[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference noted::sf

Title:Arcana Caelestia
Notice:Directory listings are in topic 2
Moderator:NETRIX::thomas
Created:Thu Dec 08 1983
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1300
Total number of notes:18728

81.0. "Star Trek III discussion" by HARRY::OSBORNE () Tue May 29 1984 16:40

From a TV ad I happened to catch yesterday (5/29/84), looks like ST3 will
be quite a departure from stock stuff. I think the ad said "the LAST voyage
of the starship Enterprise", showing a starship with the whole front half
of the "saucer" blown away. Heavy stuff.

Anyway, here's a start for comments on the film/ad/whatever about ST3. If
you know plot, PLEASE remember to put "****** SPOILER WARNING ******" around
any specific details. Thanks.

John O.
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
81.1ORPHAN::LIONELWed May 30 1984 21:352
The only thing I could think of when I saw the ad was "Gee, doesn't
Scotty look OLD!".
81.2CURIUM::WILLIAMSWed May 30 1984 21:423
Well, if YOU had to keep the Enterprise running as smoothly as Scotty does
when Kirk is doing his best to get it blasted out from underneath him,
YOU would look old, too!
81.3LYRA::FOLEYFri Jun 01 1984 17:541
	Aye!
81.4BABEL::BAZEMOREFri Jun 01 1984 21:585
ST II is the best of the three in my book.  ST III is heavy on the violin
music (if'n ya' know what I mean) and kinda thin on the plot.  ST III is
worth going to see, but I'm not incredibly eager to see it again.

					Barbara
81.5VAXWRK::MAXSONSat Jun 02 1984 03:462
	Keptin! They put Creturz in our boediez...
81.6NACHO::LYNCHSun Jun 03 1984 16:3832
I agree with .4 that STIII is not as good as STII. I have a couple criticisms
(no spoilers):

1) The print I saw seemed to be shot badly out of focus. I think the problem
was "depth of field"; the character in the forefront seemed OK but the back-
ground was fuzzy. I found this bothersome.

2) The Klingons speak Klingonese (?) with subtitles and then inexplicably
switch to English. I can understand speaking English to Earth-people, but why
speak English amongst themselves? Sloppy.

3) The music is really bland. To me, music adds a lot to the action and
flow of the film. STII had excellent music. This film has muzak. The least
they could have done was use the "Klingon theme" introduced in STII.

4) The sets look cheap. Particularly the Genesis planet. It has the feel of
the TV show rather than a big-budget film. The special effects are mediocre.

5) When will filmmakers (other than Kubrick) realize that there is no sound in
space?? This is not a specific STIII criticism.

6) Nimoy's direction is pedestrian. He shows talent but he needs to refine his
technique (which is non-existant).

7) Why a bar scene? Haven't we seen this before (a million times)??

STIII is good, don't get me wrong. But it could have been better.

***1/2 out of 5 *'s.

-- Bill
81.7CDR::OKEEFESun Jun 03 1984 20:527
I agree with .6 about no noise in space and my complaint is related to that.
The sound effects for this movie were really painful to listen to.  My friend
and I were covering our ears every time they either teleported somewhere or
when the Enterprise was warping.  


			Johnny O.
81.8AKOV68::BOYAJIANSun Jun 03 1984 22:558
My assessment of the film appears in the MOVIES Notesfile. In short, I
enjoyed seeing it, will probably go to see it again sometime this week
in 70mm in Boston, and may well buy the videocassette whenever it's
released (if it's in Beta Hi-Fi, that is). But on the whole, like RETURN
OF THE JEDI and TEMPLE OF DOOM, I was very disappointed that I didn't
get as good a film as I'd hoped for or expected.

---jerry
81.9AKOV68::BOYAJIANSun Jun 03 1984 23:099
I forgot to mention, in case anyone doesn't know, that the MOVIES
Notesfile is:

OTHER::USER$:[PRIBORSKY.PUBLIC]MOVIES.NOT

--- jerry

PS: I put it in MOVIES rather than in SF because the former needs
the business more than the latter.
81.10ELMER::GOUNMon Jun 04 1984 02:2845
I agree with previous notes that "Star Trek III" isn't as good as "Star Trek
II."  I'll add a few more reasons, with some things I DID like sprinkled in.

I felt the new Saavik was much too wooden.  In "Star Trek II," Kirstie Alley
made the conflict between Saavik's Vulcan and Romulan halves come alive for
the viewer.  The present actress (sorry, I've forgotten her name) fails to do
this for the most part.  I do give her credit for a sensitive performance in
the "pon farr" scene, however.

I didn't like the new Excelsior-class starship at all.  The bridge looks more
like the control room in "WarGames" than that of a starship.  Not even a ship
the (apparent) size of the Excelsior could have that much room to waste!  The
sound-effects we hear as the Excelsior leave the space dock are...well,
absurd.  Also, "Star Trek III" continues the tired tradition that every ship
captain in the "Star Trek" universe except Kirk is a pompous idiot. 

Kirk isn't pompous, merely senile.  In fact, when the original cast is
together on screen, I couldn't help but notice that these movies are
starting to resemble "Geriatric Ward to the Stars."  I had trouble with my
suspension of disbelief, watching these old folks swashbuckling across the
galaxy.

The only character who's improved with age is Commander Uhura.  Nichelle
Nichols' little scene with the young Lieutenant in the transporter room was
priceless!  I was disappointed that she didn't have more to do in this movie. 

OK, time to stop flaming.  Some other things I liked:

The movie had a wonderful sense of nostalgia to it.  During several scenes, I
found myself reciting lines reprised from old "Star Trek" TV episodes and
the last movie along with the actors; once, with tears in my eyes.  (If you've
seen the movie, you may be able to figure out which scene I mean here.  To
describe it would constitute a first-magnitude spoiler.)

