The Star Trek Thread

[Silver Nemesis]

It's time to return to Genesis. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is getting a 40th anniversary theatrical rerelease on June 14th. A new poster has been created by artist Matt Ferguson.

Here's the quad poster for UK cinemas.

I'm definitely going to catch a screening. I've always liked The Search for Spock, ever since I first saw it on TV back in the early nineties. Hopefully this rerelease will encourage more sci-fi enthusiasts and cinephiles to give it another chance. It's badly underrated IMO.

I wonder if this means we'll be getting a theatrical rerelease of The Voyage Home in 2026.

[Kamdan]

It's time to return to Genesis. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is getting a 40th anniversary theatrical rerelease on June 14th. A new poster has been created by artist Matt Ferguson.

Here's the quad poster for UK cinemas.

I'm definitely going to catch a screening. I've always liked The Search for Spock, ever since I first saw it on TV back in the early nineties. Hopefully this rerelease will encourage more sci-fi enthusiasts and cinephiles to give it another chance. It's badly underrated IMO.

I wonder if this means we'll be getting a theatrical rerelease of The Voyage Home in 2026.

So far, there have only been indications of the UK getting this theatrical rerelease and none of the kind for an American release. I do hope that changes because this is my favorite of the trilogy of Star Trek films. There have been numerous rereleases of Wrath of Khan over the years and there was an opportunity to see Voyage Home back in 2021 in theaters, but to my knowledge, that hasn't been the case for Search for Spock.

[Silver Nemesis]

I just saw The Search for Spock on the big screen and I loved it. It was great seeing it with an audience. I'm now convinced that it's the most underrated Star Trek movie. How does it only have a 6.6 rating on the IMDb and a 66% user rating on RT? I don't think it's as great as The Wrath of Khan, but it's still a terrific sci-fi adventure film and has aged extraordinarily well. Interestingly, when I looked up its overall RT score earlier today it was at 78%. In the last few hours a positive review has been added and the rating has gone up to 79%.

Hopefully it'll get a theatrical re-release in the States so more of you can see it. And hopefully the other classic Trek films will also get re-releases for their anniversaries.

[thecolorsblend]

I get the idea that TSFS suffers for following TWOK. On its own merits, TSFS is a great Trek film. The characters somewhat fawn over Spock (which I try not attribute to who directed TSFS), which sometimes gets to be a bit much.

But aside from that, TSFS is very enjoyable.

The problem, of course, is that it follows TWOK. And there are times where I wonder if TWOK's legend has come at the detriment of the other TOS Trek films.

Prosecution's Exhibit A: The Motion Picture is a FAR better film than its reputation would suggest.

Maybe I'm all alone on this one. But there are times where I wish there was a Smallville movie or a Dexter movie or that BTAS's Heart Of Ice was a movie instead of a twenty some odd minute episode. Some episodes of those shows are so good that they would've possibly benefited from being expanded out into feature-length.

Well, The Motion Picture is basically a REALLY long episode of TOS. There's not a central villain, per sé, and the conflicts of the film are primarily philosophical rather than physical. Which isn't foreign territory for TOS in more cases than people seem to remember these days.

For me, the fact TMP is a protracted TOS episode is the whole appeal, frankly.

And while TMP does seem to be gradually attracting an audience, people still point (fairly or unfairly) to TWOK's reputation as a course correction for the franchise as proof that TMP has no merit to it.

I love TWOK. But I do think TWOK's awesomeness shouldn't be detrimental to the other films. But to hear the casuals tell it, TWOK is the only Trek film anybody needs to see. And it's simply not true!

[Silver Nemesis]

Agreed on all counts.

