As for Australia, there were British officials living there. And I doubt former despots were sent there.
 

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.
 

Vogon, I think Raw is asking why Kirk didn't take Kahn back to Earth to face trial, and instead gave him a new lease on life (so to speak).
 

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).
 

"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.
 

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.
 

quote:

---

would be like leaving Napoleon on Elba

---

Contrary to all his old firearms on the wall, Kirk is apparently not a student of history ...
 

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?

Timo Saloniemi
 

I'd be willing to bet that Kirk did eventually tell Starfleet about exiling Khan and company on Alpha Ceti VI. He did say that he'd wander how they would do in fifteen years, so it seems like he may have eventually travelled back to check on Khan. This seems realistic as it did seem there was a mutual respect between Khan and Kirk in "Space Seed." If it was reported, it may not have been deemed important enough an issue for everyone in Starfleet to know about. Add to that, there's the possibility that Terrell forgot over the long passage of time.
 

However, barring those circumstances, I still think it was a rather poor decision. Leaving a highly intelligent and resourceful man unsupervised is, at best, slightly irresponsible, and, at worst, immoral, say, if it leads to the near destruction of "Enterprise," the deaths of many cadets, the death of Spock, the untimely detonation of the Genesis Device, and the eventual collapse of a pending peace treaty with your government's enemy. I guess the second question is, if one agrees that Kirk made a poor decision, do you hold this against "Star Trek II," or not? If so, is the plot fatally flawed?
 

This would have worked. Kirk's real mistakes were taking the cadet ship into danger and not raising the shields. 'Getting caught with his pants down' as he admits it. The original mistake was compounded by the later mistakes into the situation you describe.

(Fans of the non-canon could trace mistakes back further, as when Gary Seven and Roberta Lincoln blew up Chrysalis Project in 1974, they decided to transport the genetically modified four-year olds to orphanages rather than kill the as-yet innocent children.. even though Seven tried to redeem Khan by training him, it ended up being a horrible mistake as Khan decided that, in light of the horror faced in his life, that he should rule the world. And again, when it was decided to launch them into space rather than kill them.) In fact, Khans whole life would speak to the fact that, each step of the way, he was shown mercy and punished those who did so.
 

No, and here we get the reason why Star Trek II is so well liked. Instead of the infallable heroes of TOS, we hav an old man reading a book and wearing glasses. We have the leader, the captain, James T Kirk, cock up badly. Badly enough that several people die because of it. And it's a great change.
 

quote:

---

Leaving a highly intelligent and resourceful man unsupervised is, at best, slightly irresponsible, and, at worst, immoral

---

So is also trying to haul him back to Earth or a penal colony for a trial when the man has already captured and taken control of your ship. As far as Kirk was concerned in "Space Seed", he most likely felt that he needed to get Kahn off his ship as fast as he could, lest he lose control of the ship again and thus most probably lose his life.
 

quote:

---

If it
was reported, it may not have been deemed important enough an issue for everyone in
Starfleet to know about. Add to that, there's the possibility that Terrell forgot over the
long passage of time.

---

Rather like Giles and Gwendolyn Post... "I'm sure there was a Memo..." :�)
 

If Osama bin Laden captured a United States Navy ship, her crew took the vessel back, and the Captain released Osama on a deserted island because "I respected his guts, and what harm can he do in the middle of nowhere?" would we welcome that Captain with a parade down Broadway? And years later, when bin Laden escapes and wreaks more havoc, would the movie made about the events portray that Captain as a hero who made one little mistake?
 

I think my analogy was clear.
 

The essence of the episode is the pitting of two 'Supermen' against each other. Khan is a eugenically engineered, hyper-educated fascist prince from a war-torn bygone era of human past. Kirk is a clever and brash product of a comparatively peacful society in the form of Starfleet. Their clash is not merely of men, but of philosphies and eras. Who will suceed, the past of violence and viciousness, or the future of peace and exploration? Although it may not be immediately obvious, the two men are actually very similar: clever and powerful leaders, physical and passionate men in peak condition at the fore of their society. Where Khan deems himself above all men (including this 23rd century excuse for a superman), Kirk can see an aspect of himself in Khan. It is a distorted and extreme image, but Kirk recognizes it, and even admires Khan's resourcefulness (Albeit to a lesser extent than McGivers). At the end of the episode, Kirk has finally bested Khan (Though to Khan's credit this would not have been possible without the betrayal of McGivers). Kirk has superseded his past and now stands ready to deliver the death blow. However, Kirk has become more than that. Were the situation reversed, Khan would not have hesitated. Kirk would be dead on the floor without a further thought. But Kirk MUST be better than that if he is to truly defeat Khan. If he is to truly be more than Khan, he must not destroy his enemy. To do otherwise he would become his enemy. That is a reality Kirk cannot escape. True to form he devises a clever workaround. He presents Khan the option: Death or Life on an untamed world isolated from the rest of society. Kirk does not do this lightly, or flippantly. He forces Khan to choose between his past of violence and a future of world-building. He knows that Khan's relentless amibition will not let him choose death. He forces Khan to cede. It is the only way Kirk can win and still retain his humanity. In hindsight, it may not have been the best decision, but it was the right descision. There is no flaw, that I can see.