The bar scene was, of course, straight out of "Star Wars."  I think I want to
see this part about a dozen more times; the audience was laughing too hard
for me to catch all the lines.  Next time, I also need to watch for a
character described in the credits as "girl in cafeteria."  This is supposed
to be Grace Lee Whitney:  Yeoman Janice Rand in the TV series.  I didn't
notice her the first time through.

Enough.  Go see it, if you haven't already.  Don't expect to see "The City on
the Edge of Forever,"  and you won't be disappointed.

					-- Roger
81.11HUMAN::BURROWSMon Jun 04 1984 03:1427
To re-iterate what I said in the MOVIES file, I disagree with those who thought
II was better than III. I think it was much better this time around. The new 
Saavik didn't thrill me, and David was no better than in II, but everyone else 
was much better.

As to the age of the cast, I wasn't bothered in the least. The didn't go around
acting like kids, which would have bothered me. I thought they acted their age,
excepting perhaps Kirk, but then again he never did. Sulu who is the only 
character other than Kirk to really get physical doesn't look that old, and he 
pulls it off with the air of an experienced proffesional. Kirk, of course, acts
overly heroic for a man of his age, but that's in keeping with tradition and 
his T.J. Hooker role. Scotty is clearly getting old and conservative. 

In fact, as I think of it, my criticism of the two youngsters in the cast
(David and Saavik) may be based on the fact that they aren't acting like
experienced veterans. I'll have to think about that next time. I may have
slighted them.

And NO the bar scene was not a rip off of Star Wars, at least not any more
than of Casablanca or any other adventure movie that wanders into a bar.
If there had been a cantina band or hordes of extras in alien make up I'd
agree, and be displeased. But I refuse to say that nobody can use a bar
or a desert world or an ice world, or a red wood forest without being a
rip off of SWs. I'll bet you anything that the critics call Arakis in
the up-coming Dune movie a Tatooine rip-off!

JimB
81.12NACHO::LYNCHMon Jun 04 1984 12:3212
A couple things:

1) The reaction by my audience to Christopher Lloyd as the Klingon commander 
   was interesting. When he spoke Klingonese, he was fine -- gruff and bullish.
   When he spoke English, the audience laughed. Why? Because he sounded just
   like Jim, the character he played in the TV series Taxi! Did anyone else
   experience this reaction?

2) The actress playing Lt. Saavik (Robin Curtis?) looked *very* familiar to
   me. Has she appeared in any other movies or TV shows?

-- Bill
81.13CURIUM::WILLIAMSMon Jun 04 1984 12:514
Yes, finding Reverend Jim Ignatowski as a Klingon commander was a little much
for the audience.  I did the double-take on that during the opening credits,
when I saw Christopher Lloyd as Krug...  Is it possible that he can't talk
in any other voice?
81.14RAVEN1::HOLLABAUGHMon Jun 04 1984 12:5546
   first,  Yeoman Rand now has red hair.  (well auburn at least.)  She's 
the one that stand up and stares at the the enterprise when it pulls into the 
dock at the starbase.

   I guess I must be less critical or have the ability to suspend my belief 
at the drop of a hat because I enjoyed it.  (Of course I found some things to
pick at.)  I also liked the nostalgia.  I liked the fact that the movies seemed
to have recaptured the humor of the series.  (The first movie was so painfully
grim and out of character that I had a hard time finding anything good about it
.)  Finally!!!!! They let Uhura do something competant!  No more "Captain, I'm
frightened."  
   
   As for the objection about the Klingons speaking english... Do all Klingons
speak Enlgish?  Were that scenes spoken in English perhaps ones that in which 
the officers didn't want the underlings to hear what was being said?  Perhaps
it was deliberate not sloppy.  (Remeber in the ST II Spock and Saavik spoke in 
Vulcan when they did not wish to be overheard discussing the captain.)

   I too didn't like the new Saavik.  (she got better as the movie went along
but the transition was hard to make.)  Anyone know why they did not get Kirstie
Alley(sp?) back?  The new Saavik's name is Robin something.

****Spoiler****













I'm not sure if I like the fact that they did bring Spock back.  I would have 
been crushed if they hadn't. (Spock is my hero.)  But I can't shake the feeling 
that it was just a little too good to be true.  (At least they had the good 
sense to make it a difficult proposition and by no means a sure thing.)  I had
visions of them finding him alive and Ok on Genesis.  They did have the good 
grace to kill off David irrevocably(sp?).

All in all though, I liked it.

tlh
81.15NACHO::LYNCHMon Jun 04 1984 16:078
Re .14: Good point about English being spoken when the commander didn't
want the underlings to hear. I recall the one scene where the commander
and his #1 and #2 men were discussing the Genesis effect.

I heard that the original Saavik wanted too much money to return.

-- Bill
81.16HARRY::ARVIDSONMon Jun 04 1984 20:4429

	Starlog Press has come out with a movie magazine for STIII same as
    the one for STII.  In it, David Gerrold(sp) has written an article
    about his feelings for STIII and possibilities for ST in the future.

	I would appear that Paramount is VERY interested in the audiences
    feelings about ST past and present.  The reason I say this is because
    when I went to STIII on it's opening day, questionaries were handed out.
    Some of the questions were:

	1) Did you see STI in a theater or drive-in?
	-) How many times did you see it?
	2) Did you see STII in a theater or drive-in?
	-) How many times did you see it?
	3) What form of media prompted you to see STIII
		-) Movie trailer        -) TV Commercial      -) Friend
     Questions asked after seeing the movie were:
	1) How did you like this film?
	2) Would you see it again?
	3) Name two events in the movie that "struck" you?

