Khan or no Khan?

[Shatnertage]

This looks like a perfectly adequate pissing contest without my contribution, and I hesitate to post, but I'm curious about something.

It's been established that the writers, Orzi and Kurtzman, are Trek fans. They didn't pay enough attention to canon for some of the folks here. Do they think this was for malicious reasons, that they wanted to somehow hurt the franchise that they'd been tasked with writing a script for? Or are they just not as smart as all of us?

I can understand that there are people who don't like stylistic and story-line choices the production team made--there's a few that I don't particularly care for. But this charge that the writers are willfully lazy and incompetent just seems a little over the top to me. They're professionals on the upswing of their careers; it doesn't make sense that they'd screw the pooch on such a high-profile job, since they want to work again.

That the shirts are made of sturdier fabric hardly screams professional incompetence to me on the part of the writers, but YMMV.

 

[Ryan8bit]

You can't state its really up to the whims of the writers and than ask if its even plausible. By whatever logic they care to get there, it can be made to be plausible.

Speed of plot and all.

I was referring to your method of time actually rippling with an honest butterfly effect since it was your story idea.

I know that whatever they do they'll just do it, but I don't care much for that kind of storytelling. I feel like just because the movie is fantasy it doesn't give them a ticket to just have all sorts of crazy things happening. There should still be something somewhat believable to get them there.

There's decades worth of time plus a fairly smart guy who given the resources could build himself a smallish empire and who knows what sorts of tech he's pirated along the way. Given this would be a not so insane Khan and all.

Ok, but how is it that their ship managed to be found? That's the kind of back story I feel like they should at least roughly hash out, and it should be believable. Like, it obviously shouldn't be "Well, the Borg found it and tried to assimilate them blah blah blah." So you just look at the circumstances of the original and construct something that works within those rules. They should watch "Space Seed" and work with that framework.

Plus, even if they do find Khan running some sort of empire, why should he and Kirk be rivals? In this situation, not much could establish any kind of rivalry on par with TWOK following Space Seed. Khan could be easily substituted with any other character, and the movie would seem to come down to action more than substance.

The way I see it is that they should come up with a theme of how they want their characters to develop across their movies, and they probably even have. You have the first movie where the character development shows how they come together. Logically what would follow is a movie that shows how they start to work together, and after that would be a movie where they are more seasoned and fight a more formidable foe.



Back to my quest of asking non-hardcores about the new movie:

I asked a coworker of mine what he thought they should do for the next Star Trek movie. Here is what he said (paraphrased, for those who can't seem to understand that):

Me: What do you think they should do for the new Star Trek movie?
Him: Gee, there's so many things that they could do. They could do just about anything. Like maybe something with Klingons.
Me: I've read things that may suggest they might be doing Khan.
Him: Really? It seems almost too soon for that. Maybe they could make something about the Tribbles.
Me: How do you make a movie about Tribbles?

He also mentioned V'Ger, but I think he was joking. Oddly enough, my wife also mentioned that, but I know she was joking since she hates that movie. They both seemed to mention the same things so far: Klingons, Tribbles, V'Ger. Hmm.

 

[JarodRussell]

Has nothing to do with them being Trek fans or not. John Logan was also a major Trek fan (said he) yet his script for Nemesis was utter shyte. Nicholas Meyer was not a Trek fan, yet his script rewrite for TWOK was excellent.

They're professionals on the upswing of their careers; it doesn't make sense that they'd screw the pooch on such a high-profile job, since they want to work again.

I think you'd be amazed at how much you can screw the pooch on jobs like this.

 

[Lucien]

Well, it was as much effort as the original comment deserves at this stage of the game.

I was making a direct observation based on the creators' attitude during press coverage. It was basically "Writing within the canon is hard so we're going to make a new canon".

 

[Pauln6]

They do have a point, which is why I'm not averse to a reboot. I didn't like all their plot choices and I felt some minor tweaks would have improved the film for me personally but overall I enjoyed it, including all the little nods for Trek fans. As long as they can resist the notion that sequels need more explosions and less plot. They might be better to keep the Trek canon simple in the next one and steer clear of Khan altogether. I think that a link to the Vulcans' plight would be a good idea to retain some continuity but only as a C plot. And if they can make the Federation seem less like the US and more like the UN, that would please me too. And bring back Janice!

