1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

What's with the name?

Allow us to explain.

Oh Really?

That Big Star Trek Into Darkness Reveal Wasn’t The Original Plan, According To The Writers

If you still haven’t seen Star Trek Into Darkness but already know, or don’t care about, that big reveal, go ahead and read on. For everyone else, here be spoilers… 

Writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman did an interview with Yahoo about Easter Eggs Star Trek fans could find in J.J. Abrams’ new film.

Orci told them, “Let’s start with basic fun ones like the line, ‘Mr. Scott, you’re a miracle worker.’ If you know Scotty was a miracle worker in the past, great. But if you don’t know ‘Star Trek,’ it doesn’t matter. If the story presented us with a place, we’d pop in an Easter egg. Not the other way around.”

Seems like fair reasoning, they wanted to appeal to a broad fan base but also give long-time fans something to catch. “We wanted to do things differently. You don’t want to go where people expect. Part of the continuity of this universe is to change things up,” said Kurtzman.

While the way the story played out might have been altered, the writers reached back into Star Trek past for their villain. They utilized Khan, but things didn’t necessarily have to go that route.

“The biggest addition was Benedict Cumberbatch,” said Orci. “In terms of his character, we wanted to make sure that the audience did not need any previous knowledge to understand him. So the big debate was: should he or shouldn’t he be Khan?” Kurtzman added, “Our challenge was to define a story that doesn’t rely on previous knowledge, or love of Khan or ‘Star Trek 2.’ We thought if we can do that, then we can think of using that great character Khan.”

That sounds a little strange to me, but here’s where the really interesting details come in – the writers already had a story, they shoehorned Khan in. “Once we had that standalone story, we wondered: are there details from Khan’s history that fit?” Orci told Yahoo, ”If we can use the details of Khan’s backstory given our structure to make the movie more specific and more relevant, then that works.”

Though Kurtzman believes the addition made their story better. “We couldn’t use Khan just as a gimmick, as an excuse to get fans into the theaters. Once we developed the story, suddenly the details of Khan’s life became an even better way to tell it. Only when we decided that Khan really does fit here – and the fans know that Khan is to the series what The Joker is to ‘Batman’ – that’s when we decided we earned it,” he said.

What are your thoughts on how this all went down? Would you have preferred Cumberbatch played his own, unique villain, rather than an established one?

(via Blastr)

Previously in Star Trek Into Darkness

Are you following The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

TAGS: | | | |

  • Sara

    I loved the new Star Trek I really did, but I felt like it was basically a retelling of Wrath of Khan tbh, just flip-flopped.

  • Lucy

    Definitely would’ve prefered a unique villain. I mean, the Khan from this film is pretty much nothing like the original Khan anyways, so why not make him a new villain? (Wait, did someone say brand recognition over there?) Alternatively, do something new and interesting with Khan. Why not have him and Kirk actually team up and NOT have him betray them in the end? I mean, would’ve left some great room for a sequel and would’ve totally played around with people’s expectations! You wouldn’t even need to make him a *nice* guy exactly, just have a proper ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ storyline with room left for actual growth/development.

  • Pomfelo

    I felt that the reveal was gratuitous and not really explored.

    I thought it would have been better if Cumberbatch was Khan’s second in command, and was obsessed with freeing his leader. That way, Khan could be an unseen epic legend and Cumberbatch’s motivations would be more tangible.

  • Robin S

    Benedict Cumberbatch is such a great actor that he really deserved to create his own unique, iconic Trek villain. Now he’ll always be compared to the past, which is rather unfortunate.

  • Robin S

    I also wish they had played around with the Eugenics Wars a bit more. That’s an area in Trek that hasn’t really been touched on all that much. There was a lot of room to go in new, creative directions while not rehashing the past. Khan was the product of the Eugenics Wars. Why not have him be a different general?

    I think post-humanism is something that’s really relevant right now. The reason Star Trek does not have engineered people and cyborgs as the norm is because of the Eugenics Wars. It was a huge turning point in Trek canon, and it’s an area ripe with potential stories. Going in that direction would have given “Into Darkness” more of the moral core that separates Trek from other sci-fi franchises.

  • Anonymous

    When I heard there would be a villain from the original series, and that Benedict Cumberbatch was to play the villain, my first thought was “at least it won’t be Khan”! Benedict Cumberbatch looks nothing like Khan (at least not like Ricardo Montalban’s Khan, a Sikh from India), and I found it really distracting and unbelievable. I thought the villain would be Gary Mitchell :P

  • Sprainogre

    What made Kahn work so well in Wrath of Kahn was the background he had with Kirk. Here, he was just some dude. Making him a unique villain, one that gets away foiled in the end, would have made him a much better character. Like if Section 31 had tried making their own series of Augments in anticipation of what they saw as an inevitable war with the Klingons. An Augment that behaved, despite their intents, as the Augments in the past… But what do I know?

  • Jim

    Despite the writers’ assurances that “Cumberbatch becomes Khan” was an organic process, it really felt shoe-horned in and I’m not convinced a couple of sentence changes wouldn’t have removed it completely.

  • DarthLocke4

    I liked the way did it, because as they said, they didn’t use him as the advertising gimmick, and basically gave us new perspective of Khan, but honestly I think I can’t fully judge this film until I see what transpires in the next one, as the whole film puts it’s issues of family, duty, honor, and weaponization into a state of frozen suspended animation.

  • R.O.U.S.

    Personally, I’m not bothered much either way over Khan/not Khan – but it’s sad that Ben’s performance will always be overshadowed by claims of whitewashing. Don’t think he or the part really deserves that.

  • Jonathan Schultz

    In what way is he nothing like the original? He’s smart to the point of stupidity and loyal to a fault, the only difference that I could perceive was the lack of a tan and a different accent.

  • Katy

    While Cumberbatch did a great job with the role, I felt he deserved to create his own character. Part of me was hoping that he was some sort of predecessor to Khan. In fact when I saw the first six minutes paired with The Hobbit I really thought that he would be “John Harrison” and the little girl he saved would grow up to be Kahn. That would have been a great way to introduce a favourite while still creating something new. Add in that the little girl in the film had some Indian heritage and it would have solved any potential whitewashing issues for Kahn. Plus I think a female Kahn would have been pretty badass.

  • J Ritchey

    It’s not much of a reveal when everyone and their dogs are predicting the outcome even before the movie hit post production. It fit the plot and the character, but setting it up and marketing it as the worst kept secret ever was a waste of narrative resource. I went in hoping it would be something truly clever and was very much underwhelmed.

  • DarthLocke4

    I don’t know if this is your thing or not, so I apologize if it’s not.

