Another week, another episode of the Mission Log Podcast. This week, hosts John and Ken continue their look back at the Original Series movies with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Hailed by many as the best Star Trek film, the Wrath of Khan has become iconic in modern popular culture. From Ricardo Montalban’s stunning performance (and glistening chest) to the infamous KHHHAAAAAAN! scream by Captain Kirk to the heartwarming (and arguably unimitatable) final scene between our captain and science officer.
This is it. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Seriously. What else is there to say?
Follow the adventures of the Mission Log each week right here on TrekMovie. Just keep your eye on our sidebar for the latest episode! And don’t forget to tell us your thoughts in the comments!
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan on this week’s Mission Log Podcast
Look at those pecs! Talk about your Corinthian leather!
“This is it. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Seriously. What else is there to say?”
Well, I happen to think that there’s a lot to say about TWOK both pro and con. On the plus side it’s lively and colorful, full of dramatic moments for the TOS characters who get to do a fair amount of swashbuckling (while wearing those fancy new belt buckles) in the Horatio Hornblower style that was central to Roddenberry’s original vision for the show. The Genesis Device even lends the story a genuine sense of wonder sorely missing from the J.J. Abrams films. In short, THE WRATH OF KHAN was the anti-TMP, which was enough after the disappointment of that earlier film to give it a lot of credibility straight out of the box. But it’s also an unduly militaristic and violent take on the Trek universe, and while the FX work is generally competent if modest, some of the rented props and settings are downright cheesy by today’s standards. The actors were clearly having a great time but some of the dialogue doesn’t ring true in terms of character–particularly that of Spock, who goes from being an emotionless drone in THE MOTION PICTURE to downright cuddly in the course of a single film. But by far the worst thing about KHAN was nothing in the film itself so much as the legacy caused by is success: from that point forward, just about every Trek film has felt obliged to give the crew a snarling villain to defeat. What worked splendidly in one story due to a unique set of circumstances (the writer/director’s clever re-use of literary tropes and a charismatic actor in the villain role) has not, in the long run, served the interests of this franchise well at all.
In his memoir “A View From the Bridge,” Nicholas Meyer recalls THE WRATH OF KHAN as a good film, but one that is sui generis, a one-shot that stands somewhat apart from the rest of the Trek mythos. I think he has the sense of that pretty right.
I have always failed to see why Wrath of Khan is considered more military than say Balance of Terror, Journey to Babel, or The Ultimate Computer. Or even The Motion Picture. (Especially Rodenberry’s novel.)
2. Michael Hall – June 20, 2014
…from that point forward, just about every Trek film has felt obliged to give the crew a snarling villain to defeat.
STIII had the snarling villain, but IV and V didn’t and VI didn’t really, either.
The villain in VI was an intercultural faction who’d united for the common cause of undoing peaceful negotiations between the Federation and Klingons. The Christopher Plumber character had the most screen time out of the factional enemy, but he wasn’t just a snarling villain like Khan or Kruge. He was a devious, politically motivated (at least partly) affiliate of the party adversarial to the good guys.
With regard to the TNG movies, I’d agree that they all pretty much had black-hatted bad guys.
But, if not a bad guy to defeat, what sort of story premise would you suggest for a feature Trek film? Something along the lines of “City on the Edge…”, where the challenge is against time and the elements and/or an illness (such as saving McCoy)? Or, one in which there’s a bad guy, but his motive and the need to defeat him isn’t solely responsible for driving the plot?
Here’s the deal, If you want Roddenberrys true vision; or version, of what he wanted his “Star Trek” to actually be,
Watch the original Pilot “The Cage” and Star Trek the motion picture as well as the first 2 seasons of Star Trek Next Generation.
All pretty dull, bland, boring with no color along with charactors that had very little depth or personality and seemed pretty much lifeless.
Sadly and for whatever reason(s), it seems that from 1968 to 1987, Roddenberry somehow forgot how to produce and write, inspiring, interesting as well as motivational , thought provoking as well as entertaining science fiction stories.
Also, it should be realized, that after Star Trek the motion (motionless) picture in 79,
For Star Trek to surviive at the box office, it seemed like it had to cease being about space exploration and seeking out new life and new civilizations.
It become more about Space enforcement and explosions and less about morality stories & commentary about us and our culture . be it during the 1960’s or the 1980’s.
2 possible reasons as to why…..
1. After Star wars in 1977, Science fiction became more about fancy special fx, cool little fighter ships having dog fights along with explosions and snazzy alien make up.
2. What ; or more honestly who, that was missing with
Gene Roddenberry Star Trek the Motion Picture and Next Generation, was Gene Coon (who died in 1973)
Where Roddenberry may have came up with the idea of Star Trek, It was Gene Coon, who gave the original Star Trek, most of what made it special ,classic and memorable.
