REACTION! STAR TREK: TOS, 1x22, Gallifrey Gals Get Warped! S1 EP 22, SPACE SEED
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- It's time for the Gals to dive into the next original adventure... Let's go!
Thank you all for being here with us on these watch throughs and thank you for always being a supportive and wonderful community!
Want to watch the full length episode and get access to bonus content?! Consider becoming a Patron! / gallifreygals
PAULA DEMING
UA-cam: / paulademing
Instagram: / paolobandita
Tiktok: / paulademing
Twitter: / paulademing
IMDb: www.imdb.com/n...
KATRINA ALYSHA
TikTok: / kat.attack8
UA-cam: / katrinaalysha
Instagram: / katrina_alysha
Twitter: / katrinaalysha
IMDb: www.imdb.com/n...
Gallifrey Gals Theme Song by: NoAnie Music
www.fiverr.com...
Copyright owned by Gallifrey Gals
All the videos, songs, images, and graphics used in the video belong to their respective owners and I or this channel does not claim any right over them.
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
The main reason to watch this episode is that it provides background for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Possibly the best of all the movies. He makes for a serious villain.
Star Trek: Enterprise "The Augments" arc also takes references from this.
I prefer TMP myself. :)
@@TheCastellan My love is mainly on TVH, though there is plenty to love in TMP as well.
Wrath of Khan is Khan at his deadliest, but thankfully without the sv elements of this episode.
"As soon as I take over the Enterprise I'll have the captain's chair upholstered in rich Corinthian leather."
- Khan
and take the ship to Fantasy Island... I mean Planet. :)
Right, and then he will slap a Chrysler emblem on the front of the ship.
Lol, Nice!
@@MikeWood Also, Nice!
So that's what was on the Reliant's chair.
How would hiding the existence of sexism help get rid of it? "Star Trek" TOS addressed tough topics. Why skip over sexism?
The fact that the Khan/Mcgivers relationship creeped you out so much just shows how on point the writing was. That's really the core of the episode. The willing submission to tyranny that we always need to fight against.
The problem is, even though McGivers was clearly being manipulated, she is still punished for it, as if she was as much at fault as Khan himself.
@@datacipher So the abused gets the same blame as the abuser... very nice.
And YES, a male in that situation would ABSOLUTELY be called "manipulated", just like every male who has succumbed to an Orion slave girl. I could hear you already "but, that's because of the pheromones"
Emotional manipulation produces the same chemical reaction in one's body that pheromones do.
Or a more current world situation - Imagine a bully asserting himself upon an easily triggered underclassman who finally snaps and lashes back. Do we blame the one who lashed, or the one who bullied him and pushed him over the edge?
@@k1productions87 If you rob a bank and your excuse to the judge is "I was manipulated to doing it", you're still gonna go to jail bruh.
@@One.Zero.One101 severe oversimplification. But I bet you never had to endure mental trauma a day in your life
I was 17 when I watched this episode and I only remember it because of what my parents said to me when it was over. My dad said to me “Never treat a woman like that.” My mom told me. “If I ever see you treat a woman or anybody like that I’ll come and do the same to you even if I’m dead and gone!” I’m 71 years old now and I still feel that she will. Treat everyone with respect. I enjoy watching this channel and the Doctor Who reactions. You do a great job, keep well and “Live long and prosper.”
Looking at this Simp Nation under the all mighty kleptocracy,
Khans coming is now inevitable. All Hail Khan.
Good on you. A testiment on good parenting. Something lacking in today's generation.
I"m thinking you grew into a fine gentleman if your parents were just as consistent in rasing you across the board.
Very flawed. If she’s man enough to hit you, she’s man enough to get hit. You don't have to start a fight but you damn well better finish it.
Just as an aside, the reason why the medical equipment was on the wall is because they were antiques. They were for display only, and didn't need to be sterile.
That's what I always thought too. After all, Bones has referred to himself as 'an ol country doctor'. That display of ancient medical tools fits perfectly.
The fact this had to be explained is sad.
@@dirus3142 Indeed.
14:36 Because you now have the source material for the 2nd Movie in your memory banks.
Also, Khan was the one villain throughout the run of TOS who almost defeated Captain Kirk and the Enterprise crew.
Gotta see that 2nd movie.
Are you forgetting Harry Mudd?
@@thecaptain6730 Harry didn't almost defeat Kirk and crew, it was the androids :P
Spock himself said that Khan Noonien Singh was the greatest enemy the Starship Enterprise ever faced. (Star Trek: Into Darkness.)
I'd like to pretend "Into Darkness," never existed.
It's good backstory if you ever watch the Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan movie.
"I don't know why Patreon wanted us to watch this..."
Patreon: KAAAHNNN!
Who ever said that you are supposed to like the villian of a story???
Goofy gals! Your frustration and confusion was DELIGHTFUL to watch! LOL! Now you will respect this character better the next time you see him again in Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan. I hope you see more TOS. 😃👍
You need to watch, "The Wrath of Khan". TWOK is arguably the greatest ever Star Trek movie, and "Space Seed" is it's back story.
Why was this chosen? It's called "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." The best Star Trek movie ever made.
exactly and all because of Ricardo, an amazing actor of his generation.
Though Keith DeCandido actually disagrees with that if you can believe it. (Star Trek novelist who's done a rewatch of basically all of OldTrek and the reviews of all NuTrek on TOR.) TWOK, TVH, and _Beyond_ got 6's, TUC got a 1 because of (SPOILERS) and First Contact got a 9.
I personally always loved Uhura's glare after he hit her, She was basically like, "Try it you bastard, you're not getting anything from me!"
lol, I always took that look from Uhura as "Is that all you got? Your momma hits harder than that."
Yeah, I loved that glare of defiance. I also saw it as a case against Khan's assessment of the state of humanity. Not every one was as wishy washy, weak minded and easily manipulated as his girl friend.
@@TheNoiseySpectator I know, I was just being sarcastic. He hurt her, but she took it and snapped right back with that look. She didn't grovel or beg as Khan expected.
Best girl Uhura!
She's Chicago, she don't take shit Khan lol
People probably had you watch this because it is the origin story of a major Star Trek villian. Khan is featured in what most Trekkies consider the best of all the Star Trek movies, "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." He also is name-dropped in Next Generation, DS9, Voyager, some of the other movies, and in the new "Star Trek: Strange New Worlds."
Khan is kind of the archetype of the Star Trek villain... but the best villains in Star Trek are Gul Dukat and Kai Winn from DS9.
@@N0-1_H3r3 lol no way i mean they are good but khan is the best!
@@philfitnesspt6139 Gul Dukut is the best. Kai Winn is a religious Space Karen with a bit of Megan McCain
Agree, Khan was best and most iconic of all Trek villains. That personal conflict between him and Kirk. Legendary, literally. As having been referenced and so many iterations of trek.
The idea of Augmented humans even appeared in Star Trek: Enterprise. The episode arc called "The Augments". Complete with an ending similar to Star Trek: WOK.
Also the concept of the Augments as they are called and their rebellion is foundational to a LOT of start trek. DS9 has some MAJOR storylines related to this.
This is an important episode. The augments are the reason that genetic modification is illegal in the federation and it's consequences are felt throughout the Star Trek franchise.
Its just a shame they throw all that out the window in TNG's second season episode "Unnatural Selection", even using the word "eugenics" with nary a mention of the Eugenics Wars, or the fact it was illegal LOL
In the late 1960s, when this episode first aired, the distaste people would have had for the idea of a race genetically superior super humans was a reaction to the racist superiority ideas of the Nazis from WW2 from just a couple of decades earlier. Make the Khan character a blond haired, blue eyed German, and he would have made the perfect Nazi, preaching how it was the destiny of his genetically superior people to rule over the rest of humanity. Given Khan's Nazi like attitudes, it's surprising that Kirk would have given them the chance to have their own world to grow and develop on. Would anyone in the post WW2 era have been okay with taking 80-90 hard core Nazis and giving them their own island?
By the time TNG and DS9 came around, the Nazi connection to genetic superiority would have been several more decades in the past, and perhaps less felt by viewers.
Well, now you absolutely have to watch Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Which is the real reason people wanted you to see it. It's the background to the best of the Trek films.
(No, you don't need to watch Star Trek: The Motion Picture first.)
As a single watch, it's still worth watching. And is certainly a contrast between both the series and WoK.
Re: the Khan - Data connection. Before creating Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry had served in the Army Air Corp alongside another pilot named Noonian Singh. Roddenberry had lost touch with Singh in the years since and hoped using that name for the character in this episode and later for Data's creator would help them reconnect. No social media back then, you know.
That's interesting!
Alas, they never reconnected.
It's now my head-canon that releasing Wrath of Khan was just Roddenberry shouting louder. Sometimes you've just gotta release a whole ass film to get someone's attention.
also star trek is CONSTNATLY referencing Indian society in outfits, names, ships, etc but almost NEVER has Desi actors. lol
@@Sagitarria There were actually quite a number in later series and movies. The only one I'm aware of from TOS however was Reginald Lal Singh who had a non-speaking role in "Court Martial".
Why should the show only have "strong women" characters? It certainly doesn't always show the best male characters.
Sometimes youth and feminism are blinding. You two women have trouble not reacting to different eras and their mindsets. Polarizing this episode as "bad" and the reaction you had shows that you two really just want an echochamber of safe and soft drivel. Grow up. ❤
The episode accurately portrays an abusive relationship and one where a man mentally dominates a woman. It's horrific, and I think it's meant to be. So it still has value, in that sense. McGivers' characterization is a problem, yes, but Khan's villainy is the point here, and what he does to people.
The problem also lies in McGivers going off with Khan at the end. It's almost like this is meant to somehow redeem them both in some warped way. (Khan accepts his fate, and reaches out to her warning of her how difficult it will be, and McGivers agrees to go with him, suggesting some aspect of willingness because he has tried, at least, to warn her). Khan's line of "I'll take her" is Khan again being condescending (Khandescending ha) however, and we're still left with this picture of this woman who is... pretty much just dominated. It's sad, and very 1960s. And yet... it isn't just 1960s. It's still relevant today. We can interpret this as McGivers not going off happily. She's just... going. Because to stay also represents nothingness for her. Court martial, disgrace, and the end of her career.
My daughters aren't fond of this episode either. But they recognize that it makes a statement--if wholly unintentionally--of the shitty reality for some women.
Were a narcissist dominates another person. Man or woman it's the same.
@@dirus3142 Yep, in fact we see such a situation with the genders flipped in the series finale "Turnabout Intruder".
It's been said before but you needed to see this before you see Star Trek II (1982).
The way Khan treats McGivers is disgusting and I can completely understand how you can be turned off by this episode. If you take out the disgusting misogyny the rest of the episode is one of the best. She did commit treason and needed to be removed from Starfleet, regardless of anything else. Khan has no special powers Ike in "The Perfect Mate" from TNG.
Very true. Khan had no special powers or mind control. He was pure will, charisma and manipulation. Which is how he had rose to power.
Lt. McGivers was too impressed by him and ill equip to handle that kind of personality despite having studied up on it.
You could say his persona was so powerful, she was affected just by seeing him in cryo-sleep.
@@DocMicrowave And Khan being who he with superior senses picked up on her thirstiness and romanticism for powerful monarchs of history almost instantly.
@@gryphon9507 Yeah, he detected that really quickly.
Kinda supports the statement he made later, "It seems we will do well in your century."
The writers of this show are not condoning Khan's treatment of McGivers. They are accurately portraying and abusive relationship.
Also, there's the trope of educated women having secret desires of being dominated. I think she was meant to be a caricature of that trope.
