Is Wrath of Khan Overrated

[mos6507]

Mr. Spook wrote:

---

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 no longer does TV.

Remember when Robin Williams did a guest spot on Homocide? Sure, he was Mork, but he let that stuff go long ago. It's generally expected that when an actor graduates to movies that they will avoid TV work afterwards.

Johnny Depp for instance, got his start on 21 Jump Street. But after he left TV, he never came back, and probably never will.

The newest guy to rise up is Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He was on 3rd Rock from the Sun. Now he does A-list dramatic turns and will probably not do much TV going forward.

Your cache as a film actor has to do with limiting your exposure. Sure, there's always reruns of your prior work, but you want people to have to go to the movies to see you each time, not tune in each week. Shatner was doing TJ Hooker at the same time as a couple of the films. But that was because Shatner never made a huge impact on the film industry aside from Star Trek. Most of his films other than Trek are light comedies like Airplane II.

I'm not making a value judgment on how good I think these actors are, just that there's a difference in how the public sees a 'star' whether they are on TV or movies. Actors who are top box office stars or regular oscar contenders stay away from TV.

[sonak]

mos6507 wrote:

---

He no longer does TV.

Remember when Robin Williams did a guest spot on Homocide? Sure, he was Mork, but he let that stuff go long ago. It's generally expected that when an actor graduates to movies that they will avoid TV work afterwards.

Johnny Depp for instance, got his start on 21 Jump Street. But after he left TV, he never came back, and probably never will.

The newest guy to rise up is Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He was on 3rd Rock from the Sun. Now he does A-list dramatic turns and will probably not do much TV going forward.

Your cache as a film actor has to do with limiting your exposure. Sure, there's always reruns of your prior work, but you want people to have to go to the movies to see you each time, not tune in each week. Shatner was doing TJ Hooker at the same time as a couple of the films. But that was because Shatner never made a huge impact on the film industry aside from Star Trek. Most of his films other than Trek are light comedies like Airplane II.

I'm not making a value judgment on how good I think these actors are, just that there's a difference in how the public sees a 'star' whether they are on TV or movies. Actors who are top box office stars or regular oscar contenders stay away from TV.

I don't think that this is accurate. I think there are many highly regarded "movie actors" who come back to do TV. Just off the top of my head, Gary Sinise, Jeff Goldblum, Vincent D'Nofrio(I think I got the name wrong), Holly Hunter...


I'm sure there are many, many more. There may have been such a disparity between TV or movie stars decades ago, but I don't think it is there today.

[mos6507]

"I don't think that this is accurate. I think there are many highly regarded "movie actors" who come back to do TV. Just off the top of my head, Gary Sinise, Jeff Goldblum, Vincent D'Nofrio(I think I got the name wrong), Holly Hunter... "

Sure. They come back to TV after their star has faded.

It's been a long time since Gary Sinise was in Forrest Gump and Jeff Goldblum was in Jurassic Park.

[Ian Keldon]

The primary reason actors who "make it big" go big screen from TV is financial. They can make for 2-3 months' work what they would need to work several seasons for on the small screen. A really GOOD role can net them more than they'd make on a 7-year run.

[John Mason]

Not at all........ indeed it could have done with more shakespear...

[John Mason]

grand actors all... but would have liked to hear jeff goldblum weep " help me" before he had his head blown off in the Fly.... ha

[Harvey]

mos6507 wrote:

---

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.

That look can probably be explained by the fact that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was produced under the auspices of the Paramount TV Division. This was almost certainly a cost-saving measure.

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.

Even Star Trek: Nemesis had a mid-range budget at $60 million, just $2 million more than the previous film in the series (although more than that probably ended up on screen, since Stewart and Spiner apparently accepted salary cuts).

[AggieJohn]

I am suprised to see this topic.

STII is the best movie in the seiries. Now I do think the STIII kills a lot of what was accomplished with STII. Not to say STIII is a bad movie but the "trilogy of II, III, and IV" is not great because STII addressed a lot of archetypes of honor, loyalty, age and experience, and friendship. Many of these are more or less lost in the next two movies. Spock's death is reversed, not that his sacrifice was any less noble. David dies before we get to know him and Savak is a huge disappointment as a character in the long term. Her version in STIII was literally another person as they abandon the Romulan aspect of her personality which was sad.

[AllStarEntprise]

I started the topic because I feel we the fans do a disservice to the franchise when the majority consensus is that TWOK is the best film in the franchise when there have been better villains, plots with higher stakes and a fuller utilization of the protagonist cast in other films. It's not like comparing Star Wars Ep IV and V and deciding which one is the best film in the franchise. A franchise composing of 6 sometimes 7 movies and arguably the first two are the best. There are 11 Trek films and soon to be a 12th. Even comparing plots, characters and actions taken by the villain in other Trek films (which I outlined earlier in the thread) TWOK doesn't really hold up and is really just ok in the grand scheme of things.

This story is undoubtedly Kirk's but Kirk seems so unlike himself in this movie is disorienting. I know Meyer wanted to give it a swashbuckling feel but where is our rough and tumble captain who is quick with his mind and quick with his fists?

Spock is in the movie but has no story or stake in the film. He just sacrifices himself for the ship.

Bones is there to speak to the tangible consequences of the Genesis project for that one scene, and to hold Spock's katra. Again a character with no stake and no story to the film.

Scotty, Sulu and Uhura have even less to do.

