Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site pertec.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!scgvaxd!pertec!bytebug
From: bytebug@pertec.UUCP (roger long)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: Star Trek III review (non-spoiler)
Message-ID: <158@pertec.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Jun-84 15:19:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: pertec.158
Posted: Thu Jun 28 15:19:06 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Jul-84 08:20:57 EDT
References: <18600004@hpfcla.UUCP>
Organization: Pertec Computer Corp., Irvine, CA
Lines: 17

> Just  got  back  from  the  first  showing  in town  of Star  Trek  III.
> Consensus  is that the movie is better than the previous  one, and maybe
> version I also.  Well paced, great special effects, reasonable  premise,
> great  acting, new  directions  in the  storyline.  Picks up right where
> STII left off.  Somewhat campy; Trekkies everywhere will love it.

Well, having just seen it last night, I'll comment that I liked it as well
as ST:II, though Karen thought ST:II was better.  

The only credit I'll give to ST:I is that it got the whole Star Trek 
craze rolling again (after all, the re-runs had gotten a bit old, and the
different stations around the country were chopping them up more and more
to put more commercials in).  Once the studio saw that it could make some
money with Star Trek movies, it appears that they spent some on a couple
of decent scripts (ST:II and ST:III) and decent special effects.  ST:I
was a bomb that no Trekkie could love.