Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Muhammad Farrukh

movie What was so good about Wrath of Khan?

11 posts in this topic

Okay, so in the anticipation of the upcoming Star Trek Into Darkness, I decided to watch the classics first, just to get some insight or whatever. Main thing was, I wanted to watch Wrath of Khan, because I had heard a lot of compliments about it.

Last night, I watched The Motion Picture, and needless to say, it was a complete disaster. Possible, the most boring movie I have ever seen in my life. Waste of time completely. Okay, I said, never mind. Lets move towards the real deal.

Today, I watched Wrath of Khan.

First things first, it is light years ahead of its predecessor. The Motion Picture was a complete waste of time, and throughout the movie, I was constantly asking myself, ''can't I just skip to Wrath of Khan?''

This wasn't the case with Wrath of Khan, thankfully. The movie is engaging. It doesn't waste dozens of minutes showing the exterior of Enterprise. The story, too, moves at a good pace.

Now, the movie is good. I wont say it is bad, because it, in no way, is. But what I dont understand, is why and how its excellent.

Except for the performance of Ricardo Montalban, which was not great, but excellent. A lot of friends and critic reviews were spot on regarding the acting of Montalban. But what was so good about the entire movie? Its just a good movie. Nothing more.

Maybe, the complements and praise I read and heard from so many sources hyped it, or maybe I didn't get it at all. Its just an above average revenge flick, in my opinion at least. Khan is shown intelligent, but they don't let him show his true potential for more than a single time. Kirk seems to have figured everthing out ahead of him. In my opinion, Khan could've and should've done more. I dont know why they didn't let his character build up. He wasn't able to give hard time to Kirk even in the slightest sense, except for the last part, which was pretty, ..., I dont know how to explain it.

So, my question to Star Trek fans, did I miss something? Dont get me wrong, I liked the movie. I just didn't fell in love with it as I had anticipated. I dont even know, if I wanna watch the next parts :s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for startrek 1, you don't totally understand the context. Startrek hadn't been on tv for years, and there wasn't cable so it wasn't as easy to find reruns. People had been wanting to watch startrek again for years. They wanted to see the Enterprise. Plus, bear in mind that the standard for a space movie of the day was 2001 (the movie). It involved a lot of quiet, exterior shots. Star Trek The Motion Picture simply fullfilled both of those. It took a lot of time for fans of the day showing "look! here's the entprise you've wanted to see for 10 years, isn't it awesome!" in that same "2001" style. As for Kahn, it's my favorite STTOS movie. It's got a lot of passion between Kahn and Kirk fighting, and a good battle scene at the end. Probably my favorite is still First Contact though, since I prefer STTNG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i found 4 i think was boring where they had to steal a klingon bird of prey and go back in time to save a whale :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i found 4 i think was boring where they had to steal a klingon bird of prey and go back in time to save a whale :/

That one was dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you're a newcomer to the franchise, or at least the TOS side of it.

You've answered your own question: "it is light years ahead of its predecessor". It all depends what you're comparing it with.

If you watched all 6 Trek movies that deal with the TOS cast, you'll probably agree that it's the best of the lot--that's "what's so good" about it. Nothing more, nothing less...don't try to find a bigger meaning.

If all you've seen from Star Trek is the 2009 JJ Abrams movie, then you're no doubt unaware that his incarnation has nothing in common with Gene Roddenberry's vision besides the title and character names. It's an action flick and nothing else, and I have every reason to believe Into Darkness will continue that trend. TOS started its broadcast well over 40 years ago. In 40 years from now, people are probably still going to be discussing the ins and outs of TOS, while the JJ Abrams movies are going to be mere footnotes in those discussions.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. But it's about context. Look at what it's compared to... Moreover, killing off a major character was a HUGE deal and seen as very daring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That one was dumb.

That was the worst one, and sadly that is the one for some reason, they choose to play on TV all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious if there are going to be any more TNG movies. Was disappointed that they killed of Data in Nemesis. Granted, that dumb android the found can take his place...but just annoying the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was the worst one, and sadly that is the one for some reason, they choose to play on TV all the time.

No - ST5 was the worst one. Horrible f/x due to losing ILM (they used Associates & Ferren) and the whole 'Laughing Vulcan Seeking God' storyline was stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, consider that the Wrath of Khan is now 31 years old. Not many movies from 1982 translate well into 2013.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like others have seen... The original movie was leaps and bounds ahead of the series as far as effects.

One should also remember how the original series was planned as.

SPACE WESTERN.... So if you think about it... Wrath of Kahn actually was the old ploy of the bad guy comes back to town seeking revenge.

Like other's have said try not compare the old to the new due to the fact that one there was nothing there before it except westerns. The original movies were improvements to help tell the story again but in the length of a movie what took years on TV to do.

The new franchise does not really have to define the Universe of Star Trek like the original series and movies had to....

An example:

In the new movie they just say Use a Transporter... but in the original they had to explain what one was.

Not to mention.... one key point... Wrath of Kahn and The original Star Trek movie ... they didn't have digital effects such the way they do now. Most of the things had to be painted, and models had to be made. (now all they do is just draw it then let a computer make it.)

Plus also Ricardo Montobon was still a fixture in the minds of people after Fantasy Island so he was specifically sough out to bring his fans out.

Now if you really wanted a show-- Then find the original Pilot of Star Trek and compare it.

One would find -

Captain Avril (sometimes called April)

Number One A woman with strikingly darkened features (which was Rodenberry's wife that later in the series became Nurse Chapel )

Science Office SPOCK (the third in command)

Now that is what you should compare The movie to .

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.