minivan.

Well said.

I like this film. I know it's branded by folks as bad, but I agree that it's just average. Yet it's still one of my favorites in the film series. Part of it is due to nostalgia I must admit as it might have been the first Star Trek movie I saw as a little boy. It definitely had some ideas and themes that should have been pushed further. There are aspects at the surface level that I think, when it was released, really drew in fans. Such as the return of Sarek out of the blue in all of his regal aura, the expansion of the Federation witnessed via space dock, Grissom, Excelsior, Vulcan, etc. Also stealing the Enterprise with the loyal shipmates was great. James Horner's music of course. So the atmosphere is there along with great moments, but some things you hit on like Kirk's characterization regarding the death of his son, and Kruge coming off as a cartoonish villain hold it back. The meat of the script is where it falls short. I go back and forth on whether I would have liked to have seen Kristi Alley back as Savvik since Curtis did a great job herself.

Unpopular opinion maybe, but Star Trek III is my personal favorite of all the films. More than II, more than First Contact, more than the sequel-prequel-time-travel-reboot series. I can already hear people telling me to turn in my Trekkie card (don't you dare call me a "Trekker"... And get off my lawn!) But, arguably more than anything else put into the films, it is an exemplar of the personal morality of James T. Kirk. Post-Roddenberry, Star Trek tended to pigeonhole Kirk as a Devil-may-care rule breaker, who does what he does because of some rebellious streak. When Berman was running the franchise in the 90s and 00s, he couldn't wait to get away from the character. When Abrams took control, he leaned into the stereotype; I love Chris Pine as that version of Kirk, but for his first two films his portrayal is very much doing what he wants and getting away with it, almost in a "the ends justify the means" way. But William Shatner's Kirk had an imperative to do what he thought was right, but not in a purely headstrong way. Like a few times in the Original Series, he must do something difficult for what he sees as right; honor Spock's wish. He tries to go through proper channels; as an Admiral himself and a hero of Starfleet and the Federation, Kirk presumably had no small amount of weight to throw around in a "proper" way. He has one of the most respected figures in Federation politics, Sarek, in his corner. And it's not nearly enough. That's when he realizes that he must still act. Most would respect the effort, and say "well, you tried..." But Kirk couldn't sit there. He knew the second that he committed to his course of action, there would be consequences. In a purely legal view, those consequences were a simple slap on the wrist with a wink due to mitigating circumstances, but on a personal level (David and the Enterprise, contributing to a serious diplomatic incident between the Klingons and Federation, even if Kruge was the instigator) he paid dearly. But like he said, if he hadn't acted the cost would have been his soul. I don't know that I'd call the film a "character study", but it does show, more than any other in the film series, the moral fiber of Kirk and the rest of the crew.

"Other films attempted to retell Wrath of Khan... and yet, none would try to recreate Search for Spock." I would argue against that point, personally. Star Trek: Beyond, in many ways, is basically SfP redone. The destruction of the enterprise, Kirk and crew stuck on a hostile, mysterious world, Kirk actually having a rebirth of sorts and even ends with the revelation of the Enterprise-A (though that's more ST IV). I'd say that ST Beyond was a much better realisation of many of these elements, and the confrontation between Kirk and the villain of that film had much greater strength than the confrontation here, as there they more fully explored the reasons for that conflict, and the central ideological difference between the two men.

GEN-NI-CIS?!

"They put emphasis on the characters" That's what's missing from the JJ Abrams Trek monstrosities. They mime all the superficial elements of the series while putting the emphasis not on the characters, but on flashy special effects, leaving you feeling cheated.

16:00

I don't see the problem with the enterprise being a worse ship than the newer excelsior, It never bothered me that they had to cheat to win

The late Leonard Nimoy directed an episode of _T.J. Hooker_ during the third season titled *The Decoy* that aired two episodes before reuniting on-screen with William Shatner in the episode titled *Vengeance Is Mine* where Leonard plays a detective who wants to get revenge against the man who raped his daughter. Leonard said he asked if he could direct an episode so that he could get some experience before directing _Star Trek III: The Search for Spock_

I think part of the problem that Chuck mentions is that Robin Curtis is dreadful. I know Vulcans hide their emotions, but a wooden mannequin would’ve been more expressive. As Chuck says, we do get that emotion from Mark Lenard, who’s actually a good actor.

Great transmission. You may continue. BTW this movie is much better than you think.

He's a little too tough on this film. I think it hits all of the beats that it possibly could.

I always liked III, and view it and II as a pair. I think III is much better than the embarrassing silliness that is IV.

Made me realise the microbe bit doesn't make sense - everything else is aging but the microbes are evolving

Character driven?! Not vomit inducing space battles, gruesome death and utter bollocks?!