The cliché about every odd numbered Trek film being bad was never true. Of the original six, only The Final Frontier is bad. And it's not so bad that it's unwatchable. The only other film franchise I can think of with the same number of sequels and a comparable good:bad ratio would be Rocky. The TOS-era Trek films and pre-Creed Rocky movies both have six instalments, and all of them are good except the fifth one. And even the fifth entry in both franchises is still a fun watchable movie. Both series ended on a high note with their sixth instalments. If I had to be marooned on a desert island and I could only pick two film franchises to take with me to stave off the madness of isolation, I might well choose Rocky I-VI and Trek I-VI.

I sense that appreciation for The Motion Picture is steadily growing, but it's still criminally underrated. It's got a 6.4 rating on the IMDb and a 42% user rating on RT. I mean, come on – Jar Jar Abrams' Into Darkness has a 7.7 IMDb rating. I refuse to believe that movie is more popular than TMP. It's certainly nowhere near as good.

You're right about the plot of TMP evoking an episode of classic Trek. That probably stems from the script being adapted from the pilot episode of Roddenberry's Star Trek: Phase II series, and the storyline being heavily indebted to the second season TOS episode 'The Changeling'. It's idea-driven, like most good sci-fi, and it credits the viewer with having enough intelligence to keep up with those ideas. It's also visually stunning, with beautiful production design and special effects, not to mention a superb score by Jerry Goldsmith. Like The Search for Spock, TMP has aged very well. It holds up. Can the same be said for Into Darkness?

Another noteworthy quality of TMP is that it's the only feature film to fully reflect Gene Roddenberry's vision for what he intended Trek to be. The first two seasons of The Next Generation also reflect Roddenberry's vision, whereas all the other Star Trek movies and TV shows were heavily affected by other people's input (which was generally a good thing, at least until the Kelvin timeline began). But for better or worse, TMP is very much Roddenberry's Trek. It's the only movie that fully embraces his non-militaristic concept of Starfleet.

Going back to TSFS, I noticed something during the theatrical screening that I'd never fully registered until now. It's the look on Kirk's face after he shoots the Klingon on Genesis. Nimoy could've cut straight from the shot of the Klingon being blasted to the shot of Kirk and co running over to join Spock and Saavik. Instead he cuts back to Kirk's reaction after the Klingon dies. Kirk pauses, just for an instant, and there's a subtle look of calm satisfaction on his face.

The Klingon he shoots here is the same Klingon who stabbed David to death, and Kirk must've known this. There was another Klingon accompanying him, but Spock had already brained that guy by hurling him headfirst onto a rock. The Klingon Kirk shoots is the only survivor from the landing party that murdered his son. It's a subtle touch, but that look on Kirk's face after he shoots him is, I think, recognition of the fact he's just avenged David. At least that's what I think Nimoy was going for when he edited the scene that way. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it. Either way, it's a satisfying moment of payback for what the Klingons did to Kirk's son.

[The Laughing Fish]

I've been listening to small portions of the Star Trek Movie Memories audiobook read by William Shatner, and I listened to Harve Bennett's recollection of Gene Roddenberry giving strong pushback against the premise for The Wrath of Khan. Roddenberry was even suspected of leaking Spock's death to fanzines which initially sparked outrage among the Star Trek faithful.

I learned Bennett watched the original show and picked Space Seed as his favourite episode, and thought it laid the groundwork for a cinematic follow-up, but addressed Roddenberry's opposition to the film by claiming Star Trek isn't a military show and is against violence. Bennett politely rebuked Roddenberry's claims, as Star Trek always had had a chain of command involving admirals, captains, commanders, lieutenants and so on, and the original show had tons of violence in lots of episodes i.e. Space Seed ended with Kirk fighting Khan. Bennett speculated Roddenberry said these contradictory statements because he may have had experienced some new enlightened philosophy that fueled his inspiration for the plot in TMP, which Bennett commended for having.

Roddenberry deserves recognition for creating Star Trek, but he's not infallible. The problem is Star Trek's success on TV is hard to replicate to general moviegoing audiences, and perhaps the existential plotline of TMP not being well-received at the time made him bitter. Even one of the writers who worked on both TOS and TNG - David Jerrold - called him a great revisionist when speaking to Shatner during the Chaos on the Bridge documentary. I understand Roddenberry's frustration, and I understand he felt offended when he lost creative control in the early Eighties, but he would've been better off criticising the premise without making statements that clashed with details in the original show.

