|
|
Post by SherlockHolmes on Mar 15, 2024 20:00:46 GMT
Now that I have all 10 4k sets, I decided to watch the 4k remasters....at 1080p (Because I don't have a 4k player-but the new regular blu-rays are a heck of a lot better looking themselves). I kept wondering what it was about Star Trek III that bothered me. I have finally figured it out. There are no external establishing shots. When I was younger, I always thought the bar scene, the lounge scene with Admiral Morrow, the McCoy jailbreak, the "Get in the closet" Transporter scenes all took place on spacedock. They don't. All those mentioned scenes happen on Earth. Problem is, we get no external establishing shots of these places. We are just suddenly at the interiors. This is why as a kid and teen, I thought all of this was happening on spacedock.
Also, there is something with the speech of Star Trek III.I have misheard so many lines, that Subtitles have corrected for me.
Uhura holding phaser on young Mr Adventure: I hear "You want to invent your houses" when its "You wanted adventure, how's this?"
Kirk asks scotty "Can she hold speed scotty?" I heard "Aye, she's got her second window" when its "Aye, she's got her second wind now"
When Saavik tells Kruge she has no knowledge, i hear "Then I hold pain in something you enjoy" when he said "Then I hope pain is something you enjoy"
Like there's a lot of lines like that in the movie. I have bad comprehension, but Star trek III is the worst for it for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Mar 18, 2024 20:41:46 GMT
And those establishing shots are just about the easiest ways to save cash on a film that you're using the television arm of the studio to film. As for the lines, are your ears okay?  |
|
|
|
Post by nombrecomun on Mar 18, 2024 23:31:17 GMT
Now that I have all 10 4k sets, I decided to watch the 4k remasters....at 1080p (Because I don't have a 4k player-but the new regular blu-rays are a heck of a lot better looking themselves). I kept wondering what it was about Star Trek III that bothered me. I have finally figured it out. There are no external establishing shots. When I was younger, I always thought the bar scene, the lounge scene with Admiral Morrow, the McCoy jailbreak, the "Get in the closet" Transporter scenes all took place on spacedock. They don't. All those mentioned scenes happen on Earth. Problem is, we get no external establishing shots of these places. We are just suddenly at the interiors. This is why as a kid and teen, I thought all of this was happening on spacedock. Also, there is something with the speech of Star Trek III.I have misheard so many lines, that Subtitles have corrected for me. Uhura holding phaser on young Mr Adventure: I hear "You want to invent your houses" when its "You wanted adventure, how's this?" Kirk asks scotty "Can she hold speed scotty?" I heard "Aye, she's got her second window" when its "Aye, she's got her second wind now" When Saavik tells Kruge she has no knowledge, i hear "Then I hold pain in something you enjoy" when he said "Then I hope pain is something you enjoy" Like there's a lot of lines like that in the movie. I have bad comprehension, but Star trek III is the worst for it for me. I never thought about that. It's not something that I ding a movie for but you're right in that it is a 'closed' environment. It's all in sets. Nothing outside. Then again the story didn't need it and all the scenes could have been in spacedock and it wouldn't change the story at all. STIII is an odd movie following what is essentially Star Trek's only "summer blockbuster" type movie. The story is fantastic but the energy levels are all over the place. Very little action, not that much was needed but following the roller coaster TWOK it just felt little deflated. |
|
|
|
Post by SherlockHolmes on Mar 22, 2024 14:06:02 GMT
As for the lines, are your ears okay? I've wondered. But I have excellent hearing, But comprehension is a big problem for me. My wife corrected with Toto's song Africa recently. I thought the lyric was "I'm gonna catch some rays down in africa" when its "I bless the rains down in Africa" |
|
|
|
Post by Sehlat Vie on Apr 19, 2024 16:15:38 GMT
