Agreed. Watching Colicos in a similar type of leading antagonist role in Anne of the Thousand Days shows he's a great character actor playing the heavy, but he just doesn't hold the space on screen that someone like Plummer could.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Kor is the only Klingon to be a downright awful villain in one episode or film and then a noble hero with a lot of redeeming qualities in his next appearances.
He was just happy to get his ridges back. Really mellowed him out.
That and the drinking.
He really got back to the Kor of who he was.
Shut up.
Shut up.
Coors maybe.
May Fek’lhr bring dishonor upon your house of punnery.
Even as a villain, there was a magnetism about Kor. He respected his enemies: the Federation and Kirk. Not many villains in the franchise really did that.
Am I the only one who finds Worf to be kind of a boring Klingon? I just don't put him on the same level as many other Klingons we've seen over the years. Perhaps it is simply because we've seen him so much -- more, in fact, than any other Trek character -- that he has become a bit worn out. I don't actively dislike the character or anything. And Michael Dorn does a fine job playing the part. I just don't find the character that interesting.
He's the Klingon other Klingons avoid at parties.
That's what happens when you let two Belarusians raise a Klingon.
Allegedly.
Allegedly.
" Great, who invited Mister Honor?"
Worf finally was allowed to be Bad Ass in PIC S3.
So we finally got to see him at full power.
So we finally got to see him at full power.
I have never really liked Worf
Worf is a poser and a wannabe. He's like the Orion on Lower Decks who grew up in Cincinnati.
I enjoyed Colicos as the Falstaffian Kor of DS9, but it's always felt to me that "Blood Oath" would've made more sense if it had inverted the personalities it gave to Kor and Koloth. The Koloth of "Tribbles" was like a mannered, effete upper-class English gentleman soldier, while the Koloth of "Blood Oath" was like a solemn, stoic samurai master. I couldn't see any throughline from one to the other. Sometimes I wonder if "Blood Oath"'s writers got Kor and Koloth mixed up.
The writers of TNG were too quick to stereotype Worf as the Klingon Warrior and not let him be much else, as little sense as it made for someone raised by the Rozhenkos on Gault and Earth to act so one-dimensionally Klingon. It wasn't until DS9 that he really got to blossom into a more multidimensional character.
I've seen this opinion voiced before, but really, I just don't see how it could have worked. Even taking into account TOS Klingons weren't noted for honor the way TNG onwards Klingons are, Kor and Kang were still honorable individuals who I can't see filling Chang's role in TUC. Kor in particular, laments when he's announcing his intent to execute Kirk how unfortunate it is he has to kill an actual soldier while the "sheep" he was trying to defend get to continue living. With that in mind, I don't see him framing Kirk for assassinating the chancellor and arranging an "accidental" death for him at prison. Likewise Kang seems the more direct sort, if he wanted Gorkon dead, he'd kill him and take credit for it, if he wanted to sabotage the peace treaty between the Federation and the Klingons, he'd launch an attack on the Federation. I don't see him engaging in an elaborate ruse of framing Starfleet officers to assassinate the chancellor and conspiring further to assassinate the Federation President.
Similar threads
