mjl (01/25/83)
[Forgive me if this is a repeat -- having trouble with pnews]
A small article in the Boston Globe last week stated that Leonard
Nimoy was to be the director for Star Trek III, and that the
movie would be filmed around March 1984 and released a few months
later, probably Christmas of that year. Has anyone else heard
anything about this?
---------------------------------------
Matt Landau
(...decvax!genradbolton!wjh12!mjl)
(...decvax!wivax!linus!wjh12!mjl)
(...mhuxi!wjh12!mjl)charles (01/27/83)
Here I sit, almost on top of Mt. St. Helens, monitoring earthquakes, et al,
reading about Star Trek III through the network. During a routine call
from KIRO news in Seattle, the man asked if I had heard that STIII was
going to film at Mt. St. Helens. It seems that he interviewed Gene
Rodenberry two weeks ago, and Mr. Rodenberry gave him that information.
It's a shame that we public watchers are the last to know. Does anyone
have any information on this? Charles out.
Charles Camisa
Geophysics Lab
University of WashingtonJaffe@RUTGERS.ARPA (03/19/84)
From: Saul <Jaffe@RUTGERS.ARPA> Folks, I have just returned from a weekend at Lunacon the New York/New Jersey regional event and there I witnessed an amazing slide show presented by Howard Weinstein (author of The Covenant of the Crown) on Star trek III: The Search for Spock. That is now the final title of the film and it looks like it will be a winner! Howard was not releasing lots of info about the film but he did say enough to get the following summary: The film starts with the Enterprise limping home after the battle with Khan. The ship enters a starbase in Earth orbit that dwarfs the ship and Kirk is relieved of command. Apparently the federation is upset with Kirk over the episode since the Romulans and Klingons view the Genesis bomb as a weapon. All I know about the rest of the plot is that Sarek (played by Mark Lenard) comes to visit Kirk, McCoy goes on a drinking binge, upset because he didn't talk Spock out of committing suicide, and Kirk watches computer tapes of McCoy and Spock in Engineering and himself and Spock in the famous death scene. He then SOMEHOW gets back the Enterprise (Howard wouldn't say how but the implication of the slides and his wording is that Kirk and his crew STEAL the ship back. We'll have to wait till June 1 to find out for sure) and goes off in search for Spock. James B. Sikking (of Hill Street Blues fame) plays the commander of the Excelsior the next generation ship after the Enterprise and it is equipped with something called Trans-warp drive and Christpher Lloyd (of Taxi fame) plays a klingon commander. I have no idea how they affect the story but I can't wait to find out! I wish today were June 1 !!!! Saul -------
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/11/84)
First, I loved this movie. It *felt* like an episode. It *felt* like I was watching a new episode of the ST series and not a movie based on that series, and for me, that was good. Now on with the pixie hats, and the asking of silly questions and the making of silly comments: 1. I was kind of disappointed that T'Pao didn't call Spock "Tspoke" the way she did in "Amok Time". The Vulcan Vestal Virgins were definitely what I would call visually disjunctive. 2. Will the Enterprise be regenerated by the Genesis effect? Since protomatter was used in Genesis, isn't the following scenario possible? David and Kruge are regenerated, but due to a time warp caused by the protomatter they go back in time to a Los Angeles high school and the streets of New York City. David becomes a nerdy/neo-punk student, and Kruge, due to brain damage from the regeneration, becomes a derelict who later becomes a cab driver (on Square Pegs and Taxi, respectively). Don't you remember Reverend Jim saying "I used to command a spaceship" from time to time... 3. Was it EXACTLY the same destruct sequence used in "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"????? 4. WHAT ABOUT THE ORGANIAN SPACE TREATY??? Didn't that "treaty", imposed by the Organians, mean that ANY violence between the Klingons and the Federation would cause the same interference by the Organians as in the original episode, or am I misinterpreting the essence of the treaty? 5. Was the opening inset scene (shown in black and white) with Spock dying in the chamber talking to Kirk *re-shot*? His \\// hand didn't slide down the glass as I remember it? 6. To add a few of my favorite quotes to Roger's: "That's what happens when you miss staff meetings." "Because the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many." That last one really got to me. In a way, as long as we're busy drawing analogies to the SW trilogy, "the needs of ..." quotes from both movies are slightly analogous to the trading of "I love you"--"I know"s in TESB/ROTJ. 7. In "Menagerie", when Spock showed the footage of the Enterprise under Pike, the "film" was stopped with someone exclaiming "No starship keeps (kept?) such records!" Do they do so "now" (in ST3 time)? (Apparently) I'm referring to Kirk's playback of the scene from ST2 in engineering. -- AT THE TONE PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NET ADDRESS. THANK YOU. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
gam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) (06/13/84)
# I took it as: "The needs of the One outweigh the needs of the many." ... but I'm a pretty mystical guy. I agree with Rich, this was a fine TV episode that happens to be a feature length film. That's all I ever expect, and I'm never disappointed. (Well, the first one WAS boring). And yes, there were lots of inconsistencies and illogical things and historical inaccuracies. Who cares?
