Rumor Control: Nestor Carbonell NOT Being Eyed For Khan In Star Trek Sequel | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Rumor Control: Nestor Carbonell NOT Being Eyed For Khan In Star Trek Sequel November 18, 2009

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Rumor,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

Now that the cycle is complete and Star Trek is on home video, it is appears it is time for the next cycle start up in earnest. In the last day their have been rumors running around the interweb that the Star Trek team are not only focusing on Khan for the sequel, but they are already settling on a specific actor, Nestor Carbonell. However, TrekMovie’s sources say it just isn’t so.

 

Nestor Khan?
Of course discussion of the return (and recasting) of Khan Noonien Singh has been the focus for much of the talk regarding the Star Trek sequel. Khan, who appeared in the Star Trek: The Original Series episode "Space Seed" and the 1982 feature film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, is probably Trek’s most famous bad guy, akin to Batman’s Joker. So it makes a sort of sense for Khan to appear in the Star Trek sequel, as Joker did in The Dark Knight (sequel to Batman Begins). In fact, the film makers (JJ Abrams, Bob Orci, etc.) have gone on record saying that Khan is a possibility. Co-writer Alex Kurtzman once said chances of Khan were "50/50."

And if you listen to the commentary on the Star Trek DVD and Blu-ray, producer Damon Lindelof states that they did consider putting in one of those ‘after the credits’ scenes that would have shown the Botany Bay floating in space; something Bob Orci has also talked about here at TrekMovie.com.  Bob has made it clear that even though the new film sets out a new timeline, many things from the ‘prime timeline’ are still intact, including the Botany Bay.


Botany Bay from remastered "Space Seed"

The new wrinkle this week seems to have been kicked off by ComingSoon, which stated JJ Abrams and the Star Trek team "already have a favorite" to take over the role made famous by the late Ricardo Montalban. Coming Soon says that the team are looking at Nestor Carbonell, who plays Richard Alpert on JJ Abrams’ and Damon Lindelof’s Lost. Many other sites are now running with this rumor.


Nestor Carbonell as Richard Alpert in "Lost"

However, multiple sources have confirmed with TrekMovie that there has been no change on the decision regarding Khan. And for this week’s rumors, a trusted source tells TrekMovie that discussions of Carbonell being on some sort of short list is "total BS." Sources do confirm that Khan is still a possibility for the film, but that is not anything new.

In fact, the only name that members of the Trek ‘Supreme Court’ have discussed as a possible Khan is Javier Bardeem, the Oscar-winner from No Country for Old Men, although comments have mostly been stated in the hypothetical, as in "he would be cool", however, as noted, there are no talks yet regarding casting as there isn’t even a story, let alone a script for the Star Trek sequel.

This will not be the end of Khan rumors. If we think back to 2006 and 2007, there was a constant stream of casting rumors. Although the main crew has been locked down, we will see the same for the additional cast for the next Star Trek. As we did for the last film, TrekMovie will stick with what we can confirm.

 

Comments

1. Blackout - November 18, 2009

I wouldnt be too upset if Nestor was Khan.

2. Rick - November 18, 2009

I still think no Khan is good Khan. Move on to something new or combine some other things to make something better. I just think the Khan story was done well already and to compare it to the Joker situation just doesn’t work in my book at least. But that is just my opinion on this subject.

3. JohnD - November 18, 2009

Unbelievable.

4. tman - November 18, 2009

I think he’d be great. Just have to bulk up and drink alot of caffiene between takes. Still hoping for no Khan.

5. Shatner_Fan_Prime - November 18, 2009

Like him, but not right for Khan. Low key and doesn’t strike me as physically imposing, either. Khan has to be intense!

6. Justice Boy - November 18, 2009

Keep him as Batmanuel on The Tick!

7. The Bear - November 18, 2009

Leave Khan alone! The Wrath of Khan is a CLASSIC. Don’t FRAK WITH IT. Some things are just sacred and should just be left alone!

8. SerenityActual - November 18, 2009

Let’s just get past Khan and go for something original.

Please?

9. Trekkie369 - November 18, 2009

PLEEEEEAAAAAAAAASSSSSSEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can the Khan idea! No more Khan! They want to bring Trek back? Khan is not the way to do it! IT wasn’t even the best ST movie out ov the original movies! Khan was good, but know it’s time to Can Khan, and do something original. If there is going to be a known villain, have it be the Klingons, or maybe the Borg, but no Khan.

10. Chadwick - November 18, 2009

Khan has been done and what’s done is done, at least when it come to villains. After 11 movies there is no way star trek is already running out of inventing new villains. Bond has 22 films and even though Bond is a reboot they have yet to re-tell a story or redo a villain. Yes a new Khan can be tempting but I feel that the new movie was so great something far more epic than Khan could be in the works. I still say no Khan, please oh please no Khan.

11. Syn4Ever - November 18, 2009

Carbonell would be alright for Khan but Bardeem would be great. Wonder who started up this rumor

12. Picard's Barber - November 18, 2009

Just use the Klingons. They looked badass in the deleted scenes from Star Trek. I was surprised when I saw there was a mix of brute angry sounding Klingons and soft spoken intellectuals. That makes them seem smart enough for space travel.

13. MDSHiPMN - November 18, 2009

The Wrath Of Khan will always be The Wrath Of Khan, just like the Batman movie from ’89 will always stand alone regardless of the happenings in The Dark Knight. I’m gonna take the leap of faith.

14. Valar1 - November 18, 2009

So no Indian actors available to portray an Indian villain? Reminds me of that scene from “Dragon: the Bruce Lee Story” where the studio rep tells the director of the Green Hornet to get rid of Bruce Lee because he’s “too Asian looking” the people watching in the early sixties couldn’t handle Asians on tv. That was the reason Bruce lost out the role on Kung Fu to David Carradine- according to the movie. So yeah, get Bardem or Campbell for Khan, lets get this century’s David Carradine ready for his closeup. Maybe they can even fake a psuedo Indian accent like Apu from the Simpsons.

15. Mr. Anonymous - November 18, 2009

Heh. I’m still hoping, if they go with Khan, to get someone like Javier Bardem to play. Seriously, that guy was fierce in “No Country For Old Men!”

16. Mr. Anonymous - November 18, 2009

#11 — Ha! I didn’t even see that. So yeah, that’s two of us who agree on that guy.

17. SebiMeyer - November 18, 2009

I’d rather have an original story that deals with an ethical dilemma than yet another “bad guy trying to take over the galaxy” storyline. How about boldly going, for a change?

18. Jai1138 - November 18, 2009

i’m sure that Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof could come up with a new alternate take on Khan and both Carbonell and Bardem are great casting choices but I still think that the Klingons would make Part II sing. And remember, the sequel will hopefully be the second act of a trilogy. Let’s hope for something nearly as good as The Empire Strikes Back.

19. Jai1138 - November 18, 2009

14. It always amuses me in Space Seed to hear Lt. McGuiver describe Khan as a Siehk warrior only have the admittedly great enunciate with such Latino gusto.

20. Jai1138 - November 18, 2009

That was meant to read “The admittedly great Montalban” — just to clarify.

21. Jeffrey S. Nelson - November 18, 2009

Lorenzo Lamas as Khan! Or Antonio Banderas!

22. Paul - November 18, 2009

To mirror whats already been said no KHAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!! lol couldnt resist. Ok boys time to put up or shut up you gave us shiny new Trek now give us shiny new Trek with a really good story.

23. GarySeven - November 18, 2009

Khan is not like “The Joker.” The Joker is a recurring villain to Batman, like the Penguin, etc. Khan is in one episode and a sequel was made, in one movie.
So many posts by fans are against bringing back Khan, and I agree. And yet despite all that, the Supreme Court still puts it at 50/50. A whole new franchise, a whole universe, and all we might get is Khan redone. It’s disconcerting to me.

24. Trekluver - November 18, 2009

@JJ-Abrams

Khan,KHan,KHAn,KHAN!!!!!!!! Put Khan in Star Trek 2!!!!! Don’t use Antonio Banderas!!!

25. Robofuzz - November 18, 2009

It seems to me that a better story would be the Enterprise crew having to deal with Klingons who are now equipped with technology and knowledge of the future gleaned from having captured the Narada and studied it for 20+ years.

26. Andrew - November 18, 2009

What about a primary “villain” other than Khan, but the Botany Bay is influenced by the main story, setting up Khan for down the road?

27. Andy Patterson - November 18, 2009

14

That’s what I’ve been saying. I’m the last person to be touting political correctness. I think it’s silly most of the time , counter intuitive, and lacking common sense ….again, most of the time. But Khan was supposed to be Indian. Lt. McGivers identified that as they opened his hibernation chamber. Where is politically correct Hollywood on this one?

And oh yeah…..no Khan. Seeing as how they’ve changed everything else….leave this alone.

28. Robofuzz - November 18, 2009

Additionally, with the timeline altered, I could see how it might end up being another ship that finds the Botany Bay. Ships were destroyed in the battle with the Narada that would have otherwise been assigned Starfleet missions. Now the Enterprise will have to pick up some slack and may not be available for exploratory missions – like when they came across the Botany Bay.

Unless, of course, Spock Prime says to Starfleet, “If you find an old ship from the 20th century called the Botany Bay, just blow it the hell up.”

