Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

[Charles Phipps]

What Charles is pointing out is that the actual Aryan or Indo-Iranian peoples migrated into northern India and their descendants are now the dominant ethnic and linguistic group there; thus, as a presumably Indian Sikh, Khan would be Aryan in a legitimate ethnic or linguistic sense, as opposed to the completely BS sense in which the Nazis used it.

Yeah, I think Khan is a character who works on multiple levels in "Space Seed."

He's a character who nicely rebukes Nazism because he's the literal Superman who actually is smarter, stronger, and more intelligent than regular humans--but he's distinctly not blonde haired-blue eyed Nazi analog. Likewise, as a superhuman we get our crew interacting with them and viewing the condescension from the other side. The fact that Khan is an actual Aryan versus Hitler's awful pseudo-science idea of one just is the icing on the cake.

For me, the message of Space Seed is, "even if the superman exists, he's not any more qualified to rule or oppress us by virtue of his superiority." It's one of my problems with Dear Doctor where the question is supporting superior life-forms at the expense of the inferior. If that were true, **** those whales. Instead, Star Trek says whales are awesome!



Star Trek is about all manner of life having value. It's why I like the fact Vulcans are objectively smarter *AND* stronger than humans.

It also makes a nice statement about khan whose entire justification in ST:ID is that he's superior to everyone around him by virtue of being a savage superman. Then it all falls apart because Spock is stronger and smarter (AND more savage) than Khan. Which means his entire worldview is worthless. Spock doesn't NEED to dominate the weak and, in fact, takes orders from Kirk.

You could well be right. After all, Harrison/Khan wasn't the real terrorist here; Marcus was. At least until the climax, he was a relatively sympathetic antagonist, acting to defend his people from the real monster, Marcus, who was trying to use them to start a war. That could've been a nice way of subverting terrorist stereotypes -- to show us a dark-skinned guy who seems to be a terrorist and then turn it around. Although that would've worked better if they'd left out the massive urban destruction in the climax -- but then, they should've done so anyway, because it really didn't contribute anything to the story.

In a more typical movie, Kirk would track down Khan and proceed to team-up with him against Marcus. I actually think I prefer the subversion, though. Khan, in another movie, would just be your typical "Jack Bauer" hero who is turning against his evil superiors. Instead, Kirk doesn't care about the big picture at all. He's burning with rage over the death of Pike, who is collateral damage to Khan's plan. A nobody who is Kirk's everybody.

It was a nice deconstruction.

Actually, aside from the gratuitous death-scene references, I didn't feel it was a remake of TWOK in any way. On the contrary, I felt it was a wholly new take on Khan and (casting aside) a much better Khan story than TWOK gave us. I mean, TWOK pretty much ignored everything that defined Khan as an interesting antagonist and reduced him to a cookie-cutter revenge-obsessed maniac. This movie used Khan's intelligence, his cunning, his compassion and loyalty to his fellow Augments, and the potentials of his nature and backstory in ways that TWOK didn't even try to do. And it actually let Khan interact closely with Kirk and establish an onscreen relationship with him, rather than going the whole movie without ever letting the hero and villain meet face-to-face. That's the whole reason I'm okay with the villain being Khan after hoping for years that it wouldn't be.

I don't quite agree with the statement about Khan in the TWOK. Khan's revenge was everything to him by that point but I felt he was still an extremely nuanced character. His intelligence, superiority, and ruthlessness were all realized for me--as was I think his sublimated guilt over leading his crew to their destruction. Also, TWOK remembers something that I think every rip-off of it has forgotten--that the individuals seeking revenge should actually have a reason to be mad at the protagonists. ST(2009) comes closest and even it is pretty far-off.

I generally agree with you, though, and think Khan was extremely well-utilized in the film. I'd love to see novels detailing more of this version of Khan as well as their relationship with Admiral Marcus.

 

[Christopher]

It's one of my problems with Dear Doctor where the question is supporting superior life-forms at the expense of the inferior./quote]

As I've told you elsewhere, that is a completely incorrect and backward reading of the episode. You really need to watch it again or read the transcript. Phlox's position isn't about deeming the Menk superior, but about rejecting the assumption that the Valakians have a superior right to thrive. His decision is to remain neutral and do nothing to alter either species' chances of surviving the process that their evolution has already set in motion. Evolution isn't about superiority or inferiority, it's just about whether a species can adapt to the demands of its environment. Saying one species is more likely to survive is not saying that it's better or more entitled to survive, it's just saying that the impersonal, value-neutral forces of evolution happen to be tending toward a particular outcome. (Yes, Phlox does argue for the Menk's potential, but that's to counter the assumption that only the Valakians deserve consideration, to encourage Archer to consider both sides of the issue.)

