There are way too many ads there. Episode 2 did show up on YouTube, just later in the day (around 6 PM).
Spoilers Star Trek: Khan 1x02 - "Scheherazade"
- Thread starter Avro Arrow
- Start date
There are way too many ads there. Episode 2 did show up on YouTube, just later in the day (around 6 PM).
Into Darkness has Spock call out Khan as planning to exterminate anyone he deemed as less than superior. I took it as a reference to his final solution from the Eugenics Wars books, which the writers spoke about having read prior to writing the movie.
Looking at how people today justify horrors in news and social media, it's very possible Kirk in "Space Seed" read different historical accounts to what Spock did in "Into Darkness"
Prime Kirk was also a war veteran (not just likely from DSC/SNW, but it's also implied by his discussion of being on planets under Klingon occupation in "Errand of Mercy") and genocide survivor, while Kelvin-Kirk, messy home-life aside, seemed to grow up with a bit more political stability. Prime-Kirk (and Bones and Scotty) might have a higher bar for what's disturbingly harsh in a historical figure. Khan could've been a pretty harsh warlord, yet still be "one of the good ones" in comparison to Kodos the Executioner or Klingon war-parties counting coup at Starbase One. Kelvin Kirk and Spock might have a higher standard of behavior that they compare Khan to.
Kelvin Kirk and Spock were also filtering any opinion through a direct assault on Starfleet headquarters, terrorist attack that had claimed numerous Starfleet lives, and the direct murder in front of them of a friend and mentor figure.
That would probably predispose one to interpret historical accounts less generously... (although even Prime Spock seemed quite alarmed at the apparent admiration for Khan...)
I'm not sure that I would go all the way to emasculation, but it does feel like it adds in a significant level of sensitivity and concern with emotions that does not reflect the characters we saw on screen, well neglecting a boldness and strength and in charge attitude - which was the notable quality that Marla MacGyver's was attracted to - that was represented on screen. So I do get what you're saying. If the sensitivity and the idea that Con actually concerned himself with others feelings and what love is and such things in more peaceful circumstances than we saw was added alongside the existing character traits, I would call it additional nuance. When it was added in place of those existing character traits, It does feel like it is simply misrepresenting the character. Trying to make him someone more acceptable and likable in a 21st century sense than a character who's traits were not supposed to be entirely acceptable or positive or wholesome even in a 1960s sende. Which just feels like it's missing the point a little.
Like Marla, it's trying to redefine these flawed individuals as likable protagonists by somewhat whitewashing their characters and simply removing any elements that are considered problematic or outdated. When I think the concept of the original episode is that both of them were problematic characters. They weren't the heroes. And it feels like those traits should still be reflected in these new interpretations, and simply contrasted with other added positive traits, rather than wholy ignored. (Although at least with Khan, some of those traits start showing through a bit more next episode.)
Like Marla, it's trying to redefine these flawed individuals as likable protagonists by somewhat whitewashing their characters and simply removing any elements that are considered problematic or outdated. When I think the concept of the original episode is that both of them were problematic characters. They weren't the heroes. And it feels like those traits should still be reflected in these new interpretations, and simply contrasted with other added positive traits, rather than wholy ignored. (Although at least with Khan, some of those traits start showing through a bit more next episode.)
lol no.
It's a response to @bdub76 's critique with the same level of articulation. If you want to get more detail, it should start there.
There is nothing to really expand upon here.
Let's say that I don't see any of the male characters in this story ever making onto the A-Team.
And since I'm pretty sure I'm done after giving it three episodes, I don't want to waste my time writing long posts about a radio drama that isn't working for me.
I would concur that they are lacking in much assertiveness or machismo; though not entirely (with Khan's return of Richter in episode 3). But in general, it seems as if they were written as 21st century western men (not 1990s Western men, much less of any other culture that may not shale all Western cultural values)- attempting to create sympathy by avoiding anything that could be perceived as toxic masculinity. In spite of Khan's interactions with Marla in Space Seed consisting of pretty much nothing but.
Again, it does strike me that a Khan and his right-hand man that can sit there and talk about true love and their feelings, a Khan who worries about having hurt Marla's feelings or wants to be delicate and not embarrass his snuck-off followers rather than issuing decisive commands for their return, doesn't really feel like the Khan we've ever seen before; it seems like someone's ideal of how to humanize him as a protagonist without bothering to actually connect it to any performance given by Montalban. So, to that degree, I would concur with you.
This Khan is a thoughtful, sensitive, caring guy in touch with his feelings, an egalitarian leader who treats his followers as friends, and has almost no trace of haughtiness, regality, authoratative harshness, or controlling possessiveness... who can be stood up to and will take no for an answer. Just to be clear, I think those are all positive traits! I just don't buy that Khan Noonien Singh has those traits. He is most certainly a much better person than the man we saw in Space Seed; I just have trouble buying that he's supposed to be the same person in Space Seed. And like Marla, I would accept a journey that gets him there (just to fall later into madness or obsession). But this series seems rather determined that both of them have already undergone a substantive character change instantly, within days after Space Seed, with no arc to carry them there.
(And once more, I *do* understand the narrative reasons- because Marla and Khan's love story and Khan's descent is arc enough to fill up nine episodes, there isn't really enough time to build an arc to get them to sensitive man/strong woman status from the Space Seed start point and then tear it all down again with a tragic descent. I do understand the narrative necessity in that way... but then, again, choosing the characters that weren't a sensitive man and a strong woman was the bed they made- I rather feel the authors should have been made to lie in it, rather than adjusting the characters to what they wanted them to become in order to tell the story they wanted to tell. Because at a certain point, the entire point of telling Khan's story becomes moot if it's not really the character of Khan to begin with- it might as well just be an original work with a different character.)
Again, it does strike me that a Khan and his right-hand man that can sit there and talk about true love and their feelings, a Khan who worries about having hurt Marla's feelings or wants to be delicate and not embarrass his snuck-off followers rather than issuing decisive commands for their return, doesn't really feel like the Khan we've ever seen before; it seems like someone's ideal of how to humanize him as a protagonist without bothering to actually connect it to any performance given by Montalban. So, to that degree, I would concur with you.
This Khan is a thoughtful, sensitive, caring guy in touch with his feelings, an egalitarian leader who treats his followers as friends, and has almost no trace of haughtiness, regality, authoratative harshness, or controlling possessiveness... who can be stood up to and will take no for an answer. Just to be clear, I think those are all positive traits! I just don't buy that Khan Noonien Singh has those traits. He is most certainly a much better person than the man we saw in Space Seed; I just have trouble buying that he's supposed to be the same person in Space Seed. And like Marla, I would accept a journey that gets him there (just to fall later into madness or obsession). But this series seems rather determined that both of them have already undergone a substantive character change instantly, within days after Space Seed, with no arc to carry them there.
(And once more, I *do* understand the narrative reasons- because Marla and Khan's love story and Khan's descent is arc enough to fill up nine episodes, there isn't really enough time to build an arc to get them to sensitive man/strong woman status from the Space Seed start point and then tear it all down again with a tragic descent. I do understand the narrative necessity in that way... but then, again, choosing the characters that weren't a sensitive man and a strong woman was the bed they made- I rather feel the authors should have been made to lie in it, rather than adjusting the characters to what they wanted them to become in order to tell the story they wanted to tell. Because at a certain point, the entire point of telling Khan's story becomes moot if it's not really the character of Khan to begin with- it might as well just be an original work with a different character.)
Assertiveness and machismo is not necessarily toxic. It becomes toxic when used in vile ways. A strong, confident male isn't toxic.If that were true, then you can put Picard in that category along with Kirk. If you're going to say specifically about Khan in Space Seed, I would say he was also domineering.
He's become a complete push over, which is very contrary to how he is shown in both Space Seed and TWOK. The male characters in the TV show Heartland are far more masculine than how he's portrayed in this show and especially his male cohorts. And you can probably find lots of more masculine characters in Taylor Sheridan's productions, which are under Paramount. Remember, Star Trek was supposed to be a western in space (Wagon Train to the Stars), so both are fair modern comparisons. Another strong, modern male character that has recently been on TV is Joe Pickett.
Instant change. It was jarring. I was expecting a nice survival story that gets us from Space Seed to TWOK. Or if they were smart about it, multiple seasons of Khan to get us there. Instead, I get a lot of dialogue that comes across as therapy sessions and male characters reduced to whiners.
Is there really a love story here? I've read a lot of romances, and I'm not seeing it come together. And the part about her spending all of her time in her room alone and only going out to eat and exercise with crew on the Enterprise was a bit much. But who really wants a Hallmark love story meets Star Trek series about Khan?
I'm pretty much done.
I would not disagree, but there is a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to masculinity in this culture. My point was meant to simply be that in.aiming to eliminate toxic masculinity (which in itself isn't accurate to the character), they eliminated nearly all of Khan's existing character traits, good and bad.
I am certain that's where they're headed, with the beach scene of episode 3 being the most concrete foundational step.
I think, there has been a backlash on this going too far.
Khan is too different from Space Seed for me.
What I was hoping for was survival horror. This would have fit the circumstances we see Khan and his people in in TWOK. There would have been no need to redo the characters, and the female characters could have been written stronger due to circumstances without being unbelievable. I was not expecting Hallmark meets Khan. If I want romance, I can ready a Emily Henry book or watch Lifetime or Hallmark channel.
This show isn't for me. I do hope another one is made, and I do hope it is something I would be more interested in listening too. Not all of Big Finish stories are hits. There are misses. I hope for a hit next time around.
Nah, we're just seeing a different side of him
Not on this forum at least, outside of you.
Arguably, we're seeing the side that was present in Space Seed, although in exposition.
Hey, what am I, chopped liver?
I think I would just have to question - if we are seeing another side of Khan that was not present in his on-screen appearance (or as Bad Thoughts suggested, maybe only in exposition) and are not seeing the side of him that we did see in the television portrayal... at what point does the threshold come to say that this is out of character? In other words, if we are seeing only traits that we didn't see before, and not seeing traits that we did see before, how long does 'it's just another side of him' hold up as a justification before we get into the territory of 'they just got it wrong'?
There is no evidence from the performances in the one hour of Space Seed (less than one hour) about the relationship between Khan and his followers. We see the ruthlessness he takes toward Kirk and the Enterprise crew (which is much less than in Wrath of Khan), but that's it. Therefore the exposition is all we can go on.
Anyone during the 1960s--the refugees from Nazi Germany, the people who escaped Communism in the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe, the veterans who served in war in particular--would have recognized in that exposition who Khan was. He was "the father of the nation," benevolent to his own people, terrible to the nation's enemies. He is generous and benificent. He surrounds himself with happy children and prosperous peasants. He does not depict himself being cruel. He will indeed be cruel to those who step outside the community, who betray him, and he may be given to act out rashly at times when things go wrong. Khan's actions in no way contradict the ideas in the exposition from Space Seed or the image of Khan held by his people and himself. He has in no way been "emasculated." He is the embodiment of the dictator, the fascist, the communist tyrant.
We see his first instinct on waking- to interrogate and possibly murder the first person he sees. We see him lie, be indolent and casually dismissive up on questioning by Kirk. To view everything in martial terms during a cordial dinner. Not to mention his self-centered, uncaring, manipulative, violent, superior behavior toward Marla. His hearing is commanding, his attitude is superior, his demeanor is one who has no time for anything that doesn't serve his purposes.
I didn't throw my lot in with 'emasculated', but in terms of lacking the general traits and attitudes of Khan... can you honestly say that any of those base.isntjncts and attitudes have been present here? Or that simply being exposited to be 'the best of the tyrants without massacres' and the like equals a man with emotional sensitivity who cares about the feelings of others in spite of absolutely 0% indication of that in the episode and strong indications to the opposite?
I feel as if we are arguing on two different scales, the macro and the micro. On the macroscale, on the whole, of course I agree that Con is going to act benevolent toward his people, be a generous leader. I don't expect him to be going around throwing people into decompression chambers or shouting 'He tasks me!' every time somebody makes a minor mistake. We don't disagree that he is acting toward his people how I would expect him to act on a broad scale.
But in the microscale, there are still certain attitudes and traits that we see displayed toward friend and foalike. A certain arrogance, a certain nobility. A placing of himself above others. A utility and disregard for that which does not serve his ends. A dismissiveness and demand to be served, that is reinforced in wrath of Khan. And that, in conjunction with the attitudes toward life that his dialogue betrays. When he talks about how people like him offered the world order, how on earth he was a prince to be served and all of these people have sworn to live and die at his command. His general assumption that chekov as a first officer would be doing things like telling tales to amuse his captain as part of his role as a subordinate. There are attitudes betrayed in his dialogue toward how all other people who serve, relate to him, who commands. It is those I find to be lacking.
I don't expect him to be issuing public floggings or to be cruel and domineering toward his charges. But even if he's surrounds himself with smiling peasants and plays the benevolent dictator, that doesn't mean the mode in which he does so is going to be devoid of arrogance. Of a certain assumption of superiority, or a certain distance between Master and servant that he seems to perceive. That doesn't mean that it will automatically be done with emotional sensitivity or care for the feelings of others. He can be a benevolent dictator who is genial and gracious, but still shows no care for the emotional lives of those around him or suddenly betrays by his words and actions that while he still considers them his people that he is benevolently ruling and working toward the good of, he doesn't consider them equals with himself. It is not that I expect him to behave differently on a grand scale, it is how he behaves in his benevolent mode that I find to be off base. It is the general attitudes and character traits that his words and actions in space seed betray him to hold whether in wartime or in peacetime, whether facing a foe or facing his own subordinates, that I find to be lacking. It is those characteristics and traits. One can be a genial tyrant, but still hold those basic traits that they demonstrate in other areas of their life in the manner of their genial interactions. Their mode of interaction may be different, but their basic character does not change. And it's that basic character that seems to be fundamentally different, the general worldview. The care for others and egalitarian view of his own place among them.
And well I can't speak to the whole emasculation poster and how his frame of mind accords or differs with mine, I suspect it is the same notion. Is not that we are saying we expect gone to be harsh and cruel and trying to take over the augment settlement the way he took over the enterprise, and those are the traits that we feel he is lacking. It's that even in his benevolent mode, there were certain core attributes - a certain arrogance, certain superiority, a certain callousness toward the needs and feelings of others that do not further his own goals - that we would expect to be present regardless of who he is interacting with because they appear to be core traits of his character, which are missing. And likewise, other empathetic traits that seem to be core attributes of this version of Khan, down at the core and basic level of how he thinks and engages with the world, that would be present in interactions in Space Seed if they were truly traits that he had, and were not. It's those basic traits and attitudes that underlie a person's entire world of you and way of viewing others and engaging with the world, which would be present regardless of the situation in which Khan finds himself, that we- or at least I- find to be mismatched.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
