Why is The Search for Spock so underrated in regards to Trek movies?

>What? He's in like half the film.
I meant Nimoy Spock. All those young Spocks that were just screaming was boring.

Why is it "not a sci-fi movie"?

>but I'd be hard-pressed to call it a sci-fi movie.
What does that matter? It's the best Trek film ever made. Much better than First Contact (which was also a revenge film with Picard vs the Borg)

Pretty dumb thing to complain about, but okay.

But it's more scf-fi because.

I mean, it wasn't bad, but most of the TOS movies other than Undiscovered Country and The Voyage Home were just about the trio taking the enterprise out into the middle of bumfuck nowhere and dealing with some isolated incident rather than some sweeping space opera dealing with interstellar politics. It doesn't really distinguish itself from most of the others.

>most of the TOS movies other than Undiscovered Country and The Voyage Home were just about the trio taking the enterprise out into the middle of bumfuck nowhere and dealing with some isolated incident rather than some sweeping space opera dealing with interstellar politics
What? The only TOS films that WEREN'T part of a sweeping interconnected space opera were TMP and TFF.

It's a pretty dark and esoteric movie for a summer flick. Vulcan possession, Kirk's kid getting shiv'ed, and the normal big action ending replaced with a fucking Vulcan get-your-brain-back ceremony. PLanet effects were god-awful too. It has some beautiful moments, though, and the hack Horner actually put together a decent score without ripping himself off too much.

everybody knows odd-numbered trek movies are always bad, user

>Although the stealing of the Enterprise scene was great.
Captain Swagger Stick was pretty based, all things considered.

Attached: 320x240.jpg (320x240, 19K)

That is one shitty fan poster. The Search For Spock's Nose.

>people still crying about Horner

It's sci-fi in the same way as Star Wars. It takes place in space, but the themes have nothing to do with what people think of as sci-fi.

It's a good movie, but I think a movie being a good *Star Trek* movie is kind of predicated on it actually being a sci-fi movie that explores some sci-fi/Trek ideas.

>docks points for khan not being sci fi enough
>likes first contact
Gonna be laughing all week about this one

yeah i couldnt find the original spoiler poster for some reason. That's the first one that popped up. Faggots still fucking it up decades later.

>It's sci-fi in the same way as Star Wars. It takes place in space, but the themes have nothing to do with what people think of as sci-fi.
What "themes" are these?

youtube.com/watch?v=e7WZq9USk5c

My God, Bones. What have I done?

First Contact has a lot of action, which is obviously what you're referencing since that's what everyone memes about when they talk about First Contact, but that's really confined to 3 or so scenes. What the movie's really about is first contact with aliens and how meeting them changed us, and that's played out in small scale with Cochrane changing over the movie. That last scene is wonderful.

Think about the best Star Trek episodes. Measure of a Man, Best of Both Worlds, Inner Light, Yesterday's Enterprise, Darmok, All Good Things, Duet, In the Pale Moonlight, The Visitor, etc, and what ideas they're about. There's also been a lot of academic thought put into what sci-fi is really about and "DUDE REVENGE LMAO" certainly doesn't fall under its umbrella. Wrath of Khan could have taken place in the 1980s on submarines and nothing would have changed.

You do know that WoK was about a lot more than Khan's revenge, right? It's mainly about Kirk and his coming to terms with the facts he getting old, he's been bumped to a desk job, he's having a midlife crisis, he has a son, and that not even he can have total victories as he loses the person closest to him.

It's good, great even. But for the first Enterprise to eat it in that movie just feels wrong. I love the scene, but it could've had tremendously better context.

Attached: downloadfile.jpg (738x369, 20K)

I already said that in . All of that would have been perfectly at home in a movie set in the 1980s set on submarines. There's zilch that's sci-fi about any of that. It's good writing for Kirk, but that's it.

Aren't the genesis rockets pretty important?

So it's not "sci-fi" because they're not constantly spouting technobabble and fucking alien chicks?

That stuff's interesting. The actual Genesis aspect of it is only tangential, though. Khan just wants to use it as a weapon. The movie's basically saying "Wow technology can be used for good OR bad", which is kind of interesting.

>it's only sci-fi if it's so weird or abstract that it would be impossible to translate the plot/characters/themes to another genre
My god, it's full of tard....

