BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Star Trek (spoilers

maryagrawatson · May 25, 2014 8:49 pm

Tinks wrote:
I know the interview you mean though Mary (I think)

I think you might be thinking of the one where he claims to have no knowledge of the Botany Bay, which is not the one I'm thinking of. BTW, if that's true, I don't care if he's Benedict Cumberbatch, I'll be first in line to volunteer for the firing squad (tongue firmly in cheek, but my loyalty to Trek is greater than my loyalty to him!).

The interview I'm thinking of, the cat was out of the bag by then because he was responding to criticism of his portrayal of Khan. I just flipped through all the ITD interviews I downloaded and I don't seem to have it, but I'll have to keep digging when I have time.

All I can imagine is that J.J. wanted Ben at any cost and let him run with whatever he wanted to do with the Harrison/Khan character. I'm baffled because all the other characters, even Carol with her accent, are recognizeable and Khan is just so wrong.

Mary

Last edited by maryagrawatson (May 25, 2014 8:52 pm)

maryagrawatson · May 25, 2014 8:52 pm

Harriet wrote:
Uhm, I'm not an expert Trekkie, but why do you keep calling him Kahn?

è

LOL Good catch! I am always misspelling the name because my best friend goes by the nickname Kahn (as in Gengis), so I type and text 'Kahn' about 50 billion times a day!

Mary

Last edited by maryagrawatson (May 25, 2014 8:53 pm)

Harriet · May 25, 2014 8:57 pm

Maybe it helps to know that Khan is an ancient title for a ruler - chiefs and noblemen. I believe that is where it comes from. Genghis Khan, by the way

SolarSystem · May 25, 2014 9:09 pm

maryagrawatson wrote:
I watched an interview with Benedict where he talked about getting into the character and he explicitly said that he wanted to go the fresh route and didn't do any history on Kahn. Such a mistake.

Well, I've been a Trekkie for almost 25 years now, I grew up with Picard and have never been such a huge fan of Kirk, but I've seen "The Wrath of Khan" several times over the years.
What kind of "history" do you think Benedict should have done on Khan? And in which way should that have changed his way of portraying Khan? Should he have watched the movie and then done a copy of Ricardo Montalban?
And how should that have worked, if the screenplay demanded something different, something new, something original from him? I don't believe that any director would just let his actor do whatever he wants to do with a role, whether or not it's a role we've seen in a movie decades ago. I'm sure they worked on the role together, I'm sure JJ knew exactly what he wanted Khan to be, to look like, to feel like - and he was convinced that Benedict would deliver exactly this, so he cast him.

Of course one could debate whether or not it was a good idea to bring Khan into the movie at all. I'm not sure it was really necessary, but be that as it may: I agree with everyone here who says that the Khan we see in this movie is not Benedict's creation alone.

maryagrawatson · May 25, 2014 9:10 pm

Yes, I know how it's supposed to be spelled, but my friend spells it Kahn. Why is not relevant to this discussion. I only brought it up to explain my misspelling. I don't spend time on ST boards discussing stuff, nor do I read a ton about it, so the correct spelling hasn't been burned into my brain. My goodness, what a lot of fuss.

Mary

Tinks · May 25, 2014 9:13 pm

He wasn't first choice for the role, and was reduced to doing a last minute type audition tape on a friends' mobile phone. I don't think JJ wanted him at any cost, and I don't think his status was such that he could dictate how the part was written and played, so I do think it's a little unfair to place the blame for how the part didn't match the original villain on him, especially as he didn't even know who he was playing properly until late on.
But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree?

Harriet · May 25, 2014 9:13 pm

MAW: I see. I just thought you were not acquainted with the origin of the name, which is of interest for the character itself - didn't want to bother you.

Last edited by Harriet (May 25, 2014 9:13 pm)

maryagrawatson · May 25, 2014 9:34 pm

Tinks wrote:
But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree?

Absolutely. A lot of it is speculation or analysis of the scraps that we get in interviews. My opinion that J.J. got distracted by Ben's peformance is based on the fact that J.J. was so true to the other characters.

From one of the special features in the movie:

"Originally, the first thing we thought of was who were the actors that we thought we feel ... were in the spirit of what came before. Damon (Lindelof) mentioned Benedict Cumberbatch, and I watched him. He was so not the Khan I knew at all. We would definitely get in trouble. Fans would say he didn't look anything like him, it makes no sense. But if something is good, that sort of supersedes everything. This was the right way to go because he was so good."

(For the audition, I pieced together that Ben was scrambling because the UK film industry was shut down for the holidays and he didn't want to miss his chance to wait for a film crew. So he did the iPhone thing and then later learned that he didn't need to rush as much as he thought because J.J. took his time watching the video.)

Mary

Tinks · May 25, 2014 9:45 pm

But JJ is referring to what he looks like there. Again. Benedict can only work with what he's given.
I'm not above criticising him if I think his performance is off in something, I'm really not, but, as Solar says, I don't know what else you would have him do with the role, aside from casting the script aside and doing it his own way, or imitating the original?

maryagrawatson · May 25, 2014 9:56 pm

The thing is, scripts are malleable objects. They get rewritten at the last minute. Sometimes, projects go ahead even before the script is finished. We don't have enough data to know for sure if what ended up on screen was the original script or if it was altered to fit in with Ben's interpretation of the character based on the scraps he had for his audition.

In this universe, Khan and his crew were not stranded and Khan did not lose his wife, so it's logical that his character would have been closer to the Khan of Space Seed than the madman of TWOK. So the one thing J.J. could have done to save this Khan without changing a word of the script would have been to direct Ben away from the stoic, cold character he played. Khan from Space Seed was a very warm, charismatic, womanizing charmer. Best analogy I can come up with for this forum, the real Khan was like Moriarty and Ben's Khan was like Magnussen.

I am not arguing or trying to change your mind or anything, just trying to show that my opinion isn't just based on deep visceral feelings but that I can actually support them.

Mary

besleybean · May 26, 2014 5:43 am

I've been trying to stay out of this...mainly cos I don't feel I have a great deal to add.
But just to lay my cards on the table.
I grew up with Star Trek and am a huge fan.
Hubby and I watch reruns of the original series all the time.
We've seen all of and liked most of the more modern interpretations and sequels/prequels, spin offs etc.
The films were...ok .
I was luke warm about the 1st JJ film but loved the 2nd and thought Benedict nailed it: as HIS (or possibly JJs) Khan.
I wasn't a huge fan of the original Khan and vastly prefer the new one.
I'm not sure why a new interpretation can't just do that...
It takes nothing away from the original and we can like both!
BBC Sherlock isn't an exact copy of Canon nor the other Sherlock Holmes presentations...but we can like them all.

Last edited by besleybean (May 26, 2014 5:44 am)

SolarSystem · May 26, 2014 7:13 am

And also, it would be pretty boring, at least to me, if Benedict would have done the same thing as Montalban did and if his Khan had been exactly the same as Montalban's Khan. Because then - why do it at all, if there is nothing new or different in it?
And I think that Benedict's Khan wasn't just cold and without any trace of emotion. He deeply, deeply cared about his crew, his friends, his family, as he put it. ("Is there anything you would not do for your family?") The real baddie in this movie for me was Admiral Marcus. Khan was used by him, and as a result he turned more evil than he probably was before (although I admit we don't really know that).
I absolutely love Benedict's Khan, and I always thought that Montalban's Khan was a bit over the top. But anyway.

maryagrawatson · May 26, 2014 2:12 pm

Khan is jarring because all the other characters are easily identifiable with their alternate universe counterparts. This goes back to a comment that was made in the fan fiction thread recently, if you're going to distort a character so much that he is unrecognizeable, why not make a new character?

'John Harrison' is am amazing character. When I watched Into Darkness the first time, I didn't realise that I was looking at 'the guy who plays Sherlock' and so I was able to be completely taken in by his acting because I didn't have the actor to distract me. Ben's Khan is a scary dude! I just can't get over how good he is! The head cracking scene? OMG.

