KHAN: 25 Years Ago Today

Message

AndyDursin · #1 Post by **AndyDursin** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:01 pm

Just read a good editorial by one of the Aint it Cool staffers, remembering STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN, which opened 25 years ago today (is that even possible?!?).

In many ways this is the best Star Trek film...II and IV stand head and shoulders above the rest, but II is pretty much the most dramatic, moving, and exciting film of the entire Trek film series for my money. It holds up beautifully even now, from the score, to Montalban's villainy, to the space battles (which no other Trek movie recaptured), to Horner's score, to the moving ending...all of it just works, a credit to Nicholas Meyer.

It's unfortunate that Rick Berman never bothered to do an "arc" with the Next Generation films the way Harve Bennett and Co. did with II, III and IV. It's a trilogy (though III is the weak sister of the bunch) that presents Star Trek at its best.

Hopefully we'll get a high-definition version to compliment the anniversary later this year, but for now I'll be dusting off my copy and checking it out tonight

mkaroly · #2 Post by **mkaroly** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:56 pm

Agreed- though I would throw ST VI in there alongside II and IV- all three of those movies were awesome and highly enjoyable.

AndyDursin · #3 Post by **AndyDursin** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:22 pm

mkaroly wrote:Agreed- though I would throw ST VI in there alongside II and IV- all three of those movies were awesome and highly enjoyable.

I like VI, but I've never loved it. For me a few things held it back:

1. The lack of budget. Very modest looking film, would've benefitted from having a real budget for the filmmakers to work with. Looked like a TV show, not a movie.

2. The score. I like Cliff Eidelman (and loved his COLUMBUS THE DISCOVERY score) but his brooding, dense music was too heavy and distinctly unmemorable. I hated the Main Title, though I realize there are some fans who like it because it's so different (and Meyer wanted a "Planets" inspired, operatic sound). In retrospect I think this was a career-turning point for Eidelman, having been given a franchise to take care of, and IMO he fumbled the ball. For what it's worth, he's never been given another opportunity either.

3. Not "special enough" given it was an anniversary film and also the Original Series' farewell. The script is interesting but it's not inspired (right down to the Scooby-Doo like "we've apprehended the villain" unmasking), but I wanted something more emotional and vast given it was the original Enterprise crew's last movie.

It's a perfectly watchable, decent movie but I didn't think it really felt like a proper send off for the TOS cast.

Eric W. · #4 Post by **Eric W.** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:10 pm

^^ More or less agreed Andy, although Star Trek VI certainly ran many circles around just about anything that came after it.

25 years since ST II...wow.

AndyDursin · #5 Post by **AndyDursin** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:54 pm

Eric W. wrote:^^ More or less agreed Andy, although Star Trek VI certainly ran many circles around just about anything that came after it.

I wouldn't dispute that at all. It's perfectly serviceable -- and indeed better than all of the TNG films (FIRST CONTACT I've always found a little overrated).

II is in a class of its own, and as much as I love IV, it's a more lighthearted film.

Paul MacLean · #6 Post by **Paul MacLean** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:56 pm

Star Trek II is an undeniably likeable film. Trekkies rightly celebrated it for capturing the "feel" of TOS better than Star Trek: The Motion Picture (tho Star Trek II also had many of the flaws of TOS -- which is probably part of the reason it evoked that nostalgia!).

Horner's score was an impressive debut into the "big time", tho I still feel his "Kahn" motif was overly simplistic and almost comical. I'm not sure he took the film completely seriously. And it was clear from an interview with Horner I read that he never had the love for Star Trek which Jerry Goldsmith obviously did.

But I have to be honest, I never liked Star Trek IV: The Two Hour Bumper Sticker.

To me it was Star Trek for people who hate Star Trek -- a schmaltzy feel-good movie overrun with sit-com style humor, trying to appeal to a more "mainstream" audience. And Leonard Rosenman's jaunty, overly optimistic music (partly recycled from Lord of the Rings) only reinforced the silliness (I still wonder if Rosenman was actually sending it up).

