Episode 95: STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN

[sycasey 110]

 

It's a HUGE factor. They basically folded the budget of the failure-to-launch "Star Trek: Phase II" TV series into "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" budget which dramatically inflated the budget from what it really was, making if extremely unprofitable even though the box office wasn't terrible. To earn some of that back they pretty much stripped STII:TWoK down to the absolute bare bones. It's actually pretty amazing, considering what they had to work with. (for similar reasons, I am very forgiving of Hellraiser IV: Bloodline". Talk about some incredible budgetary & studio shenanigans!)

 

Indeed. Honestly, I think Amy is conflating "low-budget" with "TV Movie." At one point she notes that the camera just remains in a static master shot sometimes; she attributes this to either the cheapness (budget) or filmmaker laziness (TV Movie). I think that's plainly wrong. Holding a long master shot is usually a CHOICE. A cinematic choice. Check out Every Frame a Painting on "ensemble staging":

 

 

Now, I don't think Meyer takes his ensemble staging to the same extremes that Bong Joon-Ho does in this video, but the principles are the same: he understands that Star Trek is fundamentally an ensemble piece, so he uses his camera placement to emphasize the ensemble whenever possible. Even if Bones or Sulu or whoever aren't really doing anything major in that scene, he wants them in the shot. He wants you to know they are there.

 

It's also not "easy" to shoot a scene this way, though it looks deceptively simple. If you watch TV shows, they typically do NOT hold the master for very long. TV directors much prefer to cut to close-ups as soon as possible. It's the most expedient way to draw audience focus and tell the story quickly. If you choose to hold a master shot, it means the actors all have to be on their game and ready to play off of each other. It puts onus on the staging, blocking, and subtle camera movement to help tell the story. And IMO, it also subtly enhances the tension in the scene, whether it be comedic or dramatic tension: the whole thing feels like more of a high-wire act, people performing without a net. A perusal of the careers of Woody Allen and Richard Linklater can demonstrate the subtle power of long takes and ensemble staging. It bothers me when critics take this classical approach as "simple" or "uncinematic." It's subtle, but that's not the same as simple.

[Philly Cheesesteak 92]

 

Indeed. Honestly, I think Amy is conflating "low-budget" with "TV Movie." At one point she notes that the camera just remains in a static master shot sometimes; she attributes this to either the cheapness (budget) or filmmaker laziness (TV Movie). I think that's plainly wrong. Holding a long master shot is usually a CHOICE. A cinematic choice. Check out Every Frame a Painting on "ensemble staging":

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4seDVfgwOg

 

Now, I don't think Meyer takes his ensemble staging to the same extremes that Bong Joon-Ho does in this video, but the principles are the same: he understands that Star Trek is fundamentally an ensemble piece, so he uses his camera placement to emphasize the ensemble whenever possible. Even if Bones or Sulu or whoever aren't really doing anything major in that scene, he wants them in the shot. He wants you to know they are there.

 

It's also not "easy" to shoot a scene this way, though it looks deceptively simple. If you watch TV shows, they typically do NOT hold the master for very long. TV directors much prefer to cut to close-ups as soon as possible. It's the most expedient way to draw audience focus and tell the story quickly. If you choose to hold a master shot, it means the actors all have to be on their game and ready to play off of each other. It puts onus on the staging, blocking, and subtle camera movement to help tell the story. And IMO, it also subtly enhances the tension in the scene, whether it be comedic or dramatic tension: the whole thing feels like more of a high-wire act, people performing without a net. A perusal of the careers of Woody Allen and Richard Linklater can demonstrate the subtle power of long takes and ensemble staging. It bothers me when critics take this classical approach as "simple" or "uncinematic." It's subtle, but that's not the same as simple.

 

Now "Memories of Murder" would be one hell of an interesting Canon episode.

[mainmanmaitland 0]

I voted yes for the simple reason that among sci-fi movies, there are only a handful that survive multiple viewings for me and this is one of them. I grew up on TOS (I lived in an area where I had several channels playing the reruns when I was a kid). I didn't really care about Next Generation or the other spinoffs, I'm old enough to have distance from it all but this movie still gets me. For me this falls in line with the the first two Star Wars movies (Star Wars and Empire), The Thing, the first two Aliens films, the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers, etc - If I'm flicking through channels and I come across this movie, I'll start to watch it. I can't say that about a lot of sci-fi movie and I grew up on plenty of them.