I think Kirk would inform Star Fleet of his decision, but that Starfleet might keep it on the down-low. It would not be a popular decision, but that's because most would never understand how fundamentally important it was that it unfold in this way.
 

(Unfortunately, no other writer has the vision to reform the prison system, either; the Tantalus penal colony was more or less a prison. Even in the 24th century Bashir's father, a non-violent man, is sentenced to jail time. Surely required "indoctrination" on the dangers of genetic resequencing would have been more productive then sending him to New Zealand.)

Kirk's decision really is not a problem until "Star Trek II," though. Had Khan lived and died on Ceti Alpha V, I would have been fine with that. Perhaps it could have even become a thriving colony. However, the writer(s) of "Star Trek II" decided to choose Khan, out of all the antagonists of the original series (if the had to use a known antagonist), who was stranded because of Kirk. Thus, Kirk bears the responsibility for the events of the movie, and, as I said before, that is a problem for me.
 

[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]

I think Star Trek II is probably one of the finest science fiction films of the 80's.
 

Nick Meyer's trek movies are the most fun to watch, but contain troubling inconsistencies because they are very plot and scenery driven.

If they need to forget to count planets to forward the plot, they will.

If all of the energy in the ship is funneled through one carefully placed radiation chamber to satisfy a story requirement, it will be .

If it takes a dozen guys to ungrate the torpedo track because it looks cool, even though no function can be divined for said grates.

If a turbolift from engineering, in the secondary hull, needs to stop at the bridge (on deck 1) to get to sickbay (on deck 7) so that everyone can see what happened to poor Peter, so be it

If phasers usually disintegrate people or just short out their nervous systems until dead, thats fine.. but all of a sudden, they will cause bloody messes for a cool SFX sequence

Star Trek doors normally close. But one needed to stay open so someone could eavesdrop and record a log entry.
 

I do wonder if Starfleet officers really remember every planet they have been to. I mean, typical military personnel go through far fewer garrisons or practice grounds in their careers than Chekov did planets during a five-year (or for him, seemingly two-year) mission, and still they manage to get them confused when recounting their pasts.

Chekov wouldn't find the Ceti Alpha system memory-joggingly familiar visually, either - it would have the wrong number of planets! And Kirk didn't always tell the crew where the ship was going, so perhaps Kyle didn't even know. (If Chekov was the navigator of the night shift back then, he would have *had* to know, of course...)

Timo Saloniemi
 

About the log recording - his 'bag' that Valeris brought it was keeping the door open.
 

In other words, Kirk's big mistake wasn't leaving Khan and Co. on the planet...it was forgetting about them.
 

Quote:
that "Reliant" sensors cannot tell when a planet is the planet they think it is; that those "gun" tricorders are crap; among other beliefs that do not normally have to be suspened.

Come on, a couple little technical issues. That's Star Trek standard fare. It just wouldn't be the same if everything added up

Quote:
All of this to use Khan

Who would you suggest over Khan? Who could be better? Here we have this vicious and vindictive superman with superior strength, intelligence and ambition unleashed on a naked earth to start a new civilization. Which he does, trying to play by the new rules (I remember thinking after seeing the ep but before the movie that it'd be neat to see how they fared, Aban). So here's this old-school facist superman, bruised pride and all, trying to fit into the new era, to choose life. Then by some tragic twist of fate six months later Ceti Alpha 6 explodes throwing Ceti Alpha 5 out of its orbit and laying everything to waste. Suddenly, Khan's paradise is lost, and he has Kirk to blame. For twenty-years Khan stews in his hatred. This genious mind in this body politic of �bermen tested by this most inhospitable environment. His beautiful wife driven mad and dying because of a parasite knawing on her brain just as Khan's contempt for Kirk knaws at his own. His hatred becomes razor sharp. Who else could embody that? Some unchronicled anonymous yo-yo from Kirk's checkered past? Someone else suggested Harvey Mudd. Garth? C'mon. Khan was scary because he was so close to Kirk. You believe his vengeance. His hatred was utterly tangible, and his character terrifying.

