Why do so many people think Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was good?
- Thread starter SSgt Burton
- Start date
- Status
The only answer that makes a lick of sense to me (theory only of course)---
The turbolift malfunctioned and brought Scotty to the bridge rather than sickbay. Some "round about" supporting "evidence" (well sort of) is Spock's comment later that (the turbolifts) were inoperative below C deck.
That or like a horse running into the barn, he went to the bridge instinctively (I don't really believe this though).
I always joked it's because McCoy was on the bridge so often (what exactly is he ever doing there?) Scotty figured he'd get the head man right away. :lol
JMChladek
Sr Member
The way I look at it, the things that make TWOK great also sort of crippled the Trek film genre to a certain extent. People usually look fondly on TWOK, but not so fondly on any of the other films that featured some maniacal villain going against the Enterprise crew. Yet over and over, we see the theme recycled in some way or another with many (but not all) of the Trek films.
First it was Khan, then after two films which acted as a trilogy with TWOK (Trek III and Trek IV) we get to Sybok. Yes, there was Lord Kruge in Trek III, but he was working under orders and was more true to his duty to the Klingon empire rather than being a "villain". He was simply more "the bad guy".
Okay, so Sybok didn't kill people. But he was kind of "the villain" in a sense and he had a warped perception of what was right and wrong. It skipped Trek VI, probably because Nick Meyer was at the helm. Chang was a "bad guy" but it was a conspiracy of many in the Federation, the Klingon Empire and the Romulan Empire who were trying to keep peace from happening.
But by the time we get to Generations, a pattern begins to develop. We get Soren trying to get into the Nexus and not caring who he harms to do it. First Contact did a spin with the Borg Queen that made it work because it had the backing of the Borg, but Insurrection fell flat on its face with Ruafo (sp?) and the fountain of youth story. Then we get the villain in Nemesis which is a Picard clone with a super weapon and lift the Spock death from Trek II with Data sacrificing his life to save Picard (and "coming back" at the end of the film). 2009 gave us Nero... yet another maniacal villain with a passion for vengence.
I will say this about "Into Darkness"... Khan as we saw him certainly wasn't the big villain all the time and felt more like a pawn through part of it with Admiral Marcus being the bigger villain with his Section 31 built super ship. But Khan was sort of playing a chess game with Marcus and both were using the Enterprise crew as pawns. So the character had a bit more meat to him than a simple TWOK clone. In a sense, it was closer to the Khan of the original "Space Seed" as that Khan was making chess moves as well on Kirk's crew. There are so many ways that TWOK could have failed, but it seems to work in its own way.
At the same time though, I do think the cliche Khan type "comic book" villain needs to be put to bed for awhile in Trek. Surely there are other stories that can be told. Finding one that has the same potential for success as the "comic book" villain in a Trek film is going to be a bit of a challenge though as trying to come up with a "Blockbuster" film concept tends to mean that writers will try to go over the top with concepts that worked before (even if they didn't always work).
First it was Khan, then after two films which acted as a trilogy with TWOK (Trek III and Trek IV) we get to Sybok. Yes, there was Lord Kruge in Trek III, but he was working under orders and was more true to his duty to the Klingon empire rather than being a "villain". He was simply more "the bad guy".
Okay, so Sybok didn't kill people. But he was kind of "the villain" in a sense and he had a warped perception of what was right and wrong. It skipped Trek VI, probably because Nick Meyer was at the helm. Chang was a "bad guy" but it was a conspiracy of many in the Federation, the Klingon Empire and the Romulan Empire who were trying to keep peace from happening.
But by the time we get to Generations, a pattern begins to develop. We get Soren trying to get into the Nexus and not caring who he harms to do it. First Contact did a spin with the Borg Queen that made it work because it had the backing of the Borg, but Insurrection fell flat on its face with Ruafo (sp?) and the fountain of youth story. Then we get the villain in Nemesis which is a Picard clone with a super weapon and lift the Spock death from Trek II with Data sacrificing his life to save Picard (and "coming back" at the end of the film). 2009 gave us Nero... yet another maniacal villain with a passion for vengence.
I will say this about "Into Darkness"... Khan as we saw him certainly wasn't the big villain all the time and felt more like a pawn through part of it with Admiral Marcus being the bigger villain with his Section 31 built super ship. But Khan was sort of playing a chess game with Marcus and both were using the Enterprise crew as pawns. So the character had a bit more meat to him than a simple TWOK clone. In a sense, it was closer to the Khan of the original "Space Seed" as that Khan was making chess moves as well on Kirk's crew. There are so many ways that TWOK could have failed, but it seems to work in its own way.
At the same time though, I do think the cliche Khan type "comic book" villain needs to be put to bed for awhile in Trek. Surely there are other stories that can be told. Finding one that has the same potential for success as the "comic book" villain in a Trek film is going to be a bit of a challenge though as trying to come up with a "Blockbuster" film concept tends to mean that writers will try to go over the top with concepts that worked before (even if they didn't always work).
jlee562
Sr Member
The problem with your "analysis" here is that you can't divorce your opinion of the story from the story itself.
You're seriously going to sit there and argue that the film doesn't show that Pike has a taking a certain liking to Kirk? You can not like the events of the film all you want. But you can't argue that the film does not depict Pike having an affinity for Kirk. Because that is what their on screen relationship is.
So, why does Kirk get an officer's commission? Because Pike likes him. That is the explanation. It is not an unexplained question of the film. Again, you don't have to like the explanation, and you don't have to think it's coherent either. But you can't simply argue that it doesn't exist, because it does.
