The Star Trek film franchise has thirteen releases spanning 1979 to 2016, but there is one film often held up as the one of the best of the genre, 1982’s Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. And today the film picked up another major accolade, being named as one of the movies added to the National Film Registry for Preservation by the Library of Congress.
Khan preserved for the ages
Today, the Library of Congress announced the 25 films being added to the National Film Registry for Preservation for 2024. Films added to the registry are chosen “due to their cultural, historic or aesthetic importance to preserve the nation’s film heritage.” Submissions for consideration can be made by members of the public and this year there were over 6,700 entries, one of which was Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
In a statement provided to TrekMovie, Stephen Leggett of the Library of Congress National Audio-Visual Conservation Center said, “We picked Wrath of Khan in part because it is generally considered the best of the theatrical releases in the series. The film also received significant support in public nominations.” Five of this year’s films added to the registry are also being highlighted for reflecting Hispanic artists and culture, and this includes The Wrath of Khan. From the announcement: “One of the selections with strong public nominations this year, “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,” features Mexican-American actor Ricardo Montalbán as the main antagonist in the film.”
Cast publicity photo for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (Paramount Pictures)
Here is the official entry for Star Trek II in the National Film Registry:
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Often considered the best of the six original-cast Star Trek theatrical films, “The Wrath of Khan” features Nicholas Meyer’s expert direction and James Horner’s stirring score to enhance the always intriguing “Star Trek” scripts, which echo the vision of Gene Roddenberry. “Wrath” reprises an old nemesis from the 1967 TV episode “Space Seed,” with Kirk (William Shatner) and Spock (Leonard Nimoy) battling the volatile and ruthless Khan (Ricardo Montalban). In part an interstellar game of starship cat-and-mouse, and a testosterone-filled alpha mano a mano battle between Kirk and Khan, the film achieves true resonance when exploring larger social and personal themes, in this case Spock’s personal sacrifice to save the Enterprise: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…..or the one.”
Being named to the National Film Registry is just the latest honor for the film, which was also nominated for a Hugo Award in 1983 as well as eight Saturn Awards, with William Shatner winning for Best Actor and Nicholas Meyer winning for Best Director. Over the decades, The Wrath of Khan has often been held up as a standard for both the Star Trek franchise and beyond, with Ricardo Montalban’s Khan Noonien Singh considered one of the greatest movie villains of all time. The film has become iconic, influencing pop culture and remaining relevant to this day. Homages to the film have appeared across media, including Seinfeld and even this year in Deadpool & Wolverine.
Ricardo Montalban in The Wrath of Khan (Paramount Pictures)
The Wrath of Khan is the first movie from the Trek franchise to be added to the Registry, which now has 900 films. According to the Library of Congress, the Star Trek film received “strong public support” along with some other familiar titles added, including The Social Network, Dirty Dancing, No Country for Old Men, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The full Registry includes other genre films, including all three original Star Wars movies. Other 1982 films on the Registry include Blade Runner, E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial and Fast Times at Ridgemont High.
The National Film Preservation Board was established by Congress in 1988 and given a mandate preserve America’s cinematic heritage. 25 films are added to the Registry annually. Films must be 10 years old and deemed “culturally, historically or aesthetically” significant. The Librarian makes the annual registry selections after “conferring with the distinguished members of the National Film Preservation Board and a cadre of Library specialists.”
According to the Film Preservation Board, they coordinate with studios and film archives to ensure these films are archived and preserved for generations to come. In the case of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan they have coordinated with Paramount Pictures, who holds the copyright and houses all the master elements, and they do the preservation work.
For more on the Film Registry visit loc.gov/film.
2024 list of films (Library of Congress)
Nicholas Meyer reacts to accolade
Star Trek II director (and uncredited screenwriter) Nicholas Meyer has released a statement regarding the announcement:
I am greatly surprised and gratified by this honor, but I feel bound to say in the same breath that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan stands on the shoulders of many who contributed to the film as well as those who have gone before. Alas, they are not here to take their well-deserved bows. We must pay tribute to Gene Roddenberry, Gene Coon, Harve Bennett, Jack Sowards, Leonard Nimoy, Ricardo Montalban, DeForest Kelley, Nichelle Nichols, Kirstie Alley, James Doohan, Merritt Butrick, Bibi Besch, Paul Winfield, Joe Jennings, Gayne Rescher, Bill Dornisch, Mike Minor & a host of others. In their name and on behalf of current and future Star Trek creators, and on behalf of Star Trek itself and its message of optimism, I thank the Library of Congress for this lovely accolade.