Attached: david_bowman_1920x1200.jpg (1600x1000, 194K)

Well typically sci-fi is understood to be speculative fiction regarding scientific themes, like the advance of technology and what might come with that. "What would happen if we invented robots" and "what would happen if we made contact with aliens" are like the classic sci-fi set ups. I don't know if I'd consider WoK true sci-fi. I've never thought about that before, but it's a point.

I've heard it said that sci-fi is really about the 'strange' and about things that challenge our views. That's all that unites sci-fi. You see that sort of idea in a lot of the episodes I referenced in ... and not in Khan.

Heard it from who? Because "Alien" is a sci-fi movie despite being a horror film with a more imaginative location and killer.

If that's the case then 3/4 of Star Trek isn't sci-fi.

Space Seed has a lot of sci-fi ideas. Genetic engineering supermen, cryogenic freezing. But yeah, WoK in a vacuum is kind of just a story of a feud between two men.

You could argue that. It's one of those things. Probably not worth splitting hairs over.

I'm not talking about the action at all

I don't know if I'd call Alien a sci-fi movie either. Like I said earlier, it's like how the Star Wars movies are really fantasy movies despite them taking place in space. Alien is a horror movie despite taking place in space, and WoK is an action/thriller/drama movie despite taking place in space.

Alien is a sci-fi premise in as much as it's about incomprehensible things that might be found out in space. It's light sci-fi compared to like an Arthur C Clarke story though.

No, it isn't, but we will. Because we are as retarded as sci-fi. You can literally make sci-fi out of any genre by just adding autism. All you have to do is take a submarine film with strong character themes and then add some autism about systems and abstract concepts and dwelling on techno-babble a few lines too long. That's the defining characteristic of sci-fi: the presence of autism that puts systems over people. It's not an absence of anything, so WoK is still sci-fi because in the film they sperg. Star Wars, on the other hand, is not sci-fi because they totally gloss over the technobabble instead of dwelling on it. It's also why TPM flirted dangerously close to _becoming_ sci-fi by introducing and dwelling on Mitichlorians. Had Lucas made that into a more central, recurring refrain it would have absolutely moved SW from space fantasy to sci-fi because that's all it takes... persistent autism about speculative type systems and the fantastic.

Attached: ae58b45994d1951f23e25d48847f77aca1c838bccc301e728e0fc41b7a46b0a3.jpg (574x382, 34K)

Well Star Wars isn't sci-fi because it's straight up a fantasy story. It's about magic and good and evil and shit.

Never go full retard user.

You can have sci-fi with Joseph Campbell -tier themes. Just start rationalizing the fuck out of the "magic" system like Lucas started to do and start over-explaining how the technology works, using a lot of it as plot devices.. You'll be a sci-fi space opera in no time.

That's the worst TNG movie to be quite honest. Set the stage for the trash version of Borg in VOY and beyond (and the general dumbing down of Star Trek), somehow has the shittiest costumes and set designs, even the great Alice Krige doesn't lift that shitshow up. Fuck that movie and fuck all the peabrain millenials that overrate it.
>Wrath of Khan isn't a sci-fi movie but I rate a shitty space zombie action romp over Star Trek The Motion Picture and other ST films
Holy shit are you a troll or just that stupid?
I liked the young Spocks being borderline feral, it's part of the Vulcan psyche.
Yeah and the Vulcans visiting Earth is like 5 minutes of the film, the rest of it being pew pew pew bullshit with space zombies that shit on the most iconic antagonists of TNG. How can you be so blind to the trash aspects of STFC while dismissing Khan (which I agree with you is overrated) and disregarding the rest of the filmography?
I loved that scene. Why does it feel wrong? It didn't go out in a blaze of glory?
>There's zilch that's sci-fi about any of that.
Despite the main plot subject about rampant scientific work leading to extreme potential destruction, or superhumans being discovered and unleashed because of plans to terraform worlds, yeah none of that are sci-fi themes, nope not even. You're stupid, but you rate First Contact as the best film, so I guess that isn't a surprise.

Attached: 1296371968076.gif (300x225, 1.05M)

First Contact is basically the writers being like "hey remember that great two-parter 'Best of both worlds'? what if we remade that but remove everything that made it compelling and exciting"

>Set the stage for the trash version of Borg in VOY
But it wasn't VOY. I'll gladly agree that the Queen was a bad idea, but that's all that First Contact did wrong.
>Holy shit are you a troll or just that stupid?
Really good point, user, very well articulated.
>Yeah and the Vulcans visiting Earth is like 5 minutes of the film
The rest of the film, at least the stuff on Earth, is about convincing Cochrane of the importance of the ship and making him move beyond his "I want to buy an island" mindset. More than any of the other movies, First Contact is a movie that's about Star Trek as Roddenberry envisioned it - about why humanity emerged from the wreckage of the old world and united under one banner and stepped into the stars.
>Despite the main plot subject about rampant scientific work leading to extreme potential destruction
It's just a McGuffin, little different than any old superweapon any old villain acquires. There's a hint of interesting commentary on the nature of technology which I mentioned in , but that's the extent of it.

>I loved that scene. Why does it feel wrong?
Because it's not supposed to happen in Star Trek. The franchise is built upon the reset button and returning to status quo ante. That film is _literally_ hurtful to fans in that it created trauma that basically went unresolved. The 1701-A ended-up being a cheap cop-out and didn't happen till the very end of the next film.

Crap, is in response to .

>oh no my episodic format, save me gene!!! muh good feelings!!!

Attached: 1424687954432.png (785x731, 205K)

yeah how dare he want to feel good n' shit after watching a series he enjoys. What a faggot.

>movies can't be sad, they have to make me feel happy!!!!!

Attached: b6xa2ujdr2d31.png (785x1000, 254K)

The first Enterprise going down over a fight with some goofy Klingons who wanted I don't even know just seems like a poor sendoff.

Like I said, I love the scene, just not a fan of the context that caused the ship to finally go down.

Are you seriously whining that Star Trek had an actual ongoing story instead of resetting itself every week with no character growth, no actual consequences, and no advancement?

This is the right answer. Some literally who Klingons destroyed it.

C r i n g e

>The first Enterprise going down over a fight with some goofy Klingons who wanted I don't even know just seems like a poor sendoff.
Kruge thought Kirk created the Genesis device as a weapon to use on the Klingon Empire. He wanted it so that wouldn't happen and for the Empire to have that weapon instead.

But this also brings me to my biggest question about STIII: why the fuck did Kirk record himself talking about how the Genesis device works and replace Carol Marcus' recording with it?

>Some literally who Klingons destroyed it
No, Kirk destroyed the Enterprise.

Your mom destroyed the Enterprise

>movies have to be unresolved or my delusional pseud ego can't handle the mediocrity
>I need more edginess to convince me I'm alive and I matter.
>What's the cinematic equivalent of stepping on my balls in stiletto heels?
>Please Moshe take a dump in my soul
imagine...
PSYCHOSOCIAL
PSYCHOSOCIAL

Attached: have-two-personalities-twisted-chop-nicest-ind-person-you-ill-3545181.png (500x300, 77K)

kys retarded faggot

>That film is _literally_ hurtful
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HOLY FUCKING JESUS YOU ABSOLUTE RETARD

No YOUR mom destroyed the Enterprise.

Not every story is or needs to be a happy ending. Do you shit yourself over Grimm fairy tales because they're not happy ending?

He probably thought they were hurtful to fairy tale fans.

>OMFG I AM A ROCK I AM AN ISLAND AND A ROCK FEELS NO PAIN AND ISLAND NEVER CRIES CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS RETARD HE ACTUALLY DOESNT KNOW THAT YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO HAVE FEELS *IRONICALLY*

good one.

Attached: 522473-shutupanddance.png (740x416, 315K)

Do you read Grimms' Fairy Tales on the reg, faggot? No, you don't. Ever wonder why not?

What the fuck are you blithering about now? I was laughing at how pathetic you are not emotions. The way you express yourself is pricelessly cringe.

Ever watched The Land Before Time?

>ackshully, i was just making fun of the way you were saying it, not what you were saying
Going to backpeddle further, faggot or should i keep going? I can do this shit all night.

been watching the original trek movies.

they're all incredibly entertaining. 3 isn't even the most "underrated", that might be 5 actually. Lots of good comfy scenes with kirk, spock and mccoy and the guy who plays Sybok is a great actor.

i especially love this scene-
youtube.com/watch?v=ISMuhvLwlKQ

Attached: ship out of danger.jpg (720x960, 66K)

Thanks for reminding me. Why didn't audiences overwhelmingly approve the final episode of pic related? Gosh, they must be
>TOTAL FUCKING RETARDS HAH HAH A WHY DONT THEY LOVE MOSHE SHITTING IN THEIR SOUL AND MAKING THEM GO TO BED DEPRESSED AS FUCK OMFG WHY ARENT THEY EDGY HIPSTERS LIKE ME?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs_(TV_series)

Attached: 307469100-25221718abc.jpg (520x348, 73K)

why are you so weird?

