Kevin's Watch

Was Khan the greatest Star Trek villain ever? He may not have been a cosmic threat like the bizarro Borg are, but Khan as portrayed by Ricardo Montalban gripped me emotionally in a way that no other Trek antagonist ever has before or since. There were many wonderful qualities to ST II: The Wrath of Khan that made it a great Trek movie (and arguably still the best), but I think above all else was the Montalban factor. Allow me to quote film critic Roger Ebert, who nails it eloquently:

Khan is played as a cauldron of resentment by Ricardo Montalban, and his performance is so strong that he helps illustrate a general principle involving not only Star Trek but Star Wars and all the epic serials, especially the James Bond movies: Each film is only as good as its villain. Since the heroes and the gimmicks tend to repeat from film to film, only a great villain can transform a good try into a triumph. In a curious way, Khan captures our sympathy, even though he is an evil man who introduces loathsome creatures into the ear canals of two Enterprise crew members. Montalban doesn't overact. He plays the character as a man of deeply wounded pride, whose bond of hatred with Admiral Kirk is stronger even than his traditional villain's desire to rule the universe.

It just hit me too that ST II has in fact two great death scenes: Spock's and Khan's. One dies selflessly to save his friends, the other dies in selfish revenge, forever spitting hate at his enemy. The tower of rage and resentment that was Khan was a powerful thing to behold, and I think that quality of cinematic anger is one of the things missing from Star Trek right now. Where's the passion--whether in the wrath of Khan or the intensity of Kirk? Correct me if I'm wrong, but currently Star Trek seems too wrapped up in post-Cold War, lovey-dovey, touchy-feely, New Age navel gazing. When the Klingons (who at least understand anger) have become allies, and the biggest enemy is an emotionless cyborg race, what can you do? It might be nice to have Q in a Trek movie as he at least makes things interesting whenever he shows up. (And I think this whole spiel of mine is another way of answering aTOMiC's topic about why the Trek films--or at least the Next Generation ones--have failed to generate much excitement at the box office.)

Anyway, I'm glad Ebert makes the point that Montalban wasn't overacting. It's a criticism often aimed at his portrayal of Khan, or he is lauded with a backhanded compliment like "deliciously hambone" acting. Montalban's was a great peformance, period. Think Shakespearean tragedy.

That Montalban's peformance never received any recognition from Hollywood--not even a bare Oscar nomination--is telling of the belittling attitude of the film industry towards sci-fi or fantasy. Hollywood (and the filmgoing public-at-large) has a problem accepting sci-fi/ fantasy as serious drama worthy of the highest industry honours, and I think that still holds true today. So it was wonderful to see Peter Jackson's LOTR crash through the barrier and triumph at the Oscars. (But why wasn't Hugh Jackman nominated for his role as Wolverine in X-Men? I suspect the standard reply is along the lines of, "Uh, well, it's just a silly comic book character.")

It took a serious actor like Sir Ian McKellen (and it apparently helps if you have a "Sir" in front of your name) to make the Academy take notice of his performance in LOTR. And while I'm happy for McKellen that he was rewarded for his magnificent turn as Gandalf, I only wish the Academy had similarly rewarded Montalban for his work 2 decades earlier. Of course, we fans know better and will always hold Montalban in high esteem for his mighty contribution to Trek lore.

Great movie. Khan is indeed a fantastic villain. Good thread Matrixman. Truly a movie worthy of praise.

I enjoyed Montalban as Khan in ST: II. But, I felt his original portrayal in the series episode, Space Seed was on par with most of the other guests at the time. Nothing that really stood out, IMO.

Matrixman wrote:...not only Star Trek but Star Wars and all the epic serials, especially the James Bond movies: Each film is only as good as its villain. Since the heroes and the gimmicks tend to repeat from film to film, only a great villain can transform a good try into a triumph.

At a tangent - could the bit I've quoted above be the major explanation for the SW prequels? They simply lacked a compelling villain like Vader? Hmm.

Matrixman wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but currently Star Trek seems too wrapped up in post-Cold War, lovey-dovey, touchy-feely, New Age navel gazing.

Well said. The main reason I don't watch the show/movies.

Khan is so far beyond the other ST movies,the creative team as a whole deserves much praise-the only thing I have a problem with is Spock dying just as a setup for the next film.

Actually, at the time they meant for Spock to stay dead. But millions of Trekkies pestered and pestered and screamed and moaned and kvetched and yelled and cried and threw tantrums and held their breath until they turned blue, and Paramount, knowing that there was big money involved, gave in and brought him back. It took some doing, I believe, to persuade Leonard Nimoy to go along with this. He was thoroughly sick of being Spock at that time.

