Talk:Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 5, 2014.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
 
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
WikiProject Star Trek (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

SPOILERS[edit]

Why are spoilers given in the first paragraph with no warning? This ruined my experience of the film. Thanks, SPOILER-pedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.253.108 (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Because WP:Spoiler. howcheng {chat} 07:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

GOCE[edit]

WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by Mlpearc, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 26 October 2010. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 
  • All redirected & disambiguation links fixed.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture's bad box office performance?[edit]

Article says Star Trek: The Motion Picture performed badly. It is sourced to DeForest Kelley's biography (Rioux). I don't have access to this source, but in another source, The Making of Trek Films (Gross et al.), the impression is that they were pretty satisfied with how popular the movie was - and based on numbers in IMDb and Wikipedia, it looks like a very successful movie. The budget was huge, of course, but I think allegations of bad box office performance should be removed. Mstuomel (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Based on Box Office Mojo (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm) ST:TMP is the 5th highest grossing film in the franchise. When adjusting for inflation, it is the 2nd highest grossing. So it appears to have done rather well at the box office. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter of the film does well by an outside threshold if it doesn't meet the targets the studio execs put out. Also, we don't have a good breakdown for if the $40-something million budget actually contains all the expansive marketing and merchandising they sunk into the film (which wasn't equalled or surpassed until--arguably--the 2009 film.) Add to that the canard that films usually have to make back double or three times their costs to be considered a success, and I don't think it's hard to see why they were upset and why they considered it a disappointment. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The 'bad box-office performance' lie sounds like something some petulant Trekkie concoccted, cause he was resentful that someone did better with the Trek franchise than his precious Gene Roddenberry. One more reason all known and convicted Trekkies should be purged from Wikipedia and their lies deleted.75.91.240.184 (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)ArbCom

Khan's pets[edit]

Distoleon tetragrammicus Cet α v Ncsr11 (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Genesis cave[edit]

The article is missing any information about the Genesis cave set: where that was filmed, any CGI or matte backgrounds used, etc. howcheng {chat} 07:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have info on that, feel free to WP:BEBOLD and add it. Ckruschke (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
If I did, I would, but I don't have the time to research it. howcheng {chat} 16:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Obviously none of the rest of us did either... However, since you had the interest/background information, I thought I'd make the suggestion. Ckruschke (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
There might be some information in the sources I have, although I don't have immediate access to them. As to what they were, there's no CGI--it's set extensions and then I believe some hand-painted additions to elements like the waterfalls. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Confusing wording[edit]

I'd like to change this, except that I don't know what it's trying to say!

"Leonard Nimoy only reprised his role as Spock because the character's death was intended to be irrevocable."

Are you saying he "only reprised it" as opposed to, I don't know, truly continuing it, because the intended irrevocable death precluded a more complete continuance of the role? This is how it sounds when I read it; however, I don't know that "reprised" actually carries that connotation of being "less than original."

Did it originally say something like "only reprised his role because his death was unpopular with audiences; initially, it was intended to be irrevocable"? That would make a lot more sense.

Right now, it seems to be implying that the major reason Nimoy returned to play Spock again was because the character is supposed to be dead... ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.queso (talkcontribs) 06:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Would it be better to say "Leonard Nimoy reprised his role as Spock content with the death of his character."Greg (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, "Leonard Nimoy only agreed to reprise his role as Spock after being assured that his character's death would be irrevocable"? Assuming that fits what the sources are saying. DonIago (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Influence on the reboot[edit]

There doesn't seem to be much (if any) mention of WoK's influence on the new reboot series. WoK was echoed numerous times in Star Trek (Kirk cheating on his Kobayashi Maru test, the apple bite lifted straight from the Regula scene, etc.) and the return of Khan story (replete with Carol Marcus, a core character death following an heroic warp drive repair, etc.) is core to Into Darkness. Had I read this article with no pre-existing knowledge, I would have left completely oblivious of this "legacy" as it were. There must be plenty of interviews with Abrams and Lindelof citing WoK as a source/influence/inspiration. danno_uk 22:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That's because Abrams and his two trained-monkey scriptwriters ripped off the far-inferior Nemesis, which was a bastardization of the Wrath of Khan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.240.184 (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)