Is Wrath of Khan Overrated

[Ian Keldon]

BillJ wrote:

---

What does this even mean?

It means that he's indulging in "fashionable hate-er-ism".

TWOK/TSFS/TVH work best when viewed together as one long film with a single thematic through-line.

[Galileo7]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

TWOK/TSFS/TVH work best when viewed together as one long film with a single thematic through-line.

Agree. It is a good trilogy.

[mos6507]

BillJ wrote:

---

What does this even mean?

80s trash ala what passed for SF in the early 80s like Knight Rider, Airwolf, etc... probably.

Both Trek II and III have a decidedly TV-movie feel to them. Khan did try to be a bit more epic and cinematic, but at times the lighting in both has that flat TV-series sort of vibe going.

The ancillary actors mostly came from TV and either were already stars there, or went on to be best known there later. Montalban was best known for being Mr. Roarke on Fantasy Island even though he had already established a long film career. Judson Scott and Kirstie Alley were really TV actors. Then with Trek III you had Christopher Lloyd who at that time was best known for Taxi, playing the heavy, with a heavily-made-up John Larroquette of all people as his Klingon sidekick.

Despite the wide-screen aspect ratio, they definitely feel at-home on the TV screen due to these familiar TV faces. The one thing that kicks them up a notch is the use of ILM. The loss of ILM is a big reason why Trek V looks like crap. The use of ILM again in Trek VI helped mask the fact they were, by that point, reusing and redressing so many tattered assets.

It wasn't until Trek VI that movie-actors entered the picture, via Christopher Plummer and David Warner.

The entire Trek film franchise is one of attempting to be a bargain-basement blockbuster. Outside of TMP, the gamble that started it all, the success of these films was never assumed. The studios didn't greenlight what I would consider to be a blockbuster budget for any of them after TMP until Nemesis, which backfired, and then the 2009 film, which paid off.

[Ian Keldon]

^Oh look, a "film snob"...

[Galileo7]

TWOK and E.T. in 1982 had a budget around $10 million. I still think that the trilogy of TWOK, TSFS and TVH works well.

Star Trek movies budget info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film_series)

[Ian Keldon]

I just did an "inflation adjustment" on 10 million 1981 dollars, and it would be $24,359.174 today.

Paramount was gun-shy about budgets after the perceived flop of TMP, and turned production over to people from the TV side of the organization, who gave us an amazing amount of production value for relatively few dollars invested.

[malchya]

As to the OP; yes, I think TWOK is over rated. I was one of the few who exited the theater disappointed after my initial viewing. I wasn't impressed with the "galleons in space" star ship combat. I was particularly bothered by the "submarine" sequence when the Enterprise surfaced astern of Reliant. I had felt the writing was hammy and the film took itself far to seriously. Though moved by Spock's death scene, I commented to my FASA Trek gaming group - with whom I had gone to the theater - that I didn't believe his death would be permanent; that Nimoy (of whom I have no high opinion) wouldn't turn down the money for a return engagement, which cheapened it for me.

[Revolution]

Regarding some criticism of the intentional naval theme and terminology used throughout, to me personally it's part of the reason I enjoy it so much. The Mutara battle never ceases to be thrilling viewing IMO, it's a very clever play on old style warfare. I think the score from Horner is ace as well.

[Galileo7]

Revolution wrote:

---

Regarding some criticism of the intentional naval theme and terminology used throughout, to me personally it's part of the reason I enjoy it so much. The Mutara battle never ceases to be thrilling viewing IMO, it's a very clever play on old style warfare. I think the score from Horner is ace as well.

Agree.

[Ian Keldon]

malchya wrote:

---

As to the OP; yes, I think TWOK is over rated. I was one of the few who exited the theater disappointed after my initial viewing. I wasn't impressed with the "galleons in space" star ship combat. I was particularly bothered by the "submarine" sequence when the Enterprise surfaced astern of Reliant.

Why would you be dissappointed by clever use of tactics? Everything that happened had a logical story rationale for happening, and Kirk displayed some terrific original thinking.

I had felt the writing was hammy and the film took itself far to seriously.

Because a madman with a planet-destroying WMD is the perfect excuse to crack jokes or throw a musical number...

Though moved by Spock's death scene, I commented to my FASA Trek gaming group - with whom I had gone to the theater - that I didn't believe his death would be permanent; that Nimoy (of whom I have no high opinion) wouldn't turn down the money for a return engagement, which cheapened it for me.