What is also interesting and perhaps sad; is that some of the Star Trek movies that actually came the closest to capturing the original series spirit ,feel or “heart,” are some of the ones that were the least successful or profitable at the box office.
So perhaps for a lot of reasons,maybe some good and some bad.
For Star Trek to be profitable today and continue ,
Maybe it has to rely more on Snazzy FX, neat alien make up and lots of space battles and explosions,
and rely less on telling the kind of stories , that used to make some of us, look up at the stars, think, ponder and wonder to ourselves,
“what if?”
5. Dave Thornton – June 20, 2014
Maybe it has to rely more on Snazzy FX, neat alien make up and lots of space battles and explosions, and rely less on telling the kind of stories , that used to make some of us, look up at the stars, think, ponder and wonder to ourselves, “what if?”
In other words, for Star Trek to be profitable, it has to not be Star Trek?
I reject that notion outright. Production values do not have to be mutually exclusive with thoughtfulness, depth, meaning and TOS values.
Take The Matrix or LOTR…all top-line productions which also had no shortage of depth and meaning. No shortage of action in those movies, and nobody watches them and complains that the effects don’t look good. In fact, quite the opposite.
For a lot of todays audience, they really don’t want to have to “think” very much or try to figure out whats going on. They Just want to sit back and be entertained.
Furthermore, The last 2 Star Trek movies proved that even if the stories were very much flawed , rushed and full of logic gaps,
as long as it said “Star Trek” and looked great visually, it was adored as well as defended no matter what by the
“any trek is better than none at all” fans.
Also The last time I checked, Neither the Matrix or L.O.T.R. has had almost 50 years of history with 5 Television versions with over
700+ episodes,23 Animated episodes along with 12 motion pictures either.
But as with a lot of things today; music, television & movies,
the expectaions are not very high. The standards seem lowered as well as the bar doesnt have to be set very high .
Because even with the 100 + million dollar budgets, spectacular special effects and make up,
it still often feels like a case of
“Been there, seen that and seen it done a whole lot better somewhere before.”
I’ve always believed that TREK’s broad appeal was routed in the fact that so many of us enjoy the series(s) for so many individual reasons. During it’s early years, I’d argued that it’s immediate appeal was to hard-core sci-fi fans, fans of action-shows, science-loving geeks of both sexes. I think the early fan fiction demonstrated a love of the characters and in diversity. TREK-fans would be quite nerdy in those days. The kids with braces, the heavy-girls and the gay-kids like me identified with Spock and found a safety-zone in Roddenberry’s IDIC-universe.
During the decade of reruns, between TREK’s cancellation and it’s Motion Picture revival, the fan-base grew significantly and, by then, fans had come upon the series. Each enjoying specific aspects of the show. Those that liked the space-epic, action and man-dies-for-his-friends were quickly drawn to Star Wars, I believe. Roddenberry thought that it was primarily his utopian-vision that fans liked – thus STTNP and the first few seasons of TNG.
Consequently, I think that only TREK-movies/shows that are willing to encompass all of the tastes that were reflected in TOS seem likely to gain wide-acclaim. That’s why I think WOK, enjoys the universal praise that it does. Flawed, but containing so many of the elements that made a good episode of TOS with the production values that TV-series could never afford.
7. Dave Thornton – June 20, 2014
For a lot of todays audience, they really don’t want to have to “think” very much or try to figure out whats going on. They Just want to sit back and be entertained.
A story doesn’t have to be confusing in order to be meaningful and give you something to think about. I get the impression that the BR Trek movies, especially STID, had confusing plots in order to fool the audience into thinking that the movies were deep and intelligent—Gosh, this is confusing, but I’m sure it all makes sense; the people who made this movie must be really smart!
Consider how you felt when you first watched The Matrix in the theater. It wasn’t necessarily hard to figure out the plot, but it sure gave you a lot to think about! And, if you’re like me, you kept thinking about the movie for days, weeks and months afterward. I was actually taking a university philosophy class at the time, and our professor cited The Matrix while discussing…DesCartes, I think it was.
If you’re a smart filmmaker, you can make a movie that appeals to varying levels of education and knowledge in the audience. The kids will enjoy it on a superficial level, but their parents will get it on a deeper level. To a kid or an easily entertained person, the finer points of the political and psycho-emotional motives fueling the actions of the villain don’t really matter all that much, so long as the character rings true and seems legit. Obviously, the more thoughtful and sophisticated audience members will get the historical references, literary allusions and see the other levels to the character.
Furthermore, The last 2 Star Trek movies proved that even if the stories were very much flawed , rushed and full of logic gaps, as long as it said “Star Trek” and looked great visually, it was adored as well as defended no matter what by the “any trek is better than none at all” fans.
