TSFS plot hole...

[valkyrie013]

Well, Grissom discovers that Spock's torpedo soft landed, and life forms were indicated, and that information was sent to starfleet, This was before Sarek visited Kirk, so Sarek could have known that Spocks body was still available and not burned up before going to see Kirk.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

The only mention of 'going back to Genesis' was made by Kirk when they first arrived at Spacedock. That was presumably to participate in the exploration of the Genesis planet, but it was NOT necessary (as far as Kirk knew) in the matter of getting Spock's katra to Vulcan.

Well...not quite. Kirk's VO at the end of TWOK laid out what was on his mind / and what he believed about Spock being on the Genesis planet:

KIRK: "And yet I can't help wondering about the friend I leave behind. 'There are always possibilities' Spock said. And if Genesis is indeed 'Life from death', I must return to this place again."

That was the set-up for his actions in TSFS.

 

[PCz911]

This has always been my least favorite of the original cast movies because it’s such a mess. I’ll watch STV before I’ll rewatch this one.
And (rant continues), bringing Spock back from the dead totally made a mockery about his death in wrath of khan.

 

[Ssosmcin]

This has always been my least favorite of the original cast movies because it’s such a mess. I’ll watch STV before I’ll rewatch this one.
And (rant continues), bringing Spock back from the dead totally made a mockery about his death in wrath of khan.

Nah, it didn't. Spock still gave his life for his friends. The deed and impact is still there. Also, it took an entire movie to get him back and there was a lot of pain and sacrifice along the way. Spock's resurrection and restoration was earned.

None of the films stand up to any real scrutiny and each one has plot holes. TSFS is my favorite of the films, it's a wonderful story focusing on the family aspect of the characters and the first film to do this. They weren't just a crew from this point forward. It's a character driven film, not plot driven, and is fairly unique in the Trek movie series for it.

If Spock had to come back, this was a great way to do it. It never felt like a cheat or a handwave. As for the plot holes and narrative issues, yeah they're there, but they don't render the story hard to follow and are no more more glaring than any of the other films.

 

[fireproof78]

I never understand the idea that if a death is undone then it is a mockery of the sacrifice.

That's not something that makes much sense in the sense of narrative. The sacrifice still stands.

 

[PCz911]

I never understand the idea that if a death is undone then it is a mockery of the sacrifice.

That's not something that makes much sense in the sense of narrative. The sacrifice still stands.

Allow me to elaborate on my thought and explain why I feel this way.

A narrative that (over the course of two movies), negates the permanence of death only serves to minimize the sacrifice of that death. While this may be common in comics, it’s not typically a narrative that allows the viewer to really absorb the emotional impact and severity of the decision. You start to doubt any physical “drama” the character may go through in the future as the writers, who often use high levels of plot armor as it is, will always have a way to re-set any peril or potential harm the character may encounter.

In my opinion, it’s a lazy writers crutch and I suspect it’s done more for reasons of economic manipulation (or actors regret) than a desire for tension. Another case in point was the death and weird sort of return of Tasha yar. They sure had to jump through some weird feats of logic to try to sell that one.

Whilst I appreciate you disagree on this topic, I thought perhaps I could try to illustrate my personal dislike of this technique.

 

[fireproof78]

Allow me to elaborate on my thought and explain why I feel this way.

A narrative that (over the course of two movies), negates the permanence of death only serves to minimize the sacrifice of that death. While this may be common in comics, it’s not typically a narrative that allows the viewer to really absorb the emotional impact and severity of the decision. You start to doubt any physical “drama” the character may go through in the future as the writers, who often use high levels of plot armor as it is, will always have a way to re-set any peril or potential harm the character may encounter.

In my opinion, it’s a lazy writers crutch and I suspect it’s done more for reasons of economic manipulation (or actors regret) than a desire for tension. Another case in point was the death and weird sort of return of Tasha yar. They sure had to jump through some weird feats of logic to try to sell that one.

Whilst I appreciate you disagree on this topic, I thought perhaps I could try to illustrate my personal dislike of this technique.

You illustrate it well. While I completely disagree on the drama, and the minimization of the sacrifice, I see your point. Thank you for sharing it.

