Comparing actors' portrayals of the same role (possible spoilers)

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by sonak, Jul 14, 2013.

  1. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
    Maybe there was already a thread on this, but I didn't see it. I think this is going to be like the "Jack Nicholson's Joker vs. Heath Ledger's Joker" for Star Trek. I think the way the played the character was very different, Montalban's Khan was fiery and passionate, whereas Cumberbatch's was cooler and flatter. Also in STXI they actually gave flashes of Khan's intellect, whereas in TWOK we just get told about it over and over again, but Khan doesn't really demonstrate it. Cumberbatch's is more devious, Montalban's is more direct.


    So- overall, who was the better Khan?
     
  2. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    Re:
    's
    vs. Cumberbatch's
    Khanberbatch > Montelkhan

    He actually does superhuman stuff, and appeared to grasp the three dimensional nature of space;)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 14, 2013
  3. DalekJim

    DalekJim Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Re:
    's
    vs. Cumberbatch's
    Obviously Montalban. Hugely captivating and memorable.

    Cumberbatch's John Harrison had the potential to be a great villain in his own right but the Khan revelation completely neutered him. The actor gave a great performance though, and with a better script he'd have given good competition. As it stands, he's kinda a generic modern blockbuster villain in the mould of Ledger's Joker, Loki from The Avengers, and Silva from Skyfall. Though they were much better.

    Montalban was Khan. The fact originally conceived villain John Harrison turned out to be Khan in a contrived twist, was incidental to the storyline and amounted to a gimmick. Quality will always beat gimmick.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 14, 2013
  4. Gep Malakai

    Gep Malakai Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Re:
    's
    vs. Cumberbatch's
    Cumberbatch and the current take on Khan didn't do much for me. MontalKhan all the way.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2013
  5. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia
    Re:
    's
    vs. Cumberbatch's
    ...
     

    Attached Files:

  6. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
    Re:
    's
    vs. Cumberbatch's
    (possible spoile
    sorry about the lack of spoiler tags in the title. I thought the movie had been out long enough now that it was no longer really a spoiler.


    demerit for me
     
  7. Set Harth

    Set Harth Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Morrowind
    Re:
    's
    vs. Cumberbatch's
    And it makes no sense to me at all that they went to him for help designing the Vengeance. You would go to your 23rd century engineers for that, not Khan.

    I read a Lindelof interview that more or less explained why it ended up being Khan. Basically they were hearing "don't do Khan" so much that they felt they had to do Khan. Brer Rabbit was even namedropped. :rolleyes: And now that Khan's out of the way... wait for it... it frees them up to do something original. Because that worked out so well last time.

    You know, sometimes when people are incessantly telling you that you shouldn't do something, it's better to actually not do the thing everyone is saying you shouldn't do.

    Just saying.
     
  8. DalekJim

    DalekJim Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Re:
    's
    vs. Cumberbatch's
    (possible spoile
    Doing Khan is lazy and obvious but I wouldn't mind as much if they did use him, as long as they did it properly. It was the weird halfway measured John Harrison angle we got that made Khan lack impact.

    I keep forgetting the Benedict Cumberbatch villain in the movie I saw this summer was Khan. And I'm a Star Trek obsessive.
     
  9. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia
    Re:
    's
    vs. Cumberbatch's
    (possible spoile
    It's still to open in a few more places. Another six weeks, and then we'll be able to relax on that, for the most part.
     
  10. BeatleJWOL

    BeatleJWOL Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Location:
    Winston-Salem, NC
    Re:
    's
    vs. Cumberbatch's
    well there's your problem right there.

    Anybody who's seen Prometheus knows what I mean. :devil:
     
  11. DalekJim

    DalekJim Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Re:
    's
    vs. Cumberbatch's
    (possible spoile
    Remember when Star Trek had good writers? It was ace.
     
  12. The Wormhole

    The Wormhole Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    In all honesty, I couldn't care too much about them bringing Khan back. Every Trek movie since 1996 has tried to imitate TWOK in some way that maybe it's time to revisit the movie or character just to get it out of their system.

    Rather, it's the half-assed way they brought him back. Orci admitted that they created a new character to be the villain and then named the character Khan. What the hell is that? You create a new character, use the new character.
     
  13. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    Re:
    's
    vs. Cumberbatch's
    (possible spoile
    You think the writers of your favourite DS9 (or whatever) episodes would be able to write a big-budget blockbuster that could compete with the rest? I suspect it's the genre itself you object to most of all.
     
  14. DalekJim

    DalekJim Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Yes, I think my favourite DS9, TNG, and TOS writers are better than Orci and Kurtzman.

    Not really. There can be smart action blockbusters, or at least blockbusters that try to be smart. I don't see stupidity as something to be praised.

    Now you'll reply with "But it must be good man, it sells loads!", completely misunderstanding that I don't care about that.
     
  15. Cinema Geekly

    Cinema Geekly Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Apples and oranges to compare, they were two different performances that I enjoy equally. While I think the method they used to reveal Khan has already been done to death it didn't ruin anything for me.

    People still praise Cumberbatch's performance which just makes them come off like "how dare someone have the nerve to recast Khan" which in the world of Trek fandom is the most played out thing making the rounds these days.

    Star Trek has never been overly smart or subversive. It has the appearance of being above the rest by sometimes talking about subjects other shows didn't and as a result that has given fans some inflated sense of self importance.

    I cant think of a single episode of Trek that actually made me think about something in a new way. Sure they tell good stories, but lots of shows and movies do that. Most Trek fans (myself included) tend to look at the show with rose colored glasses but quite a few of us are viewing it with 6 or 7 pairs of those glasses.
     
  16. TheSubCommander

    TheSubCommander Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Re:
    's
    vs. Cumberbatch's
    Gotta agree to disagree with you there.

    This is like saying PineKirk>ShatKirk or QuintoSpock>NimoySpock, IMHO.

    All three cases you had good actors, and they were entertaining, but better than the original actor? Hardly.
     
  17. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia
    No, here's where I reply that the topic of this thread is "comparing actors' portrayals of the same role"—specifically Cumberbatch's and Montalban's portrayals of Khan—and that if one has a complaint about the "smartness" of the writing, one really ought to go start a thread with that as the primary topic and leave off attempts at peevishly hijacking this one.
     
  18. DalekJim

    DalekJim Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Absolute joke. Won't even waste my time.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2013
  19. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    in TWOK Khan had wanted revenge against the man he thought had wrong him James T. Kirk. That desire had been festering years, compare that to when he appeared in "Space Seed".

    I prefer Montalban's Khan but that might be down to that's the one I grew up with.
     
  20. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Out of my brain on the 5:15
    Cumberbatch is far better actor than Montalban. His Khan was far more nuanced, especially when compared to TWOK Khan. But there is something about the way Montalban chews the scenery.
     

Share This Page