I finally watched Star Trek: Into Darkness and was just curious. Since Kirk technically died and was revived with Khans Blood doesn't that technically make him a "Augment" now?
- You will engage in a losing battle trying to make sense of this movie. Just don't. I mean what about the fact that Khan Noonian Singh, a Sikh character, has been whitewashed and played by a Caucasian guy? They didn't even try. At least Roddenberry tried. Apparently the diverging timeline also made people of East Indian origin disappear too. Note the movie did not make any mention of the Eugenics wars or augments of any kind either. Not even a remote commentary. This movie was not about that. They just wanted this guy because he is baaaaaaahhhhd. Also note that Klingons did not really look like Klingons either (i think those were supposed to be Klingons). You get the picture. Distantlycharmed (talk) 20:39, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
- In "Star Trek After Darkness, Part 1", McCoy continues to express concern whether Khan's blood will have any psychological effects on Kirk. Whether or not Kirk receives any physical benefits from the transfusion are something to be followed on in Star Trek XIII, but there is no indication of superhuman strength and resilience other than being brought back from the dead. I doubt we'll categorize Kirk as an Augment. Apologies for such a late response. --Alientraveller (talk) 21:08, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah but that's not canon. Or did they say the comics are just the pre-scripts for the next productions to come? Distantlycharmed (talk) 00:03, June 4, 2013 (UTC)