Khan is there to be menacing but without any genuine use/display of genius intellect which we are constantly reminded of. He comes off as a villain who as an axe to grind against Kirk for arbitrary reasons.





Compare TWOK to ST IV, VI VIII which used every protagonist to develop the story and the villains weren't just petty villains who had an axe to grind against the protagonist. In a way TWOK and ST (2009) are similar in that regard. The crew Sulu, Uhura, Checov, Bones have nothing to do in the (2009) film.

Uhura is there to deliver maybe a handful of lines and show that Spock has a case of the "not gays"
Bones is there to fill the role of the character and be Kirk's friend.

Checov is there to be the 17 year old boy genius; even though in TOS Who Mourns for Adonais he's 22 and ST (2009) by the stardate is occurring 10 years before that adventure ever/might happen in this new timeline.

Sulu is there to do that one fight seen with Kirk and to drive the ship.

Kirk's only point in the movie is to do action movie shit we see in trailers. The story is Spock's. Who has the most at stake since the villain is after his alternate past self and Prime future self.

Nero is there to be as menacing as a person can be with a ship and science (Red Matter) that's 150 years from the future that he uses as a WMD. He like Khan has an axe to grind for arbitrary reasons.

By that comparison TWOK = (2009). You could argue that 09 is the better film because it's a grandiose spectacle to watch. While TWOK has aged and it's effects and settings aren't that impressive any more.




I agree TSFS does retcon nearly everything that TWOK put in place and I think it hurts TWOK because by the end everything seemed so finite. Then TSFS resets the status quo back to before TWOK happened with the only thing missing we care about is the Enterprise. By TVH the struggles of the TWOK are forgotten.

[Sindatur]

Khan has an axe to grind for arbitrary reasons?

Kirk abandoned him on a frozen hell hole, where Khan's wife died of exposure. How in the world could that possibly be called arbitrary?

[BillJ]

Sindatur wrote:

---

Khan has an axe to grind for arbitrary reasons?

Kirk abandoned him on a frozen hell hole, where Khan's wife died of exposure. How in the world could that possibly be called arbitrary?

I love the logic that because its older and other movies have followed the template with better special effects, that The Wrath of Khan is somehow the lesser movie.

[AllStarEntprise]

BillJ wrote:

---

I love the logic that because its older and other movies have followed the template with better special effects, that The Wrath of Khan is somehow the lesser movie.

Arbitrary: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion

Khan blames Kirk for marooning him on a planet that at the time was habitable, and wasn't frozen hell hole Sindatur. The ENT episode Twilight we see Ceti Alpha V. Ceti Alpha VI blew up 6 months after Kirk left Khan there. With the option of facing criminal charges or being the ruler of an untamed world, Khan took the latter with a smile on his face.

Picture this ok. You buy a new car from a car salesman. You drive it for six months and you get in to a car collision due to inclement weather, and your car is totaled. Now who's fault is it? The salesman's who sold you the car or the the weather for having unforseen effects on the road while you drove?
Ceti Alpha VI was an unforeseen occurrence and not Kirk's fault. Just like the supernova that blew away Romulus was not Spock's fault. Khan needed someone to direct his anger at so he chose Kirk. Even though the prospect of living on Ceti Alpha was more than satisfying to him prior to Ceti Alpha VI's destruction. Kirk could've taken him to a prison, or killed him. Khan took a chance and it blew up in his face.

Nero and the Romulans should've known about their sun going supernova. Nero should've evacuated his family but he didn't. So he lashes out at a public figure he doesn't know (Countdown is not canon nor does the dialogue in the movie suggest Spock knew Nero's name) for promising to save his planet and failing.

Now going with just the words on the paper, character's story (Kirk's in TWOK, Spock's in 2009), villain's actions, villain's motivation, and supporting character's roles, TWOK and (2009) are nearly identical movies. All I said was TWOK has aged which is true since it's 30 years old, compare to JJ's film which is new and grand in it's delivery and presentation. Everything shiny new. Now don't misunderstand me. I'm no cheerleader for Abrams' Mission Impossible Star Trek, but since both films run so parallel, the (2009) one is more engaging is all.

A sharper dynamic between Kirk and Khan would've helped. Kirk from the show, who is quick with his mind and quick with his fists in this film would've been excellent. Khan actually displaying his enhanced abilities with genuine applications of his genius would've also been excellent. Instead of slitting the throats of several unarmed scientists and expecting people to be intimidated by him.

[King Daniel into Darkness]

AllStarEnterprise wrote:

---

Uhura is there to deliver maybe a handful of lines and show that Spock has a case of the "not gays"

It's little more than that. She furthers Spock's "closeted emotional" gay analogy story by being his secret lover. The inappropriate teacher/student relationship is surrogate to an "inappropiate" male/male one.

She furthers the analogy while showing that Spock isn't actually gay.

[AllStarEntprise]

Ah yes and she quoted Spock saying she displayed "an exceptional oral sensitivity".
Lmao

[BillJ]

AllStarEntprise wrote:

---

Ah yes and she quoted Spock saying she displayed "an exceptional oral sensitivity".
Lmao

Aural. As in her ability to hear.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aural

I'm sorry. While the 2009 film has its charms, it's a pale imititation of The Wrath of Khan. Right down to the Centauri slugs. Nemesis actually did a better job of hitting the broad strokes without seeming like a direct copy.