Well, it quite clearly is a reference to Xanadu — the 1816 original version, from “Kubla Khan: or A Vision in a Dream” by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, not the prog-rock adaptation by RUSH. And as it happens, that ending quotation was chosen by Kirsten.
Spoilers ST: Khan by K. Beyer, D. Mack & N. Meyer Review Thread
- Thread starter Avro Arrow
- Start date
But that's my point -- the established character was only established in a limited range of circumstances. "Space Seed" alone didn't show us his full range of behavior, just his behavior in that particular situation. The fact that he behaves differently in a different context is a feature, not a bug. It's what we'd naturally expect, that he has more facets than a single 50-minute story could capture.
I mean, what would be the point of doing a new story about Khan if it didn't offer anything beyond what we already knew?
Now, if you want a story that didn't capture the "Space Seed" Khan well at all, I nominate The Wrath of Khan. He's a completely different character there, a vengeance-crazed berserker rather than a cunning, debonair conqueror. I found the Khan of "Space Seed" far more recognizable here than I found him in TWOK.
I would go so far, though, as to say that I felt Naveen Andrews's performance as Khan tended to come off as gentler and more soulful than I would've expected, compared to Montalban's portrayal. Maybe that's part of the issue.
There still seems to be a misnomer that the fact that Khan would not be adversarial with his people as he was with the crew of the Enterprise is the source of the complaint. Like there's some perception that we expect him to tell every one of his lackies that he stabs at them from hell's heart, or throw them into a decompression chamber every time they come up to report that they've carried out his commands. :-)
But that isn't the issue. The issue is not that Khan is relating to people positively where he was relating to people adversarily in Space Seed. (Although I would still point out that his behavior toward Marla should be taken into account because that was someone he treated positively, in comparison, and his mode of relating was still very different.)
But no, of course Khan is going to be generous and gregarious and comradely with his people. The problem is the mode in which he does so.
Again, to return to the metaphor of Kirk. We know that Kirk can be warm and comradely and friendly with his bridge crew. That's not a trait we see him display in every relationship, but with Spock and McCoy and Scotty, he most certainly can. But if the story portrayed him as being comradely and friendly with his subordinates by telling corny jokes to try and lift their spirits, or waxing poetic and starting to tear up about just how much each of them are his family and what they mean for his life (like a Discovery character of some sort), or grabbing them each a mug of ale and back slapping them while telling body stories and then getting into a bar brawl afterwards, you would say, that's out of character. 'But why?' someone could argue. 'Kirk is being comradley and friendly with his officers, it's within his character to behave that way toward them.' The point would of course be, yes, Kirk is comradley and friendly with his bridge crew- but not in that manner. There are still certain aspects of his character, ways he behaves, and that *way* of being comradley and friendly does not fit within them.
In a similar manner, the issue is not seeing Khan in a friendly mode versus only seeing him in an adversarial mode in the episode. That's never been the issue. The issue is that this friendly mode is completely lacking in any of the traits whatsoever demonstrated by the on screen Khan, and supplying traits that were not present in the on-screen Khan (from my perspective; subjectivity disclaimer). It makes sense that he would be friendly with his own people, yes. But it would still be the prideful friendliness of a dictator to his people. It would still be the haughty, superior, entitled man that we saw. Acting in a gregarious manner, sure- but we see him being gregarious (or at least aping such) in Space Seed and Wrath of Khan as well, in certain moments. There is still a grandioseness to it. A grandeur. A posturing. There's a *way* that he would be friendly. He isn't that way in the beginning of the story (before there would be any time for change). He is the way a completely different character would be friendly, and comradley, and all those other things.
And again, I recognize the freedom to disagree on those points! But the counter that he wasn't a mean dictator, he was a nice dictator, so he would be nice to his people misses the point; that was never the matter being argued. It's about the *way* he was a nice dictator to his people- and whether that way embodied any of the character traits that were at his fundamental core or not. It's not about behaving differently in different circumstances; it's about the core traits that underpin *all* circumstances (or at least, what is perceived as such).
And yes, maybe the 'gentler and more soulful' aspect is at the heart of it; maybe that's what I'm seeing as un-Khan-like and you're seeing as within a reasonable range for him.
But that isn't the issue. The issue is not that Khan is relating to people positively where he was relating to people adversarily in Space Seed. (Although I would still point out that his behavior toward Marla should be taken into account because that was someone he treated positively, in comparison, and his mode of relating was still very different.)
But no, of course Khan is going to be generous and gregarious and comradely with his people. The problem is the mode in which he does so.
Again, to return to the metaphor of Kirk. We know that Kirk can be warm and comradely and friendly with his bridge crew. That's not a trait we see him display in every relationship, but with Spock and McCoy and Scotty, he most certainly can. But if the story portrayed him as being comradely and friendly with his subordinates by telling corny jokes to try and lift their spirits, or waxing poetic and starting to tear up about just how much each of them are his family and what they mean for his life (like a Discovery character of some sort), or grabbing them each a mug of ale and back slapping them while telling body stories and then getting into a bar brawl afterwards, you would say, that's out of character. 'But why?' someone could argue. 'Kirk is being comradley and friendly with his officers, it's within his character to behave that way toward them.' The point would of course be, yes, Kirk is comradley and friendly with his bridge crew- but not in that manner. There are still certain aspects of his character, ways he behaves, and that *way* of being comradley and friendly does not fit within them.