	If you feel good, bad, or indifferent about any part(s) of the movie
    now may be a good time to express the direction that you would like to
    see ST take in the future.

					 D
					C
					 A
81.17AKOV68::BOYAJIANTue Jun 05 1984 12:219
re: Kirstie Alley

The story as I heard it was that, when offered the role of Saavik for ST III,
Alley's agent asked for a somewhat exorbitant amount. His intention was for
Paramount to then start dickering. Much to his (and Alley's) surprise, Paramount
simply said "No" ad that was the end of it. I suppose that it's not necessarily
impossible for her to return to the role in ST IV.

--- jerry
81.18HARRY::OSBORNETue Jun 05 1984 18:1063
Interesting that Paramount has begun polling a movie audience for reaction to
STIII. This sounds a bit like getting a Nielsen rating for a TV show. With the
TV "mini-series" blossoming and the appearence of multi-sequel theatre movies,
it seems the TV/movie industry is headed for a very uniform product. Probably
will be to real drama what TV dinners are to food.


************* SPOILER WARNING ***********
exit this reply here if you don't want hints of the plot






















STIII was disappointing to me for many of the reasons mentioned above. The
three that bother the most are:

1. Dead men should stay dead. In TV shows you can't do that to major
characters because of economics, but in the movies this pandering to fan
pressure or whatever is ludicrous. The revival is good ol' deus ex
machina, and it cheapens the characters, particularly Spock, and ruins
one of the better points of STII. Bah.

2. Live people should still be around. Kirk must be nature's answer to
the black widow. His girlfriends always disappear. Did anyone notice
why Carol Marcus isn't around? Wouldn't she be interested in the Genesis
planet? Wouldn't she be interested in her son and co-worker? Did they
accidentaly put the transporter on "maximum dispersion" when they beamed
her down? Doesn't her disappearence bother Kirk?

3. Generally, it's much harder to "suspend disbelief" for STIII than for
STII, which was hard enough. The design of the movie is bland and thought-
less. The "Excelsior", for instance, besides being named for a flammable
packing material, looks like a starship rammed a whale. Grotesque. The
federation command is a collection of buffoons. The Kligon ship is silly
and the Kligon commander sillier. David whines more, has nothing interesting
to say. Acting is at best rote. In a word, sad.

I guess my expectations were rather high after STII's radical departure
from the TV show format. The slow retirement of old characters, fresh
blood in the main cast, fresh relationships, and so on. All gone. The
only thing I hoped they'd keep, they distroyed. These (after all..) are
the voyages of the starship Enterprise. WERE the voyages of the
starship Enterpise...

John O.
81.19ELMER::GOUNWed Jun 06 1984 02:5216
*** Spoiler warning ***

In re .18:

Interesting point here.  Nimoy's voiceover at the beginning is the same one
used at the end of STII:  "These are the continuing voyages of the starship
Enterprise...."  Then they go and destroy the thing.  Not much continuance
there.

With the "redesign" done for "Star Trek:  The Motion Picture," I had a hard
time accepting the Enterprise as a well-beloved old friend.  Does anyone
think that the next movie will unveil an Enterprise II of the
Excelsior-class?  I think it's time to face it.  It'll just never be the 
same.

					-- Roger
81.20NACHO::LYNCHWed Jun 06 1984 14:28127
Here are some comments that Jerry Boyajian submitted to the USENET on STIII.
I think he makes some very interesting points.

	[Hope you don't mind me posting this here, Jerry...]

*** HEAVY SPOILER WARNING ***

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: net.startrek,net.movies
Path: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian
Subject: More on TREK III (Heavy duty SPOILERS!!)
Posted: Tue Jun  5 02:59:03 1984


Gee, I must be a mutant. I appear to be a member of an elite group that wasn't
too wild about THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK. Everyone else in my household loved it,
though my lady friend thinks exactly the way I do. And just about everyone on
the net here seems to rave about it. Oh, well.
	Anyways, here are some more thoughts about the film, inspired by various
comments from other netters. Some of the comments are answers to questions post-
ed by other netters. Since there are spoilers, they comments will follow a <FF>.

Jettisoning the primary hull:
	Brian, I think you misunderstood. People weren't inferring that since
the trailers showed the primary hull half destroyed that it was obviously going
to jettison it in the movie. What was being said was that that particular scene
in the trailer didn't *necessarily* mean that the *Enterprise* was going to be
destroyed. Of course, it *was* destroyed, but that's really irrelevant.

Bird of Prey crew:
	I originally thought that the Bird of Prey was the latest design for the
Klingon battlecruiser. It's obvious from the landing scene and the fact that it
has only a crew of 12 that it's more like a heavily-armed scout (or perhaps des-
troyer).

Spock and Saavik:
	Well, Spaf, I think you're right, it could prove interesting if Saavik's
carrying Spock's child, but like I said last time, the scene was thankfully
vague about whether any fooling around actually went on (I've looked through the
novelization, and the way McIntyre wrote that scene, I'm even less certain that
Spock got laid by Saavik.

David Marcus' death:
	Personally, this didn't bother me very much in concept, though it did
in...ah...um...er...execution. It seemed out of character for the Klingon to
just walk around trying to decide which one to kill; he should have just pulled
out the knife, stabbed at Saavik, and David jump in front of her to take the
thrust. As far as the comment about david paying for his sin against Science, I
didn't see that at all. Commonly referred to as the Mephistophelean -- or Frank-
enstein -- Complex, this would have been the case only if David were killed in
some manner by the Genesis Planet itself (the Creator killed by the Creation).
Thankfully, they avoided this cliche by having David murdered outright.

Carol Marcus:
	Speaking of Carol, where the hell *was* she in this movie? She didn't
transfer over to the *Grissom* along with David and Saavik, nor was she on the
*Enterprise* when it arrived at Earth. Furthermore, did anyone else notice that
when the Klingons were reviewing the Genesis tape, Kirk says in the report that
he would replay the prospectus tape that the Genesis scientists prepared, While
*that* tape replays, Kirk's voice-over says the *exact same dialogue that Carol
said in that tape in THE WRATH OF KHAN*! Why not use her voice again? So they
wouldn't have to pay her anything for this movie? Did someone have something
against Bibi Besch?

The torpedo casing/coffin:
	A possible reason why the casing/coffin didn't burn up in Genesis' at-
mosphere occurred to me. Perhaps it's made of some type of balognaeum metal that
is super heat-resistant. Remember, it has to hold a superheated plasma torpedo
(though perhaps in a magnetic field), so it must have *some* heat resistant
properties. Anyways, what struck me is: why did David open the coffin in the
first place. *I* wouldn't have opened it if I knew it most likely contained a
ripe corpse. At the very least, he and Saavik should have made faces and held
their noses while he opened the thing.

Spock's eyebrow-raising at end:
	Obviously, when all of the others, happy that Spock seems to begin re-
membering, crowd around him, he looks at Kirk and raises his eyebrow as if to
wonder just what the hell are all these clowns doing and why?

This whole "core-dump" business:
	(Thanks, Spaf, that's a wonderful term for it!). Quite frankly, I don't
see the whole point of it in the first place. Say somebody (Vulcan) gets bumped
off, so he core-dumps into somebody else, and that someone else takes the dead
guy's body (and katra) up to the top of Mt. Lookithat (or whatever). Then the
Vulcan version of the AMA gets together and transfers the katra back to the
body. So what purpose is served? The guy's still singing with the Choir Invisi-
ble; he's no better off than he was when he made the core-dump. Spock lucked
out in this regard, since his body had been regenerated, but Sarek didn't know
that when he asked Kirk to retrieve Spock's remains and bring them and McCoy
(with the katra) to Vulcan).
	As for why Spock remembered lines that he said after making the core-
dump (this could also be said of McCoy speaking with Spock's mind): some of
McCoy's memories concerning Spock made their way into Spock's thought patterns.

The destruction of the *Enterprise*:
	Well, it's nice to see that someone else didn't like the movie, but odd-
ly enough, I don't agree with the reasons. As I said in my review, I was sorry
to see the old gal go, but I was *very* pleased with the way it was handled.
Kirk could not have surrendered the ship regardless of whether he was able to
erase the Genesis info or not. Letting the *Enterprise* fall into the hands of
the Klingons was probably more abhorrent to him than destroying it. An analogy
(not quite the same thing, but humor me): if you were a part of a group who was
being hunted by a band of Apaches, and you knew that if they captured you, you
would all be tortured to death slowly, wouldn't you prefer to die quickly by
having one of your party kill everyone else in the party once capture was deter-
mined to be inevitable, rather than be staked down on the ground and flayed
alive?
	I'm sure that all of the others had faith enough in Kirk to know that if
he felt that the only availble course was to destroy the ship, then that's what
had to be done. As much as Scotty loved the *Enterprise*, I think he knew that
Kirk loved her more. Sure, the decision was a hard one for Kirk, but I likened
it to his preventing McCoy from saving Edith Keeler in "The City on the Edge of
Forever". No matter how much it hurt, it *had* to be done.

Robin Curtis as Saavik:
	Sorry, she just didn't cut the mustard. Oddly enough, considering that
she played a [half-] Vulcan, I though she was too flat and unemotional. Back in
the series, I always thought Spock maintained an amused, condescending attitude
toward the human members of the crew, almost as if he thought of humans as chil-
dren. Kirstie Allie brought that same feeling to her role as Saavik, amused in
some manner at the humans' bursts of emotion, while at the same time not under-
standing them at all. However unemotional the characters were, Nimoy and Allie
put some *feeling* in their roles, in their actions, and in their speech. I
didn't get any of this with Curtis; she just had no feeling in her portrayal at
all.

				  --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC Maynard, MA)
81.21BABEL::BAZEMOREWed Jun 06 1984 16:2819
re .20  

*** SPOILER ***


I get the feeling that you think that every Vulcan that dies gets the
chance to get his "core dump" restored to his body.  This is not the
case.  

Spock was in the unique position of having his core dump available
(through Bones) and having a living body.   Most Vulcans have a
core dump and a dead body.  I don't know what the Vulcans normally do 
with the dumps, it seems reasonabe that they archive the former 
Vulcan's knowledge somehow.

I still wish they had come up with something a little more complex
for Spock's return.

				Barbara
81.22AKOV68::BOYAJIANThu Jun 07 1984 08:2525
re:.20

No, I didn't mind you're relaying it to the Notesfile. The trouble with being
involved in both Notes and the Usenet is that I really don't want send every-
thing to both, nor is it easy to say the same things in two different ways.
Oftentimes, the message is tailored for the particular destination.

re:.21

I got the impression, though, from what both Sarek and the High Priestess
said, that part of the ceremony was returning the katra to the dead body. If
the core dump was designed to archive the knowledge gained by the late person,
why did the Priestess say that it hadn't been done in so long that it was
almost legend. That's the problem with this whole thing --- there wasn't
enough explained about it (Sarek *could* have explained it in more detail to
Kirk without it seeming to be mere expository dialogue) and it seemed just
too damned convenient to the plot.
	From what I understand (I can't remember whether it was Usenet or
Notes that I got this information), but the core dump scene in ST II was
done after that film had had some previews, and viewers expressed upset at
the death of Spock. So Harve Bennett quickly added some scenes to give them
an out for ST III.

