Wrath of Khan is a bad movie

Hey, so we're doing Star Trek. I love talking about Star Trek. Last time I talked about Star Trek, I said something that I didn't realize was controversial. I said, "All Star Trek movies are bad. " And honestly, I stand by it. I do stand by it. But I got feedback in two general camps. The first was like, "You can't say that. You can't say all Star Trek movies are bad. That's just your opinion. " And like, "Yeah, dude. What do you think we're doing here? You think I'm going to factually prove that a movie is good andor bad? You can't do it. " Of course it's an opinion. All Star Trek movies are bad is an opinion. of course you know that you don't have to preface your opinions with in my opinion for them to be opinions. Like factually all Star Trek movies are bad and in my opinion all Star Trek movies are bad are equivalent statements. They're both opinions. I got one comment that was like she just said all Star Trek movies are bad. Like it's a fact. No, that's also an opinion. I don't if you're struggling with this, I thought it would be helpful to find like a worksheet that you could work through. I'm going to link it below. Don't be mad at me. It's based on the only one I could find, which was for second graders. So, the second bit of feedback I got was, "You say all Star Trek movies are bad. Counterpoint, Wrath of Khan. " And like really, Wrath of Khan is certainly one of the better Star Trek movies, but is it a good movie? Would we call it good?

So, this is the part in a video where if you're discussing a film, you would give like a brief one-s sentence synopsis of what the film is about. Like Legally Blonde is a movie where a woman goes to a prestigious law school to win back her boyfriend only to like overcome stereotypes and become a successful lawyer in her own right. A Night's Tale is the story of a peasant squire who assumes the role of knight and competes in tournaments and wins friends and a love interest. Shrek, the story of an ogre who rescues a princess to regain control of his swamp. It's kind of hard to do that with Wrath of Khan. Also, apparently I stopped watching movies in the year 2001, but like Wrath of Khan, like you could say Wrath of Khan is a story of Starfleet Admiral Captain Kirk having a battle with genetically modified 200-year-old Khan. Like, that's true. That's what happens. But that's not all that happens in this movie. What about the battle with the Reliant? What about the Genesis mission? What about Spock dying? What about Kirk's secret son? And like who is this con guy? Do you know what I mean? Too much happens in this movie to reduce it down to one sentence, which I mean, usually good movies have cohesive stories because Wrath of Khan is obviously six episodes of a much better Star Trek show that has been smooshed into a 2-hour film. And I'll tell you something, for free, two hours is not enough time to do six episodes, which, you know, could impact the quality of the film.

Okay, episode one. Kirk is old. So, this movie starts with Admiral Kirk. He's been promoted to Admiral, and he's like old. He's not cruising the galaxies anymore. He just trains students. He collects artifacts like some kind of gross old man. On his birthday, Bones gives him like old timey glasses because Kirk is apparently allergic to the thing they would give you to just fix your eyesight in the future. And Kirk's like, "Yeah, I guess I am super old. I've got glasses. " — Charming. They're 400 years old and you don't find many with the lenses still intact. — William Shatner, at the time of filming, is only 50. I just feel like Admiral Kirk in this film is not old enough to be like putting him in the box of old man who can't go out on missions anymore. He's only 50. That's not that old. The early part of the film is all about this. Both Bones and Spock are like, "Kirk, why did you take this promotion? You belong out there. Sailed in the seas of space. " You know, — it was a mistake for you to accept promotion. Commanding a starship is your first best destiny. — I'm your doctor and I'm your friend. Get back your command. — Episode two of this hypothetical show that has been smushed into a movie is about Kirk training students. So like the old guard training the next generation. That's a good idea for a show. Particularly in this film, Kirk is training a captain to be named Savic. She is a Vulcan. Listen, I'm not I'm only talking about the text of the film, okay? I know that there are books and there are retcons. In the film, Savic is presented as a Vulcan. Okay. Savic takes the Kobayashi Maru simulation test exam thing and she feels like such a piece of [ __ ] after and she's talking to Kirk and she's like, "Buddy, daddy, please, please tell me how you pass this test. Help me be a better future captain. " — A no- win situation is a possibility every commander may face. Has that never occurred to you? — So, we should talk about the Kobayashi Maru. It's like a simulated training test situation for aspiring captains. You're the captain of a ship, a starship like in Star Trek, and you hear a distress call from the Kobashi Maru, and it's just like a civilian vessel, but oh no, the Kobayashi Maru is stuck, and they need help, but they're in the neutral zone, and you're on a Starfleet ship. If you enter the neutral zone, that's an act of war. So, like, if you wanted to tow them out to safety, you you can't do that. That's an act of war. If you leave them there in the neutral zone, surely Klingons will come and just shoot them up. What are you going to do? It's the Kobayashi