In a similar manner, the issue is not seeing Khan in a friendly mode versus only seeing him in an adversarial mode in the episode. That's never been the issue. The issue is that this friendly mode is completely lacking in any of the traits whatsoever demonstrated by the on screen Khan, and supplying traits that were not present in the on-screen Khan (from my perspective; subjectivity disclaimer). It makes sense that he would be friendly with his own people, yes. But it would still be the prideful friendliness of a dictator to his people. It would still be the haughty, superior, entitled man that we saw. Acting in a gregarious manner, sure- but we see him being gregarious (or at least aping such) in Space Seed and Wrath of Khan as well, in certain moments. There is still a grandioseness to it. A grandeur. A posturing. There's a *way* that he would be friendly. He isn't that way in the beginning of the story (before there would be any time for change). He is the way a completely different character would be friendly, and comradley, and all those other things.
And again, I recognize the freedom to disagree on those points! But the counter that he wasn't a mean dictator, he was a nice dictator, so he would be nice to his people misses the point; that was never the matter being argued. It's about the *way* he was a nice dictator to his people- and whether that way embodied any of the character traits that were at his fundamental core or not. It's not about behaving differently in different circumstances; it's about the core traits that underpin *all* circumstances (or at least, what is perceived as such).
And yes, maybe the 'gentler and more soulful' aspect is at the heart of it; maybe that's what I'm seeing as un-Khan-like and you're seeing as within a reasonable range for him.
Last edited:
Just to be completely clear I don’t have a problem that Khan is multifaceted, the problem I have is that his personality is changed. Yes his behavior should change, but his core personality should not be changed at the beginning. I thought his core personality had changed from the beginning. It wasn’t that I couldn’t understand his actions it was that I couldn’t understand his thoughts and beliefs as portrayed at the beginning of the series.
I agree about TWOK but the rationale is that he has been irrevocably changed by Ceti Alpha V. At the beginning of this series Khan should not be changed to his core but I found he was. You probably disagree with me but that is my opinion on the portrayal. I think we agree that his behavior should change with the augments but we disagree on whether he is the same in his heart. His Katra per se.
I don't think anyone ever intimated that he was a "nice" dictator, simply that he wasn't a genocidal one and one who was benevolent to those who freely served him. Christopher made the real world comparison to Genghis Khan and I'll make the fictional comparison to Victor Von Doom.
I'm re-watching TWOK this Wednesday. Looking forward to watching it with this new perspective. I'll let you all know what I think plays differently now.
Oh, I'll agree with that, but don't tell me that if Doom were in Khan's place and he believed that it was Reed Richards that put him there, that he wouldn't react in a manner similar to Khan.
From what we expected, yes. My point is that our expectations were based on a limited data set, so we should recognize the possibility that our expectations were simply wrong or incomplete.
I mean, really, wasn't that the entire thematic point of this miniseries, spelled out in the Excelsior scenes? Lear's entire agenda was to challenge the conventional wisdom about Khan, the assumptions people made about him based on the history of the Eugenics Wars and his encounters with Kirk. The entire explicitly stated point of the story was to throw our assumptions about Khan's personality into question.
Probably, except I doubt Doom would fall prey to two-dimensional thinking.
I actually rewatched it the other day. I recently rewatched Section 31, believe it or not entirely for research purposes, and Star Trek 2 was the movie that autoplayed after the movie ended and I just let it run.
Welllllllll... okay, when you put it that way, I must concede. :-)
I'll be switching things up by only watching the Khan scenes. This'll make Khan look like the main character and Kirk the outsider.
Ok now I’m getting what you’re saying. I think what we want is different. It sounds like your perspective is, “Why would you want a series on Khan where we don’t see something new?” But my viewpoint is “Why would you want a series on Khan if we don’t recognize him?”
That’s probably why you’re a writer and I’m just some guy lol.
Kind of. It is more interesting to have our expectations challenged than merely reaffirmed.
But I also just know from experience that we can seem like different people in different contexts. I know that my personality can change depending on who I'm with and what kind of environment I'm in, so that people who know me from one context could be startled to see how differently I behave in another. I think the same is probably true of most people. So it just seems logical to me that Khan could seem like a different person in a different context, and it would be unrealistic if he weren't. It's not about what I want, just what seems plausible given the circumstances.
I guess people who are used to looking for inconsistencies in simple facts (birthdates, character names, etc.) tend to apply the same analytical mindset to information that's less cut-and-dried (personality traits, reactions to stimuli, etc.) and expect it to all line up in neat little rows and columns.
Doom was only 2.5D
I wish I could say you’re wrong but I’m an accountant so yeah I’m pretty much pegged here.
