MovieChat Forums > Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) Discussion > This is no Star Wars movie better than t...

This is no Star Wars movie better than this.


none.

reply

lolwut? Wrath of Khan is a classic of unintentional comedy, and a complete cult so-bad-it's-good movie. I mean, sure it's better than those prequels, but unless you're in it for the yuks, any of those other six Star Wars films are far better.

reply

u have such shit taste in film u should be called filmbluff

reply

Excuse me for not being able to contain my laughter at seeing a mullet-headed Ricardo Montalban in fetish bondage gear acting like a space alien and/or Shatner's "acting" in general. I just khaaaaaaaant help myself.

reply

πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

reply

You say FilmBuff but you don't even bother to look into the movie's themes and arcs. It's got weight and depth that Star Wars (yes, even Empire) can't match. Age, revenge, fading legacy, legend versus reality, rebirth, hubris... it's truly remarkable how much they pack into this thing. Not to mention it's really a submarine movie with serious ties to Moby Dick that really explores the human condition.

Comparing Star Trek to Star Wars isn't really fair. They are two different types of franchises. It just so happens they both have lasers and take place in space.

reply

It's unintentional comedy is what it is. The cult of Trekkies can't see past the fact that it has Star Trek in the title. It's mediocre.

reply

Maybe the film refers to recently-emptied milk glasses?

reply

Fact.

reply

OBVIOUSLY YOU MISSED THE HOLIDAY SPECIALπŸ‘

reply

Well done, sir. Thumbs-up.

reply

I'd say this:-

There is no Star Wars trilogy better than the trilogy of Star Trek II - Star Trek IV.

Not pre planned / written out in advance as per the non OT Star Wars trilogies, yet shows how you can link films together beautifully if you actually put some care and effort into them. We get the nicely played out needs of the many / one reversal and the overarching bookend storyline of Kirk.

The guy who starts off having lost his way (his first, best destiny), by become an Admiral, ends the tale by being ceremonially demoted back to the rank of Captain Kirk. Brilliant. You couldn't have a better conclusion.

reply

I'd vote OT over ST II-IV.

My reasons: Star Wars is a perfectly put-together film: tight script, brilliant editing, and (for the time) innovative and creative direction. The art design is one of the finest ever. The world of imagination it opened up was limitless. The concept of space Samurai with magic powers: cool beyond belief, and the themes of good and evil are wonderful. The Empire Strikes Back is, likewise, a real tight story, superbly told, and dives deeper into the ideas set up in the first. Jedi is a flawed gem, sure...but it drives in the theme of Redemption so beautifully.

In comparison, I like the story of a space hero (Kirk) becoming an admiral and then cyclically returning to "space hero", but I find Luke's journey more compelling. He's a backwash nobody who yearns to be a hero, then becomes one, and then realises that "wars not make one great" and seeks true Enlightenment and selflessness instead of his original ideals. That's very compelling. And no goofy Ewoks or disconnected adventures to rescue Han Solo can take that away.

Star Trek II is genius. Thanks to the OP, in fact, I'm seriously reevaluating it next to Star Wars and think it isn't getting as much credit as it's due. That said, Star Trek III always seemed misguided to me. It's just basically like, "Mmmm...we regret killing Spock. That emotional climax didn't *really* happen..." and that feels a bit cheap. It drags away some of the power of the Wrath of Khan's themes. It's also largely just that one plot point: let's retcon Wrath of Khan. Dead Spock lives! Kirk's not really a dad! (etc.) They pay the son's murder off nicely in VI, though... As for Star Trek IV, it's very enjoyable and a great comedy, but it's not really wrapping up the arc as neatly as Jedi does.

Now, I think they're all fine films, but the aggregate of Star Wars IV-VI is greater, in my opinion, than the combined weight of Star Treks II-IV.

reply

Well for me I did say no Star Wars trilogy better. I'd put the Star Trek II-IV on a par with the OT.

IV is obviously a bit lighter but I like Spock's journey - as well as Kirk's - being complete with the tell mother "I feel fine" line. Nicely arcs back to the start where he is unable to comprehend the question.

Was talking about this on another thread recently but I've no issue with Spock coming back as cheapening WoK. It's pretty much signposted at the end of WoK so any criticism of that particular plotline would have to rest with WoK itself. In fact they changed the ending of the film to be more explicit that Spock wasn't necessary dead full stop.

reply

That's true, you did say no trilogy better. I still wouldn't put it on par, but that's probably personal taste.

IV's great. It's super fun. I think the Siskel and Ebert review basically talks about how these are actors who love each other and have fun with each other and it shows. I agree: it's fun.

While I agree that Wrath of Khan left the series open to return Spock, I still think it would have been more powerful to leave the statement there: sometimes you can't win. Okay, arguably his son dies, but from a viewer's perspective we don't care about his son, who was hand-waved into existence in STII. We care about Spock. And I still think that III feels like a lot of filler to basically say, "Hey: he's back!" It's been awhile since I've seen III, though, so maybe it's better than I remember.

reply

I've never thought about it, but Wrath of Khan does get pretty deep. The themes of aging heroes, facing death, and dealing with a no-win scenario (as characters who solved seventy-nine world-ending crises in 45 minutes no less), are striking and deep. The scene at the end with Nimoy in the chamber is great stuff.

Putting that up against Star Wars does make Star Wars feel a little weak in comparison. The original (my favourite of the three) has an incredibly tight story, tonnes of adventure and fun, and introduces a universe that feels boundless and cool, but it doesn't dip into the deep stuff the same way.

On SW's side of the scales are the Force stuff, though, this samurai Zen that Lucas carried over, and managing to make a fairy tale bridge the gap between young and old.

Your statement brings to light this much for sure: despite both being labeled "sci-fi", they have very different objectives for their storytelling. Maybe they can't be compared as easily as one might initially assume...

For my ultimate vote, I'd probably go with Star Wars...but I am thinking about it more critically now...maybe I won't feel that way in a few days...

Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back are pretty close, though, I think... If they aren't better than The Wrath of Khan, they're equals or near-equals.

Return of the Jedi is less-than, although I think its themes of redemption are very powerful.

The prequels: forget it. So poorly-executed they'd never stack up to the finest Trek has to offer.
The sequels: likewise: forget it. They're fun, but vapid, with no good themes to speak of. Maybe the exception is The Last Jedi, but only because it tries to do everything Wrath of Khan did (aging hero, facing death, failure around every corner)...and fails at it.
The spinoffs: Rogue One? Boring.

reply

Nope, I far prefer the sweet and hilarious "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home".

Utterly enchanting movie!

reply

TWoK=NewHope=Empire > Jedi=ST4 > ST3=TFA > ST1 > ST7 >>> ST6 > Rogue1 > ST8=ST9 > SW1 > SW2=SW3 > SWSolo > SW9=ST10 >>> SW8

I might feel differently if I rewatched the last 4 ST. Wrath, New Hope and Empire are all 10/10 movies to me and each have a distinct, perfect theater memory I cherish.

reply