Daystrom Institute

4 readers

13 users here now

Welcome to Daystrom Institute!

Serious, in-depth discussion about Star Trek from both in-universe and real world perspectives.

Read more about how to comment at Daystrom.

Rules

1. Explain your reasoning

All threads and comments submitted to the Daystrom Institute must contain an explanation of the reasoning put forth.

2. No whinging, jokes, memes, and other shallow content.

This entire community has a “serious tag” on it. Shitposts are encouraged in Risa.

3. Be diplomatic.

Participate in a courteous, objective, and open-minded fashion. Be nice to other posters and the people who make Star Trek. Disagree respectfully and don’t gatekeep.

4. Assume good faith.

Assume good faith. Give other posters the benefit of the doubt, but report them if you genuinely believe they are trolling. Don’t whine about “politics.”

5. Tag spoilers.

Historically Daystrom has not had a spoiler policy, so you may encounter untagged spoilers here. Ultimately, avoiding online discussion until you are caught up is the only certain way to avoid spoilers.

6. Stay on-topic.

Threads must discuss Star Trek. Comments must discuss the topic raised in the original post.

Episode Guides

The /r/DaystromInstitute wiki held a number of popular Star Trek watch guides. We have rehosted them here:

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

williams_482@startrek.website

Equals@startrek.website

LibraryLass@startrek.website

khaosworks@startrek.website

The Wrath of Khan doesn't seem like a "best Star Trek film" to me -- why do so many people think that it is? (startrek.website)

submitted 1 year ago by Equals@startrek.website to c/daystrominstitute@startrek.website

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] deepthaw@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago

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."