What did you love or didn't love about TWOK

[Too Much Fun]

I'd like to know too, because I find that bizarre. I thought Kirstie showed way, way more personality and Robin Curtis was totally wooden. She's a big reason why I bought "Star Trek II" and not "Star Trek IV" and was really glad when she left after one or two lines and never came back at the beginning of the latter.

It's a little disappointing how Kirk doesn't have a word to say to her about his son's death in that movie, but eventually we found out that they saved all his grieving about it for "Star Trek VI". Leaving it out probably seemed strange at the time, but it kept "Star Trek IV" light in tone and got Robin Curtis out of the way, so it ended up being for the best, even if it didn't totally make sense.

 

[Galileo7]

I liked the 1701-Refit(Kirk) versus Reliant(Khan) starships battling with both Phaser Banks and Photon Torperdoes. I liked the world war 2 submarine versus destroyer scenario slowly plotting, like TOS "Balance Of Terror".

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Leaving it out probably seemed strange at the time, but it kept "Star Trek IV" light in tone and got Robin Curtis out of the way, so it ended up being for the best, even if it didn't totally make sense.

Yep. If they weren't bringing back Alley it was a waste of time to have Saavik in the movie at all.

 

[RyuRoots]

Honestly, I preferred everything about Curtis over Alley. But my biggest point is that Curtis had an air about her that was very Vulcan, something Nimoy, Russ, and others did well and Alley failed miserably at. It's intangible, and I'm not trying to say that it's objective, but I do very much feel that Alley is one of the worst casting choices in Star Trek for a Vulcan, and I was quite happy when she was replaced by (who I consider) a much better actress for the part. Incidentally, it was Alley that came off as wooden and sort of annoying to me.

 

[sonak]

Wow, I thought you were going to say that Alley's portrayal was too overtly emotional for a Vulcan, and I was going to bring up that it was still ambiguous in TWOK whether Saavik was half-Romulan or not, but you thought that she was more WOODEN than Curtis? I don't think I've ever seen the criticism that Alley's Saavik was more wooden than Curtis' though, so that's interesting.

 

[Xavier_Storma]

I just saw THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY yesterday, the last of my TOS movie marathon. And this one still looks great. The only TOS movie, that holds up to the passing of time. The SFX were awesome, the plot was mature, and the bad guys had their motives, which could be understood.
IMHO, VI is the best TOS movie. II is good, but way overrated.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, that's what makes a horse race: I find TUC just about unwatchable - dated, pretentious, predictable and all-around cheesy. Simple-minded one-to-one allegory with passing political events and a liberal sprinkling of lines from Bartlett's Familiar Quotations does not make a movie smart.

 

[Pauln6]

Yeah TUC was entertaining but it was a bit too self-parodying for my taste. There were also a few too many camp moments where the characters were made to look stupid for a cheap laugh - NuTrek fell into this trap too; some of its pratfalls hit the right note but others were just cringeworthy. At least the TOS movies kept the villains reasonably fresh (although God was a bit of a bas***d - I'm guessing he was old testament God?). I think Khan and the Borg Queen are probably the best villains, although I have a soft spot for V'ger.

 

[Saito S]

Wow, I thought you were going to say that Alley's portrayal was too overtly emotional for a Vulcan, and I was going to bring up that it was still ambiguous in TWOK whether Saavik was half-Romulan or not, but you thought that she was more WOODEN than Curtis? I don't think I've ever seen the criticism that Alley's Saavik was more wooden than Curtis' though, so that's interesting.

Well, for my part, I don't know if I'd use the word "wooden", because that does imply a lack of intensity, which wasn't necessarily the case. However, what I did very much find Alley's performance to be was forced and unnatural (and really, I've always found her to be forced and unnatural, as an actress, in general). I didn't find Curtis' performance to be particularly stellar, but it was certainly competant, which for me elevates it above Alley as far as the Saavik role goes.

Well, that's what makes a horse race: I find TUC just about unwatchable - dated, pretentious, predictable and all-around cheesy.

Funny, those are the words I would use to describe TWOK.

I'm with Storma when it comes to TUC: I think this was the TOS cast and setting at their absolute best, and it remains my second favorite Trek film overall.

Yeah TUC was entertaining but it was a bit too self-parodying for my taste. There were also a few too many camp moments where the characters were made to look stupid for a cheap laugh.

I will say that I think I agree on this being one of TUCs main weaknesses. Sure, some of it made me laugh, but they can't use the UT because it would be "recognized"? Chekov doesn't know that firing a phaser on kill will set off an alarm? Seriously?

That said, I find these are the kinds of "Oh, come on, what" flaws that EVERY single Trek movie, from TMP to XI, has. Just how much those logic flaws and stupid moments effect one's enjoyment of the film varies from person to person and film to film. For me, I see that particular flaw in TUC, but it just doesn't bother me nearly as much as many of the flaws in many of the other movies.