Director Nicholas Meyer with William Shatner on the set of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (Paramount Pictures)
Khan the book
If you would like to take a deep dive into the movie, you can pick up Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan – The Making of the Classic Film. The coffee table book released last year was thoughtfully researched by John and Maria Jose Tenuto. It includes new interviews with Meyers and others who worked on the film. The fully-color illustrated book is available now in at Amazon in hardcover and Kindle eBook.
Find more Star Trek history at TrekMovie.
Meyer thanked everyone except Shatner. Than ain’t right.
All of those people Meyer gave shout-outs to are dead. That’s why Bill was left out.
Oh! Thanks for pointing that out, I was wondering about Shatner as well. But of course he doesn’t mention Koenig or Takei either.
The people he named are no longer with us.
Shatner’s still alive. Meyer was pretty clear he was speaking for those who are no longer among the living.
It’s true the rest of the cast has passed on, but Shatner is the captain. His name shouldn’t have been left out.
He was thanking the dead people. SHATNER LIVES!
What about James Horner?!
That is certainly an admission.
….and a host of others. End quote. Meyer’s comment certainly seemed gracious enough, not sure why it’s being nitpicked.
Amusing they cited Ricardo Montalban as Mexican-American as part of the Hispanic heritage thing, while he was playing someone from the Indian Subcontinent… :D
But it was the nature of the business back then, and not the only time Montalban played someone from another ethnic heritage in the 1960s – look up the episode of the original Hawaii Five-0 when he donned false epicanthic folds on his eyes to play someone Chinese (or maybe it was Japanese). Because heaven forbid they cast someone of the proper ethnic origins for the parts..
Well, as you say, that was how things were done back then, and we know better now (how the character was handled in Into Darkness can be argued about elsewhere). Doesn’t take away from how great the part was and how well he played it.
Totally. Montalban always was at least good and often great in anything he was in. If anyone else had said ‘Corinthian Leather’ would we still remember that phrase? Yes, its a chuckle-inducing thing, but how many actors could make a car commercial a cultural touchstone?
That voice was remarkable.
I recall Mark Lenard narrating Nissan commercials in the 90s and it was unmistakable.
Montablan really was great. I’ve watched a lot of Turner Classic Movies and seen some of old films he was in. The guy was just a classic.
Casting an actual Indian in the 1960’s would have been nearly impossible. There were practically none in the US. Besides at least it was a person of color playing a person of color.
Montalban was the son of two immigrants from Spain. He wasn’t a “person of color” is that phrase is going to mean anything.
I’ve seen at least two episodes of old westerns in the past year where Leonard Nimoy plays an American Indian (“Tate” and “Tombstone Territory”).
He never played him as Indian in the film. He did in Space Seed, obviously. I understand the importance of representation in film, but I support actors being able to cross such lines, as long as it’s not caricature and/or degrading. Would Khan have been as iconic if he weren’t played by Mantalban? Certainly not. I’d hate to think we could have been robbed of his performance. It’s still legendary.
His ethnicity didn’t really come up in the film, though, so he wasn’t *not* Sikh.
This might be a slight retcon, but could Khan himself have been part Latin American and part Indian?
One thing that it’s always struck me about the name “Khan Noonian Singh” is that it’s part subcontinent Muslim (“Khan,” a la Imran) and part Sikh (“Singh”). (Who knows, maybe “Noonian” was some kind of nickname for a more authentically Gujarati or Bengali or whatever name, too; I realized that in real life, it was chosen because Roddenberry was trying to send a signal to a wartime friend he’d lost touch with.)
