And to a couple of your explicit points.....
1. John Harrison-Benedict Cumberbatch gave one of the best performances as a villain in recent memory as Khan IMO; but apparently "he's a 9/11 terrorist/he's white unlike the original? What's the problem
5. "Khan is too Superman like" "Using his blood to resurrect Kirk was dumb/predictable"
The character Khan Noonien Singh was a Sikh from the Asian subcontinent. Ricardo Montalban isn't exactly from India either, but there are people from New Jersey with a darker tan than Benedict Cumberbatch.
In his original background (which should be unaffected by the reboot timeline shift), Khan was a genetically enhanced human from the late 20th century. The original character served as a focus on the morality and perils of genetically engineering humans. That's a question we kind of face today. We genetically modify our foods to produce greater yields and to better survive droughts and cold snaps. The same science can be applied to humans. What if we genetically modified babies to be resistant to disease from birth on? Is that a good thing? What if we eliminated birth defects? Okay, now what if we also could genetically enhance them to give them superior intellect and strength? Now you get into a moral gray area. How do those new augmented humans view/treat the regular ones. If it goes well, you hopefully get Captain America. But if it goes badly, you get a villain like the Red Skull or any of the X-Men villains. Except, unlike the Avengers or X-Men movies, Khan is still supposed to be a human subject to the laws of humanity and physics. That's the loose concept. He's physically and intellectually superior, but only in the way that The Rock is physically superior to you or me. It'd be like giving the Rock steroids plus an IQ of 250. He's strong and wicked smart, but not an unstoppable one-man wrecking crew. You wouldn't want to face him in a brawl, but if he jumps off a 30-meter building, he's still going to shatter his legs and torso into oblivion. He's just genetically enhanced.....he's not invincible.
For comparison. Original Khan was defeated by a pipe to the back in a fistfight with Kirk. 1980's movie Khan was killed when part bridge of the ship he was on collapsed on him. Rebooted Khan is apparently a super-Jedi that can bring multiple dead beings back to life with a couple drops of his magic blood. One of these things is not like the others.
The Khan character was a defeated power-hungry dictator from late 20th century Earth who saw himself as superior to everyone else and who served as a literary model for a real discussion about the morality of genetically engineering humans. JJ Abrams re-cast him as a blackmailed CIA operative turned vengefully crazed invincible terrorist. Again, he could have just called him "John Harrison," and left it at that. But if you're going to call the character "Khan," when he clearly isn't.....just don't. There's no reason to tread on that ground.
7. It doesn't bring anything new?- This one I can kind of agree with-as there IS a Star Trek film out there called " Wrath of Khan"
I tried not to be a curmudgeon. I really did. I tried to be understanding and just accept that ST is a profitable venture and that re-telling some of the old Kirk/Spock stories could be both fun and profitable. I understand that's the goal here. Do some new stories with younger faces and better effects using the iconic characters from 50 years ago, and everybody wins.
The problem is people like me still remember things from the past. Star Trek has partially laid dormant under the crushing weight of 40 years and 500+ hours worth of episodic history. I understand that it's hard to write believable new story lines with that many canon constraints tying you down. Like trying to draw something artistic in coloring in a book that's already totally filled in.
If you want to tell new stories with these iconic characters, Abrams did it mostly right. Alternate timeline. Keeps the old stories people know and love intact, while clearing a path for new stories. Brilliant! Kudos. Reboot #1 had some seriously glaring issues, but it was tolerable enough and could be forgiven if it set the stage for better things to come.
Alright, Abrams. You went to all that trouble and bought your artistic freedom from all the historical canonical constraints. Now boldly go forth. And the first new story you tell with your hard-fought freedom is.....a dumbed-down reprise of "Wrath of Khan"--in some parts, stealing lines exactly word for word. Are you kidding me?!
reply
share
shellieeyre
9 years ago
Strictly speaking, Khan was never established as being a Sikh from anywhere, other than in the imaginings of Marlene McGivers, who said, based on precisely nothing, that he was probably a Sikh from northern India. She painted him in a turban but Khan himself displayed none of the characteristics of a Sikh (beard, long hair) and the name itself is uncommon amongst Sikhs, used largely by Muslims and some Hindus, although Singh is thrown in and that is Sikh by and large. In short, he's established as nothing definitively.
I'm the clever one; you're the potato one.
reply
share
Pumba74
9 years ago
THat sounds like a hell of a cop out. He certainly wasn't supposed to be some British white boy either. The people who made this *beep* movie know they made a *beep* movie and thankfully why white boy Khan isnt in the other one...because no one wants him. They trashed the real Khan.
reply
share