Everything you need to know about the making of Star Trek's most critically acclaimed film. To be continued with Part 2 soon... Read the article here: whatculture.com/film/20-thing... #StarTrek #WrathOfKhan #TWOK
Ricardo Montalban was a freaking acting God. He's one of those actors that give everything they have to whatever script they are given and makes it look good.
He (Montalban) says, on the DVD commentary, "And we discussed the character, and I realized, I had to be larger than life... like an opera... every movement extravagant and grandiose." He specifically points out the scene where he (Khan) is removing his Bedouin desert-mask, and unwinds his scarf in a melodramatic clockwise swirling gesture. However they arrived at it, it's profoundly effective.
He has a muted accent, perfect diction, caramel-coated voice timbre and has his timing and body language "ham" settings dialed in perfectly to go head-to-head with Shatner. He basically out-Shatners Shatner.
14:42 Don't forget that when McCoy gives Kirk that bottle of Romulan Ale as a birthday gift, Kirk read out the year as to when it was bottled (2283), after which McCoy states "It takes a while to ferment".
"Aimed at twelve-year-olds..." I WAS twelve when this came out! I saw it every week when it got to the dollar theater down the street from my house, and it was there for a LONG time.
Ha! Me too, only my tremendous run came when it hit cable. I'm so glad I missed all of the "Will Spock die?" Hub bub in the news, because I completely missed it and was taken aback when watching the film the first time.
I was 22 and I saw it opening night. I cried like a baby during the death scene. The whole audience was openly weeping as Spock died. There were all ages in that theater.
Due to the fact that Math is no longer required knowledge as far as our Gvt is concerned, the schools no longer teach anything near Math. Thus people can say things like this and the average person doesn't even notice. SMH. Congrats to those that DO notice these things. Take Care All
I interviewed director & writer Nicholas Meyer when he was in my hometown of Vancouver. He was there promoting his then-new movie about Pierce Brosnan vs. The Thugees (terrible movie, btw) at the Vancouver Film Festival. As we were wrapping up the enjoyable chat, I said The Wrath of Khan was by far my favourite of the Trek movies. This was in the late ‘80s, so several movies had been made since Khan. Nick was pleased as punch that I liked his movie best & left our interview/conference room with a big smile. I also told him I enjoyed reading his pair of Sherlock Holmes novels, of which he seemed quite proud. All around, it was a very satisfying tongue wag for us both!
Just a note on the intro touching on the new movies: In the second of the Abrams-verse films, they should have simply had Cumberbatch play John Harrison-not a pseudonym, but actually the European "superman" from the Eugenics Wars. He could have been discovered in his sleeping chamber with some followers "deep beneath London" where he escaped being conquered by Khan or some such when they excavated for the Section 31 facility. It would naturally have had many things in common with WoK without *so much* freaking retreading of it. What a missed opportunity to introduce an expansion of that history.
Dude, not bad. You can still even keep Nimoy's cameo describing Khan and how dangerous the augments were. From the perspective of a veteran of the main timeline's encounter with Khan's survivor group.
@@dragonsword7370 I can see it now: Nimoy Spock: "This man...Harrison. He reminds me of someone..." Quinto Spock: "Who?" [Dramatic pause as camera -- cuts, dissolves, dollies, however you want to do the transition -- to an extreme closeup on Nimoy. His voice is now Nimoy's trademark ominous whisper. Nimoy Spock: "Khan...!"
I think they used the right title Wraith of Khan, as the movie is mostly about Khan's act of revenge on Kirk. Undiscovered Country might refer to the new Genesis planet, but the story of Khan vs. Kirk is the heart of the story, the Genesis planet is bit more secondary to the 2 main antagonists in battle. Glad they did not use Myers choice of title.
2:14 - Please note that it makes no sense to say that something is "400% less" than something else - unless you are talking about negative numbers. If something is 100% less then some other quantity, then it is zero. Anything greater than 100% in the formulation "X% less" moves us into negative numbers. If the first movie's budget was 400% of the budget of The Wrath of Khan, then the way to express that from the point of view of the second movie is that the budget of The Wrath of Khan was 25% of that of its predecessor film.
Is "400% less" more correctly expressed linguistically as "one quarter as much", or "one fourth as much"? I am a word nerd. I am *not* as a maths man! I re-read your comment. I suppose my assumptions are 25%, as you write.
