Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

4 stars.

Theatrical release: 6/4/1982
[PG]; 1 hr. 56 min.

Screenplay by Jack B. Sowards
Story by Harve Bennett and Jack B. Sowards
Produced by Robert Sallin
Directed by Nicholas Meyer

August 15, 2002

Review Text

Kirk stares at the reading glasses with a certain trepidation, looking upon his birthday gift on the cusp of brooding.

"Dammit, Jim, what the hell's the matter with you?" grumbles McCoy. "Other people have birthdays. Why are we treating yours like a funeral?"

The moment comes in an early scene that represents one of the most important decisions made at the outset of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan — and one of the most important decisions in the entire Star Trek canon. These characters — who became iconic and generally simplified throughout the episodic TV run (as well as Star Trek: The Motion Picture) — have suddenly become real people with real fears. Their limitations, human vulnerability, and the realization of their mortality come crashing down on us. We realize that Kirk has become the microcosm of an aging institution: The Star Trek franchise has grown older, and knows that its subjects must as well.

Bones bluntly tells Kirk that it was a mistake he let Starfleet kick him upstairs into the bureaucratic admiral's desk job, and that he should get back his command as soon as possible, "before you become part of this collection — before you really do grow old." Later, in the aftermath of a surprise attack, Kirk will reluctantly put on these glasses so he can read a computer console. He won't want to do it (amusingly muttering "damn" under his breath), but he'll do it anyway.

Star Trek II is often heralded as the best of the Trek films, and for good reason. Here's the Trek movie that joins epic sci-fi with straightforward simplicity; serious intentions with the winks of irreverence; and sincere emotional payoffs within the structural confines of a scenery-chewing popcorn revenge picture. Why does this work? For one, it has an engaging story that rarely labors. But in the final analysis, I think it comes down to the issue orbiting Kirk — the fact that aging has given him the realization that life is perhaps not as simple as he once thought it was. A crucial decision Spock makes at the end of the film will cement this fact.

In the DVD commentary, director Nicholas Meyer says that his original title of the film was Star Trek II: The Undiscovered Country. It's a title that would not be used (though it would eventually resurface for Meyer's return to the franchise in Star Trek VI), but it would've made a lot of sense here. The undiscovered country in Hamlet is death, and that's exactly what much of Star Trek II serves as a reminder of (also life, which is presented as the flip side of the same coin, which it is).

The movie begins and ends on notes that remind us that things are not the way they used to be. If the TV series was self-contained and episodic, Star Trek II argues for a film series that would take on a new tone where actions have consequences, characters become more complicated, and movies are chapters rather than episodes. As the story's opening minutes show an aging Kirk who feels painfully old even though he may not be, the closing minutes show him somewhat rejuvenated, but only after paying a costly price.

Time has not stood still. Kirk now instructs a new generation of rookies who will crew the relaunch of the Enterprise under Spock's command. Chekov has moved on to first officer of the Reliant. But even if time has marched forward, Kirk and his crew find themselves plagued by a figure from Kirk's past — the obsessive Khan, who wants his revenge ... served as cold as possible.

If the beginning and end of the film serve as a meditation on mortality and the passage of time, the middle is more an exercise in storytelling simplicity. Khan is not a particularly complex character, which is part of what makes him effective. His exile has embittered him beyond all reason; he simply blames Kirk and takes his thirst for vengeance to the point of monomania. "He tasks me," Khan says to his most trusted lieutenant. "He tasks me, and I shall have him." He steals the Reliant and cleverly stages a crisis to lure the Enterprise into a trap. He also hopes to gain control of Project Genesis, an experimental science intended to create life, but with the potential side effects of an Armageddon weapon.

Khan is still the best and most memorable of the Star Trek villains, in no small part because of Ricardo Montalban's performance, which has just the right balance of obsessive quirkiness and scaled-back restraint. Khan's dialog is colorful and entertaining; like all great villains, he's often even more fun to watch than what's going on around him, as when he gloats to Kirk about beating him. Montalban doesn't go overboard, but rather just far enough; if it's scenery chewing (and sometimes it is), it's of the most effective kind.

Khan's surprise attack on the Enterprise reveals Kirk at his most trusting and least cautious, and it's a mistake that hangs over Kirk's head for much of the movie. Refreshing, how the story presents Kirk as human and fallible; we can sympathize with his dilemma. When Scotty's nephew dies from battle injuries, it's a human toll for Kirk that's not only a result of Khan's deviousness but also Kirk's own command decisions.

The cat-and-mouse games involving the two ships provide plenty of interest. One of the most satisfying scenes comes when Kirk and Spock use the Reliant's prefix code to drop its shields in what is to Khan a counterstrike as surprising as the attack he launched upon the Enterprise. There's also the final hunt through the murky Mutara Nebula — still a virtuoso sequence — which seamlessly integrates special effects into the story, supplying enough tension and suspense to play as a good submarine movie. The effects hold up well, in part because they are straightforward rather than elaborate, and because the Enterprise retains the scale and elegance it had in the first film: Rather than darting through the frame like a fighter jet, it's a huge ship that moves slowly. I like that the battle sequences are characterized by big ships that look as if they must tack in order to turn. James Horner's terrific score (for this film as well as the third installment) is perhaps the franchise's best overall (with all due respect to Jerry Goldsmith); I'd still like to see Horner return to score a Trek film.

To many, where Star Trek: The Motion Picture went astray was in its efforts to deliver an epic sci-fi story at the expense of character interaction when what most people wanted to see were the familiar characters in a story that was suited to the Star Trek universe. This is, in short, precisely what The Wrath of Khan seeks to set right and why it remains the generally regarded favorite. Fans want to see scenes like the one where Spock and McCoy argue philosophical points over Project Genesis — a classic, if brief, Spock/Bones exchange if I've ever seen one. Similarly, Kirk and Spock have a scene that resonates early in the film, where Spock famously explains that "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" — a philosophy that, at the end, he will apply in practice with the utmost Vulcan logical detachment.

The film also develops Kirk in ways we were perhaps not expecting. We learn not only about his qualms with age but of his past with Carol Marcus and the fact that they have a son, David — who doesn't much like Kirk today. Shatner is often derided for his penchant for overacting. (Indeed, one of my all-time favorite franchise moments of melodramatic camp comes in this movie when Kirk shouts "KHAAAAAN!" into his communicator.) But it should be noted that Shatner gives one of his best performances in this movie. He's restrained and credible in his most crucial scenes, like the one with Carol inside the Regula tunnels where Kirk quietly takes stock of his situation regarding David and ponders "my life that could've been."

Also well conceived is the film's running theme on the Kobayashi Maru simulation exam — something that pays off with true story significance. The no-win scenario opens the movie with Saavik at the helm of a simulation that ends in disaster. We're told that back in Kirk's training days he beat the exam. How? By cheating, of course — reprogramming the simulator to make it possible to rescue the survivors. It's of no small irony that Kirk's face-off with Khan forces him to attempt cheating death again for real. He finds, however, that life deals him all-too-real consequences.

This of course brings us to the defining moment in Star Trek II — Spock's decision to sacrifice himself to save the Enterprise from the Genesis Device explosion. It's a decision he's able to reach using pure logic, and yet it's impossible not to be moved by it based on the pure selflessness of his act. Fittingly, by using Vulcan logic, Spock is able to do something that is nothing short of heroically human.

Spock's death would be heartbreaking to anyone familiar with the Trek universe. It's almost unthinkable: How could they kill Spock, perhaps the franchise's most beloved character? Spock's death and subsequent funeral are scenes that manage to generate substantial, genuine emotional power. And it's Shatner who must carry these scenes, because the audience is in Kirk's shoes, saying goodbye to a well-known friend.

It's also through Kirk that we see how Spock's death filters through the movie's other elements, like the Kobayashi Maru scenario: Kirk cheated that scenario but now finds — as he reveals to David — that he was not prepared for such a loss. Even if Kirk doesn't believe in losing, there are indeed no-win scenarios in life. And yet the movie finds for Kirk a sort of personal redemption in the notion that as he loses his friend, he regains his son. And even as Spock lies dying, the Genesis planet is being born; Meyer cuts between this death and birth in a sequence that reinforces the movie's central theme of the cycle and duality of life and death.

Released in 1982 when I was very young, and seen over the years on TV and VHS, The Wrath of Khan is one of those movies where I can't remember a time when I hadn't seen it. For me, this DVD release mainly constitutes a format upgrade (Dolby Digital, widescreen, superior image quality, etc.) and a chance to revisit a film I've seen so many times and know so well.

Unlike last year's reissue of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, this DVD cut sports nothing that qualifies as "significant" in terms of changes from the theatrical cut. The snippets of footage that have been edited back in have already been made available in various TV editions. (Perhaps most noteworthy are those lines that establish the doomed young cadet as being Scotty's nephew, omitted from the theatrical cut.) Considering how few there were, it's a wonder why such brief scenes would be cut from the film in the first place, but restoring these minor points does not represent a significant change. Most (like me) are likely to be attracted to this release because of the restoration and sound mix for DVD, and the separate bonus materials.

But it also provides a chance to look at this film in a little more depth. What I find myself discovering is the Trek film that best captures the spirit of the original cast and series, and a film that by its end even manages to say some things that are somewhat profound.

Previous: Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Next: Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

Like this site? Support it by buying Jammer a coffee.

◄ Section Index

Comment Section

128 comments on this post

    My first Trek experience in the cinema and I cried like a baby when Spock died. This would be a great film even if you didn't have any emotional attachment to the characters, the fact that we do knocks this way out of the park.

    When I first saw this, it was a special treat from my dad, who took me. As Spock lay dying I glanced at him to see tears in his eyes and when we reached Kirk's emotional eulogy (...his was the most... human), I cried, too.
    It was embarassing until we reached the bright, sunlit lobby of the theatre and I saw just how many grown men were still wiping at their faces.
    This is the most emotionally-resonant that Trek has ever been, and the most devastating. If I'm in the right frame of mind, I can still be moved to tears during Kirk's eulogy (I'm 41 now) even knowing that it all gets 'undone' in the next movie.

    It is a credit to the greatness of this movie that the movie I believe to be the second greatest Star Trek movie, number 11 (second only to this one, of course), achieves part of its impact from skillful borrowing of this movie's terrific material.
    I am thinking of the following scene in movie 11: Kirk has been brought before the Commander of Starfleet to address the allegation that he violated an ethical rule by changing the conditions of the Kobayashi Maru test (by installing a subroutine in the test, a test written by Spock, no less), thus allowing him to win the test, and allowing him to escape having to face the no-win scenario.

    Kirk, haled before the Commander, demands to confront his accuser (that would be Spock, who programmed the test). The dialogue that ensues is a terrific gloss on the Kobayashi Maru material in film #2: Kirk states (as he did in movie 2) that he does not believe in the no-win scenario (no surprise there), but that the test itself is a cheat, since there is no way to win by playing under its rules. Spcok wryly, with steely annoyance, dismsses this (quite valid) point, stating that Kirk missed the point of WHAT facing a no-win scenario is supposed to impute to a cadet, pedagogically: it is supposed to reveal whether, in the face of certain death, a Captain will freak out, or go down with the ship, or perhaps run...... The problem with the test (and what should have been Kirk's rejoinder) is that life is not a simulation, and the test does not play out exactly the same way for all who take it (some get further along than others, presumably; this variable makes the existence of a valid control group impossible; we will never know how ANY would-be captain X would respond to situation Y, as opposed to how Captain Z would). This does not mean the test has no instructive value, but points to the fact (part of Kirk's unspoken argument) that the test is flawed.
    What a delight to see this discourse in movie 11 - a discourse that extends and enriches a subtle philosophical discussion that in film II ultimately manifested it dramatically.
    But if the concept of the test were not already established - if Meyer (who did an uncredited re-write of the entire script) did not place it there, there would be nothing to add upon. Bravi ti hun for having come up with a script of such intelligent and accessible construction

    IMHO,it was a mistake to kill Spock at the end of this wonderful movie. This set the stage for the third movie, which I think was a weak movie. The Voyage Home could have been done either way.

    1982 was an amazing year for the science fiction/fantasy genre as it gave us classics such as E.T., Blade Runner, The Dark Crystal, The Secret of NIMH, Poltergeist, & (Carpenter's) The Thing.
    Not all of these made money at the box office, but all of them have become classics that have stood the test of time.
    In the midst of this very formidable competition came this great film, which not only set the course (if you'll pardon the pun) for the remaining original series Trek films (of the 4 that followed only the dismal Trek V didn't follow up on the events of "Khan") but also revitalized Trek altogether.
    Roddenberry may have been kicked upstairs but he eventually used the clout of the success of Treks II through IV to create TNG (which would've never gotten the green light prior to Trek II). Hence, we have this film to thank for TNG and the following series.

