Comments»

1. somethoughts - July 1, 2009

Love that shot of Pine in the red cadet uniform, c’mon break 400mil

2. mdbchud - July 1, 2009

I think Trek could stay in the top 10 a bit longer IF it weren’t losing so many screens for other films. My town lost it 2 weeks ago, and a nearby large city only has 1 theatre showing it as of tomorrow.

I don’t think it is slowing down so much for lack of interest, just lack of opportunity. Oh well, it has been a great run! Hope the lucky folk who still have opportunity will get a chance to see it again on the big screen…..nothing comes close this year!!

3. SirMartman - July 1, 2009

Khan would be great,,, but lets not forget about “Kodos the Executioner ”

hes still around too

:oD

4. johnny - July 1, 2009

what the hell, that cartoon was so damn retarded

5. AJ - July 1, 2009

From the Variety article:

“Film was a hit across the rest of the globe, earning $13 million in Australia, 80% ahead of the first pic’s debut. Russian launch of $11.8 million came in 69% higher than the original.

“Transformers” sequel opened a week early in the U.K. and Japan to $24.1 million. This past weekend, it held at No. 1 in the U.K. at $10.2 million for a 10-day cume of $27 million.”

This is journalism? Don’t the proof readers require definite articles? What a piece of crap. I hope Pamela McClintlock didn’t get paid for texting her article in from her bathroom.

6. Another Q - July 1, 2009

Something new, something original PLEASE. I beg the
creators to beam this crew to a strange new world to
seek out a new life and a new civilization & to boldly
go where they have not gone before.

7. Sean O - July 1, 2009

Too many screens are being given to that atrocity Transformers. I expect a HUGE dropoff week to week for Transformers.

I would like to see a August reshowing of Star Trek in IMAX like they did with Dark Knight. That would help seal 400 million

8. Beck - July 1, 2009

If they do have Khan, I really hope Antonio Banderas doesn’t play him.

9. somethoughts - July 1, 2009

When they mention Antonio Banderas as Khan, I prefer a exploration film where the Klingons are always lurking like Vultures, waiting for the perfect time to attack.

Just don’t give us 2 trash talking aliens who can’t read and have gold teeth.

10. Admiral Waugh - July 1, 2009

Whoever wrote the “so long freshness” essay is being incredibly silly. You could apply her or his argument to the characters of Kirk, Spock, the whole crew, the Enterprise as well. The selectivity in picking Pike and the Kobayashi Maru is entirely arbitrary.

NEWS FLASH: IT’S STILL STAR TREK. Get a grip on logic, buddy.

Anyway, if a great story can be written with Khan, I think we would all love to see it. I can imagine all kinds of terrific scenarios. He’s a formidable adversary for the crew of the starship Enterprise — that’s what is so appealing. The possibilities are endless.

That being said, it’d be awesome to develop some new storylines as well — namely ones that deal with the actual mission of the Enterprise.

11. tman - July 1, 2009

An Editorial on the question of Khan?

WTF?!?

12. Jim Nightshade - July 1, 2009

Yah in our area, tacoma wa,bout 1 hour south of seattle quite a few trek screens will be gone by friday-all except 1 showing once a day at 1220pm only and about 2 more theatres in outlying areas 25 min or so away–so its goodbye trek i bet if it wasnt being crowded out it would keep making good money-i will see it with friends 1 more time on sunday to say goodbye to a great run-that will be 7 times for me.

13. MC1 Doug - July 1, 2009

I saw “Up” today. Great flick!!! I noticed that “Star Trek” is no longer playing at that theater.

I just checked out our other major movie house in town…. and it’s gone from there too.. so I’ll have to wait till it comes to the $1.00 theatre… or wait for the DVD.

14. Skagen - July 1, 2009

#11 – lmao

Antonio Banderas??!! If anyone should play the part it’s Javier Bardem from “no country for old men”

15. IcebreakerX - July 1, 2009

FRAK!

16. MORN SPEAKS - July 1, 2009

You know when you talk about something so much, you have to do it? You have to do Khan now!!!!

While I’m still on the fence about it, I think I’d like to see Khan, but maybe keep that for the third movie, or hopefully fourth.

Something original would be nice, no time travel, no threat against Earth, and no planet killer (only because it would retread this recent movie).

WE DO NEED:
Carol Marcus and David
Nurse Chapel (Good Love Triangle)
Yeoman Rand
Andorians
Tellerites

Maybe:
Dimora Sulu
Savvik
Kor, Koloth, or Kang
Number One
Harry Mudd
Gary Mitchell
Garth of Izar
Cardassians

17. James Heaney - Wowbagger - July 1, 2009

#10: Honestly, I don’t think I would want to see it. I would anyways, because I’m a Trekkie with an open mind, but, no… I think Khan would be a fatal mistake, for ST:Something Something, even with the great talent of Orci and Kurtzman and Lindelof.

IMHO.

18. braxus - July 1, 2009

Im beginning to think Star Trek has become a broken record when all fans want to see are things that have been done over and over and over again. Why can’t we have something fresh for once? I mean is it so hard to come up with something new AND interesting to watch?

19. Pyork (JE) - July 1, 2009

nice Lucas slam

20. Balok - July 1, 2009

For cripes sakes, why don’t you mention that the overwhelming repsonse on this site had been against bringing Kahn into a new movie???

21. Mr. Delicious - July 1, 2009

The sequel needs a Simon Van Gelder. My name is…AAAAARGHHHH!!!!

22. Spock's Uncle - July 1, 2009

Please no Khan… let’s stop “rehashing” and break some new ground. That’s this franchise is supposed to be about. Let’s stop living in our parents basements and the 1980s. Bold, fresh, new…

23. Thorny - July 1, 2009

Why would Khan need to be portrayed by another Hispanic actor (Banderas or Bardem, succeeding Montalban). Can’t Hollywood find a decent South Asian actor to play “Khan Noonian Singh”?

No Khan in Trek XII.

I know… Mr. Abrams, Mr. Orci, and Mr. Kurtzman are going to be awfully tempted to follow in the footsteps of “Batman Begins” by using their best known villain in the second movie (Khan for The Joker), and Paramount almost certainly will be pushing them to do so, but to the Supreme Court I plead: Be strong… don’t do it. Maybe, just maybe you’d hit the bullseye like “Dark Knight”, but the odds are heavily against you. “Dark Knight” was an enormously dark and intense film, with a once-in-a-lifetime (and very possibly fatal) performance by Heath Ledger. How could Trek XII possibly replicate that? So don’t try. Write your own story, get this new Trek universe firmly established with a second and maybe even a third movie before you try to go where Nicholas Meyer has gone before.

24. Brad - July 1, 2009

To the Editor:

“Mr. Fett, I find your inability of fire phasers properly disturbing”

WTF is that? Is this site edited by a pack of mentally retarded monkeys who can’t spell or form proper grammar that actually makes sense? It’s practically every day that spelling and grammar mistakes are made. As anal as I am about publishing things to the internet, I’m surprised you get by with it so often here.

Anyway, go Star Trek!

25. Supervisor194 - July 1, 2009

Funny that no one’s brought this up, but wasn’t Monatalban supposed to be playing a person of Indian descent and not Hispanic? Isn’t that Khan’s heritage? Funny that people keep throwing Hispanic actors names around. But if that’s the route we’re going then sure let’s get Javier Bardem.

But then again….as I’ve said….we’ve gone out of way not to have to mess with the sticky continuity that made everything possible – this site, the franchise…everything. They’ve changed everything so they don’t have to mess with that established world. So why even go with that story? Both things…now that we’re setting everything right and new and shiny….don’t make sense to me.

I don’t want them to retread these stories. I want to see what was always inferred and what could have been. Alas, I feel that’s too late now.

26. Mr. Delicious - July 1, 2009

Macbeth + Ming the Merciless = Kodos the Executioner

27. Scott Gammans - July 1, 2009

Actually, Khan was a Sikh.

28. RD - July 1, 2009

At day 54, despite being a higher initial grosser, Iron Man had approximately the same numbers and percentage fall-off every week as Trek, which earned almost $10M last week to push them past $370M WW. However, if it continues to follow the same pattern as Iron Man, it will drop off by approximately 30% every successive week (it has been dropping faster than that). This means, Trek should earn another $6.3M WW by Sunday, perhaps a little more given it’s the 4th of July. But if the downward trend continues to match Iron Man, it won’t cross $380M for another coupe of weeks.

Iron Man closed after 154 days at the box office, so if Trek makes it that far it will close with an approximate additional $21M and a total box office of around $392M. However, since Trek opened later in some major foreign markets, it may still earn a bit more overseas than Iron Man at this point to push ST09 over the $400M mark. Or Trek may buck the trends, especially if the Transformer fans are looking for something good to wash the bad taste out of their mouths.

I hope ST09 can cross the $400M mark as I would prefer to be able to definitively say it is the highest grossing film in the franchise, rather than float in some nebulous competition with the same general numbers as TMP, due to lack of empirical data from 1979. The question of most tickets sold may never be adequately answered, but but that’s relatively academic for a business that values box office over all else. Either way, ST09 is unlikely to equal TMP’s ROI.

29. ken1w - July 1, 2009

ST09 may drop out of the Top 10, but I think it will be back as some of the also-rans fade.

Khan as the villain in the SECOND “reboot” Trek. Come on… That’s not going to happen. JJ and Co. would have to be out of their collective mind to be that unoriginal. And I know they are a creative bunch; too creative to put Khan in their second Trek movie.

30. Chasco - July 1, 2009

#18 “all fans want to see are things that have been done over and over and over again.”

The fans have made it perfectly clear – repeatedly – that they WANT NEW ADVENTURES. How many more times is this idiocy about Khan going to be repeated?
It’s been done. It’s been done well. Leave it alone, and try exercising your imaginations on something/someone else, writers, please! And for goodness’ sake, state categorically sometime soon that there will be NO KHAN in the next film. I’m sick and tired of this ridiculous idea rearing its head on here every five minutes!

31. Suraj - July 1, 2009

Character wise, An attempt to get an Indian actor would be so much more logical.

The strength of the new Star Trek was that it primarily refreshed what had come before for the current era. Just like casting for this movie, they should cast the CHARACTERS and not the ACTORS.

A lot of fans like the proposal of Amitabh Bachchan as Khan or any reasonably talented Bollywood actor. Not only would Mr. Bachchan ensure the Star Trek sequel to explode financially internationally but people in non english speaking territories would recognize this ‘legendary’ bollywood actor in a commercial hollywood film. It means big bucks and hype outside our traditional fanbase while it serves the story pretty well if they choose the khan route. I believe he is set to appear in an English independent film with Johnny Depp called Shantaram.

Check Amitabh Bachan out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9POtcSGa6gQ

32. bishop - July 1, 2009

sorta unrelated but anyone know where the giant canyon in the middle of Iowa came from in the beginning of the movie came from…

but overall AWESOME movie

33. tman - July 1, 2009

25- Funny that no one’s brought this up, but wasn’t Monatalban supposed to be playing a person of Indian descent and not Hispanic? Isn’t that Khan’s heritage? Funny that people keep throwing Hispanic actors names around.

I’m a person of Indian descent and hope cultural accuracy wouldn’t limit casting choices. Maybe it’s the bad taste in my mouth from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I don’t know. Bardem’s great but I don’t think the part is meaty enough for him. Unfortunately it’s too early to have Faran Tahir recast in a Trek film. That doesn’t leave alot of good contenders. The only bankable Indian-American actor would look too wierd in scenes with Sulu (unless there’s pot in the scene). Indian art films don’t currently have muscular types. The mainstream actors in India are held to a different standard (only need a few broadcasted emotions).

34. Suraj - July 1, 2009

I’m also surprised with people’s lack of imagination when it comes to Khan… there’s so much you can do with him IF THE STORY IS DIFFERENT.

It seems not many people can think outside the parameters of Wrath of Khan and Space Seed. I, like mostly everyone, would like to see a new fresh story. Revamping a classic character in no way inhibits that.

There are a TON of things I would love to see with Khan.
Just to throw something out there:
You could make him an anti-hero, the unstoppable complex villain who ends up having to team up on the side of the heroes and becomes an even-more-bad-ass-than-kirk type character. A juvenile example of this would be like how there was the green ranger character on the original power rangers and he defeated all the power rangers and later teamed up with them and became one of the most popular characters ever on that show. Just some little things that wowed me as a child that could just as well apply to Star Trek.

Also a fist fight between Amitabh Bachchan and Chris Pine would rule all.

35. Admiral Waugh - July 1, 2009

33- Faran Tahir did a phenomenal job playing a Cuban Starfleet Captain of Catalan descent, absolutely…

17- I know where you’re coming from. Although I was immensely excited at seeing a new Star Trek movie, I wasn’t sure recasting the roles of Kirk and Spock would be very wise. But Star Trek is a really flexible domain and the storytelling possibilities with Khan are immense. I am really surprised by all the commenters on here just bashing it as a lack of creativity. You really could say the same thing about a Star Trek movie that goes back to the original series, but it has played out beautifully.

All I am really saying is we should be open to all possibilities. It doesn’t seem like there are many that ought to be foreclosed. If they could find an outstanding way of dealing with Khan, the way they did with the Joker in Dark Knight, then they should be remiss to not do it. Like it or not, Khan is almost as close to our collective consciousness as any of the original crew — and in some cases, maybe more.

If I had two wishes that I could give to the writers though it would be have Dr. Carol Marcus and a movie that at least has some element of exploration or first contact. Just out of my own personal preferences. Khan could even be saved for a fourth or fifth movie. ( How hard is reuniting this crew going to be? )

36. Liz - July 1, 2009

The basic problem with Khan is that he was supposedly the product of World War 3 from the 1990’s. That didn’t happen so they would have to rewrite all of Khan’s backstory and let’s face it, I don’t think these guys are up for that task. Better let Khan die with dignaty.

37. S. John Ross - July 1, 2009

I’d rather see them do another cheap Khan knockoff than sully Khan himself.

But I’d RATHER rather see them go beyond the scenery-chewing-villain model and experiment with something more.

38. Data - July 2, 2009

make the origin of borg pls. Borg is a villian that better than khan

39. Wes - July 2, 2009

io9 makes an interesting point in that blog. Khan should stay out of Star Trek for good. No one can make up for what Ricardo Montalban did in that role. NO KHAN! Nooooooooooooooooooooo Kkkkhhhhhaaaan!
Personally, here’s my top five list of what I would like to see in Star Trek XII:
1. Klingons. We haven’t seen them for four films (even though this film, had it stayed in its original version, we would have seen them). Klingons need to come back after a four-film absence. But do NOT do a remake of “Errand of Mercy.”
2. Mudd. Harry Mudd. Mudd is one of those villains that was underused in the Original Series. He only appeared three times, in “Mudd’s Women,” “I, Mudd,” and the Animated episode “Mudd’s Passion.” The character was slated to appear on TNG, but that changed when Carmel died in 1987. Mudd should be back, and have Tom Hanks play the role of the conman. Maybe that could ensure dominance in both domestic and international sales of the sequel, since Angels and Demons dominated Star Trek internationally during Trek’s first few weeks after A&D was release.
3. Maybe have a story that explores the characters, and makes commentary on the 21st century. Star Trek, especially the original, made numerous episodes commenting on current issues in the world, eg “A Private Little War” dealt with the Vietnam War (which was very much in progress when the episode was made and aired). It should be about the characters, exploring them and making commentary on current issues of the day.
4. The Mirror Universe. Since this is now a new timeline, the Mirror Universe should also exist, one Mirror Universe co-existing with the new timeline established in this film. It would be cool to see a mirror version of Pine’s Kirk or Quinto’s Spock. To hell with Bob Orci’s theory of parallel dimensions, a silver-screen treatment of the Terran Empire would be awesome.
5. A totally new alien race. This is a new timeline, and it’s time for new alien threats to the Federation or the Enterprise or both. A new alien race could be something this 43-year-old franchise needs. It would be totally unique to the new continuity, so it would make the second one stand all on its own.