I'm starting to think you're just trying to get a rise out of us by attacking a classic. Granted, it is my opinion that STII is hands down the best of the series. (It is, in fact, my favorite movie of all time. No I'm completely serious. I'm not joking. Yes, better than Citizen Kane and Star Wars put together.) It had so much to say and it said it so well. I can overlook some little flaws. I can't remember the last time I went to a movie and got so swept up in the themes and story and characters that I wasn't paying attention to the details. So many films these days would have you focus on the SFX and the hotness of the lead actors without paying hardly any attention to the story whatsoever. Are you gonna sit there and ignore a good story for what are ultimately inconsequential details? I guess that's your choice, but I'll take great story over little details any day.

[ October 26, 2001: Message edited by: Balaam Xumucane ]

I must grant that the exact same story cannot be used without Khan. Might I submit that an equally epic and sweeping story, still touching on the "not dependent on Khan" themes, like ageing, could be accomplished if the villain were stealing the Genesis device because they were threatened by it? I know, you say, "that was 'Star Trek III,' and look how bad that was." However, if done correctly, such a movie could be a great battle of wits among equals, complete with a cat-and-mouse space battle, a la "Balance of Terror."

P.S. To whomever said the director is more interested in story than detail: he was interested in some detail. I remember reading an interview where he said after touring the sets, he ordered a bunch of meaningless blinky lights added to the bridge, because he did not think there were enough for a space vessel (talk about a late '70's, early '80's science fiction movie cliche; witness "Star Wars," "Close Encounters Of the Third Kind," "Moonraker," and, perhaps the worst offender, that computer room in "Alien").

[ October 26, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]

[ October 26, 2001: Message edited by: Aban Rune ]

If they need to forget to count planets to forward the plot, they will."

I should point out that this is EXACTLY what Braga means in his oft-misquoted "Continuity is for gays and lesbians" quote.

That said:

"If phasers usually disintegrate people or just short out their nervous systems until dead, thats fine.. but all of a sudden, they will cause bloody messes for a cool SFX sequence"

The novelisation makes a stab at this one, by saying that the assasians are using "burning phasers", and illegal weaping that makes cool SFX sequences.

The other problem with "Ceti Alpha" blah, which even ruins Tim's option, is that the miscounting of planets is bad enough, but exactly how feasible is it that the explosion of Ceti Alpha VI would knock Ceti Alpha V into EXACTLY the same orbit as Ceti Alpha VI? Or even vaguaely close. For starters, VI is surely further out. And, if it explodes, surely it would knock CA V inwards if anything. And, even then, what are the odds that

1/ The world would still be habitable.

2/ That the orbit would look even remotely like CA VI?

"that was 'Star Trek III,' and look how bad that was..."

Hey! ST III is good. Or, at the very least, it's the best out of the odd-numbered ones.
 

quote:

---

...contain troubling [story]inconsistencies because they are very plot and scenery driven

---

quote:

---

To whomever said the director is more interested in story than detail: he was interested in some detail... he ordered a bunch of meaningless blinky lights

---

What I meant:
The writing staffs of other Trek productions might sit around and plan the story
Writer A: Well I feel it important that we have a big zero-G blood scene
Writer B: Well phasers dont leave bodys with holes in them.. should we explain why they do all of a sudden?
Writer C: We could just say they are contraband burning phasers
Writer A: OK, ill write that line in
We hear about stuff like this all the time. Okuda, Sternbach, the art department, the science advisor, whomever all approach the writers with their concerns before the shooting script is there.

Nick Meyer i think, just shoots the scene as he imagines it, and sometimes stuff like that gets lost in the mix.. he is interested in the big picture .. the whole list i presented before, and additional stuff (why doesnt the enterprise have any visual sensors that point down? wouldnt they physically see torpedoes not coming from them?.. because it would interfere with the plot proceding as planned.. Doesnt Uhura speak Klingon? not if it interferes with the scene as planned..
Sure, the explanations exist.. the novelizations have fun with them.. the turbolift system was malfunctioning and took Scotty and Peters body to the bridge, the burning phasers issue, etc.
 

Quote:
...However, poke through the surface, and I think you find that the movie is based on a hollow premise....

That little vein in my forehead is standing out and it's twitching my eye. Ok, not really. Dude, RawCadet. Back this up. I dare you. Think about it for a minute. You are talking about a surface. A surface like the themes of Sacrifice, Courage, Fate, Vengeance, Obsolescence and Pride. You've got it backwards, chi. "Hollow premise"? Perhaps you mean that the make-believe spaceman's make-believe mortal foe's make-believe planet couldn't have blown up like that. Or perhaps, that said make-believe foe would be able to survive. It's a pretext. That's the surface here.

