MontalKhan, brownfaced?
- Thread starter urbandefault
- Start date
Plus the 2013 movie is in an alternate universe, so he really doesn't have to be anything like the original Khan.
I think some of this was addressed in Greg Cox's "Khan" novel trilogy.... deciding not wearing the traditional Sikh beard and turban, etc. I can't recall the details.
But that's not cannnnnon.
EDIT: Oh, look, I start typing a message mentioning him, and he appears.
Kor
Just don't say my name three times.
Betelgeuse!
Last edited:
If anything, the movie is in the same universe as "Space Seed" while all other Trek (save perhaps "Tomorrow is Yesterday"?) is in separate universes. Both rather exclusively refer to 1996 having been two centuries ago, after all.
Or did you mean the 2013 movie?
Timo Saloniemi
Two centuries doesn't mean exactly 200 years, though. At least two centuries, yeah, the canon timeline even says quite a bit more than that. But saying "two centuries" does mean at least that long, and not 200 years, more or less. Especially not less.
Kirk said in Space Seed, "We estimate two centuries." That is imprecise.
However, in TWOK Khan clarified and said "On earth, two hundred years ago, I was a prince, with poooower over milllllions."
These are canonical words spoken by a character of superior intellect and therefore written in stone, meaning exactly two hundred years, and not a day or even a nanosecond more or less.
Kor
However, in TWOK Khan clarified and said "On earth, two hundred years ago, I was a prince, with poooower over milllllions."
These are canonical words spoken by a character of superior intellect and therefore written in stone, meaning exactly two hundred years, and not a day or even a nanosecond more or less.
Kor
If anything, the movie is in the same universe as "Space Seed" while all other Trek (save perhaps "Tomorrow is Yesterday"?) is in separate universes. Both rather exclusively refer to 1996 having been two centuries ago, after all.
TWOK isn't even consistent with its own self, then, because the opening scene clearly displays the phrase "IN THE 23RD CENTURY...."
Last edited:
There's no evidence Khan was ever told the actual date during "Space Seed". Thus his "canonical" statement that it's been "exactly" two hundred years is suspect from the word go. He did indeed say "Two hundred years ago" but even if he believed it had been exactly that long, there's no guarantee he knows what he's talking about. All he had to go on was something Kirk himself called an estimation.Kirk said in Space Seed, "We estimate two centuries." That is imprecise.
However, in TWOK Khan clarified and said "On earth, two hundred years ago, I was a prince, with poooower over milllllions."
These are canonical words spoken by a character of superior intellect and therefore written in stone, meaning exactly two hundred years, and not a day or even a nanosecond more or less.
Kor
How superior Khan's intellect is irrelevant before his likely obscene lack of information about the actual date.
And Khan had been reading through the ship's databanks often enough in that ep, there's no way he WOULDN'T have known the date.
Hmm. Being Khan, he probably wouldn't give a damn about an objective date. For him, everything would be about him.
Khan's ship lacked warp drive. Yet she was pretty far out in space! Traveling at .45 c or more would turn three centuries to two, and that's how long Khan would have slept, subjective time. So Kirk would be correctly answering his exact question in "Space Seed", and that's also the time difference that would be meaningful to Khan from then on.
(In comparison, Khan's other awakening and subsequent face job leave him more involved in the affairs of the world outside, so he now identifies himself as the "300-year-old man", naturally enough.)
Timo Saloniemi
Khan's ship lacked warp drive. Yet she was pretty far out in space! Traveling at .45 c or more would turn three centuries to two, and that's how long Khan would have slept, subjective time. So Kirk would be correctly answering his exact question in "Space Seed", and that's also the time difference that would be meaningful to Khan from then on.
(In comparison, Khan's other awakening and subsequent face job leave him more involved in the affairs of the world outside, so he now identifies himself as the "300-year-old man", naturally enough.)
Timo Saloniemi
1996 + 200 years = 2196. 22nd century.If anything, the movie is in the same universe as "Space Seed" while all other Trek (save perhaps "Tomorrow is Yesterday"?) is in separate universes. Both rather exclusively refer to 1996 having been two centuries ago, after all.
TWOK isn't even consistent with its own self, then, because the opening scene clearly displays the phrase "IN THE 23RD CENTURY...."
2196 + 15 years = 2211. 23rd century.
The "1996" date which is an estimated "two centuries" prior to the events of Space Seed is pretty much the only hard reference we have for placing TOS in the late 22nd/early 23rd century (with a bit of wiggle room), so I am more than happy to throw time dilation into the mix to help sort this one out.
