Except he wasn't a Middle Eastern Guy playing the part, he was a Mexican Guy playing the part. you're much more liely to find a British Guy in India/The Middle East, then you are a Mexican Guy.
Why Khan?
- Thread starter WarpFactorZ
- Start date
As I've written before, I'm old enough to have lived through at least six different live-action versions of Superman. A new take on Khan doesn't faze me . . . .
If indeed Cumberbatch is playing Khan, which is still just a popular theory at this point. We shouldn't treat it as an article of faith.
If indeed Cumberbatch is playing Khan, which is still just a popular theory at this point. We shouldn't treat it as an article of faith.
Yes. And I still don't think he is Khan. From a story escalation stand point, it makes the most sense to wait for film three.
It just annoys me to no end that people have to get all nuts over a few cosmetic changes that are ultimately meaningless. But as I've pointed out before, you're one of a handful of people who are actually creatively (and financially!) invested in Khan, and you don't care what Paramount does. Others should take that to heart.
I quite like Kor, Koloth, and Kang, even just based on their appearances in TOS. Granted it may have been better if they had just gone with one Klingon commander who showed up a few times to be Kirk's foil. In fact, wasn't Koloth originally intended to be a recurring character although that never went through? Still, those three characters were great in the one episode they each had.
Well, Klingons served the story as a means of showing how threatening V'Ger is. Three Klingon ships are no match for this funky cloud, how can the Enterprise possibly fare?
In all honesty, Kruge certainly isn't my favourite Trek villain, although Christopher Lloyd certainly does an excellent job portraying the character.
Yes, the Klingons in that movie are really cheesy, though that is also part of their charm.
Chang really is a great character, though I see your point, if say Kor had been used three times in TOS instead of two other commanders being created and him and Kirk had one last fight here it could have been quite a profound way to end TOS. Though at the same time, I really can't see Kor, or Koloth or Kang involved in a conspiracy to sabotage peace by framing Kirk and assassinating the Chancellor. Forgive me for trotting this overused term, but they strike me as being more honourable than that.
John Colicos as Kor was slated to be the recurring Klingon adversary for Kirk, but he notified that he was unavailable for "The Trouble With Tribbles". Then, he was supposed to play Kor in "Day of the Dove", but was again unavailable.
STVI was meant to be a nostalgia-filled end to TOS. It had all the classic plot devices: Kirk vs Klingons, Kirk fighting his "evil twin," McCoy doing the doctor thing on an alien, unmasking the assassin to see "who this really is!" (OK, that was Scooby Doo), etc... In terms of Chang, I felt he was a generalize homage to TOS Klingons: none of this "honor" garbage, just a conniving, cold villain. To top it off, he had the fu manchu mustache and a "smooth" forehead (at least as far as bumpy foreheads go).
I agree, however, that it would have been nice to pit Kirk against a single recurring character one last time. But if there had been such a person, they probably would have appeared in the films long before TUC.
It's a post-2233 reboot. If it was a clean reboot, there was no need or purpose to include Leonard Nimoy, or the entire time-travel aspect. It wasn't simply a nostalgia bone thrown out to the die hard fans -- there were enough of those peppering the film.
I think the writers are big enough Trek fans to respect the basic premise of canon and continuity. Sure, there will inevitably be errors or ret-cons. But I would be surprised if they went out of their way to radically change what's been established. Unlike Batman, Superman, or Bond films, that's been the established principle of the Star Trek universe for almost 50 years. How would fans react to a Star Wars Ep VII that retroactively makes Darth Vader a woman, or ignores all events from Empire Strikes Back?
Well, they're not going "out of their way" to do anything. Looking at it another way, whatever they do, that's the way they're going. It's tautological like that.
1. Alice Eve's and Benedict Cumberbatch' characters are Canon
2. Alice Eve is Officially revealed as Carol Marcus (A Canon Character)
3. Orci in Interview (Or was it someone else): I may have lied about one of them
So, yea, maybe, or maybe not
I don't think it will be Khan. But this...
... is something I really like the sound of. The implication of lots of missions between ST09 and this, possibly even getting to see some of those missions, and the culmination of that building to John Harrison, the villain, taking on the Federation.
