Talk:Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 14, 2012.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Star Trek (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

A couple of changes[edit]

First of all, whoever did the plot summary did an excellent job. There is no need to tag the summary as being too long, too confusing, or too out of proportion with the rest of the article. Leave it alone. Sorry, have to disagree about the plot summary. Paragraphs 2 & 3 are juxtaposed. The conversation with Sarak and Kirk about Spock's "katra" comes before Reliant getting destroyed.Dcrasno (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, the "Critical Response" section was composed of three dead links. It has been removed. If someone wants to actually source the critical response to this film, please provide the sources. Otherwise, they will be deleted. Based on my own research, this film did quite well at the box office; however, reviews were mixed. At any rate, the film was successful enough for Paramount to commission another sequel. BadMojoDE 23:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • WAY too much information. This could be summarized in less than half the current page size.-- (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Resources to use[edit]

British Film Institute
  • GERAGHTY, Lincoln: Creating and Comparing Myth in Twentieth-Century Science Fiction: Star Trek and Star Wars'. Compares these two science fiction worlds and how they use history and myth. Literature/Film Quarterly (0090-4260) v.33 n.3 , November 2005, p.191-200, English, illus
  • [CH]: RWD Empire n.165 , March 2003, p.131, English
  • J.B.: STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK, Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.35 n.1 , February 2003, p.78-79, English, illus
  • WOODHAMS, Ben: Star Trek III - The Search for Spock, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.294 , January 2003, p.66, English, illus
  • TAKIS, John: Where no note has gone before...the Trek film series gets a farewell salute (for now), Film Score Monthly v.8 n.1 , January 2003, p.26-27, English, illus, Reviews of the Star Trek movies and series with a list of available soundtrack CD's.
  • ATKINS, Ian: Trek babes, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.266 , October 2000, p.32-36, English, illus, Brief profiles of female Trek characters.
  • BASSOM, David: The search for Robin, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.Special , October 1994, p.42-46, English, illus, Robin Curtis discusses her career as Saavek in STAR TREK III Tallera in THE NEXT GENERATION and Ambassador Kalika in BABYLON 5, in all of which she requires heavy make-up.
  • NAZZARO, Joe: Harve Bennett, StarBurst (0955-114X) v.Spec. n.No20 , July 1994, p.17-22, English, illus
  • Interview with Harve Bennett, writer/producer, and the guiding hand behind the second, third, fourth and fifth STAR TREK films., ALTMAN, Mark A. & MAGID, Ron: Star Trek VI: The Making of 'The Undiscovered Country'
  • Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.22 n.5 , April 1992, p.24-55, English, illus, Extensive piece on STAR TREK VI, featuring reviews of all films in the series, comments from Harve Bennett, Kim Cattrall and Nicholas Meyer, plus a tribute to Gene Roddenberry and a look at production design and makeup.
  • ERRIGO, Angie: Videos to buy: the final frontier? Empire n.33 , March 1992, p.82-83, English, illus, Reviews of video release of boxed set of the first five Star Trek films with article about Star Trek.
  • Radio Times v.261 n.3412 , 29 April 1989, p.18-19, English, illus
  • Star Trek III, StarBurst (0955-114X) n.111 , November 1987, p.40-44, English, illus, A look at STAR TREK III comparing it with the other films.
  • Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.15 n.1 , January 1985, p.40, 54, English
  • Photoplay v.35 n.9 , September 1984, p.30-31,34, English, Interview with Nimoy.
  • American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.65 n.8 , August 1984, p.54-63, English Article on the photography, lighting and special effects.
  • Cinefex n.18 , August 1984, p.42-67, English, Article about the special effects involved in the film.
  • Screen International (0307-4617) n.456 , 28 July 1984, p.24, English
  • City Limits n.147 , 27 July 1984, p.26, English
  • Time Out (0049-3910) n.727 , 26 July 1984, p.15, English, Interview with Nimoy.
  • Time Out (0049-3910) n.727 , 26 July 1984, p.47, English, Caption review.
  • Monthly Film Bulletin v.51 n.606 , July 1984, p.212-213, English
  • Films and Filming n.358 , July 1984, p.24-26, English
  • Motion Picture Product Digest v.11 n.25 , 20 June 1984, p.97-98, English
  • Variety (0042-2738) , 30 May 1984, p.12, 14, English