Otherwise, even if we ignore later Trek spinoffs then the early 21st century becomes incredibly full of amazing discoveries and events all happening within a few months or years of each other! I personally prefer to have things a bit more spaced out (so to speak)
Otherwise, even if we ignore later Trek spinoffs then the early 21st century becomes incredibly full of amazing discoveries and events all happening within a few months or years of each other! I personally prefer to have things a bit more spaced out (so to speak)
I've noticed some people seem to be under the impression the entire Abrams universe is a complete and total reboot of the timeline. I think that's where some of the misunderstandings about Khan and other things happen. Everything that happened from the big bang right up until the 24th century Romulan ship emerged from the vortex in the 23rd century and fought the ship carrying Kirk's parents also happened in the Prime timeline. That means all the established history spoken about in all the various shows and movies happened exactly as it was described or shown in both timelines. That includes Khan and his followers leaving Earth in the 1990's and floating around on the Botany Bay for hundreds of years. The difference this time around is that instead of the Enterprise finding the Botany Bay in the first season of Star Trek it was instead found much earlier and a different chain of events occurred for Khan. Whoever found the Botany Bay would still have seen Khan and his followers in cryogenic suspension just like in Space Seed.
This of course means the only series that is still part of the Abrams universe is "Enterprise" since it takes place long before the Romulan ship altered the timeline and created an alternate reality. This is explained in the movie but it's understandably difficult to catch the first time around. It might have been better to just do a straight reboot and then there would be no issues with whatever is changed since it really would be a separate continuity from all previous Star Trek.
This of course means the only series that is still part of the Abrams universe is "Enterprise" since it takes place long before the Romulan ship altered the timeline and created an alternate reality. This is explained in the movie but it's understandably difficult to catch the first time around. It might have been better to just do a straight reboot and then there would be no issues with whatever is changed since it really would be a separate continuity from all previous Star Trek.
There are lingering questions there, of course - are the time travel episodes of the other Trek series still relevant to what happens to Pine's Jim Kirk, say?
Whether Khan from ST:ID is really compatible with Khan from "Space Seed", there are some things that were left unexplained but could easily be explained - and others that remain mysteriously different.
1) Khan has a new face, more radically different from the "old Trek" ones than any other. So what? He was inserted into the 23rd century Secret Service under an alias. While Jim Kirk in both universes is unable to recognize the Montalban face or the name Khan, others would be more observant; "John Harrison" would definitely need a new face or a dozen.
2) Khan is now a war criminal while Shatner's Kirk and his officers considered him a benign and heroic leader, tyrant or not. But Pine's Kirk is ignorant of Khan's past, there being no opportunity for Spock to dig up the facts, and no point where Kirk would agree to sit down and pay attention to what Spock was saying. Odds are that Khan's own version was closer to the truth than Admiral Marcus'.
3) Khan's blood heals people. But that may always have been true, despite Kelley's McCoy failing to discover this. Or then Khan, now with privileged access to the highest secret technologies of the 23rd century, did that to himself after having been turned into John Harriman.
4) In "Space Seed", the sleepers were in shelves built into the Botany Bay. In ST:ID, they are in coffins that McCoy is afraid to open for lack of expertise, coffins reputedly manufactured in the 1990s rather than the 2260s. Did Marcus really move each and every of the 72 supermen and -women out of their shelves and into coffins that Khan for some reason had aboard his ship? Or perhaps into coffins remaining in the secret vaults of Section 31? Well, if the alternative were to leave them aboard an ancient, failing spacecraft, why not? McCoy seemed pretty certain that there existed no 23rd century solutions for keeping people in primitive cryosleep, so Marcus would have to tap into ancient hardware.
Apart from these four points, "Space Seed" and ST:ID don't overlap much, so contradictions are avoided, too.
Timo Saloniemi
Whether Khan from ST:ID is really compatible with Khan from "Space Seed", there are some things that were left unexplained but could easily be explained - and others that remain mysteriously different.
1) Khan has a new face, more radically different from the "old Trek" ones than any other. So what? He was inserted into the 23rd century Secret Service under an alias. While Jim Kirk in both universes is unable to recognize the Montalban face or the name Khan, others would be more observant; "John Harrison" would definitely need a new face or a dozen.
2) Khan is now a war criminal while Shatner's Kirk and his officers considered him a benign and heroic leader, tyrant or not. But Pine's Kirk is ignorant of Khan's past, there being no opportunity for Spock to dig up the facts, and no point where Kirk would agree to sit down and pay attention to what Spock was saying. Odds are that Khan's own version was closer to the truth than Admiral Marcus'.
3) Khan's blood heals people. But that may always have been true, despite Kelley's McCoy failing to discover this. Or then Khan, now with privileged access to the highest secret technologies of the 23rd century, did that to himself after having been turned into John Harriman.
4) In "Space Seed", the sleepers were in shelves built into the Botany Bay. In ST:ID, they are in coffins that McCoy is afraid to open for lack of expertise, coffins reputedly manufactured in the 1990s rather than the 2260s. Did Marcus really move each and every of the 72 supermen and -women out of their shelves and into coffins that Khan for some reason had aboard his ship? Or perhaps into coffins remaining in the secret vaults of Section 31? Well, if the alternative were to leave them aboard an ancient, failing spacecraft, why not? McCoy seemed pretty certain that there existed no 23rd century solutions for keeping people in primitive cryosleep, so Marcus would have to tap into ancient hardware.
