To be clear, I'm not looking to debate whether this is the best Trek film. Rather, I'm asking why so many people see it as such.
I enjoy TWoK well enough, and certainly it is a good film overall. But consider: it is much more militaristic than any Trek before and more than most Trek since, and relatively violent compared to TOS; there is no exploration of strange new worlds; tonally, it is quite different from most Trek stories. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting that these qualities are required for a "good" Trek film -- I'm just noting a few obvious ways that TWoK is unusual.)
In terms of TOS episodes, TWoK is probably most like a combination of "The City On The Edge Of Forever" and "Balance of Terror" -- which, to be fair, are beloved classic episodes, in part because they are somewhat exceptional compared to the rest of the series. So perhaps that gives us some clue as to why the film is so beloved.
In general, TWoK is ultimately about mortality. For all that the film professes to be about Khan, he really is just an Act of God (in the natural disaster sense), creating an unstoppable force that Kirk must humble himself against. The film is really about Kirk learning to confront death -- heightened by the contrast of the new life of Genesis and in his newly-rediscovered son. And that is something that the film did which was new: able to plumb the depths of Kirk's emotional journey at greater length thanks to the larger screen and the longer format.
But, again... it's a great film, but I don't know that it's obvious to me that Kirk learning to deal with the no-win scenario particularly epitomizes what "Star Trek" is (whatever the hell Star Trek actually "is"). In that respect, The Voyage Home seems like the most obvious candidate -- whatever Star Trek "is", to me TVH "feels" more like it than does The Wrath of Khan.
So, why has TWoK earned such a place of acclaim?
(PS: I could write a similar post about First Contact, whose popularity also confuses me.)
First, you kinda had to be there...
Star Trek: The Motion Picture kind of went over like a wet fart in church. People really didn't like it.
So II rolls up, changes the uniform styles, brings back a classic villain, a tense, action driven script, and emulates Balance of Terror which is quite possibly the best TOS episode.
Then, following it up is Search For Spock which was mostly forgettable. Then Voyage Home which is just as well liked as II.
That started the early meme of "odd numbered ones suck, even numbered ones are good."
Which held for V and VI as well.
Oh, where do I start?
It’s a really, really tight script, for one, with little or no filler. Unlike TMP, it moves swiftly from scene to scene, from setup to setup, establishing its themes of mortality, aging, the inability to let go of the past, the tragedy and joy of moving forward, of rebirth right off the bat, in so subtle ways that most don’t catch it until later or a rewatch.
For fanservice, it makes good use of a loose end from TOS continuity which is simple enough for non-fans to get without much exposition, and memorable enough that old viewers will remember it. The relationship between the Big Three is no longer as broken as it was throughout most of TMP, and the banter naturalistic and enjoyable, even among the supporting crew.
Nick Meyer adds all these little touches in the background that make it ripe for literary analysis. A Tale of Two Cities and its themes of sacrifice, Kirk’s fondness for antiques, never really established before, echoing his nostalgia for times past. In Khan’s cargo carrier, you see on the shelf as Chekov discovers the SS Botany Bay tag: Dante’s Inferno, stacked on top of Milton’s Paradise Lost/Paradise Regained, stacked on top of Moby Dick, showing the progression of Khan’s experiences on Ceti Alpha V, echoing his hope in reference to Milton at the end of “Space Seed” - to rule in Hell, build his own Paradise - now replaced by obsessive revenge.
ST II also sets up TNG, in its way, by introducing Peter Preston, David Marcus and Saavik - essentially Scotty, Kirk and Spock’s offspring - the next generation of voyagers that the old guard are trying to give way to, but the past just won’t let them and indeed threatens that legacy.
And then of course there’s the space battles - never really as well executed due to SFX limitations in TOS - but yet leaning so completely into the nautical and submarine metaphor established by Roddenberry and “Balance of Terror”. It was a risky move in an era dominated by adrenaline-fueled Star Wars dogfight-like starship combat, but Meyers’ direction made it work. There’s never a time you don’t know exactly what’s going on in that battle, or what tactics the two sides are employing.
You’re right in the sense that it’s not traditionally what one expects of Star Trek, leaning more into the pulp adventure mold rather than the aliens and exploration mold. But to a degree it’s still an optimistic future. Kirk’s son and Spock’s daughter ready to take the reins, the Genesis Planet representing the potential for new life, Kirk himself experiencing a rebirth of sorts as he finds his youth restored as his best friends told him it would be - on the bridge of a starship. But who says the final frontier can’t be inside us, too? (Archer said as much)
And in the end, it’s a complete movie. The forced-on-Meyer shot of Spock’s torpedo casing notwithstanding, it’s a complete story from start to finish, with no “The Human Adventure Is Just Beginning” tease or the sequelitist tones of the next two movies. All the information you need to know is in here. You could watch it without tying it to a larger universe and be completely satisfied with the experience. All you really need to know beforehand is that it’s connected to this TV show from the 60s.
