test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

If John Harrison had not been Khan...

2

Comments

  • johnchrightonjohnchrighton Member Posts: 99 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    If John Harrison had not been Khan, but had been one of the other 72 in the Botany Bay, would you have been more satisfied with the story?

    Moderately, yes. I like the movie but this change would have improved it.
    Headlong into mystery
  • eldarion79eldarion79 Member Posts: 1,679 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    Here's my main problem with JJTrek ST:ID.

    It was just a lazy rehash of the ST2:TWoK storyline & script. JJA & RO, rather than write an all new original story line & script, chose the lazy TRIBBLE path. I think that they were just too busy with all of their other projects & counting their money. Yes, it was in the new time line & they threw in Admiral Markus & S31 for good measure. And I definitely won't complain about seeing Alice Eve in her undies. But it was just too much of the same. As a life time ST fan, I want NEW, not a rehash of "been there, done that". After all, aren't we supposed to be "seeking out new life & civilizations" & "to boldly go where no one has been before"?
    I also didn't buy NC as Khan. There will only ever be one Khan in my book & that is RM.
    But seriously, who at CBS signed off on the story & final script ?!?!
    Did they really think that ST fans would not notice?!?!

    I really hope that RO & his team bring something new to the screen with ST Reboot #3.

    Given that Into Darkness' only similarity or rehash was one scene, in which it is the mistake a lot of fans dwell on and pretty much the movie focus' was on an area that Star Trek rarely goes into, the consequences of bad mission. The rest of the Khan-focus was very different from what we have seen of Khan. He was personable and human. Until he killed Admiral Rickenhouse I mean Marcus, I sympathized for the guy.
  • psycoticvulcanpsycoticvulcan Member Posts: 4,160 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    hevach wrote: »
    Honestly, it would have been best if they'd left the augments out entirely. The only reason they used them at all was so at some point somebody could yell, "Khan!"

    One of the early theories about the movie was Gary Mitchell, who could have done everything Khan did, fit the personality a little better (not perfectly, but he's obscure enough not to provoke a holy war over it),closed a plot hole or two, and even would have been less of a facepalm with the whole magic blood thing, because they were alreayd giving him every plot-convenient power they could think of anyway.

    Also, that way there's only one of him, and it's not silly that they're worried about not having enough blood to save Kirk despite having access to 72 perfectly good bags of the stuff.

    Agreed for the most part, but I think Garth of Izar would have worked better than Mitchell. He's desperate to regain the respect of his peers, so he agrees to help Marcus design new ships and tactics to fight the Klingons. No need for an augmented super-human, just a technical/tactical genius.
    NJ9oXSO.png
    "Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
    -Thomas Marrone
  • richardcranium63richardcranium63 Member Posts: 176 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    OK, you people are missing the entire point I was trying to make.
    JJ Abrams, Robert Orci & Kutrzman had the opportunity to continue the good start they got with the 1st ST Reboot & write another original script but instead chose the cheap TRIBBLE & lazy path of reusing a tired old story line that began with ST:TOS S1:E22 "Space Seed" & the theme of genetically engineered & augmented super beings has been revived in every ST series since, albeit with different twists & turns. However, ST:ID was such a blatant rip-off of ST:TWoK, right down to the reuse of "KHAAAAN!", that the whole time I watched it, I was more interested in seeing how much they copied or referenced. It made the experience less enjoyable for me. In my opinion, they could have done a much better job writing an all new, original story & script. I know that it requires more work & thought on their part but I believe that any writer & director owes it to the franchise & the fans to do a much better job.
    Just maybe this is part of the reason why JJ is not on ST Reboot #3. Just sayin'
    RichardCranium63
    Fed/Vulcan: T'jar Voltek Fleet: Section 31
    Fed/Andorian: Lissan Ek'Noor sh'Aqabaa Fleet: Section 31
    KDF/Cardi: K'Im Qah da Sian Fleet: Klingon Intelligence
    KDF/Reman: R'Chras Jonzor Fleet: Klingon Intelligence
  • edited October 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • rahmkota19rahmkota19 Member Posts: 1,929 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    Not neccesarily. I liked Into Darkness myself, did not regret watching it at the cinema. Not at all.