As for the lines, are your ears okay? I've wondered. But I have excellent hearing, But comprehension is a big problem for me. My wife corrected with Toto's song Africa recently. I thought the lyric was "I'm gonna catch some rays down in africa" when its "I bless the rains down in Africa" I think the world is a lot more interesting in your headspace.  Regarding STIII's shortcomings? I understand how the lack of establishing shots make the movie feel a bit more "TV" than the others, but yeah, low-budget, so...whattya gonna go, right? I think that's probably my only real issues with the otherwise great fun I have with this movie is its lack of scope. Even the Genesis planet looks like a bigger budgeted "Gilligan's Island." That said, STIII gives me great feels. I still remember ditching school with my sister and the man who'd eventually be the best man at my wedding (15 years later), when we went to the mall to see STIII on opening day. Afterward, we all made a mad dash for the nearest bookstore and bought collectible STIII magazines, before dining on fast food and talking up the movie for a good hour or so. It's still a warm fuzzy memory that I associate with this movie, which is perhaps the most character-centric of the TOS movies. |
|
|
|
Post by SherlockHolmes on Apr 22, 2024 22:05:34 GMT
I've wondered. But I have excellent hearing, But comprehension is a big problem for me. My wife corrected with Toto's song Africa recently. I thought the lyric was "I'm gonna catch some rays down in africa" when its "I bless the rains down in Africa" I think the world is a lot more interesting in your headspace. Regarding STIII's shortcomings? I understand how the lack of establishing shots make the movie feel a bit more "TV" than the others, but yeah, low-budget, so...whattya gonna go, right? I think that's probably my only real issues with the otherwise great fun I have with this movie is its lack of scope. Even the Genesis planet looks like a bigger budgeted "Gilligan's Island." That said, STIII gives me great feels. I still remember ditching school with my sister and the man who'd eventually be the best man at my wedding (15 years later), when we went to the mall to see STIII on opening day. Afterward, we all made a mad dash for the nearest bookstore and bought collectible STIII magazines, before dining on fast food and talking up the movie for a good hour or so. It's still a warm fuzzy memory that I associate with this movie, which is perhaps the most character-centric of the TOS movies. That really sounds like great memories Sehlat. I almost envy you. The last time I was that excited after a movie was Star Trek Insurrection. But I didn't have any friends to discuss it with at the time and was made fun of for liking Star Trek. I did notice that in Star Trek IV, Leonard Nimoy littered that movie with establishing shots. He must've noticed the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by RobinBland on Apr 23, 2024 9:33:21 GMT
I have to live with the fact that, over time, for reasons I'm not entirely sure of myself, Star Trek III has become one of my favorite Trek experiences. It features one of William Shatner's very best performances as Kirk, and although Uhura is somewhat sidelined, most everyone gets something to do. I love the themes of the movie, I love all the new accoutrements to Starfleet - Spacedock and the Excelsior, and the death of the Enterprise, though heartbreaking, means something. It stands for something - the faithful vessel delivering the heroes to the place where they can rescue their friend and redeem the sanity of another. They go all out, putting their loyalty to each other first.
Lloyd's Kruge as a villain is kinda nonsensical, a maniac, lacking any layers that any Klingon up to this point has always delivered. Nuanced Michael Ansara he is not, and yet, it all works and I love him. (Sadly, he also set the blueprint for many Klingons that followed, obliterating the cunning aliens from TOS with these honor-obsessed space Viking weirdoes.)
I agree, its visual scope sometimes leaves a little to be desired. Not the ILM stuff, which is still superb; just some of the storytelling and transitions between shots that might've helped to open out the picture a little.
The Genesis planet is a set. It's helped by the ILM shots, but it's a set. I don't care. I love the final fight between Kirk and Kruge and I love the final scenes set on Vulcan. It's open-ended, but what matters - the restoration of found family and friendship - is dealt with in such a fundamentally satisfying way I didn't think they'd be able to do any better (and then they did the one with the whales next).