The name mashup suggests that, in his quest to become “absolute ruler” of the subcontinent, Khan was trying to portray himself as above ethnic and religious divisions in the region, a “child of India,” rather than a Muslim or Sikh or Hindu. As a real-world example of this idea, Saparmurad Niyazov Turkmenbashi, the first president of post-Soviet Turkmenistan, was a member of the Teke, the dominent Turkmen tribe. But he was orphaned after the 1948 earthquake that leveled Ashgabat, so he portrayed himself as “a child of all Turkmen tribes,” not just the Teke, and thus a unifying figure after independence.
Moreover, if Khan actually had some Latin American ancestors, he might actually have *felt* like a child of India, rather than merely one of India’s confessional communities. Note, for example, that he never kept the “five k’s”: e.g., he never wore a kara (bracelet) or carried kirpan, and he seemed to honor kesh (keeping one’s hair long) only symbolically, with that pony tail in “Space Seed.” Nor did he ever wear a turban outside of McGiver’s paintings. All that suggests he was trying to downplay, *really* downplay, his Sikh heritage.
None of this explains the idiotic casting of Cumberbatch, but it works for Montalban.
All of that works, for sure. Agree about Cumberbatch. You could have made John Harrison anybody other than Khan, and it would have worked better.
Fascinating background and take, thanks.
Yup, it is good people are realizing how ridiculous the casting was back then – and the reason why I always mock those who complained that an Englishman played Khan in Star Trek 12.
That said, obviously Ricardo Montalban did a stellar job both in Space Seed and TWOK and I thought Benedict Cumberbatch was fine in Star Trek Into Darkness – even though he was a Brit playing a South Asian who was originally portrayed by a Mexican.
You guys all seem to be forgetting Cumberbatch Khan was explained in the IDW comics , the Die Another Day DNA face alteration tech, he was actually montalban under the cumberbatch face and mission impossible voice lol
Of course as we all know Benico Del Toro was approached but declined over money (and probably Javier bardem but he was never going to do it after the similar villainous role in Skyfall or even bc of that schedule wise).
The other way to have dealt with filling Montalbans glorious pecs was NOT to have recast at all, and had John Harrision revealed to be one of Khan soldiers (Joachim who Cumberbatch actually resembled judson scott facially. but obviously no need to have him go ‘My name is.. Joachim!’) there follows Joachims attempts to free his leader from cryo status, so after all the Nimoy Spock phone a friend, battles and 9/11 Vengeance crash instead of the Spock v Khan slugathon on the trash barges it would lead to the conclusion in a section 31 base, where the Botany Bay is stored with Montalban Khan still inside (and wed briefly see 1966 Space Seed Montalban CG face)
I knew all that, but it really isn’t addressed in the film, and it should be. No matter who played him, it wasn’t just the appearance, but the portrayal was altered to the point that he didn’t act like Khan in any way. His motivations were altered.. I get it can be explained, but the question is… if you’re going to alter the character so much, why bother using him? The name reveal in the cell was this big thing that meant nothing. He was Khan in name only. The writers were so clueless and got caught up in JJ’s mystery box. I’m still angry that they wasted one of the greatest antagonists in any franchise.
“a fiction created by Marcus…” but yeah a brief flashback to the Botany Bay retrieval showing CG Montalban getting face swaped wouldve been nice
Like you say, sadly this was very much “of the time” even in the 80s. Funny enough, I recently re-watched Lawrence of Arabia and while it’s an epic, enjoyable film, seeing Anthony Quinn as a middle-eastern man (with a fake nose) feels extra “cringy” as the kids say.
And they cast a Canadian as an American, and a Bostonian as a half-Vulcan, and an African-American as an African…I could go on. So?
Meyer’s gotten a lot more gracious with the passage of time. Surprised he forgot to cite Horner though. I assume Sallin was omitted because he is still with us?
Still, a part of me feels that any movie — even one I love as much as this one — that has a dead character close his eyes in mid-scene probably doesn’t deserve this honor. But hey, there are movies included with TWOK above that I consider fall between mediocre and just utter crap, so I guess I need to make allowances …
Anybody think Paramount will issue a new iteration of the movie with this designation splashed all over it? Though I think I’d prefer the ‘Saavik is half-romulan’ cut, as I always have devoutly wished for.