Maru test. — Captain, I'm getting something on the distress channel on speakers. — Imperative, this is the Kobayashi Maru. — Mr. Sulu, plot an intercept course. — May I remind the captain that if a starship enters the — I'm aware of my responsibilities, mister. I've lost their signal. — Alert sensors indicate three Cllingon cruisers bearing 316 Mark 4. Closing fast. — Visual. — Main energizer hit. Captured. — Engage auxiliary power. Prepare to return fire. I love how severely they're overacting because the audience wouldn't have known that the Kobayashi Maru was a simulation. So, they are watching it thinking this is actually happening. And also, everyone who went to the movies to see this knew that Spock was going to die in this movie, so they just killed him right away at the start. I think that's very funny. I also really like Kirk's entrance right here. I like it. I think it's good. — Prayer, Mr. Savic. The Klingons don't take prisoners. — Lights. — Usually the simulation plays out with the captain very bravely being like, "We're going in to grab them. We'll just get them out of there. " And then immediately you're just overwhelmed by a bunch of Klingon ships and they just slaughter your entire crew. End of simulation. It's not a test of like battle strategery. It's more of a test of character. Like how do you respond under pressure? in situations where you might not win? Where there's no right action, where people will die no matter what you do. What do you do? What is your character? The test is designed to ensure the participant feels failure and feels the loss of life like on their own conscience. So Savoc is like, "But Kirk, you passed it. There's got to be a way to pass the test. solve it, you know. Cool. Okay, so episode three of this hypothetical series would be called Genesis Mission. Check off is searching with this guy. I forgot his name. This captain. — I don't know you. — I liked him a lot. He was fun. They're searching for like a planet that's dead or perhaps inhospitable to life in order to test the Genesis device. The Genesis device is a device that somehow takes matter and converts it into matter that's good for living. So you would just put it on a dead planet and then what life you could terraform a planet in a matter of hours. This episode would be like a morality like man playing God. Nature versus humans. What if this gets into the wrong hands? Because like obviously if you shoot this device in any matter it's going to convert it into the Genesis style matter. Oh my god, it could be a weapon. That kind of episode. Episode four of our show would be the longlost son plot. Dr. Carol Marcus, who's the brilliant genius inventor of the Genesis device, is an old flame of Captain Kirk, Admiral Kirks, and they have a son that he doesn't know about called David. So, in the episode, he finds out about this son and would go through all those feelings. I think there's something biblical, a biblical style reference I don't get. Like obviously Genesis is the Bible and David is also a character in the Bible. Someone smarter than me could tell you what that's about. I have a question about birth control in the future though. This plot point where a character is like, "Whoa, a child I didn't know about. Interesting. " Happens a lot in Star Trek. I just birth control at this moment is pretty solid, pretty accurate, pretty good. In the future, surely there would be improvements on that. But also, wouldn't men have access to a birth control? So, even if they're out rolling around, surely they could prevent their seed from surely this is a salt problem in the future. I don't get it. It doesn't matter. Episode five and also six because I think this should be a two-parter is like the con story. So Czechov in the movie is searching for this dead planet, but oh no, actually he's on steady alpha 5. You remember it? Of course. Botney Bay. Of course. Oh no. This is Khan's planet. — Botney Bay. Oh no. We've got to get out of here now. Damn. — Hurry. What? What about the — Never mind. Hurry. — Check off. What's the matter with you? Here is where I think we've run into a little issue that makes this a bad movie, which is that this movie is the second movie in a series, but is also a direct sequel to an episode of the television show from like 10 years earlier. — Captain's logs. — We first meet Khan on Star Trek the original series in an episode called Space Seed. It's a really good episode. Khan is a genetically modified human from the 1990s. He's been genetically modified to be super strong and also super smart. And his crew are all like that. And they put themselves in this like sleeper pod to just try and find a better future because there was war on Earth. Do you have to have seen Space Seed to enjoy Wrath of Khan? No. because they force Ricardo Monttobond to just say all this in horribly written dialogue to bring the audience up to speed, which is not the sign of a good movie, guys. — Do you mean he never told you the tale? — To amuse your captain? No. — Never told you how the Enterprise picked up the Botley Bay lost in space from the year 1996. Myself and the ship's company in cryogenic freeze. — Don't get me wrong. I love him. I think, don't get me wrong, think he's a great actor. I think he's great at playing con. I think he's really good at delivering this dialogue. But like perhaps instead you could write a story that doesn't require you to have an exposition dump. Perhaps what if that? This would be a two-parter. Part one is check off on the planet. He sees Khan and it ends with him being like