Here and everywhere else. Funny how the characters remark on it. I wonder if someone had Montalban in mind when those lines were written.
Space Seed. Seems like just the middle of a story.
- Thread starter Queen Mab
- Start date
Here and everywhere else. Funny how the characters remark on it. I wonder if someone had Montalban in mind when those lines were written.
Well, the thing is, regardless if you feel the story is incomplete (which I do too), or complete, or whatever,.. one things for sure, there is SOME form of problem with the basic script.
Exactly. Even reading the word "prequel" makes me wanna throw up. If anything proves that the movie industry has run out of ideas, it's that stupid prequel concept that has been applied to almost every original movie or tv show there ever was.
For me it's "reboot." Can't just do a new take on a character or a book, now it has to be a "reboot." oh, this Spiderman's suit is a little more red than the last one! Major continuity violation! It must be a reboot! Branagh's Hamlet? Total reboot. Too bad they didn't flash back to Olivier's and explain that there had been a temporal distortion causing this Hamlet to be different from that one. How do I reconcile them in my little brain???
But movie prequels are nothing new. They made a prequel to The Golem (1915) back in 1920: The Golem: How He Came Into the World.
The more things change, etc.
Wow, one example from 1920.
It's not about the prequels concept being new, it's about the prequel concept being done to death nowadays.
Nope. The original 1915 film had the Golem coming to life in modern times. The 1920 film was a prequel detailing the Golem's origin's in medieval Prague.
Apparently, there was also another film, The Golem and Dancing Girl (1917), which is now lost.
All three films starred Paul Wegener as the Golem.
So, yeah, they were making prequels to hit movies as far back as the silent era.
The fact that we are discussing the issue in relation to this particular episode makes it self-evident that such a problem does in fact exist.
Typically, these things boil down to the the clumsy handling of the expository elements presented to the audience - or their failing to be presented cleanly - or too many expository elements presented without a satisfying resolution at the climax, or answered in the denouement - if one exists at all.
Last edited:
Nah, its mostly just a couple of people who would like to see more Khan, because they like him as a character The expository elements are presented in the same as manner as other episodes and are just as clear. We met "Guest Star X". We find out about "Guest Star X's" back story. Something happens to put him into conflict with Kirk. Conflict is resolved. Yes the ending leaves Khan's fate up in the air, but that's on purpose. The audience is supposed to wonder ( as Kirk and the crew does) what will happen. If the second movie had be called the Wrath of Rojan, we'd be having this conversation about "By Any Other Name".
?
As one of the many 'few' that you refer to, I for one, didn't care for KAHN as much as other characters, so I certainly do not suffer from 'wanting to see more of him'.
Again, simply consider this fact: People - including the original poster - are discussing this one particular episode, out of all the other 77, with regard to feeling the effects of clumsy exposition; be it: a poorly drafted inciting incident, unsupported rising-action, or fumbled conclusions,... or any of the other plagues which can haunt a story - if the craftsman is not as adroit at his craft as he should be.
As readers, or viewers, as the case may be, the audience should never be aware of the mechanics at play in the first place; but, if the mechanics at play come off 'stinky', the mindful audience sure can smell them.
As a wise man once said: "Just because you don't see the dog-doo, doesn't mean you are not standing in it."
As one of the many 'few' that you refer to, I for one, didn't care for KAHN as much as other characters, so I certainly do not suffer from 'wanting to see more of him'.
Again, simply consider this fact: People - including the original poster - are discussing this one particular episode, out of all the other 77, with regard to feeling the effects of clumsy exposition; be it: a poorly drafted inciting incident, unsupported rising-action, or fumbled conclusions,... or any of the other plagues which can haunt a story - if the craftsman is not as adroit at his craft as he should be.
As readers, or viewers, as the case may be, the audience should never be aware of the mechanics at play in the first place; but, if the mechanics at play come off 'stinky', the mindful audience sure can smell them.
As a wise man once said: "Just because you don't see the dog-doo, doesn't mean you are not standing in it."
