Why was the Balance of Terror/Wrath of Khan formula used so little?

[Navaros]

These two works are universally regarded as among the finest SciFi ever produced. Yet really, they are both just rehashing the same very simple concept: two Captains engaged in a ship vs. ship struggle to the death, and give ample screen-time to both Captains & bridges (many modern Trek shows have other 'hostile ship' episodes but they are not compelling or even memorable because they never show the enemy bridge or enemy Captain's dialogues like BoT & WoK do).

I do not understand why the makers of the Trek that that has been produced were so reluctant to use this formula more than those two times, yet had no problem with rehashing the terrible holodeck malfunction formula ad nauseaum.

If they were gonna keep rehashing something over and over again, why not didn't they rehash the very best thing they had, which is the BoT/WoK formula? It would pretty much be guaranteed to be a great piece of work every time they implement the concept right (as it is in BoT and WoK).

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Re: Why was the Balance of Terror/Wrath of Khan formula used so little

Because then it wouldn't be the best thing they had anymore. It'd be that stupid thing they did all the time as filler and this thread would ask why the holodeck didn't malfunction more often.

 

[Anwar]

Re: Why was the Balance of Terror/Wrath of Khan formula used so little

Eh, Balance of Terror was just "Enemy Below" turned into a sci-fi episode so it's hardly original to begin with.

Wrath of Khan...I never understood myself why it was considered so good, but I can see why back when it came out it was considered good since it did things not done before (like having the Enterprise actually take damage in a battle).

 

[JiNX-01]

Re: Why was the Balance of Terror/Wrath of Khan formula used so little

Eh, Balance of Terror was just "Enemy Below" turned into a sci-fi episode so it's hardly original to begin with.

Well it's not as if those in charge didn't acknowledge that. But it was still an excellent episode. They introduced the Romulans as a warrior race, and yet the commander and his friend are well-written one-time-only characters bound by duty, but still capable of imagining a different way. And their deaths are actually poignant and regrettable.

Wrath of Khan...I never understood myself why it was considered so good, but I can see why back when it came out it was considered good since it did things not done before (like having the Enterprise actually take damage in a battle).

Mostly I think people just like that the episode had roots in the series but wasn't just a rewritten episode of TOS, as opposed to TMP, which was just an overblown take-off of "The Changeling."

 

[Anwar]

Re: Why was the Balance of Terror/Wrath of Khan formula used so little

Eh, TMP isn't my favorite but I did like that it started the character development of the movies (yes, it started in TMP not WOK) with Kirk's obsession with being in command instead of an Admiral and Spock finally realizing being full Vulcan isn't what he thought it'd be.

 

[Too Much Fun]

Re: Why was the Balance of Terror/Wrath of Khan formula used so little

On the contrary, I think the formula was used too much and had a definite influence over the decline of the franchise. The idea of some single antagonist having a personal issue with the captain or some other 'good guy' was used in Star Trek III, Star Trek VI, Generations, and Nemesis (maybe in Insurrection too, I don't remember), and by the time of the latter two, it was so stale that it contributed significantly to those movies being underwhelming.

If anything, I'd say this formula is overused and it would be better for the franchise if it was retired. "Balance of Terror" and "The Wrath of Khan" were great stories...but that was another time . I think the franchise should take more of an adventure route like "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" or "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home", instead of making the movie mostly about a grudge between an antagonist and hero.

Even the new movie was brought down a little bit by that premise (I thought the villain's character and back story were two of its weakest and most forced elements)...the movie's success is in large part because there was much more going on beyond that, unlike Nemesis which was all about the Captain's struggle with an implausible, uninteresting villain nobody could get into.