When was Meyer not gracious? And what scene are you referring to with a dead character closing his eyes?
Judson Scott’s death.
And Meyer has nearly always had a rep for being outspoken — not that that is a bad thing — but often obnoxiously so. The Altman/Gross book on the bond films has an interesting couple of pages detailing Meyer’s limited involvement on TOMORROW NEVER DIES that shows it was still going full bore many years after he stopped being a popular flavor. Though I still think his significant departure idea for the film — wholly unused — was spectacular and probably would have found favor with his onetime collaborator Brosnan, if Babs B had actually let it percolate that far.
I spent years being dismayed over a very brief interview I did with Meyer in early 91, because a couple of his responses came off more rude than flippant. It wasn’t till many years later that I found out that TUC had only just gotten fully green-lit after bitter fights with the studio and he was probably emotionally exhausted, so I retroactively cut him some slack over it, but even so, I don’t think I’ve ever commenced my end of a conversation with anybody (even a total moron) by replying, ‘no shit sherlock.’
Wait, Nick Meyer was involved with TOMORROW NEVER DIES? I never heard that bit of Bond lore. What was his departure idea?
TND is one of the worst Bond films, much of that because the villain literally explains the whole plot (“I of the yellow press am engineering a Sino-British war!”) within the first ten minutes or so. Contrast that with FRWL, where Bond thought he was on a mission against the Soviets and didn’t *know* Spectre was trying to gin up a conflict between the superpowers until well into the film.
Agreed on TND — it’s the first Bond movie I ever chose to skip seeing in the theater … even the ones I missed first-run I caught on the then-frequent reissues — I even had to fastforward to get through some of the latter half. In fact except for DAD and the Craig films, TND is the least rewatched of Bonds for me.
Meyer was one of several writers involved, but he refused to execute pages based on what had been discussed and instead came back with a villain who intends to save the world by drastically reducing — i.e., eliminating — all people in the most populated sections of the world, like India, to allow the existing resources to feed the rest of the world’s homeless. He challenges Bond to accept the notion and once more help save the world — truly a ‘needs of the many situation’ … and for at least a certain stretch of the film I guess we’re supposed to believe that Bond goes along with this.
Meyer is not supposed to be a big Bond devotee, but I think he must have read the Fleming novels, because that very much has the feel (though not the intent) of a Blofeld speech in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE where you rationalizes his plots from THUNDERBALL and OHMSS in a somewhat credible and ‘concerned’ manner before Bond manages to finally dispatch him, choking him to death while hissing ‘Die Blofeld Die,’ a one-liner badly and for me offensively purloined for the last Craig film.
Anyway, Babs got PO’d at Meyer, and he went all ego on her, saying when you call him in you’re buying his inspiration, not just a pen (I’m generalizing, I don’t have the book in front of me), and she apparently made it clear that his bowel movements smelled like everyone else’s, so hilarity did not ensue.
For years I’d thought Meyer must have come up with the yellow journalist/CitizenKane angle or at least the ‘edifice complex’ line, but actually there’s nothing of his in the movie.
isn’t that the plot for the first ‘kingsman’ film?
Maybe they knew who to steal from? Honestly, I only saw the first one and have no recollection exception of some chick minus a leg doing some fighting.
‘moonraker’ is the lowest point for the bond films.
In the 20th century at any rate.
Though VIEW and TND for me came closest to equaling the nadir that is MR … and that’s even with factoring in the spectacular Ken Adam designs and the fine work of Derek Meddings and John Barry on MR. Without their contributions I don’t think I’d have ever even rewatched the movie, which would be a record for me with 20th century Bond. TND has the last really solid Bond score ever IMO, but there’s precious little else to recommend it, especially in the last half.
I just got the big new MR cd as an early Christmas present, it is nice to be able to hear the full score, though some of the ‘bonus’ extras are actually minuses, like hearing Paul Williams ‘sing’ his version of MOONRAKER — same melody, different lyrics — a couple of times.
Did you hear about the current Bond woes? Amazon and Eon are at utter loggerheads, so there is no script or anything (not counting the one I’ve got 1/10th written that is, but nobody is asking to see that.)
