Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I’d argue Khan is a very well realised character, thanks to Ricardo Montalban’s performance, especially in the movie.

But…he’s also kind of a dull villain. I are smort and stronk oh Noe’s I am the defeetorz.

Remove the excellent performance, and there’s really not much more to him.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Remove the excellent performance, and there’s really not much more to him.

Why would you take a perfectly nice discussion and turn it into a house of lies and vitriol?

But it’s true! Without Montalban, Khan is nothing. Barely a villain of the week with a Stupid Plan of “hey, let’s capture this ship we can barely fly, try to steal this tech we definitely don’t understand, then get into a fight in an environment we don’t understand, LOL We am the jeenyus”.

This is praise of Montalban, not a back handed compliment.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But it’s true! Without Montalban, Khan is nothing. Barely a villain of the week with a Stupid Plan of “hey, let’s capture this ship we can barely fly, try to steal this tech we definitely don’t understand, then get into a fight in an environment we don’t understand, LOL We am the jeenyus”.

This is praise of Montalban, not a back handed compliment.

"The villain you like is stupid but the actor who played them was good!" is asinine and you've turned this thread from people talking about what they liked into insulting peoples choices and tried to justify it with some bs "But it's true!" It is a bad take and you should feel bad.

Oh and for sheer goofiness: Emperor Worf and his court from the mirror universe in DS9 were pretty funny, as were the Terran resistance fighters

Gowron is fun as well, even if he sits in the mortal grey areas more often than a straight-up villain but DS9 brings his ruthless politicking back to the fore when he shows up again.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’d argue Khan is a very well realised character, thanks to Ricardo Montalban’s performance, especially in the movie.

But…he’s also kind of a dull villain. I are smort and stronk oh Noe’s I am the defeetorz.

Remove the excellent performance, and there’s really not much more to him.

Tell me you didn't watch "Space Seed" without telling me you didn't watch "Space Seed."

The secret to writing a good villain is to give just enough backstory without bogging down the plot with exposition. When we meet Khan, we already know he is a man of tremendous energy and skill, a tyrant who ruled millions. He is also a man of great charisma, a compelling figure. Yes, that's Montalban and that's the point. It's like saying Darth Vader can be separated from James Earl Jones' voice. He can't.

Khan isn't just a strong dude, he is full of literary references, and the motif of him quoting Moby Dick raises the plot beyond mere revenge. Maybe Brits don't read Melville, but it's generally required reading in the States, so you might not have gotten all the quotes.

He's not just out to kill Kirk, he wants to hurt him, and keep on...hurting him. That entire sequence is not just brilliantly acted but brilliantly written.

Absolute perfection.

The secret to writing a good villain is to give just enough backstory without bogging down the plot with exposition. When we meet Khan, we already know he is a man of tremendous energy and skill, a tyrant who ruled millions. He is also a man of great charisma, a compelling figure.

Well. We're told that, mostly, ironically, through exposition.
I'd argue that neither Space Seed (nor Wrath) really show that.

Space Seed is more the genesis of Star Trek's weird 'transhumanism is dehumanizing' message. And Wrath doubles down on that with Genesis Device being bad- any form of 'unnatural' improvement is a horror, so everyone should just be a 'natural' human in a natural environment and not seek solutions, lest you go all Ahab. Kirk vs Khan is the obvious conflict in the film, but its the less important one.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But it’s true! Without Montalban, Khan is nothing. Barely a villain of the week with a Stupid Plan of “hey, let’s capture this ship we can barely fly, try to steal this tech we definitely don’t understand, then get into a fight in an environment we don’t understand, LOL We am the jeenyus”.

This is praise of Montalban, not a back handed compliment.

"The villain you like is stupid but the actor who played them was good!" is asinine and you've turned this thread from people talking about what they liked into insulting peoples choices and tried to justify it with some bs "But it's true!" It is a bad take and you should feel bad.

I’m going to stand by it.

Performance is everything. And Montalban provided that, and more. But, when you strip away the character from the actor? There’s really not a lot there. At all. Apparently superior in every way, except he’s really really daft.

And so, Montalban’s Khan is frankly amazing. And convincing.

But when we strip away Montalban? There’s really not a lot there.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m going to stand by it.

Why wouldn't you? Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you don't believe it. Just because your reasoning is spurious and the reasoning simple-minded is no reason not to have conviction.

Besides I don't care if you don't like Khan, we all like different things, what bothers me is that this wasn't about telling others what they like is bad it was about people talking about what they like.

My reasoning isn’t spurious, at all.