I have always thought Spock should have stayed dead. It took away from the meaning of his sacrifice when they brought him back.

CovenantJr wrote:

Matrixman wrote:...not only Star Trek but Star Wars and all the epic serials, especially the James Bond movies: Each film is only as good as its villain. Since the heroes and the gimmicks tend to repeat from film to film, only a great villain can transform a good try into a triumph.

At a tangent - could the bit I've quoted above be the major explanation for the SW prequels? They simply lacked a compelling villain like Vader? Hmm.

That reason could certainly be why many people are disappointed by the prequels. Though I'm sure you could list plenty other reasons.

I think Lucas delivered a great movie with Episode III and that Palpatine made for a good villain, but I accept that my opinion is in the minority (on both points). I do agree that Vader (in the mask) remains hands down the most compelling Star Wars villain. It was all but impossible for Lucas to top Vader in the badass Sith category, though he sure gave it a shot with Darth Maul.

Re: Spock -- it seems that Leonard Nimoy relented and came back as Spock only after he was promised directorship of Star Trek III. At least that turned out well, as Nimoy showed he was a talented director.

Variol Farseer wrote:Actually, at the time they meant for Spock to stay dead. But millions of Trekkies pestered and pestered and screamed and moaned and kvetched and yelled and cried and threw tantrums and held their breath until they turned blue, and Paramount, knowing that there was big money involved, gave in and brought him back. It took some doing, I believe, to persuade Leonard Nimoy to go along with this. He was thoroughly sick of being Spock at that time.

That's correct. As well, no one could have believed at the time that Spock touching Bones was attempt to upload his soul/mind whatever.

Variol Farseer wrote:Actually, at the time they meant for Spock to stay dead. But millions of Trekkies pestered and pestered and screamed and moaned and kvetched and yelled and cried and threw tantrums and held their breath until they turned blue, and Paramount, knowing that there was big money involved, gave in and brought him back. It took some doing, I believe, to persuade Leonard Nimoy to go along with this. He was thoroughly sick of being Spock at that time.

That's the common story, but it's wrong. Leonard Nimoy was not sick of Spock. He played the scene as written. The producer, however, was looking ahead. He told Nimoy, "Do a mind-meld with McCoy before going into the chamber." Nimoy ad-libbed, "Remember" thinking it would cover almost anything. The producer was thinking franchise and was not about to lose Star Trek's most popular character. This is directly from an interview with Leonard Nimoy, on the SciFi Channel, I believe.

I have the Wrath of Khan on dvd, and according to that no producer asked him to do it.

I totally agree with Matrix. Khan is by a wide margin the most compelling and entertaining Star Trek villain. Montalban's Khan (in my opinion he was just as thrilling in Space Seed but in a different way of course) is point on perfect for the character. Star Trek II in general is a triumph on several levels and I won't go into it all over again here.

As to the prequels of Star Wars in my opinion it’s not just the absence of Vader it’s not the special effects overload it’s the principal characters. Without the big 3 fussing at each other you don't have chemistry like in the other films. Jedi aren't particularly amusing types and when you center 3 films around them well it just aint as much fun though Episode III was certainly filled with tons of action and drama.

Star Trek without its big 3 can also be somewhat bland by comparison.

www.khaaan.com/

I just watched STII again, and discovered I can't watch it now without i) being enthralled by Khan, and ii) thinking of this thread by MM.

--A

Wow, I was quite the windbag here, eh? It's sometimes embarrassing to be reminded of one's old posts; however, I still love Montalban's performance as Khan, no doubt about that.

Wow, how did I ever miss this thread? I agree completely that Montalban is delivered an outstanding performance. Who could forget this great line?

"For hate's sake - I spit my last breath at thee."

Yeah, I never saw this thread either!

Yes, Khan is the best of the Trek villains!! Yes, dlb, excellent line, excellently delivered! And while I don't know if it's where the line originated, it's the first place I ever heard the line about revenge being a dish best served cold.

In a way I disagree with Menolly. While interesting plots were going on on old ST there weren't a whole lot of great acting jobs by guests. I know I'm missing some good ones but Frank Gorshin (the original Riddler), Montalban and Jim Hutton as Charlie X stand out, in my mind, as some of the best.

Khan, and Montalban, rule. those were his real pecs too. he brought sexy back before sexy even was.


and speaking of performances, that big headed alien baby and the horrendous voiceover is an all-time unbeatable classic in so bad it becomes good tv kitsch.