Desk From the Past III: Star Trek: The Motion Picture and The Wrath of Khan
Back again.
In anticipation of the new Star Trek film by J.J. Abrams I’m going to be doing my first multipart Desk from the Past feature - a reexamination of all the previous Star Trek films, which I’m rewatching over the rest of March and all of April as a prelude.
Yeah, I’m weird.
Anyhow, it’s obvious this would take more than one review to cover so I’m going to be doing them in pairs. So this time, I’m covering the first two Star Trek films: Star Trek: The Motion Picture and The Wrath of Khan.
I actually had nearly finished writing these reviews (and had fully finished TMP's review) over a week ago. But then I got sick. Such things tend to put a wrench in your plans.
So here it is, later than I intended and one film later.
Oh, and for those who are interested, I got the new BSG Season 4.0 among other presents (including two new soundtracks - woot!) for my birthday. Thanks to all those who sent me birthday wishes and other goodies. You're the best :).
What the Score Means
10.0: Excellent. Terrific. Might not be perfect, but it's damn close. Best in the field.
9.0: Pretty damn good. I've seen better stuff, but not much. Most people should enjoy it.
8.0: Pretty good, if you really like this sort of stuff, but it might be more underwhelming if you're not. Even if you are one of the latter, though, I'd expect you to find it passingly amusing, if nothing else.
7.0: Good or average, but take note that your mileage may vary. In other words, if you're already a fan or predisposed to works like this you may really like it or think it's good. But if you're not, steer clear or at least approach with a cautiously open mind.
6.0: Meh. You might enjoy it, but I wouldn't guarantee it. If you do like it, it'll probably be a passing thing and I wouldn't count on it having any revisitable value. Semi-average, semi-poor. What I like to call "thoroughly mediocre."
5.0: This steps beyond thoroughly mediocre into the realm of true bad. I'd be surprised if anyone thought this was high quality and would be highly suspect of their opinions from the on on matters of criticism. It might not be horrible, but it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
4.0: Okay, we've definitely passed into bad here. This stuff actually will make you walk out of a movie theater it's so lame. It's not even stylistically bad. It's just boring bad and you likely won't have the patience to go through with it.
3.0: This is a wierd little category few get to but a few deliberately reach for. So bad it's good. That is to say, if you take this at face value it's going to be horrific. But, if you just hang along for the ride and turn off your brain or, conversely, decide to get ridiculously symbolic about it, it can actually be very entertaining, if only for its comically bad quality.
2.0: Could be so bad it's good, but more likely this has verged into so bad it's horrible quality. There's nothing funny about it, except perhaps that the human mind could be so warped that it would actually produce the shit. Not fun.
0-1.0: Burn! Burrrrrrn! Burn the evil! It hurts!
Table of Contents
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Overview
NOTE: Since this is a retrospective review and I fully anticipate the reader to have already seen the film expect some spoilers, though I will try my best to refrain from them. Look at it this way, I may one day get around to doing a retrospective of ESB. I will not refrain from saying Luke's father is Vader.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (more commonly abbreviated TMP in spite of confusions this might cause with TPM) had a rough job. As the first film based on a 60s cancelled cult classic it had unenviable role - reviving the franchise. In many ways its tempting for me to draw a parallel between TMP and the film Serenity, which, as the sequel to the similarly cancelled Firefly had the same job. And, as with TMP, Serenity ultimately failed to fulfill that job.
TMP is not, however, an awful or dreadful film. There are, in fact, parts of it that soar majestically. However, it can be, at times, a dull film, as most who have seen it will no doubt relate. For a film whose role is to make a cult show into a popular franchise this is a fatal flaw and, given how badly TMP did, it’s a wonder that the franchise survived to become as popular as it is today.
But given the franchise did survive, it’s fair now to look at TMP as a film in of itself. How does it fare? The answer is, like the film itself, complicated and unsure. On the one hand, TMP has some of the most remarkable visuals for a science fiction film of its time. The visuals are certainly more important than say, Close Encounters of the Third Kind (which I also rewatched recently), whose visual effects are little more than colorful Christmas lights layered against a black screen. Pretty, but not particularly evocative or jaw-dropping.
On the other hand, TMP’s pacing and script leave much to be desired, making the script for 2001, which TMP was clearly trying to emulate, look fast-paced at times. And the writers and producers for the film clearly misunderstand what it was that drew viewers to Star Trek in the first place. It was never the ideas presented, which were often cheap and silly all-too-transparent analogies about the 1960s socio-political climate (the worst offender, I imagine, is Let That Be Your Last Battlefield in this regard). Rather, it was the characters that made people interested in the show, with good stories being the exception rather than the norm.
The people behind TMP seem to have forgotten this, since the entire film is about the idea behind the film. It almost works, though, since the actual idea is, this time, even if ridiculous in terms of scale, at least far more interesting a concept than the ones that were often used in TOS episodes. After all, at least the omnipotent alien here in TMP isn’t another cheap stand-in for ancient mythology, even if it a rehash from a previous episode, The Changeling.
Overall, TMP is a fair, if unspectacular movie. At times, it soars. At other times, it plummets. No single element is wholly strong. Yet neither is any one element fully lost to mediocrity or worse. How, I will explain below.
Plot
The best way to describe TMP’s story is muddled. There is no clear structure, no clear lines separating the first, second, and third acts. The film begins abruptly and ends just as abruptly and in the middle it drags on. It has a strong concept, a strong idea that drives it, and yet it fails to give the necessary exposition and backstory to make this concept fully appreciable or understandable.
It’s not difficult to find the root of this problem. TMP was a film that was never meant to be. Or so its history would suggest, at least. The idea of a Star Trek film came up shortly after the original series as cancelled and gained some momentum when resyndication of the series proved profitable (much as the DVDs of Firefly proved more successful than the original broadcasts). However, most of the people who Paramount were considering to direct were busy with their own projects. One particular filmmaker that drew my interest as I researched TMP’s history was George Lucas, who was considered a possible director back in 1975 (before ANH was released). I can’t help but wonder what Star Trek today would have been like if Lucas had helmed its first movie.
The unavailability of talent as well as the generally low profitability of science fiction films at the time made Paramount wary of the film and they toyed around with making another series, the never was Phase II. It was from this that what would eventually become TMP emerged. That is to say, an unused television pilot expanded into a feature film.
It shows. TMP would work far better as a standard length episode. As I’ve said, the basic ingredients of a good story are there. There’s an interesting concept, even if its one that was done previously in a TOS episode, and there’s some interesting surprises and revelations that could, were the story paced better, keep the story interesting as the viewer watches. But the problem is that the film’s script has no real structure, at least not a structure useful for the purpose of filmmaking.
After an unnecessary overture and a typically (for the time) long opening credits the film starts abruptly with a Klingon expedition encountering the setting for most of the rest of the film - a massive warship (98 kilometers across) surrounded by an even vaster cloud (whose purpose is never explained precisely and which is 3 AUs across). Being the mindlessly aggressive race they were portrayed as up to this point, the Klingons decide to shoot at the cloud, in spite of its obvious superiority in size and power. They are annihilated like we might swat a fly, all while a space station lightyears away watches (without any explanation for how).
The story doesn’t begin to really make any kind of sense until about fifteen minutes in, where we’re reintroduced to James T. Kirk, who is now an admiral thoroughly displeased with his desk job. He wants to fly a ship again, damn it! Of course, he pulls a few strings and gets the keys to the newly revamped Enterprise which is supposedly, in spite of the enormous physical differences, the same ship as the one in TOS. Whatever. Between the version of the ship in The Cage, TOS, TMP, and the new upcoming film this ship has seen a lot of refits.
Unfortunately, as soon as Kirk gets out of San Francisco the film slows to a crawl and loses any sense of structure. The rest of the film is basically an excuse for to try and outdo both Lucas and Stanley Kubrick for longest special effects montage while also showing off how cool this new Enterprise is. It’s actually kind of charming… at first. But since they spend a full five minutes on just approaching the ship, the novelty wears off quickly. Still, the next half-hour at least is probably the single-most solid part of the film, since it actually develops the characters and provides us with some useful to know backstory in snippets of dialogue.
But these little moments keep getting ruined. Not because they’re badly written but rather because they’re sandwiched between large swathes of material that seems either useless or tiresome. Like the wormhole sequence after the ship pulls out of dock. How is that useful to the story beyond coming up with an explanation for why the Enterprise can’t go faster - which is swiftly solved when Spock arrives ten minutes later? Or how about the backstory for Ilia and Deckard - which looks like it should be interesting but instead comes off like a George Lucas love story (no offense to an otherwise great writer)?
And why is it that the Enterprise is the only starship available to intervene? It certainly isn’t the best ship - it’s at least twenty years old by the time the film takes place. And didn’t the Klingons encounter the cloud on its way to Earth? If that’s the case, than why were the Klingons in Federation space and why is no one making a big deal about that? It’s little inconsistencies like this, little details that are overlooked by the production team in their effort to make this grand, epic spectacle, that drag the story down to a degree almost as significant as the poor pacing.
The worst part of the film’s story is, however, the fact that it has no clear structure. Once the Enterprise is out of stardock the film is little more than a random string of events. The crew faces one crisis after the next, as the cloud tests their ship’s defenses again and again. There is no clear climax but rather a series of smaller, mini-climaxes, none of which is significantly larger than any of the others. The closest bit is as the story begin to wrap up and V’Ger’s identity is finally revealed, with a nice twist. By that point, however, the story is already over.
Ultimately, the story falls apart because, well, there’s not much holding it together. There’s little structure, little direction, and little consistency in quality. At least if the story was straight out bad it’d be easy to come to a decision on TMP. But it’s not. It tries very hard to be good and almost succeeds, which makes it all the more confusing.
Score: 5.8 (out of 10)
Characters
TMP’s characters are, oddly given the weakness of the writing in other respects, one of its strongest points. While, not all are interesting and some in particular suffer others are stronger than they were in TOS. Though the emotion of the film is somewhat subdued and the characters, not just Spock, sometimes come off as inhumanly cold, emulating once again 2001, overall, the characters of TMP are a strength, not a weakness.
Take, for instance, the character of James T. Kirk. In the original show, Kirk verges dangerously close to being a Mary Sue given that, regardless of how many regulations he violates, he always seems to be in the right. Interestingly, Alan Dean Foster, the chief screenwriter, chose to depict Kirk in a very different light. In TMP, Kirk, while still almost deific in the devotion he inspires in his crew (Uhura says, upon a crewman’s worries about Kirk replacing Deckard, that their “chances of survival just doubled”), is clearly a flawed character. In fact, for the first half of the film he acts like an asshole.
He does it in such a way that we can be understanding and sympathetic to him, however, which is a nice feat considering that Kirk doesn’t just seem like an ass, he actually is being one. Panging for his glorious days of youthful adventure, Kirk actually pulls a significant enough number of strings to get him reinstated as Enterprise’s CO, in spite of the fact that, as an admiral, he really has no business putting himself on the front line. He takes the command of the Enterprise from his own hand-picked successor, Deckard, who, naturally, is more than a little bit irked by the switchover. He even goes so far as to draft old members of his crew back into Starfleet in his attempt to relive his past.