    I am not enough into Trek yet, and only saw Space Seed, and not this film, and only read about it, so taae this for what it is, but why hasn`t aanyone comented on how this film cheaply ruins the beautifull ope ending of Space Sed, I mean realy?? In the end of Space Seed Kirk and Kahn were respectfull rivals, and we had a beaurifull sense of wonder what would happen too Kahn, and then in II we see, oh uh yeah there was the most implausible, convinient and rare disaster pssible so Kahn suffered instead of livingheapily ever after, and Kahn is Kirk`s rival againm cause Kirk for no reason didn`t check on him,, I mean that is a great hour of t flushed down the toilet if you ask me, who agrees?/?? Also again take this for what it is!!!

    Since we've all beaten this film to death over the past 30 years, I'll only say this: I cannot believe how well this film (and screenplay) have aged. This may be my favorite sci-fi screenplay of all time (not just ST), if only because in over 50 viewings I have yet to find a single element about it that I don't like. From a story, dialogue, and action perspective, it's about as close to perfect as a script can get.

    Since Kirk knew that rescue was just "hours, not days" away, why did he shriek "Khaaaaaaaan" as if Khan's claim that he was stranded forever was remotely true...was it just for show? It was of course for dramatic effect, but it was also ridiculous.

    But that aside, still the best film of the franchise, and I doubt it will ever lose that title.

    Plus, I hope the fact that Reliant can "outrun us" and "outgun us" (us being the Enterprise) has to do with the lingering damage the flagship suffered, rather than being generally true.

    Being an ex-Star Trek nerd (now I'm just a nerd), i think Star Trek: The Motion picture and Wrath of Khan somehow recreate the two different approaches to Star Trek taken in the first two TV pilot episodes, The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before. One is cerebral (and maybe even profound) and the other is more action packed and entertaining. As a kid, I loved Khan and hated TMP, but as an adult, I think TMP is genius and Khan rather silly.

    You can also see Star Trek 2, 3 and 4 as three parts of the same movie because it involves a continuing storyline.

    Er, now I realise why I don't have a girlfriend.

    I believe that STAR TREK is not simply one thing or another. It is not specifically Science-fiction, nor is it specifically action-adventure. In that sense, I have come to believe that Star Trek is unique on several levels. For instance, I used to think that DS9 and Voyager were not Star Trek, because they were not set on a ship with the name Enterprise, their intros did not include the "To boldly go" monologue, and the general premise of each series was considerably different than what I considered iconic Trek, aka TOS and TNG. However, after thorough consideration, this is not correct. DS9 and Voyager each include special elements and the soul of what made Star Trek so wonderful in the first place.

    The same is true with the films. TMP was a much more cerebral film, much more thought provoking and philosophical. TWOK was the traditional swashbuckling Kirk-beats-em-up style film. And to me, which film you like best indicates what you prefer to see in Star Trek. If you prefer TMP, chances are you also prefer more thoughtful, philosophical stories that deal strictly with the human condition. If you prefer TWOK, you enjoy Star Trek for it's unique action-adventure style, and the general family feel of the crew. There are several other parallels; for instance, in the case of pilot episodes,"The Cage" was far more cerebral and thought-provoking, much like TMP; however, "Where No Man Has Gone Before" was more about swashbuckling action, and the sense of family that the rest of TOS had. Another similar comparison is, indeed, TOS and TNG. TNG was considered "boring" by many, much like TMP and "The Cage", for the same reasons of more intellectual, philosophical stories. TOS, on the other hand, fits better with stories like "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and TWOK. Depending on which of these types of stories you prefer, you may like Star Trek for varying reasons. I myself tend to lean toward the treaditional Sci-fi type stories, such as The Cage/TMP/TNG, but again, that's just the kind of Star Trek fan that I am.

    Robert Wise and Nicholas Meyer...

    They are both great directors. But, being a great director doesn't mean that their Mothers brought them up with something basic, like etiquette and tact. Nick should have been a little more respectful to Mr. Wise.

    Yeah, Nick. Your movies will entertain. But Robert's are American Icons. "West Side Story" "The Hindenburg" "The Day the Earth Stood Still" "The Andromeda Strain" among so many others...

    When was Meyer disrespectful to Wise? You know, they did a joint dvd commentary for "The Day the Earth Stood Still," fwiw.

    I wonder: if Spock had remained in command (instead of throwing a bone to his friend, still brooding about his birthday), would he have raised shields? How would Khan's surprise attack have played out?

    Stubb: " over 50 viewings I have yet to find a single element about it that I don't like."

    For #51, pay attention to the scene when Reliant is heading to the first battle. Chekov and Terrell stand in the background... after they should've been left behind at Regula One. And why did Khan leave them as moles anyway? Did he lack confidence in his first attempt to kill Kirk, so he used them as backup? And how did they cross interstellar distances with the Millennium Falcon's hyperdrive... er, Enterprise's warp drive inoperative? And Spock's hours/days code is notoriously silly. Plus, the travel pod docks in Engineering but they go aboard in the torpedo bay!

    All of which serve as reminders that, as Pauline Kael is credited with sayin, "Great movies are rarely perfect movies."

    @Grumpy: The Enterprise crew routinely traveled great distances at warp and impulse in TOS and the movies. If you watch Star Trek IV, it seems like they were planning on traveling from Earth to Vulcan on impulse, until they learned of the emergency. TOS and the early movies were not known for good science.

    If you really want to identify a flaw in WOK, it's Saavik. Kirstie Alley played the character as a half-Romulan -- that's how it was written. It's why she swears, it's why she cries and it's why Bones (in the turbolift) says "Wonderful thing that Romulan Ale," which makes no sense as the movie was cut.

    Why they took out that bit of backstory of Saavik never made much sense to me. She even looks different than most Vulcans. Oh, and in ST: III, Kruge simply calls her a "woman", after he identifies Spock as a Vulcan and David Marcus as a human.

    Oh, and why did Scotty bring the dying engineer's assistant to the bridge? Shouldn't he have gone to sick bay?

    My memory of opening day: I was in line for the first show on opening day in Groton, Ct. for TWOK. I remember by the time we arrived any hopes of being first in line were quickly dashed hours before showtime. It was a beautiful sunny afternoon and there was a sort of "party" atmosphere which just made the long wait a lot less tedious. As far back as we were, any ability to judge the actual length of the line became impossible (later in the summer I returned for another viewing and found myself at the end of a line that stretched around the side of the building). At some point, when the theater realized they had enough people in line for every scheduled showing, someone came out and asked if we wouldn't mind if they started the first movie immediately... and the massive audience, already in a good mood, roared its approval. Soon after, the line started moving and I was very happy to find that my pals and I had still arrived early enough to make it into the first audience. At 23 years of age and a life long fan of the series, all I knew going into TWOK was that Ricardo Mantalban was reprising his role as Khan, a character from Space Seed I knew very well. My point being, of course, the comparative lack of forehand knowledge and storyline detail. I hadn't even seen a television trailer, if there were any, before arriving. I wasn't "spoiled," in other words. Indeed, I got my first close up look at the movie poster inside the lobby with its few bits of story elements which were just enough to whet my appetite for what was to become the audience participation and movie experience of a lifetime.

    I've always interpreted Saavik as half-Romulan, even if that part was cut out - just because it wasn't explicitly stated doesn't mean it isn't true. The novelization has her being half-Romulan, and the way Kirstie Alley plays her, it seems there is a lot of barely contained emotion, as if she is only trying - not all that well - to contain her emotions.

    Amazing Grace always feels wrong if it is not played on the bagpipes. When we were watching the movie in the theaters, we didn't know that Spock was going to come back, it's a different experience than rewatching today when you know he comes back. Still, even knowing that you just need to watch one more movie to get him back, we can still share in the emotions of the crew. I think it is the little tremble in Sulu's voice that gets to me.

    I think the biggest compliment I can give this film is that I've watched it with people who no nothing of Star Trek, and they still enjoy it.

    It's not just a great Star Trek movie, it's a great movie!

    We know that Wrath was developed from the original series episode Space Seed, in which Khan and his followers, products of the Eugenics Wars, were discovered in a stolen sleeper ship hundreds of years after they (take note) lost their war to rule Earth. These so-called physical and intellectual supermen then tried to take over the Enterprise, but (again) lost, and were banished by Captain Kirk to a small uninhabited planet “to rule.”

    Which should tell you right off that these guys weren't the great s#!+s they thought they were.

    Fast-forward about 25 years, to a movie that depicts the Enterprise being used as a training vessel (yeah… for the most celebrated ship in the Federation fleet, and recently refit to-boot, that makes sense), and the Reliant, a survey vessel from the same Federation that is apparently not smart enough to notice that the solar system they’ve entered, which has been mapped by Federation ships before (including the Enterprise) is now missing a planet. In fact, another planet has supposedly been moved out of its original orbit (something else the crew of the Reliant should have noticed), but instead of changing the temperature severely, the planet gets stoopid dust storms. Naturally, they find the surviving members of Khan’s group, but can’t say the words “Beam us out!” fast enough to avoid being captured.

    Khan—the leader of “superior intellect”—has responded to the decaying quality of “his” planet, and the death of his non-genetically-improved wife, by apparently going insane, caring about nothing save the death of the man who bested him, James T. Kirk… even if it means the death of the last of his followers in the process. Instead of accepting change and hardship, he’s gone from super-intelligent leader to vengeful sociopath despot.

    A great deal of my angst over this movie is in its bad story and sloppy editing, leaving characters hollow and pointless, and diminishing any salient story points to utter twaddle:

    - Saavik has her part Romulan heritage left on the cutting room floor (yeah, didn’t know she was supposed to be half-Romulan… did ya?);
    - Characters like Scotty’s nephew become nameless footnotes, lessening the impact of their later death scenes and wasting perfectly good pathos;
    - Chekov and Terrell can’t just beam out of Khan’s world before Khan’s guys can cross a few dozen yards of sand to catch them;
    - Khan “remembers” Chekov, despite the fact that they never met in the original Trek episode;
    - Khan, the man of “superior intellect,” apparently responded to the loss of his wife and the change in his planet by going insane with thoughts of revenge on Kirk… but none of his “superior” followers, including his son, have the stones to explain his obsession to him, or take steps to prevent their all being destroyed by the man;
    - “Superior intellect” Khan on the Reliant could have had earworm-controlled Captain Terrell greet Enterprise and bring them within transporter range; whereupon Khan could have beamed over with his crew, taken over a superior starship and killed Kirk and crew personally. Instead, he pulls a sneak attack with a science vessel against a heavy cruiser, which he doesn’t know isn’t staffed by a shipful of professionals. The man exhibits the plotting ability of Daffy Duck.
    - Khan’s son is the only one of the baddies group, other than Khan, who utters a word through the entire movie (besides “Aaugh!” when the Reliant is attacked—apparently genetic supermen make great redshirts);
    - Khan’s followers are no better than slabs of meat (even the women), and in the end, we feel nothing about their being blown up… even Khan’s son’s death elicits no more than a yawn from the audience;
    - We discover Kirk had fathered a son and never met him, nor kept in touch with him or his mother… and we’re supposed to actually care;
    - The scientists are smart enough to hide the Genesis device on what appears to be a lifeless moon. The scientists then demonstrate they are not smart enough to hide with the device;
    - One of the worms Khan dropped in Chekov’s ear could have been dropped into the ear of just one of the scientists in order to find the genesis device, preventing the need to torture the rest of them.

    At the end, Starfleet-hater David tells Kirk that he’s “proud to be your son.” Why? All Kirk did was show up too late to save his scientist friends, beat up his son upon their first meeting, best Khan by conning him into making bad strategic decisions, get his ship beat to hell and a few random trainees killed or traumatized for life, and lose his best friend while saving his own skin. What’s to be so proud of?

    And let’s face it, the whole Moby Dick theme (with lines from Melville’s book intentionally altered to use celestial references that Khan couldn’t possibly know) is just mondo lame… even when it’s presented by Ricardo Montalban, the one man in the universe who seems to be able to out-overact William Shatner.

    Throughout, we suffer through cheap cinematic gags, like the radio dialog obviously written to make sure the slower viewers can follow the action from one scene to another; horror-movie shtick like Bones being distracted by a loose lab rat (Federation scientists still use lab rats?), then backing into the bloody dangling arms of a scientist, accompanied by a bloody close-up and embarrassingly-cliche “boo!” musical cue; the (eww!) worm-in-the-ear bit; the big ancient book and granny-glasses as elephant-obvious metaphors for how old Kirk and crew are getting; and the ridiculous new Star Fleet uniforms, obviously designed to look good in technicolor, maybe in a dress parade, and when a cadet wants to leave a bloody handprint on the breast, but not good for much else.

    And I don’t even want to get into the most blatant sci-fi gag, the only thing more predictable than a death of a Star Trek redshirt: The death of a Black man in a science fiction movie; not to mention that Black man being Paul Winfield, the single most doomed Black man in SF movie history! The only cinematic gag I appreciated was James Horner’s music, which was tailor-made for dramatic presentations like this (all the same, you could make a drinking game out of the signature musical elements Horner loves to reuse, in every SF and adventure movie he does).

