Star Trek The Wrath of Khan Book Club

[Christopher]

I decided long ago that I'd never have a midlife crisis. That way, I'd be immortal.

 

[Cap'n Claus]

Considering how young my parents were when they passed, I was being pretty optimistic

 

[Desert Kris]

Chapter 2.

Here is a direct reference to Star Trek: The Motion Picture that the movie never went near.

"You never should have given up the Enterprise after Voyager."

And then:

"If you'd made a few waves, they wouldn't have had any choice but to reassign you."

Which, if you will recall our read through last year was exactly Kirk's intention at the end of Roddenberry's novel.

When I read The Wrath of Khan novelization a couple years ago for my own reading project, this passage jumped out at me. I liked a fair amount of McIntyre's novelization, but I was disappointed and puzzled by why she chose to present that outcome as the version of events. Was she making the movie novelizations a tighter continuity, between just the stories told in the movies?

I much prefer stories that let Kirk continue to be the captain for who knows how many adventures before letting himself get dragged back into a promotion. Much more fun that way.

 

[Christopher]

I liked a fair amount of McIntyre's novelization, but I was disappointed and puzzled by why she chose to present that outcome as the version of events.

Perhaps she was assuming that less time passed between movies than is generally accepted. The Admiral Kirk of TWOK had clearly been away from starship command for years, enough time to get depressed about the state of his career, so if McIntyre assumed the interval between movies was close to the real-life three-year interval, as many people have done, it would have logically followed that Kirk gave up the ship again after TMP.

 

[mb22]

Back with Chekov and Terrell. They encounter a child. I gather that this was something that was actually filmed?

https://screenrant.com/star-trek-wrath-khan-son-cut-why/

 

[DonIago]

Chapter 2



Well here we are on the Reliant. I have always wondered if there was ever a thought that (keeping with the traditions of TOS) the ship would have just been another Enterprise. It's indicated to be an old ship.

Chekov is duty officer here rather than first officer. Did someone tell me that this was a late change to the film that was handled with the voice over for some reason?

We spend a little more time with him and get to hear about how long and boring the assignment has been. We are told this does not come close to comparing with his time on the Enterprise.

I have long thought the addition of Surak as the "alien third" in the formulation of "Newton, Einstein, Surak" was an odd choice. (Warning: TV Tropes - https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FamousFamousFictional) Two scientists / mathematicians and a philosopher. Maybe this tells us something about Surak that we didn't know?

(My Kindle edition does not have line breaks between scene changes. It's annoying.)

Now we go to Kirk's apartment. Funny that McIntyre includes the lines about the glasses being 400 years old with the lenses intact (that was removed from the final cut of the film) but then goes on to explain that, no, not really.

McIntyre does a delightful job of giving scenes air. In the film Kirk and McCoy are running through a tightly scripted scene that will tell us that Kirk is unhappy and having a midlife crises. (Who the heck has a midlife crises at 49?) This has more of the feeling of Kirk and McCoy spending a quiet (very quiet) evening together having a couple of ales.

Here is a direct reference to Star Trek: The Motion Picture that the movie never went near.



And then:



Which, if you will recall our read through last year was exactly Kirk's intention at the end of Roddenberry's novel.

Back with Chekov and Terrell. They encounter a child. I gather that this was something that was actually filmed?

All of the inhabitants are out, they left a child alone, and there is hot stew on the stove. How did these people make it 15 years?

McIntyre also gives the impression of a much larger space than we saw on screen.



It's one thing to posit that Christianity is a religion from Earth's past. Another to tie the Bible specifically to the 20th century. Chekov must have had an interesting education. And he still thinks Lenin is groovy.

Doesn't the novelization also allude to reasons why Reliant may have mistaken CA5 for CA6? I seem to recall a reference to them relying on old and presumed unreliable probe data, which suggests that Enterprise didn't provide any updated records that might have jogged Chekov's memory.

 

[TheUsualSuspect]

I'm a little late to the party, but I'm glad to see this is happening. Hopefully an annual reading of a Trek movie novelization will become a tradition.

So far, I don't think I have much to add to what's already been said. I'm enjoying McIntyre's work, and find it a nice blend of what's in the movie and the kind of "non-screen" elements that can be added in a novel. Much more entertaining than the more recent movie novelizations that slavishly stuck to the script have been.

"Bible? Twentieth-century mythology, if he recalled correctly."
As a religion scholar, this line bugged me a bit. The Bible and Christianity have been enormously influential in western culture and history since at least the fourth century. To single out the twentieth century specifically is annoyingly . . . specific.

Looking forward to Chapter 4!

