Is Wrath of Khan Overrated

[!NCC¡]

I don't think its necessarily over rated maybe just over played plus nick Meyer seems so full of himself like yes he probably in some ways saved trek but man oh man I hate what he did to the uniforms they always reminded me of the mountie from wwf in the early 90s I prefer tmp but I see why twok is also a great film its kinda like the cage vs where no man has gone before

[Nacluv]

sonak wrote:

---

TMP is in style with TOS? I've always thought it to be the least like TOS of any of the films. It's slow where TOS was fast-paced, cold where TOS was warm, it lacked the camaraderie of TOS, the characters were like different people, etc. I think Meyer was much better at knowing what made TOS tick. Trek is smart, fun space opera, not a boring 2001 retread.

Maybe more like TNG when I think about it. I find the theme of the opponent to be more like something you saw in a typical episode. The concept of a whole new, intricate lifeform whose intent turns out to be neither as malicious nor unconscious as you originally may have thought.

It was a very, very long time since I saw any of the movies though except for WOK which I saw 2 years ago so I'm not sure which one I like the best. To my knowledge, it could be IV because of the bus scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr82dZpCr48

[JarodRussell]

I find it interesting how film history kinda repeats itself.

Wrath of Khan is to The Motion Picture what Aliens is to Alien or 2010 is to 2001. Every time the sequels are faster, have more action, more... I dunno, mainstream.

[Nacluv]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

I find it interesting how film history kinda repeats itself.

Wrath of Khan is to The Motion Picture what Aliens is to Alien or 2010 is to 2001. Every time the sequels are faster, have more action, more... I dunno, mainstream.

I'm afraid I don't see your point. Are you just stating that the sequels are always more fast-paced OR are you saying that the sequels are always more mainstream and more popular because of that?

I don't see how 2010 could be more popular or as famous as 2001..

[JarodRussell]

Nacluv wrote:

---

I'm afraid I don't see your point. Are you just stating that the sequels are always more fast-paced OR are you saying that the sequels are always more mainstream and more popular because of that?

I don't see how 2010 could be more popular or as famous as 2001..

The sequels follow a more mainstream storytelling style. Especially when you look at 2010 compared to 2001. 2010 is a 'normal' science fiction film, 2001 is very different.
The Motion Picture is slow, cerebral, high concept, but Wrath of Khan is fast paced, more action oriented, more like the original show, etc...

[Nacluv]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

The sequels follow a more mainstream storytelling style. Especially when you look at 2010 compared to 2001. 2010 is a 'normal' science fiction film, 2001 is very different.
The Motion Picture is slow, cerebral, high concept, but Wrath of Khan is fast paced, more action oriented, more like the original show, etc...

Ah, high-concept is the term I was looking for when I tried to syncopate my perception of TPM feeling more like a TOS/TNG episode in theme and style.

It's also the most fundamental impedus for my preference of TNG over DS9.

[ssosmcin]

RyanKCR wrote:

---

You think Spock was the same at the end of TMP as he was in the beginning or even during the series run?

No, but I wasn't saying why TMP was a good film or how TWOK compares to it. Just why I don't feel TWOK is overrated.

The TV series Spock changed as they got a handle on his character. That's not character growth, that's an actor getting comfortable with his role. This happens on TV all the time. Otherwise, as per the TV series rules of the day, the status quo was maintained throughout 79 episodes. Spock grew in TMP but only because he was OUT of character in the beginning of the film. By the time the film ended - Spock was back. More at ease with his heritage perhaps, but still the Spock we wanted to see from the beginning. And that growth wasn't as obvious in the theatrical version since the one of the key scenes depicting his revelation was cut (the weeping).

BillJ wrote:

---

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?

Oh, sure we did. There was no attempt to hide it and since many fans saw the first film multiple times in the theater, it was recognized. It's just that very few people cared and many people felt it worked better in TWOK. It was shorter.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

In 1979 and 1982 trekkies were still accustomed to watching a relatively few number of Trek shows over and over and seeing the same stock footage of the Enterprise in every single one - so the reuse of some very pretty images from the first movie in the second bothered relatively few fans, and people who didn't follow Trek didn't notice at all.

[CorporalCaptain]

Of course the reuse of the drydock footage was completely obvious on first viewing. How could a Trek fan forget the drydock scenes, anyway? The reuse didn't bother me in the slightest.

I (half-jokingly) read into it a subtext which said, "We're gonna do TMP over now, folks."

[Nacluv]

Wow! After some exorbitant Googling, I've finally found that I'm not toally alone with my aberrant opinion on TMP as a good Star Trek movie.
http://trekmovie.com/2012/05/23/leon...-out-as-spock/

And one commentator has view on TMP that is absolutely in full concordance with my own.

