Why Khan?

[Jackson_Roykirk]

WarpFactorZ wrote:

---

This is exactly my original point. Why reuse Khan and turn him into someone completely different than what we know?

TWoK already did that. While I loved that movie, the Khan from TWoK was barely recognizable as the same character from Space Seed (except, of course, for the obvious: that they had the same name and were played by the same guy).

Honestly, there was really not much of the "Eugenic Superman bred to lead the world" aspect of Space Seed -- which was the most important plot point of that episode -- that was used in TWoK. Instead, they took the character of Khan and turned him into a broken man who has gone mad with revenge.

[Garak]

I'm pretty sure Abrams wanted to do Khan so he could include the brilliant line "time to open up a Khan of whupass!" in his movie.

Think how majestically that will roll off Cumberbatch's tongue. Like wiping your ass with silk, to coin a phrase.

[WarpFactorZ]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

Honestly, there was really not much of the "Eugenic Superman bred to lead the world" aspect of Space Seed -- which was the most important plot point of that episode -- that was used in TWoK. Instead, they took the character of Khan and turned him into a broken man who has gone mad with revenge.

Well, better Khan than, say, Bela Okmyx. Otherwise we'd have had "Star Trek II: A Piece of OUR Action!"

[Greg Cox]

WarpFactorZ wrote:

---

This is exactly my original point. Why reuse Khan and turn him into someone completely different than what we know? .

Why make Starbuck a woman? Why didn't Heath Ledger play the Joker exactly like Cesar Romero or Jack Nicholson? Why cast Lucy Liu as Dr. Watson?

Sometimes it's just fun to take an old concept or character and put a new spin on it . . . .

[Ovation]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Why make Starbuck a woman? Why didn't Heath Ledger play the Joker exactly like Cesar Romero or Jack Nicholson? Why cast Lucy Liu as Dr. Watson?

Sometimes it's just fun to take an old concept or character and put a new spin on it . . . .

Exactly. Speaking of interchanging actors and parts, I read about a run in London of a play based on Frankenstein and Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller are/were each in it. Moreover, each night, one plays the doctor, the other the monster and then they switch for the next night. I'd buy a DVD of this production (especially if they included one performance of each).

Oh, and I (as no doubt you) have no trouble enjoying both Sherlock and Elementary as two different, yet entertaining takes on the same characters, each of which is far removed from the original. Imagine if such an attitude could be prevalent among Trek fans. Oh wait--it is (well, for a lot of them, anyway).

[CorporalClegg]

Ovation wrote:

---

Exactly. Speaking of interchanging actors and parts, I read about a run in London of a play based on Frankenstein and Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller are/were each in it. Moreover, each night, one plays the doctor, the other the monster and then they switch for the next night. I'd buy a DVD of this production (especially if they included one performance of each).

Oh, and I (as no doubt you) have no trouble enjoying both Sherlock and Elementary as two different, yet entertaining takes on the same characters, each of which is far removed from the original. Imagine if such an attitude could be prevalent among Trek fans. Oh wait--it is (well, for a lot of them, anyway).

That play sounds wonderful!

Unfortunately, now I'm going to spend the rest of the week imagining JLM in Sherlock and Cumby in Elementary. Thanks.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Stories can't help but be "about something," since they tell about human beings and their experiences.

When writers become self-conscious about sending a message or setting up a moral they are telling tales for children.

Star Trek will be a far better series of movies and TV shows if no writer ever again says to him/herself "what message am I attempting to reflect upon society?"

That serves no real purpose other than a reach-around for folks who like to be flattered.

[WarpFactorZ]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Why make Starbuck a woman? Why didn't Heath Ledger play the Joker exactly like Cesar Romero or Jack Nicholson? Why cast Lucy Liu as Dr. Watson?

Sometimes it's just fun to take an old concept or character and put a new spin on it . . . .

In principle I agree, but this isn't quite a comparable situation. There is no continuity aspect between the different shows you cite. Here, it's been made very clear that prior to 2233, the universe was the "prime" (TOS) one. Sure, the look of ships and technology change to suit budgets, but the people shouldn't. No one is going to switch genders. If Khan appears in this movie, he should be basically the guy we saw in Space Seed: a former middle eastern dictator who was ousted and exiled. He can't suddenly become a white British chap with an attitude to match his voice.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The "alternate/Prime universe" stuff is a fig leaf - they weren't really faithful to it in the first movie, and you can be sure that more and more will diverge with each successive movie.

It's just a reboot, folks.

[CorporalClegg]

WarpFactorZ wrote:

---

In principle I agree, but this isn't quite a comparable situation. There is no continuity aspect between the different shows you cite. Here, it's been made very clear that prior to 2233, the universe was the "prime" (TOS) one. Sure, the look of ships and technology change to suit budgets, but the people shouldn't. No one is going to switch genders. If Khan appears in this movie, he should be basically the guy we saw in Space Seed: a former middle eastern dictator who was ousted and exiled. He can't suddenly become a white British chap with an attitude to match his voice.

Bunk.

Nobody gives a shit what happened before 2233. Really, no one gives a shit happen happens after either. They just want to be entertained. If that means making Khan a stuff British dude, that's what's Paramount does. If it means changing him to Kambatta Persis Snooki, they do that too.

[CorporalCaptain]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

fig leaf

Props for the imagery.

[Therin of Andor]

ssosmcin wrote:

---

STIV: I actually also remember fans happy with this one

Despite the huge popularity of this movie, this was the one that caused a mass exodous of jaded, angry, older TOS fans from our club. They saw it as "the dumbing down of Star Trek" and were insulted by it. Then along came TNG - and they reckoned it vindicated their choice to jump ship.

I'm not saying they were right, but it happened.

[M'Sharak]

Ovation wrote:

---

Speaking of interchanging actors and parts, I read about a run in London of a play based on Frankenstein and Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller are/were each in it. Moreover, each night, one plays the doctor, the other the monster and then they switch for the next night. I'd buy a DVD of this production (especially if they included one performance of each).

Just for fun, I tried looking up to see whether a DVD from that staging might be in the works. It seems there had been quite a bit of interest, but the necessary rights could not be secured, so an authorized DVD release doesn't look likely to be happening any time soon, if ever.

http://ntlive.tumblr.com/post/278335...in-dvd-bootleg

Pity.

[Therin of Andor]

WarpFactorZ wrote:

---

He can't suddenly become a white British chap with an attitude to match his voice.

He can if his sleeper ship was discovered by... Antosians.

[Franklin]

If Cumberbatch is Khan, then just don't give me any explanations in the movie for why he's different than TOS Khan. He's Khan, and that's it. I can take it.

(I've finally started catching up with "Sherlock" whenever I find it on. Cumberbatch's Holmes reminds me a lot Gregory House. The pace and direction of the episodes reminds me of the show, too.)

Part of the joy of Trek for many was growing older with our heroes. Having Kirk and the others age just as the actors did set Trek characters apart from how most other action heroes are treated. Every Bond actor is on the clock, for example, and everyone knows it. Every now and then, the franchises are contemporized, too (like "Sherlock"). It's expected. By comparison, the Trek reboot almost came out of the blue and shocked many people. Some not in a good way.

It's the way of franchises, and it finally happened to "Star Trek". Version 1.0 had a good shelf life. I doubt we'll ever seen Daniel Craig as Bond at age 62. I think it's unlikely we'll ever see Batman or Superman get their AARP cards in the mail, either. We may never even see Kirk grow old again.