Are you a ten-year-old mentally?

>WHATS WRONG AUDIENCES, DIDN'T LIKE THE VERSION WITH LYRICS?
>AFRAID OF A SAD ENDING?
>AFRAID TO CONFRONT THE GRIM REALITY OF SUICIDE
>I HOPE YOU DIDN'T COME HERE TO LAUGH OR FEEL GOOD CAUSE WE'RE ABOUT TO EDGE THE FUCK OUT OF THIS SHOW

Yeah. Caring about a franchise is fucking dumb, isn't it? It's weird to feel.

Attached: mash_-_suicide_is_painless.jpg (400x395, 32K)

Do you have any point at all?

Oh. Now you don't even know what you were mocking anymore?

There's caring and there's having a mental breakdown. You're sperging pretty hard right now, retard.

1. Wrath of Khan
2. Undiscovered Country
3. Voyage Home
4. Search For Spock
5. Motion Picture
(here is where galaxy quest would go)
6. Beyond
7. First Contact
8. Final Frontier
9. Star Trek
10. Insurrection
11. Generations
12. Nemsis
13. literal shit
Into Darkness is bad on all fronts

TNG>TOS>DS9>YOV=ENT>TAS>>>>>>>STD

There's sperging and then there's taking care to know wtf you're posting about and being able to defend it. This is the latter. Yours was the former.

Not that user but we were mocking your lack of maturity. You're still providing lulz so please continue, mouthbreather

I know exactly what I'm mocking, a dipshit who thinks that because TOS had a lot of silly shit and always ended with "Humanity superior, become like us or else" then all things Trek must be silly camp goofiness about humanity being gods.

People fell for that stupid odd number/even number meme

You don't even know who you're replying to. You're literally just rolling around on the ground throwing a tantrum like a child. This is hilarious.

>we we- we're totally triggering you, right? b- be honest

Found the guy in the Star Trek thread that doesn't actually like Star Trek. Pretty common these days. Reddit is the other way, though.

>maybe if i just make up some "mocking" type imagery about what he's doing right now (even though it doesn't really track), i'll win.
You wont.

Attached: 1C0FA3B9-E08F-498C-99A9-EFDEF7910345.gif (208x200, 2.03M)

This is astoundingly delusional.

>Found the guy in the Star Trek thread that doesn't actually like Star Trek
That the best you can do, "You don't think like I do therefore you don't like this thing!"?

Ok, well while i'm at it I'll take the occasion of my delusion to hit you with some unsolicited advice: Get over your fear of sincerity. Because the culture at large is quickly becoming as much of a sewer as this glorious place ever was. If you want to cut yourself because you like the pain, go for it. But at the very least try not to drag entire thread down into the Reddit -tier edgelarp with you.

>projection
>assumptions
You realize you most likely have schizophrenia, right? I'm serious, you should really seek help.

holy shit he's having a meltdown

I invented that gambit too, son. You'ld be pissing in your JNCO jeans in the fetal position if you found yourself on the losing-end of the real deal.

>hey guys can I try?
cute.

>But it wasn't VOY. I'll gladly agree that the Queen was a bad idea, but that's all that First Contact did wrong.
It made the Borg into literal space zombies, and it set the atmosphere of the Borg (and the type of pacing in general) of Star Trek to be what Voyager became (ie. trash). My point is that the shittiness of later Star Trek franchises all took their cues from First Contact; it irreparably harmed Star Trek as a whole.
>Really good point, user, very well articulated.
About as well articulated as your arbitrary metrics for what is considered sci-fi?
>as Roddenberry envisioned it - about why humanity emerged from the wreckage of the old world and united under one banner and stepped into the stars.
First off, Berman, Braga, and Moore knew jack shit of what Roddenberry envisioned; also the fact that First Contact turned this great ascension of humanity into requiring a nudging by our plucky heroes kind of undermines the whole concept. (Not to mention all the stupid consequences of dumb time travel.)
>It's just a McGuffin, little different than any old superweapon any old villain acquires.
Fine, fair enough, but considering often enough that the best of sci fi is about the human condition, disregarding films for not having grandiose "sci-fi" themes is asinine.

