Khan - New IDW mini series - SPOILERS!!!!!

[Hartzilla2007]

^Split hairs all you want, but it should be self-evident that this issue has created controversy, and has resonated with the larger, disturbing "racebending" controversy in modern movies (in the past year we've not not just Khan, but the Mandarin, Tonto, and Shredder in Michael Bay's upcoming Ninja Turtles movie). So it's naive to claim that there are absolutely no issues here beyond the issues involved in recasting Kirk or Saavik. One can disagree with the objections if one chooses, but it's simply disingenuous to pretend they don't exist at all.

The Mandarin was a yellow peril villain and most of the stuff I've heard prior to Iron Man 3 was how they couldn't include the guy without be racist to the Chinese.

So I'm not sure its a good idea to include that guy.

Also again avoiding the issue of Wrath of Khan and its whiter Khan, which bears repeating since the only people who know this would be white washing are those that watched an obscure tv episode from 1967, while also some how not seeing the more popular 1982 film sequel to said episode where nothing about Khan's ethnicity is mentioned AT ALL Hell Into Darkness only gave his full name and that was for the first time in decades.

 

[JoeZhang]

My problem is pretty straight forward, if because of the movie, you go down the road that is always what Khan looks like - I don't give a shit, but you create problems for yourself if you make the character of ethic decent and then he turns himself into a white dude.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

My problem is pretty straight forward, if because of the movie, you go down the road that is always what Khan looks like - I don't give a shit, but you create problems for yourself if you make the character of ethic decent and then he turns himself into a white dude.

you mean this guy:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H6x6TDnCH...AAAIk/lJh1rrFiIsY/s1600/ricardo-montalban.jpg

 

[Noddy]

I wonder if the writers will incorporate any of the details from ENT's Augment Trilogy into the story?

 

[Christopher]

The Mandarin was a yellow peril villain and most of the stuff I've heard prior to Iron Man 3 was how they couldn't include the guy without be racist to the Chinese.

So I'm not sure its a good idea to include that guy.

The point, though, is about the overall pattern. The individual instances seem to have legitimate justifications -- except for Bay turning Shredder into a white guy, which just seems gratuitous -- but the fact that it's happening so often in such a short span of time is disquieting.

The point is not that there's some simplistic "right" position to take, but that it's a complicated issue that raises a lot of questions, and it's legitimate to consider those questions. We don't have to pretend we have the answers, but the questions are worth asking.

Also again avoiding the issue of Wrath of Khan and its whiter Khan...

I'm not "avoiding" anything, because I'm not trying to dumb this down to a black-and-white position. I'm trying to acknowledge all the issues that come into play. Yes, TWOK ignored the intent behind Khan's ethnicity in "Space Seed," but it also turned all of Khan's multiethnic band into a bunch of blond Nordic types, and that's racially problematical in itself. "Space Seed" took what, for its time, was a bold and subversive stance by portraying a genetically superior breed of human as multiethnic. TWOK, conversely, portrayed them according to the "Aryan" stereotype favored by white supremacists and old-school eugenicists. Now, most likely Meyer's intent was to condemn those eugenicists, since Khan's people were the bad guys, but still, it was employing a stereotype that "Space Seed" challenged. And even aside from those questions, it was simply a problem from a continuity standpoint.

So bringing TWOK into the discussion doesn't resolve it -- it just complicates it further. Absolutely it should be considered, but alongside the other factors, not to their exclusion.

 

[JoeZhang]

My problem is pretty straight forward, if because of the movie, you go down the road that is always what Khan looks like - I don't give a shit, but you create problems for yourself if you make the character of ethic decent and then he turns himself into a white dude.

you mean this guy:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H6x6TDnCH...AAAIk/lJh1rrFiIsY/s1600/ricardo-montalban.jpg

I don't give a shit about that either, that was 30 years ago, in 2013, I expect people to know better than to not understand the underlying politics of presenting a character's who has an ethical origin within the story presented who then turns himself white - best simply to leave it alone and just have him always resemble BC in the story.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

a character's who has an ethical origin within the story...

Origins that are questionable at best considering the unreliability of the source and that only people who have seen a Star Trek episode from 1967 where as most people are going to be familiar with that 30 year old movie.

Personally I couldn't care less about the ethnicity Khan's actor hell it could be an African-American next reboot as long as his acting is good and I definitely don't give a shit how it matches up to a continuity that lets face is DEAD and never coming back.

And I can also do without this incessant need to explain every freaking change they ever make to a Star Trek film or tv shows because the effects set designs and make up and costuming improve

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

One thing about this comic seems a tad off to me:

It appears to show the scientists kidnapping ordinary people and turning them into Augments, whereas the Augments Trilogy on ENT showed that the process was started with embryos. Are these two approaches reconcilable?

It could have been both. You'll notice how Arik Soong and the rest of his Augments - which were grown from embryos - didn't even believe Khan existed at all? They called Khan a "myth".

 

[Christopher]

Personally I couldn't care less about the ethnicity Khan's actor...

And that's your prerogative. But there's a big difference between not caring about something yourself and refusing to admit there can be legitimate reasons for other people to care about it. One doesn't have to share a belief in order to acknowledge its right to exist. Heck, that's one of the core principles of Star Trek.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

One thing about this comic seems a tad off to me:

It appears to show the scientists kidnapping ordinary people and turning them into Augments, whereas the Augments Trilogy on ENT showed that the process was started with embryos. Are these two approaches reconcilable?

It could have been both. You'll notice how Arik Soong and the rest of his Augments - which were grown from embryos - didn't even believe Khan existed at all? They called Khan a "myth".