This might not have been as obvious to the 1979 crowd that saw TMP, who probably saw Kirk more in terms of TOS than the terms of the film itself, but one exchange sort of captures Kirk’s character at the beginning of the film. When telling Deckard he is relieving the captain of duty and “temporarily” demoting him to Commander, he says “I’m sorry.” With more than a little bit of resentment Deckard replies “No, you’re not.” And it’s very clear that Deckard’s right. Kirk isn’t sorry. He’s being selfish, trapped in his nostalgia for the past, something that McCoy makes a pointed observation of later in the film.
This makes Kirk, ultimately, more interesting. In TOS, Kirk was overshadowed pretty heavily by Spock, unintentionally I presume. This was, in part, because Kirk was too straightforward. He was the smiling, witty, and womanizing captain with a dash too much bravado. But he didn’t seem to have any weakness. The moments in TOS where weakness were shown were more typically episodes focused around Spock, where we saw Spock’s supposedly emotionless mentality collapse under stress or other circumstances, revealing the insecure individual beneath. Now, in TMP, it’s at last Kirk’s turn to shine. And he shines.
And speaking of starship captains, Deckard is probably the most interesting original character in the film. Very clearly a prototype Riker, Deckard is the true foil to Kirk in this film, actually outshining the roles of Spock and McCoy. While Kirk is a brash and emotionally driven individual who single-mindedly tries to reobtain the glories of his past, Deckard is a more “by the book” man, a young captain with talent and skill who’s clearly risen to the captainship of the Enterprise based on skill. Kirk is almost a father figure to him it seems, given that there seems to be a close connection between the two probably tied into the fact that Deckard is the son of Kirk’s old friend, Commodore Deckard (who perished in the TOS episode The Doomsday Machine). It was Kirk that recommended him for promotion and it was Kirk who gave him the Enterprise.
In a way, this puts a different light on the Captain’s conflict with Kirk. It makes it almost a quarrel between a jealous and controlling father and his strong-willed and independent son, who wishes to stand apart and fulfill his own destiny. Instead, Kirk keeps interfering and hijacking Deckard’s career. If we consider this, it makes it much less surprising that Deckard so eagerly pursues his ultimate fate in the film, sacrificing his individuality to merge with V’Ger/Ilia to become a transcendent being of light. It’s his choice and it sets him apart from Kirk.
Speaking of Ilia, she is more representative of TMP’s general writing. Whereas Deckard is a strong character whose small snippets of backstory inform and complete his character, Ilia is hard to understand and come to grips with. As Deckard is a prototype Riker, so is Ilia in many ways a prototype Troi (to the point that many of the scripts involving her for Phase II were later changed into Troi-oriented TNG episodes). And as such she runs into many of the same issues that Troi does, at least early on in TNG.
She’s supposed to be a calm and removed character, serene and maternal. Yet at the same time, she’s supposed to be this sex object - and when I say sex object I mean literally what I say, since her entire species, like Troi’s, is supposed to be mind-numbingly sexy, so much so, in fact, that they have to swear to a vow of chastity whenever interacting with humans. Somehow, I just don’t see it. But then, I guess I’m not Gene Roddenberry.
She’s supposed to have this old relationship with Deckard but so little it detailed of it and so much relies on Ilia’s supposed sexiness that it just sort of comes off like a poor attempt at… what, a love story? It wouldn’t be so bad if the romance didn’t end up becoming a key plot point when Ilia becomes possessed by V’Ger.
Actually, Ilia is far more interesting as V’Ger. V’Ger is, all things considered, a pretty interesting creation, even if it relies too much on Nomad for its inspiration. Or the fact that Voyager 6 never, in fact, existed (the last Voyager probe was Voyager 2). But these things aside, as well as the ridiculous size of V’Ger’s external skeleton, the concept is pretty interesting. A probe that is sent out, disappears, is warped to another location in space and time, modified by machine sophonts who misinterpret it as another machine sophont, and then accumulates so much information that it indeed, does become a sophont - alone, without parents, and forever wondering about its own existence.
It actually kind of makes you feel sorry for V’Ger, in spite of the fact that it’s busy obliterating entire civilizations in its rampaging search for mommy. Which is kind of cool, actually, since any really good villain is sympathetic at some level.
But while V’Ger is strong, Spock, ultimately is not, and the probe overtakes Spock’s role as the supposedly emotionless but really, deep down, insecure character of the story. This is, in part, likely due to the fact that Spock was not always going to be in the film. Originally, in fact, it was believed Leonard Nimoy could not be obtained and a new character named Xon was introduced into the script back when it was a pilot for Phase II - who was full Vulcan. Now, of course, we know that full Vulcans are no less emotionless than Spock (and in fact, often come off as more emotional, even if its in a prissy, stuffy sort of way). But at the time, that wasn’t likely the case. And it shows.
Spock is little more than an emotionless caricature of his role in TOS throughout TMP. Perhaps, it makes a degree of sense, since he’s introduced attempting to obtain a mental state of pure logic. He fails, of course, and is sent to the Enterprise as a result. But throughout the rest of the film, Spock is little more than a humanoid computer - precisely what he is not supposed to be.
Similarly, the other members of the TOS cast beside Kirk fall pretty strongly by the wayside. McCoy’s initial appearance is somewhat amusing and likely referential in regards to DeForest Kelly’s own hippie identity in the 70s. His analysis of Kirk’s character is also interesting and adds to the Admiral’s depth, but McCoy himself ultimately trails off into insignificance. The rest of the TOS characters do little more than spout one-liners.
Ultimately, the characters of TMP, like the rest of the movie, are somewhat a mixed bag. On the one hand, Kirk shines like never before and both Deckard and V’Ger are interesting additions to the cast, even if only temporary ones. On the other hand, Ilia is a confusing insertion and the other TOS characters suffer even as Kirk is made stronger.
Score: 7.7 (out of 10)
Production
The production of TMP is generally impressive though, like all aspects of the film, it is not without its issues. It is also upon which the overall quality of the film really depends since so much of the film is one special effects vista after another. Like in the case of 2001 the filmmakers seem to have been less concerned with actually telling a story than with awing the audience. Unfortunately, they were up against tough competition in this regard and while TMP fares well against many of its contemporaries, such as Close Encounters of the Third Kind, it does poorly against others, such as, Alien or A New Hope, both of which also benefit from a stronger story.
Let’s get down to the acting first. Like so much of this film it’s a mixed bag. On the one hand, Shatner does a far better job here than he does in some of the later movies or in the show, not to mention some of his other work. While it is irresistibly easy I’m sure to play Kirk as a big ham, Shatner does not do this in TMP. He plays him as a serious character operating on the same level as say, William Adama from BSG. I wouldn’t say Shatner is Olmos’ equal, because he’s clearly not. But you actually believe Kirk’s a real character in this film. Some of that is no doubt due to the writing, but Shatner doesn’t overplay Kirk’s emotions or seem overly theatrical here. He plays Kirk as genuine.
Nimoy, as always, does an excellent job as Spock as well, even considering the poor quality (and low quantity) of material he has to work with. When it is appropriate for Spock to show emotion he shows emotion, even when the script says he shouldn’t be. At the same time, such emotion is subtle, as it should be with Spock. When he weeps for V’Ger the only real sign is that his eyes are wet and his cheeks stained with tears. There’s no vocal weeping nor any tearful monologue. It’s just a simple crack in Spock’s shield.
Persis Khambatta also brings a lot to the table, in spite of the weak role she is assigned to. She shows Illia, both as normal and possessed form, to be a vulnerable but intelligent woman who both is steadfastly devoted to her duty. She’s clearly a female Spock of sorts since she’s sworn to a code of stoicism and emotionless duty while, underneath, all kinds of emotions broil. None of this really brought up in the script, but Khambatta embodies it anyhow, which I think gets at what the character was supposed to be about.
Stephen Collins isn’t quite as exciting as Deckard, but he doesn’t need to be. The key problems with his portrayal, which is muted in emotion more than seems necessary given how irritated his lines seem to indicate he is, is more of a result of the director, Robert Wise since virtually every other character in the film has the same problem (although it ends up working for some, like Shatner). If Shatner sometimes overacts, Collins might underact a little here, if only by a bit.
The soundtrack of TMP is pretty damn good, all things considered. It of course, would later become the basis for the soundtracks of most other Star Trek films as well as TNG’s music. But even neglecting its historical value for the franchise, the soundtrack is noteworthy. Its central theme is uplifting and inspiring, as a theme for Starfleet probably should be, but its got darker overtones in other portions that demonstrate a sense of dread and peril even when the writing stubbornly makes the situation dull. It’s all interesting to note that the soundtrack, while overtly classical in nature (much like those of the Star Wars films) actually has some other genres laid beneath. The themes for the cloud, for instance, do a better job of evoking an alien presence than virtually any other soundtrack I’ve come across. Until later in the film, V’Ger seems purely beyond our comprehension, in no small part due to the themes associated with it.
Which brings us to the visuals. In spite of what you might think, they’re a mixed bag really. On the one hand, the Enterprise’s new look is purely immortal, so much so that the new film uses a model that looks far more similar to it than to the original model, in spite of the fact that the new film takes place before TOS. The model itself is highly detailed and does a great job at evoking a sense of majestic grace that any ship of the line in a science fiction film should have.
The visuals for V’Ger’s interior are also wondrous, actually outdoing by a large margin the overrated visual sequences of the stargate in 2001 - which were just plain weird. By contrast, the interior of V’Ger actually seems to have structure and meaning, even if it’s a meaning that we cannot discern. And while the size of V’Ger is pretty ridiculous, it does the job it needs to do - awing the viewer as they realize that the Enterprise is but an insect to this massive vessel. That’s an achievement and it adds to the alien attractiveness of the ship’s design.
One of my brothers also made the observation that V’Ger is a little like BioWare Sovereign in design. I have to agree and wonder if the former actually informed the latter’s design. Both are immense ships with power beyond that capable of humanity, even in the science fiction setting their stories are set in, and have a strangely alien design that is clearly mechanical but looks organic. This is, of course, an inverse of the design of the creatures from the Aliens franchise, which are clearly organic but look mechanical.
However, the visuals aren’t all good. For one thing, there are some parts that look flat out fake, even in the updated DVD version we watched the film on. This includes the cloud itself. Given that the cloud would seem to be a shield or protective bubble of some sort you would expect it to have a discernible structure. But it does not. In fact, as far as I can figure, its like some kind of weird fog that just tags along for awhile. It also invariably looks like it was just airbrushed on.
Also, while the visual effects are generally good, they’re comparatively poor for their time, which was after the special effects boon instigated by A New Hope. Alien, which came out the same year, has better effects and A New Hope, while two years old by that time, is still better. So while it can definitely be said that TMP’s effects were better than most of what was coming out at the time they’re worse than what it was directly competing against.
There’s also one more problem. This is that, like in the case of 2001 and many other science fiction films, TMP’s effects turn the film into one, really long, dull joyride. So much time is spent looking at the marvelous vistas and that the models that the story and characters get left behind in the dust. The film becomes about the visuals and since the visuals aren’t quite as good as some of what was coming up, it hurts the film.
Score: 8.8 (out of 10)
Summary
Plot: 5.8
Characters: 7.7
Production: 8.8
Overall: 7.0
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Overview
NOTE: Since this is a retrospective review and I fully anticipate the reader to have already seen the film expect some spoilers, though I will try my best to refrain from them. Look at it this way, I may one day get around to doing a retrospective of ESB. I will not refrain from saying Luke's father is Vader.
