MY HERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Juliette]

I was so devastated when he died last January.

[Juliette]

Aside from my devastation.. the character was also RIGHT. He had the BRILLIANT ideas that I strive to further in this world.
Unfortunately, the ego came between him and success. In my case, not so much.


I'll say this.. Mr. Montalban was perfection. A 60 year old with those looks?! O.M.G. hawtness.

And Khan? Khan was brilliance.

Imagine brilliance and perfection united in one person, and you'll understand my devotion and subsequent devastation..

[Juliette]

Oh.. the prized monologue.. how could one live without it.





I MISS MY RICARDO

[Angnoch]

its gonna be ok I swearz

[buck]

What was that Usland, Dream island, thing... with the midget.

Ay know.

"Da plane... Da plane!!!"

KAHNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN.

<3

[Juliette]

Fantasy Island..

[Mordack]

"Khan is played as a cauldron of resentment by Ricardo Montalban, and his performance is so strong that he helps illustrate a general principle involving not only Star Trek but STAR WARS (1977) and all the epic serials, especially the JAMES BOND movies: Each film is only as good as its villain. Since the heroes and the gimmicks tend to repeat from film to film, only a great villain can transform a good try into a triumph."

- Roger Ebert

[semper]

"Khan is played as a cauldron of resentment by Ricardo Montalban, and his performance is so strong that he helps illustrate a general principle involving not only Star Trek but STAR WARS (1977) and all the epic serials, especially the JAMES BOND movies: Each film is only as good as its villain. Since the heroes and the gimmicks tend to repeat from film to film, only a great villain can transform a good try into a triumph."

- Roger Ebert

Nice quote.. but...

Khan was not really a villain though. He seems more like a Byronic hero to me.
He wanted to create a new order (not exactly a true crime..) and to his followers and colleagues he showed respect and true fellowship averse to usage like other notable villains.... Finally he became consumed with revenge..he's not evil. Same with Magneto. They're just visionaries who chose the more turbulent path for a greater good...perhaps they were even forced there.
Let's just say...he's no DV either...

Alas though, there are not really many true Villains out there. Palpatine,
Sauron and Voldemort are the best examples I can come up with. Self concerned, manipulative only have uses for others as tools to get to their own goals to dominate everything...but they would sacrifice it all to save themselves. Negative effects on those present when not under a manipulation. Flawed in some aspects.. but the best true villains of contemporary existence.

(Darth Vader = not a villain = part byronic hero'ish - ultimately tragic anti-hero)

Then again.. when Ebert refers to Star Wars.. he will no doubt be referring to the truly fundamental impact Vader has had on the media/cultural world over the last 32 years..and the display these two iconic individuals a lone have made towards his point.

[CRASSUS]

"Khan is played as a cauldron of resentment by Ricardo Montalban, and his performance is so strong that he helps illustrate a general principle involving not only Star Trek but STAR WARS (1977) and all the epic serials, especially the JAMES BOND movies: Each film is only as good as its villain. Since the heroes and the gimmicks tend to repeat from film to film, only a great villain can transform a good try into a triumph."

- Roger Ebert

Nice quote.. but...

Khan was not really a villain though. He seems more like a Byronic hero to me.
He wanted to create a new order (not exactly a true crime..) and to his followers and colleagues he showed respect and true fellowship averse to usage like other notable villains.... Finally he became consumed with revenge..he's not evil. Same with Magneto. They're just visionaries who chose the more turbulent path for a greater good...perhaps they were even forced there.
Let's just say...he's no DV either...

Well there was that whole tyrannically ruling an evil empire before being kicked out of earth. but other then that, spot on.

[semper]

"Khan is played as a cauldron of resentment by Ricardo Montalban, and his performance is so strong that he helps illustrate a general principle involving not only Star Trek but STAR WARS (1977) and all the epic serials, especially the JAMES BOND movies: Each film is only as good as its villain. Since the heroes and the gimmicks tend to repeat from film to film, only a great villain can transform a good try into a triumph."

- Roger Ebert

Nice quote.. but...

Khan was not really a villain though. He seems more like a Byronic hero to me.
He wanted to create a new order (not exactly a true crime..) and to his followers and colleagues he showed respect and true fellowship averse to usage like other notable villains.... Finally he became consumed with revenge..he's not evil. Same with Magneto. They're just visionaries who chose the more turbulent path for a greater good...perhaps they were even forced there.
Let's just say...he's no DV either...

Well there was that whole tyrannically ruling an evil empire before being kicked out of earth. but other then that, spot on.

like I said...he took the bumpy route..if he is apparently superior... the implication is, his ideas are superior ergo.. the tyrannical rule was a superior system..

