I agree – not my fave film, but I did not dislike it as much as you. On the whole, the film is a 6 out of 10 for me, but when you take moments from the film – they score big, especially the effects.

Like someone mentioned, it’s a great film to watch with a remote in hand, but I’ll never sit and watch the whole film ever again I’m afraid.

And yes, I realize my comments are primarily about the story and direction the franchise took, rather than the quality of the “film-making” of STIII. I actually agree with much of the excellent review. I just hated the story, and could not get past that to enjoy the film.

For me, STIII was the film that showed we weren’t going to be going forward in the Star Trek universe, but trying to maintain a very unrealistic status quo. One of the things TMP got right was that things change in the “military” and in life. People don’t keep the same jobs forever and life is fluid. So Spock was on Vulcan, McCoy was retired, Kirk was promoted. Yes, there was a reason to bring them all back that made sense (V’ger) and by the end you had a credible reunion.

TWOK takes place many years later (Kirk’s age was mentioned as 52 I think, while he would have been perhaps 38 0r 40 in TMP). Again, a feasible number of changes have occured, such as Checkov’s new assignment, Spock’s promotion, Kirk at the Academy, etc. Once again, a credible reuinion takes place. Then we are introduced to progress. Kirk has a son. Spock dies. At the end of TWOK I actually was hoping for David Kirk to start being ship’s doctor, with Saavik as Science Officer in the next installment, to make the previous films meaningful and reflect reality a bit.

But no. David is disposed of in a very depressing manner (yes Shatner was great, which made me all the more depressed). Saavik is pushed to the background so Nimoy could return. And then Kirk, for my money, is shown to be far less competent than he has ever been before by losing the Enterprise under circumstances far less drastic than many previous adventures.

I left the theatre shaking my head. David was dead and Kirk did not feel the sacrifice of his only child to have been too great to reanimate a man who had already lived a full, good life. Saavik was reduced to bit part. The “new blood” introduced in TWOK was being eliminated in favor of the status quo, except for the one thing that SHOULD hasve remained, the Enterprise herself.

I hated it. Let the flames commnce.

I have always reminded people that original Trek was “pulp” which is far more vital and exciting than other Treks and obviously WHY it has lasted for 40 years. Calling it “looney brilliance” however is brilliant in itself in summoning up the magic of TOS so simply and effectively.

Well done.

I know I’m coming in here late to the conversation, but please bear with me. After reading the review and the comments, I went back and watched the DVD with the audio commentary from Leonard Nimoy, Harve Bennett, and Robin Curtis.

If you haven’t watched it with the commentary, I dare say you should go back and do so. Leonard Nimoy talked specifically about the whole “Chris Lloyd miscast” issue. He noted that while he admired his work on “Taxi”, it was his performance as one of the inmates in “One Flew Over the Cukoo’s Next” that won him over. Lloyd auditioned for the role, and Nimoy went to bat for him. As he put it (while chuckling over the irony), Nimoy went to the brass saying, “Don’t talk to *me* about being typecast…” This was a case of a director seeing something in an actor that others hadn’t quite seen and were just waiting for a chance to express.

It is somewhat unfair that this happens to actors, probably more often than we care to admit. After all, how many people had Robin Williams pegged as solely a comedian prior to his performances in movies like “Dead Poets Society”, “Awakenings”, “Good Will Hunting”, “Insomnia”, and “One Hour Photo”? Or Robert DeNiro pegged solely as a drama-only actor prior to “Analyze This”?

The point is this: Good actors bring the goods, regardless of prior performances and characterizations. To my (then) 9-year old self, Christopher Lloyd *was* a nasty, ruthless Klingon. When he shot the gunner who destroyed Grissom, I remember being frightened and thrilled at the same time. People love a great bad guy, and Kruge fit the bill to a T.

Yes I wonder if the new BATMAN film series can maintain an edge or something like it for at least another 2 or 3 films. SPIDERMAN 3 looks okay with the trailers. Maybe there is a curse that some films series can not make it past 3. The LORD OF THE RINGS series was based on a series of books so it survived it somewhat. Although funny enough I felt there were a few scenes lacking in that 3rd film, even though I liked it in the end result. Of course there are some many film series that I have not mentioned and I believe some do survive beyond three films okay.

You just have to wonder though what happens to the ones that start out so strong and end up so bad in just a few films.

I have read somewhere there is a possible Star Trek film series Ulitmate Edition box set for one of the HD formats.