StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Since Chuck did not yet link it to his website, i will link to the Youtube version.







Enjoy another masterfull trek review.

So sadly true. STIII had as well all know the death of the Enterprise. The core of the shows and easily as important as the trio themselves...and she dies with a whimper. Like you pointed out, Chuck, there are so many things that could've been done better. But it's the death of Enterprise in such a pitiful fashion that gets to me.

As usual, a very fine review and I enjoyed it almost as much as Khan because it showed why this film could've been bas good if not better, but just had nothing really there except Kirk and company on yet another whacky adventure.

I read somewhere that Kruge was originally conceived to be a renegade who stole the bird of prey from a romulan shipyard and it still kills me that this was dropped. It sure does more to explain why he's trolling around in federation space at the beginning of the movie, because nthe alternative... that he's a representative of Klingon Special Forces out to obtain plans for a WMD is kind of depressing.

Im surprised Chuck didn't point out the resemblance between Bones' buddy at the bar and the eventual ferengi.

And thank you someone for pointing out that there wasn't much point in going to colelct Spock's body. Saraek could very well ahve been advised that his son's coffin had been found and there was a vague possibility his body was either walking around or had evolved into a Great Wyrm but since he doesn't mention any of that to Kirk, its completely conjectural and they don't really clarify what Kirk thinks hes doing.

Enterprise went out like a bitch. How fucked would Kirk have been if Kruge had said "Ah you know what, just send five guys over, not EVERYONE, we'll just shoot pieces of the ship if they give you trouble." That was Stargate level luck the way things worked out there.

I have often thought that the sacrifice of the Enterprise might have made a bit more sense if Kirk and co. had beamed directly over to Kruge's ship to take it over. Beaming down to Genesis and hoping to goad Kruge into taking them up or come down always struck me as real iffy as far as gambles went and was nothing more than a very clumsy set-up for the fight on the surface of a rapidly disintegrating world.

And the whole plot point of going after Spock's corpse (which was all they assumed they'd find at Genesis) when McCoy is already carrying Spock's katra, which is all that the Vulcans really needed to retain it seems, was very poorly thought out.

Aaaaand new sig quote.

I agree with Chuck that David was an idiot:

David Marcus wrote:Genesis doesn't work. I can't believe they'd kill us for it.

It'll do what Kruge wants it to do just fine, you imbecile!

Ted C wrote:I agree with Chuck that David was an idiot:

David Marcus wrote:Genesis doesn't work. I can't believe they'd kill us for it.

It'll do what Kruge wants it to do just fine, you imbecile!

I actually think thats part of the Federations peaceloving brainwashing, particulary since he was a civilian.
He proapbly does not graps the idea that he wants the technology solely for destructive purposes.

Serafina wrote:I actually think thats part of the Federations peaceloving brainwashing, particulary since he was a civilian.
He proapbly does not graps the idea that he wants the technology solely for destructive purposes.

"We're dealing with something that could be perverted into a terrible weapon." - direct quote from STII.

III just botched things.

I think the most telling part of the review is that after watching I felt I missed nothing of the film. I've seen the movie (though not recently), but it was all there. Like the movie itself it just hit the expected highlights (not knocking Chuck or anything) and then moved on. That's just how average it was. I didn't have that experience watching the Wrath of Khan review, though I moderately did with The Motion Picture review.

I actually think thats part of the Federations peaceloving brainwashing, particulary since he was a civilian.
He proapbly does not graps the idea that he wants the technology solely for destructive purposes.

Except that he spent the last movie ranting about Starfleet wanting to use his project as a weapon. Also phasers should have trigger guards.

I think this is, if not just an oversight in the script, just David not really seeing the big picture any more. he spent a good chunk of his life and probably all of his career trying to get Genesis to work, and now the only - and probably last - field test turns out to be a dud. In his view the entire project is a colossal failure, so he can't see why the Klingons would want it.

Great review.

The special features disc for this DVD has a featurette wherein Okrand shows a bit of his work developing the Klingon language and the problems putting it in the film. It's really worth a watch.

A good review all in all; big events happen, but seem a little tacked on and are a little rushed (though the destruction of the original USS Enterprise is still very impressive model work). Star Trek III: The Search for Spock as a sequel is perhaps in the same league as PotC: Dead Man's Chest, Quantum of Solace and Back to the Future Part II, it's still the strongest "uneven" Trek movie (though not hard to do) and I enjoy it as much JJ Abrams' recent Star Trek movie (which is flawed as well).