    So, we come to the part that everyone says is the best part of the movie: The starship fights. Okay, considering this is the first time in the history of the franchise that we see the Enterprise (or any other starship in the Trek franchise) taking serious modern-special-effects battle damage, the battles were notable and memorable. Beyond that… meh. We see two starships close enough to spit at each other, but which still miss each other with regularity. We see those ships in a nebula, in reality a collection of mass and gasses that are spaced light-years apart… but here, a nebula is depicted like a technicolor fog bank a few miles wide. We get the whole “Khan displays two-dimensional thinking” bit, and we’re supposed to buy the premise that a “superior intellect” leader who could rule a world (albeit temporarily), steal away on a sleeper ship, steal a starship, who has presumably thought about attacking and killing Kirk for many moons, who knows how space works, and who’s probably heard of submarines, has never figured out three-dimensional warfare. We see the old TV-series holdover of having bridge equipment blow up when a piece of ship dozens of decks away gets hit with a phaser blast… so you know they’re connected.

    And finally, we have the Tech-Of-The-Day, a device the size of a man that can change the life-potential of entire planets; and the stereotypical “countdown to disaster” when the genesis device is started—but they never just go off, do they? No, we have to suffer a melodramatic countdown for it to happen. But the Enterprise is crippled… oh noes! Will they die? No, because Spock manages to get the engines fixed mere seconds before it’s too late. Whew. And oh, yeah, Spock is now going to die of radiation poisoning. On a ship that runs on antimatter, in which everyone in engineering is dressed like the Michelin Man to protect them from something, but no one goes where Spock dares to tread without a suit, and after we’ve seen radiation sicknesses cured with hyposprays in episodes of the original series…

    You see where this is going, I’m sure. Khan isn’t consistent to Star Trek, not the original series et al nor the particular episode in which it was birthed. It’s not consistent with science fiction, not even the Trek brand of sci-fi. And on top of that, it’s just not well put-together cinematically. Everything in this movie just comes off as being contrived in order to push some incredibly obvious emotional buttons, while ignoring how much (or little) sense they make. It’s showy, it’s pretty, it has more colorful Star Fleet uniforms… and it’s stupid. It’s about as realistic as The Blues Brothers, complete with stupid Nazis.

    And this is the movie that fans declare is the best Trek film ever.

    IqnaH QaD. (Go look it up.)

    It’s funny how Trek fans, who like to proclaim the intellectual superiority of their program of choice, are amazingly unsophisticated when it comes to their preferred Trek movies. The even-numbered movies that most cite as “the best” are in fact the worst when it comes to science fiction realism, Trek continuity and downright story quality. And Khan leads the pack of guilty movies (okay, it’s second, right after The Voyage Home, and barely preceding the disaster right after that, The Final Frontier… but it has the virtue of being iconic of all of them).

    The Wrath of Khan was a redshirts movie: Let’s do stupid stuff and beat up on each other, yargh! It was designed to impress Star Wars fans, who (let’s face it) weren’t nearly that concerned with trifles like science and storylines. It was fluff… pure, unadulterated fluff. It was designed to sell tickets and T-shirts (which it did, and very well).

    You want good Trek movies? Star Trek: Generations is probably the best, in my opinion; followed by Star Trek: Insurrection. These movies had action, but they also had stories consistent with Trek continuity and the pseudo-science fiction universe that Trek was based within, paid close attention to the established behavior of Trek characters and didn’t go in any phenomenally stupid plot directions. Were they perfect? No; but let’s face it, Star Trek has never been a “perfect” show. But Star Trek has (almost) always had a way to look at the future that was thoughtful, humble and optimistic, and both Generations and Insurrection embodied that attitude.

    Obviously some world-class trolling there. I mean, not everyone has to agree what's good or bad, so when criticism crosses into "anyone who likes this is unsophisticated," there's no other word for it. Trolling. And trolls must not be fed.

    I'm reminded of Film Crit Hulk's essay about "tangible details."
    The point being that lists of reasons for an opinion are usually post-hoc rationalizations. A clue is when the reasons come from outside the text. For instance, "Star Trek II sucks because it ignores Saavik's Romulan heritage" is not an opinion anyone could form while watching the movie.

    ...Therefore, anyone who cites that (or similar tangible details) must either 1) have other, unexpressed reasons for holding that opinion or 2) does not sincerely hold that opinion at all. Thus, trolling. But it inspired me to revisit the "tangible details" essay, so it's not all bad.

    @Grumpy ;

    I happen to think the majority of Steven's claims are overstated to the point of losing whatever original point he was trying to make, but that does not make him a troll. TWoK is a really great action movie with excellent characterisation and some very moving scenes, but he's not wrong in saying that it many ways fails to capture the spirit and tone of Star Trek. TWoK is a the perfect Star Trek movie for mass audiences, and that's why, I think, Mr Jordan finds the sci-fi elements of the film to be unsophisticated. And compared to the best Trek film, TMP, he's right!

    Now, I can't get behind his claims about the acting, the themes, or character arcs--those were handled extremely well. I also think Generations and Insurrection were fucking awful--though Insurrection at least managed to be more of a Star Trek movie than the action schlock most of the TNG films put out.

    I don't like this idea of dismissing the dissenter as a troll.

    @Elliott - TMP.... best ST film?!!

    I will agree with you about TWoK though. It's scifi-lite wrapped into an action movie. But the truth is that after a brilliant sci-fi series you don't want a 2 hour sci-fi movie... what you want is for 2 more hours with characters you love, and the easiest way to do that is to make it a product the masses will like (so the franchise doesn't fall apart) to while still giving the fans their favorite characters.

    I actually think that when you try to make something that is truly a sci-fi plot line into a 2 hour movie it ends up losing something (namely you spend so much time on the concept you don't end up with an amazing character piece). Since in the end what I really want is 2 hours with my characters, I actually don't think Generations is a fail. Data and Picard's storylines in that movie are actually pretty good. It probably wasn't "theatrical" enough to be a movie (if it was a 2 part episode in S7 people would have rated it 4 stars)... but I like it.

    First Contact took TWoK approach, and that's why it is my favorite TNG movie. It really had nice pieces for almost every character and did nice things for the ST mythos in general (Vulcans at first contact, the new Enterprise, etc.) It wasn't awesome sci-fi, but it was good to the characters and the universe. That's probably why I think ST6 is my favorite.

    As for Insurrection, it wasn't bad... but it probably would have worked better as a 2 part episode also.

    As for Nemesis... since they finally decided to use the Romulans (TNG's Klingons basically)... they needed to make Nemesis into TNG's Undiscovered Country. Instead we get a random race that happens to live with the Romulans that we've never seen before, a human villain (that is a clone of Picard) and a cross between Lore and a Pakled? Sigh....

    It's STILL more watchable (to me) than TMP or STV... but only barely.

    @Grumpy thanks for the link to the Hulk essay, it was an excellent read and quite relevant to the rant you were responding to.

    Pardon me for being dismissive. I cannot diagnose true trolling without knowing a poster's motivation. Film Crit Hulk "never met nor read a critic who write a piece one way or other for sole purpose of just trying to get rise out of people," but we know Internet commenters might. I have no way of knowing if Mr. Jordan is pulling such a stunt, but after reading his points one by one, I decided I could safely dismiss them all. Not because his conclusion challenges the conventional wisdom (I agree ST2 is overrated, and I've nitpicked its flaws) but because his reasoning is so far out that a point-by-point rebuttal would waste my time. Especially if it's a prank.

    @Robert :

    First Contact is the only decent film in TNG's output and it's all about the details; structurally, VIII and IX are nearly identical:

    1) Philosophical A-Plot, Action B-Plot, splitting the crew
    2) Action schlock and corny 1-liners
    3) Picard being Bruce Willis
    4) Dubious villain
    5) Data struggles with emotions
    6) Non-regular female lead opposite Picard

    The reason First Contact succeeds where Insurrection fails is all in the details of these components:

    1) The philosophical-historical plot is well-handled, true to Gene's vision, amiably portrayed and imbued with a real sense of adventure befitting the big screen; the B Plot is sort of dumb, but at least has the big-budget gizmos and shininess to make it enjoyable.
    2) The schlock is at least dressed up nicely with beautiful special effects and makeup on the Borg.
    3) Picard finds himself the action hero by circumstance and his violent impulses are justified by a psychological aberration connected to the B Plot
    4) While the Borg Queen's motivations are, as I said, dubious, she gets some good dialogue and is put to critical use. Plus the Zombie-Movie vibe of the other Borg make up for her shortcomings
    5) The movie does right what "Descent" did so wrong, so it's a retread from the series that *improves* upon it.
    6) Alfre Woodard's Lily is a magnificent presence on screen and a perfect "everyman" character for the non-Trek audience to relate to. She has an arc, learns a lesson and teaches a lesson through a believable, flushed-out character.

    1) The A plot is atrociously underdeveloped and weak, making the Federation look like weenies and the Ba'ku like horrible monsters (and fails to realise this irony). The B plot is anæmic with floppy battles and rote action.
    2) The 1-liners are everywhere and incredibly irritating. The schlock is unimaginative and low-budget, almost B-Movie in its execution.
    3) Picard inserts himself as the action hero with only the flimsy excuse of "rebellious instincts" for any kind of justification. All he does is shoot things and dive into lakes and blow stuff up. Not the Picard I know.
    4) Ruafo is an absolute joke and a waste of Abraham's talent.
    5) Data's big arc is learning how to play...I don't have the words to sum up why that's such an insult to this character, but good God, WHAT AN INSULT TO THIS CHARACTER
    6) JC Penny Lady (to borrow from RedLetterMedia) is incredibly boring and, like the main moral plotline, we're expected to just swallow whatever new-age bullshit "wisdom" she spouts out. And of course, she was so boring that they had to tack on a romance with Picard which was just as hollow and meaningless as everything else.

    In short, for the most part, First Contact felt like an action movie for the TNG crew that *earned* its action, getting there by exploring who the characters really were and what the show was about. Insurrection (much like the Abrams' movies, but with no budget) feels like a generic action movie with a tacked-on (and really poorly thought-out) morality tale that happened to involve the TNG crew.

    Generic action movie != unwatchable though. There are a few unwatchable Trek movies :)

    FC is obviously far and away the best TNG outing though, agreed.

    @Robert :"TMP.... best ST film?!!"

    Hell, yes! Without reservation, it's my favourite film.

    I'd rank them, at least right now like this :


    Note to commenters: check your work on uneditable sites ...


    Without having rewatched,


    (not listed: XII (not seen yet))

    I'm starting to feel like "Master and Commander: Far Side of the World" belongs in this list as a kind of spiritual 'prequel' to the Star Trek franchise. I'm not sure if anyone else agrees, but I think that this movie is VERY Star Trek in nature: federation esque-identity with a military hierarchy set on foreign waters (analogous to space travel), tight relationship between senior officers, a genuine sense of adventure and scientific exploration (the Galapagos island scene is as good as any away mission) and gritty political intrigue that casts world-powers as close competitors in the Alpha-Quadrant, er uh Pacific ocean.

    I believe a kind of Star Trek movie marathon would start well with this flick! Call me crazy!

    bhbor, you should check out the book series (by Patrick O'Brian) that movie was based on. The movie (which was great, as far as it went) used portions of a few volumes--the two named in yhe title, plus a couple others--but there are TWENTY books (plus an uncompleted one) in all!

    Spock had his realization that logic alone was not enough in the previous film, but overall seems content with his place in the world: captain, instructor, mentor. He is secure in his personal philosophy and has a place in the world -- which is probably why, ultimately, he can die at the film's end. V'Ger mirrored the main characters but Spock was even more heavily linked to V'Ger than Kirk was, and so his existential crisis was at least temporarily resolved. Kirk, on the other hand, reluctantly acknowledged Decker's heroism and is willing to devote himself to "raising" the next generation of command officers, with Saavik as the primary representative thereof. But there is still a big missing something. He is getting older, too old perhaps to command a starship, and he has neither any family nor any permanent, ongoing work and legacy. The clock ticks away in his apartment. Time is running out. So what are the three things that would terrify a single man as he enters middle age? Why, an old man, a powerful woman, and a young man about to supplant him. And all three are half-forgotten remnants of Kirk's past, old wounds he tells McCoy he doesn't want reopened.