[Silver Nemesis]

Shatner returns, along with some other familiar faces.

[Silver Nemesis]

[The Joker]

Very interesting video.

No doubt, it's very impressive.

Is there some sort of info/consensus on the significance of Gary Mitchell's brief appearance?

[Silver Nemesis]

I haven't looked into different interpretations yet, but since this was released to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Generations I'm assuming the film represents Kirk's final spiritual journey following his death. This is what he experienced after he said 'Oh my'. He sees his life flashing before him. He sees the youthful Captain Kirk, the middle-aged Admiral Kirk, and finally the old Kirk he was when he died on Veridian III.

Mitchell was the first major enemy he faced, but also his one-time friend. Maybe his inclusion symbolises death; a personification of the destruction of Kirk's corporeal self. Or maybe he represents Kirk's perception of God's judgement. Alternatively the film might be suggesting that Mitchell is still alive in some sense, having transcended his physical form to become a watcher observing Kirk's life story play out on the cosmic stage.

The 'unification' alluded to in the title seems to be that of Kirk and Spock's souls after they die. Time is a property of the material universe, so it follows that Kirk's incorporeal self would no longer be subject to it. So when Kirk dies his spirit travels through time and space to home in on Spock at the moment of his death. They make that last journey into the undiscovered country together, and we, the fans, are given the final reunion that Generations denied us.

The only thing missing is McCoy, but then Bones technically never died. The grumpy old git was still alive in the first TNG episode 'Encounter at Farpoint'. Including his spirit would've entailed acknowledging his death, which is perhaps something the filmmakers preferred to avoid. But I'm pretty sure McCoy would've predeceased Spock, and that his spirit would've been there to welcome him on the other side.

Something I didn't pick up on when I first watched this film is that the Vulcan man standing behind Saavik is Spock's son. This refers to a deleted subplot in Star Trek IV where Saavik was revealed to be carrying Spock's child after they performed the Vulcan ritual on the Genesis planet in Star Trek III. That's why Saavik remained on Vulcan with Spock's mother when the other Starfleet members returned to Earth.

The Critical Drinker reacted very emotionally to this film in his review, and I think one of the reasons it hits a nerve is that it's the first time we've seen the Prime Kirk – the real Kirk – in thirty years. Over the past fifteen years we've been inundated with counterfeit Nu Trek and Kirk imposters. But Shatner, in addition to producing this film, also performed in it. The real Kirk finally came back, and sadly this might be the last time he ever plays the role. It's a moving coda to all the adventures we shared with him in the past. It also serves as a symbolic reconciliation between Shatner and Nimoy, who'd had a falling out prior to the latter's death and weren't on speaking terms. Of course it's not a real reconciliation between the actors, but it represents Shatner's desire to be reconciled with his old friend.

As a piece of filmmaking, it evokes classic Trek in a way modern epigonic Trek doesn't. It's a quiet artistic film without any dialogue. A serene exploration of the soul's transcendence of death and the heart's devotion to lasting friendship. In short, it's a film about the human condition, which is fundamentally what classic Star Trek was all about.

Here's another short film in the same series that was released last year. This one also takes place in the aftermath of Generations and focuses on Spock's reaction to Kirk's death.

I like the flashback to the destruction of the Enterprise in Star Trek III. As if Spock is reflecting on everything Kirk sacrificed to resurrect him following his own death and mourning his inability to return the favour now. It captures the powerlessness of bereavement.

The 765874 in the titles refers to the serial number of Yeoman J. M. Colt, who featured in the TOS pilot episode 'The Cage'. I have no idea what the significance of her serial number is. Maybe it's explained in one of the other films in the series.