 

It's not the set (Trek sets were pretty crappy throughout the TV series and didn't really get better until the movies that came much later on) but the contrast between the main characters (Kirk, Khan, Spock) fuels my enjoyment of this movie - Kirk has given up everything he loved to stay in Starfleet (whatever relationship he's had with Carol Marcus (or any female for that matter), his son, anything resembling a normal existence, etc) and his life has been been empty since he stopped being a captain. Spock has in contrast, built a family around his shipmates and the cadets he teaches. He doesn't need the glories that Kirk's character so desperately misses. Khan lost everything years ago and the only thing fueling him is his hate for Kirk. You can see that in the movie and you don't need to have watched "Space Seed" or TOS to pick that up.

 

How that triangle plays out and Spock's ultimate sacrifice gives this an emotional resonance that's fairly rare in sci-fi that makes it worthwhile repeat viewing for me. And I'll say it now, we don't need a horde of Star Trek in the Canon. The other movies have their moments but if there is going to be one, this is the one it needs to be.

[spezbaby 1]

Star Trek stayed a viable cinema and TV franchise because of Wrath of Khan.

[HoldenMartinson 221]

 

Now "Memories of Murder" would be one hell of an interesting Canon episode.

Memories of Murder is one of my five favorite films. The obvious choice is to do that in a versus with Zodiac, but I'd hate having to do that. Bong Joon-ho deserves to be in the canon, and all of his films are worthy. Memories of Murder, next to Snowpiercer, is probably his strongest bet.

[Philly Cheesesteak 92]

Memories of Murder is one of my five favorite films. The obvious choice is to do that in a versus with Zodiac, but I'd hate having to do that. Bong Joon-ho deserves to be in the canon, and all of his films are worthy. Memories of Murder, next to Snowpiercer, is probably his strongest bet.

 

And keep in mind, Zodiac is one of Devin's all-time favourites. It wouldn't be an evenly handed episode.

[NathanGordon 1096]

Memories of Murder is one of my five favorite films. The obvious choice is to do that in a versus with Zodiac, but I'd hate having to do that. Bong Joon-ho deserves to be in the canon, and all of his films are worthy. Memories of Murder, next to Snowpiercer, is probably his strongest bet.

Mother > Memories of Murder

 

But that's like saying 14-year Laphroaig is better than 12-year. I honestly do believe it's his best, though.

[HoldenMartinson 221]

 

And keep in mind, Zodiac is one of Devin's all-time favourites. It wouldn't be an evenly handed episode.

If Zodiac did make it in, I couldn't be mad. It is, without a doubt, one of the greatest films of all time. It's a film that I love a lot, and couldn't be too upset if it made it in over Memories of Murder.

Mother > Memories of Murder

 

But that's like saying 14-year Laphroaig is better than 12-year. I honestly do believe it's his best, though.

Same as above. All of Bong's films are great. I certainly prefer Memories of Murder, but I can't even be annoyed or defensive at thinking Mother is better, because it's so damn good.

[pomattovich 75]

STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KAHN is without question the best Star Trek movie. If it weren't a Star Trek movie and had no connections to the rest of the series, it would still be a good movie... but it is connected to it, and therefore I can't abide it being in the Canon. I just don't think that Star Trek needs Canon representation, even if its the best example of what it has to offer. I like this movie a lot, but I don't think I would recommend this movie to someone with no interest in Star Trek, nor would I recommend it to someone who isn't a fan of science fiction. I think that the Canon has good representation of the genre without needing this specific title. This is not a dismissal of the movie, which I enjoy, but I can't simply vote Yes for every eligible title just because I like it. Not that it will matter. I'm sure I'm squarely in the minority on this one.

[JormpJomp 1]

And now Devin's on twitter saying these are "some of the most legitimately bad opinions on that movie ever".

[sycasey 110]

And now Devin's on twitter saying these are "some of the most legitimately bad opinions on that movie ever".

 

I hope he elaborates on the next pod!