In all candor I prefer Star Trek V. At least that had some good visuals -- and an awesome Jerry Goldsmith score.

But were I to name a favorite, mine is still Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Of all the films it feel the most like a real movie. It may lack the characterization of Star Trek II, but it has epic scale and grandeur.

The way I look at it is, Star Trek: The Motion Picture took a cue from 2001 -- it was more cerebral and made interesting speculations about aritificial intelligence and evolution. The way it looked at these concepts, as well as the design and style of the film is very much along the lines of 2001. (The "Spock Walk" sequence is clearly infleunced by Dave Bowman's journey to Jupiter.) And Goldsmith's score is also one of the best he ever did, and adds incalculable weight to the film.

But nobody wanted that kind of a movie in the age of lightsabres and TIE-fighters. I think that is the main reason Star Trek: The Motion Picture was panned. Star Trek II of course went very much in the direction of Star Wars -- space battles, colorful art direction, more emphasis on characters and sentiment. I think both approaches are valid, but I still prefer The Motion Picture.

AndyDursin · #7 Post by **AndyDursin** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:06 pm

I respect Paul's opinion on TMP, and I agree to disagree on IV, which I happen to love. (Hey, I don't understand what's wrong with Rosenman's score being optimistic -- sure it's the same theme he wrote for five other movies -- lol

-- but it fit the movie perfectly. Horner's approach would've been completely out of place in that particular film. They wanted to break from the heavy dramatics of II and III and I think they nailed it)

But TMP is undeniably cinematic and in many ways I enjoy returning to it as much as any of the other films -- in spite of its flaws. I love Goldsmith's score, but let's face it the score is 3/4 of the show in TMP. The FX are the other portion. In terms of dialogue, story, dramatic interest, it's still completely inert. Persis Khambatta and Stephen Collins...what more can you say?!?

I also enjoy STAR TREK V. It's not nearly the abomination a lot of folks think it is, the score is great and the movie's heart is at least in the right place...in spite of some problems (like Laurence Luckinbill's "modulated for the stage" performance, lol).

Paul MacLean · #8 Post by **Paul MacLean** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:30 pm

AndyDursin wrote:I also enjoy STAR TREK V. It's not nearly the abomination a lot of folks think it is, the score is great and the movie's heart is at least in the right place...in spite of some problems (like Laurence Luckinbill's "modulated for the stage" performance, lol).

I agree with its critics that Star Trek V is goofy (Uhura dancing naked?), but IV was pretty goofy too (Spock "nerve-pinching" a punk-rocker?). I never understood the people who loved IV, yet acted like V was a crime against nature.

Eric Paddon · #9 Post by **Eric Paddon** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:44 pm

II is IMO the only truly good Star Trek movie. I was a misfire but II not only dipped plausibly back into the series and expanded on it with a good story it also gave us some character depth in ways the series never had before and IMO showed things moving forward by having the guts to kill Spock.

III I could have accepted (it did retain Horner which I felt was a plus) even if I felt it was a cop-out to resurrect Spock (I mean let's face it, how many times does Spock cheat death in the series because of some special gift that only Vulcans have? This to me seemed like the ultimate case of this run amuck in which we find Vulcans can cheat death after dying!) only had IV been good. But I HATED IV, I mean really absolutely HATED it so much, that Star Trek IV is the reason why 21 years ago I divorced myself permanently from the ranks of Trekkies (with the final nail in the coffin being my negative reaction to the first episode of Next Generation, which I tuned out of afterwards never to return, along with all other Trek spinoffs). And to me, nothing symbolized my anger more than the ending where Kirk gets busted to Captain and the crew gets a brand-new Enterprise that looks like the old one but really isn't and they're all back to their TV positions. To me that represented a cop-out of the first order and undid every meaningful bit of character insight and development that II had given us.