You're still gonna have to point out these alleged "mistakes" that resulted in an episode that "seems like the middle of a story". As I've said the structure and pacing of the episode is pretty much like the others. The exposition makes it pretty clear who Khan was, where he came from and what his goals are. Its pretty smooth too and flows well.?
As one of the many 'few' that you refer to, I for one, didn't care for KAHN as much as other characters, so I certainly do not suffer from 'wanting to see more of him'.
Again, simply consider this fact: People - including the original poster - are discussing this one particular episode, out of all the other 77, with regard to feeling the effects of clumsy exposition; be it: a poorly drafted inciting incident, unsupported rising-action, or fumbled conclusions,... or any of the other plagues which can haunt a story - if the craftsman is not as adroit at his craft as he should be.
As readers, or viewers, as the case may be, the audience should never be aware of the mechanics at play in the first place; but, if the mechanics at play come off 'stinky', the mindful audience sure can smell them.
As a wise man once said: "Just because you don't see the dog-doo, doesn't mean you are not standing in it."
Lets look at the original post:
The poster want's more info on Khan's life in the 1990s thinking that will gives us insight to how Khan would fare on his new world, ( forgetting that it's a totally different situation)
As I've pointed out the story is not about Khan or his life in the 1990s. More exposition about that will not add anything to the story being told, which is clearly focused on stopping Khan from taking over the ship. Nor will it give any particular insight as to how he will forge an "empire" on this new world. Conquering a quarter of Earth and ruling over its population is a different task that taming an uninhabited planet using men and women already loyal to you.
Captain Tracy, you seem to present yourself as someone with knowledge or background in writing. So what is that background?
Frankly not seeing any egregious problems with the script. The story of Space Seed was never intended, nor ever attempted to encompass the complete life history of Khan Noonian Singh. In that sense, one may correctly view the tale as an event in the middle of a larger story, but that is pretty much true of all drama. The actions of the story revolve specifically around the conflict between a character from the past and our heroes. We are given enough information about Khan to understand that he is a real threat based on his mental and physical abilities and his heightened ambition.
Choices were made as to how to present this story and how to introduce this character. Many of these choices were likely budget-related. With unlimited resources, the audience (and the Enterprise crew) could have been shown historical footage of Khan's rise to power and the conditions on Earth in the 1990s. This was not practical or necessary; we learned this information thru dialog filmed on a standing set. Cheap and effective. And we, the audience, are allowed the opportunity to imagine the conditions on Earth at that point in history. Khan is a character, and the reactions of the Enterprise crew and the tidbits of information are meant to enhance that character, not provide a full, alternate Earth history.
Similarly, the story could have involved time travel of our crew back to Earth (or an alternate Earth since they are so prevalent) of the 1990s where Khan was still in power. However, the historical conditions were not the focus of the story, nor was seeing Khan in action at any point prior to encountering the Enterprise. Again, far more expensive than a few scenes of expository dialog and not the intended focus of the story.
The closest parallel that comes to mind, from the same season, is Harry Mudd. Mudd and Khan are each individuals who are encountered in space under mysterious circumstances. Mudd consciously tries to hide his identity. Khan is intentionally vague about his. In each case, the crew are able to determine who they are and explain their backgrounds in a briefing room setting. This provides a context for the conflict to come, really nothing more. In the case of Khan, his background is more complex and compelling from an idea point of view, but no more or less important in terms of the episode's story. Each episode has the guest character detained, seen to escape, seen to threaten the ship or the crew, and ultimately defeated (with the aide of a female initially sympathetic to the antagonist's cause) Both stories endings leave the question as to what will become of their respective guest characters, and each received a follow-up in a later episode or movie. This was due to the success or popularity of the characters and the nature of the endings to the original stories.
