Why Khan?

[CorporalCaptain]

King Daniel wrote:

---

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.

This is zooming over my head. Since "to come out of the closet" is chiefly understood as "to reveal oneself as gay," I'm not getting this. Could you elaborate, please.

[The Wormhole]

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.

To be fair, Family Guy continually makes TWOK themed jokes in their episodes, rannging from scene reenactments, clips of footage from the movie, and at one point they even had Ricardo Montalban voice a character in an episode, with a very subtle TWOK reference. So TWOK is still well-known to the general public, even if it's that thing Family Guy is always doing jokes about.

That said, I agree I don't get why eevryone is clamouring to get Khan into an Abrams movie. Hell, there have been discussions about it going back to before XI was released, and according to Bad Robot, an end scene featuring the Botany Bay was proposed for XI.

Khan is from one episode and one movie. The most popular movie, yes, but still just one. The rest of the TOS movies don't even bother to mention him by name, and since TWOK Khan has only been mentioned a handful of times in the shows. His story is told, the only ground left to cover was his life in the 20th century and his time on Ceti Alpha V, both of which have been covered in the novels. And in the case of Ceti Alpha V, a comic series also covers that.

He is by no means Star Trek's primary villain. Ask any random dude on the street "who are the bad guys in Star Trek?" their answers are going to be Klingons, Romulans, or Borg.

[Franklin]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

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.

Regarding your last sentence, I'd like to think so, but I seriously doubt it. When have Klingons ever really been "something interesting?"

Kirk v. Kor in "Errand of Mercy" needed to happen more often. If Kor had been established as a returning foil to Kirk (maybe two episodes a season), through him, the Klingons would've become more multi-dimensional antagonists. Kirk would've had his Joker or Moriarty. Not every conflict would've ended with "kill the Klingon villain" as it did in the movies.

The Klingons suffered from no one character who personified them and became a burr under Kirk's saddle. So, we're left with Khan being the closest individual we can say is Kirk's Joker, Lex Luthor, or Moriarty, even though it's a strained comparison at best.

Bottom line, the Klingons were always poorly utilized. To me, it's one of the most disappointing parts of Trek.

[The Wormhole]

What is with all the Klingon hate around here anyway? To me, some of Trek's most compelling and memorable characters are Klingons.

[Franklin]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

What is with all the Klingon hate around here anyway? To me, some of Trek's most compelling and memorable characters are Klingons.

There were some good Klingon characters in TNG and DS9. I wish at least one character that strong had been estabilshed in TOS. I guess part of the problem was the series didn't run long enough for that to happen. But look at how the Klingons were used in TOS movies. Pitiful:
-- In TMP, they didn't even have names and are out in the first five minutes. Left one wondering, "why even use them?"
-- TSFS, vile villains, nothing deeper than that.
-- TVH, an interesting and compelling speech by John Schuck presenting the Klingon point of view that could've portended the story in STV. (No peace while Kirk lives.)
-- TFF, it didn't. The thought was dropped, and instead, we get some Klingon goofball in the story.
-- TUC, a better and more nuanced job using them, but it was the last go-round, too. Too little, too late. And, imagine if it had been Kor meeting up with Kirk on last time, instead of Chang, especially if Kor and Kirk had had more of a history in TOS.

Just my opinion.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Franklin wrote:

---

...-- TUC, a better and more nuanced job using them, but it was the last go-round, too. Too little, too late. And, imagine if it had been Kor meeting up with Kirk on last time, instead of Chang, especially if Kor and Kirk had had more of a history in TOS.

I liked Chang a lot, and felt he was a villain with whom I could actually sympathize (a little) -- at least I could feel a little sympathy for his cause. I think Kirk felt the same way, even though Chang wanted Kirk dead.

[Franklin]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

I liked Chang a lot, and felt he was a villain with whom I could actually sympathize (a little) -- at least I could feel a little sympathy for his cause. I think Kirk felt the same way, even though Chang wanted Kirk dead.

Chang was "acceptable." But maybe the fanboy in me thinks it would've been glorious if John Colicos had reprised Kor for that role and enhanced his backstory with Kirk. Kirk and Chang had no history. When Chang meets him, he says, "I've always wanted to meet you, captain." It would've been very interesting to see how Kirk and Kor would've gotten on with each other.

[King Daniel]

HaventGotALife wrote:

---

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.

No, Spock isn't gay, but his story is a coming out allegory - using emotions.

Spock is more emotional than other Vulcans. He tries to hide it his whole life. Spock has a secret inappropriate relationship with a student, analogous to a closeted homosexual in a relationship. After Vulcan is destroyed he comes out to his father, saying he has these emotions and can no longer pretend otherwise. Sarek accepts it, tells Spock his mother would have told him not to try and hide it and tells Spock he's grateful for him. Then we see "out" Spock saying an intimate goodbye to Uhura in front of everyone and later telling Kirk what he thinks should happen to Nero.

[SalvorHardin]

King Daniel wrote:

---

Spock has a secret inappropriate relationship with a student, analogous to a closeted homosexual in a relationship

Spock's relationship with Uhura is not secret.
If it was secret he would not be worried about appearing to practise favoritism by assigning her to the Enterprise. It would just be an instructor giving the best student the best assignment, to everyone's eyes.
And since it's not a secret and none of them has any consequences that we can see on their career, I assume it's not considered inappropriate either.

[BillJ]

King Daniel wrote:

---

No, Spock isn't gay, but his story is a coming out allegory - using emotions.

This.

[HaventGotALife]

King Daniel wrote:

---

No, Spock isn't gay, but his story is a coming out allegory - using emotions.

