Star Trek III - The [Speculation Begins] (Spoilers)

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Because he isn't a hero, that's why not. I don't care what happened to Khan after Marcus woke him up, that doesn't change who Khan really is - a tyrant. It doesn't erase Khan's actions during the Eugenics Wars.

To make Khan a hero would be to excuse what he did back then. Why would anyone want to do that? Don't the Eugenics Wars matter? Why doesn't Khan deserve to be punished for what happened then? Why should we just forget about them?

 

[Hober Mallow]

To make Khan a hero would be to excuse what he did back then.

How?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Let's not straw-man what Kelthaz said. Kelthaz allowed for the possibility of making Khan an antihero.

 

[M'Sharak]

Because he isn't a hero, that's why not. I don't care what happened to Khan after Marcus woke him up, that doesn't change who Khan really is - a tyrant. It doesn't erase Khan's actions during the Eugenics Wars.

To make Khan a hero would be to excuse what he did back then. Why would anyone want to do that? Don't the Eugenics Wars matter? Why doesn't Khan deserve to be punished for what happened then? Why should we just forget about them?

Okay, now - suppose you set aside the "Khan is evil and can never be anything but evil" crutch which you seem to favor, and set aside the "I don't care," and suppose you think of some ways in which Khan could be a hero, or at least be heroic enough to partially redeem himself for other deeds done. Why would anyone want to do that? Because it has potential to make a more interesting story than "Bad guy is just bad and stays that way forever - The End," that's why.

A heroic act doesn't mean that he's "excused for what he did back then" but it does show that the character has or can develop a capacity to grow beyond those past acts, even if only for a short time. Think of the way Lon Suder's arc played out, just for example: he was a monster on a smaller scale than anything you attribute to Khan, yet undeniably monstrous. His last acts neither negate nor excuse his earlier monstrous ones—in fact, those acts required him to be monstrous once more after he'd tried to suppress that aspect—but they do somewhat redeem the character, and the story is more interesting because of what goes on inside Suder in the process of getting there.

 

[ralph]

In my opinion, JJ abandoned the formula that worked well in Star Trek and focused only on the action and effects in STID.

This sequence could continue with Kirk in command, with the uncertainty of the crew, against doubt-unbelief in high command of the Fleet, disagreements with Spock, McCoy´s assistance and adventure. Only a series of actions would prove his ability, to sacrifice his own life, as Spock said in the first film.

I also heard a number of criticisms of non-trekkers that wanted to see this continuation. So the first film to the audience was better than the second. I hope they return to the thread of the story and write a consistent story with the universe they created.

 

[Kelthaz]

No, I don't want Khan to be a villain again. Make him a hero. Or, well, at anti-hero.

Are we forgetting what Khan was like when he was first alive? He was absolute dictator over 1/4 of Earth. His kind killed millions. They openly advocated the genocide of anyone who wasn't an Augment like them. And we're talking about making Khan the fucking HERO?

Compared to Khan, Admiral Marcus was Mother Theresa. Marcus was no hero, I admit, but neither was Khan. As a dictator and a murderer, Khan was worse than Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot put together.

Okay, first of all, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot have the leg up on Khan because they're not fictional characters. Comparing the fictional atrocities of a fictional character to real people who have inflicted suffering and death on real people on a massive scale makes me very uncomfortable. Stop doing that.

Secondly, where are you getting this "Khan was a brutal tyrant who butchered millions" information? I'm on Memory Alpha reading his bio and nothing suggests that he was cruel.

Considered "the best of tyrants", he severely curtailed the freedoms of his subjects, but his reign was an exception to similar circumstances in Earth history – lacking internal massacres or wars of aggression.

I can't imagine someone like Khan sitting idly by while the Klingon Empire invades the Federation. He would both want to help his people and use the situation to gain power for himself.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Ignoring the past for a sec (since a lot of what we "know" is contradictory), as cool as frienemy Khan was in ID, I think the ship sailed on his becoming an ally of the crew ever again when we did his 9/11 x 10,000 thing with the Vengeance.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Secondly, where are you getting this "Khan was a brutal tyrant who butchered millions" information? I'm on Memory Alpha reading his bio and nothing suggests that he was cruel.

You only have to look at Khan's actions in "Space Seed" to find out that he was exactly that. Not just because he basically beat the shit out of McGivers, but he tried to take over the Enterprise and murder Kirk. And of course there's the Eugenics Wars to consider as well. I don't care if "there were no massacres under his rule" - as far as I'm concerned, all dictators (and Khan was definitely a dictator) are cruel, by definition.