I watched this last month (saw it in the theater at release) and this movie holds up. I consider this one of the best movies ever made. There is so much depth and action.
Amazing stuff. There are two movies I'm obsessed with - this and Jaws. Wrath of Khan holds a lot of special meaning for me, and you really presented stuff I was not aware of. I didn't know "Vengeance" was the original title, but I had heard it was going to be called The Revenge of Khan, and it changed due to Jedi, but then Jedi's title was changed to "Return" since Jedi's don't seek revenge. Worked out for both films. Can't wait to see Part 2 of ST II!
I remember one thing: In Germany there are often some seconds missing on the first planet. Not the brutal scenes, but a scene outside the broken starship. Another point is: In the German Version as far as I remember, Khan came from the year 2096. But not sure.
It's the most enduring star trek movie and despite any errors in script etc., it demonstrates why, when you do a partial reboot or remake as in the cumberbatch film, you should leave it the hell alone. One of the truly great movies. Favourite bit? Kirk screaming KHAN and the echo in the vacuum of space!
It is certainley described as the best film of the series, but i have always thought that after the Motion Picture, it could only get better. One scene that has always cheesed me off, is when, after the space battle, a door opens on the bridge, and there stands Scotty carrying a young cadet who has been fatally injured, why? Why not take him to sick bay, did he get lost? I know it was done for dramatic effect, but it just seems so pointless.
@@DavidSmith-fs5qj you're absolutely right! I've surveyed that movie dozens of times and never realised till you said it how stupid that moment is!! Perhaps it was a day of rewrites and between the writers and Doohan they had a.... Uh.... Detour?? Have to admit, the best thing about the motion picture, sadly, is the 9 minute long suite that plays before the opening titles. I think it's only available on special addition now.
@@MartinPittBradley I wasn't sure that Séan really said "400% less" because I'm learning English and there aren't even the automatic RU-vid subtitles for this video - what usually works fine with his great oratory skills - but, indeed, it would mean -3x from the previous amount. 75% less, or 3/4 less, would work. ;-)
The narrator is trolling for engagement through comments. Don't fall for this. YT algorithm doesn't distinguish between math corrections and substantive discussion.
400% less budget, 400% more quality. Reused assets notwithstanding, it looked better, it sounded better, and it played MUCH better than The Motion Picture ever could.
It’s because they were able to push Roddenberry to the side. The same way they eventually did with The Next Generation which saved the series. I remember him getting into a fight with fans at a convention saying he didn’t make Star Trek for the fans and for himself and if they didn’t like it, tough.
No, it didn't look better. It looks cheap compared to TMP. The only sequence that is visually on par with TMP is the nebula effects. The ships look dull and flat compared to the glory that was the Enterprise in TMP
@@christheghostwriter yeah space visuals were better but everything else in wrath of Khan was vastly superior without question. You must be the most boring person in the universe to say The motion picture is superior to wrath of khan. To think anyone would find that movie better than 2 is beyond me.
You’ve succeeded in making another “things you didn’t know about” lost that has stuff in it I ACTUALLY didn’t know! And like, ALL I DO is research Star Trek. It’s nice to not see the same tired pieces of trivia rehashed over and over again.
Indeed. Very interesting stuff about the different versions of the film and the discussion about the titles. TBH - maybe knowing that VI is called “The Undiscovered Country” - I think “Wrath” is a good choice. A lot better than “Genesis Project” (unless Phil Collins had written the soundtrack😅) or “The New Frontier”. After all, it is about Khan’s hatred for Kirk and his attempt for his life. I’m quite glad they listened to Roddenberry when it came to the choice of planets. Chekhov forgetting where they seeded Khan (😉) seems a bit odd given the havoc he had caused on the Enterprise previously. I also think that the shift towards a slight militarisation of Starfleet makes sense though. It’s a big and multifaceted organisation that includes loads of ships which are well-armed and needed to defend the federation. However, I think they got the balancing between military and exploration right in the old films and therefore created brainy action cinema. Unlike the reboots. Not bad films as such (and a few casting gems), but too much reliance on fast paced action, cuts and lense-flares.
Fantastic research! Seriously, a great video. I'm a huge almost lifelong Star Trek fan and even I didn't know about a lot of the stuff here. Thanks for making this!
I'm looking forward to seeing it in the theaters later this year . It's been 40 years since it was on the big screen and it's going to be great to see it again .
I was a Bosun's Mate 2nd class in the Navy, and I used to pipe visitors who had honors on our ship. I really liked the scene in ST2TWOK when they piped them onboard and when they did the funeral colors.
Indeed. Or 1/4 from the previous budget. I'm glad that many persons are mentioning this the comments, showing how much qualified is the audience. I just would like the people to concentrate all the replies in one comment, the redundancy is around 4,000%.
I'm not impressed with this one. FFS, Marla's last name is "McGUYvers", not "McGivvers." There's even specific dialogue about it in the transporter room.
@@Shan_Dalamani yeah, it seems sometimes little errors like that get mixed in, suggesting whoever wrote and whoever narrated may not be as familiar with Trek as they seem.
I love when you do these very detailed behind the scenes production videos. And the title does not disappoint - I really did not know some of these things. Well done.
@@treborkroy5280 I liked Undiscovered Country as well. The main theme or alegory is the end of the Cold War, and the wall coming down (although in real life, that happened a few years prior to UDC coming out in theaters). 🤔🤔 The soundtrack was pretty good too. I felt it had a more militaristic quality than other Trek soundtracks. 🤔🤔
@@treborkroy5280 With WOK, Nicholas Meyer wanted a "Horatio Hornblower" feel to the sci-fi; so naturally, all the Starfleet uniforms have that military quality, everyone (including women) are called "Mister"; the whole film had a Navy feel to it. A vast improvement over TMP. 🤔🤔
@@lakecountynaturalist7617 In some strange way, I guess we did lose a family member. 🤔🤔 Most of the ppl my age or older grew up with TOS; so seeing Spock die in WOK was like am older brother or close friend passing away. 😢😭
By far the best Star Trek movie ever made. I will always watch this when it's on. Got to go see it in theatre 2 years ago in a nice theater, it was Amazing!! Can't wait for part 2!!
If 400% less is 1/4th the first film's budget, as suggested here, then 200% less would be 1/2 the original amount, right? Therefore, "100% less" means exactly the same amount, and "50% less" means twice as much. I'm just sayin'.
I know. I heard this and realize the writer does not know math. 100% less is nothing. So 400% less, is they were paid 3 times the original budget? Holy math fail Batman!
Very cool video...except for the 400% part haha. Some of these items are known to us Trek nerds but i genuinely learned some new things. Well done. Good on ya TrekCulture.
Good stuff, looking forward to Part 2! I am hoping you pull never-before-seen footage of Khan's toddler son gazing up in wonder at the genesis device about to detonate. Of course, I don't expect it... but damn, it's got to be out there somewhere. The only pic of said scene I know of appears to indicate it was almost certainty filmed.
You really need to do your research. 1. In the novelization of Star Trek The Motion Picture, Kirk didn't have a "Love Instructor." His Mother did. 2. The Wrath of Khan takes place 15 years after Space Seed.
I can’t figure out what a “love instructor” is and I’ve never heard anything about it before this video. Can you elaborate a bit or is it on a NSFW-level of meaning?
Roddenberry was a proponent of 'free love' -- he was cheating on his first wife, Eileen Rexroat, with his soon-to-be second wife, Majel Barrett, and, at some unclear point between marriages, sat down with his other mistress, Nichelle Nichols (Uhura), to broach the possibility of "an open situation" involving both Barrett + Nichols. Roddenberry also made lurid boasts about bedding a Japanese masseuse within 24 hrs of his (bigamist) Tokyo marriage to Barrett in 1969. (He was still technically married to Rexroat at the time, necessitating another 'official' ceremony months later in the US.) So -- he attempted to work 'free love' and 'open love tutelage' into his future utopian Star Trek universe a few times, notably via "Kirk's mother having a polyamorous [male] sexual tutor" and such. Many such ideas, including 'a four-breasted sexual alien' (Deanna Troi's original concept) and 'a sexually-wild life form who bonds with alien races via sexual intercourse' (Ilia, etc.) came from Roddenberry, only to be shot down by other staffers (notably Dorothy Fontana).