It's become the "middle chapter" of the trilogy, but at the time I saw it when it first came out, I remember thinking that if it was the final Star Trek film, it'd be okay to leave it there, because the crew were all back together, and they back together because of how much they cared about each other.
I love Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. Not sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Apr 23, 2024 18:42:09 GMT
I have to live with the fact that, over time, for reasons I'm not entirely sure of myself, Star Trek III has become one of my favorite Trek experiences. It features one of William Shatner's very best performances as Kirk, and although Uhura is somewhat sidelined, most everyone gets something to do. I love the themes of the movie, I love all the new accoutrements to Starfleet - Spacedock and the Excelsior, and the death of the Enterprise, though heartbreaking, means something. It stands for something - the faithful vessel delivering the heroes to the place where they can rescue their friend and redeem the sanity of another. They go all out, putting their loyalty to each other first. Lloyd's Kruge as a villain is kinda nonsensical, a maniac, lacking any layers that any Klingon up to this point has always delivered. Nuanced Michael Ansara he is not, and yet, it all works and I love him. (Sadly, he also set the blueprint for many Klingons that followed, obliterating the cunning aliens from TOS with these honor-obsessed space Viking weirdoes.) I agree, its visual scope sometimes leaves a little to be desired. Not the ILM stuff, which is still superb; just some of the storytelling and transitions between shots that might've helped to open out the picture a little. The Genesis planet is a set. It's helped by the ILM shots, but it's a set. I don't care. I love the final fight between Kirk and Kruge and I love the final scenes set on Vulcan. It's open-ended, but what matters - the restoration of found family and friendship - is dealt with in such a fundamentally satisfying way I didn't think they'd be able to do any better (and then they did the one with the whales next). It's become the "middle chapter" of the trilogy, but at the time I saw it when it first came out, I remember thinking that if it was the final Star Trek film, it'd be okay to leave it there, because the crew were all back together, and they back together because of how much they cared about each other. I love Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. Not sorry. No reason to be sorry. It's a wonderful film, the greatest flaw of which is that it's sandwiched between two films that suck all the notoriety out of the room, so III gets dismissed. I think, overall, the shoestring budget helps the film more than hurts it. They didn't skimp where they shouldn't, and, where they did? The rest of the film works so well that you can brush it off...at least I can. The story closed around the crew because there wasn't any money to throw at anything else. They had to script a story with what they REALLY had and what they had was pretty damn good. With a bigger budget it might not have gotten to center around the people quite as much as it does. Sure, they still would have gone to save Spock, but we might have missed out on some of the little things--- the little quirks and looks and quiet moments between the crew that really show why these people would sacrifice everything for one of their own. I think it would have been set and paced differently to spend the money. And, absolutely true about Kruge.Lloyd does a fine job with it, but he's a pretty thin character, and, after about 40 years that "honor" thing has been beaten into one note, and I'm kind of sick of it to the point where I kinda think that everything that could be said about the Klingons has been. |
|
|
|
Post by Sehlat Vie on Apr 25, 2024 0:34:37 GMT
I have to live with the fact that, over time, for reasons I'm not entirely sure of myself, Star Trek III has become one of my favorite Trek experiences. It features one of William Shatner's very best performances as Kirk, and although Uhura is somewhat sidelined, most everyone gets something to do. I love the themes of the movie, I love all the new accoutrements to Starfleet - Spacedock and the Excelsior, and the death of the Enterprise, though heartbreaking, means something. It stands for something - the faithful vessel delivering the heroes to the place where they can rescue their friend and redeem the sanity of another. They go all out, putting their loyalty to each other first. Lloyd's Kruge as a villain is kinda nonsensical, a maniac, lacking any layers that any Klingon up to this point has always delivered. Nuanced Michael Ansara he is not, and yet, it all works and I love him. (Sadly, he also set the blueprint for many Klingons that followed, obliterating the cunning aliens from TOS with these honor-obsessed space