    Khan the villain of the piece is not just an old man, but perhaps the oldest human alive. (I presume that he's the oldest of the Botany Bay stock, though I can't be certain.) In terms of his body's age, Khan is only maybe a decade older than Kirk (that's the difference between Montalban and Shatner's ages), but in chronological time Khan comes from the twentieth century. Not only that, but Khan, as established in Space Seed, is essentially the last of the quasi-benevolent despots; after Khan came the Col. Greens, the Encounter at Farpoint kangaroo courts, the destruction of WWIII, before First Contact finally started Earth toward healing. But in Space Seed Kirk, Scotty, Bones et al. admit a kind of admiration for what Khan accomplished, even as they admit to Spock that it is wrong to find him admirable; he was a man of culture who instituted "reforms" in the lands he conquered, establishing universities and hospitals. In a lot of ways, and in keeping with the Genesis theme, Khan, as of Space Seed anyway, reminds me a bit of a Biblical patriarch in addition to being an Alexander/Napoleon-type: he desires and even requires total rule and domination, but there is room in his world for mercy and even love for the "family" that he creates. This model of manhood, in Trekdom, of the man as total, undisputed ruler over all he surveys, and who views himself as a benevolent leader, is something that finally gets quashed with Khan. In Space Seed, it turns out that not just Kirk et al. but also McGivers finds herself seduced by that ancient model. There is no room in the 23rd century democratic egalitarianism for Khan's model of absolute ruler, but the instinct for it still exists, and giving Khan a place to rule himself ala Milton's Satan (and allowing his people, and McGivers for that matter) a place to live that out was both an ethical solution to a difficult problem and a way of suppressing without finally destroying that urge.

    Here's what I think: Kirk the adventurer is the ethical, 23rd-century ideal, version of Khan. He has the instincts of a conquerer but channels them into meeting new peoples, gaining new information, and solving problems. The problem is that in order to "conquer" without actually conquering, to solve problems in the short-term without definitely imposing his rule, Kirk acts, makes huge command decisions that will affect dozens of lives, and then leave, and never returns. This combines with Kirk's mindset that he can cheat death at any time to produce the idea of invincibility, and to reinforce the belief that his solutions are always the correct ones, while he also...leaves and avoids taking full responsibility. And we get major and minor variations of this pattern in this film. In terms of command-style ruling decisions, there is the fate of Khan and his people on Ceti Alpha V. In terms of Kirk's personal life, there are Carol and David Marcus. That Kirk has a child actually does make sense to me, given his brash womanizing, though it's worth noting that this womanizing became more frequent as the TV series went on; on the one hand, that Kirk actually did father a child makes his disinterest in consequences worse, but on the other hand I think Kirk's capacity for denial does make some sense. He staves off existential dread by exploring more, and solving more problems, until eventually he realizes that he has nothing to show for it. Let's note, too, that Carol specifically asked Kirk to stay away from David, as he relates; I can imagine a few different ways that could have gone, but I suspect that the basic reason is that Kirk didn't know exactly how to lead a life with Carol with both of them pursuing their careers -- which forms quite a contrast to Khan and McGivers, who gave up her career and, eventually, her life to go be his wife, consort and acolyte. While the film is obviously 23rd century, I think that there is something in here about the difficult role of fatherhood in mid-to-late 20th century; the old model of fatherhood of man as patriarch, man as head of the household, is represented by Khan, and is dying off, and it leaves men with Khanlike instincts uncertain how to function as equals with their lovers and so mostly finding themselves alienated from them and their children, ala Kirk here.

    So Khan's titular wrath comes down to anger that his "family" was destroyed: his wife died. (Did he have any children who died?) He lost his future, and could just barely survive. Khan WAS a prince, back in the twentieth century, and was unable to function in a world in which he wasn't the ruler, but was willing to settle for "ruling" over a small family/tribe, something of a compromise to the times. And then this was ripped away from him. The displacement of the planet due to the destruction of Ceti Alpha VI (which gets called back later, to an extent, both in the Genesis Planet's destruction in STIII and also in the destruction of Praxis the moon in STVI) is a disaster which an insurance company might call an Act of God, and as in Moby Dick Khan's obsessive anger is at the untameable forces of nature and his ability to maintain control. It gets directed onto Kirk because Kirk is at least a human representative of the forces which Khan can't control, and he can hardly launch a campaign against God for destroying his planet and killing his wife, first of all because He probably doesn't exist, and if he did even Khan wouldn't believe he could actually take him on. He has something of a legitimate beef against Kirk for abandoning him and his to a fate; while the original deal was that Khan might not survive, the deal still depended on Ceti Alpha V being *difficult* but not impossible to live on, and that Khan was marooned on a planet with no actual possibility of asking for help does mean that perhaps Kirk should have checked in on him. But really, Khan is angry at both the universe and possibly, deep down, himself, because he is reaping the benefits of demanding absolute rulership; a Federation prison would have been safer, it turns out, no? The point is made with regularity as the film goes on that Khan really could stop at any time after he's gotten the Genesis planet and become his own God, make a new planet to rule over with his remaining people, but Khan cannot do this knowing that Kirk is out there, because by this point I don't think Khan even really *wants* to start again, only to run the risk of losing it. He is angry at the universe for what he has lost, and for giving him a challenge that really was outside the scope of his intellect and strength. "How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life."

    But I think that symbolically, Khan's wrath mirrors Kirk's anger, bubbling to the surface, about his encroaching mortality, and what he has lost. Note that the loss of his wife and the destruction of his "family" is, notably, an EXACT THING that Kirk actually failed to hang onto. Kirk specifically AVOIDED cultivating a family, and he has no real idea what to do with the blood relative he has. Khan encounters not just the Marcuses' Genesis project, but also Chekov, a protege of Kirk's sent off into the world where Kirk might not see him again (until he rejoins the crew). Kirk's desire to escape consequences and responsibility is also, as I suggested earlier, a genuine uncertainty of HOW to be a responsible lover and father, especially in a world in which he CANNOT have absolute rulership. Kirk does not trust authority all that much, and does not believe in someone having absolute rulership, but that is the main way he knows how to lead; note that even later in the film, when he gets beamed up after playing a trick on Khan regarding how long before he can beam back up, he didn't bother telling the Marcuses about the trick until it was beam-up time, even though surely they could use that information; he is uncomfortable trusting Saavik to command the ship out of spacedock; etc. It's hard to imagine Kirk as a husband and father NOT being tyrannical, at least the Kirk as we know him, not because he approves of absolute rulership in personal affairs but because that is how he knows how to operate. That his nearest friends in the world are also his inferior officers (though at least McCoy is not a line officer and has the medical authority to relieve Kirk) similarly speaks to Kirk's control issues. So Kirk is frustrated because he can no longer have adventures, but he is also frustrated because the possibility to have a loving family has passed him by, just as it has Khan -- except that unlike Khan, it was no Act of God but Kirk's own immaturity that prevented him from forming relationships. And Khan, the symbol of old age and also ancient patriarchal authority, comes to destroy him specifically because of his irresponsibility (i.e. in not checking back in with them), which also happens to be partly about the limits of Kirk's power and authority (Kirk acted as if the Ceti Alpha V situation were within his power, but it turns out it was well without it). I think that this mirrors Kirk's anger at himself for not taking responsibility, but part of the problem is that I suspect Kirk's irresponsibility really is because I think the only way he can envision himself behaving "responsibly" is to go full-on "tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood," as the Klingon said in The Trouble with Tribbles, to rule over his "family" like Khan.

    Notably, Kirk spends all his time on a starship, which is associated, at least to a degree, with the military. His experience, which is the one thing he has over Khan, is with battle strategy. In this adventure is fighting, and ultimately death -- which Kirk encounters regularly, and sometimes even doles out, but never experiences himself. It's not all there is to his job in Starfleet, but it is a lot of it. And so that Carol and David's project is Genesis is pretty interesting. Assuming David is the only child Kirk fathered, Carol really does symbolically represent Life to Kirk, and so for her and David's project to be about the creation of life, which is deeply foreign territory to Kirk, him being estranged from them and all. I think it's also interesting that Khan can only really use the Genesis device for destruction, because he is nearing the end of his life and embittered, and what he had thought of as his last shot to create life (with McGivers) is now gone. I suspect that there is something male/female about the starship battle/Genesis device organization, but it is not strictly a matter of male adventurism/death-dealing/defying and female creation, since the genders are reversed in the younger generation -- Saavik is training for Starfleet and dealing with death, David training in Genesis. So Kirk's alienation from, and reconciliation with, Carol and David has something to do with Kirk being cut off from the flow of life. The only way Kirk can feel alive is by defying death through risk/adventure.

    So is there a way out? Are the options to remain an irresponsible boy-child into one's forties and fifties, messing with the universe a bit and then running away, or to become a mad tyrant who needs to control the universe? Obviously there is a way out, and it's Spock. Spock is depicted almost entirely in heroic terms in this film, with the one possible exception being that I think McCoy has a point in the brief Genesis debate scene that Spock is far too cold about the frightening implications of Genesis. Normally Spock is depicted as a flawed hero. I think the reason this is an exception has to do with the nature of Kirk's dilemma in this picture, and the other films in the series do have Spock's flaws more readily on display. In this film, though, Spock is willing to cede control, willing to teach others, willing to live without adventure and willing to sacrifice himself when need be. Kirk is not a bad man, but he is unwilling to sacrifice himself and others, which leads to some of the disastrous situations in this film -- he proposed an "ideal solution" for Khan and then never bothered to consider what would happen if his ideal situation fell through; he fathered a child and then stayed away while claiming that it's what Carol wanted. His problem, and what I think nags at him, is that his need to win in all situations means that he goes into denial at the possibility of loss. Unlike Khan, Kirk has the good sense not to go after and try to destroy people when he is threatened with a loss, but he shuts his mind off about situations that might go south the moment he exits. In this film, Spock eventually realizes that the ship cannot be saved by Kirk's strategies, and simply acts without Kirk's say-so, going to engineering and sacrificing himself to save the ship. I actually agree that this could have been depicted a tiny bit better (WHY DOESN'T SPOCK WEAR A RADIATION SUIT) but I don't have a big problem with that, and the actual scenes of Spock's death, with the glass separating him and Kirk, and the funeral scene, are extraordinary (especially the former) and among the best in the Trek canon, which as has been mentioned above gain an extra punch with Leonard Nimoy's passing.

    At the very end, Kirk says that he feels young. Why does he feel young? His friend just died! But I think that's exactly it. Kirk says that he has never faced death before, "not like this," which could be interpreted as poor continuity given how many "He's dead, Jim"s there were, and his brother's death in "Operation -- Annihilate!" and the deaths he witnessed in his youth as told in "The Conscience of the King," and plus the deaths that he blamed on himself in "Obsession." Still, of these, the only one Kirk really blamed HIMSELF for was "Obsession," and that was self-blame for a mistake when he was a VERY young officer, and which he eventually realizes wasn't his fault anyway. I think that there IS something different about Spock's death. For one, Kirk really does seem to me to be closer to Spock even than to his brother. Given that Kirk never did establish a family, with Carol or anyone else, Spock is the nearest thing to a life partner Kirk has. I think he also recognizes that Spock stepped in to solve Kirk's no-win scenario for him. Spock, in other words, taught Kirk to deal with death by just openly confronting it, recognizing that it has to happen, and logically accepting it. Spock's sacrifice is as much for Kirk himself as for the overall ship, which is similar to his sacrifice for Kirk early on, of giving Kirk command. And so Kirk actually experiences Spock's death partly as his own...and survives. He lost his best friend, largely because of his own past piling up on him (via Khan, Carol, David), and this makes death seem real, which ALSO makes life seem real in the process. He can look at David more clearly now; having lived through Spock's death, Kirk is able to confront his mistakes and regrets and not be afraid of the losses he has suffered due to his own mistakes. And really, Kirk, who has never dealt with death which he really interpreted at least partly as HIS OWN death, or death which is TRULY on his hands (even those who died under his command), finds that he is not driven mad by it, as Khan was, but can live through it, and that means he is no longer so totally afraid, and is free to live himself.

    That Khan blows himself up with the Genesis device, and destroys himself in an effort to destroy Kirk, but also gives new life through the process, also makes a certain amount of symbolic sense. Khan represents the part of Kirk who wants to destroy Kirk for his failure to take charge of his life, and for the tragedies that have befallen him. That part of Kirk needs to be defeated, and needs to die, for Kirk to be "reborn." And that allows for Spock's own death/rebirth. If one prefers not to see other characters as symbolic of traits in the protagonist, I think it's worth saying instead that Khan's ultimate self-destruction also gives Kirk the recognition of the self-defeating nature of going for control and domination and anger as a response to a no-win scenario, and to death itself.

    There are definitely some significant flaws in this movie especially as science-fiction. The rapidly shifting properties of the Genesis Device, which eventually can make a planet in the middle of a nebula (?!?!?) are probably the most frustrating. But I think these things are relatively minor, especially if one views the film as a myth about aging, death and loss. There is actually a lot more to say about the particulars of how the film works but I will stop writing there. 4 stars.

    I am posting my review for TWoK here just as I did for TMP. Please feel free to check out my "full experience" review (pictures) on my blog I'm currently in the process of writing a review for TSFS and hope to post that in the coming days with a review for each film coming as I review them. Enjoy!

    Admiral James T. Kirk returns to the U.S.S. Enterprise, which has been turned into a training ship for a group of Starfleet cadets. Unhappy in his new post and not in command of a starship, Kirk struggles with aging and death when an old nemesis, Khan, escapes after fifteen years of imprisonment on a desolate world and seeks revenge on Kirk for the death of his wife.