SpaceBunny wrote:

---

I have to add that I personally feel Star Trek: The Motion Picture is one of the most Trek-like movies of the series.

Of all the Trek movies, it doesn’t feature an over-the-top villain-of-the-week (with no insult intended to some of the better villains), focuses primarily on the very human characters and their interactions between each other, and focuses on a very alien and seemingly unknown construct of mind-boggling proportions that defies human understanding.

Despite the re-use of the “lost human space probe comes back with a vengeance” theme as seen in a TOS episode, the entirety of the V’ger vessel was mind-blowing to me, totally alien, and imagination-prodding. And seeing the crew react to it, trying to wrap their minds around it and make contact with it seemed more Star Trek to me than Kirk getting into another brawl with another humanoid enemy.

Star Trek is about the unknown, about humans diving in head-first and seeing what’s out there, about how they handle themselves and each other, how they can grow as a result of new understandings. By the end of TMP, despite Decker being the one to save Earth, it was Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and doubtlessly some of the others who came out of it with growth of character. And like others have said, this was an important movie for Nimoy’s character too, his character’s growth especially, making it ironic that he thinks little of it.

Despite all the troubles the movie had getting off the ground, politics between the writers, Roddenberry, and so on, TMP speaks to me…and I’d welcome a new “cerebral” movie like TMP over the next attempt to recreate Khan.

[Xaios]

The problem with that particular flavor of cerebral storytelling is that it often doesn't make for good movie making. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for high-concept sci-fi, exploration of the unknown, but for every 2001, there's five of "Sphere" or "Mission to Mars." TMP lands somewhere in between. The parts where it "explored the unknown" were alright, but then it went into "V'ger Existential Crisis" mode like it just read Nietzsche for the first time, and it was downhill from there.

Ultimately, I feel that style of storytelling is better suited for television. The characters should be the ultimate focus in a movie, and they weren't in TMP.

(More on topic, no, I don't think WoK is overrated.)

[Maurice]

^^^Funny, because the contrary to the opinion generally held in Hollywood: films are where you focus on spectacle and not character. Character you can do on TV week after week.

There's no essential problem with high-concept SF. As in any film, it's the mix that determines if it's good.

[Xaios]

Maurice wrote:

---

^^^Funny, because the contrary to the opinion generally held in Hollywood: films are where you focus on spectacle and not character. Character you can do on TV week after week.

There's no essential problem with high-concept SF. As in any film, it's the mix that determines if it's good.

Spectacle really isn't the right word. Most Star Trek films have plenty of spectacle without detracting from the focus on the characters.

To clarify, I don't think the theme of exploring the unknown is generally well suited to films. Ultimately it comes down to the fact that whatever unknown that gets explored is no longer unknown by the end of the episode or film. Afterwards, it's just "there." The episodic nature of television allows us to move from one "unknown" to the next on a regular basis.

Putting it in perspective, it's generally held that Star Treks II, III, IV and VI are the best of the films based on TOS, while TMP and V are generally viewed as being poor by comparison. If there's something that II, III, IV and VI all share, it's that the characters aren't static. They always finish the movie in a different place, personally, than when it began. While it could be argued that this was also the case with TMP, it's only to restore the status quo that was tossed aside when they promoted Kirk to give the film a secondary conflict. And in V, the characters don't really evolve at all. Even Bones, with his big revelation of having euthanized his father, doesn't end up in a different place. Don't get me wrong, the scene builds his character fantastically, but it doesn't really affect it in the end.

What makes II, III, VI and VI so special is that they dared to move the characters, and in doing so, dared to move us. TMP said "here's a space cloud looking for God," and V said "here's a crazy Vulcan looking for God," and then basically simply had the characters along for the ride. These would have made great themes for Star Trek episodes, but they don't hold up as being movies.

[Nacluv]

Xaios wrote:

---

The problem with that particular flavor of cerebral storytelling is that it often doesn't make for good movie making. Don't get me wrong, I'm all

for high-concept sci-fi, exploration of the unknown, but for every 2001, there's five of "Sphere" or "Mission to Mars." TMP lands somewhere in between. The parts where

it "explored the unknown" were alright, but then it went into "V'ger Existential Crisis" mode like it just read Nietzsche for the first time, and it was downhill from

there.

Ultimately, I feel that style of storytelling is better suited for television. The characters should be the ultimate focus in a movie, and they weren't in TMP.

(More on topic, no, I don't think WoK is overrated.)

