The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Trek Literature (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43)
-   -   Khan #1 Review (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=228499)

Villordsutch October 15 2013 08:09 AM

Khan #1 Review
 
Hello all please find below my review of Khan#1

http://i39.tinypic.com/2epov0j.jpg

Quote:

Villordsutch wrote:
"Shall we begin?"

A few of you may remember when this comic was first mentioned a few months back on Flickering Myth. Though the cynicism spewed from my mouth about rehashing of Khanís history (as a Star Trek fan Iím more than aware that Paramount is looking for more ways to milk the cash from us) I was still interested in reading this comic. I rather enjoyed Star Trek Into Darkness and also Khan 2.0 - yes Ricardo Montalban with his few lines still wears the badge that reads, ďI am THE Khan!Ē, however Benedict Cumberbatch is still a good Khan for me. When I buy this copy I may have to resort to asking the store owner to put it in a brown paper bag before I leave, just so I donít get spat on by my fellow Trekkies.

Starting with Khanís trial (Iím guessing before he was frozen and stored in a Big Yellow Storage lock up warehouse), the question is raised why Khan 2.0 looks different from the Khan 1.0, whi

Full review can be found here - http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2013/1...ek-khan-1.html

King Daniel Into Darkness October 15 2013 09:53 AM

Re: Khan #1 Review
 
So it looks like they're actually going the plastic surgery route to explain the recasting? Lame.

Up next, a three part epic explaining why Leonard Nimoy's Spock has earlobes when Zachary Quinto's doesn't.

Paris October 15 2013 01:04 PM

Re: Khan #1 Review
 
Quote:

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: (Post 8772877)
So it looks like they're actually going the plastic surgery route to explain the recasting? Lame.

Up next, a three part epic explaining why Leonard Nimoy's Spock has earlobes when Zachary Quinto's doesn't.

QFT. I liked the IDW trek when it first started, but with what has come out lately, i've dropped them completely. First time in years I won't be getting their trek books. Hopefully the quality goes back up soon so i can come back..

Therin of Andor October 15 2013 02:45 PM

Re: Khan #1 Review
 
Quote:

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: (Post 8772877)
So it looks like they're actually going the plastic surgery route to explain the recasting? Lame.

We've just had several months of fans demanding to know why the movie didn't attempt to explain the physical differences between the two Khans, and now someone tries to provide the answer (that many of us suggested), it's "lame"?

Kobayashi Maru.

King Daniel Into Darkness October 15 2013 03:22 PM

Re: Khan #1 Review
 
Quote:

Therin of Andor wrote: (Post 8773378)
Quote:

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: (Post 8772877)
So it looks like they're actually going the plastic surgery route to explain the recasting? Lame.

We've just had several months of fans demanding to know why the movie didn't attempt to explain the physical differences between the two Khans, and now someone tries to provide the answer (that many of us suggested), it's "lame"?

Kobayashi Maru.

I was never one of those. I thought it equally stupid when the post-ENT novels tried to explain why the prequel series looked "more advanced" than TOS by saying the technology really was downgraded.

I personally find Khan's original backstory so flawed that attempting to reconcile the new with it's broken assumptions to be a waste of time. Marla was clearly the worst historian in Starfleet - nobody with even the most basic knowledge of Sikhism would ever see the clean-shaven, waxed-chested Ricardo Montalban and think he was a Sikh. Furthermore, they retconned Khan's ethnicity in STII by dropping the skin darkening makeup used in Space Seed and turning all his followers into young Aryans.

And of course, made in a test tube, he can be any colour his designers intended.

Hartzilla2007 October 15 2013 04:07 PM

Re: Khan #1 Review
 
Quote:

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: (Post 8773441)
Quote:

Therin of Andor wrote: (Post 8773378)
Quote:

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: (Post 8772877)
So it looks like they're actually going the plastic surgery route to explain the recasting? Lame.

We've just had several months of fans demanding to know why the movie didn't attempt to explain the physical differences between the two Khans, and now someone tries to provide the answer (that many of us suggested), it's "lame"?

Kobayashi Maru.

I was never one of those. I thought it equally stupid when the post-ENT novels tried to explain why the prequel series looked "more advanced" than TOS by saying the technology really was downgraded.

I personally find Khan's original backstory so flawed that attempting to reconcile the new with it's broken assumptions to be a waste of time. Marla was clearly the worst historian in Starfleet - nobody with even the most basic knowledge of Sikhism would ever see the clean-shaven, waxed-chested Ricardo Montalban and think he was a Sikh. Furthermore, they retconned Khan's ethnicity in STII by dropping the skin darkening makeup used in Space Seed and turning all his followers into young Aryans.

And of course, made in a test tube, he can be any colour his designers intended.

Not to mention the whole Klingon thing. Seriously why do waste time explaining this stuff just because of the anal Star Trek fans whine so much?

