My Gripes with STID!
- Thread starter DeMilburn
- Start date
How can you tell?
Because Benedict Cumberbatch was not playing Khan Noonien Singh in STID. He was Benedict Cumberbatch playing Benedict Cumberbatch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=070xYrUsj28
There is more than one way to play a fictional character.
See: Kirk, James Tiberius
See: Kirk, James Tiberius
One could be Benedict Cumberbatch and be extremely dedicated to playing Benedict Cumberbatch.
That said, while I don't personally think his character particularly cohered or worked well as Khan, that's more down to the writing. His performance in STID isn't interchangeable with his other performances, which one would expect if he were just playing "himself."
That youtube link is silly.
That said, while I don't personally think his character particularly cohered or worked well as Khan, that's more down to the writing. His performance in STID isn't interchangeable with his other performances, which one would expect if he were just playing "himself."
That youtube link is silly.
That is obviously not the same as being dedicated to the role.
Could be. There's a certain type of actor that actually gets a lot of mileage out of using their own specific charisma and persona for roles where they fit, rather than trying to be chameleons. Jack Nicholson, Denzel Washington. Ron Jeremy. You know, the giants. So it's perfectly possible.
Which is not to say I actually think this is true of Cumberbatch, or agree with your impugning his "commitment to the role." (I think the role was awkward but that has nothing to do with his "commitment.")
Oscars? You mean Hollywood giving awards to themselves? That is a measure of nothing.
And do you think that Jack Nicholson, Denzel Washington, or...Ron Jeremy playing Khan as themselves would have worked? I think Khan deserved an actor who was dedicated to the established character, which was my point.
Jeremy's the only one I could confidently vote for out of that trio.
But look, what I'm saying is that I get being underwhelmed with the character in STID, but rushing to blame the actor's competence or dedication really isn't called for. That Cumberbatch's performance was distinctly his own rather than an imitation of what Montalban did wasn't itself the problem for me, I'd expect anyone taking on a role like that to try to make it their own.
Cumberbatch was given a single scene with which to explain his character's, motivation, intent, and origin. One.
The rest of the scenes he is either given no lines, is supposed to look menacing, or is exploding with violent behavior.
All things considered Benny did a decent job, even though he left bite marks on all the furniture.
The rest of the scenes he is either given no lines, is supposed to look menacing, or is exploding with violent behavior.
All things considered Benny did a decent job, even though he left bite marks on all the furniture.
Cumberbatch does seem to be able to nail playing the "less than socially normal" genius (Sherlock, Khan, Turing). It's probably a good thing Khan never had the line, "Nope," in the movie.
I think as fans we tend to inflate just how important Khan is. He's not an iconic figure. TWOK was a 30 year-old movie when STID came out. I'd guess only a very few who saw STID also saw TWOK in theaters. It would actually be interesting to know how many who saw STID ever watched TWOK in any form. However he was written, that's Khan for this generation of movie-goers (to the extent they care as much as we do).
What would have Montalban's Khan done differently under the circumstances in STID? In other words, if the part wasn't well written, what did it need to make Khan "more Khan-like" by Montalban standards?
Khan has become the codeword for "awesome villain that everyone can vaguely recall forever".
Thus the attempts in virtually every TNG film and subsequent Trek films to create a new "Khan".
Thus the attempts in virtually every TNG film and subsequent Trek films to create a new "Khan".
What other metric would you suggest? Your opinion?
Well, they were right that he's the most recognizable villain from the Trek mythos. Being iconic is different from being easy to reproduce, though, and whether the fans have really inflated his importance I don't know. I for one would've been perfectly happy without every other Trek movie talking about how their villain was going to outdo Khan or be the next Khan or be just like Khan because he was driven by revenge yadda-yadda-yadda. I don't really think that assumptions powering all of that came from the fandom per se.
If the circumstances are too ridiculous for any character to inhabit them convincingly, that's a problem too big to address by asking how Montalban would have played it. The comparison would be meaningless.
Perhaps more meaningful would be to ask how the character could have been made more convincing within his own story. Which, probably finding some happy medium between "generic white male badass" and the OTT "no ship should go down withooouuuut herrr Caaptaaiiin" scenery-chewing would've been a start. Uh... other than that... ditching the whole nonsensical torpedoes plot (which makes no sense under the story's own rules, such as they are, and makes Khan look like an idiot) and going to rewrites?
I'm pretty much on record as thinking the biggest problem for everyone involved is that the logic of the plot is broken.
Last edited:
Well, they were right that he's the most recognizable villain from the Trek mythos. Being iconic is different from being easy to reproduce, though, and whether the fans have really inflated his importance I don't know. I for one would've been perfectly happy without every other Trek movie talking about how their villain was going to outdo Khan or be the next Khan or be just like Khan because he was driven by revenge yadda-yadda-yadda. I don't really think that assumptions powering all of that came from the fandom per se.
If the circumstances are too ridiculous for any character to inhabit them convincingly, that's a problem too big to address by asking how Montalban would have played it. The comparison would be meaningless.
Perhaps more meaningful would be to ask how the character could have been made more convincing within his own story. Which, probably finding some happy medium between "generic white male badass" and the OTT "no ship should go down withooouuuut herrr Caaptaaiiin" scenery-chewing would've been a start. Uh... other than that... ditching the whole nonsensical torpedoes plot (which makes no sense under the story's own rules, such as they are, and makes Khan look like an idiot) and going to rewrites?
I'd agree that the "out-Khaning Khan in the next movie" thing is as much a creation of the producers as an expectation of the fans. It also elevated Khan beyond where he probably belongs in the pantheon of TOS villains, too. (Heck, Harry Mudd created as much peril for our crew as Khan ever did, including planning to strand them on a planet.)
The fundamental disagreement between us is the credulity of the plot involving Khan saving his people and the torpedoes. I will say that making it work requires assumptions that can be more rationalization than solid logic, but I can sleep with my explanation. You can't come up with anything satisfying to you. It's the ubiquitous "your mileage may vary" thing. There are a thousand simpler ways Khan could've saved his crew rather than stuffing them in torpedoes. The thing is, there are a thousand simpler ways to do things in almost any story. Scotty can beam whales and ocean water into the Klingon vessel, but he can't lock onto and beam into place a piece of plexiglass out of Plexicorp's inventory? When they get Chekov, they have to lead police on a merry chase before beaming out? They've already left behind the formula for transparent aluminum, artifacts on the aircraft carrier, McCoy helps an old woman grow a kidney, Kirk uses a "ray gun" to melt a lock, and Jillian is on to them (and Kirk's going to leave her behind despite all she knows). So a bunch of doctors see them disappear in the operating room? So what? That will risk changing things as much as anything else did? Well, if they do the smart or simple thing, we miss a fun scene.
Edited to add: They also risked being seen while installing the plexiglass. And it just occurred to me, and it's off topic, but where did Sulu park that helicopter he stole?
Last edited:
The thing is that Khan and his gang are all in storage, so they can revive him (the writers) anytime they need a villain or the current villain doesn't do the trick. The guy could be like "I am villain A, my only function is to release villain B, aka Khan so he can bring the federation to its knees."
Hey, that could work.
Hey, that could work.
Similar threads