Although I don't agree, I guess that you're right as my taste, but first and foremost motivations tend to diverge to the point of being almost veritably unique, especially when it concerns cult films as well as even lesser known movies (adhering to movies that are even more rare and/or overlooked than the films you see being appreciated in different cult and nische groups).

After practically being born as a cinema buff having seen all the great classics of Kurosawa, Bergman, Hitchcock, Johm Ford, James Whale etc., the latest years I've discovered more and more what a weird (almost to cretinous levels) and abstract conceptualist I am, even in many areas outside of film. Antinomical to when I was 12-15, I've found myself overlooking or even caring very little for how character-driven something is nowadays. The importance of it depends on what kind of movie it is and what the ambitions or general idea of the creator seems to be. For me, opulent conceptuality can sometimes override and remunerate for a lot of other flaws in a film. In some movies, it's the only thing that matters. When I praise a Lucio Fulci film, I rarely praise the sometimes sleazy feel of the movies nor the zombies and the blood 'n' guts in his most famous films. For me, the most interesting aspect is the eye penetration and blinding as the most powerful of many symbols representing oppression which is the most central theme of L'aldila (The Beyond) or the stylish intro scene delineating death of art. Or the attack on catholicism in Beatrice Cenci and Non si sevizia un paperino which got him blacklisted.

And sometimes it's neither as "pretentious" or nebulous like those examples. Sometimes, the concept of Style-over-substance can be enough, meaning story being subdued for the film to only be meant as an visual experience of puissant cinematography. I don't really qualify that as exploitation, which I hate, because in exploitation there are no real concepts nor real ambitions in collation to many other films where there is traces of fat and limpid concepts no matter how single and uniformal they are.

Even though I hate inconsistencies in Star Trek (I thought pon farr was something deeply private, Mr. Spock!), I think it's one of those culture phenomenons where in the end one of the biggest things about it is the rich conceptuality and prevalence of Hard Science Fiction. I think TMP were more successful in that area while WOK tend to be a more collatively straight-forward story. I also thought that the faster pace made it feel less like Star Trek and more like an epic war drama in space. I guess that basically, it comes down to which episodes I liked the most and what aspects of them and other episodes I appreciated the most.

Even though I love Khan, and the epic atmosphere, cinematography, direction and performances in WOK, I find that the purpose and background of Khan's activites to be too linear and straight-forward (damn how I hate to repeat that word, especially considering WOK is not at all so straight-forward compared to many modern blockbusters) to really be interesting in more ways than one. The basic plot is for me the biggest obstacle, even if the script and everything else is exceptionally good. Even if I still want Khan, I'd prefer another plot. And if I can't have Khan then I'd rather see a new Dr. Korby or Dr. Adams whose work has evolved to much greater extents than their predecessors' or the return of Charlie who's intent on claiming the world that rejected him and his superior powers as his own. I know everyone would hate these premises, but for me those themes feels more Star Trek to me than simply a baddie wanting to avenge the death of his love.

And like I said, I do not at all dislike Wrath of Khan. I just like TMP a little more and here I've tried to sum up why and explain that even though I like them almost equally, it is for totally different reasons. Wrath of Khan is easier to appreciate for the experience and adventure.


EDIT: When I think about it you're probably right in that TPM would be better off as an episode.

[CorporalClegg]

Another huge qualm I have with TWOK that I sort of forgot about but really needs to be addressed, was its introduction of over-simplified (and thus bastardized) Bentham utilitarianism.

That one simple quote has sort of, retroactively, become the credo of Trekkies world wide as sort of the end-all, be-all of Star Trek idealism. Yet it is a philosophical half-truth that is completely missing the substance and nuance. (and the point).

People seem to have twisted the whole concept around into being nothing but a numbers game, treating it solely as mathematical logic and not philosophical ["Vulcan"] logic.

I think this most notably came to fruition when Insurrection came around. (Thanks for the reminder, Netflix!)

There was an overwhelming insistence that, despite all the movies other faults, the one major hang-up people had was they felt Picard and Co. were all acting in the wrong, citing the "needs of the many" as the only reason why. But this shows a complete lack of understanding of the core concept--or, more accurately, Mill's expansion upon it, the "greatest-happiness principle," which I believe was Nimoy's, Meyer's (whoever's) real inspiration for it. In fact, if we follow both Bentham's and Mill's (And thus Spocks?) theories to their completeness, we find Picard was in the absolute right.

Now that's not to say I blame whoever put it in there for this; it was probably initially intended to be a throw-away line. And it's really up to the viewer to understand it.

My problem is it never really needed to be there in the first place. It's two complex an idea to try and show-horn into a light space adventure. The only reason they did so was so they had an excuse to shove Spock into a story he otherwise had no part in.