The Star Trek film franchise has a long and storied history. But few installments in this venerable series are as controversial and misunderstood as Star Trek III.
In the previous review, we covered how Wrath of Khan director Nicholas Meyer and writer/producer Harve Bennett coaxed Leonard Nimoy into reprising the role of Spock by offering to kill the iconic character off. Spock’s death got a negative reception from audiences – including Nimoy, who had so much fun making Star Trek II that he asked to return for Star Trek III. So instead of the planned Return to Genesis, we got The Search for Spock.
Nimoy’s change of heart has since given rise to a number of false memes among Trek fandom. The most often-told tale holds that Nimoy had grown to loathe Spock and Star Trek after years of being type cast. So he appeared in the first film reluctantly, returned for the second with the understanding that it would be his final appearance, and only came back again because he needed the money. After that, he resigned himself to playing the role that overshadowed him until his death.
Some cursory research into The Wrath of Khan‘s production debunks that zombie meme. Nimoy had decided to stay with the series before Star Trek II premiered. The proof is two scenes added in post-production: Spock’s last-minute mind meld with Bones McCoy and the closing shot of his coffin torpedo on Genesis. Both were added to pave the way for Spock’s return should Wrath of Khan perform well enough to merit a sequel.
And perform it did – not grossing as high as TMP, but garnering higher profits due to its more cost-effective budget. With The Search for Spock greenlighted, Nimoy returned – this time behind the camera as well as in front of it – to continue the Enterprise‘s voyages.
Only this time, it’s not such smooth sailing. The film’s inciting incident is a grand heist sequence in which Admiral Kirk leads his senior officers in stealing the Enterprise. They know the career-ending consequences of such a caper full well – and they’re willing to accept the ramifications for the sake of Bones and Spock, the latter of whom has his soul trapped in the former’s body due to the aforementioned mind meld. Their one chance to save both of their friends is to recover Spock’s body from the quarantined Genesis Planet.
It’s at this point that the series fully overcomes the wooden, unnatural portrayals that plagued its first installment. The main cast play characters who’ve bonded over decades of working in close quarters, and they sell it flawlessly.
The first act also introduces one of SfS’s central themes: There ain’t no free lunch. Yes, you can get what you want, be it a starship, the return of an absent friend, or atonement for a grave mistake – but you will have to pay the full asking price down to the last penny.
And Kirk & Co. aren’t the only ones seeking Genesis. Enter Klingon Bird of Prey commander Lord Kruge.
Played – in another of the film’s longstanding controversies – by comedic actor Christopher Lloyd.
Like Khan before him, Kruge wants the Genesis device for its superweapon potential. He’s also ruthlessly single-minded and a cunning tactician.
Those similarities aside – and this take comes close to Pop Cult blasphemy – Kruge is a better villain than Khan.
Before you scroll down to the comments to give me an earful, hear me out:
- Khan lacked a clear motive for stealing the Genesis device. Yes, he used it as a suicide attack of last resort when Kirk disabled Reliant, but it’s obvious Khan didn’t expect to end up in that highly specific situation. Kruge wants Genesis to raise his profile as a warrior in the Klingon Empire. And one could see such a superweapon taking him to the top.
- Whereas Khan’s vengeance motive often clouded his judgment, undermining his superhuman intellect, Kruge remains cool and calculating – except for a couple of violent outbursts meant to make a point. He even kills his lover to keep his mission secret. Kruge is all business, which is a major reason why …
- Kruge proves to be more of a threat than Khan. The alleged superman wound up getting duped by Kirk. But Kruge sees through Kirk’s ruses and calls his bluffs, exacting heavy tolls in the form of the Enterprise and the life of Kirk’s son.
The latter point illustrates how Kruge plays a pivotal role in enforcing the movie’s “Every desire has a price” theme. And that theme has special importance in light of the film’s main plot.
Let’s talk about the elephant in the room: Spock’s resurrection.