29. Pat Payne - November 18, 2009

Yeah… please no Khan. In much the same way that Nimoy shouldn’t be in the next film (I was glad to see Leonard Nimoy play Spock one last time, but now it’s time for the new cast to stand on its own two feet), they need to establish new threats for the crew. Maybe an exploration into the unknown — have the actually explore those “Strange new Worlds” that the Enterprise never seemed able to reach…

Or maybe throw Klingons at ‘em…

But no Khan. Maybe later down the road, but not now.

30. Dan - November 18, 2009

I can’t wait for this sequel to Lens Flares. Part two should be called The Khan and the Wrath of Lens Flares!!!

31. smokingrobot - November 18, 2009

They should do a ‘Psycho’ with Khan….he dies in the first 10 minutes of the movie, then they move onto the real story.

32. capnjake - November 18, 2009

Since we know that J.J. and everyone come and see what everyone on this site write. Guys resist the urge to redo Kahn, atleast not yet anyways.

If you want to give us an update on a classic trek villian have it be a classic trek Klingon on Villian like Kang or Koloth.
watching the deleted scenes featuring the Klingons, It would be real cool to cast Victor Garber as Kang or Koloth

otherwise create a whole new villan like you did with nero.

33. capnjake - November 18, 2009

Since we know that J.J. and everyone come and see what everyone on this site write. Guys resist the urge to redo Kahn, atleast not yet anyways.

If you want to give us an update on a classic trek villian have it be a classic trek Klingon Villian like Kang or Koloth.
watching the deleted scenes featuring the Klingons, It would be real cool to cast Victor Garber as Kang or Koloth

otherwise create a whole new villan like you did with nero.

ps trek movie, edit buttons are our friends would be so cool to have the ability to correct a mistake in a post

34. starfleetmom - November 18, 2009

NO KHAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

35. MDSHiPMN - November 18, 2009

25, That sounds really good… Then throw Khan in the mix!

Just kidding.

36. TimeTrek - November 18, 2009

Star Trek 2009: Time-travel. Again.

Star Trek 2012: Khan. Again. Also probably involves time travel.

They should call it:

Time Trek: To Boldly Go Where We’ve Already Been At Least Twice.

37. martin - November 18, 2009

I really don’t want Khan. I really think it has been done twice and as good as it can get each time. Don’t redo that story. That said, I think the physical speciman that is right for Khan is Dwayne Johnson.

Want to bring someone back? Try Koloth, Kor, or Kang — or all three coming to destroy the Earth.

38. The Galactic Battleburger - November 19, 2009

Here’s a thought for a sequel: please not a rehash, but what about a movie similar to the original episode of “the Balance of Terror”? Again, not a rehash or remake, but something along the lines of this episodes with Klingons … lots and LOTS of Klingons … and only the Big E standing in the way of them and the Federation.

What do you think?

P.S – why am I picturing Sean Connery as Captain Ramius yelling over the Big E’s intercom “WE SAIL INTO HISTORY!!!” ?

39. Mr Lirpa - November 19, 2009

I think that any main bad guy, whether Kilngon (my choice for the next movie) is just going to be compared to Khan anyway. It always happens, so why not just do Khan? You might well get a performance as good as Heath Ledgers when he re-invented the Joker.

I’d still wantbthe Klingons though, they looked great in the deleted scenes!

40. Jake - November 19, 2009

If they’re so dead set on bringing some storyline or villain back from TOS, they should do what Harve Bennett did before The Wrath of Khan – watch the original episodes and pick up on something there (besides “Space Seed” – that’s what Harve picked, you guys should give something else a chance.) ;-) Besides, it seems like every other Star Trek movie since The Wrath of Khan has tried to duplicate it – with a couple of exceptions, like The Voyage Home and First Contact, which just happen to be two of the most well-received Trek films. On the other hand, look at the most bald-faced attempt to replicate The Wrath of Khan – Nemesis. And we all know how that went.

41. somethoughts - November 19, 2009

#25

The movie starts with a Klingon hacker attempting to gain access to the Narada computer, he is killed by Nero during the escape sequence but before he is killed the screen reads KHLJIH VAMADJE VVKKAZ (Klingon for decryption success transmission sent to high council).

The Klingons are aware of the future and all of Federations potential future history, including Khan. Khan is picked up by Klingon scientists and revived to serve the empire against the Federation.

Spock Prime shares his knowledge of Khan with Starfleet/Federation.

Khan offers Kirk a match in space to determine if the Federation will bow to the Empire, Kirk accepts and before ending the match while attempting to lower his opponents shields (KM move/Wrath of Khan move). Omnipotent being transports both vessels engaged in battle to the past, where ancient earth is engulfed in intergalaxtic war between a reptilian species and a divine human like species. The must pass 3 tests before being allowed back to their time or be forever stuck in the past. Kirk now must beat Khan in a new game to get his crew safely home.

42. Chris Fawkes - November 19, 2009

If they bring Kahn into the next film he would have to escape to maintain the validity of TWOK.

And that would make for a pretty boring film.

Now if they found a casket from the early 21st century and inside were several cryogenically frozen bodies including that of Denny Crane, well i could go with that.

43. great site, but read it before you hit "post" - November 19, 2009

proofreader for this post please

44. toddk - November 19, 2009

Khan = Money in the bank guarenteed..the franchise lives

Companion movie to wrath of khan!

Khan khan khan khan wonderful khan, wonderful khan!

45. Will_H - November 19, 2009

Have they bothered to look at the polls and reactions here to the idea of Khan? Khan is not the Joker, not by any means. Plus, back in the day, I think Nicholson’s Joker left a lot of room for improvement. Then came along Ledger and did an awesome job, which was made bigger by his untimely death. Ricardo Montalbán was at the top of his game when it came to Khan and I think the chances of finding another actor who could even match that are next to nothing. And come on, its taking the easy way of a story. “Hey, lets take someone everyone knows and loves as a villain and use him again”. How about doing something original, like you just did, and it worked. So honestly I’m glad they’re not eying this guy as Khan, because its not that I care who plays Khan, I just don’t want it to be anybody.

#41, you make a good point about the fact that the Klingon’s apparently had the Narada for a long time (I haven’t seen the extras yet), but I think that alone could make a good primes, or at least something they must consider no matter what in the next film.

46. Dalek - November 19, 2009

#45 what do polls matter. Trekkies are in the minority of the movie going audience that saw the last one, and I seem to recall that shatner would often lead the polls for an appearance in the last one and look what happened there lol

An Internet poll is about as powerful as an Internet petition.

It would be so wrong to have the next encounter of khan happen on screen.

If some of the more vocal Trekkies get there way the next film will be about exploration (yawn for 2 hours) facing some gas cloud.

If people do truly want exploration then there’s a sleeper ship out there waiting to be discovered!

47. Dalek - November 19, 2009

Oops I meant off screen, not on screen

48. Teh Austin - November 19, 2009

Looking at the comments,

There is good arguments FOR Kahn, and good ones NOT for Kahn. personally I do not want to see an attempt at Kahn. The Jack Nicholson joker, was brought up, and how Heath ledger improved on it. IMO, the two are a separate game. I always loved the Jack Joker, he was good for the feel of that film, but Kahn… Kahn is Epic. there is no way that could be replicated. even if thats not what happened the two would be compared to each other until all out war! (heh.. talk about war when Kahn is involved go me) I dont think that the Heath ledger joker replaced Ol Jacky, and I dont think you can replecate or “reboot” Kahn. let sleeping superhumans lie says I!

49. Chris Fawkes - November 19, 2009

In a sense Kahn was just redone. Nero instead and his wrath was against Spock rather than Kirk. I don’t see that as a problem but just saying.

The previous film it was Shinzon who’s wrath was against Picard. (i slept through most of that film so forgive me if that’s not entirely accurate).

I would like to see an opening sequence with the Borg who due to Nero’s ship having Borg tech in the last film have come to investigate. During this scene and confronted by a far superior technology Kirk pulls something brilliant to destroy the Borg and save earth, but only as an opening sequence.

50. ProperTrekkieUK - November 19, 2009

I’m not against the idea of Khan…especially seeing as ST was essentially a reboot…technically.

However, what I really want is Klingons! Having seen the deleted scenes those Klingons were PERFECT! The semi-aggressive kind and the intellectual king, perfect mix between TOS and TNG, and I want to see more!

51. TrekkieJan - November 19, 2009

I’m still firmly in the camp of those would would love to see Khan resurface in some way – he’s such an amazing adversary! Kind of the Anti-Kirk.

I also think Nestor Carbonell would be wonderful as Khan (I love him in Lost) although I can’t help but think an Indian actor would be an excellent choice.

Taran Fahir (yes, I know he’s not Indian) would have been an incredible Khan. I still want a Captain Robau TV show. Please…?

52. EM - November 19, 2009

Hey, a television Star Trek with Captain Robau and George Kirk? Great idea! George and the Missus in space. Robau being cool. I do like the idea. But it would probably end up being a really good show that gets cancelled in the second season.
As for the movie franchise…I just hope that the sequel turns out as well as the last movie. Khan is a wonderful antagonist. He’d do well in there somewhere.

53. Wayne Hope - November 19, 2009

Khan could be down there!

Hes bin there!

Ricardo Montalban was Khan twice and excellent!

Lets boldly leave it at that and give another nemesis a chance.

54. paustin - November 19, 2009

Anytime I see Nestor in anything both me and my wife say I’m Batmanuel!”
It’s funny how things stick with you. He’d make a great Kahn. However I’d rather see them not do Khan. Why keep playing those same notes? Maybe later.