 

[SithHappens]

I never understand the idea that if a death is undone then it is a mockery of the sacrifice.

That's not something that makes much sense in the sense of narrative. The sacrifice still stands.

it does when it makes a mockery of an entire season of a show which gets discarded when they bring someone back. But that's a different show altogether.

Personally never had an issue with Spock coming back, thought it was done quite well.

 

[fireproof78]

it does when it makes a mockery of an entire season of a show which gets discarded when they bring someone back.

Slug what now?

What does this even mean and what's being mocked? I don't understand at all.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Slug what now?

What does this even mean and what's being mocked? I don't understand at all.

I'm thinking "Dallas." When they killed bobby, went a full season without him, but ratings and viewer approval was low, so they brought him back and wrote off the entire time of his death as a dream. Which was most of the final episode of one season and the entirety of the next.

Totally different than what happened with Star Trek's II and III, though. They didn't erase Spock's death or his actions, they just went to great lengths to bring him back. But everything that occurred in TWOK still happened.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm thinking "Dallas." When they killed bobby, went a full season without him, but ratings and viewer approval was low, so they brought him back and wrote off the entire season as a dream.

Ah, never watched it.

I use to find death something that didn't get handled well, until something like Into Darkness came out (and perhaps earlier with Daniel Jackson. Yes, I'm aware of the hair splitting. The way they treated it was a sacrifice, was the he gave up so much for this planet). To me, I lean back on "The Cage" and Vina's proposition of "you'll feel it; that's what matter." When a character is in the moment, deciding to make that sacrifice. Rarely do they treat it like the audience does; they don't know they are going to live. They don't know the "plot armor" or the "main character status" (save for Pike). They just know they need to make a choice, one that is terrible, either for them, or another living being. It requires the courageous self-sacrifice, rather than the immediate self-satisfaction of clinging to safety.

For me, it's that moment of choice that carries the weight of the death, not whether or not they come back.

Mileage will vary.

 

[penguin44]

I felt it was still a sacrifice since who he was, is gone. He came back in the Vulcan way so a different, less human Spock.

 

[PCz911]

You illustrate it well. While I completely disagree on the drama, and the minimization of the sacrifice, I see your point. Thank you for sharing it.

Tangent: and this is how we discuss Star Trek. Each respecting the others opinion while politely disagreeing. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my position, and i equally appreciate and respect the contrarian opinion. So refreshing to chat amongst adults. Please listen to those who hold different opinions , who knows, if you listen you may actually be swayed by other opinions.

 

[fireproof78]

Tangent: and this is how we discuss Star Trek. Each respecting the others opinion while politely disagreeing. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my position, and i equally appreciate and respect the contrarian opinion. So refreshing to chat amongst adults. Please listen to those who hold different opinions , who knows, if you listen you may actually be swayed by other opinions.

While I appreciate the compliment it is terrifying to be called a reasonable adult.

 

[Mister Spock]

Thanks for posting. But I must ask: what's a "gril"? Did you mean "grill" or "girl"? I don't understand either one in context. Thanks.

Colonel Sarek's Mount Selaya Bar & Grill.

 

[Ssosmcin]

I felt it was still a sacrifice since who he was, is gone. He came back in the Vulcan way so a different, less human Spock.

Actually, I thought he came back more human. After he got intouch with his "mother's side" by the end of TVH, Spock was lighter, a little less stoic and more prone to emotion (his brief rage at Valeris for example). It was a somewhat different Spock, though. That, I'm sure, made it more interesting for Nimoy.

 

[SidneyIsTheKiller]

That said even in the original version there is no real reason to bring Spock's corpse back to Vulcan, they still don't find out he is alive until later.

What makes Star Trek III interesting (and potentially confusing) is the way that it treats the literal plot like subtext and the subtext like the literal plot.

Kirk and crew go out to retrieve Spock's body so they can give him a proper Vulcan funeral. That's it. That's what they're doing (well, also to hopefully unscramble McCoy's marbles. That, too).

