Star Trek 2009 discontinuity from canon.

THIS !!!!

If you try to explain all the continuity problems and try to fit 700+ episodes and movies from five decades under one roof (sort of like Trek´s "Grand Unified Theory") you´ll probably end up not enjoying much of Trek anymore and start ranting at anything new that doesn´t "fit". My enjoyment of any series or movie is at its peak when I ignore these little bits and pieces of artistic license (and sometimes negligence) and take each as a separate entity - still as Star Trek, but more as a variation on the theme rather than a strict and accurate expansion of the Trek universe. To me this works with ENT, works with nuTrek ... but YMMV, of course


@King Daniel Into Darkness

I really enjoyed your videos, BTW

 

It's Marla who calls him a Sikh, with out knowing his name and in spite of him not exhibiting any outward signs of Sikhism. Khan never claims to be one.

 

It's obvious McGivers gets quite a bit wrong about Khan.

 

The problem is that Marla ID's him as a Sikh without knowing who or what he is. You don't look at a clean-shaven guy with no turban and say, "probably a Sikh." Nu-uh.

I'd forgotten about the turban-ish headgear in WoK - but that he took it off speaks volumes. As for Marla's painting, it's just her fantasy impression of him.
The importance of the turban to Sikhism

You're welcome!

 

I'm convinced he's either a deliberate or sloppy amalgamation of eastern sounding ethnic names created by the writers. For that reason, I'm with BillJ, in universe McGivers got it wrong, probably because out of universe, the writers just didn't care to be too ethnically precise (who's going to know?) or were deliberately imprecise (so as not to be offensive to one group). In universe, he could've known she was wrong, but Khan didn't disabuse her because her infatuation with him was useful and it didn't really matter.

"Khan" is either an Indian or Persian title or a surname for an ethnic group in India other than the Sikhs. As has been said on these boards before, "Singh" is indeed a common Sikh name. But as others have also pointed out, unless Khan is totally secular, he exhibits none of the visible Sikh traditions (including not carrying a Kirpan). "Noonien" must be a totally made up name, because I can't find any ethnic origin (or etymology) for that name at all.

I must say I'm amused to find out that a story in a Trek comic will apparently spend time trying to explain why Khan looks like Benedict Cumberbatch in the new universe. That ranks right up there with feeling the need to create a story to explain how the Klingons got their ridges.

 

It's one thing if they have an actual interesting story to tell, quite another if they're just pandering to the fanbase.

 

Probably. More's to pity.

Still, it would be more courageous not to do it. After all, Pine doesn't look like Shatner, Quinto doesn't look like Nimoy, Pegg doesn't look like Doohan, and so on. Do these differences need explaining, too? Where does it stop? Oh, dear Lord, where does it stop? [Starts sobbing uncontrollably.]

 

There's a substantial difference between recasting a character in a similar appearance and changing them to be John Whitebread.

 

I dunno, I'd have to say the JJverse was already an alternate reality before Nero flew into it. The Kelvin was super scaled, Chekov's age changed, the San Fransisco Shipyard moved to Iowa and well... whole threads dedicated to all this.

But TNG handwaved all the alternate universes with the whole "every choice possible is made in an alternate reality." Not sure I buy into that, but time travel and alternate universes are Trek cliches.

Still wanna know why those black holes are selective when they do and don't have ship crushing gravity.

 

Khan isn't wearing a turban when on Ceti Alpha V. Whatever that thing is, it's not a turban - just part of the protective gear that all of his people wore. Didn't look at all like Sikh religious garb.

The concept of alternate universes existed LONG before Trek did. I don't know if all of the theories propounded regarding them assumed that there were an infinite number of such universes (or a fixed number of them) but I suppose most were. In which case, TNG did not handwave anything. Assuming an infinite number of universes, the likelihood that these will comprise every outcome of every decision ever made is, by definition, infinitely good.

 

Zefram Cochrane had a totally different personality as well as appearance. That still annoys me - like Berman and Braga had said "stuff you" to TOS. Still what can you do?

In the next movie they should introduce Kyle on transporter as a proper Sikh with turban and beard. He can turn from a whitebread Englishman to an ethnic Sikh. Would that make everyone happy?

 

Well, to be fair, James Cromwell wasn't their first choice (excellent though he was). They wanted Tom Hanks. And even though Hanks is a HUGE Trekkie and wanted to play Cochrane, he couldn't, because he was already working on That Thing You Do! when offered the role.

 

From Juan Panblanco?

 

Cochrane in TOS was a younger version, wasn't it? Did his age get reversed and he made it through all his AA meetings? So it would make some sense I suppose.

I prefer TNG Cochrane anyhow. He was a fun character.

 

I didn't know that about Hanks, I think would have done a great job.

 

He also wasn't from Earth.

 

Yet he was human.