The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Star Trek Movies XI+ (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=50)
-   -   Comparing actors' portrayals of the same role (possible spoilers) (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=219727)

sonak July 14 2013 10:18 PM

Comparing actors' portrayals of the same role (possible spoilers)
 
Maybe there was already a thread on this, but I didn't see it. I think this is going to be like the "Jack Nicholson's Joker vs. Heath Ledger's Joker" for Star Trek. I think the way the played the character was very different, Montalban's Khan was fiery and passionate, whereas Cumberbatch's was cooler and flatter. Also in STXI they actually gave flashes of Khan's intellect, whereas in TWOK we just get told about it over and over again, but Khan doesn't really demonstrate it. Cumberbatch's is more devious, Montalban's is more direct.


So- overall, who was the better Khan?

F. King Daniel July 14 2013 10:21 PM

Re: [spoiler]'s [spoiler] vs. Cumberbatch's [spoiler]
 
Khanberbatch > Montelkhan

He actually does superhuman stuff, and appeared to grasp the three dimensional nature of space;)

DalekJim July 14 2013 10:24 PM

Re: [spoiler]'s [spoiler] vs. Cumberbatch's [spoiler]
 
Obviously Montalban. Hugely captivating and memorable.

Cumberbatch's John Harrison had the potential to be a great villain in his own right but the Khan revelation completely neutered him. The actor gave a great performance though, and with a better script he'd have given good competition. As it stands, he's kinda a generic modern blockbuster villain in the mould of Ledger's Joker, Loki from The Avengers, and Silva from Skyfall. Though they were much better.

Montalban was Khan. The fact originally conceived villain John Harrison turned out to be Khan in a contrived twist, was incidental to the storyline and amounted to a gimmick. Quality will always beat gimmick.

Gep Malakai July 14 2013 10:27 PM

Re: [spoiler]'s [spoiler] vs. Cumberbatch's [spoiler]
 
Cumberbatch and the current take on Khan didn't do much for me. MontalKhan all the way.

M'Sharak July 14 2013 10:36 PM

Re: [spoiler]'s [spoiler] vs. Cumberbatch's [spoiler]
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Gep Malakai wrote: (Post 8379832)
MontelKhan all the way.

...

sonak July 14 2013 10:59 PM

Re: [spoiler]'s [spoiler] vs. Cumberbatch's [spoiler] (possible spoile
 
sorry about the lack of spoiler tags in the title. I thought the movie had been out long enough now that it was no longer really a spoiler.


demerit for me

Set Harth July 14 2013 11:21 PM

Re: [spoiler]'s [spoiler] vs. Cumberbatch's [spoiler]
 
Quote:

DalekJim wrote: (Post 8379817)
The fact originally conceived villain John Harrison turned out to be Khan in a contrived twist, was incidental to the storyline and amounted to a gimmick.

And it makes no sense to me at all that they went to him for help designing the Vengeance. You would go to your 23rd century engineers for that, not Khan.

I read a Lindelof interview that more or less explained why it ended up being Khan. Basically they were hearing "don't do Khan" so much that they felt they had to do Khan. Brer Rabbit was even namedropped. :rolleyes: And now that Khan's out of the way... wait for it... it frees them up to do something original. Because that worked out so well last time.

You know, sometimes when people are incessantly telling you that you shouldn't do something, it's better to actually not do the thing everyone is saying you shouldn't do.

Just saying.

DalekJim July 14 2013 11:26 PM

Re: [spoiler]'s [spoiler] vs. Cumberbatch's [spoiler] (possible spoile
 
Doing Khan is lazy and obvious but I wouldn't mind as much if they did use him, as long as they did it properly. It was the weird halfway measured John Harrison angle we got that made Khan lack impact.

I keep forgetting the Benedict Cumberbatch villain in the movie I saw this summer was Khan. And I'm a Star Trek obsessive.

M'Sharak July 14 2013 11:30 PM

Re: [spoiler]'s [spoiler] vs. Cumberbatch's [spoiler] (possible spoile
 
Quote:

sonak wrote: (Post 8379970)
sorry about the lack of spoiler tags in the title. I thought the movie had been out long enough now that it was no longer really a spoiler.

It's still to open in a few more places. Another six weeks, and then we'll be able to relax on that, for the most part.

BeatleJWOL July 15 2013 12:38 AM

Re: [spoiler]'s [spoiler] vs. Cumberbatch's [spoiler]
 
Quote:

Set Harth wrote: (Post 8380048)
a Lindelof interview

well there's your problem right there.

Anybody who's seen Prometheus knows what I mean. :devil:

DalekJim July 15 2013 12:43 AM

Re: [spoiler]'s [spoiler] vs. Cumberbatch's [spoiler] (possible spoile
 
Remember when Star Trek had good writers? It was ace.

The Wormhole July 15 2013 12:58 AM

Re: Comparing actors' portrayals of the same role (possible spoilers)
 
In all honesty, I couldn't care too much about them bringing Khan back. Every Trek movie since 1996 has tried to imitate TWOK in some way that maybe it's time to revisit the movie or character just to get it out of their system.

Rather, it's the half-assed way they brought him back. Orci admitted that they created a new character to be the villain and then named the character Khan. What the hell is that? You create a new character, use the new character.

F. King Daniel July 15 2013 11:03 AM

Re: [spoiler]'s [spoiler] vs. Cumberbatch's [spoiler] (possible spoile
 
Quote:

DalekJim wrote: (Post 8380405)
Remember when Star Trek had good writers? It was ace.

You think the writers of your favourite DS9 (or whatever) episodes would be able to write a big-budget blockbuster that could compete with the rest? I suspect it's the genre itself you object to most of all.

DalekJim July 15 2013 12:08 PM

Re: Comparing actors' portrayals of the same role (possible spoilers)
 
Yes, I think my favourite DS9, TNG, and TOS writers are better than Orci and Kurtzman.

Quote:

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: (Post 8381743)
I suspect it's the genre itself you object to most of all.

Not really. There can be smart action blockbusters, or at least blockbusters that try to be smart. I don't see stupidity as something to be praised.

Now you'll reply with "But it must be good man, it sells loads!", completely misunderstanding that I don't care about that.

Cinema Geekly July 15 2013 12:47 PM

Re: Comparing actors' portrayals of the same role (possible spoilers)
 
Apples and oranges to compare, they were two different performances that I enjoy equally. While I think the method they used to reveal Khan has already been done to death it didn't ruin anything for me.

People still praise Cumberbatch's performance which just makes them come off like "how dare someone have the nerve to recast Khan" which in the world of Trek fandom is the most played out thing making the rounds these days.

Star Trek has never been overly smart or subversive. It has the appearance of being above the rest by sometimes talking about subjects other shows didn't and as a result that has given fans some inflated sense of self importance.

I cant think of a single episode of Trek that actually made me think about something in a new way. Sure they tell good stories, but lots of shows and movies do that. Most Trek fans (myself included) tend to look at the show with rose colored glasses but quite a few of us are viewing it with 6 or 7 pairs of those glasses.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:26 AM.

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