on Twitter on Facebook on Google+
1. It’s spelled “KHAAAAAN”!
2. He’s not Khan.
3. Hopefully? Really? I pretty much hope it’s anyone BUT Khan.
OOps, sorry for the misspell. I guess I’m not the Trekkie I thought I was.
At any rate, yes please. Give me some Cumberbatchian goodness as Khan!
Oh come one! Be careful what you wish for, Andrew James. I think it is terrible idea if they decide to take that path. I bet you were one of the people that were gushing over the fact that the prequels were the origin story of Darth Vader.
The spelling gets confusing when you consider the Mortal Kombat villain Shao Kahn
I don’t really want to see Khan as a character revisited. If they were going to go out of their way to make a ‘tangent universe’, at least do something original with it.
Pretty much every villain the Star Trek universe has come up with that does not directly tie in to their original counterpart has sucked. So yeah, bring back familiar faces. Hell, I’ve been screaming for years to see John DeLancie come back as Q. Instead they did the stupid Tom Hardy clone thing.
Star Trek Motion Picture: V-ger (meh)
Star Trek II: Khan (awesome)
Star Trek III: was it Klingons? Can’t remember this one but (meh)
Star Trek IV: Not realy any villain (awesome)
Star Trek V: God or some shit (stoopid)
Star Trek VI: Traitor Klingon again (worked alright)
TNG 1: Malcolm McDowell (meh)
TNG 2: Borg (best one by far – after the whales)
TNG 3: F Murray Abraham (crap)
TNG 4: Tom Hardy (crap)
JJ Abrams Star Trek: Eric Bana (meh)
So the rule of thumb might break a bit, but yes, bring back familiar villains. They’re tried and true and always fun to see a new take on them. And yeah, watching Benedict Cumberbatch sleep is good enough for me. Actually, come to think of it, he might make a good “Q” as well.
Do you count Nuclear Wessels as a villain?
(and Star Trek’s III’s villain was a Klingon played by Christopher Lloyd – which is awesome in my opinion).
Fightin’ words, Andrew.
A) Tom Hardy was NOT crap. The script for the movie he was in was crap. If you watch Nemesis as though it were Shinzon’s tragedy rather than Picard’s heroic journey, it’s a way better movie.
B) CHRISTOPHER LLOYD.
C) The borg one sucked
D) But the main reason I’m writing this comment is: the whole Star Trek reboot stands on the edge of a knife at this point. The reboot was the easy part; coming up with a viable, expansive, ongoing universe is going to require a hell of a lot more creativity than just wiping the slate clean and then bringing in Khan. If the entire purpose of the rebooted Star Trek universe is just a “greatest hits” album, it’s going to be a vastly disappointing… er… enterprise.
The question is really how many A’s do you put into your screaming KHAN?!?
As seen in the graph bellow, Andrew & Matt Brown when with the very popular five A’s option KHAAAAAN:
With all that apocalyptic damage to the cityscape? Looks like a “tribble” episode to me …
Hungry little buggers.
I like the cut of your jib, Monkey.
I’d pay to see a $200M reboot of the Tribbles episode. Easily.
Kinda Nolan Batman-esque, isn’t it? I guess I’d better watch Wrath of Khan at some point in the near future, just in case this one does have Khan.
Yeah definitely taking a queue from the marketing of Dark Knight.
It’s not Khan, it’s Gary Mitchell. It was leaked this past summer.
Leaked, unleaked, leaked again; refuted, confuted, demolecularized in the transporter like in Star Trek 1.
The Gary Mitchell thing is far from confirmed, though on basic terms I’d still assume he’s the guy. Which isn’t as wussy as doing Khan, but is still pretty wussy.
It’s Mitchell. Which continues the string (The Dark Knight Rises and Skyfall) of recent blockbusters that have badly botched the secrecy of their suprise character twists.
I can’t wait for the Khan backlash when the film comes out. Will serve Paramount right.
You know what’s tragic about that is, the only thing about the original Gary Mitchell episode that doesn’t really work is the fact that you meet this guy for the first time in that single episode – who is supposed to be a lifelong friend of Kirk’s – and then are required to feel Kirk’s anguish when Mitchell turns evil.
You’d think in an ideal world if you were going to revisit Mitchell, you’d set him up over a longer period of time so that when he finally turns to the Dark Side it feels a bit more significant than just “crazy Benedict Cumberbatch blew up Starfleet Headquarters and now Kirk’s mad.”
And I’m still not convinced it’s Mitchell; they’ve wandered pretty far afield of the original concept if so. Now, Matt Decker, I could totally get behind.
Also, it’s not Gary Mitchell.
News flash, Naomie Harris is not Moneypenny in Skyfall!!!
Marion Cotillard lies about being Talia al Ghul!!!
Oh the mis-direction, the humanity, the complete and utter waste of time spent on deciphering casting rumors!
YOU AND I SHALL SETTLE THIS ONE DAY WITH FISTICUFFS MATT GAMBLE
BAT’LETHS WOULD BE MORE APROPOS!
Hi Gamble, me again – as with the grosses on INTO DARKNESS, feel free to write us a concession message regarding your Gary Mitchell obsession and we’ll read it on the show.
I think when they get around to STAR TREK 13 we *might* just preemptively call bullshit on every single word out of your (proverbial) mouth.
I tried to get him to recant on the Cinecast but he would not.
Yeah I’ve been trying to figure out who this Gary Mitchell guy is. As it turns out, I don’t give a shit.
I’d be totally happy with a “crazy Benedict Cumberbatch blew up Starfleet Headquarters and now Kirk’s mad” story. Star Trek pretty much abandoned really interesting, true science fiction anyway. So just go with Master and Commander in space. I’m fine with that.
True Science Fiction.
Yeah, really dark & grim for a Star Trek poster (then again it is called “Into Darkness”) . Definitely a huge Christopher Nolan Batman influence here.
Then they released a Man of Steal poster with Superman being lead away in chains which makes for quite the dark and off-brand set of posters today.
Star trek isn’t the only one who’s got a new poster.
By the way does anyone else think the guy in the star trek poster looks more like Joseph gordon levitt’s COBRA COMMANDER than anyone else?
Here’s the Man of Steel poster that I was talking about that came out the same day and was also quite dark.
The only reason we’re seeing THE HOBBIT in IMAX: 9 minutes of STAR TREK.
Hmmm… only for Dec. 14th and I have tickets for the Hobbit in IMAX on Dec. 15th.
It would be cool to see, but at the same time watching the first 9 minutes of a movie 6 months before it comes out is likely to be annoying.
Wait. WHAT? The 9 mins is only for those seeing it on the 14th?!
From what I read, similar to the preview for Avatar and Dark Knight Rises it was going to be a one day only thing. As 9 minutes is quite the chunk of movie to add onto the running time of a movie that is already almost 3 hours. Either theatres need to extend when movies are screening or cut back on trailers.
Phew. I should be OK. We saw AVATAR the weekend it opened and it had the DK preview. We’re going Saturday morning – it’s too far to drive to the local IMAX after work for a 3 hour movie.
That’s the same reason I’m seeing the Hobbit Saturday night, my wife can’t make it to the earlier showing and starting a 3 hour movie at around 10:30 pm is too late after a long week (sounding really quite old).
That said, the Star Trek site that lists which theatres will be playing that 9 minute clip:
Also it says “beginning December14th” which suggests it will be longer than just a day, but at the same time it won’t say when it will end.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Prove you\'re human... *
− three = 1
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Dec 3, 2012