Is Wrath of Khan Overrated

[Green Lantern]

BillJ wrote:

---

Bias is a bad, bad thing. I love TNG, but the films are a putrid mess. Even First Contact fails simple logic. We have the Borg come all the way across the galaxy then go back in time or else we don't have a movie. If the Borg beam just five drones down to 21st century Earth, it falls PDQ and again we don't have a movie.

Bias is not a bad thing, it's what you do with it that matters

NrobbieC wrote:

---

Ah, the pot and the kettle get along famously :P

I agree that every TNG film is so much better the TOS ones. I also feel every spin-off topples TOS.
I have seen them by the way so my opinions are based on something I'm not trying to flame anyone.

I don't actully like the TOS films that much, however I do enjoy the TOS series alot. Still prefer TNG though. I don't like Voyeger at all, and I've only seen one episode of enterprise 9don't like it0, and one and a half of DS9 (from what I can renember, I liked it.

BillJ wrote:

---

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of movie goers disagree with you.

But.......HE'S GOT ME ON HIS SIDE!!!!!

teacake wrote:

---

I consider Generations a TOS film.

Kirk is so freaking huge that he squashes the TNG stuff into tinsel.

No, Generations is more of a TNG film due to the basic fat that only Kirk and Scotty have memerable apearances, and Scottys was just a cameo. Really, Kirk was the onlt TOS member that is in it much, but he's not even in it for half the film, but most of the TNG cast are in the film alot, so that makes it a TNG film. The film also has more of a TNG feel in general.

[NrobbieC]

sonak wrote:

---

you think INS or NEM top TWOK, TVH, or TUC?


That's an interesting perspective. Is it the action, the characters, ? I'd be curious to read why.

For me personally, it is largely the characters. TOS guys feel I dunno, wooden, it's not that they're unlikeable as such, just boring. They just don't demand attention on screen (with the exception of Sulu in Flashback). For example in Generations Shatner is pretty much in the background, he's overwhelmed by the others because they're much better actors. Or is that just because Shatner's terrible?
And there's also the quality of the effects when compared to the other stuff. The spin-off Treks, for me, look newer that stuff that's new now (except early TNG but that has a few issues), including XI which hasn't aged well, but then I'm not really a fan of that style of special effects - Transformers and the like. But I could be bias having grown up on them. Sometimes older stuff will look good (Aliens, for example) but it is good Trek hasn't been given the Lucas treatment and continually been edited and re-mastered whenever the software gets an update.
The TNG films also have much better pacing, the actions faster and the drama doesn't waffle on.
I split the TNG and TOS films up, because of the difference in quality - so I'd say TWoK is one of the better TOS films, but not a great Trek film or general film.

That's just my view on the whole thing, I'm not very good at explaining my opinion.

[BillJ]

NrobbieC wrote:

---

For example in Generations Shatner is pretty much in the background, he's overwhelmed by the others because they're much better actors. Or is that just because Shatner's terrible?

The only Next Gen actor Shatner shared the screen with was Stewart and he more than held his own and he would've thumped Frakes, Sirtis, Burton, Dorn and McFadden if he'd been on screen with them.

[NrobbieC]

BillJ wrote:

---

The only Next Gen actor Shatner shared the screen with was Stewart and he more than held his own and he would've thumped Frakes, Sirtis, Burton, Dorn and McFadden if he'd been on screen with them.

He also shared the screen with Malcolm McDowell. Had the scenes on the Enterprise-D been going on at the same time, they would've held my attention a lot more.

I disagree though, I mean Frakes isn't brilliant and McFadden was pretty underused but they're still better than Shatner imo. His performances never seem natural to me, it seems like he's just trying to get attention and it falls flat on its arse with me.

[BillJ]

NrobbieC wrote:

---

He also shared the screen with Malcolm McDowell. Had the scenes on the Enterprise-D been going on at the same time, they would've held my attention a lot more.

I disagree though, I mean Frakes isn't brilliant and McFadden was pretty underused but they're still better than Shatner imo. His performances never seem natural to me, it seems like he's just trying to get attention and it falls flat on its arse with me.

McDowell wasn't part of the Next Gen cast and honestly, he out acted both Stewart and Shatner in the film.

There's a reason Shatner still gets work fifty years into his career and the Next Gen cast struggles outside of Stewart and Spiner. They're bit actors and nothing more, just like Nichols, Doohan, Takei and Koenig. Who Stewart and Spiner would act rings around.

[NrobbieC]

BillJ wrote:

---

McDowell wasn't part of the Next Gen cast and honestly, he out acted both Stewart and Shatner in the film.

It doesn't matter, when the initial thingy was about the film.
And I agree.

[BillJ]

NrobbieC wrote:

---

It doesn't matter, when the initial thingy was about the film.
And I agree.

I thought you were talking about the cast of The Next Generation. My mistake.

Shatner as an actor, goes in whole hog in everything he does. He acts with a zest that is missing from most actors today. For me, that zest is what makes Jim Kirk such a great character.

And without Shatner and Nimoy, there is no Captain Picard for us to compare and contrast with.

