MovieChat Forums > Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) Discussion > Why is "Search for Spock" considered "ba...

Why is "Search for Spock" considered "bad"?

posted 8 years ago by TMC-4
21 replies | jump to latest

Remember the theory that the odd numbered Trek movies are mediocre at best, while the even numbered movies are supposedly good (at least until Nemesis dispelled that theory)? Where exactly does Search for Spock fall into this category? With The Motion Picture, many are quick to point out it's flaws such as being to slow and talky. The Final Frontier is undisputedly considered to be the very worst of the Trek movies.

The Search for Spock just seems like the odd man out among the "Genesis Trilogy". It had the unspeakable task of having to be the immediate follow-up to arguably the greatest Trek movie in Wrath of Khan. It it came just prior to more crowd pleasing, commercially accessible Voyage Home. It's as if The Search for Spock solely exist to inevitably resurrect Spock (which kind of makes you wonder why they even bothered killing him off in the first place, in the movie prior).

[–] bozo_500 8 years ago

Remember the theory that the odd numbered Trek movies are mediocre at best, while the even numbered movies are supposedly good (at least until Nemesis dispelled that theory)? Where exactly does Search for Spock fall into this category? With The Motion Picture, many are quick to point out it's flaws such as being to slow and talky. The Final Frontier is undisputedly considered to be the very worst of the Trek movies.

At the time III was generally considered a good film. obviously not as good as II but light years ahead of TMP. It was only years later people started to diss III..maybe after V or VI when it could be conveniently unceremoniously lumped in with the Odd=bad/Even=good rule - a view which became strengthened with the TNG films. until Nemesis of course

The Search for Spock[/i/] just seems like the odd man out among the "Genesis Trilogy". It had the unspeakable task of having to be the immediate follow-up to arguably the greatest [i]Trek movie in Wrath of Khan. It it came just prior to more crowd pleasing, commercially accessible Voyage Home. It's as if The Search for Spock solely exist to inevitably resurrect Spock (which kind of makes you wonder why they even bothered killing him off in the first place, in the movie prior).

the original intention while filming II was that spock would die and stay dead. it was something of an after thought to place threads in there (mind meld, torpedo on the surface) that would be explored to bring him back in III..(i cant remember if those scenes were filmed after test reactions to the death proved somewhat negative or if they were done at the time- Im pretty certain the torpedo scene was done very late on and against the wishes of the director)

I consider III to be the 2nd best of the entire Trek movies- its like the Empire Strikes Back of the 'Genesis trilogy'

[–] TMC-4 8 years ago

I'm guessing that people are also hard on Search for Spock because after all of progress that Wrath of Khan made (for better or worse), it essentially reverts back to the status quo. Spock dies at the end of WOK, only to be brought back at the end of SFS. We're introduced to Kirk's son only for him to be killed off by the Klingons in SFS. We're introduced to a new Vulcan character in Saavik in WOK only for her to be recast (Kirstie Alley to Robin Curtis) in SFS. The only really thing that sticks out is the destruction of the Enterprise and the risk that Kirk and his team will lose their careers in Starfleet (which of course, is anti-climatically resolved in The Voyage Home).

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TMC-4 8 years ago

The Search for Spock for a lack of a better word, is probably the closest (or among the closest) that Star Trek ever really gets to becoming a "science-fiction fantasy" (a la Star Wars). The point depending on your tastes, can get really bizarre and disturbing. In a way, it's like a body horror movie w/ the whole thing involving McCoy being "possessed" by Spock's katra and then the reborn Spock having to relive his puberty on the Genesis planet.

[–] Li-1 8 years ago

I'm really surprised this one isn't rated higher. I think it's one of the best Trek films. I would say it's the most emotional Trek film, with Kirk showing how far he's willing to go to save his two best friends. In addition, it's a rollercoaster ride of an adventure movie. The space dock escape is terrific, and from there we get a tense space battle, the death of David (who I was actually getting to like at this point), the resulting destruction of the Enterprise (which was a highly emotional scene in its own right), and the final fight between Kirk and Khruge while the Genesis planet collapses around them. And then there's the moving reunion with Spock at the end that makes the wringer the crew went through worth it. Really an excellent film and I seem to like it more and more every time I watch it.

[–] Wuchak (8772) 5 years ago

obviously not as good as II but light years ahead of TMP.

Yeah, right. TWOK is the least of the Star Trek films with outrageous plot holes. Remember when Scotty brought his wounded nephew to the Bridge instead of Sick Bay? (rolling my eyes). Meanwhile TMP is a nigh masterpiece.

[–] MickyMac (3191) 7 years ago

It was melodramatic with Kirk's son dying, they thought Wrath Of Khan was gonna be the only sequel, Search For Spock was just a semi come back with Spock coming back, maybe it shows Trek/Kirk crew can't work without Spock in this because he was dead and isn't his proper self until the end, bringing a dead fan favorite can be a gigantic problem to work out.

It's the only odd numbered TOS movie to recommend because it has the destruction of the original Enterprise.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I've never heard it considered bad, though it is an odd-numbered Star Trek, and the odd-numbered Star Treks are considered the worst. However, seeing that it's the SECOND of the three odd-numbered Star Treks, it's really the best of the odd-numbered because it's even out of the odds.

[–] Moonglum9 (11302) 5 years ago

I find your reasoning highly illogical

[–] ebhaynz (3689) 5 years ago

I think it's because Star Trek 2 has so many very good qualities(storyline, different worlds, production quality, character actors, SFX, Drama, suspense, death, hope)..Star Trek 3 just doesn't have this incredible combo of qualities. Yes, ST3 is good but it has to spend too much time trying to right the wrong of Spock's 'death' and the only scene that really compares to the superior ST2 is Kirk's & Kluge's fight to death on Genesis planet as it disintegrates.
Honestly, I classify ST3 as a weak part 2 of ST2.

[–] strntz (12456) 5 years ago

My big problem with III is that Kirk gets back Spock, but loses his son in the process.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

He was a human weakling.

[–] Ripkens25 (2033) 4 years ago

He kinda was. He had ropey little arms. No weight sets in space?

[–] jekporkins (1973) 4 years ago

As far as Star Trek films go, it's fine. It's got moments. It just pales in comparison to Star Trek 2.

[–] MickyMac (3191) 4 years ago

Well it's not a Trek movie that infuriates people at its existence, its not like Star Trek Generations or Star Trek Into Darkness where everyone is like "No no you fucked it up"

[–] unsanesarah (249) 4 years ago

It's not bad. It simply doesn't stand on its own. I mean that it connects II to IV to make a very nice trilogy to watch. It is more of a connecting story so if you try to see it as a standalone, yes, it's not great. As part of the II-III-IV story it has its place and works well.