Even back in the 60s, many viewers understood that McGiver's submission to Khan was deeply troubling. But because it was the 60s, and the dynamics of abusive relationships were not widely understood by laypersons, those fans tended to blame it on McGiver herself. Bjo Trimble, the mega-fan who compiled the first Star Trek Concordance, described Khan (approximately) this way: "The leader of a group of genetically engineered supermen (but Spock could outthink him, Kirk could outfight him, and he chose the stupidest woman on the Enterprise to be his bride)." A modern reading, of course, is that a controlling predator knows how to find victims who have already been trained to accept dominance. Never in a million years would Uhura have been susceptible to that kind of manipulation -- which is why he would never have even tried it on Uhura.
But it's not an abusive relationship in the sense of a 'normal' human male and a 'normal' human female. Khan is not a normal human, he's an enhanced superman as you showed that Bjo Trimble said - and he has an effect on some 'normal' women (not Uhura as you have pointed out). And there would be some 'normal' male members of the Enterprise crew who would also be easily manipulated and abused by enhanced superwomen in Khan's group.
She was also into history, and knew who he was.
@@mikephillips8810
There was an episode (Elaan of Troyius) where Kirk was completely manipulated by an alien woman in exactly the same way McGivers was.
I must disagree with your views regarding Mr. Montalban's ethnicity.
It is irrelevant.
The man was an ACTOR, and the essence of acting is portraying someone you're not.
Mr. Montalban did an excellent job, and was entirely believable playing a South Asian/Sikh character.
The same could not be said for Benedict Cumberbatch, who for some bizarre reason was chosen to play Khan in one of the reboot films.
It feels really weird to me that someone could be a fan of TNG while not watching TOS or, apparently, any of the films. What a curious lack of curiosity. I mean, I understand why you're avoiding them now, because it's a job, but how did you ever get to that situation before?
@@excessmaterial Paula said TNG was her favourite tv show, and did not frame it as just her favourite Trek show. She has watched all of DS9, and did not enjoy it as much. Hopefully she will get around to watching Voyager, but that does mean signing up for yet another streaming service now that the trek shows are on Paramount plus.
Being in Starfleet is like being in the military. That’s why she couldn’t be considered a victim. As a Starfleet officer she is held to a higher standard and cannot be forgiven a moment of weakness. Court martial or exile were the only two acceptable options.
I think the reason this episode was chosen is because Khan is a classic Trek villain, who returns later.
And yes, Khan is a manipulative A-hole, but he's the villain of the story. And McGivers fall for his manipulation tactics, but perfect characters make for boring stories.
"I never met a paragon."
As has been mentioned by most of the commenters, seeing this episode is required to fully understand the second Star Trek film. It's widely regarded as the best Trek film as a stand-alone, but it's even better when viewed as part of a trilogy (Star Treks 2, 3, and 4).
One of the reasons why Star Trek II is so meaningful a story is that in circling back to this episode, it explores the theme of seemingly casual decisions having huge, long-term consequences, and forcing characters who seemingly never face consequences for their actions to face them. I highly recommend viewing those 3 films during your inter-seasons breaks in TNG.
Hopefully only Paula’s reading this, but from her comments, even she doesn’t know. It’s crucial background for.. future TOS stuff everyone is VERY likely hoping to see you two react to (which others are mentioning but even doing this is spoilery).
They intended Khan to be terrifying by *1960s* standards. As I understand it, he and his cabal have the traits of the world’s greatest (and worst) conquerors-Alexander the Great, Stalin, Hitler-their intelligence, charisma, the ability to manipulate those around them, seduce them almost into following them, but genetically engineered so conceivably even more scary, with Khan himself the worst of them. (This was a common trope in ‘80s and ‘90s media: showing us the problem of eugenics.)
An' yeah, when I saw this in the '80s, McIvers' ready submission and near-instant descent into codependence was both offputting and kinda confusing even by now 40-yr-old standards, and it's obviously worse now. And I don't wanna sound like I'm justifying or defending '60s social values by explaining what I have figured out about it over the years.
The Botany Bay group includes women who I believe are intended to be taken as simply female versions of Khan and comparably skilled at manipulating men I imagine, so I believe the story intention isn't just sexism but kind of extreme ableism of eugenics, sort of like X-Men: those who are genetically superior should dominate all of civilization. I think it's more like supreme elitism. Like if one of Khan's female genetically-engineered fellow tyrants abusively manipulated men into following her, Khan would see her as an equal or confederate and those who fell for it as weak and thus needing to be dominated. They might "share" power, not as a power couple, but in a very broad sense, having their own territories, the way Hitler was racist but allied with the Japanese.
So Khan, and people like him, are believers in abuse: they approach everything as a contest of who is mightier, presumably regardless of sex/gender and race. As for McIvers, she was apparently written to be a sub-a perfect victim because "she's into it".
I assume Paula was just keeping it on the DL for Katrina's sake, I can't imagine how you'd not have heard about it as a Trek fan.
Honestly never been that huge a fan of this episode, the character, or the follow-up content of it, and I always got that feeling of people overyhyping it to me before I saw it. (I guess the follow-up content was considered by TOS fans as more literary, almost Shakespearean, and why people love it so much? And the films have a notorious reputation (that's also spoilery to mention, re: which are "good" and which are "bad").)
"Maybe you chose this episode because it would spark a HELL of a conversation, and if so, like damn, hella respect."
😆 Ahh.. if only. It's annoying because the answer to so much of your two's confusion is spoilery. But at the same time, it seems like the comments are bound to give it away. You'll figure it out eventually, but if it's through the seemingly increasingly unlikely non-spoilery route, it's also gonna be a really long burn, which I think will leave the wrong impression in your minds, for a good while too.
But yeah, Khan is considered one of the greatest villains in the franchise, so..
@@LabradorIndependent I hope they’ve a moderator screening out spoilers then (including my comments here). But ooch, thas also gonna be a long wait for the payoff.
See, now I like your answer. It brings a nuance to the discussion, that, quite simply those two reactors lack the background and the experience to do so themselves.