--- jerry

81.23RAVEN1::HOLLABAUGHThu Jun 07 1984 11:417
   I got the impression that restoring the core dump to a _living_body_ was
what had not been for so long as to be legend.  Maybe more will be explained in
STIV while he recovers.  Who knows?

tl
h
(arrggghhh!!! pinkie finger strikes again!)
81.24NACHO::CONLIFFEThu Jun 07 1984 18:374
Just a thought (which came up in discussion last night)....

What happened to the anti-matter in the nacelles of the Enterprise
when the craft burned up???
81.25NACHO::LYNCHThu Jun 07 1984 18:5211
Couple things:

Why did the "backup" take a matter of seconds, but the "restore" take
(seemingly) hours?

Wouldn't it be interesting if parts of McCoy's and Spock's personalities
remain mixed in each person now? Suddenly Bones is logical and Spock
flies off the handle at the drop of a hat...

-- Bill
81.26NACHO::LYNCHThu Jun 07 1984 18:557
Re .24: Someone on USENET pointed out that in the TV series, it was said
that the self-destruct mechanism on the Enterprise would wipe out a whole
"sector" along with the ship itself. The screenwriter conveniently ignored
the anti-matter...

-- Bill
81.27HARRY::ARVIDSONThu Jun 07 1984 20:2514
RE .26:

	    I believe that was an episode where Kirk send a message to
	Starfleet, so that the Klingons(Romulans) can hear, that if he,
	and ship is destroyed, it will blow away the sector...

	    I can only remember one episode in which they start the self-
	destruct mechanism, the one w/the half black and half white guy
	and the half white guy and the half black guy...respectively?

					 D
					C
					 A
81.28VAXWRK::MAXSONFri Jun 08 1984 01:0813
	The threat to self-destruct and wipe out the sector was a bluff to
	get rid of the attacking vessel, who presumably wouldn't want to be
	co-anihilated. I think the term used was the "Corbomite Device".

	I recall the episode well where the white-black / black-white guy(s)
	(Loki?) watch in horror as the Captain, Chief Engineer, and Science
	Officer all duly enter their voice prints and begin the destruction
	count-down. In my opinion, that scene was one of the best of the entire
	"Star Trek" series.

	(Reminds me of the plesant female voice of Wildfire calmly announcing
	 "Two minutes until fail-safe" in ANDROMEDA STRAIN.)
81.29Lyra::FOLEYFri Jun 08 1984 19:2926
re:.23

	That's what I got from it too Tracey.  Watch that pinkie!!

RE: The destruction of the Enterprise

	I think that they could have gone into a little more detail in the 
	WHOLE movie.  Not so much that you'd be lost, just a little more
	than they did.  I was disappointed that the computer didn't acknowledge
	their voice prints like it did in the series.  Oh well... Also the part
	about blowing up the whole sector.  Maybe they could have added a few 
	lines like 

	Scotty:  But Captain!  She'll blow tha sector ta' bits.

	Scratch the above line (I forgot reply/edit)


	Chekov:  Cepteen,  we'll teke the whole sect'r with us.

	Scotty:  Not with tha new engines, Lad.  

	Kirk:  Good...job....Scott...  Start...the...destruct...  ....


							mike
81.30AKOV68::BOYAJIANSun Jun 10 1984 09:5011
Well, there probably isn't a whole lot of anti-matter in the nacelles.
After all, a little anti-matter goes a long way... But still, though there
probably wouldn't be enough to destroy the whole sector (matter/anti-matter)
annihilation isn't *that* powerful), it'd certainly have taken out a good
part of the planet below, not to mention the Klingon ship. In fact, I had
originally thought that the self-destruct was intended to wipe out the
Klingon ship, though that would have left everyone on a self-destructing
planet with no other ship around (unless the *Excelsior* finally found its
way there).

--- jerry
81.31VAXWRK::MAXSONMon Jun 11 1984 08:5553
	I finally got around to seeing Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.
	While I'm not in particular a trekkie, I did like this movie a lot.
	I'd read all the responses to this note before going, including the
	spoilers, and I set myself up for something dismal. What I got was
	quite the opposite.

	The cast is aging, it's true - but I think their age is in character.
	Admirals aren't generally in their thirties. The special effects were
	realistic, without being obnoxious (ie: Alien). The point of the Star
	Trek series, I believe, is the interpersonal relationships - the
	hi-tech is merely a backdrop for a more encompassing story. STIII had
	a fine story that relied on plot development as opposed to gizmos and
	widgets. (This was a liability in STI).

	*** SPOILER ***





	Yes, thank God they killed off David. He was a creep. I actually like
	the new Saavik better than the old - I could find nothing Vulcan in
	the temper tantrums and impetuousity of the first edition Saavik.
	It was nice to see Uhura on the right end of a phaser, but I think it
	was gratuitously added to her character - it clashed with previous
	Uhuras. Special effects: I thought the demise of the Genesis planet
	was amazingly well done - especially the upthrust rocks, crevices, and
	lava - particularly when the Klingon holding the weapon was hurled into
	the air by the sudden monolith. Nice sequence throughout.

	The writer(s) were great - I was unable to anticipate the turns of
	the plot, even having read the spoilers. The business of inviting the
	Klingons aboard a ship that was self-destructing, and beaming out
	just before their arrival was a ploy worthy of Kirk. The destruction
	of the Enterprise hardware was a necessary sacrifice, and I was glad
	the players didn't seem overly attached to simple iron. On the other
	hand, were I Kirk, I would have stolen the other ship (Excelsior?).

