Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan vs. Star Trek

6 comments

2 comments

Wrath of Khan wins here i liked Star Trek but upon second viewing think the movie was trying to hard to be funny and it doesn't really hold up. Wrath of Khan is just great action sci-fi with a good emotional core

Star Trek is an awesome reboot, but the better Trek films that came before are still, well, better.

I enjoy "The Wrath of Khan," but I've always felt it was a tad overrated. "Star Trek" did something with the franchise that hadn't been done in years: it made it fun. (Still, I'll take "The Undiscovered Country" over both.)

Not much of a contest. The 2nd half of Star Trek (2009) completely falls apart. The characters just seem thrown together for the sake of getting everyone in the movie. They are cardboard cutouts of the characters we've known for so long. Star Trek II on the other hand, is pure Spock, Kirk, Bones, Uhura, and Scotty greatness.

New cast beats old cast. Granted, Ricardo Montalbon beats Eric Bana, at least in these roles, but for me the new movie has greater rewatchability. But I can understand why hardcore Trekkies may not like it: it's much more mainstream.

Sure, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is good, but its story is downright pedestrian when it's compared to the incredible Star Trek.

I keep flipping back and forth with these two. Both are very different and both are great at what they do. Wrath of Khan is one of the best Good vs. Evil showdowns ever made, and Star Trek is one of the best reboots ever and also a great origin story. what to choose?

I need to rewatch Wrath of Khan. The reboot wins.

Khan does need a rewatch....but I'll agree with JC13...it's the reboot.

This one is tough. I have to give the nod to Wrath of Khan, though, because it had the greatest death scene ever written. I still get choked by the end.