At certain points, he was actively sabotaging the production with all the petty bickering he kept doing with Harold Livingston. I didn’t help that Gene’s versions of the hurriedly-written script pages were almost always worse than Harold’s.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Khan only gave his first name because he didn't want them to know who he was, thinking he was a prisoner; so when Kirk locked him up, he took the ship, to continue his search for an inhabited planet to colonize-- which is where the Prime Directive came in, since they couldn't interfere.
Kirk peacefully resolved the conflict by giving him the free choice to colonize an uninhabited planet in isolation as a ruler, or join 23rd century Utopian society as a commoner. Obviously Khan didn't like Earth in 1997, and people hadn't changed in over 200 years, so he went his happy way.
She got hit by ZE PLANE!
that is true lol
lol
You are referring to him beating the shit out of Khan with a pipe? Definitely not from the Jean-Luc Picard playbook of peaceful resolution.
Or the flattening of Star Trek's philosophical depth, while ironically accusing of "2-dimensional thinking."
Only because it worked, and Kirk didn't lecture him afterward like a political strawman-- or kill him, and show token remorse in blaming he victim.You are referring to him beating the shit out of Khan with a pipe? Definitely not from the Jean-Luc Picard playbook of peaceful resolution.
As big of a fan as I am of the original Star Trek. There was a lot of stuff that got to the air that definitely lacked philosophical depth.
It had a magic chemistry with the cast, was lots of fun to watch, only occasionally was it "deep".
Kirk murdered Edith Keeler, you know... once McCoy saved her, it was murder to cause her death, as well as violating the Temporal Prime Directive.
And that set a bad trend; think of all the people Janeway murdered in "Endgame..." and got promoted for it.
That puts the Dung in Dunning-Kruger.
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!Violence is peaceful if it works? That is an interesting interpretation.
Speaking of....
Edith Keeler died hundreds of years before Kirk was born.
From Kirk's POV, the action or inaction had yet to happen. Kirk chose to make the timeline right, because it was ultimately his fault that the incident happened to begin with.
Doesn't exist in the 23rd century.
Not after McCoy saved her.
If you've never heard of the Temporal Cold War... aka "The Year of Hell."
Kirk let Edith die because that's what history recorded, and without her death on the street that evening Hitler would have won World War II and the Federation would never have existed.
McCoy hadn't saved her yet. In the timeline they inhabited, Keeler was alive and a fork in the road.
Took place in the 24th century Delta Quadrant. There was no temporal Prime Directive in TOS. So much to the point they didn't really know how to react when they beamed aboard Captain Christopher in "Tomorrow is Yesterday".
But once McCoy changed the timeline, that was history as Kirk found it.
So had to restore the timeline without killing anyone-- i.e. no "Trolley-Case" pragmatism, where the lives of the many outweigh those of the few.
Just like Kirk couldn't go back to 1984 and kill the old lady that McCoy saved in the hospital, simply because he didn't like the outcome.
In TOS they even authorized the ship to use the slingshot effect around the Sun to go back to the year 1968 and conduct research. Some Temporal Prime Directive. They were winging it in Kirk's time.
Similar threads