I think it's because the film needs the audience to really feel like this mission is worth it for these characters to throw their careers and reputations away for that it never just states it plainly that "we need to give Spock a proper burial" and rather always presents it in symbolic terms like "we need to save Spock's soul!" Probably the closest it gets is when the Vulcan high priestess reminds Sarek that the mythology behind this ritual is just a legend. "Uh, Sarek, you realize this is just tradition, right? It isn't real."

By the very end, though, the metaphor and the plot have switched places again. Spock has returned, a symbol for how the grieving process allows us to transcend death.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Star Trek III is all about emotions, feeling, family and sacrifice. This is why I love it.

The hero plot is simple enough:

Kirk finds out about Spock's coffin still being intact (this happens between scenes thanks to the shuffling).

Sarek and Kirk discover Spock's "soul" is in McCoy and must bring them both back to Vulcan so they "find peace." It's not explicity stated Spock's body is necessary, but it's important to Sarek for Spock to not be left on Genesis. So he decides then to get McCoy, go to Genesis, get Spock's body, and bring them to Vulcan. Sarek assumed Kirk had the Katra, so it was Spock's body being left behind which annoyed him. Why? Amanda probably gave Sarek a hard time.

Once Kirk get to Genesis, he is told Spock is alive. So now picking up Spock is even more imperative.

On the surface, after Kruge is dead, Kirk sees Spock's body is now at the same age as when he died.

On the way (again we don't see it - it's implied), Kirk tells Sarek Spock's body is living. Sarek that that time decides to do the Fal Tor Pan to attempt to restore Spock's consciousness to his own body (instead of "the Hall of Ancient Thought" - was this in an earlier draft of just the novelization? Either way I like the idea).

None of this took me 39 years to suss out. I walked out of the theater with this understanding. So for me, the story was never confusing or muddled. It made perfect sense. Here's what I allowed my brain to gloss over because I loved the experience to much to care:

Why did Kruge need to wait for Kirk to use the transporter to beam over? The BoP transporters were working afterwards. And the Enterprise transporters seemed to have initial trouble beaming Kirk's party off the ship. A line or two of dialog would have smoothed it over instead of me making a mental excuse.

Star Trek III's "plot holes" are no more glaring than Star Trek II's. Both movies are incredible experiences.

 

[STEPhon IT]

You have a good point about going to Genesis at all. Although David and Saavik found Spock's regenerated body, they weren't able to communicate that back to SF. I never thought about this plot hole in all the numerous times I've seen the film over the decades!

I have and that's just a pinch of the many issues I have about that very terrible movie. The filmmakers can't stop hyping great things about Excelsior and all it can do, but when it was time to see this GREAT EXPLORER do its thing??? It... was... a GREAT... FAT... DUD. I don't give a shit about Scotty's sabotage, the medium is to show, NOT TELL, and movie destroyed a huge opportunity to bring something interesting to a very boring movie.

Well...not quite. Kirk's VO at the end of TWOK laid out what was on his mind / and what he believed about Spock being on the Genesis planet:

KIRK: "And yet I can't help wondering about the friend I leave behind. 'There are always possibilities' Spock said. And if Genesis is indeed 'Life from death', I must return to this place again."

That was the set-up for his actions in TSFS.

Then it should've been reiterated in the beginning of the movie along with his ceremony from TWOK. III should be looked upon based on the plot it's delivering, and not expecting the former movie to do its job. I'm sure there were audience members who didn't even remember Kirk's final words from TWOK.

 

[Ssosmcin]

and movie destroyed a huge opportunity to bring something interesting to a very boring movie.

To each their own, but I found the entire movie to be interesting and never considered a minute of it to be boring. Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a different film than some people. Plot holes? Sure. Boring? Pffft. Not a chance.

As I like to remind folks, it was very well received when it premiered, some critics even preferring it to TWOK. The prevailing wisdom of the time was that, until Shatner made his, the Star Trek films kept getting better with each release, defying conventional wisdom regarding sequels.

Boston Globe - Jay Carr
This "Star Trek," the liveliest and most likable of the three, will satisfy hard-core Trekkies and win more than a few new recruits to their ranks.

I only say that to make myself feel better. I know most fans consider this a lesser effort, but it remains my favorite film of the 13. Ah well.