[NathanGordon 1096]

For the curious:

 

 

He's probably talking about the comments on BirthMoviesDeath; we all know the Earwolf commenters have well reasoned, articulate opinions which make perfect sense.

[HoldenMartinson 221]

For the curious:

 

 

He's probably talking about the comments on BirthMoviesDeath; we all know the Earwolf commenters have well reasoned, articulate opinions which make perfect sense.

Yeah. I saw that, and it was disheartening. I really liked what people had to say on those subjects, even if I didn't totally agree with some of them.

[Philly Cheesesteak 92]

For the curious:

 

 

He's probably talking about the comments on BirthMoviesDeath; we all know the Earwolf commenters have well reasoned, articulate opinions which make perfect sense.

 

Somehow, I doubt that. I checked. Most of them are on Devin's side. Here, it's more an even split. He's looking at these opinions about WoK - Galactiac's view, your's, etc - with a sad shake of the head.

[TheQRM 3]

Yeah...no. Our prolonged geek affection for Star Trek's flawed but lovable universe doesn't trump the ham-fisted acting, the weak script and limp visual effects here.

 

Just because we may hold dear those nights when you were allowed to stay up and catch an original series rerun while you ate your Jiffy Pop popcorn does not make this anything more than fun, forgettable fare that did little if anything to reshape/re-contextualize science fiction.

 

And Amy's right about the poor soundtrack choice while Spock is getting the ship's power back online. Way too happy go lucky for a scene about obvious risk and self-sacrifice. Plus, half a decade after Star Wars, and nearly two decades after the original television series, the bridge of the Enterprise still looks as about as technologically advanced as your neighbor's home theatre set up.

 

nyet.

[NicholasBagwell 0]

I was 5 when this came out. This was my in to Star Trek. This was my in to Sci Fi. This was my in to reading.

[ihaveblink 0]

Yeah I can't agree with Devon and the guy who sounds like David Cross doing a nerd impression (no offense guy, you seem really nice). The movie is heavily flawed if not likable. Just not canon worthy.

[ZacharyDeane 11]

I think it's crazy that people think this is objectively a great movie, out of the context of nostalgia and love for the series.

I agreed with all of Amy's points and just kind of see the two men's arguments as desperately twisting this movie's flaws somehow into positives.

 

And I don't think it's bad movie. I saw it for the first time last night in the theaters, and had a moderate amount of fun. Overall, it seemed like a really good episode of TV. But by no means canon worthy.

 

Great episode. Thanks, everyone (especially Dave for trying to see an outsider's perspective).

[Spocktober42 0]

From Amy's arguments, I have concluded that she is not a science fiction fan. She wants her space movies to be about space people doing space things in space rockets, which is Star Wars, which is action/fantasy more than Sci-Fi. True Sci-Fi is about the human condition, and how it is affected by extreme situations (traveling the galaxy, facing the unknown, etc). That's what makes Trek, especially the smaller stories (Balance of Terror, WOK) so great. And I get her point that Trek works best on television, but this is a great film, and don't great films deserve to be in the Canon?

[Galactiac 91]

Well I'm sorry Devin feels that way, but I've obsessed over Trek enough to feel pretty strongly about everything I've said. Still love the podcast.

 

Let me just leave this here:

 

Kirk starts out the movie feeling like he's old and that he's lost a step. As they approach the unresponsive Reliant ship, Saavik begins to quote regulations about raising shields in this specific scenario. She's cut off, Kirk doesn't do it, the ship is critically wounded and members of his crew die because of it. It's a massive fuck up for Kirk, and he acknowledges it. Great scene.

 

But the rest of the movie only happens because of Kirk's arrogance in this one moment, and he never really makes it right. He outmaneuvers Khan, but not before even more of his crew dies, and now The Enterprise is too crippled to get away from the Genesis wave until Kirk's BEST FRIEND has to sacrifice his life to fix Kirk's mistake.

 

At the end of the movie they force this thematic resolution on us by having Kirk say, "I feel ...young!"

 

Why exactly? He was worried he'd lost a step and proceeds to get a bunch of his subordinates killed, including his best friend. Why feel young now?

 

Did they earn that thematic resolution? This is the kind of thing that creates a disconnect with me and this movie.

 

I like it, I think it's fun, but I only like it a certain amount.