Khan. Oh no, you know, except like plot hole alert, check off wasn't on the Enterprise during the episode of Space Seat. So Khan never would have seen Czechov. — I never forget the face. — I'm just kidding. I don't care about plot holes. Who gives a [ __ ] Nobody cares about that. You can explain that away. It doesn't matter. I'm much more concerned with the devastation of the actual character of Khan. I don't like what they've done to him in this film. than your sympathies were with. — You are an excellent tactician, Captain. You let your second in command attack while you sit and watch for weakness. — He goes from brilliant tactician tyrant leader to like Captain Ahab. — From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee. — Captain Ahab is a fun character, but we already had a fun character. Why shift him so much to just be like this crazy wackadoo who will kill Kirk at any cost? Even if his whole ship explodes, even if all of his people die, even if he dies. Like I just like we already had a good character. Why change him so much into this archetype of crazy bad guy? I'm not the biggest fan of crazy bad guy. So, in the show con the character references Paradise Lost, like a direct quote from it and like it gives information to Kirk, but he's not carrying around the book. Did they need to do this? Like, we get it. We get the Moby Dick thing. He's directly quoting Moby Dick. Like, most of his lines are just taken from Moby Dick. We get it. Come on. We're not dumb. This just annoys me. I really like the Space Seed episode. I would say it's better than the Wrath of Khan movie. Except I don't like that they put him in brownface. I don't understand that. — My name is Khan. Please sit and entertain me. — Also don't like this. — I also don't like this, — Captain. That's the old Morris code call signal. Thank you. — CQ CQ. — We're reading it, Lieutenant. — That's her job, man. Leave her alone. She's literally That is in her job description. Let her do it. Don't yell at her. What the [ __ ] I also like in the movie that Khan let the women in his group have clothes. That's much nicer than before. Anyway, if we were making Wrath of Khan into a show, Khan would be two episodes. Part one would be check offs on the planet doing science and then he discovers Khan. Oh no. Bum bum. Part two would be Kirk fighting Khan. I would also like it if they didn't get in a fist fight because if Kirk and Khan got in a fist fight, you know, Khan would win. It doesn't make sense for Kirk to win that. And the last episode, which I think we're up to seven again, that's too many plots to have in one two-hour film, is that Spock dies. So like that's just an episode. Spock dies. End of episode, whatever.

That's the plot of Wrath of Con. All of those things happen in that one movie. It's a lot of things. If we go back to this idea of a good movie has a cohesive story that you could perhaps provide a synopsis for in like a short amount of time that would like fully encapsulate most of the things in the movie. Here is the synopsis provided by the writer of Wrath of Con. Oh, and you can read about it in this book by Nicholas Meyer called The View from the Bridge if you're interested in the making of the Wrath Con. The finished script of the second Star Trek movie revolves around a training crews aboard the Enterprise supervised by a reluctant Kirk who promoted to admiral is now a depressed desk jockey brooding about his age. Unbeknownst to the Enterprise and her youthful compliment, another Federation starship, the Reliant, inadvertently lands on what is thought to be a desolate planet. Searching for a place to help conduct a mysterious scientific experiment under the supervision of Kirk's old flame, Carol Marcus. The planet, however, proves to be inhabited by the treacherous Khan, whom Kirk had marooned there with his followers and wife years before. Thirsting for revenge, Khan and his band hijack the Reliant and lay a trap for Kirk, who now finds himself marooned beneath the surface of another planet, where he rediscovers Carol and is introduced to the sun. he never knew he had. The climax of the film is a submarine battle minus sonar between Kirk and his nemesis in a lightning splattered nebula in which Spock sacrifices his life to save his captain, his friend, and the crew of the Enterprise in the process, miraculously rejuvenating Kirk. Do you see how that's an issue? If you're providing the synopsis of a two-hour movie, you shouldn't have that many commas. You should not use the word marooned twice. Too many things happen in this movie, you guys. It's not a great movie. It's not a good cohesive story, is it? This movie has no time to address the things it brings up in the plot. For example, Spock dies in this movie. And the character of Spock is in this movie for like seven minutes total. And that kind of brushes up against one of the issues with making a Star Trek movie, which is that a lot of times these actors were very successful on the show and they made a bunch of money and now they don't want to be doing Star Trek anymore. And so in order to like coax them in, you you just say like, "Oh, you can do whatever you want. You want to drive a dune buggy through the desert? You want to direct the movie yourself? Why not? You want to have a whole season about a domestic abuse situation where a woman hangs herself in front of her child on screen. Why not? You can do that as long as you'll be in it cuz people will watch it if you're in it, right? I mean, I'm not a professional movie maker. I just feel like you can't put that