I think Khan and the Borg Queen are probably the best villains, although I have a soft spot for V'ger.

Chang is still the best overall for my money. The Borg Queen worked in the movie, though I still think the Borg concept works better without such an easily identifiable "leader".

Khan is one of my least favorites, honestly. Completely took me out of the story practically every time he said or did anything.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Chekov (and we'll ignore the fact he wasn't in "Space Seed" since the movie's writers did, too) supposedly knew Khan and co were in the Ceti Alpha system...and yet he said nothing. Not even to his captain. No word to anyone about these dangerous superhumans the Enterprise dropped off there back in the day.

The way those scenes always played to me was that Chekov didn't put two and two together and realize that Khan was on Ceti Alpha V until he saw the buckle that said "Botany Bay." After all, it had been 15 years, and the guy's been to a LOT of planets. If you watch the scene in that light, it may work better for you.

There is also the theory that Kirk never offically told Starfleet about leaving Khan on Ceti Alpha V, which is not really implied by the episode or the movie one way or the other, but it would go a LONG way towards explaining why: 1) Starfleet never checked up on Khan and: 2) Why Captain Terrell and the Reliant apparently knew nothing about Khan being there.

The fact it felt so damned millitary. Even that one ensign Kirk talked to when he first arrived, having him talk like some private in basic training was just a bit cringe worthy to me.

I've honestly never gotten this sort of criticism at all. Starfleet IS the military, albeit one that's a good deal more casual than the services we have today. Considering the rank difference between an Ensign and an Admiral, that kid had damn well better show Kirk some respect.

And it's not like TOS never showed this aspect of Starfleet life. Look at the lineup after the barfight in The Trouble With Tribbles again if you don't believe me.

Going back to TWOK though, I always found the bit when Kirk and co. are beamed back from the Genesis cave to be really weird... like they were having a conversation mid-beam out.

That's exactly what they were doing.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Oh, and to answer the original question:

LIKE:

- Shatner's performance. One of his most understated, and still one of his best. Meyer was an excellent director for Shatner.
-The subtly contended Spock we see throughout the picture. A markedly different fellow from the one was saw in TOS & TMP.
- Spock's death is so beautifully done it's almost a shame it was undone in the next movie.
- DeForest Kelley stealing pretty much every scene he's in.
- A credible love interest for Kirk in Carol Marcus, a woman who gives as good as she gets. Bibi Besch is utterly believeable as Kirk's "one who got away."
- The new blood of Lt. Saavik, an intriguing new character with LOADS of potential who is believable as Spock's protegee. Plus, young Kirstie Alley is pretty easy on the eyes.
- The larger-than-life Ricardo Montalban chewing the scenery, swallowing it, passing it through his lower intestine and LOVING every mintue of it.
- Clark Terrell. A cool Starfleet Captain who's NOT played as a total boob just to make Kirk look better.
-Those spiffy new uniforms. A massive improvement over TMP.
-James Horner's wonderful, seafaring score (which I'm listening to right now).

DISLIKE:

- There are too many plot holes like the Reliant not noticing a missing planet in the Ceti Alpha system and the Genesis device spontaneously creating a planet out of a nebula. The movie moves along quickly enough that you don't really question these too much, but still, a rewrite that plugged these holes would've helped.
- Merritt Buttrick is not 100% believable as Kirk's son. Thankfully, he was much better in the next movie.
- I hate that they edited out cool tidbits like Sulu being promoted to Captain and Saavik being explicitly identified as half-Vulcan/half Romulan. They wouldn't have added much to the screentime, and they'd be nice to have in.
- Would've been great to see a painting of Marla Mcgivers somewhere on Ceti Alpha V. Or to see Joachim explicitly identified as Khan's son.
- I HATE the moment after the Reliant attack, when Kirk asks for a damage report and all Spock does is walk over to a ship schematic and point to where it's blinking. Gee, what a thorough report!!

 

[Galileo7]

JonnyQuest037 you nailed it, agree.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

JonnyQuest037 you nailed it, agree.

Thanks! Can I get you to say that after every time I post?

 

[sonak]

Wow, I thought you were going to say that Alley's portrayal was too overtly emotional for a Vulcan, and I was going to bring up that it was still ambiguous in TWOK whether Saavik was half-Romulan or not, but you thought that she was more WOODEN than Curtis? I don't think I've ever seen the criticism that Alley's Saavik was more wooden than Curtis' though, so that's interesting.