I'm sorry for jumping down your throat, Raw Cadet. There are plenty of flaws in the film to go around. It's just that the film has so much that is so good in it. Not just the age thing, but the Mother and Son dynamic, the Father and Son dynamic. The Teacher and Student. Men, women. Human, alien. Monster, man. You have the Biblical forces of creation and in the very same moment: destruction. The Epic struggles with vengeance, justice, pride, pain, abandonment and power. Life vs. Death. Horror vs. beauty. Levity vs. gravitas. That's not even mentioning the self-sacrifice of a truly heroic icon, not for glory, not out of obligation, but simply beacuse it was the logical thing to do. That's amazing. It's all in there. And it's SO good. I'm trying real hard not to lauch into a diatribe on each of these (though trust me I could). But there's so many things that the other films have never even come close to touching. (That chilling, haunting and empty "No." Shatner falteringly delivers at Spock's death is so evocative it must certainly be his finest Trek performance.) So there are things which may defy easy explanation (ie. How does Khan remember Chekov when Chekov wasn't even in the 'Space Seed' Episode?) but I am SO much more willing to make excuses for these things than I am to make excuses for bad writing.

If you are going bag on my favorite movie, I want to make sure you are being critical for the right reasons. So far, you seem to be making vague arguments that Khan could be swapped out for another villian so as to smooth out some rough spots in the back-story (and we keep all the aging and stuff in there.) I obviously feel otherwise. So far you haven't really said much to convice me a) Why this would be a good idea b) How it could be done without lessening the impact of the film.

Quote:
No, for a "truly" great movie would avoid the plot problems, yet still convey the great story.

Please name some. What's your favorite? Why is it your favorite?
 

P.S. No apologies needed.
 

Can I back my challenge, at least adequately enough for you? Perhaps not. We may have to agree to disagree. Determining what makes a movie great is, essentially, a subjective process. If you believe the greatness of a story and its themes can "excuse" flaws of a movie, you are entitled to your opinion. More often than not I would agree with you. However, I do not share (my perception of your) opinion that a "flawed" movie can be considered "great." Perhaps you agree with me on that. In that case, the disagreement here is on how "flawed" "Star Trek II" is. I offer that the flaws "hollow" the premise; you (and most others) disagree.

As I said before, I may not be able to adequately defend my position (to you). I am intentionally vague because I am often annoyed by the notion "we could do it better than they do." Very few of us, if any, are professional motion picture/television directors/producers/writers, and have no real experience in what it takes to turn out high quality entertainment. "Why are you even arguing (complaining/bitching), then?" Well, in this case, I think the "flaws" I find should have been apparent to the creators (perhaps they were, and the creators would respectfully disagree that the flaws diminish the movie).

In a vague defense, let me once again submit that the essential themes of the movie could have been retained with a different antagonist. Themes are themes. The themes of "Star Trek II" are present in many movies because they are not dependent on Khan being present. And if they absolutely had to have Khan, just a few changes to the exposition would have made his discovery and situation much more plausible (I refer here to the planet problems, etc.)

Finally, since my motivation is to "knock" the status of "Star Trek II" down a peg or two (certainly not trash the movie), I took a cheap shot at the director, because he is often credited for making the movie great. In my opinion, he is a significant part of the problem(s I find in the movie). Yes, he was good with the story material and themes. However, the devil is often in the details, and I disagree with how he handled them. More blinky lights because they look cool? Come on. A half-dozen guys to load a torpedo? The 50's era submarine I give tours on could do it with one or two. Should one let details prevent them from enjoying a movie or appreciating its deeper meaning. No, and I do not. I do feel that a "truly great" movie gets both the story and the details "right."

P.S. I hesitate to offer an example of what I think is a "truly great" movie, for the Star Trek universe is difficult to compare to, and some (not Balaam, though; this is not an accusation), who may think my purpose here is to trash what I grant is a very good movie, might be inclined to trash the movie I submit.

[ October 27, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]

quote:

---

Chekov was on the Enterprise when Space Seed took place. The stardate for Space Seed is after that of the first episode in which we saw Chekov.

---

You know, Stardates don't neccessarily go in chronological order ... what I mean is, Stardate 4367 could be before Stardate 4157. The only reason I say this, if you watch the first season of TNG and pay attention to the Stardates ... "Skin of Evil" (if Stardates are chronological) takes place before a good number of episodes with Tasha in them.
 

I think Omega's just showing that there are a half a dozen ways of explaining why Kahn remembers Chekov (with the other main one being that Chekov was on the Enterprise, but never on camera. Perhaps on the night shift).

"More blinky lights because they look cool? Come on."

Find me someone who actually thinks the Enterprise sets look better in TMP than they did in TWOK, and I'll show you a man who has far too much love for pastals.
 

Quote:
Find me someone who actually thinks the Enterprise sets look better in TMP than they did in TWOK, and I'll show you a man who has far too much love for pastals.

Hardly a man at all, really...