Yeah you can dislike the plot but still recognize what the writer was trying to do. The theme was about cult leaders / tyrants being charismatic. They lie and manipulate, they create a cult of personality. Hitler had many supporters. He didn't come out of nowhere to stage a coup. There's a very interesting documentary called "The Dictator's Playbook" that tackles the techniques dictators use to gain power.
Just because a character acts sexist, does not make the episode sexist. Just because a female character is a victim, does not make the episode sexist. And at the end... Why trial her? Well she's an adult person and a starfleet officer and responsible for her actions. But she took the easy way and evaded trial. Although there would have been a good chance to get away with a mild sentence, because of her situation and her change of mind.
In fairness, Khan is the bad guy, so the show is aware that his actions are bad towards her. So there's an overlay of 60's sexism of course about how fast it happened and some of the other parts, but I don't think the show itself saw his treatment of her as "Good."
As for her being court marshaled if she stayed, she's a grown woman who swore an oath and betrayed her crew. Honestly the part that's a bit iffy is the asking if she wants to go with them, though in fairness to Captain Kirk he didn't really see how Khan treated her behind closed doors. I think she should probably have been offered some therapy with the court martial.
Yeah, pop media (including this episode) has created this idea that a court-martial is inherently a punishment, but it isn't, it's a trial to determine whether someone is guilty and, if they are, what punishment they deserve. Now, she is certainly guilty, there's no question that she did the things she did, but given that she was manipulated and threatened, that would significantly help her case and mitigate the punishment. As I understand it (having never been in a military), courts-martial are complicated and time-consuming so commanding officers will sometimes (often?) opt for alternatives when possible. I think it shows Kirk's weakness as a leader that he didn't try to figure out _why_ McGivers did what she did before giving her the options he gave. Even if she was in her right mind, which she clearly was not, she might have assumed a court-martial overseen by Kirk would not rule in her favor both because of his obvious sexism (in-universe, not just the bias of the writers) and he wasn't very familiar with her to begin with (thinking her name was McIvers).
@@StarkRG : Perhaps he also saw that despite the fact we might disagree with the decision, that she might be happier with Khan 'making history' so to speak. So he gave her a choice, as the adult she was.
You had to watch this, because he taxes me, and I will have him.
‘ From hells heart, I stab at thee.’ Not really. 😀 hi
haha lol
McGivers is guilty of mutiny. You make her sound like a victim.
If either of you were 'sent back in time' & you met up with Hannibal, Julius Ceasar, Gengis Kahn, or Alexander. . . Do you have any idea on how you would be treated? Sexist? . . You have zero idea. . . .Kahn in this episode is supposed to be just like them. . . They portrayed him properly, not like the woke, soft, pc b.s. shows that are made today & the last 15+ years . . . . Keeping it real. . . That dichotomy was fascinating to observe. . The main reason this episode was recommended was for the set up for the Movie. Star Trek & The Wrath of Kahn. . .& the fact that it actually is a pretty cool episode.. . you cringing in the beginning not withstanding. . . You have an entertaining & very engaging channel . . I've just started my Trek into your little world here you've nicely set up ... I do hope you transition into more Motion Pictures. . . In the Sci Fi genre I'm sure. . . Live long and prosper 🖖👍✌🙏❤🇩🇰🇺🇸🏴☠️
I continue to be amazed at the complaints of sexism...... when that was the entire point of the episode. He's the villain. They are trying to show him as a villain....so that you will dislike him. They don't have the budget or the approval of major networks to show mass murder to the general american public at prime time....which is what the "super men" like Khan did. So instead of that, they demonstrate to you that he is also sexist....so you should hate him. You shouldn't be complaining that there was sexism in the episode....you should be congratulating them on showing the exact trait you want to dislike. Ricardo Montalban successfully pretended to think and do things that he does not agree with......he acted. Kudos to him.
The knife scene highlighted how manipulative Khan could be. When he sees that being scary is not working with McCoy, he shifts to being Charming.
Well, if you plan to watch any of the TOS movies then this was an important episode because the second movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan has this character coming back and squaring off with Kirk again. This character appears in what I call the parallel Star Trek movie: Star Trek into Darkness played by Benedict Cumberbatch as well. And he's practically mentioned in almost all the other Star Trek spinoffs. Ricardo Montalbán was a great actor not only in television but other major movies as well. And when he played Khan again, he was 61 and in great shape hard for people to keep up with him.
You'll be happy to know that in 2013 our contemporary Hollywood rectified the earlier whitewashing mistake when recasting Khan Noonien Singh, the brown-skinned, genetically engineered, Sikh warrior from the South Asian subcontinent, with. . . Benedict Cumberbatch. Yes. They did. And with his RP British accent intact. Seriously! On the plus side, if one can say that there even is one, without changing his skin tone either.
Creating a sexist character doesn’t mean the sexism of the character is the sentiment of the writer.
That’s extremely naive.
Plus, the writers wrote Khan TO BE THE VILLAIN.
13:00 Doors and corners, kid. That's where they get you.
The very fact that you got offended shows how brilliant this episode is, esp when considering the year it was made. Star Trek never shied away from very real and difficult societal topics and this was one of those episodes. Sad you don't recognize that this is a mirror being held up to the world as it was and still is even nearly 40 years later. You missed the message of the episode.
I don't have a problem with Khan being played by a non Indian actor because he's been genetically engineered. What colors or facial features does a genetically engineered person have?
It's a necessary watch before Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan.
He's one of the most evil characters.
I personally don't like some of the 60's themes either but I see this as a history lesson that this is how things were, in fact worse than this. It should be a reminder that we as a society should remain vigilant that we avoid that going back to that extreme sexism because plenty out there would like it to come back along with many other dark qualities.
....... "as a history lesson that this is how things were" .......no. Just no. That is "not" what the episode was doing or showing. No complete culture in human history was ever like that; least of all 1960s America. They were purposefully showing a hyperbolic fiction that was immediately and undeniably recognized by everyone watching that he was a villain doing villainous things.