Well, for my part, I don't know if I'd use the word "wooden", because that does imply a lack of intensity, which wasn't necessarily the case. However, what I did very much find Alley's performance to be was forced and unnatural (and really, I've always found her to be forced and unnatural, as an actress, in general). I didn't find Curtis' performance to be particularly stellar, but it was certainly competant, which for me elevates it above Alley as far as the Saavik role goes.

Well, that's what makes a horse race: I find TUC just about unwatchable - dated, pretentious, predictable and all-around cheesy.

Funny, those are the words I would use to describe TWOK.

I'm with Storma when it comes to TUC: I think this was the TOS cast and setting at their absolute best, and it remains my second favorite Trek film overall.

Yeah TUC was entertaining but it was a bit too self-parodying for my taste. There were also a few too many camp moments where the characters were made to look stupid for a cheap laugh.

I will say that I think I agree on this being one of TUCs main weaknesses. Sure, some of it made me laugh, but they can't use the UT because it would be "recognized"? Chekov doesn't know that firing a phaser on kill will set off an alarm? Seriously?

That said, I find these are the kinds of "Oh, come on, what" flaws that EVERY single Trek movie, from TMP to XI, has. Just how much those logic flaws and stupid moments effect one's enjoyment of the film varies from person to person and film to film. For me, I see that particular flaw in TUC, but it just doesn't bother me nearly as much as many of the flaws in many of the other movies.

I think Khan and the Borg Queen are probably the best villains, although I have a soft spot for V'ger.

Chang is still the best overall for my money. The Borg Queen worked in the movie, though I still think the Borg concept works better without such an easily identifiable "leader".

Khan is one of my least favorites, honestly. Completely took me out of the story practically every time he said or did anything.

You know it's funny, Chang, Khan, and the Borg Queen get mentioned a lot as best villains, while Ru'afo, Shinzon, and Soren get brought up for worst, but Kruge seems not to be brought up at all, he's like the forgotten villain of the Trek film series.

Maybe I'm wrong, that's just my observation.

 

[RyuRoots]

You know it's funny, Chang, Khan, and the Borg Queen get mentioned a lot as best villains, while Ru'afo, Shinzon, and Soren get brought up for worst, but Kruge seems not to be brought up at all, he's like the forgotten villain of the Trek film series.

Maybe I'm wrong, that's just my observation.

Who's Kruge? Now Christopher Lloyd on the other hand, HE was memorable. But, seriously, he IS pretty basic, the only reason I don't forget about him completely is the VERY Doc Brown delivery he has in certain lines. For the (many, many) flaws in Khan's execution, I can certainly say that he wasn't forgettable.

 

[Too Much Fun]

I feel that way about "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" as a whole - it is very middling overall. I know I'm not the only one who thinks that (Siskel & Ebert said the same thing, for example). That movie and its villain are both just very serviceable, but not excellent or terrible. It's still better to be a respectable, but not very iconic villain than an awful one.

Maybe part of the problem is anyone following Khan as movie antagonist was bound to suffer by comparison. I wonder if people would just call Chang a crappy rip-off if he'd been the villain of Star Trek III. Khan and Chang are both similar with their literature quoting and such, but I think they are different enough to each be considered great in their own way.

 

[Xavier_Storma]

Well, that's what makes a horse race: I find TUC just about unwatchable - dated, pretentious, predictable and all-around cheesy.

Funny, those are the words I would use to describe TWOK.

Just like me. I re-watched the films recently, and except for TUC, the other really look dated.
Not that TWOK is a bad movie though, it's just so... 80ies.

Compare it to "The Empire Strikes Back"! TESB looks like it was filmed a few years ago - it's timeless.
TUC also looks fresh, the performance, the effects, the dialogues, the cuts, the illumination, the sets... it's modern.
Curiously, both films are directed by Nick Meyer... I wonder if it was Harve Bennett's fault, TWOK looks so cheesy.
In my opinion of course

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, that's what makes a horse race: I find TUC just about unwatchable - dated, pretentious, predictable and all-around cheesy.

Funny, those are the words I would use to describe TWOK.

I'm not surprised.

 

[Too Much Fun]

TUC also looks fresh, the performance, the effects, the dialogues, the cuts, the illumination, the sets... it's modern.

Seriously? The pink blood? The prison planet? So silly. The only think I find outdated about "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" are the costumes Khan and his people wear (okay, maybe David's and Carol's clothing too). As has been pointed before, Khan and his followers sort of look like a cheesier version of characters from the "Road Warrior". But seriously...watching the movie again, I was impressed by how convincingly futuristic I still found the space station and starship interiors.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

TUC also looks fresh, the performance, the effects, the dialogues, the cuts, the illumination, the sets... it's modern.

Seriously? The pink blood? The prison planet? So silly.

Really. TUC manages to look much cheaper and more dated than TWOK - and there's not really a memorable performance in it. I'm sure Plummer is saddened by it.