The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Future of Trek (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   One bigass ret-Khan they would need to do... (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=107427)

Sabataage November 4 2009 11:31 PM

One bigass ret-Khan they would need to do...
 
If Khan Noonien Singh and his merry band of supermen re-emerge in the Abram's Trek (while I hope the do not) I feel they should alter his origin by swapping a zero for a one: change "tyrant from the late 20th century" to "tyrant from the late 21st".

By doing so they'll save themselves the headache of trying to explain to everyone how the hell we had a Eugenics war and at least one inter-planetary spaceship sitting around 17 years in our past without anyone remembering it.

Despite this being a "huge" departure from continuity I think hardcore Trekkers (who hated XI) can get on board this for one good reason. It establishes that no, this not the same universe as the Roddenberry Trek. In Roddenberry's universe we had interplantary spaceships and genetically enhanced supermen by the late nineteen eighties and mid-nineties. In Abram's universe we did not.

All of the departures and changes from the continuity that happen in the Alternate Reality happen not because of some fanwank about Nero's incursion changing the course of history but because its a whole new universe that bears only a striking similarity to this other one that existed before it.

The bickering about Chekov's age, the ship's size, Romulan and Klingon appearance, bridge design, costumes changes, where the Enterprise was built, how many Nacelles are needed on a ship, etc... all becomes moot*... because its a whole new universe!

*while 'moot' in fact mean debatable or open for dispute, I'm going for common usage here. As in "insignifigant, pointless, or academic."

Captaindemotion November 4 2009 11:58 PM

Re: One bigass ret-Khan they would need to do...
 
Another smaller but equally important issue about any re-use of Khan is his attitude to Kirk. In Space Seed, he had no real grudge against Kirk. Kirk and his ship were merely a means to an end, a way of him regaining power. At the end of the episode, there was arguably a degree of grudging respect.

By the time of TWOK, he had spent years on a desert planet and watched friends and his beloved wife die. For which he blamed Kirk. Hence a vengeful Khan on a personal mission in that movie.

If Khan were to appear in any of the next couple of movies, with their TOS time-frame, he won't have the same motivation against Kirk that he had in TWOK and which made that movie so memorable. They'd have to come up with some new reason for him to hate Kirk with that degree of passion and to allow the new actor to bellow his lines with the same amount of venom.

startrekrcks November 5 2009 12:39 AM

Re: One bigass ret-Khan they would need to do...
 
what go down the Khan road again. What more could they do about him?

Myasishchev November 5 2009 01:59 AM

Re: One bigass ret-Khan they would need to do...
 
Quote:

Sabataage wrote: (Post 3550539)
If Khan Noonien Singh and his merry band of supermen re-emerge in the Abram's Trek (while I hope the do not) I feel they should alter his origin by swapping a zero for a one: change "tyrant from the late 20th century" to "tyrant from the late 21st".

By doing so they'll save themselves the headache of trying to explain to everyone how the hell we had a Eugenics war and at least one inter-planetary spaceship sitting around 17 years in our past without anyone remembering it.

Despite this being a "huge" departure from continuity I think hardcore Trekkers (who hated XI) can get on board this for one good reason. It establishes that no, this not the same universe as the Roddenberry Trek. In Roddenberry's universe we had interplantary spaceships and genetically enhanced supermen by the late nineteen eighties and mid-nineties. In Abram's universe we did not.

All of the departures and changes from the continuity that happen in the Alternate Reality happen not because of some fanwank about Nero's incursion changing the course of history but because its a whole new universe that bears only a striking similarity to this other one that existed before it.

The bickering about Chekov's age, the ship's size, Romulan and Klingon appearance, bridge design, costumes changes, where the Enterprise was built, how many Nacelles are needed on a ship, etc... all becomes moot*... because its a whole new universe!

*while 'moot' in fact mean debatable or open for dispute, I'm going for common usage here. As in "insignifigant, pointless, or academic."

I've been advocating abandoning the foolishness of irrevocably dating the Eugenics War in the 1990s for a while. It didn't even make sense in the late 1960s. For Khan to have been a ruler of a quarter of Earth in 1992 or whatever it was, "Space Seed" was asking us to believe that there was a massive genetic engineering or selective breeding program being undertaken somewhere in the East even as the episode premiered.

I don't really want to see Khan or the Augments in Star Trek 12, but if I did, I would be pleased to see them from at the earliest the 2050s.

ThePlumsofWrath November 5 2009 10:28 AM

Re: One bigass ret-Khan they would need to do...
 
Does anyone SERIOUSLY believe that we'll ever see Khan again?

Come on guys, wake up.

Shazam! November 5 2009 10:44 AM

Re: One bigass ret-Khan they would need to do...
 
Just because we've reached the 21st Century it doesn't necessarily follow that fiction should parallel real world events.

We're not actually looking into the future when we watch Star Trek http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/5807/gayc.gif

Shazam! November 5 2009 10:48 AM

Re: One bigass ret-Khan they would need to do...
 