55. CmdrR - November 19, 2009

Tom Cruise and Tom Hanks as a two-headed Khan. Otherwise, forget it.

56. Allen Williams - November 19, 2009

Can we do something original please? I like khan and i think they could probably find a suitable actor, but i don’t care. We’ve been there and done that. Its time for something original.

We need (in this order):
Somthing completely original
No Lens flares
No shatner
No Khan
No Nimoy

57. Horatio - November 19, 2009

Oh good grief.

I can see the sequel now: A Botany Bay whose interior looks like a waste water treatment plant with Khan and the gang laying in suspended animation in vats of beer….

NO KHAN!

58. 750 Mang - November 19, 2009

I can’t believe I’m going to say this but the idea of the BB floating in space after the credits was pretty cool. It would have given the movie a very ominous ending. I dig it.

Remember the Kelvin!

59. martin - November 19, 2009

What about more dark Harry Mudd if you want to bring back a classic?

In the first Mudd, Harry was less of a joke, and he was dealing in slavery essentially. In the second, he had come to rule a planet of androids which wanted to take control of the Enterprise and in turn the Federation. Both could be done more dark, and depending on the actor, Mudd could still be somewhat funny in the way Ledger was with Joker. The latter story in particular provides the appropriate level of action and jeopardy.

Tom Hanks would probably jump at the chance to play Harry Mudd, and he would also gain the appropriate amount of weight as well.

60. Lancelot Narayan - November 19, 2009

If they HAVE to use Khan, why not actually use an Asian (Indian/Pakistani) actor. This is the 21st Century.

61. daftpunk - November 19, 2009

I’m also against Khan in the sequel, but if he MUST be in it, Raoul Trujillo would definitely be better than all the other names mentioned.

Just watch him as Zero Wolf in Apocalypto… with all his righteous anger and lust for revenge…shades of Khan all over.

He did such a terrific job in that movie…stole every scene he was in.

62. daftpunk - November 19, 2009

oh…and he’s got the chest for it too!! =D

63. Danpaine - November 19, 2009

There’s a bunch of TOS-era villains to do a new spin on. Romulans should be left alone, as they’ve been front-and-center the past few films, but Klingons, Gorn, Tholians, Mudd….really, the potential options/combinations are endless.

And as far as Khan; tall order to come close to the original, but I have faith you guys could pull it together right. Or just have him in the background someplace.

My two cents.

64. Daoud - November 19, 2009

@OP… you guys are getting the wrong denial…

Don’t get a denial of Nestor Carbonell as Khan…

Get a denial of Nestor Carbonell as someone OTHER than Khan.

Premise:
What if instead of Khan being awakened, a DIFFERENT sleeper on the Botany Bay is awakened first? (And portrayed by Nestor Carbonell).

What if in our “adjusted” timeline, Uhura now having a higher rank and position at an earlier point in time is part of the ‘boarding party’ (no away teams!) and her extensive knowledge base now larger by the time the Botany Bay is encountered means she recognizes who and what Khan and his people… etc.

65. Bill - November 19, 2009

I can agree that Antonio would look like Khan and perhaps have slightly more appropriate mannerisms as Khan. In fact, he may be the best person on Earth to play Khan. And yet “best” still equals bad in my opinion.

Redoing Khan is like making an A-Team movie and recasting B.A….

we’re doomed.

66. The Last Maquis - November 19, 2009

The only good reason Why they should Put Khan in the next movie is so that it will bomb Horribly and pale to the Only Real Khan Movie: TWOK and then I wont have to deal with this JJ/ “Nu-Trek” crap anymore.

67. Shatner_Fan_Prime - November 19, 2009

Nestor is not right for Khan, however, he’d make a great Joaquin!

68. Lore - November 19, 2009

#65 You’ve hit the nail on the head. Mr T can be in the next movie. I pity the fool that doesn’t like that idea.

69. martin - November 19, 2009

You know who would have been a good Khan? Faran Tahir, but they just blew that! They should have thought ahead!

70. Dalek - November 19, 2009

I would luke to hear after 45 years and hundreds of episodes what some fans are classing as “original”?

If you answer gorn. Been there done that space seed. It was a classic.

New species? Been there done that dozens of dozens of episodes.

New enemy? Been there done that so many episodes so many movies.

Inanimate threatening object? Been there.

What is original? So many are demanding it but providing nothing.

Khan wouldn’t be a rehash. It’s the first time in trek history a captain has had to face the same enemy again in the timeline but differently. All the rules have been changed and yes chekov can die woohoo!

71. captain_neill - November 19, 2009

it s a parallel universe that we are now in and its their choice but I am very against Khan being re done

72. Shatner_Fan_Prime - November 19, 2009

#70 “Khan wouldn’t be a rehash.”

Exactly. Fans who think so can’t wrap their heads around the fact that this WOULDN’T be a remake of either Space Seed or TWOK. The character would simply be used in a new story. There have been 11 Star Trek movies, 6 series, and over 700 televised hours. If Khan makes his 3rd appearance in franchise history (and if he were to be used in XII, it would be his first appearance in 30 years!), that’s fine by me. Everyone who’s complaining about it now will go see it twice. That said, I have a feeling Khan will be saved for part 3.

And does everyone notice that as talk of the sequel grows, it is the press who keep asking about Khan? That’s because it’s what many non-Trekkie audience members would like to see.

73. dalek - November 19, 2009

#72 definitely. And condemning the concept to failure based on an idea. An idea can be executed in unlimited ways.

Nothing can actually ruin the second Star Trek movie. No matter how rubbish some of the subsequent Trek movies are, nothing tarnished Khan and it will always be a classic.

As the events of this universe are also separate; they can’t balls anything up.

In fact, I dare say they could make a better movie. Others have tried in the past and failed. But come on it was a 1980′s flick. Let’s set the bar higher this time. Maybe even kill Wesley Crusher (sorry I mean Chekov, it was so hard to tell them apart in that last one ;) )

74. Daoud - November 19, 2009

@73, or Chekov’s scalp is burned by the adversary during a battle, and thus henceforth Anton Yelchin’s Chekov will wear a Beatle wig to cover his balded, scalded head.

Chekov as Lex Luthor… love it!

75. Spaceboy - November 19, 2009

Again: Why are the fanboys trying to cast a Latino actor to play an Asian character…isn’t this the 21st century? Nothing wrong with Ricardo Montalban obviously, but I think the days of casting on the basis of perceived whiteness should be long dead…

76. Check the Circuit! - November 19, 2009

IF Khan is in the 1st sequel (and I’m one of those people thinking it’s not a great idea right out of the gate) then by all means, bring in the big gun to fill the role. No disrespect intended to Mr. Carbonell, but I do subscribe to the idea that the “guest star” in the new Trek movies should be a big name with international appeal. To me that means someone like Javier Bardeem.

(But wouldn’t it be great to have someone of middle-eastern descent in the role too?)

77. Anthony Thompson - November 19, 2009

10. Chadwick.

Not true. The villian Blofeld appeared in 6 of the Bond films and was the primary villian in at least 2 of them (OHMSS and DAF).

78. LoneStranger - November 19, 2009

If Kahn shows up, I think Orci and Kurtzman would not give him to us how we expect it.

Remember, in this timeline Kirk wouldn’t be Kahn’s target. Kahn would still be seeking out power though. What if the Enterprise wasn’t the first ship to come across the Botany Bay and Kahn had already carved out an empire somewhere?

I am sure O&K will come up with something creative to please both the side that wants to see him, and the side that thinks it would be a rehash.

As for casting, I don’t see a problem with either Carbonell or Bardeem. I’d probably add Wilmer Valderrama into the mix. He’s a little short, but I think he’d do fine with camera tricks and big boots.

79. VZX - November 19, 2009

I really hope that the Klingons blow up the Botany Bay in the opening scene of the new movie.

NO KHAN!

80. 16309A - November 19, 2009

NO KHAN!!!

81. Robogeek - November 19, 2009

Personally, I’d say Star Trek II 2 (that’s not a typo, btw) has to be about Spock Prime trying to restore/repair the timeline, or at the very least save Vulcan – and the conflict that may create with other characters in the now-altered timeline (think Yesterday’s Enterprise).

Because there is simply no moral or logical argument as to why Spock Prime should somehow accept the destruction of Vulcan – and the near-extermination of billions of Vulcans – at the end of the film, especially when he’s ultimately responsible for it occurring (due to having opened the time rift) and when he has the knowledge and ability to fix it (he’s experienced in multiple methods of time travel).

Alternately, the new film could be about our characters “discovering” the possibility of time travel (i.e. the Guardian, now that the Ellison lawsuit’s been settled), and facing the moral dilemma of whether or not they should use it to go back and prevent Vulcan’s destruction – while also perhaps creating a conflict between Quinto Spock and Spock Prime (who gave them transwarp beaming technology, but didn’t bother to tell them how time travel works so they could save Vulcan?).

Otherwise, I’d at least like the film to somehow establish/explain that we’re somehow in a parallel universe, and not a “rewritten” timeline that erased the old one. Yes, we’ve all heard the “quantum” arguments, but in the context of the film itself, it’s clearly time-travel-that-changes-the-timeline, not time-travel-that’s-also-somehow-parallel-universe-travel-preserving-the-original-timeline. (The film itself says “alternate” – as in altered – timeline, never “parallel universe” or anything.)