I'm glad somebody else has brought up that TWoK sort of feels at odds with Trek despite being the best of the films. However, I say it is still the best Trek movie because:
It focuses on the characters who know from Star Trek, and their growth, change, loss, and acceptance is critical to the story. While the things that happen to them aren't limited to Trek characters, Kirk, Spock, et al. were the definition of "Star Trek" at the time.
The militaristic aspects aren't totally foreign to Star Trek. While exploration was always at the forefront of their mission, Starfleet was (as Carol Marcus pointed out) still a military organization. What has happened is that the exploration/scientific aspects in the story have been initially shifted to Dr. Marcus.
The sci-fi aspects and story telling are still very strong, it's just that Kirk and Khan shooting each other in a nebula is so great that we forget they're there.
- What are the ramifications of a device like Genesis, which puts a civilization even closer to the ability to "play god?" Is every tool that can create also doomed to be a weapon that can destroy?
- How does a future society balance the often competing goals of scientific exploration with military power, especially given something like Genesis?
- What responsibilities do we have when we decide to "play god" within a much smaller microcosm such as Khan's people. Kirk presumed he was doing the right and just thing by setting them up on a planet but never returned to check on them. Was he responsible for what happened to Khan as a result?
The increased breathing room of a full motion picture that doesn't have to delve into the backgrounds of the characters we already know gives the story room to breath, and unlike TOS we have time to let events that aren't driven strictly by the "gimmick" of the scifi aspect intermingle and impact with the plot device(s).
I still hold that TMP is the most "Trek" of the movies, but TWoK is the best of the movies while still being sufficiently "Trek."
I saw The Wrath of Khan as a kid, quite possibly before seeing any of the series, so there's never been any question of it not being representative of Star Trek for me, though I can see how someone approaching chronologically might see more of a disparity.
However, TOS had plenty of deaths, including destruction of starships, as did V'Ger's, uh, collection of data, so does TWoK really stand apart in that regard? Chekov and Terrell kick off the plot while surveying planets, encountering a strange alien creature, and Kirk and co. find an underground paradise; I see that as fitting the explorative aspects of the show, at least somewhat. The villain is defeated with teamwork, deception, and by outplaying him, common to the original series. And the story raises some ethical questions regarding cheating, playing god, and marooning, again in the tradition of the show. I see the differences as more stylistic than substantial, but as I said, personal history affects my perspective.
As far as general movie principles go, music can be a strong influence on audiences, and Wrath of Khan has a great score.
I actually agree, while good, Star Trek 2 kinda seems overrated now on repeat viewings. I even like Star Trek 1 a bit more. Then again, my favorite of the films, First Contact, seems to be hated by a good chunk of the fanbase now so what do I know?
Not a clue. Funny thing is that I can't stand Wrath of Khan but actively enjoy Into Darkness. The movie that everyone calls a 'worse Wrath of Khan'. The blood magic is utter nonsense but otherwise I enjoyed the movie far more than the original it's based off of.
The problem with crowning The Voyage Home as the best Star trek movie is that the Enterprise is absent.
It's not like you need the Enterprise for good Star Trek. Many of the best episodes have not really used the ship. But for a movie to be the pinnacle of Star Trek in fan reactions, the absence of the Enterprise is keenly felt.
If I was going to put any movie up against The Wrath of Khan it would be the Undiscovered Country. Everything I like about TWoK returns in The Undiscovered Country. An iconic and interesting antagonist? Check. A starship battle decided by clever outthinking of the enemy instead of a situation where the main character and antagonist end up in punching match? Also check. Kirk confronting his place in a world that keeps passing him by? Also check.
If I had to ask why does TWoK beat out TUC, and it only does by the narrowest of margins, it's that TWoK has slightly more universal themes. The Undiscovered Country is about the end of the Cold War, and if you grew up in that time, it resonates strongly. Treating your old enemy with respect, moving past your old hate, these are things which landed much harder in the early 1990s than the early 2020s.
But growing old, life passing you by, old mistakes coming back to haunt you, the danger of revenge, all those stand out today as well as they did when the movie first aired.
TWoK aged better than the others, though not by much. Many of the other movies are very, very good. I personally rank TUC and TWoK almost even.
I do think TWoK has in my mind soured a little for the same reason that First Contact did. Its success ensured we'd get so many attempts to dip into the same well again. But that's a very subjective issue, and one which it's hard to really hold against TWoK.
