Homework: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

[nickperkins 52]

Currently streaming on Hulu and Amazon Prime. I haven't seen this movie since I was a kid. This is gonna be a fun trip back.

[phred2321 57]

I've been holding off on watching this all summer because I felt like it would be coming. Can't wait to finally watch it

[NathanGordon 1096]

The first movie I purchased with my fancy new dvd player in 2002. I think it's a camp classic, and represents the point of no return for Shatner as a kitsch pop culture icon. But is it canon? I suppose if we're going to admit any Star Trek into the canon, it should be this one.

 

I do think it's good sci-fi, performances aside. The restraint of the film relative to modern Trek is especially staggering. It'll be a long time before Neu Trek is able to manage anything as affecting as the final exchange between Nimoy and Shatner.

[AlanSpackman 1]

Is it necessary to watch the first Star Trek movie to enjoy this one? I've watched a fair amount of the original series.

[Galactiac 91]

Is it necessary to watch the first Star Trek movie to enjoy this one? I've watched a fair amount of the original series.

 

 

Not at all. And be thankful because the first one is a slog.

 

I've heard the blu-ray transfer on this is bad. Too dark or something. Anyone have any info about that?

[sycasey 110]

Just a hunch, but I think this one is making it in to the Canon.

[gene_shallot 79]

I'll be curious to hear from people who aren't familiar with the show, or aren't fans of it. I wonder how enjoyable the movie is if you're not. And even then, will this still get voted in just because Star Trek is so culturally significant? If so, a part of me will be disappointed (and I say this as a big TOS fan); I believe Canon-inductees should be able to stand on their own as great films.

[JeffreyMcDonald 65]

As a TOS fan, this will be an easy "yes" for me.

 

No matter who does the ranking of the Trek films, Kahn always comes up as #1. But does #1 Trek film mean canon-worthy film? (I'd say "yes", but I'm biased.) Not being able to predict Amy's taste at all, I will be not at all surprised if she comes out against Kahn, and there might be others who feel the same way. A possible interesting discussion is ahead for next week.

 

I wish this could be a vs. with "Into Darkness". Just to solidify that "Into Darkness" would not make it in. And yet I suspect the kind of person who defends the Star Wars prequels while hating on "TFA" would probably be the type of person to defend "Into Darkness" as well.

[Muthsarah 124]

The first movie I purchased with my fancy new dvd player in 2002. I think it's a camp classic, and represents the point of no return for Shatner as a kitsch pop culture icon.

 

Camp? Kitsch? Khan?!!

 

Along with VI, it's gotta be the most serious, conventional work in the whole Trek canon (prior to Season Three TNG). Season Three TOS already saw Shatner going WAY over the top on a regular basis. WoK dialed him back, I find him positively restrained here.

 

When's the last time you watched Whom Gods Destroy?

 

--Wait, wait.....maybe that wouldn't be...safe. Too much ham can kill you.

[bri-witched 60]

Not my favorite Trek film but it's the only one people immediately recognize and that future Trek films insisted on ripping off (poorly).

[JimmyMecks 49]

I'll be curious to hear from people who aren't familiar with the show, or aren't fans of it. I wonder how enjoyable the movie is if you're not. And even then, will this still get voted in just because Star Trek is so culturally significant? If so, a part of me will be disappointed (and I say this as a big TOS fan); I believe Canon-inductees should be able to stand on their own as great films.

 

:raises hand:

 

I've only seen Neu Trek: really liked the first one, really disliked the second one, enjoyed the third one until the final act

 

Watched Wrath of Khan last night and thought it was really good, although I wish I had known to watch "Space Seed" before watching this one. I'm very on the fence on which way I'm voting... it feels like representing the legacy of Star Trek is really important but I'm unsure for now if it breaks through the barrier as a single, standalone film deserving of a place in The Canon.

[Galactiac 91]

I've heard the blu-ray transfer on this is bad. Too dark or something. Anyone have any info about that?

 

Just watched it. Didn't have any issues.

[CarlosFerreira 20]

 

 

Not at all. And be thankful because the first one is a slog.

 

I've heard the blu-ray transfer on this is bad. Too dark or something. Anyone have any info about that?

 

Having never seen any of the films, I bought a DVD boxset yesterday. 10 movies, £15 - bargain. In my version Douglas Trumbull is credited in special effects, which probably accounts for the 2001-lite look.

 

So I watched the first film yesterday and I was really surprised. Robert Wise and Gene Roddenberry somehow managed to make a 2-hour existentialist art house movie, discussing religion and evolution, out of a 70s soap opera. Who'd have thought? I quite liked it.

 

Looking forward to KHAAAAANNN! tonight, which I hear is a completely different proposition.