But regardless, there’s no way I buy Spock Prime being “okay” with the destruction of Vulcan, when a.) it’s ultimately his fault/responsibility, and b.) he has the knowledge and ability to fix it, given his time travel knowledge/experience.

82. barrydancer - November 19, 2009

How about they don’t eye anyone for Khan and come up with something new.

#kaythanxbai

83. samrock83 - November 19, 2009

Rehashing Space Seed, Khan, or any other story/character already treated by the original series and/or films would be a big, big mistake.

Please no repeats!!!

Original material only, please!!!

84. Shatner_Fan_Prime - November 19, 2009

#81 … The sequel being about more time travel and Spock Prime deciding to fix what he didn’t fix in the last movie? Yeah, that’d be real exciting. Next!

85. Robogeek - November 19, 2009

84. Yes, because “Yesterday’s Enterprise” wasn’t exciting at all, right? ;-)

86. luke montgomery - November 19, 2009

BRING BACK KHAN!
BRING BACK KHAN!
BRING BACK KHAN!

(and the Borg and Klingons in some combination)

87. StalwartUK - November 19, 2009

Khan this, Khan that. Can’t they just drop it and try something new?

88. Mr. Anonymous - November 19, 2009

MORE TRIBBLES NEXT TIME!! =)

89. Kirk's girdle - November 19, 2009

Holy crap. I never thought about Nestor but he does have quite a resemblance (and he wouldn’t have to spend as much time in makeup).

90. Kirk's girdle - November 19, 2009

Bringing back Khan is no more a lack of creativity or originality than bringing back Kirk and Spock. You can create a completely new and original story with recycled characters. This is a new universe and the events of TWOK do not necessarily have to follow the events of Space Seed. Under the right circumstances, perhaps against a mutual enemy, Khan can be an ally or even a hero (although I wouldn’t turn my back on him).

91. Sam - November 19, 2009

I hope they leave Khan out of things at least for this next movie. However, if they did go with a Khan storyline, I can think of worse people than Nestor Carbonell.

92. ML31 - November 19, 2009

Khan… Been there. Done that.

I think if story elements from TOS were to be used, then it might be nice to use them as a starting point of have certain elements of it in the story. But the main story must be original. Anything less would just be laziness on the part of the writers.

93. Eli - November 19, 2009

The only way I’d support the use of Khan would be the “Blown up or killed at first sight” scenario. The Enterprise picks up the ship, checks library records and realizes it’s Khan and they blow the ship to smithereens. Cap it off with a great one liner by Kirk like “Whew, that coulda been a disaster…” And it could make a great teaser opening for the next movie before the title card and then we can get to the real story.

94. dalek - November 19, 2009

#74 The missing wig did hurt the believability of Chekov.

Although when Chris Pine was being strangled on the floor on the Nerada, it did look like his hair was fake and going to fall off. Make of that what you will lol

95. dalek - November 19, 2009

Luke Montgomery, I admire your imagination.

The Borg — done to death.

Kirk Vs the Borg — Never been done. I would pay to see that!

96. dalek - November 19, 2009

#75 They cast a British guy as a French man (Picard). They cast a Canadian as an American (Kirk). They cast another Canadian as a Scotsman (Scotty), now an Englishman as a Scotsman. They cast a Latino as an Native American (Chakotay).

It’s nothing new in Star Trek. Nothing exclusive to Asians or Latino’s. They do it across the board with every nationality. As long as it’s a decent actor what’s the problem?

If you’re about to tell me Asians have had a harsh time on Star Trek you are watching a completely different show. The crime is, WHERE are the Australians ? Nobody ever fights for the Aussies! They just cast Aussies as Americans!

97. capnjake - November 19, 2009

the reason kahn worked so great in star trek 2 (besides the obvious excellent script, and superb acting by ricardo montalban) is that even though we had only seen Kahn once in the entire tos, the fact that he has had so many years in exile and lost his wife, due to actions of Kirk(in his mind atleast) to try and do something comprable to both space seed and TWOK so soon is a bad idea, even though they keep saying Star Trek:XII is not going to be a remake of star trek II the simple fact that the villian in the second jj abrahms star trek series is the same villian as the TWOK, in many fans minds will never live up to star trek II.

I will say it again stay away from kahn at least for now. If Kahn is someone they want to use in star trek XIII or XIV it will be a little more tolerable but for star trek XII give us a new villian and or bring back the Klingons (either new ones or Kang, Koloth, or Kor)

I think its funny so many of the same people who complained about the borg appearing on Enterprise now are suggesting the borg as villians in this alternate reality of classic trek.

having said that now, it could be a kind of unique possibilty to utalize the borg having learned via the bluray that the Romulans made extensive use of Borg technology in the retrofitting of the Narada following the destruction of Romulus. I guess the Borg of the 23rd century detect the presence of borg nano technology from the 24th century and go to the alpha qaudrent. It would be intresting to see how kirk and crew are in that type of threat.

98. Spaceboy - November 19, 2009

@96: But there’s also a really ugly tradition in Hollywood history when it comes to non-Asian actors cast as Asian characters (a white guy with heavy eye makeup playing Charlie Chan, John Wayne playing Genghis Khan, et al).

Obviously, Trek has always had an ethnically inclusive cast and slate of characters, and I don’t dispute the examples of past casting that you mention.

All I’m saying is: Isn’t there a really talented Indian or Pakistani actor who could play Khan, a character specifically identified in “Space Seed” as being from that region of the world?

99. capnjake - November 19, 2009

95 actually shatners book series he wrote that takes place after star trek generations involved kirk vs the borg

100. dalek - November 19, 2009

#97 the problem with using a Borg Nerada link as the basis for a new invasion, is that the Nerada having Borg technology is not canon. Where was it established that it was part Borg? If it was the comic, it’s too weak a link.

I didn’t hear it mentioned once in the film. Just like Bob’s MW theory; it’s not Star Trek canon, and if it was really important it would have been mentioned on screen.

Nobody is after a remake of Star Trek II. Although an easy way to do a revenge angle would be to have Khan take revenge years after he meets the crew and cast Shatner and Nimoy as the older versions of the new characters. Then jump the narrative back and forth between the first and last encounter. There’s nothing Kirk did in Trek 2 that Shatner can’t do now.

101. dalek - November 19, 2009

#98 No doubt there is. But I would hope if they recast Khan he would at least have some sort of resemblance to Montalban, whether that is the face of the accent. One thing they got spot on was Karl Urban’s McCoy. They avoided the rest of the cast immitating the original actors, except McCoy. And in a sense of irony, it was Karl Urban’s performance that most people fell in love with the most because he WAS honouring the previous actor.

I feel that whoever they cast, they should at least honour Montalban in a similar way. There’s no reason why it shouldn’t be an Asian actor. Remember these are casting rumours and Khan hasn’t even been confirmed.

102. capnjake - November 19, 2009

98) personally i think that if kahn is someone that is a must for the powers that be, that star treks own alexander siddig would be an inspired casting choice.

103. dalek - November 19, 2009

#95 True, but unfortunately the Shatner books aren’t canon. Shame I really liked the Mirror Universe trilogy. It was better than the last couple of TNG movies.

104. capnjake - November 19, 2009

100) I did not read the comics so i dont know about that, but its mentioned all through out in the starship simulator that is one of the bluray features on the movie special features disc.

if its not cannon why bother to go out of their way to include all those details on the special features for the new movie.

105. Bob Tompkins - November 19, 2009

No Khan.
No Harry Mudd, Jack Black notwithstanding.
Move on. Proper acknowledgment has been given TOS. It’s time to start building the new legacy.
Leave revisiting the old ideas [V'ger, Kirk's burial] to media such as comics or…. a line of Straight to DVD movies.

106. dalek - November 19, 2009

#104 It’s the same with Saavik being half Romulan. It was filmed. It became fan lore, but it was never stated on screen, so it’s not canon. I suppose fans can pick and choose what they accept in their own personal canon; but they couldn’t pick it up as a plot point in Trek 12 unless it was stated as fact in Trek 11.

107. Will_H - November 19, 2009

104) backstory, helps them justify why the Narada looks nothing Romulan and other events that take place. Only problem is backstory is not cannon. Plus my problem is with a Borg invasion…well you’ve already had the Enterprise fight one ship that’s vastly more advanced and only won because of the jelly fish and red matter. When the D encountered just one Borg cube it only made it back alive because of Q. Now go back 100 years, even with a more advanced ship for its time, the ship would be done in a matter of moments and no Borg drone is gonna stop and not fire because of the ship’s name. Still, at this point I’d rather have a Borg movie than a Khan movie, or a Harry Mudd movie. I think using either of those two would set a course for Trek failure, even if the box offices were still good.

108. MC_Trekkie - November 19, 2009

None of us are remembering (as we seem so infatuated with the damned over-used Borg and Klingons)

Without Marla McGivers the Khan we know about doesn’t really exist. She may not be aboard just yet.

No Enterprise takeover, hence no Ceti Alpha Marooning/hence no Wrathful Khan

I would boldly suggest that Khan and his crew could be an adjunct to a larger story.

Does history HAVE to repeat itself?

Perhaps Khan and Kirk collaborate against some larger antagonist.- Who would have thought we’d be in space with the Russians or working with them to pressure Iran.

Khan is of Earth, and would passionately defend it with all his genetic enhanced hubris- perhaps a descendant of his is even in Starfleet, and helps him see things differently at the very end..