  • Hollywood Reporter (0018-3660) v.282 n.7 , 25 May 1984, p.4, English
  • Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.14 n.3 , May 1984, p.6-11, English, Production report, plus comment on the project by Leonard Nimoy.
  • On Location (0149-7014) v.7 n.12 , April 1984, p.34, 37-38, 40, English, Leonard Nimoy talks about his aims in directing the Film.
  • Screen International (0307-4617) n.415 , 08 October 1983, p.18, English, Note.
  • Hollywood Reporter (0018-3660) v.278 n.45 , 04 October 1983, p.18, English, Credits.
Film Literature Index
  • Lehti, Steven J. "Star Trek II the Wrath of Khan"; "Star Trek III the Search for Spock." Soundtrack!: the Collector�s Quarterly 10 Jun (1991): 17-18.
  • Anderson, Kay. "Star Trek III": Tom Lay -illustrator. Cinefantastique 17 n3/4 (1987): 68.
  • Anderson, Kay. "Star Trek III": DeForest Kelley - Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy. Cinefantastique 17 n3/4 (1987): 60.
  • Cardello, J.A. Observation post: "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock." Classic Images n139 Jan (1987): 20-21.
  • Anderson, Kay. "Star Trek III": Bob Dawson - special effects supervisor. Cinefantastique 17 n3/4 (1987): 75.
  • Teitelbaum, Sheldon. "The Search for Spock". Cinefantastique 17 n3/4 (1987): 48-63+ [34p].
  • Anderson, Kay. "Star Trek III": Charles Correll - director of photography. Cinefantastique 17 n3/4 (1987): 52.
  • Selley, April and April Selley. "I have been, and ever shall be your friend": "Star Trek", "The Deerslayer" and the American romance. Journal of Popular Culture 20 n1 (1986): 89-104.
  • others. and Charles Leerhsen. The arts: "Star Trek's" nine lives. Newsweek 108 Dec 22 (1986): 66-71.
  • Francavilla, J. Spock's "Who's got the katra?" routine lacks only a polka beat. Cinefantastique 15 n1 (1985): 40+ [2p].
  • Hesseldahl, P. Films. USA Today 112 Sep (1984): 90-93.
  • Kael, P. The current cinema: sneaks, ogres, and the D.T.'s. The New Yorker 60 Jul 9 (1984): 84-6.
  • Lally, K. "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". The Film Journal 87 Jul (1984): 20-21.
  • Lee, Nora. "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". American Cinematographer 65 Aug/Sep (1984): 54-63.
  • Lor(L.L. Cohn). Variety 315 May 30 (1984): 12+ [2p].
  • Maslin, J. Film: latest in the "Star Trek" series. The New York Times 133 Jun 1 (1984): C14.
  • Munson, Brad. The last voyage of the starship "Enterprise". Cinefex n18 Aug (1984): 42-67.
  • Newman, K. "Star Trek III - The Search for Spock". Monthly Film Bulletin 51 Jul (1984): 212-13.
  • Noble, P.c. "Star Trek III - the Search for Spock". Films in Review 35 Aug/Sep (1984): 436-7.
  • Scapperotti, Dan. Leonard Nimoy. Cinefantastique 14 n3 n/a (1984): 6-11.
  • Schickel. R. Cinema: space opera. Time 123 Jun 11 (1984): 83.
  • Strick, P. "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". Films and Filming [n358] Jul (1984): 24-6.
  • Summers, J. "Star Trek III - the Search for Spock". Boxoffice 120 Aug (1984): R94.
  • Svehla, G.J. "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". Midnight Marquee n33 Fall (1984): 29.
  • Wheen, F. Films: dog days. New Statesman 108 Jul 27 (1984): 28-30.
  • Dayton, E. "Star Trek III, the Search for Spock". Cineaste 13 n4 (1984): 60.
  • Simak, Steven. James Horner on scoring "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". Cinemascore: the Film Music Journal n13/14 Winter/Summer (1984): 16-17.
  • Fisher, Bob. Director Leonard Nimoy focuses on "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". On Location 7 Apr (1984): 34+ [4p].
  • Fischer, D.K. "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". Cinefantastique 14 n4/5 n/a (1984): 109.
  • Edelstein, D. Film: mind melds and warp drives. The Village Voice 29 Jun 5 (1984): 65.
  • Dewson, Lisa. "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". Photoplay Movies & Video 35 Aug (1984): 45.
  • Dewson, L. "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". Photoplay Movies & Video 35 Sep (1984): 21.
  • Denby, D. Movies: "Oh, Zuul, you nut|" New York Magazine 17 Jun 11 (1984): 66-7.
  • Delon, Michael. "Star Trek". Film: the British Federation of Film Societies Monthly Journal n128 Sep (1984): 3.
  • Dangaard, Colin. Leonard Nimoy. Photoplay Movies & Video 35 Sep (1984): 30-31+ [3p].
  • Cohn, Lawrence L. Par backs Nimoy, "Trek" to hilt; talks going re possible part IV. Variety 315 Jun 6 (1984): 5+ [2p].
  • Ansen, D. Movies: the trek continues. Newsweek 103 Jun 11 (1984): 80-81.
  • Anderson, Kay. "Star Trek III: the Search for Spock". Cinefantastique 14 n4/5 n/a (1984): 8-9.
Out of curiosity, where did you search in order to get a list like this? It's... magnificent. Seegoon (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