I totally agree with you here. This is why movies like the BR Trek movies offend my artistic sensibilities: they pander to the lowest common denominator in the audience and exploit the unconditional love of so many Trek fans. And, in the case of the BR Trek movies, there’s the added factor that they were primarily crafted for consumption by the foreign market, the largest portion of which does not speak English. Non-English audiences love action and visuals because they’re easier to follow than wordy drama. Paramount figured that English speakers would still pay to see an action-oriented, visually titillating movie even if it wasn’t really “about” much of anything, and they were right. But, that doesn’t mean that the likes of us have to respect those movies or the people who made them as filmmakers.
Also The last time I checked, Neither the Matrix or L.O.T.R. has had almost 50 years of history with 5 Television versions with over 700+ episodes,23 Animated episodes along with 12 motion pictures either.
True, but why should that be relevant?
The Trek universe is so huge, with so many built-in backstories, characters, worlds and premises, that there should never be a shortage of stories to tell which are set in it.
Again with the rubber chest rumors… To think, one little nip slip on Montalban’s part could have spared us all decades of pointless speculation.
BTW, I find the podcast more entertaining than many I’ve heard. I like some facts mixed in with the “I like this, I don’t like that.”
One very interesting aspect of this film that I’ve never heard discussed is the two starships pitted against each are militarily roughly equal, or perhaps the Reliant is somewhat inferior to the Enterprise, so the battle belongs to the more skilled commander. This puts the focus on the characters rather than the technology! This interesting dynamic is missing from the “big black ship” movies and First Contact, where the Enterprise faces a foe with overwhelming size, power and technology and resort to a plot device to win.
NICE! Thank You, Kayla! <3
“2. What ; or more honestly who, that was missing with
Gene Roddenberry Star Trek the Motion Picture and Next Generation, was Gene Coon (who died in 1973)
Where Roddenberry may have came up with the idea of Star Trek, It was Gene Coon, who gave the original Star Trek, most of what made it special ,classic and memorable.”
Ding! Ding! Ding!! We have a winner!!!!
Roddenberry was never great on his own. Witness Genesis II, Spectre and Planet Earth…and agreed on Season 1 of TNG. Dull!!!
We got lucky with about three of the Star Trek films being GREAT, but the fact is Star Trek is best suited for TV and not movies. You can’t develop characters adequately and tell deep, thoughtful stories in two to three hours.
Overrated movie…
TMP and TWOK changed Kirk into this helpless old geezer who you would never recognize from the series. I don’t buy that they had to make him look like a cadet with no space or combat experience, and who needed to get his mojo back again. Having Spock make the observation of Khan’s two dimensional thinking was an insult to Kirk’s character. I guess the writers never saw “Balance of Terror”.
Turning the Enterprise from the most advanced starship in the fleet to a training vessel was also a ridiculous move – TWOK really has too many WTF moments to be such a highly regarded movie. The main plot line of having Khan seek vengeance is fine and true to his character…but there’s too much other silly, cheesy, illogical side stuff going on to call this movie great.
‘Roddenberry was never great on his own. Witness Genesis II, Spectre and Planet Earth…and agreed on Season 1 of TNG. Dull!!!’
Pfft. Not only did Roddenberry win the Writer’s Guild of America award for Best Teleplay for an episode of “Have Gun Will Travel,” he also took home the Hugo for writing and producing “The Menagerie.” Try again.
My preference is not Roddenberry writing things alone. If yours is — more power to you. Opinions are like a certain part of the anatomy — everyone has one but mine is no less valid than yours.
The BR Star Trek plots were not confusing nor “dumbed down”.
Many of the attitudes expressed here on this thread are confused, repetitive and a bit self-aggrandizing.
Correction: Dave Thornton and CygnusX1 posts come off as being as what I described in the above post #19.
Lurker – your reference about the Enterprise being used as a training vessel…. Err I take it you did realise there was a chronological gap of nearly 15 years between TMP and TWOK?? (TMP being set in 2271 and TWOK 2285) which means by that time the Enterprise was approx 40 years old (erroneously pointed out as 20 years old by Starfleet commander Morrow in TSFS)
At the same time Starfleet where building the prototype Excelsior to replace the aging Constitution class.
Why wouldn’t Starfleet be using it as a training vessel at that point? Beats having it completely decomissioned or mothballed.
Also your point about Kirk being an older geezer and losing his mojo as you put it, again look at the time difference as I pointed out above.
By the time of TWOK fifteen years had passed with Kirk as an admiral flying a desk. He was by then 50 years old (celebrating his birthday with McCoy)
I would imagine by this point maybe Kirk was feeling “old and worn out” as he put it to Carol Marcus on their meeting in the Genesis Cave.