[Saquist]

Originally Posted by martok2112

Rational and generous, sir.

Well, I tried to be...However....

It should be really ranked 4th best ahead of The Search for Spock. Box Office performance counts for a lot. There is really no reason other than the solid nature of ST III's story and drama. It was arbitrary and I'm not proud of it but I for some reason couldn't put all those plot holes ahead of The Search for Spock....

My Weakness for that film...is my only excuse.

[Futureguy]

Originally Posted by Saquist

Well, I tried to be...However....

It should be really ranked 4th best ahead of The Search for Spock. Box Office performance counts for a lot. There is really no reason other than the solid nature of ST III's story and drama. It was arbitrary and I'm not proud of it but I for some reason couldn't put all those plot holes ahead of The Search for Spock....

My Weakness for that film...is my only excuse.

The whole movie, was enjoyable, though the last scene, when everyone gathers around Spock is classic! The last moment beam up of Kirk and Spock, then the ultimate destruction of the Genesis planet, for me are next in a great moment for that film.

I think that the fade out on Savik and Spock starting "the ritual" was one that even non-Trek persons may have understood.

Too bad David had to die..., but it did set up the background for Kirk's reaction to the Klingons in STVI. Oddly it was not an apparent issue in STV?

[Saquist]

There were lots of Great Moments.
They brought the humor back and I love the Loyalty toward the crew and friends. Everyone would want to be Spock with 6 friends like that.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Futureguy

The whole movie, was enjoyable, though the last scene, when everyone gathers around Spock is classic! The last moment beam up of Kirk and Spock, then the ultimate destruction of the Genesis planet, for me are next in a great moment for that film.

I think that the fade out on Savik and Spock starting "the ritual" was one that even non-Trek persons may have understood.

Too bad David had to die..., but it did set up the background for Kirk's reaction to the Klingons in STVI. Oddly it was not an apparent issue in STV?

No, it wasn't an issue - they even helped save Kirk's life - which is why TUC and the switch to 'let them die' is too tonally severe for me to get enthusiastically behind TUC these days (liked it back when it first came out 1991 in though but over the years it's steadily sank down for me), not to mention the borderline offensiveness of most of the Enterprise crew (and Starfleet apparently) becoming completely racist in TUC, which they never particularly were before but which was done anyway so Meyer could have his little 'enemies become friends' plot.

Of course, one can also blame Nimoy for this, as he also helped develop the story.

[Saquist]

The atmosphere for the Klingons as enemy has always been tense.
While TOS did play with this, it was serious. Trouble with the Tribbles and the Federation Klingon fist fight.

In Day of the Dove the animosity between the Klingons and humans is enough to feed an Entity of Energy. While these were racist acts there was hate and racist typically come from the unknown....I found it socially believable because humans do this all the time.

Especially after Killing his son. "You Klingon Bastard, You Killed My Son" They were the enemy and after fighting the enemy for 20 years you learn to hate everything about him..thus the racism. Was it very tasteful no.

Untill your post I didn't realize how those comments were out of place for Federation citizens though.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

No, it wasn't an issue - they even helped save Kirk's life - which is why TUC and the switch to 'let them die' is too tonally severe for me to get enthusiastically behind TUC these days (liked it back when it first came out 1991 in though but over the years it's steadily sank down for me), not to mention the borderline offensiveness of most of the Enterprise crew (and Starfleet apparently) becoming completely racist in TUC, which they never particularly were before but which was done anyway so Meyer could have his little 'enemies become friends' plot.

Of course, one can also blame Nimoy for this, as he also helped develop the story.

Who was offensive? Chekov when he indicated that he doesn't look forward to a dinner witha bunch of brutes? Uhura when she was disgusted that the Klingon flag officer didn't care to talk about Shakespeare ate with his hands?
I'd call this pretty normal. If there are people who look like brutes, act like brutes and smell like brutes you consider them as brutes.

And what's racist about Kirk's 'let them die' comment? The Klingons killed his son and it's anything but clear if Kruge was a renegade, on an official mission or a renegade explicitly condemned or silently tolerated by the regime.
How can this be racist when slaughtering all the Borg, just another Federation archenemy, would be OK?

It actually merely reflects the opinion of the hawks in Starfleet, don't offer peace but let them suffer a bit (aka let them die) and then dictate peace after your wishes upon them. Obviously this wouldn't be real peace.
So I'd claim that Kirk's so called racism is totally irrelevant ... yet once you think about the political implications it becomes obvious that the hardliners don't want real peace. They wanna subjugate the Klingons, they wanna become imperical, they are opposed to the basic principles of the Federation, they are traitors. And that's the moment where you can put the wrongthinkers into the gulag.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Saquist

Especially after Killing his son. "You Klingon Bastard, You Killed My Son" They were the enemy and after fighting the enemy for 20 years you learn to hate everything about him..thus the racism. Was it very tasteful no.