That’s what I have to say. Again, a message to Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman: No Khan! No Khan!

40. Pete359 - July 2, 2009

Saw the College Humor vid yesterday.

Soooooooo funny.

“You! Ewok! Fetch me Excalibur! The Nebakanezer will survive! And I will not rest until I have killed every last Terminator in Jurassic Park!”

I was ROFLMAOing for hours after that one.

41. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - July 2, 2009

If they borrow anything from TOS (the show, obviously, not the era), it should be a phenomenon, not a specific character — referencing the Eugenics war is okay, but not Khan specifically, or encountering the Tholians or the Talosians is okay. I am tempted to say the Doomsday machine and even the personality of Balok and the Fesarius from the Corbomite Manuever, but those two might give too much of a “warmed-over” feeling too.

42. Will_H - July 2, 2009

I’d be beyond disappointed if they did either Khan or Mudd in the next movie. Seriously, though, it would be a great chance to make the Klingons the villains again, as long as they make it fresh.

43. Jack - July 2, 2009

I have to say I wondered about those mikes in that scene — “odd prop design choice, would 23rd cent. mikes be that huge, or necessary at all?” I asked myself (there’s time for these questions when you’e seen a movie 11 times). So interesting to find out that they’re real.

44. g-grasper - July 2, 2009

What about CAPTAIN GARTH, he would be a great villian in the Sequel!

Star Trek Confusion…GREAT STUFF!^^

45. captain_neill - July 2, 2009

NO KHAN
NO REMAKES

You cannot remake perfection

Get back to originals story telling, do something only Trek can do. Please do this.

Don’t make Trek XII dumbed down. Please.

I think a lot more fans will be lost if you just rehash the cllassics

46. J.R. - July 2, 2009

Antonio Banderas!!!??? No, I think you mean André Bormanis…

47. Pauln6 - July 2, 2009

16 Morn Speaks

WE DO NEED:
Carol Marcus and David
Nurse Chapel (Good Love Triangle)
Yeoman Rand
Andorians
Tellerites

Maybe:
Dimora Sulu
Savvik
Kor, Koloth, or Kang
Number One
Harry Mudd
Gary Mitchell
Garth of Izar
Cardassians

I’d agree with this list wholeheartedly. Garth would make a fine Khan-like villain without rehashing the Khan story. I wouldn’t mind seeing Khan in the future but it’s too soon. I want them to bed in the characters first.

Rand, Chapel, Mitchell, and Carol Marcus would be my preference for the next film. Rand and Carol should be given meatier roles even if the others are little more than cameos.

Mudd shouldn’t be used as a primary villain but I’m sure Ricky Gervais wont mind being type-cast yet again for a cameo akin to Stardust. Any of the Klingons could be involved with him – I wouldn’t mind seeing Kor buying Botany Bay and ‘cargo’ off Harry Mudd as the teaser at the very end of the next film!

I’d also be interested to see them get some mileage out of Decker and Ilia in a future film. Decker is actually the same age as the new Chekov so I wouldn’t want to see him any time soon but again these two characters had a lot of unrealised potential. In addition, while Saavik and Demora are obviously too young to appear any time soon, Saavik was a way underused character with a very interesting backstory. I hope they do an origin story for her too.

48. Pauln6 - July 2, 2009

Thinking some more on this, a shape-changing Garth holding Carol, Sarek, T’Pau, T’Pring, and a few others hostage for some purpose that doesn’t involve red matter could have the makings of a good plot.

49. James - July 2, 2009

Bring back the Gorn!

Actually, done properly, these could be excellent villains…

Or the Breen…

And I do want to see some proper Klingons.

BUT NOT KHAN.

50. captain_neill - July 2, 2009

Do something fresh where only Trek can take us

Do not rehash the classics

No Khan!

I believe a lot more fans will be lost if this route was taken. God you critiicise when Enterprise rehashed TNG stories yet you are happy for these hack writers to rehash the true classics.

Am I missing something here?

51. Kirk, James T. - July 2, 2009

I say forget the fans, you have a successful revival that crosses over to a lager audience and they don’t want to see Khan – give us something fresh and exciting that makes the first film look like it was pandering to fans.

I don’t mind them using the lesser seen aliens in TOS but lets leave Khan in the past.

52. Selor Kiith - July 2, 2009

Next Movie: THOLIANS!

There is no other way :P

53. Pee in the 24th Century - July 2, 2009

We can’t have Khan. What made Khan so good in the movie is that he had all this personal revenge for Kirk. The conflict was personal. The show was good, but it wasn’t as personal a conflict.

Kodos might be a good choice. I’ve got a great idea for this story if Bob and Orci want to chat. Anthony has my email guys! ;-)

54. Pee in the 24th Century - July 2, 2009

BTW, when I say “The show was good” I meant the TV episode…

55. Pee in the 24th Century - July 2, 2009

Bob and Orci…d’oh

56. Rick - July 2, 2009

Please let Khan rest out in space. Surely they can come up with a fun adventure/explore MASTER AND COMMANDER type flick! I think the vast majority of people agree with this idea. Or at least I hope they do.;)

57. Fatman Bruno - July 2, 2009

When Jim Camerons ‘Avatar’ or what ever it’s called come’s out at the flicks you can bet your bottom dollar that trek will be heading into a new area of story telling and all this talk of Khan will be put to bed.
‘Strange new worlds, new civilisations, bodly going…etc

58. Nick - July 2, 2009

master & commander was boring.

59. Mitch - July 2, 2009

Khan was a great villain, and a great nemesis for Kirk, but he isn’t Lex Luthor. He isn’t a recurring villain. The two stories were told, and told well. Definitely they need to find someone new.

I have no objection to someone familiar being a villain, though let it be someone that hadn’t been as developed. Hell, even Finnegan would be an interesting choice–not as some sort of psycho villain like Khan or Nero, but as a rival for Kirk. An annoyance.

60. Nick - July 2, 2009

I’m keen on a new story. I think the new / orginal crew is cool … give them a great fresh new adventure & I will follow!

There’s no reason an epic 2 or 3 part story arc can’t be created to take us forward … think big. The Lord of the Rings series was filmed at one time & that might be a good next step for Star Trek. … And in those epic series (including Star Wars) is an example of how to progress and enhance the franchise in my opinion.

I look forward to & expect something special.

61. The Original Animated Next Generation Deep Space Voyager Enterprise - July 2, 2009

I’ll finally say it…I think all of you moaning about the next should be about exploration aren’t thinking outside of the box. “Exploration” doesn’t have to be about literally physically traveling to some far-off place, discovering some weird phenomenon or new alien race and telling the story of how the crew interacts and makes first contact with it. It could be an exploration of the human mind, an exploration of war and peace, you get the idea. It can be an exploration of ideas and morals, in other words.

You know, I have to laugh when I see all these comments that cry foul of rehashing old stories yet in the same sentence plead to have an exploration story in the next movie. That’s like saying, “I hate having fun, let’s go to the carnival instead.” Makes no sense, right?

62. Jorg Sacul - July 2, 2009

I don’t care if the next film has Ewoks riding Tribbles…

NO CARDASSIANS!!!!

63. Star T rackie - July 2, 2009

Boy, you guys and your numbers and analysis. It made enough to greenlight a sequel, that’s all I need to know.

And Khan COULD be great. As long as he is brought in to the film in a completely unexpected way and it doesn’t play out the same way as Space Seed. In fact, the events don’t have to mimic Space Seed at all. You can have Khan and be fresh at the same time.

64. VZX - July 2, 2009

I would rather have no Khan. In this new Universe, let the Botany Bay silently drift on with absolutely no contact with anyone, ever.

65. VZX - July 2, 2009

I think it would be cool to start the next movie off with some event related to the Original Series, but then go into a completely different storyline. Kind of like how some James Bond and Indianna Jones movies started off with a thrilling beginning adventure that went into a bigger, main storyline.

It’d be cool if the new movie started with a Troubles w/ Tribbles kind of thing at Deep Space K-7 with Koloth, Cyranno Jones and the rest. Then, let it go into an entirely new, bigger story line with the Enterprise saving the galaxy.

66. Check the Circuit! - July 2, 2009

I’ll bet credits to navy beans Trek will still be in the top ten this holiday weekend. Pelham and Museum will be the ones at risk.

67. lwr - July 2, 2009

SAYID from LOST would make a great KHAN.
remember KHAN is Middle eastern?mongolian not Hispanic.

68. Check the Circuit! - July 2, 2009

@24

Then don’t visit Brad. Your choice. IMHO, this is the best site on the web for all things Trek and related geekgasms.

Keep it up Anthony!

69. What is it with you? - July 2, 2009

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.

Khan was/is Kirk’s greatest foe.

His nemesis.

If the timeline brought Kirk and Spok (and the crew) together despite all the changes caused by Nero, then it has to bring Kirk and Khan together as well.

I’m torn about this, as TWOk is a perfect movie, but this has to happen, if ORCI and Kurtzman follow their own rules for the new timeline.

Perhaps we won’t see it in the second movie. But it has to happen again in this new timeline – they are destined to be enemies.

But hey, if this new cast is anything like the last, we have six or seven more movies to go, so plenty of time to bring in Khan!

70. jastrek_montreal - July 2, 2009

No khan….. Lets do something fresh !

71. Mel - July 2, 2009

Hopefully no Khan! He was a great villain already in a movie. They shouldn’t repeat it. We have seen enough of him in my opinion.

I prefer an exploration/catastrophe story. There mustn’t be a big villain to have a great movie. Perhaps they could write a story about some kind of space phenomena who treated a planet or has some strange side effect or something else. There are endless possibilities. They could combine that with a conflict with another race or races story if they otherwise think there isn’t enough space fighting in the movie.

And if they REALLY know nothing better than a villains story, it shouldn’t be a ONE person villain. Let them fight against a whole race. Tholians, Gorn, the Kelvans from the Andromeda Galaxy for example. We haven’t seen much of those races and I think they could make great villains. Or they could create a new race. I am just against races which were only shown in the newer Star Trek series and not in TOS. There should be as few as possible direct connection to those series. The new movies should stand on there own. That TOS ideas are used is natural because the new movie is based on TOS, but they shouldn’t make it more confusing, especially for new Star Trek fans and just normal cinema viewers. They should just pretend that TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT never existed.

72. AJ - July 2, 2009

The io9 article seemed to be snarky for its own sake. The “fan pleasing deja-vu” could have been applied to the shape of the Enterprise, the uniforms, the existence of Vulcans, or whatever. When you do “Star Trek,” you draw on what has come before if it moves the story forward.

In the case of this film, all the little “tributes” and “Easter Eggs” made positive contributions, and in no way did they distract.

I’ll join the chorus of those, however, who would like to see the “Khan” debate go away.

73. Keith Larsen - July 2, 2009

Javier Bardem should play Khan. As soon as I saw “No Country For Old Men” I thought, “its young Khan”

74. BAILY - July 2, 2009

Gorn, Breen, Tholians … there are many great villains that have had little to no-screen time that TPTB can use in the new movie .. and have their main captain be the nemesis .. Orci and Kutzman said they read Trekmovie and are listening to the fans.. they know that we have ZERO interest in rehash stories … hell now that the timeline has been contaminated … most of what happened in the TOS prolly won’t happen now in the new timeline … everything’s out of whack with what we know .. which is why we need something new and exciting .. bring back some old characters… sure but big main baddies like Khan? … no way

75. RM10019 - July 2, 2009

It would be a fun tease for the fans if the Enterprise detects the Botany Bay in the open of the film, but then is diverted by the real antagonist in the movie, leaving it there, with maybe a Kirk line about ‘oh well, Spock, track the derilict ship we’ll come back if we have time later…’

76. Horatio - July 2, 2009

Orci and Kurtzman: NO KHAN!

If you do i’m taking away your secret decoder rings!

So there.

77. I, Mugsy - July 2, 2009

They seriously need to consider a TV series or series of TV movies after this second film.

Otherwise it’s – what? – an adventure with the new crew every 2-3 years??!? They’ll grow older far too quickly in comparison with the needs of the story; Remember they have a 5 year mission – it’ll be over in 3-4 films at the most! As this new cast of actors seems to have ‘nailed’ their roles very well indeed, I’d personally like to see more adventures with them and the good ship Enterprise – not one every 2-3 years. A series offers far better hope for continuity between adventures too, and would be far more fun to see the characters develop weekly.

The problem with films is they HAVE to be big – something major has to happen. The stakes are always high. There’ s not so much time to flesh out the characters. The original trek didn’t have that problem as they’d already been fleshed out in the TV series. The new crew don’t have this luxury (as yet).

Food for though?…..

78. Capt Krunch - July 2, 2009

Javier Bardem and Antonio Banderas…the great Ricardo Montalban…all Spanish?? Surely there is some great “Indian” actor who could play Khaaaaaannn!!!…
How about Kal Penn..that would kinda cool…The Wrath of Kumar!!!!
That actor from Temple of Doom would ahve been aewsome…though he has passed on….my point is Khan is Indian…though Ricardo was awesome as Khan!

79. John Lewis, Jr. - July 2, 2009

For the next Trek villian, I’ve got only two words:

CLINT HOWARD!

80. Scott Reed - July 2, 2009

Having another psycopathic villain in the sequel would be pretty boring, IMO. Let’s have an original, Universe-shattering threat that only Kirk and the Enterprise can defeat. I’m okay with seeing Harry Mudd or Gary Mitchell again, though. But Khan? I just don’t think it could possibly work, as the expectations would be so high.

81. Scott Reed - July 2, 2009

Ha! CLINT HOWARD! That is great!

82. I, Mugsy - July 2, 2009

P.S. Agreed with #76 – NO KHAN!!!!!

Why do we need a human or alien protagonist anyway? Can’t it be a situation this time, or an environment they find themselves in? Why does something have to be a threat too? How about a new and weird alien civilisation – a chance to do some real exploration of an alien planet? Landing party stranded on a strange planet. Perhaps even a kind of Lovecraftian world? That would look amazing with today’s visuals and would really stand apart from the other Trek movies in terms of content.

Lets have some science-fiction exploration themes again – pretty please with a tribble on top?

83. Casey - July 2, 2009

I have no doubt that they need – NEED – to address some milestones from the original timeline. You can’t have that whole fractured universe trying to bring it all back together mentality and not take it further. However, I can see the next movie opening with Kirk making a Captain’s Log entry referring to this huge conical planet killer that took our twenty other starships before one of them dropped their warp core down its maw, and how he’s got this feeling that it would have gone better had the Enterprise not been assigned to survey a system on the other side of the quadrant… Just a little nod to the fans – see, THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE’s been addressed. Check it off your list and sit back for something new. Whether they should address something like SPACE SEED that way, I don’t know – but let’s take care of some other matters first.

84. Kurt - July 2, 2009

I have been on the fence regarding the Kahn/No Kahn debate. I think I am leaning towards the pro-Kahn side.

The reason is simple. I know a lot of us Geeks would love a new story, new worlds, etc. We can still have that in a Kahn movie. But the most important aspect of the movie is to get butts planted in theater seats so that the franchise can continue.

The producers should follow the Dark Knight model. By amping up the story using the #1 villan, they sold one heck of a lot of tickets. Sure, Batman fans wanted to see new villans. But would they have sold $500M with Scarface, the Mad Hatter, or Killer Croc? Of course not.

Remember, with Kahn, we don’t have to copy “Space Seed” or “The Wrath of Kahn.” The altered time line can open up all kinds of possibilities. Kahn can exist with Klingons, new worlds, amazing visuals, etc. Any Kahn story, with the right actor, will be amazing.

And here is something to consider: Spock prime could die again, as the time line tries to heal itself…think about the “possibilities”

85. AJ - July 2, 2009

There has to be a serious background story to whatever our gallant crew ends up doing in the next film.

1. Romulans who were imprisoned at Rura Penthe escaped and destroyed 47 Klingon ships in Klingon space. The Klingon Empire has (most likely) declared war on the Romulan Empire. These same Romulans go on to attack two Federation worlds, destroying one, and nearly destroying another. The UFP would then declare war on the Romulan Empire until Pike and Co. can convince them that this was a rogue ship from the future (’Yeah, right’)

Seeing that the UFP engaged and defeated these Romulans, the Klingons would see this enemy now as a potential ally, etc.