Based on the naming conventions, it seems like a safe assumption that there are at least six planets in the Ceti Alpha system. But, when the Reliant arrives, they don't notice that an entire planet is missing.
@@ShivaServer2009 if you have a collectors edition or youtube, you'll see a clip where Spock explains to Kirk how she's half Romulan. In Star Trek 4 another edit out clip Saavik doesn't want to tell Spock that she's pregnant with Spock's child because they had sex on Genesis. Not to sound mean but amazing no one called out Saavik jumping when Kirk broke out Chekov, when she had an emotional face when Spock died in simulation, gasps when Scotty took the burnt cadet to the bridge.
I'm sorry..."400% less" makes no sense. 400% less than ST:TMP's budget would be -300%. The proper way to express this would be "ST:TWOK" budget was 25% of the ST:TMP's budget. 1/4 is not "400% less", it's 75% less. The base is 100%, and you can't go lower than zero unless Harve and the gang were paying Paramount for the privilege of making the film.
I once saw a version of Star Trek II The Wrath Of Khan on TV that had an extra scene after the Reliant attacked Enterprise, Kirk was at the morgue with McCoy and Scotty where Cadet Preston passed on. Scotty asks Kirk who would do such a thing and Kirk tells him briefly about Khan.
Oh, yeah. When I was a kid I always watched this movie when it was on and I taped a few copies on VCR. Through the 80s and 90s, they played different versions of this movie on TV. There were things you only ever saw on TV, and I hear there were things that you only saw in the movie theater but I was far too young for that. It came out when I was two. These days, all of that stuff is in special editions and directors cuts so nobody's missing anything.
@@pianotm Come back when you've seen the version with David talking about Boojum Hunt. That's probaby the rarest version of the movie, as that scene was cut very early in distribution.
The 200 years ago thing from Khan makes sense, though. Kirk told him it had been 200 years in Space Seed, but that was a (bad) estimate. They didn't yet know who Khan was, or else the estimate would have been more accurate. Khan had no contact with the outside world in the 15 (not 20 as said in the video) years of his exile, so he had no idea what year it actually was.
The blunt truth is: the stardates don't work out perfectly between 1960s TOS and 1980s films, TNG, DS9, etc. Roddenberry had some sort of credo in the writers' bible that specific timestamps were not to be mentioned -- he wanted to avoid pinpointing to a specific year, and wanted the future to be "conceptually far away and utopian," hence the ambiguous stardate format -- but his wishes were not followed by all subordinate writers, thus it gets a bit muddled right around TWoK.
One of the TV versions had expanded scenes that weren't in the home releases, Scott talking about Preston for example. You can see where Scott's dialog is cut off pretty abruptly in most versions (the "he stayed at his post" part).
Okay so...creepy, I just started a full rewatch of all the movies in order last night, I watched Wrath of Khan tonight, and then this shows up in my feed after. Like youtube knew. Only you posted this yesterday. Like YOU knew. Either way it's excellent timing.
I remember having to stop reading and go, 'wait, what?' at the part about Kirk having a head implant telling him to go to starfleet command because shit was hitting the fan. I'll have to re-read that, I don't remember the part about a love instructor lol
Shoutout to the Grundig CRT TV that was used as a back round prop for the scenes with the host. Really gives it some authenticity to where this video was produced.
For those wondering, Star Trek: TOS and the movies do indeed take place in the 23rd century. The Enterprise's 5-year mission under Captain Kirk takes place between 2265 and 2270 (with the episode Space Seed taking place near the beginning of this)...................Star Trek II takes place in 2285
I remember seeing the movie opening weekend. As a Senior in High School I worked on the student newspaper. I can still remember ending my glowing review with the line, "Spock lives".
I’m surprised there was no trivia on the CBS cut, which had additional footage that included more of Peter Preston as well as a bit more dialogue between the leads. I’m also very disappointed that that particular footage never made it to any other release. Such is the case with “TV Cuts” often having footage absent from their theatrical cuts. For instance, I’ve definitely noticed “Army of Darkness” having some extra scenes when edited for TV that you never see in the theatrical cut.
Never understood roddenberrys problem with militarism, I mean, it was pretty well established in the original series that starfleet was a military organization. How many times did kirk refer to himself as a soldier in T.O.S.? Several times from my recollection.
Yea, that’s always been a bit of a head scratcher to me If Starfleet’s not a military - why do they have rank, or wear uniforms, or have ships with weapons - why do they even bother carrying hand weapons on them when they land on Away Missions? If the Federation is invaded by an alien force - it’s Starfleet that responds, Starfleet that fights and dies So how exactly are they not military?? I’ve always thought of Starfleet like the British Navy of old - their explorers discovering New Worlds - mapping and exploring the unknown - but their also part of a Chain of Command that defends Queen and Country when required That’s my take
My understanding is that Roddenberry thought that in the future, many of the regimented aspects of the military could be de-emphasized or discontinued. So, Roddenberry's concept of Starfleet is still a military, but they consider certain traditions like salutes to be archaic.
i remember buying the star trek 2 photobook and bgm cassettee at their release date. the photobook was black and white pictures and one was upside down. i played the music so much, i had to rebuy it many times. many years ago, i copied the cd to my mp3 players.
I wonder if “Janet Wallace” being the original template for Carol Marcus is why “Into Darkness” had Carol assume the surname of “Wallace” to hide her identity, in addition to the USS Vengeance being a callback to the “Vengeance of Khan” title.
She admitted years later that she was doing a lot of cocaine in the early 80's to stay "Hollywood Thin" but got clean thanks to the intervention of good friends. The result of this was her body returning to it's natural weight which in Hollywood is never good for your career. She was still a beautiful woman.
First time I saw it was probably a year later in Butlins. Back then, each Butlins had their own cinema and movies were free to watch. So, I must have watched it four or five times that week. A year earlier, it was Star Wars I watched multiple times, even though I had seen it in '77 as a 7 or 8 year old.
Saavik was originally a male character. Yeah, we kinda figured that out. Vulcan names are gender-specific: male names start with S and generally end in K (Spock, Sarek, Surak -- Soval is a notable exception); female names start with T'P, and are usually (not always) followed by a single syllable (T'Pring, T'Pau, T'Pel -- T'Planahath is even more notable an exception than Soval)
I choose to believe there is an alternate reality where Alexander Siddig was cast as Khan for Into Darkness and they threw everyone off by making them think he was doing a cameo or playing Dr. Bashir or something. It would've made more sense to have Khan travel back in time to kill Kirk and explain why we should give a shit about Kirk and Khan in the Kelvin timeline anyway.
The Kobayashi Maru test was Meyer's way of addressing the rumor that Spock was going to die. He figured if he made Spock "die" in the beginning of the film we would all relax and enjoy the movie realizing his death was just a rumor. Nick's fake worked brilliantly. We were all relieved. But towards the end, when the Genesis device was activated and Kirk turns around to see Spock not in his chair, we knew we had been fooled. It was horrible. To those of us who grew up with Trek it was like watching a family member dying. I don't think I heard anything past Bones saying "He's dead already" there were so many people crying.
@@lakecountynaturalist7617 Scotty said that line. And yeah, there were people crying in the theatre where I saw it, too (even if the funeral hadn't done it, the "Amazing Grace" on bagpipes would have).
Abrams couldn't pace a movie if his life depended on it. Meyer knew how let the scene emerge and thereby building tension. Just like Alfred Hitchcock...you never really see anything but the way he places it scared the heck out of you.
I am so glad you brought up the 23rd vs. 22nd Century thing. I've said for years that TOS took place in the 22nd Century. You are right, TOS is a bit hazy about when it takes place. However, if you pay attention the majority of the time references point to the 22nd Century. The most obvious reference in "The Savage Curtain" where Scotty says that Abraham Lincoln has been dead for three centuries. We all know that Lincoln died in the 19th Century. 19+3=22, at least it was when I went to school. As far as Wrath of Khan taking place in the 23rd Century it was more likely in the 2200's or 2210's, not in 2285 as the official chronology suggests.
But if that’s the case, why does Picard constantly refer to his time as the 24th Century, if it takes place 80 years after the TOS movies? If it really took place in the 2210’s, then it should be either 2280 or 2290, which is still very much in the 23rd Century
Great stuff here. I remember reading Starlog magazine and saw different titles. As a dumb kid I thought there was a few Star Trek movies coming out. On a different note what band is doing that ska hyme or music in this video?