    Robert Orci and Mike Johnson have continued to explore the new time line in comic book form starting after the 2009 film and now it’s moving past Into Darkness and allegedly is going to answer more questions and veer more from the original timeline’s events…I do not know if it will address the Eugenic Wars, but it’s possible given the way things end with Khan and Starfleet here, there’s room for more story and reveals.

  • Robin S

    Interesting! I’ll keep an eye out.

  • Robin S

    I did utterly love the fact that Section 31 existed at all, and tying it back to Augments was excellent. Naming Section 31 made me fangirl squeak more than any other moment in the movie.

    I was really hoping for some shout-outs and references to something beyond TOS, and Into Darkness did deliver (where the 2009 Trek didn’t really.) Section 31 was named and explored originally in DS9. It’s nice to see that the writers do realize that TOS is not the be-all and end-all of the Trek universe.

  • DarthLocke4

    Here’s a link about it :)

    issues 1-20 are in between films and issues 21+ are ‘after darkness’…

  • Robin S


  • Dara Crawley

    Because it is whitewashing. The eugenics wars was structured around genetically altered superior humans across the globe. Part of its purpose in theory was the elemination of race as a factor in superiority. Or that was my interpretation. Go read The Eugenics Wars series by Gregory Cox it tells Khan’s story and is an awesome read. In fact in the last book Khan and his allies are somewhat disgusted to discover that regardless of parentage all of their children are predisposed to more “Aryan” features because of their genetic alterations

  • AJ

    I’m not sure our minds could handle Cumberbatch without hair.

  • Dara Crawley

    Go read the Gregory Cox Eugenics Wars series. It’s a trilogy detailing the life of Khan. It’s also canon if I remember correctly

  • Lucy

    I felt like Benedict Cumberbatch’s interpretation of the character was very different – he was very impressive, but wasn’t the charmer of TOS who managed to seduce away the ship’s historian. He was more like a serial killer – very snake-like. Also, while the original Khan was a ‘superman’ in that he possessed a superior intellect (which we didn’t really see much of in this film!) and physique it very definitely wasn’t played to the point of him having ‘magic blood’ or being able to take down 20 Klingons singlehandedly. Or apparently being able to just stand there and take as many hits as Kirk can throw at him without even blinking. More than anything though, Khan’s story is very memorable because it’s as much a character tragedy as anything else – so you need time for the character and story to develop. This film was so fast paced we didn’t have time for that, especially not with having multiple villains to deal with.

  • R.O.U.S.

    I didn’t word that clearly – I certainly do see the validity of the whitewashing argument. I just mean that the way they chose to write it created this issue that will forever overshadow the performance. It will always be his asterisk, the ‘the acting was great but…’

    I enjoyed the movie, don’t get me wrong. Very much so. But more and more I’m thinking they would have done everyone involved a favor by leaving this particular battle out of it and going with an original or less obvious character.

  • R.O.U.S.

    This is my new favorite idea.

  • Tzipora Kaplan

    THATS WHAT I THOUGHT. I think that girl is going to emerge later as a new enemy. Somehow. And she and Kirk, the only ones with magic blood, are going to have to have a showdown.

  • Mimi Rice

    I really don’t understand making him Khan. They had the perfect in to make a pure section 31 villain. I don’t think the general audience would have an issue comprehending Starfleet having a rogue ops section.

    Really, the only reason he’s Khan and ‘enhanced’ is to cover up plot holes and introduce magic blood.

  • Jonathan Schultz

    Okay most of that I agree with, I did feel the intellect was there though, and, I personally never felt either actor was that attractive. And they did add some powers to Khan’s Superman, but remember they did take out the crew of the reliant with only 5 people, so they were likely also stronger as well.

  • DarthLocke4

    Sure! :)

  • Katy

    Definitely. But don’t forget the tribble. Tribbles cause enough trouble and this one has magic blood!

  • Anonymous

    I feel Gary Mitchell would have worked just as well, if not better. It seems like a waste to use Khan on a plot that had nothing to do with supremacist genocide.

  • Edwin Teo (´⊙﹏⊙`)

    I think it’s less an issue of whether Benedict Cumberbatch was playing an original character or not and more of how well-written whatever character he was playing should’ve been in the first place. No doubt Benedict Cumberbatch is a great actor but in the film he just came off as some snarling guy that could jump high and punch hard.

  • Anonymous

    Oh, man. That would have been excellent.

  • Anonymous

    I agree. I think it would have been nice to see another character from the Star Trek canon like Mitchell get the movie treatment. I can see the appeal of Khan – and understand the comparison between Khan and the Joker as significant archenemies – but for a reboot that seemed to want to distinguish itself a bit from the original movie series, going back to the well of Khan this quickly seemed unnecessary.

  • Anonymous

    I like Cumberbatch as an actor. His performance in “Darkness” is good based on what he was given by the writers and the director.

    However the powers that be, took the easy way out, by including Khan as the villain. The article basically says the writers had a story in mind already, and they just shoe-horned Khan into it. That’s weak. Khan is one of the most iconic villains in Star Trek mythology. Star Trek II, is easily the best Trek film in the entire series. Khan had a back story before the film because of the 1960′s series. Star Trek II made sense for the most part.

    Montalbahn was obviously not a Sikh (Khan Noonien Singh), but he wasn’t a pasty white Englishman either. The 70+ augments on the Botany Bay were more equals than they were in a captain and crew relationship, so the idea that Khan is somehow substantially different from them was a huge stretch.

    I agree with other writers here. Cumberbatch could have portrayed any of the other augments on the Botany Bay, and I like the idea that he could have been trying to free Khan and the others. That could have easily set up a third movie, with Cumberbatch succeeding in freeing them, seizing the USS Vengeance, and then running and causing all kinds of havoc. The third movie could have been one of Starfleet trying to stop them.

  • Steve

    Many great alternative storylines posted here! One possible way to recover would be that the magic blood makes Kirk go rogue and Spock and crew have to defeat him. It would be similar to, but bolder than, the Gary Mitchell plot, and would make for an interesting final movie in a trilogy (that could be picked up later if the studio wished). It would also free up Chris Pine who may want to spread his wings beyond Star Trek.

  • James Alexander

    It wasn’t a great movie. But in principal? The Spider-Man movies are also re-imagining old bad guys, and presenting them in such a way that you don’t need previous experience with the character to understand the story. That is what you do in an adaptation. There was nothing wrong with what they did there.

  • James Alexander

    A female bad guy would be a nice change up. But I would need it to be an original character just so I don’t have to put up with the internet.

  • Anonymous

    This is a really interesting idea – I certainly would have enjoyed watching that story more than I enjoyed watching Into Darkness. I think in the hands of a different director, a story about the Eugenics Wars would be amazing (I’ll wish upon a star for Alfonso Cuarón, in a ‘Children of Men’ style. I mean, really – how awesome would that be?).

