Not before. Sulu is a trained combat officer, IIRC. In Corbomite Manuever they run weapons tests in their spare time. The episode. KIRK: No matter how long it took, he came out with multitronics. The M-5. MCCOY: Right. The government bought it, then Daystrom had to make it work. No. Everytime someone reached for a weapon, the weapon hurt them. If it wasn't for pain and harm then neither side would have stopped. That's like saying "Hey, I only shot him every time he tried to pull a trigger. I wasn't violent." They render violence an impossibility because they did it first. (Organians suck.) Yes, we're excited that our heroes will live and the threat (to the Federation at large and the Enterprise in specific) has been eliminated. We're pretty excited when Kirk beats up Khan in Space Seed. Or when Nomad is beamed into space to explode. Also if you remember (as in BoT) Uhura calls for Khan's peaceful surrender. That might have been a way to stop Genesis, I'll agree. It's implied that the wave once started is independent of the device, however. Maybe.
They do not. Kirk orders weapons drills because of a recent situation where there was not even conventional combat. It wasn't part of their regular day-to-day operations by a long shot. Ok, I missed that. Exactly. Reaction is different than action. And shocking or hurting someone for a split second when they do something is different than shooting them. In the latter situation the person dies forever and stuff. Not a good analogy. Really, it's more like putting someone in a cell with electrified bars. It's their choice to try to escape and get shocked. There was no invasion by the Organians. They didn't kill people to get to their goals. You saying that they suck puts you in the same boat ask Kirk and Kor for a few moments after the armistice in enforced. Kirk resents them, but what does he resent them for? Allowing him to continue living his life unthreatened by a fight over territory and ideology? Poor thing. You seem to not get the ultimate statement, or you would have just preferred a show about a Klingon war. But you have to pick one. Are we happy Khan is defeated with splodeys or were we too distracted by Spock? You're contradicting yourself. Nomand was a machine. Khan was beat up in Space Seed, but he's honored with his own planet at the end. In BoT Kirk doesn't offer surrender, he tells the Romulan to prepare to be beamed over. Actually, if Kirk had just beamed everyone left alive on the Reliant over immediately Genesis wouldn't have been a problem. They seem to have had the capability as Kirk suggests they beam over and stop it. Unless he misspoke.
Then how was Ayelborne able to stand on Earth? And how many people were killed subsequently as a result of the Organian's actions? Enforced for how long, a few months? The Organians obviously weren't policing their imposed "armistice" in later episodes of TOS. Certainly weren't in the 24th century. And where were the Organians in Yesterday's Enterprise? Removing his (and his peoples) freedom of choice, and perhaps removing the one opportunity to bring a end to the Federation's and the Klingon's contentious relationship. No guarantees going in, but wars have been known to solve problems. Kirk: "People have a right to handle their own affairs."
I thought David stated that once the reaction started it could not be stopped? Also, I have both emotions when watching the film-I'm happy Khan was defeated (bad guy lost) and I'm sad about Spock dying. Having mixed emotions is pretty common in films for me.
I felt sorry for Khan, in the end. He was literally melting into the carpet. 'Broken shell of a person' doesn't quiet cover it. There's a reason they gave him all the Lear and Ahab quotes.
Thought transmission? Organian Magic? That's as much an invasion as sending a video transmission. None? How other writers used or ignored the material in later episodes isn't really relavent to the theme of the initial episode. Though it did set the precedent that there would be not Hot Wars in TOS which is important. Unless you invade a place, conquer it's people, and force your values on them there's really no chance they're going to turn out your friend after a war. And we're really only talking about Germany and Japan after WWII. Afghanistan, Vietnam, The Philippines, Cuba, Iraq, etc. didn't see us as allies after we took them over. We're still culturally at odds with Mexico. The Civil War is still being waged in some quarters. It took a century for the Brittish to see us as allies. WWI made everything worse. Would you have liked a hot war between us and the Soviets? Ayelborn told them that one day the Klingons and Feds would be friends, and that was the case in the first two seasons of TNG where the Klingons were meant to be part of the Federation. Considering war only begets more resentment and hostility 99% of the time there's a chance that alliance wouldn't have happened in the short 80 years between EoM and TNG. I really don't understand this idea of the Organian's "meddling". Two forces invaded and brought chaos to their planet. They handled it and made sure it couldn't happen on other planets as well. If people have the right to their own affairs, the Organians were taking advantage of that right. KIRK: I'm embarrassed. I was furious with the Organians for stopping a war I didn't want. That's the lesson of that episode, and it's a good one.
TWOK is a brinkmanship movie adjusted to the stage of Kirk's life and career that he is in. The story/plot could easily be an evolution of TOS. The story/plot is not a rupture of it.