I have never seen V or VI. Saw Generations only because I was with friends, and I rented First Contact and hated that too. For me, I like to look back at II and say that was the end of Star Trek as I knew it, and I would have preferred nothing had been done after that.

AndyDursin · #10 Post by **AndyDursin** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:57 pm

And to me, nothing symbolized my anger more than the ending where Kirk gets busted to Captain and the crew gets a brand-new Enterprise that looks like the old one but really isn't and they're all back to their TV positions. To me that represented a cop-out of the first order and undid every meaningful bit of character insight and development that II had given us.

Interesting, because I always found that was the perfect ending. "Admiral" Kirk just never sat well with me, and after everything they went through in III, it felt like a very appropriate conclusion to the three movies there.

(with the final nail in the coffin being my negative reaction to the first episode of Next Generation, which I tuned out of afterwards never to return, along with all other Trek spinoffs).

That was my experience as well at the beginning. I hated the whole first batch of TNG episodes (FARPOINT is simply awful) and never got into it until a long time afterwards. I still don't feel the attachment for that show that I do for the original series either.

Saw Generations only because I was with friends, and I rented First Contact and hated that too.

FIRST CONTACT was hailed by critics as the TNG version of KHAN, but it's not nearly as good. That painfully boring section where Whorf and co. are on the exterior of the ship is like having your teeth pulled out one by one, and the score is every bit as tedious.

AndyDursin · #11 Post by **AndyDursin** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:10 pm

OK for fun, rank the series in order of your faves. (I know where Eric and Paul are going to put IV, lol....)

Here goes -- and I'm putting these in order of, "if I had to watch one right now..." kind of personal preference.

1. II - KHAN
2. IV - VOYAGE HOME
3. TMP - MOTION PICTURE
4. III - SEARCH FOR SPOCK (not sure I like this that much, I'll need to see it again for a re-assessment)
5. VI - UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY
6. V - FINAL FRONTIER (guilty pleasure)
7. FIRST CONTACT (TNG's best, but not great)
8. GENERATIONS (will never forgive them for killing Kirk...and like that, too!)
9. NEMESIS (could've been, should've been...but wasn't)
10. INSURRECTION (dull as dishwater, but a nice Goldsmith score)

Eric Paddon · #12 Post by **Eric Paddon** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:41 pm

"Interesting, because I always found that was the perfect ending. "Admiral" Kirk just never sat well with me, and after everything they went through in III, it felt like a very appropriate conclusion to the three movies there."

The reason it didn't sit well with me is because what made II so special was the fact that Kirk, in the face of losing Spock, had to finally admit as he said "I've cheated death, and patted myself on the back for my ingenuity." It was a moment where a Kirk advancing in age had to now admit he wasn't a young hotshot starship captain any longer and had to start facing the realities of his advancing years. And realizing that his day is now past as a starship captain is an important part of recognizing that. To me, putting Kirk in a situation where he and everyone else is back to the stagnant status quo of the TV series just doesn't ring true at all. It just reeked of a cop-out. It also did not help matters for me that during the interlude between III and IV, DC Comics had been doing a Trek series in which Kirk, still an *Admiral* was placed in command of the Excelsior and the charges related to the events of III were placed on hold for now and Kirk and company kept away from Earth (this happened because in a clever story post-III Kirk got tangled up with the return of the Mirror Universe and thwarting them from trying to destroy "our" world. Apparently when Mirror-Spock "considered" Kirk's advice at the end of "Mirror Mirror" he had rejected real-Kirk's line of thought). Even if you have to have Kirk in command, there's no reason he can't have a higher rank in recognition of years of service.

I also got annoyed at how the movies tried to inject in effect socialist doctrine in their view of the future starting with IV with the "no one uses money" any more bit of hokum (which contradicts the original series) and how Kirk, who was a knowledgable student of American history in the series is dumb enough to send Chekov down to the US Navy yard at a time when the Cold War would still be going on (cheap laugh for the audience and also a chance to see a slam about the paranoid US military).