Amazon’s head suggested doing a Moneypenny movie and apparently Ms. Broc thinks she’s a moron.
Definitely not common knowledge about TND. What did he want to do?
The film was at least a good showcase for Michelle Yeoh, who I had only recently discovered from my mother’s Hong Kong cinema collection.
Meyer got a nice little career resurgence for his screenplay for The Human Stain. That had good notices. He has kept busy as a writer. Even though TUC did well he didn’t direct much after that.
Very happy to read this, the film entirely warrants inclusion on the list above. (Very pleased to see No Country for Old Men there too, another favorite).
This is a really nice honor for Star Trek. Now do the one with the whales.
Not to the mention The One With All The Shakespeare!
General Change endorses your idea. Qapla!
Y’know, I think you’re right. Star Trek IV does belong on that list. It was tremendously popular and a real curve from the prior film, especially in tone, being a lighter and humorous film.
If all 3 Star Wars films of the original trilogy are in, then why not 3 Star Trek films? I agree with you, Star Trek IV should be the next one.
For the third? Which one? STIII? First Contact? Or STVI?
But, whatever, if another ST film should be in there, it definitely should be STIV.
VI
Always nice to see proper Star Trek being recognised seeing as we have not had any for so long now.
Stop trolling. We’ve had plenty of Star Trek in the last few years and you know it. Just because YOU don’t like it does not make it any less valid and does not give you the right to decide what is and what is not Star Trek. Gatekeeping is so toxic.
Given the slashed budget and rushed production, that there’s real grandeur amongst all the silliness in TWOK has to be considered a minor miracle in and of itself. I happen to agree with the opinion Meyer expressed in “A View From the Bridge” that the film is sui generis, a one-off that’s as much a meta-commentary on the Trek franchise as it existed in 1982 as it is a part of it. In that sense, it’s undoubtedly a classic. As a template for many of the films that followed, it has a lot to answer for.
I suppose that the slashed budget aspect is a bone I have to toss to him on TUC as well. While by now eminently rewatchable, TUC is a movie I found offensive and stupid on first viewings (it’s still offensive and stupid to me, but I look past that somehow.) He is the only director on those films who had to work with budgets less than the previous film on both outings, and that was a period when, except for the Bond films, which were getting hammered by MGM management, movie budgets were always going up each year. If they’d had the money, TUC would have had a visual suspense scene — Enterprise slipping into a stream of asteroids to sneak past — in place of the infamous dictionary nuttiness when breaching the Klingon frontier.
Plus the plan to show rounding up the crew got cut because they needed to save a mil to get Par to sign off on things, which resulted (for me) in a structural imbalance, as act 1 is way too short without that part of the setup.
To their credit, Paramount did loosen the purse strings a little bit in post once they saw they had a movie, mainly adding much-needed shots to the final battle, but it wasn’t really enough money or time. Matte World, which did three paintings for the film, actually turned one down that was offered them about a month before the film debuted, owing to insufficient time to get it done right (instead ILM handled it principally as a combination of modelwork and live-action — the shot of Starfleet and the bridge — but that got sabotaged by Par because they decided after the fact the scene would take place in early morning rather than night and lightened the shot, making the hilltop matte line screamingly distracting for me in the theater.)
Well, hopefully we’re all mellowing a little with age, and you can see by the credit Meyer gives to Roddenberry that with a career marked by both notable successes and occasional failures that’s now mostly behind him, he’s definitely taken the opportunity to put some things in perspective.
Personally I’ve long thought that TUC is in many ways better cinema than KHAN, with the zero-gee assassination sequence, the courtroom scene, and the space battle over Khitomer real standouts that would do any film proud. But it’s also pretty dour and the Cold War parallels too on the nose. (And yeah, that bit with the dictionaries is ludicrous.) That it doesn’t inhabit that sweet spot of lovingly-tweaked nostalgia that KHAN did, even though it’s the original cast’s swan song, means that it’ll probably never get the same kind of love.