[FelipeSobreiro 54]

Is it necessary to watch the first Star Trek movie to enjoy this one? I've watched a fair amount of the original series.

 

No, you don't need to watch it.

 

If you've seen some of the original series you already understand the premise of Star Trek. The one bit of info I'd give you beforehand is that in one of those old 1960s episodes, Captain Kirk exiled a supersoldier named Khan to live in an uninhabited planet. That's it.

[Galactiac 91]

So I watched the first film yesterday and I was really surprised. Robert Wise and Gene Roddenberry somehow managed to make a 2-hour existentialist art house movie, discussing religion and evolution, out of a 70s soap opera. Who'd have thought? I quite liked it.

 

Yeah, look, it's not the worst movie ever, but the problem is they took what could have been an average to good single episode of Star Trek and padded it out into a full two hours. Not only that, but most of the padding is a first-person view moving through various nondescript energy fields and alien landscapes.

 

I watched Star Trek: The Motion Picture last night for the first time since I bought the Director's Cut dvd in 2001 and all the same problems are there. Not much story, slow, boring, that overlong sequence of Kirk and Scotty admiring the Enterprise. I will say it's a slightly better watch on Blu-Ray because a lot of the V'Ger space stuff is really pretty, and there are some serviceable split-diopter shots inside the Enterprise (along with some pretty bad ones). Watching this on cable as a kid was brutal. Two commercial breaks go by and you're still slowly moving through space.

 

Not the worst Trek film, but certainly not the best. Possibly the least entertaining though.

[JeffreyMcDonald 65]

So I watched the first film yesterday and I was really surprised. Robert Wise and Gene Roddenberry somehow managed to make a 2-hour existentialist art house movie, discussing religion and evolution, out of a 70s soap opera. Who'd have thought? I quite liked it.

 

I like to subscribe to the

that Sci Fi is at it's best when it's slow and dull ("Star Trek: The Motion Picture", "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Solaris", etc.) or when it's very exciting ("Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn", "The Matrix", "The Terminator", etc.).

[ZacharyDeane 11]

FYI, the Cinemark chain of theaters is playing Wrath of Khan this weekend on Sunday.

I'm excited to see it for the first time on the big screed!

 

http://www.cinemark.com/cinemark-classic-series

[Marsellus_H 118]

I am not very familiar with Star Trek. I think I've watched some random episodes wth younger actors during the 90s when I was about 5 years old. That's all. So, I was pretty excited to finally watch one of these films... and I guess I was entertained. The visuals are nice, for sure, and the story flows along niecly. But is it canon? I don't see that happening. Well. You guys got now the possibility to convince me otherwise.

[Muthsarah 124]

I am not very familiar with Star Trek. I think I've watched some random episodes wth younger actors during the 90s when I was about 5 years old. That's all. So, I was pretty excited to finally watch one of these films... and I guess I was entertained. The visuals are nice, for sure, and the story flows along niecly. But is it canon? I don't see that happening. Well. You guys got now the possibility to convince me otherwise.

 

Umm.....

 

To keep it brief, I'm a Trek hardcore. No shame. I own my love.

 

I'm trying to read your comment, but I don't honestly know how to best interpret it. For starters, which film was this that you watched?

 

You've seen random episodes with "young" actors in the 90s? That could be TOS, DS9, or VOY (These are meaningful acronyms, even if you don't understand/accept them). And each serious is ENTIRELY different from each other. Strange, but true. All series are their own bag.

 

As for Wrath of Khan, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, you don't need to know the franchise to understand it. If you have a bare-bones understanding of who/what James T. Kirk is (clutch captain, ultimate American/(Canadian) hero, Season Three lothario), and what Mr. Spock is (the logical to a fault audience super-surogate), and (optional) what a Khan Noonien Singh is (mutant superman)*, then you're fine. The more of the Original Series (the 1960s one) that you watch, the more you'll bring to the movie, but if you have even the barest-bone understanding of who Kirk and Spock are, you'll be fine.

 

* - If you can't find Wrath of Khan on your Netflix or whatever, if you can find the original Star Trek series, seek out Space Seed (Season One episode) just to catch you up a bit. You don't NEED it, it doesn't totally line up physically, but it'll maybe set the mood for the later revenge tale. The more you understand the original series, the more you'll take from The Wrath of Khan. But, ultimately, you don't need to know that much. If all you know are the Original Series tropes, you'll be fine. It's a very tight, suspenseful, enjoyable movie.

 

I'm sure you can find it for cheap streaming somewhere. It's well-worth a watch. Even if you want to skip Space Seed, it's easy enough to understand that a preview episode exists, and that you could TECHNICALLY skip it. Though you'd be better off seeing them both, in order. Any other episode doesn't matter. TOS was never about continuity. If you are fine with not understanding every detail, so long as you grok the greater picture, Wrath of Khan is still a fun, suspenseful watch.

