Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) remains a hugely popular incarnation of Trek for many good reasons. The entire Nicholas Meyer enterprise, if you will, exhibits a more Naval, Hornblower-esque feel than many Treks, the friendship between Kirk and Spock is paramount in the story, and the threat -- universal Armageddon -- is tremendous indeed. Khan, our villain, is charismatic and powerful. And his motive is easy to identify with: vengeance.Wrath of Khan was so successful, in fact, that it has become the template for about half of the Star Trek films since. And mostly -- let's be honest about this -- to the franchise's detriment.
After Star Trek II, a charismatic villain deploying a deadly WMD in the tradition of the Genesis Device has been repeated much too often.
Dr. Soran harnessed the power of the "ribbon" to destroy whole worlds in Generations (1994).
Ru'afo harvested the "metaphasic energy" of an extra-planetary Shangri-La, almost wiping out an entire population in Insurrection (1998).
Shinzon threatened Earth with his Thalaron weapon in Nemesis, hoping to revenge himself against Picard.
And then there was Nero Star Trek, who had his red matter weapon which destroyed Vulcan. Also deployed, incidentally, out of vengeance.
These were all charismatic madmen, but I don't believe it's a coincidence that the most highly-regarded Star Trek movies after Khan -- The Voyage Home (1986), The Undiscovered Country (1991), and First Contact (1996) -- utilize a different template.
And really, why focus on wrath when there are six other deadly sins out there? Revenge committed in the wondrous final frontier tends to bring everything down to very Earthly, grounded and human terms. We have superhero movies and James Bond movies about vengeance and charismatic madmen. Star Trek should differentiate itself in a meaningful way.
More to the point, I'll bring up a quip from Howard Dean. It was advice offered to and ignored by John Kerry in 2004. "You don't beat George W. Bush by being Bush-Lite." Well, in a similar vein, you can't out-Khan the Wrath of Khan either. Best not to try.
Besides, Star Trek offers a rich source of mythology and history, and even storytelling styles. Why not explore that potential? The series rarely featured charismatic madmen as villains, instead focusing on weird scientific phenomena, new civilizations-of-the-week, alternate-universes, and even deadly, sentient machines (like "The Doomsday Machine's" Planet Killer). A great Star Trek movie could combine two Original series episodes and really prove something special.
.No doubt it's a really, really fun parlor game to think about who could play Khan in the next Star Trek movie. But do we really need another variation on Soran, Ru'Afo, Shinzon and Nero right now? If we get a new Khan, a new madman, that'll be three similar threats in a row.
Here's a thought: let's apply some of Star Trek's "infinite diversity in infinite combinations" to the franchise's villains.
Boldly go.
Excellent points, JKM. Additionally, the reason this The Star Trek movie was so successful was because of the reboot aspect, IMO. It's off-on-a-new-tangent and time line is likely what made it exciting. The oft repeated template (and its studio exec thinking) brought down the movie series. The new changes (and the playing off of the old character traits) was what made it something fun for old and new fans.
ReplyDeleteThat success (in turning it on its ear) made it something that theater-goers wanted to experience. Spock and Uhura? Together? Yeah... well, it worked. I agree with your thoughts. Remaking some of the previous movies just leads this series back into the same hole that this group engineered the franchise out of. They could amalgam some plots from way back, but I don't think they need to regurgitate old storylines from the old TV series to do it. Go for the potential you mention, not the tried and true that's been played out.
Thanks for the post, John.
Agreed that we don't need to rehash Khan, but thanks to your post, I'm now imagining the way Montalban would have rolled his tongue over the phrase "universal Armageddon." I like it!
ReplyDeletePrimarily, the reason not to remake "The Wrath of Khan" is that the new crew of the Enterprise hasn't met Khan (or anyone else for that matter) yet. First, they would have to remake "Space Seed." What really made "Wrath of Khan" work was the characters reflecting on how they've aged, as well as the touching scene between the old friends Kirk and Spock. We're not going to get that with a 25-year old Kirk in command, who still hasn't established any significant relationship with his science officer.
ReplyDeleteActually, *that's* a neat idea. Wrath of Khan, perhaps not, but Space Seed in the new context would be fascinating.
ReplyDeleteGreat article.
ReplyDeleteBut why stop there? Why not devote money to a new sci fi movie that isn't part of the Star Trek universe? (Or for that matter, the Star Wars universe, the X-Files universe, etc.)
Why not adapt a novel from the Riverworld series? Or a Heinlein novel? Or Zelazny's Lord of Light? Or better yet, some original sci-fi idea.
As much as I liked Star Trek, there's something about the endless chain of sequels, spinoffs and remakes of that series that turns me off. After all, the main appeal of science fiction has always been that of an universe where anything can happen so why do so many fans of that genre seem to prefer going to the same old places over and over again? I'll admit that Star Trek was one of the better sci-fi series to air on TV and that Star Trek the movie was one of the better movies to come out this past summer.
But it wasn't that good.
And even if it was, isn't it time to try something new? Or should we choose to boldly go where everyone and their cousin has already gone before?
Tonio,
ReplyDeleteYou make an excellent point. Original material would indeed be preferable; it's just not likely, at least until there's a paradigm-shift in Hollywood.
But I can't disagree with anything you wrote in your comment!
best,
JKM
I want to see young Kirk running around in deerskins saying "Miramani! Miramani!"
ReplyDelete:-)
I'm with you 100%. Lets leave Khan out of the equation for now. I'm all for finding those strange new worlds and dealing bizarre space phenomena. It can be exciting and still have plenty of character interaction. And we'd get a nice break from the same old Trek stories.
ReplyDeleteGreat post!
Well, John might have made good points, as usual I might add, but as always it comes down to box office revenue. And while 'The Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, and First Contact' are well regarded. They earned a combined 362 million at the box office, while J.J. Abrams reboot earned 385 million, the highest grossing Trek movie ever. Which means a risk-averse Hollywood is not going to try and reinvent the wheel in 2012's installment.
ReplyDelete