Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
Eugh.
It's Friday night, y'all. Time for #wenchwatches
Let's watch a bunch of upright people decide to break multiple laws and commit grand theft larceny to save their friend.
Tonight, "something comforting": #StarTrek3
First of all, if you haven't watched Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan yet, you might want to skip this one, and go watch that first. For extra points, go watch the TOS episode "Space Seed" before that.
AND, if you're a brown-nosing teacher's pet, go read the comic book series that fills in the time period between Space Seed and Wrath. Really. It's good.
This is your spoilers warning.
Star Trek 3 was revelatory to me as a little kid. I was well acquainted with Star Trek The Original Series (TOS), as I sometimes skipped out on Sunday School to watch that on a little TV in our family van.
It was a much, much better teacher of ethics and how to be a good human anyways.
TOS was always episodic. Rarely did an episode follow up on a previous one in a meaningful way. Most TV leaned on episodicness so as to make onramping viewers easier in the age before internet chat rooms and social media.
Star Trek 3, on the other hand, was a follow up. It picked up where Wrath of Khan left off. The idea of a continuous story in Star Trek was intoxicating to me. Fortunately, my dad was already a fan, and had the entire three movie cycle recorded from TV broadcast on VHS tape.
Let's watch!
It took *forever* for the Klingon empire to get off of that Atari cartage standard for ferrying intelligence information.
A think that always struck me about Star Trek 3 compared to 2 was just how *bright* the film looked. Wrath was always shot in darker, ruddier hues, perhaps to match the darker tones of the story.
I'm not sure exactly what's different, since many of the same effects companies were involved with 3 (unlike Star Trek 5, which couldn't get ILM scheduled). The filming also felt sharper and more modern that 3, and is reflected in even my cheap, multi-DVD pack I got for $20.
It's been remarked by the cast that the films until 4 where a "Live - Death - Then, Life again" cycle. Perhaps then, Search for Spock, being the last part of that cycle, was shot with brighter lights intentionally. I'm sure someone reading this may have the inside scoop here.
I have been watching and rewatching this film for over 30 years, and TODAY I catch a production mistake.
When Checkov brings up the security display to identify a life form in Spock's quarters, the starship shown dorsally is not the refit model present since Star Trek The Motion Picture. The nacelles and support pylons are the distinctive TOS style. I can only imagine the effects crew making the digital graphics for that display weren't involved with the model work. As such, it's understandable it would have been missed.
Or, if you want a Watsonian explanation, Starfleet is just a wee bit slow on rolling out those OS updates...
A unique joy of this film is the amount of actually enjoyable acting is in this. Mark Lenard reprising his role for the first time as Sarek added instant gravitas to the film. It added to that sense of continuity which the series often lacked out of production necessity.
One thing I love in Star Trek, is to see when the actors are "let off the leash" and able to really steal the scenes. Jeri Ryan and Brent Spiner were particularly good at his, as was Robert Picardo. We'll see that later with Nicholls.
This stands in stark relief, however to Shatner. A friend of mine once remarked that "you don't believe anything he does [in Wrath] until [the Khan yell]. It's only a moment, but you believe him!" As much as I like to poke fun at Shatner's often hamfisted acting, the mind meld scene is honestly a great moment of performance.
Perhaps it's because I'm from the US Midwest, but I find sorrow often expressed in heartbreaking quiet or deathly silence *more* impactful. This is true for Shatner during the meld with Sarek. It's a poignant moment, and perhaps the best I've ever seen him give. This is helped in no small part by the extreme close-ups during the sequence. It conveys an additional sense of intimacy of the emotion.
Notably, Sarek's obvious anger is no longer present afterward. A small note of performance, but one which follows perfectly.
"How many fingers am I holding up? 
"That's not very damn funny."
Oh, yes it is.
I. Want. Sulu's. Coat.
Uhura with that *whithering* gaze.
Security, I would like to report a murder.
I absolutely *love* the scene in which Uhrua pulls the phaser on "Mr. Adventure". Nichols didn't often have much opportunity to have *fun* in her scenes in the franchise at any point until now, so it's a treat to see it here.