It’s been a tired plot conceit for decades, thanks to the comic book industry’s refusal to make character death permanent. But resurrection stories can work. The foundational story of Western civilization is an example of one that happens to be true. The reason why nobody can pull off a satisfying return from death story these days is they do it on the cheap.
And I’m not talking about low production values. I mean contemporary writers don’t pay the cost in thematic terms.
But SfS does. And its villains and plot turns continually reinforce that cost. Which is why Spock’s return from the dead is one of the few post-1980 instances that works.
Storytelling 101 dictates that character achievements must be earned.
What that means to Kirk is that if he wants Spock back, he must pay an equivalent price.
And the movie doesn’t stop there. Every character who goes in search of Spock pays for it.
Kirk’s crew lose their standing in Starfleet.
Bones loses his mind for most of the movie and must accept an extreme risk to regain his sanity.
Saavik loses her ship and her romantic interest.
Kruge loses everything piece by piece until he finally loses his life.
And Kirk himself loses his rank, the Enterprise, and his son.
The movie makes us feel it, too. In particular, Shatner’s reaction to the death of Kirk’s son drives home how humbled and shaken these blows have left the great James Kirk.
To regain his brother, he had to give his son. Fair’s fair.
And doubly so, since David confesses that he cut corners while designing Genesis, using unstable and illegal materials in an act of hubris that’s endangered everyone. So according to the movie’s tough but fair standard of justice, the only way David can atone for his terrible choice is to pay the ultimate price.
In fact, David’s death pulls triple duty, since losing him is Saavik’s price, as well.
WoK and SfS both feature plot arcs that intersect at multiple characters’ turn and pinch points. That is how you maximize a story’s emotional impact, and it’s why Harve Bennett is not a writer to be trifled with.
And as I mentioned before, the end result is that Spock’s return from death feels earned. Even he pays a price in the form of memory and personality changes that persist until the final original cast film. That is the way to write a recurring character in a long-running series.
Before the final verdict is rendered, failing to mention this movie’s visuals would be gross negligence. The practical effects and models are as crunchy and solid as in Wrath of Khan – perhaps more so. We’re even treated to several significant firsts:
- First appearance of the standard Excelsior, Bird of Prey and Oberth-class models. These designs would continue as Trek mainstays into The Next Generation and Deep Space 9.
- Klingons as we know them throughout the rest of the original cast Trek films, as well as TNG and DS9, are codified here.
- The first time on film Kirk and his officers crew a ship other than the Enterprise.
So, how does Search for Spock compare to Wrath of Khan? Which Trek is better?
Regular readers know I seldom welsh on questions like these, so I’m cashing in my well-earned weasel chip.
Having watched both films back to back, I’m of the opinion that it’s less useful to consider each as a standalone work than to view them as two halves of a single story.
Both were planned around the same time by the same writer, and SfS depicts the ultimate conclusions of the themes and character arcs introduced in WoK. In that sense, Star Trek III is less a sequel to Star Trek II than its completion. Their relationship is similar to that of Fellowship of the Ring, Two Towers, and Return of the King.
And as a complete story in two parts, Star Trek II and III might just be the best space adventure ever put to film.
So enjoy a marathon viewing of these cinematic masterpieces tonight.
You’ll need the store of positive sentiments for the next one.
For a much less Star Trek-y vision of the 23rd century, read my hit mech thriller now!
I mostly ignored this one for a good while, but when I came back to it I found it definitely held up well. I was really impressed by Kruge as a villain because for all his harshness, he really comes across as a guy who would be seen as heroic by his fellow Klingons. He daringly picks a fight with what appears to be a superior foe (not realizing the Enterprise is understaffed and nerfed) and he immediately recognizes the Genesis device’s potential as a weapon and how important it is for his side to get it to avoid falling permanently behind in the arms race with the Federation. And he does show a certain sense of fairness, which bites him in the ass.
He’s the best Klingon until Martok, and might even be better.
I like your analysis of Kruge as a villain. He was everything you mentioned, but he also set the tone for every Klingon after this film. Except for Worf, every Klingon apes Lloyd’s performance in one way or another.
