This Khan isn't about vengeance, he's a product of hubris. Why are Khan and his crew hidden in missiles? Because it is an admittedly heavy-handed representation that drives home his role as a weapon outside the control of its creator. In this light, it's clear that the role of the characters, including Khan, it hugely different.
Every action in the movie is caused by the aggression of the Fleet or it's members.
The point of the movie isn't that Khan is the bad guy, it's that the direction they've taken Star Fleet is turning them into the bad guy. It is people like Admiral Marcus, the warhawk, replacing people like Pike, and it is machismo-laden captains like Kirk influencing thoughtful recruits like Scotty. It is the movement, in both the film and it's version of Star Fleet, towards interventionism and militarization. The titular Darkness is a figurative one. I think that Into Darkness is a direct response to these objections. They argued that the fleet we see in the movie is not the humanitarian organization they are familiar with - they break the prime directive seemingly without remorse, they seem to strategize like an army, and they seem narrowly focused on combat and action, as is the movie itself.
When Star Trek (2009) came out, fans of the original series had some complaints about the more "extreme", somewhat militarized Star Fleet. Into Darkness is not about any of those things, and so Khan as a character does not have remotely the same role. The movie is about coping with loss, death, and rebirth. In Wrath, the focus is on vengeance, and Khan's role is as an archetypal villain, hellbent on destroying Kirk and the enterprise completely. Here's the thing: He's not there to serve the same purpose as the original Khan. Let me play devil's advocate for a moment and say why I think that, though the direct references/homages were cheesy and unnecessary, Cumberbatch's role in the film actually works for me. He is probably one of the least threatening looking people alive and every display of his superhuman strength looked laughably silly. There's just no emotional connection to be had when the villain's main motivation against the main characters is "I dislike that group you're a part of" at least when compared to "You personally exiled me to this god forsaken planet for 15 years and I want my revenge."Īlso it was beyond cute that Benedict Cumberbach thought that he could pull off a roll as a super human without ever once stepping foot in a gym.
Instead we were treated to a convoluted plot about Khan hiding his crew in missiles and some crap about how he hates Starfleet as a whole. If they wanted to have a movie with Khan as the villain, they should have used Into Darkness to set up an event that would lead to Khan vowing to take revenge against Kirk. I think that the creators of Into Darkness tried to hamfistedly throw in a bunch of Wrath of Khan references without appreciating why the character or the original movie worked in the first place. For whatever reason, they released the third movie in the trilogy and forgot to make the second movie where a whole bunch of narratively relevant, cool action-y stuff happens in Tokyo.īy the end of Battle Royale 2, I was exhausted and just glad that the movie was finally over. I really want to watch the real second movie. Then, just as the action picks up again, after what felt like forever worth of 'not good' dialogue, the movie just ends. The remaining movie was nothing but talking, recapping the first movie, telling the audience everything that happened between the first and second movie, reiteration and further unnecessary filler. It took everything that was great about the first movie and made it 'more'. The first 30 - 40 minutes is vastly superior to the first movie, "man", I thought to myself, "this is going to be the greatest movie of all time". Man I loved the first movie, so I got the second thinking, aww yeah, more Battle Royale! Here's my thought process from start to finish.