 

[Charles Phipps]

Understood, Christopher.

I respect your opinions and while I disagree, I hope you'll understand I merely have a different interpretation.

PHLOX: I've been studying their genome as well, and I've seen evidence of increasing intelligence. Motor skills, linguistic abilities. Unlike the Valakians they appear to be in the process of an evolutionary awakening. It may take millennia, but the Menk have the potential to become the dominant species on this planet.
ARCHER: And that won't happen as long as the Valakians are around.
PHLOX: If the Menk are to flourish, they need an opportunity to survive on their own.

This is my main problem with the work involved, basically going against what I percieve as Star Trek's guiding principles.

ARCHER: The hell with nature. You're a doctor. You have a moral obligation to help people who are suffering.
PHLOX: I'm also a scientist, and I'm obligated to consider the larger issues. Thirty five thousand years ago, your species co-existed with other humanoids. Isn't that correct?
ARCHER: Go ahead.
PHLOX: What if an alien race had interfered and given the Neanderthals an evolutionary advantage? Fortunately for you, they didn't.

This was another area I really-really hated because I'm a big proponent of neanderthals and human beings eventually interbred to become one race. The whole, "humans eventually annihilated the neanderthals" is the kind of conflict-based science I strongly object to. Even if they did, that would mean nothing other than humans killed the neanderthals and if they died on their own, it means nothing to our ability to live in harmony with other beings.

My answer to Phlox's position is, essentially, "We'd both be here?"

PHLOX: Evolution is more than a theory. It is a fundamental scientific principle. Forgive me for saying so, but I believe your compassion for these people is affecting your judgment.
ARCHER: My compassion guides my judgment.

Yes and evolution is a process of elimination of those who aren't capable of adapting to new environments but technology is just as much a part of the evolutionary process now as animal claws or sight. Corn, itself, has evolved (via animal husbandry but that is also part of evolution) to live in a symbiotic relationship with humans.

What Phlox is advocating here seems to be naturalism and I'm not a big fan of that since it bothers me in both religion (that science interferes with a plan) and science (that humanity is outside of natural processes).

And I may be letting my personal feelings affect the issue but Compassion is an evolutionary advantage.

But until somebody tells me that they've drafted that directive I'm going to have to remind myself every day that we didn't come out here to play God.

And this line bothers me because he's piloting a starship, about as close to God as you're going to get. Archer has interfered in countless cultures both Pre-Warp and otherwise with his choice not to interfere here seeming both arbitrary, hypocritical, and undoing much of the good he's done on other worlds since the cost is so much greater.

Evolution isn't about superiority or inferiority, it's just about whether a species can adapt to the demands of its environment. Saying one species is more likely to survive is not saying that it's better or more entitled to survive, it's just saying that the impersonal, value-neutral forces of evolution happen to be tending toward a particular outcome. (Yes, Phlox does argue for the Menk's potential, but that's to counter the assumption that only the Valakians deserve consideration, to encourage Archer to consider both sides of the issue.)

Yes, but the value-neutral forces of evolution are affected by their choice not to do anything. Choosing not to interfere is a choice by its own. Archer and company choose to deny the cure but there's not much to argue for it other than they're following the Prime Directive without a Prime Directive and choosing to play eugenics tampering because they foresee this as affecting another species' genetic potential.

I won't say more on the subject if you don't have a problem and I appreciate you taking the time to discuss the issue with me.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not going to debate this with you any further, since it's off-topic.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Right.

Any case, it's largely a matter of opinion. Sorry for distracting from the Khan topic.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Back on topic,

I am curious if in the "mainverse" that Marcus was actually an Admiral or the events of the U.S.S. Kelvin and/or the destruction of Vulcan rocketed him into the position. In the "mainstream" universe I don't know if we ever got any information about Carol Marcus' father and David's grandfather.

Likewise, I'm curious about his version of Section 31 as well. Is it that large (having its own shipyards and massive facilities) or is that a result of Vulcan's destruction resulting in a complete and utter change in the direction of Starfleet at a fundamental level? These are all questions I'd love to see answered.

While the two universes have split, knowing how the two universes are changing and how they differ would be interesting. Sadly, I don't think anyone is going to publish a book about how they differ on specific points.

I'm also curious if we'll be seeing mainstream Scotty having invented transwarp beaming (obviously later in life than 2009 Star Trek universe). It'd be quite interesting to see its incorporation into the novelverse, though I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't get much of a role or downplayed.

I'm also curious if Praxis exploded prematurely in this universe or if it's just in the process of melting.

 

[Christopher]

In the "mainstream" universe I don't know if we ever got any information about Carol Marcus' father and David's grandfather.

Nothing canonical. I'm not sure if any novels mentioned anything either.

