Bob Orci's Comment: The Film Stood on its Own Without...[Spoilers]
- Thread starter foreverton
- Start date
If Spock was right and not just goading him, then this Khan really is different than the Khan before him (aside from the several other ways he's different). And that's too bad because Cumberbatch played him well and he came off as intelligent and as the type of villain who was supposed to not be pure evil. But if the writers changed him that way in this reboot, then sadly they've eliminated that nuance from his character.
Fair enough. It can be predicted because we're familiar with the medium and know that Chekhov's gun must be fired. When the film goes out of its way to tell us about McCoy injecting Khan's blood into a dead tribble, something like this must be coming up.
There is, however, no in-universe reason to expect it. I think what really bothers me is that it doesn't grow organically from character, plot or situation. It's just kind of "tacked on" so they can give Kirk a death scene and then hit the reset button. The moments that presage it have no other reason to be in the film.
In other words, there's a difference between telegraphing a plot point and setting it up. The resurrectional quality of Khan's blood was telegraphed, but not well set up.
Are people really arguing against Khan squashing Marcus' head like a melon? That was possibly the coolest death I've heard in Star Trek (thank god for not seeing it). We got to actually see Spock twist and snap Khan's arm, which made me wince, but it was still effin' cool. I don't really go for violence in movies...but I can't deny that it was awesomeness squared to see those scenes. Loved it.
While I'm pretty conflicted on the movie, (I go back and forth between loathing it and finding some redemptive qualities.) I did love Cumberbatch and felt he did the best he could with limited screen time. I wish they hadn't painted Khan as such a black hat and had given him a bit more to do. I had a spark of hope that halfway through we'd end up with a complete flip and we'd end up with a Kirk/Khan team-up against Marcus. I knew it wouldn't happen (and couldn't because of things previously established in the film), but I had hope.
However, Mr. Orci's comments really ring false when you consider that Benecio del Toro was lined up to be the villain. I can't see del Toro running around as John Harrison or some other identity. I think they intended it to be Khan from the get go. When del Toro walked they realized the Khan had gotten out of the bag so they reworked the plot to the double identity.
I did notice that Harrison never says his full name, he refers to himself as Khan only. Which struck me as odd. How do you reveal yourself to people 300 years after your time with just your first name? Imagine Friedrich of Prussia coming to today's world and shouting "I AM FRIEDRICH!" Would random people have any frame of reference? Only SpockPrime uses his real name. I was half expecting the end scene to show us Harrison in his pod, the Camera pans and through the frosty glass of another pod we see the half-obscured face of a CGI inserted Montalban.
However, Mr. Orci's comments really ring false when you consider that Benecio del Toro was lined up to be the villain. I can't see del Toro running around as John Harrison or some other identity. I think they intended it to be Khan from the get go. When del Toro walked they realized the Khan had gotten out of the bag so they reworked the plot to the double identity.
I did notice that Harrison never says his full name, he refers to himself as Khan only. Which struck me as odd. How do you reveal yourself to people 300 years after your time with just your first name? Imagine Friedrich of Prussia coming to today's world and shouting "I AM FRIEDRICH!" Would random people have any frame of reference? Only SpockPrime uses his real name. I was half expecting the end scene to show us Harrison in his pod, the Camera pans and through the frosty glass of another pod we see the half-obscured face of a CGI inserted Montalban.
Indeed, but if you were responding to my post, I only said that I doubt extermination was his goal. And the reboot cannot have changed his personality since he came from before the change, so if they made him different it's a continuity issue.
Orci says the rogue admiral plot stands on its own without Khan? I guess he never did watch any of the other films or the previous series, Starfleet is chock full of rogue Admirals. Without Khan this movie was just another TV episode. And having Weller play the part was like having a flashing sign saying "Secondary Villain" over his head the whole time. Don't get me wrong. I loved the movie. Probably the best Abrams has made. There are folks who think the original TWOK is the best of the original movies so I'm thinking its Khan who makes the films that good. Kirk had his enemies, the occasional Klingon Captains Kor, Koloth, Kang, the female Romulan Captain, but Khan Noonian Singh was the guy who turned Kirk's universe on its head. Although he was only in one TV episode and one moive he was Kirk;s Moriarty or Ernst Stavro Blofeld. I'm hoping the last scene in Into Darkness makes way for Khan to return and visit his wrath.
What makes "Wrath of Khan" good isn't just a big bad villain. Although Montalban was great as Khan, he really is just another two-dimensional villain out for revenge. What makes the film is how the character Khan defines the character of Kirk.
The key to the entire film is the scene in which Saavik asks Kirk how he beat the Kobyashi Maru. It turns out he cheated. He rejects the no-win scenario. So what's the ultimate antagonist for Kirk? A character so physically and mentally superior that there is simply no possible way Kirk can win outright or easily cheat his way to victory. So he ends up having to face his own Kobyashi Maru for the first time. That's what makes the whole film.