  • Rebekah M. Jones

    Especially since it’s him being put in to whitewash a character. Ugh.

    However, I will say that it is interesting that it seems they hired him FIRST, and then decided to make him Khan. At which point… yeah. Just, stupid all around, but I feel a bit better about continuing to fangirl over Benedict Cumberbatch now that it seems he didn’t audition for it thinking he would be whitewashing someone.

    Unless I read it wrong.

  • Rebekah M. Jones

    Ugh. No.

    I’m sorry, but now I know why this sucked. I’m not sure if it’s different for movies, but one thing I know with writing is that you do NOT have all the plot and story set up and in the final stretch create the DRIVING CHARACTERS.

    That’s like, the stupidest thing ever. Ever. Characters are supposed to drive plot. End of story.

  • AJ

    While I’m not a huge fan of Star Trek I don’t have much to draw from, but casting BC as Khan does seem kind of lame. Logically, you can’t do much with Khan that is different from the original since, unlike most of the characters, all of his backstory happened before the timeline split. So yes, casting BC, who unlike the rest of the cast looks nothing like his original counterpart, as Khan is super lazy since it doesn’t make any damn sense within the rules of their own alternate universe.

  • Delia Su


  • Sue Spencer

    While I have no trouble believing Benedict Cumberbatch to be a genetically engineered superman, I would have preferred an original character. It would have been so easy to write him as one of Khan’s followers (or rival) and avoid the whitewashing and its terribly unfortunate implications.

  • Jeyl

    Here’s my beef with Khan in this film. He is nothing like the original Khan. At all. They just took the bare minimum of what general audiences know about his character and make it absolute. Khan is a coldblooded killer out on revenge. What about the part involving rule of a quarter of the Earth back in the 1900s? What about the details of his rule where he committed no massacres and never waged war against anyone until the world waged war on him? What about the part where all he wanted for himself and his people was a chance to build their own empire away from the humanity that overthrew him? He was not always about revenge, he just wanted to be away from those who didn’t share in his thoughts on order.

    Despite that bit in Space Seed where he almost killed Kirk, Khan doesn’t kill anyone, let alone in a savage, remorseless fashion as seen in Star Trek into Darkness. When he threatens Kirk, he tells Spock to join him and he’ll spare his life. When Spock refuses, Khan offers to spare Kirk’s life if ANYONE joins him, going so far as to call the killing of Kirk useless. This is not an inherently evil man we’re dealing with.

    Does this film try to play on those tributes at all? Not really, because even when Khan has had his vengeance, taken over the USS Vengeance and believes he has his remaining followers back, he still decides to murder everyone onboard the Enterprise for no reason at all.

  • heidi(8)

    I would have loved Khan to be a character in this film – but as a cryogencally preserved warrior in a tube. And the woman who was awakened – a warrior from an earlier age – could have waxed rhapsodic about her frozen colleagues including the brilliant and incorruptible Khan – and we would all have known exactly why he and the other 71 should not be awakened. *That* could have been a meaningful reveal.

  • Firbanks Davida

    uptil I lℴℴk℮d at th℮ draft fℴur $7451, I hav℮ faith that my mℴm in-law was r℮aly ℮arning mℴn℮y in th℮ir spar℮ tim℮ at th℮ir laptℴp.. th℮r℮ aunt has b℮℮n dℴing this fℴr ℴnly abℴut tw℮nty twℴ mℴnths and as ℴf nℴw tℴℴk car℮ ℴf th℮ mℴrgag℮ ℴn their cℴndℴ and bℴught a n℮w McLar℮n F1. gℴ tℴ……. Fℴx85.ℂℴm

  • Sally Strange

    Would you have preferred Cumberbatch played his own, unique villain, rather than an established one?

    Absolutely, yes. This version felt very lazy to me, with the self-conscious mirroring of the previous Star Trek films filling in for actual plot cohesion, dramatic tension, and character development. I can only imagine that the original story must have been sketchy indeed.

  • Jill Pantozzi

    At least for me, I was hoping against hope the surprise would be that it WASN’T Khan.

  • Dino Barlaam

    are you kidding me?! Inserting Khan was simply a way to get fans to get excited about seeing the film. This should have been a new villain, forget Khan, why dig up old villains when they can be original and create new ones??? using Khan was a marketing ploy and a cheap way to win over older fans of the series.

  • Karen Brown

    They spent most of the time denying it WAS Khan. And it wasn’t exactly like THEY brought it up. Fans have been claiming the movie’s villain was Khan since the 2009 movie. So, if they were trying to get the fans in, they would have SAID it was Khan from the beginning.

  • Anonymous

    As I’m not too familiar with Kahn in the original series, I have to say I liked him. Rather than the whole Kahn issue, I was more annoyed by the cheap sensationalism of ‘killing’ Kirk and the completely and utterly unnecessary ‘look, it’s the new girl in her underwear’ scene. I’m sick of Hollywood pretending to kill off characters that you know they’ll never in a million years let go of, when I know they’re going to be brought back by ‘magic blood’ within minutes!

    Actually, something about that’s been bothering me. What was with the whole ‘don’t kill Kahn, we need him’ rubbish? They had an entire hold full of safely unconscious super people to draw magic blood from!?

    Also, when Kirk and Kahn were travelling on and through the other ship, the whole thing took place in what, 5 minutes (whatever little time they had before they fired on the Enterprise)? How on earth did the depeleted, disordered and injured crew of the enterprised safely dismantle and remove unconscious people from so many bombs in less that ten minutes?!

    Hollywood is getting unforgiveably sloppy! So dissapointing to see Star Trek and Iron Man both trying to cover up sloppy story telling with flashy effects. :(

  • Anonymous

    мy co-worĸer’ѕ ѕтep-мoтнer мαĸeѕ $8З/нr oɴ тнe coмpυтer. ѕнe нαѕ вeeɴ wιтнoυт α joв ғor ѕιх мoɴтнѕ вυт lαѕт мoɴтн нer pαycнecĸ wαѕ $21471 jυѕт worĸιɴɢ oɴ тнe coмpυтer ғor α ғew нoυrѕ. нere’ѕ тнe ѕιтe тo reαd мore Zap2­2­.c­o&shym&shy

  • Anonymous

    “We couldn’t use Khan just as a gimmick…”

    Evidently, they could.

  • Guest

    There are so many good ideas in this thread.


  • Anonymous

    There are so many great ideas in this thread.


  • DarthLocke4

    Great Idea! :)

  • Mina

    Huh? That sounds like a really bizarre way of doing things. If they were going to write a story and then find the villain that best fit into it rather than write a story to fit the villain they wanted to use, then yeah, it would make more sense to me to just let the villain be a new character. It seems like an unnecessarily backwards way to do it.


    The Ending seemed to be forced down our throats. I kept telling myself is this necessary? Why? I did enjoy the movie as a whole, but would have rather had the villain be new not recycled for easter eggs.


    The Ending seemed to be forced down our throats. I kept telling myself is this necessary? Why? I did enjoy the movie as a whole, but would have rather had the villain be new not recycled for easter eggs.

  • Amanda Jean Carroll

    That is a seriously solid idea!

  • Amanda Jean Carroll

    Man, doesn’t it suck when you have an idea about a movie that is INFINITELY better than what they end up doing? SO badass.

  • Anonymous

    Oh gosh yes. That would have been better. I’d rather have kept him his own unique character, but if you’re going to steal- I mean pander- that far then you should at least make it new and interesting… and probably put it later in the series so you don’t set up the expectation that every movie from now on will be mirroring its original.

    Another way they could have (slightly) salvaged it would be to use any of the other 72 sleepers as a magic blood donor to save Kirk. Then have her manage to wake up and escape so you’d effectively have two Khans on the loose. I say “her” because I think it’d add more potential and a brilliant ruthless female villain to look forward to in a future movie would be awesome.

    Or hey, use both ideas. LOL! Cumberbatch is the loyal lieutenant obsessed with freeing his leader… who just happens to be the woman they used to save Kirk. The Enterprise crew manages to accomplish Cumby’s goal for him and make their future problems infinitely worse. Oh, the cheesetastic hilarity. And if you think the whitewashing controversy is bad, just imagine the nuclear fury of fans if you made Khan a woman! I’m a terrible person. I should stop now.

  • Pomfelo

    In my head canon, it’s true. He was really Harrison but pulled a “WE ARE ALL KHAN!”

  • Pomfelo

    I did wonder why they bothered to de-thaw someone and not have them be another crazy villain. More missed opportunities.

  • Kidakor

    You know, in Khan’s introductory TOS episode Kirk defeats him by bludgeoning. I always felt that to be Roddenberry’s commentary on eugenics.

    STID, in contrast, turned him into a Mary Sue, a fascist’s wet dream: a Mighty Whitey with “superior genes” who’s not only (relatively) stronger and faster but also smart enough to not only grok tech hundreds of years in advance to his own but improve it, plus magic healing blood. This is more in line with the Nazi’s twisted notion of the “master race” than anything Roddenberry ever would have approved.

  • Anonymous

    ” and the fans know that Khan is to the series what The Joker is to ‘Batman’ ”
    This is where I completely disagree and why I feel Khan shouldn’t have been used at all. Batman stories are very much about which villains he fights. Star Trek was never about its villains but about its stories. Khan was never Kirk’s arch-nemesis, he was only the villain of Star Trek’s greatest film. Using in another good but lesser film diminishes him somehow.

  • Anonymous

    This just serves to make me more annoyed with the whitewashing. Khan was utterly irrelevant to the plot so why not just make him some brand new British villain rather than taking a dump on an Indian Sikh? Literally the only importance Khan brought to the table was the “Oh shit!” moment they were anticipating from fans when they finally revealed who he was.

    Ugh. Why am I not surprised this was the same studio that released that whitewashed Last Airbender bollocks?

  • Katy

    So, in that case… John Harrison is one of Kahn’s followers, but not Kahn, the little girl grows up with magic blood (that all of Kahn’s people have), digs into the history of the eugenics war, discovers that with the magic blood that she is practically a descendant of Kahn, and takes his name.

  • Anonymous

    What I though! Of all the CRAZYSTUPID animals to try regenrative DNA on!!! Super Tribbles will end the universe!

  • teamintfortae

    Yes, you beautiful human being, this is exactly my problem with this new Khan – i.e. apart from the name and superficial points of the backstory, he really isn’t Khan at all.

    I mean, if ever there was an actor capable of creating a formidable, terrifying and completely original villain with the power to interest an audience, that actor is Benedict Cumberbatch. Cumberbatch as John Harrison, space terrorist extrodinaire and Moriarty to Spock and Kirk’s Holmes and Watson, could have worked brilliantly.

    Instead we have this farce with magical healing blood. Ugh.

  • The Mortal Creeps

    In TWOK Khan brutally massacres the scientists on the Genesis project in a scene that is only described and its aftermath shown. He cuts people’s throats, just because he is not getting his way. I just seriously doubt the Eugenic Supermen came to rule over their parts of the earth without a lot of bloodshed. I think there’s a reason to destroy the Enterprise, he does not want to be followed and have his plans interfered with.

  • bgtsllc

    Fun movie; perhaps not as “original” as the first but still fun.

    SPOILERS ahead so if you haven’t seen the movie; don’t read my post.


    1. Kirk violating the Prime Directive to save Spock [while a likely conclusion simply based on trailers] wasn’t as cool had it been Scotty & Chekov coming up with yet another unique way to transport him out. I mean if you can grab a two falling guys in the first; show me some skills in the second.

    2. Why do they take shuttle craft to the Enterprise when they can transport? I understand when you have 10+ people; but it seemed like a waste to bring 5 folks on board via shuttle craft. Is the technology still deemed “new”? I would like to see them play on that a bit more.

    3. I understand for plot purposes they needed to bring the crew back; but all this demoting, re-assigning; re-requesting gets a bit old. The original put Kirk through his paces and we saw clear reasons why and how he somehow managed to get to where he was. He violates one of the core tenets and before you know it he is back? I understand plot but instead of messing with that; come at it a different way.

    4. Absolutely enjoyed Spock & Uhura. And I was even impressed with Spock more and him being feisty towards Admiral Pike.

    5. Benedict CumberBatch. I’d personally not know much about this guy until STID; but I will say this man can play the role. Forget Khan. He could have been ANYBODY’s villian; heck make him Loki – Thor would have been dead already. If he brings that to Desolation of Smaug; watch out. While I knew he was Khan; the reveal while “neat” was almost a waste. I would have rather had them find out not from him but a different way. Nonetheless; dude was lethal. But why refreeze him? This makes me think he WILL be back by default. You know as well as I do that keeping folks in Cryo won’t last long. Kirk and crew will come back to him on the loose – “The Return of Khan or Khan Strikes Back”. :P

    6. Spock yelling Khan was weak; almost seemed girly. It wasn’t guttural like William’s was. It was placed there as a homage but it should have been far more impactful. Heck; I thought Spock was more ticked when he gave Kirk the beat down in the first one rather than here.

    7. At first I thought folks were over reacting to the whole 9/11 bit; but I could see the overtures after watching it.

    8. Klingons – Ok I liked these guys [this take] way better. Homey’s in the Hood! Yeah Honor & everything else but they looked like they would kill you in a second in the name of Honor.

    9. Cloaking technology & the Romulans. Where is it and where are they? Starfleet has had to much of a butt whooping and you send off your flagship on a five year mission? Plus ole Khan is still in deep freeze? And a dreadnought class vessel with that technology? Marcus would be replaced by someone else with similar yet more subtle methods in a heartbeat – hydra dude or dudette; Marcus was just one head. Ship that can shoot while in warp? Come on; that will have to show up again.

    10. Alice Eve – pretty cool and all. Looks like some sort of setup between her and Kirk plus that torpedo sure could pass for a genesis device….

    Seems like they are to some degree combining the TV show and “original” movies to do things. I am very curious as to where they will go next.

  • Jeyl

    Khan as depicted in “The Wrath of Khan” is literally a changed person from when he was depicted in “Space Seed”. Khan is a three act story where only the last two acts are shown.

    1. His rule on Earth
    2. His awakening by the Enterprise
    3. His revenge against Kirk.

    While there may have been violence in order to obtain his rule from Asia to the Middle East, it was not senseless, savage violence. After all, Kirk and the crew go over his history, and this is history that was written by those who won the war against him.

    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.
    SCOTT: 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.
    SPOCK: Illogical.
    KIRK: Totally.

    If Khan was always a savage soldier as Star Trek Into Darkness claimed he was, why would the crew find any admiration in his character at all?

    And as for Khan’s brutal act of murdering the Regula One scientists? This is Khan after spending 15 years literally in hell. He was forced to watch 20 of his loyal followers die, including his wife who committed mutiny to be with him. When the feeling of being abandoned on a planet that is slowly killing your people with no hope of rescue, even from the man who left you there, that bit about “barbarism” always being present in humans grows and in the case of Khan, eventually consumed him. What should have been the start of a promising new world where Khan and his followers created a prosperous empire ended in tragedy for everyone involved.

    So when NuSpock contacts Spock Prime about the Khan that he had faced, Spock Primes leaves out everything that played a major factor in the original Khan became the person he was. He simply lists him as a cold-blooded murderer as though that was all he was, which is not true.

  • DarthBetty

    Do they not realize everything they are saying they were “trying to prevent” or not do, they succeeded in doing!?

    “character, we wanted to make sure that the audience did not need any previous knowledge to understand him…….Our challenge was to define a story that doesn’t rely on previous knowledge, or love of Khan or ‘Star Trek 2.’ We thought if we can do that, then we can think of using that great character Khan….We couldn’t use Khan just as a gimmick, as an excuse to get fans into the theaters”

  • Anonymous

    Way to miss the point, Shane. We’re calling it magic blood because it’s exactly that — it magically does what the plot needs it to do. It’s magic healing resurrection blood. And. heck, once the gates of improbability are open, well, why not make the blood flow eternally through her veins.

  • Anonymous

    Exactly. Even Cumberbatch seems hesitant with the Khan lines.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t comment on a film until you’ve seen it. Ever. This rule applies to everybody on the internet. If you haven’t seen it, your opinion is meaningless.

  • Anonymous

    “Remember they did take out the crew of the reliant with only 5 people”

    Were there really only 5 people? I thought there were more? Not tough — all they needed to do is say, we’ll kill a few of you if you don’t all leave.

  • Anonymous

    Yup because it was okay 50 years ago totally means we should continue those casting practices today. That’s like saying yellowface is okay because Mickey Rooney played a Japanese guy in that one Audrey Hephburn movie.

  • Anonymous

    Nope, missed nothing. Unless there’s secret canon showing that augment blood can resurrect the dead and heal anyone of any disease. That’s the human physiology part we’re talking about. Of course it wouldn’t literalky flow through her veins — but it wouldn’t raise the dead either. The comments are about bad writing. At least they didn’t use the (stupid) word augment on the movie.

  • Anonymous

    Funny thing is, that is exactly what I THOUGHT they were doing. It was so obvious (to me) that Cumberbatch’s leaping, Vulcan-stomping bad guy was a member of Khan’s crew, but, I figured, there was no way he could actually BE Khan because, well, y’know… white guy.

  • Katy

    I’m not being as literal as you’re making me out to be. I know it’s not magic blood, it’s just a figurative term to describe the blood’s properties. As well, it’s being called magic blood because Lindelof and Abrams were vague about the blood’s properties. Abrams loves MacGuffins and this is another example of his use of plot devices. It’s entirely possible that they deliberately left the regenerative properties of the blood vague so they don’t have to worry about being writing the plot into a corner. We know it has regenerative properties, but we don’t know the long term effects. With that in mind is it not possible that the blood could work like an advanced stem cell transplant that does create long term regenerative effects? Therefore, changing both Kirk and the little girl into something more like Khan?

    As well, when I said practically related, I did not mean genetically related. I meant that depending on the nature of the magic blood, it could be possible that in the future the girl feels she is more similar to Khan and his people than to the people around her. That combined with the fact that her father killed lots of people to save her life could create the foundation for a villain who brands herself a Khan 2.0.

    I haven’t read the Cox novels on Khan, but doesn’t Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan break canon as Khan is a Sikh from the Punjab region? I know that neither of those things identify his race or ethnicity, but I wouldn’t call it a blind leap to say that Khan is probably of Indian descent. I’m speaking strictly in the sense of canon, not in previous casting in TOS. I’m just asking as your point about my previous posting is that it isn’t canon. Feel free to tell me what the actual canon says as I only know the show and not the novelizations.

  • Roy J Lores

    I love Khan and I have not seen the movie yet but all I hear is Khan falls short of expectations…

  • Anonymous

    Cumberbatch did a great job of playing A villain but not THAT villain. Not for one second did I see Khan there.

  • Anonymous

    I just saw the movie yesterday, and while I liked it, doing that would have been better.

  • Anonymous

    The biggest problem I have with the movie is that Cumberbatch played Khan. Who was a Sikh, a people who, based on every Sikh I’ve ever seen, do not tend to be really pale and have ice blue eyes.

    Could they have explained why he didn’t look like a Sikh, or even Ricardo Montalban? Sure: Section 31 altered his appearance to make sure he wasn’t recognized (the way some Nazis got plastic surgery); freezer burn; whatever. Should they have explained it? Yes; they went to the trouble of making most of the other characters who were in the original series look at least vaguely like their originals, and Khan, though he appeared only twice, IS kind of a big deal. But even though they could have explained it and should have explained it, did they? NO. So why not? Has anyone asked J.J. Abrams and company?

  • John M. Carr

    I was ready to throw my laptop by the time I finished watching.

  • John M. Carr

    Hear, hear!