I’m loving these Trek reviews. Keep em coming!
Be careful what you wish for!
I know precious little about Trek, but part of me is curious to see your reaction to Star Trek V. As deeply, deeply flawed as it is, it strikes me as an attempt to tackle topics that the series usually avoids touching in any serious detail. Of course, my knowledge is scant, so my opinion may well be ignorant, but if so, so be it.
We’re getting there!
III is good but I’m a bit surprised at the dislike IV gets. I thought it was hilarious in a way only a 1980s comedy could be. Had it been made at any other time it would have not worked anywhere near as well. I was definitely pleased after I finished watching all three in that old DVD pack.
Nonetheless, Star Trek managed more good movies than it did good TV series. Not that I watched the TNG ones. I couldn’t stomach the series, there was no chance I’d sit through the films.
I honestly detest TNG era Star Trek. The acting talent is fine although their characters are boring as hell. I hate the production design and how the Enterprise looks like a midrange hotel. The aliens are mostly dull “funny forehead” types that got increasingly lazy in design as the various series continued. The music is dull ambient style that is prevalent in modern filmmaking, as opposed to the memorable themes of the original series. I hate that they decided all Vulcans should have Spock’s classic Beatles haircut, even the women. The costumes and characterization reflect a depressingly sexless perspective that would dog the shows so badly that they ended up hilariously overcorrecting with characters like Seven of Nine and the Vulcan chick on Enterprise. It’s just lame as hell.
Most of TNG’s bad rap comes from the early episode weirdness of seasons 1 and 2, which adapt a lot of leftover TOS scripts. The show finds its footing after it “grows the beard” around season 3.
You score an uncontested body blow re: the Enterprise D”s ugliness. That said, dismissing a series in its entirety that contains episodes like “Darmok”, “The Inner Light” and “Yesterday’s Enterprise” does all of science fiction an injustice.
Most (probably all) of the retarded weirdness of early TNG is Gene Rodenberry’s fault. The man was a loon. Star Trek succeeded in spite of him, not because of him.
Paramount banned him from the sets of ST II and III, which are the series’ best two films. Coincidence?
The Star Trek II that Rodenberry wanted to make ended with Spock on the grassy knoll shooting JFK.
I have only seen WoK but I will say that if I had ONLY seen that film and no episodes of the original series I’d be confused why Shatner was considered a bad actor. He is excellent, maybe even superb, in that film. His cheesiest moments are totally earned by the script and he acts them out fine. And if anyone says they don’t believe him in the emotional moments, well, I don’t believe them.
If you want proof of this, simply look at how the series treats the iconic Khan yell: Not as a moment to be mocked, but an iconic moment that they poorly copy in the terrible “Into Darkness”.
There’s TV Kirk and movie Kirk, just as there is TV Picard and movie Picard. The dichotomy often causes confusion. The former character’s reputation for being insubordinate is due entirely to his portrayal in the movies.
And yes, William Shatner is a good actor.
You hear about people imagining actors to be like the characters they play, but with William Shatner it’s the opposite. He has this public image as a goofball larger than life figure, but he can nail the dramatic scenes as well as anyone, given the right script.
Finally SfS received justice!
The crew stealing the Enterprise is still my favorite ST moment of all time, including Uhuru’s “now get in the closet!” bit.
You’re gonna like Combat Frame Z Strike XSeed.
“Played – in another of the film’s longstanding controversies – by comedic actor Christopher Lloyd.”
What controversy? Lloyd was excellent Are there people who disagree?
Yes, the studio execs to name a few. Nimoy had to fight tooth and nail to get him cast.
Really? I never knew there was any kind of controversy surrounding him. Even back in the day, when I felt let down by SfS, after Khan- I’ve grown to appreciate it more over the decades- I always thought Lloyd was fantastic.
Remember that back then, Lloyd’s brand was “that guy from Taxi.”
The feather ruffling over casting him as SfS’s villain didn’t approach the firestorm Tim Burton kindled by casting Michael Keaton as Batman, but it was based on similar sentiments.