The third Star Trek feature film gets a bad rap. It had a hard act to follow. How could any movie continue the saga after the masterful and heart-wrenching second film, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan? Even today, few fans list the third film among their three most-favorite of the eleven feature films, and it often cracks viewers’ top five simply by default rather than out of affection. While I acknowledge that the film has flaws, I think it’s far better than most people remember.
I think part of its image problem is that, for many fans, it’s easy to take the good parts of the movie for granted while giving too much weight to its imperfections. Admittedly, the biggest strike against Search for Spock is that it embodies the much-reviled trope known as “the reset button.” One could argue that, by using technobabble and magical science-fantasy to resurrect Spock, the third film robs its predecessor of its dramatic impact. In fact, I’m fairly certain I myself have made that argument on many occasions. However, considering that Spock continues to be a brilliant character despite this hokey reincarnation, I propose we just let that go.
The film’s other missteps are by no means trivial. The forced casting change for Saavik, with Robin Curtis stepping into the role originated by Kirstie Alley (who didn’t want to reprise the part), undercut the easy suspension of disbelief that a story such as this demands. As if that weren’t enough to strain viewers’ patience, the “science” underpinning this movie is ludicrous, even by Star Trek’s rather lax standards. We’re asked to believe that the Genesis Planet is unstable because Dr. David Marcus used “protomatter” in the Genesis Device (I have a whole other rant about that), and that the planet’s “energy field” somehow regenerated Spock’s corpse, rejuvenated it into a child who ages rapidly but never seems to eat, and causes the whole planet to spontaneously explode.
Looming large above those picayune quibbles, however, is the one enormous, unmotivated turn of the plot that propels the entire story: the decision by Kirk and his crew to return to the Genesis planet. I don’t want to put too fine a point on this: this part of the story makes no sense.
Early in the film, McCoy—speaking in Spock’s voice—asks Kirk to take him home to Vulcan, and to “climb the steps of Mount Seleya.” Subsequently, Sarek visits Kirk at home and asks him to bring Spock’s katra, his “living essence” or soul, home to Vulcan, as McCoy requested. Kirk and Sarek discover that Spock placed his katra into the mind of McCoy for safekeeping, so Sarek asks Kirk to bring McCoy to Vulcan so that Spock’s katra can be retrieved from the human doctor’s mind and both Spock’s spirit and McCoy’s can be at rest.
Following this so far? Okay, good.
The very next things that happen are that Kirk asks his boss to let him take the Enterprise back to the Genesis planet, and McCoy gets arrested while trying to book illegal passage to the Genesis planet. Say it with me: “Huh?”
Five minutes earlier, everyone had been focused on going to Vulcan. That should be easy. It’s very close to Earth. Flights probably leave three times a day. Starfleet probably operates a regular transport service. So, why, all of a sudden, do all our characters want to go back to the Genesis planet? They don’t need Spock’s body for the ceremony to free McCoy of Spock’s katra, and and none of them at this point have any reason to believe Spock’s body is even intact.
They want to go only because the plot said so. It’s a colossal unforced error the likes of which isn’t usually seen outside of a Mets home game.
But I didn’t write this just to rag on Search for Spock. I’m writing this to tell you why this film is actually kind of awesome, despite these dramatic blemishes. There is so much that is right and awesome about this movie that it will knock your socks off.
The banter between the members of the Enterprise crew is packed with funny retorts and spot-on perfect jibes. This easily ranks among the funniest of the Star Trek films, right up there with Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. This movie is jam-packed with great comedic moments—from the sabotage of the Excelsior to McCoy’s failed neck-pinch, from Scotty grousing “Up your shaft” at an overly chipper turbolift voice, to McCoy, upon learning that Spock foisted his katra upon him, declaring, “That green-blooded Vulcan son of a bitch!”
You want action? This film’s got action. Uhura pulls a phaser on a cocky youngster, Sulu whips some fancy judo on a tough-talking bruiser who deserves an ass-kicking, Kirk and crew hijack the Enterprise out of spacedock, and an entire planet goes boom. There’s cinematic adventure galore here.