Apart from these four points, "Space Seed" and ST:ID don't overlap much, so contradictions are avoided, too.
Losing the continuity might not be a good move, though - as there isn't all that much content to some Star Trek but that deriving from the continuity, the universe-building and the history... And if you are going to reboot, why not start something completely new for a change?
Timo Saloniemi
I'm still not really sure what they're trying to achieve with the Abrams movies. If they wanted to relieve themselves of the burden of previously established continuity there were easier ways to do it than creating an alternate timeline. I'm sure that was a decision made only to appease the fans and it was a nice gesture but pretty much unnecessary. The old movies and tv shows would still exist with or without the contrivance of creating a separate timeline. Then the other thing is they changed so much about the established continuity in the first movie but then immediately fell back on Khan in the second movie. If this is supposed to be a new universe with brand new potential adventures why are we already going over old ground?
Don't get me wrong, I think Pine, Quinto and Urban embody Kirk, Spock and McCoy very well so it's not a slight against them but rather the decisions made by the writers.
Don't get me wrong, I think Pine, Quinto and Urban embody Kirk, Spock and McCoy very well so it's not a slight against them but rather the decisions made by the writers.
That may be what it's "supposed" to be but that's as ridiculous as any other revisionism and retconning happening in other parts of "Star Trek". It's and alternate reality like but distinctly different from the Mirror Universe.
I'm not telling you, Terok Nor, that you are wrong, only that you are relaying the studio's drivel, which is wrong.
They may own the properties and can make anything they want and declare it to be canon but I don't have to accept it. Some future writer is going to make some new and modern (stupid) take on a character(s) and it isn't going to be any more correct that this reboot.
Last edited:
I actually agree it's ridiculous. It begs the question of why did the various crews attempt to repair various altered timelines throughout the shows and movies if their efforts were for nothing. Kirk letting Edith Keeler die, the Enterprise-C going back in time to be destroyed, Voyager going back to the 90's to stop that hippy, etc. Surely it was all pointless since the timeline can't be restored if the new movie is to be believed. All of those events should have created alternate timelines. The movie explanation does contradict quite a lot of established canon with the exception perhaps of TNG's "Parallels".
Should have rebooted. Less headaches.
Simple - different methods of time-travel, different results.
For example, slingshotting moved you through your own timeline. On the other hand, Red matter opens up a wormhole...thing to another universe.
What in the new movie made you think they were retconning 'over' the way time travel had been shown in the series thus far? And why didn't you feel the same way when you first saw 'Parallels'?
Judging by the critics, the polls here, the amount of people that came back to see the sequel...I don't think there really were that many headaches - not enough to be a concern anyway. And that's not an insult, or me trying to say you need to love the new movies or whatever, it's just why I think 'they should have' probably isn't the best phrase to use.
For example, slingshotting moved you through your own timeline. On the other hand, Red matter opens up a wormhole...thing to another universe.
What in the new movie made you think they were retconning 'over' the way time travel had been shown in the series thus far? And why didn't you feel the same way when you first saw 'Parallels'?
Judging by the critics, the polls here, the amount of people that came back to see the sequel...I don't think there really were that many headaches - not enough to be a concern anyway. And that's not an insult, or me trying to say you need to love the new movies or whatever, it's just why I think 'they should have' probably isn't the best phrase to use.
I think this was the farthest think from their mind when they sat down and brainstormed the concept.
It's pretty simple: Star Trek is Kirk, Spock and "Bones" McCoy. That's what sells. But those folks are now dead or unfit for the big screen, so they have to be reinvented. So, bring in younger actors. If there's time, invent an explanation.
No "burden of continuity" there. Just the burden of wrinkles, waistlines and mortality.
Timo Saloniemi
I think they wanted to free themselves from the constraints of continuity. Not the nitpicky stuff that we bicker about on here, but simply loosening things up a bit so there could be stakes. They didn't want us to sit there and think 'this has to turn out okay, because I've seen TWOK and I know that's where Khan and Spock die.'
As for why they didn't just completely reboot, Orci and Kurtzman (to a lesser extent) are Trekkies. They wanted to write a continuation, they needed to make it open enough for a new audience, and they wanted the 'passing the torch' to happen. Hence our soft reboot. Other writers probably could have done it differently, but they didn't.
As for why they didn't just completely reboot, Orci and Kurtzman (to a lesser extent) are Trekkies. They wanted to write a continuation, they needed to make it open enough for a new audience, and they wanted the 'passing the torch' to happen. Hence our soft reboot. Other writers probably could have done it differently, but they didn't.
Similar threads