While TMP is more or less akin to a slow-speed collision involving two drunk drivers, The Wrath of Khan, the second Trek flick, is more like a soaring kite. It sometimes crashes and the winds sometimes pick it up and trash it about violently, but ultimately it, it flutters pleasantly and seemingly with ease. A good thing too. It was enough a wonder that the cancelled Star Trek got a first movie. It’s even more amazing that it got a second film after the poor reception (both commercially and critically) to TMP. But it’s a good thing it did, given that the second film was Wrath of Khan.
Anyone familiar with popular science fiction knows of Wrath of Khan and that speaks, at least in some small part, to the film’s success. It not only revitalized the Star Trek franchise, but actually earned its place among science fiction classics like the Star Wars or Aliens franchises. As a result, it is no small surprise that just as TMP is sometimes (though not frequently) called the worst Star Trek film, Wrath of Khan is often held up as one of its best - perhaps even the best. Is it?
I’m still in the process of figuring that out (after all, my marathon won’t be over until the first week of May). But it is certainly a strong film in of itself and it does precisely what TMP failed to do.
Plot
Straight up, Wrath of Khan is different from TMP in that it has a strong story. Not just a tolerably good or reasonably structured story. Rather, it has a strong story, one which stands on its own and has a clear structure filled with the little twists and turns that make good stories great ones. Just about everything that was wrong with TMP’s story is fixed here. There’s a clear beginning, a clear middle, a clear climax, and a clear resolution. There’s a heroic arc. There’s a clear villain. There’s a discernible conflict that ends in a satisfying way.
In fact, so good is Wrath of Khan’s story that is practically self-explanatory. It is wholly unnecessary to be a longtime Star Trek fan to understand the story, since the only direct reference to the series is the fact that Khan Noonien Singh is the chief villain. But since there is very little continuity between Space Seed (the TOS episode in which Khan appears) and TWoK there’s little need for the audience to have actually seen the episode. The small references to Khan’s past are all that is necessary for the audience to understand TWoK.
Likewise, Wrath of Khan does not require the viewer to have seen TMP. This is a vital necessity, since it had to do significantly better than TMP in order for the franchise to even survive. If viewing of TMP was required for understanding of Wrath this would have been impossible. As it stands, Wrath of Khan can almost be seen as an independent continuity from TMP since, like the first film, it starts with the Enterprise’s crew retired and bored, aging disgracefully as the Enterprise falls into disuse and obsoletion. It’s as if the events of TMP never happened (which was probably the intention).
TWoK, like TMP, also relies on new backstory, independent of TOS, to create its story. We learn, for instance, that Kirk has a son, a relation that will become important in the story. This is explained far more clearly than say, the relationship between Ilia and Deckard was in TMP and with far more clarity. TWoK, like any good story, shows, rather than tells and is better for it.
TWoK is also strong in the world-building department. In fact, it not only improves upon TMP in this regard but TOS as well. Most of what we take for granted in Star Trek originated, in fact, with TWoK. Take, for instance, the classic 23rd century uniforms. Or the fact that Star Trek (up until TNG) is set in the 23rd century (alluded to but not specified in the series, whose dating is best described as consistently inconsistent). Starfleet is also given a clear role for the first time, having wavered between militarism in episodes like The Doomsday Machine and Errand of Mercy and scientific exploration in episodes like Who Mourns for Adonais? and The Immunity Syndrome. TWoK clearly established Starfleet’s role as a navy in space of sorts, though perhaps more in the tradition of Europe’s navies in the Age of Discovery than our modern, purely militaristic navies.
Thematically, TWoK is also very strong, with its key concepts of ageing, death, and living in the past (both Kirk and Khan) in this case, both clear and resounding. In the end, the story is not so much about Khan’s wrath as it is about his inability to let go of the past, which, in a twisted way, mirrors Kirk’s own inability to live a life other than that of a starship captain. Screenwriter and director Nicholas Meyer does this admirably well, in spite of the fact that he had no experience with the universe or characters before accepting the job.
This is not to say that the story is without its flaws. For instance, once again, the Federation appears to have its forces spread ridiculously thin when Kirk announces that the Enterprise is the only ship near Regula. This is more forgivable of an offense, however, since, at the very least, Kirk could be making it up in order to help his ex or, on the other hand, the Enterprise could already be very close to Regula when he coincidentally picks up the message. I’d be willing to be on the former though, since Khan is gunning for Kirk and seems to deliberately blame the Reliant’s “orders” on Kirk, possibly in order to lure Kirk in.
The Genesis Device is also patently ridiculous. The commentary by Dr. Marcus seems to indicate that it could turn any rock into a planet. Well what if it doesn’t have the right amount of gravity? Or what if it’s too far from it’s sun? Not to mention the fact that when the Device is activated later in the film, it appears to construct a planet solely from nothing. Granted, it’s awe-inspiring and cool, but when you actually think about it, it doesn’t make any sense.
Another thing is that, while the resolution on the whole is strong, its significance and seriousness is kind of ruined by the fact that just about everybody knows that Spock is resurrected in the following film. This means that the whole theme about the heroes being vulnerable and mortal is lost. It could be said this isn’t really the fault of the film, since, after all, they weren’t counting on the issue being reversed, but it is given that the resurrection of Spock is heavily alluded during the same self-sacrifice, due to Paramount’s decision that Spock was too valuable to kill off. As a result, the meaning of the sacrifice is muted by the time the credits start rolling.
These small little nitpicks aside, however, Wrath of Khan has one of the better stories to appear not just in science fiction but film. It’s not one of the greatest stories, perhaps, as it still moves forward with just a tad bit too much foreknowledge presumed in my mind, though still not so much that it makes the film inaccessible. But it certainly compares well against many of its contemporaries. If only the concept of the spoiler had been invented, than perhaps the film’s story would have been even better.
Score: 9.2 (out of 10)
Characters
I wouldn’t be adding much to the reception of Wrath of Khan by saying its characters are one of the film’s greatest strengths. However, it’s still true. TWoK builds upon the strengths of the characters in TOS and TMP and, with a few exceptions, eliminates many of the weaknesses from both. What results is a cast which is richer, really, than the one which the screenwriters were originally presented with.
James T. Kirk again shines brilliantly here. In fact, don’t be fooled by the title or the prominence of Spock’s death in the film’s story. This is Kirk’s story - like TMP. In fact, I’m tempted to assume that the entire Trek film series from 1 to 7 is actually really the story of Kirk. This isn’t a problem. After all, heroic stories need a hero. But it is a bit odd, given that this film, and the next two, try to put Spock to some extent into that prominent numero uno position - justified in part by the fact that the Vulcan certainly stood out the strongest in TOS. But here, like in TMP, he is overshadowed by Admiral Kirk.
Wrath of Khan continues what TMP began and deconstructs Kirk’s character. Viewing of TMP is hardly necessary as TWoK is only a sequel in the loosest way possible - which is to say that the events of the film take place after TMP. Otherwise, they’re completely unrelated. The events of TMP are not alluded to, nor is anything significant affected by the events of TMP. For all intents and purposes, it appears that Kirk’s attempt to solidify his glorious return to the Enterprise to take command failed. He’s stuck with his desk job. Given he’s an Admiral, that’s sort of appropriate. That doesn’t mean he has to enjoy it though. And he doesn’t.
It’s obvious upon viewing that, for the first half of the film, Kirk is deeply depressed. He doesn’t admit it to anyone and he covers it up with quirky jokes and schoolteachering Saavik, a young Vulcan, who is studying aboard the Enterprise, which is now, in its ancient and decrepit age, a training vessel, as part of her Starfleet officer candidacy. But it’s deeply obvious to his friends, namely McCoy and Spock, that Kirk has begun to become weathered and slow down. The smiles are false, the jokes half-spirited. Kirk is losing his edge.
And yet, age seems to have also provided Kirk with some degree of wisdom. While he’s certainly enjoying life less than he was a generation ago, Kirk also has stronger judgment. He recognizes his weaknesses to an extent that he did not previously. He knows he can be too brash, that he pushes the odds a little too far sometimes, and that he can be cocky to a disadvantage. He doesn’t realize this immediately but it gradually dawns on him as he’s forced to deal with rash decisions of the past - such as his affair with Carol Marcus, his abandonment of Khan, and his method of “beating” the Kobayashi Maru test. All of these come back to haunt in some way and Kirk begins to realize his human flaws, to the point of rebuking himself.
This shows a growth in the character’s arc started, oddly enough, in TMP, which otherwise has little to do with TWoK. By the end of TWoK, Kirk is no longer the brash and impudent man he once was, nor the depressed and lonely figure who followed that. He’s a better man, stronger through the union of initiative and wisdom.
Which provides a strong contrast to the villain, Khan. In comparison with Kirk, Khan is far fresher and well-preserved. Whereas Kirk has aged and slowed down, Khan, while older than Kirk, is even fiercer and more wild than he was when he showed up in Space Seed. There is an animalistic fury to Khan, who, since his parting with the Enterprise’s crew has seen his wife (implied heavily to be the historian who aided him in Space Seed) and half his original crew killed. The deserted paradise world Kirk left them on has become a hellish wasteland and the years have gone slowly by as Khan has gone progressively more insane with rage and hatred for Kirk, who he blames, understandably, for the suffering he has endured for the past twenty or so odd years.
But while Khan has a personal strength and determination that Kirk lacks at the beginning of the film, he also has a lack of the wisdom that Kirk gradually displays. While he is certainly among the most intelligent specimens of humanity in all of history, his intellect is overshadowed by his blind rage. Time and time again, Khan is shown making poor decisions that ultimately cost him. In a way, it’s almost a reversal of Kirk and Khan. Where Kirk starts at a disadvantage due to poor decisions of the past and Khan with an advantage due to his strong intellect and ability to outthink virtually anyone, the tables are turned as Khan falls into a tunnel vision of vengeance seeking. As he says again and again in the film, he will not rest until Kirk has been paid back severalfold for the sufferings he has endured.
This of course gives Khan an Ahabic quality that lacked in his original betrayal. It doesn’t necessarily make him a better character than when he first appeared as a noble manipulative bastard. In some ways, it might even be seen as a deformation; Roddenberry certainly though of it in such a light and is reputed to have dislike the film immensely. After all, Khan is no longer a superman, nigh unbeatable, but rather a deeply flawed and tragic villain. He is far more ineffective than he is effective and the success of Kirk depends almost entirely upon Khan’s errors. And yet this is what makes him such a great character to pit Kirk against. In fact, by the end of TWoK, you almost wish Khan didn’t have to be killed, so that he could become a recurring foe for Kirk. No such luck.
But while Kirk and Khan are certainly at the center of the film’s story, they are hardly the only characters. Unlike TMP, which had all but a few characters play insignificant parts, TWoK gives many more characters a prominent role in the story. Spock and McCoy regain their place, to some extent, in a triumvirate that was missing in TMP but dominant in the original series. Spock, who’s with the story from the beginning and who ends up playing an important role in the story, has a role different than what is usual for him. Often used as a scientific genius or an observer of human nature he plays neither of these roles here. Instead, his primary role is as Kirk’s friend and counsel, as well as the man through whom Kirk lives since he no longer has command of the Enterprise - Spock does.