If the criteria by which one judges a Star Trek film is whether its story has high stakes and lasting consequences, Search for Spock more than measures up. Kirk sacrifices his career, his ship, and his son to keep his word to Sarek and fulfill his duty to his best friend. Anyone who didn’t mist up when the Enterprise self-destructed can’t have been a true fan of the original series. And despite my criticism of the resurrection of Spock as a “reset button,” the scene of his true rebirth, when his katra is rejoined with his regenerated body, and he’s reunited with Kirk, is beautifully depicted and deeply moving.
The underlying theme of Wrath of Khan is “one for all.” The sentiment at the heart of Search for Spock is “all for one”—and both are part of what makes Star Trek great.
David Mack is the author of numerous Star Trek novels and the cowriter of two episodes of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
It’s been a while, but don’t they say they need his body to complete the ritual of laying him to rest?
I very much agree. The plot itself is so weak and the science so bad that it just hurts your brain to think about it.
Then again, this is absolutely no different from the 2009 Star Trek movie. I kind of have to wonder if J.J. Abrams saw ST: III and decided to use it as his baseline for a Star Trek movie.
When you set all these things aside, however, it’s got moments of greatness. The dialogue alone is so enjoyable that I can quote half the movie verbatim. And this is the closest to an ensemble film Star Trek ever had, giving everyone a good moment.
It also helps that basically McCoy is the real star of the movie and he’s always been my favorite character anyway. I watch ST: III just for McCoy. Which is yet another similarity to the Abrams Star Trek.
So even though the plot itself is pretty terrible, this movie has some of my all time favorite scenes. I love that whole encounter between McCoy and the alien when he’s trying to charter a flight to Genesis. I love Sarek’s scene. The destruction of Enterprise breaks my heart every time I see it but I still love the moment between Kirk and McCoy immediately after. And though the scene on Vulcan was dragged out for way too long, when McCoy finally comes back from having his brains unscrambled the moments that follow are incredibly touching.
So despite everything that made absolutely no sense whatsoever, I do love this film.
To me, movies II-IV are Star Trek—nothing else is necessary (though I quite enjoy V as well.) But III is the linchpin that holds the entire sequence together.
I like to watch the three films together, from the Wrath of Khan to the Voyage Home, as one long story, and then it doesn’t seem as painful. Science fiction does not have to be based on real science for me to enjoy it, as the personalities of the characters and the way they interact are what I really enjoy.
ST III is definitely the bridge between II & IV but I did like it anyway. Sulu telling that mucle bound meat head, “Don’t call me tiny” was priceless. I did love the interaction of the crew has they break McCoy out & steal the Enterprise. Really believed they ‘cared’ about Spock to do all this.
Not too worried about the ‘science’ of the whole thing as ST science is at best dubious. I did think the switch of Saavik was glaring but mostly because Curtis wasn’t as good as Saavik as Kirstie Alley was.
On the plus side, Christopher Lloyd was fabulous at the Klingon commander. His depiction paved the way for the Klingon ‘renaissance’, for lack of a better way to put it, that we see today.
Kato
Chalk me up as another Lloyd-as-Kruge fan, but I never warmed to Kirstie Alley’s Saavik; it was always Robin Curtis for me.
It is a very impassioned movie about rescuing the most logical member of the team.
It would have been nice if Kirstie Alley had chosen to remain. Maybe with CGI they can offer a re-print where fans can chose a Kirstie Alley Saavik or a Robin Curtis Saavik for continuity.
Each actress could be paid a nominal fee based on which revision the fans chose to purchase.
Or we can just make all the characters William Shatner just for fun. :)
It’s also the only time Spock is shown to get any.
It is a decent movie, and the franchise still cares about itself here.
But I always wonder if the crew of the Yorktown felt like they got the shaft just so “our” crew could get a replacement ship.
I totally agree with the others who have commented on Chrisopher Lloyd’s performance as Kruge. He was quite enjoyable in the role.
Longtimefan @@@@@ 7:
I have no doubt that’ll someday be possible. And when it is, I’ll definitely be watching only Kirstie Alley for Saavik.
“it embodies the much-reviled trope known as ‘the reset button'” — Yeah, because the status quo is for the Enterprise to be destroyed, Kirk & Co. to be on the lam, and Spock to be the mental equivalent of a first-grader. If you want to criticize the film for being one step on the road to reset, that’s one thing; but the movie leaves a lot of unfinished business that the next one has to mop up.