And it's Benedict Cumberbatch! He rules! And he IS NOT KHAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!
Thank you, God. I really appreciate it. I do. You did me a real solid, there.
....unless he is Khan.
In which case you have to prepare yourselves for some serious ranting, dear readers. 
^ Wait, wait - if Raytas is going to fire up the rant engine, then I want an all-new, all-original rant - not just a reprint.
Click.
Thank you, M. I want to be free to rant anew! Accept no reprints!
It's a win-win for me, you see: if it's not Khan, I'm happy. If it is Khan, I can rant to my heart's delight! In the words of the fantabulous Oberst Landa:
Oooh, THAT'S A BINGO!
It's a win-win for me, you see: if it's not Khan, I'm happy. If it is Khan, I can rant to my heart's delight! In the words of the fantabulous Oberst Landa:
Oooh, THAT'S A BINGO!
Agreed.
Seriously, him being Khan or not makes no difference to me. Either way he'll be a vengeance-filled villain with a doomsday weapon like in the last 2 movies. I'd like something different.
You keep saying this as if this date means anything to anyone. It doesn't, well except to you and maybe five Enterprise fans.
The writers know canon is a myth and continuity is a convenience used in world-building. But like a t-Square, it's often best left in the desk.
No, it's dogmatic doctrine perpetuated by fandom.
Why do these threads always culminate in someone trying to make orange juice out of apples?
Don't really need to dignify this response other than to say the thought of Khan = Darth Vader is
.
It was the date specified in the movie for when the timelines diverged. Don't be obnoxious.
And I hated Enterprise; found it to be senseless fan-wank that tried TOO HARD to explain things that didn't need explaining. In fact, I didn't watched any Trek series beyond TNG because they became stale. I find Abrams' approach refreshing because it opens new ground for new stories, BUT moreover because of the fact that it claims to respect the previously-established universe. I'm not a "purist" who wants to see cardboard sets or crap like that. I just want to see a follow through with what was established in the last film.
I'm simply responding to the people who suggest "ignoring" Trek canon should be seen on the same level as the different versions of Batman or Superman or Bond.Why do these threads always culminate in someone trying to make orange juice out of apples?
Don't really need to dignify this response other than to say the thought of Khan = Darth Vader is
But from your reaction, when the suggestion of changing established lore in another "space saga" is made, apparently you DO have a pretty definite opinion.
Look what they did to Zefram Cochrane between "Metamorphosis" and Star Trek: First Contact. White British Khan would be pretty much the same thing.
To be fair, making Darth Vader a woman rips the entirety of Star Wars Saga to shreds, it would change absolutely everything. you could make Luke a female or The Emperor or Yoda or even Han Solo, but, with making Darth Vader a woman it wouldn't really be possible to tell the same story
It was the date specified in the movie for when the timelines diverged. Don't be obnoxious.
And I hated Enterprise; found it to be senseless fan-wank that tried TOO HARD to explain things that didn't need explaining. In fact, I didn't watched any Trek series beyond TNG because they became stale. I find Abrams' approach refreshing because it opens new ground for new stories, BUT moreover because of the fact that it claims to respect the previously-established universe. I'm not a "purist" who wants to see cardboard sets or crap like that. I just want to see a follow through with what was established in the last film.
I'm simply responding to the people who suggest "ignoring" Trek canon should be seen on the same level as the different versions of Batman or Superman or Bond.Why do these threads always culminate in someone trying to make orange juice out of apples?
Don't really need to dignify this response other than to say the thought of Khan = Darth Vader is
But from your reaction, when the suggestion of changing established lore in another "space saga" is made, apparently you DO have a pretty definite opinion.
Yes, it pretty much was.
I'm sure that we could find a more diplomatic term than "nostalgia bone," but it would mean the same thing.
It's remarkable that Trek fans can go on and on about the importance of good characters to worthwhile stories and then declare Chang - a simpleminded moustache-twirler - to have been a "great character." God knows Plummer tried, but having a rotten-to-the-core character who never does a decent thing declaim about patriotism and destiny while reciting random Shakespeare from the original Bartlett's Familiar Quotations does not a "nuanced" character make.