Likewise, I'm curious about his version of Section 31 as well. Is it that large (having its own shipyards and massive facilities) or is that a result of Vulcan's destruction resulting in a complete and utter change in the direction of Starfleet at a fundamental level? These are all questions I'd love to see answered.

We don't know that S31 has its own shipyards. It seems to operate largely by suborning other Starfleet personnel and facilities, manipulating events so that they do things that advance S31's goals, even if they don't know that's who they're serving.

I'm also curious if we'll be seeing mainstream Scotty having invented transwarp beaming (obviously later in life than 2009 Star Trek universe). It'd be quite interesting to see its incorporation into the novelverse, though I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't get much of a role or downplayed.

I keep saying, the technology already existed as far back as TNG: "Bloodlines." It's just called a subspace transporter there instead.

 

[Charles Phipps]

We don't know that S31 has its own shipyards. It seems to operate largely by suborning other Starfleet personnel and facilities, manipulating events so that they do things that advance S31's goals, even if they don't know that's who they're serving.

That's a very good point. It also seems unlikely they could assemble their own shipyards on their own. It seems more likely Admiral Marcus just created the Vengeance on his own--though, I did note that the crew is private security versus Section 31 or Starfleet. Which means they probably don't have the numbers to crew it.

Especially after Khan's destruction of their base.

I liked the Vengeance an abnormally large amount and wonder if it's unique to the Abramsverse. The idea of a 'Dreadnought-class' vessel larger than regular destroyer-sized vessels would be awesome.

I keep saying, the technology already existed as far back as TNG: "Bloodlines." It's just called a subspace transporter there instead.

I'll have to check that out.

 

[Sci]

But since they went the Khan route I think they should've cast a nonwhite actor. I think Khan is popular enough name/brand/character, if not his actual story, that it trumps him being a run of the mill brown skinned terrorist.

Plus Khan being a villain with some positive traits might have also undermined the dehumanized stereotype. Perhaps having a person of color back as Khan might dredge up those kind of vile feelings, but it might also present an intelligent, formidable brown skinned person that fans can possibly admire and understand. That might have changed perceptions in a way of turning Khan into a white guy, which avoids the issue, have not done.

You could well be right. After all, Harrison/Khan wasn't the real terrorist here; Marcus was. At least until the climax, he was a relatively sympathetic antagonist, acting to defend his people from the real monster, Marcus, who was trying to use them to start a war. That could've been a nice way of subverting terrorist stereotypes -- to show us a dark-skinned guy who seems to be a terrorist and then turn it around. Although that would've worked better if they'd left out the massive urban destruction in the climax -- but then, they should've done so anyway, because it really didn't contribute anything to the story.

I don't agree, actually -- I think the attack on San Francisco was thematically important, because it established a link to the issues of terrorism in the modern world.

To wit: Al Qaeda grew in strength and sophistication to the point where it was able to attack the United States on 9/11 because the United States had provided so much assistance and aid to the anti-Soviet mujahideen forces in the 1980s; al Qaeda then built on the weaponry and organization these movements had developed, recruiting and growing. So 9/11 was the unintended blowback of the U.S.'s involvement in (and subsequent abandonment of) Afghanistan.

The attack on San Francisco parallels this. Khan is unleashed by Admiral Marcus and Section 31 in their bid to militarize Starfleet and launch a war against the Klingon Empire that they can claim is "justified." When Khan turns on them and attacks San Francisco, this is the unintended blowback of their decision to try to use Khan against the Klingons, in the same way 9/11 was the unintended blowback of the U.S.'s decision to use the mujahideen.

(If anything, Khan's attack on San Francisco should have been given greater attention and weight in the plot -- though the movie was getting a bit long by that point, yeah.)

 

[DarKush]

Christopher,

In reply to your response to my last post...

Certainly TWOK could've been written to provide a meeting or confrontation between Kirk and Khan, but I am a loss to say how that would've pulled that off in the confines of the film/story that we got. And they didn't have to write Khan as so far gone as they did in TWOK, though I do think his madness increased as the film went on.

As for hurting Kirk, it didn't have to be solely physical pain. Khan realized that Kirk was goading him, that Kirk wanted him to beam down to the asteroid so he didn't. He understood at that point that he could wound Kirk more deeply by killing his friends and destroying the Enterprise while leaving Kirk stranded and helpless to prevent it. By the end though Khan had become so unraveled and hellbent on getting revenge that Kirk's taunting worked, and when Khan took the bait it sealed his doom.

 

[Christopher]

Certainly TWOK could've been written to provide a meeting or confrontation between Kirk and Khan, but I am a loss to say how that would've pulled that off in the confines of the film/story that we got.

But that's the point. They didn't have to tell the exact same story. They made it up, after all. There were lots of possible stories they could've told.

