Why Khan?

[Lance]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

All Klingons can do is wave pointy objects and chant gutturally about honor and death. Apparently.

That's TNG's fault. Who's to say what Klingons can and can't be? Before TNG came along, they weren't like that at all. They were evil bastards that were part of some rival superpower to Starfleet. Return them to that template and the Klingons could be anything the writers want them to be. To think of them in terms of what TNG did with them is to limit their potential. Think outside the box.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Lance wrote:

---

That's TNG's fault. Who's to say what Klingons can and can't be? Before TNG came along, they weren't like that at all.

True - before TNG they were mustache-twirling fascists from a propagandistic war movie. Fuck the Klingons. Cool spaceships, though.

They're using the Klingons in this movie anyway, but choosing them as an adversary is in no way "thinking outside the box." Using Khan is far more daring than dragging the bumpheads out of the costume closet One...More...Time!

[Lance]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

True - before TNG they were mustache-twirling fascists from a propagandistic war movie.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

They're using the Klingons in this movie anyway, but choosing them as an adversary is in no way "thinking outside the box." Using Khan is far more daring than dragging the bumpheads out of the costume closet One...More...Time!

I don't know really. I see the new universe as a real opportunity to retcon the Klingons away from all that crap TNG did with them, to really open them up as actual villains again. To say that Klingons are a bad choice is almost as insular as those (other) people here who say that bringing back Khan limits what can be done with that villain versus using a brand new one. Both Khan and the Klingons are each capable of being much more than what we currently think of them as being. We're conditioned, as fans, to think of Klingons as being Space Vikings. Why not wind the clock back? Let's use the more simplisitic portrayal of them in TOS as a template for a brand new type of Klingon. Open up the Klingons again, with a fleet of rival starships, a ruthless darker reflection on a Starfleet-style superpower. Let's forget about the shitty ritualistic crap that TNG (and DS9) foisted on us. Just give them ships and make them a viable enemy again, instead of those hideous caricatures who prattle on about Blood Wine and Death With Honor that we've had to deal with ever since Ron Moore got his hands on them.

I do appreciate what you're saying though, vis-a-vis the way Klingons have been waaaaaay over used (out of twelve movies, they've been either seen or mentioned in nine of them - in fact, all twelve if we count Worf ). I'd like to see them used properly as badass enemies again, but Khan is definitely a (relatively) cleaner slate to work from, having only appeared twice before.

[WarpFactorZ]

CorporalClegg wrote:

---

They're not remaking The Wrath of Khan.

I'm not saying they are. But recycling Khan because he is "Khan" -- without including the big impact the character had on the Trek universe -- doesn't make that much sense (other than some "nod" to the fans).

Furthermore, I think it would majorly backfire, for the reasons I listed. Khan's major role in Trekdom was as Kirk's foil.

You mean a planet exploded and his wife died on screen? You're right. I guess I haven't seen it.

Whether you *saw* it or not doesn't change the fact that it was an explicit part of the story.

How do you know? Did you see it? Terrell said Khan did, but Terrell also had a magic space slug in his ear. For all you know, he was lying.

So, who trashed Regular One? Terrell and Chekov?

He lifted nothing that a "normal" fit human couldn't lift under an adrenalin rush--unlike Cumby, who've already seen swing a significantly larger object around like a whiffle bat.

He lifted Chekov clean off the ground with one hand (that one *was* on-screen). And the "bat" Cumberbatch wields, as some else pointed out, is a gun.

Really, though, the fact is the character has never been used to the fullest of his potential. That's why the redo.

I simply don't see what's left to use. He'd become a supervillain with superpowers, and would basically be someone the Avengers need to stop. In that sense, why do we need Khan again? Make him someone else.

[Lord Garth, FOI]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Why, because you say so? You're mistaken.

Says who?

It doesn't have to be. If the studio and producers think that Khan is the character who will draw the most positive attention and publicity to the movie, that's reason enough to consider him.

It's not like Star Trek has a history replete with awesome antagonists, after all, which is why when they come up with one that works - say, the Borg - they go back to that well over, and over, and over.

Khan's been used in one movie. Klingons have been used in - God, how many? Enough with the Klingons and Romulans and other bumpy-headed caricatures - another advantage that Khan has for the broader audience is that he is a human being, from Earth, who because he is a man nearly of our own era is relatable and whose back story can be made to encompass all kinds of contemporary issues and angst.

All Klingons can do is wave pointy objects and chant gutturally about honor and death. Apparently.

Re:Klingons
Since next gen ruined them that is

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Lord Garth, FOI wrote:

---

Re:Klingons
Since next gen ruined them that is

They were long "ruined" before TNG got to them.

"Klingon" seems to be their word for "moron," since virtually any time a Klingon was going to do something egregiously stupid he was likely to preface it with something like "We are Klingons!"

Stupid like, say, every Klingon in TSFS...or just empty bluster and posturing like those in ST 4 and 5. Or a simplistic moustache-twirler like Chang.

Perhaps Abrams will finally do something interesting enough with the bumpheads in this next film to set them up as major antagonists in the third movie.

[WarpFactorZ]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Khan is by far the best-known antagonist in Star Trek to the general audience. That is reason enough to use him.

Actually, I would wager the best-known antagonists to the general audience are the Klingons, followed closely by maybe the Borg. TWOK was 31 years ago -- its lasting impact on casual Trek fans, and even the general audience at the time, has long since waned. Of course, one could also argue that makes it ripe for a reboot.

