No one's asking you to shut up. I happen to like you.
Call it an occupational hazard working at an archive and doing a history project that's trying to untangle 60 years of mythologizing, but I don't trust anecdotes.
Who invented Khan?
- Thread starter Tootai
- Start date
Call it an occupational hazard working at an archive and doing a history project that's trying to untangle 60 years of mythologizing, but I don't trust anecdotes.
It's Roddenberry who raised the issue that Kirk would not knowingly maroon Khan's people on a hell planet as the script called for, and suggested that they get a consultant to suggest some cataclysm that could explain the planet's condition. The solution they chose was for one planet to inexplicably explode and lead to the improbable case of mistaken planetary identity we got in the finished film.
Someone turned on the Queller Drive?
No, not that I'm aware. I'm just making an assumption. Meyer says he took concepts, plot points, characters, etc. from the other drafts, but that the dialogue was all his. I just assumed, therefore, that Khan's explanation was written by him. But you're right. It could have been anyone who contributed to any of the drafts including, as mentioned by @Maurice, possibly some influence by Roddenberry.
Because it is entertaining. It is well acted. It is suspenseful. It has a marvelous score. It does the characters justice, especially the "big three." And many other reasons.
Of course there are aspects of it that are mind-numbingly dumb. I agree with you. For example, you are told that Khan put creatures in the bodies of Chekov and Terrell to control their minds, and no one bothers to do a scan on them? Heck, I can even nitpick small things like being able to take over a starship by remote control with nothing more than a five digit numeric code, and there being a dedicated panel of numbers at the weapons console specifically to allow punching in such a code.
But none of that stupidity bothers me enough to affect my enjoyment of the movie because, well, it's a movie. And this is where you and I have been disagreeing. I think Star Trek should follow real world science where it can, but I don't think real world science should trump making a good movie. If they need a silly explanation for mistaking one planet for another, I'm fine with that.
I agree with this. There is a happy middle ground, though, somewhere between 2001 and Lost in Space and I think that is where Trek landed. And I'm fine with that. I don't think it took anything away from Trek that Roddenberry didn't go to Kubrick levels of concern for scientific detail when making the show, but I agree it's good that they strove for more scientific realism than their counterparts over onboard the Jupiter 2.
Last edited:
That Act Four plane-moment in TOMORROW IS YESTERDAY uses neither.
IUTR. PM me if mine confuses.
I would think "informed dramatic license" would be a better descriptor for a production not speaking in verse.
You khan't do that?I keep wanting to say, "You don't invent people!"
1) It's tremendously entertaining.
2) It uses Kirk, Spock, and McCoy extremely well, and gives them interesting things to do, unlike TMP.
3) William Shatner gives a great performance as Kirk.
4) It has a terrific performance by Ricardo Montalban as Khan.
5) It introduces an exciting new character in Saavik.
6) Spock's death is one of the most moving scenes in all of Trek.
7) The plot actually moves. There's no waiting 35 minutes for the Enterprise to leave Spacedock or endless scenes of the crew sitting on the bridge staring at special effects.
8) It's got a great score by James Horner.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
I guess it depends on how one is using the term "great". If one is using it to speak of objective film quality, then it's certainly no Citizen Kane or Casablanca or such. However, especially if we limit the scope to Trek films, it is very entertaining despite the plot contrivances, and I'd argue that at least from the moment Our Heroes beam up from Regula One, there isn't a single wasted moment. That Spock's death can still make me cry despite having seen it countless times and knowing it will be reversed in the next film speaks to the emotional power of the sequence.
It only lacked a Kirk-Khan mano-a-mano physical rematch, though TREK III made up for that with Kruge.
It's not brilliant like KANE, but, by design, KHAN is largely more entertaining, as is CASABLANCA. Which is why I recently sold my ''Kane'' DVD to a buyer. Speaking for myself, one does not sell CASBLANCA. But one might sell a duplicate KHAN.
I like it better as it is. I know Shatner wanted one, but I don't think getting Kirk and Khan into a fistfight would have improved the film. In fact, I don't much care for the fight between Kirk and Kruge.
In a Season 5 twist revealed in one of the final episodes of SNW it turns out that Khan invented us.
Yours is superior
There's no theme? To this movie?
Nothing about accepting consequences, facing mortality, appreciating your life?
No, Kirk and Spock don't sit around discussing why Khan is after them because - Terrell says it. And Kirk already knows. Not only that - KHAN tells him that he wants revenge. Kirk knows why.
Some of the shit she hits is ridiculous. I'm not even defending the film, I'm just wondering what she was doing when these things were spelled out on screen...
