Khan look gay in this movie. I used to love Star Trek the original series as a kid, but when the movies came back I thought they were terrible and that people only like them because of nostalgia for ST:TOS.
shareI never thought of him as looking gay. I guess his real ripped chest on display all the time might give some people the thought of it due to The Village People or something. I don't think it would really matter if he was gay or not, it's what he did which made him the character. But if I was replying to you in 1982 then I'd understand your concern considering homosexuality was still illegal (I think) in some first world regions and AIDS was believed by many at the time to be a disease caused and spread by gay people. But this is 2020! I don't think it's really an issue with whether he looked gay or not.
As for the movies, I have always loved them for their own sake, not because of The Original Series. I was just thinking about Star Trek II today actually, because I realised it would have been one of the first movies I saw and understood to some degree as a child. I may have even seen it before The Motion Picture. There's probably a whole bunch of people who loved the movies not because of the TV series, and a bunch who love them as a continuation of the series.
I also remember it was a thrill when I later discovered that there was an episode featuring Khan in the TV series which tied in directly to the movie!
I just meant gay in a ultra-fastidious meticulous manner of dressing ... it was feminine looking at silly. This was a thing Roddenberry's shows always seemed to have. I am fine with gays, and gay marriage, but I am just poking the stereotype.
The only movies I thought were anywhere close to worth watching were Star Trek, the V'ger movie, the whale movie, and the borg queen movie ... but they were so campy. But I am sure if a Star Trek movie appealed to me it might not appeal to lots of other. Maybe, but maybe not too.
I don't know if there is irony in that Merrick Butrick(he played Kirk's son David in II & III) died of AIDS in 1989 at the age of 29. He seemed to be a great co-worker as his cast-members praised him lovingly and even Director Nicholas Meyer included a picture of Merrick on Kirk's desk in Star Trek 6(tired of writing roman numerals). Some say he was gay, Kirstie Alley says he was bi-sexual which is gay in my book but overall he seemed like a really great guy who died tragically and way before his time RIP Merrick Butrick.
shareI think this is some kind of remnant of the festering pit of corruption Hollywood became, or maybe always was.
share
Some say he was gay, Kirstie Alley says he was bi-sexual which is gay in my book ...
I think they were going for the old-fashioned barbarian lord look. Some mix of old Viking and Asia warrior look. I also think they wanted him to look strong/virile/dominating, and throwing some muscle in there gave him a dominant look over the rest of his crew.
shareI get that, but he looked like he was wearing kitten fur, and it was detailed in such a feminine way. I used to watch a lot of Roddenberry's work, and this was a kind of theme in his work, the men really looked and acted effeminate. Somehow they pulled it off on the original series in the Botany Bay episode, but in the movies to me at least he was laughable.
But even more silly was that he was stranded on that planet ... where did he get and design his wardrobe?
You're one of the few people I read on forums who go WAY BACK before the film adaptations who can only appreciate Star Trek via the T.O.S. years. I remember there being more back in the 80s but when TNG came along most of them relented and admitted that they liked the film adaptations and Captain Picard.
There's still some tussling over the spin-offs like Voyager and DS-9 but for the most part the ST fandom universe has grown too big for it to be a divisive issue.
I used to care about Star Trek because as an 9 year old kid it was really the coolest thing I had ever seen on TV, and that and the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey changed my life towards science and engineering. I hung on to that nostalgia until a few weeks after ST:TNG debuted and I saw how horrible it was ... and I think it was when "Q" or "The Q" were made a character on the show. After that SSTTNG was just nauseating to me.
The movies were bad enough. All of them like the worst episodes of the series. At least the first one tried to spin Star Trek as science fiction, the rest of them went for comedy and camp. So, I don't care too much for ST any longer.
I did enjoy watching Enterprise. I think out of all the sequel series there were about 5 or 6 episodes that I liked. "The Orville" was better than ST.
I do enjoy "The Expanse". Hoping for a decent next season whenever they may happen.
> who can only appreciate Star Trek via the T.O.S. years.
I can't blame you for thinking that, who is going to really read and take time to consider what someone on a chat board has to say.
I appreciated good stories and characters. Star Trek was among the best, though it is dated now and out of time. There was a lot of dog episodes of the original series, but there were some really good ones that inspired the imagination.
There were two I remember from other series. One was ... I am going from memory here, ST:TNG
the flute, where Picard was kidnapped off the Enterprise by the space probe of a long dead civilization that was apparently advanced enough to simulate a whole lifetime with them as they died in virtual reality. That was a wonderful story.
On Enterprise there was an episode where some diplomats were being transported by the Enterprise, and they had a person of a third gender, or he/she/it was treated like a third gender by the rest of the society. Trip got to know her and began to help her develop her mentality so that she was not happy with her lot in life, and it led to her demise. That was amazing writing with an amazing plot.
It is these kind of mind stretching stories that I have interest in, not so much the series for the series' sake. For Voyager, or Deep Space 9 and so far for the new one on CBS I have seen nothing that comes close to that.
It is my belief that Star Trek was taken off the air because it was too politically subversive. The idea that a TV show could inspire viewers to stretch their conception of citizenship and human's place in the universe was too threatening to our political status quo, so it was taken off the air. Then when it came back, they just made sure that it was so watered down and meaningless that it was no threat.
An example of the story of Lokai and Bele the aliens who were black on white, but they had to discriminate against the people who were black on the wrong side ... was maybe not the perfect episode, but the idea was formidable, like a lot of the original series. Hope that explains my criticisms of Star Trek better.
No?
share