Khan #1 Review

[BigJake]

Lindelof's statement about budgets and how you have to be saving the world if you spend more than $100m doesn't really hold water at all. Fast & Furious 6 spent almost as much as StiD did ($160 million) and did $786 million at the box office (well over what STiD managed IIRC), without blowing up much more than a parking garage. It does sound kind of hacky and defensive... although it also sounds like the conditions born of external pressure, and I could certainly believe that people at Paramount and CBS (perhaps with international focus group statistics in hand) could be the source of that kind of reasoning and priority-setting.

Having said all that, the "disaster porn" complaint leveled at STiD seems too easy to me, and off the mark. STiD was actually quite restrained in terms of property destruction, and insofar as a 9-11 parallel existed it was more in terms of there being some form and flavour of domestic threat at all and terrorism-as-part-of-the-equation at all. "Disaster porn" -- which IMO is much more about the apocalypse-anxiety of our times than about 9-11 -- is a much more relevant term to a film like Man of Steel (whose urban throwdown apparently should have caused $2 trillion in damage, left almost 400,000 people dead or missing and more than twice that number injured) or Pacific Rim (which was specifically apocalyptic-stakes science fantasy).

 

[Christopher]

Oh, don't get me wrong -- I found STID's use of city devastation gratuitous and superficial, but it was a minor problem in the film, nothing compared to the offensive excess and shallowness of Man of Steel's climax. I'm certainly not saying they're on a par. MoS's city-wrecking orgy ruined the film for me, but STID's more restrained use of the trope was just a minor annoyance.

As for Pacific Rim, I haven't actually seen it yet, but from what I know, it's different because it's a pastiche of a genre that's all about that kind of destruction (Godzilla/daikaiju films), and because the filmmakers made a point of establishing that the cities were evacuated first, so it didn't have MoS's sheer obliviousness toward civilian casualties.

 

[BillJ]

But the point is, Khan was not written as a "madman" in either "Space Seed" or STID. The intent was not to portray him as some one-dimensional monster. He was clearly written as a nuanced villain with sympathetic motivations. Of the two main villains in the film, Khan was shown to warrant more of our sympathy than Marcus was. So I don't agree in the least that the film portrayed him as a "genocidal madman." Marcus was the one who was trying to start a war that could kill billions. Khan was trying to save his family, essentially, albeit willing to go to extreme measures to do so. Both were bad guys, to be sure, but Khan was the more sympathetic one.

I found nothing sympathetic about Khan. He was taking Enterprise senior officers and threatening to kill them if they didn't help him, he held a blade to McCoy's neck and didn't seem too sympathetic towards the security officers he pummeled in "Space Seed".

He also was going to have no issue killing all five-hundred people on the Enterprise if he didn't get his way.

As far as the "no massacres under his rule": what qualifies as a massacre? Plus, with the "Records of that period are fragmentary, however." comment, how are they certain that Khan wasn't some kind of homicidal monster? I'm certain a quarter of the Earth didn't just lay down their arms and decide it best to follow Khan.

 

[Ovation]

But the point is, Khan was not written as a "madman" in either "Space Seed" or STID. The intent was not to portray him as some one-dimensional monster. He was clearly written as a nuanced villain with sympathetic motivations. Of the two main villains in the film, Khan was shown to warrant more of our sympathy than Marcus was. So I don't agree in the least that the film portrayed him as a "genocidal madman." Marcus was the one who was trying to start a war that could kill billions. Khan was trying to save his family, essentially, albeit willing to go to extreme measures to do so. Both were bad guys, to be sure, but Khan was the more sympathetic one.

I found nothing sympathetic about Khan. He was taking Enterprise senior officers and threatening to kill them if they didn't help him, he held a blade to McCoy's neck and didn't seem too sympathetic towards the security officers he pummeled in "Space Seed".

He also was going to have no issue killing all five-hundred people on the Enterprise if he didn't get his way.

As far as the "no massacres under his rule": what qualifies as a massacre? Plus, with the "Records of that period are fragmentary, however." comment, how are they certain that Khan wasn't some kind of homicidal monster? I'm certain a quarter of the Earth didn't just lay down their arms and decide it best to follow Khan.

I think he means STID Khan, not Space Seed Khan.

 

[Christopher]

I think he means STID Khan, not Space Seed Khan.

Yes. I did say "the film," not "the episode." And there was nobody named "Marcus" in "Space Seed."

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Meh. Khan is Khan, whether it be from episode or film. The STID Khan was the same one we saw in TOS. He's not suddenly a stand-up guy just because we get to see him cry crocodile tears over his "family".

"Genocidal madman?" "Space Seed" made it clear that there were no massacres under Khan's rule, that he was the least brutal of the "supermen" who seized power. And the only time he was ever portrayed as a madman was in TWOK, as a result of 15-plus years of desperate hardship and the loss of his wife. Both SS and STID portray Khan as a very sane, intelligent, calculating antagonist; it's only the climactic ship-crash sequence that he's portrayed as vengeance-crazed (yet another reason I feel the film would've been better without that sequence). Other than that, I felt the film portrayed Khan rather sympathetically -- an aspiring conqueror with a ruthless streak, yes, but genuinely caring about his people and acting in the name of their survival and freedom.

You almost sound like you'd enjoy living under Khan's rule. Are you sure you want to be judged that way?

 

[beamMe]

MoS's city-wrecking orgy ruined the film for me, [...] so it didn't have MoS's sheer obliviousness toward civilian casualties.

Shocking that those bad Kryptonians were the cause of much death. In a superhero-movie, no less. Who'd have ever thought this could happen?