Design section. "After approving a small three-dimensional maquette of the final design, the effects team created a full size exterior model measuring 6 feet (1.8 m)." Please clarify what this was a model of. Also, what does "measuring 6 feet (1.8 m)" mean? Length, height, breadth, or what? And in what sense "full size"? Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What does the verb "spritz" mean? Sprinkle? Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
...and isn't the amount of detail on this fabricated dog somewhat excessive? Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Aye, spritz means, well, spritzing something. Spritzer bottle, wine spritzers... I'll swap to "sprinkle" for clarity. No one else has brought up anything on the dog, but I'll solicit some feedback. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
From the filming section:
  • "Epoxy" or "epoxy mold" are unfamiliar terms, for which appropriate links appear to be available.
  • "the slime coating would have been obvious with reverse filming". Why would this be so?
  • "The college's blue-grey sky..." Colleges have skies? Brianboulton (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
From the Special effects section
  • "The Excelsior required eight passes to supplement the basic "beauty pass", the Enterprise six." What is a beauty pass?
  • What is a zero gravity explosion?
  • I can't follow this sentence: "The storyboards required a number of angles as the Enterprise docked and later when it was stolen, with the Excelsior in hot pursuit." Perhaps it's a combination of the filmspeak and the fact that I didn't see the film and don't know the story...but I'm lost.
  • "... the animators had to painstakingly rotoscope the background around Lloyd out of each frame." Incomprehensible.
  • I found much of this section written in technical terms that I didn't understand. It's way beyond the general reader, more so than earlier sections which also had difficult passages. This section is relentless. The only solution I can see is to significantly cut the length; choose two or three of the film's special effects moments, and dsecribe these, in somewhat plainer language. Brianboulton (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
From the Music section
  • "The composer approached scoring the film with an eye towards connecting his feelings towards the film with its mood." Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what this means, and am unable to copyedit it. Perhaps bin it? Brianboulton (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Release section: what does "(R-NV)" signify? Brianboulton (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Critical response section
  • I can't work this out: "Arnold wrote that he missed a shocking moment for Shatner to act on par with The Wrath of Khan's revelation that Kirk was David's father. He considered David's death an attempt at a similar revelation, but that it was not a success." Who is the first "he"? Who is the second "he"? What does the whole thing mean?
  • Something has gone wrong with the final sentence: "Kempley appreciated the sets' low values, writing that "the fakier the sets, the better the feel" compared the the film's television origins." Apart from the double "the", the sentence doesn't seem quite complete - the film's sets are being compared to what?