I respect the aspects you elevate of First Contact, and they are legitimate. (I didn't like Cromwell's Cochrane at first but after Enterprise he really grew on me, and those scenes are great). I admit most of my complaints with STFC are meta, in how the TNG and later franchise developed after and because of it, but I still consider it a poor choice for best ST film because of that.

The Enterprise was an old decayed piece of junk that was headed for mothballs. It went out in a massive sacrifice that let the desperate heros survive for just a little longer, couldn't ask for more.
Avatarposters depict themselves more than their projection.

Attached: sisko-benny-real2.png (480x320, 282K)

lol okay faggot

>The Enterprise was an old decayed piece of junk that was headed for mothballs. It went out in a massive sacrifice that let the desperate heros survive for just a little longer, couldn't ask for more.
My problem is ultimately with how the movie ended. Namely, the lack of resolution. Part of what made STIII so unpopular was the note that it ended on. Replacing it with an equally decrepit Constitution-class one film later doesn't really bolster the argument.

>It made the Borg into literal space zombies
What? The suits told them to make the Queen because they thought the Borg were boring space zombies.

2>4>3>1>6>5

The ship that was renamed Enterprise was a brand-new ship. The reason it barely worked in V was because Shatner was never a fan of Roddenberry's perfect utopia vision of the future and wanted to portray it with having the Enterprise-A be a clunker.

The Enterprise-A was an existing ship that was crippled in ST4

How long after STV was this bit of EU information created?

Those spaceframes last 100 years and the Enterprise-A wasn't a new ship. Starfleet just took the Yorktown, which was slated to be mothballed and rebadged it "Enterprise". Presumably, the ships only "fall apart" because Starfleet stops refitting them because they're going to replace them with newer designs. It's not because the ship itself is inherently worn-down from too much warp drive. It's not the Battlestar Galactica.

Yeah I like Star Trek V because it has the best banter between the TOS cast of all the TOS films.
So it's bad because a long-shot adventure of old-timers trying to ressurect their dead friend didn't get wrapped up with a happy little bow? Are you serious? The whole movie was about an extremely desperate quest in the first place but their loyalties to eachother overshadowed the massive risk and the breach of their rules and duties to embark on it.
The original collective wasn't space zombies, they became that way in First Contact and VOY/etc. Queen or not didn't change any of that stupid dynamic, it was the pacing and the action with instant assimilation.
>Undiscovered Country that low
No.

Attached: picard.jpg (495x550, 97K)

>the work ILM did with the ships is some of the most distinctive and lasting designs in Star Trek.
The Excelsior and Klingon Bird of Prey are 2 of my fovorite Trek ships, and both made their first appearance in Trek in this movie.

The Excelsior in generaly is such a great leap forward in Starflleet design in that era.

Attached: Excelsior.jpg (1431x826, 122K)

>autism

Again, how long after V was this written in order to explain Shatner's directing and script decisions?

Attached: Eaglemoss_USS_Europa.jpg (719x390, 170K)

Roddenberry said it around the time the movie was made

The ship it was renamed from, the USS Yorktown, was Roddenberry's original name for the Enterprise when he first pitched the show

So he was doing damage control.

>So it's bad because a long-shot adventure of old-timers trying to resurrect their dead friend didn't get wrapped up with a happy little bow?
I don't think ST3 is a bad film. I'm just giving you an explanation about why it wasn't so highly regarded when it was released and how that eventually became a meme that stuck. As a second film in a pseudo-trilogy, it's fine. I don't dislike the film, but I quibble with some points, not least of which the decision to destroy the original Enterprise.

> Again, how long after V was this written in order to explain Shatner's directing and script decisions?
As far as I know, it was never a part of canon. It's just common sense. Otherwise, you'ld have to assume that they took a brand new ship, built it out, changed the name at the last second, gave it to Kirk, and then retired it in just 7 yrs. The idea of a mothballed ship getting a lease on life makes more sense.

If you have to twist things into knots in order to explain it, then the explanation doesn't work.