Lets not box the writers in at this stage by blithely saying “No Khan”.

How about Not the SAME Khan?

The possibilities are there for an allegorical twist.

Kirk yells KHAAANNN! to the viewscreen, this time As Khan and his Botany Bay crew mates exhibit some Uberman self-sacrifice.

Oh, and yeah Javier Bardem- without a second thought.

Pay the man whatever it takes.

109. capnjake - November 19, 2009

well the whole point of my original post was its funny that the people who whined about the borg being on Enterprise a few years ago, are now suggesting the borg as a villian.
I was merely pointing out on the bluray the special features make mention to the fact that the narada features borg technology.

and with that one could possibly find a way to get the borg involved.
but personally i think the borg shouldnt be in this trek,they are tng era villian and should remain as such.

110. John from Cincinnati - November 19, 2009

7. The entire Original Series is a classic but they still went ahead and messed with that.

I have no problem with Khan being in the sequel.

111. MC_Trekkie - November 19, 2009

AH, and I echoed the comments of #90 (kirk’s Girdle).

Although I have trouble praising the idea of “Kirks Girdle” in any context, really.

112. Trekenstein - November 19, 2009

#72. Shatner_Fan_Prime, You are right, there have been 11 Star Trek movies, 6 series, and over 700 televised hours. If Khan makes his 3rd appearance in franchise history it would be his first appearance in 30 years!.

But you can’t really count the TNG or Enterprise era shows. This is a reboot of TOS, specifically to get away from those productions which ultimately failed at the box office and/or television.

Looking at TOS era installments only, Khan has had 2 appearances in TOS Trek already, the original TV appearance and TWOK. The only other guest character to have an equal number of appearances would be Harry Mudd, and both of those on TV (He also made an appearance in TAS, but I’m not counting that).

in 79 episodes and 6 films, no other guest characters (or central stories for that matter) were repeated. The way to look at this is not whether Khan has been over-used, but rather: Was there nothing else worth taking from TOS and transplanting to the big screen, besides Khan?

You also wrote that Khan is what many non-Trekkie audience members would like to see. Seriously? You really think that people who saw Star Trek for the first time in their lives this Summer and enjoyed it enough to say they would watch a sequel – that these people are clamoring for a character of whom they had never heretofore previously heard?

Khan is most definitely NOT coming from the general audiences. TWOK was a popular movie, but not enough to remain in the collective consciousness for over 30 years.

Khan is a SAFE bet by both Paramount and Abrams, precisely because it appealed to a broad audience 30 years ago. And as you correctly observed, every fan will see a Khan movie twice. New audiences won’t give a damn, because they most likely will have never seen a story about Khan before so it will all be new. But the fans will flock to it, just like they flocked to the reboot, if only so they could “hate” it.

But what I and other fans are saying by rejecting Khan, is not that Khan wouldn’t be a good subject for a story, but that they want something new, whether they misunderstand the possibilities or not. New audiences won’t care either way, so why not push the envelope a little and come up with something fresh for the fans? Something fans can’t compare to the original this next time out, something they have to accept on its own merit? How about that?

113. Adrick - November 19, 2009

My personal vote is against Khan–like a lot of others, I’d rather see something new.

That said, however, I have a lot of faith in the new Trek team, so if they *do* choose to go that route, I know it’s going to be entertaining.

And if we must have a new actor for Khan, part of me would really love to see some kind of spin-off “Khan: Origins” or Eugenics Wars movie or TV show as a spin-off…with a show set in a slightly alternate nineties, it would be a neat way to get some canon Trek history explored while avoiding the high costs a traditional Trek movie/TV show would incur. And in the Prime universe, no less! ;)

114. Captain Dingleberry The Magnificent - November 19, 2009

I vehemently and voiceiferously reject KHAN.

115. Cranston - November 19, 2009

No Khan, please. And if Khan, then find one of the hundreds of excellent South Asian actors to play him.

Carbonell would make a fairly awesome Rod Serling, though. (I’m not kidding.)

116. star trackie - November 19, 2009

The movie is a huge success. The cast is established and the audience is comfortable with them. The only real advantage or reason for Khan to appear would be for the publicity that Khan, being a well known and much loved “villain”, would bring. But the need to “Sell” the product with such gimmicks is no longer there. Khan could be great fun, and I have every confidence that the writers would put a great spin on how he is used…but he isn’t neccessary.

117. LCDR T'PAU - November 19, 2009

Otay. Is Hollywood incapable of ANYTHING original anymore? Batman had been done — so Hollywood had to “reboot” the franchise with two prequels — twists on an old storyline.

There were some really neat things about ST XI — two were the acting of Karl Urban and Zachery Quinto as Spock and Bones, and one was the new timeline and the resulting story. It meant that other ST movies from Abrams et al could be new story telling, feature more exploration of things not really explored in ST on film or the TV — like the war with the Klingons — or what happened with the Romulans and the Federation/Star Fleet after the encounter in ENT — which would fit in nicely with the prequel focus for the new movies.

No one I know wants to see Khan Noonien Singh revisited at all ever. It’s been done — and done well — and I for one probably wouldn’t spend money to see another ST movie with Khan — it’s time to bring new stories to life — and there are many that could lend themselves to what Abrams claims he wants to do — which is more of a Roddenberry type of movie with some sort of moral aspect reflecting today’s world and how man reacts to it — with moral courage and integrity or greed and cowardice.

118. dmduncan - November 19, 2009

@60 Agreed. I’ve been pushing Aamir Khan for the role. At the very least, give the man a screen test if he’s interested, to see if he can honor the part.

With all the complaints about engineering being a brewery and being “taken out” of the movie by various things fans found “unbelievable,” I think it’s interesting that there sure are no shortage of fans willing to suspend disbelief on a hispanic playing the role of a Sikh.

I love Montalban and what he did, but yeah, this is 2009, not 1966.

119. Kirk's Girdle - November 19, 2009

Re: MC Trekkie

Kirk’s Girdle deserves high praise. It did its job.

120. Kirk's Girdle - November 19, 2009

I also agree that casting a Bollywood (or is it Mumbywood now?) hero would not only be accurate but would be smart thinking since Star Trek’s overseas numbers are only half of their domestic gross. An extra billion viewers could certainly boost the box office.

121. Admiral Stedman - November 19, 2009

If you want to do Khan maybe you can give him a nod in a flashback by having Gary Seven in the sequel. Meaning Seven could be investigating what has happened with the new Nero timeline and talks about his
run in with a young Khan as depicted in the recent Greg Cox novels.
This way we get a little Khan, keep our beloved ST:TWOK, and get Gary Seven back in the mix. But that poses another casting challenge in and of itself. You feeling me Orci?

122. ChristopherPike - November 19, 2009

So many villains from TOS can be elevated to Khan-level of greatness…

Garth of Izar, who I thought probably played a part in Prime Kirk’s rise to the Captain’s chair. Go back and watch “Whom God’s Destroy”. See the heroic character gone bad. A Napoleon like figure sat in an insane asylum, still wearing his period Starfleet Dress Uniform. You can shape any kind of backstory with him, simply because through his madness you question whether or not he remembers facts correctly. Is Izar an Earth colony, in which case he’s a human villain and simply falls back on some imagined alien heritage through his illness. He wasbasically left for dead after some legendary battle between Archer’s and Kirk’s time. He then has his appearance restored by the inhabitants of Antos and proceeds to set himself up as the ruler of the Federation again, only to be captured and committed.

Other unexploited antagonists include…

The Romulan Commander (Mark Lenard) and his Centurion subordinate.
Kang, Koloth or Kor… the original Klingon conquerors
Kodos the Executioner

You might even try making T’Pau the villain given the current state of the nu Trek universe.

Or else run the gauntlet of creating something entirely new that has to live up to greats from the past.

123. dmduncan - November 19, 2009

Yeah, we want something NEW. Oh wait, except Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Scotty, Sulu, and Chekov. But besides them, we want something all NEW.

No, WAIT. Captain Pike. We want him too. And the Enterprise. And Sarek. But other than those thi–

Oops, almost forgot, we ALSO want Nurse Chapel, and transporter technology too. And phasers, communicators, and tricorders. But other than those things, EVERYTHING else new.

Did I mention a five year mission? Because we obviously need that old piece of baggage too. And of course the relationships between the characters have to stay the same. You can’t change things as sacrosanct as those.

But other than all those things, EVERYthing ELSE—

Klingons. I TOTALLY forgot Klingons. Okay so we ALso want Klingons, and Romulans, and Andorians (hey, the heck with James Cameron, WE started the whole BLUE alien thing, right?), and Tellarites. Starfleet and the Federation would also be nice. And don’t forget the Prime Directive.

So THAT is what we want. All of that EXCEPT Khan. And we are really serious about this. We mean NO KHAN even if you put him in a totally different story, one we haven’t seen before. Because that kind of NEW STUFF we DON’T want to see, okay?

124. Trekenstein - November 19, 2009

#120. Kirk’s Girdle –– shouldn’t that be Shatner’s Girdle? Kirk NEVER needed to wear one! LOL

The Bollywood thing might be the right thing to do, but it would hardly guarantee bringing a billion additional viewers to the box office. The issue of India’s great poverty most likely prevents a large percentage of those billion people from buying a ticket. I have also heard the Indians are not big on Sci-Fi, which is anything but a Bollywood musical. And certainly a Bollywood star would not influence many outside of India and Pakistan.