    Despite it's mixed critical reception, the highly anticipated of Gene Roddenberry's most popular creation returned in 1979's Star Trek: The Motion Picture with a global box office haul of over $130 million. Happy with the movie's success, Paramount Pictures gave the green-light to a sequel. Their biggest stipulation, however, was that it be made for significantly less than the $46 million price tag of the first film. Feeling that his constant request for rewrites added to TMP's soaring budget, Gene Roddenberry was removed from any direct involvement in the sequel. The script he had written in which the Enterprise crew follows a group of Klingons into the past to alter Earth's future by preventing the assassination of John F. Kennedy was rejected and Roddenberry was "promoted" to being an executive consultant. With Roddenberry out of the way, Paramount turned to TV producer Harvey Bennett to make Star Trek II despite having never seen an episode of the series. In preparing for the project, Bennett watched all 79 episodes and selected Space Seed as the basis for their story bringing back Ricardo Montalban's Khan in as the villain.

    Bennett hired multiple writers who each drafted various versions of the story which involved the return of Khan. Yet, they couldn't settle on a script with which everyone was happy. Thus Bennett turned to writer/director Nicholas Meyer for help. Meyer took the best elements of each script and cobbled them together in his own draft, writing the screenplay for free and uncredited in less than 12 days. Meyer envisioned his film as "Hornblower in space" and highlighted the nautical qualities of the Star Trek series and, more importantly, realized the characters as human.

    To accomplish this, Meyer acknowledged the passage of time and allowed the crew of the Enterprise to grow. No longer are our heroes "gallavanting around the cosmos" but are now instructing the next generation of explorers. James T. Kirk, once again an admiral, somberly celebrates his birthday in which Dr. McCoy presents him with a pair of glasses to help him read as he gets older. This little tidbit may seem small but is incredibly significant for the character of Kirk who has always been portrayed as invulnerable. Also introduced is David, Kirk's son with the scientist Carol Marcus. In David, Kirk sees the life he could have had and makes him feel much older. William Shatner's performance is strong and mellow. His confidence is rocky as he grapples with aging but as the story progresses he gradually regains it as he recognizes that with age comes wisdom and experience. Kirk's growth across The Wrath of Khan may not seem very groundbreaking nowadays but in 1982 when many TV characters were static and unchanging, this was incredibly remarkable.

    The script not only packs in more characterization than The Motion Picture but adds more action as well. Featuring two of Star Trek's finest space battles, The Wrath of Khan boosts action similar to old sailing ships on the high seas with an emphasis placed on tactical strategy over brute force. This approach is quite fitting with Kirk's character growth as it's through his acceptance of aging and wisdom that he's able to defeat Khan. Though many of the visual effects are reused in much of the film's early scenes, the climactic battle features great FX in the purple-blue clouds of the Mutara Nebula. The action is packed with suspense and thrills that make it quite memorable. Accompanying The Wrath of Khan is a fantastic score by future-Oscar Winner James Horner who captures the beauty and dangers of space in a way that distinguishes the music from Jerry Goldsmith's classic soundtrack without departing too far from that successful template.

    Acting-wise The Wrath of Khan is spot on across the board. DeForest Kelley's Dr. McCoy is given a much more prominent role and does well, at his best when sharing the screen with Shatner. James Doohan's Scotty doesn't get much screen time but he makes the most of it, even managing to display more emotion than what we're used to from the miracle worker engineer. Even though some of the supporting characters such as Chekov, Sulu and Uhura don't have much to do, the performances from Koenig, Takei and Nichols are more energetic and a big improvement over The Motion Picture. The additions to the cast are also perfect. Merritt Buttrick not only looks like he could be the offspring of Shatner and Bisch, he also carries his part well. Bibi Besch is also perfect in her limited screen time as Carol Marcus. When Nicholas Meyer cast the role, he wanted someone who could not only convey the brains of a scientist but also someone beautiful enough for the audience to buy that she could once old the heart of James T. Kirk. In Besch, Meyers succeeds. Paul Winfield is good as Captain Terrell, portraying cool and confidence. Considering most "other captains" would later be portrayed as weak to show how much better our captains our, Winfield's performance is welcome.

    The two biggest additions to the cast are Kirstie Alley as Saavik and Ricardo Montalban as Khan. Despite portraying a Vulcan, Alley is never stiff and gives the impression that beneath the surface is plenty of sass and wit waiting to bubble to the surface. Alley's Saavik is instantly loveable and fits right in with the series cast. Of course, The Wrath of Khan probably wouldn't be anywhere near as successful as it is without Montalban. He chews the scenery from the moment he appears and never lets up. Though the role is entirely fueled by hate and vengeance, Montalban gives anything but a one-note performance, adding plenty of charm and menace in a role infused with undertones of Captain Ahab. To this day, Ricardo Montalban's Khan is still Star Trek's most memorable villain.

    Just as The Wrath of Khan wouldn't be the same without Khan, not would it be without Leonard Nimoy's Spock and the emotional payoff in the movie's climax. In The Motion Picture, Nimoy seemed uninterested in his performance. Wishing to be done with the role of Spock, Nimoy requested his character be killed off. Early drafts featured the death as a surprising twist in the opening act. But here Nimoy features it as the film's emotional climax to great effect, making it not only Star Trek's best character deaths but likely one of the best in all feature films. Nimoy's performance is much more engaged and more along the lines of his portrayal of the character that made him so loved in the 60's series. Spock's death serves not only the plot but also the ultimate character growth of Kirk as he's forced to face death in a way he never has before. Always has Kirk cheated his way out of facing death. But not here as he has to learn a lesson that he tried to teach Saavik early on in the movie; that how you face death is as important as how you face life. It's this deep and insightful exploration of challenging themes that has always been a crucial part of Star Trek and The Wrath of Khan tackles the theme of death like the franchise never had before. Both Shatner and Nimoy are excellent in Spock's death scene in which he makes the ultimate sacrifice to save the ship and crew. Neither is over-the-top, their performances subtle yet powerful. It's a great and emotional scene that is just as powerful today as it was in 1982.

    After 33 years, The Wrath of Khan remains the standard which all Star Trek films have strived to achieve, each with their varying levels of success. It's this attempt to emulate what worked in The Wrath of Khan which solidifies it's status as a great movie. Packed with thrilling actions, incredible performances and mature storytelling, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan remains a timeless classic.

    Writing: 2.0 / 2.0
    Characters: 2.0 / 2.0
    Acting: 2.0 / 2.0
    Entertainment: 2.0 / 2.0
    Music: 1.0 / 1.0
    Visuals: .75 / 1.0

    TOTAL: 9.75 / 10

    Have to agree, this is my favorite of the Trek films and still the one to beat to this day.

    It's hard to pick my single favorite moment in all of Trek canon, but the moment when Kirk sends the prefix code to lower the Reliant's shields is a truly delicious, fist-pumping "YES!" moment even if only a momentary victory. It definitely belongs in the top 5.

    With all these comments, only Jammer has mentioned the reason I think this movie is so great: Ricardo Montalban. His performance here is absolutely fantastic, by far the best performance of any guest actor on Star Trek ever. Every scene he's in, his presence is so commanding you can't help but focus on him. Khan is simply larger than life, not just a person but a villain, a force, an ominous presence that simply cannot be ignored. He makes even Kirk look smaller in comparison.

    I heard an interview with Montalban once talking about this role in the movie. He said that the director allowed him to go almost, but not quite, over the top in his performance. And you can see that with every line he says. He never quite reaches the level of ham (unlike Shatner with his infamous "Khaaannn!" shout), so he always seems sincere and always feels like a real person. Yet, despite that, his presence is calculated, showman-like, theatrical.

    I mean, consider this line: "He tasks me... he tasks me and I shall have him. I'll chase him round the moons of Nibia and around Antares' Maelstrom and around Perdition's flames before I give him up." That line could have been a huge dud; it sounds kinda cheesy when typed out like this (and yes, I know it's a classical reference). Yet, when Khan says it, it is chilling, it is threatening, it is brilliant.

    A part of me is sad that Khan wasn't a TNG-era villain. I'd have paid good money for a 2-hour movie of nothing more than Patrick Stewart and Ricardo Montalban quoting Moby Dick at each other.

    But I digress, back to Khan. Like I said, Montalban played him as a theatrical, larger than life villain. Not only was it a brilliant performance that was a joy to watch, but it really makes sense for the character to be played that way. Despite the title, wrath is not the deadly sin that Khan is guilty of, it's pride. It's sheer arrogance in his knowledge that he was genetically superior to the rest of humanity. He is stronger, he is smarter. And in his mind, that makes him flat out better, at everything.

    So he spends this movie quoting Moby Dick, putting himself in the position of Ahab. Now, Khan isn't an idiot, he knows Ahab is not supposed to be a hero, not supposed to be someone to identify with. Khan knows that the point of the book was that Ahab's quest for revenge resulted in poor decisions that led to his own doom. So why is he identifying with Ahab here? Why is he putting himself in the position of being the idiot making horrible decisions that will lead to his own death? Simple, he thinks he's better than Ahab. And part of that means he can succeed in his insane vengeance against Kirk where Ahab fails.

    This whole plot is basically an adrenaline high for Khan, a way of showing off. Vengeance may be bad for mere mortals, but not for the brilliance that is Khan. Khan can make irrational decisions and come away with victory. Khan can gloat over the hero without it backfiring on him. Khan can make all the same choices that Ahab made, and come out smelling like a rose. Because he is superior to Ahab. He is superior to Kirk. He is so freaking smart that he can outsmart Kirk even when he's being stupid.

    That's why he's quoting Moby Dick. That's why he's being theatrical and larger than life. He's showing off. To Kirk, to his crew, to himself. He doesn't just want to rule the galaxy or even defeat Kirk. He wants to rub Kirk's nose in it. He wants to play life on the difficult setting, putting artificial difficulties into his scheme just so that he can show how easily he can overcome them. And he's enjoying every moment of it.

    If he had simply listened to Joachim at every step, he would be free to terrorize the galaxy with his ultimate weapon. But he couldn't resist showing off. He couldn't resist toying with and humiliating Kirk. And that was why, in the end, he failed. Because he failed to recognize his own limitations. He failed to check his pride. And it's a darn good thing he failed to do that, because it made this movie so much better. It's why there's no villain in the Star Trek pantheon that can live up to Montalban's Khan. Not Kruge, not Chang, not the Borg Queen (though they may have their style points), and certainly not Sybok or clonePicard or CumberKhan.

    Above of else, a villain should be interesting to watch. And you simply cannot stop watching Khan, from the moment he slowly peels off his desert protective clothing to his last dying gasps.

    Everyone and their Grandma always points to the "Khaaaan" yell as THE definative hammy shatner/Kirk delivery, but no one seems to get that he only did that in response to Khan telling him that he'll go back to the dead in space Enterprise and blow it up, leaving him stranded. Which Kirk KNOWS isn't going to happen cause the Enterprise is fine and'll be right around the corner. The KHAAAAAAN!" was purely for the Khan's benefit, selling the ruse of the crew to him.

    Not sure why so many of Khan's crew members or his "beloved wife" had to die after the Ceti Eel get's in their head.

    A simple blood transfusion from Khan and they'd all be right as rain.

    Very disappointed.

    Nolan, you are absolutely correct!! That actually make Kirk's "performance" even better!! (IMO)

    Latex Zebra, HAHAHA!! good one!!

    Everything Wrong With Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

    I have to say I shared Khan's incredulity at learning that Chekov never spoke of him to his Captain or crew. I mean they're in the Seti Alpha system, the same star system where they abandoned the 20th Century genetically enhanced warlord 15 years ago. Oh I know they mistook the specific planet for Seti Alpha VI rather than V, but seriously, when they were scouting star systems for Genesis, it merited not even an "oh yeah, isn't that the star system?" from anyone? Not even as a matter of idle curiosity?

    @ Jason R.,

    Do you think it's plausible to suggest that Chekhov legitimately just forgot all about that incident until he saw the name "Botany Bay" and then realized his history with that system? We have to assume that in his 5-year tour with the Enterprise he visited hundreds and even thousands of worlds, many of which were important and others of which were uninhabited or otherwise routine exploration. He probably never forgot the incident with Khan, but I wouldn't be surprised that he forgot the name of the system long before this. "Ceti Alpha system? Huh, that rings a bell. Anyhow back to work..."

    As for the crew not receiving an alert about Khan's presence when they entered the system, that's a question mark. Normally you'd think it would be a big deal to take note of humanoid life when entering any system, especially when they're scouting for potential use of a powerful destructive energy one planet away (supposedly) from where Khan was dropped off. My only conclusion, then, is that Kirk omitted the entire incident from the record and didn't file what happened with Starfleet. On the one hand it would seem bizarre, given the danger the crew faced in "Space Seed", to fail to make any kind of report about the retaking of the ship and so forth.