[Mordack]

"Khan is played as a cauldron of resentment by Ricardo Montalban, and his performance is so strong that he helps illustrate a general principle involving not only Star Trek but STAR WARS (1977) and all the epic serials, especially the JAMES BOND movies: Each film is only as good as its villain. Since the heroes and the gimmicks tend to repeat from film to film, only a great villain can transform a good try into a triumph."

- Roger Ebert

Nice quote.. but...

Khan was not really a villain though. He seems more like a Byronic hero to me.
He wanted to create a new order (not exactly a true crime..) and to his followers and colleagues he showed respect and true fellowship averse to usage like other notable villains.... Finally he became consumed with revenge..he's not evil. Same with Magneto. They're just visionaries who chose the more turbulent path for a greater good...perhaps they were even forced there.
Let's just say...he's no DV either...

Alas though, there are not really many true Villains out there. Palpatine,
Sauron and Voldemort are the best examples I can come up with. Self concerned, manipulative only have uses for others as tools to get to their own goals to dominate everything...but they would sacrifice it all to save themselves. Negative effects on those present when not under a manipulation. Flawed in some aspects.. but the best true villains of contemporary existence.

(Darth Vader = not a villain = part byronic hero'ish - ultimately tragic anti-hero)

Then again.. when Ebert refers to Star Wars.. he will no doubt be referring to the truly fundamental impact Vader has had on the media/cultural world over the last 32 years..and the display these two iconic individuals a lone have made towards his point.

You could justify all manner of sins using that logic, Semper. Not that I disagree, but you have to accept that the majority of cutural icons, both real and fictional, whom you and I venerate will always be considered 'villainous' by the vast majority of the rest of the world. The ideas of the end justifying the means, and the villain being the hero of his own story, are not as widely accepted as we'd like.

[Juliette]

As various people in history so eloquently put it.. the Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions.

[semper]

"Khan is played as a cauldron of resentment by Ricardo Montalban, and his performance is so strong that he helps illustrate a general principle involving not only Star Trek but STAR WARS (1977) and all the epic serials, especially the JAMES BOND movies: Each film is only as good as its villain. Since the heroes and the gimmicks tend to repeat from film to film, only a great villain can transform a good try into a triumph."

- Roger Ebert

Nice quote.. but...

Khan was not really a villain though. He seems more like a Byronic hero to me.
He wanted to create a new order (not exactly a true crime..) and to his followers and colleagues he showed respect and true fellowship averse to usage like other notable villains.... Finally he became consumed with revenge..he's not evil. Same with Magneto. They're just visionaries who chose the more turbulent path for a greater good...perhaps they were even forced there.
Let's just say...he's no DV either...

Alas though, there are not really many true Villains out there. Palpatine,
Sauron and Voldemort are the best examples I can come up with. Self concerned, manipulative only have uses for others as tools to get to their own goals to dominate everything...but they would sacrifice it all to save themselves. Negative effects on those present when not under a manipulation. Flawed in some aspects.. but the best true villains of contemporary existence.

(Darth Vader = not a villain = part byronic hero'ish - ultimately tragic anti-hero)

Then again.. when Ebert refers to Star Wars.. he will no doubt be referring to the truly fundamental impact Vader has had on the media/cultural world over the last 32 years..and the display these two iconic individuals a lone have made towards his point.

You could justify all manner of sins using that logic, Semper. Not that I disagree, but you have to accept that the majority of cutural icons, both real and fictional, whom you and I venerate will always be considered 'villainous' by the vast majority of the rest of the world. The ideas of the end justifying the means, and the villain being the hero of his own story, are not as widely accepted as we'd like.

Not quite.. the personal desires are different (remember we're talking about fictional guys here where we eventually do gain the knowledge of their true personal goals....) Committing an evil act, for what they view as a good.. like what Khan..or Anakin did.. is different to what Sidious, Sauron or Voldemort did. They commited good or just down right bad acts for selfish.. 'evil' purposes. That's the measure of a villain. It's not even the end justifying the means.. to quote Sidious.. it's just..

Power! Unlimited POWER!!

aside from that. In a general sense they're all villains by definitions.. but I am referring to true villains.. the ones that are not applicable to the categories anti/tragic/byronic heroes.

@ Jo. Great quote..

[Solus]

thought you might appreciate this, Jo.

dial ups beware maybe...

[spoiler][/spoiler]

[semper]

thought you might appreciate this, Jo.

dial ups beware maybe...

[spoiler][/spoiler]

Thats awesome...