 

[Christopher]

"Bible? Twentieth-century mythology, if he recalled correctly."
As a religion scholar, this line bugged me a bit. The Bible and Christianity have been enormously influential in western culture and history since at least the fourth century. To single out the twentieth century specifically is annoyingly . . . specific.

Also, characters in TOS quoted the Bible from time to time, so it's not like they were unfamiliar with it.

 

[Tallguy]

https://screenrant.com/star-trek-wrath-khan-son-cut-why/
If this is Khan's son it implies that either he had a child with a different woman or that McGivers met her end rather recently.

I'm a little late to the party, but I'm glad to see this is happening. Hopefully an annual reading of a Trek movie novelization will become a tradition.

Welcome. And sounds good to me.

To single out the twentieth century specifically is annoyingly . . . specific.

Right? When I was a teenager I took it in stride as "Oh, we've moved past this sort of thing" but as an adult it actually seems rather childish. Maybe it was meant to be character for Chekov but I doubt it.

Oy. Now I know why I went to Monday-Wednesday-Friday. Long chapters!

Chapter 3

---

We meet Khan. Briefly referred to as Khan Singh.

Genetic engineering had enhanced his vast intelligence;

Ah. Genetic engineering. One of the great Wrath of Khan retcons. Originally plain old fashioned eugenics, yes? Like Nazis. Or H.G. Wells.

Chekov gasped. "Alpha Ceti V!" The name came back, and all the pieces fell into place: no official records, for fear Khan Singh would free himself again; the discrepancies between the probe records and the data Reliant collected. Now, too late, Chekov understood why he had lived the last few days under an increasing pall of dread.

I suppose this doesn't say Kirk covered it all up. Only that it had been covered up. Because Kirk held an hearing with official record tapes and everything.

I know a lot of TWOK (Star Trek) doesn't hold up if you look too close. But why not say Ceti Alpha FOUR exploded? Then CA5 becomes CA4 and you can be confused. You try to visit CA4 and you find out that "THIS IS CETI ALPHA FIVE!" But if you get rid of CA6 and you mistakenly visit the planet you thought was CA6 then you're visiting CA7. Right?

You know nothing of sacrifice. Not you, not James T. Kirk—" he snarled the name, "—no one but the courageous Lieutenant McGiver, who defied your precious admiral, who gave up everything to join me in exile."

Fifteen years later and he still calls her Lieutenant? Not Marla? I know he's talking to Chekov and he has a formal way of speaking. But still.

Khan's voice broke, and he fell silent. He turned away.

"A plague upon you all."

Ouch. Wow, that's heartbreaking.

Here Khan does not suggest that Kirk should have returned to check on their progress. Which kind of makes sense. He doesn't need help.

He remembered Lieutenant McGiver. She had been tall and beautiful

Madlyn Rhue: 5'4".

I do like the connection that VM gives between Chekov and McGiver. (It's McGivers in the episode, isn't it?) It also indicates how young Chekov was.

There is a quick scene back on board the Reliant with the crew looking for the Terrell and Chekov.

---

I loved the extended shuttle scene when I was a teenager. Not sure why. It's a longer scene of "getting from one place to another". For some reason that captures my imagination.

McCoy was making notes in a medical file, and Uhura was bent over a pocket computer, intent on the program she was writing.

1982. What else would one do with a computer?

Not sure why they are departing from Seattle. But nice anyway.

If memory serves McIntyre dropped a reference to one of her other novels in to all three of her adaptations. In this and The Search for Spock she references The Entropy Effect. In The Voyage Home she recalls a character from Enterprise: The First Adventure. Specifically in this case she mentions Captain Hunter as Sulu's former commander and Commander Flynn.

VM names the first Galaxy class ships. Named after actual galaxies.

"I was delighted to get your request, Admiral. A chance to go back on board the Enterprise, to indulge in a bit of nostalgia—how could I pass it up?"

This dialog is a little more natural sounding than what was meant to be in the film. I always figured it got cut not because Bill is Evil, but because it's a clunky line.

OTOH I've never heard the audio from this deleted scene as clear as this clip here:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Gotta say, this isn't terrible.

With no budget to worry about the shuttle gets to land on the shuttle deck. Presumably a bigger one than we saw in The Final Frontier.

Saavik remained outwardly impassive, though she felt uncomfortable about having to face Kirk after yesterday's disaster. He had merely added to her humiliation by rating her well in the series of simulation exams.

I love how this casts Saavik as her own unreliable narrator.

Kirk paused, saluted the Federation logo before him, and exchanged salutes with Spock.

For all of the debate about if Starfleet is or is not a military, they don't salute.