The international celebrity issue has less to do with Bollywood and more to do with an iconic American or European actor who has a worldwide cache, like Tom Hanks, or Tom Cruise (not suggesting them for Khan). These are actors who will draw an audience no matter what country the film is shown in, or whether anyone is interested in the subject matter per se. I am not familiar with any actors of sub-continent descent that have attained that status, much less capable of playing Khan. More than likely if Abrams decides to do Khan, it will be an international celebrity and most likely not Indian.

125. EM - November 19, 2009

Yes, we Khan!
Yes, we Khan!
Yes, we Khan!
Yes, we Khan!
Yes, we Khan!
Yes, we Khan!

126. Andrew Yeah, I'm a bit of a purist - November 19, 2009

I second for #8′s request !!!

127. captainedd - November 19, 2009

Kirk and crew from the mirror universe invade the alternate universe…and Klingons…so our new crew have to fight not only the Klingons, but themselves as well. It’s a stretch, but it sounds like a possibility to me.

128. Trekboi - November 19, 2009

Nero & spock prime going back into the past may have created a new time line but to use his knowlege to shape it is not something Spock would do- reversing the events of the prime universe would erase the jj-verse & everyone in it.
Spock may have helped kirk get back to the enterprise but he was just reacting to current events- including the loss of billions of lives- not changing the past.

No khan- could never replicate the space seed/star trek 2 thing- maybe Khan could work as a modern day bin ladden but that would just be pushing stereotypes & current fears & predjudices.

Just do something original- u have a howl new universe u created to play in- do something new- perhaps “Boldly Go” somewhere new perhaps?

129. Chingatchkook - November 19, 2009

He may not be Khan2, but he sure does have quite the resemblance.

(Oh, and do what you will with Khan/no Khan, Orci & Kurtzman. You guys hit the ball out of the park the first time, I have no doubt that you will do it again, with or without Khan!)

130. Jake - November 19, 2009

Regarding casting a Bollywood star, it’s my impression Indians are rather sensitive about foreign depictions of their culture. Having a Bollywood star play the VILLAIN (who, by the way, is a Sikh who apparently shaves and does not wear a turban) in a foreign film would probably not be popular in South Asia.

I still think if they do Khan, their best bet casting-wise is Javier Bardem. He’s an international star who is OUTSTANDING as a villain and can, in a sense, pay homage to Montalban – that is, if he would even be interested in the part. (And yes, I know Montalban was Mexican and Bardem is Spanish, but still…)

131. Trekenstein - November 19, 2009

#130, very good point about the Indian culture … would the characterization be accepted even if portrayed by a huge Indian celebrity?

More to the point, if one wants an international celebrity, Bardem is no Tom Cruise, but in terms of attracting a diverse audience a good choice, and a major international demographic, for which Spanish would have to be up there, Montalban notwithstanding.

132. Weerd1 - November 19, 2009

I don’t think Khan should be in the next film… but NC would be a fine choice.

133. Banana Cream Pie - November 19, 2009

Am i the only one who thinks that if they wanted to bring back trek, then maybe the sequel should have some sort of space exploration plot? isnt that what star trek was intially about? enough of the nemesis crap, they should go discover a planet or something!

134. Syn4Ever - November 19, 2009

It was implied that this timeline is desperately trying to correct itself (i.e. how everybody met and ending up on the Enterprise, Kirk and Spock going on a mission to unite them together, etc.). So why is it that poeple don’t think that Khan wouldn’t/shouldn’t somehow make an appearance? Afterall, him and the Botany Bay were launched into space long before the time disruption…

135. Valar1 - November 19, 2009

130

They could always use that guy on Lost- he’s played a Sikh before, in the English Patient.

131

International star implies they want overseas boxoffice- I’m not familiar with all the ins and outs of that- do they stand to make more money with an Asian like Jet Li, or Indian because Bollywood movies aren’t just in India and Pakistan but all over the Middle east, or do they go with a European guy, or maybe even a South American guy. Which choice would get the most butts in the seats?

136. Son of a Maui Portagee - November 20, 2009

128. Trekboi excalimed “…it is not something Spock would do- reversing the events of the prime universe would erase the jj-verse & everyone in it.”

And yet, in CotEoF he had no qualms about doing exactly that to the universe that McCoy’s actions created.

137. somethoughts - November 20, 2009

#136

Spock Prime realizes that he is not reversing the events, he is simply entering another reality if he undid everything Nero and himself did.

All possible realities occur in different universes, it all comes down to which one Spock Prime wants to observe. Being self aware of your surroundings and who you are is just a by product of the reality/universe you are currently in.

138. somethoughts - November 20, 2009

This allows for the resolution of the time traveler going back to kill his grandfather/father paradox.

139. somethoughts - November 20, 2009

Khan will be a never ending debate, I am now leaning towards a awesome space science fiction opera/action/adventure/exploration and discovering the unknown while remaining consistent with what Star Trek is.

Story that tests the crews personality/relationships/beliefs and problem solving ability while collaborating with different races and aliens to unlock the secrets of the universe and at the same time hidden messages about who we are as humans today and where we should be going. Mix in some over the top special effects that wins awards and music that is unforgettable, dialogue that can be repeated at red carpet line ups and imitated on MTV/Saturday night live shows. Give us a Star Trek that is between 2hrs and 3hrs in length and makes us wish it never stopped, the emotional roller coaster that every movie goer craves. Make us cry, cheer, laugh, smile and be proud of being movie buffs/trekkers. If in doubt for so long, bury Khan and let him rest and go with the exploration/mystery, Bermuda triangle type story. Think about what fascinated you as a child, Dinosaurs, Aliens, Conspiracies, Pyramids, Hieroglyphics, ancient astronauts, Space/Galaxy, intelligent life on other worlds, alien technologies, benevolent/malevolent aliens, purpose of life and death.

140. montgomery - November 20, 2009

Seriously, Batman’s Joker is not at all an appropriate or accurate parallel between Kirk and Khan.

Joker lives because of, and FOR, Batman. In some cases, it is because Batman was responsible for dumping him in the acid vat. In other cases, it is because there are those that believe Joker shot Batman’s parents and in response, Batman became who and what he is. Meanwhile, Batman appearing in Gotham caused escalation in responses, inspiring the theatricality that defines Joker. Batman and Joker are flip sides of the same coin and always have been.

Khan is no more intricately connected to Kirk than, say, Picard is to Vash. Just because Khan appeared once in the series and had an unfinished story that opened up possibilities for expansion, does NOT make him a Joker. Khan is a basic matter of storytelling. Joker is a means of articulating key characters from the outset.

It’s a bad analogy and it should be stopped. Kirk was Kirk before Khan, and he will remains Kirk long afterwards. I’d say a better Joker-Batman analogy is probably found between Kirk and the Klingon that killed David on the Genesis Planet ….

Leave Batman out of this. Batman was a success because it was smart and detailed, and intellectually satisfying. No need to copy it.

Leave Khan alone.

141. montgomery - November 20, 2009

130. Jake – “a Sikh who apparently shaves and does not wear a turban) in a foreign film would probably not be popular in South Asia.”

Look up the significance of not shaving and, hence, wearing turbans to hold the hair. You might be surprised at what Khan lacking his turban actually means.

142. Dalek - November 20, 2009

#130 Jake.

Are you saying that India would have a problem over the representation of Genetically Engineered Sikh’s?

What part of the genetically engineered populace would find this offensive?

143. Rich - November 20, 2009

Being a life long Star Trek fan I would have to say scratch the Khan idea. I think they should do a 2 movie arch that is going to be a very big story and film these back to back bringing them out in 2011 and 2012.

I think they could bring anyone in for the main enemy in the film, why not the Dominion? Granted it’s years earlier than the “old” time line but they were a great adversary, great ships, shapeshifters, etc. Or better yet introduce a new or small villian from anyone of the Star Trek series.
I would definitely have many ship fighting scenes ala Wrath of Khan with the camera moving slowly and getting some great close up fight scenes.

Whatever they do try to rehash as little as possible. The cast of the new movie were great and the connected with a whole new group of fans, play on that. Grow the characters, keep it fast pasted/action, a great score to go with the movie, and I think the idea of a 2 movie arch would allow to really create a big bold story.

144. Jake - November 20, 2009

#141

Interesting. From Wikipedia:
In Sikhism, Kesh (sometimes Kes) is the practice of allowing one’s hair to grow naturally as a symbol of respect for the perfection of God’s creation.

The implication I suppose is that Khan (as a genetically engineered man) is, in a sense, the perfection of man’s creation, not God’s. So it does suit the character.

I fully admit to degree of ignorance in this matter – I simply don’t know a great deal about Indian culture outside of my own experience. Do you think casting a big name Bollywood star would help Star Trek in South Asia, or would it hurt it?

#142

Well, considering they all were deposed or left the planet back in ’96… ;-)

145. Son of a Maui Portagee - November 20, 2009

#137.

Indeed, so why would he choose to remain emotionally comprised in a universe with both his mother and home world dead when he can “observe” one where both are vital and thriving?

146. Dr. Image - November 20, 2009

Screw Khan, bring back Finnegan!!
Can ‘ya feel that now, Jim baby??

147. dmduncan - November 20, 2009

Khan would probably have to be portrayed as a seriously lapsed Sikh. Someone who may have been influenced by the religion as a boy or young man, but who then interpreted what it meant in a way consistent with his own wish for political domination, and who then felt he was popular enough and powerful enough to behave as he wanted.