And remember what Khan said in STID about what he would do if he were to be set free - continue the work he and the rest of the Augments were originally doing. Which of course involved the genocide of anyone who wasn't as perfect as they were. What is that, if not cruelty?

I think the ship sailed on his becoming an ally of the crew ever again when we did his 9/11 x 10,000 thing with the Vengeance.

Ain't that the truth.

It could, conceivably, be argued that Khan murdered Marcus in revenge for what happened to him. I can almost (not quite, but almost) understand why Khan might have done that. But what Khan then did - crashing the Vengeance into San Francisco, undoubtedly killing thousands of people - is completely beyond the pale.

 

[Hober Mallow]

I'm still not getting how Khan being a hero in the next film would excuse everything bad he's ever done. I'm not following the logic.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It would help if (like Suder) Khan could show actual remorse for what he'd done before. Suder had the common decency to regret his violent past and he wanted to make up for it. That's what made his final redemption so powerful. If I ever thought that Khan was capable of this, I'd be all up for it. But it doesn't seem likely. Augments simply (and literally) aren't built for such things.

 

[Set Harth]

Because he isn't a hero, that's why not. I don't care what happened to Khan after Marcus woke him up, that doesn't change who Khan really is - a tyrant. It doesn't erase Khan's actions during the Eugenics Wars.

To make Khan a hero would be to excuse what he did back then. Why would anyone want to do that? Don't the Eugenics Wars matter? Why doesn't Khan deserve to be punished for what happened then? Why should we just forget about them?

I don't really care about the issue of "excusing" his crimes ( which they wouldn't be doing anyway ). I don't much want him to be a hero simply because at this juncture making him a hero is such a predictable thing to do. It's based on the "change it up" theory: what can we do with the character this time that will be new and different? But that philosophy itself can get old. I concede that having him be all destruction and proverbial mustache-twirling would feel like been there, done that, but maybe he could be a more low-key villain with a different agenda of some sort. But if I had to choose, I think it might be better to just leave him alone.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Re: Star Trek III - The [Speculation Begins]

Why? TNG and its spin-offs played with TOS toys all the time.

People have been wanting to see Kirk vs. the Borg since Q, Who.

All the other captains got to face off against the Borg (Picard, Sisko, Janeway, Archer) so it is only fair that Kirk should get his turn. I'd love to see them do the Borg, with today's special effects technology

Eh, no, please. I can't stand the Borg anymore. I've been Borg'd to death. I'd like to see either a completely new antagonist, or a mysterious "thing" that must be explored to be understood. Either way, no Borg. Please.

I'd love to see some adaptations of Star Trek novels instead, like The Galactic Whirlpool or The Price Of The Phoenix or a remake of Star Trek: Insurrection that doesn't involve the So'na but has Starfleet (or a remnant of Section 31) be the people trying to destroy the Ba'ku. An adaptation of the post-Into Darkness comic book story (The Khitomer Conflict) would be great as well-but just let's not have anything happen on Earth anymore.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Re: Star Trek III - The [Speculation Begins]

Why? TNG and its spin-offs played with TOS toys all the time.

People have been wanting to see Kirk vs. the Borg since Q, Who.

All the other captains got to face off against the Borg (Picard, Sisko, Janeway, Archer) so it is only fair that Kirk should get his turn. I'd love to see them do the Borg, with today's special effects technology

Eh, no, please. I can't stand the Borg anymore. I've been Borg'd to death. I'd like to see either a completely new antagonist, or a mysterious "thing" that must be explored to be understood. Either way, no Borg. Please.

I'd love to see some adaptations of Star Trek novels instead, like The Galactic Whirlpool or The Price Of The Phoenix or a remake of Star Trek: Insurrection that doesn't involve the So'na but has Starfleet (or a remnant of Section 31) be the people trying to destroy the Ba'ku. An adaptation of the post-Into Darkness comic book story (The Khitomer Conflict would be great as well-but just let's not have anything happen on Earth anymore.

No, I don't want Khan to be a villain again. Make him a hero. Or, well, at anti-hero.

Are we forgetting what Khan was like when he was first alive? He was absolute dictator over 1/4 of Earth. His kind killed millions. They openly advocated the genocide of anyone who wasn't an Augment like them. And we're talking about making Khan the fucking HERO?

Compared to Khan, Admiral Marcus was Mother Theresa. Marcus was no hero, I admit, but neither was Khan. As a dictator and a murderer, Khan was worse than Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot put together.

Okay, first of all, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot have the leg up on Khan because they're not fictional characters. Comparing the fictional atrocities of a fictional character to real people who have inflicted suffering and death on real people on a massive scale makes me very uncomfortable. Stop doing that.

Secondly, where are you getting this "Khan was a brutal tyrant who butchered millions" information? I'm on Memory Alpha reading his bio and nothing suggests that he was cruel.

Considered "the best of tyrants", he severely curtailed the freedoms of his subjects, but his reign was an exception to similar circumstances in Earth history – lacking internal massacres or wars of aggression.

I can't imagine someone like Khan sitting idly by while the Klingon Empire invades the Federation. He would both want to help his people and use the situation to gain power for himself.

Because he isn't a hero, that's why not. I don't care what happened to Khan after Marcus woke him up, that doesn't change who Khan really is - a tyrant. It doesn't erase Khan's actions during the Eugenics Wars.

To make Khan a hero would be to excuse what he did back then. Why would anyone want to do that? Don't the Eugenics Wars matter? Why doesn't Khan deserve to be punished for what happened then? Why should we just forget about them?

Okay, now - suppose you set aside the "Khan is evil and can never be anything but evil" crutch which you seem to favor, and set aside the "I don't care," and suppose you think of some ways in which Khan could be a hero, or at least be heroic enough to partially redeem himself for other deeds done. Why would anyone want to do that? Because it has potential to make a more interesting story than "Bad guy is just bad and stays that way forever - The End," that's why.

A heroic act doesn't mean that he's "excused for what he did back then" but it does show that the character has or can develop a capacity to grow beyond those past acts, even if only for a short time. Think of the way Lon Suder's arc played out, just for example: he was a monster on a smaller scale than anything you attribute to Khan, yet undeniably monstrous. His last acts neither negate nor excuse his earlier monstrous ones—in fact, those acts required him to be monstrous once more after he'd tried to suppress that aspect—but they do somewhat redeem the character, and the story is more interesting because of what goes on inside Suder in the process of getting there.

Secondly, where are you getting this "Khan was a brutal tyrant who butchered millions" information? I'm on Memory Alpha reading his bio and nothing suggests that he was cruel.

You only have to look at Khan's actions in "Space Seed" to find out that he was exactly that. Not just because he basically beat the shit out of McGivers, but he tried to take over the Enterprise and murder Kirk. And of course there's the Eugenics Wars to consider as well. I don't care if "there were no massacres under his rule" - as far as I'm concerned, all dictators (and Khan was definitely a dictator) are cruel, by definition.

And remember what Khan said in STID about what he would do if he were to be set free - continue the work he and the rest of the Augments were originally doing. Which of course involved the genocide of anyone who wasn't as perfect as they were. What is that, if not cruelty?

I think the ship sailed on his becoming an ally of the crew ever again when we did his 9/11 x 10,000 thing with the Vengeance.

Ain't that the truth.

It could, conceivably, be argued that Khan murdered Marcus in revenge for what happened to him. I can almost (not quite, but almost) understand why Khan might have done that. But what Khan then did - crashing the Vengeance into San Francisco, undoubtedly killing thousands of people - is completely beyond the pale.

It would help if (like Suder) Khan could show actual remorse for what he'd done before. Suder had the common decency to regret his violent past and he wanted to make up for it. That's what made his final redemption so powerful. If I ever thought that Khan was capable of this, I'd be all up for it. But it doesn't seem likely. Augments simply (and literally) aren't built for such things.

AFAIK, Khan needs to get the 'death of personality' punishment as used on Babylon 5, with a new personality implanted into him, that being of a similar Augmented human from a 30's pulp magazine.

 

[137th Gebirg]

It's not without precedent in the Trek universe. They did it with Garth of Izar. Why not?

Still don't want to see any more Khan for a while, though.

Please, something original, if it's even possible.

 

[Harvey]

I wouldn't mind seeing Khan in another film down the line -- I think this new version of the character has much more potential than the one played by Ricardo Montalban -- but I'd like to see the next movie focus on the five year mission. The "strange new worlds" component of the original series has been overblown, but I hope at least one movie can deliver on it, and the next one seems like a good opportunity.

(In his Mission Log interview, Bob Orci said this is exactly what he wanted to do in the next one; here's hoping he has studio and directorial support to do so -- and pulls it off).

 

[dan_bevan]

In the original series and movies he was able to fight Klingons way too easily when it was specified that Klingons were x10 the strength of humans.

Klingons are not nor have they ever been 10x stronger than humans. Even Vulcans are only 3x stronger than humans. Klingons probably only have a very slight advantage over humans.

Im pretty sure that it was in an ep or it might have been a book of Star Trek which specified that Vulcans were 3x stronger than humans whilst Klingons were stronger again up to 10x stronger. It just never made sense in the originals that Kirk could beat up a Klingon. I think new Abrams films are more realistic where we see Spock kick the crap out of Kirk and he'd prob fare even worse against a Klingon.

There is no chance that they would use Khan again in the next film.

Oh really?

To answer that question would be to determine whether or not he actually survives this movie, but if he survives this movie, I think that we would be incredibly stupid to not use [Benedict Cumberbatch] again.

Click.

Into Darkness was the most financially successful overall and second most profitable movie (after TMP) in Trek. Bringing back Khan for more makes financial sense.

BUT, I suspect Cumby's rumoured role as the big villain in Star Wars VII, VIII and IX will prevent his return to Trek.

It doesnt matter what Lindelof says though, Cumberbatch is a great talented actor and im sure they would love to work with him again. But theres no way they'd do another Khan movie straight after ID. They would have to do a different story and if they even wanted to include Khan in a side story or in a cameo role, Cumberbatch is a big enough actor now that he wouldnt settle for anything less than a major role.

Im 99.9% sure he isn't going to be in the next movie. Showing Khan sleeping at the end was just a nod to the original star trek to show that he would still be alive in the future in this timeline.

I think an interesting twist for the next movie would be for Carol Marcus to fall pregnant with Kirk's child but at the end of the film she sacrifices herself along with her unborn child to stop the bad guy e.g. Charlie X. Or it could be that she gets attacked and miscarries the baby and she leaves the ship heartbroken. Either way Kirk would have no son in this timeline and there'd be no annoying Carol either. Think this would be an interesting twist that people wouldnt see coming.

 

[dan_bevan]

I wouldn't mind seeing Khan in another film down the line -- I think this new version of the character has much more potential than the one played by Ricardo Montalban -- but I'd like to see the next movie focus on the five year mission. The "strange new worlds" component of the original series has been overblown, but I hope at least one movie can deliver on it, and the next one seems like a good opportunity.

(In his Mission Log interview, Bob Orci said this is exactly what he wanted to do in the next one; here's hoping he has studio and directorial support to do so -- and pulls it off).

100% agree with this. If they continued to create more films set within this universe then certainly wouldnt say no to bringing Khan back should there be an interesting enough storyline that involves him. Im sure Benedict Cumberbatch would want there to be a very good storyline in place aswell.
Im sure the next film is going to focus on the 5 year mission and an original story. Would like to see some contact with new alien species and some amazing new worlds. I know a lot of people didn't like ST: Insurrection but it was fundamentally star trek at its core, encountering a new civilization with a different way of life who another species want to destroy. Something similar for the next film wouldnt be a bad idea provided it was done in the right way and some original ideas used. Not sure if Kirk would break the prime directive again as they have already shown him do this in ST:ID but then it is Kirk after all and im sure he would break the prime directive more than once.

 

[BillJ]

Im pretty sure that it was in an ep or it might have been a book of Star Trek which specified that Vulcans were 3x stronger than humans whilst Klingons were stronger again up to 10x stronger. It just never made sense in the originals that Kirk could beat up a Klingon. I think new Abrams films are more realistic where we see Spock kick the crap out of Kirk and he'd prob fare even worse against a Klingon.

I'm not sure about outside of TOS. But I can only find a reference to "Mister Spock is much stronger than the ordinary human being." Which is from "This Side of Paradise". As far as Klingons go, I don't think they ever gave any indication of their strength in comparison to humans.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

I'm not sure about outside of TOS. But I can only find a reference to "Mister Spock is much stronger than the ordinary human being." Which is from "This Side of Paradise". As far as Klingons go, I don't think they ever gave any indication of their strength in comparison to humans.

In ST, humans are apparently the Federation Starships of the living world. That is, no matter what alien they go up against, and no matter the size difference, they get the crap kicked out of them.

It's amazing we made it out of the Stone Age....