 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've never quite understood the bad reputation this film and score has among fans. The film is a great companion piece to Khan and one hell of a lot better than most sequels that come out today and I actually find I enjoy its score more than Khan's. There's something to be said for its more meditative nature.
I agree. the score is superior and the film as good or better
bruce
Um..., "as good or better?" No, really? With respect, here's just the shortlist of why I cannot respectfully agree  :
The bad performance by the new Saavik, including some of the dullest line readings ever put to film ("Admiral, Davit iss ded.");
The TV production values, including shots of the Enterprise that looked exactly like I'd turned out the lights and held a flashlight up to the model that used to hang in my bedroom;
The badly executed destruction of the Enterprise, including some of the dumbest Klingons ever seen in Trek (they've never heard a countdown to destruction before?!?);
The stilted script and hamhanded, obvious attempts at comedy ("To your planet, welcome"; "I do not deserve to live" - "Fine, I'll kill you later");
McCoy sounding exactly like Spock in scenes that are meant to be touching but come across, despite De's fine performance, as unintentionally funny;
The absolute worst starship captain of all time, Esteban (who, despite his last name, looks as far from any kind of Spanish as they come);
The absolute worst performance by an actor in the role of the absolute worst starship captain of all time - the man always seems pissed off about something;
While the destruction of the Enterprise is argued as good and bad by fans on both sides of the coin, I'm among those who think had it been in a better movie it might have worked;
And is the name of Esteban's ship supposed to be funny? Gee, let's name it the U.S.S. Grissom and what a surprise, it's immolated just like the poor astronaut whose name is its inspiration.
You really think Star Trek III is better than what is regarded as the best Star Trek movie ever made? Okay, you're having us on, I get it. 
I don't think the score itself tends to get a bad rap, nor should it, but I still don't think it tops the poetry, lyricism or depth of TWOK's score. Still, I love it and look forward to this amazing release.
As for the film itself, having said all those things about it, I'm a sucker for it anyway, because it also has a lot of heart and has some of those wonderful core Trek values, despite the poor overall execution. And Horner's score definitely helps it along.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remember giving my dad money, so he could write a check to GNP Crescendo (back in 1990) for their cassette releases of ST II & ST III. Seeing this release made me as happy as the moment I saw their ad in Starlog.
Nice! Ah, how I remember the day. Luckily our record store got them in, otherwise I would have needed to do the same. Aaahh, mail order. Thanks for the reminiscence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 25, 2010 - 2:25 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
I've never quite understood the bad reputation this film and score has among fans. The film is a great companion piece to Khan and one hell of a lot better than most sequels that come out today and I actually find I enjoy its score more than Khan's. There's something to be said for its more meditative nature.
I agree. the score is superior and the film as good or better
bruce
Um..., "as good or better?" No, really? With respect, here's just the shortlist of why I cannot respectfully agree :
The bad performance by the new Saavik, including some of the dullest line readings ever put to film ("Admiral, Davit iss ded.");
The TV production values, including shots of the Enterprise that looked exactly like I'd turned out the lights and held a flashlight up to the model that used to hang in my bedroom;
The badly executed destruction of the Enterprise, including some of the dumbest Klingons ever seen in Trek (they've never heard a countdown to destruction before?!?);
The stilted script and hamhanded, obvious attempts at comedy ("To your planet, welcome"; "I do not deserve to live" - "Fine, I'll kill you later");
McCoy sounding exactly like Spock in scenes that are meant to be touching but come across, despite De's fine performance, as unintentionally funny;
The absolute worst starship captain of all time, Esteban (who, despite his last name, looks as far from any kind of Spanish as they come);
The absolute worst performance by an actor in the role of the absolute worst starship captain of all time - the man always seems pissed off about something;
While the destruction of the Enterprise is argued as good and bad by fans on both sides of the coin, I'm among those who think had it been in a better movie it might have worked;
And is the name of Esteban's ship supposed to be funny? Gee, let's name it the U.S.S. Grissom and what a surprise, it's immolated just like the poor astronaut whose name is its inspiration.
You really think Star Trek III is better than what is regarded as the best Star Trek movie ever made? Okay, you're having us on, I get it.
I don't think the score itself tends to get a bad rap, nor should it, but I still don't think it tops the poetry, lyricism or depth of TWOK's score. Still, I love it and look forward to this amazing release.
As for the film itself, having said all those things about it, I'm a sucker for it anyway, because it also has a lot of heart and has some of those wonderful core Trek values, despite the poor overall execution. And Horner's score definitely helps it along.
And don't forget the self destruct is apparently a barrel of dynamite underneath the bridge! I thought the warps engines were supposed to blow up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'So there! I hope people like having this 2CD configuration because you'll also like O... O you'll find out in a few weeks.'
I am the slowest person around (definitely on this board), but, like Dart Vader: 'I sense something...' Could be way off base, but check out the language... waiting to see if this is a particular clue (in the verse)... check it out people...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 25, 2010 - 3:16 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
Um..., "as good or better?" No, really?
I was very, very disappointed in STIII when it first came out, but when I watched it again recently… I was equally disappointed.
II just has such a wonderful journey. Kirk is getting old, being put out to pasture, and his past finally catches up with him: an old enemy returns for vengeance, an old flame introduces him to a son the childless captain never knew he had, and his closest friend makes a sacrifice that finally forces him to face death. He loses a friend, but gains a son, a huge scientific advancement in Genesis, and a new understanding of his life.
III seems to delight in undoing everything I loved about II. Kirk needn't face death, because death is reversible! The death of his son seems to only distract him for a moment, and the planet turns out to have been a fraud all along. Even Spock's sacrifice is retroactively neutered – if Spock was hoping for resurrection all along, he wasn't so selfless after all. So Kirk loses his ship to kill an ineffectual villain. The loss of his ship has no resonance for me, and as a strategy (destroy their only means of getting home by beaming to a self-destructing planet?), it strikes me as not very good captaining. The ending puts them all pretty much right where they'd been before II began. That's progress?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 25, 2010 - 3:23 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Gary
(Member)
|
Blast it all...after ordering Star Trek II, Robocop, ID4, Back to the Future, and others, I figured I was done with soundtrack purchases for a while, and then I get the Screen Archive e-mail and immediately have to pre-order this release right there off my iPhone!
Thanks for including the 2nd disc of the original arrangement (with better sound quality). Greatly appreciated.
Please do not release a 2-CD set of The Motion Picture, expanded scores IV, V, VI (and all the rest), and/or Starship Troopers. My wallet would hate you.
On second thought, please do. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um..., "as good or better?" No, really?
I was very, very disappointed in STIII when it first came out, but when I watched it again recently… I was equally disappointed.
II just has such a wonderful journey. Kirk is getting old, being put out to pasture, and his past finally catches up with him: an old enemy returns for vengeance, an old flame introduces him to a son the childless captain never knew he had, and his closest friend makes a sacrifice that finally forces him to face death. He loses a friend, but gains a son, a huge scientific advancement in Genesis, and a new understanding of his life.
III seems to delight in undoing everything I loved about II. Kirk needn't face death, because death is reversible! The death of his son seems to only distract him for a moment, and the planet turns out to have been a fraud all along. Even Spock's sacrifice is retroactively neutered – if Spock was hoping for resurrection all along, he wasn't so selfless after all. So Kirk loses his ship to kill an ineffectual villain. The loss of his ship has no resonance for me, and as a strategy (destroy their only means of getting home by beaming to a self-destructing planet?), it strikes me as not very good captaining. The ending puts them all pretty much right where they'd been before II began. That's progress?
Schiffy, everything I could ever have said about STAR TREK III in waaay more words, you said succinctly, coalescing all the feelings I've had about this film over the years. I felt all of those things as a young'un seeing the film but without the same ability to articulate them that I now possess. Your words are absolutely spot-on. The sacrifices, the triumphs, the meaning and the depth of II are completely destroyed in 105 minutes. Thank goodness FSM has at least given the score a more satisfying existence than the film gave fans who were waiting and waiting for the TREK II sequel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yea, a complete release of Jerry Goldsmith's STAR TREK V would be great as well
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 25, 2010 - 5:40 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Zoragoth
(Member)
|
Um..., "as good or better?" No, really?
I was very, very disappointed in STIII when it first came out, but when I watched it again recently… I was equally disappointed.
II just has such a wonderful journey. Kirk is getting old, being put out to pasture, and his past finally catches up with him: an old enemy returns for vengeance, an old flame introduces him to a son the childless captain never knew he had, and his closest friend makes a sacrifice that finally forces him to face death. He loses a friend, but gains a son, a huge scientific advancement in Genesis, and a new understanding of his life.
III seems to delight in undoing everything I loved about II. Kirk needn't face death, because death is reversible! The death of his son seems to only distract him for a moment, and the planet turns out to have been a fraud all along. Even Spock's sacrifice is retroactively neutered – if Spock was hoping for resurrection all along, he wasn't so selfless after all. So Kirk loses his ship to kill an ineffectual villain. The loss of his ship has no resonance for me, and as a strategy (destroy their only means of getting home by beaming to a self-destructing planet?), it strikes me as not very good captaining. The ending puts them all pretty much right where they'd been before II began. That's progress?
It's a waste of a movie. There are some nice FX, some good scoring. If they were gonna kill Spock, they should have left him dead. You could only get so many movies with the classic cast before they got too old, and they had to waste a whole film just to bring the character back. It may be a better film than TREK V overall, but I actually prefer the latter, for all its problems. I just find III tedious and pointless, and a little too self congratulatory and sanctimonious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
II just has such a wonderful journey. Kirk is getting old, being put out to pasture, and his past finally catches up with him: an old enemy returns for vengeance, an old flame introduces him to a son the childless captain never knew he had, and his closest friend makes a sacrifice that finally forces him to face death. He loses a friend, but gains a son, a huge scientific advancement in Genesis, and a new understanding of his life.
III seems to delight in undoing everything I loved about II. Kirk needn't face death, because death is reversible! The death of his son seems to only distract him for a moment, and the planet turns out to have been a fraud all along. Even Spock's sacrifice is retroactively neutered – if Spock was hoping for resurrection all along, he wasn't so selfless after all. So Kirk loses his ship to kill an ineffectual villain. The loss of his ship has no resonance for me, and as a strategy (destroy their only means of getting home by beaming to a self-destructing planet?), it strikes me as not very good captaining. The ending puts them all pretty much right where they'd been before II began. That's progress?
I agree completely with your assessment of II. And your opinion on III is very interesting. I’ve never quite thought of it that way.
I believe it could be considered progress if you look at III as the middle film of the so-called trilogy. We discover, along with Kirk & Co, the magic of a failed project that permits Spock to be reborn. As Genesis was such a unique (and brief) experiment, any other occasion resulting in Spock’s death would presumably not allow him to return. This fluke situation allows it to happen and also allows us to see yet another side of Kirk: that of a man, who indeed just acquired a new understanding of his life, now risking everything in the hope of saving his friend; first spiritually, then physically once he learns Spock is alive.
Kirk’s other actions – destroying the Enterprise and responding as he did to the death of his still unfamiliar son – seem quite in step with the duty-bound captain we’ve come to know at that point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gosh, all this love for James Horner, the composer we (not i) love to hate!
This score release will probably be the last time James will be so universally celebrated.
i think we need a theme song for this thread.
How 'bout "We may never love like this Again"
ahahahahahaha!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um..., "as good or better?" No, really?
I was very, very disappointed in STIII when it first came out, but when I watched it again recently… I was equally disappointed.
II just has such a wonderful journey. Kirk is getting old, being put out to pasture, and his past finally catches up with him: an old enemy returns for vengeance, an old flame introduces him to a son the childless captain never knew he had, and his closest friend makes a sacrifice that finally forces him to face death. He loses a friend, but gains a son, a huge scientific advancement in Genesis, and a new understanding of his life.
III seems to delight in undoing everything I loved about II. Kirk needn't face death, because death is reversible! The death of his son seems to only distract him for a moment, and the planet turns out to have been a fraud all along. Even Spock's sacrifice is retroactively neutered – if Spock was hoping for resurrection all along, he wasn't so selfless after all. So Kirk loses his ship to kill an ineffectual villain. The loss of his ship has no resonance for me, and as a strategy (destroy their only means of getting home by beaming to a self-destructing planet?), it strikes me as not very good captaining. The ending puts them all pretty much right where they'd been before II began. That's progress?
Geek alert - code red!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