I don't understand the downer on the Enterprise's destruction. A bunch of old idiots stole a broken-ass ship they could barely control and due to enemy action it was destroyed. They didn't just lose the ship; they pretty much destroyed it themselves.

GREAT PLAN GUYS.

You don't understand indeed.

Thanks for the +1 post, retard, but I'm curious why Deagan thinks it was disappointing. Sure, it wasn't a hero's death, but it wasn't destroyed saving the Federation from the Borg with Kirk on the bridge to the death; it was killed by an insignificant enemy during the commission of a crime due to negligence. That's actually a pretty powerful statement to make in a Hollywood movie; the only shame is that the rest of the movie didn't go with it.

Arguably, it's a dramatic presage to Kirk's son's death in similar circumstances.

That's the VERY REASON it was disappointing you know.

It's disappointing because... it breaks Hollywood 'glory' stereotypes? Because it mirrors another plot development?

Please try to make your posts complete thoughts.

As I said you DON'T understand it.

Holy shit are you going to actually post any content in this thread at all? You've had three posts to actually explain what the fuck you're talking about beyond 'you're wrong roffle' and have refused to do so. So... thanks for trolling?

Actually, oops, it was GR who talked about the failure of the Enterprise destruction.

I'm half inclined to do ANOTHER 'You just don't get it' post just to piss you off some more but I guess that WOULD be trolling. The fact that fans might become emotionally involved with their franchise, and thus think the ship that was at the heart of it, probably as much as the characters that where the NOMINAL stars of the franchise, is probably incomprehensible to you.
Of course, you probably saw nothing wrong with Kirk dying in that bridge crash in Generations either.

So you were just posturing that whole time? That's pretty sad. Grow up.

The destruction of Enterprise wouldn't have worked for whatever their intention was if the audience wasn't invested; it'd be a giant meh moment (which really describes the impact of the whole movie). That's the point of saying it breaks Hollywood 'glory' stereotypes. You do something stupid (ie, steal a crippled ship for personal reasons) and your career/life/ship/son might ignomiously end, which is very powerful in what is expected to be a space opera movie about laughs and personal heroism.

This is something Chuck is smart enough to pick up on (since the 'Kirk arc' is such a large part of his reviews) but which is apparently beyond your +1 posting brain.

When I saw the movie as a child, the shot of Kirk etc watching the ship burn up said to me 'there are some guys who know they just fucked up bigtime', which raises the stakes and sets the tone for Kirk's later and even more personal loss. I wasn't throwing my popcorn at the screen because they killed my favourite character.

Christopher 'I WAS FROZEN TOO-DAY!!!' Lloyd's Klingon villain was threatening, but somewhat generic, and judging by his spiteful treatment of his femme fatale girlfriend for a indefinable transgression, he must've have intended to be a Romulan in the early drafts of the script. His Bird of Prey was awsome though and little wonder it was ship with a long career like the Excelsior-class (ie they don't want good ship models going to waste).

And good for Chuck to point out Miguel Ferrer; for some reason many actors from Paul Verhoeven movies often crop up in Star Trek.

Stark, knock it off.

I don't see how the destruction of the Enterprise was at all disappointing. It was going to be decommissioned anyway because of the damage it took in the previous movie. The movie shows us what Kirk was prepared to sacrifice for a friend - he loses his son, he loses his ship, and he broke Federation law to get to Genesis so he loses his career - and Sarek at the end comments on this. Kirk's reply was that he if didn't go to Genesis, he would have lost his soul. You can't show sacrifice without... um, sacrificing things. The only problem is that there are absolutely no repercussions arising out of the events in this film, but you can't blame ST3 for ST4's failure to do so, and for hitting the reset button (ST4, in contrast to ST3, is the big disappointment, and is a film that I think gets overappreciated just because it has some funny jokes).

Honestly, I think ST3 is a better show than a lot of people think it is. I completely disagree with this review.

Yeah, I appreciate what the movie tried to do; but honestly I don't think it worked. It wasn't tightly plotted enough after TWoK: it seems really disjointed and unconnected. It's easy to see the theme, but I don't think it was carried out well at all.