It wasn't sexist, you are watching it through enlightened 2022 eyes and of course the 1960s were different, but that's not relevant here. Khan is a male super-being with magnetic powers of control and persuasion over a non super-being female. She falls for him easily. Just as female members of Khan's crew would have magnetic powers of control and persuasion over a non super-being male. Who would fall for the female super-being easily. And there have been episodes in TOS when women had full control over men. Look at 'Mudd's Women', where the three women who came aboard the Enterprise transfixed all the male crew.
@@excessmaterial Nah, they'd say it's sexist because the women were treated as sex objects (men were attracted to them). If you watch videos by millennials, they're going to think they're brilliant, enlightened, and funny when, in fact, they just have a lot to learn.
Well now you guys have to watch Wrath of Khan.
Khan. As in, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Widely considered the best Star Trek movie of all time. Khan also is in the Re-boot, Kelvin Timeline movie, Star Trek: Into Darkness.
Also, there is overlap in the future series with Data's Soong family. (See Enterprise and Star Trek: Picard.)
She was going to be court martialed because even though she is the victim she still made the choice to join khan in taking over the ship. Even if she is the victim that still doesnt absolve her of reponsibilty. This episode also is the background for star trek 2. Also gene roddenberry wanted to show that it doesnt matter how advanced we become people can still be victims if your eyes arent open and your in a vulnerable spot. I had a flashback aswell since i was in a toxic marriage for three years. All the more reason i watch it again and again is to gain strength from it and not fall in that situation again. And of course being latin is feels good to see a latin actor doing scifi. Check out the movie, there is no creepy in the movie.
Btw, my mother got to dance with Ricardo Montalban one time, it was very exciting. He's actually quite the gentleman.
well its the prequel to star trek 2 (the wrath of khan). and sorry but no it isnt sexist for 1967. (because the known universe was completely sexist until at least the early 1990s). youre the first generation to grow up in a society where khan wasnt a completely badass character. if you watch the movie, we can promise there is no abusive relationship stuff.
Portraying a villain as a bad person is not "sexist." Many women do respond that way to charismatic but abusive men. If you take out Khan's treatment of McIvers you take out the realism. It's idiotic to ask for fiction that pretends these things don't exist. You come off like spoiled millennials.
What makes great heroes are facing the challenges of great villains. Kahn is among Star Treks best
I'm not going to unsubscribe now, but you must now ask me to stay.
okay. About the scalpels on the wall. The script called for Kahn to retrieve a scalpel from a drawer. Sick Bay doesn't have any drawers and McCoy doesn't use scalpels. The producers wracked their brains for days trying to figure out how to get a scalpel into Kahn's hands. That was the best they could come up with.
This was never one of my favorites when I first saw it in the mid-1970s. As has been mentioned by other posters, it has acquired a sort of retrospective sheen due to the success of the second Trek movie. Some of the issues you mention (sexism, abuse, casting a non-Indian actor in an apparently Indian role) are entirely valid, but (as you also noted) there is the context of the times to consider... in an era that did not consider women fit to be astronauts (Valentina Tereshkova notwithstanding, though her flight was mostly a publicity stunt-- the USSR would not fly another woman for decades, and then only because the US was preparing to), even having a character like Lt. Uhura was extremely progressive. (They were also constrained by the network. In the original pilot of the show, the second-in-command of the starship was a woman, so Trek usually did try to push the envelope as much as they could get away with. They were not always successful, of course.) For Montalban, I've no doubt they put out a casting call and he blew everyone away with his audition, so they cast him despite the racial disparity (and even then, this was a Mexican actor in a time when they were mostly left to the bad-guy roles in Westerns).
I recently heard Nicholas Meyer (who directed Montalban in the second Trek movie) say that he once told Montalban that he wanted to see him play King Lear. Montalban deferred, evidently thinking that no one would take a Mexican actor seriously in the role, but Meyer sincerely regretted not being able to talk him into it.
Totally disagree with your assertions and false assumptions. There is nothing about "the times" that was ever used to portray anything you dislike as being a good thing. The sexism was portrayed as bad. The cruelty was portrayed as bad. Khan was not supposed to be portrayed by an Indian actor.....he was a genetically modified super man. He was supposed to look entirely different from a normal run of the mill Indian citizen. Montalban fits that appearance. He was not being presented as 'good' to any television audience. He was the villain. Everyone was supposed to hate him and immediately knew him as bad. Which, incidentally, is yet another excellent reason "not" to use a normal run of the mill Indian actor. Because their goal in the episode was also never to have any insults about Indian culture.....Khan did not represent indian culture, he represented one of many ethnically diverse genetically modified villains that came from all over the fictional Earth to rule over all kinds of random places on that Earth. He was a shining example that the villains of the homo sapiens species are not just Americans and Soviets; and that there is a broader species-wide possibility for villainy.
This episode was excellent.
@@laertesindeed Negative. It was a weak episode that only works as well as it does because of the strength of the actors, particularly Montalban, Shatner, Kelley, and Nimoy. When ST: II came out, I couldn't understand why, of all the potential returning villains, they'd picked this one? But, in the event, the movie turned out to be great.
@@markjenkins2811 You can continue to be confused and make false assertions all you want...... but the 99% of Star Trek fans all over the globe disagree with you and have voted otherwise. The majority has spoken.
** amusement **
They're getting you ready to watch Star Trek II (though I'd say you don't need to watch this episode to watch Star Trek II, The Wrath of Khan.
GALLIFREY GALS: You forgot one thing, Khan was the VILLIAN not the hero. It is perplexing that you were shocked by an unpleasant villian. Kirk dropping all charges was ridiculous. The people who wanted you to see this wanted you to know the prequel to the movie "STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN"
Don't worry, he's not sexist in the movie.
@Gallifrey Gals Lt. McGivers broke Starfleet law via mutiny by assisting Khan in the takeover of the Enterprise...so her career was over regardless. So Kirk gave her the choice-courtmartial or going with Khan, who she obviously had fallen in love with (though he's a colossal D-bag- some gals just can't stay away from the bad boys). If you liked Ricardo Montalban then you need to watch Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan. You'll get to see another great performance along with some very unexpected events...you will like it, guaranteed.