Khan as a character just isn’t all that compelling.

Montalban’s performance is the whole of the thing. And I’m not disputing that.

But take away Montalban as the actor? Paper thin, mate. Indeed, that Montalban made so much of such a tissue paper character is absolutely testament to his talent.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


I’m going to stand by it.

Performance is everything. And Montalban provided that, and more. But, when you strip away the character from the actor? There’s really not a lot there. At all. Apparently superior in every way, except he’s really really daft.

Daft compared to whom? He loses in the end, but most villains do. Khan is shown to be superior to any member of the Enterprise's crew and his failures are ultimately the result of him simply being overmatched by the quantity of his opponents, not their individual quality. He has two significant weaknesses, the first being that he does not have the knowledge of current technology (and procedures) that an entire 400-person crew (and massive memory banks) can provide. He still puts up a heck of a fight.

But his greater weakness is his obsessive need for revenge. He could easily have escaped with the Reliant, and over time gained the knowledge of technology (and the current year's politics, etc.) to mitigate his other weakness. But, like Ahab, he cannot turn away from the White Whale.

And so, Montalban’s Khan is frankly amazing. And convincing.

But when we strip away Montalban? There’s really not a lot there.

Name me a villain in film or television that doesn't rely on a good actor. I mean, does such a creature even exist?

I suppose in the current age of endless remakes we are now to the point where there a half-dozen Jokers to compare with, but that lies outside the topic, doesn't it? We're talking Star Trek and (until recently) you had one actor per major role. (Yes, Saavik, I get it. Major role.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
Space Seed is more the genesis of Star Trek's weird 'transhumanism is dehumanizing' message. And Wrath doubles down on that with Genesis Device being bad- any form of 'unnatural' improvement is a horror, so everyone should just be a 'natural' human in a natural environment and not seek solutions, lest you go all Ahab. Kirk vs Khan is the obvious conflict in the film, but its the less important one.

The message of Space Seed is that the eugenics movement was morally abhorrent, based as it was on treating human beings as livestock to be bred for superior traits. The show assumes that if a sub-race of humans emerged who were smarter and stronger than the rest, they would do the very human thing of trying to rule them as god-emperors.

The Genesis Device is scary because it allows destruction without consequence. You can wipe out a world and create a fresh new one, ready to inhabit. One of the checks against warfare on a global scale is that the "winner" gets a radioactive wasteland, devoid of most life. Genesis would allow a full reboot - kill everything and start fresh with no nasty side effects.

The recurring theme of TOS Star Trek is that human flaws are inherent and can only be mitigated, not solved.

 Gert wrote:
Gowron is fun as well, even if he sits in the mortal grey areas more often than a straight-up villain but DS9 brings his ruthless politicking back to the fore when he shows up again.

And he had a GREAT ending! What ST villain ended better?

Wrong thread.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Wrong thread.

Kirk.

Repeated insubordination.
Grand-theft starship (multiple counts).
Generally being a "dick".

 chromedog wrote:
Kirk.

Repeated insubordination.
Grand-theft starship (multiple counts).
Generally being a "dick".

Don't forget in the whole "Prime Directive" there's likely a whole section dedicated to "Do NOT sleep with every alien you meet who looks pretty"

Cause he did that, a lot
Heck its probably why the Enterprise D has families and such on it, Starfleet worked out that if they send out loan explorers for years they start sleeping with the locals every time they find a new world.

The question there is what good is an amendment to the Prime Directive if the whole thing isn't enforced? The main captains of the shows have massive plot armor when it comes to justifying breaking the rules.

To be fair I think we saw a bit of this in Picard Season 3. We spend a lot of time in Trek dealing with the likes of Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway - who are by and large whilst embodying a lot of the ideals of the Federation; also supposed to be wildcards in how they act.

Sisko is more by the book at the start, but we see his transformation, only for him its a transformation into wartimes.


We see this in Picard season 3 where we see that another view of Picards actions is that he's wild, uncontrolled, not bound by rules and regulations and soforth. That a regular normal captain sees Picard as quite the outlier.


So I think in general the Prime Directive is followed, we just tend to end up watching Captains who often skirt the rules or don't follow it. The cornerstone being that, for the most part, they don't follow the Directive, but do follow the ideals of Starfleet.

Yeah. It's mostly just that captains like that also get hyped up in universe when it would be in Starfleet's best interest to sideline them if they absolutely have to let them get away with it, and set an example that habitually breaking the rules is not the way to go. It's commendable for all those other Starfleet officers have standards all on their own. I just find the institutional response to the main captains very questionable. In my opinion that exists to make the characters appear more awesome to the audience at the expense of in setting logic, which is not my favorite way of going about things.