Many characters in Trek have been expanded upon and given fuller back stories in novels and fan fiction. This does not indicate that the original story was flawed or incomplete, only that compelling ideas that were only touched on within the 50 minute frame work of the original story were deemed worthy of further exploration. This is particularly true of Khan's backstory since it hints at a relatively unexplored portion of (alternate) Earth history. But in terms of the episode, the few details offered were included to enhance the character and perhaps titillate the audience. They were never meant to be the focus of the story.
Choices were made as to how to present this story and how to introduce this character. Many of these choices were likely budget-related. With unlimited resources, the audience (and the Enterprise crew) could have been shown historical footage of Khan's rise to power and the conditions on Earth in the 1990s. This was not practical or necessary; we learned this information thru dialog filmed on a standing set. Cheap and effective. And we, the audience, are allowed the opportunity to imagine the conditions on Earth at that point in history. Khan is a character, and the reactions of the Enterprise crew and the tidbits of information are meant to enhance that character, not provide a full, alternate Earth history.
Similarly, the story could have involved time travel of our crew back to Earth (or an alternate Earth since they are so prevalent) of the 1990s where Khan was still in power. However, the historical conditions were not the focus of the story, nor was seeing Khan in action at any point prior to encountering the Enterprise. Again, far more expensive than a few scenes of expository dialog and not the intended focus of the story.
The closest parallel that comes to mind, from the same season, is Harry Mudd. Mudd and Khan are each individuals who are encountered in space under mysterious circumstances. Mudd consciously tries to hide his identity. Khan is intentionally vague about his. In each case, the crew are able to determine who they are and explain their backgrounds in a briefing room setting. This provides a context for the conflict to come, really nothing more. In the case of Khan, his background is more complex and compelling from an idea point of view, but no more or less important in terms of the episode's story. Each episode has the guest character detained, seen to escape, seen to threaten the ship or the crew, and ultimately defeated (with the aide of a female initially sympathetic to the antagonist's cause) Both stories endings leave the question as to what will become of their respective guest characters, and each received a follow-up in a later episode or movie. This was due to the success or popularity of the characters and the nature of the endings to the original stories.
Many characters in Trek have been expanded upon and given fuller back stories in novels and fan fiction. This does not indicate that the original story was flawed or incomplete, only that compelling ideas that were only touched on within the 50 minute frame work of the original story were deemed worthy of further exploration. This is particularly true of Khan's backstory since it hints at a relatively unexplored portion of (alternate) Earth history. But in terms of the episode, the few details offered were included to enhance the character and perhaps titillate the audience. They were never meant to be the focus of the story.
"Reboot" or "New Take" ... what's the difference? I am sick of reboots and new takes as well as prequels. All of them have been done to death over the past ten or fifteen years. The last Spiderman Trilogy is only a few years old, and now there has to be a different take, or reboot, or whatever ... it just makes me sick!
Ten or fifteen? More like a hundred!!! They were rebooting and remaking before there were terms for them
I have to agree there. "Space Seed" was just fine on its own and one of TOS' better episodes. It's only because we got TWoK and then the preoccupation with prequels and expanded backstories that some wish there was more to "Space Seed" and hence the sense of it being incomplete.
There is a new comic out by IDW publishing last year called "Khan Ruling in Hell" that covers the same scenario as coxs novels anyone read it? Seems like it would be really interesting I just watched space seed for the first time myself and now want to dive more into the story of Khan will probably try to work and on the comic and novels sometime.
It didn't do for me. I rather liked Cox's novel that explains how the blond young people in ST II are the throwback, rapidly matured, 14yo offspring of the multiracial adult superhumans we met in "Space Seed". Thus Judson Scott's Joachim, in ST II, is the son of dark-haired Joaquin (Mark Tobin) of "Space Seed". Marla is quite a strong character in the novel and the reader really feels for her when she falls out of favour with some of the superhumans.
In the IDW comic mini-series, blond Joachim is supposed to be the same character of Khan's right-hand man, Joaquin, from "Space Seed". Marla is no where near as sympathetic in the comic, and it's not as tragic when she's killed.
Similar threads