This episode us the primer for Star Trek 2, Wrath of Kahn. I know it triggered you both, but Im sure it was not meant that way.
In fairness, men have been known to commit acts of betrayal over women they were obsessed over. As for Ricardo Montalban's ethnicity, there were probably no leading men type actors of Indian heritage in Hollywood at that time nor is it always best for a production to have any kind of a quota system of actors playing their own ethnicity. Montalban was a great actor and I don't think anyone could have been better in the part. As for Kirk's treatment of McGivers, she showed a lack of focus on the BOTANY BAY which could be dangerous in service in deep space. It was Kirk's duty to call her out on it and I don't see her as a total victim as she willingly endangered her shipmates. And I disagree about the climactic fight as they obviously used stunt doubles
This episode was intended to show how far civilization had come since the 1990's. Kahn was the equivalent of Hitler and had many bad qualities. The crew of the Enterprise were shocked to see them on display. The writers weren't condoning sexism, quite the opposite. In the end good won out and Kahn and his followers were marooned on a hostile planet ( to keep them away from the rest of civilization and because the Federation doesn't believe in the death penalty) McGivers was seduced by Kahn as were his followers which is another lesson this episode taught. This happens in real life. Hitler had to have many followers to do what he did.
Rodenbery was trying to depict how, in the near future, we became even worse then we were in the 1960s, terrible sexism, terrible violence, etc etc and this was meant to give backstory showing how much better humanity is in the future having overcome that era. The whole idea of the Eugenics wars: a period of time when we made TERRIBLY manipulative people.
Then through the lens of 1960s sexism. so it's kind of dumb and weird. but i think that's what they are trying to do. To be frank, women are WEIRDLY depicted in TOS. But to be fair, MOST 1960s tv was shit for women characters
I really think the only reason this episode is so famous is because of the success of STII: Wrath of Khan, which is great by the way. It has a lot of problems but there are some really iconic scenes such as "are you going to strangle me or cut my throat". I'm wondering if there's an argument to be made that the reason Khan's abuse is so upsetting is because it's well written and it rings true for those of us who've witnessed or been part of abuse? I'm honestly not sure, but I liked you're comments that we have to look at this stuff that makes us uncomfortable if we are going to be media literate, but that doesn't make it beyond criticism.
The problem with their criticism I feel is that they seem to object to such relationships being portrayed, period. They acknowledge that they do exist, but seem to think depicting it somehow harms all women.
@@Raja1938 I think there was an important element left out of Space Seed that would have resulted in less criticism had it been included: At no point is Khan's abuse opened to commentary by other characters.
As the episode sits, only one of Khan's evil acts have been resolved: him taking over the ship. His other evil act (McGiver's manipulation) is actually _ecouraged_ by Kirk.
If part of the episode had been dedicated to the crew (perhaps Bones or Nurse Chapel) helping McGivers remove herself from Khan's influence - the whole thing would have been dramatically improved.
@@ryanbaillie11 No one was a witness to the abusive nature of the relationship. Not sure how Kirk encouraged the romantic aspect of it, other than not ordering her to end it. Lastly, too many people including the Gals, fall into the trap of infantilizing McGivers. She's a grown adult and a commissioned officer, responsible for her choices and actions. She was fully capable of saying "no" at every turn. She decided otherwise, and that's on her.
@@Raja1938
> _No one was a witness to the abusive nature of the relationship._
Which was a choice on the writers' part.
> _Not sure how Kirk encouraged the romantic aspect of it, other than not ordering her to end it._
"Be court-martialed or be stranded alongside your abuser"
> _She was fully capable of saying "no" at every turn._
It's not as simple as that, which is why this element of the plot was handled poorly.
@@ryanbaillie11
> Which was a choice on the writers' part.
Everything in a story is. The abuse was in a scene with them alone in her quarters. There was no way anyone else was going to plausibly see that.
>"Be court-martialed or be stranded alongside your abuser"
Again, her choice. As long as she never visited Talos IV, she was never at risk of capital punishment if she was courtmartialed. Plus it would've freed her from him.
>It's not as simple as that, which is why this element of the plot was handled poorly.
The only reason it's not simple is due to her infatuation and inability to be professional. They were strangers to each other. They had no shared history that tied them. McIvers is a weak character, definitely. That's fine. Not every character should be a paragon of virtue, strength, and determination.
It ties into Star Trek 2 the wrath of Khan which finishes the story. It's considered the best Star Trek film I love all the Star Trek movies. So if you watch Star Trek 2 you will appreciate the episode. It's much better than space seed.
Another TOS episode is CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER, considered the BEST of the TOS series.
The Gals reacted to it a while ago and loved it 🙂
Because Khan comes back in the second Star Trek Movie Star Trek 2 The Wrath Of Khan is what makes this an original star trek classic. Also, Khan's Character Personality is that of a conqueror similar to conquerors of the past such as Alexander, Ceasar, and Napoleon, making him a character with a very magnetic and imposing personality to say the least.
Watch star trek 2.
Now you need to watch Star Trek II
It's a great episode and it leads to star trek 2 the wraith of khan movie.
Dr. McKoy being a badass will never get old
Carrotid artery boy oh boy....
Kirk chose to maroon Khan partly because the idea of trying to rehabilitate him in the Federation penal system was ludicrous--Khan is a man from a different time and Federation ideals are alien to him. He could never be rehabilitated. Also, Khan is far too dangerous to be allowed anywhere near Federation technology, which he would have access to in a penal colony. Marooning him on an uninhabited planet with no means to leave it was actually the safest course for the Federation.