2. Vulcans are en route to the new colony found by Spock Prime, heritage mostly intact.

3. The technology of “red matter” will now be sought out by the UFP’s enemies as a powerful weapon. Spock is a target, regardless of what he may know about it.

This is all background noise, and could be quashed by writing “Two years later” on the screen, and implying everything’s been fixed. But it’s all interesting as a way to get this new timeline up and running…

86. Closettrekker - July 2, 2009

#83—” I can see the next movie opening with Kirk making a Captain’s Log entry referring to this huge conical planet killer that took our twenty other starships before one of them dropped their warp core down its maw, and how he’s got this feeling that it would have gone better had the Enterprise not been assigned to survey a system on the other side of the quadrant… Just a little nod to the fans – see, THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE’s been addressed. Check it off your list and sit back for something new.”

The story in ST09 ends in 2258. The encounter with “The Doomsday Machine” wouldn’t happen for another 9 years.

While it is plausible that the Botany Bay could be discovered by another ship which happens to be in the right place (and wasn’t there in 2258-59 previously)—-referencing an encounter with the DM 9 years before it was discovered in the Prime Timeline would be a massive canonical stretch.

I doubt the writers are looking to advance the timeline nearly a decade for the second installment in their series.

87. I, Mugsy - July 2, 2009

Whatever they decide to do – and I sincerely hope it is a totally new story and world for them to explore – please leave out Scotty’s mute assistant. He never needed comic relief in the series and he doesn’t in these new voyages. A completely useless character.

88. Old Lady - July 2, 2009

I went with my high school boyfriend of thirty years ago to see the new movie for old times sake. within the first five minutes i cried in the theater when i realized the entire saga was undone. This was one of the best examples of rewriting “historical science fiction” so that new and old fans could embrace a generation of classic roddenberry.

We had many questions, one being an alternate universe and Spock having dual memories. They will have to go back and undo the damage that Spock did by breaking the Prime Directive. Or Spock needs to return to his universe. – Red matter, time travel.

Klingons were important, so is the loss of Vulcan. There were many things done in Spock’s life by the Vulcans that are now dead. I see three to five movies.

89. Supervisor194 - July 2, 2009

77

“They seriously need to consider a TV series or series of TV movies after this second film. ”

Yes about the early years. The academy. Before the dark times. Before the empire.

90. cw - July 2, 2009

Master and Commander BORING?? That was the best Trek Movie I ever saw.

91. Ashley - July 2, 2009

As interesting as it might be to have Kirk and Khan swinging from chains and hopping down catwalks as they fight in the ‘brewery, I’m probably in the ‘NO-KHAN’ camp… However, if they do go with Khan, how about Sendhil Ramamurthy? :D

I’d say, no alien villain… too played out. Personally, I’d like to see a renegade Captain on a personal quest of some sort, in command of another Constitution-class ship. A Captain who has an agenda that is neither right nor wrong, so he’s not a clear-cut bad-guy. Also, I would like to see Nathan Fillion <3 in this role. :D

92. Joshua J. Slone - July 2, 2009

Khan was such a good foil in Star Trek II because he had a history with Kirk, and as a result of their last encounter had been in a living hell for the last few decades, even if that wasn’t Kirk’s intention. You’re just not going to have that with a freshly thawed Khan.

93. RD - July 2, 2009

Trek was definitely knocked out of the top 10 Wednesday.

Variety reports “Ice Age” opening to $14M domestically with Transformer’s falling to approx. $10M. “Public Enemies” opened to an est. $8M on a Wednesday which is unbelievable, especially for an R rated crime-drama.

Ice Age and Transofrmers 2 are in a dead heat as far as the box office predictors for the 4 day weekend. So much for all of those who said Transofrmers 2 would fall off quickly. By Monday the $450M 6-day grosser, Transformers 2 will have made at least $800M worldwide.

94. dalek - July 2, 2009

#92 granted but there’s enough of an antogonist there to make it a very gripping movie. In their first encounter, Khan deprived the bridge crew of oxygen, put Kirk in a pressure chamber to suffocate him, had his men smack Uhura around, and then tried to beat Kirk to death with his bare hands (regardless of the dodgy stunt doubles lol)…

There’s also nothing stopping the first encounter with Khan been a pre-Nero Spock and Pike. Everythings changed, so could the time of the first discovery of the Botany Bay.

But if its some sort of vengaence and connection over time. Get Shatner as the older Kirk to finish Khan off further in the timeline. There’s nothing Kirk did in Trek 2 that Shatner couldn’t do at the age he is now.

95. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - July 2, 2009

I say get a new Villian or something different. I love Khan and as a villian he was fantastic. But for the next Moviue it should be something fresh. As Kirk said in Star Trek 3 to Scotty (Young minds and fresh ideas. Be tollerent.) We need fresh ideas like we had in Trek 09. Fresh and bold with some flavors from the Tos Series.

96. tman - July 2, 2009

84- Khan is not the classic baddy of Star Trek. Klingons are. If they follow the model of Dark Knight and want to have box office $$$ galore they have to have Klingons that are bad-asses under a Klingon commander who either is in Kirks league or better than him.

97. RD - July 2, 2009

Anybody notice Trek fans simply post the same ideas and arguments over and over from thread to thread without actually resolving anything, chaning anyone’s opinion, or raising any new ideas? ;-)

There is not one single new idea being raised here about Kahn that hasn’t been debated to death in at least a half-dozen other threads devoted to the Kahn discussion on Trekmovie. LOL

This thread would be so much shorter and avoid so much retread if the entries were posted like this:

“#00 – regarding your previous post #25 at Kahn Discussion 4, you couldn’t be more wrong: please see my post #12 under Kahn Discussion 2 (at this Link) for a rebuttal”

98. Trekker Chick - July 2, 2009

My 0.02

Since Ringworld is probably never going to be filmed, and the capabilities of CGI now?

Species from Known Space stories, like, say the Kzin?

99. Bad-Wolf - July 2, 2009

Pulling villains from TOS is alright, but I can’t help secretly wishing for Orci and the other writers to happen across the Starfleet Battle Logs. SFB created some really interesting bad guys, specifically the Interstellar Concordium and their Endless War of Pacification, and it’s long over due for some of the stories from SFB to become canonized on screen dammit.

Tie the Pacification story in with the Federation – Klingon War and you’ll have your action, your new aliens and villains right there, plus a philosophical War waged for the sake of Peace, which is rather relevant for our times eh?

100. somethoughts - July 2, 2009

Klingon origins movie would be cool, introduce Star Trek’s greatest villians to the new fans of star trek 09.

Allow the designers to go ape wild over the new birds of prey, cruisers/destroyers due to the Klingon fleet being destroyed by the Narada on Nero’s escape. Play with the cloaking sounds/visuals and use that as a mechanism for suspense and story telling.

It’s a toss between Khan and Klingons imo I say no to the evil winds idea.
Imagine if Iron Man/Batman/Transformers had to battle evil wind lol

101. Alexander - July 2, 2009

I would begin the next movie with a formal ceremony for the start of the 5-year-mission of the USS Enterprise.

A Klingon story would be cool.

Or a story like Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.

102. P Technobabble - July 2, 2009

97 RD
I’m with you on this. You are right, there’s really nothing new to be said about Khan, nor is there likely to be any sort of resolutions here, mostly because none of us really has anything to do with the actual making of the film. Personally (and I don’t mean to offend anyone), I think it is rather silly when someone proposes an idea for a new Star Trek film or tv series – sometimes giving us a beat-by-beat outline – since those who are actually making Star Trek are not going to be using anything they might read in these posts. First, if the new Trek movie contained anything that someone on this site thought was their idea, you certainly know what that would mean. Second, guys like Orci & Kurtzman don’t need us for ideas, they are perfectly capable of generating their own.
I, too, have grown weary of hearing about Khan. Khan is old news. If Khan shows up in the new film, I know I’m gonna hear a deep thud in my head, cos I really don’t want to see a new film with a character who isn’t TRULY necessary, nor do I think needs to be re-done. I’m really hoping for something different, surprising and imaginative…

103. Spocko - July 2, 2009

That College Humor was funny. It wouldn’t be the first time that Kirk went a little crazy.

104. Closettrekker - July 2, 2009

#87—”… please leave out Scotty’s mute assistant…. A completely useless character.”

I wouldn’t say that Keenser was useless—particularly to a certain coveted segment of the viewing public.

My wife and kids (especially my 7 year old) thought he was adorable and funny. He may not have done anything for me personally, but he didn’t detract from my experience either. It was a perfectly harmless addition—and apparently, a late one on the part of the director.

” He never needed comic relief in the series…”

Whether it was ‘needed’ or not, the comic relief involving Scotty was there in the Original Series.

“The Trouble With Tribbles” and “By Any Other Name” are notable episodes in which that is particularly evident.

105. Closettrekker - July 2, 2009

#97—-”There is not one single new idea being raised here about Kahn that hasn’t been debated to death in at least a half-dozen other threads devoted to the Kahn discussion on Trekmovie.”

That’s nothing.

The Shatner in or out threads were equally futile, and actually far worse. That went on around here for two years…Relatively speaking, the Khan debate is just getting warmed up!

106. Daoud - July 2, 2009

GARTH!!

Garth Brooks in Star Trek? Just kidding. Seriously though, I always thought the story of how Fleet Captain Kelvar Leonard Garth of Izar (a contemporary and perhaps friend of Christopher Pike–yet another excuse to have Greenwood in it) became disfigured at the end of the Battle of Axanar, how a young Jim Kirk was involved, etc., in this battle with Klingons (perhaps Koloth and Kang)…. would be superb for a film.

As a fan of the movie Thirteen Days, I’d say that Kevin Costner would make an excellent soon-to-go-mad Garth. Costner and Greenwood made that movie memorable. Plus, Costner resembles Steve Ihnat.

As for canon, there’s no exact year… and if Garth was gathering the fleet at the Laurentian system for a mission to Axanar, it’s a great tie-in to the first movie.

Plus it allows bringing in all sorts of B stories, brings in the Klingons… why would you go anywhere else?

Save Khan for later when you get to running out of ideas.
All we have is that Garth ends up insane later in TOS.

107. JimJ - July 2, 2009

#106-I actually really like that idea.

108. Spock Out - July 2, 2009

I have an quasi original idea for a sequel – Bring back Gary Seven from Assignment Earth. Update it with North Korea or Iran being the catalyst for his tinkering in our time. I’m sure the anti time travel types won’t like it but I always enjoyed that episode.

109. Kurt - July 2, 2009

96

Klingons should definately be in the next movie, without question, and that’s why I did mention them in my post. Problem is, no one outside a hard-core star trek fan (take my wife, for instance) could name a single TOS Klingon villian. I think the idea of Klingons are sometimes bigger than they ultimately become.

102, 97

I understand your opinion on the Kahn debate, although it is fun. However, you are correct in one aspect – everyone want “things” in the next movie, and no one talks about “ideas” as much.

We hear petitions for Klingon ships, new worlds, Klingon-Romulan War, nurse Chapel, etc., etc.

We should instead be asking, “How will Kirk command? In full-on control or still green and mistake-prone? Who will have the main story arc – should it be Bones this time? How does Spock resolve the issue of Spock Prime? Should a crew member die or otherwise suffer tragic loss? What’s to lose and what’s to gain for the crew?

The process for the scripwiters will be something like this:
1. Decide on either an original story or inclusion of existing Trek lore
2. Work out the emotional beats for the story as discussed above
3. Outline out a plot
4. Flesh it out like the first movie, balancing between the general public and including easter eggs for the fans.

Everyone jumps to #1, 3, or 4 but forgets #2 is probably the most important in developing a good story.

110. dmduncan - July 2, 2009

23: Why would Khan need to be portrayed by another Hispanic actor (Banderas or Bardem, succeeding Montalban). Can’t Hollywood find a decent South Asian actor to play “Khan Noonian Singh”?

Keep saying it until they get the message. Cast an Indian in the role of an Indian, so the actor’s Indian-ness doesn’t have to be a special effect.

111. Randy Hall - July 2, 2009

We can’t complain. This film has gone a long way to revitalize Star Trek. It’s been a blast to have people ask how the Trek movie was doing, and I could reply “We’re number one.”

112. Sean - July 2, 2009

Casting KHAN is easy: JAVIER BARDEM! Done-and-Done!!!

113. Mr. Anonymous - July 2, 2009

It kinda looks like that Next Gen. bridge could use a paint job.

114. Kobyashi_Maru (The Real One) - July 2, 2009

no KHAN do…

ha ha ha..

seriously, my very important vote to which everybody should hinge on… is….

against Khan, go fresh, new ideas.

115. Gul B. - July 2, 2009

109 Kurt “We should instead be asking …”
Amen, brother, amen!

But I think I can hear Messrs. Orci & Kurtzman mumbling: “Time is the fire in which we burn …” – if they have to finish the script until Christmas, that’s actually not that long.
Or maybe they just keep talking Khan to keep the fans occupied (I hope, and it works).

116. David_Alexander - July 2, 2009

I don’t think they should do Khan for the sequel – but if they do, I vote Lou Diamond Phillips to play him.

117. Trekwebmaster - July 2, 2009

Khan or not to Khan, that is the question. I would not be opposed to the next film having a story which features Khan, but it would have to be unique enough to stand on its own and simply not a clever redo of the classic film. “The Wrath of Khan” has some great elements as great space battles, a strong antagonist and protagonist, great supporting cast, but it would be hard to compete with the classic version.

Who knows Khan could be completely different in the new universe, depending on which version he is. He could be completely insane, or moderately angelic, or much the same depending on which parallel universe he exists in. I do admit to having a certain fascination with toying around with the idea of a new Khan film. If they could make it better, we would really have something great.

I don’t really think of a new Khan movie “replacing” or “diminishing” the classic one, but “adding to” what is there already. What we have is great already, and if another Khan movie were done which accents the classic version and tells a great story, then it would be beneficial.

I am not against the idea, but the story has to be told and synthesized on film with exacting standards to be acceptable. This is an area that has a very low tolerance for mistakes. There can be no errors.

118. b - July 2, 2009

No Khan no way. That’s one film that shouldn’t ever be touched again, another Khan story would always be looked at as a rehash. You’ve got a grand and dangerous new universe to work with. Vulcan has been destroyed and no doubt the Klingons will be wanting Romulan blood for 47 ships being destroyed, no matter if Nero was from the future or not. I say make a direct sequel, with the Vulcans looking for a new home and some serious unrest boiling within planets in the Federation and the Klingon Empire, a kind of retribution towards the Romulans, perhaps a war or prelude to a war

119. cagmar - July 2, 2009

ST had a great run. I’m very proud.

Now I want Cardassians.

120. Sunfell - July 2, 2009

I was wondering about those cool-looking mics in the Academy scene. Glad to know they’re actual microphones. The set designers did a really good job of creating a lived-in look for the movie.

121. RD - July 2, 2009

110. dmduncan wrote: “Keep saying it until they get the message. Cast an Indian in the role of an Indian, so the actor’s Indian-ness doesn’t have to be a special effect.”

LOL, yes I’m sure they will pay attention. That’s why they cast a Korean actor to play a Japanese character.

Studios are greedy and do not make casting decisions based on logic, but rather how much money a particular actor may make them. If Kahn does become the focus of the next movie, he will be played by the most appropriate actor they can afford who will net them the most money at the box office.

Also, none of the actors mentioned so far are pretty enough to inhabit the new Trek universe. I see the studio pushing for a Vin Diesel or even someone younger like Rodrigo Santoro or Steven Strait. Then again, Kahn is of Indo-Europen descent, so the only physical qualification is that he have dark features, opening the part up to any actor regardless of national origin. Montalbán’s Latin origins fit nicely with that heritage.

