In the case of Khan, the character was not previously established in the film canon
Yes he was, in STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN and the episode 'Space Seed' before that.
I'm not sure where this idea that the Abramsverse has nothing at all to do with the prime universe has come from. The previous film spent a great deal of time telling us that the two are exactly the same up until Nero and Spock Prime went back in time. This isn't a parallel universe that has always existed alongside the original but with some differences, but a splinter timeline created by the time travel shenanigans in the first movie. Everything else that is different (even the design of the Enterprise, which we can infer was beefed up due to the unknown threat that destroyed the USS Kelvin) stems from that.
Everything that predates that splinter point should be exactly the same, including Khan and the Botany Bay. The first film even told us that when it said that Captain (now Admiral) Archer was still around, inferring that STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE still happened 80-odd years earlier.
The whole thing could have been avoided if Abrams had simply done a clean reboot without tying it into the original universe, but if he'd done that he would have alienated even more original fans. Since he decided on this course of action he should have followed up on it rather than confusing the issue further.
And like I said, a possible in-universe explanation is available for the change, as long as they don't explicitly rule it out somehow.
Disappointed but not surprised with the lack of originality reported in this flick. Wasn't Star Trek supposed to take us to places we'd never been before?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
In the case of Khan, the character was not previously established in the film canonYes he was, in STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN and the episode 'Space Seed' before that.
My somewhat snarky point that got lost was, if we ignore Hemidal's appearance in the comics and other material arguing 'film continutiy' then we can ignore Khan's TV/Movie apperances too.
:-)
And I agree Enterprise is still canon in the Abramsverse. In fact I'd love it if we found out Trip was in charge of section 31, after the poor series ending Enterprise got.
In the case of Khan, the character was not previously established in the film canonYes he was, in STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN and the episode 'Space Seed' before that.
<snip>
And like I said, a possible in-universe explanation is available for the change, as long as they don't explicitly rule it out somehow.
Let's not overstate things too much. We know very little about Khan's ethnicity. As a product of a eugenics program, we don't have any reason to expect him to exhibit the physical characteristics of any particular ethnic or racial group. The reasons we see him as someone not particularly white are because of assumptions stemming from his name and the fact that he was played by Ricardo Montalban which, while a brilliant bit of casting, cannot be repeated. And any link between his name and ethnicity was already broken with Montalban's ethnicity and accent.
Canonically, the new movie has plenty of wiggle room with respect to the physical particulars. The question is whether or not old-school Trek fans will accept Cumberbatch's portrayal of Khan in light of Ricardo Montalban's brilliant turn in the role. He's also an excellent actor but can he pull off the charm and ruthlessness of Montalban's Khan?
My somewhat snarky point that got lost was, if we ignore Hemidal's appearance in the comics and other material arguing 'film continutiy' then we can ignore Khan's TV/Movie apperances too.
Not to mention, Nick Fury...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My somewhat snarky point that got lost was, if we ignore Hemidal's appearance in the comics and other material arguing 'film continutiy' then we can ignore Khan's TV/Movie apperances too.Not to mention, Nick Fury...
Seriously? David hasselhoff vs Samuel L Jackson? Good luck with that one.
Oh, I'm not saying Jackson wasn't a great cast - he totally was, and I've zero issue with...what do we call it? The "black-washing" of Nick Fury?
What I'm getting at is that Khan's ethnicity was never a large part of the character, so the complaining about "white-washing" him is utterly ridiculous.
If one is going to rage on about that, why aren't they equally incensed at ANY changes to a fictional character's ethnicity upon casting?
The way I looked at it, at least at the time and as forward thinking as Roddenberry was, it was very popular in the time the series was originally aired to have other ethnicities in the role of supervillain mastermind-that was my take on khan as originally shown. I have no problem with khan being white, although I think it would have been awesome if he was black (I. E. I wanted the guy in the opening sequence to have gotten the role... That would have been awesome!!!!)
So, then, it's possible Khan's original depiction was racist, in and of itself?
That's an interesting take that I hadn't considered.
So, then, it's possible Khan's original depiction was racist, in and of itself?
That's an interesting take that I hadn't considered.
It's a strong possibility. Then again, Roddenberry WAS forward thinking. He could have wanted someone of Indian descent to be the character. But given what was on tv during the time period, I would not be surprised at all if the tv execs just assumed a (insert non white here) would make a good villain of the week.
|
In the case of Khan, the character was not previously established in the film canonYes he was, in STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN and the episode 'Space Seed' before that.
