Like the Kool-Aid man busting through a space wall, declaring “Oh yeah,” Star Trek Into Darkness arrives tomorrow, and Cumberbatch is our king. I’m not going to tell you if he is or is not playing a certain someone, but if you’ve seen one second of any trailer, you already know this movie is borrowing heavily from the uber-popular and successful Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. It’s about revenge! Explosions! Maybe sacrifice! Things you like about a movie!
But, as great as The Wrath is, did it unintentionally ruin Star Trek films forever?
A brief snippet from Nicholas Meyer’s memoir clearly illustrates, The Wrath of Khan changed Star Trek forever, and most certainly saved it from cutlural oblivion. Though some may bemoan the distancing of Trek from Roddenberry’s utopian ideals, or the transformation of Starfleet into a more militaristic organization, the tone, style and story of The Wrath of Khan works on almost every level. However, a utopian future and Spock’s body weren’t the only casualties of this film. Every single Star Trek movie that came after The Wrath of Khan was completely judged in contrast to this one. And part of the problem with TNG-era Trek films, and even some Trek TV, is that they tried to succeed by emulating the aesthetics, tone, and plot of this movie.
A cursory bit of research from magazine articles I read at the time of nearly all the film releases reveal interviews from the various filmmakers and actors constantly claiming their villain as “the best villain since Khan.” We were told Sybok is the most complex villain since Khan. General Chang knows more Shakespeare than Khan. John Logan and Rick Berman told us Shinzon was going to be even better than Khan. Orci and Kurtzman claimed Nero was as good as Khan and hey; he’s driven by revenge too! The Whale Probe is like Khan…okay, not really, but you get the picture.
Since Shatner screamed that infamous scream, the drumbeat that Star Trek films needed an antagonist to rival Khan has been burned into the minds of Trekkers and the people behind the scenes alike. I’ve already made the case here as to why Trek movies don’t need villains; but suffice to say, the reason why Khan as a character is so great is because he’s unique. Having a character driven by revenge is one thing, but having a character driven by revenge based on events we actually witnessed on the TV show is something else entirely. After all, the movie’s title does reference a “wrath,” implying someone we’ve heard of is coming back. The Wrath of Shinzon would have been ridiculous for a lot of reasons, primarily because nobody knows who the hell Shinzon is.
I’m not saying one needs to see “Space Seed” in order to enjoy The Wrath of Khan, but the existence of the origin story is what makes the the story credible. I think everyone had a hard time giving a shit about Bane in The Dark Knight Rises, because his presence in the zeitgiest just wasn’t strong enough prior to showing up in the movie. This is sort of why Star Trek: First Contact works: having Picard mad at the Borg is great, because a lot of people have seen or heard of the Borg. With Khan, even if you haven’t seen “Space Seed,” knowing it’s there makes the movie way richer. Imagine if, instead of bringing on Christopher Lloyd as Krudge, Nimoy had decided to use one of the actors who played a Klingon on the original show, like John Colicos? Would it have worked? Maybe not, as it would have felt too much like what they’d just done with Khan, but it’s something to think about. (Also, you should really watch “Space Seed,” because it rocks.)
Before 2013, the biggest culprit in trying to rip off The Wrath is easily Star Trek: Nemesis. From the fight in the nebula, to a doomsday weapon, to the fact that a beloved character sacrifices himself to save the Enterprise, literally everything is appropriated from Wrath. It was as if after years of dancing around the fact that they wanted to make a movie as good as Khan, the people working on Star Trek just admitted to themselves, “Let’s go ahead and do it. Rip it off wholesale. People will love it, because they loved The Wrath of Khan.”
And though Starfleet ships are hiding in nebulas or other gas clouds way too much post-Khan (see: at least two episodes of TNG, nearly every other episode of Voyager, and at least a couple instances on Enterprise) the real crime of Nemesis is that it doesn’t even rip off The Wrath of Khan correctly. Despite the fact that we’ve never heard of Shinzon, the reason why it doesn’t work is because it simply borrows the imagery and the plot ideas without actually thinking about the pathos of what made all that stuff work. For example: addressing the fact that Kirk and company were getting old really helped ramp up the stakes in The Wrath. In TNG’s version of this, Riker and Picard are fist-fighting everyone. Also, if the TNG films wanted to tap into what made the Khan/Kirk confrontation work, they would have brought back a REALLY memorable character like Q. Wrath of Q, anyone?
But the real problem with all of this is that there should never be an attempt to go back. For the most part, the original films post-Khan didn’t actually do this. Yes there is a crazy ranting villain in Star Trek III, and a well-read one in Star Trek VI, but the movies tried to be about other things. However, every Star Trek movie (with the exception of IV) did feel it necessary to have the mandatory space battle at some point. A space battle is not necessary to make a good Star Trek movie, nor do you need to hide in a nebula, nor do you need a crazy bad guy out for revenge. When Star Trek movies take a chance, like they did with The Voyage Home, it sometimes works. What everyone forgets now is that at the time The Wrath of Khan came out, everything about it was risky. But now, because it’s become so canonized, it doesn’t seem risky at all. It seems perfect.
And this isn’t just the fault of the latter-era Star Trek filmmakers. We the fans are partially to blame here, too. Because we (correctly) love The Wrath of Khan, it’s slipped into the social consciousness that no Star Trek movie will ever be as good as The Wrath of Khan. Well, Star Trek VI was pretty good. Sure, maybe Christopher Plummer wasn’t as memorable as Khan, but he was pretty damn good. If you are a person that wants to see more Star Trek stuff, holding The Wrath as this untouchable standard seems like an unhealthy paradox. It’s like we’ve set up Khan as some perfect ex-girlfriend/boyfriend who dumped us a long time ago, and we compare everyone we date to Khan. We’ll never be happy if we do this!
The Wrath of Khan will never die as long as we remember it, but maybe it’s time to move on.
Ryan Britt is a longtime contributor to Tor.com and has probably seen “Space Seed” more times than is healthy.
(Aspects of this article appeared in a different form on Tor.com in 2011.)
I do agree with the sentiment of this article, but would argue that ST: III & IV were both good movies because there wasn’t a big bad guy to defeat.
Yeah, I know, ST: III isn’t as good as its predecessor, but then it wasn’t really about defeating the bad guy. Although Kruge was cool, he was rather incidental to the plot. The real story was about what Kirk was willing sacrifice for the chance he could enable Spock to live on, however ephemerally. In fact, the battle with Kruge was actually ingenious because Kirk did not beat the Klingon through military genius—rather he defeated Kruge by way of exploiting the Klingon’s hubris.
And then we have ST: IV which had no real big bad guy to kill, but rather it was a story where Kirk and ensemble were trying to correct a mistake humanity had made in wiping out humpback whales. ST: IV was a true Star Trek story where the mind was tantalized instead of the ego.
Of course, stories of the mind don’t really make blockbusters—action movies do—which is why even though I love seeing Star Trek on the Big Screen, I think it is much better suited for the Small Screen (and I wish they would bring it back there…I miss my weekly Trek fix).
It’s somewhat like thinking of a Fringe movie. Fringe made a great weekly T.V. show, but unless they leaned heavily on the intrigue (spy-like) aspects of the show, a blockbuster it would not be. And frankly, seeing Olivia and her pals jumping and shooting like in a normal action show would be disconcerting. That kind of thing is reserved for Alias.
Hmm… interesting that my last two examples were Abrams shows. Don’t get me wrong… I like Abrams and I think he has done wonders for Trek, bringing it back into the forefront of imagination again. But, I do think it’s time to give the reigns over to someone else who can direct a more cerebral show, one that makes us think. I know Shatner tried to do this with ST: V and failed miserably, so it goes stands to reason that making a true Trek film can be very difficult. Still, I know it’s possible. Let Nemoy take a crack at it again, or have someone like Ridley Scott go for a whirl.
I think part of the problems that Khan brings to the Star Trek franchise is that it is very easy to argue that it is the best film in the series. Which isn’t to say it is the best Star Trek film.
Voyage Home is a way more (and successfully so) Star Trek movie than Khan. Even some of the TNG stuff feels more Star Trek. But Khan is the better film from a strictly filmmaking perspective.
I don’t know if this current crop of ST movies can go without a villain, which is kind of a shame (and I think Cumberbatch is gonna be awesome). But it would be great to see the crew Boldy Go and DISCOVER. Which has been rare for most Trek films, to be honest. But one hopes.
I do find it surprising that TNG movies never returned to Q. Ah, well.