	I think now (after the third ST movie) the series has made a successful
	transition to film - and I hope to see at least fifteen more before I
	die. I'm glad "the Adventure Continues..."

	[ other ramblings: Didn't notice that the Klingon cmdr was Rev. Jim
	  except for one intonation of a line - thought he did a great job.
	  Liked Dame Judith Anderson, but would have preferred to see D'Pow
	  again (from "Amok Time")... she was the definitive Vulcan matriarch.
	  Noticed Nurse Chappel now that you mentioned it, but what did she
	  contribute? Chekov might as well have stayed home, he did so little.
	  Sulu was hot stuff. ]

			Sorry for length, but I liked this one...

							Max
81.32CYGNUS::MJOHNSONMon Jun 11 1984 17:4921
****SPOILER****
I was glad when they blew up the Enterprise. This was the third attempt that
I can recall.  There was the destruct sequence in the episode with Loki (as
mentioned in previous responses).  There was also the time when the Enterprise
was wired to explode in the energy barrier at the edge of the galaxy when the
Enterprise was commandeered by aliens (sorry I can't remember their name, but
they were the ones who changed the crew into a bunch of white crystal except
for Kirk, Spock, Scotty and McCoy).

When watching the series, I knew when they planned to explode the Enterprise
they would never do it.  I was glad the STIII was able to break away from
this, but I wish they hadn't spilled the beans in advertising the movie.

It was also nice to see the quips and jokes between the crew members that has
been missing from the last two ST movies, but were part of the series.

I felt the ending was a bit anti-climatic. We all knew Spock would be back
(why else call it "In search for Spock"?), I somehow expected a little more.

Anyone taking bets if Kirk and company will be reprimanded for stealing the
Enterprise in STIV?  Maybe the incident will disappear like Carol Marcus.
81.33HARRY::ARVIDSONWed Jun 13 1984 16:038
	    heard on the news today that "SAVE THE ENTERPRISE" buttons
	and bumper stickers are appearing.  Did the Enterprise blow-up
	or bounce off the Genesis atmosphere?

					 D
					C
					 A
81.34NACHO::CONLIFFEWed Jun 13 1984 17:3613
***** Coming in 1886 from Paramount Pictures *****

	Harrison Ford's Production of

		STAR TREK IV - The Search for the Enterprise

	Starring
		John Travolta as James T Kirk
		Kirstie Allie as Spock
		Buddy Ebsen as Doctor McCoy
		Orson Welles as the Genesis Planet

Stay tuned for more details
81.35CYGNUS::MJOHNSONWed Jun 13 1984 18:015
They are already shooting Star trek 4.  Shooting started in April. It was
thought to be cheaper to start the picture now while the sets were still
available than tear down the sets and rebuild them at a later date.

I wonder how good the script is?
81.36R2ME2::EPPESWed Jun 13 1984 18:2810
Unlike a number of people, I liked ST III the best out of the three.  Maybe
I'm too sentimental.  Anyway, previous replies brought up some questions.

RE .14 -- I missed this myself, but a friend informed me that the waitress
	  who served McCoy in the bar is the woman who played Yeoman Rand.
RE .18 -- I, too, wondered what happened to Carol Marcus...
RE .19 -- I thought the woman who played the Vulcan High Priestess (Dame 
	  Judith Anderson) was the same one who played T'Pau (correct spelling,	          I think) on whatever Star Trek episode that was.  Is that wrong?

						-- Nina
81.37VAXWRK::MAXSONWed Jun 13 1984 20:584
	If it was, she's changed a lot. The original T'Pau (I don't think
	there's an official spelling) was able to do a great Vulcan accent,
	while DJA sounded like she was from New Jersey...
81.38AKOV68::BOYAJIANThu Jun 14 1984 06:0112
re:.36  Wrong on two counts, sorry to say.

Grace Lee Whitney [Janice Rand] was the redhead in the cafeteria who shook
her head as she saw the condition of the *Enterprise* while it was pulling
into dock.

T'Pau (yes, correct spelling) was played in "Amok Time" by Celia Lovsky.
Many people seem to think that the character played by Dame Judith Anderson
in the film was T'Pau, but it wasn't. I don't off-hand recall what the name
was (it was something like T'Lan, but I'm not sure), but it's in the credits.

--- jerry
81.39Lyra::FOLEYThu Jun 14 1984 20:349
Re: .36

	Ed,

		How do you know that the Vulcan accent is not just 
		a variation on the New Jersey accent.  Remember all
		those chemical plants.....:-)

						mike
81.40VAXWRK::MAXSONFri Jun 15 1984 03:338
	Uh, Mike - I hate to break it to you, but note 36 was from Nina
	- why do you call her Ed? (It's a good name, don't get me wrong...)
	I made the reference to New Jersey - but my name's not Ed either.

						Mark
						(or Max, If you prefer)
						(but not ED!)
81.41Lyra::FOLEYFri Jun 15 1984 13:3710
re:  .40

	Profuse apologies Mark (or Max, or ...). I mistyped 36 when I ment 37
	and I thought I read somewhere that your name was Ed.  Maybe it was in
	another life... I'm crawling back to my office now.  


						***<blush,blush>***

						mike
81.42RAVEN1::HOLLABAUGHFri Jun 15 1984 15:083
   Going to regroup brain cells again, Mike??

tlh
81.43NACHO::LYNCHFri Jun 15 1984 16:075
Silly question: Do Klingons come from the planet Klingon? What about
Romulans (Romula?)? Or do these "empires" have no "home" planet?