To paraprhase the old weekend update about Franco, for me Spock is still dead (and nothing's happened since II)!

Paul MacLean · #13 Post by **Paul MacLean** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:21 am

AndyDursin wrote:
(with the final nail in the coffin being my negative reaction to the first episode of Next Generation, which I tuned out of afterwards never to return, along with all other Trek spinoffs).
That was my experience as well at the beginning. I hated the whole first batch of TNG episodes (FARPOINT is simply awful) and never got into it until a long time afterwards. I still don't feel the attachment for that show that I do for the original series either.

There's no two ways about it -- "Encounter at Farpoint" blows, and the remainder of year one wasn't great either. But by year three, TNG really hit its stride, and to my mind is ultimately a better show than the original. Better scripts, better acting and effects which actually look real. Of course the scores (excepting Ron Jones' work) aren't as good as Steiner's or Kaplan's but that's about the only inferior aspect. "The Best of Both Worlds" is arguably the best Star Trek episode ever (of any of the series).

FIRST CONTACT was hailed by critics as the TNG version of KHAN, but it's not nearly as good. That painfully boring section where Whorf and co. are on the exterior of the ship is like having your teeth pulled out one by one, and the score is every bit as tedious.

I think it is a good, solid film, tho not without its faults (and Alfrie Woodard's part was almost certainly written for Whoopie Goldberg -- of course altered slightly to make her an outsider rather than Guynan).

And I actually thought First Contact was Goldsmith's "comeback" score. Having hit rock-bottom with First Knight and Congo the year before, returning to Star Trek seemed to "re-boot" his inspiration. Tho not in league with Star Trek V, there was some very good writing in First Contact (at least from the elder Goldsmith -- it was obviously a rush-job, seeing as his son had to write some of the score).

Eric W. · #14 Post by **Eric W.** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:42 am

^^I still say that "All Good Things" should have been the first movie for TNG.

And they certainly shouldn't have rushed that first film out right after the series ended.

Star Trek V has actually grown on me over the years, mostly for the character stuff, but the visuals are terrible in that thing and I really don't know how anyone can say otherwise.

Goldsmith's score totally overachieves and makes that film watchable. Without that grade A effort from Goldsmith, kind of like TMP before it...it would have been DOA outright.

I loved II, III, IV for different reasons and this was the all time high for Star Trek and its popularity. Rosenman's score for IV has always been a complete throwaway for me. I thought Goldsmith and Horner both were the two composers that should have been in constant rotation.

Eidelman's score on VI was also a complete throwaway for me. He's a good composer and he's certainly done better work since.

They compared his recruitment on that film to Horner's on II and...people need to get their ears checked or something if they really thought his score to VI could tie Horner's score to II's shoes.

Not even remotely close, just like calling First Contact the TNG's Khan is laughable.

I really don't have very high hopes for this new Trek film from Abrams and I'm so burned out on prequelitis and retreads and such that I honestly can say I don't care if I see it.

There's only one Kirk, one Spock, and one McCoy et al for me and their time is gone and over with.

If they're going to make new Trek, they need to make something new, fresh, and move forward or please just don't bother.

Paul MacLean · #15 Post by **Paul MacLean** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:13 pm

A lot of my preference for TNG also comes down to the fact I prefer Stewart/Picard to Shatner/Kirk. I've been a fan of Stewart since I, Claudius (in which he played the villainous Sejanus).

Shatner's a hoot and great fun, but impossible to take seriously. Stewart is believable as a starship commander -- imposing, steely, determined. Stewart also exhudes an intimidating virility (yet Picard's romantic interludes are believably selective) in contrast Shatner's "prettyboy" lothario (who tries to pork every girl he comes across).

And Shatner wears a wig -- so who is more of a REAL MAN?