Quote:

Myasishchev wrote: (Post 3551085)
I've been advocating abandoning the foolishness of irrevocably dating the Eugenics War in the 1990s for a while. It didn't even make sense in the late 1960s. For Khan to have been a ruler of a quarter of Earth in 1992 or whatever it was, "Space Seed" was asking us to believe that there was a massive genetic engineering or selective breeding program being undertaken somewhere in the East even as the episode premiered.

Yeah, and whilst we're at it let's rename 2001: A Space Odyssey http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1706/dave.gif

Kataaran November 5 2009 11:07 AM

Re: One bigass ret-Khan they would need to do...
 
Off-topic but still Khan related. It may just have been me but when I first saw TWoK (I think I was about 8 years old) I couldn't for the life of me figure out why Khan had boobs.

I think they should avoid rehashing old story lines, if they must use the characters then make them totally different, in a mirror universe kind of way except not so polarized.

Myasishchev November 6 2009 05:58 AM

Re: One bigass ret-Khan they would need to do...
 
Quote:

Shazam! wrote: (Post 3552306)
Quote:

Myasishchev wrote: (Post 3551085)
I've been advocating abandoning the foolishness of irrevocably dating the Eugenics War in the 1990s for a while. It didn't even make sense in the late 1960s. For Khan to have been a ruler of a quarter of Earth in 1992 or whatever it was, "Space Seed" was asking us to believe that there was a massive genetic engineering or selective breeding program being undertaken somewhere in the East even as the episode premiered.

Yeah, and whilst we're at it let's rename 2001: A Space Odyssey http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1706/dave.gif

If they rebooted Clarke's universe, maybe they should.

There's also the matter of reconciling WW3 with the Eugenics War, which imo is far more important than its chronological placement...

That said, I'd be willing to accept even this ridiculously alternative history as long as it didn't involve the Eugenics War being "fought in secret" ala the novels.

Alientraveller November 7 2009 01:55 AM

Re: One bigass ret-Khan they would need to do...
 
That's one reason Khan shouldn't be in the next film: audiences would like to see a new world, not a dated alternate history for Earth. :hugegrin:

That said, I like the notion of Gary Seven pushing back Khan's reign. (http://canonfodder.ex-astris-scienti...e_of_Star_Trek)

Shazam! November 7 2009 02:00 AM

Re: One bigass ret-Khan they would need to do...
 
Quote:

Myasishchev wrote: (Post 3555454)
If they rebooted Clarke's universe, maybe they should.

They haven't 'rebooted' Trek though. Everything pre-Kelvin still includes historical events detailed in TOS and beyond.

I don't know why it's so hard to accept that in the fictional Star Trek universe there was a war in the 90s.

Sabataage November 7 2009 07:39 AM

Re: One bigass ret-Khan they would need to do...
 
Quote:

Shazam! wrote: (Post 3552306)
Yeah, and whilst we're at it let's rename 2001: A Space Odyssey http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1706/dave.gif

In Clarke's follow-up 3001, characters referr to the events of the first two books as happening sometime in the 2030's and 40's.

EJA November 7 2009 01:07 PM

Re: One bigass ret-Khan they would need to do...
 
Quote:

Myasishchev wrote: (Post 3551085)
I've been advocating abandoning the foolishness of irrevocably dating the Eugenics War in the 1990s for a while. It didn't even make sense in the late 1960s. For Khan to have been a ruler of a quarter of Earth in 1992 or whatever it was, "Space Seed" was asking us to believe that there was a massive genetic engineering or selective breeding program being undertaken somewhere in the East even as the episode premiered.

I don't really want to see Khan or the Augments in Star Trek 12, but if I did, I would be pleased to see them from at the earliest the 2050s.

This is the conclusion I eventually came to as well. In writing my biography of Khan, I had him born in 2001, rise to power in 2042, and be overthrown in 2046. Read about it here:

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5440000/...gh_A_Biography

Temis the Vorta November 8 2009 12:41 AM

Re: One bigass ret-Khan they would need to do...
 
Quote:

Shazam! wrote: (Post 3552299)
Just because we've reached the 21st Century it doesn't necessarily follow that fiction should parallel real world events.

We're not actually looking into the future when we watch Star Trek http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/5807/gayc.gif

Or maybe we are - now! :eek: That would explain why the original universe had these discrepencies (communicators larger than cell phones, Eugenics Wars that don't begin on schedule). JJ Abrams has finally put Trek in the correct timeline - ours!

Captaindemotion November 8 2009 11:08 AM

Re: One bigass ret-Khan they would need to do...
 
Quote:

Sabataage wrote: (Post 3559249)
Quote:

Shazam! wrote: (Post 3552306)
Yeah, and whilst we're at it let's rename 2001: A Space Odyssey http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1706/dave.gif

In Clarke's follow-up 3001, characters referr to the events of the first two books as happening sometime in the 2030's and 40's.

I wonder what they'll do when they re-issue those books in 20 or 30 years. Assuming that the events of 2001:ASO haven't come to pass in the interim.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.