In other words, he would have to be portrayed as a modern politician (demagogue), most of whom give lip service to religion because that’s how they think they get more votes, and not what they truly believe.

148. Garovorkin - November 20, 2009

He does look like Khan, doesn’t he?

149. Kirk's Girdle - November 20, 2009

Re: One billion viewers.

All those thoughts went through my head and I admit to not really knowing the facts. I didn’t assume all Indians would watch the film but figured that was a hell of a big pool of potential viewers. As for poverty, I figured that films are somehow priced accordingly so that people are able to get in and see them.

As for poverty: This info is a few years old, but local prices reflect local income levels.

The Cinema Index is an at-a-glance way of comparing earnings with cinema prices. The lower the number in minutes, the less expensive a cinema ticket is relative to earnings power. The top two countries are very good examples of how the Index can be interpreted. While Indian net hourly earnings are relatively low (at $0.70 per hour), the average cinema ticket is also very low (at $0.19), which evens out the relatively low levels of both and results in an average of 16.6 minutes work to earn enough money to buy a cinema ticket.

(You can also see that you have to sell a whole lot of $0.19 tickets to beef up the box office over there)

I didn’t know that Khan was actually supposed to be a Sikh. If they go for accuracy, then Khan would end up looking like Captain Nemo in “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”.

150. Trekenstein - November 20, 2009

#149 – there are all kinds of problems with Khan being a Sikh. Namely that he is identified as one by Lt. McGivers based on appearance alone. Nothing about Khan appears even remotely Sikh-like by today’s standards (and certainly not in 1966), much less his ethnic makeup, considering he was played by a Castilian Mexican. It is something to be taken with a grain of salt. Using the usual Trek fannon retconning, at the time the episode was shot, they were guessing what a Sikh might look like 30 years later, theoretically allowing McGivers to identify those traits 300 years later. Traits which never came to pass in our universe just like our mid-1990′s never saw a race of genetic supermen take over the world, or the manufacture of “sleeper” space ships.

If they decide to do Khan, I don’t think they should be concerned for one minute what his ethnic background or origins are …. and if they are wise, will simply avoid revealing too much detail about his exact origins. They will also have to change the canon regarding when he came to power in order to keep from taking the audience right out of the movie. They should cast the best actor in the role regardless of ethnic origin, which frees them up to use an international celebrity to help market in foreign markets.

151. somethoughts - November 20, 2009

#145

You open a door to a room and as you open the door you spill some milk onto the floor, the glass is broken. Do you leave and not clean up the glass and milk or do you get a towel and help pick up the pieces?

152. Dalek - November 20, 2009

#150 They don’t have to be careful about anything. It’s fiction. It’s not real. They can do anything they want with any character they want. Nobody is stupid enough to accept Star Trek for reality.

153. Trekenstein - November 20, 2009

#152 – agreed. But do you really think if you were sitting in a movie theatre next year watching a movie about your future and they tell you there was a huge nuclear war in the US in 2005, that you would not be taken out of the movie for just and instant as you think to yourself … “what nuclear war in the US in 2005″? The fans will not appreciate the change to canon, but far better than an uninitiated audience wondering “what genetic war in the mid 1990s?” rather than paying attention to the character and story development. If the next movie is anything like the last, there will be enough to require the suspension of disbelief, not to add glaring distractions in the basic premise.

154. dmduncan - November 20, 2009

150: “If they decide to do Khan, I don’t think they should be concerned for one minute what his ethnic background or origins are”

Why stop there? Make Khan a woman. A delicious Megan Fox wearing ONLY a turban. A non ethnic identifying one. No, wait! Her name should be spelled Kahn, so Khan goes from being a Sikh male to a Jewish female, whose conquests all occur using her feminine wiles, like one of Frank Herbert’s Honored Matres.

That’s the ticket.

155. dmduncan - November 20, 2009

What a great idea that is. And just as the long lost Honored Matres came suddenly raging out of unknown space one day to threaten the Imperium with their fascinating perversions of Bene Gesserit disciplines, these female eugenics specimens of Star Trek could suddenly appear one day from sleeper ships out of the past to threaten the Federation with booty calls no Starship Captain could resist.

156. Trekenstein - November 20, 2009

#154 – actually Khan as a female would be a fantastic re-interpretation.

157. dmduncan - November 20, 2009

156: I know! It sounds funny, but the Honored Matres were devastatingly dangerous and complex “villains,” who of course did not think of themselves as villainous at all.

158. Dalek - November 20, 2009

#153 it’s a good question but one could transpose said argument to any movie set in modern times that contain events that haven’t happened in our world eg any disaster movie. There are very very few films that depict real world events in the sci fi genre if any. Same with tv.

Just to illustrate. Did you have a flashforward to April 2010 a few months ago? And if the world doesn’t end in 2012 will it stop you from enjoying the flick?

159. Kirk's Girdle - November 21, 2009

Re: 158. No, you can still enjoy the flick and having time catch up with the events of a film can’t be helped, but if Emerich’s film was titled :

Y2K: TOTAL EFFING DESTRUCTION

…people would be very confused.

160. Trekenstein - November 21, 2009

#159 – LOL – exactly!

161. DigitalLonestarX - November 21, 2009

Figured. this early citing actors is least important, it’s writing the script right now that matters.

however i could list afew actors that should star in the next trek (hopefull the supreme court reads this)

Michael Ironside. plays lots of military roles in movies, and even games, he would make a great hardliner admiral

Ben Browder- yes he plays sg-1 and all, make him into a commander at starfleet or something like that. A rival of kirk perhaps?

Richard Dean Anderson.- why not? hes great and funny, he would make another good admiral choice.

Scott Bakula- now some of you hard arse trekkies can kiss my arse, i thought enterprise was a good series with potential. Admiral archer needs to be in the film, hell even giving the E her inspection.

162. dmduncan - November 21, 2009

If you did a Khan movie and saw a need to CASUALLY mention specific dates of the Eugenics Wars and keep them canonical, then people who didn’t know Star Trek might be momentarily confused by it. And the moment would be replaced by the next moment in the film, and if it’s a good movie, it would be enjoyed regardless, no problems. And if it’s a bad movie, any slight confusion caused by those dates would be your smallest problem. So it really wouldn’t matter either way.

It would matter even less if the specific dates were not a casual mention but an integral part of the story.

Just like The Watchmen, where Nixon never left office, what a movie following Eugenics Wars in the 90′s suggests is an alternate reality, which you can expect any movie fan, willing to pay $10 to see what you are promoting, to figure out pronto, and without experiencing 15 minutes of missing time lost in puzzlement. lol.

I wouldn’t go see Y2K: TOTAL EFFING DESTRUCTION because it’s such a bad title. But if you called it 2000 and promoted it with an exciting trailer, then in the mere run up to its release, any moviegoer would learn enough about the premise of the film to want to see it, or not. In this economy, at $9 – $10 a pop these days, I doubt people just eenie-meenie-miney-moe their movie choices. So before you even get to the theater you are going to know whether it’s something you want to see, and that means you will understand the premise of the film.

Of course, I would assume that any idea where you wanted to show alternate history was good enough to justify its production AS alternate history, for whatever reason—and that for reasons crucial to the story or some other reason (canon, maybe), the story requires an alternate timeline to be told.

I say to hell with canon. If I was doing Eugenics Wars as a TV show, I’d set them up in the near future and totally disregard the 90′s. But Bob is way more concerned with canon than I am. It’s clear from the special features Blueray. And I respect that.

It’s also clear that Bob is as big a fan of Star Trek as I am, but he also has responsibilities toward the franchise that I do not, so I can be more cavalier about canon than he can.

So if they want to do a Khan story and respect canon in that regard, even to the years of the wars, it’s possible to do—It all depends on how the story is told and promoted.

163. Charles - November 21, 2009

Well, It could be worse…….. Harry Mudd perhaps? I have no problem with them retelling the story of Khan. It’s an alternate timeline now. Things will be different. Now as far as the Klingons are concerned. the actor Robert Knepper would be perfect as a “swaggering” Kang or Koloth.

164. Kirk's Girdle - November 21, 2009

Re: 162 I disagree. If you called it “2000″ and it had an exciting trailer, people would call it stupid – because it is.

While I do agree that Watchmen thrust its uninitiated viewers (like me) into an alternate 1985 without any warning, that film was only a modest success earning $185M worldwide and costing $130M to make as opposed to Snyder’s previous film “300″ which cost $65M and earned $456M worldwide. Watchmen was not widely embraced for several reasons, however, although I liked it.

165. Kirk's Girdle - November 21, 2009

You could also have cited “Inglorious Basterds” which I am told has a much more satisfying ending than “Valkyre”. Of course, Tarantino can do whatever he wants, but I seriously wonder how many teenagers out there have accepted QT’s depiction of events as fact.

166. dmduncan - November 21, 2009

164: “If you called it ’2000′ and it had an exciting trailer, people would call it stupid – because it is.”

So is 2012. Monumentally so. And yet people are paying to see that crap, EVEN after they’ve been repeatedly warned what garbage it is, to the point where it now stands at 250 mil worldwide. The smarts of a film has nothing to do with its earnings.

Although I liked Watchmen, it was emotionally exhausting. I’m sure the nap I felt compelled to take afterwards was directly related to how disturbing the movie was. I don’t know how that’s supposed to translate into box office success, considering how much it cost to produce.

