Right about now, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman are beginning to pen their sequel to this summer's smash hit, Star Trek (2009). In doing so, they'll have to answer an important question: Khan or no Khan?Count me down in the "no Khan" corner, at least for now.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) remains a hugely popular incarnation of Trek for many good reasons. The entire Nicholas Meyer enterprise, if you will, exhibits a more Naval, Hornblower-esque feel than many Treks, the friendship between Kirk and Spock is paramount in the story, and the threat -- universal Armageddon -- is tremendous indeed. Khan, our villain, is charismatic and powerful. And his motive is easy to identify with: VENGEANCE.
Wrath of Khan was so successful, in fact, that it has become the template for about half of the Star Trek films since. And mostly -- let's be honest about this -- to the franchise's detriment.
After Star Trek II, a charismatic villain deploying a deadly WMD in the tradition of the Genesis Device has been repeated much too often. Dr. Soran harnessed the power of the "ribbon" to destroy whole worlds in Generations (1994). Ru'afo harvested the "metaphasic energy" of an extra-planetary Shangri-La, almost wiping out an entire population in Insurrection (1998). Shinzon threatened Earth with his Thalaron weapon in Nemesis, hoping to revenge himself against Picard. And then there was Nero in this summer's Trek, who had his red matter weapon which destroyed Vulcan. Also deployed, incidentally, out of vengeance.
These were all charismatic madmen, but I don't believe it's a coincidence that the most highly-regarded Star Trek movies after Khan -- The Voyage Home (1986), The Undiscovered Country (1991), and First Contact (1996) -- utilize a different template.
And really, why focus on wrath when there are six other deadly sins out there? And revenge committed in the wondrous final frontier tends to bring everything down to very Earthly, grounded and human terms. We have superhero movies and James Bond movies about vengeance and charismatic madmen. Star Trek should differentiate itself.
More to the point, I'll bring up a quip from Howard Dean. It was advice offered to and ignored by John Kerry in 2004. "You don't beat George W. Bush by being Bush-Lite." Well, in a similar vein, you can't out-Khan the Wrath of Khan either. Best not to try.
Besides, Star Trek offers a rich source of mythology and history, and even storytelling styles. Why not explore that potential? The series rarely featured charismatic madmen as villains, instead focusing on weird scientific phenomena, new civilizations-of-the-week, alternate-universes, even evil machines (like "The Doomsday Machine's" Planet Killer). A great Star Trek movie could combine two Original series episodes and really prove something special.
To wit: The crew of the Enterprise battles the Planet Killer, while Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov super-age thanks to "The Deadly Years" plague, giving Shatner a last shot at the center seat (playing Old Kirk).
Or, while transporting scoundrel Harry Mudd to prison, war breaks out with the Klingon Empire, and the Enterprise must warp to Organia to secure peace...
You could even adapt "Arena" as a damn-fine two hour story. Act I: The battle on Cestus III with the Gorns (and the Enterprise) in orbit, while Kirk and Spock are under fire on the surface. Act II: The pursuit of the Gorn ship into unexplored territory as Kirk contemplates a declaration of war. Act III: The Metrons, and Gorn vs. Kirk. There's also a message there about not going to war unnecessarily, which seems timely.
No doubt it's a really, really fun parlor game to think about who could play Khan in the next Star Trek movie. But do we really need another variation on Soran, Ru'Afo, Shinzon and Nero right now? If we get a new Khan, a new madman, that'll be three similar threats in a row.
Here's a thought: let's apply some of Star Trek's "infinite diversity in infinite combinations" to the franchise's villains.
Boldly go.
No comments:
Post a Comment