constraint and also still make a good movie. Because the thing about Spock dying in this movie is that it has [ __ ] all to do with this movie. Spock is in this movie for like seven minutes. At the start, he's like, "Kirk, I'm your friend. I'm always going to be your friend. " And then at the end, he sacrifices himself to save the ship and Kirk runs down to engineering and Spock repeats the lines and he dies. It has nothing to do with this movie. This movie is not about friendships. the relationship between Spock and Kirk. You could take that 4-minute death scene and just pluck it out and shove it into any other Star Trek property and it would have the exact same impact because the reason you're watching that and you think it's a good scene is because you know those two characters. You've been watching those characters for over a decade. Those actors are doing a great job acting those characters because they know those characters. Spock's death scene is very well acted. It is deliberate and restrained, complimentary, right? And also, you're watching those two human beings and you know their backstory and you know how they feel about playing those characters and you know the tensions in their relationship. So watching it, you feel all kinds of feelings and nostalgia, but that scene has nothing to do with that [ __ ] movie. If Wrath of Khan did not have Spock's death scene and instead we watch the end, we watch Khan explode and then Kirk and Carol Marcus and Bones and then also Spock who didn't die standing on the bridge just marveling at the Genesis device explosion and then Kirk delivers his final line which is like I feel so young. If Spock was there, it would have no change because Spock's death was irrelevant to the plot of the movie. It was there because Spock is played by a human actor named Leonard Nemoy who was like, "Kill me off. I don't want to do this anymore. I will only be in this film if you kill me. " Do you know what I mean? That's not how you make a good movie. It's in there because they have to kill Spock. It's on the list. What was the time on that? I feel like I've explained what happens in the Wrath of Khan movie by now. Okay, so you're watching Wrath and you're realizing that it kind of feels like a bunch of story beats that were smooshed together and not really like a nice cohesive movie story, right? It's almost like they had a list of cool scenes they wanted to shoot and they worked backwards to make a story. And I feel like that's a big failure. Like that's not how you make a good movie. I am sure that someone somewhere got one idea for a really cool movie scene and then worked backwards and made a good movie, but I don't think that's what happened here. I think the fact that you're watching Wrath of Khan and you can tell that they just needed this scene to get to the next scene makes it a bad movie. If I am watching it and I'm already primed to love it, right? I love Star Trek. I love Space Seed the episode. I love these characters. I should be having a good time. I shouldn't be sitting there realizing like, "Oh, I guess Checkup's on this planet cuz they needed to find Con. " Does that make sense? Like, wouldn't Starfleet have known this planet was here? Like, wouldn't they just mark this sector off or something? Like, why? That's not how you watch a good movie, is it? That's bad movie. A movie that's not successfully being a movie. Ignorant, as I say, or arrogantly uninterested in President, I was intent on reashioning the second movie as a nautical homage. I like that. Actually, I like Moby Dick. I like nautical stories. I think that's a fine idea. I think a good movie could have sprung from that. And the script, then it prompted quietly. Well, here's my other idea, I told them, taking a deep breath and producing a yellow legal pad from under my chair. Why don't we make a list of everything we like in these five drafts? Could be a plot, a subplot, a sequence, a scene, a character, a line even. Yes. And then I will write a new script and cobble together all the things we choose. They stared at me blindly. In this book, the story is told as this big heroic moment. He wants to do a nautical thing. Sure, good idea. He's given the five previous scripts that the studio is like, "All of these are trash. " He reads them. He's and his big brilliant idea is we'll just pick all the things we like and smoosh them together. You can tell it's a bunch of things smooshed together and I would prefer instead to have a nice good movie. You know, I think this scene is a good example of what I'm talking about. This is Scotty's nephew who died in engineering during the battle with the Reliant. And he comes up to the bridge. He carries this kid's body to the bridge. And then in the next scene, they're immediately in sick bay. And it's like you had to walk past the medical bay to get to the bridge so you could have this scene where you carry this body. It doesn't make sense. Like you took two separate elevators to do this scene. It's a cool visual, but it doesn't make any sense. Like, it's just in there cuz you thought it was a cool visual. And because this script is a Frankenstein of other bad scripts, none of the original voices are there to do the Star Trek thing where they talk about why the scenes are happening. I don't know if I'm going to be able to explain that. Like there's just so many moments when me, a Star Trek fan, is watching Wrath of Con where I'm like, "Okay, we just had this big scene. Now is the moment where we're going to discuss. we will use this future story to analyze and reflect