VM manages to turn the rather silly bit between Kirk and Scott about "shore leave" (a reference to Doohan's heart attack, wasn't it?) into an opportunity to give Saavik an inner monologue and illustrate her struggles with human interaction.

TWOK is just such a tight movie. It's pacing is perfect. There isn't a line or a scene out of place. So I think it's more interesting here than in many novelizations to see where VM can let a scene breathe or give it a different spin that isn't dictated by cinema. For instance she takes the utterly perfect little scene between Spock and Saavik, done in a one shot and ending in a punch line, and gives it more character and context as well as putting it on the move with the conversation happening as they travel to the bridge. Not as good on film. Terrific here.

We meet Peter Preston. A character so minor in the film that most of his scene was ultimately cut even though he is revealed to be Scott's nephew. I'm sure VM won't do anything interesting with him.

If he laughs at Peter, Saavik thought, I shall certainly rip out his liver.

My brother and I thought this line was hilarious.

I don't usually watch the extended edition of TWOK, but this dialogue seems to be following the script unusually well compared to anything we've read until now. Weird.

"Left handed spanner". I've never gotten this bit. I now gather it's something you send newcomers looking for because it doesn't exist. I hope it made Vonda laugh. It baffled me. And at 50+ years old I still had to look it up.

"You're a lot better surgeon than you are a psychotherapist."

Kirk says almost the same line to Scott in Generations. Scott who was supposed to be Spock, of course.

Spock paused a moment, and then his eyes got that hooded look that McCoy had learned in self-defense to recognize.

Ha! She writes fantastic characters and she does well with the Star Trek cast. But she is rarely one of those Star Trek writers where you feel like you're hearing Shatner, Nimoy, etc. That's fine. I'm not really sure Roddenberry did either. (Except for Scotty, oddly.) But this is one of those times that she nails it.

"Out there, Lieutenant Saavik."
Kirk started.
"Sir?" Saavik glanced back.
"Out there" was something Jim Kirk had said the last time the Enterprise was under his command.
"I believe the technical term is 'thataway,'" Spock said.

Now that's a callback.

 

[Christopher]

Ah. Genetic engineering. One of the great Wrath of Khan retcons. Originally plain old fashioned eugenics, yes? Like Nazis. Or H.G. Wells.

"Space Seed" called it selective breeding, the same technique used to domesticate plants and animals for millennia. I figure Carey Wilber's intent was that one of the many eugenics programs that cropped up in the 19th century managed to survive and actually produce results. Wilber initially made his villain a Nordic type called Harold Ericsson, but the final script's choice to make Khan's supermen multiethnic made the premise more plausible. If there had been a eugenics program whose members understood enough basic biology to know that genetic diversity is beneficial, rather than pursuing racial purity like the real-world idiots did, it would've had a better chance of generating actual results (though probably not within the depicted time frame).

I suppose this doesn't say Kirk covered it all up. Only that it had been covered up. Because Kirk held an hearing with official record tapes and everything.

Thank you for that. Too many people are quick to believe Kirk covered it up, which requires ignoring not only the explicit dialogue in "Space Seed" but everything we know about Kirk as a character. (But then, I feel TWOK misinterpreted Kirk's character in certain ways, but we'll get to that.)

I know a lot of TWOK (Star Trek) doesn't hold up if you look too close. But why not say Ceti Alpha FOUR exploded? Then CA5 becomes CA4 and you can be confused. You try to visit CA4 and you find out that "THIS IS CETI ALPHA FIVE!" But if you get rid of CA6 and you mistakenly visit the planet you thought was CA6 then you're visiting CA7. Right?

Because planets aren't lined up in a neat row, and you don't locate them by counting outward. A planet's orbit is defined by six to eight orbital elements, none of which is how many places out it is from the star. Which is why the premise of TWOK has always been nonsense, since even if a planet's orbit were shifted by the explosion of another planet, there's no way it would shift all 6-8 of its orbital elements into an exact duplicate of the other planet's orbit.

That's why the explanation Dave Mack & Kirsten Beyer came up with for the Khan audioseries is the only plausible one I've heard, because it assumes a special type of irregular binary orbit where two planets interact chaotically and sometimes switch their relative positions, so you can't predict either planet's orbital characteristics as precisely as you normally could.

With no budget to worry about the shuttle gets to land on the shuttle deck. Presumably a bigger one than we saw in The Final Frontier.

Presumably the one seen in Andrew Probert's two matte paintings in TMP. The one in TFF was basically a full-size recreation of the TOS hangar deck miniature, which was kind of cool but oddly anachronistic.

 

[Tallguy]

Because planets aren't lined up in a neat row, and you don't locate them by counting outward.

I'm sure that's true. But if they mistake 5 for 6 that means that there has to be something they are assuming is 5 (and 4, 3, 2, 1). I mean, maybe the line in the film "the shock shifted the orbit of this planet" is meant to convey that is now the 6th planet out, getting rid of 6, swapping 5 for 7(?) so 7 is now 5 and 5 is now 6.

This is the kind of detail that Meyer has indicated he doesn't care about as long as it gets you past your first screening. (The Arthur Conan Doyle principle.)

Then again, all of this assumes that they remembered that Khan and his people are on V. At no point do they say anything like "Oh. Ceti Alpha VI is fine. But don't go near Ceti Alpha V! That has a genetic superman and his like on it!"

If they're not even going to remember what went on in the Ceti Alpha system, why bother have the mixup at all?

VM indicates that Chekov would have recognized it if it had looked like it did when he was last there. Sure. I mean, it's an attempt.

In the film Chekov tells Kirk "We found him on Ceti Alpha V!" Of course you did. That's where we left him!

The one in TFF was basically a full-size recreation of the TOS hangar deck miniature, which was kind of cool but oddly anachronistic.

For a smaller definition of "full".

 

[Christopher]

I'm sure that's true. But if they mistake 5 for 6 that means that there has to be something they are assuming is 5 (and 4, 3, 2, 1).

Not really, because when you're navigating to a planet, all that matters is where that planet is predicted to be in its orbit. How many other planets are between it and the star is irrelevant to that, any more than someone driving to San Francisco needs to know how many major West Coast cities are between it and Seattle. All you need to know is where the city, or the planet, is located.

Granted, a sensor scan of the overall system would presumably have tracked the other planets, but perhaps one of the planets' predicted path would put it behind the star from the ship's POV, so they wouldn't notice that it was gone.

That's why it should have been impossible to mistake the orbit-shifted CA5 for CA6. I mean, instantaneously, it's possible (though unlikely) that the orbit-shifted CA5 could've been passing through the part of orbital space where CA6 should have been on its original orbit at that particular moment, but observation over any length of time would have shown that it was moving along its orbital path at the wrong speed and in the wrong direction compared to the predicted orbit for CA6. That's why Dave & Kirsten's theory is the most plausible one, because the two planets would've followed similar, often interchangeable orbits that would've been too chaotic to predict precisely. They presumed that the Reliant crew had been aware that one of the two planets had disintegrated; they just made the wrong assumption about which one.

Of course, it would also require the two planets to be virtually identical in mass and radius, or they could've been easily told apart.

For a smaller definition of "full".

In the sense of it actually being a whole set that actors could occupy, rather than a tabletop model. My point is that its design is based on the TOS hangar deck instead of the TMP version.

 

[Greg Cox]

Not sure why they are departing from Seattle. But nice anyway.

Vonda was a long-time resident of Seattle (which is where I first met her in '84).

 

[Firebird]

OTOH I've never heard the audio from this deleted scene as clear as this clip here:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Gotta say, this isn't terrible.

Wow, I'm floored how good the audio sounds in that clip! When I viewed the TWOK workprint at UCLA two years ago, the copy they've digitized from the master in their special collections didn't sound quite that clean. I'd be fascinated to find how just how that YouTuber got the upgraded audio...

 

[Tallguy]

Vonda was a long-time resident of Seattle (which is where I first met her in '84).

That's very cool. (Both that she lived there and that you met her.)

On the one hand I like that it widens the world outside of San Francisco. Of course we would believe that getting from SF to Seattle would be trivial in this 23rd century. We also don't know where Uhura and Sulu are coming from. Kirk lives in SF. Do they?

Really this is a hangover from The Motion Picture. The transporters were disabled on the Enterprise so we could get a dramatic and visually satisfying voyage to the ship. And they take a shuttle here because they can re-use the footage. But other than the dramatic visuals, wouldn't it be more Star Trek to use the transporter?

Wow, I'm floored how good the audio sounds in that clip! When I viewed the TWOK workprint at UCLA two years ago, the copy they've digitized from the master in their special collections didn't sound quite that clean. I'd be fascinated to find how just how that YouTuber got the upgraded audio...

I'm not sure if I had ever heard all of this. And this version definitely makes George sound better than any version I've heard before. This sounds... Ok, right? Everyone sounds like a normal speaking human being. This isn't George's "Surely NOT!" from The Undiscovered Country. So I figure the exchange being cut is simply to make it a tighter film. And it would be very hard to restore (like other scenes in the extended cut) without butchering the score.