This last bit is a little interesting given that the new film’s most recent trailer seems to hint that Spock was an instructor at some point in the Academy… or at least had a teacher’s aid role of some sort (note Zachary Quinto addressing the cadets of the Academy saying, “you will know fear…”). As such, it seems oddly appropriate in retrospect that Spock should command the Enterprise as a training vessel. Kirk’s exact role is not specified, though he’s obviously still attached to the ship in some regard since he accompanies it during its training mission, even before it is evident that there will be real combat. But Spock’s the one in command.
And as much as Kirk does not enjoy being out of control it is obvious Spock isn’t particularly fond of it. He accepts the role of command out of necessity and duty, not out of love for it. He professes he feels no way about it one way or another, though those of us who know the character know this isn’t true. It seems almost with relief that he later hands command of the ship back to Kirk, justifying it as a matter of protocol since the ship is now on a real mission and the superior officer should take command (not necessarily true, actually - generally in naval tradition a captain retains official command of his vessel even if a superior is present).
Like Khan, this means that Spock, to some extent, fills the role of Kirk’s foil, though in a different regard. While Khan represents a contrast to what Kirk has become, Spock is a foil to what Kirk once was and helps the Admiral regain some of his youthful spirit. He does this first by giving command back to Kirk, knowing that being out of command does his friend no good. He does this secondly by assisting Kirk in combat against Khan, providing an insight into Khan’s weaknesses. And lastly, he does this by sacrificing himself, providing a “different” solution for the unbeatable scenario - in this case martyrdom rather than cheating.
It’s interesting then that Spock, supposedly inhuman, makes the most compassionate act out of all the characters in the film. Kirk seems to realize this at the film’s end, with his famous line about Spock at the funeral. However, Spock’s death is more than simply tragic (and it can’t really be tragic when you know he’s coming back in the next one) - it’s a chance to Kirk to reexamine his life… for the better. Not Kirk’s line as he looks back over the planet Genesis, “I feel young.”
McCoy also gets some time to shine, but not nearly as much. However, one TOS character gets an unprecedentedly important role in Wrath of Khan - Pavel Chekov. More of a joke character in earlier stories, Chekov actually is a very dramatically important character in the film, more important really than any other original character besides Kirk or Spock. After all, it’s he who rediscovers Khan and gives the superhuman a chance for vengeance. More importantly, he’s shown to have had an illustrious career. Once the rookie, he’s now a Commander and the XO of the Reliant. Why his career has moved fast, we’re never told. But it’s nice to see that not all of the Enterprise’s crew is busy living in the past.
Of course, Chekov doesn’t really get to have much fun in the story. He spends half of it under brainworm-induced mind control. But it’s still nice to see his character so vastly expanded from a naïve and overly patriotic (for a now nonexistent country) crewman who was essentially played for laughs to an inexperienced but confident crewman with unbreakable loyalty to his old friends and captain. For his part the new captain he serves with, Clark Terrell, gets a nice bit to shine and is a decent character who, like Sisko years later, is a Starfleet captain who just happens to be black and whose race isn’t played up or referenced to. But since he dies early on, is an original character, and is quickly overshadowed by both Chekov and Khan there’s not much to say about him.
There’s then the original characters. Of these, the three that stand out are the two Drs. Marcus and Saavik. Saavik is the first instance I can think of, of an interesting Vulcan being introduced in the series since Sarek… and for a long time afterwards. It’s too easy, I suppose, for writers to become stuck in the idea of Vulcans as a race of hats - namely, the hat of being logical, emotionless, and holier-than-thou. There’s little opportunity to write them in any way that’s interesting, a problem which later plagues Klingons to a lesser extent as well.
But Saavik’s a genuinely interesting character. And this seems to have been intentional since early development reveals she’s not supposed to be full-blooded Vulcan. Rather, she’s half-Vulcan, half-Romulan. Described as cool, but not emotionless, Saavik’s supposed to be a character halfway between Kirk and Spock, to whom she both serves as a limited foil of sorts. She contrasts with Spock, being more openly emotional than him but while still remaining more calm and controlled than Kirk. She’s also comfortable with her emotions, which is unusual for Spock, and more straight-headed than Kirk.
Most of all, though, she’s the younger generation. She’s the “new guy.” She’s here, not as a crewman or a dedicated officer but as a student, learning under the living legends Kirk and Spock. And she has the nerve to think they’re being unfair to her! Of course, this partly belies the fact that Saavik has a hero worship for Kirk, which is let down by Kirk’s faults and flaws, his “human-ness.”
Ultimately, Saavik, like Spock, is a mix of contradictions. Cool and detached but brash and impetuous, Saavik is perhaps the best additional character to the cast and a fine addition to the Enterprise.
Carol and David Marcus also make fine original characters. When Carol Marcus refers back to her life with Kirk it doesn’t seem as shallow as many of the romantic attachments Kirk has had throughout his life, both alluded to and realized on screen. Indeed, it’s tempting to think of Carol as Kirk’s “one true love” since their relationship in the film is like that of two lovers who fell out of love for professional, rather than personal reasons, and who come back together in their late middle age. It’s a sort of story that’s been told lots of times and while it’s not the focus in any way of Wrath of Khan it makes an interesting subliminal layer of characterization.
It’s sort of interesting than, that while their personalities are vastly different (Carol is controlled and deliberate, unlike Kirk) they both share a similar passion for their work. Genesis is as much Carol’s child as David is, just as Kirk is often joked to be “married” to the Enterprise. It’s easy then to see why two people, with such obvious compassion for the other, never really ended up working out in the long term, and it’s not surprise that their work is what brings them back together.
David, Carol and Kirk’s son, is also an interesting character. It’s tradition really to give the aged hero a son of which they’re vaguely aware and who holds a grudge against their father for never seeing them, but interestingly the trope is reversed here. Kirk is well aware of David’s existence and did not abandon Carol so much as he was requested not to partake in raising him, a request he respectfully followed. Rather, it is David who does not know that Kirk is his father and his resentment of his father has more to do with his anti-authority and anti-militaristic streak than it does a father-son quarrel.
Ironically, this streak is supposedly reminiscent of Kirk, who after all, cheated on the Maru test and has a tendency to buck the rules whenever it’s to his advantage. The similarity between father and son is part of what makes their dynamic interesting and which makes the later atonement and reconciliation between the two so touching at the end. It also adds a new insight to the fact that the new film’s Kirk is evidently going for the “scoundrel” (ala Han Solo) vibe.
Ultimately, Wrath of Khan’s characters are not necessarily stand-out some of the best in film or science fiction, but they do provide a well-rounded cast, with few weaknesses and several strengths. They also manage to expand yet more the roles of Kirk, Spock, and even Chekov, while adding new characters who fit seamlessly and effortlessly into the old. A job well done.
Score: 9.4 (out of 10)
Production
Like in the case of TMP, Wrath of Khan has a mixed bag of production values. On the one hand, it’s soundtrack is as expansive and powerful as TMP’s, though completely different thematically, being more swashbuckly and adventurous than operatic or alien. However, like TMP, it has a few rough edges, such as some muted special effects or the overuse of stock footage.
Let’s start with the strong. The soundtrack produced by James Horner is one of the best in science fiction and is filled with rising and dramatic leitmotifs that strike an emotional chord while also adding to the tension of the story’s pacing or the action sequences. In particular, the leitmotif for Khan himself works very, very well - to the point that it was years onwards in other films, extending to an including Khan’s sequel and Aliens, though thankfully transformed enough that it is only vaguely recognizable.
The acting is also top-notch. Shatner once again outdoes his work on TOS by a longshot, not for a minute hamming up the role except once (when he does his infamous “Khan!” yell). However, it’s important to note that during that scene, it is Kirk who is doing the ham acting (deliberately trying to deceive Khan into thinking he’s won) rather than Shatner himself. It’s a wonder why Shatner didn’t try this hard all the time.
Similarly, credit has to be given to Walter Koenig, who successfully transforms a comic character into a serious and somewhat tragic one. That is no small feat. It’d be like taking Apu in The Simpsons and somehow transforming this parody of American stereotypes about India into a meaningful character of dramatic depth. And Koenig pulls it off in what is but a preview of his talents, later solidified in full as the character of Bester on Babylon 5, whose role is dramatically different from Chekov’s either here or in TOS.
While Shatner and Koenig are good, however, the show is undeniably stolen by Ricardo Montalban, who plays Khan with the intensity and strength necessary for the character. It could be said that Montalban is overacting, but I don’t think this is the case. Khan is a character completely consumed with anger and this reads off of Montalban in waves. At the same time, he portrays Khan successfully as a person of cultural dignity and intelligence, closer to the role the actor played in the original Space Seed episode. Khan is a powerful, complicated figure and Montalban captures this, forging what is perhaps one of the most immortal film villains ever, in spite of the fact that he only appeared in one film.
While the character he plays is relatively unimportant and unrewarding, Paul Winfield is strong in the role of Captain Terrell as well. He plays the role with a seriousness and gravity that one might not expect an actor to bring to the role of a science fiction B-character like Terrell. But rather than coming off as an expendable alternate Kirk, which is what Terrell ultimately turns into, Winfield sets the captain as a professional and no-nonsense man who is, by ill fortune, caught in events beyond his control or caliber. Meyer said at one point that without Winfield, the ceti eel scene might have come off as corny. I’m not sure if he’s right, but it certainly could have been and instead ends up being horrific, even now.
Merrit Butrick also deserves praise, though he lacks the charisma of some of the other actors and his voice rarely varies in tone. However, while verbally his acting may be somewhat limited, his body language is not and he portrays a wide variety of emotions, successfully embodying Kirk’s rebellious son. It also helps, of course, that he looks enough like both Shatner and Bibi Besch to make the role convincing. For her part, Bibi Besch is less impressive, being adequate, but not really terrific in the role.
The last actor who truly stands out is Kristie Alley, who plays Saavik. In a sense, she makes Saavik and it’s a shame that she was considered too expensive for the sequel, in which her character, but not her, reappears. Alley fills the role with a passion that, like in the case of Winfield, seems unusual for an outsider cast into the role of a supporting character in a film based off of a cult show. But Alley does have that passion, as made evident by interviews about the film and her, and she manages to walk that difficult line between passion and cool logic that embodies the character of Saavik.
This is where things start getting to the rough edges, however. The special effects qualities of the film, especially after the success that was TMP, are something of a letdown. It’s easy to understand why. The over-expensiveness of TMP had Paramount in a fit, which means that the budget of Wrath of Khan was much reduced. What results is an overuse of stock footage and hazy, transparent sandstorms. Still, some parts stand out technically, such as the battle in the nebula or the design of the Reliant. It also surprised me to learn that the much, much better outfits of TWoK are based originally off of the outfits of TMP, simply recolored and given new frills. It shows just what you can do with a low enough budget!
Altogether, the production values of TWoK are better than TMP and worse in others. Most of the strengths of TMP are improved on here, but the weaknesses are made all the more obvious. Whether this trend continues into later Trek films I’ll be able to get to later, though my guess would be no.
Overall, top notch work.