on modern life. " I'm sure that will happen. But that's not what happens in Wrath of Con because they just jump to the next scene on the list on the yellow legal pad. You know what I mean? Here, here's a list of things that Wrath of Khan shoved in my mouth, just begging me to chew on it and think about it and then refusing to let me No, here's a list of things from The Wrath of Khan that I would like to chew on that I would have liked the actors to discuss textually in the film. Does that make sense? Does that scratch for you? That's what I want from Star Trek. Number one, the Kobashi Maru. Listen, I don't hate the Kobashi Maru. I hate meaningless reference to the Kobayashi Maru. Later Star Trek is just half references to old Star Trek and that does not make a good movie. You can't just reference a thing and expect me to be happy about it. Do you know what I mean? Hang on. Don't worry. It's still regulation. Okay. Why is Savic in this movie? Why is she a Vulcan that cries and lies? What does that mean? They don't address why she's a Vulcan that does those things. It's not like that's not the plot of like she was raised as a Vulcan to have these traits and now she doesn't. So why why was she so upset? Why didn't she understand the Kobayashi Maru? Like she should she should understand the Kobayashi Maru, but the plot required that we slowly learn how Kirk tricked the test. I wish. May I speak, sir? — Self-exression doesn't seem to be one of your problems. — Begging the admiral's pardon. General Order 15. No flag officer shall beam into a hazardous area without armed escort. — There's no such regulation. All right, join the party. — I wish they would have addressed why this was a subplot in the movie. Like at the end, Spock's dying and he's like, I guess I never took the Kobayashi Maru, but this is kind of like it. And it's like, well, no, Spock, because in the Kobayashi Maru, you're the captain, and you make a choice that kills other people. You're instead choosing to sacrifice. It's just it's not the same thing. It's not related enough for me to feel satisfied that it comes back up. So, why is it there at all? Why is Savic such a huge character in this movie? I don't understand. Please tell me why the Vulcan is crying and lying. I would love to know. Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, this was the most — human. Are your engines capable of handling a minor training cruise? — Give the word, Admiral. — Scott, the word is given. — Is the word given, Admiral? — The word is given. warp speed. — In any case, where I to invoke logic, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh few or the one. — or the one. — You're my superior officer. You are also my friend. I have been and always shall be yours. — your friend. — Number two is the Genesis mission. So, we have a device that you shoot at matter and it turns it into a different kind of matter. And this can be used to terraform planets or just kill anything it touches. It's brushed over. Bones is like, "We can't play God. " and Spock's like, "Come on, bones. " And that's all they talk about. — According to myth, the Earth was created in six days. Now, watch out. Here comes Genesis. We'll do it for you in 6 minutes. — I do not dispute that. In the wrong hands. — Would you mind telling me who's the right hands, my logical friend? — Why bring up this giant science test if we're not going to have the morality discussion? Like very luckily in this film, Khan gets it and then only kills himself and his crew. But like, shouldn't Starfleet check in on why they were building that or how it got into the wrong hands? I don't know. Also, when Dr. Carol Marcus is proposing her project to Starfleet to get funding, she talks about food shortages and scarcity. Like, we will build the Genesis device. We will go to a dead planet and we will grow food there and it will solve the food shortage issue. — When we consider the cosmic problems of population and food supply, the usefulness of this process becomes clear. — And that's why Paramount should hire me specifically. My last video was also a job application. I haven't heard back. We'll try again. Hire me to read your scripts because a line like that would be clocked immediately. What do you mean scarcity and food shortages, Dr. Carol Marcus? Because Star Trek is abundance. Star Trek is what happens when you set aside your stupid human fights and you work together through collaboration and cooperation. You get these huge technical advancements and it's abundant. There's no money. Everyone can do what they want. We have the galaxy to play with and explore. Why are we researching food shortages? Dr. Carol Marcus, are you telling me that we're watching Kirk and Spock [ __ ] around in space and there are human beings starving on Earth? Is that what you're telling me? I don't like to hear that. Dr. Carol Marcus, come on. It's just one throwaway line. Hire me to check it. Whatever. There's another thing in this Genesis mission, which I think is very poorly thought out, which is that the son David is constantly saying, "I'm so nervous when Starfleet is around. I'm They're going to come and they're going to take it make it a weapon. They're going to kill everyone. We can't trust them. We can't trust Starfleet. And why does he think that? At first, you're thinking, "Oh, well, Dr. Carol Marcus is his mother and Kirk is his father. So maybe she's shoving this idea into him and she's saying, "Don't trust Starfleet because she doesn't want him to talk to Kirk. " That makes sense. Sure, why not make him distrust Starfleet so he never discovers his father? Whatever. Kind of shitty. That sucks. But like that makes sense, but that's not what's happening. Every time David says something like that, Dr. Carol Marcus is like, "No, he's not a boy scout. They're doing what's best. " You know, — every time we have dealings with Starfleet, I get nervous. We are dealing with something that could be perverted into a dreadful weapon. — I knew it. All along the military wanted to get — is completely improper. Commander, — I've tried warning you before. Scientists have always been pawns of the military. He killed everybody we left behind. Well, — of course he didn't. — She even has a line where the Reliant, which is a Starfleet ship, is taken over by Khan, but they don't know that. And check off video calls her. She's like, "Hey, according to Starfleet, Kirk said, he said this, we can come take all your stuff, so we're going to come do that. So, prepare it for us. " And Dr. Carol Marcus is like, "What's going on? " And David's like, "See, you can't trust Starfleet. " And Dr. Carol Marcus goes, "Isribe to your interpretation of this event. " — I should have looked at the actual line she said. I think it's something like that. — Cannot and will not subscribe to your interpretation of this event. — Carol Marcus trusts Starfleet implicitly. She loves Kirk. She loves him. So, where does David get this? It must be from the other scientists, right? He grew up on this science base. It's not Starfleet. It's a separate They get funding from Starfleet, but it's a separate entity. It's non-government science. Maybe it's a university, right? So, all the other scientists are telling David not to trust Starfleet. Why is that a common sentiment among scientists in the future? I don't like that. Does Starfleet have a habit of stealing science and making weapons? I don't like when you make Starfleet the bad guy. That's not what I want. If they had opened this up and discussed it, I think that would have been a really interesting movie because even right now, right now in this moment in 2026, we have this like terrible government destroying science and we have people at universities just begging, trying to maintain their labs and still do their [ __ ] right? So, you could have had a story similar to that with Starfleet being the bad guy, who I wouldn't like it, but I can see how it would happen. I just I thought this was a really interesting thing to bring up and then they don't discuss it at all. It's not even mentioned. Like Kirk shows up and he's like, "You're right. It wasn't Starfleet and everything's fine. " And I'm just like, "Wait, why do all the scientists hate Starfleet? Why? Tell me why. " David even calls them the military. He's like, "The military is going to show up. " And I found that just interesting because I don't think of Starfleet as the military, which is stupid because of course they are, right? Like Rodenberry had this idea that uh Starfleet is like the Coast Guard, you know, and that's horshit because they're constantly at war. They're constantly firing weapons. They're constantly destroying lives. Like they are the military. I just I don't like to think of it that way. And uh when you bring it up, it makes me think about it. And when you don't address it, then what are we even doing here? Like why bring it up if we're not going to address it? Why does David think that? Where did he get that idea? Is there merit to it? That's why we need Star Trek 3, Wrath of Con part two. The third thing that this movie brings up and then just absolutely avoids at all cost addressing is the con thing. The these people are dead, Jim. You killed these people. You took Khan, an evil Napoleon genetically modified superhum and all of his friends, and you just shoved him on a planet, and you were like, "We'll see what he's like in a hundred years. That'll be crazy. " Like, bro, this is your fault. Your friend is dead because of you. You killed Spock, man. He doesn't pause for even a second to be like, "Man, I really [ __ ] up. " Right, guys? Sorry. All your friends are dead, David. I heard that you could hear them torturing the scientists trying to get to the Genesis device. That sucks. Nope. Doesn't come up. There's a moment where Czechov's like, he says, "You killed his wife. " And Kirk is just like, "I know what I said. " And then never comes up again. — He's completely mad, Admiral. He blames you for the death of his wife. — I know what he blames me for, — dude. This is your fault, man. The escape pods are all in place. — Look at how McGomery Scott reacts to this kid's death. — He let his post — when the trainees are ran. — Admiral, this is Spock. — Guess what? — Engine room reports auxiliary power restored. We can proceed at impulse power. — And Kirk is just like, "Fuck, we got to get calm, right? I guess. " And it's like, "Bro, you killed this man. have a feeling. Have any feeling about this. If you were alive in the late 70s and you had been a Star Trek fan and you had seen Space Feed and Star Trek the Motion Picture came out, more like the motionless picture. Am I right? That joke's older than me. And it was terrible. And you were like, "That sucked. It was so boring. " And you heard maybe you were reading Star Trek magazine that Star Trek 2 was going to be called Wrath of Khan and Khan was going to come back. Would you have assumed that obviously this is like a Batman style story about how by being the hero you make the villains and Kirk is going to like grapple with that? No, that's not what happens in this film. They're just like, "Man, Khan is [ __ ] crazy. Let's blow him up. " And that's the end. There's no discussion on why Khan is [ __ ] crazy and why he's trying to kill Kirk. Nothing. It doesn't happen in this movie. What was the point of bringing him back if you weren't going to address that he was a villain made by Kirk? Like you could have just come up with a new villain. Why? What is the point of this? Why did you do this? Good movies usually have points and reasons and themes even

like if we look at our examples from earlier the theme of Legally Blonde would be don't judge a book by its cover. The theme of A Night's Tale is also kind of don't judge a book by its cover. and Shrek. You're not gonna believe this, but ogres have layers just like onions. I didn't do that on purpose. I know there are other themes that exist. Gladiator is a good movie, right? You remember Gladiator? It has themes of justice and revenge and duty to your country versus your family. It makes you think about things. It makes you put yourself in the position. God, I haven't seen this movie in years with Maximus Desimus Meridius. You're in his shoes and you're like, "What would I do? " Like, "What are my morals and values? " That's a good movie. Alien. Now, that's a good [ __ ] movie, right? Have you seen Alien? I know for a fact that the people who directed and wrote Wrath of Khan have seen Alien because — Reliant is supposed to be out of not vice versa. — I know that, but I can't believe life. — I do not have access to the containment field. You will have to establish a new link. — But that's a good [ __ ] movie, right? Alien, an incredibly simple story. You have your crew. They're on a ship. They want to go back to Earth. Oh no, there's an alien on the ship. Kill the alien. Don't die. Don't bring it back to Earth. That's the whole thing. But Alien is a very simple story. What makes it such a good movie is the themes. Like it's got these big themes of like the fragility of human life and like capitalism and corporatism versus like humans and their livelihood and how they live. It's very you guys. Alien's a good movie. That's a good movie. What is the theme or themes of Star Trek 2 Wrath of what are they? What's the point? What's the point of this movie? I mean, you would think it might be revenge or the futility of revenge, but the whole con thing is just never addressed. Kirk made con. A bunch of people died. Kirk has no feelings about that. Doesn't cross his mind. It's so fine. It doesn't matter. So the theme is not revenge. Maybe it's like science versus nature because of the genesis thing, but they also don't discuss that. They don't discuss like what this means for the world. They don't discuss how it could be used for good or evil. They're just kind of like, don't let it get into the wrong hands. Thank god it exploded. Now we never have to mention this again. So that wasn't really the story. You could think it's the fatherhood thing, but this man never speaks to this boy. There's a scene where after Spock's dead, Kirk is in his like ready room being all sad and David comes in. He's like, "I have to talk to you. " And Kirk tries to run away. He tries to leave. — Um, I don't mean to intrude. — Oh, not should be on the bridge. This man does not have any feelings about being a father. And he's like, "Whatever, it's fine. It's not about fatherhood. " He acts like more of a father to Savic, actually. But it's also not about mentoring. The theme is not like how to take a young buck and make them a captain because Savic doesn't get to do that. It ends with Kirk still being the captain. There's a scene in this movie where Spock gifts Kirk a copy of A Tale of Two Cities for his birthday. And this is just so frustrating. — It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Message, Spark, — none that I'm conscious of. — Because we know the story of A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. We know the theme of A Tale of Two Cities. The theme is one of self-sacrifice, of resurrection, a man giving his life to save others. And by doing that, his life now has more meaning than it did before. Of course, we should recognize that this is exactly what Spock does at the end of the film. But it's just it's frustrating. It's insulting. It's like he he's mocking us, the writer and director of this film. This man has presumably read this book. This man knows that stories do have themes, but does he think literally textually in the film having the main character holding a copy of a book with a theme he wants to insert counts? Because that's not how you give a film meaning it doesn't count to just have them hold a book and be like, "Huh? It's this is similar, right? You see how it's similar? like sir just sir just it feels like you're making fun of me and I don't like it. I'm trying to give this man the benefit of the doubt. He had impossible deadlines. He had an impossible shooting schedule. Like it was a very rough film making process. But please sir, you can't just have your main character hold the book and be like it's kind of like this. Just feel this way. feel like you felt reading Charles Dickens while you watch this movie. That's not how you do it. Oh, it's so upsetting. So, there's no theme, guys. There's no theme of this movie. This movie has no point. It's just a bunch of things splooshed together. It makes no sense. Okay, let let's look at the synopsis again by the guy who wrote it. Kirk, who's promoted to admiral, is now a depressed desk jockey brooding about his age. And then it ends with in the process miraculously rejuvenating Kirk. They