 

[FarStrider]

And what makes you think they know about Kirk's posting on the Farragut in the first place? It seems the extent of their research was watching some TOS in their living room and eating pizza. I wouldn't be surprised if, to the writers, Memory Alpha was just "That one place in that one episode with all the information and stuff".

You assume things, and you make an ass of yourself.

I happen to prefer "boring, constrained" Star Trek over fun, exciting Star Trek because when I watch Star Trek I don't expect non-stop action and sex and explosions and beautiful people. I liked Star Trek XI as a movie, but as a Star Trek movie I didn't care for it because it lacked a lot of the elements that made me enjoy Star Trek in the first place.

Boy, I'm glad that I watched the real world Star Trek and not the one in your head. . .both movies and shows. . . go look up the "Theiss Titilation Theory" and get back to me about how there was no sex and beautiful people in TOS. . . go watch the movies again (without your blinders) and count the ships exploding and the people dying and get back to me about action. . . People putting Star Trek on this impossible pedestal is what nearly killed it in the first place. . . Star Trek either grows and changes with the times, or it dies. . . and fortunately the fans now have writers onboard who can bring Trek into the 21st century. . . instead of trying to remake The Next Generation. . .again. . .

 

[Devon]

You're wrong, and they did the right thing.

What a well thought out reply.

Yet still true.

And what makes you think they know about Kirk's posting on the Farragut in the first place?

What makes you think they don't?

It seems the extent of their research was watching some TOS in their living room and eating pizza. I wouldn't be surprised if, to the writers, Memory Alpha was just "That one place in that one episode with all the information and stuff".

It's confirmed, the popular tactic between these people is falsifying scenarios to blame an aspect of the new movie for.

 

[JarodRussell]

Boy, I'm glad that I watched the real world Star Trek and not the one in your head. . .both movies and shows. . . go look up the "Theiss Titilation Theory" and get back to me about how there was no sex and beautiful people in TOS. . . go watch the movies again (without your blinders) and count the ships exploding and the people dying and get back to me about action. . . People putting Star Trek on this impossible pedestal is what nearly killed it in the first place. . . Star Trek either grows and changes with the times, or it dies. . . and fortunately the fans now have writers onboard who can bring Trek into the 21st century. . . instead of trying to remake The Next Generation. . .again. . .

I think you're contradicting yourselve here. TNG was just as sexed up as TOS. DS9 even more. And ENT, too. And all of them had plenty of explosions.



The funny thing is that Star Trek 2009 isn't even so different. It just has a faster pace and younger faces. But the amount of action and sex is roughly the same (I even believe that Nemesis had much more gunfights and space battles and explosions, and of course both movies had a rather anachronistic car chase). I still stand by my point that a TNG era movie done in that fast paced style would have been just as successful.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Bless - you and your circular logic.

Nothing circular about it - it's the way these things work and have worked from Day One.

You don't really think that the ad hoc "warp factor formulae" that are published have a thing to do with the way the shows were originally written, do you?

The sort of tech trivia you're talking about has nothing to do with the quality of a movie or TV series - it's just nice pooh-bah for the fans who want to really delve into it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I was making a direct observation based on the creators' attitude during press coverage. It was basically "Writing within the canon is hard so we're going to make a new canon".

You're using the term "basically" here as shorthand for "this is what I like to imagine that they meant even though it's not true."

I wouldn't be surprised if, to the writers...

Again, weasel words that amount to "I really have no idea, so I'm making up something that satisfies my own biases."

Boy, I'm glad that I watched the real world Star Trek and not the one in your head. . .both movies and shows. . .

A thousand times a day around here, a thousand times a day...

 

[Sharr Khan]

Plus, even if they do find Khan running some sort of empire, why should he and Kirk be rivals? In this situation, not much could establish any kind of rivalry on par with TWOK following Space Seed. Khan could be easily substituted with any other character, and the movie would seem to come down to action more than substance.

For the same reason they originally became rivals. Khan is a threat to the Federation or the Enterprise. In fact that's always the motive no matter who the bad guy is in any incarnation of Star Trek. That's just how you make these action driven Summer movies.

No, he wouldn't be like the Khan of WOK (which would be a good thing) he'd be more like the Khan of Space Seed, smarter and not blinded by revenge but rather motived by desire to best another "better sort of human". And I like the idea of human vs. human as well.

As to back story, like I said if they must link it to Nero and Narada go ahead and do so. It'd be a nice bridge between the two movies and show Nero's arrival had a bunch of infinite unknowns variables that altered history. Khan need not directly interact with Nero and it'd be simple enough to CGI up the Narada's brush with the Botany Bay not unlike Spock Prime's mind meld with nuKirk in some sort of flashback or intro.

His wakeup cycle begins, Botany Bay finds a planet and along the way some aliens with advanced tech who they subdue and his people procreate. Perhaps faster than normal humans? And than Khan sets his eye on that planet (Earth) who wronged him with only Kirk & Co. standing in his way.

These little plot points are not insurmountable. Of course, no one's paying me to devise this story. I'm just giving my best guess with how I would go about doing it were I given the task.

And I'm sorry. We heard all the same doubts and misgivings when news of the first movie first got confirmed often put in mouths of "A friend, of a friend, or significant other" who always of course was a none Trekkie, yet would not fail in confirming the Trekkies doubts. I'm not doubting you personally, but I do doubt those kinds of informal polls to be good indicators of what will resonate with the general public. There's a certain amount of echochamber-ing that comes into play in such situations.

 

[FarStrider]

Boy, I'm glad that I watched the real world Star Trek and not the one in your head. . .both movies and shows. . . go look up the "Theiss Titilation Theory" and get back to me about how there was no sex and beautiful people in TOS. . . go watch the movies again (without your blinders) and count the ships exploding and the people dying and get back to me about action. . . People putting Star Trek on this impossible pedestal is what nearly killed it in the first place. . . Star Trek either grows and changes with the times, or it dies. . . and fortunately the fans now have writers onboard who can bring Trek into the 21st century. . . instead of trying to remake The Next Generation. . .again. . .

I think you're contradicting yourselve here. TNG was just as sexed up as TOS. DS9 even more. And ENT, too. And all of them had plenty of explosions.

Actually, I didn't contradict myself. . . I said that I watched Star Trek in the Real World, In reply to Lucien saying:

I happen to prefer "boring, constrained" Star Trek over fun, exciting Star Trek because when I watch Star Trek I don't expect non-stop action and sex and explosions and beautiful people.

The funny thing is that Star Trek 2009 isn't even so different. It just has a faster pace and younger faces.

Actually, I think YOU just contradicted yourself. . . you admit that

the amount of action and sex [in Nemesis] is roughly the same (I even believe that Nemesis had much more gunfights and space battles and explosions...)

so, if you think that's true, what makes ST09 such a hit and Nemesis such a flop?

I still stand by my point that a TNG era movie done in that fast paced style would have been just as successful.

You know, I'm going to grant that no one can prove that a TNG era movie done in modern, fast-paced style would not have been successful. . . but given that TNG went off the air in 1994 -- and thus really wasn't in the public conscious anymore -- and in the 7 years between Nemesis and ST09 and the 4 years between ENT and ST09, there was no outcry, no clamour for any new Star Trek movie, I'm going to say that you can't prove that a TNG era movie would have been successful either, so it's a moot point. . .The fact remains that the producers didn't make TNG era movie. . . the movie that they did make made more in the box office than the entire theatrical runs of The Final Frontier, The Undiscovered Country, Insurrection and Nemesis in it's first weekend, and more than Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis combined, so, by that measure, they made the correct decision. . .

~FS

 

[JarodRussell]

Actually, I think YOU just contradicted yourself. . . you admit that

the amount of action and sex [in Nemesis] is roughly the same (I even believe that Nemesis had much more gunfights and space battles and explosions...)

so, if you think that's true, what makes ST09 such a hit and Nemesis such a flop?

The fact that you can't explain success and failure of a movie with those simple categories.

 

[Ryan8bit]

For the same reason they originally became rivals. Khan is a threat to the Federation or the Enterprise. In fact that's always the motive no matter who the bad guy is in any incarnation of Star Trek. That's just how you make these action driven Summer movies.

Just being a threat to the Federation is not what made them rivals. Even after their first encounter, you couldn't even call them rivals. It only really happened when Khan felt wronged by the Federation not checking up on them when disaster struck. Khan did not hate Kirk or have lust for his death in Space Seed. For there to be such a rivalry in this movie, Kirk is going to have to do something to really piss him off.

Khan sets his eye on that planet (Earth) who wronged him

It's hard to say for certain, but I don't think he wanted vengeance against Earth. That would be about as misplaced as Shinzon's decisions. If anything, Khan wanted to see the people of Earth advance through eugenics.

And I'm sorry. We heard all the same doubts and misgivings when news of the first movie first got confirmed often put in mouths of "A friend, of a friend, or significant other" who always of course was a none Trekkie, yet would not fail in confirming the Trekkies doubts. I'm not doubting you personally, but I do doubt those kinds of informal polls to be good indicators of what will resonate with the general public. There's a certain amount of echochamber-ing that comes into play in such situations.

Well, like I said earlier, it's hardly a representative sample. But then again, I wasn't the one originally tossing out the claim that Khan is what people want to see. I keep seeing comments thrown out left and right that people want to see Khan, or it would be a huge media opportunity, or that diehard Trek fans' opinions on message board polls are not indicative of what everyone else thinks. But where is the evidence for all that? I feel like it's just more guesswork combating guesswork. So I wanted to ask some people who I don't normally talk Trek with what they wanted to see, and I made sure to start just by asking what they thought should be there, without any mention of Khan. I feel like our own opinion of Khan's importance on these message boards varies quite a bit from what the non-hardcore audience feels, but that's just a guess.

So the point of me posting these things isn't an attempt at claiming anything as fact or bolstering any opinion (especially since I'm more for Khan than the two I asked so far), but just getting a small sampled gauge of what some non-Trekkies think should or could happen, which is far better than just making a completely empty claim. I will likely be posting more results, as I can think of a dozen more people I could ask, and some of them are bound to say Khan first thing. I might start my own thread for further results.

 

[FarStrider]

But then again, I wasn't the one originally tossing out the claim that Khan is what people want to see. I keep seeing comments thrown out left and right that people want to see Khan, or it would be a huge media opportunity, or that diehard Trek fans' opinions on message board polls are not indicative of what everyone else thinks. But where is the evidence for all that? I feel like it's just more guesswork combating guesswork. So I wanted to ask some people who I don't normally talk Trek with what they wanted to see, and I made sure to start just by asking what they thought should be there, without any mention of Khan. I feel like our own opinion of Khan's importance on these message boards varies quite a bit from what the non-hardcore audience feels, but that's just a guess.

Quoted for truth! Thank you for saying this. . .if Star Trek fans don't want Khan by a margin of 3 to 1 -- on most fan sites that I've visited, anyway -- why would people think that non-fans or casual fans brought in by the last movie would want a story about him or even care? Hell, I'm willing to bet that most casual fans wouldn't know Khan from Aunt Hecky's puppy. He is NOT inevitable, and no one has presented any evidence that he is. . .

So the point of me posting these things isn't an attempt at claiming anything as fact or bolstering any opinion (especially since I'm more for Khan than the two I asked so far), but just getting a small sampled gauge of what some non-Trekkies think should or could happen, which is far better than just making a completely empty claim. I will likely be posting more results, as I can think of a dozen more people I could ask, and some of them are bound to say Khan first thing. I might start my own thread for further results.

While I know it wouldn't be anywhere near scientific, I think this is a great idea, and I would love to see your thread. . .

~FS

 

[FarStrider]

Actually, I think YOU just contradicted yourself. . . you admit that

the amount of action and sex [in Nemesis] is roughly the same (I even believe that Nemesis had much more gunfights and space battles and explosions...)

so, if you think that's true, what makes ST09 such a hit and Nemesis such a flop?

The fact that you can't explain success and failure of a movie with those simple categories.

You know, I've already said that no one can prove that a JJ Abrams-styled TNG movie would or wouldn't have been a success. That its a moot argument. Considering that you are the one who said that ST09 and Nemesis weren't so different, what categories would YOU use to explain the success or failure of the movies?

~FS

 

[JarodRussell]

Actually, I think YOU just contradicted yourself. . . you admit that so, if you think that's true, what makes ST09 such a hit and Nemesis such a flop?

The fact that you can't explain success and failure of a movie with those simple categories.

You know, I've already said that no one can prove that a JJ Abrams-styled TNG movie would or wouldn't have been a success. That its a moot argument. Considering that you are the one who said that ST09 and Nemesis weren't so different, what categories would YOU use to explain the success or failure of the movies?

~FS

There are so many variables to it. Promotion is a big aspect, in my opinion. Paramount promoted the new movie with such incredible aggression and power. Did Nemesis get a superbowl TV spot? All I remember was an E! segment in which they focused on what wedding rings Troi and Riker wear and that Data gets to sing again. That was truly awful. Then there were much bigger names. JJ Abrams, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood, Zachary Quinto vs. Stuart Baird, Tom Hardy, Ron Perlman and Dina Meyer anyone?
Then the overall feel you get from the movie. Nemesis was a borefest, not because of a lack of action or anything, but simply because of the whole direction. The chemistry didn't work on screen (I guess because the actors didn't even want to be there), and then Baird had the weird idea of creating a depressing mood, which is mostly the wrong turn to take.
And many more things...

 

[Sharr Khan]

But then again, I wasn't the one originally tossing out the claim that Khan is what people want to see.

All I know about what "people want" and there is a distinction between Trekkies and everyday people, is that the media has been aching for this re-encounter since before the newest movie even premiered.

I'll grant its no more scientific than asking a few people I know what they would want to see. However, from a storytelling and marketing point of view Khan has an edge over just about any other bad guy that can be used. He's already in the public awareness. That coupled with the fact they have referenced "The Dark Knight" gives me a strong hint of their intentions. I can only guess about the rest.

I mean, the Joker wasn't Batman's rival until he began to act against Bruce Wayne's goals. There need not be 15 years of exile to turn Khan into a rival as in the public's mind he already is Kirk's rival. They just want to see them play cat and mouse on screen for two hours or so.

And I never said he wanted to blow up Earth. Conquering and ruling it would be more a younger (thinking) Khan's desire. Not to mention a tad different goal from a superweapon/strange probe sent to wipe out all of humanity for a Trek story.

In the end its the writers job to give the public and secondarily Trek fans what they didn't realize they wanted. I can only guess at their intentions like I said as I am not privy to those story meetings. I see PR value in Khan over any random villain, even a few already in the TOS mythology and how that will be played out in the media hype which will pull people into the theater - even Trek fans who claim they they don't want to see it will show up despite their vocal protests. In that regard they are rather consistent.

Lets say there is no Khan, this time. Do you really think people are going to stop asking Abrams and the writers about it? I don't.

 

[Amaris]

The fact that you can't explain success and failure of a movie with those simple categories.

You know, I've already said that no one can prove that a JJ Abrams-styled TNG movie would or wouldn't have been a success. That its a moot argument. Considering that you are the one who said that ST09 and Nemesis weren't so different, what categories would YOU use to explain the success or failure of the movies?

~FS

There are so many variables to it. Promotion is a big aspect, in my opinion. Paramount promoted the new movie with such incredible aggression and power. Did Nemesis get a superbowl TV spot? All I remember was an E! segment in which they focused on what wedding rings Troi and Riker wear and that Data gets to sing again. That was truly awful. Then there were much bigger names. JJ Abrams, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood, Zachary Quinto vs. Stuart Baird, Tom Hardy, Ron Perlman and Dina Meyer anyone?
Then the overall feel you get from the movie. Nemesis was a borefest, not because of a lack of action or anything, but simply because of the whole direction. The chemistry didn't work on screen (I guess because the actors didn't even want to be there), and then Baird had the weird idea of creating a depressing mood, which is mostly the wrong turn to take.
And many more things...

So you're saying except for the promotion, direction, cast, and many more things, Nemesis and ST09 are just alike.

Wait, what?

 

[thumbtack]

Well, it's only fair that I report the results of my co-worker survey as well...



Me: What do you think they should do for Star Trek 2?
Him: Fucking Dork! Get the fuck away from me!
Me: Don't you think 30 years, 3 weeks and 4 days is too soon for another Khan?
Him: I swear to God, I'll call security!
Me: I've always preferred the spinoffs myself.
Him: Security! Security!


Some people.



.