ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan Review with a 2013 fan's mindset

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 11:20 am

So,


Given the approach that many people have taken to being highly critical of the new Star Trek films...I thought I would apply the EXACT SAME standards to what is widely considered the best Star Trek movie (by fans and critics alike).


I hope you find this enjoyable / amusing / enlightning. I'm sure several of you won't though.


So, you guys must have hated Wrath of Khan huh?:


1. Why is the Enterprise, a ship that was completely refurbished with 100% up-to-date technology and the "pride of the fleet" one movie ago now a borderline-mothballed training ship?


2. Why is Saavik a "Lieutennant" if she is a cadet?


3. How is it reasonable that McCoy is giving Kirk an illegal present for his birthday? Isn't that basically like having a scene where someone gets Kirk a bag of weed for his birthday??


4. How is it that the Reliant can mistake Ceti Alpha V for VI??


5. How is it that the Reliant woudn't detect the destroyed remains of Ceti Alpha VI? This is a system that has been charted numerous times (at least once before "Space Seed" aired).


6. Why does Khan recognize Checkov when Checkov wasn't aboard the Enterprise during the "Space Seed" episode?


7. Can't Terrell and Checkov simply beam back to the Reliant when they notice that Khan will be coming soon? If they could beam down, they sure has heck can beam up! Why run outside and get captured?


8. How contrived is it that of all the ships that could find Khan, there's a major character aboard the Reliant who knows Kirk?


9. How convenient is it that the project the Reliant is supporting just happens to be run by Kirk's ex and estranged son?


10. I doubt something as small as a Ceti Eel could "wrap itself around the cerebral cortex."


11. What's up with all the stock footage? Anything to save a buck I guess, huh? These guys just want to make money and to @#$$ with the fans, huh!??


12. Why is Kirk stressed that Saavik is taking the ship out of spacedock? She's giving 2-3 simple orders to Sulu, who clearly knows how to pilot the ship.


13. How hokey is it that the Enterprise JUST HAPPENS to be leaving on a training cruise with Kirk as a guest at the very moment Khan decides to spring his devious plot of revenge?


14. How did the Reliant know how to intercept the Enterprise? How would they have known what angle the ship would be approaching from? Space is vast, and the Enterprise was on a training cruise with an unestablished course or destination.


15. Someone needs to explain to me how shooting a small device at a planet suddenly allows that entire planet to develop life, a functioning biosphere, etc (this is for all the people who claim that Star Trek should have realistic science elements).


16. The entire plot depends on the flimsy idea of Kirk not seeing to the strict adherance to General Order 12 (referencing the approach of any vessle when communications have not been established). Weak.


17. How does an emergency door drop down and magically bisect the conduit that supposedly flows energies to the warp nacalles? That seems more than a little bogus.


18. Where did this convenient "Prefix Code" idea come from? I suppose that would have been helpful in many earlier instances. But, it's just another shallow plot device that Meyer hoped fans wouldn't notice.


19. The Enterprise destroys the giant blue housing on the impulse drive assembly of the Reliant. Apparently, this is not a problem, as the Reliant's impulse drive functions better than the Enterprise's for the rest of the film.


20. In a situation where the ship was just attacked and it's clear that there is an extremely dangerous homicidal (genocidal??) maniac on the loose...Kirk is going to beam down to the Regula I space labratory with Bones and Saavik as his only escort? REALLY????


21. So, McCoy isn't going to conduct a medical scan of Checkov and Terrell? Here's two guys they just found left for dead stuffed into lockers, and 2 scenes later, they're beaming down on a mission with Kirk! I know the Enterprise transporter was (conveniently) down, but the Regula I transporter was working just fine. You're not going to send these guys to sick bay IMMEDIATELY? Of course not, because even a quick scan would have revealed the foreign parasites in their bodies.


22. Kirk is really going to shoot at a lifeform that fell mere inches from Checkov's head with a phaser on "kill?" WTF??


23. After all that mess...Khan is not going to kill Kirk himself in the Regula I caves? That seems highly unlikely.


24. How does the Genesis Cave flourish with life forms? Where does the light-source come from? There's supposedly "deep inside" the planetoid? Completely bogus!


25. Wouldn't it have been safer to leave the Civillians in the Genesis Cave rather than bring them aboard a crippled starship that is about to be attacked? The Enterprise could have left a note or beacon indicating where Marcus and company were located.


26. There's a full-blown nebula less than 3 minutes at impulse power from the space station and the planetoid? I'm not an astrophysicist....but that seems HIGHLY unlikely and extremely unscientific.


27. How does the Reliant miss the Enterprise with a stright-on photon torpedoe shot as the two ships are racing toward the nebula? Did someone forget how to lock weapons on target?


28. Kirk is supposed to be  a great tactician. Someone explain to me why he would order "evasive starboard" when they spot the Reliant headed directly toward them? This maneuver would expose the most visible and easy-to-hit profile of the starship than any of the other available actions he could have taken.