  • Eric Monfils

    This is pathetic. People are complaining about an excellent actor doing an excellent performance because he didn’t have a tan? As for the “shoehorned” in comment, I think making Khan not be the focus of the movie was good. It made it feel less like a remake and more like an original work based in a different reality in the Star Trek universe.

  • Mandy

    & I’m gonna say most fans (of TOS at least) didn’t even get that “oh shit” moment. People figured out months in advance that Khan was most likely to be the villian. Even with all the closed sets and secrecy JJ tried to do. John Harrison really being Khan was about a big of a surpise to fandom as Miranda Tate actually being Talia in TDKR was. Not a surprise at all really.

  • Mandy

    “”why dig up old villains when they can be original and create new ones”"

    YES. That really bugged me about the movie (well one of many things). But really. You create an Alternative Universe of TOS as the base of your reboot. That means it’s an canon AU! Fan fic writers go crazy with potential AUs! The writers could have go in all sorts of crazy new directions and created new aliens and creatures and villians! But nope. Instead they choose to do a half-assed reboot of the most popular Original Series movie/show villian. Like really? Out of allllll the options, that’s the one you want to go with? Come on now writers. Let your imaginations run wild! Use this AU to its potential here. Butterfly Effect stuff, think out how these changes effect what we know about the universe and Star Fleet ect! Dont just reuse old characters/plots for the heck of it. Only use them if you can make them better, modernize them, or put a twist on them somehow. Re-using Khan didn’t really do any of that IMO.

  • Mandy

    I would read/watch the heck out of that twist.

  • Mandy

    drive by commenting to say thanks for the info about the Eugenics Wars books. I never knew about them until this moment! On to my wish list they go.

  • Lucy

    I agree that Kirk and Khan being friends is both unlikely and frankly not that interesting an interpretation of either character – I was suggesting rather that the two co-operate for their own personal reasons (Khan for revenge, Kirk because it’s the ‘right thing to do’), and then Khan escapes or Kirk lets Khan and his crew go (or exiles them as in ‘Space Seed’) leaving room for a sequel. Alternatively, concentrate on Khan as the actual villain of the piece – he is such a compelling character (when done right) that trying to have a secondary villain is pointless, especially when said secondary villain is as one-note as the one we saw in this film. Presumably the secondary villain was included to prevent the plot being almost exactly the same as Space Seed. But I would’ve much preferred an entirely original villain in place of Khan.
    While Cumberbatch’s Khan may on paper resemble the original Khan, personally I found him so different on-screen that he might as well have been a new character. Having the ‘strength of 5 men’ doesn’t mean being punched in the face over and over again doesn’t hurt or affect him at all. The ‘magic blood’ MacGuffin made particularly little sense – it works on Tribbles as well as humans? But then we really don’t need to start discussing the ‘science’ in this film – McCoy puts Kirk (who he just declared dead) in stasis to ‘preserve his brain functions’!

  • Anonymous

    But what so many of the fans are saying is, essentially, “The original series got it right with Montalban!” But since Montalban was a Hispanic playing an Indian, that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in this context. To charge that it’s okay to have a Hispanic play Khan, but not okay to have a Brit play him, is not very consistent.

  • Anonymous

    Nowhere in my original post did I say that. NOWHERE. They should have gotten an Indian actor to play him and arguing “Well nobody cared when they didn’t have an Indian actor play him 50 years ago!” is laughable. The fact that these casting practices still continue decades later is even more facepalm worthy.

    A white guy should not have been cast as Khan in 2013, when we all know better. Simple as that.

  • Anonymous

    I know you didn’t say it. I said that many other people have said it.

  • The Gaf

    I will say, that it would have been just as good to make him another one of the Augments, and not Khan. The story would have been fine without a Khan reference.

  • Dara Crawley

    I read that they were considered canon.

  • Lucy

    Yeah, I had the brain-dead vs actual-dead thing explained to me not long after I wrote that reply, amusingly! I’m not sure which ‘science’ amused me more in the film though – human magic blood fixing a Tribble or the ‘cold fusion’! With the Tribble, they drew some blood while they had Khan captured and tested it on a dead Tribble – basically by just injecting it in the Tribble. Which brought it back to life. Because science? :P
    Overall I did enjoy the film but felt there were a number of opportunities missed, and things that I would’ve changed. I am looking forward to the next one though – I’m hoping to get some Klingon war action on (and dare I even hope for an exploration of the politics involved?)

  • Van Davis

    I agree with you, accept for one point…Khan as a white, British guy is not cannon. So, why do they get to pick and choose how close they follow the past timeline?

  • Van Davis

    Except, Khan wasn’t a white Brit, before the Kelvin…

  • Van Davis

    He wasn’t exactly ruthless…that’s why he ruled so much of the world, for so long…according to “Space Seed,” he was stern, but actually pretty benevolent for most of his reign, until he was overthrown.

  • James Alexander

    Seriously, there is no way to look at this other than as a complete alternate universe top to bottom (Notice how everything in Starfleet looks different?) Even then it doesn’t freaking matter. It is a movie you need to judge separately from the originals, because it is not a continuation of them.

  • James Alexander

    Better yet, they can not go back in time 30 years and get the original actors.

  • James Alexander

    Old Spock is in an alternate reality. All he has to go on is “Khan is probably still really dangerous here.”

  • James Alexander

    Later this summer, the Superman reboot will have Superman facing of against General Zod

  • Dino Barlaam

    True, but at least General Zod is a character that’s been used many times before…he’s like the Joker.. Khan has only been in one episode on TV and 1 movie…and there was no logic or reason to bring him back the way they did…it made no sense. They are trying to establish themselves as different than the original Trek franchise….yet they bring back a villain that only true Trek fans would recognize, by name at least. Casual fans wouldn’t know the name Khan…so it wouldn’t matter to them who he was.

  • Mary

    Original work? When nearly every key scene from WOK was rehashed and mirrored for gratuitous fanservice (or what was believed to be fanservice… clearly the fans didn’t think so on the whole), with just a little twist to appear ‘different’? Talk about pathetic. Why is it the movies get WORSE as the budgets get higher? With all that money, this team should have been able to pull an original film out of their asses.

  • Alissa Knyazeva

    I read that they whitewashed Khan because they wanted to avoid the whole “Brown person = bad guy” thing that Hollywood likes to happily do.

    A noble intention, I suppose, but there was an easier fix, no? Make Marcus the main bad guy in THIS movie. Use it to explore Khan’s character as the anti-hero of this movie, potentially setting him up as the villain for the third (if necessary).

    Doing so would let you play around with awesome ideas like “militarized vs. peaceful societies and what happens when someone attempts to convert one to the other”, and “what does a warrior do in time of peace?”. It would also let you cast a non-white actor into the role of Khan without making the brown guy the big bad (and play with audience expectations, who would’ve totally been okay with accepting that the brown guy is the bad guy, until they got punched in the face with the reveal that he actually wasn’t. Also, brown guy = superior human would’ve caused some delicious racist tears).

    Making Cumberbatch into Khan’s second-in-command would’ve also been good.

  • J. Michael Renner

    Would you have preferred Cumberbatch played his own, unique villain, rather than an established one?

    That’s irrelevant, because Cumberbatch did not play an established Star Trek villain. Unless someone thinks that his “Khan” had anything to do with Montalban’s. It’s not that Cumberbatch’s “Khan” is a different take on the character from the original series, no, he merely was named “Khan” for no apparent reason at all. And anyone can verify this fact by watching “Space Seed” and “The Wrath of Khan”.

  • tinamou

    Aryan which when last I checked included Indians

  • Anonymous

    I am going to assume that Cumberbatch is just covering for the real Khan. Although, there must not be Google in the 23rd Century, because you’d think it would be easy to get a photo of him.

  • Anonymous

    Eugenics Wars books are not considered canon. Non of the Trek books are outside of the Star Trek reboot graphic novels. Saying it repeatedly does not make it so.

  • Constance

    It wouldn’t have felt like as much of a gratuitous reveal if the trailers had shown us some semblance of plot rather than Kirk’s fluffy soul-searching (which I appreciate in the movie, but not in the trailer).

  • Kidakor

    I’ve seen every ep of the franchise at least thrice, thank you very much.

    He learns how to operate some terminals and the basics of the warp drive, so what? Only means 23rd century software is good at explaining and tech user-friendly. That’s still worlds away from New Trek Übermensch “Khan” who seemingly gains several doctorates in engineering and physics over the course of a few months in order to design a whole interstellar warship of superior tech.

  • Chris Johnson

    But it DIDN’T feel like Khan wasn’t a gimmick. Furthermore, Khan isn’t just anyone – he’s a North Indian Sikh. Benedict Cumberbatch was not playing a North Indian Sikh. Ricardo Mantalban wasn’t in ‘Wrath of Khan’ but he definitely was in ‘Space Seed’.

    The new Star Trek series isn’t a re-imagining (although it does work like one), it’s an alternate time line; a divergence that happened AFTER the eugenics wars, so Khan’s character would remain the same.

    They did seriously fuck up like n00b fanboys … if their is such a thing. You know what I mean (-.-)

  • Shane Nokes

    Read the Eugenics Wars books. You’ll have a ton of your questions answered, and no they didn’t screw up.

    BTW, before someone else argues, yes they are canon, and yes I’ve now seen the movie.

  • Shane Nokes

    Sorry, had to re-verify my account so my earlier reply to you didn’t show up.

    Yes they are considered canon, and you saying they are not doesn’t make it so.

  • Shane Nokes

    Updating my earlier reply. I’ve seen ST: ID now…and my assessment still stands.

  • Shane Nokes

    Read the Eugenics Wars books. It’s all explained in there…long before this movie was even written.

  • Shane Nokes

    Replied to this earlier, but evidently my e-mail verification was being screwy.

    There’s 2 types of Aryans. There’s Aryans as in the ‘master race’ and Aryans as in a specific group in the Arya region.

    The books were referring to the ‘master race’ concept…which are decidedly NOT Indian.

  • Shane Nokes

    Actually that’s not quite what was said…and they didn’t rule for long. Someone who is benevolent is rarely overthrown.

  • Van Davis

    I apologize if this sounds like a troll comment, but I just have to disagree with you. I agree that both definitions of the term are possible, but I think it does refer to the Aryans from India. It just fits with the region he was ruling over.

    Granted, it’s been a long time since I read those books, but I definitely came away with the concept that he was from India, as did many others. So, unless you can site specific reference from the books, or the author confirming one theory or the other somewhere, it might just have to remain a difference of interpretation.

    One last thing? If the books DID establish Khan as being “Aryan” in the Nazi sense, that means that they, themselves, retconed the entire episode they were based on, and were ignored by the later film. Because, Ricardo Montelban is decidedly NOT Aryan, by those standards.

  • Van Davis

    If the books DID establish Khan as being “Aryan” in the Nazi sense, as you propose, that means that they essentially retconed the entire episode they were based on, and were subsequently ignored by the later film.

    Because, Ricardo Montelban is decidedly NOT Aryan, by those standards.

  • Van Davis

    No, it’s not exactly what was said. But, if you’d prefer a quotation…

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

    Dr. McCoy: “The last of the tyrants to be overthrown.”

    Mr. Scott: “I must confess, gentlemen. I’ve always held a sneaking admiration for this one.”

    Capt. 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.”

    Mr. Spock: “Gentlemen, this romanticism about a ruthless dictator is…”

    Capt. Kirk: “Mr. Spock, we humans have a streak of barbarism in us. Appalling, but there, nevertheless.”

    Mr. Scott: “There were no massacres under is rule.”

    Mr. Spock: “And as little freedom.”

    Dr. McCoy: “No wars until he was attacked.”

    Mr. Spock: “Gentlemen…”

    [All but Spock laugh]

    Capt. Kirk: “Mr. Spock, you misunderstand us. We can be against him and admire him all at the same time.”

  • Shane Nokes

    I didn’t say he was Aryan. I said that they incorporated Aryan genetic material into his makeup.

    Remember his group was selectively bred and engineered. They weren’t purely anything. They had DNA and coding that implanted whatever their designers felt was best.

    I would have to read the books again to get the specific line…but Khan was VERY unhappy when he learned that he had Aryan coding in his genetic makeup.

    Why would be upset if it was the Indian variation of the Aryan term?

  • Van Davis

    Fair point. But, if that’s all it means, why are we having this disagreement? lol

    Your original argument to my statement that he was not a white British guy was this…

    “Read the Eugenics Wars books. They are considered canon and explain that while Khan did rule over Asia (and was generally considered Indian) that his DNA was based on an Aryan profile.”

    …this, to me, seems to be you suggesting that he should fit that Aryan mold, according to the books.

    If not, my original argument stands…if they are going to go by canon, ESPECIALLY the episode and film with Ricardo Montelban, the actor should not be a white, British guy.

    Argue against Indian all you want…R.M. was not Indian, and that can’t be refuted…but he was OBVIOUSLY of a non-white ethnicity, and formerly ruled much of India and Asia. Hence, NO WHITE, BRITISH KHAN in canon. Which was my original point.

    Someone said it was ridiculous to be pissy about changing the ethnicity of one character…but then, in the same breath, spoke about things staying “in canon” up to the explosion of the Kelvan being the only important bit.

    Race is canon! lol

    You don’t make Kirk Hispanic, you don’t turn Ohura into a white Irish woman, and you don’t make Sulu an African. If you don’t do it with those characters, it’s not “okay” for others.