[Lord Garth, FOI]

WarpFactorZ wrote:

---

Actually, I would wager the best-known antagonists to the general audience are the Klingons, followed closely by maybe the Borg. TWOK was 31 years ago -- its lasting impact on casual Trek fans, and even the general audience at the time, has long since waned. Of course, one could also argue that makes it ripe for a reboot.

Nope
If you peruse the genre sites like AInt it cool, latino-review and Screenrant, Star Trek II is clearly the casual Trek fans fav. It's the one Star Trek they like whether they be hard core Star Wars fans or Batfans. The guys who post I hate Star Trek but,..

[HaventGotALife]

The casual fan knows the Vulcan hand thing, Captain Kirk and Mr. (or Dr.) Spock, and the Klingons. That's it. The casual fan wants a popcorn flick. I would like to see Star Trek do something unique, to try something that isn't so safe. And doing a movie where a Khan-like villain threatens the universe, the Federation, Earth, or the Starship Enterprise, is boring. I don't want another villain with Khan's screen time. I want something fresh, but whenever the deviate from that, it's killed by this generation of fans. See the thread about Insurrection being "small potatoes, the stakes weren't high enough" in the other forum.

[Therin of Andor]

HaventGotALife wrote:

---

The casual fan wants a popcorn flick. I would like to see Star Trek do something unique, to try something that isn't so safe.

Like...

* introducing us to Kirk's parents

* pairing up Spock and Uhura

* killing Amanda and blowing up Vulcan.

[HaventGotALife]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

Like...

* introducing us to Kirk's parents

* pairing up Spock and Uhura

* killing Amanda and blowing up Vulcan.

The first ten minutes are good, but Nero was as safe as you can get. I didn't say 2009 lacked any creative juices. But at the end of the day, it was successful because it was fun--a popcorn flick. I think it's middle-of-the-road in terms of story and not who they decided to kill off or having Spock going on a revenge tour. Those are the stakes and the major plot points. It's new Trek. Was it a risk? Yes. Do they need to be patted on the back for that? No. And here's why:

Where are the voices of these characters? What did this movie say? What commentary was it attempting to reflect upon our society?

So why do I say the first ten minutes are good? Because I care about these two characters that are on-screen. It's not cheap to show a man doing his duty and talking to his wife about why he has to sacrifice himself. Military families go through this every day. She accepts that, delivers the child, they interact as wife and husband, and then say goodbye. Nero, in that scene with Robau, is how I want him throughout the film. Get rid of his dialogue, let Prime Spock tell us who and why. Everything else we can get from him just being angry. Don't say a word. Be ominous. That's taking a chance in storytelling. Let the menace be something they have to work around without a view screen.

Star Trek introduces us to our villains often. We sit down and have meals with them. We talk and talk and talk and talk. Well, we've talked to Nero before. We've seen him as Khan, Kruge, Chang, Soran, and Shinzon. I'm tired of every menace being angry and seeking revenge. His motivation makes no sense. So do without him for a movie. Let these guys prove their mettle by not responding to anything but the ship. That would've been creatively, a risk.

[Therin of Andor]

HaventGotALife wrote:

---

Let these guys prove their mettle by not responding to anything but the ship. That would've been creatively, a risk.

And the critics and fanboys would still pounce and say, "So where's the 'black hat' heavy?", like they did with TMP, ST IV and ST V.

[King Daniel]

As for the OP, Khan is a character, not a situation. The whole point of the reboot was to put familiar Trek characters in new situations. Khan still has his Eugenics Wars backstory, which is more than enough reason to be pissed off at the peoples of Earth. Overthrown and exiled to space, now back for revenge.

HaventGotALife wrote:

---

Where are the voices of these characters? What did this movie say? What commentary was it attempting to reflect upon our society?

Spock came out of the closet, TOS analogy-style. I'm amazed often it zooms over the heads of fans of the original show! It was much more personal than "save the whales" or "the Berlin wall falls in space," but I'd say it's a very important message nontheless.

[HaventGotALife]

King Daniel wrote:

---

As for the OP, Khan is a character, not a situation. The whole point of the reboot was to put familiar Trek characters in new situations. Khan still has his Eugenics Wars backstory, which is more than enough reason to be pissed off at the peoples of Earth. Overthrown and exiled to space, now back for revenge.

Spock came out of the closet, TOS analogy-style. I'm amazed often it zooms over the heads of fans of the original show! It was much more personal than "save the whales" or "the Berlin wall falls in space," but I'd say it's a very important message nontheless.

There are no gay Star Trek characters. Believe me, any nod in that direction was far-fetched and too well hidden. He is a child of two worlds. He lives in both. His parents raised him to be a child of two distinct cultures. The first Spock saw only the Vulcan way. Can you imagine 18-year-old Leonard Nimoy asking his mother if it was okay to take the Kholinar? It is contrasted by Kirk lacking a father and the differences in their lives because of it. Who saves Kirk? Dad. And don't ever mention Spock's mom, he will go ape.

They ruined this by going too far with Sarek. "I married your mother because I loved her." and "Do not try to." He can be angry? That's a can of worms. So Spock goes on his little vendetta defeating the purpose of the upbringing and the entire story around it. This is run-of-the-mill storytelling.

[BillJ]

HaventGotALife wrote:

---

They ruined this by going too far with Sarek. "I married your mother because I loved her." and "Do not try to." He can be angry? That's a can of worms.

I disagree.

There are times as a parent that you simply have to be brutally honest with your kids. I saw Sarek being brutally honest with Spock twice in the film. As a parent I appreciated that Sarek shared with his son that the world they inhabit isn't perfect.

Asa far as Khan goes, why not?