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (06/13/84)
In article <736@pyuxn.UUCP> rlr@pyuxn.UUCP writes: >1. I was kind of disappointed that T'Pao didn't call Spock "Tspoke" the way she > did in "Amok Time". -------------------- That's because it wasn't T'Pau. The name of the priestess in STIII was T'Lon. -- Barry Margolin ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar
rjnoe@ihlts.UUCP (Roger Noe) (06/28/84)
> From: Anne Marie Quint [/amqueue] <quint@RU-BLUE.ARPA> > The flight recorder that was tampered with was a shuttle flight recorder > in the episode "Courtmartial". I dont remember any tampering with the > recorders of the Enterprise itself. Shuttle flight recorder? No, it was the bridge recorder of the Enterprise. > I think the major weakness of the movie was all the bits of the plot/story > that were elft on the cutting room floor. I can see the gaping holes designed > to make you buy the book so you can know what is *really* going on. Many of these scenes which would have helped ST3 were never shot in the first place. I hardly think the gaping holes were designed to get people to buy the book. Most people don't see these holes until they have read the book (Trek fans excluded, of course). > it is very questionable why Saavik would have taken a relative downgrade from > Command Captain Trainee to Scientific Researcher. She was a cadet in ST2, science officer of Grissom in ST3. Not what I would call a demotion. > The Vulcan Temple Maidens were for more than show...didn't anyone else > notice that thye seemed to be lending power to T'Whatsername as she was > re-recording Spock into his own head? They were doing the same thing that Saavik, Sarek and other Vulcans were doing: they were telepathic spectators. The women still LOOKED SILLY. -- "The more they overthink the plumbin', the easier 'tis to stop up the drain." Roger Noe ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe
BALZAC%YKTVMZ.BITNET%Berkeley@sri-unix.UUCP (07/09/84)
From: Stephen R. Balzac <BALZAC%YKTVMZ.BITNET@Berkeley>
Here's the result of a Star Trek debate that went on out here where I am
between some people not all on the net:
Let's talk about Enterprise. We know many of her particulars, many
others we can guess at. One of the nice things about all three ST movies
is that, at the very least, the producers et. al. seem to do their
homework; they attempt to be consistent with the already existent ST world
(make that universe). But a bad mistake surfaced in STIII: Enterprise
is not "twenty years old." Witness: we know, from the animated episode
"The Counter-Clock Incident," that the first captain of Enterprise was
Robert April. Although we are not told for how long he commanded the ship,
it is probably safe to assume somewhere between one and five years. But,
to be absolutely safe, let us also include the possibility that April was
aboard an even shorter time. We know, from the animated episode "Time
Trap," that Enterprise was the first Constellation-size vessel to
incorporate the warp drive. So let us say that April commanded Enterprise
merely for that mission--test of the warp drive in Constellation-size
ships. Still, he would be aboard for a week, at the least.
Now, we know another--probably the second--captain of Enterprise:
Christopher Pike. In the episode "The Menagerie," Spock notes, while
watching the tapes (transmissions) that the events are from "thirteen
years ago." Since we see a bond between Kirk and Spock, it is evident
that they have both been aboard Enterprise for at least a short time.
But, again to be safe and give a minimum estimate, let's say that Spock's
commandeering of Enterprise took place at the very end of Kirk's
five-year command, and that Enterprise's first visit to Talos IV took place
at the very beginning of Pike's command. That means that there was a span
of at least eight years between Pike's first day oboard Enterprise and
Kirk's first day.
Then, of course, we know that Kirk commanded Enterprise for five years.
Then, from STTMP, we know that Enterprise was in dry dock, being refitted,
for at least two-and-a-half years. And from STII, we know (since Kirk
says he hasn's seen Khan in fifteen years) that at least seven-and-a-half
years have taken place between STTMP and STII. And, of course, there
was no time lag to speak of between STII and STIII. So, let's add up our
time:
Minimum Maximum
April: 1 week 5 years (let's assume)
Pike+: 8 years 13 years
Kirk: 5 years 5 years
STTMP: 2.5 years 2.5 years
STII: 7.5 years 8.5 years
--------- ---------
23 years 1 week/ 34 years
So, it would appear that Enterprise is at least twenty-three years
old. In that case, it is understandable for somebody to say she is
twenty years old. More than likely, though, she is twenty-eight to
thirty-four years old. I don't know; I would like some clarification
in STIV about this point.
What do you know about naval procedure? Could you tell me a little
bit (if you know) about decommissioning vessels, and the renaming
procdeure for destroyed vessels? Also, are courts-martial strictly
internal to the service? That is (assuming that Starfleet follows naval
procedure, for the most part), would Kirk and co. be tried by the
Federation government--hijacking, trespassing, destruction of government
propery, etc.--or would the matter be strictly in Starfleet's hands?
And could a court-martial result in Kirk staying in the service, with, as
you suggested, merely a demotion in rank?
First of all, the animated episodes are notoriously inaccurate. I wouldn't
consider anything they say to be very important. Further, I don't see what
the exact age of the Enterprise has to do with anything. If its more than
20 years old, then that's all the more reason for decommissioning it. I don't
really consider this a very serious point.
As for Naval customs, etc: Generally, the navy names a new vessel of a
given class after one of that class that's been destroyed (or something).
Witness how many aircraft carriers have been named Enterprise (that's the
most famous example--there's been at least half a dozen). Since StarFleet
seems patterned much after Earth 20th Century naval customs, they will
probably do something similiar.
Court-martials: If StarFleet follows typical military procedure, then the
courtmartial is an internal affair, which the civilian courts will never
have anything to do with. Normally, I suppose Kirk would be thrown out of
the service, at best, but for the following points:
1. If he hadn't stolen Enterprise, the Klingons would have gotten Genesis out
of David. No way he could withstand Klingon "interrogation" for long.
Although Genesis was a failure at what it was supposed to be, it would
have been a deadly weapon in Klingon hands, the Organian Peace Treaty
not withstanding.
2. Vulcan is a very powerful member of the Federation. Implication is that
it is the co-capital (with Earth). With Vulcan backing him, StarFleet is
going to be careful about what they do to Kirk, as they won't want to
offend the Vulcans.
3. Kirk is, according to StarFleet command (I forget the name of the guy, the
one who said that the Enterprise was being decommissioned), one of the
best men in StarFleet. Witness, he managed to steal a starship, right
from under StarFleet's collective nose. Cashiering such a person would
be tremendous waste of manpower. As Vulcan will undoubtably point out:
"It would be highly illogical."
My point about Enterprise's age is not what I would consider a serious
point, and I was not making in order to defend Enterprise's being
decommissioned; it's just that I would think that Commander Starfleet
would know the Enterprise's age. It just bugs me, that's all.
As for the animateds, yes, they must be taken with a grain of salt.
Nonetheless, they must be taken in some way, I believe. After all, it is
from "Bem" that we come to know Kirk's middle name (which is a nice
detail, I think).
You bring up excellent points about Kirk's case. David surely would
have been subjected to the mind-sifter, which, as you say, he could not
possibly withstand. In this way of looking at it, Kirk retrieved
Genesis from--or, at least, kept it from being captured by--the Klingon
Empire.
Also, Vulcan would seem to be a major force in the Federation, one
that probably would be a formidible opposition if it came to that. In
addition, it would seem certain that Sarek will come to Kirk's defense,
as will T'Pau (I assume) and T'Lar (I also assume).
And then there is Kirk's record to consider. Brilliant might be an
understatement.
All good points, well made. But it also seems that Kirk is
manipulating Starfleet. I believe what Kirk has done was moral, and he
was not wrong for disobeying orders. And most of the times he has
disobeyed orders in the past, he has been shown to have been right.
But won't Starfleet try to put some kind of restraint on Kirk? I mean,
sure, he's a great captain and leader, a brilliant strategist and
dedicated explorer. But he continually disobeys orders. A starship
out in space, away from Starfleet, must surely be autonomous in many
ways. But Starfleet certainly can't want to chance Kirk's usurping his
power.
I guess this calls into question Kirk's integrity and loyalty to the
ederation and Starfleet. And I guess we need go no further if that is the
case.
There is one major point to be considered, though. Kirk was justified
in his actions: Spock is alive. Because of Kirk. This can be part of
Kirk's defense, but. . . .
What will the Federation worlds think of Genesis and its implications?
It is already a "galactic controversy." And now a man has been brought
back to life because of it. That is not what really happened, but it is
what will be thought of those who do not understand or believe in "Vulcan
mysticism." I mean, what Genesis really did was clone Spock's body. It
regenerated some of his cells, and surely those cells must already have
been alive. Spock died of exposure to radiation, but at least some of his
cells would live for a short time. And Gensesis, in effect, cloned him.