29. Who is piloting the Reliant after basically everyone on the bridge dies when the Enterprise phasers them?


30. How is it that Khan, a genetically superior man, doesn't understand that there are 3 dimensions in space?


31. Why couldn't the Enterprise beam the Genesis Device away...or into a million pieces (like Nomad)?


32. With time being of the absolute essence, the Enterprise escape plan is to back away from the Reliant (wow) and then proceed on a perpendicular course away from the wrecked ship???? Why not head directly away from where the Reliant's motion was carrying it, thus doubling the seperation?


33. So, the Genesis Device, which was a painstakingly designed and tested experimental device, detonates in a random nebula (it was desingned to be applied to a planet) and somehow, in defiance of all laws of physics, reverses it's direction and creates a new planet which also just happens to be in the habitable zone of a nearby star? Hmmm....


34. Spock's torpedoe, fired at high velocity from the Enterprise, somehow lands (without a SCRATCH) in a beautiful garden on the Genesis Planet?


35. So, after getting torn to shreds, the only thing they needed to do was open up the top of a pedestal in the engine room and fiddle around a bit and "voila...warp drive!" Why didn't they do this sooner? Why doesn't the Enterprise have robotic devices capable of operating in the high-radiation environments? Why does an officer need to go in and die?


 


Overall, this is a film filled with plot contrivances, weak-to-downright bogus science, and completely out-of-character moments for the sake of having a summer "blockbuster" that will make money and be a cheap way to trick people into thinking it's Star Trek. How is it that Star Trek has gone from a show about exploration and science to a violent action / adventure where brutal murder, torture, and vengence are the central themes? How has Starfleet become such a millitarized and "naval" organization? This entire story was written, produced, and directed by people who don't know or care about Star Trek. They can't even do an original story (re-use of a mediocre villian from the TV show). Many of Trek's core values were spat upon in this film. Gene Roddenberry himself was not supportive of it, and was kicked to the title of "Executive Consultant" becuase he KNEW this was bad for Star Trek.


This is what happens when you put a director / writer in charge who is NOT a Star Trek fan (Nick Meyer) and doesn't care about the fans or about the continuity of Star Trek. Meyer is simply imposing HIS ideas and visions on the sacred franchise we love and cherish so much. All he's really done is created a bombastic, thrill-a-minute crowd pleaser that is shallow, hollow, and deviod of anything that made Star Trek great.


Overall, I assess this as a bad Star Trek film, designed only to make a quick buck and with very little thought or care about the loyal fanbase and what they expect from such a nobel and important franchise.


 


I hope you enjoyed reading that as much as I enjoyed writing it. I had a blast. Now I know what the "other side" feels like!


 


 

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 11:52 am

Well written and I agree completely.


Mostly the point that it wasn't GR's vision and that Meyer wasn't a Trek fan. Meyer basically came in the middle, pulled the 5 or 6 drafts of the script that were currently being worked on, worked OT (against union rules) to basically assembled the script from the drafts, using what he liked.


He redid the uniforms completely, to fit his vision of "Horatio Hornblower in space" and always thought it was odd that a space navy used "pajamas" for uniforms:


"I decided that this was going to be 'Hornblower' in outer space, so I said, 'Okay, if this is going to be the Navy, let's have them look like the Navy; they shouldn't be walking around in pajamas.' Which seemed to me to be what the uniforms in the first movie and the TV show looked like."


Also, Meyer cared little for continuity and used Sherlock Holmes as his defense:


"In his DVD commentary track, director Meyer said that he was aware of the discontinuity but ignored it. Meyer acknowledged that he could have just as easily put Uhura on the Reliant and keep the consistency, but he preferred Chekov and referenced the fact that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle frequently contradicted himself in his books about Sherlock Holmes, saying that the continuity doesn't matter, as long as he has the audience engrossed in and enjoying the story."


 

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 12:23 pm

Agreed fireproof,


Even more telling than that is the fact that if you read "From the Bridge," Meyer basically comes right out in his autobiography and says "I didn't care about Star Trek or the fans. My goal was to make MY movie."


I think it's interesting.


BTW...nobody make any mistake about it...I LOVE Wrath of Khan. I wouldn't hold any of these facts or the hole-ridden script against it, because it's just a good movie! My whole point is that if you applied the standards unhappy fans are applying to STID, then you must, by definition, hate TWOK as well.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 1:07 pm

I love that.  Always wondered how people ignored all the canon violations and silly plot holes and bad science in every trek ever made. 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 1:15 pm

Quote: wissa @ Jun. 03 2013, 1:07 pm

>

>I love that.  Always wondered how people ignored all the canon violations and silly plot holes and bad science in every trek ever made. 