Untill your post I didn't realize how those comments were out of place for Federation citizens though.

Precisely, it leaves a sour taste behind in terms of the movie for me.

Not particularly Roddenberryian I would venture, but as I believe there was no love lost between Meyer and Roddenberry it didn't matter that Roddenberry was reportedly unpleased about a few things in that script. Meyer had the advantage.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by kevin

Precisely, it leaves a sour taste behind in terms of the movie for me.

Not particularly Roddenberryian I would venture, but as I believe there was no love lost between Meyer and Roddenberry it didn't matter that Roddenberry was reportedly unpleased about a few things in that script. Meyer had the advantage.

Ultimately though it served the story and this is why sometimes outside directors are best for giving a bit of perspective.

I mean who would have thought of giving the Enterprise a sub like feel for the action of the ships and crew...or even putting themes in the films. Nimoy apparently liked the concept and mimicked it from the First Film even though unofficially Meyers was behind the scenes on the Third Movie but didn't get his name in the credits.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

Precisely, it leaves a sour taste behind in terms of the movie for me.

Not particularly Roddenberryian I would venture, but as I believe there was no love lost between Meyer and Roddenberry it didn't matter that Roddenberry was reportedly unpleased about a few things in that script. Meyer had the advantage.

The Meyer movies, the Section 31 stories in DS9, torture in ENT, I understand why might can consider such stories as going too far. But isn't this better than constant Roddenberryian utopia with no real conflicts, tensions and thus no potential for good drama left?

I think that we need both, Roddenberry and Meyer, the paradise and its very fragility. Or in other terms you need to show that there is a constant struggle to maintain your great world, that without this struggle you might quickly regress to the savage ways. So the seemingly static Federation paradise is quite dynamic beneath the surface, there are forces who would undo it and there are counteracting forces.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

Who was offensive? Chekov when he indicated that he doesn't look forward to a dinner witha bunch of brutes? Uhura when she was disgusted that the Klingon flag officer didn't care to talk about Shakespeare ate with his hands? I'd call this pretty normal. If there are people who look like brutes, act like brutes and smell like brutes you consider them as brutes.

So if a different culture has different customs (eating with hands say) it's appropriate to be openly disgusted as opposed to acknowleging there are differing cultural standards at play and say, talking about why that is?

And of course, God forbid anyone should not want to talk about Shakespeare.

And what's racist about Kirk's 'let them die' comment? The Klingons killed his son and it's anything but clear if Kruge was a renegade, on an official mission or a renegade explicitly condemned or silently tolerated by the regime.
How can this be racist when slaughtering all the Borg, just another Federation archenemy, would be OK?

Apart from the schism between his comment there, and the fact he had peacefully dealt with a Klingon and even invited them onto his ship at the end of the ST:V after one saved his life (it's not particularly consisted, but of course Meyer can get away with this stuff where other's would be hanged), you have lines such as (mild paraphrasing here) 'I bet that Klingon ***** killed her father', 'I felt like Valeris' and 'I wouldn't let my daughter marry one' - which might actually have been the line that Nichelle Nichols flat out refused to say, because such lines had been used towards black people historically, and which was given to another character instead.

Brock Peters was also reported to be uncomfortable with come of his lines as well, but for whatever reason, was able to film them.

Little lines sprinkled all through the script to clearly indicate that the whole crew is of a similar mindset, and this is important because it spreads the load out from being solely Kirk, who did have a reason to hate Klingons after David's death, to everyone.

It actually merely reflects the opinion of the hawks in Starfleet, don't offer peace but let them suffer a bit (aka let them die) and then dictate peace after your wishes upon them. Obviously this wouldn't be real peace.
So I'd claim that Kirk's so called racism is totally irrelevant ... yet once you think about the political implications it becomes obvious that the hardliners don't want real peace. They wanna subjugate the Klingons, they wanna become imperical, they are opposed to the basic principles of the Federation, they are traitors. And that's the moment where you can put the wrongthinkers into the gulag.

Well, Kirk's racism might be irrelevant to you. I'm not particularly inclined to agree. Nor with the general attitude of the rest of the crew either.

And yes, there would be some who would want to see the Klingons suffer, and that would be in line with some later themes seen in later TNG and DS9.