As for hurting Kirk, it didn't have to be solely physical pain. Khan realized that Kirk was goading him, that Kirk wanted him to beam down to the asteroid so he didn't. He understood at that point that he could wound Kirk more deeply by killing his friends and destroying the Enterprise while leaving Kirk stranded and helpless to prevent it.

Again, whether you can rationalize it is beside the point. I do understand the characters' motivations in story. I'm not talking about the characters. I'm talking about the actors. I'm talking about my regret that I didn't get to see the actors play off each other.

 

[DarKush]

^
You asked me a question about the characters, specifically Khan's actions, and I gave you my thoughts on why he did what he did. As for the actors unfortunately there's nothing that can be done about your regret of them not being put in a scene together. As a fan I think I can relate to that sense of regret for many TV shows and movies.

As for TWOK I was fine with the movie we got. Keeping them apart made it unique and I still love the scene where Kirk first gets a visual of Khan while on the Enterprise bridge. His reaction was priceless. There was interaction between them, just not face-to-face or rather them being in the same physical space at the same time. To be fair I can't ever really say if they had gone a different route that I wouldn't have liked it more or better, that's just a hypothetical.

 

[Christopher]

^Yes, there was the appearance of interaction between the characters, but it was created in the editing bay and the special-effects lab from entirely separate performances filmed weeks apart. Again, I'm talking about the craft of acting, not the structure of the story. When two actors are able to play off of each other, to have a real conversation and play off of each other's delivery and emotion, there's an added energy and vitality to the performance. They can bring things out in each other that wouldn't be there if they do their scenes separately while some off-camera assistant just feeds lines to them. It makes their performances better, richer, more interesting to watch. (Or listen to. Animation voice director Andrea Romano, famous for her work on productions like Batman: The Animated Series and Avatar: The Last Airbender, prefers to have her actors together in the studio and playing off one another whenever possible, rather than recording their lines separately as has long been the norm in animation, because of the richer and more dynamic performances it generates. Comedies like Futurama and The Simpsons also generally try to get the cast to record together because the performances are funnier when they can play off one another.) So as a rule, it's better from a performance standpoint to have the actors together. I'm not interested in arguing whether the story needed them to meet. I'm saying that both Shatner and Montalban could've given us better-acted, more interesting performances if they had been able to meet. Their performances in the movie we got certainly weren't bad (although Meyer pushed them way too far toward melodrama at times), but what I'm trying to convey here is that they could've been better if the actors could've played off each other directly.

It turns out that the reason the film was structured the way it was, without Kirk and Khan meeting, was because Montalban had to film his scenes weeks before the main cast came in to film theirs, in order to accommodate his shooting schedule as the star ofFantasy Island. So it wasn't something that was done because it was the best way to tell the story; it was something the filmmakers were forced to do for entirely external reasons. It's very possible that they wanted Kirk and Khan to meet face-to-face but had to settle for keeping them apart. In early drafts, there was a final confrontation between Kirk, Khan, and David.

 

[DarKush]

^
Christopher I'm not arguing with you about this. I don't disagree that the performances could've been better if Shatner and Montalban had acted together, but it's a hypothetical that unfortunately can't be proven or unproven.

 

[Christopher]

It just seemed to me that you misunderstood what I was actually trying to get across, that I was making a point about the performances rather than the plot.

 

[Cap'n Calhoun]

That's actually awesome. Hadn't heard that; if you don't mind my asking, do you have a source?

IIRC, it was one of Roberto Orci's comments in a thread on TrekMovie.com, but I can't seem to find the quote at the moment. Maybe I'm misremembering and I read it somewhere else.

Here you go. From source: http://trekmovie.com/2013/05/15/sticky-star-trek-into-darkness-arrives-in-north-america-and-most-of-the-world-open-thread/:

54. GermanTrekker - May 15, 2013
@boborci: Khan does work for me in this one! But I also understand some of the critics who say Khan is a Sigh from India and should therefore be portrayed by a non-caucasian actor. There is a very interesting article on wikipedia that says Khan was orgiginally supposed to be a Nordic-superman named Harold Ericcsen in the first draft of “Space Seed”. So my question to the writing team: did you took anything from the development history of the character or is this just a coincidence? (“Nordic” look of Cumberbatch plus the name John Harrison that comes very close to Harold Ericcsen, which you couldn´t use of course)

58. boborci - May 15, 2013
54. Not a coincidence. Inspired by Ericsen. In fact, we shot the movie using the name Ericsenn but decided it would give it away so we cheated the name Harrison into everyone’s mouth!

 

[Christopher]

^Thanks.

 

[Ben]

I always thought it was really cool that Kirk and Khan don't actually meet face-to-face. Accident or not, I think it's great.