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

chator56

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 498

Report this Jun. 06 2013, 1:27 pm

Stovokor,


The changes Meyers made in STII are necessary to the story being told, and humanize the character of Kirk, making Kirk into a cheater is done to illustrate that he doesn't like to lose, and Kirk doesn't know he has a son, so how does that make him a dead beat father? That versus Abrams' arbitary changes to the Kirk character for laughs, making him a drunk, horn-dog who admits to beastiality. You really want to defend that?

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this Jun. 06 2013, 2:06 pm

Quote: KelisThePoet @ Jun. 06 2013, 3:34 pm

"BTW, did Meyer get a pass from all the fans at the time he did what he did?  That's a sincere question, not a rhetorical one, because I was not alive when Star Trek II was released and don't have a lot of knowledge about its initial reception..."

----------


I remember there was negative talk about all the militarization, and burgundy coats, and Kirks son, and angry fan mail to sci-fi mags. There just wasn't as much media back then. It's one of the main reasons all us older Trekers have understood this for decades now. With every iteration there has always been this sort of separation amongst fans (the TOS movies, TNG, DS9...) It's nothing new and I doubt it'll ever change. That's why it's useless to try and spend any time trying to "grasp" it or understand/grapple with it. It'll be 100 years from now, when we're all dead and gone, and someone will still come along and hate nuTrek. Just the same way as here, 20 years later, people are still coming along and hating GEN...TFF... ENT... etc

Life's too short.


KelisThePoet

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 636

Report this Jun. 06 2013, 2:25 pm

Thanks, Blockman.  You confirm what I suspected (there have been several backlashes among groups of fans in response to different changes through the years), and I suspected that based on what I know just from viewing Trek installments themselves (that there have been many changes to the so-called Star Trek vision).


In response to the issue of whether these backlashes can be grappled with, I would think that the amount of different changes through which the franchise has passed would make the fans more aware that this is a large-scale process, and thus less inclined to get super animated over particular changes they dislike, but I guess not.


Falor was a prosperous merchant who went on a journey to gain greater awareness: Through storms he crossed the Voroth Sea/ To reach the clouded shores of Raal/ Where old T’Para offered truth./ He traveled through the windswept hills/ And crossed the barren Fire Plains/ To find the silent monks of Kir./ Still unfulfilled, he journeyed home/ Told stories of the lessons learned/ And gained true wisdom by the giving. – Falor’s Journey, “Innocence”

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Jun. 06 2013, 2:33 pm

chator56t t


it seems you need to re-watch TWoK, Kirk may not have been able to recognize he son on sight, but he knew dam well he had a son.His first words to Carol when he sees here is "is that David?", not to menion the dialog the shared later Kirk"I did what you wanted, i stayed away"


Sorry, bud but he knew he had a son.


As to the changes Meyers, how does making starfleet look more like a militery necessary??


why did Kirks character need to be humanize in that fashion, seems he did enough of that with the sceens we saw where he exposed regret in taking promotion, and the sceens between him and Spock and him and Bones got that job done.Making him a cheetor was over kill


As to the changes Abrams made, they can be said to be nessesary to the stoery he was telling, Kirk being a drunk over acheaver can be the result of loosing his father at such a young age 


not sure what beastiality. you are talking about


 

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jun. 06 2013, 2:35 pm

Quote: chator56 @ Jun. 06 2013, 1:27 pm

>

>Stovokor,

>The changes Meyers made in STII are necessary to the story being told, and humanize the character of Kirk, making Kirk into a cheater is done to illustrate that he doesn't like to lose, and Kirk doesn't know he has a son, so how does that make him a dead beat father? That versus Abrams' arbitary changes to the Kirk character for laughs, making him a drunk, horn-dog who admits to beastiality. You really want to defend that?

>


Abrams' Kirk is more of a "coming of age" character. He starts out as a "drunk horn-dog" (you know the "sex with farm animals" thing was a joke, right?) who gradually becomes a capable and mature starship captain.


"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

CrimsonComet

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6

Report this Jun. 07 2013, 3:05 pm

I really appreciate the part about Checkov not being on board the Enterprise during "Space Seed."  I have been telling people that since I saw the movie.  How does Checkov recognize Khan and Khan to Checkov if Checkov did not become a member of the Star Trek world until season two of the orignial series and "Space Seed" aired in the first.

chator56

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 498

Report this Jun. 07 2013, 3:19 pm

CrimsonComet,


It was an error on their part, of course one could always speculate that Chekov was on the ship, just not yet an Ensign helmsman yet, or he worked night-shift. I know, ridiculous. Khan says he never forgets a face in STII, so just when could he have run into Chekov? Maybe after Khan escaped his quarters. He could have ran into him in the hall. But this is all speculation!

