jaczak@ihuxi.UUCP (Russell Spence) (06/29/84)
> Well, having just seen it last night, I'll comment that I liked it as well > as ST:II, though Karen thought ST:II was better. > ..... > to put more commercials in). Once the studio saw that it could make some > money with Star Trek movies, it appears that they spent some on a couple > of decent scripts (ST:II and ST:III) and decent special effects. ST:I > was a bomb that no Trekkie could love. > (roger long) I am sorry roger, but STIII was a bomb that no Trekkie could love. Shall I list a few of the bad things about it. There was no Spock in the movie (not a character Spock to interact with the rest of the crew). The Enterprise is needlessly destroyed, AND there were no appropriate reactions of despair from Kirk, Scotty, etc. when it was destroyed. The movie is technically flawed, i.e. the ship shown in the movie was ROMULAN bird of prey, the ROMULANS had the cloaking device, etc. The characters of Saavik and the Klingon leader were very weak. (I think it was very tacky to change the actress who played Saavik, I would rather have seen that character left out all together). And many more things that I am sure have been abundantly covered in net.startrek. I thought that STI was pretty bad until I saw STIII. STI was a pretty slow movie, but at least it was more faithful to the original Star Trek. STIII is especially disappointing after seeing STII the Wrath of Kahn, which is by far the best of the three. -- Russell Spence ihuxi!jaczak AT&T Technologies Naperville, IL