[LOKAI of CHERON]

lurok wrote:

---

The age factor thing someone quoted is bullshit. A good film is a good film no matter when it was made or when you saw it.

Agreed!

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

...but grist for humor is nonetheless the film's primary resonance for most non-trekkies.

Eh?

[Galileo7]

teacake wrote:

---

I consider Generations a TOS film.

Kirk is so freaking huge that he squashes the TNG stuff into tinsel.

Agree.

[CorporalClegg]

Absolutely it is.

I think this thread proves it. There is unrequited obsession with it among Trekkies. I have no idea where it comes from--I can only guess it has something to do with the nostalgia goggles.

Fans act like it's one of the greatest films ever, and it simply isn't. It isn't even one of the greatest SF&F films of all time. I could easily name 20-25 genre films I would put before it just off the top of my head--even ones I don't like.

The single biggest problem with it is breaks so many of the most basic rule of story telling.

The most significant of these no-nos is "show don't tell." Every major plot-point (specifically those that directly related to the antagonist) occurred off-screen. The audience was then introduced to them later via exposition. Your first grade teacher told you not to do that. The rule still applies to hack directors.

Secondly, all three climaxes were resolved with some kind of deus ex machina. It's really hard to take your heroes seriously if they can pull rabbits out of their hats on a whim. Obviously, this has become a major point of contention with the later Trek series and a valid critique. My only question is: why does TWOK get a free pass?

It introduces a completely pointless subplot: The Genesis device. On the surface, it served three purposes: moved the plot along, was an outlet for Khan's revenge (see above), and was a set-up for the next film. On the other hand, it added nothing to the main plot and theme. In fact, I would only argue it handicapped the movie.

Don't believe me? Imagine for a seconded the whole Genesis bit was completely omitted from the film. Or if that's too much, pretend the Marcuses are still just in phase one of the project. Now go through all the major moments of the story and think of all the different ways things could have been advanced. Khan's revenge suddenly becomes so much more poignant and focused, and the story isn't stumbling over itself to fit this cumbersome gizmo in somewhere.

As for it being there to set-up the next film, that's just another one of those silly no-nos. Think of all the great duo/trilogies. The first story is either completely stand alone or the stories are completely connected. The ones that try to dangle strings generally just fall off the radar. This, for example, is why the Donner Cut of Supes II works so much better for a lot of people.

Now I admit this film does have its merits. Montablan's performance, while not great, is at least very entertaining (as Dennis and teacake have pointed out) and probably worth the price of admission.

The ending is also very touching despite being stunt theatrics that are completely askew from the rest of the plot.

But the problems are just too glaring. They drag it down from would could of potentially been a great film to just an average space adventure.

Is it the best Star Trek film? Well I suppose that could be argued. (I would say no.) But that really isn't saying much. Despite the fan fair, Trek films pretty much range from mediocre at best to abysmal at worst.

That's not to say I don't enjoy them. I can sit down and enjoy any of the eleven. But I don't have any false perception as to where they rank in the annals of cinema.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

LOKAI of CHERON wrote:

---

Eh?

Grist for humor is nonetheless TWOK's primary resonance for most non-trekkies.

[BillJ]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Grist for humor is nonetheless TWOK's primary resonance for most non-trekkies.

But for the jokes to work, the audience has to be aware the film exists.

[MANT!]

I do find that "The Best Trek Film" by the fan's vote is TWOK...however the best Trek film measured by the real measure of number of "butts in the seats" was The Voyage Home..

To me it's what ever Trek film I'm in the mood for at the time...but it's NOT Nemesis, Insurrection, Generations or The Final Frontier.. all those were stinkburgers period..

In the main TWOK created the Trek Film franchise mold to which they were
made ( modest budgets, decent special effects, for max return on the investment)

It's Economical Space Opera, something that TMP didn't grasp and Nemesis forgot..


I find that the TNG films try too hard to be action movies without remembering that the TNG series wasn't about the action it was about the DRAMA..


Picard wasn't an 80s action hero..but they tried to make him one..

and that's why the TNG films, for the most part, missed the target.

First Contact's flaws made TWOK seem like Citizen Kane in comparison.

It's not that I didn't enjoy First Contact, but it's story isn't as well constructed as Khan
or The Voyage Home.. and of all the Trek films, The Voyage Home has the best construction..

But I like Wraith of Khan MORE than The Voyage Home..Maybe it's watching the Shat meet his match in overacting..

[Captain Nebula]

BillJ wrote:

---

Why? The Motion Picture footage serves the purpose it was intended to. Remember, the home video era hadn't taken off yet so I doubt anyone actually remembered those shots even being in TMP. And why would you ditch the amazing model work done by ILM?

A lot of it was good FX back when it came out in '82. Now it just looks crappy. Except for the fight in the nebula.

Also:
The shuttle docking in the Engineering section when the ship is in 'drydock', but the crew entering the ship in the Photon Torpedo bay.

The Enterprise looking like it already has battle damage in Engineering before the Reliant even fires on it.

[Maurice]

Captain Nebula wrote:

---

The Enterprise looking like it already has battle damage in Engineering before the Reliant even fires on it.

Explain.