    But on the other hand Kirk had a problem. If Kirk sent Khan back to the Federation for trial he could potentially (a) get off with some kind of insanity plea (cryofreeze effects, etc.), (b) go to prison and be released eventually, (c) escape and wreak havoc elsewhere, or (d) attract too much curiosity from the wrong kinds of people who would have use for such super-powered criminals. On a human level it would be awful in a way to have them sit in a Federation prison because I think Kirk and Spock both recognized that there was a real greatness in Khan even though it had to be opposed, and that it would be somehow shameful to have such a tiger be in a little cage for the rest of his life.

    And so they left Khan on Ceti Alpha 5. And yet now there was another problem: If Kirk were to file a report Starfleet would no doubt send a ship immediately to collect the supermen and try them for crimes. Or worse, send ships with the intention of studying them, making public displays of their punishment, or other such humiliating results. Kirk's creative answer of letting them rule their own little planet would not have been accepted by the bureaucrats. And so I must conclude that Kirk never filed any report and probably ordered the crew never to speak of it to anyone, so that Khan and the others could be left alone.

    @ Latex Zebra,

    "Chekov wasn't part of the bridge crew when they met Khan..."

    That was an oversight on the part of the writers, not an actual reason why Chekhov wouldn't remember the planet. You might notice that Khan also recognized Chekhov, which pretty much means they retconned the cast list in "Space Seed" to include Chekhov. I've heard Walter Koenig say that this was a goof and not a plot point.

    But it's not a problem at all. Just because *we* didn't see Chekov on the bridge, doesn't mean he wasn't on the *ship*.

    Heya Everyone

    Well, I'd like to think Chekov was on the ship then, just not important enough to be a part of the bridge crew. But there is a line in one of the episodes, Catspaw, where DeSalle is in charge, and he talks down to Checkov somewhat, who replies something along the lines of "...I'm not that green". I always thought that meant he was just recently on the ship.

    Best to think that during Khan's initial visit, Chekov was down in waste extraction or some such thing. Via Memory Alpha: Koenig has joked many times that he believes Chekov accidentally made Khan wait an uncomfortable amount of time to use the bathroom. :)

    Heh, I just had to chuckle at the memory of Chekov's so, so bad Beatles wig...

    Your mileage may vary... RT

    Peter it is interesting to think that Kirk would have not reported his encounter with Khan, but that is exceedingly unlikely. How would he explain the disappearance of the crew-woman he abandoned on Seti Alpha 5 with Khan? What would her family be told?

    It seems to me that Seti Alpha 5 should have been quarantined with a beacon or something warning wayward ships from landing - much like they did with the world from The Cage or I'd imagine they did with Armis's world.

    Speaking of which, I'm always amused at how the various Enterprises kept accumulating these trinkets and oddities throughout the universe and how they are never heard from again - from the Guardian of Forever to Armis to Kevin Uxbridge, to Dysonsphere - don't you just wonder if anyone ever deigns to follow up on these things?

    Responding to Paul (only about 4 years too late....) "Oh, and why did Scotty bring the dying engineer's assistant to the bridge? Shouldn't he have gone to sick bay?"

    That always bugged me as well, because I thought it made no sense for Scotty to take a dead cadet up to the bridge just to eulogize him, until I learned recently that scenes were cut from the film establishing that the dead cadet was Scotty's nephew. He died in engineering so taking him to sickbay would have been meaningless. If you know that the cadet is a close relative, it makes sense to me that the emotional character we know as Scotty would take him to a place where he could grieve among friends and let them know that his nephew did his duty.

    I don't know that I've enjoyed reading a comment stream about a Trek movie/episode more than this one. There is a whole gamut with the movie goof-hounds that like to look for plot-holes and inconsistencies, the defenders of Trek-as-cerebral-commentary-on-the-order-of-man-in-the-cosmos (who generally prefer contemplations like Star Trek I), and popcorn-guzzling simpletons like me who found this to be a tour-de-force of satisfying overacting, cool plot-twists, good old-fashioned action and heart-wrenching consequences for characters that I've grown to love and admire (insofar as you can love fictional characters, of course).

    There are many reasons I watch movies. I like being moved, thrilled, provoked and challenged - but above all, if it's going to be worth 2 hours of my time, I'd better be entertained. And if you weren't entertained by this one, remind me never to sit next to you at a party.

    I just watched this movie for the first time since it was first released. I was amazed at how much I liked it--more, I think, then when it first came out. Maybe it's teh contract to the ST movies of recent years. WoK had few distracting special effects, action sequences that you could actually follow what was going on, a plot that not only made sense but was written with the idea of character development. I can quibble over some of the details but overall this was a really well-crafted movie.

    Given Shatner's pechance for overacting and strange speech patterns, Spock's death and the funeral was nothing short of a masterpiece of subdued emotion, subtlety, and low-key grief, perfect for this storied relationship.

    Where many movies would give the big "NOOOOooooo! SPPPpooooockkk!" at the death scene, this gives us a quiet "no..." as if all energy had been drained from Shatner's body (as indeed it would for us if we watched our best friend die).

    Where many stories would give this flowery, hammy speech with sobbing, crying, huge proclamations, this gives us one of the most stoic Shatner's quietly stating "Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most... human." And the quivering of the voice leading up to the one crack just focused all of the sadness and grief that the character of Kirk must have been holding in, into that one small moment of vulnerability, where he shows his crew just how hard this hit him, how that invincible mask dropped for just a moment. And the way Shatner follows through with this scene sells the emotional moment so subtly, yet so powerfully, I think it is one of the best moments in all the Star Trek franchise.

    "Khan’s son is the only one of the baddies group, other than Khan, who utters a word through the entire movie (besides “Aaugh!” when the Reliant is attacked—apparently genetic supermen make great redshirts);"

    FWIW, Joachim is supposed (apocryphally) to be the son of Joaquin, who was one of his only henchmen in Space Seed to have lines as well.

    I had an interesting thought about Kirk's quote near the end, that "of all the souls I've encountered in my travels, his was the most... human" may actually be inappropriate and even offensive to non humans, given the context of the Federation. Clearly meant as a huge complement, It would be like me, if in an attempt to complement a dead black friend, had said at a funeral "of all the souls I've met in my travels, his was the most... white". In the future context of the Star Trek setting, what Kirk says is similar. I like how the TNG era keeps the optimistic view of the future but without having the characters going around implying that the other races should strive to be more human. I'm not trying to nit pick, I appreciate the line for what it is but I just thought this was an interesting thought.

    @Brian, this idea was acknowledged pretty much head-on with a follow-up in "Star Trek VI."

    Kirk: "Spock, you want to know something? Everybody's human."
    Spock: "I find that remark ... insulting."

    Got a big laugh in the theater, too.

    Also, Kirk's line is meant to have an ironic double meaning. In the sense of 'being like a Human' the idea was always that Spock chose not to be one, and Kirk knows that. The other meaning, though, is that "human" in the sense of "virtuous", as in a phrase like "he's a real human being!" It's meant not to connote genetics or 'all-too-human' traits, which can include pettiness and fear, but rather to connote what is in the best of us. And it's certainly a Trek maxim that what's best in us is shared by the other races, such as cooperation and good will. That's what the UFP stands for, and within that context Kirk is implying that Spock embodies good values, even though he says it by using a non-literal idiom.

    @ Peter, I do get it, I understand what was meant by it but I just thought it interesting to adopt a point of view of a citizen of the future to consider the implications of that remark. Using the name of one's own race/nationality to denote virtue/excellence is at best a little conceited, and at worst could be offensive to aliens. Imagine what I would think if on a trip to Germany I told my German friend "You are such a great guy, you're almost American!". Sure, the sentiment would be appreciated but it would cause some well deserved double takes of the situation and would make it seem to the Germans that Americans are conceited jackasses to use the term "American" to denote excellence and virtue.

    @ Brian,

    Yeah, I know what you mean. I think a better analogy, though, would be (in reference to being a G.I. Joe fan) to say to a German, "Wow, you're like a real American hero!" Now the term wouldn't exactly be a propos, but I think it would be clearly understood to be a compliment rather than a backhanded statement about Germany. The more I think of it, the more Kirk's comment is exactly the right one to make, because for years he and Bones poke pun at Spock by insisting that things he does are human, and this time he says it again but as a badge of honor to contrast with all the times they said it as an insult/jab. Saying it here isn't merely a human-language bias, it's symmetry with TOS.

    Hello Everyone!

    @Peter G.

    I always thought Kirk meant Spock (half human) lived up to human ideals even better than the full humans normally do. I believe other races, knowing his lineage and the context, would understand what he meant by that and appreciate it.

    Regarding color for the analogy, this is about species and not race. Apples and oranges. I do understand the concept of the thought, but I do not believe it applies here (in my humble opinion).

    Regards... RT

    While I admire the technical brilliance and tight action/thriller story of TWOK, the only thing that impresses me as specifically great Star Trek (as opposed to a very good movie) was the characterization. This includes everything from Kirk's depression at getting old to Khan's dedication to revenge to Spock's death and his friend's reactions.

    Yes their is the Genesis Project, but The Search for Spock made that much more central to it's plot. Unlike many Trek fans, TSFS is my favorite TOS-era Star Trek film. It has big, wild ideas like The Motion Picture and action and suspense like Khan.

    The Motion Picture always struck me as a good idea for an intellectually stimulating episode but lacking the 2001: A Space Odyssey profundity it aspires to. TWOK seems to me to have too many plot elements that could just as easily be done with submarines or airplanes. Terrorist with a grudge gets ahold of a powerful military vehicle and goes after the hero.

    The Search for Spock also has the distinction of introducing something like the "proud warrior race" Klingons which became a beloved staple of the show. Yes, that particular crew were the bad guys, but they had real courage and joy in being warriors.

    Had they encountered V-Ger, they would have proudly flown at it with all guns blazing expecting to be remembered fondly for such an interesting death. Perhaps they would have had a last drink of blood wine while Kruge looked forward to meeting Valkris in the afterlife. By the way, her death scene brought a tear to my eyes the first couple times.

    The Vulcan Katra was also a nice concept to develop, in my opinion. We always knew the Vulcans had strong if not all-powerful psychic gifts. The original crew rebelling together against authority to save Spock was a good example of the venerable tradition of Starfleet officers being insubordinate when they know they're right and forgiven in they convince their superiors after the fact.

    Whether any organization could actually function this way or not, it's classic Trek. Michael Burnham in the current series seems to be at least on a long path to redemption.

    Finally, I loved the reveal of the living Spock at the end as well as the elaborate scenes of Vulcan. The Vulcan culture looks very interesting and should be developed in more detail.

    For any Trek/BSG fans lurking, I think you'd all appreciate this bout between Khan and Adama:

    Jammer - this is very much along the lines of the Star Trek vs Star Wars video you posted on your blog a long time ago. :)

    Best film of the series by far. Montalban did an amazing job as a more than believable villain. I never full understood the hatred for Kirk. Kirk, after all, did give him a fresh start and had no idea that the planet he chose was going to have problems. Yes, Kirk did not check back on him, but the whole decision by Kirk was supposed to be forgotten. Nonetheless, above average film
    acting by a TV star.

    @ Stinger,

    Based on Khan's weakness in the film - his overwhelming pride and vanity - I think it's safe to assume that his hatred of Kirk comes from the fact that Kirk beat him in Space Seed. True, it wasn't Kirk alone, but it was his leadership principally, and I think the idea that a normal should overcome the mighty Khan would rankle on his pride forever. He no doubt felt the same about the Earthers who expelled him originally, and in fact this point is the one where he slips up in Space Seed when Kirk prods him to a vain outburst.

    My brother will die of his cancer soon, but whether that days or months is not clear. He asked me to watch as much Star Trek with him as he has energy for. I’m seeing nearly all of it for the first time in recent months.

    We watched this movie last night, and except for the creepy brain slugs, it was very enjoyable. I didn’t know this was the movie where Spock died so it was a relative surprise.

    I also wish you comfort and any good memories you can forge together in this hard time.

    Thank you, Booming and Lupe. He wanted to introduce Dad to Firefly, so that’s “their show” and we’re watching some TOS, DS9, and the feature films as he has interest and energy. It’s slow going so we might do as much as a film a day, or 1.5 eps (he falls asleep easily).

    These are some good shows and movies. :)
    I feel the need to mention so that you not stumble into it unprepared that there is a DS9 episode which basically deals with what you are experiencing called "Ties of Blood and Water" (ep 19 se 5). It is a very good but also very sad episode.
    Good luck.

    how can anybody go this long without mentioning THAT EAR SCENE? Have to say I was very pleased (and disturbed) with the continuation of subjecting Chekov to the worst mind control and disgusting torture possible like they had during the series.

    Anyway, that scene is AMAZING. Gave me a phobia I’ve never gotten over. But damn... it’s worth it.

    I just watched this again for probably the fifth or sixth time. I'm with the crowd on this one: Still the best "Trek" movie out there.