think that the theme of Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan is about feeling old and realizing, "Oh, maybe not. " That's what they think the theme is, and it's not supported by the text. So, I'm not sure how they got that. You can't It honestly almost feels when you're watching that those scenes were filmed like long after the movie had been made. And I mean, maybe that's true, but like the whole con thing happens. The whole Genesis thing happens and then they're like, "Oh [ __ ] what's the theme? " So they just have Kirk being like, "I'm old. " at the start and it ends with like, "I feel so young. " There's a scene in this movie just after Kirk learns he has an adult son and he's sitting there solemnly and Dr. Carol Marcus, the mother of his child, is like, "What are you feeling? What are you tell me what's going on? " And Kirk says, "There's someone who's trying to kill me and I just found out my son would help him. " And then he goes, "I feel old. " Those two things make him feel old. He doesn't feel sad or upset about the deceit from this woman. He doesn't feel sad about the loss of seeing his child grow up. He doesn't feel sad that this decision he made 15 years ago has killed multiple people and will continue to kill. He's just he feels old. That's how he feels. That's his feeling in this moment. And then Dr. Carol Marcus says, "I can make you feel young again. " Not like that. — Let me show you something that'll make you feel young as when the world was new. — And she takes him into the Genesis room and she says this. — Can I cook or can I? — Which I think is funny. And then he feels young. Like he sees the Genesis device do its thing and he's like, "Wow, I do feel young. " And then you guys, that exact same scene happens at the end of the movie. Again, we see Kirk watching the Genesis device in action. And again, this time the final line of the film, he says, "I feel so young. " And it's like, "We know, dude. We watched you say that a full hour ago. " Like, so there's been no growth for you. Like, you watched Spock die and you feel the same way. Like, come on. This can't be the the message of the film that we need to make sure Kirk feels young. I mean, I guess that's what I said at the start. He's only 50. He shouldn't feel old. So, thanks. I guess — I feel young. — That's not good enough. That is not good enough, Star Trek. What is the theme of this movie? There isn't one. There's no point to this movie. It's a smooshed list. You can't do this to me, Star Trek. It's not good. All right, you're going to tell me this movie is about getting old. — This is not about age, and you know it. — This movie sucks, you guys. It's fun. I like to watch it. I will watch it again. I like these actors. I think it's well acted. I like the music. I like the sets. Is it a good movie? Absolutely not. It's not.

And here's the thing, guys. I don't think we should let them off the hook. I think we deserve better. Sure, Wrath of Khan is up there on the list of Star Trek movies, but it's not a good movie. They know that. We can stop pretending this is a good movie. It's not. There's never been a good Star Trek movie. They stared at me blankly. What's wrong with that? I mean, they should have said, "Obviously, there's a problem with writing a movie from a list of beats you want to hit. That's not how you write a good movie. " But they didn't say that. I had been rather proud of this idea. Now, they glanced at one another before answering. The problem is that unless we turn over a shooting script of some sort to ILM in 12 days, they cannot guarantee delivery of VFX shots in time for a June release. I wasn't sure I'd heard correctly. June release? June release. That was when I was informed that the picture had already been booked into theaters. A factor that in my ignorance had never occurred to me. Hear me out. Wouldn't it be crazy if before they made a movie, they gave someone more than 12 days to write a script. Like maybe then you could make a good movie. They took five shitty scripts, they made a Buzzfeed listicle into a movie in 12 days. It's not a good movie. This is a heroic effort. It is amazing that this man wrote Wrath of Khan and it is as coherent as it is, but it's not a good film. It's mediocre. It's fine. It's certainly one of the best Star Treks, but imagine what it could have been if I don't know that guy had four months instead of 12 days. If they had someone who understood Star Trek read the script if they were like, "Listen, Leonard Nemo, if you don't want to be in this movie, don't be in this movie. You can just do that. Just make a new character. It's so fine. We deserve better. Like, movies can be good. And it's crazy to me that there are like 40 one-off episodes in various Star Trek shows that are way better, filmed way faster, written way faster, on a much smaller budget than all of these huge big budget movies. Like, this is a crazy way to make a movie. It's run a franchise, and they've been doing it for 60 years. This is bonkers. Anyway, if you haven't seen Space Seed in a while, I recommend it. You should go watch Space Seed.

— Do you know the Cllingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold? — It is very cold in space. — Jim, be careful. We will. I'm not a drama critic. Well, either choke me or cut my throat. Make up your mind. I was re-watching the episode for this video. Is this the first ever Big If True? — Superior ability breeds superior ambition. Interesting if true. — Like, is this where big if true is from? Big if true, I guess. Interesting if true.