-- Bill
81.44RAVEN1::HOLLABAUGHFri Jun 15 1984 18:484
   Read "The Final Relection" by JM Ford.  It will tell you all you want
to know about Kilngons.  a Great book.  (BTW  Klingons speak klingonaase)

tlh
81.45BESSIE::WOODBURYFri Jun 15 1984 19:1328

The fact that the Enterprise did not take the Klingon, and the planet with it 
may have been due to the fact that she did not have a full load of anti-mater 
aboard.  This could be accounted for in either of two ways.

1)	The fuel load was reduced for the training cruse.
2)	The decommisioning had already started and one of the first steps was 
	to off-load extra fuel.

I think that at least one factor in Kirks mind when he started the destruct 
sequence was the fact that the old girl would go out in a blaze of glory 
rather than being picked to death in the decommisioning dock.  The same 
certainly goes for Scotty!

The fact that the Enterprise had just come out of a major overhaul does not 
mesh very well with the Federations decision to scrap her.  That particular 
piece of illogic bothered me more than what's-her-name's disapearance.

Maybe they will bust Kirk back to captain or something and give him another 
ship.

The normal Vulcan ritual may have been something akin to the reading of the 
last-will-and-testement where the "core-dump" was allowed to speak to the 
final disposition of the body, property and so on.  At any rate, the Dump 
would have been something quite common and easily done to be done in extreamus.
The reload process was oviously very rarely used and difficult.

So much for logic.
81.46NACHO::LYNCHFri Jun 15 1984 20:036
Aw, come on, tlh...You know how slow I read...Answer the questions and
I promise to read the book later (really!).

-- Bil
l :-)
81.47AKOV68::BOYAJIANSat Jun 16 1984 04:2713
re:.45

(1) It doesn't take any awfully lot of anti-matter to take out
the planet. M/A-M annihilation releases *quite* a bit of energy.

(2) Yes, it does seem at first that decommisioning *Enterprise*
when she had an overhaul not too long ago. On the other hand,
despite what Scotty said, maybe Star Fleet thought that refitting
her *again* was not cost-effective, especially when they have
what they consider to be a superior class of vessel.

---jerry

81.48VAXWRK::MAXSONMon Jun 18 1984 03:5627
	No sweat, Mike, I've been called worse things than Ed.

	I think perhaps one of the reasons that Spock was able to be restored
	is that he had achieved a level of Vulcan art unreachable to the
	Vulcan masses. In ST I, when he boards the Enterprise somewhere in
	deep space, he has been alone, meditating, and he wears a priests
	robes. In my mind, he's the equivalent of a Bene Gessirit in "Dune" -
	or Kwai Chang Caine in "Kung Fu" - something special achieved through
	dedication, study and self-denial. Note that all three groups
	[Bene G's, Vulcans, and Xiao Lins] have mystical properties - but I
	forget the name used in ST I for Spock's level of attainment.

	However, one interesting disparity in the plot as presented - Spock
	does his core dump to McCoy before entering the reaction chamber,
	but after being restored, he quotes himself ["I have always been..."]
	from his death speech, which occurred after the core dump, and should
	thus be inaccessable to him. You could make the point that his father
	saw film of this event, and McCoy saw the original - but the point of
	the "core dump" was to maintain the gestalt identity of the individual,
	and not the mixed memories of the bearer - or is Spock both Spock and
	McCoy now, in one head?

	I don't think script writers put half as much effort into such debates
	as we do - they scrawl down whatever's poetic at the time. I think for
	the masses this produces a better film. For us detail-hounds, it can be
	a headache, however...
81.49R2ME2::EPPESMon Jun 18 1984 05:133
RE: .38 -- C'est la vie.

						-- Nina
81.50CYGNUS::MJOHNSONMon Jun 18 1984 16:0815
About the question of the decommission of the Enterprise after it recently
had an overhaul, don't you remember it was heavily damaged in ST2? It is
possible that the cost of repair is (was?) close to the cost of a new ship.
If you think that's implausable, try building a car out of spare parts and
compare the cost to a new car off the assembly line.  If the costs were
close, why not build a new ship fitted with the state of the art technology?

re:.48
I too was curious on how Spock could make his "famous" quote since he first
made the quote after the "core-dump" was performed.  Perhaps it is a 
combination of the mental set he had at the time of the "core-dump" and the
access to Doc's memories.  However, that's stretching it a bit.

Have any of you seen the latest issue of TV Guide?  There's a full page ad
for ST3 belt buckles, T-shirts, and medallions.   DISGUSTING!
81.51HUMAN::BURROWSTue Jun 19 1984 00:593
I was under the impression that 5 years passed between STs I and II, and
thus the overhaul isn't so recent. However, I can't recall what made me
think there was a 5 year gap.
81.52ORAC::BUTENHOFFri Jun 22 1984 06:3810
re .48 and .50, Spock's quoting his death speech after resurrection:  Having
seen STII again recently (after seeing STII and wondering about that same
point), I noticed that the death speech ("The needs of the many outweigh
the needs of the few, or the one: I have been and always will be, your
friend") was actually a repeat from a conversation Spock and Kirk had 'way
back at the beginning of the movie.  Therefore, at the end of STII, Spock
was merely recalling this earlier speech -- exactly as he had during the
death scene.  No problem there!

	/dave
81.53ORAC::BUTENHOFFri Jun 22 1984 06:384
Arrgh -- the second "STII" in the previous mail should, of course, be an
"STIII."  Guess my fingers cheated on an "I."  Sorry if it confused anyone!

	/dave
81.54ORAC::BUTENHOFFri Jun 22 1984 06:394
Of course, it was also a NOTE, not a MAIL.  That's what I get for trying to
communicate at 2:00 in the morning.

	/dave
81.55ASGMKA::GLEASONFri Jun 22 1984 14:004
Also note, however, that one of the memories Spock recalls at the end of
STIII was "Out of danger?", which he said well after "Remember" in STII...

				*** Daryl ***
81.56ORAC::BUTENHOFSun Jun 24 1984 12:585
I suspect that he was merely asking, not remembering that he had said
"Out of danger?" -- considering that he DIDN'T remember, and was probably
in some confusion.

	/dave
81.57VIKING::MCCARTHY_1Mon Jun 25 1984 11:505
I agree with .56, the impression I got was that he didn't remember that
he had saved the ship, and was asking Kirk.  Unfortunately, they did not
take advantage of a perfect oppurtunity by having Kirk figure that point
out for himself, thereby saving the audience the trouble of doing it.  I
think it could have been done easily enough given the circumstances.
81.58ASGMKA::GLEASONThu Jun 28 1984 14:063
Good point.  I hadn't thought of it that way, but it does make sense.

				*** Daryl ***
81.59EXODUS::LARUEWed Jul 25 1984 03:418
The Klingon homeworld is named Klinzhai.

For the name of the Romulan homeworlds, read  "My Enemy, My Ally".
The Federation calls the Romulan homeworlds: Romulus and Remus.


				Jeff
81.60VIKING::MCCARTHYWed Aug 01 1984 12:1870
I just received my latest copy of Fantasy and Science Fiction, and Harlan
Ellison has done a movie review of Star Trek III:  The Search for Spock.
I thought I would include it here just for S and G's.

	Both the most and the least a responsible film critic can say is
that the third Star Trek movie is out, and Trek fans will love it.  Like
a high mass in Latin or the asking of the four questions at a Passover
seder, films continuing the television adventures of the familiar crew of
the starship Enterprise are formalized ritual.  Without all that has gone
before -- the original NBC series (1966-69), a Saturday morning animated
version (1973-75), endless novelizations, a cult following that has spawned
its own mini-fandom replete with gossipzines, newszines, and even a flour-
ishing underground of soft-core Kirk-shtups-Spock pornzines -- these films
would be non-events.  (tho
                      (Though I am told that results of a studio-fostered
research sample gathered from an audience last March 17th imparted the
confusing statistic that 44% of those queried were "unfamiliar with Star
Trek."  I cannot explain this intelligence.)

	But it is all True Writ now, and these movies need not be judged
as if they were Film, or Story, or even Art.  What it is, bro, is a
growth industry.

	STAR TREK III:  THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK (Paramount) seems less in-
teresting that ST II:  The Wrath of Khan (1982) but infinitely better
than the first feature-length adventure of them as bodly went where no
man has gone before, Star Trek -- The Motion Picture (1979).  I'm not
sure that's saying much, except to point out that producer-writer Harve
Bennet has had the sense to keep creator Gene Roddenberry in a figure-
head mode, thus permitting a savvy commercial recycling of time-tested
and much-beloved tropes; and by allowing Leonard Nimoy to direct this
film, Bennet has kept Spock in the fold:  a canny solution by a minister
without portfolio of the thorny problem posed by an indespensable star
who wanted out.

	And with but minor flaws easily credited to, and excused by,
this being Nimoy's first major stint behind the camera, he has done a
commendable yeoman job.  There is, for instance, a pleasing easiness in
the performances by the "regulars"; a result (I am told by several of the
actors) of Nimoy's sensitivity in directing them as *actors* and not, as
in past films directred by Wise and Meyer, as mere button-pushing back-
ground, as foils for the "stars" and the SFX whizbang.

	There are a few interesting new moments this time:  Christopher
Lloyd's Klingon villian (strongest in the earlier stages of his appearence
onscreen, before he converts from the guttural alien tongue to English);
a 6-track Dolby stereo sound system designed to blast you our the Cine-
plex box whereat you'll be screening the film; a nice sense of alien
landscape on the Genesis Planet, especially the scenes of snow falling
on giant cactus; the Klingon "Bird of Prey" battle cruiser.

	Contrariwise, there are the usual problems:  no one, not even
Nimoy-as-Director, seems able to tone down William Shatner's need to
mouth embarrasing and spuriously portentous platitudes as if he were
readying himself to play the title role in the life story of Charlton
Heston; the fine cast of "regulars" is once again denied extended scenes
in which their talents can be displayed, in lieu of Shatner's scene-
hogging and the expected flaunting of expensive special effects; Robin
Curtis, replacing Kirstie Alley as the Vulcan Lt. Saavik, is as memorable
as spaetzle; and the plot makes virtually no sense if examined closely.

	But neither the positives nor the negatives of such effete
critiques matter as much as a dollop of owl sweat.  Star Trek has become,
obviously, a biennial booster shot for Trekkies, Trekkers, Trekists, and
fellow-trekelers.  And as such, places itself as far beyond relevant
analysis as, say, James Bond or Muppets movies.

	The most and the least a responsible film critic can say is that
the third Star Trek movie is out, and Trek fans will love it.  For the
rest of us, it's better than a poke in the eye with a flaming stick.
81.61no introduction is necessaryDEMING::HLQARFri Dec 30 1988 05:5616
    
    Remember that when you are talking about 'core dumps' that Spock
    is sentient.  He is, and he knows that he is.  He dumps his entire
    personality (??) into Dr. McCoy.  Why wouldn't he be able to discuss
    the needs of the many, if this statement was a result of his own
    personal beliefs?  Also, I agree with whoever said that his remembrance
    of the "ship ... out of danger" line was in response to his awareness
    of the problem (recorded in the 'core dump') without recollection
    of his actions after the 'dump'.  I know this is several years later,
    but I still cry when I see the Enterprise blazing through the sky...
    A fitting end to a legendary craft.  Refits notwithstanding, it's
    still the Enterprise, going where many have gone before ...
    
    					in a moment of silence ...
    					Speedo\