My somewhat snarky point that got lost was, if we ignore Hemidal's appearance in the comics and other material arguing 'film continutiy' then we can ignore Khan's TV/Movie apperances too.
:-)
And I agree Enterprise is still canon in the Abramsverse. In fact I'd love it if we found out Trip was in charge of section 31, after the poor series ending Enterprise got.
Except Trip died in that last episode, didn't he?
Except Trip died in that last episode, didn't he?In the case of Khan, the character was not previously established in the film canonYes he was, in STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN and the episode 'Space Seed' before that.
My somewhat snarky point that got lost was, if we ignore Hemidal's appearance in the comics and other material arguing 'film continutiy' then we can ignore Khan's TV/Movie apperances too.
:-)
And I agree Enterprise is still canon in the Abramsverse. In fact I'd love it if we found out Trip was in charge of section 31, after the poor series ending Enterprise got.
That episode never happened.
You don't need youngish kirk to find the botany bay, iirc it was using an impulse drive (so not moving particularly fast relatively[?] speaking). If the federation got all gung-ho after kirk's dad got wasted, someone else could have easily run across it even earlier than what happened in TOS.
Point.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
And I agree Enterprise is still canon in the Abramsverse. In fact I'd love it if we found out Trip was in charge of section 31, after the poor series ending Enterprise got.Except Trip died in that last episode, didn't he?
It's my understanding that in the novels (semi-canon) it is revealed that Trip's death was faked for a deep cover mission. I'd love to see that, if for no other reason than I like Conner Trineer (even if I can't spell his name) and think it would be cool as heck to have him cameo as the director of section 31.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You don't need youngish kirk to find the botany bay, iirc it was using an impulse drive (so not moving particularly fast relatively[?] speaking). If the federation got all gung-ho after kirk's dad got wasted, someone else could have easily run across it even earlier than what happened in TOS.
Good point. Let's hope the writer/director remembers that.
|
|
Let's not overstate things too much. We know very little about Khan's ethnicity. As a product of a eugenics program, we don't have any reason to expect him to exhibit the physical characteristics of any particular ethnic or racial group. The reasons we see him as someone not particularly white are because of assumptions stemming from his name and the fact that he was played by Ricardo Montalban which, while a brilliant bit of casting, cannot be repeated. And any link between his name and ethnicity was already broken with Montalban's ethnicity and accent....
On the one hand, having a white guy be the product of a eugenics program to breed a superhuman can itself be taken as racist. OTOH, Abrams could lampshade it by having someone in Kirk's time talk about how "if the eugenics project hadn't been too racist to consider genes from less melanin-impaired peoples we'd *really* be in trouble."
On the one hand, having a white guy be the product of a eugenics program to breed a superhuman can itself be taken as racist. OTOH, Abrams could lampshade it by having someone in Kirk's time talk about how "if the eugenics project hadn't been too racist to consider genes from less melanin-impaired peoples we'd *really* be in trouble."
It's my understanding that the original concept for what would become Khan was a nordic/northern european superman. Written only 20-odd years after World War II, clearly the Nazis were in the author's mind. That the character concept morphed to include south asian connotations, thus implying a much wider program than Hitler's Aryan fantasies, was kind of cool, broadening the scope of the fictive world. But as long as they're able to pull off a decent story and Cumberbatch can play a compelling Khan, I'm not going to fuss about it too much.
You don't need youngish kirk to find the botany bay, iirc it was using an impulse drive (so not moving particularly fast relatively[?] speaking). If the federation got all gung-ho after kirk's dad got wasted, someone else could have easily run across it even earlier than what happened in TOS.But then you lose Kahn's hatred for Kirk, which was a driving force of Wrath of Khan.
Looks like that's probably what they're doing, but it seems less interesting to me.Also you've got to flashback to tell us what happened when it was found. Which could be fine
Well he had a strong dislike for Kirk in Space Seed, when they first met, mainly because Kirk didn't kiss is rear as some semi-divine being. I'm not sure we need a whole lot of background relationship to develop a hatred between the two. All you need is a couple of alpha males getting into a scrap with each other.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well he had a strong dislike for Kirk in Space Seed, when they first met, mainly because Kirk didn't kiss is rear as some semi-divine being. I'm not sure we need a whole lot of background relationship to develop a hatred between the two. All you need is a couple of alpha males getting into a scrap with each other.
Would irony be Khan takes the Enterprise and leaves Kirk on Seti Alpha V? :-)
You don't need youngish kirk to find the botany bay, iirc it was using an impulse drive (so not moving particularly fast relatively[?] speaking). If the federation got all gung-ho after kirk's dad got wasted, someone else could have easily run across it even earlier than what happened in TOS.But then you lose Kahn's hatred for Kirk, which was a driving force of Wrath of Khan.