>


 


It's like I said...it's an interesting phenomenon! I don't mind if people "don't like" the new movies...but what's the real reason? Because...if you listen to the primary reasons everyone is giving, you can apply most of them to the "golden geese" like TWOK, TVH, and TUC just as easily (if not more so), but I'm sure everyone loves those films to some extent (although for mer personally, TUC and TVH are mediocre).


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 1:21 pm

I've never been a huge fan of the movies.  Once tng started on the big screen I pretty much stopped going to see them.  But there is plenty of mistakes and silly plots in the series as well.


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 1:28 pm

Quote: wissa @ Jun. 03 2013, 1:21 pm

>

>I've never been a huge fan of the movies.  Once tng started on the big screen I pretty much stopped going to see them.  But there is plenty of mistakes and silly plots in the series as well.

>


Interesting becuase I actally count myself as MORE of a fan of the movies. I love TOS and I like TNG and DS9. But I have trouble repeat-watching TNG and have only watched DS9 once. I never really got into VOY or ENT and have yet to see all of either series, despite numerous attempts.


The movies, on the other hand, I watch all the time.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 1:36 pm

It always bothered me that the tos movies were such a continuing story arc.  The series was never like that, it made no sense to me that the movies were.   I was pissed that tng left tv to do movies.  I saw it as nothing more than a money grab.  Give that the tng movies are just drawn out episodes they really should have left it on tv. 


I've been gradually winding my way through all trek in order of airing.  I'm up to the second season of tng.  It's been long enough since I've watched it that most of the episodes seem new.  Or at least different than I remember them. 


Just watched ds9 for the first time a couple years ago for the first time and loved it.  I have to admit I'm dreading watching voy    I couldn't make it past the 2nd season when it aired.  Only time in my entire life I stopped watching trek.


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 2:14 pm

Yeah, to me its funny because all the things that are listed against Abrams you can apply to Meyer and his work on TWOK and TUC. Again, GR did not like either of those films and felt the humans in there were not presented right. To Meyer's credit, he regretted that he didn't try to collaborate more with GR.


Now, I will break from the majority of Trek fandom and say that TWOK is not my favorite movie. I have always preferred, since I was 10, TUC has been my favorite with VH being close second followed by TWOK and the rest hovering somewhere.


So, I am more inclined to find fault in TWOK and Meyer's execution. I simply don't see it as THAT great of a movie. Its a good movie, just not a great movie. It certainly takes a villain and makes him so over the top, cackling bad guy that I have hard sympathizing with him. Rewatching "Space Seed" certainly doesn't help that endevour either.


So, I think TWOK needs to be seen for what it is-a decent movie but with its own share of problems, continuity, production and other wise that ALL Trek films, from GR to Abrams have shared.


Let's not kid ourselves that Trek movies were somehow better because it happened while GR was alive.

2takesfrakes

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3683

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 2:31 pm

Vger23


Ha! You're crazy, for this one, man!
Excellent points, all. But if you'll
permit me to nitpick further ...
What's with all the Disco Lights in
this flick? The transporter rooms
have an obvious Disco Ball behind the
rear panel in the beaming chamber and
Spock's Death Booth has Disco Lights right
underneath the grating! So Cheap & Lame!


He'sDeadJim6400

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 7:24 pm

Nick Meyer did an excellent job..We can overlook his few "PLOT CONTRIVANCES", we accept it,what Abrams did was totally bogus and silly, all Abrams Trek movies are is one big LENS FLARE.


Greatness comes to those who really want to do anything to get it.

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 7:57 pm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1f/YOU%27RE_WINNER_trophy.jpg


 


That was awesome. Especially because it's true.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

entropyman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 127

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 9:11 pm

Vger, you have finally convinced me- Star Trek really is terrible! So many wasted hours watching this crap...

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 9:23 pm

I see no reason to accept Meyer, regardless of the quality of his films since he knew nothing of Star Trek.


He created Starfleet ot be more militaristic than GR wanted. It moved away from the source material in a dramatic way.


Now, his films are good, but that doesn't diminish his changes, often for no reason.

He'sDeadJim6400

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 9:54 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ Jun. 03 2013, 9:23 pm

>

>I see no reason to accept Meyer, regardless of the quality of his films since he knew nothing of Star Trek.

>He created Starfleet ot be more militaristic than GR wanted. It moved away from the source material in a dramatic way.

>Now, his films are good, but that doesn't diminish his changes, often for no reason.

>


Fireproof, come now, you can't really compare Nick Meyers Star Trek to Abrams' Trek, one was good intelligent sci fi, the other was a sci fi joke..Nick Meyer wasn't a trek fan but he also didn't slap us in the face with unlimited silliness, he knew how the characters related to each other and yes while his Starfleet was militaristic it fit his story concept,you can't expect to take down a tyrant like Kahn without a good military, Meyer knew how to make Star Trek work, watch "The Wrath Of Kahn" then "Into Darkness", you'll see what I mean.  


Greatness comes to those who really want to do anything to get it.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum