Ted Van Duyn
Stunt Coordinator
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2003
- Messages
- 203
No. The Khan that Nimoy's Spock describes is not the Khan that you get in either "The Wrath of Khan" or the original series episode "Space Seed".cineMANIAC said:I have an urge to watch Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan after just having watched "Into Darkness" for the 2nd time (awesome film!). For someone who isn't a "Trekkie" like myself, can anyone tell me if the "Into Darkness" storyline is a continuation of sorts of the storyline from the 1982 film? That scene of Leonard Nimoy in "Darkness" being asked if he'd encountered Khan previously led me to my curiosity.
Jesus Khan maybe, but not the original Khan. In Space Seed, Khan took over the Enterprise by depriving the crew of oxygen only long enough to knock everyone out. When he held the bridge crew hostage, he offered them the chance to join him with the reassurance that he would treat them well. When that didn't work, he showed them a live video of Captain Kirk in a pressure chamber and that if Spock joined him he would spare Kirk's life. When Spock refused, he than offered the chance to spare Kirk if ANYONE joined him. So not only does he hesitate to kill anyone, he actually sweetens the deal to spare the Captain's life.Star Trek Into Darkness said:Prime Spock: He will not hesitate to kill every last one of you.
One of the unfortunate side effects of "The Wrath of Khan" being regarded as the best movie of the film franchise is that it cements the idea that Khan has always been a a vengeful driven mad man. That's not the case at all because after the events of Space Seed, he was forced to watch 20 of his followers and the his wife die horrible deaths to an alien eel over the course of 15 long years on a barren planet. His motivation for revenge is not only strong and drawn out, but tangible. It's through the course of these 15 years that changes him to what he's best known for, the bad guy who is out to get Kirk. But even with that, he still has "some" sense of hesitation in killing Kirk and his crew. After getting the upper hand on Kirk and having the perfect opportunity to destroy the Enterprise all together, Khan takes a moment to 'gloat' at Kirk, which gives Kirk the opportunity to discuss terms of his surrender. When Kirk offers the chance to beam himself aboard to spare the rest of his crew, Khan actually agrees to the terms on the condition he hand over any information regarding Genesis. Now you might say he was bluffing, but there is some chance that he would have stuck to his word. When Khan took over the Reliant, he could have easily killed the entire crew but he chose to leave them on Ceti Alpha Five. I'm not saying he was misunderstood since he did kill the scientists on Regula One, just that kind of thing was not his character before TWOK.
Here's another detail from Prime Spock that is told through NuSpock.
This is probably the biggest change in Khan's character. The original Khan was not a genocidal cold-blooded mad man. While he was certainly a dangerous adversary, he was never out to get anyone. When he retaliated against Kirk on the Enterprise, it was done under the circumstances that Khan would not be allowed revive his people and taken to some place against their will (Kirk did bring up a reorientation center). If Khan's intent on Earth was to kill everyone who was not a "superman", don't you think the history books would have described him as such? That's not what we get in Space Seed as Kirk and crew discover.Star Trek Into Darkness said:Jesus Khan: Mr. Spock, give me my crew.
NuSpock: What will you do when you get them?
Jesus Khan: Continue the work we were doing before we were banished.
NuSpock: Which is as I understand it involves the mass genocide of any being you find to be less than superior.
Jesus Khan: Shall I destroy you, Mr. Spock?
As ruler, he massacred no one and waged no wars until war was waged on him. When Kirk indirectly interrogates Khan at dinner, he learns that there was more to Khan leaving Earth than just "adventure". After Kirk implies that he fled, Khan angrily says that he and his people offered the world order. And that's why he fled. Not because Earth condemned him and his followers as war criminals, but that the world itself rejected his rule and he didn't want to be a part of a world that would reject him. When Kirk finds out who Khan really is and asks him again, his answer is honest.TOS: said:KIRK: 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.
SCOTT: 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: Mister Spock, we humans have a streak of barbarism in us. Appalling, but there, nevertheless.
SCOTTY: There were no massacres under his rule.
SPOCK: And as little freedom.
MCCOY: No wars until he was attacked.
SPOCK: .....Gentlemen.
KIRK: Mister Spock, you misunderstand us. We can be against him and admire him all at the same time.
That's not what we get with Jesus Khan in "Star Trek Into Darkness". No mention of the Eugenics Wars, no mention that he ever ruled any part of Earth and no ambition from his character at all. The fact that he's Khan doesn't even mean anything in this movie. It's not a continuation of any previous story like TWOK was, and everything that made his character more of an "out of place" adversary and less of an inherently evil bad guy is all but gone in this new depiction. What makes it worse is that by having Prime Spock describe the old Khan like this completely disregards the original canon.TOS: said:KHAN: A new life. A chance to rule a world.
*After accepting Kirk's proposal for being left on Ceti Alpha 5 and taking Marla with her*
KHAN: And I've gotten something else that I wanted. A world to win, an empire to build.
I know Roberto Orci is a self-declared fan of Star Trek, but all I see in his work is just the general perception of what these characters are and not what they really are. The most obvious clue being what he said in regards to how Khan is to Star Trek as the Joker was to Batman. That sort of comparison is not only highly inaccurate, it also misses the point of the Batman/Joker dynamic as well. The reason why The Joker is such an iconic villain to Batman is because the Joker represents the exact opposite that Batman represents. Batman fights crime, and the Joker is the pinnacle criminal who will do the worst things imaginable just for the heck of it. He gives Batman a purpose. Khan on the other hand, while an iconic villain in his own right, doesn't need to exist in order for Star Trek to work because Star Trek isn't always about fighting a vengeance driven mad man.