ks@astrovax.UUCP (Karl Stapelfeldt) (06/03/84)
I have some preliminaries of my own. I have been a Star Trek fan for as
long as I can remember (going back to drawings in my kindergarden coloring
book). I grew up watching the series, and enjoyed it for many different
reasons. I still watch it when I get a chance (although New York's WPIX-11
broadcasts mutilated versions). I've been able to enjoy the show despite the
scientific gaffes I can now find in some episodes. The characters were always
important to ST, but not overriding. The mission of the Enterprise, as stated
in the opening words to the show, defined Star Trek for me.
In the first ST film, what was basically a good ST story was botched with
a bad screenplay (especially regarding characterization), bad editing, and a
plodding pace. This first film didn't harm the Star Trek concept; it just
disappointed everyone who had hoped for something better. Harve Bennett's
ST II was "aware of these film design difficulties", and gave us plenty
of characterization and action. Fine. The story was good, except for two
obvious elements that were left to be fixed in the third film: (1) Spock almost
had to be brought back; and (2) the miraculous genesis device had to be gotten
rid of somehow (after resurrecting Spock, of course).
The third film naturally included both of the fixes needed to restore the
Star Trek universe after the story for ST II. Unfortunately, the third film has
left the Star Trek universe in greater disarray than the second film; and this
is the primary reason why I did *not* enjoy "Star Trek III: The Search for
Spock".
The overriding problem is the contrived circumstances for the destruction
of the Enterprise, and the total failure of the film to show the impact of this
event on the characters. I'll take these one at a time.
The Enterprise *almost certainly* did not need to be destroyed in the
circumstances given. All that was demanded was her surrender. The details of
the genesis device could easily have been erased from the computer, or the whole
computer system sabotaged. The Klingons would have no information with which to
build the thing and threaten the universe. The Klingons were allowed to kill
Dr. Marcus in the story *before* the destruct decision was taken, so no source
of genesis information would be available.
We were told that the "Bird of Prey" (already in namesake inconsistent with
the original ship designations from the series) carried 12 men. Three were on
the planet's surface; one was vaporized; and one remained aboard. This means
that only SEVEN Klingons were available to board the Enterprise. Despite the
fact that Kruge was obviously aware that a heavy cruiser carried a full
complement of 400+, he beamed them over. Am I supposed to believe that
KIRK DESTROYS THE ENTERPRISE TO KILL SEVEN LOUSY KLINGONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well I guess I am, given the story. None of the *many* possible alternatives
to this radical action appear to have been considered by Kirk (This means you,
Harve Bennett). How about hiding in the corridors and ambushing the Klingons?
Or the crew beaming themselves over to the Klingon ship to try to take it?
It is stupid that ST III could be so faithful to a worthless third season
episode's destruct sequence ("Let that be your last Battlefield"), yet forget
entirely about the intruder defense system (nerve gas) used in "Space Seed" -
the episode basis for these ST movies!! (listening Harve?) They could have
turned off the life support system in the areas of the ship where the Klingons
were. And if the five aboard the Enterprise were still afraid to tackle seven
Klingons, they could have simply beamed out and left the ship empty. If Scotty
(who supposedly outdoes Dr. Daystrom's automation work in a few hours) couldn't
make the ship flee or fight, you can bet that the Klingons wouldn't be able to
either. The ship could have been abandoned- BUT IT DID NOT NEED TO BE BLOWN UP.
They could have ........ (fill in the blank).
The point is, that Harve didn't care what excuse he had, he wanted to
destroy the Enterprise (and Dr. Marcus) so that a cute summary line could be
uttered at the end of the film about Kirk sacrificing everything for Spock.
Sure, I believe Kirk would do it - but not in the *meaningless* way depicted in
this film.
Another bit of stupidity is that any of the many vessels you would expect
to see at the Earth star base (certainly there would be more than an experiment-
ship and an unexpected damaged starship around Earth; we only saw one docking
bay, ya know) could be ordered to chase the Enterprise to Genesis; they would
arrive only minutes after the Enterprise. But of course to allow this bit of
common sense to play would make the story collapse (hear that Harve?) At the
very least, arriving Federation ships could drive off the Klingons and recapture
the abandoned Enterprise.
is the way we were showed the characters' reaction. Kirk barely seemed to care
at all - one little reassurance from McCoy put it all out of his mind. And
Scotty - Harve, you demolished his character!!!! Scotty liked the Enterprise
so much that he wanted to turn down assignment to the Excelsior - and yet
we see no reaction from him at all!!! Did you ever see the Tribbles barroom
fight scene, and Scotty's interrogation afterwards Harve? Scotty really loves
the Enterprise, and the last thing he (or Captian Kirk) would do is destroy
it. Yet this is the only alternative they consider in the situation. Of
course, you didn't give the Enterprise a chance Harve - you wanted your ending
course, you .