    What got me thinking though is all perfectly summed up in the Honest Trailer by Screenjunkies:
    - "where death has been cured by magic super blood"
    - "interstellar transporters make starships obsolete"

    Those two points where a little bit weak in my opinion. Harrison being Harrison would have worked, but was not part of the issue I have with the movie. Interested how they are gonna write around that for ST3. Get a certain Klingon B'rel commanded by Kruge to crash into the whale probe near Sha'Ka'Ree, while Gowron walks towards the launch point to get the Nexus to devour V'ger, perhaps?
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    artan42 wrote: »
    Is this just nostalgia for TWOK or hatred for ID that's blinding you to the fact that Cumberbatch was better than Montalb
  • edited October 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • grandnaguszek1grandnaguszek1 Member Posts: 2,188 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    If John Harrison had not been Kahn....the movie would have still been a bad star trek.
    say-star-wars-is-better.jpg
  • edited October 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    valoreah wrote: »
    I don't think BC gave the role any more depth or feeling than RM did. As for being a "sympathetic villain", I don't think that was what he was intended to be. Khan was intended as a straight up black hat villain.
    Really? I don't think Khan's rantings at Kirk and Chekov in WoK had anywhere near the kind of gravitas/emotional death of NuKhan's brig monologue. NuKhan was shown to be honourable (saving his friends and Kirk) and only turning on them when he was betrayed by them, where Khan was just a moustache-twirler...
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    valoreah wrote: »
    That's the thing with JJ, Orci and Kurtzman... they really can't come up with anything original. They try and rework something done already and add in a few things here and there to make it familiar.

    Completely agree with you there :cool:
  • worffan101worffan101 Member Posts: 9,518 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    It's no secret how much I dislike The works of Abrams and his three stooges, but I must agree, Cumberbatch was fantastic in the role, and made Khan three dimensional, rather than the cliched, two dimensional and arguably not hellishly intelligent Khan portrayed by Montalb
  • worffan101worffan101 Member Posts: 9,518 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    Really? I don't think Khan's rantings at Kirk and Chekov in WoK had anywhere near the kind of gravitas/emotional death of NuKhan's brig monologue. NuKhan was shown to be honourable (saving his friends and Kirk) and only turning on them when he was betrayed by them, where Khan was just a moustache-twirler...

    Watch "Space Seed".

    Khan in "Space Seed" is much more like CumberKhan; he only goes Evil Is Hammy once his wife gets killed and he goes insane from grief. Compare Cumberbatch's behavior before and after Spock fake-kills the other augments.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,490 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    rahmkota19 wrote: »
    Not neccesarily. I liked Into Darkness myself, did not regret watching it at the cinema. Not at all.

    What got me thinking though is all perfectly summed up in the Honest Trailer by Screenjunkies:
    - "where death has been cured by magic super blood"
    - "interstellar transporters make starships obsolete"
    Except that they didn't keep the magic blood around to harvest, and it can't be replicated because reasons.

    And the interstellar transporter was apparently a closely-held secret of Admiral Robocop and his mad-scientist brigade; the sole prototype of which we're aware was destroyed when Harrison's flyer crashed outside Starfleet Command, just after he beamed himself to Qo'noS. And true to Mad Scientists in all mediocre sci-fi flicks, all plans and notes were probably destroyed. (Scotty's work was confiscated, as is mentioned in a throwaway line fairly early on.) So we still need starships, except that maybe Section 31 has maintained the ability to imitate the Iconians and just appear out of nowhere across the galaxy.

    I think the change to the concept of the lost Khan ship was acceptable, although I prefer the idea that Harrison claimed he was Khan in order to keep his superior safe (that's going to be my headcanon for this movie). The only thing that stymied me was the horrible misuse of science in the opening bit. "Cold fusion" does not mean a form of fusion that freezes things in place. Should've just technobabbled that bit.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • worffan101worffan101 Member Posts: 9,518 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    jonsills wrote: »
    Except that they didn't keep the magic blood around to harvest, and it can't be replicated because reasons.

    And the interstellar transporter was apparently a closely-held secret of Admiral Robocop and his mad-scientist brigade; the sole prototype of which we're aware was destroyed when Harrison's flyer crashed outside Starfleet Command, just after he beamed himself to Qo'noS. And true to Mad Scientists in all mediocre sci-fi flicks, all plans and notes were probably destroyed. (Scotty's work was confiscated, as is mentioned in a throwaway line fairly early on.) So we still need starships, except that maybe Section 31 has maintained the ability to imitate the Iconians and just appear out of nowhere across the galaxy.

    I think the change to the concept of the lost Khan ship was acceptable, although I prefer the idea that Harrison claimed he was Khan in order to keep his superior safe (that's going to be my headcanon for this movie). The only thing that stymied me was the horrible misuse of science in the opening bit. "Cold fusion" does not mean a form of fusion that freezes things in place. Should've just technobabbled that bit.

    Scotty can make a supertransporter on an ice planet by himself.

    Sure, his work was confiscated, but he's got to remember the gist of it, and a few months or years of secret work on the Enterprise permanently render starships obsolete.

    TRIBBLE--I mean, STID--was full of more holes than an ant farm.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    worffan101 wrote: »
    Sure, his work was confiscated, but he's got to remember the gist of it, and a few months or years of secret work on the Enterprise permanently render starships obsolete.

    And results in him becoming a Trek-verse Edward Snowden. I.E. getting done in for treason. He was probably also ordered not to pursue the work. If he did, he'd be arrested and court-martialled.
  • grylakgrylak Member Posts: 1,594 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    worffan101 wrote: »
    Scotty can make a supertransporter on an ice planet by himself.


    AND Spock telling him how to do it. Didn't Scotty say after it was done in the first film, most of it was way above his head? So he probably wouldn't be able to replicate it if he tried from memory.


    Anyhoo, I wouldn't mind if Harrison was just covering for Khan. But I also don't mind how it played out. I actaully enjoy this film, despite it's faults. But I guess I'm one of those people that can enjoy and appreciate imperfect things made by imperfect beings.


    And come on people, stop comparing BC khan to the TWOK khan. He needs to be compared to Space Seed khan as that is where Khan is in this film, which is much more in keeping with his calmer demeaner.


    Although saying that, I would have preferred them to remove the whole Khan thing entirely and have the film about Marcus starting war on Klingons and making the film about domestic terrorism. You know, a completely new story.
    *******************************************

    A Romulan Strike Team, Missing Farmers and an ancient base on a Klingon Border world. But what connects them? Find out in my First Foundary mission: 'The Jeroan Farmer Escapade'
  • mrgrocer56mrgrocer56 Member Posts: 370 Arc User
    edited October 2014

    In the words of Honey Bunny/Yolanda - "Pretty smart!"

    massive bonus points for this.
  • edited October 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • hartzillahartzilla Member Posts: 1,177 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    worffan101 wrote: »
    Watch "Space Seed".

    Khan in "Space Seed" is much more like CumberKhan; he only goes Evil Is Hammy once his wife gets killed and he goes insane from grief. Compare Cumberbatch's behavior before and after Spock fake-kills the other augments.

    Plus I think the only reason he wasn't more ruthless with the Enterprise crew in Space Seed (i.e. not killing Kirk and co on the bridge) was that he needed them to run the ship, much like how NuKhan was planing to destroy the Enterprise once he had his crew back.
    worffan101 wrote: »
    Scotty can make a supertransporter on an ice planet by himself.

    Sure, his work was confiscated, but he's got to remember the gist of it, and a few months or years of secret work on the Enterprise permanently render starships obsolete.

    I don't recall subspace beaming and Dominion transporters making ships obsolete in the 24th century and they work on the same premise as Scotty's transwarp beaming.
  • edited October 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • olbuzzardolbuzzard Member Posts: 33 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    My overall review
    1. Benedict Cumberbatch played the part that was given to him did an excellent job.
    2. To use this particular actor as Khan Noonien Singh, however, was either a VERY bad idea OR as some have indicated: he was not really Kahn, but rather someone of that time, genetic background and with intimate knowledge of Kahn.
    3. IMHO this fits the over all plot better with the original Trek. While the time line and a few details are changed, some things are still the same. By that I mean Khan Noonien Singh is still a ruler that was over nearly 1/4 of Earth that was from the Middle East to Asia. The only things that MIGHT change would be when and how he and his ship is discovered (that sort of thing).
    4. It could also leave open the possibility that Kahn is still at large with his followers.

    Hmm.. just a thought: what if the group at Starfleet deep freeze were in fact "rivals" to Kahn?
    1. They might be looking for a means to find Kahn for retribution.
    2. Wanting "finish business" with Kahn then return to Earth and take over?

    (yeah .. I know ... crazy stuff)
    OlBuzzardSig2017CCSML.jpg
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,490 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    valoreah wrote: »
    Khan was supposed to be a moustache-twirler. He was your classic "bad guy".
    No. No, he wasn't.
    KIRK: [looking at a library picture of Khan on viewscreen] Name: Khan Noonien Singh.

    SPOCK: From 1992 through 1996, absolute ruler of more than a quarter of your world, from Asia through the Middle East.

    MCCOY: The last of the tyrants to be overthrown.

    SCOTTY: I must confess, gentlemen. I've always held a sneaking admiration for this one.

    KIRK: He was the best of the tyrants and the most dangerous. They were supermen in a sense. Stronger, braver, certainly more ambitious, more daring.

    SPOCK: Gentlemen, this romanticism about a ruthless dictator is...

    KIRK: Mr. Spock, we humans have a streak of barbarism in us. Appalling, but there, nevertheless.

    SCOTTY: There were no massacres under is rule.

    SPOCK: And as little freedom.

    MCCOY: No wars until he was attacked.
    Doesn't sound like a "moustache-twirler" to me...
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • edited October 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • worffan101worffan101 Member Posts: 9,518 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    valoreah wrote: »
    Yes, yes he was. Nowhere in that the dialogue you shared does it say he was an empathic character we should agree with and in a way, feel sorry for. He was the bad guy. Period.

    He's a bad dude but not a monster.

    In another, more dystopian world people would flock to his banner. In the Eugenics Wars era? He must've seemed like a breath of fresh air. Strong and tough enough that he didn't NEED to attack anyone to prove his might, kept the torture and mass murder to a tasteful minimum...that's like, paradise compared to the other options.

    Given the choice between a relatively peaceful and stable regime where no dissent was tolerated and a psychopathic, warmongering regime where stepping one toe out of line in the eyes of a sadistic monster meant immediate and painful execution, most people would pick Khan and let the philosophers protest his totalitarianism.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    valoreah wrote: »
    Yes, yes he was. Nowhere in that the dialogue you shared does it say he was an empathic character we should agree with and in a way, feel sorry for. He was the bad guy. Period.

    Moustache-twirling villains do not have sympathy for those under their rule - moustache-twirler and 'best of the tyrants' do not mix!
  • edited October 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • worffan101worffan101 Member Posts: 9,518 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    valoreah wrote: »
    Don't think it was ever said anywhere Khan was sympathetic toward his "subjects"? You never would have found anyone in Russia to openly badmouth Stalin while he was in charge. That doesn't mean he was a nice person.

    Genghis Khan was the undisputed autocrat of the Mongols. He rampaged across Asia and Europe, occasionally committing war crimes such as using plague as a bioweapon.

    He also had a zero-tolerance policy on treachery and respected courage to the point that he took one of his enemies, who had killed Genghis Khan's horse while Genghis Khan was riding it during a disastrous battle which Genghis Khan won handily, and made the man one of his top lieutenants. Conquered peoples were apparently treated generally well, and Mongol rule was generally less oppressive than most regimes of the time.

    So would you rather have Genghis Khan, or...Tamerlane, the leader of the Golden Horde who infamously piled up a mountain of ten thousand skulls outside of Dehli?
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited October 2014
    valoreah wrote: »
    Don't think it was ever said anywhere Khan was sympathetic toward his "subjects"? You never would have found anyone in Russia to openly badmouth Stalin while he was in charge. That doesn't mean he was a nice person.

    Stalin massacred anyone who spoke out against him. Khan didn't. Stalin was the iron fist in the velvet glove - Khan seems to have been the velvet fist in the iron guantlet.

    Comparing Khan to Stalin is like comparing Mussolini to Hitler.
Sign In or Register to comment.