 Overread wrote:
We see this in Picard season 3 where we see that another view of Picards actions is that he's wild, uncontrolled, not bound by rules and regulations and soforth. That a regular normal captain sees Picard as quite the outlier.

In fairness, Shaw had a huge (if fair) grudge against Picard and the Enterprise crew. He was at Wolf 359 and lost hundreds of friends and crewmates to what was (at least from an outsider's view) the fault of Picard and the Enterprise. Once the trauma was there the chance of Shaw simply forgiving or changing his views because it wasn't really Picard's fault was small. To him Picard will always be the captain that brought the Borg to Wolf 359 and killed hundreds of people.

So I think in general the Prime Directive is followed, we just tend to end up watching Captains who often skirt the rules or don't follow it. The cornerstone being that, for the most part, they don't follow the Directive, but do follow the ideals of Starfleet.

I'd disagree mostly because the Prime Directive itself is a fairly vague set of guidelines. There are obvious ones like "Don't interfere with pre-Warp species" but other guidelines have been ignored by more than just the main captains we see in the shows, especially when it's in the interests of the Federation. Picard becoming Arbiter of Succession could be a big issue but if the captain of Starfleet's flagship can negotiate a peaceful transition of power in the Klingon Empire while respecting the rights and traditions of its people, that goes a long way for diplomatic ties for the Federation and avoids a war that would destabilise the surrounding systems.
I've also just remembered that when Sisko was named the Emissary of the Prophets, Starfleet wanted to keep him around so they could potentially use it as leverage with the Bajorans in the diplomatic sphere, despite Sisko himself hating the title and responsibilities it brought for many years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Geifer wrote:
Yeah. It's mostly just that captains like that also get hyped up in universe when it would be in Starfleet's best interest to sideline them if they absolutely have to let them get away with it, and set an example that habitually breaking the rules is not the way to go. It's commendable for all those other Starfleet officers have standards all on their own. I just find the institutional response to the main captains very questionable. In my opinion that exists to make the characters appear more awesome to the audience at the expense of in setting logic, which is not my favorite way of going about things.

I don't think that sentiment holds up, especially when the pros of these officers outweigh whatever cons may crop up.

With Picard, he doesn't actually ever do much that would warrant his removal as captain of the Enterprise, and the precarious situations the crew often find themselves in aren't of their making or often work out in the end. He's also one of the best negotiators Starfleet has, is an excellent combat officer, and has on multiple occasions strengthened the alliance between the Federation and Klingons. He doesn't let his crew off the hook when they screw up but also doesn't stifle them by issuing unnecessary reprimands.

Sisko likewise is a model officer, especially when during wartime, and his actions are largely sanctioned by Starfleet Command. The one time he really pushes his luck is when he launches chemically infused torpedoes at a Maquis planet. However, the Maquis were a terrorist organisation that had used biogenic weapons on the Cardassians and attacked multiple Federation ships, including Starfleet vessels such as the Defiant and the Malinche. Sisko gave a warning, then attacked, and the Maquis had time to evacuate their people so nobody actually died. His threat was that he would make every single Maquis planet uninhabitable so there would be nowhere to hide in the DMZ. In return, the Maquis lost their leader and the threat they posed to the Federation dropped massively.

Janeway is the exception and was clearly promoted to keep her away from the captaincy of any more ships after her command of Voyager.

 Overread wrote:
Don't forget in the whole "Prime Directive" there's likely a whole section dedicated to "Do NOT sleep with every alien you meet who looks pretty"

Cause he did that, a lot
Heck its probably why the Enterprise D has families and such on it, Starfleet worked out that if they send out loan explorers for years they start sleeping with the locals every time they find a new world.

The Prime Directive was always a writer's guideline to add some sci-fi gloss to what was basically an age of fighting sail concept. Kirk's mentality would have fit in well with an American frigate wandering about the South Pacific in the 1820 or a British sloop a century earlier. Picking fights with pirates, stealing native women, maybe even making yourself a god-king - everything is on the menu until the Admiralty finds out.

One of the fundamental tensions within Roddenberry's conception of Starfleet was that he wanted a military gloss but without actual military functions and execution. It looks like the Navy, but runs like the Air Force.