It's the least "knotty" of the explanations, dude. The rest make even less sense. Either way, I personally wouldn't have destroyed the original Enterprise in the first place so it's not like I care that much. It's just the most logical way to lampshade their shitty writing.

How the fuck was the Klingon Bird of Prey able to take 2 direct hits of photon torpedoes from the Enterprise with no shields up, and it is perfectly fine after it spins around? It's even able to get to Vulcan after they leave Genesis.

That was complete bullshit. The amount of damage photon torpedoes did to the Reliant in ST2, blowing up the weapons pod and the nacelle, showed photon torpedoes cause way more damage than they did in ST3.

Attached: tsfshd1068.jpg (1920x806, 161K)

I never asked why ST3 was underrated, I asked why people were butthurt about the Enterprise's destruction (which was a great scene), and complaints on that movie's ending.
> not least of which the decision to destroy the original Enterprise.
Why? Again, the ship was destined for mothballs anyway, and they were on a desperate quest, such a noble sacrifice of a great ship is the best way it could've gone out.
>It's just the most logical way to lampshade their shitty writing.
What shitty writing? That the Enterprise-A was a quirky piece of junk in Star Trek V? You could just as easily assume they were expecting it to operate like the Enterprise, which it wasn't; and in fact the film directly alludes to this with Scotty acting like he knows the ship like the back of his hand before clunking his heem'ing himself on a strut.
Yes, why would a warship from a warlike and belligerent culture be able to take more damage than a petty little multi-purpose frigate from a culture of space lefties? Really toodles the noodle.

Attached: picard-sigh.jpg (400x259, 9K)

>Klingon Bird of Prey

One of the best ship designs ever.

Attached: klingonship.jpg (1200x680, 104K)

Tough little ship.

Also an unshielded Bird of Prey took at least seven torpedos in Undiscovered Country

Generations is the best TNG movie.

Agreed.

Klingon ships are engineered and built for war. Starfleet ships are built for holodeck tea parties

Attached: Kruge's BoP.webm (1130x480, 2.59M)

Attached: USS Grissom vs BoP.webm (1130x480, 749K)

Attached: Kruge.webm (1130x480, 1.13M)

That scene is so iconic startrek copied itself many times after. And not only star trek, practically any "self destruct" scene in any media that came after references it.

>Yes, why would a warship from a warlike and belligerent culture be able to take more damage
>Klingon ships are engineered and built for war. Starfleet ships are built for holodeck tea parties
Complete bullshit. The klingons would have slaughtered the Federation if the bullshit you guys were spewing actually had truth, but shrugging off 2 Federation photon torpedoes with no shields like they were nothing is just plain dumb, much like your posts.

I think most people dont understand its role as the sequel to wrath of khan. It takes the logical idea in WoK that spock was willing to sacrifice himself for the group and turns it around - the group sacrifices for spock.
Also because the spock revival is a bit contrived.

It's probably the most influential of the TOS movies

Not sure why some people thought it was badly received, it had mostly good reviews and was successful in a stacked movie season against Ghostbusters and Indiana Jones

It just wasn't a massive home run like Wrath of Khan was

It's garden variety bad. The only thing it has going for it is David dying and that being a storyline that get's it's conclusion in The Undiscovered Country. Even McCoy's plight gets shelved a few minutes into the film proper.

>Why is The Search for Spock so underrated in regards to Trek movies?

>It doesn't fit "the even trek films are good" meme.
>It came after II which is the best of the lot.
>People were critical of resurrecting a dead character.
>Not much Spock in it.

I think its the best of the odd numbered Trek films. Christopher Lloyd's performance is the highlight of the film and became the basis for many Klingon characters that came afterwards.

2 > 6 > 4 > 3 > 1 > 5

Attached: KHAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNN.gif (500x211, 328K)

Cringe

>shatner wanking himself in his own movie
5 is every bit as bad as it's remembered if not even worse.
youtube.com/watch?v=HU2ftCitvyQ

The Yosemite scenes are the only good part of V.

These scenes were kino. ST3 is worth more than being written off by the odd number curse.

youtube.com/watch?v=OnpQgeAmhnc

youtube.com/watch?v=mkJ3--2K7yo

youtube.com/watch?v=_hvh2oFBkEk

ST3 basically defined Klingons as we know them. It's kino.

>muh generic action movie with a Star Trek sticker slapped on it
This is why STD exists, everyone. People like this.

no one remembers it