I Might Pass on Trek III, How Bout You? (1 Viewer)

[Daniel J]

I've always liked STIII, but on a different level from the even-numbered films.

2 is well written, well acted and well produced, with everything harmonizing to make an excellent movie.

4 is funny. Plain and simple, this is the "break up the tension" episode, and it's done superbly. Everything falls into place, and it fits nicely into the middle of my favorites.

6 is just awesome on every level:
The sub-plots would stand on their own in a non-Trek movie; the comedy is just enough ([chekov]"In Russia, we tell epic tale of Cinderella: If boot fits, wear it!"[/chekov]);
the acting is beautiful (especially Christopher Plummer);
and the battle at the end beats the battle of Mutara, IMHO, in terms of suspense and style (to be.. or not.. to be..);
Which brings us to all the references and homages, from Bridge on the River Kwai to Shakespeare, this movie has all the angles covered!

I like TMP and ST:III as well, but they simply can't compete in terms of acting, writing, or execution. TMP is a good movie in and of itself, it just doensn't fit with the others. The same could be said of III, but in a different way; everything in ST:III seemed underwhelming or overcooked, except for the performance of Deforest Kelley and the explosion.

The NG movies are all sucky, IMHO, with First Contact being watchable only because of the action.

Insurrection get ++9 for the "British Tar" bit(yes, it did inspire me to go listen to some classic G&S musicals; sadly, they don't intrest me even as much as Wagner's operas), but ---infinity for the "perky boobs" joke.

I've rambled on too long. To summarize:
Yes, I'll probably buy a Star Trek III: the Search for Spock SE, but not for the same reasons I'll buy 2, 4 and 6.

 

[Geoff_D]

Rex, I didn't say the witless touchy-feely stuff was closer to Roddenberry's original Trek vision but rather the morality angle of Insurrection's story itself.
Roddenberry saw Trek as an opportunity to address, on national tv, questions of morality, ethics and race - and he knew that the sci-fi setting would allow him much more leeway when exploring these areas. And I'm not saying he broke down tv boundaries every week, but it was always an underlying facet of Roddenberry's work. I don't claim to know how an alien nicking Spock's brain applies to these edicts, but I hope you get my point.

 

[DeathStar1]

>>I would actually like to challenge Paramount to come up with some extras for the Star Trek V SE DVD that actually make it worth buying. >>

Personally, I wish they'd let Shatner go back and re-work it to what he originally wanted special effects wise, like they let Robert Wise do. For instance, remember that weirdly Cheezy setup shot of the Enterprise? It really did look like a model with a 'proton torpedo' light coming out of it, as they fired on Kirks position down on the planet....

 

[John_Berger]

Personally, I wish they'd let Shatner go back and re-work it to what he originally wanted special effects wise, like they let Robert Wise do.

I second the motion.
The motion has been moved and seconded. [bang] The chair will now entertain debate.

 

[Steven_J_H]

Also CGI has leaped a great deal since 5. Shatner's rubber rock monster could be done as a graphic. The movie wasn't the best Trek but I've seen many more worse movies. And yes, I will be buying everything Trek on dvd, including 3 and 5.

 

[Paul McElligott]

Personally, I wish they'd let Shatner go back and re-work it to what he originally wanted special effects wise, like they let Robert Wise do.

I like to see it too, but Robert Wise is Robert Wise and William Shatner is just William Shatner. On the director's foodchain, I don't think Bill has the same clout as Bob.

 

[Steven_J_H]

But if they allow the "fix" in fx to happen, then the SE of 5 makes the movie a reason to look at again on dvd. I would think that may be a good reason for Paramount to consider. Sorry about being off subject.

 

[Todd K]

It is Star Trek, for crying out loud. For one thing I am disturbed that they cut the film's budget in the first place, since ST is one of the most successful franchises ever.

And for the DVD, how could they not approve something would increase the sales of something that would sell poorly anyways? I guess they would probably cite the cost/benefit thing. Still, I would probably find myself renting V rather than buying, because there's only so much they can do unless they cut out every cheesy joke, and every reference to Sybok being Spock's brother.

Heck, I am even considering getting rid of my Motion Picture DVD, since I hardly watch it. I just bought it because the promise of a new cut and the novelty of a Special Edition Trek seemed cool. I will buy 2,3,4 and 6 though.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Todd K wrote:

But you shouldn't be at all surprised. Ever since the "run-away" budget of TMP Paramount officials have been determined to rein in the budgets of the big-screen episodes of their "franchise". That's one reason why all the sequels have been produced by the tv division, and not the motion-picture division. These films don't---and never will---garner Star Wars-type grosses, so their budgets will always be kept on a leash.

 

[Vic_T]

For me, ST 2 and ST 3 make for a good double feature. The death of Spock with the introduction of the Genesis device (life from lifelessness) was too convenient a plot device for ST 3 not to have been planned from the very beginning. It could have been pulled off better and I'm sick and tired of the Enterprise being destroyed all the time, but it does make for a good tie up of ST 2.

 

[Josh Simpson]

Hey Todd, if you're interested in getting rid of the first one, I might buy it if the price is right.

 

[Calvin Watts III]

I didn't buy ST III the 1st time..so I'll buy this one.
Just to hear "don't call me Tiny..."

 

[DeVario]

"Don't call me Tiny."
I'll be buying this one along with the remaining Trek SE's.