The only reason to call him Khan is to a) get a gasp out of the audience (which I'll admit worked with me) and to get the KHAAAAAAAN scene at the end. It just all felt so gratituous to me and cheapened one of Ben's best roles. Really. I think this is some deep end acting. The character has everything from genuine pathos to terrifying insanity.

So again, I can't believe how good he is in this. It was like watching Christopher Plummer in Star Trek VI. I had a debate with myself all over again about whether actors of that caliber are too good for Star Trek or if it's just proof of how good Star Trek is.

Mary 'So Conflicted' Watson

This Is The Phantom Lady · September 4, 2014 10:58 pm

Look at what I found!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLBHKkTIijc

Marta · September 4, 2014 11:11 pm

When I hear this music, I only think of Moriarty

maryagrawatson · September 4, 2014 11:15 pm

Hey, haven't seen those ones yet. Thanks!

Mary

besleybean · September 5, 2014 5:56 am

Yes, I understand they are to be released.

Liberty · September 5, 2014 7:15 am

Marta wrote:
When I hear this music, I only think of Moriarty

I think of A Clockwork Orange! And the Moriarty scene made me think of that too. Showing my age .

SolarSystem · September 5, 2014 7:27 am

Apparently there's also some dancing stuff involved... this should be fun.

Kittyhawk · April 21, 2015 2:42 pm

Sorry, I've stopped reading on page 6 of this thread because I need to get rid of something:

Be wrote:
I have seen it on wednesday because I was interested in Benedict's work. I am not a Star Trek fan at all. So I can't really appreciate it. I don't want to offend anybody, but:

If one likes science fiction movies, it is probably o.k. Action scenes, fight stuff, 3D....explosions.
I personally can't stand the lack of logic in the development of the plot. Plot what plot? Logic what logic?......

I believe Start Trek into Darkness and Sherlock suffer from the same problem: Writers who are too much in love with the original material and forget that the show should make sense for people who've never heard of the original. On page 6 was a link to a wonderful "commentary" on STiD (http://www.io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844)
which expresses my thoughts exactly. And it occurred to me that using "The Eugenics Wars of the 1990s" in 2013 is exactly the same thing as having somebody in 2010 beat a corpse with a riding crop to find out about post-mortem bruising.

Unfortunately I hadn't even heard of Benedict Cumberbatch when watching STiD and I was not overly impressed (much preferred Eric Bana in the first one).

Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan was probably the best of the movies with the old crew (most of which were crap - except no. IV, The Voyage Home, the one with the whales - and if the next Abrams movie is based on that I'll be seriously angry) - why did they even remake it? The Wrath of Khan actually made sense - from his point of view Khan was justifiably angry (he thought his wife's death was Kirk's fault) and wanted to kill Kirk. Whereas even after two viewings (in the cinema in 3D and on DVD) I still don't know why the new Khan wanted to destroy - well, whatever he wanted to destroy...

And what I really, really, don't understand is how the same crew who made the amazingly good first movie could produce such a disappointment in their second attempt. I was not only disappointed by the story, but also by the 3D effects (whereas every time I watch the first movie, I think "that should be great in 3D!")

I've been a low-key Star Trek fan all my life, watching Raumschiff Enterprise on tv, watching the movies with the old crew, buying a few of the novels. I was very sceptical about a re-boot and rather convinced it wouldn't work. It was the review on DVDverdict that encouraged me to watch the movie and I was agreeably surprised - the movie was nearly perfect (the exception being that impossible romance between Uhura and Spock. I don't care whether Vulcans fall in love or not - but I am convinced that no Vulcan would do something as improper (possibly illegal) as having an affair with a student/subordinate - Uhura is both).

So, a good first movie, a "reboot" that would allow them to do anything - improve bad episodes, create original stories - and all they can think of doing is rehashing old stuff? I think I have to get my gun...

And for anybody who'd like to get into the Star Trek Universe, I'd recommend to get hold of a few episodes of the original series (there might be something on YouTube). Most of the movies with the old crew are a waste of time, excepting no. II and IV (unfortunately, IV doesn't make sense without having a least read a summary of III), I'd skip then directly to the first Abrams film.