With the utter uselessness of the Enterprise destruction dominating my
mind, I could not enjoy the rest of the movie. I was disappointed to not
hear an explanation of what happened on Vulcan at the end of the film.
Nimoy's "In search of" mysticism was too prominent here. What role does
a Vulcan's essence-dumping before death play in non-miraculous reincarnation
circumstances? The movie left this important point open.
There were many fine points to the movie; the special effects were good,
especially the landing of the Klingon ship on Vulcan. I liked the extra chance
that crew got to develop their characters in this film. The insult to Sulu by a
guard (who Sulu must outrank by at least 7 levels) and his reaction was a pure
play to the peanut gallery, however. McCoy's characterization, although too
mystic at times, was very well-played in the context of his rivalry with Spock.
This film was certainly set in the Star Trek universe; it had all the details,
it had the people we know. But it just wasn't right. Could this really be
Star Trek?
For the story of the next movie, we must keep
in mind that the Enterprise is gone and that the crew (if found by the
Federation) will be in jail. Kirk and Scotty should both be in the hospital
with severe depression over the loss of their beloved ship.
We can now invent ways to restore the old order
(which I suspect will be unacceptably contrived), or we can follow our friends
through the universe as outlaws (maybe they can team up with Harry Mudd?).
The second alternative is far removed from the original concept of ST as
read over the beginning of the TV episodes (and end of ST II, beginning of ST
III). We would be much better off if ST II and III were put aside, and that
some prequel more consistent with ST's definition was made.
A new storywriter is neccessary for any further ST films. Harve Bennett
did fine in ST II, but he ran amok in ST III. One of the graces of the TV
series was that many different writers contributed to the show, providing a
variety that was healthy. I don't know if we can really we can really expect
this to happen; does Harve have the rights to produce (and appoint himself
writer) for the next movie?
Star Trek film needs to get back to the format that made the series
great: the exploration of unknowns while on patrol throughout the galaxy.
Sure, we can have stops at starbase and on known planets; but to balance these
we must have the seeking out, the boldly going that the series had. Harve
has left the plots of the last two ST films disappointingly out of balance
in this regard. Star Trek is a lot more than the space battles and M*A*S*H-type
character interaction we have seen in the last two movies.
Any comments on all or part of the above are welcome. I saw the movie
on Friday; the opinions above were developed in long conversations with
Deborah Padgett and others.jonab@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Jonathan Biggar) (06/22/84)
In article <364@astrovax.UUCP> ks@astrovax.UUCP writes: > > The overriding problem is the contrived circumstances for the destruction >of the Enterprise, and the total failure of the film to show the impact of this >event on the characters. I'll take these one at a time. > > We were told that the "Bird of Prey" (already in namesake inconsistent with >the original ship designations from the series) carried 12 men. Three were on >the planet's surface; one was vaporized; and one remained aboard. This means >that only SEVEN Klingons were available to board the Enterprise. Despite the >fact that Kruge was obviously aware that a heavy cruiser carried a full >complement of 400+, he beamed them over. Am I supposed to believe that >KIRK DESTROYS THE ENTERPRISE TO KILL SEVEN LOUSY KLINGONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have seen this argument many times already and almost everyone has forgotten several factors related to the Enterprise's destruction: 1) People propose that Kirk should have let the Klingons beam aboard and then ambush them. There are a couple of difficuties: a) There are only 5 people aboard the Enterprise, thus they are outnumbered. b) Even if the Klingon boarding party could be captured or killed, the Enterprise is still NOT functional at ALL. After failing to hear from his boarding party, Krudge could simply destroy the Enterprise. What gain is there over self destruction? 2) Kirk cannot surrender the ship for obvious reasons: a) Would you want to give the Klingons all of the Enterprise's technology? b) If Kirk had any chance of getting out of this with his career, he better not give a Federation heavy cruiser to the Klingons. So Kirk is left with no choice: it is unthinkable to surrender and the Klingons would destroy the ship if he tried to defend it anyway. The only option left is to destroy it. I do agree that the film does not allow the characters to feel the full impact of the loss of the Enterprise, and this is a deficiency. However, like many films, this part probably ended up on the cutting room floor in order to give more time for the "climax". Jon Biggar {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdccsu3}!sdcrdcf!jonab