 

[Therin of Andor]

that's what was completely and utterly missing from Man of Steel.

I agree. I'm afraid I was bored witless.

 

[Nob Akimoto]

I do kinda find it silly to compare a Kaiju movie's destruction of city-scapes (given that the genre basically requires it) and that of a Star Trek movie (which doesn't).

 

[RPJOB]

I found it odd that NuSPock had to be goaded by NuKirk into showing emotion over the destruction of Vulcan and the death of his mother and yet he totally lost it and went into a homicidal rage over the "death" of one person that he's known for about a year. Sort of puts the destruction of Vulcan into perspective, right up there with the Death Star blowing up Alderaan in Star Wars. Obi Wan feels a disturbance in the force and then it's never mentioned again.

 

[beamMe]

I found it odd that NuSPock had to be goaded by NuKirk into showing emotion over the destruction of Vulcan and the death of his mother and yet he totally lost it and went into a homicidal rage over the "death" of one person that he's known for about a year. Sort of puts the destruction of Vulcan into perspective,

No, it doesn't.

Most people wouldn't find it odd that someone would snap when events kept piling up on him or her.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I found it odd that NuSPock had to be goaded by NuKirk into showing emotion over the destruction of Vulcan and the death of his mother and yet he totally lost it and went into a homicidal rage over the "death" of one person that he's known for about a year. Sort of puts the destruction of Vulcan into perspective, right up there with the Death Star blowing up Alderaan in Star Wars. Obi Wan feels a disturbance in the force and then it's never mentioned again.

Spock's entire story arc in ID stems from his reaction to Vulcan's destruction.

 

[Christopher]

How is it odd for a character to evolve from one story to the next? That's what they're supposed to do.

 

[RPJOB]

It was a matter of degree that I had a problem with. Spock's entire planet was destroyed and he personally witnessed his mother "falling" out of the transporter beam. This is the younger, more emotional Spock and yet he barely reacts until Kirk makes some taunting remarks. He stops when Sarek tells him to with nobody else thinking that Kirk was in enough danger of being beaten to death that they felt they had to step in and help.

One year later, we've got someone that Spock still doesn't consider a friend until the fateful moment when he dies. Suddenly, he's screaming, running, jumping and chasing Khan across a city single handedly. Uhura's the only one who can stop him. And yet all his rage is because of the death of one person. Never mind the tens or hundres of thousands buried under the Vengeance. "You killed my friend that I just realized I had".

One person is more important that thousands or millions or billions. That's what gets my attention. It's got to be personal before I give a damn.

That's why I think it's odd. Why should I care about all the deaths on Vulcan or San Francisco when the characters don't? Just like Alderaan was simply to show what a threat the Death Star is and what a bunch of bad asses the Empire are.

If it worked for you, that's fine. I just found it rather callous that one person (or two counting Amanda) gets a much, much greater sense of outrage that billions. What would Spock do if Kirk and/or Amanda hadn't been among the dead? Would he be so much more willing to let Nero live or to not try to beat Khan to death?

Even Spock's decision to return to Starfleet at the end of the first movies seems selfish. He was ready to do his part to save his species from extinction but changed his mind when his older self told him about his budding bromance. "Screw those guys, I'm going to go hang with my buds". An yet, even after a year has passed Spock doesn't seem any closer to Kirk, at least not until Kirk "dies". It's only the very personal losses that seem to get any sort of reaction from Spock. All the rest don't seem to matter and, to me, that makes him a rather selfish character. More "The needs of the one" as opposed to "The needs of the many".

 

[Ovation]

Many people, when confronted with a severe trauma, have a barely perceptible reaction until jolted into one later on. Shock gives way to realization that the trauma was real and has permanent repercussions. Spock's reactions are not at all inconsistent with this.

 

[JD]

I had just assumed he never fully recovered from the events of the first movie, so he was a lot quicker to lose it.

 

[RPJOB]

If he were not suited for duty, why was he back on the ship in the first place? He's already abandoned his executive officer on an icy planet and then attempted to kill him when he found a way back on board. If he's so close to the edge he'd have no place being on the ship in the first place. It's not like he was needed on the ship. Kirk was all ready to depart when Spock showed up and offered his services. I wonder who the first officer was that he pushed aside was?

 

[Christopher]

I had just assumed he never fully recovered from the events of the first movie, so he was a lot quicker to lose it.

Yes -- IIRC, it was established in the movie (and in the comics leading up to it) that Spock was in denial, not really dealing with the trauma he'd gone through and thus unable to move past it.

 

[Masiral]

One person is more important that thousands or millions or billions. That's what gets my attention. It's got to be personal before I give a damn.

That's why I think it's odd. Why should I care about all the deaths on Vulcan or San Francisco when the characters don't? Just like Alderaan was simply to show what a threat the Death Star is and what a bunch of bad asses the Empire are.

If it worked for you, that's fine. I just found it rather callous that one person (or two counting Amanda) gets a much, much greater sense of outrage that billions. What would Spock do if Kirk and/or Amanda hadn't been among the dead? Would he be so much more willing to let Nero live or to not try to beat Khan to death?

It's different levels of outrage - the death of someone close to you will affect you more than the deaths of billions of people you don't know, precisely because it is personal.

 

[Christopher]

It's ridiculous to think that Spock didn't care about the destruction of Vulcan just because he didn't openly display his grief. What people -- especially Vulcans -- show on the surface is not a reliable indicator of what's going on inside them. The difference isn't that Spock cared more about Kirk's death than those of his whole species; the difference is that suppressing his grief for a year had brought him to a breaking point and Kirk's death was the last straw.