    So many great lines and themes. I still love the ending line:

    "How do I feel? I feel young."

    For as smart as Khan believes he was, he lost over half his crew on the planet because of an ear bug? And not once did he think to stick cotton in their ears?

    Kirk bragged that he beat the no win scenario, and it was revealed he cheated, by changing the conditions to make it possible to rescue the crew. He didn't go in detail how he did it, but it was explained in the reboot. That should had been left unexplained because it made no sense. How could a cadet be allowed to take that test three times, then get in trouble by cheating the 4th time? And over the many years, every person would know that the test was rigged and can't be one. You would think each person would just go along with the program. You pretend like it was a hard decision in what to do, fail, then continue on in class since no one can actually fail the test. Not sure why Kirk didn't do the same.

    From what I recall from The Space Seed, the entire crew were genetically engineered. So Khan was just one of many super smart people. Anyone of them could had been the head cheese if they were thawed first. Wouldn't there been huge conflicts and fights to the death between each of them by constantly competing for alpha status? That would had been the time to challenge Khan, which his second in command did, and take control of the ship, but didn't.
    Khan failed because he was an unstable egomaniac bent on revenge.

    My favorite film, was First Contact, but this is easily #2.

    I just watched this and was blown away how well it stood up and how tight the whole movie is.

    I'm a TNG fan first and foremost but this is my favorite movie.

    Khan is such a great villain, but I love Kirk and Spock outsmart him as a TEAM. And they use his arrogance and ignorance on modern actions (IE that ships can really go 3D and the regulations) to defeat him.

    Oh and the death of Spock was so well done. Just all around great writing and acting for that scene.

    A fantastic Star Trek movie, I don't have too much to add, so I'll just endorse what @Skeptical has written,

    Skeptical: "the reason I think this movie is so great: Ricardo Montalban. His performance here is absolutely fantastic, by far the best performance of any guest actor on Star Trek ever. Every scene he's in, his presence is so commanding you can't help but focus on him. Khan is simply larger than life, not just a person but a villain, a force, an ominous presence that simply cannot be ignored."


    As I wrote in my comments to "Space Seed,"

    Man is an animal. Khan had animal magnetism par excellence.

    Khan makes this movie. And William Shatner, for all the talk of his insane ego, let's Khan shine. Instead of the bombast for which people like to caricature him, The Shat treats us to a subtle and nuanced performance.

    Fun fact: Kirk and Khan are never in the same room for the entire movie! Compare that with the ridiculously mediocre portrayal by Benedict Cumberbatch in the Abrams film,

    Benedict-Khan running around like a common criminal, no one pays him a second glance. Zero charisma. Zero gravity. Zero charm. A pale (pun intended) imitation of The Great Montal-Khan. But at least he has magic blood (LOL @Latex Zebra).

    I will disagree with @K'Elvis. I quite enjoyed the two back-to-back renditions of Amazing Grace during Spock's funeral. I understand your desire for live bagpipes, but as Kirk told Lincoln back in "The Savage Curtain,"

    LINCOLN: Strange. Where are the musicians?

    KIRK: That's taped music, sir. A starship on active duty never carries an honour detachment.

    Not my favorite Star Trek movie. A few glaring continuity mistakes, not much philosophical depth, but I wouldn't change a thing.

    Four stars - well deserved.

    My dad used to have a VHS tape of this movie, and on the back of the cover there was an image of Khan with his face covered in blood. This was disturbing to me as a little kid, so my dad told me that it was actually spaghetti sauce, not blood. And I believed it. (I also remember being scared by the image of the Balok puppet in the TOS end credits - I would hide behind the couch as soon as an episode ended because I knew that creepy bastard would appear soon)

    Anyways, Star Trek II is (IMO) the best Trek movie, and among the best pieces of Trek media, period. It's exciting, stylish, and emotional, with cinematography and special effects that hold up even 40 years later, and a fantastic score on top of all that. It might not be as cerebral as some fans would like their Star Trek to be, but I think there's room for all kinds of stories in the Trek universe. And when you compare it to later, action-oriented Trek movies which don't have a tenth of its brains, its craft, or its heart, it's clear just how well Star Trek II works.

    What more is there to say? It's a classic film; not just a Trek film, but a classic of the science fiction genre. Arthur C. Clarke, who knew a thing or two of genre, famously regretted not ranking it higher after he wrote a list of his favorite science fiction films.

    After decades of seeing TWOK on cable, VHS and DVD, I finally had the chance to see it on a big screen during Gen Con 2010, when the downtown Indy movie theater showed a double feature of this and The Search for Spock. That it could still evoke such reaction and such emotion from an audience who had likely seen the film multiple times before is a testament to its quality and staying power. It still remains one of my favorite experiences of seeing a film in a theater.

    I've seen WoK three or four times over the years, but the last viewing was very long ago. Just watched it again today, and my god does it hold up beautifully.

    What an incredible movie. The writing, the production design, the character interactions, even the special effects (which still look great, 39 years later). It's damn near perfect.

    I love star trek, all the classic series. Enterprise, TOS, TNG, ds9 and even Voyager (although it's my least favorite). I have to make that clear because ...I do not like this all. I think it makes zero sense, I think the plot is so flawed and full of whole that it's painful to watch. You have scenes that are a MESS. One in particular has an extra being shown unintentionally getting hit by a phaser shot meant for Kirk or kirks son and it shows him vaporizing but never actually showed the character in focus or pretty much at all before they moment. It happens so fast I remember rewinding several times upon my first viewing trying to make sense of it. I still to this day have NO IDEA who that was supposed to be. Problems like this are everywhere. Khan never met Chekhov and yet we are made to believe Khan recognizes him. Why were they ever sent anywhere near where Khan was left without being extremely careful. It's just not believable that they would mistake that planet for another. And I refuse to even point out of incredibly stupid plot holes of the Genesis. Spock sacrificing himself is the only saving grace as it's the only believable or meaningful thing that happens. I've heard so many trek fans praise this film and I really do wish I could join them...I've tried and tried to rewatch and figure out what others are seeing that I am missing.....but it's always the MESS that I originally thought it was.

    I am no sure I ever saw this on a movie theater. It did not leave a great impact like Blade Runner ( I went out very confused askin myself what on earth I I just seen? Was it good or was it bad? And many years later realising It was fantastik, end footnote ).

    Today I must say its a very solid good ScyFi and Trek. The best? Probably.

    Most of my arguments have been listed before. My surprise was Kristie Alley. It was a good choise to bring in a new charakter to contrast the "old guard". Even if not Oscaar worthy she did a very good Savik. Half romulan or not, we had in those day not seen much of females Vulcans. Why should they not be slightly difrent from men. I do like T'Pol better but Savik was good. It is a pity that she did not get the possibility to develop her role. I saw Allley in some other films and was not so impressed. In this she managed to take the room, that she probably was given, very acceptable.

    Some might beleeive that there are no "no win scanrios". Alley's payment fight was a "both loose scenario".

    PS I have almost forgottten what producer and Robin Curtis managed to do with her later on. She must have faded out, a pity.

    I agree with @Admiral Archer about TMP being a much more cerebral film, much more thought provoking and philosophical and TWOK being the traditional swashbuckling Kirk-beats-em-up style film, and for me TMP is the real 4 stars movie between the two — but I would like to point out that it is not because me liking more the first type of films: instead, it is because TWOK is in fact a very poor movie at what it aimed for.

    @STEVEN LYLE JORDAN made a good list of problems of TWOK, but I would be more succinct: it's a "Kirk-beats-em-up" film where Kirk doesn't beat shit up. He is just a palid character, moping aroung because he is old and have to wear glasses, dressed in that stupid uniform (omg, this movie managed to have wrost uniforms then those white pijamas on TMP)...

    He just doesn't do anything great, bold or inspiring as commander of Enterprise this time. At the end, it's hard to agree with Bones that Kirk should got back his command as soon as possible... TWOK sucks because, if you really think about it, it's conclusion is that maybe Kirk should really be in his bureaucratic admiral's desk job after all.

    Rewatched it and love it again. Biggest reactions

    The movie was so different from TMP, though with some appropriate echoing, and yet it also really benefited from also not trying to just be Star Wars.
    Both the writing of and Montalban as Khan were masteful (although he maybe says old friend one time too many).
    A big part of the success was also that Meyer and his approach did seem generally fond of the show and yet not reverential toward it.

    I've loved this movie for decades like so many of us. Just rewatched it with my 13yo daughter, first time for her. She is autistic and relates to Spock, so was especially affected by his death scene.

    One thing I did cringe at this time is how they didn't manage to keep "the Eighties" out of the costuming. The outfits Khan and his people wore were pretty silly; and Kirk's son had a freaking sweater tied around his neck for chrissakes.

    Oh, also: so how DID they survive after the environmental devastation, with no source of food?

    @ SlackerInc,

    "The outfits Khan and his people wore were pretty silly"

    My assumption is they were copying the aesthetic from Mad Max. If that's true then it's not so much an 80's style as an 80's conception of a post-apocalyptic style.

    "Oh, also: so how DID they survive after the environmental devastation, with no source of food?"

    Due to their superior intellect, of course.

    It's ironic that Carol Marcus tries to excuse hiding a child from Kirk by claiming that he didn't want David and she didn't want him bouncing around the universe, meanwhile she used him in order to try and play god, while turning him against Starfleet.

    @The Man

    Considering that Carol was committing immorality with Kirk, I don't put anything past either one of them

    @ Sean,

    "Considering that Carol was committing immorality with Kirk, I don't put anything past either one of them"

    I normally ignore these types of posts, but I've got to ask: is it your belief that people of your faith are immune to committing acts of immorality? Or even more specifically, that you personally are? Please feel free to not respond if this question is too direct. I am trying to actually understand what your remark could possibly mean.

    @Peter G

    No one is immune. We all need to be vigilant against any and all vices. But I can say this-I am about 50 years old. I am unmarried and I am no better than anyone else. I have avoided the pitfall of immorality, as have many others (although I will grant you that the vast majority of my friends are married-and among my age peers have been so for some decades)

    So, no-we are IMMUNE to it. But we prayerfully fight against wrong urges, and don't expose ourselves to temptations.

    And Peter, thanks for asking! I am not here to argue of course, but I am always willing to answer legitimate questions-I personally have never been a private person, so I don't mind answering questions about myself, and/or my beliefs and values

    "Or even more specifically, that you personally are?"
    Be that as it may but he surely seems to think that he has enough moral superiority to repeatedly sit in judgement on others.


    "But I can say this-I am about 50 years old. I am unmarried and I am no better than anyone else."

    Refreshing to hear your humility when so many others are busy chastising others.

    @ Sean,

    "No one is immune"

    If that is so, I'm not sure what it means to say that "Considering that Carol was committing immorality with Kirk, I don't put anything past either one of them". Do you mean that once someone commits an act of immorality once, they are capable of anything and are automatically in a category of some sort that you and others like you are not? Why are Kirk and Carol capable of anything, but not you?

    " I have avoided the pitfall of immorality"

    I thought I would bring up this detail - am I correct in assuming that by "immorality" you specifically and solely mean acts of sexual immorality? I ask this because in common English usage this is not what the term means, but going strictly by how the term is used in some English translations of the New Testament, this is a common way of interpreting that word.


    Well, these are 2 fictional characters that we know little about, but from their actions, and backstory of Carol from SW books, this pair aren't two people who slipped, instead, they have committed immoral conduct multiple times. Still, I can't say they are irredeemable-especially since this aspect hasn't been touched on really in the show or books that I know of. So, in answer to your question-it wasn't "once"

    And yes, I was referring to sexual immorality specifically earlier.

    Note: I may not see responses for awhile-I just watched another episode or 2 of Voyager, so I checked the comments, but work, and other responsibilities are getting busier for me-I may not watch Trek for some time (nor check this site-which I tend to do after viewing an episode)

    Rahul defending misogynistic homophobes. #63153
    I wonder if Rahul would defend racists as well?!

    "But I can say this-I am about 50 years old. I am unmarried"
    Impossible?! What woman wouldn't want to live in a modern form of servitude?!

    " Still, I can't say they are irredeemable"
    Sure, Kirk saved the galaxy a few times but hey EXTRAMARITAL SEX!!!

    Oh and Kirk has had sex with tons of ladies. Does the bible specify if it is still immoral if you have sex with aliens?? Loophole?? Is there a point were you had too much extramarital sex ?? Like 50 ladies?

    Don't worry Sean, you do not have to answer that. It's rhetorical.

    Let's have a little thought experiment.

    Sean is part of a religious group that believes that women should be under the control of men. Either the pater familias or the husband.
    Sean also believes that homosexuality should not pursued ever. Every homosexual act is evil.

    Does this mean he is a bad person? So...

    Let's imagine somebody would be part of a religious organization. Let's call it KKK. Being part of this group means you think that a certain group of people is worth far less than another because of inborn characteristics.

    Does this mean this person would a bad person?

