• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Bob Orci's Comment: The Film Stood on its Own Without...[Spoilers]

... Cumberbatch's Khan is calm, intelligent and manipulative until he gets what he wants, and then he just goes berserk. Loved it.

Yes!

I would have loved to see how they'd play out his re-animation scenes. The negotiations between him and Admiral Marcus as Marcus drew him into Section 31. It would have been low-key with very little action, but the suspense and foreboding as Khan plotted would have made for great drama.
 
Whether the role was fantastically-written is one thing, but ethnic? Come on. After you've got past the name and the one casual line:

"From the northern India area, I'd guess. Probably a Sikh."​

there simply isn't anything "ethnic" about the character to which anyone can point. Khan could just as easily have been from Mars, for all the story tells about him, or from Nebraska.

What about the turban in the painting (which is still very much in continuity if it was based on his look known in the past)? And his attire that was definitely based on the sherwani and Nehru jacket?

What does that say when we have to make excuses "Oh, he's the Indian pale white British guy, that's fine, Star Trek has never been about diversity anyways."

Sure, maybe he never screamed "I'M INDIAN!" but why take it away regardless? Wow, make Human Torch black, and the internet goes crazy. But make an Indian white, and, meh, that's fine. As long as we get Doctor Who, then it doesn't matter.
 
I was not trying to label Khan as a good guy.

You were downplaying the seriousness of his evil, which effectively amounts to the same thing.

There is a difference between a bad guy who wants to do horrible things, and a bad guy who wants to achieve his own goals without wanton destruction.

You want wanton destruction? Look at the Eugenics Wars. Despite all the talk about Khan being the "best" of the tyrants, he's no better than any of the other ones. (A tyrant who says he's the good guy is still a tyrant. And you'll notice that when Khan's supposed benevolence is pointed out, it's also noted that there was "precious little freedom" under his rule...) And no better than REAL tyrants such as Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or the entire Kim family (NK) or even Saddam Hussein.

Hell, the mere fact that there *were* Eugenics Wars shows how dangerous the concept of Augments can be. It is literally in their blood, in their genes, to be conquerors and killers. THAT's what Khan's goals are. Augments can't do anything else but that. Khan must be evil - it's what he was designed to be.

This is not to say that Admiral Marcus, or Section 31, was in the right. They have their fair share of evil as well. But just because Section 31 is wrong doesn't mean Khan is right...
 
Khan is not synonymous with Hitler or any of the others you listed. He is probably more akin to someone like Julius Caesar. Someone who was respected for some of his achievements and qualities, but also noted for some of his brutality. Someone who it's much harder to label as evil, especially since the concept of evil and morality changes through the ages.
 
If Khan is such a great guy, then why does he immediately try and take over the Enterprise (in TOS) as soon as he's revived? They're planning on resuming their campaign of conquest, of course. How is that anything but evil?
 
being opportunistic isn't the same as evil.

Khan is much more than just "opportunistic". Wanting to take over the Earth (and possibly the entire Federation) and exterminate anyone who isn't an Augment, is just a wee bit more than "opportunistic".

Khan may be a charming kind of evil, but he's still evil.
 
unless he was meant to be a Sikh, in which case it's just odd. I mean, if he was supposed to be African, would it still be ok for a white guy to portray a black character ? :p
False analogy.

Sikhism is a religion. It has absolutely nothing to do with a person's skin color.

I'm pretty sure you know what I mean.

I was not trying to label Khan as a good guy.

You were downplaying the seriousness of his evil, which effectively amounts to the same thing.

Saying someone's evil is not at level 10 doesn't mean he's suddenly a good guy. He could have level 8 evil.
 
being opportunistic isn't the same as evil.

Khan is much more than just "opportunistic". Wanting to take over the Earth (and possibly the entire Federation) and exterminate anyone who isn't an Augment, is just a wee bit more than "opportunistic".

Khan may be a charming kind of evil, but he's still evil.

I agree. He's a ruthless dictator who will destroy anyone who stands in his way. He has killed for what he wants, and will continue to kill for what he wants. He is very charismatic, but he is most certainly malevolent.
 
Wanting to take over the Earth

Source?

Eugenics Wars. TOS.

(and possibly the entire Federation)

Source?

ST II.

and exterminate anyone who isn't an Augment

Source?

STID.

Saying someone's evil is not at level 10 doesn't mean he's suddenly a good guy. He could have level 8 evil.

Okay, I'll give you that. The kind of evil that prompts somebody to, say, steal a car, isn't the same kind that drives Khan or any of his ilk. But the fact that there are varying degrees of evil doesn't change the fact that evil does exist.
 
Eugenics Wars. TOS.

In Space Seed they said he didn't attack until he was attacked. How does that translate to wanting to take over Earth? Give me a quote that says he wanted to take over the Earth.


Just watched it, saw no inclination toward that. All we know is that he wanted Genesis, but there is no concrete idea of who his target was to be.


I can't recall from my single viewing, but was that something he said or that someone else said of him? Either way, it doesn't really strike me as the way his character was established initially (so just another part of the reboot). He was purposely described as one of the more morally ambiguous historical figures rather than the flat out crazy ones.
 
I can't recall from my single viewing, but was that something he said or that someone else said of him? Either way, it doesn't really strike me as the way his character was established initially (so just another part of the reboot). He was purposely described as one of the more morally ambiguous historical figures rather than the flat out crazy ones.

When Khan is holding Kirk hostage and speaking to Spock:

Khan: Give me my crew

Spock: What will you do when you get them?

Khan: Continue the work we were doing before we were banished

Spock: Which, as I understand it, involves the genocide of any being you find to be less than superior
 
Last edited:
Eugenics Wars. TOS.

ST II.

STID.

Can we nominate posts for pithiness, here ? ;)

Okay, I'll give you that. The kind of evil that prompts somebody to, say, steal a car, isn't the same kind that drives Khan or any of his ilk. But the fact that there are varying degrees of evil doesn't change the fact that evil does exist.

Insofar as "evil" means "does harm to others on purpose", then absolutely. But prior to Into Darkness there was never any indication that extermination was his goal, so I find Spock's line... illogical.

BillJ said:
He cracked Marcus' head like a nut. Pure evil.

No, that's just strength.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top