I’ve mentioned this in other videos, but I think it bears repeating. There were three major sins in this movie. 1: Relegating Uhura to almost absolutely nothing. She loved Spock as much as all of his other shipmates. She was criminally underused. 2: Checkov’s civillian clothes. Star Trek has *never* gotten space clothes right. Shatner was smart to dress in jeans and a flannel in ST V. 3: Recasting Saavik. Kirstie Alley asked for too much, and they cut her loose, with no negotiation. If there was no way to get her back, she should have been removed from the film. 🖖😀

This review makes me realize that this movie shouldn't have had Klingons in it at all. As much as the film makers did to add depth and nuance to the Klingons, they did so at the expense of the Romulans, which could have worked just as well as the film's villains. Romulans could have filled the Klingons' shoes even better, with their cloaked ships and ties to the Vulcans. This film could have explored the relationship between the Romulans and their Vulcans brethren, with one playing off of the other. We already had a Vulcan civil war in the lore, and the Romulans are the result. Also, Romulan villains could have allowed them to explore Spock's character more, as he is literally divided, body and soul, just as he was divided between his dual heritage in the show. An exploration of division and reconciliation could have been the theme that this film lacked, something to give this movie the emotional impact that it needed to rise to greatness.

I love 3, but it is slow as hell.

People complain about the Abrams films but I thought switching who died in into Darkness was one of the best moves you could make for a reimagining like that.

The mistake everyone made was letting nemoy continue as Spock. They should have killed him off or had Spock played by a new, much younger Spock. Nemoy was right. It was time for him to stop and write the book he knew was true: "I am no longer Spock."

You don't _need_ to remake a successful film ... Hollywood does it all the time. The result is always underwhelming. And then modern audiences think _The Magnificent Seven_ was a forgettable movie, having no idea who Kurosawa was. And so on.

I love the trilogy of star trek (2,3,4)

The thing about star trek 3 search for Spock that I did not like and still to this day don't like is That they brought back Kirk's son and then just killed him To me that was a waste you barely get to know him and then they kill him off In my opinion it was stupid and always will be

"Double-dipping" Spock's Death Scene is [was] the first misstep of MANY for this Film. (First time Director) Leo Nimoy should've known better. IV = BAE

Feels like you're saying that TSFS has what I call Nemesis syndrome. In that what makes it feel like a bad movie is that it should be a _great_ movie. (Actually that may not be a great comparison; Nemesis is a bad film for sure that's very close to a great one purely on Sir Patrick's and Thomas Hardy's backs.)

I’ll say it. Voyage Home is a fun film, but Search for Spock is the better film.

One thing that has always bugged me about this film was the self destruction of the Enterprise. It's very underwhelming, in that it leaves most of the ship intact. A small re-write I have always added in my head, was that while the proto-matter made the planet unstable, it didn't make it so the planet would fall apart. Instead, when Kirk blows up the enterprise in low orbit, the force of it's warp core going critical is what sends the planet into it's death throws. A fitting end as Khans destroying his ship created the world, and Kirk's ended up destroying it.

Never understood the appeal of the enterprise command crew running around San Francisco in their PJs. And, not a future SF but 1980's SF. WOW, thats fun to see in an epic Sci-fi movie ( not ! ). Star Trek III so much better. "Vulcan" Bones is priceless.

Putting characters first - What I wish most of these Hollywood writers would do instead of jamming political views down people's throats.

Perhaps you should research Leonard Nimoy's career before you say things like he hadn't directed before.

How is Genesis a great weapon? As opposed to nukes, or just using propulsion technology to smash rocks into enemy ships/planets at great velocity?

TSFS is a mediocre movie with a lot of amazing Star Trek moments in it.

I like The Search for Spock. Two things about it stick in my craw, though - One, Spock's resurrection makes his sacrifice and Kirk's maturation in Wrath of Khan pointless, he's just cheated death one more time. And, two, Robin Curtis. She is one of the worst actors I've ever seen and she nearly ruins the movie for me. As it is, her scenes are painful to watch & I'm so glad they more or less eliminated her role in The Voyage Home.

"This film adds depth to the Klingons." And this is done by stripping the Romulans of depth (which they never recovered from) and retconning the depth already established for the Klingons. No longer a militant, spartan, totalitarian regime the Klingons are transformed into a "WARRIOR! HONOR! WARRIOR!" one note caricature that would become quite the cliché of the '90s and '00s science fiction, and laughable for its shallow juvenile appeal. As this new take on the Klingons was fleshed out in TNG and DS9 it gradually and completely erased the original incarnation. All for dubious marketing appeal. This I call bad writing because it does not look to the future or the past, and while good writing would come out of the decision that does not make the original decision to replace the Romulans with the Klingons, without overhauling the script, a good decision. Nimoy made a bad decision.

the odd even rule is such bs. star trek one is the best by a mile.