Brianboulton (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hallo. David asked for some feedback, specifically about the level of production detail. Coincidentally, the problem of just how deep we go with articles like this is one I've had to confront in the last week or so. Do we go for the broad strokes, an overview, or really go to town and chuck everything but the kitchen sink in? Like David, I was loath to lose content, but in the end I saw the sense of it and reluctantly decided to make the cuts ([1]; [2]). However, in that case I was trying to get the article size down from its 137 kb high. Here, the article is 74 kb, which gives us a little more leeway. So while I agree that "Production" deals with a lot of aspects on a pretty technical level, I think that could be justified. Of course we should aim to please the general reader, but I wonder if there's any reason that the article can't also be useful to those interested in the mechanics of filmmaking? As well as that, it seems likely to me that many people don't read articles like this in one sitting. More likely than not, people will come here hoping to learn about a specific aspect, perhaps how a certain shot was constructed. That's something I do regularly, and I'm sure others do too. After watching Avatar recently, one of the first things I did was go to our article for that purpose. So if after watching Star Trek III one day someone wonders how they did that Klingon dog, well, David will have supplied the answer. :-) All that said, I do agree that some of the walls-o'-text seem a little ... relentless, but before cutting content I think it's worth seeing how the effect can be alleviated through other methods. One way (which based on past discussions I know David isn't keen on) might be to create fourth-level subsections, which I did to overcome a similar problem at Changeling (film)#Visual effects. As an added bonus, that might give each section room enough to breath so that brief explanations of the more technical terms and processes can be included. Perhaps that might that help lessen Brian's concerns? Steve T • C 22:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, you know I dislike them subheaders :P But what do you mean by " enough to breath so that brief explanations of the more technical terms and processes can be included"? While adding further subsections reduces the visual appearance of walls o' text and adds more flexible navigation, I'm thinking that wouldn't change the content that much... are you suggesting something different? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if adding (very brief) inline explanations might help. Brian said, "I found much of this section written in technical terms that I didn't understand"; as it stands, adding these explanations for each technical term would make the text wall larger, so even more daunting for the reader. However, if you did go the subheader route, with the more palatable section sizes you'd likely have room to at least expand on a couple of them—nothing major, something along the lines of what I did at Changeling, e.g. "He instead used rotoscoping, the process whereby effects are drawn directly onto live action shots." Brian feels the section is inaccessible to the general reader; you don't want to lose the content. This might suit both views. Steve T • C 23:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at working on the special effects section, adding more wikilinks and a little more explanation text. I think the additions are outweighed by some tightening of the language in general, and removal of a couple trivial details. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Jose Ferrer[edit]

I think I saw Jose Ferrer in the early part of Star Trek 3 as a mate on the Grissom...can anyone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, but you did see Miguel Ferrer (his son) as an officer on the Excelsior! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by Mlpearc, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 27 October 2010. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
  • All redirected & disambiguation links fixed.

