there are 1510 pages of the what are your controversial star trek opinions thread
a somewhat major milestone lol
a somewhat major milestone lol
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Genuinely cracking up at the strength of feeling here over Khan.
My only opinion on the character is that I like when he grabs the phaser off Kirk and bends it like a Happy Meal toy.
My only opinion on the character is that I like when he grabs the phaser off Kirk and bends it like a Happy Meal toy.
Got to wait for page 1701.
I mean, he's way less genocidal and dangerous than the Female Founder or even Gul Dukat. But he's not a nice man.
We can all see how may pages the thread has. Please stop with these posts.
You’ve made it onto my radar pretty damn fast.
Defending Khan is definitely a new twist, I guess.
The “Hollywoke” stuff is tired and sad.
That was symbolic, i.e. showing his disdain for Kirk's silly newfangled contraptions, and wanted to show Kirk he was superior man-to-man... until Kirk cheated with a lead pipe, symbolizing how tools enhance the populist over the Nietzschean superman, while also showing how Kirk never used lethal force when avoidable, and could agree to disagree without judgment after the fact.
Just because people pushed back hard on what Khan and his cronies wanted to do with the planet. Less mistakes on his part and he would have been every bit as dangerous.
Earth ruled for centuries by Augments would have turned into something as bad as the Mirror Universe or even worse.
There's no need to defend someone when there are no charges. The moral was that Roddenberry's vision entailed a Lockean future of egalitarian populism rather than Nietzschean supremacy.
And so even when Khan won power in the 23rd century, the crew defeated him by passive resistance, and so he was stalemated as a benevolent ruler, showing him that his time was over since nobody would follow him anymore... and so he chose isolation over equality, in his continued vision to improve and unite humanity under great leadership, like Rome under Caesar.
Not really. There’s plenty of threads around here that go thousands more.
Let's not forget in Space Seed Khan was beaten down by Kirk with a PVC pipe and was like "Yeah okay we cool bro" when given exile on a world to tame. Why he was pissed 15 years later beats me.
Marla McGivers' death probably sent him off the deep end.
No, it didn't work because they refused to cooperate with one another, since the Nietzschean superman fell to the Lockean populist. Khan was stressed as a benevolent ruler, otherwise the plot would be personal rather than moral; as stated, he committed no massacres, and initiated no wars, and he ruled by charismatic inspiration rather than fear... which is why Kirk locked him up, because he feared the crew was vulnerable to his influence (though it proved otherwise when put to the test, which was the moral of the episode; in showing that Roddenberry believed that Earth's future lay in populism not demagoguery.
And Gene also didn't like the movie for that reason.
Planet Krypton exploded releasing him from the Phantom Zone where Kirk imprisoned him.. thus the film's title, "Superman II: The Ret of Con."
Khan was not a title, but his given name. He said repeatedly in "Space Seed" and STID that it was his name, and Kirk addressed him as "Mr. Khan." While that's not generally done with given names in English, it certainly isn't done with titles. But then, Khan is usually a surname, so maybe Kirk was assuming that.
Then why'd they admire him? Khan liked a brave man, but believed that the future lay in improvement and unity rather than technical advancement. It was a philosophical statement of how Roddenberry envisioned the future truly progressed under populism, vs. elitism like other sci-fi.
No. There were plenty of reasons why Gene didn’t like TWOK, but much of it stemmed from getting kicked upstairs by the studio.
And he needed to be. I love TMP, but Trek in the 1980s needed as little of his direct control as humanly possible.
Gene liked very little that he didn't have control over. Going all the way back to the Starfleet Technical Manual by Franz Joseph.
Because they didn't know him. All they seemingly had was a history that romanticized his rule.
It might have been far more interesting, at least from a historical POV, if he had been left in charge to allow Spock to shoot JFK.
Similar threads