Score: 9.6 (out of 10)
Summary
Plot: 9.2
Characters: 9.4
Production: 9.6
Overall: 9.4
In anticipation of the new Star Trek film by J.J. Abrams I’m going to be doing my first multipart Desk from the Past feature - a reexamination of all the previous Star Trek films, which I’m rewatching over the rest of March and all of April as a prelude.
Yeah, I’m weird.
Anyhow, it’s obvious this would take more than one review to cover so I’m going to be doing them in pairs. So this time, I’m covering the first two Star Trek films: Star Trek: The Motion Picture and The Wrath of Khan.
I actually had nearly finished writing these reviews (and had fully finished TMP's review) over a week ago. But then I got sick. Such things tend to put a wrench in your plans.
So here it is, later than I intended and one film later.
Oh, and for those who are interested, I got the new BSG Season 4.0 among other presents (including two new soundtracks - woot!) for my birthday. Thanks to all those who sent me birthday wishes and other goodies. You're the best :).
What the Score Means
10.0: Excellent. Terrific. Might not be perfect, but it's damn close. Best in the field.
9.0: Pretty damn good. I've seen better stuff, but not much. Most people should enjoy it.
8.0: Pretty good, if you really like this sort of stuff, but it might be more underwhelming if you're not. Even if you are one of the latter, though, I'd expect you to find it passingly amusing, if nothing else.
7.0: Good or average, but take note that your mileage may vary. In other words, if you're already a fan or predisposed to works like this you may really like it or think it's good. But if you're not, steer clear or at least approach with a cautiously open mind.
6.0: Meh. You might enjoy it, but I wouldn't guarantee it. If you do like it, it'll probably be a passing thing and I wouldn't count on it having any revisitable value. Semi-average, semi-poor. What I like to call "thoroughly mediocre."
5.0: This steps beyond thoroughly mediocre into the realm of true bad. I'd be surprised if anyone thought this was high quality and would be highly suspect of their opinions from the on on matters of criticism. It might not be horrible, but it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
4.0: Okay, we've definitely passed into bad here. This stuff actually will make you walk out of a movie theater it's so lame. It's not even stylistically bad. It's just boring bad and you likely won't have the patience to go through with it.
3.0: This is a wierd little category few get to but a few deliberately reach for. So bad it's good. That is to say, if you take this at face value it's going to be horrific. But, if you just hang along for the ride and turn off your brain or, conversely, decide to get ridiculously symbolic about it, it can actually be very entertaining, if only for its comically bad quality.
2.0: Could be so bad it's good, but more likely this has verged into so bad it's horrible quality. There's nothing funny about it, except perhaps that the human mind could be so warped that it would actually produce the shit. Not fun.
0-1.0: Burn! Burrrrrrn! Burn the evil! It hurts!
Table of Contents
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Overview
NOTE: Since this is a retrospective review and I fully anticipate the reader to have already seen the film expect some spoilers, though I will try my best to refrain from them. Look at it this way, I may one day get around to doing a retrospective of ESB. I will not refrain from saying Luke's father is Vader.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (more commonly abbreviated TMP in spite of confusions this might cause with TPM) had a rough job. As the first film based on a 60s cancelled cult classic it had unenviable role - reviving the franchise. In many ways its tempting for me to draw a parallel between TMP and the film Serenity, which, as the sequel to the similarly cancelled Firefly had the same job. And, as with TMP, Serenity ultimately failed to fulfill that job.
TMP is not, however, an awful or dreadful film. There are, in fact, parts of it that soar majestically. However, it can be, at times, a dull film, as most who have seen it will no doubt relate. For a film whose role is to make a cult show into a popular franchise this is a fatal flaw and, given how badly TMP did, it’s a wonder that the franchise survived to become as popular as it is today.
But given the franchise did survive, it’s fair now to look at TMP as a film in of itself. How does it fare? The answer is, like the film itself, complicated and unsure. On the one hand, TMP has some of the most remarkable visuals for a science fiction film of its time. The visuals are certainly more important than say, Close Encounters of the Third Kind (which I also rewatched recently), whose visual effects are little more than colorful Christmas lights layered against a black screen. Pretty, but not particularly evocative or jaw-dropping.
On the other hand, TMP’s pacing and script leave much to be desired, making the script for 2001, which TMP was clearly trying to emulate, look fast-paced at times. And the writers and producers for the film clearly misunderstand what it was that drew viewers to Star Trek in the first place. It was never the ideas presented, which were often cheap and silly all-too-transparent analogies about the 1960s socio-political climate (the worst offender, I imagine, is Let That Be Your Last Battlefield in this regard). Rather, it was the characters that made people interested in the show, with good stories being the exception rather than the norm.
The people behind TMP seem to have forgotten this, since the entire film is about the idea behind the film. It almost works, though, since the actual idea is, this time, even if ridiculous in terms of scale, at least far more interesting a concept than the ones that were often used in TOS episodes. After all, at least the omnipotent alien here in TMP isn’t another cheap stand-in for ancient mythology, even if it a rehash from a previous episode, The Changeling.
Overall, TMP is a fair, if unspectacular movie. At times, it soars. At other times, it plummets. No single element is wholly strong. Yet neither is any one element fully lost to mediocrity or worse. How, I will explain below.
Plot
The best way to describe TMP’s story is muddled. There is no clear structure, no clear lines separating the first, second, and third acts. The film begins abruptly and ends just as abruptly and in the middle it drags on. It has a strong concept, a strong idea that drives it, and yet it fails to give the necessary exposition and backstory to make this concept fully appreciable or understandable.
It’s not difficult to find the root of this problem. TMP was a film that was never meant to be. Or so its history would suggest, at least. The idea of a Star Trek film came up shortly after the original series as cancelled and gained some momentum when resyndication of the series proved profitable (much as the DVDs of Firefly proved more successful than the original broadcasts). However, most of the people who Paramount were considering to direct were busy with their own projects. One particular filmmaker that drew my interest as I researched TMP’s history was George Lucas, who was considered a possible director back in 1975 (before ANH was released). I can’t help but wonder what Star Trek today would have been like if Lucas had helmed its first movie.
The unavailability of talent as well as the generally low profitability of science fiction films at the time made Paramount wary of the film and they toyed around with making another series, the never was Phase II. It was from this that what would eventually become TMP emerged. That is to say, an unused television pilot expanded into a feature film.
It shows. TMP would work far better as a standard length episode. As I’ve said, the basic ingredients of a good story are there. There’s an interesting concept, even if its one that was done previously in a TOS episode, and there’s some interesting surprises and revelations that could, were the story paced better, keep the story interesting as the viewer watches. But the problem is that the film’s script has no real structure, at least not a structure useful for the purpose of filmmaking.
After an unnecessary overture and a typically (for the time) long opening credits the film starts abruptly with a Klingon expedition encountering the setting for most of the rest of the film - a massive warship (98 kilometers across) surrounded by an even vaster cloud (whose purpose is never explained precisely and which is 3 AUs across). Being the mindlessly aggressive race they were portrayed as up to this point, the Klingons decide to shoot at the cloud, in spite of its obvious superiority in size and power. They are annihilated like we might swat a fly, all while a space station lightyears away watches (without any explanation for how).
The story doesn’t begin to really make any kind of sense until about fifteen minutes in, where we’re reintroduced to James T. Kirk, who is now an admiral thoroughly displeased with his desk job. He wants to fly a ship again, damn it! Of course, he pulls a few strings and gets the keys to the newly revamped Enterprise which is supposedly, in spite of the enormous physical differences, the same ship as the one in TOS. Whatever. Between the version of the ship in The Cage, TOS, TMP, and the new upcoming film this ship has seen a lot of refits.
Unfortunately, as soon as Kirk gets out of San Francisco the film slows to a crawl and loses any sense of structure. The rest of the film is basically an excuse for to try and outdo both Lucas and Stanley Kubrick for longest special effects montage while also showing off how cool this new Enterprise is. It’s actually kind of charming… at first. But since they spend a full five minutes on just approaching the ship, the novelty wears off quickly. Still, the next half-hour at least is probably the single-most solid part of the film, since it actually develops the characters and provides us with some useful to know backstory in snippets of dialogue.
But these little moments keep getting ruined. Not because they’re badly written but rather because they’re sandwiched between large swathes of material that seems either useless or tiresome. Like the wormhole sequence after the ship pulls out of dock. How is that useful to the story beyond coming up with an explanation for why the Enterprise can’t go faster - which is swiftly solved when Spock arrives ten minutes later? Or how about the backstory for Ilia and Deckard - which looks like it should be interesting but instead comes off like a George Lucas love story (no offense to an otherwise great writer)?
And why is it that the Enterprise is the only starship available to intervene? It certainly isn’t the best ship - it’s at least twenty years old by the time the film takes place. And didn’t the Klingons encounter the cloud on its way to Earth? If that’s the case, than why were the Klingons in Federation space and why is no one making a big deal about that? It’s little inconsistencies like this, little details that are overlooked by the production team in their effort to make this grand, epic spectacle, that drag the story down to a degree almost as significant as the poor pacing.
The worst part of the film’s story is, however, the fact that it has no clear structure. Once the Enterprise is out of stardock the film is little more than a random string of events. The crew faces one crisis after the next, as the cloud tests their ship’s defenses again and again. There is no clear climax but rather a series of smaller, mini-climaxes, none of which is significantly larger than any of the others. The closest bit is as the story begin to wrap up and V’Ger’s identity is finally revealed, with a nice twist. By that point, however, the story is already over.
Ultimately, the story falls apart because, well, there’s not much holding it together. There’s little structure, little direction, and little consistency in quality. At least if the story was straight out bad it’d be easy to come to a decision on TMP. But it’s not. It tries very hard to be good and almost succeeds, which makes it all the more confusing.
Score: 5.8 (out of 10)
Characters
TMP’s characters are, oddly given the weakness of the writing in other respects, one of its strongest points. While, not all are interesting and some in particular suffer others are stronger than they were in TOS. Though the emotion of the film is somewhat subdued and the characters, not just Spock, sometimes come off as inhumanly cold, emulating once again 2001, overall, the characters of TMP are a strength, not a weakness.
Take, for instance, the character of James T. Kirk. In the original show, Kirk verges dangerously close to being a Mary Sue given that, regardless of how many regulations he violates, he always seems to be in the right. Interestingly, Alan Dean Foster, the chief screenwriter, chose to depict Kirk in a very different light. In TMP, Kirk, while still almost deific in the devotion he inspires in his crew (Uhura says, upon a crewman’s worries about Kirk replacing Deckard, that their “chances of survival just doubled”), is clearly a flawed character. In fact, for the first half of the film he acts like an asshole.
He does it in such a way that we can be understanding and sympathetic to him, however, which is a nice feat considering that Kirk doesn’t just seem like an ass, he actually is being one. Panging for his glorious days of youthful adventure, Kirk actually pulls a significant enough number of strings to get him reinstated as Enterprise’s CO, in spite of the fact that, as an admiral, he really has no business putting himself on the front line. He takes the command of the Enterprise from his own hand-picked successor, Deckard, who, naturally, is more than a little bit irked by the switchover. He even goes so far as to draft old members of his crew back into Starfleet in his attempt to relive his past.