122. devon - July 2, 2009

Would love to see Chapel or Rand in the next one,although it is nice to see fresh ideas & characters too… so how about Arex and M’ress from the animated series (with today’s CGI and special effects and makeup wizardry, why not flesh out characters from the Original series that didn’t get the development they deserved? Xon,Decker,Ilia? Wouldn’t a Deltan be sexy? Or a Caitian(Felinoid)? As for stories, I’m not opposed to Khan but new fresh storytelling is preferred! The movie needs to be BIG & Epic like the 1st installment to sustain the movie franchise & appeal to a mass audience vs. Trekkie audience, if not the trekkie audience alone will never carry the franchise forward without the newly converted general movie-going audience. Movies need lots of action to survive today ( with a great story slipped in), a great story alone won’t captivate the action-crazed mass audiences! The 1st movie was a perfect blend of both!

123. Closettrekker - July 2, 2009

#121—”Studios… do not make casting decisions based on logic, but rather how much money a particular actor may make them.”

Sounds like rather solid logic to me. :)

And I see no difference in casting a Pakistani actor in the role of an officer whose last name suggests Cuban descent.

The only real tangible benefit (or logic, for that matter)I could see in the insistence upon a Indian actor in such a role would be in order to court a potentially huge Indian audience that didn’t show up for ST09. A bankable Bollywood star might do just that.

“That’s why they cast a Korean actor to play a Japanese character. ”

You mean a character last portrayed by a Japanese-American actor.

Hikaru (which wasn’t even canon until STVI) is a Japanese name, yes. But “Sulu” suggests Filipino origins (as in the “Sulu Sea”). Roddenberry himself claimed that he wanted the character to represent all of the people of Asia—for which he professed an affinity.

124. RD - July 2, 2009

#123. – I haven’t seen the numbers for India yet on BoxOffice Mojo, however, with Faran Tahir’s celebrity in India and the month headstart worldwide with the amazing reviews he got as Robau, Paramount should have been able to market Star Trek quite effectively to improve box office numbers. If India does not perform well for Trek, I would blame Paramount.

Speaking of Box Office, when Trek falls, it falls HARD.

Trek came in 11th at the box office with only $319K. Ouch. Looks like its record breaking days are behind it.

125. Christopher Seeley - July 2, 2009

Kahn is my favorite villian and Star Trek II was the best Trek movie but let’s do something fresh. I would love to see a story involving Harry Mudd or Charlie Evans. There are infinte possibilities. They have the audience old and new so take advantage of that. They should have Gary Mitchell in the next movie. ALSO PLEASE HAVE WILLIAM SHATNER IN THE NEXT MOVIE!!!! My advice would be stay with the character driven story, it’s what Trek is about!

126. RD - July 2, 2009

#125. Christopher Seeley wrote: “Kahn is my favorite villian and Star Trek II was the best Trek movie but let’s do something fresh. I would love to see a story involving Harry Mudd or Charlie Evans.

LOL! Harry Mud was featured in 3 episodes of the TOS and spinoffs. Kahn was in one episode and one film. Fresh indeed! LOL!

Unfortunately Charlie Evans had not even been discovered by the Antares until 2266. Hey may not have even crashed on Thasus by 2258. So, not a likely storyline, much less the Wrath of Chuck.

Besides, the concept of “fresh” would imply something never before explored in Star Trek.

127. Closettrekker - July 2, 2009

#124—”Speaking of Box Office, when Trek falls, it falls HARD.

Trek came in 11th at the box office with only $319K. Ouch. Looks like its record breaking days are behind it.”

Shouldn’t be surprising, since it’s losing so many screens. It is difficult to expect big numbers when it’s getting hard to find a theater still showing it in many places.

$247.625million domestic in 55 days? Good enough.

Counting pennies at this point doesn’t really interest me. The sequel is safe. Beyond securing that—I’m not sure what the point is for anyone who isn’t collecting a %.

I’ve done my part—purchasing 2 regular tickets and 8 IMAX tickets—having seen it 4 times and bringing 1-3 people each time.

I think that’s about it for me.

I guess I hope it gets to $250million domestic, but it is far from tragic if it doesn’t.

128. dmduncan - July 2, 2009

121: “LOL, yes I’m sure they will pay attention. That’s why they cast a Korean actor to play a Japanese character. ”

1. Point missed. Cho could pass for Japanese much better than Ricardo Montalban could pass for Indian.

2. They are already paying attention, which is why Bob and Alex read what’s being said in here, not to trawl for particular IDEAS but to consider the merits of the philosophy behind doing this or that.

“If Kahn does become the focus of the next movie, he will be played by the most appropriate actor they can afford who will net them the most money at the box office.”

You are in la la land RD. What does “appropriate” mean? How do you establish beforehand which actor is going to “net them the most money at the box office.”??? So according to your reasoning, we’re going to see who in the role of Khan? Tom Cruise? Christian Bale? Shia LeBeouf?

Acquaint yourself with the inherent flaws and limitations of inductive inference.

“Kahn is of Indo-Europen descent, so the only physical qualification is that he have dark features, opening the part up to any actor regardless of national origin. Montalbán’s Latin origins fit nicely with that heritage.”

Apparently to RD, Indians and Hispanics all look alike. Unbelievable. Maybe you should get out and socialize more.

And physical qualifications aren’t the only ones, bro. And those easily detectable NON Indian accents of all the mentioned Hispanic actors is sort of like a fly in the soup. Or do we stupidly need to keep learning time and again why Francis Ford Coppola never should have cast Keanu Reeves in the role of Englishman Johnathan Harker in Bram Stoker’s Dracula? Watch the movie if you need a clue.

123: “The only real tangible benefit (or logic, for that matter)I could see in the insistence upon a Indian actor in such a role would be in order to court a potentially huge Indian audience that didn’t show up for ST09. A bankable Bollywood star might do just that.”

Yes, that IS a benefit, but it’s not the only one. And I don’t see ANY benefit at all in purposely casting a Hispanic actor just because the original Khan was Hispanic. What’s the logic behind THAT unimaginative idea?

Or will you try to seriously tell me that various people would have suggested Antonio Banderas, Javier Bardem, or Wilmer Valderrama as Khan if they were NOT Hispanic?

And note to all: Khan is spelled Khan, not Kahn. The character is Indian, not Jewish.

And no, you don’t HAVE to cast an actor of the same race as the character he is playing, but since I am making a philosophical point about what would be best to do regardless of what the director, casting director, and/or Paramount chiefs ACTUALLY decide to do for the sequel, then it would actually fit in with the Star Trek philosophy to cast an Indian in the role of Khan, rather than to continue with the racist Hollywood policies of the past which, unfortunately, still exist today. There are plenty of beautiful Native American actresses, for example, who could have played the role of Silver Fox in Wolverine. But they chose a white woman to play a Native American instead.

And as if that wasn”t enough, there is a financial angle to choosing a Bollywood star as well. So don’t tell me Aamir Khan can’t act. If you were there during his audition for the role, THEN tell me he can’t act. Even Keanu Reeves can act given the right script, director, and supporting cast.

129. captain_neill - July 2, 2009

Bottom line. Our Star Trek is gone. This new version has taken its place and is able to co exist as a parallel universe to the proper universe.

I like the new movie but still prefer the original. It would feel like a rehash or inferior remake if they remade or rehashed all the good stuff from proper Trek.

I am still feeling sad that my Trek is gone but I do want the new movie to do what Trek did best, explore the human condition and tell a more thought provoking story. Any rehashes then I am staying with prime Trek.

I want to like the new movie but it has to be fresh, not a rehash.

130. tman - July 2, 2009

123- The only real tangible benefit (or logic, for that matter)I could see in the insistence upon a Indian actor in such a role would be in order to court a potentially huge Indian audience that didn’t show up for ST09. A bankable Bollywood star might do just that.

Personally, I think it’s a bad idea to cast a Bollywood star. Bollywood films have to appeal to a wide range of people including people with a limited amount of education who live in dire poverty. To do this the films tend to avoid complicated plots, complicated emotions, and so lead actors in that realm need to be fit, good looking, know how to dance and be able to broadcast a handful of basic emotions that the audience should understand. There is in parallel to that an extremely strong art film community within India who create masterpieces but those people tend not to be bankable. Occassionally those guys slum in mainstream films for money, but they are not the big box office draws in India. Monsoon was sent out to represent India at the Oscars- a film that really doesn’t translate well, a beautiful little film called Dor stayed home. Unless there’s a lead in Indian cinema who REALLY can act, it’s not worth the effort. Give Indians bit parts like they did with the Tennis star in TMP.

Again, I would want ethnic accuracy only if it doesn’t distract. Anyone wanting authenticity, please see the “ethnically accurate” portrayal of Captain Nemo in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Good actor, bad idea.

109- Problem is, no one outside a hard-core star trek fan (take my wife, for instance) could name a single TOS Klingon villian. I think the idea of Klingons are sometimes bigger than they ultimately become.

Not remembering the name of any specific Klingon is not a sign that Klingons are not memorable. They are generic baddies representative of the race. They are all soldiers. It’s the same thing with Daleks in Dr Who or Romulans. You don’t remember the names because the names aren’t important.

131. captain_neill - July 2, 2009

there is more to Star Trek than Khan

If Khan is remade then I will not be happy and will be counting the days till JJ Abrams and these writers are out of Trek.

132. dmduncan - July 2, 2009

130: “Unless there’s a lead in Indian cinema who REALLY can act, it’s not worth the effort. Give Indians bit parts like they did with the Tennis star in TMP.”

A nation that can produce nuclear weapons, send probes to the moon, and match our technical genius for half the cost somehow can’t produce any actors competent enough to appear in a STAR TREK film? Any idea how that sounds?

Yes, Indian cinema is very different, but that’s not an argument against the ability of its actors, it’s a comment about Indian cinema. So if you are suggesting that a Bollywood star would be inherently unable to do anything except a song and dance routine in a Star Trek movie, give me a break.

And hmm, let me see, do you think the entire nation of India has anyone capable of playing a lead Star Trek role as good as say, TJ HOOKER?

133. dmduncan - July 2, 2009

Gee, I wonder if we can find ANYone in Bollywood to match THIS performance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVbv6r_tKnE

134. RD - July 2, 2009

128. dmduncan wrote: 1. Point missed. Cho could pass for Japanese much better than Ricardo Montalban could pass for Indian.

Tell that to the Japanese.

I guess I should have used Richard Robau as an example, who was a Cuban character played by a Pakistani actor. Guess Paramount and Abrams think all “Indians and Hispanics all look alike” too. You should probably look up Indo-European. Khan was never canonized as a Sikh. Nothing other than his name suggests he might have been Pakistani, or Indian. Singh is also a common name in Thailand and Southeast Asia and Khan implies more Asian as well. Since these groups all invaded one another, especially the Mongols, Ottomans, Moors & Seljuq empires into Europe and Asia, yes, many Indo-European features are derived from these various ethnic groups, including the Spanish and Mediterranean countries. And why must he have an accent? Talk about stereotypes … perhaps he was educated and/or grew up in the West like so many from the sub-continent.

dmduncan wrote: 2. They are already paying attention, which is why Bob and Alex read…. to consider the merits of the philosophy behind doing this or that.

You keep telling yourself that. That’s the kind of thinking that killed TNG ear series and ENT: pandering to the fans. I hope Bob is reading because like us, he’s a fan and amused by most of the crap that gets debated over here. I sincerely hope they do what they think is the best story idea they can come up with, whether it’s Khan or not. If it’s a good movie no one will care and the film will make as much or more money than this one. If they listened to what the fans thought about the current movie, then there is no evidence of it at all on screen.

135. John Bouchard - July 2, 2009

Dude, with the whole “Great Khan Debate” … there are very few stories within the Star Trek Universe that are quite simply PERFECT. I think we can all agree that Spocks Brain would be low-bar with SPACE SEED & THE WRATH OF KHAN being the hi-bar. Do we really need to have a 3rd sequel/side-quel (or whatever with this alternate universe thing) and risk completely F_ _ king up what was once a perfect Movie? Besides … what would be new about it? I can see Bob & Alex during the script process pitching Ideas and they’re like,”Ok, Ok …. This time Khan will do this instead” … Please, just leave it alone and let us have this one perfect moment that was THE WRATH OF KHAN.

Besides, I think JJ, Bob & Alex had it right in the first place in that Star Trek was never about spaceships or vulcans or lusty-bodacious-green-chicks for Kirk to bone. Star Trek was Gene Roddenberry’s way of being able to tell serious stories that could not have been told otherwise in any other medium.

Star Trek was a show in that racially divided 60s that everyone watched that had a CAPT from Midwest-Iowa(which to this day still doesn’t have any black people living there) & a Dr from Georgia (Mississippi burning territory) that had a Black-Female as the Comminications DIVISION-OFFICER, an asian helmsman & a russian navigator none of which white people in the 60s liked very much.

In any other medium in the 60s (and maybe even today) you could never tell a story where black people, asian people, white people, russians-vs-americans, etc all treated eachother with dignity and respect.

In short, star trek was always about a good story, dramatic content (there’s no story without conflict of some sort … you always have to have a protagonist & antagonist in every story) in a setting that always had undertones of what our future should be as opposed to where it is currently.

My advice to JJ, Bob & Alex? Simple: 1) Tell a new story & 2) Tell a great story. All the rest will follow into place as it should.

136. Harry Ballz - July 2, 2009

Remember during the Vietnam war days, you’d have protesters shouting, “hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” outside the White House?

How about the hardcore fans of Trek get together out front of JJ’s residence and chant, “hey, hey, JJ, we don’t want no Khan, NO WAY!”

137. tman - July 2, 2009

132- A nation that can produce nuclear weapons, send probes to the moon, and match our technical genius for half the cost somehow can’t produce any actors competent enough to appear in a STAR TREK film? Any idea how that sounds?

It sounds to me like you at best skimmed my comments. or didn’t bother My comment was that India has an incredible independent cinema (which I love to watch) AND a mainstream cinema called “Bollywood.” So where do you interpret a comment on India’s ability to generate talent? In fact there is talent in the mainstream cinema: Shabana Azmi and Nassuradin Shah go there for money from time to time.

My point was that bankability in India is a bad reason to cast a role. (1) Sci fi is not a popular genre there so breaking the Indian market is not a strong business plan, it’s unlikely to make much difference and (2) As I mentioned the bankable actors in India are not currently great actors.

My opinion of Amir Khan specifically is based on watching a decent number of his films over a multiple decades. I frankly enjoyed some of his earlier films for what they were- very enjoyable formula fare. Now he’s up there with Sharukh, Abhishek, and John Abrahams in terms of bankability. That’s pretty much the current crop of leading men in Bollywood. Among that pantheon Amir Khan is by far the best actor and tries to stretch himself or push some messages (Monsoon, Tarre Zameen Pur both of which were not in my view as intellectually stimulating fare as people at dinner parties at our flat in India made it out to be. Do I think he can’t act at the level of Bardem and other people they could pull if ethnicity isn’t the defining criterion? No. Maybe he will prove me wrong with a standout performance that’s been hiding within him for years and even when he had tremendous creative control of the film was never able to coax out in past. It’s possible (my strong judgement is it’s improbable), but again I think the constraint of ethnicity limits the talent pool you draw from and should not be there for these kinds of roles. It’s sci fi, there’s already alot of suspend the disbelief going on. After believing there’s a ship people beam onto and off of in a parallel universe, a Latin Sardars easy for my brain to process.

By the way casting Persis Khambatta didn’t help TMP in India. League of Extrarodinary Gentlemen didn’t get much draw either even with the Nassuradin Shah’s help.

DMDUNCAN, Do you watch Indian cinema? Aamir Khan? Or you just googled it, saw a poster for Ghajini and said “this is the guy?” Please do tell.

138. tman - July 2, 2009

132-DMDUNCAN

Please also read comments on Danny Boyle’s casting choices, why he didn’t cast much of his cast from Bollywood.

I’m sorry, but it really pisses me off when someone cricicizes my objective view of my India’s mainstream cinema making it seem that I have somehow made comments that should offend Indians like ME!!!