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Jun. 07 2013, 5:32 pm

Quote: Mitchz95 @ Jun. 06 2013, 2:35 pm

Quote: chator56 @ Jun. 06 2013, 1:27 pm

>

>

>Stovokor,

>The changes Meyers made in STII are necessary to the story being told, and humanize the character of Kirk, making Kirk into a cheater is done to illustrate that he doesn't like to lose, and Kirk doesn't know he has a son, so how does that make him a dead beat father? That versus Abrams' arbitary changes to the Kirk character for laughs, making him a drunk, horn-dog who admits to beastiality. You really want to defend that?

>

Abrams' Kirk is more of a "coming of age" character. He starts out as a "drunk horn-dog" (you know the "sex with farm animals" thing was a joke, right?) who gradually becomes a capable and mature starship captain.


Yeah, I think Abrams sometimes gets taken a little bit too seriously in his movies. There are some jokes that are meant as such, but are read a serious   That's the second time the farm animals joke has come up and I get rather worried that people think Kirk was serious when clearly Uhura was ribbing him and he was dishing it back.


As for Meyers and Abrams comparisons, why not? Because it happened 30 years ago I give it a pass? Because, honestly, it seems odd that Abrams tries to reboot Trek with a similar mentality to Meyers, but perhaps more mindful of the source material (to a degree. The writers might have been more so) yet Meyers gets a pass. Its just odd to me that TWOK can be regarded as timless and a classic, yet can no longer be analyzed? Why not?


Regarding Chekov, if you want more insight in to that, read Koening's book about his Trek experience. He gives a little different insight in to making of TWOK. I've heard, and haven't confirmed, that Koening took it upon himself to educate Meyers regarding Trek lore. 


Fortunately, Final Frontier came along to squash Koening's swelled head


 

chator56

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 498

Report this Jun. 09 2013, 2:13 pm

The charge that Meyers militarizes Starfleet is false. How? By giving Starfleet more naval looking uniforms? Consider this, Starfleet uses Naval ranks, and Gene Roddenberry originally called Kirk, a "Horatio Hornblower in space." HH was a fictional naval hero. Also, Meyers makes Carol Marcus a research scientist, not a "weapons expert," like Abrams. He shows that there are scientific research outposts in space, so Starfleet isn't just "a peace keeping armada in space," like Abrams' Pike says in ST09. Yes, Abrams calls Starfleet the United Nations in space, no mention of exploration. If giving the Enterprise crew more naval looking uniforms is what you call "militarizing" Star Trek, I'm in. That versus what? Making the Enterprise crew look like a group of hippies having a pajama party in space?

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Jun. 09 2013, 2:29 pm


Chator56


 


Do you even read what has been posted?


 


The charge twasnt that he militarizes Starfleet , the charge was that he made starfleet "LOOK" more militeristic.And he did that with the change in trhe uniforms.


 


as much as I personally love those uniforms, they do look more military then the very olorful pjs worn in TOS and TMP..And it was Roddenberry himself thst leveled the omplaint about the uniforms.


 


People change jobs over the years, particulary after having children, sometimes very drastic changes, it doesnt seem far fetched that Carol was one a weapons expert before becoming scientist working twards creating instead of destroying.


 


fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Jun. 11 2013, 9:25 pm

Quote: chator56 @ Jun. 09 2013, 2:13 pm

>

>The charge that Meyers militarizes Starfleet is false. How? By giving Starfleet more naval looking uniforms? Consider this, Starfleet uses Naval ranks, and Gene Roddenberry originally called Kirk, a "Horatio Hornblower in space." HH was a fictional naval hero. Also, Meyers makes Carol Marcus a research scientist, not a "weapons expert," like Abrams. He shows that there are scientific research outposts in space, so Starfleet isn't just "a peace keeping armada in space," like Abrams' Pike says in ST09. Yes, Abrams calls Starfleet the United Nations in space, no mention of exploration. If giving the Enterprise crew more naval looking uniforms is what you call "militarizing" Star Trek, I'm in. That versus what? Making the Enterprise crew look like a group of hippies having a pajama party in space?

>


Gene called it HH as more of a joke than a specific description. Being a military veteran, GR could have easily made Starfleet more military, but the behind the scenes documentation does not support it. So, when Meyers came and did the more militaristic uniforms, by his own description, GR disagreed with it and I don't blame him. He also did not like the way humans were portrayed as it did not fit his ideas of what humanity of the future would be.


 


As for Marcus, the changes in Abrams' version are perfectly fine. Not sure why she can't move from one to the other, given that it is still research. She might have changed it to get closer to her father in Abrams verse, while in the Prime universe her father didn't devote his life to researching weapons. There are many possibilities there.

Flanaess

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 24

Report this Aug. 31 2013, 1:46 pm

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?

*I don't think it said mothballed.

*Rank has it's privilage, they were giving Captain Spock the honor of training cadets. Enterprise had it's 5 year mission, it can now be used for multiple functions.

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

*On Earth children can hold an honorary Lieutennant rank at their academy.

*She is an officer in training, passed all tests except 'real-world' starship profiniency test.

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??

*Yes it is, and?
*Kirk used to drink sometimes.

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

*I guess the orbit elipse became reversed for the two planets.
*Aside from visual scanning, they never explained how they find any planet, aside from generic sensors.

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).

*Debris too far away from ship course. The planets were not all lined up.

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

*Gene R. said Checkov was always on board since the beginning.
*We just did not see him in the historical recoded visual 'tapes'.

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?

*They beamed down outside.
*Unanswered. Perhaps containers interfiered with the transporter.

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?

*It would not matter with the events, anyone from Reliant could have told Kirk that Khan was after Genesis.
*The writers wanted Checkov to do something interesting, plus he was often the screamer, it fit in with the character and his traits.
*Also shows passage of time, promotion to Commander and First Officer.
*Checkov, as a person, wanted to do something with his life and career.

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

*Scale 1 to 10, ten high:
Rating 8, but still believable. Many real life events happen in similar ways, small galaxy-the populated part.

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

*Figure of speach.
*It's not the make-believe, it's how, the way the make-believe is sold/told to the viewer.
*Also, as long as the fictional invention is not contradicted in the story.

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!??

*Saving time first, money second, familiarity third.
*Too good in that point in film-making not to be used for something needed in the film anyway.

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.

*Character moment, developement.
*Comedy
*Kirk knows that Sulu would obey a wrong order so that the trainee
would see the result of the error and remember it. Short of killing someone.

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?

*It pretty thin.
*The universe does center on Kirk, though.
*Bad Timing, believed, it could happen.
*Equation:
 Kirk's Timing=Kirk's Duties/Locations added to Kirk's Personal Life/Locations added to Accidental Encounters/Locations multiplied by In Between/Locations and divided by (one) 1/The Enterprise Location with a plus 50% chance since
Kirk is in love with The Enterprise.

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.

*Lured to Regula 1
*Used Kirk's name.
*Tech stuff not explained.

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).

*It was sold well.
*It was cool and exciting.
*It's the way the material is handled.
*Speculative science. (hey, can we split this atom?)
*Tech stuff not explained.

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.

*Experience from 5 year mission.
*He can't imagine defeat.

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.

*It was sold well.
*Tech stuff not explained.

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.

*It was sold well.
*Covered under Kirk knowing his ship, etc.
*Clever and visual plot device.

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.

*Someone in FX did not know it's function.
*Director does not know what makes it go.
*Emergency power and thrusters.
*Forgotten in the need in the story to show starship damage.
*It's the way it's used.

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????

*Ship is priority.
*Logic dicdates maniac is gone.
*Kirk feels responsible.
*Rude to Carol to invade with a small army.
*Suppose they went nowhere?

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.

*McCoy is finally overwelmed after all these years.
*The seemed okay at first.

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

*We don't know kill, could have been too much power and light for the worm.
*No choice.
*Confident shot.

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

*Khan is no fool.
*Press the advantage.


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!

*Very smooth salesmanship and scene reveal.
*Tech stuff not explained.

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.

*Debateable.
*Unknown Result.

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.

*Planet could have formed long after the death of one star.

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?

*I know this is to demonstrate, but...., it's explained on film.
*Weapons lock not functioning.

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.

*Split-second reaction.

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

*It's drifting and out of control by then?
*Unanswered.

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

*Experience. (lack of space)
*Different definition of
3 dimensions.
 
31. Why couldn't the Enterprise beam the Genesis Device away...or into a million pieces (like Nomad)?

*No explanation.
*Spock needs to make sacrifice.
*Was it shielded?
*Transported offline now?
*Unknown effect, instant detonation?

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?

*Reliant not really moving.

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....

*Never said how close.

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

*Gravity
*Weapons need to be tough, casing.
*Sold well.


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?

*Only Spock thought of it.
*No robotic devices introduced in show or movies.

 

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.

*No.
* Makers of TWoK were masters of "suspension of disbelief", they told a good tell. Weaved a strong spell.
*All themes explored in Star Trek as seen on TV.
*Gene often was overruled.


 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!

It's good.
Illustrated that a person can tear any story and movie apart. Any medium.

Overall, J.J. Abrams did not draw me in the tale or sell me on the product.

'My' "suspension of disbelief", was broken.

It just did not work on me, as I viewed the film.

rob39874

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 142

Report this Sep. 01 2013, 3:15 am

Can't believe your comparing TWOK to ID there are completley on two different sides of the screen. Yes WOK had plot holes but Star Trek had that in the series anyway. While ID was a shameless remake and just annoyed the trek fan. I will no longer see another ST movie while JJ is directing it or in this new universe as quite frankly and to be blunt about it sucks there is no original thinking 

NCC-1864

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 60

Report this Sep. 01 2013, 7:44 am

Rob....you are being quite ridiculous.... I totally agree with VGer23 and the points put out were quite true...and I am a trek fan and loved the new movie! it wasnt even a remake, it was a 5 minute homage...So stop hating on a successful film that had MORE star trek value than TWOK...YES I SAID THAT...STID HAD MORE 'TREK VALUE' THAN TWOK...star trek is about metahpors set in the future...STID had that, a lot more than TWOK

Dammit Jim I'm a trekkie, not a doctor!

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