You’re closer to the mark for criticizing a plot that just doesn’t hold together on the surface. Fortunately, great character moments abound and some great action abound, more than making up for it. And, absolutely — where’s the love for Christopher Lloyd as Kruge? I think he pulls the role off spectacularly. Too bad he couldn’t have returned as an ongoing nemesis.
(Oh, and consider me a “yes” vote for a circa 1982 Kirstie Alley-fied ST III, too.)
It almost feels like there’s a scene cut out where Kirk hears a report from the Grissom regarding finding a life-form on Genesis.
The films did do very well for their villain casting. Khan, Kruge, Chang…
Re: the plot holes.
I could just be crazy here, but doesn’t Kirk specifically state in The Wrath of Khan that he would HAVE to come back to Genesis one day? It is a voiceover while he is musing about the life from lifelessness of the Genesis torpedo.
I’ve always loved this movie and am willing to suspend my disbelief.
It’s about family – the Enterprise family.
They should have never killed off Spock in the first place, drama be damned. If I want drama, I’ll call my family.
Poor Robin Curtis, it’s not her fault that she had to replace someone who was a perfect Saavik. Had we never seen Kirstie as Saavik, we’d have been fine with Curtis.
Uhhh…they DO need Spock’s body for the planned Katra ritual. Sarek specifically says: “You must bring them BOTH to Mt. Seleya.” It was never “Bring McCoy to Vulcan and we’ll do the rest.”
The film has plot holes galore, obviously — but the exchange between Kirk and Sarek at the end — “But at what cost? Your ship, your son.” “If I hadn’t tried, the cost would have been my soul.” — is as good a Trek character moment as I can think of.
On Robin Curtis: I read a Starlog interview with her back in the day in which she indicated how her big struggle was playing the emotionless Vulcan Saavik; director Nimoy kept telling her to say her lines “Drier. Drier. Drier.” But Saavik was never an emotionless Vulcan, so the error may well lie in Nimoy’s complete misunderstanding of the character.
Not trying to be sassy, but for someone to miss something so big and the criticize the movie for a plothole that doesn’t exist doesn’t bode well for these re-watches.
Well to be fair, the movie tried to have it both ways. First it was all about bringing Spock’s katra back to Vulcan. Then suddenly they needed Spock’s body too. There was no explanation for that and, really, it made no sense whatsoever.
A number of the Star Trek novels written later went through a considerable amount of effort to explain it without really being successful because there’s nothing of logic to it. Unless you’re returning the soul to the body there’s no need for the body whatsoever. And if it was so important to ensure the body went back to Vulcan, why didn’t Spock’s will stipulate it? They’re not going to just jettison his body into space at random.
It’s a huge plothole that makes no sense. But that’s okay, I forgave it long ago.
I’m very fond of this movie, but mainly because I can just see the Enterprise mob as an interstellar A-Team – which was what this movie looked as if it was setting up. I was very sorry the next film did not exploit this idea.
Toryx @16: Not to get hopelessly stuck on a particular plot point — and you’re right, the whole thing makes zero sense — but it was “Bring Spock and katra to Vulcan” the whole time. The first time in the movie this stuff comes up, it’s when McCoy has broken into Spock’s quarters, and speaking as Spock, he says to Kirk, “You left me on Genesis…why did you do that?” This pretty strongly implies that Kirk wasn’t supposed to shoot Spock onto the Genesis Planet.
As stipulated, the whole business makes no sense, but that’s not the same thing as saying that the movie tries to have it both ways. It’s one way, all along. (I seem to recall Vonda McIntyre’s novelization addressing some of this stuff, trying to come up with an explanation of sorts for why they need a corpse to transfer the katra to…someplace else, but I can’t recall what that explanation was. It was an interesting novelization, though — more than half of it is stuff that didn’t happen in the movie, such as Spock’s wake on the Enterprise, and a MUCH more “in line with Trek II” characterization of Saavik.)
Important to note that the final version of ST III is different from the way it was scripted. As originally written, the film was to open with the scene in which the U.S.S. Grissom arrives at the Genesis Planet and discovers that Spock’s tube is on the surface. As you may recall, this discovery is immediately reported back to Starfleet.
The next scene would have been the introduction of the Enterprise (the scene that ended up opening the film), and Kirk’s voiceover would have been slightly different. Instead of him saying, “The death of Spock is like an open wound,” he would have said, “The news of Spock’s tube has shaken me.”
So Kirk would have known from the moment we first saw him in the movie that Spock’s capsule was intact, and this information naturally would have reached Sarek before he showed up at Kirk’s apartment. It would have been fairly clear that both men were fully aware that Spock’s body was still in existence and on the Genesis Planet, and how they knew.
But in the editing stage, it was decided to begin the film with the Enterprise, and that created some plot holes and lapses in logic that weren’t fully addressed in post-production.
Regarding Saavik: I always liked Robin Curtis better. I think she was better at being dry and unemotional. The novelization of Star Treks II and III indicated that Saavik was intended to have been half-Vulcan, half-Romulan. By that standard I’d take Kirstie Alley’s portrayal. But since that detail was never canonized on film, I felt Curtis did a better job as a Vulcan.
The other thing that I love about this movie that didn’t get mentioned: Horner’s score for II and III was amazing, and the capstone of it all is the music for “Stealing the Enterprise”. I listened to that so many times on my casette recording that I ruined the tape. Truly awesome music.
@@@@@ Glenn Greenberg: Good lord, how I want to hear Shatner intone “The news of Spock’s tube has shaken me.”
@20 JimBurnell
I too enjoyed Horner’s Star Trek music but a problem with Horner becomes evident if you listen to a lot of soundtracks and filmscores. Horner does a lot of Horner – he borrows from himself. (Much more than Goldsmith, Williams and now McCreary.) I cannot listen to his Star Trek soundtracks without seeing scenes from Brainstorm.
Having said that, I do like James Horner’s work. For me, his best was the score for Searching For Bobby Fischer.
Sarek says Kirk must bring BOTH of them to Vulcan. You missed that line! That’s why they went to the Genesis planet.
The Klingons always seemed too “showy” to me, like they still hadn’t quite figured them out. And the movie just doesn’t seem to have much of a story. For all that goes on, not much seems to happen. The whole film is about them getting to the planet; once there it all goes down in just a few scenes. The destruction of the Enterprise maroons our heroes on a time bomb, but that’s resolved so quickly no one even seems to realize it.
Anyway, the reason it never makes the top 3 is that there are clearly three better films in the original 6 alone. It’s a decent entry, but hardly a great one.
A silly film but one with a heart and Kruge doesn’t just have a good performance but good writing as well. He’s canny and quick-witted; a great adversary. When Kirk pulls off a coup by hitting him as soon as he drops cloak, Kruge turns it around by the skin of his teeth just with perseverance and then quickly realizes he actually has the advantage. He also has surprising emotional complexity for a villain in a pulp adventure film; the stunned moment where he realizes he must kill Valkris (his lover?), the urgency with which he tries to warn his boarding party about the bombs, and his head-in-hands despondency after they die add a lot of texture to the character. He kind of regresses to a dumb thug for the final fist-fight with Kirk but it was great getting there.
As a bit of trivia this film originated the Klingon “bird of prey” whereas that term was used for Romulan vessels before (thematically followed up by the “warbirds” of TNG) and with it the the signature Romulan cloaking device which seem a somewhat odd fit for straightforward “warrior race” aliens. Apparently one draft of the script had Kruge steal a Romulan vessel but I imagine that was dropped to save time. I suppose you could imagine the ship is a fruit of the Klingon-Romulan alliance which itself only exists because of some hasty dialogue from an episode of the original TV series to explain why they were using Klingon ship models (or was it outright stock footage?) in a Romulan episode to save money on production.
@25/fronzel: “A silly film but one with a heart” – I agree. Also, for all their differences, I find that both TMP and TWOK suffer from being too self-important. This film doesn’t even try to be profound and succeeds as a fun romp about friendship.
I’ve been wondering why the Klingon ships were called “bird of prey” when it was the Romulan ships that actually had birds painted on them.
Oh, and I found it odd that Kruge’s crew called him “my lord”. I don’t think Klingon captains were called that either before or after.
@26 JanaJansen: Look closely on the wings of the Klingon ship. There’s stylized feathers painted and etched into them. Plus the overall shape of the ship is very bird like. But I wonder where the warp nacelles are hidden on that thing…
Now this is a nice coincidence: I rewatched this movie yesterday, after discussing ST Beyond with friends who really like the new movies and don´t care that much about classic ones. I tried to explain what makes this particular movie so much better than Beyond and thought about it for the rest of evening; now I came here just to see this old discussion thread came back to life.
I must admit that I like Search for Spock even more than Wrath of Khan. Maybe because it was one of my first; I watched them in pretty mixed order (it was in 90´s, before internet) so basically after watching ST I and IV there was several years gap, in which I read every ST novel available in local library. I started with Search for Spock. Wrath of Khan was missing from the library and I read the novel and watched the movie many years later. Maybe that is the reason I like Search for Spock so much more. Maybe it is something else: Spocks sacrifice in WOK, however heartbreaking, is really logical. Somebody had to do it, or else they would´ve all died. What I love is the beautiful crazyness of Kirk risking his career and everything just to save his dead friends soul. (He didn´t know at that point he will save his life as well). Also, plotholes are probably somehow explained in novelization, because I don´t remember having any problem with them.
@28/Tessuna: Me too – I also like TSFS better than TWOK, although I originally watched them in chronological order. I’m not entirely sure about all my reasons, but I like yours.
@29 JanaJansen: Oh thank you! I wasn´t even sure my reasons make any sense. And I didn´t realize how much I needed to be agreed with on some Star Trek related subject; that´s the trouble with me being the geekiest of my friends: only one to watch classic Star Trek, classic Doctor Who, only one who have read the whole Wheel of Time… oh and only one who thinks New Trek emotional-KHAAAN-yelling Spock is just wrong.
This is for “Book Club Mom”.
“Star Trek III” was a gripping,science-fiction action-adventure space drama, make no mistake, and so what if there were a few plotholes and such?Never mind the nitpicking . This was all about Admiral Kirk and Co. risking everything to rescue a beloved crewmember and teammate and the steps they took to achieve this end. There were three scenes that gave me goosebumps top to bottom, and I’ll mention them here. The first was the turning point of the whole film: the meeting in Kirk’s apartment between him and Ambassador Sarek, in which Sarek, for all his anguish and desperation, asked Kirk “May I join your mind?”—the Vulcan way of requesting permission to participate in a mind-meld—and that, all several minutes of it, was a quiet, deep, beautiful and yes, intimate,voyage of exploration and discovery—full and complete communication between two minds. The second, no doubt everyone’s favorite, was the stealing of the Enterprise right out of the spacedock—I for one laughed so hard my sides are still aching! And third, there was the dramatic and electrifying fal-tor-pan—the refusion, the restoration of Spock’s katra to its rightful owner—again, I for one: I have watched that so many times and each time I had the sense that I was there with the Enterprise crew, witnessing it all, particularly how the magnificent Dame Judith Anderson in the role of T’Lar performed a double mind-meld with both Bones and Spock, bringing all her concentration, all her power, to effect the successful transfer. And the reunion—and I could see that even the stoical Sarek was very much relieved. And so—the adventure continued. I loved this film, and I am sure you did too.
A note to Ludon, who seemed to complain about James Horner borrowing from himself: Relax. Composers have been borrowing from themselves and recycling their own material from time immemorial. They used to wonder about Vivaldi—DID HE WRITE 500 CONCERTOS OR ONE CONCERTO 500 TIMES? Bach did it countless times, taking sinfonia movements from his cantatas and turning them into concertos. Beethoven likewise—for example, a familiar theme from the last movement of his third symphony turned up as a contradance, a movement from his “Creatures of Prometheus” ballet, and who knows what else.. Composers do it all the time, so there’s nothing wrong with that. And it can be fun to hear a theme that you recognize from hearing somewhere else.
Star trek 3 the search for Spock is one of my favorite movie of all star trek movies the third chapter of the series the late Leonard nimoy he was star and directed his own two movies same for star trek 4 the voyage home and appeared on star trek TNG two part episode Spock was a great hero and on July 22 star trek beyond is my favorite to same tribute to nimoy and Anton star trek lives forever the search for Spock is now forever live long and prosper