David Marcus was kill by whom? But it is germane to the on-going story that is Star Trek, by stopping the space battle between the two opposing forces, a possible definitive conclusion was prevented. The Klingons continued to be problem for the Federation (and other civilizations) for decades to come. The destruction of Imperial Japan by Allied forces was a godsend to the countries in the western pacific. Maybe the Organians should have stopped that too? If defeated would the Romulan still have been able to obtain advanced Klingons ships? If defeated would the specter of a Klingon civil war have been anything to worry about in the 24th century? If defeated would the Cardassian still have been driven into the arms of the Dominion? If reduced to a ridiculace sixth rate power, where are the negatives?
This is not really a discussion about Organians and Klingons, this is a fundamental difference in out understanding of wars. Hawks love to play up WWII and ignore every other instance in the whole of history. That's a disturbing and short sighted outlook in fiction and IRL. Your take is especially weird as you seem to think a vast interplanetary war between two equal powers would be an easy defeat and that all the casualties would be somehow less than David Marcus and a few minor skirmishes. And that's also assuming that one war would be the end of it, which is not supported by even Star Trek history. The Cardassians and Romulans were certainly not placated and reformed by their defeats. You're also asking to choose between two different Star Treks. One created by two Genes that fought in your precious WWII and came out committed pacifists and one created by Ira Behr and Ron Moore and even Nicholas Meyer who never served in combat a moment of their lives and yet were obsessed with recreating it on screen. My choice is the former.
I'm a Trek contrarian (not by choice...it just so happens). I love TOS Season 3 I love TNG's first 2 seasons I really like Star Trek Enterprise I like TMP, TSFS and TFF all better than I like TVH and TUC I dig the Kelvinverse films But...there's one thing that I am completely aligned with the vast majority on: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is a modern sci-fi classic and some of Star Trek at its best. Now, different strokes for different folks...not everyone likes the same stuff (and again, I'm an OBVIOUS example of this so I get it)...but there's really no denying its quality and impact. It really is a great movie and clearly the best Trek film in the franchise.
I liked that. He was not a villain who was evil just to be evil. He had reasons. He was stronger and smarter than most people, yet Kirk got the upper hand and left him and his wife there. His wife died. If Kirk had just checked up on him, his wife could have been saved. He and his people wouldn't have had to endure such hardship. Those aren't reasons we agree with, but they're reasons. So the audience is glad Khan loses but still feels for him. Human foibles that we all have got him to this bad end. Star Trek II was great.
It beats the heck out of me why people feel the TWOK uniforms are more military than TMP. It's like saying Royal Navy uniforms are more military than modern day. They might be more ornate. But the TMP uniforms are all smooth navy grays and braid.
Possibly because of the uniform color? I don't know. I always liked them, and have enjoyed seeing different iterations and fan creations throughout. As for the film, Khan had brief sympathetic moments, possibly his rant at the beginning being the best example. But, then the Ceti Eels thing happens, and that feels like cruelty for the sake of it and that erodes some of the sympathy established. He's a decent villain, but I don't find him to be perfect (or superior? ) Star Trek villain. Especially not to the degree that he is portrayed in polls and the like.
Khan is not so much sympathetic as he's charismatic. He represents the epitome of the alpha male, which is why Marla McGivers falls for him in Space Seed. He's crack-cocaine for women's brain-stem. Khan really has no insecurities to speak of. He feels he can overcome any challenge through sheer force of will (or "passion" as Montalban explained it in interviews). In that respect he is truly superhuman, because everyone, no matter how successful we become, wrestles with self-doubt. On that basis it's easy to sort of envy or look up to him, despite his megalomania and cruelty. He's a good point of comparison for Kirk because Kirk also feels he can overcome any obstacle, but only in pursuit of the mission and protecting his crew, not merely to serve his personal ambition. Together they form the perfect irresistable force vs. immovable object.
At the end, Khan didn't come across as sympathetic. As he lay there --melting away and dying -- next to the Genesis device, he was still full of hate, spite, and vengeance. Remember his last words were, "The game's not over. To the last I will grapple with thee! ... From Hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee." He didn't mellow out at the end. He had no remorse or regret. Just darkness.
I do remember someone suggesting that as great as Khan is that it ruined the franchise in the long run - in that it feels like two episodes of the TV show welded together and the franchise turned its back on being cinematic, going too far to address the criticisms of the first movie for being too ponderous. There's absolutely been an issue with subsequent film-makers to dwell on it and basically remake it - how many times have we seen unsatisfying Montalban clones being used in the series? Tom Hardy, Benedict Cumberbatch and Idris Elba all played poor versions of Khan - in one case quite literally.
I don't see why being (somewhat) like an episode/two episodes is necessarily a bad thing or inconsistent with being cinematic. The immediate sequels probably did set the rest of Trek on an interesting but less cinematic course, going for a somewhat different tone (very different for IV), continuing the story and yet also kind of reversing the story, overall showing more devotion to having the status quo.
It hurt the franchise creatively perhaps. I think both the success of Kahn and to some degree Locutus have unduly mesmerised the writers that suceeded TWOK and TBOBW respectively. Ruined, no, though. Having a single nemesis out for revenge is common enough theme in mass culture even without Kahn being thought up.