139. lostrod - July 2, 2009

#133

Funny how some people can find any thread to jump on the “hate Mr. Shatner” topic ….

Very tiresome.

Regards.

140. devon - July 2, 2009

Just saw Transformers,Revenge of the Fallen, and have to say what a huge disappointment it was! A colossal yawn-fest! Hard to believe it will soon be the #1 movie of 2009! It had the kernel of a good story,the potential was there,but somehow fell flat! I think the action overrode the story,that the story was too drawn out (film could have been 2 hours and the pace would have added to the story) rather than detract from it! The humor was extremely juvenile,and i can’t believe the giant Decepticon literally had gonads(balls) swinging between it’s legs! Give me a break! I really liked the 1st Transformers and tried to like this against my better judgment,but can’t lie to myself and say that it was a worthy successor! I hope Paramount takes some of the dividends from this film and spends or reinvests it in the next Star Trek film or even TV series!!!! I am worried now that the writing team of Kurtzman & Orci will fall flat with Star Trek sequel as they did here! I don’t know if it was bad writing,direction or both? The basic premise wasn’t bad, but wasn’t fully realized or manifest in an appealing
way: the story was overshadowed by the over-the-top action sequences,the humor or attempt at such was lame, the sexuality was juvenile & inappropriate! It just wasn’t the right blend of elements! Star trek had it all: Humor,romance,action, tragedy, deep & meaningful character moments,all blended seamlessly & properly paced! I hope they don’t screw up the next installment! Star Trek Rules! Why are they pulling it from theatres to make way for crap when it’s still doing well? Need the DVD, and can’t wait for the next film!

141. dmduncan - July 2, 2009

134: “Khan was never canonized as a Sikh.”

You sure about that, RD? When was the last time you watched Space Seed?

“And why must he have an accent?”

Point is he WILL have one, a Spanish one if Hispanic actors are cast.

“You keep telling yourself that.”

Oh I’m not telling myself anything. That’s what Bob said. Call him a liar, or the reporter one. But based on the other things you misunderstood, you probably misunderstand me here too. You probably think I mean we are going to get our ideas accepted or something foolish like that. Nope. I mean if they are looking to see what the debate is, well here it is. And if they are looking to see whether they should Khan or no Khan the sequel based on what we say, then they have their answer, and they can make up their minds however they want.

“Tell that to the Japanese.”

Actually, you are right. And if the Japanese are unhappy with that, I’m on their side, same with casting white folk as Indians as happened in Wolverine. Difference is I KNOW there are many Native American actors who want to work and who don’t get roles—even ones where the character is supposed to be Native American!

137: “Give Indians bit parts like they did with the Tennis star in TMP.”

Lol. I read your entire post. And a comment like the one you wrote above insinuates something ugly. What’s the matter? Can’t they handle anything more than “bit parts”?

“DMDUNCAN, Do you watch Indian cinema? Aamir Khan? Or you just googled it, saw a poster for Ghajini and said “this is the guy?” Please do tell.”

Here’s the telling then. We are having a philosophical discussion over the appropriate strategy in casting Khan. I googled, did some research, and looked at clips of Aamir Khan. At NO time have I suggested that Aamir Khan HAS to be the guy; if he’s not, someone LIKE him who can do the job well would be a perfect fit for the role, far better than another Hispanic, whom certain people are becoming instantly and unimaginatively attached to simply because the actor who originally portrayed Khan was a Hispanic.

And I’ve heard several comments that the Indian actor would have to be able to act. Oh? In other words like this gem from William Shatner?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVbv6r_tKnE

Go ahead. Click on the link and watch. So don’t give me some nonsense about the acting credentials. f you judged William Shatner by the hilarious clip above, you would think nobody like that should ever be allowed near Star Trek. And yet, we DO know Shatner is capable of good acting too.

It’s not as simple as looking at what they’ve done and deciding from that they can or can’t act. Aamir Khan does a good job in the clips I’ve seen him in, for the types of movies they are. Far better than William Shatner in many of the things I’ve seen HIM do.

If you think he’s a bad actor, and yet not good enough for Star Trek (”Give Indians bit parts like they did with the Tennis star in TMP.”), while you also think Shatner is good enough (review the clip above please), then you don’t understand either the dynamics of filmmaking or potential. Keanu Reeves in Constantine versus Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker’s Dracula.

And yes, I actually HAVE made films before: Directed 5 of my own in 16mm using Arriflex equipment, and assisted in the production of roughly 10 others, using the same equipment, so I know a LITTLE bit about making films.

142. tman - July 2, 2009

Retraction: Sorry, meant Lagaan, not Monsoon.

143. dmduncan - July 2, 2009

138: “I’m sorry, but it really pisses me off when someone cricicizes my objective view of my India’s mainstream cinema making it seem that I have somehow made comments that should offend Indians like ME!!!”

Yeah T, and if I said what YOU said, I’d rightly be called a racist.

You may be Indian, so you can be self critical without being called that, but I really don’t find the substance of what you are saying to be solid at all.

There’s way too much judging by appearances in the world and not seeing what people are able to do, too much pigeon holing, stereotyping, looking at resumes and credentials rather than the intelligence underneath all that surface stuff. Someone mentioned Javier Bardem as a possible Khan. I disagree, but there’s an interesting thing about Bardem that makes that very point: He didn’t WANT to play the bad guy in No Country For Old Men. He felt it wasn’t right. It wasn’t for him. But the Coens had a vision and they convinced him, and despite Bardem’s doubts, he did an absolutely fantastic job.

THOSE are the kinds of things that are priceless. Not phoning in all the predictable choices. Antonio Banderas is about as dull a choice as it gets.

So I’m sorry if I offended you.

144. tman - July 2, 2009

DMDuncan,

If you read my post carefully, I didn’t ask you if you’ve made films, though it seems you’ve been eager to state your self-importance and I’m very happy for you to have found a chance to crow.

Now I have to change my view. You’ve made films. Your weak arguements are actually expert weak arguements. Makes all the difference.

I don’t think Shatner should be in the new movie either, so I don’t get your point. You are on some tirade I understnad.

The rest of your arguement (that I am sayting Indian actors are only worthy of bit parts) shows a complete arrogance on your part where you don’t read other peoples posts, but just continue on your useless tirades.

My point is that choosing an actor based on ethnicity does not add anything to this role. It’s the character Montelban owned being reinvented. The writers can figure out what that story is and what that character is. My point is that the choice of an Indian actor from BOLLYWOOD to meet an ethnic accuracy is a bad decision. That’s my view. You certainly don’t agree and you don’t read other peoples comments enough to make it worth my time to discuss with you.

145. Mr. Delicious - July 2, 2009

Star Trek 2.0 II: The Sudden Wrath of Balok

146. Mr. Delicious - July 2, 2009

Clint Howard still has a baby face.

147. Eclectrek - July 2, 2009

Khan: Edward James Olmos

148. xai - July 2, 2009

no no nooooo Khan

No no no!

149. cw - July 2, 2009

#135 That is NOT true. I personally know 2 black people here in Iowa.

150. tman - July 2, 2009

147, Khan: Edward James Olmos

Now that’s where I’lll pull out my Ethic Indian card and play it (apparently I inadvertently used it effectively as a get out of jail free card for being un-PC in criticizing Bollywood but hey I’ll dust it off and play it again as umbrage “How dare you have a non-indian play an Sardar, only Indian Muslims, Indian Hindus, and Indian Christians (well I guess an Indian Sardar could do it too– if we can find one) can play a Sardar on the big screen).

Olmos really owned BSG. He was great in Blade Runner. For him to own Trek too is excessive power in one man. Think what he can do with it!!!

I’m going to have to start re-reading the posts above and finding the arguements about why Latin folk can’t play this role (his age is too easy of a reason to use and I’m sure CGI will be better, but I’m sure there are nuggets of gold above that I missed.. Next Trekmovie discussion of Khan vs. no Khan (maybe after the Editorial, maybe there will be one before) I’m going to bring big guns. Be prepared, dude. I may even recant and endorse Aamir Khan just to block Olmos.

No seriously We should find an actor who is a Sardar from Indian (not British Indian or American Indian) but from India and who is fully devout , not cut. Not a Hindu, Christian, or Muslims. Let’s also ensure he is from royal stock. There should be some kids in Rajastan who meet that description and have the acting bug. That’s what we should do.. But no, let’s get 10 of them, subject them to Eugenics. Whoever crawls out of that will certainly act better than Shatner and Keanu, I guarantee it.

151. Green-Blooded-Bastard - July 2, 2009

Khan should be played by Danny Bonaduce.

152. dmduncan - July 2, 2009

144: “If you read my post carefully, I didn’t ask you if you’ve made films, though it seems you’ve been eager to state your self-importance and I’m very happy for you to have found a chance to crow.”

I read your post carefully three times, every word of it. And I mentioned that I’d made films neither because you asked, nor because I feel self important to have made them—making films is something to do like any other, whether waiting tables in a restaraunt or mopping floors: I do not judge people’s worth by the jobs they do, but apparently that is something that you do, or you would not have thought I made that comment from a sense of self importance, as if having made films was more important than having done something else—but rather to show that what I am saying actually does come from experience, and is not something I am talking abstractly about as a person without experience.

“Your weak arguements are actually expert weak arguements. Makes all the difference.”

Exactly what “weak” arguments are you vaguely hinting at, and exactly why are they weak?

“My point is that choosing an actor based on ethnicity does not add anything to this role.”

I cannot disagree with you more. IF a role is written without a specific ethnicity in mind, then it does not matter. But if it IS written for a specific ethnicity in mind, then it does matter a) to the credibility of the role, and b) as a general practice in fairness, which simply cannot be attacked on the claim of a talent drought.

Although I loved Ricardo Montalban in the role, he always looked and sounded exactly like what he was: Hispanic. And there’s no good reason you can point to to make an a priori decision to cast another Hispanic in the role. That’s absurd and unimaginative. It’s just doing the exact same thing they did before.

“It’s the character Montelban owned being reinvented.”

A: Since it’s being (or may be) reinvented, he doesn’t (or will not) own it anymore.

B. In reality, he does not “own” it anymore than William Shatner “owns” the role of Kirk.

“My point is that the choice of an Indian actor from BOLLYWOOD to meet an ethnic accuracy is a bad decision.”

Why, specifically, is it BAD?

There are two issues here. Let’s not confuse them.

1. Whether to cast an Indian in the role of an Indian character.
2. Whether that Indian, if he is cast, should be cast from Bollywood.

I am 100% in favor of 1. I am flexible, however, on 2.

130: “Bollywood films have to appeal to a wide range of people including people with a limited amount of education who live in dire poverty. To do this the films tend to avoid complicated plots, complicated emotions, and so lead actors in that realm need to be fit, good looking, know how to dance and be able to broadcast a handful of basic emotions that the audience should understand.”

In other words, Bollywood actors are too what? Too inept as human beings to communicate complicated emotions of the caliber expected of the actors in a Hollywood Star Trek film? Is that why you think a Bollywood choice would be bad for Star Trek?

But wait a second, William Shatner is the backbone of TOS, and yet he can lay down some awful stuff, man. So why should we judge a potential Bollywood star differently than we judge William Shatner? Shatner can act good too. Yet if all a casting director had to go on in this day and age was the clip I linked to, Shatner would be done, and we’d never know that he was a good actor ALSO.

I read your comments when you first wrote them. ALL of them. And they’re what I’ve been addressing all along.

153. dmduncan - July 2, 2009

150: “I’m going to have to start re-reading the posts above and finding the arguements about why Latin folk can’t play this role”

Lol. Nobody is saying non Latins CAN’T play Latins. Have you read anything I’ve posted at all? Is it really just sailing over your head Tman?

Lol.

In fact, that’s exactly the racist history Hollywood has where white folk were painted dark to play Native Americans, and where Native Americans still have trouble getting lead roles as themselves.

154. dmduncan - July 2, 2009

150: “No seriously We should find an actor who is a Sardar from Indian (not British Indian or American Indian) but from India and who is fully devout , not cut. Not a Hindu, Christian, or Muslims. Let’s also ensure he is from royal stock. There should be some kids in Rajastan who meet that description and have the acting bug. That’s what we should do.. But no, let’s get 10 of them, subject them to Eugenics. Whoever crawls out of that will certainly act better than Shatner and Keanu, I guarantee it.”

Yawn. Slippery slope fallacies are boring. C’ya Tman.

155. tman - July 2, 2009

134- That’s probably correct technically– the historian was hypothesizing when she educated the audience on who this guy might be, but I think from inferrence of his comments and what the history bank was ultimately able to pull up, if we call him “Khan” and he responds to it, we should consider him a Sikh or Sardar. If I were French and someone called me “czar” I’d probably look at them funny, eugenics or not. Similarly your interpretation of canon needs to evolve beyond the written word, into obvious inference.

156. dmduncan - July 2, 2009

Here’s a bold idea: How about Christopher Walken as Harry Mudd? I would seriously love that.

157. tman - July 2, 2009

dmduncan – July 2, 2009
Making films is something to do like any other, whether waiting tables in a restaraunt or mopping floors: I do not judge people’s worth by the jobs they do, but apparently that is something that you do, or you would not have thought I made that comment from a sense of self importance, as if having made films was more important than having done something else—but rather to show that what I am saying actually does come from experience, and is not something I am talking abstractly about as a person without experience.

Your comments betray your view that people without experience (even people whos background you do not know) intrinsically do not have the same weight in their views. If you have experience, those should carry through in your comments and if people without experience don’t agree, you can shrug and think to yourself that they don’t get it. Unless you are on the criticism side, in which case it makes sense you are trying to say “you get it.”

“Your weak arguements are actually expert weak arguements. Makes all the difference.”

Exactly what “weak” arguments are you vaguely hinting at, and exactly why are they weak?

Your arguement is that a Latin American will not have the same ability to portray this role as someone who is Indian. It’s fair to comment that many people are stupid enough to mistake Indians and Latins or equate them. I’ve alot of life expereince what that. But if we are specific, the life experience of Khan is that of a royal Sardar (another word for Sikh). I have many friends who are Sardars and have from that some exposure to the religion. If you have an accurate Sardar, he will have a long beard and hair because it is their religion to have a band on the wrist, swords (or knives) on their body and not cut their hair. The Indian guy in Spike Lee’s heist film is playing a Sardar. In India, like Europe religion has been a force of alienation which has caused bloodshed and pain to many. As a result in cinema, Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Sikhs play any religion on film. This creates a Cinema where acting talent including minority groups can come to the forefront and religious hatred cannot form a dangerous head. It is a weak arguement to say that Indians are Indians and can play Indians with an illiteracy of the cutural and religious variation within India. In frank truth, India as a definition only occured when external threats (such as the Britsh) came to bear. India is not a homogeneous country. In contrast it is myriad groups of different religions, different economic groups, different histories and capabilities coexisting in a beautiful and hopefully harmoinious place of tradition and opportunity. My point is that for you to hold up Muslims to play Sikhs saying that Christian Latin’s can’t shows a want to chastise people’s ignorance but a lack of understanding of India on your part. There is nothing that an Indian actor who is not a Sardar playing a Sardar does other than appeasing Indians as the just and wise Closettrekker has pointed out.

“My point is that choosing an actor based on ethnicity does not add anything to this role.”

I cannot disagree with you more. IF a role is written without a specific ethnicity in mind, then it does not matter. But if it IS written for a specific ethnicity in mind, then it does matter a) to the credibility of the role, and b) as a general practice in fairness, which simply cannot be attacked on the claim of a talent drought.

Although I loved Ricardo Montalban in the role, he always looked and sounded exactly like what he was: Hispanic. And there’s no good reason you can point to to make an a priori decision to cast another Hispanic in the role. That’s absurd and unimaginative. It’s just doing the exact same thing they did before.