That is not any big deal. We almost--any perhaps do--have that technology
now. The major point, which might be disbelieved or overlooked by many,
is that Spock's consciousness was not regenerated; it was in McCoy. How
could Genesis regenerate a consciousness? David and Carol and the others
would had to have known what constituted a consciousness (in which case
Paramount would have had to make some heavy statements about the nature
of mind and body). Apparently, creating consciousness is still beyond
23rd century science--which is believable. My whole point here is, will
Starfleet want to reveal to the masses that Spock is alive? Surely the news
of his death was spread throughout the various media. His rebirth, as
it were, cwould be equally publicized. And many people might feel Genesis
to be immoral, and Spock a part of that immorality. I think we have a
very interesting dilemma here.
The dilemma would end with Spock, though. There is no more Genesis.
The only living member of the science team that developed Genesis, it
seems, is Carol. Surely she could rebuild it with her knowledge; it would
take years to redevelop, controversy brewing the entire time. And it would
take years--Khan found all the Genesis data erased when he arrived at
Regula I.
As for Kirk's loyalty, well I wouldn't worry much about that. His record seems
to show that he's loyal. If he weren't he could probably be ruling the
Federation, with the help of some of the advanced races he's found (the
Andromedans, for example).
As for Spock being the subject of controversy. There are several ways of
dealing with this, the simplist is probably to state something like the
following: As everyone knows, Vulcans have remarkable regenerative
capabilities, and when regenerating, are often in a trance that simulates
death so closely it can fool the best of medical technology. Spock really
didn't die, and the Genesis radiation simply aided his recovery.
Not entirely true, I will admit, but close enough, and the people who know
the truth won't talk. As for everyone else, the majority of people know
about Vulcans only by hearsay (one planet, out of how many? Vulcans can't
be all that usual a sight), and they'll accept it at face value. Some people
may suspect that there's something more, but majority of them will probably
be in StarFleet anyway.
Finally, I doubt that the Secretary of the Navy know the ages of naval vessels
better than to a rough appoximation. Also, the Enterprise was not the first
vessel of its type, the Constitution was (that's why they're call Constitution
Class vessels, not Enterprise Class vessels), so the age estimate is probably
off a bit there.
Your point about the age of Enterprise is well-taken. I concede my
case. Commander Starfleet Morrow is a busy man, after all.
Nice try with the Spock story, too. It should work, and since Genesis
is no longer operational--or even existent--controversy should subside.
I do not want Kirk to command Excelsior. That is just the way I feel.
I was upset that David was killed, and I think it would have benefited
Star Trek in the long run if his character were to have survived (even if
didn't appear in another episode for half-a-dozen years). And I was upset
that Spock was brought back, but very happy about it, too. And the
way they brought him back was at least consistent with the ST universe.
But the thing that really got to me was the destruction of the Enterprise.
Now, though, I think it was a good thing to do, as far as the series goes.
First of all, it surprised me (I stayed away from all rumors, articles, and
commercials about Trek between STII and STIII). It almost surprised me
into an early grave. It was nearly ar traumatic an experience as when
Spock "died." (I knew, for the most part, that Spock would die, due to
the media hype. Therefore, I wasn't surprised like I was about
Enterprise's destruction.) But it was en emotional experience, good drama,
and that is what Trek must be in addition to all of its philisophical
ideas. I hate to see Enterprise die, but better to die by saving Kirk's
and company's lives than to waste away by being decommissioned and
dismantled.
There can be no Enterprise II--why build another Constitution-class
vessel when there are more modern ships. And so there will be no new
ship of Enterprise's class. Kirk commanding Excelsior? "These are the
voyages of the starship Excelsior. . . ?" I hate it. I hated Excelsior
when I saw her because, knowing Enterprise was being decommissioned, it
was easy to blame Excelsior for that. I hate Excelsior and its captain.
How about a new Excelsior-class (?) vessel for Kirk? Not Enterprise II,
but. . .what? Explorer? Voyager? Journeyer? Venture? Just some
ideas. Nothing, I fear, can replace the name Enterprise. (Discovery
is another idea, but Arthur C. Clarke might have something to say about
that.)