Similarly, Takei's ass-kicking scene against the security guard is delightful. You're reminded that each of these characters is capable experienced, and it's wonderful to see each of them shine if only for a moment.
Ahh, I see Scotty has replaced the Excelsior's computer system with a copy of "Spiderland" by Slint.
"Good Morning, Captain" indeed.
One reason why this film may be giving each of the minor characters more time to shine is the director. Unlike previous films, this one is directed by a cast member, Leonard Nimoy.
Nimoy often bumped heads with Paramount's producers and higher ups to secure better pay and more on-screen time for minor characters, Nichols in particular. We can see that throughout the second act. Was it necessary to give each their moment? No. Did add to the film in wonderful and subtle ways? Oh yes.
Which leaves us with Saavik. Kirstie Alley famously played the character in Star Trek 2. And here, she was unceremoniously replaced with a completely different actor, Robin Curtis. Sources have conflicting reports as to why, but many refer to the pay being less than expected to reprise the role.
It's unfortunate too. As much as I want to give Curtis the benefit of the doubt, her performance of the character never feels quite to the same standard as Alley's. Curtis' Saavik feels less nuanced and deep, and the performance much more restrained.
It's a pity, because Christopher Lloyd is over there in heavy Klingon makeup having an *absolute* blast.
One thing that's an interesting detail throughout this film is the presence of....video playback on screen. We see it in the genesis recording, the security cams from engineering, and even the viewscreen on the klingon bridge.
For the first time, so many of the displays we see on-screen where *actual* displays. It may be easy to miss on first watch, but on successive watches it's stood out to me. While "all glass" sets are common as far back as Star Trek Voyager, here, even one or two displays is surprising. Instead of carefully laid static graphics backlit, a real display gives the set a dynamic feel.
We are knee deep in the third act now, and the pacing of the film feels exceptional. As much as I love Star Trek The Motion Picture (TMP) it is a *slow* film. Wrath certainly changed that, giving it a sense of motion that's carried through into this film.
Paradoxically, the brief battle scene between the Enterprise and the Klingon ship feels the most off. It seems to lack the tension that was in Wrath, helped little but the way the torpedo volleys from each ship aren't, literally, explosive. When compared with how destructive they were in Wrath, it always struck me as odd. I'm sure there's are a production reason for this, but it definitely serves a story purpose. As the battle is non-lethal, it allows the *character* drama to take the central focus.This isn't a movie of epic battles, but one of loss and sacrifice.
Moreover, it acts as a nice bit of emotional subterfuge. A key emotional moment is the self-destruction of the Enterprise. It's an unthinkable moment, and drawn out with delicious destructiveness for maximum emotional impact. The film even references it's own material in the destruction code sequence, established in "Let that be your last battlefield" from TOS. The model work of the ship slowly being consumed before falling to a fiery demise above Genesis still has impact to this day.
"What you had to do, what you always do; turn death into a fighting chance to live."
I only wish I didn't have to face is quite so often...
The destruction of the Genesis planet paralleling Spock's rejuvenation and rapid aging continues to be a wonderful thematic touch in this film. While it doesn't add much in terms of plot, it lends an awful lot of *feel* to the film. It serves to amplify what Spock is experiencing throughout the film. It's also a nice bit of cinematic trickery. Without the planet reflecting his experiences and aging, it would come off as corny and would break suspension of disbelief. Combined, the experience becomes spectacle as well as danger; we're not just watching Spock transform, we're experiencing it with him.
"At what cost? Your ship. Your son."
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul."
I wasn't joking when I said I found Star Trek a better teacher of how to be a human being than Sunday School.
So that's #startrek3 and that's #wenchwatches
I'm not going to say that Star Trek 3 is great cinema. The acting has good moments, and many many banal ones. The effects are surprisingly good, as is the pacing and directing. It's definitely enjoyable cinema, and a film that continues to stand the test of time considering how many bloody times I've rewatched it. It's hard, however, to take it separately without constantly comparing it to the film's predecessor. The Shakespearean aspects are much more on display in Wrath than in Search for Spock.
Yet, this film always left me with a hopeful feeling in difficult times. Perhaps not because some savior swoops down with awe and fixes everything, but because sometimes we're all we've got to save each other.
Even if we have to steal a starship to do it.