It also means that Harve Bennett knew that there was a U.S.S. Excelsior and Sulu was going to captain it. Even if it isn't indicated in the film of Star Trek III. (Oh, just wait until next December!) And it means that just like Meyer managed to get back the title The Undiscovered Country and "Second star to the right" he knew that Sulu was going to be the captain of the Excelsior and in TUC so he is.

The film and the deleted scene keep Sulu a commander (as per the rank on his uniform) while McIntyre makes him a captain.

 

[David cgc]

But other than the dramatic visuals, wouldn't it be more Star Trek to use the transporter?

I think Trek writers generally kind of resent the transporter. It's narratively functional (and cheap!), but it seems like whenever they have the opportunity they opt for the spectacle of a docking or landing sequence.

It also means that Harve Bennett knew that there was a U.S.S. Excelsior and Sulu was going to captain it. Even if it isn't indicated in the film of Star Trek III. (Oh, just wait until next December!) And it means that just like Meyer managed to get back the title The Undiscovered Country and "Second star to the right" he knew that Sulu was going to be the captain of the Excelsior and in TUC so he is.

I've always wondered about that. McIntyre ran with it to give Sulu a subplot about the whole mess with Khan and Spock risking his future in a very direct way, but did the screenwriters really intend for the TSFS super-ship to be the same one that would be Sulu's first command, or was it a case of just not letting a good proper noun go to waste? I think it's probably the latter, but it's still funny that it worked out the way it did.

 

[DonIago]

Hm. Off-topic, but now I kind of wonder in what order these TMP ideas materialized (sorry):
1) Nimoy returning for the film.
2) The transporter accident.
3) The idea to do the E flyby.

It seems as though they wouldn't have done the transporter accident if Nimoy hadn't decided to return (or would they?), and if the transporters are working there's no explanation for the flyby. I suppose the transporters could have been inoperative without the accident occurring, but the mention of the transporters being inoperative effectively foreshadows what's going to follow.

 

[David cgc]

It seems as though they wouldn't have done the transporter accident if Nimoy hadn't decided to return (or would they?), and if the transporters are working there's no explanation for the flyby. I suppose the transporters could have been inoperative without the accident occurring, but the mention of the transporters being inoperative effectively foreshadows what's going to follow.

The idea of the ship being rushed out unfinished was a fairly early element in the development of the storyline, when it looked like they'd have to rush to production on the new series, and they wanted an in-story excuse for why the sets wouldn't be entirely done and polished in time for the filming of the premiere. The shuttle over was another element that went back to "In Thy Image," so before Nimoy came back.

I don't remember there being or not being a transporter accident in ITI, but it seems pointless if it wasn't going to leave a hole in the crew, so I'd guess the order was that the flyby sequence was always there, then when Nimoy signed on to the movie, the transporter accident was added so he could have a big return partway through the movie rather than always having been part of the crew.

 

[Tallguy]

The transporter accident is to show that the Enterprise is untested and that space is dangerous. It is not to kill Sonak (Xon). If Nimoy was back (and he was) there was no explicit need for a replacement that they then had to kill. Also Spock's real replacement didn't play Xon, he played Commander Branch of Epsilon 9. (Who also dies.)

 

[Christopher]

It seems as though they wouldn't have done the transporter accident if Nimoy hadn't decided to return (or would they?)

Keep in mind that this was the first Star Trek movie, and TOS was still a cult series at the time, a decade-old relic that it was a gamble to revive for the screen. A lot of the target audience would've been unfamiliar with the Trek universe and its tropes. So they probably figured it was necessary to include a scene establishing what the transporter was, for the benefit of the uninitiated. Maybe also they just wanted an opportunity to showcase the transporter effect as a visual spectacle. The story overall doesn't have many opportunities for a transporter scene, so putting a transporter accident in the first act helps establish the technology as well as creating a sense of peril and drama.

This is probably also why there was a fair amount of time devoted to showing the acceleration to warp drive and then the drive's malfunction and repair -- to establish for the audience what warp drive did and why it was important for interstellar travel. It served both plot and exposition at the same time, which is a nice efficient way to handle exposition. And perhaps it's a factor in why there was a scene about belayyyying that phaaaaserrr orrrrrderrrrr and arrrrminggg phooootonnnn torrrpeeeedoooooessss, even though no phasers were fired in the course of the film. Of course that scene was about establishing Decker's value and teaching Kirk a lesson in humility, but they chose to do it in a way that also helped establish the ground rules of the universe for new viewers. Even if TMP didn't make significant use of transporters and phasers, maybe they had potential sequels in mind.