[Philly Cheesesteak 92]

From Amy's arguments, I have concluded that she is not a science fiction fan. She wants her space movies to be about space people doing space things in space rockets, which is Star Wars, which is action/fantasy more than Sci-Fi. True Sci-Fi is about the human condition, and how it is affected by extreme situations (traveling the galaxy, facing the unknown, etc). That's what makes Trek, especially the smaller stories (Balance of Terror, WOK) so great. And I get her point that Trek works best on television, but this is a great film, and don't great films deserve to be in the Canon?

 

I think it's more charitable to say she has certain expectations of sci-fi, and she's loved plenty of them in the past.

[Philly Cheesesteak 92]

Incidentally, one thing WoK lacks that was a staple of TOS's identity? The sex. Star Trek was, once upon a time, a sexy series. That's sort of been lacking for awhile, at least until Abrams... Well, he didn't really bring it back, he actually made it worse to the point I prefer the stodginess over what he did, but still.

[DanielHardy 0]

I'm not really a Trek fan, though not for lack of trying. I've seen a handful of the OG series, all the original movies, skipped all the Next Gen stuff, seen all the new ones with Pine & co. I generally enjoyed most of them with caveats, with one exception I'll get to later.

 

See, I wish I loved this movie. I keep revisiting it, hoping to experience the affection and passion that so many others feel for it, and I always leave disappointed, wondering what I missed. On one level, its because, yeah, it looks like a TV movie. On another, its because I find the static revenge cat and mouse game... underwhelming? I keep expecting some level of catharsis or complexity that never comes. Spock's death is great, and absolutely iconic, but the film that precedes it leaves me a bit cold - still on the outside looking in. I wish it were not so. Truly, because it's a lot more fun to love something than shrug and say `it's fine, I guess.' That's actually not a dig at Amy, as I'm with her on the movie's quality and ultimate non-canon-worthiness.

 

However - Devin's point about the inclusion of a Star Trek movie on purely iconographic terms is undeniable. The crew of the Enterprise NEED to be in The Canon. But here's the thing, I wish this episode had been a versus episode, because I LOVE Star Trek IV The Voyage Home. It's the one Trek movie where I GET IT - all of it - the cheesy goofy fun, the optimism in the face of real world issues, the decades-earned character dynamics, the beautifully walked line between self-parody and genuine ethical enquiry - it's the Trek movie I want to show other non-Trekkies, as a pure fun sci-fi blockbuster with heart and consciousness to burn. Its the movie that most communicates me to me the affection the characters have for each other, and warmly invites me to feel it with them. To me, the stakes feel a lot higher on a save-humanity-from-destroying-the-planet-and-themselves level than any revenge story could. See, I look at the legacy of Khan, and I see a million other hell bent on revenge villains chasing the protagonist for some past sin. I mean even within the series they keep going back to that well (Bana in JJ Trek, Elba in F&F Trek) and it's just. so. boring. Whereas going back in time to the 80s to save humpback whales? I mean, seriously, how many times has THAT storyline been ripped off? Voyage Home is the bomb, and is the movie I wish Devin and Dave were using all their arguments for in this episode. I kept wishing it would come up, but it never did. Maybe I'm alone in thinking this way, but I also remember STIV being the biggest Trek hit when it was released, and the one in the series that everyone seemed to embrace. Doesn't that factor alone at least put it up for discussion?

 

So here's my dilemma - if Wrath is the only Trek movie to ever go up for Canon consideration, then I'd grudgingly vote for it just to get the crew of the Enterprise their deserved place in movie history. But man, if it had gone up against Voyage Home it would be a no brainer. So I'm gonna abstain, hoping that one day, years from now, Trek VI comes up for the respect its due, because to me, personally, it says Star Trek better, and more completely, than any other of the films I've seen.

[Backup86a 4]

I'm a trekky & I know this is not canon worthy.

Star Trek works better on TV, & in movies Star Trek has its problems considering how few good Star Trek movie's there are.

[Backup86a 4]

Including Star Trek (which is primary a TV series) in the canon because of how Iconic it is, is not a reason to put it in the canon. It would be like putting The Brady Bunch in the Canon because it is so Iconic. The Canon is for movies not for your personal fandom