I agree with you that apriori decisions to cast a Hispanic as others in the above thread make show an ignorance. However my point is quite different and from a different point of view. What is the value of casting an Indian. My comments are reflections on Closettrekker’s previous comments. My mother was in the US in the 1960’s. She was mistaken for a Gypse as I commented previously on this site. In the 1960’s, all non-white blended together in what white people saw. If you look at movies and TV through the 70’s and 80’s and later, Asians are Asians– Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese is a less than subtlety lost on most people. I am amazed with where the US (or at least California is going). If a Latin played Khan in the 1960’s that’s fine. If now we are casting the role again, I would hope racial accuracy is not an overriding need. I have seen so much good Shakespeare where whites play blacks (or black) and non-whites (plural) have played whites. I would hope that this continues and a natural exposure to and respect of cultural differences and variation continues with the beat of time.

“It’s the character Montelban owned being reinvented.”

A: Since it’s being (or may be) reinvented, he doesn’t (or will not) own it anymore.

B. In reality, he does not “own” it anymore than William Shatner “owns” the role of Kirk.

I’m technically (on average) of the camp of give Pine a chance for a long time (see my previous posts) so please don’t hold the almighty Shatner up as an arguement in our discussion. I liked what he did in TOS, but very happy with Pine in Trek and elsewhere. Regarding Montelbahn my point is that the fact that it is not already a culturally accurate character gives greater latitude to casting a remake. If an Indian actor had played that role previously there would be a question why they have taken a step back if they cast a non-Indian this time around. In contrast, the discussion is why they didn’t close in on ethnic accuracy. Look at Batman Begins. Casting Liam Neeson is not ethincally accurate (he’s not French) but it works. I think Khan should be viewed in no different a light.

“My point is that the choice of an Indian actor from BOLLYWOOD to meet an ethnic accuracy is a bad decision.”

Why, specifically, is it BAD?

There are two issues here. Let’s not confuse them.

1. Whether to cast an Indian in the role of an Indian character.
2. Whether that Indian, if he is cast, should be cast from Bollywood.

I am 100% in favor of 1. I am flexible, however, on 2.

The only problem with 1 is that there are no incredibly buff actors from the art cinema right now. If the next movie is 18 months out, I don’t think we can realistically create a superman within 18 mohths. If the decision is made that it is an Indian actor, I think Aamir Khan really does have the inner straight on this one, unless someone says that it should be a Sikh.

My take is different on 1 because I have frequently in my childhood had idiot white people (frequently named Jennifer) tell me that they just realized that Hindus and Muslims are different. India is such an amazingly diverse place. I once (20 years back) met a woman who was interested to make a movie of West Side Story but with Indians as one of the groups. She was commenting on the vibrancy of the color and costuming. She was the academic side with aspirations as best I could assess. I was amazed that the inhomogeneity of India was, though broadcast in Gandhi) not something people in the West kept in mind. Once a community is inhomogeneous, where do you draw the boundaries? What does an Indian bring to the role of a Eugenic induced anomaly like Khan that a non-Indian cannot bring? Especially when you step away from royalty. I have met people who are royals, Peshwas, etc. I don’t think even their real experience brings something to Khan.

My point at the end is to say it has to be “an Indian” when in reality that doesn’t bring something of truth or reality to the role are establishing a quota that reduces the # of applicants for the role, but not making a better pool of candidates. I think it’s hard to explain to someone unfamiliar with the reality of India and it’s history. I then agree with Closettrekker that the only motivation is to sell the film in India which I then dispute as an unrealistic outcome.

130: “Bollywood films have to appeal to a wide range of people including people with a limited amount of education who live in dire poverty. To do this the films tend to avoid complicated plots, complicated emotions, and so lead actors in that realm need to be fit, good looking, know how to dance and be able to broadcast a handful of basic emotions that the audience should understand.”

In other words, Bollywood actors are too what? Too inept as human beings to communicate complicated emotions of the caliber expected of the actors in a Hollywood Star Trek film? Is that why you think a Bollywood choice would be bad for Star Trek?

What someone is exposed to affects their understanding of their craft and what the markets expectation is. I don’t second guess people’s ability to grow but my expectation is that casting is not based on a whim or humanistic expectation that all is chance and there may be deep within someone a spark that is unseen. I have made myriad comments on good acting from different people (including Shatner in TOS) which should clarify my view that good acting is a product of the individual, their motivation and the circumstances. So I do allow the possibility (not probability) that good acting can come from Bollywood. However, hiavng watched Bollywood for about 35 years, I am not seeing in the current crowd of talent an actor I would look at and say I think that guy should play this role. That’s my only comment?! My point is simply that an apriori decision that it has to be an Indian limits the pool of candidates in a way that adds nothing (see my previous comments about the nothing gained) and reduces the chance of successs.

But wait a second, William Shatner is the backbone of TOS, and yet he can lay down some awful stuff, man. So why should we judge a potential Bollywood star differently than we judge William Shatner? Shatner can act good too. Yet if all a casting director had to go on in this day and age was the clip I linked to, Shatner would be done, and we’d never know that he was a good actor ALSO.

Thankfui for Shatner he did Judgement for Nuremburg and other good early roles and Jeffrey Hunter didn’t want to be part of the show. My point is you judge people by what they have done, what they do most often, what they have done most recently. As humans we subconsciously weigh things this way. Again, I’m not advocating Shatner for the new film was very happy he wasn’t in the last one. If you really want my view, I was disappointed with Quinto’s performance (lacking the effortless gravitas of Nimoy) and didn’t expect much from Cho, Pegg, and Saldana so didn’t care how they acted.

I read your comments when you first wrote them. ALL of them. And they’re what I’ve been addressing all along.

Again, you seem to read my comments as racism about what Indians can do when I (as an Indian) take pride in many aspects of Indian cimena.

While you are dealing with the injustices of the world, you should look into (white?) experts who feel their they are the only ones who can judge others and can google things they don’t know and make an expert opinion based on their experience and extrapolation and based on that chastise people for their experience. Aren’t you offended by those guys?

158. Suraj - July 2, 2009

Someone above mentioned how the indian model in TMP as well as Nassarudein Shah in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen didn’t help those films.

This situation is completely different.

1) The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen wasn’t the best film in any sense and had bad buzz. No great performances by anyone and the character Nassarudein Shah plays in the film as Captain Nemo didn’t do much in that movie. The film harnesses Nassarudein Shah’s talents like the TNG movies harnessed the talents of their actors.

2) The model in TMP was not known for acting. She was primarily a mode. What I’m really trying to bring up is term ‘international star.’ Not some random actor from India but someone who is talented and is legendary not just in India but throughout most of Europe and Asia. Names like Amitabh Bachan and Shahrukh Khan come to mind. These actors are very fluent in English and are good actors.

Let me restate that… they are GOOD actors. Amitabh though is light years ahead of anyone.

Amitabh Bachan is not some random name I threw out there. The man has studied SHAKESPEARE… his dream role is to enact hamlet. He also has a very commanding presence. Here’s a vid of him being interviewed in English that I already posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9POtcSGa6gQ

Here is a video regarding Amitabh as an international star that kind of reminds me of Star Trek fandom right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HzjsgarlJ0&feature=related (A MUST VIEW for possible Khan candidates)

What I’m talking about ultimately is a film like the Star Trek film that exists now. A critically acclaimed film and a domestic hit. There’s a cultural significance in there for us that compelled everyone that saw it to go see it… even if you’re a fan or not. Kirk and Spock re-done, that’s cool. So people went. But what does this matter for people who haven’t even heard of Star Trek and have been brought up by different things culturally? When India and Southeast Asia personify or parody ‘the west’ in their media, Star Trek rarely comes to mind.

This is a huge way in. A movie as well received as Star Trek that includes one of the greatest actors from the east of all time in a major role…? There is no way it won’t explode box office wise.

159. dmduncan - July 2, 2009

157: “My point is that for you to hold up Muslims to play Sikhs saying that Christian Latin’s can’t shows a want to chastise people’s ignorance but a lack of understanding of India on your part.”

And that may be true! I don’t pretend to understand India, actually. My point in suggesting Aamir Khan was to break this automatic desire to put another Hispanic in the role of an Indian. I have absolutely no idea where the notion of Khan as Sikh came from, since it does not come from anything obvious to me in “Space Seed”. I defer to your far greater wisdom on the issue. I am merely suggesting a different idea about how to approach the role than what I have seen suggested so far. Ricardo Montalban was obviously Hispanic, even in the role itself. I loved him, but why make another Khan Hispanic also, other than because of the recollection of the excellent performance Ricardo Montalban gave us? It is a sort of honoring him, true, but the role itself would be better served by someone—maybe not Aamir Khan—who actually fits the ethnicity who can act and who would not be a “special effect.”

“Casting Liam Neeson is not ethincally accurate (he’s not French) but it works. I think Khan should be viewed in no different a light.”

Oh but I do! I have never been convinced that Ricardo Montalban’s Khan was any sort of Indian. The issue for me is about the integrity of the role itself, and it’s also formed by knowledge of injustices done to actors of Native American background who are capable and who sometimes can’t find work even in roles as themselves.

“If the decision is made that it is an Indian actor, I think Aamir Khan really does have the inner straight on this one, unless someone says that it should be a Sikh.”

Okay, see again, you would know better than I why he is called a Sikh at all. Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t find any reference to it in “Space Seed,” but then it could be something obvious to you what the reason is for that. He was painted by Marla McGivers in a turban? The name Khan itself? These are things I would not understand.

“What does an Indian bring to the role of a Eugenic induced anomaly like Khan that a non-Indian cannot bring?”

That’s a hard question to answer, but I think most people would answer it quickly in India. If I or Ricardo Montalban tried to become leaders in India of this or that, there would probably be a sense among the people of our non Indian-ness however hard that might be to consciously define.

“However, hiavng watched Bollywood for about 35 years, I am not seeing in the current crowd of talent an actor I would look at and say I think that guy should play this role. That’s my only comment?! My point is simply that an apriori decision that it has to be an Indian limits the pool of candidates in a way that adds nothing (see my previous comments about the nothing gained) and reduces the chance of successs.”

What I would do, if I was the director of the sequel, would be to line up the best candidates that look like they could be Khan Noonian Singh, ruler of Asia, and I would tell them what I expected of them from the role and I would coach them on my expectations. Some of those actors would be from Bollywood (I would insist on it unless someone talked me out of it for very good reasons), and some would not, but they would all be of Indian descent. I would then base my decision on the best performance, and I would be confident that I could make that actor work in the role.

“Again, you seem to read my comments as racism about what Indians can do…”

In anonymous comments, race is not apparent. All I know is that if I made such comments I would be a target for such a claim. But being Indian yourself, that would not apply to you.

“While you are dealing with the injustices of the world, you should look into (white?) experts who feel their they are the only ones who can judge others and can google things they don’t know and make an expert opinion based on their experience and extrapolation and based on that chastise people for their experience. Aren’t you offended by those guys?”

Yes sir, I am. : ) And I take your point well. I am, indeed, “white.”

Live long and prosper!

160. dmduncan - July 2, 2009

@ 158: Watched the video link you posted on Amitabh.. An older Khan to present a more mental challenge to Kirk? I like it! That’s cool! Possibilities!

Reminds me of Annakin vs. Count Duku. I can go for that twist.

161. dmduncan - July 2, 2009

That has a genius experience vs. genius youth angle that I like. Who will win?

162. tman - July 2, 2009

Suraj,

Your point about Nassuradin Shan and the model is correct. Model just model (but from Fergusson!) and bad script for other movie, but if actor is Indian why people not watch more.

Amitabh is also great actor.

However, the first question is whether Indians enjoy Sci Fi film.
I don’t know where you are from in India or who you talk to in India but I would think “No.” My wife liked Star Trek but she liked to play Star Trek >30 years ago in Bombay. None of our friends like Star Trek, none of our family.

I don’t think Indians will watch Sci Fi right now like Star Trek. They can’t relate, like Europe customers, other parts of workd.

Only good data is to look at Aishwarya Roi Bachan films and see if Indian draw was big for those films (Last Legion, Pink Panther II). No way you can say she is not Hindustani actress first Tier. If she cannot make money bigger, Shaukh: no way, man.

163. tman - July 2, 2009

159. dmduncan – July 2, 2009

My point in suggesting Aamir Khan was to break this automatic desire to put another Hispanic in the role of an Indian.

I know where you are coming from on that and just ignored it.

I have absolutely no idea where the notion of Khan as Sikh came from, since it does not come from anything obvious to me in “Space Seed”.

It is explicit in the comments of the useless History Science assignee to the away team, after her comment about the leader reviving first she says (verbatim):\

“From the Northern Indian area I’d guess, probably a Sikh. They’re the most fantastic warriors.”

\It’s easy to miss if you aren’t familiar with Sikhism as a religion or the history of that region, and again it is not verified so it is proabably non-cannonical. Khan as a title is throughout Asian dating before Sikhism existed if I recall correctly.

I defer to your far greater wisdom on the issue.

Not that wise, really.

I am merely suggesting a different idea about how to approach the role than what I have seen suggested so far. Ricardo Montalban was obviously Hispanic, even in the role itself. I loved him, but why make another Khan Hispanic also, other than because of the recollection of the excellent performance Ricardo Montalban gave us? It is a sort of honoring him, true, but the role itself would be better served by someone—maybe not Aamir Khan—who actually fits the ethnicity who can act and who would not be a “special effect.”

Again, in your previous discussion with the illiterates, I actually agree with you. It’s ridiculous for people to look at Montelbahn as a Hispanic and start spouting names of famous Latin actors as the right choice (Banderas– please!!!).

My point is that identity (beyond ethnicity) in India is such a specific thing that I don’t really know that I would expect an Indian (without being more specific) of having a better handle on the identity of Khan because many people peacefully coexist in India without understanding each other’s plight without even understanding each other truly. You can talk about many things (cricket, weather, the news) that you all enjoy each others company but that is not the same as knowing and understanding someone of a different walk. I do not personally see how an Indian actor will uniquely understand Khan better than a well motivated non-Indian (who burdened with the fact that he is not Indian will fee a strong need to deliver).

“Casting Liam Neeson is not ethincally accurate (he’s not French) but it works. I think Khan should be viewed in no different a light.”

Oh but I do! I have never been convinced that Ricardo Montalban’s Khan was any sort of Indian. The issue for me is about the integrity of the role itself, and it’s also formed by knowledge of injustices done to actors of Native American background who are capable and who sometimes can’t find work even in roles as themselves.

Again, it was the 60’s. Hindus at that time were by the way forced to get a court ceremony to have their marriage in the US recognized, Hindu marriage ceremonies in the US were not recognized by the government and the right of a colored person to be a US citizen was fairly new.

“If the decision is made that it is an Indian actor, I think Aamir Khan really does have the inner straight on this one, unless someone says that it should be a Sikh.”

Okay, see again, you would know better than I why he is called a Sikh at all. Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t find any reference to it in “Space Seed,” but then it could be something obvious to you what the reason is for that. He was painted by Marla McGivers in a turban? The name Khan itself? These are things I would not understand.

Marla specifically mentions him as a Sikh, although as I’ve mentioned Sikhs traditionally physically define themselves with a short list of tennets that define what they look like. As a prophet religion this isn’t surprising. But it’s funny to see a clean shaven guy as a Khan. Singh is a sign of importance (like Sir or Mr.) but is also a typical surname of Sikhs. If you go through Rajastan, many of the Rajas (not Khans) are Sikhs. I would expect Khans to be decended from Gengis and his diaspora (including the Islamic invaders of India. I would not expect a Sardar king to be called Khan (although a king of asia may have a title different than you would expect from the ethnicity of the leader.

“What does an Indian bring to the role of a Eugenic induced anomaly like Khan that a non-Indian cannot bring?”

That’s a hard question to answer, but I think most people would answer it quickly in India. If I or Ricardo Montalban tried to become leaders in India of this or that, there would probably be a sense among the people of our non Indian-ness however hard that might be to consciously define.

Again, my premise is that the Indian market has lived without Sci Fi for a long time and Sci Fi will take along time to make it there. So the questions of what is realistic to an Indian aren’t relevant. I think Indians are used to being cast as the funny speaking people (thank you Sacha Baron Cohen!), and expect a growth of acceptance and inclusion in future. I frankly am impressed with the inclusions of Indians and Indian-Americans in ads and the fact that you finally see Indian and Indian-America doctors on TV…. I don’t see Star Trek and Khan as a battleground, it’s a slow progress and I wouldn’t want to halt the momentum with this one.

“However, hiavng watched Bollywood for about 35 years, I am not seeing in the current crowd of talent an actor I would look at and say I think that guy should play this role. That’s my only comment?! My point is simply that an apriori decision that it has to be an Indian limits the pool of candidates in a way that adds nothing (see my previous comments about the nothing gained) and reduces the chance of successs.”

What I would do, if I was the director of the sequel, would be to line up the best candidates that look like they could be Khan Noonian Singh, ruler of Asia, and I would tell them what I expected of them from the role and I would coach them on my expectations. Some of those actors would be from Bollywood (I would insist on it unless someone talked me out of it for very good reasons), and some would not, but they would all be of Indian descent. I would then base my decision on the best performance, and I would be confident that I could make that actor work in the role.

Again, my point is that casting for race on Khan is really not useful this time around. I think that chosing a spoiled rich kid is the best if you are trying to get someone who will understand Khan . I do agree that a good director can get a performance out of an actor that is not in them from their training or experience, but the previous discussions are about casting choices.

“Again, you seem to read my comments as racism about what Indians can do…”

In anonymous comments, race is not apparent. All I know is that if I made such comments I would be a target for such a claim. But being Indian yourself, that would not apply to you.

“While you are dealing with the injustices of the world, you should look into (white?) experts who feel their they are the only ones who can judge others and can google things they don’t know and make an expert opinion based on their experience and extrapolation and based on that chastise people for their experience. Aren’t you offended by those guys?”

Yes sir, I am. : ) And I take your point well. I am, indeed, “white.”

Live long and prosper!

Best Regards. Enjoyed the chat.

164. Antipodean - July 3, 2009

I’d rather the next movie have Klingon bad guys, rather than Khan. Although it would be interesting to see how the whole Khan thing happens in this new timeline, I think it might be better to do a wholly original story again rather than a new spin on an old one. Which isn’t to say they can’t bring back Kor or Kang — just as long as they don’t make Movie #2 a retelling of “Errand of Mercy” or “Day of the Dove”, if you get what I mean.

But if they do have Khan in a future movie, how about they increase the “Lost” connections and cast Naveen Andrews? I mean, the guy can definitely play “villain”.

165. Pauln6 - July 3, 2009

Naveen Andrews would be good. Sendil Rammamurthy might be a bit too pretty but he could be ok. There are probably numerous Bollywood actors who could pull it off too. I don’t think they are bad actors but Bollywood films require the actors to perform to a certain style. You can’t look at a Bollywood film and assume that the actor wouldn’t be capable of performing in a Hollywood movie.

Persis Khambatta may not have increased viewing in Asia but she certainly enhanced my viewing! Her performance may not have been as nuanced as Nimoy’s but it was pretty good for the demands placed on her, particularly as the probe. She even damaged her eyseight in the final scene because she didn’t want to blink too often among all that strobing. More power to her.

This is a moot point though. Because Khan should not be the villain in the next movie. Lets have Captain Garth getting caught up in a war between the Romulans and Klingons. I could live with Harry Mudd selling the salvaged Botany Bay to some Klingon mercs at the end of the film but save Khan for two or three movies down the line.

166. Pauln6 - July 3, 2009

I could live with Maggie Grace as Yeoman Rand too.

167. Chadwick - July 3, 2009

If they are not going to have a script done for December and 2010 is when they start pre production let alone filming and post production I highly doubt we will see this movie in 2011, it will more than likely be pushed to 2012.

168. Shatner_Fan_Prime - July 3, 2009

Said it before and I’ll say it again. Trekkies may not want Khan, but the general public does. Khan it shall be! If not in the next one, then the third installment.

169. Pauln6 - July 3, 2009

That’s why I think they should tease us in the second one with a view to him featuring in the third or fourth film.

But then I also think that they should have remained true to Trek and featured Yeoman Rand instead of Chekov, saving him for the sequel when he’s actually old enough to shave, let alone serve as an officer on a ship.

170. Pauln6 - July 3, 2009

Did I say serve as an officer? I meant be in charge of the entire ship – yeeesh.

171. Closettrekker - July 3, 2009

#128—”Yes, that IS a benefit, but it’s not the only one.”

Perhaps there are other benefits—but no “tangible” ones that I can forsee, which was the statement I made.

” And I don’t see ANY benefit at all in purposely casting a Hispanic actor just because the original Khan was Hispanic.”

Nor do I. I never casted my ballot in such direction. In fact, I think that would amount to limiting the talent pool.

My feeling on the matter is that an actor should be cast based upon talent and ability to convey the character to the audience. Does anyone really care that James Caan isn’t Sicilian-American? Nope. He sure played a good Sonny Corleone though.

If an Indian actor is best for the job—great. If it’s a Native American—great. If it’s an Hispanic—that’s great too.

172. Closettrekker - July 3, 2009

#134—” Khan was never canonized as a Sikh.”

Well, the Enterprise historian Marla McGivers (to whom Kirk has chosen to defer in the matter), after noting his features and clothing, said that Khan was “probably a Sikh from Northern India”, adding “They’re the most fantastic warriors”.

Given that this is never challenged at any point despite two separate canon appearances by the character—-I think its place in canon is solid—if for no other reason than the fact that there is no cause to believe otherwise.

She is the expert—is she not?

173. Lore - July 3, 2009

Sequal: Kirk & Spock’s excellent adventure.

174. BesterGirl - July 3, 2009

Thoughts.

1) Transformers II is also a JJ Abrams product, ironically enough.

2) I think I know why they’re thinking of Banderas for playing Khan. Montalban did play the part of Banderas’ father in “Spy Kids”.

3) I think they’d be better off using a different villain than Khan in the next ST movie. Time for a new fresh conflict.

4) Back in the day (i.e. 1966), there probably weren’t as many Indian actors available as there are now.

5) Almost not surprised that ST chose an Indian to represent a genetic superman. The Indians that my kids have encountered in school seem to the cream of the intellectual crop. As a whole, the Indians dominate academically, with the Asians and the Russians also doing well (genetic breeding program, anyone?)

175. Closettrekker - July 3, 2009

#173—” Transformers II is also a JJ Abrams product, ironically enough.”

No it isn’t.

ROTF is directed and produced by Michael Bay, with Steven Spielberg as executive producer. The only connection to the Star Trek filmmakers is in Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman—who were writers and executive producers on ST09, but only writers for ROTF.

Abrams has no connection to Transformers.

176. Roderick - July 3, 2009

Is that is why we’re hearing ‘The Wait Is Over” for Transformers ROTF commercials like we did for Trek?

177. RD - July 3, 2009

#171. When you say it was never “challenged” … you mean it never came up again. If someone had said, “Kahn was a Sikh who …”, then that would be a solid place in canon. The absence of refuting her idle speculation is no proof of anything other than specious reasoning.

When you say McGivers was an expert, well there are a lot of problems with that statement.

1) I don’t think she was ever given that credential on camera.
2) Kirk did not seem to have a high regard for her – ”give that historian a chance to do something for a change”, failing to even get her name right.
3) She wore a Support services uniform, implying her primary job was as something else and “historian” was a secondary, or a hobby. The original script suggests she was a control systems specialist – http://www.fastcopyinc.com/orionpress/articles/spaceseed.htm
Besides, with only 400 crew members, it’s hard to imagine having the luxury of a dedicated historian on board, particularly when they had extensive databases available to them (the ENT-D more likely).
4) Her performance to duty and professionalism is seriously questionable, on camera by Kirk at one point, but even her demeanor when summoned to the transporter was one of being inconvenienced by being dragged away from her hobby. This challenges her credibility as an expert as well.
5) The idea that she was an expert in 20th Century history is a further stretch when she did not recognize or even speculate Montalban was Khan, especially when McCoy, Scotty and Kirk later suggest he was the “best of them”, further implying he was the most famous – if not recognizable, it certainly would have been known he was a Sikh.
6) As for her speculation, perhaps it is more wishful thinking. I find it interesting in that episode that she is one of the few women that have no eye for Kirk and in fact tells him point blank how little she thinks of modern men. She seems to spend an inordinate amount of time romanticizing the “great” male warriors of the past. There is nothing about Khan that would visibly suggest he is a Sikh, which by definition requires that he would have a beard, and neither it nor his hair would be trimmed, plus he would have worn a turban. In the absence of this, there is very little reason to believe Khan was a Sikh just by looking at him (unless she recognized him instantly and hid the information). His description in the script is this: His face reflects the sun-darkened Ayrian (sic) blood of the Northern India Sikh people, suggesting just a trace of the Oriental blood often found too . Clearly it was the intention by someone to make Khan a Sikh, but even the script does not say he was one, just had a similar appearance, which Montalban certainly had. It also refers to Asians as Orientals and shows a general misunderstanding of Easter ethnicities by the West in the 60s in general, so what they may have wanted may not have actually been a Sikh at all – all the more reason to take this as a guide than fact. Besides, he was genetically engineered, so who can say what factors influenced his physical appearance, even if his base of power was centered in Northern India, he may have had little genetic material from the region.

Ultimately, my whole point for questioning this, is that without concrete evidence to the contrary, Khan’s ethnic origins have been rendered moot by the original casting of Ricardo Montalban. Even the name Khan is not defined clearly. Is it a family name (which is a common Muslim name throughout Asia) or is it a title, like “King”? – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_(title)
Singh has similar connotations as a term of entitlement. Noonien is the only name I can find no ethnic derivative for. However, I would argue that even the name taken by Khan is no different than Genghis Khan, whose real name was Temüjin. In essence, Khan’s name could have been simply Noonien, and he took the regional names from his base of power to proclaim himself Khan Noonien Singh or “Ruler Noonien the Lion Warrior”.

This then, opens the role to any actor of any ethnicity, though I would lean toward the original interpretation. But casting a Northern Indian Sikh is by no means a requirement for the part, or even an actor who otherwise resembles this ethnic heritage. If I were casting Khan, I would choose any actor with an Indo-European background from the Mediteranean, Middle East and Central Asia.

178. tman - July 3, 2009

172- I would argue that she says “probably” a Sikh so it is not cannon. There are Hindu rulers of North India who are also called Singh and since he is Khan (the title of a muslim ruler), ruler of all Asia and a product of Eugenics, I would argue that he is likely of mixed race. I would say that it is only cannonical to say that he has some blood from the Indian subcontinent. We cannot rule out the possibility that Ricardo Montelbahn’s great, great, great, great…. great, great grandson came to power in Asia centuries from now, his intermediate ancestors having moved to Asia for the chance of a better life or to break into Bollywood : )

179. Closettrekker - July 3, 2009

#176—”I don’t think she was ever given that credential on camera.”

I suppose that depends upon your own personal requisite for being an “expert”. At the very least, Kirk defers to her knowledge of the field of history—not only when assigning her to the landing party (which you correctly point out was at least in some part in order to give her something to do), but also once they are aboard the Botany Bay.

” Kirk did not seem to have a high regard for her – ‘give that historian a chance to do something for a change’, failing to even get her name right.”

Kirk’s lack of regard is for the presence of an historian aboard. The fact that he struggles with her name indicates that it isn’t at that point a lack of personal regard.

I would say that the fact Kirk defers to her opinion on the origins of Khan alone suggests that she is, at the very least, the most expert officer in the field aboard the Enterprise.

Kirk expresses dissatisfaction, not with her level of expertise (which he never questions), but with her professionalism.

But it isn’t just her professional qualifications. Take a look at her quarters. Beyond being simply taken with bold and colorful male figures from Earth’s history, her fascination borders on obsession. This actually gives her analysis even more credibility, IMO—as such overwhelming interest in almost any subject fosters particular attention to detail.

She paints Khan as a Sikh warrior—and even he acknowledges that the work is impressive and that he is honored.

When she suggests that he is a Sikh from Northern India—-I believed her. And I think the rest of the landing party did too.

Moreover, it is later confirmed by Spock that at the height of his power, Khan Noonien Singh controlled over a quarter of Earth’s population—with an empire that spanned over large portions of Asia and the Middle East.

Everything points to her analysis as being correct, and nothing suggests otherwise. Why would the writers suggest through the dialogue that he is Sikh, never bother to contradict it, and place such other circumstantial support for it within the context—if it wasn’t the case?

“She wore a Support services uniform, implying her primary job was as something else…”

Nevertheless, she is identified in the actual script used as “historian”. And the red uniform thing is flimsy, as Uhura sometimes wore a gold uniform–yet still performed the duties of someone in a technical field. Not only does Kirk refer to her as an historian, but she refers to herself in this manner to Khan as well—when he showed up in her quarters.

“… and ‘historian’ was a secondary, or a hobby.”

If that were the case, why the ’something to do for a change’ remark?” If she had a primary function other than ‘historian’ (for which there is no onscreen basis), surely she had things to do before.

“…it’s hard to imagine having the luxury of a dedicated historian on board…”

Kirk would seem to agree. Nevertheless, she is the ship’s historian. That is firm canon.

“The idea that she was an expert in 20th Century history is a further stretch when she did not recognize or even speculate Montalban was Khan…”

Again, the fact that she is the ship’s historian renders that point moot. Since records from that period (according to Spock) are fragmented, I’m not sure why it is such a stretch.

Kirk calls her “that historian”, and she identifies herself to Khan as “ship’s historian”. That is as “canon” as it gets.

The Enterprise historian suggests that he is a Sikh, and Spock confirms that he ruled an empire in that part of the world.

The only “stretch” here is clawing away at its canonical value. Simply put, there is no reason for it to be in the dialogue, not to mention for it to go unchallenged, if it wasn’t meant to be accepted.

“There is nothing about Khan that would visibly suggest he is a Sikh…”

McGivers suggests that her analysis is based upon his dress, if I’m not mistaken.

“….he would have a beard, and neither it nor his hair would be trimmed….”

As we know it now—yes. But that’s irrelevant, since we’re talking about a make-believe account of the 1990’s.

“…plus he would have worn a turban.”

McGivers paints him with one—-and Khan claims to be “honored” by that painting.

“Noonien is the only name I can find no ethnic derivative for.”

According to Roddenberry, “Kim Noonien Singh” was the name of an Indian friend of his with whom he had lost touch.

Naming the character “Khan Noonien Singh” was in the hope that this friend would contact him.

180. RD - July 3, 2009

Closet as always, you make a solid case for believing what is presented in a particular manner. That makes it A valid view, but not THE valid view.

I find this remark particularly self-serving: “Take a look at her quarters. Beyond being simply taken with bold and colorful male figures from Earth’s history, her fascination borders on obsession. This actually gives her analysis even more credibility, IMO—as such overwhelming interest in almost any subject fosters particular attention to detail.”

You use this to confirm her expertise. Yet, you then make the following comment to explain why she does not recognize Khan: ” Since records from that period (according to Spock) are fragmented, I’m not sure why it is such a stretch.

This, despite the fact they were able to produce a picture and account for Khan from those “fragmented” records in their database, and Scotty always held a sneaking admiration for “that one”, and McCoy & Kirk are generally acquainted with him as the “best of them”. This seems to discredit McGiver’s obsession depicted earlier as a qualification of her expertise since she seems to be missing an important detail which Spock eventually uncovers through research, not being an expert. Your very examples to prove one thing undoes the other. While case can be made for McGivers being an “expert”, I see her constantly being question by Kirk. Indeed I never thought much of her character before this debate and analyzing her only solidifies my initial reaction. She seems wholly unreliable on all fronts. I mean why would Kirk question the word of the so-called “historian” until she was proven wrong. He was assigned a crew member by Starfleet (it’s not like Kirk picked her) to provide those services and by all accounts this is the first time he ever called upon them. So every reason to trust her. Clearly, she was NOT to be trusted.

