Villains wanting revenge doesn't make a WoK clone though, I mean it was hardly innovative back then.
I think your reaching a little to find similarities in FC, I just don't see it.
Is Wrath of Khan Overrated
- Thread starter M.A.C.O.
- Start date
Villains wanting revenge doesn't make a WoK clone though, I mean it was hardly innovative back then.
I think your reaching a little to find similarities in FC, I just don't see it.
The similarities in the two films is more in the way Picard and Khan ditch common sense for revenge and, of course, the Moby Dick quotes spoken by both. What makes it stand out is, that like Montalban, Stewart had the acting chops to pull it off.
Fair enough, I can go with that.
It was hardly flawless.
It was one huge slice of ham (even bigger than Shatner's) smothered in glaze. Thing about ham smothered in glaze is it's really effing tasty.
From a technical, "craft" standpoint, Hardy, McDowell, and Lloyd all did a better job. Unfortunately, Hardy's script was shit, McDowell's character was uninteresting, and Lloyd had certain preconceptions hanging over his head that made it hard for people to take him seriously.
You can even give Krige some merit in that she was actually able to whittle some nuance into her character, which is really something all the other actors failed to do. This is especially significant because her character was so one dimensional.
Bill is just reaching.
The "Star Trek film formula" has nothing to do with TWOK--it was just the first in the franchise to use it. The "intrepid adventures square off against uber evil set on destruction and revenge" has been the industry standard for genre films for 40 years. It was conceived and put into play years before TWOK. Paramount was (and has) simply towing the line.
Berman's endless need to emulate TWOK as answer to that says a lot more about him than it does the film.
I actually count Kruge as my favorite movie villain. I thought McDowell played a "sympathetic" bad guy well and Hardy and Bana made the best of very thin characters.
But if I'm showing a Trek film to people who don't know Trek, I'm going with The Wrath of Khan.
I'll accept that McDowell, Hardy and Lloyd did a better job but you are going to have to do better than just telling me they did. Don't forget that the acting style of 1982 is drastically different than 1994 and 2003. I don't think that Lloyd did anything that could possibly outshine Kahn with his portrayel of Kruge. He was adaquete but ultimately forgettable.
I think McDowell's character was hindered by the writing. He would have been much more of a sympathetic character had he not come across as such an asshole when calling Geordi "not normal." The audience never really had a need to understand his motivation, he was simply a selfish bad guy.
TWoK has remained popular in part because of the thirty-year-old yet still radiant glory of its theatrical release. I know this (or at least suspect it) because I was among the first-night audience, and it was totally involving, from the cheer that went up at the first notes of the Courage fanfare to the Nimoy voice-over at the end (which told us that Spock could never really be permanently dead).
For the fans, no other Trek movie had such a welcome theatrical run, and the regard in which TWoK is still held today depends in part on this.
EDIT: Jeez, I'm still only a lieutenant commander?!
For the fans, no other Trek movie had such a welcome theatrical run, and the regard in which TWoK is still held today depends in part on this.
EDIT: Jeez, I'm still only a lieutenant commander?!
With the reveal of the title of "Into Darkness", does anyone else fell that JJ is going to make his second Trek film the WOK of his franchise? We know Benedict Cumberbatch isn't playing Khan since it's constantly being denied that he is. However with a title like "Into Darkness" it seems like JJ is attempting to make a correlation with the Trek franchises most renowned film.
Now one could argue that Star Trek XI has more in common with TWOK, but who is to say JJ won't lift for ideas from TWOK and possibly "Empire Strikes Back" for his second space opera film.
Now one could argue that Star Trek XI has more in common with TWOK, but who is to say JJ won't lift for ideas from TWOK and possibly "Empire Strikes Back" for his second space opera film.
Yes, I do think so.
It's not as stupid as The Voyage Home, Generations or AbramsStarWars, not as messy and silly as Insurrection, not as amateurish as TFF, not as boring as TMP and TSFS, but it doesn't approach the quality of First Contact, The Undiscovered Country or even (and I'm going to get doused in gasoline for daring these words*) Nemesis.