    If you answer the first question with no and the second with yes, then you say that blacks are worth more than women and homosexuals. Of course, there are black women and homosexuals, so what you are really stating is, that you think heterosexual men are worth more than women and homosexuals.


    Booming, why are you turning this thread into a personal attack?

    Not only have you done so, you have made assumptions about Sean's beliefs that not only haven't been expressed in this thread, but I can't even find in any of his comments of the last two years.

    All you are doing is hijacking this conversation and turning it into mudslinging. Stop it.

    To play a little devil’s advocate here, calling a woman who commits “immorality” as untrustworthy sounds like a personal attack as well. I mean, any woman reading these comments who has engaged in non-married sex is having their entire character torn down. I’d say that’s pretty personal. So if you want to chide @booming for coming back at that, then I think it’s only fair to point out that @Sean threw the first stone.

    That all being said, I’m not sure how any of this relates to Khan’s plan for revenge and what not.

    He is a Jehovas Witness. Are you not bothered by organizations that preach homophobia and misogyny?

    I guess nobody wants to answer the two questions of my thought experiment. I'm not surprised. Many heterosexual men don't really care about homophobia or misogyny and that is why we have safe spaces.


    I see. All Jehovas Witnesses are the same, then. No individuals, only collectives.

    I have no idea what the Jehovas Witnesses believe in, and even if I did, I have no idea if Sean agrees with any particular one of those beliefs. I judge him by what he says here, not by what I imagine him to say.

    If you want to criticize his religious sect, then do it (so long as it's on topic! Remember, this is a Star Trek thread.). But don't criticize him for things he hasn't said.


    The difference is, Sean is making an argument about fictional characters and their behavior. You can disagree, you can even think that it's a deplorable position, but it's not targeting any individual person on this site, let alone any real person at all. Booming is making an accusation directly about a person on this comment thread.

    As a side note, it's also worth pointing out that Sean did not single out Carol as the only character he is criticizing for this 'immorality', but both Carol AND Kirk. So I think it's unfair to characterize his argument as being specifically about women.

    I think Booming is just cranky and needs more sleepy. Such topics normally incense Booming, and rightly so, but the response is way out of proportion with what was actually said and meant.

    That’s a very generous interpretation of an argument. Calling out Marcus and Kirk’s alleged immoral relationship, but then ignoring the obvious real world extrapolation that naturally follows seems pretty incomplete. By calling those characters immoral and thus inherently shady, one is by proxy calling real world people those same insults. It’s very difficult not to get personal in such a context.

    Additionally, if a person’s personal beliefs are used as the basis for a blanket statement such as not “putting anything past” individuals who engage in certain “immoralities”, then it’s on those personal beliefs that the following arguments are gonna hinge upon. They either justify where they get off besmirching people’s characters or they back off. Expecting otherwise is ignoring the true content of the discussion.

    But I will agree that we seem to be a little far afield of Star Trek stuff.

    I personally do agree that there is something shady going on when someone declines to tell someone else they have a son. I don't think this shadiness is explainable as a result of having committed some other immoral action (even if we did agree it was immoral). However we could perhaps suggest strong correlations between certain kinds of actions. For instance maybe we could suggest there's correlation between sleeping around and having children with multiple partners; or correlations between having unprotected sex and having abortions. That would just be quantitative analysis, which I have no problem with. In that sense perhaps you might suggest that Kirk is likelier than your average guy to have children he doesn't know about. And I think that would be completely fair criticism (if it is in fact a criticism).

    The logical link I was questioning is two people committing an act (or multiple acts) of sexual immorality, and that being causally linked to both having dishonest characters. That's the connection I don't see. Now with a little more backstory maybe Carol Marcus could have been a bit of backlash for all of Kirk's misadventures over the years; she told him she was in love, he told her he was dedicated to his ship, and she took that as a sign he wanted no future with her. Maybe that would have been enough to explain why she'd feel Kirk wanted nothing to do with a potential son of his. But we don't actually get that backstory. And honestly I'm not completely sure how to feel about the idea that Carol might have been right. Kirk wasn't a settling down type, but I also don't see him as dishonorable or shrinking away from a responsibility. Watching this movie as a kid, and now as an adult, I never got the idea we were actually supposed to consider that Kirk did anything wrong. And actually Carol never seems to have much moral agency either. The plot treats it more like "tah-dah! you have a son, now the stakes are raised with Khan". David's emo insolence toward everyone also makes it hard to sympathize with him or to see Kirk as perhaps having been thoughtless and deserving of a rebuke.

    So I guess my questions toward Sean had in mind that to extract some kind of moral statement about Kirk or Carol you kind of have to set the movie aside and use your own head canon morality and impose that on the story. Something like 'Carol would do something shady, because I personally view her past conduct as shady.' But since the writers didn't have that idea in mind it doesn't help to explain the story we're given or extract meaning from the dialogue. I actually wouldn't have minded a 'Kirk has to face the consequences of his choices' story, but I don't really think this is that one. The 'facing death' concept is his challenge here, but that's different altogether from re-assessing past choices.

    Homophobia and male control of females are important aspects of his believe system. You can look it up on that page, he posted. Of course abortion is murder, no exceptions. Transgender are expected to de-transition or are banned and so and so and so on. Oh yeah and also no blood transfusions. Then there is that

    "Higher education can lead to moral and spiritual dangers." Jehovas Witness have the lowest level of tertiary education of all religious groups in the US.

    But hey, Sean would just have to say. That he has no problem with gay people being in happy and loving relationships and that women should be treated equally in all things. Easy.

    "God’s gift of a woman was unique in that she was to be the man’s perfect helper."

    Oh and disclaimer. While I have listened to horrible stories from women over the last week, I actually had two heterosexual guys do really amazing things, as well. So, yeah. #notallmen

    and to add, Henson, because you are essentially making that argument.

    So if Sean was part of the KKK but would behave nicely here would you respect him and have casual conversations with him?

    I just logged onto my computer, and I see that I got an email from someone here saying that I was being "attacked" online. Frankly, I have blocked several people's comments on here (meaning that if their name comes up in a comment, I can not see it) I'm not sure which one it is, but I know that several people here do not like my beliefs and go out of their way to attack it. Thank you for coming to my defence (you know who you are), but there really is no need.

    That said, if someone disagrees with me (about my opinions of the show, or even my beliefs), that is fine-everyone has free choice. I even welcome others' thoughts on the episodes even when they don't agree with mine. But I am not here to get into arguments. I suggest, you don't engage with people who do, especially not in defence of me (although I do apppreciate your good intentions)

    I guess that answers the question where Jammers loyalties lie.

    As you were.

    @Booming: "I guess that answers the question where Jammers loyalties lie."

    Not sure what this is supposed to mean. I have said nothing on this thread. Why am I being dragged into it?

    @Sean: "I just logged onto my computer, and I see that I got an email from someone here saying that I was being "attacked" online."

    I want to set the record straight. There are NO emails disclosed to other users if you've provided it in the comment form, and I have NOT emailed anyone about this thread. So unless there are people who know each other apart from this site already, and they already have each other's email addresses and know their pseudonyms here, the statement above is impossible.

    Privacy is an important topic online and I want it made clear to everyone that your email address will NEVER be shared with a third party if you provide it on this site.

    You're being dragged into this, Jammer, because several people on this site are unhinged and spiteful.

    Ok, that's on me then, Jammer. I apologize. It seemed like you would be the only person that would have access to that information because Sean never provided his mail address.

    And to anybody else who participated, minus Idh2023, and Peter somewhat, you cannot even bring yourself to condemn someone for being part of a misogynistic and homophobic hate group.

    What a disappointment you are.

    "you cannot even bring yourself to condemn someone for being part of a misogynistic and homophobic hate group."

    Just to clarify are you talking about the Jehovah's. Witnesses?

    "Ok, that's on me then, Jammer. I apologize. It seemed like you would be the only person that would have access to that information because Sean never provided his mail address."

    @Booming: Well, maybe don't jump to the worst possible conclusion. Maybe Sean knows someone in real life who also posts on this site. Or maybe he's just a liar. (No, impossible -- Jehovah's Witnesses can't lie, har har.) But to assume I reached out to him to inform him he was being "attacked" flies in the face of all evidence of how I conduct things around here, and, frankly, you should know better.

    But that is part of the problem around here, and everywhere -- assuming the worst of people because they don't echo your viewpoints or rally to your side.

    Just objectively looking at this latest brouhaha on this site -- I gather what we have is (as much as is possible through an anonymous online forum), an obvious example of an attempt to ridicule, bully, suppress somebody who I've now learned is a deeply religious person (Jehovah's Witness) in Sean. And the corollary to that is everybody must unconditionally and unanimously adhere to some other ideal, likely controversial, whether they want to or not. Just trying to keep things very general here. I don't read the comments or replies to a certain individual who has been called by many troll, cancer, pariah etc. But I checked out what @Henson replied and wanted to commend him for exposing the intolerance, hatred and bigotry of the individual who has come with a few over-the-top, outrageous attempts to this attempt at suppression.

    Is this not classic communism -- to attack any belief in faith / religion / spirituality that does not conform to some other ideal or narrative? It seems the moment the communist got wind that Sean was a Jehovah's Witness -- it went into attack mode. So that's the objective part from what I gather.

    Personally I find this communist's behaviour disgusting and abhorrent beyond words. I shudder to think what this communist would do if he got his hands on Sean in real life -- probably throw him into a gulag.

    @Sean, I'm sure you've encountered this kind treatment before for your faith - but I'm one who firmly believes in the preservation of freedom of religion / spirituality.

    Around and around you go. Have you ever stopped to consider that this parochial and unproductive behavior is precisely what Gene Roddenberry, perhaps naively, was attempting to look beyond?

    @Jammer I wasn't going to address this issue again, but there is just one thing I want to say-I am very sorry if it seemed I was implying that you were the one emailing me. For the record, it wasn't you (which I am sure you know) and I am not going to say who it was, how I know the person, or anything else. As I said before, I am not here to either argue, or be the catalyst for others to do so.

    @Rahul I am sure I am missing part of the conversation, but I just want to say thank you, but please don't argue with anyone on my account.

    I have listened to quite few rape and sexual assault stories last week and also told a few. I also have an inflamed tooth.

    Still, you are right. I should have known better. I'm sorry.


    "I was referring to sexual immorality specifically earlier. "

    It is not immoral or illegal to have sex out of wedlock, or for a mother to raise a child alone, or for a mother to not inform a father of a child. Carol Marcus is not 'sexually immoral'.


    Not sure how much experience you have with Jehovah's Witnesses but I have known a few and they were exceedingly decent kindly people. Calling them a "hate group" is frankly, an astonishing claim from where I'm sitting.

    So you think that nice people cannot be part of a hate groups??

    Here is the definition of the SPLC
    "A hate group is an organization that—based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities—has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."

    That certainly fits Jehovah's witnesses.

    So you think that nice people cannot be part of a hate groups??"

    I think JW, like most organized religions, have doctrines that would be considered hateful in various quarters.

    But calling them a "hate group" invokes groups like the KKK or neo Nazis or the Taliban.

    I don't see the JW as falling anywhere in that category.

    I am going to be charitable here since I know English isn't your first language and presume that you maybe didn't understand what "hate group" means to most English speakers or alternatively, you have no experience whatsoever with JW followers.


    I have looked at the doctrines of the Inet page Sean has posted links to. and affiliates. Just google Jehovah's Witnesses homosexuality or transsexualty. I find what they write about women also pretty insulting.

    As the title of the pew link implies, religious people become more accepting. You want to guess which one is by far the most intolerant?

    If there was a group in which 80% thought that Jews shouldn't be accepted in society and throw anybody out who has Jewish blood, would you call that group an antisemtic hate group? Keep in mind that they really nice, though.

    @Booming all I can say is that doctrinally most of the major religions including most of this planet's population would fail your test. You may as well say that Jews are a "hate group". It's the same thing.

    As an aside, have had personal and business dealings with members of the Jehovah's Witness group and they are some of the least hateful people I have come across.

    I am informing you that your characterization of them as a "hate group" is risible, not to mention bigoted.


    Zen From The Future: Forgive my friend Booming, she did too much LDS in the '20s.

    I thought you were an atheist? Hate group or not, they preach homophobia and misogyny among many other whicked things.

    It's true, most religions would fail the "women and LGBT people are treated as equals" test but that's really not a me problem. There are the mainline protestant who are perfectly fine in my opinion. Probably a few others as well.

    hahaha. I got that one. :)

    "I thought you were an atheist? Hate group or not, they preach homophobia and misogyny among many other whicked things."

    As I mentioned that describes the belief system of most of the people living on this planet.

    I am an atheist. But I don't have some burning desire to attack anyone whose beliefs are a potential, if not actual, threat which is akin to those genetically enhanced kids from TNG's Natural Selection or Nomad maybe. I don't need to sterilize peoples' wrong thoughts.

    Calling them a "hate group" like the KKK is a bit over the line.

    Submit a comment

    ◄ Section Index