DKT, at one point I remember reading that the next Trek movie (before Into Darkness was announced) was supposed to be more Enterprise vs. the Environment sort of story.
Ugh. Shinzon. Nemesis was a garbage-dump-turned-movie. Worst Trek film by far.
Paramount may have a dysfunctional relationship with Khan, but I don’t. I am more than happy to watch Khan-less Star Trek movies, and I will even pay for the priviledge as long as it doesn’t seem to suck.
My biggest issue with Nemesis was that I was really looking forward to a movie with those pesky Romulans being a major threat. But instead it felt like they were recreating the wheel with Shinzon when they didn’t need to. If they wanted emotional impact, they could have brought back Denise Crosby as Sela on a mission to wipe out the Federation.
Nemesis is a Khan ripoff. But it is also Bram Stoker’s Dracula (the book, not the movie of the same name) set in space, with Shinzon as the Count. Heck, the Remans even look like Nosferatu. Watch it shortly after the next time you read Dracula, you’ll see the parallels!
I think another problem with Khan (and I mean the character, not the film) is that too many people, fans and filmmakers, regard him as the Joker/Moriarty/Magneto of Star Trek. As a result they feel that any iteration of Trek must feature, or at least reference, Khan.
But he’s not like them at all. The above-mentioned are reoccurring antagonists of individual heroes, while Khan (in the TV series) was a one-off opponent of a crew who travelled around the galaxy, encountering different species every week. Bringing him back was not something the fans expected in 1982 and so made it all the more effective when he was. And of course he gets a memorable death scene and everyone’s happy.
In contrast, the Joker dies in Batman 89 and everyone goes mad. Why? Because we expect the Joker to survive and challenge Batman again. To kill him off was a waste.
But for Trek , whenever anyone harks back to Khan, they’re accused of retreading old ground. Why reuse Khan when there’s a whole galaxy full of potential opponents?
I always got the feeling the movies were trying some sort of ENDING to star Trek in case they could’nt Make another. That’s why there’s always villians. it’s all well and good to talk about “thought provoking stories.” Speaking for myself I DON’T want to watch Picard die of food posioning as he thinks about the meaning of life.
I will always hold VI as the best of all Trek movies, because a) it had a great, over-arching theme that made all the sense in the world (reluctance to change, bigotry, descrimination, etc)… b) it was a great allegory of the political world at the time and c) it gave the crew a proper send-off with a sense of finality, a perfect book-end for the crew.
Other than First Contact I despise all the TNG movies, but Nemesis most of all for simply being a lazy, lazy movie.
And when you think about it, Khan really isn’t that brilliant a villian. Oh sure, he was played by a brilliant actor, yes, but let’s review the character: after fleeing Earth (“RUN AWAY!!!”), he’s literally beaten by Captain Kirk using some plastic control rod thingy, then years later he’s beaten again because he fails to understand starships maneuver differently than a Chrysler Cordoba.
Superior? Only at benchpressing twice his weight.
What really concerns me about the future of Star Trek is J.J. Abrams. It’s not that I think he did a bad job with the reboot, but I saw him on The Daily Show the other night and he didn’t seem to understand the original inspiration behind the show. The Great Bird pitched this as Wagon Train to the stars. It’s that pioneer mentality that seems somewhat lacking.
I’m a little concerned about Star Wars for the same reason. The genius of the original trilogy, and A New Hope in particular, was The Hero’s Journey. Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers spoke of this in The Power of Myth. It’s like running down a check list, with all the Archetypes present and accounted for, but presented in such a way that we cared for them.
Sue @9: First of all, I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but no one else seems to have a problem with the content above the fold. The identity of Cumberbatch’s character has been discussed and teased out endlessly all over the internet–nothing above the fold in this article confirms or denies any of that speculation–only that it exists. And secondly, telling people to “die in a fire” is never okay on this site.
13 Hey! That pipe was’nt plastic. It just LOOKED plastic! It’s the 23rd century there’s new alloys on evrey planet.
Second the idea of Kahn is scary. Somebody BUILT him. He’s no weightlifer. He was born SUPER
14 I think I agree. I mean in the first reboot they got rid of somthing HUGE in the old timline. They should not just do without what they got rid of they should replace it with something new.
The Wrath of Khan was the movie that introduced me to Star Trek. The Voyage Home is my favorite Star Trek movie, but if Khan hadn’t been so good, I never would have watched the other movies or the original series.
Ah, yes, Star Trek III. The first time the Enterprise was destroyed.
Abram’s new one appears to do that yet again (in the trailer I saw, and on the poster) but I don’t understand how Khan can be used when the original meeting hasn’t happened.
Sure, it will be different, but the first Abrams Trek was a crappy movie, let alone a watchable Star Trek. I’m sitting this one out.
sps49@18: I don’t understand how Khan can be used when the original meeting hasn’t happened.
Ah, but, see, you don’t have the innate talent and deep insight of J J Abrams, which has allowed him to produce utter dross for years whilst accumulating huge piles of cash in the process. In this case he’s managed to rake it in without knowing the first thing about Star Trek.
It’s just a crying shame that this new branch of the franchise couldn’t have been handled by someone who actually gave a damn.
Dear Mr. Britt,
I think what you are trying to say is that Star Trek should be back on TV. It is something I’ve asked for and said. It is something the Great Bird’s son has said. It has been proposed by directors who are now waiting in the wings now that it seems pretty clear that Abrams is now gone to Star Wars and is in a way confirming politely what Shatner joking said about Abrams being a pig by taking on so many big projects at the same time. With people like Bryan Singer and Mr. Fuller trying to convince CBS and Paramount to put Trek back on TV and Mr. Moore has said the same thing. CBS and Paramount have to know that the short term profits they make on Trek movies will only dry up if all us fans ,old and new, keep doing is recalling the glory days of when Trek was on TV where it became truely great. Wrath of Khan was a great movie from a era driven by action adventure and clear good guys and bad guys. Trek TV is driven by lots a gray where there is a lot to talk about in terms of plot and characters. Abrams has created a cleaver way of telling new stories but here we are talking about an old story. A Trek movie is satisfying for my thirst for Trek but in the end I have and shall ever long for the substance that is Trek TV. I have always watched Trek for its substance more so than for its thrills. Wrath of Khan did not change Trek on the movie screen it defined Trek on the movie screen which is exactly why The Voyage Home was so great. It was the The Voyage Home because that movie more than the others returned Trek to its home roots. Thank you Mr. Britt this has been a wonderful discussion cheers.
The reason they keep getting it wrong with their retreads of Kahn is it easy to forget what made him a great villain in the first place. Empathy. We can empathize with Kahn’s story. And our heroes are the ones that have wronged him. So there is a reason for his vengeance.
Sure, Shinzon had a tragic back-story and we can sympathize with him, but it all directed at Romulus. His attacks on the federation made no sense. Handing Romulus over to the Klingon’s would have made for better vengeance. Or the federation so he can connect with Picard if he wants. Nero has a background we could understand, but as portrayed in the film, he just lies around for decades and whines all the time. Again, with no personal stake in our heroes for the most part.
These are the elements of a great bad guy. Not the mustache twirling, but motivations we can understand with a personal stake in our heroes
.
If TNG had wanted to effectively retread the Khan story, they should have used Moriarty from the HoloDeck: he escapes the “prison” holomatrix he and his lover were stuck in to wreak havoc on the Enterprise. That could potentially have had some real emotional resonance and the empathy Cleggster mentioned.
The villian-centric nature of Khan was imitated but never equalled, and the repeated attempts to recapture that genie in a bottle tended to diminish what followed.
IV was the best of the movies–true to the Trek ideals, full of good natured humor, and a darn good and satisfying adventure as well.
It was quite interesting reading this article a few days ago, before I saw STID, when I was still unspoiled. I was familiar with all the speculative analysis but had successfully avoided the ‘truth’.
So I was watching the movie with the thesis of this article in the back of my mind the whole time — how all the Trek movies post-TWOK suffered the weakness of trying to duplicate TWOK, and not always succeeding.
So it was rather interesting to see how STID dealt with that thesis.
Spoilers (highlight to view):
Because of course, it fully embraced the replication, with full knowledge and intent. Rather than merely trying to imitate Khan, they outright duplicated him. A different Khan story, of course — brought out of stasis through a different set of circumstances, interacting with a different (and much younger) Enterprise crew — but the same character for all intents and purposes. Rather than the subtle (or sometimes rather clumsily unsubtle) callbacks such as Data’s sacrifice emulating Spock’s, they unabashedly copy/pasted the entire sacrifice scene. With the brilliant hook of ‘swapping’ the characters.
Although, Spock’s “Khan” scream was a step too far. Too cheesy. Too much like Vader’s “Noooo”.
Anyway, I found it interesting, having read this article, that rather than try to fight the urge to have the enemy be “as good as Khan”, they just went with it wholeheartedly, embraced the trope, and had it actually BE Khan.
“Though some may bemoan the distancing of Trek from Roddenberry’s utopian ideals, or the transformation of Starfleet into a more militaristic organization, the tone, style and story of The Wrath of Khan works on almost every level.”
Uh, no, it FAILS on every level. To begin with, Roddenberry’s utopian ideals WERE Star Trek, along with the fascinating scientific accuracy of plausible advances in future tech, vs. the “ass-pull” of pure technobabble.
“Space Seed” was the highest of utopian ideals, with Kirk dropping charges against a Khan to avoid wasting his potential for good, in a show of understanding vs. judgment, as well as giving him what he originally sought– i.e. “a new world to rule,” rather than forcing him to live as a commoner in the 23rd century, since nobody would follow him any longer– i.e. populism won out over aristocracy.
Likewise, Star Trek stood for plausible advances in science and logic, not simply showing something absurdly implausible like “The Genesis Device,” and claiming “ANYTHING’S possible in the FUTURE!” Even if it violates basic EVERYTHING, like an uncontrolled reaction coming before a CONTROLLED one— as if we developed fusion-power before the H-bomb!
It’s THAT ridiculous.
Star Trek was about “boldly going where no man has gone before;” meanwhile STII was “been there done that,” while the silly-scifi (and plot) was straight out of Superman II. Here, an explosion in space frees Khan, now suddenly a ruthless criminal, from exile (that nobody knows about); meanwhile the “Genesis device,” which was more powerful than anything ever created, drops into Khan’s lap– and now he’s a “criminal in exile,” as if the Federation just abandons people to God-forsaken rocks to live or die? I could have SWORN I heard Kirk drop charges, and OFFERED Khan his own planet (which was no worse than modern-day Sydney, not infested with brain-slugs), and married him to an Enterprise crew-member? Sounds more like “Wrath of the ungrateful bitch.”
And what was Khan doing to DO with the Genesis device? Fight all of Starfleet? Take over the Federation with one ship, when we SAW that nobody will follow him? No, it was just a lousy excuse to fight him all over again– by changing the character completely, with what should have been called “the RET of Khan.”
Face it: this movie RUINED Star Trek, taking it from “Where no man has gone before” triump of understanding over fear, to “been there, done that, kill the bad guys.”
True, Star Trek was over the heads of most meat-heads in film-audiences; but there’s a right way to address that, and a wrong way– and filching the plot of “Superman II” was NOT the right choice.
If they wanted to bring back Khan, it could be done IN CHARACTER, both for the person and the Trek franchise; but that would require DEPTH, and movies can’t have that right?
@25/Sarah Goodwich: You’ve mentioned two things I dislike about TWOK – it ruins the magnanimous ending of “Space Seed”, and it ruins the character of Khan. I’m more forgiving towards Genesis because I like forests, and the TV show had its share of fantasy technology too.
Another thing I dislike is the dialogue. I find it pompous and stilted. “On Earth, two hundred years ago, I was a prince with power over millions.” Half of the time the characters exchange aphorisms instead of having conversations: “How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life.” “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” “Scientists have always been pawns of the military.” “He’s really not dead as long as we remember him.”
@JanaJansen: that’s consistent with the self-indulgent script; it was simplistic and preachy, pretentious and condescending.
The original series never had any fantasy technology, just some super-advanced alien who simply didn’t share it. The Genesis device, meanwhile, was pure fantasy-tech.
If it worked, it would be much less powerful than standard weaponry; but for some reason this gizmo is 10 million times more powerful than the biggest known WMD? And turn a nebula into a solar system? AND clones a new Spock?
That’s more like a WTF.
And now Vulcans can beat death by switching minds between bodies- something that Dr. Janice Lester only managed to do in the final episode, and it didn’t work for long?
“Space Seed” simply dealt with philosophical questions about Earth’s future from a “reverse history” angle, i.e. to show the Trek backstory on WHY humans remained democratic and mundane, and didn’t become like Kryptonians.
Star Trek’s tech was simply ahead of its time, using space-warps, trans-stator principles, subspace power, “duotronic” quantum computing etc; meanwhile the plots were supposed to be deeper and more philosophical than standard comic-book sci-fi, as with the Horta, Gorn, Romulans etc. being simple misunderstandings.
It should have been called “The Ret of Con” since everything was changed and dumbed down to anti-hero cynicism; suddenly Kirk “never faced death” as if all his bravery in TOS never happened. Like the Doomsday Machine: “I’m gonna RAM HER RIGHT DOWN THAT THING’S THROAT; damn the faulty transporter, full speed ahead! But oh, I’m not facing death or anything, I’m cheating my way out of it… that’s right, Dickless Nicholas Meyer said so.”
So according to ST2, all heroism is fraud if you survive.
Rather, like the Turd Season, the plot of ST2 was dumbed down to pander to the popcorn-movie audience, who didn’t get the first two seasons since Kirk didn’t just shoot the bad guys like in every other piece of Hollywood fare.
@NomadUK
But when making Wrath of Khan, Nicholas Meyer also produced utter dross without knowing the first thing about Star Trek, thinking that “sci-fi is all the same” in bringing back Khan as if he were a space-gangster “YOU DIRTY RAT!” with photon-tommyguns; ie. nobody bothered sitting Nick down and explaining that Star Trek was a little deeper than that noise with lasers and preachy dimestore morals about Kirk being a fraud.
WTF? KIRK a FRAUD? Okay, that’s it: everybody OUT of the pool!
If ST2 is supposed to be the best Trek film, that speaks very poorly for the others.
@27/Sarah Goodwich: To be fair, the part where Genesis clones a new Spock and Vulcans can beat death didn’t happen in TWOK, but in TSFS.
I agree that it’s stupid that Genesis transforms a nebula into a planet. It’s terraforming technology – it should need a planet to begin with! I can buy it as very advanced terraforming technology, but yeah, the ending defies believability.
As for “I haven’t faced death, I’ve cheated death”, I’m with you 100%. It’s ridiculous. In addition to your argument, “face death” could mean two different things: face your own death or face the death of a beloved person. Even if we limit ourselves to the second kind (because that’s what happens here), there was plenty of that in TOS too – Gary Mitchell, Edith Keeler, Sam, Miramanee. As a factual statement, “You never have faced a death” is just plain wrong.
My in-universe explanation is that this is Kirk grieving and therefore dismissing everything that happened in the past because right now, Spock’s death feels like the worst thing ever. Also, he’s glad that his son is being nice to him for a change, even if he’s being pretty condescending at the same time. So that scene kinda works for me, but not in the way it was (presumably) intended.
That wasn’t the plot. For one thing, in the TOS novel, as well as seen in the TNG pilot, it was stated that people could live to 140; so for Kirk to have a mid-life crisis at 50 is a bit premature.
TWoK was a complete derailment of the entire series, and therefore inexcusable; this article admits that it wasn’t Star Trek. A much better plot would have made Khan into the good guy, since something happens where Earth needs him, and he returns despite knowing that he won’t be a leader anymore. As Kirk tells Khan in “Space Seed,” he left when the world needed him most; and so this time he redeems that even if it means sacrificing himself in the process, since he wanted show that he could still do good for humanity rather than sinking into obsolesence.
But again, this sort of depth is above the one-dimensional “General Zod” type of writing that was in STII (and Superman II), and they tried to turn Khan into Darth Vader after STI failed miserably against Star Wars in 1978– after all, “if you can’t beat ’em, PLAGIARIZE em,” right?
I think STII could have beaten Star Wars at its own game, by showing it to be cheap and simplistic, if they hired better writers and producers, like Roddenberry and the writers of Space Seed. But it just looked like a cheap sci-fi movie with no logic other than on-screen silliness, like “shields not working in a nebula” etc.
Okay, in STI, we saw the Enterprise shields hold against a blast from V’ger that vaporized three Klingon ships; but now for some reason they don’t work in a stupid nebula? Clearly, if the nebula didn’t destroy the hull, it wouldn’t interfere with the shields. Rather, it’s just a deus ex machina plot-device like in Frank Herbert’s Dune” where lasers and shields magically blow each other up for some reason, while sandstorms render shields useless, simply so that neither can be used.
@30 It doesn’t really matter that people live to over 100 in Trek. To paraphrase Terry Pratchett, they just stay old longer. Someone struggling to accept the final loss of youth and the onset of old age is still going to have that midlife crisis at the same time as now, even if it is no longer truly “mid-life”.
@30/Sarah Goodwich: l’m not sure how long people live in TOS. In “The Deadly Years”, a decrepit Kirk is characterised by the computer as “between sixty and seventy-two”. That’s obviously silly, but it could mean that McCoy’s lifespan in TNG is the exception rather than the rule. Giving Kirk a midlife crisis was still trite, though.
As for Khan, while he was much more interesting and nuanced in “Space Seed”, I don’t think a plot where he becomes a good guy could have worked. He was a ruthless ex-dictator who tried to take over the Enterprise and kill the crew if they refused to work for him. When Kirk told him that he left Earth when “mankind needed courage” they did not yet know who he was, and it was part of a conversation where they tried to find out more about him.
They couldn’t have hired Gene Coon (who was a much better writer than Nicholas Meyer) because he had died in 1973.
“I don’t think a plot where he becomes a good guy could have worked.”
Then you don’t get the complexity of Star Trek; Khan said he wanted to unite humanity and improve man, and that he admired courage. He also never killed anyone; meanwhile other “misunderstood adversaries” like the Horta, Romulan Commander and Gorn killed many people. Khan simply demonstrated why history turned out as it did, rather than becoming supermen.
At the end of Space Seed, Kirk and Khan deeply respected and appreciated each other, and Kirk said that Khan had too much potential to sentence to a penal colony; also Khan was not “ruthless dictator,” as they said, “there were no massacres under his rule;” and Spock’s only objection was that there was no freedom, either. Khan was an archetype of legendary rulers, to show that in advancing to make everyone more equal,, humankind had lost greatness as well.
The moral of Space Seed was that humans had grown beyond rulership and vindictiveness. “Wrath of Khan” destroyed this optimistic message completely; Kirk and Khan might as well have pulled out lightsabers.
“He was a ruthless ex-dictator who tried to take over the Enterprise and kill the crew if they refused to work for him.”
He DID take over the Enterprise, but to save Humanity from stagnation. And he did not try to kill ANYONE– just threatened to do so, but he was BLUFFING; he took Kirk out of the decompression chamber while still conscious, but just told the crew he was dead as a bluff. As Kirk said, there were no massacres under Khan’s rule, and he had extremely magnetic charisma; of all the crew, only the old-school historian would follow him, and she turned against him too. The others also admired him, expect for Spock; they were just against his methods.
Again, Star Trek was just too deep for modern films; it was more “2001” than “Flash Gordon.”
“When Kirk told him that he left Earth when “mankind needed courage” they did not yet know who he was, and it was part of a conversation where they tried to find out more about him.”
And Khan didn’t disagree, just saying that his people offered the world order, and they refused– i.e. “trading liberty for security.”
And when Kirk found out his real name, they all expressed great admiration for him– except for Spock. Kirk was just concerned about Khan’s possibly recruiting the crew– too late, it turned out.
But once Khan had control of the ship, he just tried to recruit them by force– but never killed anyone. As for overloading the engines at the end, Kirk tried to do that more than once to keep it from being taken over.
I’m afraid the movie’s one-dimensional retcon was simply incapable of comprehending the story, and so it crapped out a 2-dimensional turd.
@33/Sarah Goodwich: Wow, this is getting interesting. You have a completely different reading of the episode than I do. I gave my interpretation in detail in comment #118 of the recent-ish Space Seed rewatch, but the gist of it is: Khan is supposed to represent the “great men of history”. He is compared to Napoleon twice. And the episode’s message is that we shouldn’t admire these types, that we shouldn’t consider them “great”. That conquerors are not cool.
I don’t think that your reading works. Khan was clearly not bluffing. He wanted to kill Kirk. (Also, I’d say that slowly suffocating someone qualifies as torture, even if it had been a bluff.) We know this because he didn’t free Kirk, McGivers did, and she hadn’t been ordered by him to do it. We know that she hadn’t been ordered by him both because she attacked the guard first and because she let Kirk go, thus allowing him to free Spock and retake the ship.