With no Space Seed, how can there be a "Khan Movie"?

[Trekkie2]

Khan will probably end up being some insignificant little toadie feeding off the slave population of Rura Penthe, much like he would have done as a prince ruling over millions, 250 years previously. I can't imagine the Romulans tolerating his over-inflated opinion of himself for long, though. Having been the one to survive getting off the rock, Nero would have eliminated him, much like he did Robau. That's if the Klingons didn't do it for him, being they feared the augment virus.

 

[Ubik]

Why do so few people here realize how bad of an idea making a Khan movie is?

Because it's not a bad idea.

It's just an idea that some people like and some people don't.

With all due respect, that's a completely empty statement. I can say that the next Star Trek movie should be about the Borg going back in time and trying to assimilate the TOS crew, and that would be objectively a pretty bad and lazy idea. Sure, some people might like it, but they'd be wrong to think it's a good and fruitful direction for the franchise.

I have very specific reasons why I think it's a terrible move for the franchise to have a plot surrounding Khan (the main one being that all it will do is keep the franchise stuck in time, living off old glories long-past), but I can't think of any convincing reasons why it would help make Star Trek once again the relevant, high-minded, philosophically-challenging, dramatically potent science fiction property it once was.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Pretentious, sometimes, yes. But "high minded" and "philosophically challenging"? Trek was fun a lot more than it was anything else.

 

[Ubik]

Pretentious, sometimes, yes. But "high minded" and "philosophically challenging"? Trek was fun a lot more than it was anything else.

If it were just fun, it would never have lasted. There have been plenty of other series and movies that were loads of fun that never had a chance of catching the longevity or the loyalty of the Star Trek stories.

If we stick to the movies alone (and let alone the admittedly even more philosophically challenging television series TNG and DS9), Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, Undiscovered Country, and First Contact all have a lot more interesting things to say about people and relationships and regret and loss and politics and many other things than the new Star Trek movie did, even though it was, as you say, "fun." But it was nowhere near as good as the aforementioned movies (or the series TNG or DS9) because its idea-content was low and its characterization, while entertaining, was superficial. I am suggesting that, in order for the franchise to reach the story-telling highs it has reached in the past, it needs to completely let go of that past and try to tell brand-new stories.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I'm quite unenthusiastic about a nuKhan movie. That said, I wanted to say that somehow growing up watching Trek reruns I never saw Space Seed until a few years after TWOK, didn't even know it existed (you can imagine my surprise when I did see it). I never felt like the movie was missing anything.

 

[Set Harth]

IMDB is listing Cumberbatch as Kahn.

CONNED!!!!!!!!!

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Or KHANNNNNNNNED!!!!!!!!!??????

 

[Trekkie2]

IMDB is listing Cumberbatch as Kahn.

CONNED!!!!!!!!!

That's what I'm going for. Didn't someone insert an actor named Justin (I can't remember his name, but it's not Bieber) into the cast listing of ST XII, about eight months after the release of of ST XI, and then link him to the Khan character. That turned out to be a CON as opposed to KHAN!

I'm not seeing how Khan as a main villain, adds to the objective of furthering relationships, which is supposed to be the central idea of the next movie.

 

[Set Harth]

Unless the relationship is with Marla McGivers, amirite?

 

[CaptainMatt]

What so many seem to be missing is the writers are fully capable of writing a story that introduces Khan in a different way that makes the movie different from Space Seed or STII and anything about them.

 

[Trekkie2]

I suggest some review the episodes and movie that portray Augments as they were written to be: TOS: Space Seed; ENT: Borderland, Cold Station 12 and The Wrath of Khan. While they possessed super human abilities, they were also defective. They were written to be aggressive, ambitious, arrogant, violent and immoral. “Prince” Khan, who once ruled over millions, was overthrown by mere humans and took refuge in space with his kind. He’s not going to be written any differently than he was in Space Seed. He was aggressive, ambitious, arrogant, violent and immoral. The writers have stated that they would be reviewing every single episode and movie in the Star Trek franchise. There is no episode or movie that has written an augment to be benevolent. It won’t happen.

 

[Therin of Andor]

There is no episode or movie that has written an augment to be benevolent. It won’t happen.

Actually, Stavos Keniclius (TAS) was benevolent. An Augment from the Eugenics Wars, he has been cloning himself, "continuing his line's search for the perfect and selfless individual to create an army of clone giants to act as a galactic police force."
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Stavos_Keniclius_5

 

[Kegg]

I'd be fine with Khan in a film and just as okay without Khan. So long as the end result is basically a good movie I'm happy.

With all due respect, that's a completely empty statement. I can say that the next Star Trek movie should be about the Borg going back in time and trying to assimilate the TOS crew, and that would be objectively a pretty bad and lazy idea.

Objectively?

Well no. It may be an idea we all agree is bad, but that's not quite the same thing as it or any entertainment concpet being objectively bad. "Time travelling Borg is a lazy plot device" is not a statement on the level of "2 + 2 = 4."

