posted
The specific plot of "Star Trek II" was possible because Kirk let Khan live on Ceti Alpha V at the end of "Space Seed." Does anyone else have a problem with it? Is not leaving (one of) the leader(s) of the Eugenics Wars to live in exhile rather generous? Would it not be analogous to letting Hitler (had he not killed himself), or, at least Osama bin Laden (if he is captured) live on some inhospitable isle? And if Kirk had seen that a dangerous man like Khan was incarcerated pending rehabilitation, there would not have been that whole Genesis problem . . .
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Perhaps, but was not the Ceti Alpha V option a "wink, wink--Starfleet will never hear about this" kind of thing? In fact, the actions of Captain Terrell seemed to indicate that other Starfleet officers had no knowledge of what might be found in the Ceti Alpha system. Given my problem in my original post, perhaps it behooved Kirk not to report what he did. What do you suppose President Bush would do if one of his colonels called up and said, "I let bin Laden go live on St. Helena. He said he wouldn't hurt anybody?"
As for Australia, there were British officials living there. And I doubt former despots were sent there.
posted
Don't worry. I'm sure that sooner or later the Director's Cut will come out which features Kirk about to maroon Khan when Khan pulls a gun, then Kirk pulls a gun and shoots him first. A PROPER Hollywood ending, in accordance with the tradition that you don't beat someone until you kill him.
Christ, what a stupid question. In essence, what is being said is that Star Trek II is fatally flawed because Khan shouldn't be alive to begin with.
posted
Yes, to a degree, I am saying that, Vogon Poet. Which is why I wonder how "Star Trek II" became an altar to worship at and why criticism of it is as blasphemous as your use of our Lord's name. There is no reason why the same story could not have been told with a different protagonist.
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Also, I am not saying Khan should not be alive. I am saying Kirk should have delivered him to one of those lovely "The Original Series" penal colonies. After a fair trial, of course.
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Regarding typos, and a lack of awareness of an edit feature: I do not call myself a raw cadet for nothing.
Indeed, Malnurtured Snay, I am asking why Kirk did not "bring Khan to justice." I do not know anyone who would do the same for one of our contemporary despots, and it is a major plot problem for "Star Trek II," in my opinion.
The antagonist in "Star Trek II" could have been anyone, even the cliched evil admiral (though, granted, that is a modern Trek cliche).
posted
Not to be nitpicky, but surely that's a problem with "Space Seed", rather than TWOK. That's like complaining that the flaw in Return of the Jedi is that Vadar is Luke's father.
"Which is why I wonder how "Star Trek II" became an altar to worship at and why criticism of it is as blasphemous as your use of our Lord's name."
Because it has action, drama, is emotionally engaging, has some great character moments, and an epic feel to the conflict. It is well written and directed, full of adventure, and features characters we've known for years in a way that they haven't been presented before (Spock finally at peace with his human side, Kirk struggling with getting old, and so on). (And, not to get Flamewary, but a counter argument to "it is as blasphemous as your use of our Lord's name" would be "he's your lord, not my lord." I'm not having a go, but try and keep comments like that out of general discussion. Omega manages it, and he can out-religious pretty much anyone. Including the Pope.)
"There is no reason why the same story could not have been told with a different protagonist."
Aside from the fact that we would have never seen said protagonist before.
"Yes, I, Limpinship have come to claim my revenge on Kirk. Who once tried to kill me. But I escaped. It was a great adventure, pity you missed it."
Besides, whether you think Montlebahn (sp?) overacted or not, he was wonderful as Kahn.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
posted
The whole plot problem (if one thinks a problem exists) does, indeed, originate with "Space Seed." Thus, why use a villain from that episode? Given Kirk's personality, he probably offended a lot of persons over the course of 79 episodes. I am not a "The Original Series" expert, but surely there is a man or woman whom Kirk offended to the degree that he offended Khan (though I grant that Ricardo (cannot spell the last name from rote memory) was good in the movie). At least it was not the wrath of Harry Mudd, though.
My main beef is what does this say about our hero? Some consider Kirk to be the greatest of all Trek captains. A guy who would release a highly intelligent and resourceful man, mentioned in the same breath as other despots, into unsupervised exhile is the greatest captain?
P.S. My use of "blasphemous" was meant to be a clever remark in an extended metaphor, not a serious admonition.
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Yeah, leaving a famous military leader like Khan on a stranded penal-colony type world would be like leaving Napoleon on Elba.. no one would ever just exile a potential conqueror like that.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
One might hope Kirk would have remembered that not so obscure historical precedent, and acted accordingly. Only when Napoleon was exiled far, far away, and supervised in his exhile, was he truly contained.
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
If we could watertightly argue that Ceti Alpha V was out in the sticks from the TOS point of view, then Kirk could get a pardon. He *was* largely out of touch with his superiors, and had a lot of leeway in major decisions of war and peace. He also had something of a personal interest in not giving Marla McGivers the death penalty (or other punishment if we don't accept the "Turnabout Intruder" premise that Enterprise security people are ready to kill mutineers at the drop of a hat) for her mutiny, thanks to her later reversal. And perhaps his political views actually included a certain adoration of Khan to begin with.
In the real life, Alpha Ceti is indeed out in the sticks, using TNG-type warp speeds. In TOS terms, even Andromeda would be just around the corner, though. And we don't know if Ceti Alpha is Alpha Ceti. Further, we have to consider that Khan was initially found rather close to Earth - could Kirk have made a major detour to maroon Khan without Starfleet noticing?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