This might not have been as obvious to the 1979 crowd that saw TMP, who probably saw Kirk more in terms of TOS than the terms of the film itself, but one exchange sort of captures Kirk’s character at the beginning of the film. When telling Deckard he is relieving the captain of duty and “temporarily” demoting him to Commander, he says “I’m sorry.” With more than a little bit of resentment Deckard replies “No, you’re not.” And it’s very clear that Deckard’s right. Kirk isn’t sorry. He’s being selfish, trapped in his nostalgia for the past, something that McCoy makes a pointed observation of later in the film.
This makes Kirk, ultimately, more interesting. In TOS, Kirk was overshadowed pretty heavily by Spock, unintentionally I presume. This was, in part, because Kirk was too straightforward. He was the smiling, witty, and womanizing captain with a dash too much bravado. But he didn’t seem to have any weakness. The moments in TOS where weakness were shown were more typically episodes focused around Spock, where we saw Spock’s supposedly emotionless mentality collapse under stress or other circumstances, revealing the insecure individual beneath. Now, in TMP, it’s at last Kirk’s turn to shine. And he shines.
And speaking of starship captains, Deckard is probably the most interesting original character in the film. Very clearly a prototype Riker, Deckard is the true foil to Kirk in this film, actually outshining the roles of Spock and McCoy. While Kirk is a brash and emotionally driven individual who single-mindedly tries to reobtain the glories of his past, Deckard is a more “by the book” man, a young captain with talent and skill who’s clearly risen to the captainship of the Enterprise based on skill. Kirk is almost a father figure to him it seems, given that there seems to be a close connection between the two probably tied into the fact that Deckard is the son of Kirk’s old friend, Commodore Deckard (who perished in the TOS episode The Doomsday Machine). It was Kirk that recommended him for promotion and it was Kirk who gave him the Enterprise.
In a way, this puts a different light on the Captain’s conflict with Kirk. It makes it almost a quarrel between a jealous and controlling father and his strong-willed and independent son, who wishes to stand apart and fulfill his own destiny. Instead, Kirk keeps interfering and hijacking Deckard’s career. If we consider this, it makes it much less surprising that Deckard so eagerly pursues his ultimate fate in the film, sacrificing his individuality to merge with V’Ger/Ilia to become a transcendent being of light. It’s his choice and it sets him apart from Kirk.
Speaking of Ilia, she is more representative of TMP’s general writing. Whereas Deckard is a strong character whose small snippets of backstory inform and complete his character, Ilia is hard to understand and come to grips with. As Deckard is a prototype Riker, so is Ilia in many ways a prototype Troi (to the point that many of the scripts involving her for Phase II were later changed into Troi-oriented TNG episodes). And as such she runs into many of the same issues that Troi does, at least early on in TNG.
She’s supposed to be a calm and removed character, serene and maternal. Yet at the same time, she’s supposed to be this sex object - and when I say sex object I mean literally what I say, since her entire species, like Troi’s, is supposed to be mind-numbingly sexy, so much so, in fact, that they have to swear to a vow of chastity whenever interacting with humans. Somehow, I just don’t see it. But then, I guess I’m not Gene Roddenberry.
She’s supposed to have this old relationship with Deckard but so little it detailed of it and so much relies on Ilia’s supposed sexiness that it just sort of comes off like a poor attempt at… what, a love story? It wouldn’t be so bad if the romance didn’t end up becoming a key plot point when Ilia becomes possessed by V’Ger.
Actually, Ilia is far more interesting as V’Ger. V’Ger is, all things considered, a pretty interesting creation, even if it relies too much on Nomad for its inspiration. Or the fact that Voyager 6 never, in fact, existed (the last Voyager probe was Voyager 2). But these things aside, as well as the ridiculous size of V’Ger’s external skeleton, the concept is pretty interesting. A probe that is sent out, disappears, is warped to another location in space and time, modified by machine sophonts who misinterpret it as another machine sophont, and then accumulates so much information that it indeed, does become a sophont - alone, without parents, and forever wondering about its own existence.
It actually kind of makes you feel sorry for V’Ger, in spite of the fact that it’s busy obliterating entire civilizations in its rampaging search for mommy. Which is kind of cool, actually, since any really good villain is sympathetic at some level.
But while V’Ger is strong, Spock, ultimately is not, and the probe overtakes Spock’s role as the supposedly emotionless but really, deep down, insecure character of the story. This is, in part, likely due to the fact that Spock was not always going to be in the film. Originally, in fact, it was believed Leonard Nimoy could not be obtained and a new character named Xon was introduced into the script back when it was a pilot for Phase II - who was full Vulcan. Now, of course, we know that full Vulcans are no less emotionless than Spock (and in fact, often come off as more emotional, even if its in a prissy, stuffy sort of way). But at the time, that wasn’t likely the case. And it shows.
Spock is little more than an emotionless caricature of his role in TOS throughout TMP. Perhaps, it makes a degree of sense, since he’s introduced attempting to obtain a mental state of pure logic. He fails, of course, and is sent to the Enterprise as a result. But throughout the rest of the film, Spock is little more than a humanoid computer - precisely what he is not supposed to be.
Similarly, the other members of the TOS cast beside Kirk fall pretty strongly by the wayside. McCoy’s initial appearance is somewhat amusing and likely referential in regards to DeForest Kelly’s own hippie identity in the 70s. His analysis of Kirk’s character is also interesting and adds to the Admiral’s depth, but McCoy himself ultimately trails off into insignificance. The rest of the TOS characters do little more than spout one-liners.
Ultimately, the characters of TMP, like the rest of the movie, are somewhat a mixed bag. On the one hand, Kirk shines like never before and both Deckard and V’Ger are interesting additions to the cast, even if only temporary ones. On the other hand, Ilia is a confusing insertion and the other TOS characters suffer even as Kirk is made stronger.
Score: 7.7 (out of 10)
Production
The production of TMP is generally impressive though, like all aspects of the film, it is not without its issues. It is also upon which the overall quality of the film really depends since so much of the film is one special effects vista after another. Like in the case of 2001 the filmmakers seem to have been less concerned with actually telling a story than with awing the audience. Unfortunately, they were up against tough competition in this regard and while TMP fares well against many of its contemporaries, such as Close Encounters of the Third Kind, it does poorly against others, such as, Alien or A New Hope, both of which also benefit from a stronger story.
Let’s get down to the acting first. Like so much of this film it’s a mixed bag. On the one hand, Shatner does a far better job here than he does in some of the later movies or in the show, not to mention some of his other work. While it is irresistibly easy I’m sure to play Kirk as a big ham, Shatner does not do this in TMP. He plays him as a serious character operating on the same level as say, William Adama from BSG. I wouldn’t say Shatner is Olmos’ equal, because he’s clearly not. But you actually believe Kirk’s a real character in this film. Some of that is no doubt due to the writing, but Shatner doesn’t overplay Kirk’s emotions or seem overly theatrical here. He plays Kirk as genuine.
Nimoy, as always, does an excellent job as Spock as well, even considering the poor quality (and low quantity) of material he has to work with. When it is appropriate for Spock to show emotion he shows emotion, even when the script says he shouldn’t be. At the same time, such emotion is subtle, as it should be with Spock. When he weeps for V’Ger the only real sign is that his eyes are wet and his cheeks stained with tears. There’s no vocal weeping nor any tearful monologue. It’s just a simple crack in Spock’s shield.
Persis Khambatta also brings a lot to the table, in spite of the weak role she is assigned to. She shows Illia, both as normal and possessed form, to be a vulnerable but intelligent woman who both is steadfastly devoted to her duty. She’s clearly a female Spock of sorts since she’s sworn to a code of stoicism and emotionless duty while, underneath, all kinds of emotions broil. None of this really brought up in the script, but Khambatta embodies it anyhow, which I think gets at what the character was supposed to be about.
Stephen Collins isn’t quite as exciting as Deckard, but he doesn’t need to be. The key problems with his portrayal, which is muted in emotion more than seems necessary given how irritated his lines seem to indicate he is, is more of a result of the director, Robert Wise since virtually every other character in the film has the same problem (although it ends up working for some, like Shatner). If Shatner sometimes overacts, Collins might underact a little here, if only by a bit.
The soundtrack of TMP is pretty damn good, all things considered. It of course, would later become the basis for the soundtracks of most other Star Trek films as well as TNG’s music. But even neglecting its historical value for the franchise, the soundtrack is noteworthy. Its central theme is uplifting and inspiring, as a theme for Starfleet probably should be, but its got darker overtones in other portions that demonstrate a sense of dread and peril even when the writing stubbornly makes the situation dull. It’s all interesting to note that the soundtrack, while overtly classical in nature (much like those of the Star Wars films) actually has some other genres laid beneath. The themes for the cloud, for instance, do a better job of evoking an alien presence than virtually any other soundtrack I’ve come across. Until later in the film, V’Ger seems purely beyond our comprehension, in no small part due to the themes associated with it.
Which brings us to the visuals. In spite of what you might think, they’re a mixed bag really. On the one hand, the Enterprise’s new look is purely immortal, so much so that the new film uses a model that looks far more similar to it than to the original model, in spite of the fact that the new film takes place before TOS. The model itself is highly detailed and does a great job at evoking a sense of majestic grace that any ship of the line in a science fiction film should have.
The visuals for V’Ger’s interior are also wondrous, actually outdoing by a large margin the overrated visual sequences of the stargate in 2001 - which were just plain weird. By contrast, the interior of V’Ger actually seems to have structure and meaning, even if it’s a meaning that we cannot discern. And while the size of V’Ger is pretty ridiculous, it does the job it needs to do - awing the viewer as they realize that the Enterprise is but an insect to this massive vessel. That’s an achievement and it adds to the alien attractiveness of the ship’s design.
One of my brothers also made the observation that V’Ger is a little like BioWare Sovereign in design. I have to agree and wonder if the former actually informed the latter’s design. Both are immense ships with power beyond that capable of humanity, even in the science fiction setting their stories are set in, and have a strangely alien design that is clearly mechanical but looks organic. This is, of course, an inverse of the design of the creatures from the Aliens franchise, which are clearly organic but look mechanical.
However, the visuals aren’t all good. For one thing, there are some parts that look flat out fake, even in the updated DVD version we watched the film on. This includes the cloud itself. Given that the cloud would seem to be a shield or protective bubble of some sort you would expect it to have a discernible structure. But it does not. In fact, as far as I can figure, its like some kind of weird fog that just tags along for awhile. It also invariably looks like it was just airbrushed on.
Also, while the visual effects are generally good, they’re comparatively poor for their time, which was after the special effects boon instigated by A New Hope. Alien, which came out the same year, has better effects and A New Hope, while two years old by that time, is still better. So while it can definitely be said that TMP’s effects were better than most of what was coming out at the time they’re worse than what it was directly competing against.
There’s also one more problem. This is that, like in the case of 2001 and many other science fiction films, TMP’s effects turn the film into one, really long, dull joyride. So much time is spent looking at the marvelous vistas and that the models that the story and characters get left behind in the dust. The film becomes about the visuals and since the visuals aren’t quite as good as some of what was coming up, it hurts the film.
Score: 8.8 (out of 10)
Summary
Plot: 5.8
Characters: 7.7
Production: 8.8
Overall: 7.0
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Overview
NOTE: Since this is a retrospective review and I fully anticipate the reader to have already seen the film expect some spoilers, though I will try my best to refrain from them. Look at it this way, I may one day get around to doing a retrospective of ESB. I will not refrain from saying Luke's father is Vader.
While TMP is more or less akin to a slow-speed collision involving two drunk drivers, The Wrath of Khan, the second Trek flick, is more like a soaring kite. It sometimes crashes and the winds sometimes pick it up and trash it about violently, but ultimately it, it flutters pleasantly and seemingly with ease. A good thing too. It was enough a wonder that the cancelled Star Trek got a first movie. It’s even more amazing that it got a second film after the poor reception (both commercially and critically) to TMP. But it’s a good thing it did, given that the second film was Wrath of Khan.
Anyone familiar with popular science fiction knows of Wrath of Khan and that speaks, at least in some small part, to the film’s success. It not only revitalized the Star Trek franchise, but actually earned its place among science fiction classics like the Star Wars or Aliens franchises. As a result, it is no small surprise that just as TMP is sometimes (though not frequently) called the worst Star Trek film, Wrath of Khan is often held up as one of its best - perhaps even the best. Is it?
I’m still in the process of figuring that out (after all, my marathon won’t be over until the first week of May). But it is certainly a strong film in of itself and it does precisely what TMP failed to do.
Plot
Straight up, Wrath of Khan is different from TMP in that it has a strong story. Not just a tolerably good or reasonably structured story. Rather, it has a strong story, one which stands on its own and has a clear structure filled with the little twists and turns that make good stories great ones. Just about everything that was wrong with TMP’s story is fixed here. There’s a clear beginning, a clear middle, a clear climax, and a clear resolution. There’s a heroic arc. There’s a clear villain. There’s a discernible conflict that ends in a satisfying way.
In fact, so good is Wrath of Khan’s story that is practically self-explanatory. It is wholly unnecessary to be a longtime Star Trek fan to understand the story, since the only direct reference to the series is the fact that Khan Noonien Singh is the chief villain. But since there is very little continuity between Space Seed (the TOS episode in which Khan appears) and TWoK there’s little need for the audience to have actually seen the episode. The small references to Khan’s past are all that is necessary for the audience to understand TWoK.
Likewise, Wrath of Khan does not require the viewer to have seen TMP. This is a vital necessity, since it had to do significantly better than TMP in order for the franchise to even survive. If viewing of TMP was required for understanding of Wrath this would have been impossible. As it stands, Wrath of Khan can almost be seen as an independent continuity from TMP since, like the first film, it starts with the Enterprise’s crew retired and bored, aging disgracefully as the Enterprise falls into disuse and obsoletion. It’s as if the events of TMP never happened (which was probably the intention).
TWoK, like TMP, also relies on new backstory, independent of TOS, to create its story. We learn, for instance, that Kirk has a son, a relation that will become important in the story. This is explained far more clearly than say, the relationship between Ilia and Deckard was in TMP and with far more clarity. TWoK, like any good story, shows, rather than tells and is better for it.
TWoK is also strong in the world-building department. In fact, it not only improves upon TMP in this regard but TOS as well. Most of what we take for granted in Star Trek originated, in fact, with TWoK. Take, for instance, the classic 23rd century uniforms. Or the fact that Star Trek (up until TNG) is set in the 23rd century (alluded to but not specified in the series, whose dating is best described as consistently inconsistent). Starfleet is also given a clear role for the first time, having wavered between militarism in episodes like The Doomsday Machine and Errand of Mercy and scientific exploration in episodes like Who Mourns for Adonais? and The Immunity Syndrome. TWoK clearly established Starfleet’s role as a navy in space of sorts, though perhaps more in the tradition of Europe’s navies in the Age of Discovery than our modern, purely militaristic navies.
Thematically, TWoK is also very strong, with its key concepts of ageing, death, and living in the past (both Kirk and Khan) in this case, both clear and resounding. In the end, the story is not so much about Khan’s wrath as it is about his inability to let go of the past, which, in a twisted way, mirrors Kirk’s own inability to live a life other than that of a starship captain. Screenwriter and director Nicholas Meyer does this admirably well, in spite of the fact that he had no experience with the universe or characters before accepting the job.
This is not to say that the story is without its flaws. For instance, once again, the Federation appears to have its forces spread ridiculously thin when Kirk announces that the Enterprise is the only ship near Regula. This is more forgivable of an offense, however, since, at the very least, Kirk could be making it up in order to help his ex or, on the other hand, the Enterprise could already be very close to Regula when he coincidentally picks up the message. I’d be willing to be on the former though, since Khan is gunning for Kirk and seems to deliberately blame the Reliant’s “orders” on Kirk, possibly in order to lure Kirk in.
The Genesis Device is also patently ridiculous. The commentary by Dr. Marcus seems to indicate that it could turn any rock into a planet. Well what if it doesn’t have the right amount of gravity? Or what if it’s too far from it’s sun? Not to mention the fact that when the Device is activated later in the film, it appears to construct a planet solely from nothing. Granted, it’s awe-inspiring and cool, but when you actually think about it, it doesn’t make any sense.
Another thing is that, while the resolution on the whole is strong, its significance and seriousness is kind of ruined by the fact that just about everybody knows that Spock is resurrected in the following film. This means that the whole theme about the heroes being vulnerable and mortal is lost. It could be said this isn’t really the fault of the film, since, after all, they weren’t counting on the issue being reversed, but it is given that the resurrection of Spock is heavily alluded during the same self-sacrifice, due to Paramount’s decision that Spock was too valuable to kill off. As a result, the meaning of the sacrifice is muted by the time the credits start rolling.
These small little nitpicks aside, however, Wrath of Khan has one of the better stories to appear not just in science fiction but film. It’s not one of the greatest stories, perhaps, as it still moves forward with just a tad bit too much foreknowledge presumed in my mind, though still not so much that it makes the film inaccessible. But it certainly compares well against many of its contemporaries. If only the concept of the spoiler had been invented, than perhaps the film’s story would have been even better.
Score: 9.2 (out of 10)
Characters
I wouldn’t be adding much to the reception of Wrath of Khan by saying its characters are one of the film’s greatest strengths. However, it’s still true. TWoK builds upon the strengths of the characters in TOS and TMP and, with a few exceptions, eliminates many of the weaknesses from both. What results is a cast which is richer, really, than the one which the screenwriters were originally presented with.
James T. Kirk again shines brilliantly here. In fact, don’t be fooled by the title or the prominence of Spock’s death in the film’s story. This is Kirk’s story - like TMP. In fact, I’m tempted to assume that the entire Trek film series from 1 to 7 is actually really the story of Kirk. This isn’t a problem. After all, heroic stories need a hero. But it is a bit odd, given that this film, and the next two, try to put Spock to some extent into that prominent numero uno position - justified in part by the fact that the Vulcan certainly stood out the strongest in TOS. But here, like in TMP, he is overshadowed by Admiral Kirk.
Wrath of Khan continues what TMP began and deconstructs Kirk’s character. Viewing of TMP is hardly necessary as TWoK is only a sequel in the loosest way possible - which is to say that the events of the film take place after TMP. Otherwise, they’re completely unrelated. The events of TMP are not alluded to, nor is anything significant affected by the events of TMP. For all intents and purposes, it appears that Kirk’s attempt to solidify his glorious return to the Enterprise to take command failed. He’s stuck with his desk job. Given he’s an Admiral, that’s sort of appropriate. That doesn’t mean he has to enjoy it though. And he doesn’t.
It’s obvious upon viewing that, for the first half of the film, Kirk is deeply depressed. He doesn’t admit it to anyone and he covers it up with quirky jokes and schoolteachering Saavik, a young Vulcan, who is studying aboard the Enterprise, which is now, in its ancient and decrepit age, a training vessel, as part of her Starfleet officer candidacy. But it’s deeply obvious to his friends, namely McCoy and Spock, that Kirk has begun to become weathered and slow down. The smiles are false, the jokes half-spirited. Kirk is losing his edge.
And yet, age seems to have also provided Kirk with some degree of wisdom. While he’s certainly enjoying life less than he was a generation ago, Kirk also has stronger judgment. He recognizes his weaknesses to an extent that he did not previously. He knows he can be too brash, that he pushes the odds a little too far sometimes, and that he can be cocky to a disadvantage. He doesn’t realize this immediately but it gradually dawns on him as he’s forced to deal with rash decisions of the past - such as his affair with Carol Marcus, his abandonment of Khan, and his method of “beating” the Kobayashi Maru test. All of these come back to haunt in some way and Kirk begins to realize his human flaws, to the point of rebuking himself.
This shows a growth in the character’s arc started, oddly enough, in TMP, which otherwise has little to do with TWoK. By the end of TWoK, Kirk is no longer the brash and impudent man he once was, nor the depressed and lonely figure who followed that. He’s a better man, stronger through the union of initiative and wisdom.
Which provides a strong contrast to the villain, Khan. In comparison with Kirk, Khan is far fresher and well-preserved. Whereas Kirk has aged and slowed down, Khan, while older than Kirk, is even fiercer and more wild than he was when he showed up in Space Seed. There is an animalistic fury to Khan, who, since his parting with the Enterprise’s crew has seen his wife (implied heavily to be the historian who aided him in Space Seed) and half his original crew killed. The deserted paradise world Kirk left them on has become a hellish wasteland and the years have gone slowly by as Khan has gone progressively more insane with rage and hatred for Kirk, who he blames, understandably, for the suffering he has endured for the past twenty or so odd years.
But while Khan has a personal strength and determination that Kirk lacks at the beginning of the film, he also has a lack of the wisdom that Kirk gradually displays. While he is certainly among the most intelligent specimens of humanity in all of history, his intellect is overshadowed by his blind rage. Time and time again, Khan is shown making poor decisions that ultimately cost him. In a way, it’s almost a reversal of Kirk and Khan. Where Kirk starts at a disadvantage due to poor decisions of the past and Khan with an advantage due to his strong intellect and ability to outthink virtually anyone, the tables are turned as Khan falls into a tunnel vision of vengeance seeking. As he says again and again in the film, he will not rest until Kirk has been paid back severalfold for the sufferings he has endured.
This of course gives Khan an Ahabic quality that lacked in his original betrayal. It doesn’t necessarily make him a better character than when he first appeared as a noble manipulative bastard. In some ways, it might even be seen as a deformation; Roddenberry certainly though of it in such a light and is reputed to have dislike the film immensely. After all, Khan is no longer a superman, nigh unbeatable, but rather a deeply flawed and tragic villain. He is far more ineffective than he is effective and the success of Kirk depends almost entirely upon Khan’s errors. And yet this is what makes him such a great character to pit Kirk against. In fact, by the end of TWoK, you almost wish Khan didn’t have to be killed, so that he could become a recurring foe for Kirk. No such luck.
But while Kirk and Khan are certainly at the center of the film’s story, they are hardly the only characters. Unlike TMP, which had all but a few characters play insignificant parts, TWoK gives many more characters a prominent role in the story. Spock and McCoy regain their place, to some extent, in a triumvirate that was missing in TMP but dominant in the original series. Spock, who’s with the story from the beginning and who ends up playing an important role in the story, has a role different than what is usual for him. Often used as a scientific genius or an observer of human nature he plays neither of these roles here. Instead, his primary role is as Kirk’s friend and counsel, as well as the man through whom Kirk lives since he no longer has command of the Enterprise - Spock does.