Mlpearc powwow 01:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Source for Kraemer cites[edit]

The article makes three separate cites of "Kraemer" but I can't find Kraemer anywhere in the list of references. Am I missing something here? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I think it was malformed and didn't appear. I've properly added the cite to the ref list. Thanks for the catch! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. I was doing some research for an expansion of the Spock article and noticed it. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

box office[edit]

It is not true that ST3 beat the opening weekend record gained by Indiana Jones 2. Indy 2 had an opening weekend of $25 million, whereas Trek 3 opened with $16 million. I believe Trek 3 beat the record for WIDEST opening though with 1,966 theatres (which was almost 300 more than Indy 2). (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Spoiler alert: They find him[edit]

A shame those templates were outlawed and salted. I wanted one today soooo badly.... SBHarris 01:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Stuntmen used spring-loaded platforms to launch themselves in the air.[44]"[edit]

Is this line supposed to be in the section where they discuss how the Enterprise's destruction was filmed? I thought there was no one left on board when this happened. Is this line supposed to be where they discuss the destruction of the Klingon ship? S.G.(GH) ping! 09:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Religious Themes[edit]

Even if the themes in Star Trek, or specifically this movie, are religious in nature (despite Gene Roddenberry being an outspoken atheist and highly critical of religious ignorance), the themes mentioned in this article are by no stretch of the imagination inherently Christian in nature. Life, death, and rebirth are featured prominently in many religions- many of which are older than Christianity.

Without starting a flamewar, I would think the section claiming the presence of religious themes should at least require more than one guy's crackpot opinions. Otherwise, this religious nonsense has no place in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering that this is a Featured Article, the "Themes" section and others were well-vetted during the candidacy process. Themes are subjective to cover, and the section references reliable sources for different aspects of the film. There is more than one person talking about Christianity, too. Kreitzer and Kraemer both cover the topic. I do not think anything should be removed. If anything, we can add more on themes (which is not just limited to religion), but I believe the main contributor to this article did a thorough job reviewing the sources available. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, but all of the references to Christianity in the themes section come from one book, from one guy. Given the subjective nature of the material, I wouldn't consider that real research. It's an interpretation, but not an interpretation of the original writers or producers or even actors, so I don't see how it has enough merit to make it into the article. It could maybe be reworded to make it clear that these are the interpretations of one person instead of a purposeful given theme of the films. But every single popular work of fiction has some religious writer commenting on the similarities between it and the bible (see: the newest Superman movie), so I don't know how much value talking about it gives the article.
One of my big problems is with this caption: "The Search for Spock continues The Wrath of Khan's exploration of Christian biblical themes of life, death, and rebirth." Talk about citation needed! Not only do I not think these religious themes were purposely a part of the films, but these themes aren't inherently Christian. Anyway I leave it up to you guys, but I wanted to at least point it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The thing about interpretations is that there is a view that a film can be seen in a way that the filmmakers did not intend. A film is a product of the surrounding culture, so there are interpretations that can be derived from that. One common example is Fahrenheit 451 is interpreted to be about censorship, yet Bradbury says it is about television destroying interest in reading literature. (You can read about that here.) In the "Themes" section, we do attribute each particular interpretation to a person per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The footnotes are one way to do this, and the writers' names in the prose is another. As for religion, I don't see it as meaning an endorsement of it. It's just that the Christ figure is a popular archetype. Superman has definitely been seen as a Christ figure. Sure, there are older religions, but these interpretations are probably closer to today's culture. On another level, there is probably a Wikipedia article somewhere that says common Christian elements have been seen in these older world religions also. We can't import that here when the connection is not made directly; it would be original research. Readers have to read about Christianity and draw their own conclusions. The best we can do, I think, is find a way to include a link or two that would be more informative, like resurrection in Christianity. The reader can go from there. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal from Netflix[edit]

Would the film's removal from Netflix over inaccurate Klingon and Vulcan subtitles be noteworthy? Cites: and Esprix (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@Esprix: It might be worth mentioning in the context of expanded home media, e.g. "the film was made available on Netflix after briefly being pulled for inaccurate subtitles." It doesn't merit much beyond that, I don't think. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks. Esprix (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Honestly I'm wondering why we are mentioning it at all. In the long run, "who cares" if it was removed from Netflix for a little while. Seems hugely trivial to me... Ckruschke (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke