This past Wednesday was the final movie in this spring's "Flashback Series" at Denver's Continental theater. And they went out on a high, with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. I actually did catch this one on the big screen back when it was brand new. (And was traumatized by the "worms in the ear," I think...) But I was very much looking forward to the chance to see it again in a theater.
This print looked like it might actually have come from one of the original screenings in 1982, for the condition it was in. Half the color was drained away. Whole seconds were missing at the splices between reels. Some chunks were so full of static marks that the sound cut out. The film actually left the "II" off the title when it appeared on screen: "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan." I'm telling you, this print was old.
But the crowd was the most lively of any of the screenings I'd attended in this series. They applauded when the title appeared on screen. They cheered William Shatner's name. Leonard Nimoy's. The went completely nuts at Ricardo Montalban's. When Kirk screams into the communicator in the second act of the movie, half the auditorium screamed right along with him: "Khaaaaaaan!!!!!" The rest were too busy just cheering.
This is by far the best of the Star Trek movies, and it illustrates a point that the writers of the Voyager and Enterprise television series really never got. You don't have to have a fantastic sci-fi idea at the core of your story. And you sure as hell don't have to have technobabbley explanations all worked out. You just need a strong, emotional and personal drama at the core of it all.
I mean, when you stop to think about some of the actual plot points of Wrath of Khan, it completely unravels. Starfleet is scouring the galaxy (and having a hard time) finding just one planet with no life on it, where they can test the Genesis Device? A starship is unable to use its sensors to detect that an entire planet has gone missing from the Ceti Alpha system? And that's the tip of the iceberg.
But it doesn't matter, because we're far too caught up in the actual drama. Kirk feeling the press of old age, realizing his life has taken turns he didn't want. The deeply personal feud between Kirk and Khan. And of course, the great sacrifice made by Spock at the conclusion of the movie. (I try to put myself in the frame of mind of the pre-Star Trek III crowd. What if that really had been it for Spock? Damn, that's a powerful ending!)
It was another great night at the movies, and I'm looking forward to this flashback series starting up again in August.
5 comments:
Fortunately, some writers (some of them ex-Trek writers) have pushed character drama to the front of recent forays in the same genre. For all of the flat episodes in Battlestar Galactica and Lost, those are two series that should stand on their own for many years after they leave their first runs.
It's funny you mention Voyager and Enterprise specifically. Deep Space Nine clearly cared more about its characters than ANY of the other Trek series. But The Next Generation cared about only two characters, who happened to played by strong actors, and most of that show was rooted in the kind of technobabbley conundrums that would plague the successor series. Like the Star Wars, when I watch TNG and think about "where the franchise went wrong," I can only conclude that I was just more emotionally invested in TNG at the time of its airing.
Deep Space Nine had its share of technobabble episodes, but they often turned the convention on its ear. For example, "Visions" could have been yet another time-hopping episode, but the root cause for O'Brien's time-hopping was a cloaked Romulan warbird that was responding to events in the show's greater arc. Another O'Brien episode "Whispers" put a very great Twilight Zone spin and an unexpected angle on the "clone episode."
Enterprise wasn't so much about the technobabble as it was about trying to somehow recapture the success of TNG and the original series. It was trying to make a tired canon and universe fresh. It succeeded only on a few occasions. Perhaps the high ranking of "Twilight" is very telling of that series. After all, that episode was essentially Battlestar Galactica with a few winks and nods for the rooted Trek fans.
Oh... as to actual film discussed...
One thing Wrath of Khan got exactly right was the relationship between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. While Spock was Kirk's best friend, McCoy was Kirk's conscience. Anyone who has watched any of the souped-up reissues of the original series would pick up on this. Abrams and Company must also get right the second time around.
Another plot point worth an eye-roll: Enterprise, a ship full of trainees, is dispatched because they are the only ship available in the QUADRANT. One wonders how the Romulans and Klingons didn't just march right onto Earth's doorstep.
Perhaps it's also worth noting that this film has nothing to do with saving Earth -- only in a roundabout way. Of course, Generations had nothing to do with saving Earth and it was a mediocre effort at best. Maybe this point is going nowhere.
I've always thought about that too. The only ship in the QUADRANT? Seriously?
You mean the one with the trainee crew that was in drydock a few hours ago? THAT SHIP?
"And everyone's OKAY with this?"
I mean, it DID kick V'Ger's ass all by itself, but honestly!! ;-)
And Dr. Heimlich, I did check my posters - and they originally did not say Star Trek II - Just Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. I'm fairly sure that was an honest to goodness 25 year old print!
KKHHHAAAAANNNN!!! I would've yelled along too!
I always thought Khan was a cool villain because he was human (well super-human still counts) and he didn't want to "kill" Kirk, just defeat him mentally.
whenever I'm talking to someone on cell phone and the reception starts breaking up, I switch my conversation to "who's taking Genesis? who.... can you hear me? who's taking Genesis?"
the mole
"No one's authority!"
Post a Comment