No they believed the Botany Bay was a myth.

 

[BillJ]

Personally I couldn't care less about the ethnicity Khan's actor hell it could be an African-American next reboot as long as his acting is good and I definitely don't give a shit how it matches up to a continuity that lets face is DEAD and never coming back.

Count me in the camp of not caring about the switch in ethnicity.

The next reboot can have a black Kirk, an Asian Spock and a female Scotty and as long as they're all good actors, I'm good.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

One doesn't have to share a belief in order to acknowledge its right to exist. Heck, that's one of the core principles of Star Trek.

No that was an idea used to sell jewelry.

The core principles of Star Trek were apparently that humans and the Federation were always right, everyone else was a primitive throw back, and only species with warp drive were worth a crap so if they don't have that let them all die

 

[jpv2000]

What reason did they give for Pine and Shatner looking different?

They never gave a reason. They just show Nero going through a database and there's a picture of Shatner's Kirk.

Second, actually.

I'm interested in this. I did a Google search and read some reviews, but they said nothing about this.

What reason did they give for Pine and Shatner looking different?

There is no explanation, nor was there meant to be. The issue used Shatner's likeness because they wanted readers to recognize visually that it was meant to be Kirk, and the movie hadn't come out yet so Pine's face wouldn't have been as effective a visual shorthand.

And in the movie, Spock Prime recognized the young Kirk on sight. In story, they do look the same, regardless of the actors' appearance. The difference in how Kirk was drawn in the different comics is no more a real in-story difference than, say, the difference between Steve Ditko's Peter Parker and Humberto Ramos's Peter Parker.

Thanks, Bill and Christopher. I had misunderstood the post I quoted, thinking that they had actually provided a reason, which I would find strange.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Sounds like they butchered the character again. Moustache twirling villains who just do bad to be bad are just boring and not worth my time. Pass.

Amazing you can "pass" so easily. I just read issue #1. It was actually nothing like the story I thought they might start telling, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. Lots of fresh takes.

 

[Ovation]

I did not need an explanation for why Klingons didn't look the same in the 1960s vs. every other appearance until Enterprise provided one (though I liked those episodes and have no objection to the explanation).

The same applies to Khan. No need to explain, but as one is being offered, I am interested in how they will try to explain it.

If it were up to me, I would play with the word Khan. In Trek, it appears as much a title as a name (a dual purpose for the term that exists in the real world). Cumberbatch could easily be using "Khan" the way Montalban did in Space Seed (if I recall the dialogue correctly enough from Space Seed to paraphrase, Kirk presses Khan with something like "Khan, just that, nothing else?" to which Khan replies something like "just Khan").

What if Khan is a title and not a name? So far, only Montalban and the 20th century youth have acknowledged or used "Noonien" (Singh would thus be implied). Cumberbatch did not indicate "Noonien" as part of his name. The way 1967 Khan avoided "Noonien Singh", one would think the more famous portion of his identity was his name rather than his title (if "Khan" is indeed a title here).

It is extremely unlikely the writers will go this route (Khan as title), and I have no issue with Cumberbatch being the same in-universe Khan as Montalban. But that is how I would have approached the matter--in large part to add a bit of mystery to the story. Then again, I'm not a screenwriter.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I did not need an explanation for why Klingons didn't look the same in the 1960s vs. every other appearance until Enterprise provided one (though I liked those episodes and have no objection to the explanation).

I preferred Roddenberry's explanation that they always looked like that to the whole TOS Klingons were half assed augments and probably not really considered Klingons.

The same applies to Khan. No need to explain, but as one is being offered, I am interested in how they will try to explain it.

I'm worried its going to end up being something dumb and/or over complicated.

 

[Christopher]

In Trek, it appears as much a title as a name (a dual purpose for the term that exists in the real world). Cumberbatch could easily be using "Khan" the way Montalban did in Space Seed (if I recall the dialogue correctly enough from Space Seed to paraphrase, Kirk presses Khan with something like "Khan, just that, nothing else?" to which Khan replies something like "just Khan").

Not quite. In "Space Seed," Khan actually said "Khan is my name" to Kirk and "My name is Khan" to Marla. (Kirk also said "Name: Khan" in the later briefing.)

 

[Therin of Andor]

It is extremely unlikely the writers will go this route (Khan as title)

But they do. The boy introduces himself in issue #1 as Noonien Singh.

 

[Ovation]

In Trek, it appears as much a title as a name (a dual purpose for the term that exists in the real world). Cumberbatch could easily be using "Khan" the way Montalban did in Space Seed (if I recall the dialogue correctly enough from Space Seed to paraphrase, Kirk presses Khan with something like "Khan, just that, nothing else?" to which Khan replies something like "just Khan").

Not quite. In "Space Seed," Khan actually said "Khan is my name" to Kirk and "My name is Khan" to Marla. (Kirk also said "Name: Khan" in the later briefing.)

But could that not simply be evasion on his part--the fear that if he is immediately recognized (as he apparently believes would happen if he gave his full name) he would be dealt with harshly? After all, he has no way of knowing if his notoriety has diminished when he is first questioned about his identity.

 

[Ovation]

It is extremely unlikely the writers will go this route (Khan as title)

But they do. The boy introduces himself in issue #1 as Noonien Singh.

I don't recall the Singh portion (have to look at it again). But I meant I doubt the writers will conclude with "Harrison/Khan" as being an entirely different person than "Noonien Singh/Khan". That's how I would have done it, but I'm highly doubtful it is the planned conclusion.

Edit: I saw it on a second reading. Anyway, I remain curious how they will address this issue.