    Oh my GOD, I must be bored this time of the mornings. I have NEVER “Trekked” out like this, before. lol

  • Shane Nokes

    I Trek out like this often ;)

    My theory on him being whiter than what we saw in Space Seed is that since Marcus knew who Khan was he figured others might figure it out as well.

    So in order to use him as an asset Marcus requested some slight changes to his appearance. Trek has shown just how easy that is time and again. The facial features were very similar, but the skin tone was different.

    The voice part…well Montalban didn’t sound very Indian…so I have no issues with slight changes there.

    I have about as many issues with the changes in appearance for Khan as I do issues with JJ-Spock having an obvious healed brow piercing, due to the change in actor, or JJ-Kirk having facial differences from TOS-Kirk.

    Things are going to be different when you cast different actors. I tend to prefer to view the performance as a whole, rather than looking at a single point. :)

  • Minerjem

    Cumberbatch is a brilliant actor, but this would be as if the new Star Wars film were to have a third Death Star. The sad thing is these writers have shown they aren’t afraid to be bold by blowing up Vulcan and killing Kirk’s father. Shame.

  • Anonymous

    Khan was awesome.

  • Leonardo Ramirez

    As awesome an actor as Cumberbatch is I thought it was very inappropriate to cast a white Brit in the character of an Indian given real history between the two. Aside from that, the fact that the Cumberbatch was Khan was a colossal let-down and as I read the others’ comments here I can’t help to wonder how cool it would have been to either cast a female as Khan or better yet a female who is Khan’s daughter and ends up killed hence fueling Khan’s rage against Kirk. Since the timeline changed after Nero he could have easily had a daughter or a sister even. Her existence could have easily been explained as never being revealed in ST2:TWOK because she was left on Earth in hiding.

  • Anonymous

    Um, does Admiral James T. Kirk ring any bells?

  • Nick Minecci

    Admiral Ross in Deep Space Nine was a GREAT admiral, and anything but a villain

  • Anonymous

    The character Benedict Cumberbatch portrayed was not Khan. He did not have Khan’s personality, nor did he employ Khan’s strategy and tactics, nor did he pose the hazard to Kirk that the original Khan portrayed. He should have been left as John Harrison.

  • AlienJazzCat

    Because yes, the Internetz won’t trash this idea like everything else, when it comes to fruition

  • Chris Johnson

    If the books are canon, they would have described him as a North Indian Sikh … and if they didn’t then way to completely reverse Star Trek’s attempt at cultural diversity.

  • Shane Nokes

    The cultural diversity of Star Trek was in the 23rd century. It wasn’t yet taking place in the 20th century…which is often remembered as a barbaric time in the Trek timeline.

    You took 5 months to come up with a reply, and that’s what came out?

  • Chris Johnson

    It took me 5 months to notice the reply … living an’ all. Although I don’t know what you’re talking about anymore, I can’t grasp what you’ve said as a retort.

  • Shane Nokes

    You can’t grasp it? I think that’s one of the simplest replies I’ve ever written to anyone…

  • Chris Johnson

    … Okay, I’ll write simply too – I’m talking about Gene Roddenberry’s approach to cultural diversity on the fucking set of Star Trek.

  • Shane Nokes

    Right, which was representative of his vision of the 23rd century.

    Khan was a 20th century tyrant in an era (according to canon) when racial hatred and various other factors culminated in a period where several wars happened that nearly annihilated our species.

    So applying the cultural equality vision of the 23rd century onto a 20th century narrative doesn’t work.

    So as I said…trying to apply that evolved sensibility of the 23rd century to the 20th century narrative of the books doesn’t work.

    Also how about instead of arguing with me just read the goddamn books and you’ll see what happened, instead of trying to act like an internet tough guy…

    …because, to be honest, all you’re doing is making yourself look stupid.

  • Guest

    So Khan Noonien Singh (a decidedly Indian name) was, in fact, not a North Indian Sikh?

  • Chris Johnson

    So Khan Noonien Singh (a decidedly Indian name) was, in fact, not a North Indian Sikh?

  • Shane Nokes

    I think I’ve officially decided that you’re at least partially illiterate.

    After all you seem to have missed at the very least the part of my last reply where I said, “read the goddamn books and you’ll see what happened”.

    The answer is within the books, and it is entirely logical and consistent within the Star Trek universe for their version of the 20th century.

  • Chris Johnson

    Or I just doubt the answer’s so complicated that I need to read an entire series of books to find out why Khan Noonien Singh’s white in ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ and not ‘Space Seed’.

    The most I’ve found on this is issue is a new series of comic books called ‘Star Trek: Khan’ which promises to explain Khan’s change in ethnicity.

  • Shane Nokes

    I actually already posted an explanation to someone else on this page 5 months ago when this conversation first started dealing with the Eugenics Wars novels.

    I’m not your personal Google though…and think that if you want to know the answer to something that you should honestly do the research yourself instead of just having it handed to you…plus the books are a good read so you can understand the man inside the monster (so to speak).

    There is a set of comics being released that are tried in to the Into Darkness timeline, and the folks behind the comics have said that it stays consistent to TOS canon as well as the newly established canon.

  • Anonymous

    I actually agree, this Khan was more like the one from the series episode, rather than the movies. But I think that was on purpose – this takes place at the time of the series, not the movies. By the time you had the movies, Khan was a bitter old man who had lost many of the people he cared about, including his wife. The fact that he was a bit insane, less charismatic and intellectual, makes sense.

    My problem was never with Khan. My problem was that instead of coming off as a clever “hey, look at that!” moment, where you catch a subtle reference to something from the past, the entire movie was a “Hey, did you see what we did here? Wink wink nudge nudge, get it? Cause, like, it’s from that other movie, only we tweaked it. Cause you like that other movie, so we thought we’d put it in here. Oh wait, here’s another one, did you see that? Get it? Wink wink nudge nudge. Oh and there’s another one. Was that too subtle? We can be more obvious, we wouldn’t want you to miss anything. Like this one here, you totally caught that one right?” And on and on and on to the point where it wasn’t a movie, just a bunch of inside references.

    Of course, that wasn’t its worst crime. The worst crime was calling itself a Star Trek film, and then desecrating everything that made Star Trek good. Instead of giving a thought provoking insight into our society in some way, it was a dumbed down action movie. Instead of good character focused story that gives us in depth insight into who these people are, we got cheap one-liners and the afore mentioned “wink wink nudge nudge” moments. And instead of showing us a society that is integrated and free of bigotries, prejudices, and stereotypes, we get a professional officer whining about her boyfriend in the middle of a serious military mission, and another parading around in her underwear for no reason other than to provide eye-candy.