Then you don't understand the backstage politics and personal opinions that were in play at the time. Nimoy had to be coaxed back with that death scene, and fully intended that it WAS his last involvement with Trek. He was burned out on it and ready to move on.

Thankfully (or not, depending on PoV), he had a good enough experience making the film that he elected to continue.

[King Daniel]

I posted these quotes in another thread to compare negative reactions between STII and STXI, but I thought it might interest some here as well.

From "Indiana Skywalker Meets the Son of Star Trek" in Best of Trek #7, not long after The Wrath of Khan hit cinemas:

Wrath of Khan, on the other hand, is a shoot-'em-up in the style of Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark - very thrilling the first time you see it, but not much left for a second viewing...

...by the time of Wrath of Khan, the Federation appears to have been overwhelmed and drastically altered by some cataclysm - possibly revolution...

...the Enterprise has become, for all intents and purposes, a battleship...

...a wife and child, of course, who are promptly produced (out of thin air), providing [Kirk] with new (and boring) preoccupations...

...For the first time, Nimoy has been miscast as Spock...

...the Star Trek figures, as scripted, are unrecognizable...

...the conclusion is inevitable; No respect for the characters as characters was operating here. If, in the overall interests of a flashy production, the heroes had to be undignified, so be it.

I think it's safe to say that STII didn't exactly have universal acclaim amongst Trekkies back then, either.

[MacLeod]

mos6507 wrote:

---

80s trash ala what passed for SF in the early 80s like Knight Rider, Airwolf, etc... probably.

Both Trek II and III have a decidedly TV-movie feel to them. Khan did try to be a bit more epic and cinematic, but at times the lighting in both has that flat TV-series sort of vibe going.

The ancillary actors mostly came from TV and either were already stars there, or went on to be best known there later. Montalban was best known for being Mr. Roarke on Fantasy Island even though he had already established a long film career. Judson Scott and Kirstie Alley were really TV actors. Then with Trek III you had Christopher Lloyd who at that time was best known for Taxi, playing the heavy, with a heavily-made-up John Larroquette of all people as his Klingon sidekick.

Despite the wide-screen aspect ratio, they definitely feel at-home on the TV screen due to these familiar TV faces. The one thing that kicks them up a notch is the use of ILM. The loss of ILM is a big reason why Trek V looks like crap. The use of ILM again in Trek VI helped mask the fact they were, by that point, reusing and redressing so many tattered assets.

It wasn't until Trek VI that movie-actors entered the picture, via Christopher Plummer and David Warner.

The entire Trek film franchise is one of attempting to be a bargain-basement blockbuster. Outside of TMP, the gamble that started it all, the success of these films was never assumed. The studios didn't greenlight what I would consider to be a blockbuster budget for any of them after TMP until Nemesis, which backfired, and then the 2009 film, which paid off.

Wasn't David Warner in TFF?

[CorporalCaptain]

MacLeod wrote:

---

Wasn't David Warner in TFF?

Yep. He was in both, but TFF came first, natch.

[Finn]

It's a good movie. It's the only Trek thing I have. But yes, it's overrated

[ssosmcin]

mos6507 wrote:

---

It wasn't until Trek VI that movie-actors entered the picture, via Christopher Plummer and David Warner.

Sorry, I gotta take exception to this. First, Brock Peters had a huge career in films long before the Trek movies and he debuted as Admiral Cartwright in Trek 4. Paul Winfield also had a nice career in films before his turn in Trek 2.

But it's the whole "movie actor" thing that bugs me. And it's not just you, it's a stigma, but it's unfair (so please don't take this the wrong way).

Actors are actors. It's box office that measures a actor's success in the world of feature films (yet Jennifer Aniston keeps getting leads even though most of her films bomb - weird). JJ Abrams, for example, populates his featured roles with actors who have worked with him on TV and there's nothing in the TV alum's performance that tags them as TV actors. George Clooney, the quintessential movie star today, was a regular on The Facts of Life and a hit on E.R. Was HE a "TV actor"? What changed about his work that altered his status? He's the same guy whether he's playing Dr. Doug Ross or Danny Ocean.

Shatner, Nimoy and the rest aren't "TV actors" but "actors." De Kelley had a long career in films pre-Trek. I would never consider him a "TV actor." They were all pros who had done films, yet simply had their greatest success on the small screen.