Looks like that's probably what they're doing, but it seems less interesting to me.Also you've got to flashback to tell us what happened when it was found. Which could be fine
Still, Abrams missed the boat.
Garth of Izar would have been a more interesting villain.
and
What a waste. :(
|
|
You don't need youngish kirk to find the botany bay, iirc it was using an impulse drive (so not moving particularly fast relatively[?] speaking). If the federation got all gung-ho after kirk's dad got wasted, someone else could have easily run across it even earlier than what happened in TOS.But then you lose Kahn's hatred for Kirk, which was a driving force of Wrath of Khan.
Looks like that's probably what they're doing, but it seems less interesting to me.Also you've got to flashback to tell us what happened when it was found. Which could be fine
Still, Abrams missed the boat.
Garth of Izar would have been a more interesting villain.
... a Decorated Star Fleet Captain.
... a shape changer
and
... an insane genius. What a waste. :(
There will be more films
All I care about is that Spock Prime makes sure there are still humpback whales around, because I don't want the earth destroyed by some random super powerful alien probe. I don't trust this Kirk to be able to get a cloaked Kligon bird of Prey back to 1985 (Afterall, no romulans left, no cloaking tech sold to Kligons, and so no bird of prey for kirk to board and capture).
Won't someone think of the whales!
Um where the heck did you gather that there are no romulans left? Romulus was destroyed some 20-30 years after TNG. In the ORIGINAL timeline.
ah right..too many timelines..needless to say, spock Prime should make it a priority to make sure there are Humpbacks.
Even leaving aside the nonsense with the blood, I'm going to have a hard time with B.C. playing Khan. He'd be fine as Gary Seven, Gary Mitchell, Garth of Izar, or possibly Colonel Green ("Savage Curtain"). Khan? I just don't see it.
And the magic blood would have made more sense coming from Flint than from anyone out of a eugenics program.
I guess this isn't an alternate timeline of the main series, it's an alternate timeline of an alternate timeline of the main series? *shrug*
ah right..too many timelines..
Have you ever seen the TNG episode "Paralells"?
Pretty much states as cannon that the universe is CONSTANTLY fracturing off into alternate time lines. That's why I never understood why the alternate timeline thing in the first Abrams Trek ruffled so many feathers. It was the 97th time they used the plot device, so no biggy, IMHO.
Have you ever seen the TNG episode "Paralells"?
Pretty much states as cannon that the universe is CONSTANTLY fracturing off into alternate time lines. That's why I never understood why the alternate timeline thing in the first Abrams Trek ruffled so many feathers.
I suspect it's because prior to the Abrams reboot/reimagining/whatever, all the viewer/fan's visits to the alternate time lines were temporary. We always returned to our starting universe/time at the end of the story. Abrams & company gave the feathered fans a one-way ticket.
Even in "Parallels" much of the point of the story was to get Worf back to his home universe. How do you think fans would have reacted if midway through Season 7 of STNG, the show's continuity moved without a beat to one where Ogawa is the CMO, the Bajor-Cardassia conflict resolved in Bajor's favor, Wesley Crusher's a lieutenant, Worf and Troi have been married for some time -- and the writers of later episodes were told to act as if these things had always been true?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I care about is that Spock Prime makes sure there are still humpback whales around, because I don't want the earth destroyed by some random super powerful alien probe. I don't trust this Kirk to be able to get a cloaked Kligon bird of Prey back to 1985 (Afterall, no romulans left, no cloaking tech sold to Kligons, and so no bird of prey for kirk to board and capture).
Won't someone think of the whales!
Wait! I just had a mind blowing thought.
Ok, so in the timeline of the Earth, the crew did return back and grab the whales already.
Since their time line still continues from the branch where Spock went back in the first movie, that means if Spock goes back he can't grab the same 2 whales, because he already grabbed them in the main timeline. Thus he has to find 2 different whales to bring back to fix this time line (problem is a shared past with both time lines the old and new).
Does that mean that the eventual disappearance of humpback whales were not caused by them being hunted into extinction, but instead multitudes of time line jumping Spocks returning and grabbing pairs of them.
Think of the whales indeed!
Or to quote Janeway, "I hate temporal mechanics."
|
|
Even in "Parallels" much of the point of the story was to get Worf back to his home universe. How do you think fans would have reacted if midway through Season 7 of STNG, the show's continuity moved without a beat to one where Ogawa is the CMO, the Bajor-Cardassia conflict resolved in Bajor's favor, Wesley Crusher's a lieutenant, Worf and Troi have been married for some time -- and the writers of later episodes were told to act as if these things had always been true?
Or Picard's younger brother appears, and has apparently (based on character reactions) always been on the ship?
Interesting early review of the movie over at AintItCool.com
Reads review. Snicker. I guess it ain't.
Still, I'll watch it. I've been burned by reviews (good and bad) before. Best to make my own call.
But I *still* HATE Khan!
All I care about is that Spock Prime makes sure there are still humpback whales around, because I don't want the earth destroyed by some random super powerful alien probe. I don't trust this Kirk to be able to get a cloaked Kligon bird of Prey back to 1985 (Afterall, no romulans left, no cloaking tech sold to Kligons, and so no bird of prey for kirk to board and capture).
Won't someone think of the whales!
Wait! I just had a mind blowing thought.
Ok, so in the timeline of the Earth, the crew did return back and grab the whales already.
Since their time line still continues from the branch where Spock went back in the first movie, that means if Spock goes back he can't grab the same 2 whales, because he already grabbed them in the main timeline. Thus he has to find 2 different whales to bring back to fix this time line (problem is a shared past with both time lines the old and new).
Does that mean that the eventual disappearance of humpback whales were not caused by them being hunted into extinction, but instead multitudes of time line jumping Spocks returning and grabbing pairs of them.
Think of the whales indeed!
Or to quote Janeway, "I hate temporal mechanics."
You sir, win the Internet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or to quote Janeway, "I hate temporal mechanics."
I HATE TIME TRAVEL I HATE TIME TRAVEL I HATE TIME TRAVEL
That's why I never understood why the alternate timeline thing in the first Abrams Trek ruffled so many feathers. It was the 97th time they used the plot device
And it sucked all 97 times. Maybe the 97th time was one time too many? :D
Time travel sucks, and Spock Prime's appearance sucked.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reviewer linked above makes a good point. Abrams used the device specifically so he could create an alternate timeline, where he would be free to move ahead with his vision of Trek without having to pander to fans by keeping to the canon. Then apparently he makes Into Darkness and proceeds to pander to fans by drawing upon canon. We could be treated to something new but he keeps going back to the old stuff. Keeping the spirit and giving the occasional nod is fine, but I personally have had enough of Hollywood recycling everything I've already seen and liked once already.
The reviewer linked above makes a good point. Abrams used the device specifically so he could create an alternate timeline, where he would be free to move ahead with his vision of Trek without having to pander to fans by keeping to the canon. Then apparently he makes Into Darkness and proceeds to pander to fans by drawing upon canon. We could be treated to something new but he keeps going back to the old stuff. Keeping the spirit and giving the occasional nod is fine, but I personally have had enough of Hollywood recycling everything I've already seen and liked once already.
Just because things are in a new time line doesn't mean everything changes with no resemblance to the original work. I'm still looking forward to this movie. People who are looking for everything to be new and different are often disappointed with what they get.
I'm just saying that it's possible to do new stuff. Sure, Kirk, Spock, Bones and the rest stay the same. That's Trek. But how about new villains, new aliens, new worlds to explore? You know, all the stuff that Star Trek is actually supposed to be about? I don't want to boldly go back to where we've already been.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's why I never understood why the alternate timeline thing in the first Abrams Trek ruffled so many feathers. It was the 97th time they used the plot deviceAnd it sucked all 97 times. Maybe the 97th time was one time too many? :D
Time travel sucks, and Spock Prime's appearance sucked.
Eh I personally don't have anything against time travel. I enjoy it if it's been done well. I just can't think of any movies where it's been especially entertaining and well-done - that seems to be limited to video games (Chrono Trigger is still my favorite game of all time, bar none), books, and comics. My above post you favorited was not a personal complaint against its use but rather an amusing quote from a comic where time travel is common, which I felt was relevant to the situation and amusing in context.
In this case though, it could have been better handled. I really don't have a frame of reference though, having seen almost zilch of Trek TV. I didn't dislike the first Adams movie. Didn't think it was exceptionally great must-see, but didn't hate it.
Because Nero was so worth it, right?
Still beats the hell out of Star Trek V.
Why does God...need a spaceship?
Because Nero was so worth it, right?Still beats the hell out of Star Trek V.
Why does God...need a spaceship?
I would never thought I would say this, but I only recently saw Star Trek Nemesis and it is a close call between it and Star Trek V as to which I hate more.
My above post you favorited was not a personal complaint against its use but rather an amusing quote from a comic where time travel is common, which I felt was relevant to the situation and amusing in context.
Yet still perfectly matches my sentiments.
that seems to be limited to video games (Chrono Trigger is still my favorite game of all time, bar none), books, and comics.
+1 for mentioning Chrono Trigger, also one of my all-time favorites. (But not enough of a +1 for me to 'favorite' your post.) ;)
If the federation got all gung-ho after kirk's dad got wasted, someone else could have easily run across it even earlier than what happened in TOS.
What would be a lot more interesting:
The "black-washing" of Nick Fury?
Both the Ultimates take on THE AVENGERS (where the 'Jacksonisation' first took place) and the Marvel Cinematic Universe are total 100% reboots/parallel universes, so the issue doesn't really arise. You could have a Chinese Peter Parker, a Bangladeshi Incredible Hulk or a Russian/British-raised Superman (actually those already happened :) ) or whatever, as long as it's a totally separate story or canon.
What I'm getting at is that Khan's ethnicity was never a large part of the character, so the complaining about "white-washing" him is utterly ridiculous.
It was enough of a part of the character for it to be mentioned when he first showed up and also, erm, in the character's name. 'Khan Noonian Singh' isn't really a name you'd give to a white English guy for no apparent reason.
Like I said, I haven't seen the film yet (still not on here for another week) and they may provide a full explanation for it in the movie, or leave it unaddressed so fans can come up with their own.
The "black-washing" of Nick Fury?Both the Ultimates take on THE AVENGERS (where the 'Jacksonisation' first took place) and the Marvel Cinematic Universe are total 100% reboots/parallel universes, so the issue doesn't really arise. You could have a Chinese Peter Parker, a Bangladeshi Incredible Hulk or a Russian/British-raised Superman (actually those already happened :) ) or whatever, as long as it's a totally separate story or canon.
It's still the same thing - it doesn't matter if it's an alternate universe, it's a significant change to an established character.
And had the character of Nick Fury originally been black, but changed for the Ultimates universe and the movies? You can bet that folks would be completely nuts over it.
What I'm getting at is that Khan's ethnicity was never a large part of the character, so the complaining about "white-washing" him is utterly ridiculous.It was enough of a part of the character for it to be mentioned when he first showed up and also, erm, in the character's name. 'Khan Noonian Singh' isn't really a name you'd give to a white English guy for no apparent reason.
I don't recall any dialogue in the original episode or the movie that addressed Khan's ethnicity. I'm not saying it's not there, I'm saying, it's been a decade or two since I've seen it.
As far as the name goes, you missed or ignored my earlier post that specifically addressed this:
Is Khan Noonian Singh a probable name for a white English guy? Perhaps not. But for a vat-grown genetically engineered superman guy who's neither white nor English, yet hatched inside of India? Entirely plausible.
It's still the same thing - it doesn't matter if it's an alternate universe, it's a significant change to an established character.
It's not the same thing at all. When you are creating a whole new canon in a whole new universe you can change whatever the heck you want. People can moan about Starbuck now being a woman (or Boomer is no longer a black man), but it doesn't matter, because it's a different canon.
On the other hand, in this instance, it's the exact same character as whom appeared earlier, with merely the circumstances changed by the time shift. The shift in the timeline happened long after the launch of the Botany Bay and the Eugenics Wars, so it should still be the same guy. And this was the original plan, which is why they tried to cast Javier Bardem in the role.
As I said before (three times now, I believe), due to the other factors involved there is a potential explanation for this issue, and I don't know if the producers have gone for it.
I don't recall any dialogue in the original episode or the movie that addressed Khan's ethnicity.
In 'Space Seed' they say that Khan is from the Sikh regions of North India. That's where he was genetically engineered and why he has a North Indian name.
It's not the same thing at all. When you are creating a whole new canon in a whole new universe you can change whatever the heck you want. People can moan about Starbuck now being a woman (or Boomer is no longer a black man), but it doesn't matter, because it's a different canon.
And again, I call hogwash. Regardless of how the story is tweaked, it matters just as much - which, in this specific case, isn't to say it matters at all, it just matters equally.
Fury portrayed by a black guy? Doesn't matter.
Khan portrayed by a white guy? Doesn't matter.
I don't recall any dialogue in the original episode or the movie that addressed Khan's ethnicity.In 'Space Seed' they say that Khan is from the Sikh regions of North India. That's where he was genetically engineered and why he has a North Indian name.
OK, cool. But that doesn't address ethnicity. That addresses point of origin, which, sure, explains how a genetically engineered Indian guy, Black guy, Hispanic guy or European guy has an Indian name.