Incidentally, a video recently came across my YouTube feed that replaced the first act TUC FX with new visuals depicting Kirk’s shuttle flying past the San Fran skyline, and the Earth Spacedock abuzz with ships, shuttles and travel pods, capped-off with a POV departure shot depicting just how fast quarter impulse really is. I know you dislike CGI on principle, but I thought it was marvelous work that really opened the film up.
The real faults with TUC were:
– We needed “Valeris” to be Saavik. This was no whodunit; the guest character dunnit, and that packed no emotional punch, conveyed no sense of betrayal.
– They dropped the storyline about Kirk meeting a Klingon scientist on Rura Penthe, who prompted him to re-evaluate his hatred for Klingons. There was no rhyme or reason for why, lying in his bunk, he suddenly questioned his failure to “take Chancellor Gorkon at his word.”
This disjointed transformation robbed Kirk of his agency. It’s the same flaw as in the recent DIAL OF DESTINY, where Indy never affirmatively makes the decision to return home to his own time; Phoebe Waller-Bridge just knocks him out and, boom, he wakes up in bed.
I will say this is one way in which the ENT episode “Judgment” retroactively improved the movie. We got that bit of agency channeled through Archer’s friendship with the Klingon defense attorney.
– I’m less certain of this point, but I do wonder if the film would have been more gripping had Kirk died saving the Federation president, particularly since they unceremoniously killed him off in the next film anyway.
I get your point about Saavik, though Kirstie apparently was uninterested in returning — at least for what they were willing to pay her — and Meyer wasn’t into working with Robin Curtis. Though when I saw the film I was frankly more disturbed at the idea of a full Vulcan as a willing participant in a fascist coup, up to and including the close-range execution of two of her co-conspirators. Not exactly the mostly-pacifists the Vulcans were depicted as on TOS.
As to Kirk’s changed perspective on Gorkon, we’ll have to agree to disagree as I found the Chancellor’s assassination to be a sufficient motivator for Kirk to re-think his sincerity. (This reminds me of the debate on the expanded cut of AMADEUS, which unnecessarily includes a scene where Salieri in his jealousy over Mozart’s talent contrives to sexually humiliate his wife, when her hatred for him was already more than justified in the theatrical cut.)
Not sure I agree with this one. Bear in mind that while TUC was released in December 1991, mere days before the dissolution of the USSR, it was being written and filmed long before the August 1991 coup against Gorbachev. So it was really predicting future events, rather than mimicing them.
That’s certainly a fair point, though I’ll stand by what I wrote about the Trek universe being distorted so the film’s tone and plot could fit the conventions of a Cold War-era thriller. Frankly, I like TUC better as a movie than I like it as Star Trek.
I think we’re better off with that “rounding up the crew” bit cut. Uhura as a talk show host? McCoy as a veterinarian? All of that sounds like a stoopid joke from LOWER DECKS. (The Klingon dictionary scene falls into that category, too.)
Anything that opened up the TOSverse would have been welcome IMO, especially stuff from outside the sphere of Starfleet, which I found to be a creative straightjacket on most of those six films (and a financial drag as well, mandating time and dollars spent on and around Earth instead of on ‘strange new worlds’ and popular international stars.)
And the McCoy as vet thing is from IN THY IMAGE/early TMP, not TUC.
Vaguely remember there’s a similar ’round up’ the old crew scene in the DC adaptation of Shatners Ashes of Eden (most likely inspired by the lost VI opening round up). The comic book actually felt like a DC adaptation of an unproduced Star Trek VII
‘above the line’ costs for the cast was a big part of the budget for TUC.
No kidding, I think Meyer said that once you get atl out of the budget, there was only like 14 mil left to actually make the film (that was well before Par agreed to go a couple or three mil more.) Steven-Charles Jaffe had just produced GHOST for 30 mil, and his argument was how can you expect to make a TREK movie for less than the price of GHOST?
Pity they couldn’t find an extra million to film that opening crew coming together scene (Bibi Beech for kirks apartment, Klingon BoP/Bounty backdrop for Scotty, random actor as a betazoid for chekovs chess rival, late night radio set for uhura, doctor’s party for drunk Bones) maybe Bill and Leonard could’ve deferred 500k each lol (apparently they already deferred some of their salaries to get VI made)
I still think one of Shat’s biggest mistakes EVER was not offering to put his own money into TFF’s post when it became clear that the studio was not going to authorize enough extra funds. Meyer threatened to pay for a TWOK bridge explosin reshoot out of his director fee and shamed the studio into paying for that necessary bit, but I guess that kind of ploy never occurred to Shatner.
If he had though he’d have blown his money on 6 rockmen that would’ve failed instead of just the 1 lol. (unless he’d stumped up enough for the angels/gargoyles ending.. but then maybe that was only part of the original God/Devil script) but yeah maybe he could’ve ploughed some of his TJ Hooker savings into some FX more befitting than a floating godhead chasing him up the mountain
Your last line made me think of that big head from ZARDOZ, imagining that chasing Shat up the hill, which is doubly fun given that Connery actually did work in that sci-fi film. Somebody ought to make a gif of that!
Yeah, that’s what was so great about Khan. Meyer and time and budget constraints and, thanks to his script, which resonated with the public, he made the greatest, and cheapest ST film ever because he made it about the characters and the drama. In that sense, it was akin to TOS, which didn’t have the budget or the sfx technology of the following ST spinoffs. TOS had to rely on drama, acting, romance, comedy, and just sheer theatricality. TNG on didn’t have those constraints.
Well, that’s more on the lazy writers that followed that TWOK. It’s like GOLDFINGER in the Bond series: as a sui generis offering, GOLDFINGER was stylish and well-written, but it was never meant to be a template for all that followed. FRWL is a much better Cold War thriller, but I don’t blame ‘ol Auric and OddJob for that…
The fact that even Richard Maibaum kept running back to Goldfinger, wanting to use his twin brother as the baddie in DIAMONDS, just staggers me. Can you imagine DAF with original replacement and generally wooden handsome guy John Gavin, trading witticisms with a dubbed Frobe?
I agree. It’s not the fault of TWOK that people took the entirely the wrong reason for its success — that it had a colorful villain seeking revenge — and attempted to duplicate it in subsequent films. But that is nevertheless what happened.
it was essential the film was made on a lower budget after TMP went over during filming and with FX, post production.
Well deserved. Its really the only Trek film that can sit comfortably alongside the likes of Star Wars, Alien, Blade Runner, Terminator, 2001 etc
But what would be the next Trek film to go in the NFR if that were to ever happen? I’m guessing Trek IV or VI
All the TOS movies
TMP. There is a lot of historical significance to that film, and if you ask me, its place in film history isn’t talked enough, outside of Trek circles. It’s the only Trek film with such an epic scope, and it is the best representation of Trek’s ideals.
I’ve seen a bit of recognition for TMP as a hard sf film. I think it is a fantastic sf film, but not a great ST film, if that makes sense.
I personally love that film too, but I’d say, if another ST film deserves to be in the registry, it should be STIV, because of its popularity and radically different tone. That should be the one.
Well, to each their own of course, but I could not disagree more about it not being a great ST film. Conceptually, the V’ger story is absolutely as “Trekian” as it gets. On top of that, you get some pretty great character service for Kirk and Spock, which ties in to the lore that makes this franchise so rich. I’d argue it’s actually the most ‘Star Trek’ of all the films.
TMP gifted the OS films kirk’s mid life crisis arc.
The character arcs for Kirk and Spock in TMP look good on paper but don’t land that well in the film (at least in the first half): Kirk’s arrogance, unfamiliarity with the ship and Spock’s coldness are vastly overplayed. It may have been due to a variety of factors — the difficulty for Shatner and Nimoy to get back into their roles after a ten-year hiatus; Robert Wise’s unfamiliarity with the source material; or just plain poor writing. That aspect of the story is actually handled better imo in Roddenberry’s novelization, which has the luxury of letting the audience know directly of the insecurities driving Kirk and Spock at that point in their lives, and manages to do so with some compassion and humor sorely absent from the film.
As to V’ger, I’m inclined to agree. The movie takes a lot of heat for being essentially a remake of “The Changeling,” but if it is it’s a much better one.
Great post, Michael. I’m with you on the Kirk and Spock arcs.
I would say TMP or TVH, but would love to see both make it.