I just don't get this movie's appeal:
- the creatures manipulating Chekov&that other guy are such a cliché. And frankly, one too gory for Trek (same two reasons I hated "TNG: Conspiracy").
- as someone alluded to, Khan's "genius" is oft-mentionned by never displayed. In fact, he seems a simpleton all things considered. He's all bravado, no brains from what we see. The whole "Khan is smarter, but Kirk is more experienced/more in control of his emotions" theme is rather ruined by that element.
- Khan's last words are brilliant, but they're from Moby Dick...
- Visually, the final confrontation is pretty bad, and I don't mean the effects (they've not aged that bad, especially compared to TFF). The whole thing about the Enterprise moving vertically as if a submarine doesn't make sense on any level.
*then again, not liking AbramsStarWars probably qualify me for the kerosene already. Oh, well, the fire god taketh and the fire god taketh.
It's not as stupid as The Voyage Home, Generations or AbramsStarWars, not as messy and silly as Insurrection, not as amateurish as TFF, not as boring as TMP and TSFS, but it doesn't approach the quality of First Contact, The Undiscovered Country or even (and I'm going to get doused in gasoline for daring these words*) Nemesis.
I just don't get this movie's appeal:
- the creatures manipulating Chekov&that other guy are such a cliché. And frankly, one too gory for Trek (same two reasons I hated "TNG: Conspiracy").
- as someone alluded to, Khan's "genius" is oft-mentionned by never displayed. In fact, he seems a simpleton all things considered. He's all bravado, no brains from what we see. The whole "Khan is smarter, but Kirk is more experienced/more in control of his emotions" theme is rather ruined by that element.
- Khan's last words are brilliant, but they're from Moby Dick...
- Visually, the final confrontation is pretty bad, and I don't mean the effects (they've not aged that bad, especially compared to TFF). The whole thing about the Enterprise moving vertically as if a submarine doesn't make sense on any level.
*then again, not liking AbramsStarWars probably qualify me for the kerosene already. Oh, well, the fire god taketh and the fire god taketh.
Umm... First Contact is probably the goriest of the Trek films.
Worf chopping off a Borg arm, watching the folks turn from human to zombie, watching the one guy who had his arm cut off getting a new appendage and watching the Borg flesh melt away when the chemicals are released in Engineering then Picard snapping the neck of what was left of the Borg Queen.
Might want to watch it again...
What does this even mean?
I like you.
Gee, this thread is all over the map.
For the record, Khan was the first VHS tape I ever bought circa 1983 or so and I practically wore it out, so I've got strong opinions about it. I have a hard time watching it since I've watched it too much and have almost every frame and every beat of the soundtrack memorized, but I still hold it in high regard.
As a kid who say TMP at age 9 and Khan at age 12, the reason Khan matters so much is that it restored something to Trek that was lacking in TMP.
You know what that is???
FUN!
What makes Khan fun? It's things like the turbolift doors opening and McCoy saying "Who's holding up the damn elevator?...Did she change her hairstyle???" Absolute perfect comedic delivery. It's like watching an Olympic athlete nail a 10. The characters were spot-on, exactly the way we wanted them to be.
And there's a problem with the MacGuffin? Do you have a problem with the Ark in Raiders? The Genesis device and the Ark in Raiders are really not that different as a MacGuffin. Both films are action romps, and both very successful and well-remembered. So why all the hate lavished at Khan? The film came out at a time when it had to compete with E.T. and Poltergeist and it did pretty well while single-handedly saving the franchise. Despite ILM, it did it on mostly a shoestring. It has a very TV or Star Wars: ANH ricketyness despite the blockbuster status it now has. Montalban shed his Mr. Roarke typecasting which was no minor accomplishment at the height of Fantasy Island. Aside from "Khaaan!" Shatner gave his most buttoned-up performance as a by-the-book-Admiral-with-a-wild-streak Kirk. Compare that to Shatner mostly just playing himself in Trek IV (effectively--for laughs) and V (ineffectively). Give this film credit where credit is due.