As for McGivers, Kirk gave her the choice of going with Khan or being court-martialed because she swore an oath as a Starfleet officer and she helped Khan take over the ship. Khan could have let the entire bridge crew suffocate and took his chances with junior officers helping him run the ship, and he might have if he wasn't so arrogant that he underestimated the bridge crew's strength and loyalty to Kirk. McGivers was lucky no one was killed. Kirk was actually being lenient by giving McGivers a choice at all. If I were Kirk I would have simply had her court-martialed. As for Khan's treatment of her, he is a narcissist, a predator, and an abuser, with a magnetism that attracts people. He can be seemingly magnanimous as long as everyone agrees that he is in charge, but he won't hesitate to kill anyone who stands in his way. In other words: he's a villain. His behavior toward McGivers may have offended you, but that's what villains do.
Um, no. Your patrons didn't pick this to give you a hard time 😊 Makes me curious to go over there see what's up.
Sorry, Katina. That was clearly hard for you to watch. BB
15:34 you mean KAHN-flict?
You guys will now have a better perspective on "Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan" than most reactors, who've not viewed this episode. It's largely considered one of, if not the best Star Trek movies. Very enjoyable. You'll be able to vent more??? :) Seriously, Nicholas Meyer did a fantastic job directing, and the score by James Horner was sublime.
Sets up the Wrath of Khan is why you need to see this, of course. Also, Ricardo Montalban as Khan is such a charismatic persona- such a manipulative psychopath. I mean, do you really want or need your villains to not be horrible jerks?
As for MacGivers... she betrayed the ship. Kirk was merciful giving her a choice. It's her fault because she betrayed her 400+ shipmates to help a narcissistic villain. But sure, it's totally not her fault. It may not be "great representation" to show a weak female character, but it is realistic in the sense that not all women are strong and true like Uhura. Trek gives PLENTY of examples of weak male characters who screw up and are punished for it too.
Agree. To hold any character as needing to be representative of a particular race, gender, etc. is misguided. Characters in stories aren't supposed to be prescriptive for how people in real life should behave.
Smiles every one smile… Hello I am Mr. Khan welcome to Fantasy Planet
I think it was voted on as this episode is the catalyst for a much better TOS movie. (Though I know many who have seen and liked that movie w/o seeing this episode.)
Now watch Star Trek II 😊
You can do a “shades of gray” on the motion picture for me but would love you guys now you have the majority of character backstories from the tos reactions to do the movie reactions 2 to 6
I think your fans want you to start watching the movies. This episode is a must before watching the second movie.
The common idea is that odd numbered movies are bad and even are good. I mostly agree, but I do like the first movie. Writing this where Star Treks fans can see is dangerous though. I'm bracing for all the explanations about why it's so bad...
Personally, I want them to watch enough of TOS to have some feel for it before watching the movies which were made much later.
So... Deep Space 9 reactions? Pretty please? 😊
I think it's more for you to understand Khan and the genetic humans get refenced in other star trek tv shows
You needed to see this before you see the movie Star Trek 2 the Wrath of Khan.
7:19 16:06 Some can't resist the bad boys, sadly. :P
Next you need to watch TOS Errand of Mercy.
I'm going to have to get onto Patreon because the one TOS episode I would love you to review is The Squire of Gothos (S1 E17) where I am pretty confident you will find out relatively early into the episode as to why.
I think they would find the episode triggering.
We weren't asking the two of you to agree with or condone Khan's behavior, nor Marla McGiver's attraction for him. Why can't the two of you simply observe their relationship for what it is, and not get bent out of shape as if you personally owned the unhealthy dynamic occurring between them ? At the very least you shouldn't be chastising your Patreon Group.
If you didn't care for this episode because it touched an open wound in your psyche, I get it. I've been in abusive relationships myself, although I have to say that your reaction was a bit odd & lacks a certain level of needed detachment, and an open-minded perspective.
At that time it was common to have people who weren't of that of particular race to play other races. The whole point of the character's behaviour was to show how evil and dangerous foe Khan was, he is a major villain in the Star Trek universe, the second Star Trek film revisits the character in 'The Wrath of Khan', and of the new Star Trek films 'Star Trek, into Darkness' also features this character as the main villain.
Botany Bay... Botany Bay??? OH NOO....
Ahhhh, Ricardo Montalban as KHAAAAAAAANNNNNNN!!!!!! The Prequel to one of the Best Trek movies EVER!! A "MUST WATCH" Epiode for Every Trek Fan At least Once!
Forget Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan..Rocardo Montalban as KHAN!! Chilling then in Space Seed! MORE Chilling Again in Wrath of KHAAHHHHH!NNNNNNNNN!!!
First off, Ricardo Montalban loved playing the part. Playing Khan for Star Trek 2 was a highlight for him. You two are very prejudiced against older stuff apparently. You judge a book by its cover without knowing the facts. Everybody go to Target Audience for Star Trek. They are starting at the beginning and going through all Star Trek TV and movies. They are far more open minded.
I've loved their reactions to TOS and they don't get into a lot of moral condemnation.
@@brandonflorida1092 I used to be a Patreon but Paula was constantly giving false info about Trek to Katrina. That annoyed me but I stayed because I liked Katrina’s maturity and thoughtfulness. Eventually, she was not only being unfair to TOS but she was unfairly attacking certain TNG episodes. I stopped watching them a little while ago but I was curious about this one. They predictably did their unfair assessment of this famously “sexist” show. I can’t take their nonsense anymore.
@@Esl1999 It's still worth it for me to stay, but this moral superiority thing is what I expect from millennials.
Did they say Ricardo Montalban hated playing the part? They are hardly prejudiced if they managed to enjoy other TOS reactions, which you can quite easily see for yourself.
Then you accuse them of giving false info, after doing pretty much the same yourself.
Have fun watching Target Audience, hopefully they continue to dare not mention bits that did not age well, or even worse voice an opinion that differs from you, so they can safely not be accused of being "prejudiced".
@@MalcolmWolf you clearly don’t know what your talking about. I was a Patreon with Gallifrey Gals for a longtime. I was curious what they were saying in the uncut version. I was shocked at what Paula was saying to Katrina. Other Patreon members were also dismayed at her comments and ignorance about Trek. The Ricardo Montalban comment was because they claimed the reason they hired him to play a villain was because he was Latino and not white basically. This again showed their ignorance of 60’s Trek.