Maybe TMP or IV. Definitely never VI, which is getting more forgettable with the passage of time.
What about TMP itself?
Well , years ago TMP was pretty much considered as bad as Trek V , but the past 10-15? years it seems to have been reappraised into 2001esque scifi epic from film legend Robert Wise (and Roddenberrys true vision of star trek)
So I guess its not impossible a few years down the line TMPs status could grow further, maybe enough to get it in the NFR (due to it being the first film, directed by Robert Wise, fully produced by Roddenberry)
TMP really is a great hard sf film in the vein of 2001 if nothing else. It doesn’t get enough credit for what it did right but is always compared to Star Wars.
Actually, some critics compared TWOK to SW as well, saying it was a failure because it didn’t have SW’s action and aliens, etc. The thing is, first, it couldn’t, on account of its budget and second, due to that budget, largely, it told a more mature story about aging heroes, revenge, regret, honor, sacrifice, and wmds. Fortunately, at the time, that resonated with more people.
Not just the best of the originals, the best Trek movie full stop.
Phenomenal. From a public perception perspective, this makes sense. I would argue there is an even stronger case for ST TMP to have gotten the nod, due primarily to 1. It’s the one that made the leap 2. Its production is historic and storied. It’s a miracle it was pulled off 3. It’ the most representative of Trek’s ideals. I say all this while acknowledging that TWOK is my personal favorite, but I think an argument could be made that TMP is the best. Either choice is fine with me here, but I do hope TMP gets in. These are the only two Trek films that I think deserve to be in.
I’d like to see TMP. A bit of a rehash of “The Changeling” and a bit too self-engrossed with the de riguer, post-Star Wars special effects, but also probably the most representative of Trek ideals and the first TOS cast film to make the leap to the silver screen. Not to mention, it is the movie that “got the band back together”, so it always has a special place in my old Trekkie heart.
To me, it’s the most cinematic film in the entire franchise, and that’s got a lot to do with it, for me. It’s a watershed film in ways beyond just Trek. I’ve come full circle on it through the years.
Although I knew some had passed over the course of the years since the movie came out, Mr. Meyer listing out everyone in one sentence hits pretty hard, especially when you’ve watched them again and again, giving it their all for this movie.
It is so cool he mentioned Gene Coon due to him writing Space Seed.
Is Star Trek becoming more appreciated and honored lately?
It still amazes me that jm Lucas didn’t get story credit on tmp given the overwhelming similarity to his changeling ep, and I’ve always wondered why wga didn’t address that and also space seed with respect to twok.
I hope so, because it’s a near certainty that LDS, all the kiddie shows, and the proposed Star Trek comedy hour, and He of the Dopey Grin — none of them — are going to earn honors like this.
Proper Star Trek is, that is because the fake Trek is so glaringly awful people are realising just how damned good 1964-2005 Trek really was overall
You’ve already had one thread closed because of this gatekeeping- give it a rest. You are NOT the arbiter of what constitutes “proper” Star Trek and you NEVER will be. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it any less valid.
Don’t get triggered. It’s just their opinion. Best ignore it and move on.
I think there is more than just me complaining about fake Trek. But I agree with what James is saying, don’t get triggered darling.
If any Star Trek film deserves the honor, it’s Wrath of Khan.
Congrats to Star Trek II for being in the National Film Registry. I can see Star Trek The Motion Picture, Search For Spock, and Voyage Home followed up.
Good for TWOK, but SPY KIDS is “culturally, historically or aesthetically” significant”?
Maybe it is budgetarily significant since Rodriguez had a rep for shooting economically?
no roddenberry. and khan is like 60 while his cohorts are 25 even though they were all supposed to be the same age. cant even follow simple canon. embarrassing. that isn’t star trek.
Khan was clearly older than his followers. And who said some the augments didn’t have kids on Ceti Alpha V? There is quite a time jump between Space Seed and TWOK.
You’re hilarious.
To be fair I don’t think we ever saw Khan’s full compliment in Space Seed, 72 suspended animation tubes was it? I don’t think we saw 72 other augments on screen so some of those younger looking ones may still have been there
Nice. Congrats!