Trek doesn't have to be just one thing. If you're in the mood for the cerebral, Trek's got you covered. Heck, The Cage was rejected for being too cerebral, and TMP kind of mirrored the initial commercial issue with Gene's way of thinking. But TMP IS a valid expression of Trek, just as Montalban 'overacting' and Shatner screaming 'Khaaaan!' is perfectly valid, just as a flat-out comedy ala Voyage Home was perfectly valid. It's the combination of all of these things that makes the Trek franchise as rich as it is.
Sometimes fans are so fickle that the only thing they truly enjoy is nit-picking the stuff they say they love. Seriously...
For the record, Khan was the first VHS tape I ever bought circa 1983 or so and I practically wore it out, so I've got strong opinions about it. I have a hard time watching it since I've watched it too much and have almost every frame and every beat of the soundtrack memorized, but I still hold it in high regard.
As a kid who say TMP at age 9 and Khan at age 12, the reason Khan matters so much is that it restored something to Trek that was lacking in TMP.
You know what that is???
FUN!
What makes Khan fun? It's things like the turbolift doors opening and McCoy saying "Who's holding up the damn elevator?...Did she change her hairstyle???" Absolute perfect comedic delivery. It's like watching an Olympic athlete nail a 10. The characters were spot-on, exactly the way we wanted them to be.
And there's a problem with the MacGuffin? Do you have a problem with the Ark in Raiders? The Genesis device and the Ark in Raiders are really not that different as a MacGuffin. Both films are action romps, and both very successful and well-remembered. So why all the hate lavished at Khan? The film came out at a time when it had to compete with E.T. and Poltergeist and it did pretty well while single-handedly saving the franchise. Despite ILM, it did it on mostly a shoestring. It has a very TV or Star Wars: ANH ricketyness despite the blockbuster status it now has. Montalban shed his Mr. Roarke typecasting which was no minor accomplishment at the height of Fantasy Island. Aside from "Khaaan!" Shatner gave his most buttoned-up performance as a by-the-book-Admiral-with-a-wild-streak Kirk. Compare that to Shatner mostly just playing himself in Trek IV (effectively--for laughs) and V (ineffectively). Give this film credit where credit is due.
Trek doesn't have to be just one thing. If you're in the mood for the cerebral, Trek's got you covered. Heck, The Cage was rejected for being too cerebral, and TMP kind of mirrored the initial commercial issue with Gene's way of thinking. But TMP IS a valid expression of Trek, just as Montalban 'overacting' and Shatner screaming 'Khaaaan!' is perfectly valid, just as a flat-out comedy ala Voyage Home was perfectly valid. It's the combination of all of these things that makes the Trek franchise as rich as it is.
Sometimes fans are so fickle that the only thing they truly enjoy is nit-picking the stuff they say they love. Seriously...
Yes, but Kirk screamed "Khaann!" as part of the fake-out of Khan; he screamed as if truly marooned underground, despite knowing that he was coming up on his phone call with Spock at the 2-hour mark.
I agree, though, with mos6507 that TWoK is Shatner's best performance as Kirk among the seven movies.
TWoK was the first VHS tape that a lot of people bought, because it was the first one with a "reasonable" price; for years afterward, some VHS movies remained costly (often $70-80). TWoK was the pioneer low-priced tape (about $40) and a successful gamble for Paramount.
I agree, though, with mos6507 that TWoK is Shatner's best performance as Kirk among the seven movies.
TWoK was the first VHS tape that a lot of people bought, because it was the first one with a "reasonable" price; for years afterward, some VHS movies remained costly (often $70-80). TWoK was the pioneer low-priced tape (about $40) and a successful gamble for Paramount.
No, I do not believe so. I adore TWOK, I think it's near on perfect. Very clever, engaging and with a great 'on screen' dynamic between the protagonist and antagonist.
And of course, I instantly picked up on it as my favourite as a kid because of the action, which I still think is pretty thrilling. Especially in the first Reliant/Enterprise meeting, and all the scenes in the destroyed engineering block, scrambling under doors and smoke and fire. Brilliant.
And of course, I instantly picked up on it as my favourite as a kid because of the action, which I still think is pretty thrilling. Especially in the first Reliant/Enterprise meeting, and all the scenes in the destroyed engineering block, scrambling under doors and smoke and fire. Brilliant.