Hopefully the next TOS reaction isn't Turnabout Intruder
Now you need to watch Star Trek2 the Wrath of Khan
I would say it's a good episode that's been elevated in many fans' minds to greatness because it sets up the events to Star Trek II, which is the best Trek movie. I understand your discomfort at the Marla-Khan scenes; to this day I have a very difficult time watching them myself. It's hinted early on that she has low confidence/self esteem, and watching it play out the way it does is very tough to watch, especially at the end.
I think the reason the episode is considered classic and maybe got voted for was because it introduced Kahn and his enhanced super men. In the Trek canon, the Eugenics wars predated WW3. And its a recurring story that the Federation doesnt allow for genetic modification and Kahn and his super men are the reason why. Also, this episode is the lead in to one of the best Trek movies of all time, ST II : The Wrath of Kahn. I remember as a kid thinking Space Seed was a bit slow and not too closely following it, knowing its just where Kahn is from. As a kid watching it, it was completely lost on me that McGivers was a victim. But today, youre 100% correct on your reading of the situation. And the reason she had to go with him, is because I guess the writer didnt see her as a victim when she clearly was. But since the writer didnt see her that way, the idea was Kirk guessed that she was in love, so he let her stay with Kahn. But honestly, I think you guys have the right of it. Further, Kahn's supermen will later get the name Augments attached to them, and Augments are a recurring theme in later Trek series. So despite the sexist writing, its the starting point for a story line that is still going today, in Strange New Worlds.
In reference to Kirks treatment of Lt. Marla Mcgivers at the end of the episode, you have to realize that Kirk did not see any of Khan's mistreatment of her as most of those incidents took place when Khan and she were alone first in sick bay and then in Khan's or her Quarters. Kirk acted within Starfleet regulations and had every right to Court Martial Mcgivers as she basically committed mutiny and helped Khan take over the ship and was an accessory in the attempted murder of Captain Kirk. I believe the captain did take into consideration that she saved him in the end, but she still needed to answer for what she had originally done. When she helped Kirk Escape and asked Kirk to please not Kill Khan I think Kirk knew at that point that she was in love with him so at the hearing he gave her a way out of being court-martialed only and gave her the second option of going with Khan and his people. Remember at this early time in star trek history there were no Counselors on board Star ships and Kirk is definitely not going to play counselor Troi, pat her on the back and say there there you poor girl. Marla was a grown woman and a star fleet officer yet told no one about Khan's plan. Quite frankly I think Kirk went pretty easy on her based on her conduct in the whole situation. As far as dropping Khan off on Ceti Alpha 5 instead of taking him and his men into custody I think it was Kirks way of challenging Khan on his arrogance of being a conqueror by leaving him on a savage inhospitable world and daring Khan to try to tame that same world. Besides The Idea of Kirk returning Khan and his people to Earth or anywhere else to stand trial would not have been a smart Idea because they might escape eventually and try to take over again, so I think Kirk did what he did to also keep Khan and his People out of his hair. Khan was Probably the one Villian I would say could almost match Kirk as a leader ...Almost. 😏
Agree on all points. The gals' reaction to McGivers' punishment might be more appropriate if she were a housewife or a minor with no other means of support. Really disappointed in how they're infantalizing her instead of holding her accountable for her choices & actions. As for Kirk's decision to drop them off, that seemed the most sensible option. Khan's people weren't Federation citizens so I wonder if they would really be subject to their laws?
The ending to me, is one of those situations where Star Trek struggles with the question of whether Starfleet is a military or not. And even if it isn't, what are the structures in place that remain from the military? Because even if you make the argument that it is not a military rank, iconography and terminology are integral to the show.
While yes, Lieutenant McGivers is quite clearly a victim of abuse, it is also important to note that she is an officer in at the very least some form of psudo-military. Even if she is manipulated, selling out her ship to a megalomaniacal tyrant and his army of supermen is not an action that can exist without consequence. Being the psudo-military, court martial is the fitting consequence for that action. While it is problematic super gross that she fell in love with him, I don't think Kirk deserves the criticism in this case.
Starfleet is paramilitary.
another example of modern thinking that woman are not responsible for their actions.
My interpretation is that it was an "off the record punishment". Kirk was basically doing her a favor. Court martial was a guarantee on Earth. He gave her a choice to be marooned with the space pirates.
He is renowned as the best villain of Trek. A thing that WOULDN'T have happened if Nicholas Meyer didn't get drawn to the character. Like lines in The Cage or some episodes in season 3, this is a VERY 60s episode. The "connection " between the Soong and Singh name has become more tangible from 2005 till now(I won't explain how because......spoilers 😉) As to the why, this episode is kinda a preamble of the 2nd film in the franchise. He also appears in a later film.
Lil fact of Montalbahn...he had a strong sense of vanity and took his appearence seriously. between each take on TWoK, he'd bust out series of push ups, too look as pumped as he could. What you see in that film was not a plastic shell or something, that was his actual chest.
Montalbahn was a great actor with a distinguished career in movies. I can't remember him doing a bad acting job ever. He was in Battleground, and Cheyenne Autumn, two of my favorite movies of his.
To be honest, in the past 50 or so years since I first saw this episode, I hadn't considered the unpleasant aspects of it. But you've given me fresh perspective, and I'll probably never view it the same way again.
Sad to say, this is NOT the most sexist episode in TOS. That one will not come up in fan polls any time soon.
And sadder to say, Marla's future is not very bright, and not just because of any abuse by Khan.
Which would be considered the most sexist? Elaan of Troius? Turnabout Intruder?
@@Charmolution Turnabout Intruder, no doubt. Roddenberry was long gone, and the series saved the worst for last.
@Dale I have no idea what you are trying to say....... the sexism was portrayed as the villain of the show. If you made the episode have no sexism, then you'd have no villain.
@@rocketdave719 Most assuredly not.
Kirk better beware - I've heard that Mr. Kahn can be fairly wrathful