[Susan* 135]

I never saw the movie, just scenes from it on TV over the years. I found it at the library so I'm watching it tonight.

 

I'm old enough to remember seeing the first Star Trek movie at the theater as a kid, being excited to go on opening night, then disappointed at the end of the movie. So I skipped the next couple of movies. To me, Ricardo Montalban is a ridiculous idea for a movie villain (though I know he was a Columbo villain!). I'm excited to see for myself.

 

Speaking of Columbo villains, William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy played them too. (First gen Columbos are streaming on Netflix.)

[Muthsarah 124]

To me, Ricardo Montalban is a ridiculous idea for a movie villain (though I know he was a Columbo villain!). I'm excited to see for myself.

 

Oh, he's terribly fun.

 

And the pecs are real, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[sycasey 110]

I'm sure you can find it for cheap streaming somewhere. It's well-worth a watch.

 

For those who are still catching up, Wrath of Khan is available with a Hulu or Amazon Prime subscription, no additional charge necessary.

[AhronReinhard 7]

All of the best arguments for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan to be in the canon are actually reasons the original Star Trek series and the franchise in general should be in the canon, not the film itself. I do agree that this is a very good movie but I don't even know if it's even the best Trek gateway at this point. The Wrath of Khan was definitely a significant milestone for the franchise and appealed to a wider audience when it came out but JJ Abrams Star Trek reboot did a better job of that even though I like that film much less.

 

It never sits well with me when a film that is part of larger mythology and series is singled out and put in the canon when much of it's impact greatly depends on familiarity with previous entries or it leads the viewer to further explore a series. When you can only put one in the canon you can't allow either of those things to occur and it's sort of silly. The Empire Strikes Back is a better Star Wars movie than Star Wars in my opinion but I had to see the original Star Wars to comprehend it and I had to see Return of the Jedi to resolve the cliffhanger ending to really appreciate why Empire was the best. Had it never concluded with the Return of the Jedi, Empire would be an odd follow up and I would probably assume that a third movie that never came out would have been the best movie ever! What I am saying is that the franchise as a whole belongs in the canon together, worts and all. You need the good, the average, and the bad in the time capsule to appreciate where it all goes and what it meant.

 

I think Alien and Aliens was a much more fair debate because you have 2 totally separate directors, genres, and tones to pit against each other and the rest of the franchise never needed to continue after it. Aliens actually plays really well as a standalone and maybe even better that way rather than as a sequel because it allows you to go through the movie identifying more with the young and dumb Space Marines rather than PTSD Ripley. You could have made a compelling on going series out of Aliens but it was never inheriantly an epic, serialized journey. When they tried to force that the follow ups were either well intentioned failures or terribly miscalculated extentions but either way the 3rd, 4th, V, V2, and P movies definitely shouldnt be in the canon.

 

Sorry I got distracted. Does Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan belong in canon? Yes, of course it does...along with every episode of every Star Trek television series and installment of the feature films including, YES, Star Trek: Generations; MY gateway to Star Trek. You see, the foundation of Star Trek is exploration, growth, and continued adventures. Star Trek is not a one and done. It's all or nothing baby!

[JeffreyMcDonald 65]

Sorry I got distracted. Does Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan belong in canon? Yes, of course it does...along with every episode of every Star Trek television series and installment of the feature films including, YES, Star Trek: Generations; MY gateway to Star Trek. You see, the foundation of Star Trek is exploration, growth, and continued adventures. Star Trek is not a one and done. It's all or nothing baby!

 

Haha, I'm a HUGE Trek fan (religiously listen to the "Mission Log" podcast every week) and I don't know if I'd go that far. I mean, some of those TNG movies...hell, some of the TOS movies are a little...whoa. And, as I said, I'm a super fan. (and as such, it will be a cold day in hell before I want "Beyond" in the Canon, if we're talking "all or nothing".)

[Muthsarah 124]

Sorry I got distracted. Does Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan belong in canon? Yes, of course it does...along with every episode of every Star Trek television series and installment of the feature films including, YES, Star Trek: Generations; MY gateway to Star Trek. You see, the foundation of Star Trek is exploration, growth, and continued adventures. Star Trek is not a one and done. It's all or nothing baby!

 

How the hell did Generations make any sense to you as your gateway? What was Whoopi Goldberg doing there, and how did she get in Picard's dreams? What's the significance of Kirk's death? What's the white-skinned robot doing with this emotion chip thing? Why didn't Picard go back further in time than he did?* Who put the ship's counsellor in charge of the saucer section? Who are these Klingon chicks? What's with the guy with the eye thing?

 

* - Some have nothing to do with continuity, they don't make sense to anybody.