Viking weirdoes.) I agree, its visual scope sometimes leaves a little to be desired. Not the ILM stuff, which is still superb; just some of the storytelling and transitions between shots that might've helped to open out the picture a little. The Genesis planet is a set. It's helped by the ILM shots, but it's a set. I don't care. I love the final fight between Kirk and Kruge and I love the final scenes set on Vulcan. It's open-ended, but what matters - the restoration of found family and friendship - is dealt with in such a fundamentally satisfying way I didn't think they'd be able to do any better (and then they did the one with the whales next). It's become the "middle chapter" of the trilogy, but at the time I saw it when it first came out, I remember thinking that if it was the final Star Trek film, it'd be okay to leave it there, because the crew were all back together, and they back together because of how much they cared about each other. I love Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. Not sorry. You and I both. I also have such great memories associated with seeing it, that I really can't uncouple the memories from the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Sehlat Vie on Apr 25, 2024 0:36:40 GMT
I have to live with the fact that, over time, for reasons I'm not entirely sure of myself, Star Trek III has become one of my favorite Trek experiences. It features one of William Shatner's very best performances as Kirk, and although Uhura is somewhat sidelined, most everyone gets something to do. I love the themes of the movie, I love all the new accoutrements to Starfleet - Spacedock and the Excelsior, and the death of the Enterprise, though heartbreaking, means something. It stands for something - the faithful vessel delivering the heroes to the place where they can rescue their friend and redeem the sanity of another. They go all out, putting their loyalty to each other first. Lloyd's Kruge as a villain is kinda nonsensical, a maniac, lacking any layers that any Klingon up to this point has always delivered. Nuanced Michael Ansara he is not, and yet, it all works and I love him. (Sadly, he also set the blueprint for many Klingons that followed, obliterating the cunning aliens from TOS with these honor-obsessed space Viking weirdoes.) I agree, its visual scope sometimes leaves a little to be desired. Not the ILM stuff, which is still superb; just some of the storytelling and transitions between shots that might've helped to open out the picture a little. The Genesis planet is a set. It's helped by the ILM shots, but it's a set. I don't care. I love the final fight between Kirk and Kruge and I love the final scenes set on Vulcan. It's open-ended, but what matters - the restoration of found family and friendship - is dealt with in such a fundamentally satisfying way I didn't think they'd be able to do any better (and then they did the one with the whales next). It's become the "middle chapter" of the trilogy, but at the time I saw it when it first came out, I remember thinking that if it was the final Star Trek film, it'd be okay to leave it there, because the crew were all back together, and they back together because of how much they cared about each other. I love Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. Not sorry. No reason to be sorry. It's a wonderful film, the greatest flaw of which is that it's sandwiched between two films that suck all the notoriety out of the room, so III gets dismissed. I think, overall, the shoestring budget helps the film more than hurts it. They didn't skimp where they shouldn't, and, where they did? The rest of the film works so well that you can brush it off...at least I can. The story closed around the crew because there wasn't any money to throw at anything else. They had to script a story with what they REALLY had and what they had was pretty damn good. With a bigger budget it might not have gotten to center around the people quite as much as it does. Sure, they still would have gone to save Spock, but we might have missed out on some of the little things--- the little quirks and looks and quiet moments between the crew that really show why these people would sacrifice everything for one of their own. I think it would have been set and paced differently to spend the money. And, absolutely true about Kruge.Lloyd does a fine job with it, but he's a pretty thin character, and, after about 40 years that "honor" thing has been beaten into one note, and I'm kind of sick of it to the point where I kinda think that everything that could be said about the Klingons has been. He's one note, yes, but Christopher Lloyd still makes him interesting with his wild delivery and dialogue ("Bridge, nothing happening here"...LOL). And given the movie's scant running time, he's villain enough. He's the bad guy who wants the H-bomb. That's all you need for a 105 minute movie. |
|