I have very specific reasons why I think it's a terrible move for the franchise to have a plot surrounding Khan (the main one being that all it will do is keep the franchise stuck in time, living off old glories long-past),

If this is your problem, then the issue is with J.J. Abrams reboot in general rather than Khan in particular. The previous film had returned to the 23rd century, to Kirk, Spock, McCoy, riffed on quotes from Wrath of Khan and the TV series and had Sulu mention his fencing and this and that and the other thing. I don't think it'd be that wrong to say the film reinvented and repurposed a lot of very familiar Star Trek content, and proceeding to use one of its most famous villains in exactly the same manner would be consistent with the direction the franchise is currently in.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I'd be fine with Khan in a film and just as okay without Khan. So long as the end result is basically a good movie I'm happy

I'm pretty much in basic agreement with this. While I would rather them create an original antagonist, the basic concept of using Khan (if they really go that direction) would not bother me.

...I don't think it'd be that wrong to say the film reinvented and repurposed a lot of very familiar Star Trek content, and proceeding to use one of its most famous villains in exactly the same manner would be consistent with the direction the franchise is currently in.

Let's say this IS a Khan film, and Cumberbatch is playing Khan...

...As you mentioned above, I can see them reinventing and repurposing Khan. I would be OK with Khan as a Brit who happened to grow up somewhere on the Indian subcontinent. Considering the long historical connection between the British and India, I would say that isn't too much of a stretch.

I guess that TOS Khan was supposed to be of Indian descent, but that doesn't mean this movie's Khan can't be a Brit who grew up in India. There are a lot of British subjects today who grew up in India. Perhaps this new Khan grew up identifying more with the Indians around him than the British.

 

[USS Excelsior]

I wonder if they will be stated as being a product of the 20th Century in the film.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Khan is inevitable. He's a fixed point in time

 

[Trekkie2]

There is no episode or movie that has written an augment to be benevolent. It won’t happen.

Actually, Stavos Keniclius (TAS) was benevolent. An Augment from the Eugenics Wars, he has been cloning himself, "continuing his line's search for the perfect and selfless individual to create an army of clone giants to act as a galactic police force."
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Stavos_Keniclius_5

I can't find the episode to watch right now, but nowhere in the transcripts of the episode does it say that the original scientist was an Augment.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Since the term "Augment" hadn't been coined the the time, it wouldn't appear, But it is implied Keniclius was involved with the development of the "supermen" and may have been one.

COMPUTER: Working. From Earth history file. Stavos Keniclius. Earth scientist, period, Eugenics Wars.

COMPUTER: Planned to clone perfect specimen prototype into master race. Concept considered anti-humanistic. Banned from community. Disappeared. No evidence of death. No further data.

 

[Saul]

The writers said they were going to stick in the Botany Bay at the end of the previous movie's credits.

...but they thought it would tie their hands too much for the sequel.

But in what way I wonder did they mean that. The set up. Ship design, how Khan is introduced.

 

[Ubik]

I'd be fine with Khan in a film and just as okay without Khan. So long as the end result is basically a good movie I'm happy.

With all due respect, that's a completely empty statement. I can say that the next Star Trek movie should be about the Borg going back in time and trying to assimilate the TOS crew, and that would be objectively a pretty bad and lazy idea.

Objectively?

Well no. It may be an idea we all agree is bad, but that's not quite the same thing as it or any entertainment concpet being objectively bad. "Time travelling Borg is a lazy plot device" is not a statement on the level of "2 + 2 = 4."

I have very specific reasons why I think it's a terrible move for the franchise to have a plot surrounding Khan (the main one being that all it will do is keep the franchise stuck in time, living off old glories long-past),

If this is your problem, then the issue is with J.J. Abrams reboot in general rather than Khan in particular. The previous film had returned to the 23rd century, to Kirk, Spock, McCoy, riffed on quotes from Wrath of Khan and the TV series and had Sulu mention his fencing and this and that and the other thing. I don't think it'd be that wrong to say the film reinvented and repurposed a lot of very familiar Star Trek content, and proceeding to use one of its most famous villains in exactly the same manner would be consistent with the direction the franchise is currently in.

That's a good argument, and you're right, it would be consistent, but I was hoping that this philosophy of rehashing old stuff would only apply to the first movie, the initial reboot. They needed to prove, with this first movie, that recasting the old roles was a feasible direction. They needed to convince Paramount, and they needed to convince the audience, and so I understand why they needed to stay relatively safe - to get the audience. There was a lot at stake, and a lot to prove.

But now they have them. They have a captive audience. They can do almost literally anything they want. They can be daring and creative and original, and bring Star Trek into the storytelling tropes of 21st century science fiction. They can give science fiction literature a run for its money. They can do anything, because they have the audience. They no longer need to play it safe.

So why should they? A movie with Khan would be fanfiction, not a story written by genuine science fiction writers who take their work seriously.