It's not just about having a really bad guy who says really cool bad guyh things, like a Soran or a Shinzon, than makes a good movie. In the case of "Wrath of Khan," it was about how well the antagonist serves the main character. Without that dimension, "Wrath of Khan" wouldn't have been as good.
As far as Cumberbatch is concerned, I think he did a great job with what he had to work with. The writers kept him alive, so Abrams would be crazy not to bring him back for the next film. Certainly, as a Cumberbatch fan, it would bring me to the theater; Cumberbatch playing Khan was about the only reason I went to see ID.
What makes "Wrath of Khan" good isn't just a big bad villain. Although Montalban was great as Khan, he really is just another two-dimensional villain out for revenge. What makes the film is how the character Khan defines the character of Kirk.
The key to the entire film is the scene in which Saavik asks Kirk how he beat the Kobyashi Maru. It turns out he cheated. He rejects the no-win scenario. So what's the ultimate antagonist for Kirk? A character so physically and mentally superior that there is simply no possible way Kirk can win outright or easily cheat his way to victory. So he ends up having to face his own Kobyashi Maru for the first time. That's what makes the whole film.
It's not just about having a really bad guy who says really cool bad guyh things, like a Soran or a Shinzon, than makes a good movie. In the case of "Wrath of Khan," it was about how well the antagonist serves the main character. Without that dimension, "Wrath of Khan" wouldn't have been as good.
As far as Cumberbatch is concerned, I think he did a great job with what he had to work with. The writers kept him alive, so Abrams would be crazy not to bring him back for the next film. Certainly, as a Cumberbatch fan, it would bring me to the theater; Cumberbatch playing Khan was about the only reason I went to see ID.
But this Kirk also faces his own Kobayashi Maru in this- realizing that he's not the best man for the job and then sacrificing himself to save his crew in a no-win scenario. Yes, I know they bring him back, but the only characters who have ever stayed dead in ST were Tasha Yar (good riddance), Jadzia Dax (boo, that sucked) and Kes (meh)- not counting Enterprise cause it sucked so bad I wanted all of them to die a horrible death. You can count Kirk, too, but he should have been dead long before that movie. There's a cure for everything, even severed spines. So I just get over that and take it for what it is.
Anyway, I think it works better this way than in TWOK because both Kirk and Spock learn a valuable lesson. Kirk learns about humility and Spock learns about his feelings. I sincerely hope that this Spock decides to embrace his feelings instead of purge them, because it really gives his character depth, imo.
Kes did not die.
Exactly. That's why I don't get why people are upset that Kirk came back. I was actually happy they decided not to do the cliffhanger, because it would have been a pointless one- no one in their right minds would have believed him gone forever.
Best faked death cliffhanger I've seen? Sherlock, hands down. They even show you he's not dead, but then leave it to you to work it out.
Unfortunately. But it's not half as bad as DC Comics characters.
Yeah, I was fine with how they handled it.
My guess though is that maybe people want Star Trek to be different now. I mean, it already is in some ways. Maybe they want it to be more like modern fiction where people really do die and they just don't come back? But yeah, that really shouldn't be happening to Kirk or Spock. And honestly I kinda liked the Dax/Yar stories that came about.
That reminds me: Who is supposed to be Dax at this point?
I suppose it could be anybody in 2259, but in 2233 (point of divergence), who was it? IIRC, we know all of the Dax hosts but we don't know exactly when they changed.
Either Emony or Audrid, I'd say.
Emony's fling with Bones would have been after the divergence, but there's no reason to think it didn't still happen. For all we know, it was an affair and the reason Bones's wife left him.
But no idea how old she lived to be. She's probably still alive, but if not, then it would be Audrid.
ok, trying for some Memory Beta fu here...hang on a bit...
Yeah, it's probably Emony. MB says that she took part in the 2224 Olympics. So that (plus 2245 as the year she and McCoy had a thing, which is the only onscreen mention of any date) is all the info we have, really.
Yeah, it's probably Emony. MB says that she took part in the 2224 Olympics. So that (plus 2245 as the year she and McCoy had a thing, which is the only onscreen mention of any date) is all the info we have, really.
I think it's unlikely to have anything to do with the divorce, at least in the Prime Universe. Including information from both canonical and uncanonical sources, here are some key dates:
2227 born
2245 relationship with Dax
2249 daughter Joanna born
2253 separates from and divorces Jocelyn
Going back to the original topic, I think the film would have worked just fine, if not better, without making him Khan. It would have been just as good if John Harrison was some 23rd century augment created by Section 31, who felt exploited by Admiral Marcus and went rogue.
No.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRnSnfiUI54[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRnSnfiUI54[/yt]