 Gert wrote:
Sisko likewise is a model officer, especially when during wartime, and his actions are largely sanctioned by Starfleet Command. The one time he really pushes his luck is when he launches chemically infused torpedoes at a Maquis planet. However, the Maquis were a terrorist organisation that had used biogenic weapons on the Cardassians and attacked multiple Federation ships, including Starfleet vessels such as the Defiant and the Malinche. Sisko gave a warning, then attacked, and the Maquis had time to evacuate their people so nobody actually died. His threat was that he would make every single Maquis planet uninhabitable so there would be nowhere to hide in the DMZ. In return, the Maquis lost their leader and the threat they posed to the Federation dropped massively.

"Sisko deploys a WMD without orders on foreign soil during peacetime and announces his intention to mount a scorched earth campaign in Cardassian territory" sounds to you like something everyone on both sides of the border should be cool with? Yikes!

 Geifer wrote:
"Sisko deploys a WMD without orders on foreign soil during peacetime and announces his intention to mount a scorched earth campaign in Cardassian territory" sounds to you like something everyone on both sides of the border should be cool with? Yikes!

Sisko took decisive action against a terrorist state to maintain the peace between the UFP and Cardassian Union, deploying a weapon that would render the Maquis planet uninhabitable to Human life for fifty years. This action also saw him secure the leader of the Maquis, depriving the terrorist group of their most successful military leader and their biogenic weapons. Solossos III was then resettled by Cardassian refugees displaced by the Maquis and Klingons. Importantly, (as far as we know) nobody was actually killed in the engagement.

Did Sisko cross a line in his campaign to stop the Maquis? Yeah, he did. Did he have to cross that line? Absolutely. The Maquis weren't some local planetary rebellion causing disruption, they were an organised and dedicated terrorist organisation that had become a legitimate threat to the Federation after it began launching attacks on Federation vessels. The Cardassians were absolutely villains but the Maquis didn't help themselves by going from small-scale raids and local skirmishes to multiple instances of chemical warfare and attacks on their state.

From the perspective of Starfleet command, Sisko is already a captain and is vital to the Federation's interests in the Bajoran sector. He is a proven combat veteran, has important ties to the Bajorans, has crafted diplomatic ties with the Cardassians (a former foe), and is the captain they need to defend DS9 against the coming Dominion invasion. It serves no purpose for Starfleet Command to remove Sisko from his position or to demote him.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Don't forget in the whole "Prime Directive" there's likely a whole section dedicated to "Do NOT sleep with every alien you meet who looks pretty"

Cause he did that, a lot
Heck its probably why the Enterprise D has families and such on it, Starfleet worked out that if they send out loan explorers for years they start sleeping with the locals every time they find a new world.

The Prime Directive was always a writer's guideline to add some sci-fi gloss to what was basically an age of fighting sail concept. Kirk's mentality would have fit in well with an American frigate wandering about the South Pacific in the 1820 or a British sloop a century earlier. Picking fights with pirates, stealing native women, maybe even making yourself a god-king - everything is on the menu until the Admiralty finds out.

One of the fundamental tensions within Roddenberry's conception of Starfleet was that he wanted a military gloss but without actual military functions and execution. It looks like the Navy, but runs like the Air Force.

I wonder if a Yankee Trader / William Walker / Filibuster 40k faction would be a fun thing? It'd be too politically incorrect, but I can see the fun of making yourself king over the three headed purple natives. In fact, that's really kind of what Rogue Traders are, isn't it?

Or, perhaps even more fun, and less politically incorrect, being the starship commander who's job it is to root those rascals out.

That's what Kirk did, wasn't it?

Root those rascals? The females, at least ...


*Root is aussie vernacular for the horizontal mambo/bumpin' uglies

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
I wonder if a Yankee Trader / William Walker / Filibuster 40k faction would be a fun thing? It'd be too politically incorrect, but I can see the fun of making yourself king over the three headed purple natives. In fact, that's really kind of what Rogue Traders are, isn't it?

Or, perhaps even more fun, and less politically incorrect, being the starship commander who's job it is to root those rascals out.

Kirk as the original Rogue Trader.


Works for me.

 chromedog wrote:
That's what Kirk did, wasn't it?

Root those rascals? The females, at least ...


*Root is aussie vernacular for the horizontal mambo/bumpin' uglies

Couldn't have said it better myself, though I'm sure William Shatner could have.

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:

 chromedog wrote:
That's what Kirk did, wasn't it?

Root those rascals? The females, at least ...


*Root is aussie vernacular for the horizontal mambo/bumpin' uglies

Couldn't have said it better myself, though I'm sure William Shatner could have.

Root ... ... ... thoserascals.