I think the reason it doesn't work when replicated (even in STID) is because people think that TWOK Khan is a "comic book" villain and treat him as such. He isn't.
He's a character with a history with this specific crew and who's current predicament is a direct result of the actions of that crew. There's a relationship there that the audience immediately can latch on to that adds significance to the events. He's not just out to hurt and conquer, he wants nothing more than revenge and the viewer can sympathize.
- - - Updated - - -
The Kirk/Pike relationship is one of the few relationships they really nailed I think. You definitely get the "father/son" feel between them.
Kerr Avon
Master Member
The military does not simply MAKE a person a Captain of an Aircraft carrier because some other Captain happens to like the guy, or the guy is the son of a decorated Captain. IT'S IDIOTIC AND SENSELESS. Did you think they should have put Wesley Crusher in command of the D because he's so smart?
jlee562
Sr Member
Starfleet is not strictly a military force per se.
More to the point though, Marcus allows it because HE WANTS TO USE KIRK AS A PAWN! IT'S A CONSPIRACY!
So if I thought an action scene was poorly shot, badly edited, non-sensical and overall painful to watch, it's still a good action scene because it had an explosion in it. You've got to have a little bit more than that if you're going to defend something that you think actually works. If you like that Pike likes Kirk for no good reason, that's your opinion. But if the writers are going to explain why this character for some reason likes a stubborn a**hole more than other, more committed individuals who actually care about what Starfleet is, you've got to give them a reason that actually sticks. The "Leap before you look" was not a good reason because the film not only doesn't do anything with it, it does the exact opposite. I
Like if Pike were aboard the Kelvin and had been one of the people George Kirk had saved.
jlee562
Sr Member
No, you're falling into the same trap (or, you're deliberately straw manning the argument)
I don't really know how to be any clearer.
"If you like that Pike likes Kirk for no good reason." This is not what the film shows, this is your opinion. The films do not show that Pike has no good reason. The entire first movie is the reason Pike has confidence in Kirk. He defeated Nero and saved earth from certain destruction. It was Kirk's instincts which allowed him to succeed. Don't you think that's a good reason for Pike to like Kirk? Look at Pike's face at the end of the first film. Do you think he's conveying a face which is communicating that he doesn't have trust in Kirk?
You may not think the reasoning given is good enough to satisfy your sense of...well, whatever. But that's an entirely separate question from whether or not the film provided a reason.
The original statement in question was: "....explain how a criminal Starfleet washout gets given an officer's commission after less than a few weeks in the academy and promoted to the Captain of a starship with the power to level the surface of entire planets."
This implies that an explanation was not given during the film. But one was. Pike likes Kirk (see above), so he makes him his First Officer. Pike dies. Kirk wants to avenge his death and Marcus sees that he can use Kirk as a patsy (by sending him on a suicide mission). That's how Kirk goes from washout to Captain.
As I said before, and shall say again: you don't have to like the explanation, and you don't have to think it's coherent either. But you can't simply argue that it doesn't exist, because it does.
To your analogy then, the argument was not whether or not the scene was badly shot/edited; the argument is whether or not there was an explosion.
Last edited:
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
Jeyl, why does every Star Trek thread have to turn into a bash JJTrek fest with you?
Can't you at least stick to the subject at hand? All I want to do is talk about how poorly written Star Trek II was, and all you want to do is slam the new movie at every turn.
PS- I cant believe I actually forgot Saavik was already a lieutenant while taking the Kobayashi Maru test; that makes it even worse! :lol
Kevin
Can't you at least stick to the subject at hand? All I want to do is talk about how poorly written Star Trek II was, and all you want to do is slam the new movie at every turn.
PS- I cant believe I actually forgot Saavik was already a lieutenant while taking the Kobayashi Maru test; that makes it even worse! :lol
Kevin
CaptainDave1701
Well-Known Member
Star Trek II was fine. The cast returned with the familiar feel that the TV series had and the sets and costumes worked. It was what I think was the actual return of Star Trek considering that the first film was indeed very cerebral as the critics called it. The first film was not bad in the world of Science Fiction films but by then the world had been spoiled by that other film release called Star Wars. Since then most Science Fiction films have followed is step with Star Wars with space battles and things being blown up as it would seem that the days of 2001 and Silent Running are long gone.
As for The Wrath of Kahn I have often wondered what the film would look like with all new effects and computer enhancements. It will not happen however.
As for The Wrath of Kahn I have often wondered what the film would look like with all new effects and computer enhancements. It will not happen however.
Pike likes Kirk because he knew his father and respected him. I even get the impression he may have been on the Kelvin although that's never shown. In the first film the line "I couldn't believe it when they told me who you were" indicates that as well as his knowledge of what happened.
There are plenty of reasons not to like the new Trek, why focus on such a minor one? :lol
There are plenty of reasons not to like the new Trek, why focus on such a minor one? :lol
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
So (if you're capable) please explain to me how any and all of the small to big nitpicks I've precisely described, do not detract from the greatness of Wrath of Khan?
And stick with Wrath of Khan.*
(* Bet you can't.)
Kevin
Kerr Avon
Master Member
Because the promotion of a high school dropout with a criminal record to the Captain of a Starship capable of destroying entire planets is entirely without any degree of sense. You can argue about the science of the movie, the acting, so many things, but anyone with any degree of common sense should see that the promotion of Kirk is a complete pile of horse ****.
Because it has a story that's not dictated by it's flaws.
- Status
Similar threads