I'd have to check on the details of the renaming conventions, but I suspect
that even if its an Excelsior Class vessel, it'll be named Enterprise. This
is chiefly based on the fact that there's always been an Aircraft carrier
named Enterprise, and aircraft carriers have changed an awful lot since they
started out. The point is that the Enterprise was a heavy cruiser.goun%elmer.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (07/13/84)
From: goun%elmer.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Roger H. Goun)
Stephen,
A minor quibble with your interesting debate:
There is no more Genesis....Khan found all the Genesis data erased
when he arrived at Regula I.
The novelizations make it clear that the Genesis data was hidden in the
Genesis cave on the planetoid near Regula I. In the most recent novel, David
and Saavik go down there to retrieve it.
The issue of Genesis can be kept very much alive if that's what the
producers want to do. I personally think it's time for a new storyline in
the "Star Trek" movies, though. I hope Kirk's court-martial/exoneration/
execution isn't the entire focus of "Star Trek IV."
-- Roger Goun
ARPA: goun%elmer.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
UUCP: {allegra, decvax, ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-elmer!goun
USPS: Digital Equipment Corp., HLO2-2/H13
77 Reed Road; Hudson, MA 01749
MCIMail: RGoun
Tel: (617) 568-6311barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (03/04/85)
ST III is finally out on videotape. It's also cheap (under $30)! Now, where can I get ST II with the additional scenes that were run on ABC. Contrary to popular myth, they are NOT on the general release video- tape. Mikki
lionel%orphan.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (05/24/85)
From: lionel%orphan.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Steve Lionel) > Date: Mon 20 May 85 00:45:15-PDT > From: Mark Crispin <MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA> > Subject: Star Dreck III: The Search for Spook > > I just bought the LaserDisc version of this. Has anybody > noticed any of these really glaring flaws: > . When the Klingons are cloaked and getting ready to attack the > Enterprise, its distance is reported as being 5000 kilograms(!!) > . How, with Saavik on board, could Kirk have innocently buried > Spock in space without knowing any better? It just so happens that I rented the tape of ST3 the other day, having missed it in the theatre. I recall the "5000 kilograms" as actually being something similar in sound, but not quite as ridiculous. One presumes that the lesson of Battlestar Galactica (and Star Wars) had been learned. As for Saavik not telling Kirk, perhaps only male Vulcans know it? This is hardly the most serious inconsistency in the story. For example, when Kirk shouts the Klingon equivalent of "Beam me up, Scotty", how is the Klingon transporter operator supposed to know that he is to pick up both Kirk and Spock II? And just how did Kirk's people overpower the Klingons on board with no weapons? Also, wouldn't you be a bit nervous taking a Klingon ship right into Federation territory and landing it (!!!) on Vulcan? I could go on and on. The movie went nowhere, and was pretty boring. Steve Lionel
brendan%gigi.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (05/29/85)
From: brendan%gigi.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (From the terminal of Brendan E. Boelke) Date: Thursday, 23 May 1985 16:47:48-PDT From: lionel%orphan.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Steve Lionel) Subject: Star Trek III . . . >As for Saavik not telling Kirk, perhaps only male Vulcans know it? >This is hardly the most serious inconsistency in the story. For >example, when Kirk shouts the Klingon equivalent of "Beam me up, >Scotty", how is the Klingon transporter operator supposed to know >that he is to pick up both Kirk and Spock II? And just how did >Kirk's people overpower the Klingons on board with no weapons? >Also, wouldn't you be a bit nervous taking a Klingon ship right into >Federation territory and landing it (!!!) on Vulcan? Steve Lionel I'll take them in order. 1. Immediately after yelling to be beamed up, Kirk grabbed Spock II, who was unconscious, and took him for the ride. 2. They didn't. There was only the one remaining Klingon on board the Bird of Prey. The others had either been killed in the destruction of the Enterprise or on the planet. Kirk simply appeared on the bridge weapon in hand. 3. Hmmm. A little tricky. Possibly they did most of their traveling cloaked (very energy expensive), or maybe there is a special code that can be transmitted saying 'this is a captured ship - let me come home!'. Brendan E. Boelke
Piersol.pasa@Xerox.ARPA (05/31/85)
From: Piersol.pasa@Xerox.ARPA Some of these questions were answered with the novelization of STIII. In particular, I believe the question of how they got the Klingon fighter to Vulcan was by talking to Starfleet about it, and mentioning that they were in a captured Klingon vessel while transmitting up-to-date StarFleet recognition codes. Even so, supposedly, StarFleet shadowed them almost the entire way. Saavik, who was under no suspicion at this time, did all the talking. Perhaps Saavik assumed, as Sarek did, that Kirk obviously already knew about Spock's memories. Sarek appeared to believe that Spock would have given his memories to Kirk rather than McCoy. If Sarek assumed this, why not Saavik as well? Kurt