Spock is more emotional than other Vulcans. He tries to hide it his whole life. Spock has a secret inappropriate relationship with a student, analogous to a closeted homosexual in a relationship. After Vulcan is destroyed he comes out to his father, saying he has these emotions and can no longer pretend otherwise. Sarek accepts it, tells Spock his mother would have told him not to try and hide it and tells Spock he's grateful for him. Then we see "out" Spock saying an intimate goodbye to Uhura in front of everyone and later telling Kirk what he thinks should happen to Nero.

So...being Vulcan is being hetero? Was Nero gay for killing all the heteros? How about Kirk--wouldn't he be gay even though he wants Uhura? Well, Spock is. Why is everyone on the ship, the majority of them, human? Wouldn't that mean every character is gay?

I think the analogy ruins Spock's character. He's completely human now? With the animal rage of Vulcan, he's now just like everyone else on the Enterprise? He would be rejecting one heritage of the other.

This is about multiculturalism. This is about being a mixed child and not having to pick which part of your heritage that you belong to. I would love to see Star Trek embrace at least one gay character or story line. However, it's a macho universe. It treats women like crap and it means there's not a single gay person. Apparently, they found a cure or something. Very disappointing. Believe me, when I see the gay character, I'll see the gay character.

[ssosmcin]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

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.

I actually don't remember fanboys clamoring for a "black hat heavy" as much as Harve Bennett did. He needed the black hat. Fans, on the other hand, seemed to want the movies to reflect the best of the original series, which didn't always need a back hat. This isn't Star Wars or James Bond. Where was the black hat in City on the Edge of Forever? But TWOK was popular with fans and audiences, so nearly every film since has tried to emulate it. TWOK was the best and worst thing to happen to the Trek movies.

TMP: I remember people clamoring for the characterizations they missed from TOS and wanting more action and fewer loving effetcs shots. I don't ever recall a huge uproar over a lack of villain.

STIV: I actually also remember fans happy with this one, along with the general public. It was a lot like the original series during it's comedic periods. We may have bristled at the flitty way time travel was handled, but otherwise, it was great to have the general public and Trekkies on the same page for a change.

STV: again, the clamor was for a film that didn't suck. The Black Hat heavy was Captain Klaa, who was one dimensional. All around the most interesting character was Sybok - who wasn't a villain.

Star Trek doesn't need an arch villain. It needs a good story and engaging characters. You can have conflict without Dr. Evil driving the argument. If all we needed were bad guys, then everyone would love Shinzon, Ru'afo and Soran and the films they were in.

[WarpFactorZ]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

To be fair, Family Guy continually makes TWOK themed jokes in their episodes, rannging from scene reenactments, clips of footage from the movie, and at one point they even had Ricardo Montalban voice a character in an episode, with a very subtle TWOK reference. So TWOK is still well-known to the general public, even if it's that thing Family Guy is always doing jokes about.

The wealth of Star Trek references and parodies in Family Guy stem from the fact that Seth MacFarlane is a huge Trekkie (TOS and TNG). It's also why the show is filled with 80s references, even as 'obscure' as The Greatest American Hero. It appeals to "us" -- i.e. the 35-50 demographic -- because we all share the same interests. We got the extremely subtle Khan reference when Montalban played the cow ("Even my beloved wiife!...") because of that. But I don't think you can extend that interest to today's general public.

Khan is from one episode and one movie. The most popular movie, yes, but still just one.

This is exactly my original point. Why reuse Khan and turn him into someone completely different than what we know? If you're going to pick someone from the prime timeline, there are numerous people to choose from. Hell, Gary Mitchell would be a better choice, because he's canon, has/had a rich backstory with Kirk, and that could make for better drama.

Khan's appeal as a villain is that he was a superhuman focusing his superabilities to destroy ONE person, and his only normal quality -- his ego -- was his downfall.

[King Daniel]

SalvorHardin wrote:

---

Spock's relationship with Uhura is not secret. If it was secret he would not be worried about appearing to practise favoritism by assigning her to the Enterprise. It would just be an instructor giving the best student the best assignment, to everyone's eyes.
And since it's not a secret and none of them has any consequences that we can see on their career, I assume it's not considered inappropriate either.

Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that bit. But they still weren't flaunting it as they did at the end once Spock had eased up on his emotional control.

HaventGotALife wrote:

---

So...being Vulcan is being hetero? Was Nero gay for killing all the heteros? How about Kirk--wouldn't he be gay even though he wants Uhura? Well, Spock is. Why is everyone on the ship, the majority of them, human? Wouldn't that mean every character is gay?

No.

I think the analogy ruins Spock's character. He's completely human now? With the animal rage of Vulcan, he's now just like everyone else on the Enterprise? He would be rejecting one heritage of the other.

I think he's reached a similar point to the Spock of Wrath of Khan and beyond. A Spock who knows the value of emotion and doesn't fear or deny it - while still being Spock.

This is about multiculturalism. This is about being a mixed child and not having to pick which part of your heritage that you belong to. I would love to see Star Trek embrace at least one gay character or story line. However, it's a macho universe. It treats women like crap and it means there's not a single gay person. Apparently, they found a cure or something. Very disappointing. Believe me, when I see the gay character, I'll see the gay character.

Yes, it would be nice if Trek had a gay character. I disagree with you on their treatment of women, however.

[BillJ]

WarpFactorZ wrote:

---

Khan's appeal as a villain is that he was a superhuman focusing his superabilities to destroy ONE person, and his only normal quality -- his ego -- was his downfall.

I don't think so. The episode Space Seed is pretty popular and he had only met Kirk.