When it became known that Khan would be the antagonist of Star Trek II, how was the fan reaction?
- Thread starter Skipper
- Start date
NAME it.
How about astrophysics, via the fact that the Universe is expanding at over THREE TIMES lightspeed.
It doesnt count if nobody has ever seen or heard of it.
Trolling
Okay, there's one more thing you don't understand. We'll add it to the list.
Lots of people have seen or heard of it, including many who worked on Star Trek. Like the guy who wrote "Devil in the Dark."
Just not you.
Yeah, right just like you understood that planets spontaneously explode and push other planets into their place, rather than that the Enterprise was a scientific research vessel for choosing safe colonization sites.
That was the RET of CON, saying Khan was a criminal in exile that tried to steal Kirks ship and murder him. When actually, Khan was the absolute ruler of 25% of Earth in 1997, but there were no massacres under his rule, and no war until he was attacked.... and he wanted to save humanity and find a suitable planet to lead, and asked the crew to join him. Meanwhile Kirk had dropped ALL CHARGES, since it would be a waste of Khans vast potential, and he hadnt harmed anyone.
Meanwhile Khan CHOSE to live on the planet, and finish his original mission as a world ruler, rather than live in the 23rd century as a populist.
If you even watched Space Seed, your view was clearly tainted by the film.
Flaming
You ARE the list... the IGNORE list.
Empty vessels make the most noise... and empty heads even more so.
Nice dodge, and I don't mean a pickup.
No, I meant it from the start.
But by all means, feel free to name any science fiction of note, which subverted the standard theme of evil aliens and mustache twirling humans in this manner.
Aliens that are initially hostile but turn out to be sympathetic:
“The Martian Chronicles” (1950) — Ray Bradbury
Aliens that seem threatening but are actually relateable:
"Childhood's End" (1953) — Arthur C. Clarke
Human antagonists who are not "mustache twirling" villains:
“The Stars My Destination” (1956) — Alfred Bester
“The Martian Chronicles” (1950) — Ray Bradbury
Aliens that seem threatening but are actually relateable:
"Childhood's End" (1953) — Arthur C. Clarke
Human antagonists who are not "mustache twirling" villains:
“The Stars My Destination” (1956) — Alfred Bester
I’ve seen and heard of these, so I’d just like to make it clear that they count.
People who try to discount prose sf in order to paint mass media like Star Trek as groundbreaking in its futuristic notions or narrative content are unfamiliar with the genre and its history.
TV and popular films are derivative almost by nature.
Last edited:
There are those who believe that sci-fi basically started with Forbidden Planet and that’s just tragic. As a kid, I was fed Bradbury, Clarke, Asimov, Herbert and Bester by my older brother.
Figuratively of course.
And the roots go far deeper than that. Centuries deeper.
OTOH, I think sf TV and movies just never have gotten better than Forbidden Planet.
Trek itself, of course, was lifted from FP.
I haven’t watched FB in about 30 years and honestly, that needs to go on my list of things to do in 2026.
To answer the OP, it seemed intriguing that they'd do a sequel. The original episode was a popular one. And there was a commonly held opinion that what Bennett may have "seen" in "Space Seed" was the fact that in 1981 Montalban was a bigger name than any of the Trek cast, and willing to work for TV rates despite also having a forty-year film career; Fantasy Island was a top-20 network television series and Montalban had high audience recognition and popularity from his association with it.
@Mudd : Warning for trolling. This post was clearly trying to goad the other guy into a reaction.
Warning for flaming. Deal with the post, not the poster.
If either of you has a problem, PM me per board rules.
I rarely look for originality in filmed products. Just entertain me and make me happy.
Similar threads
