Thread: Why Khan?
View Single Post
Old February 27 2013, 03:15 PM   #33
Rear Admiral
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Why Khan?

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
Lord Garth, FOI wrote: View Post
Since next gen ruined them that is
They were long "ruined" before TNG got to them.

"Klingon" seems to be their word for "moron," since virtually any time a Klingon was going to do something egregiously stupid he was likely to preface it with something like "We are Klingons!"

Stupid like, say, every Klingon in TSFS...or just empty bluster and posturing like those in ST 4 and 5. Or a simplistic moustache-twirler like Chang.

Perhaps Abrams will finally do something interesting enough with the bumpheads in this next film to set them up as major antagonists in the third movie.
Regarding your last sentence, I'd like to think so, but I seriously doubt it. When have Klingons ever really been "something interesting?"

Kirk v. Kor in "Errand of Mercy" needed to happen more often. If Kor had been established as a returning foil to Kirk (maybe two episodes a season), through him, the Klingons would've become more multi-dimensional antagonists. Kirk would've had his Joker or Moriarty. Not every conflict would've ended with "kill the Klingon villain" as it did in the movies.

The Klingons suffered from no one character who personified them and became a burr under Kirk's saddle. So, we're left with Khan being the closest individual we can say is Kirk's Joker, Lex Luthor, or Moriarty, even though it's a strained comparison at best.

Bottom line, the Klingons were always poorly utilized. To me, it's one of the most disappointing parts of Trek.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote