Discussion in 'Trek Literature' started by Noddy, Jul 29, 2013.
What about the different design for the cryogenic capsules in Into Darkness? How do we explain that?
Of course not. By itself, the name isn't probative. My point is that it reinforces the explicit statement that he was a Sikh. The question, one more time, is whether there was anything actually stated in the episode that suggested he was a Sikh. Of course Marla actually saying he was probably a Sikh is the main thing, but the name is worth mentioning too for the sake of thoroughness.
Was it ever actually stated that the capsules seen in the film were the same ones from the Botany Bay, as opposed to newer ones they were moved to?
If that was stated, it doesn't need any more explanation than that this is fiction and different artists render the same thing in different ways. Roddenberry himself liked to suggest that TOS was just the best approximation that they were able to manage with the available budget and resources, and that the underlying "reality" probably looked a lot better.
Yeah, I'm not sure changes in art direction (or casting) need an in-universe explanation.
I rather think this is a bona fide plot point...
In "Space Seed", our heroes thought that the way to study the sleeping leader was to set his cryo-facility to thaw right there and then. If the facility were a removable pod, then the obvious choice would have been to move the pod with Khan still inside to the Enterprise for closer study.
It is certainly possible that all the Augments were moved from their original chambers to these pods at some point. But McCoy thinks cryosleep is a lost art in the 2260s, so there shouldn't have been a ready supply of such things. Doesn't mean S31 couldn't have acquired such pods somehow - or even that the starship that found the Botany Bay would have been unable to construct such pods on the spot.
In any case, apart from the faces of the heroes, these pods would be our very first thing that has been seen both in the new movies and the original continuity. Everything else in the movies (not counting things never seen in the original continuity and thus presenting no continuity problems anyway) is from an alternate timeline, arguably manufactured well after Nero stirred the timestream - up to and including the skyline of San Francisco!
Right, any more than Marvel Comics needs to explain why Peter Parker's face looks different in an issue drawn by John Romita, Jr. than it looks in an issue drawn by Humberto Ramos. It's just interpretation.
For that matter, it doesn't need to be explained why everything in the Trek universe went from looking like live-action in TOS to looking like cartoons in TAS.
You're forgetting the events of the episode.
They didn't choose to awaken Khan; that happened automatically as soon as they came aboard. So the same would've happened even if the pods were removable.
True, the Kelvin is from an era we never actually saw onscreen, but its reasonable to assume that its technology designs represent a more modern, sophisticated interpretation of what pilot-era technology would have "really" looked like.
There's also Vulcan. The city shown in the film was presumably ShiKahr, but the architecture and the surrounding landscape didn't match what we saw in "Yesteryear." True, they filmed at Vasquez Rocks just as The Voyage Home did for Vulcan in at least one shot, but they multiplied and exaggerated the Vasquez Rocks cliff by about a thousand.
I believe McCoy explicitly says in Into Darkness that the cryotubes are 300 years old? (An exchange along the lines of "We can't open the tubes." "Too advanced?" "No, too primitive.")
He might still be, what with the theory I've heard that Marcus had Khan surgically altered, to make doubly certain no one would recognize him.
Yeah, McCoy says the cryo pods are ancient - they're clearly meant to be the same ones from the Botany Bay, even if they closer resemble the ones from "The Neutral Zone" than "Space Seed". It's a difference that makes no difference, IMO.
Was it Space Seed or Tomorrow Is Yesterday where Spock said that the records from the 1990's/2000's era were "fragmentary"? In this case it might indicate that the divergence of the universes occurred centuries before Enterprise, since the Roddenberry Universe might not have that piece in their computers, while the Abrams universe has that piece. Or it could simply be that that fact was only available in hard copy books that Admiral Marcus had access to on Earth, but was not available in digital form for the Enterprise to access in the Roddenberry universe.
Two things to consider: One, Sikhism is a religion rather than an ethnicity; and two, there were British people living in India for centuries and there are still hundreds of thousands of people born and raised on the subcontinent who are of British ancestry. So looking like Benedict Cumberbatch is not necessarily inconsistent with being a Sikh from Northern India.
After all, Naveen Andrews, who's been cited as a more credible possibility for Khan because of his Indian appearance, was born in London, England to Christian parents. So why couldn't the reverse happen as well?
Considering that the in the prime universe only one picture of Khan survived into the 2200s and that no one recognized him on sight in either universe - even Dictator Fetishist McGivers - I find it unlikely anyone other than fanon will say he was cosmetically altered.
I do wonder how long before a prime universe reference to John Harrison occurs.
Unless you go with the idea that Marla did recognize Khan and kept it to herself. As discussed above, it's the only way she could've possibly recognized him as a Sikh.
How in the world could there be a Prime Universe reference to an alias that Khan was only assigned after he was awakened in an alternate timeline?
He only calls himself "Khan" in the movie. I'm not so sure they didn't leave themselves some wiggle room on whether Harrison is really Khan.
I know the intent is that he is Khan. But if they decide to use Khan again for whatever reason and Cumberbatch decides to not come back, they can always say he was an Augment named John Harrison who used Khan's identity.
Well, consider Good That Men Do which is an entire novel dedicated to saying "That episode no one really liked? Well, turns out it was a dodgy holorecording. This is what ACTUALLY happened." You could have a writer come along who didn't like Into Darkness and drop the name into dialogue in the prime universe that makes the identity questionable.
I'd rather not hover toward any story elements, but a knowing nod could also take place. List of known aliases on a computer screen, list of cover identities, etc. etc.
(My brain is also wired to comics where codenames used by characters from alternate timelines filter back to the main one.)
"John Harrison" is an incredibly generic Section 31 name, along with "Harris" and "Sloan" (wait... Harris...sloan? Harrisloan? Harrison??? http://www.dramabutton.com) so I can imagine it being given to another agent in a universe where Khan wasn't found and thawed by a mad Admiral in 2259.
Oh god, someone put a gun to Pocket's head and make Myriad Universes: Khan happen! It would be awesome. I'd love to see that "What if the Botany Bay were found by the Enterprise-D?" story mentioned in the very earliest of mentions of the Split Infinities project.
How so? It's supposed to be the city with the Vulcan Science Academy in it, after all - and nothing indicates that Spock's hometown would be the location of this exalted body.
"Space Seed" - but only in the context of Spock being unable to dig up the exact shipping records that would have revealed the identity, mission and flight plan of the Botany Bay. Nothing about that statement suggests that mankind would have forgotten who was the president of Guatemala at the time, or what children a nobody Captain from the USAF might have borne. Details of Khan's career and ancestry would probably still be available in full.
But if you saw Benedict Cumberpatch for the first time, you wouldn't immediately think he was from Northern India, yet alone a Sikh. He's more European than anything.
True, but you likely wouldn't think that looking at Ricardo Montalban for the first time either.
And if you saw Naveen Andrews for the first time, you wouldn't immediately think he was a London native -- unless you understood that multiculturalism is a thing that exists. My whole point is that you can't judge people by their appearance. You're not supposed to assume that what you "immediately think" based on your first look at someone is meaningful.
And please -- his name is Cumberbatch, not "patch."
Separate names with a comma.