Mad Jack Wolfe October 15 2013 06:19 PM

Re: Khan #1 Review
 
So they were genetically engineering their street orphans in 1971 New Delhi? Sounds like something out of a sci-fi mashup with Charles Dickens. Oliver Double-Helix, anyone?

Therin of Andor October 15 2013 08:49 PM

Re: Khan #1 Review
 
Quote:

Hartzilla2007 wrote: (Post 8773582)
Not to mention the whole Klingon thing. Seriously why do waste time explaining this stuff just because of the anal Star Trek fans whine so much?

Generally, writers write the stories they wish they could read.

When writers choose not to try "explaining this stuff", other anal Star Trek fans whine. So the writers may as well keep writing what they want to read. And hope that it sells.

Quote:

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: (Post 8773441)
I personally find Khan's original backstory so flawed that attempting to reconcile the new with it's broken assumptions to be a waste of time.

So stop buying them.

Are you saying that IDW should just ignore "Into Darkness" altogether? Not even try to put out comics that tie-in to Khan?

Of course IDW is putting out "Into Darkness"-related mini-series. The "Nero" series did well for them after the 2009 series, AFAIK, better than many of their other IDW mini-series.

King Daniel Into Darkness October 15 2013 10:23 PM

Re: Khan #1 Review
 
I'm not buying them, at least not until the TPB is cheap. And I'm not saying they should ignore ID at all, just that they should stick with the new version of the character and and work backwards from there, and not pander to the fans who probably don't even know what a Sikh is while complaining furiously that Cumberbatch's Khan isn't one.

Christopher October 15 2013 11:20 PM

Re: Khan #1 Review
 
^How is it "pandering?" It's always been the intention of these creators that the new timeline is an offshoot of the original, so what was true about Khan in TOS should still be true about him here. That's the premise they've been working from all along, so they're just being consistent within their own body of work.

Therin of Andor October 16 2013 02:34 PM

Re: Khan #1 Review
 
Quote:

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: (Post 8775007)
and not pander to the fans...

For every fan who says that Paramount/Bad Robot/CBS/Pocket/IDW shouldn't "pander to the fans", there's another who complains they "don't listen to the fans".

drumvan October 16 2013 02:52 PM

Re: Khan #1 Review
 
Quote:

Therin of Andor wrote: (Post 8777776)
Quote:

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: (Post 8775007)
and not pander to the fans...

For every fan who says that Paramount/Bad Robot/CBS/Pocket/IDW shouldn't "pander to the fans", there's another who complains they "don't listen to the fans".

:bolian: preach it.

CaptPapa October 16 2013 03:15 PM

Re: Khan #1 Review
 
Quote:

Christopher wrote: (Post 8775271)
^How is it "pandering?" It's always been the intention of these creators that the new timeline is an offshoot of the original, so what was true about Khan in TOS should still be true about him here. That's the premise they've been working from all along, so they're just being consistent within their own body of work.


This begins to address a question I've had, or better yet, I haven't understood. I'm not a fan of the alternate timeline, so I'm ignorant of the 'reality' of it. I thought that since the timeline separated, this new timeline could do whatever it wanted to with events and people, irrespective of established 'history'. Which is why (among other things) I didn't understand the necessity to explain the differences between the Khan appearing in Space Seed/Wrath of Khan, and the Khan appearing in STID. :confused:

Christopher October 16 2013 03:24 PM

Re: Khan #1 Review
 
Quote:

CaptPapa wrote: (Post 8777884)
This begins to address a question I've had, or better yet, I haven't understood. I'm not a fan of the alternate timeline, so I'm ignorant of the 'reality' of it. I thought that since the timeline separated, this new timeline could do whatever it wanted to with events and people, irrespective of established 'history'. Which is why (among other things) I didn't understand the necessity to explain the differences between the Khan appearing in Space Seed/Wrath of Khan, and the Khan appearing in STID. :confused:

The altered timeline was created by Nero's ship, the Narada, traveling back to March 2233 and attacking the USS Kelvin. That began a new, altered sequence of events, so a new timeline branched off from the original at that moment. Anything that comes afterward is subject to change. But that didn't alter anything that happened before March 2233. Everything prior to that date is supposed to be the same.

Here's IDW's own chart showing how the one timeline branches into two:

http://www.idwpublishing.com/startrek/timelines.php

Basically it's a Y shape, a fork in the road. Go back before 2233 and there's only the one timeline (well, there are plenty of other parallel ones, but they're not relevant for our purposes).

CaptPapa October 16 2013 07:16 PM

Re: Khan #1 Review
 
^ Okay, that's pretty clear, thanks.

Keeping in mind I've only watched ST09 a couple of times, and STID not at all; how is nuSpock's emotionalism explained? Vulcan's emotional control obviously extents back before 2233; or is that one of the things that was changed after the new timeline was created? If so, I missed the explanation.

And, if this is covered (probably) in detail elsewhere, I can pass on the subject. I don't care for nuTrek; my only real interest being Leonard Nimoy's participation. This particular discussion is just curiosity - if it's a problem or going to far off track we can pass.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:14 PM.

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