As for Khan’s dress, I’d have to know more about what a Sikh’s dress was, to refute that. As for her dress, Uhura did not “sometimes” wear a gold uniform. She wore it in the first couple of episodes, signifying to me that she had been transferred from one division to another, indeed she was the new communications officer and or Starfleet changed the dress code, since she NEVER wore it again. That’s like saying “sometimes” Spock wore a gold uniform, which he only wore once and likely has a better fanon explanation, than it being a wardrobe choice.

Khan being honored IMO has less to do with being depicted in a turban than being painted at all, and more to do with swaying a member of the crew to achieve his ends. Telling her she had it all wrong would not help his cause at all.

Finally, as for why she makes the point at all, is more likely because Rodenberry wanted to specifically identify Montalban who clearly was not a Sikh, as his friend Kim Noonien Singh whom he was trying to find. However I was not able to find any evidence for his friend’s ethnic origin (where did you read he was Indian?) and then of course there was Roddenberry’s penchant for making up stories to explain decisions he made.

Either way, many remarks are said in Trek, the motivations for which are not often clear, usually play no further role in the series and or sometimes are directly contradicted by later events. The most that can be said is McGivers thinks he is “probably” from Northern India and a Sikh, not definitively.

But my point about “Noonien” is that Googling the name produces nothing other than Roddenberry’s story. Seems odd, if the name is commonplace elsewhere in the world. Khan and Singh pull up numerous references all over the world.

While I would say your explanation is certainly plausible, and indeed there is no reason not to portray Khan this way, but based on my analysis, there is no reason to definitively portray him that way either.

As with so many details in Trek, there is no definitive answer, only degrees of presumption based on available information and individual analysis. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

181. Daoud - July 3, 2009

Ummm, I think the “meta-view” is that McGivers knew damn well all along who Khan was. If you take that assumption, then the ending makes all the more sense.

Personally I like to think that her mother’s maiden name was Soong. ;)

Side note: Noonien (and likewise Noonien Soong) was a name Gene Roddenberry liked because of an Indian friend he had who had that name.

182. Daoud - July 3, 2009

meant to add… Roddenberry didn’t necessarily spell it write.

183. Daoud - July 3, 2009

or right. Geesh, wish we could edit.

184. Closettrekker - July 3, 2009

#180—”This, despite the fact they were able to produce a picture and account for Khan from those “fragmented” records in their database, and Scotty always held a sneaking admiration for “that one”, and McCoy & Kirk are generally acquainted with him as the “best of them”. This seems to discredit McGiver’s obsession depicted earlier as a qualification of her expertise since she seems to be missing an important detail which Spock eventually uncovers through research, not being an expert.”

If anything, I see that as a minor hole in the story—-not the character’s expertise, which is conceded (IMO) in the dialogue with her title of “ship’s historian”.

“While (the) case can be made for McGivers being an “expert”, I see her constantly being (questioned) by Kirk. ”

But what is it that he questions? At no point is it her ‘expertise’… He questions her professionalism, asking her to admit that she is attracted to Khan. And that itself is really only prompted by Kirk having to ask her twice to respond to a question aboard the Botany Bay.

It is rather obviously foreshadowing McGivers’ later betrayal of her captain and shipmates. It certainly isn’t there for the audience to raise questions about her expertise.

“As for Khan’s dress, I’d have to know more about what a Sikh’s dress was, to refute that.”

It would be extremely difficult to refute in any case, for the simple reason that McGivers’ analysis is derived from something that doesn’t actually exist and never did—a fictional time period imagined from the perspective of 1960’s television writers— specifically, a make-believe 1990’s in which DY-100 space vessels are common, genetic supermen have taken power simultaneously in over 40 nations, and millions perish in a war to remove them.

It would be pointless to compare Khan’s dress aboard the Botany Bay to what a late 20th Century Sikh actually wore. That’s about as significant as 23rd Century alien women in TOS wearing go-go boots and mini-skirts and applying eyeshadow with a paintbrush. Just as we have no idea what styles will be worn by a certain people 30 years from now—television producers didn’t know that in 1967 either.

“As for her dress, Uhura did not “sometimes” wear a gold uniform. She wore it in the first couple of episodes, signifying to me that she had been transferred from one division to another…”

Yet she was at the communications station whether wearing a gold uniform or a red one. And this occurred only in first season episodes, but “Space Seed” is a first season episode as well.

It is never made clear when during the five year mission red, gold, and blue are adopted officially as being specific to certain departments—and the only canon mention of any of that is in DS9, explaining why doctors are wearing blue in the 23rd Century, etc.

It is funny to me that you can comfortably nitpick the canonical validity of McGivers’ professional opinion, but have no problem embracing the uniform color-coding as clear-cut canon. There is certainly far more support for the former than the latter!

“Khan being honored IMO has less to do with being depicted in a turban than being painted at all, and more to do with swaying a member of the crew to achieve his ends.”

Perhaps, but if he were not the Sikh warrior she suggested him to be and painted, would he have even recognized himself in the painting? The actual face looks nothing like Montalban.

“However I was not able to find any evidence for his friend’s ethnic origin (where did you read he was Indian)?”

I think it was the ‘Captains’ Logs’ book by Mark Altman. I’d like to say that I have the book still, but the truth is I haven’t seen it in over a decade.

“The most that can be said is McGivers thinks he is “probably” from Northern India and a Sikh, not definitively.”

I think the fact that it is an opinion of McGivers affords a potential canonical ‘out’ to any future writer who wishes to retcon the ethnicity of the character—but I would still consider Khan’s Sikh heritage ‘canon’ until such time as something in another canonical entry invalidates it. There is simply no reason to question it. Certainly no one in the story (of either “Space Seed” or TWOK) did—even Khan, after seeing himself painted as she imagined him.

185. Suraj - July 3, 2009

I’ll agree if they didn’t go with someone like Amitabh Bachan, that casting for Khan could be fair game for anyone that resembles someone east indian.

Ricardo Montalban, though fantastic, was a product of 1960’s casting limitations. There weren’t any good indian actors in US back then even though they envisioned an indian character.

A lot of my points are not so much restricting the ethnicity of the actor who could play Khan but casting for someone who could play Ricardo Montalban instead of the character of Khan, I think, is a mistake.

Karl Urban and John Cho do not have the same ethnic backgrounds as their characters do, however they played them perfectly. A major indian villain is something you don’t see too often, and that in itself has a certain element of freshness to it though. This is why I hope if they choose to go this route they look at some possible international star choices.

186. dmduncan - July 3, 2009

171: “My feeling on the matter is that an actor should be cast based upon talent and ability to convey the character to the audience. Does anyone really care that James Caan isn’t Sicilian-American? Nope. He sure played a good Sonny Corleone though.”

“If an Indian actor is best for the job—great. If it’s a Native American—great. If it’s an Hispanic—that’s great too.”

And my feeling is the same with the understanding that you can get that AND an actor whose ethnicity matches the character he is playing at the same time. And anyone who says you can’t isn’t looking hard enough. It isn’t an either-or situation. And I’ve already said and I’ll repeat ad nauseum if necessary that while Montalban was great in the role, he was always a Hispanic playing an Indian. That’s not only what he was, but it’s what he OBVIOUSLY was, and there’s no need to duplicate 1967 in 2009 or 2010.

It would simply be more believable to have an Indian by the name of Khan Noonian Singh rule over Asia rather than to have a HIspanic named Khan Noonian Singh rule over Asia.

The question isn’t who CAN play Khan. Steve Buscemi can play Khan. I can make up all kinds of reasons why Megan FOX can play Khan. There is no way you CAN’T write it if you want to.

But if you are looking out for the integrity of the role and not having these futile debates about who Khan “really” was (he wasn’t “really” anyone folks; he’s a character in a couple of screenplays, so your debates about his reality are sterile. Unless Bob and Alex change that, that’s what he is. What are you going to do? A genetic blood test on a fictional character to decide where he was “really” from?), then two questions come to mind:

1. Do you really want to see the strings holding up the USS Enterprise? Because I do not.

So you can’t get whose “best” for the role without placing an actor in the role whom he matches the race of as someone who would rule over Asia, and whom he would sound like (and it’s absurd to try and explain Montalban’s Spanish accent as maybe Khan was educated in Europe! If it ain’t on film it doesn’t count). Maybe some would be willing to suspend disbelief, but I am not wherever an alternative not to force that on the audience is available. Who would look the part better (movies are made of images, folks, and you wouldn’t be spending $14 at the door if all they gave you was a radio show)—Antonio Banderas—or Aamir Khan or Amitabh? That’s just a no brainer. It’s not that I CAN’T imagine Antonio Banderas ruling over Asia as a Sikh. It’s that I’d prefer NOT to have to do the work, just as I’d prefer NOT to have to ignore all the other bad special effects in TOS. A great film shouldn’t debit your love-account for Star Trek in order to make it seem believable. It should do the work so you don’t have to pretend the wires aren’t showing.

And 2. WOULD having a Bollywood star who could fill the Role of Khan with equal skill and more visual authenticity than Ricardo Montalban raise Star Trek’s gross in Asia IF the film was thoroughly advertised there as having a major Bollywood star in a major role (not just 5 minutes in the beginning)?

187. RD - July 3, 2009

#184 Closettrekker wrote: “It is rather obviously foreshadowing McGivers’ later betrayal of her captain and shipmates. It certainly isn’t there for the audience to raise questions about her expertise.”

I would disagree with this. My overall impression of McGivers from the moment Kirk speaks of her to the first time we see her, is that there is something not right about her. Why show her before she arrives in the transporter room? How many other guest stars were shown preparing prior to arriving in the transporter room?

The mere fact she has a “title” is no more indicative of her ability to do the job than her uniform proves her loyalty. While one cannot directly assume one for the other, it doesn’t preclude the possibility either. I had a secretary once, who interviewed well, had a good resume and references. Not long after she was hired, I began to notice her professionalism slipping. By the time she was fired, we discovered she didn’t know how to do her job very well either either. That is certainly not the first time I’ve heard of a bad employee being ferreted out of a company under those circumstances. Often one thing leads to another and I think that’s exactly what the audience is being set up for from the beginning.

The final card I will play is that if she were in fact an expert, she likely would not have qualified her assessment with “probably”. She would have stated it matter-of-factly: “He’s a Sikh from Northern India”. Like most appointed and self proclaimed experts I know and see on TV.

The turban does little to convince me one way or the other since it originates from the same source. However, I have conceded that I see “Khan” and “Singh” as titles which Khan has christened himself from whence he held his seat of power central to his empire of the Middle East and Asia. Khan may well have identified himself with the Sikhs for any number of reasons, or he may simply have liked to wear the adornment as part of his public costume, in the way Hitler liked to wear military uniforms despite being a civilian head of state, which would explain why Khan adheres to none of the other traditional Sikh traits. On the other hand, the fact that the painting looks nothing like Montalban is a non starter since he looks nothing like the average Sikh and speaks with a Spanish accent.

Either way, the word “probably” opens the door to second guess the “clues”, and hire someone of non-Sikh heritage to play the role, or even re-invent Khan any way one wants. That’s really all I wanted to point out.

Then again they hired a Pakistani to play a Cuban, so in the end it probably doesn’t matter at all, especially since it seems Indians wouldn’t go see Star Trek if their biggest star were in it.

What I think is funny, is that you find it funny others don’t have the depth of familiarity with canon you do, particularly when it comes to the understanding of the division colors. With the exception of the very early episodes (Uhura wore the gold uniform in the first two episodes only, then switched to red for 21 episodes before Space Seed), the color assignment of uniforms was visually consistent and implied the division assignment whether it was actually spoken (Khan even wears a red engineering uniform because he states he was an engineer). Rarely after the first few episodes was it violated, so of course the average person would assume it. Certainly by the time Space Seed was shot, the division separation was established. Whether or not a historian would be classified as a sciences or support is less of a problem for me than the fact with such limited personnel on the Enterprise, Star Fleet would assign a dedicated historian, who would have nothing to do 99% of the time.

188. tman - July 3, 2009

RD,

Though Sikhism is a religion, their tenets guide their appearance (at least for the devout). I’m not a Sikh so please excuse me if any of this is not true.

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/5ks

As with any religion there are people who are very devoted and follow this, others who are not; but since the religion is about self-regulation to live a life of justice, most Sikhs in India actually follow this. In place of Sword, some carry small ornaments on their person that represent the sword.

I believe the character of Captain Nemo in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comics is supposed to be a Sikh. Check out how they dolled up Nassuradin Shah to play that role. That’s what a comic book –> Hollywood Sikh apparently looks like. Check out Inside Man. The Indian American kid they assume to be a terrorist is a Sikh.

There is so little attempt at accuracy on Sikhism in Space Seed I’m not sure it’s useful to discuss what a Sikh looks like.

Since Sikhism is a religion, not a race I think it makes sense for a historian to say “probably” even if they are pretty sure from the outward appearance.

189. dmduncan - July 3, 2009

The character of Khan could be written so that Khan was born a Sikh, raised as one, but—true even to the comparison to him and Lucifer in Space Seed through Milton—like Lucifer, began to think of himself as all powerful, benevolently Godlike, and who then threw off the dress and habits of Sikhism, as though he became above all that, while retaining elements of that religion which he liked and which he thought justified the actions he took as part of his personal agenda to rule.

Bob and Alex have a canvas with a mere sketch on it, and they can color in the details in any number of ways.

190. dmduncan - July 3, 2009

Or you could say that as a shrewd political leader, Khan intentionally cast off the costume and appearance of a Sikh to be a leader of EVERYONE, and so he desired an appearance that might appeal to a much broader segment of the population.

191. dmduncan - July 3, 2009

On an issue unrelated to Khan, I’ve been thinking that Star Trek was best in the cinema when it told one big story in the way that we now see the BlueRay edition of ST 2, 3, and 4 packaged as an epic motion picture trilogy. (Say what you will about what the critics said about ST 3, but it still had some of the best dramatic moments in all of Trek: Kirk lamenting, and McCoy comforting Kirk, on his destruction of the Enterprise…Spock in the moment of recognition of his comrades).

I think an episodic treatment of the motion picture series that is to come, as though it were a big screen enactment of a TV series premise, wouldn’t be the best for the franchise.

I think it would be interesting to see the next 3 movies thought of as one big movie, like Lord of the Rings, or Star Wars, so that we are left hanging at the end and waiting for the sequel to resolve some issues begun in the previous film.

And I would hazard a guess that one of the reasons why Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter were all so successful was because those stories explored timeless mythology. I think that kind of thing works very well in cinema, and it would be interesting to see that explored for the film series instead of doing 2 hour stand alone episodes every two years.

192. Tj Trek - July 3, 2009

I would not, personaly, like to see Kahn. Why? because he’s been done already, and he was done so well, that you can’t top it. Who the hell that top Montalban? nobody I tell you. I don’t see why they can’t do a new story. Something fresh, and original, instead of taking old elements and throughing them together in diffrent amounts and with diffrent packaging. Not cool in my book.

That said however. I will be seeing any Star Trek movie they come up with in theaters. Even if they did the easter bunny takes over the enterprise.

193. Matthew Barrow - July 4, 2009

Khan would be good if the eugenics wars were included. But don’t forget that some of this was covered in Enterprise season 4 with Dr Soon, (Brent Spiner), to good effect.
Flash backs to source the beginnings of Khan would a useful thing, don’t forget that a trilogy of books have been written about this.

194. AJ - July 4, 2009

The main ‘plot hole’ in “Space Seed” is the idiotic decision to exile Khan and his people to a planet when they should have been sedated and returned to Earth. They are one of the greatest historical finds of the 23rd century, and you dump them on an empty planet and leave?

Sure, they’re dangerous. But it is not up to Kirk or Khan (now a 23rd century criminal) to sweep this little incident under the rug.

195. M-5 - July 5, 2009

Star Trek might fall to number three or four in overall box office for the summer, but it’s still the best overall film of summer 2009. That Transformers II movie, if you can call it that, was cheesy and corny. What a waste of money.

196. Lore - July 27, 2009

I thought that transformers sucked. I heard that it was like watching a video game because of all of the machines and robots fighting throughout. But I thought star trek was great and i think that it should not drop because of transformers revenge of the fallen.