This last bit is a little interesting given that the new film’s most recent trailer seems to hint that Spock was an instructor at some point in the Academy… or at least had a teacher’s aid role of some sort (note Zachary Quinto addressing the cadets of the Academy saying, “you will know fear…”). As such, it seems oddly appropriate in retrospect that Spock should command the Enterprise as a training vessel. Kirk’s exact role is not specified, though he’s obviously still attached to the ship in some regard since he accompanies it during its training mission, even before it is evident that there will be real combat. But Spock’s the one in command.
And as much as Kirk does not enjoy being out of control it is obvious Spock isn’t particularly fond of it. He accepts the role of command out of necessity and duty, not out of love for it. He professes he feels no way about it one way or another, though those of us who know the character know this isn’t true. It seems almost with relief that he later hands command of the ship back to Kirk, justifying it as a matter of protocol since the ship is now on a real mission and the superior officer should take command (not necessarily true, actually - generally in naval tradition a captain retains official command of his vessel even if a superior is present).
Like Khan, this means that Spock, to some extent, fills the role of Kirk’s foil, though in a different regard. While Khan represents a contrast to what Kirk has become, Spock is a foil to what Kirk once was and helps the Admiral regain some of his youthful spirit. He does this first by giving command back to Kirk, knowing that being out of command does his friend no good. He does this secondly by assisting Kirk in combat against Khan, providing an insight into Khan’s weaknesses. And lastly, he does this by sacrificing himself, providing a “different” solution for the unbeatable scenario - in this case martyrdom rather than cheating.
It’s interesting then that Spock, supposedly inhuman, makes the most compassionate act out of all the characters in the film. Kirk seems to realize this at the film’s end, with his famous line about Spock at the funeral. However, Spock’s death is more than simply tragic (and it can’t really be tragic when you know he’s coming back in the next one) - it’s a chance to Kirk to reexamine his life… for the better. Not Kirk’s line as he looks back over the planet Genesis, “I feel young.”
McCoy also gets some time to shine, but not nearly as much. However, one TOS character gets an unprecedentedly important role in Wrath of Khan - Pavel Chekov. More of a joke character in earlier stories, Chekov actually is a very dramatically important character in the film, more important really than any other original character besides Kirk or Spock. After all, it’s he who rediscovers Khan and gives the superhuman a chance for vengeance. More importantly, he’s shown to have had an illustrious career. Once the rookie, he’s now a Commander and the XO of the Reliant. Why his career has moved fast, we’re never told. But it’s nice to see that not all of the Enterprise’s crew is busy living in the past.
Of course, Chekov doesn’t really get to have much fun in the story. He spends half of it under brainworm-induced mind control. But it’s still nice to see his character so vastly expanded from a naïve and overly patriotic (for a now nonexistent country) crewman who was essentially played for laughs to an inexperienced but confident crewman with unbreakable loyalty to his old friends and captain. For his part the new captain he serves with, Clark Terrell, gets a nice bit to shine and is a decent character who, like Sisko years later, is a Starfleet captain who just happens to be black and whose race isn’t played up or referenced to. But since he dies early on, is an original character, and is quickly overshadowed by both Chekov and Khan there’s not much to say about him.
There’s then the original characters. Of these, the three that stand out are the two Drs. Marcus and Saavik. Saavik is the first instance I can think of, of an interesting Vulcan being introduced in the series since Sarek… and for a long time afterwards. It’s too easy, I suppose, for writers to become stuck in the idea of Vulcans as a race of hats - namely, the hat of being logical, emotionless, and holier-than-thou. There’s little opportunity to write them in any way that’s interesting, a problem which later plagues Klingons to a lesser extent as well.
But Saavik’s a genuinely interesting character. And this seems to have been intentional since early development reveals she’s not supposed to be full-blooded Vulcan. Rather, she’s half-Vulcan, half-Romulan. Described as cool, but not emotionless, Saavik’s supposed to be a character halfway between Kirk and Spock, to whom she both serves as a limited foil of sorts. She contrasts with Spock, being more openly emotional than him but while still remaining more calm and controlled than Kirk. She’s also comfortable with her emotions, which is unusual for Spock, and more straight-headed than Kirk.
Most of all, though, she’s the younger generation. She’s the “new guy.” She’s here, not as a crewman or a dedicated officer but as a student, learning under the living legends Kirk and Spock. And she has the nerve to think they’re being unfair to her! Of course, this partly belies the fact that Saavik has a hero worship for Kirk, which is let down by Kirk’s faults and flaws, his “human-ness.”
Ultimately, Saavik, like Spock, is a mix of contradictions. Cool and detached but brash and impetuous, Saavik is perhaps the best additional character to the cast and a fine addition to the Enterprise.
Carol and David Marcus also make fine original characters. When Carol Marcus refers back to her life with Kirk it doesn’t seem as shallow as many of the romantic attachments Kirk has had throughout his life, both alluded to and realized on screen. Indeed, it’s tempting to think of Carol as Kirk’s “one true love” since their relationship in the film is like that of two lovers who fell out of love for professional, rather than personal reasons, and who come back together in their late middle age. It’s a sort of story that’s been told lots of times and while it’s not the focus in any way of Wrath of Khan it makes an interesting subliminal layer of characterization.
It’s sort of interesting than, that while their personalities are vastly different (Carol is controlled and deliberate, unlike Kirk) they both share a similar passion for their work. Genesis is as much Carol’s child as David is, just as Kirk is often joked to be “married” to the Enterprise. It’s easy then to see why two people, with such obvious compassion for the other, never really ended up working out in the long term, and it’s not surprise that their work is what brings them back together.
David, Carol and Kirk’s son, is also an interesting character. It’s tradition really to give the aged hero a son of which they’re vaguely aware and who holds a grudge against their father for never seeing them, but interestingly the trope is reversed here. Kirk is well aware of David’s existence and did not abandon Carol so much as he was requested not to partake in raising him, a request he respectfully followed. Rather, it is David who does not know that Kirk is his father and his resentment of his father has more to do with his anti-authority and anti-militaristic streak than it does a father-son quarrel.
Ironically, this streak is supposedly reminiscent of Kirk, who after all, cheated on the Maru test and has a tendency to buck the rules whenever it’s to his advantage. The similarity between father and son is part of what makes their dynamic interesting and which makes the later atonement and reconciliation between the two so touching at the end. It also adds a new insight to the fact that the new film’s Kirk is evidently going for the “scoundrel” (ala Han Solo) vibe.
Ultimately, Wrath of Khan’s characters are not necessarily stand-out some of the best in film or science fiction, but they do provide a well-rounded cast, with few weaknesses and several strengths. They also manage to expand yet more the roles of Kirk, Spock, and even Chekov, while adding new characters who fit seamlessly and effortlessly into the old. A job well done.
Score: 9.4 (out of 10)
Production
Like in the case of TMP, Wrath of Khan has a mixed bag of production values. On the one hand, it’s soundtrack is as expansive and powerful as TMP’s, though completely different thematically, being more swashbuckly and adventurous than operatic or alien. However, like TMP, it has a few rough edges, such as some muted special effects or the overuse of stock footage.
Let’s start with the strong. The soundtrack produced by James Horner is one of the best in science fiction and is filled with rising and dramatic leitmotifs that strike an emotional chord while also adding to the tension of the story’s pacing or the action sequences. In particular, the leitmotif for Khan himself works very, very well - to the point that it was years onwards in other films, extending to an including Khan’s sequel and Aliens, though thankfully transformed enough that it is only vaguely recognizable.
The acting is also top-notch. Shatner once again outdoes his work on TOS by a longshot, not for a minute hamming up the role except once (when he does his infamous “Khan!” yell). However, it’s important to note that during that scene, it is Kirk who is doing the ham acting (deliberately trying to deceive Khan into thinking he’s won) rather than Shatner himself. It’s a wonder why Shatner didn’t try this hard all the time.
Similarly, credit has to be given to Walter Koenig, who successfully transforms a comic character into a serious and somewhat tragic one. That is no small feat. It’d be like taking Apu in The Simpsons and somehow transforming this parody of American stereotypes about India into a meaningful character of dramatic depth. And Koenig pulls it off in what is but a preview of his talents, later solidified in full as the character of Bester on Babylon 5, whose role is dramatically different from Chekov’s either here or in TOS.
While Shatner and Koenig are good, however, the show is undeniably stolen by Ricardo Montalban, who plays Khan with the intensity and strength necessary for the character. It could be said that Montalban is overacting, but I don’t think this is the case. Khan is a character completely consumed with anger and this reads off of Montalban in waves. At the same time, he portrays Khan successfully as a person of cultural dignity and intelligence, closer to the role the actor played in the original Space Seed episode. Khan is a powerful, complicated figure and Montalban captures this, forging what is perhaps one of the most immortal film villains ever, in spite of the fact that he only appeared in one film.
While the character he plays is relatively unimportant and unrewarding, Paul Winfield is strong in the role of Captain Terrell as well. He plays the role with a seriousness and gravity that one might not expect an actor to bring to the role of a science fiction B-character like Terrell. But rather than coming off as an expendable alternate Kirk, which is what Terrell ultimately turns into, Winfield sets the captain as a professional and no-nonsense man who is, by ill fortune, caught in events beyond his control or caliber. Meyer said at one point that without Winfield, the ceti eel scene might have come off as corny. I’m not sure if he’s right, but it certainly could have been and instead ends up being horrific, even now.
Merrit Butrick also deserves praise, though he lacks the charisma of some of the other actors and his voice rarely varies in tone. However, while verbally his acting may be somewhat limited, his body language is not and he portrays a wide variety of emotions, successfully embodying Kirk’s rebellious son. It also helps, of course, that he looks enough like both Shatner and Bibi Besch to make the role convincing. For her part, Bibi Besch is less impressive, being adequate, but not really terrific in the role.
The last actor who truly stands out is Kristie Alley, who plays Saavik. In a sense, she makes Saavik and it’s a shame that she was considered too expensive for the sequel, in which her character, but not her, reappears. Alley fills the role with a passion that, like in the case of Winfield, seems unusual for an outsider cast into the role of a supporting character in a film based off of a cult show. But Alley does have that passion, as made evident by interviews about the film and her, and she manages to walk that difficult line between passion and cool logic that embodies the character of Saavik.
This is where things start getting to the rough edges, however. The special effects qualities of the film, especially after the success that was TMP, are something of a letdown. It’s easy to understand why. The over-expensiveness of TMP had Paramount in a fit, which means that the budget of Wrath of Khan was much reduced. What results is an overuse of stock footage and hazy, transparent sandstorms. Still, some parts stand out technically, such as the battle in the nebula or the design of the Reliant. It also surprised me to learn that the much, much better outfits of TWoK are based originally off of the outfits of TMP, simply recolored and given new frills. It shows just what you can do with a low enough budget!
Altogether, the production values of TWoK are better than TMP and worse in others. Most of the strengths of TMP are improved on here, but the weaknesses are made all the more obvious. Whether this trend continues into later Trek films I’ll be able to get to later, though my guess would be no.
Overall, top notch work.
Score: 9.6 (out of 10)
Summary
Plot: 9.2
Characters: 9.4
Production: 9.6
Overall: 9.4