Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by M.A.C.O., Dec 3, 2013.
I know I keep posting this, but it's so true and so appropriate.
True, although John Harrison's identity was definitely spoiled before the film's domestic release by reviews of the world premiere.
How would John Harrison (before writers changed him into Khan) have been another rip-off?
Every time I see the title of this thread I see...
J.J. keeps admitting, keeping Khans identity a secret was a Mistake...
Is that happening to anyone else?
They could have kept him as John Harrison, maybe reveal that he was one of Khan's followers instead and rather than 72 people in torpedoes it could have been 3 or 4 out of many and instead of his "people" inside (who we never meet) it could have been his wife and children. It would have upped the stakes for Harrison, create more empathy from the audience and make Marcus look like that much more of a dickbag. It would have been a slight nod to TWOK by making Harrison simply a disciple of Khan rather than the headbutting we got instead.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie, I simply think it could have been better had the writers been a bit more creative.
That sort of writers trick always disappoints me. I get the impression that the writer isn't brave enough to meet the real force head on and tackle the subject. He has to use the weaker sidekick as an excuse to not try as hard. It's like a movie about someone who knew Satan and tried to cause a little trouble in His name instead of a movie about Satan himself. We'd miss out on a lot of spectacle and the villain is too easy to beat. So a disciple, for me, would have been even more disappointing than recycled Khan because I'd believe the writers were afraid they weren't creative enough to handle Khan. If you're going to name drop Satan or Khan, at least have the courage to look him in the eyes and deal with him directly.
Well, IMO, they weren't creative enough. And I still think a British, pale Khan is a bit too much of a suspension of my disbelief. They wouldn't have even had to come right out and say it, there could have been subtle hints like name dropping the Botany Bay or something along those lines. It wouldn't be avoiding the big guy for lack of courage, it would be avoiding a rehash while providing a fresh, new character to what was supposed to be a fresh, new reboot.
^Khan was made in a lab. His skin colour could be a a whim of his (Indian?) creators, or just a fluke. IMO he was just tanned in "Space Seed" - since Montelban is as white as Cumberbatch in Wrath of Khan (they dropped his fake Indian makeup between appearences)
In the same way anyone with a personal issue with one of the characters is considered a Khan rip-off (Shinzon?)
The accent may have been different, but the way Cumberbatch chewed scenery and talked about "walking over their cold corpses" and saying grandiose things like "after all... no ship should go down without her captain!" would have begged for comparisons to "From hell's heart, I stab at thee!" and the rest of Montelkhan's OTT spiel.
You can consider Nero a Khan knockoff as well.
Nero has a vendetta against Spock.
Nero blames Spock for not saving Romulus.
Nero blames Spock for the death of his wife and child.
Nero uses his uber-ship to cripple the Enterprise.
Nero uses slugs to torture and extract information from a hostage.
Kirk and Spock use a strategy to outwit and destroy Nero, his crew and his ship.
Nero is more of a Khan ripoff than Shinzon. Shizon's Khan traits were having a personal jealousy against Picard and having a battle in the Bassen Rift (Mutara Nebula) against the Enterprise.
No way, man. My glasses are square.
Before the writers changed him, it may not have been.
But that meme is a suggestion to people who say that it could have been one of Khan's followers. And all I wonder about that is why? Why not just use Khan? No one really gives a shit about Joachim or any of Khan's underlings. If you're gonna do a genetically engineered human, then make it Khan.
But if they didn't go with Khan, it's hard to say because the story would have likely been very different. A lot of the Khan-type stuff might not have been in there, although I'm sure there still would have been comparisons.
Take Khan out. Take genetic engineering out. Harrison is just a starfleet bad guy. Fandom would proceed to complain about the Insurrection ripoff.
From what I understand, Harrison was just going to be a Jason Bourne type character on the run. Admiral Marcus, being the real big bad, bombs London and paints Harrison as the terrorist that needs to be killed on site because of all the secrets he has of Section 31's dirty work. Harrison tried escaping Section 31 because he thought Marcus was going too far with the preemptive strike against Klingons. This is why you have that whole sequence of Kirk and Khan working together to stop Marcus, because Harrison was just supposed to be a good guy. Somewhere down the line, Lindelof convinced the writers in making Harrison into Khan, which shifted the dynamic dramatically during the rewrites.
No, they wouldn't. For one thing, there really wasn't a star fleet bad guy in the movie. Just your typical well meaning but completely mislead admiral that we've seen many, many times. He may have wanted to remove the Baku by force (Heck, I would have sent them a Quantum Torpedo), he was above killing, even going so far as to cancel the whole operation after realizing he was deceived.
If there's any movie in the Star Trek franchise that STID rips off, it was the previous movie. It covers all the same ground when it comes to what the character conflicts are and it literally ends on the same freaking note as the last movie did. STID feels less like a sequel and more like a redo.
Erm, I don't recall any other admiral willing to slaughter other starfleet officers let alone start an interplanetary war by bombing an alien world. Just me?
Not just you.
Fleet Admiral Cartwright comes close - using the Klingons as proxy.
Although saying Admirals on Star Trek have been world-bombing, Startfleet-slaughtering berzekers is hyperbolic, it merely exaggerates the well-known effect of Star Trek Admirals and other ranks above Captain going rogue. Star Trek Into Darkness continues the cliche. They are becoming much akin to Red Shirts.
I have to disagree, though you're right there are certainly similarities. Seems to me that in ST:TUC the plan Adm. Cartwright and the other conspirators formed was to have starfleet officers assassinate Chancellor Gorkon and make it look like Enterprise fired at the chancellor's ship as well as deliver the assassins. This would force Kirk into a firefight (given Kirk's prejudice, and the conspirators egged him on in this regard earlier in the film, this was surely expected). Kirk foiled all this by surrendering.
Admiral Marcus, however, planned for Enteprise to be destroyed in Klingon space and be blamed for the bombing of the Klingon homeworld. But Kirk foiled this by trying to capture Khan instead of following the orders the admiral gave him. Adm. Marcus then shows up in his starship of death and proceeds to slaughter them right then and there! Flat out murder, treason, war crimes and evil! Khan is the good guy here in comparison! I think the major difference is flat out planning to have enterprise destroyed AND trying to destroy it himself while Cartwright and the conspirators left Kirk with not just a fighting chance but a fight against a damaged ship. Anyho', that's how I see it.
Separate names with a comma.