167. Trekenstein - November 22, 2009

#162. “then people who didn’t know Star Trek might be momentarily confused by it. And the moment would be replaced by the next moment in the film, and if it’s a good movie, it would be enjoyed regardless, no problems. …It all depends on how the story is told and promoted.”

I had only one point to make: why do it if it’s not necessary? I don’t agree that even if people are momentarily taken out of a movie, it’s OK because they will get over it if it’s a good movie. Forget Star Trek for a minute.

That’s like saying “it was a great concert except when the drummer fell off the stage.” However good the concert was, all the momentum built to that moment was dissipated by the drummer falling of the stage. The fact the concert was able to recover and ultimately satisfy its attendees speaks volumes for the band and the show they put on. But nevertheless, it contained a gaff everyone in attendance could have done without. Presumably such a thing was accidental, yet the suggestion here is put it in anyway knowing it WILL likely be a distraction for some.

I do agree that if a film is promoted properly that most audiences will accept whatever is presented on screen, just like Watchmen. But in the case of Khan, when he actually came to power is of so little consequence, I can not imagine it has any relevance to a story being told about him, much less warrant a promotional campaign that pushes Star Trek even further outside the “grounded” universe JJ Abrams has seemingly worked so hard to place it into. Star Trek works, IMO, because it masquerades as OUR hopeful future. Once you start asking its audience to consider that its past is not one we can commonly identify with, but one similar to ours where yet more fantastic things happened, much of that magic dissipates and it becomes yet another sci-fi yarn which has little to do with our world today – especially if the message doesn’t offer any relevant unique social commentary.

168. dmduncan - November 22, 2009

167: “I had only one point to make: why do it if it’s not necessary?”

That’s the question, whether it’s necessary or not. For a TV show, it would be senseless to try to duplicate the 1990s as a setting for Eugenics Wars, in which case you would have canon conflicts, which Bob really is concerned with. So it would be harder to get away with on a TV show. But in a movie about Khan you wouldn’t necessarily have to mention any dates at all, and get around all the issues that way. So it all depends on what you are doing, the story you are telling, how much canon is important to your story, and how much you respect canon.

I would LIKE to see a Eugenics Wars TV show set in our own time, introducing not only Khan but his fellow supermen, because I can see enormous possibilities dealing with current politics and modern scientific issues, in much the same way, albeit in a different direction, that BSG explored themes of science and religion that we currently wrestle with. The show would be an excellent mirror of the current world to show us ourselves where politics and science (and the politics of science) are concerned.

“That’s like saying ‘it was a great concert except when the drummer fell off the stage.’ However good the concert was, all the momentum built to that moment was dissipated by the drummer falling of the stage.”

More like one of the musicians hitting a bad note than falling off the stage. It’s minor and forgivable.

I just don’t think people spend a lot of time actually thinking about the movie while they are watching it. I don’t. Minor screw ups zoom past and you think about them later.

169. Trekenstein - November 22, 2009

#168 – However you look at it, a bad note still ruins the moment. The goal of a professional is to avoid as many bad notes as possible. Is it forgivable? Yes. Should the goal be to avoid them? Yes. My point is that a filmmaker should not actively seek to create bad notes in an otherwise spectacular performance.

170. Michael Craft - November 22, 2009

At first, I thought leaving the Khan character alone would be the prudent move. But after seeing the improvement of Heath Ledger’s Joker over the Jack’s, if done right, it could be spectacular. Maybe some 1990′s Eugenics War flashbacks (ala Terminator flashbacks..or flash”forwards”, as it were). But one thing is sure…he needs to be EVIL, and not just 60′s television or 80′s PG evil, I mean EVIL. Unfortunately, in this day and age, the target demographic won’t settle for anything less.

171. dmduncan - November 22, 2009

169: “However you look at it, a bad note still ruins the moment.”

Which is only really a problem if you get stuck in particular moments.

There are no perfect films that I know of. They all have failures, however minimal or infrequent, here or there. Even Citizen Kane and Casablanca. Indeed, not all critics even agree on the greatness of those films. Try as you will, movies are always a reflection of the imperfect people who make them, and a lot of the “imperfections” have to do with differences in taste, rather than quality, among different audience members. Nobody actively tries to make moments that don’t work. But it happens anyway for many different reasons.

172. John - November 22, 2009

I don’t understand the argument that Khan shouldn’t be in the next film because it’s “been done before”. Well the argument is not logically sound, since the original cast of characters of Star Trek has “been done before” and yet this re-boot of characters we’ve already seen for three TV seasons and 6 movies seemed to have fared well enough. Why is it different to bring back Spock, Kirk, McCoy, etc yet somehow Khan is different? Khan is to Kirk as the Joker is to Batman. He is THE quintessential villain for Star Trek. Just as Q made many appearances throughout The Next Generation, I see no reason to relegate Khan to just one movie. In fact this wouldn’t be a re-do of Wrath of Khan since Kirk hasn’t in this alternate time-line run into him yet. If anything it would be based off of “Space Seed”.

173. Captain Pike - November 23, 2009

Instead of a “villain”, I think the next Trek movie should deal with exploration, seeking out new life and new civilizations. The next movie is Orci and Kurtzman’s chance to introduce a new race or explore a familiar race in a new light.

174. Trekenstein - November 23, 2009

#171. “Which is only really a problem if you get stuck in particular moments.”

The point of this discussion has been lost. It’s not about getting stuck in a moment or bringing prejudices into a movie that dictate an audience’s reaction. While I appreciate your musings on this point, though I do not agree with them entirely, the point here is about what steps a professional filmmaker should take to craft a movie.

A professional does not set out to create problems. As you correctly observe there will be enough of them that happen regardless of how careful a fimmaker is. Therefore, if they have the choice of setting Khan’s history in the mid-1990s – in an alternate universe from our own by necessity – without a cogent reason for doing so, then why do it?

While I cannot think of any reason to do it, they might. In which case, my only observation was that doing so suggests it may create a problem, no matter how minor it may seem to you personally. My advice is that they should not intentionally create problems, no matter how small, whether you chose to put the burden of their decision on the audience or not. Avoid setting Khan’s backstory in our past if at all possible, without a proper setup either in the film or in the marketing.

175. Son of a Maui Portagee - November 23, 2009

151. somethoughts observed “You open a door to a room and as you open the door you spill some milk onto the floor, the glass is broken. Do you leave and not clean up the glass and milk or do you get a towel and help pick up the pieces?”

Precisely. Which is why his imperative is to get back to the Prime universe and clean up the mess of Romulus that his miscalculations may in someway be responsible in that his solution (his choice) failed to avert the disaster he himself predicted – not waste time illogically cleaning up the mess created by Nero. Spock Prime may be emotionally compromised but I doubt he’s so compromised that he illogically believes he’s responsible for the actions of and choices of others. Nero’s actions are Nero’s own.

176. Son of a Maui Portagee - November 23, 2009

#175.

By “illogically cleaning up the mess”, I mean doing it specifically for the illogical reason of feeling responsible when the destruction of Vulcan is absolutely and solely the responsibility of Nero. Obviously, any Vulcan could find a number of “logical” reasons to assist those in need. But spilled milk? This is not his. His spill is back in universe Prime.

177. somethoughts - November 23, 2009

#176

I think if the purpose was not to observe a new reality for the 2009 audience, Spock Prime would most likely go back in time and alert Romulus of the impending danger.

What if the entropy of the planet is so absolute that no matter what Spock Prime does the Planet dies? Sorta like the Time Travelers wife in the Time Machine.

178. somethoughts - November 24, 2009

Also keep in mind, if it weren’t for Spock Prime and his red matter solution/ejecting into the Super Nova, which created the blackhole, Nero would be a angry Romulan in the post Nemesis TNG timeline and not wrecking havoc in the past. Spock Prime knows he failed at saving Romulus and also opened a doorway to the past, which allowed Nero to destroy Vulcan in the past/alternate reality. Spock Prime chooses to help as much as he can to fix this reality versus trying to undo everything for now.

It is a risk, can the crumpled paper be uncrumpled or would the paper simply be worst off if he attempted to uncrease the paper.

179. Son of a Maui Portagee - November 24, 2009

#178.

That was my whole point as to which course was best with respect to risk based on Spock Prime’s experiences.

However, they’ve finally released the stuff written for Kirk Prime. It powerfully explains what Spock Prime’s motivation is: to repay the resurrection. And that has three meanings that I think all apply but I suspect the most important is: Kirk Prime risked everything for his friend’s resurrection and Spock Prime could do no less having accidentally resurrected Kirk here.

This would seem to mean that Spock Prime is committed to seeing this Kirk live long and prosper even beyond the years of Kirk Prime for this decision to have any logic. That would seem to be a lifelong commitment for Spock Prime’s remaining years?

180. Son of a Maui Portagee - November 24, 2009

As for people saying Ellison wouldn’t be interested in working with Abrams:

http://harlanellison.com/heboard/unca.htm?beg=69&num=25

It looks like he most definitely IS interested.

181. The Matrix Cowboy - December 7, 2009

Old spock has hitched a ride for him and a group of vulcan refugees to the new colininy for the vulcans. The captain finds the Botony bay and no matter what Spock does, things go from bad to worse. Possibly nest this as a substory for khan in a later movie. Or make it THE movie.

182. Dave O. - December 16, 2009

Please don’t. ST2 was an excellant movie, don’t fall into the Hollywood trap of re-doing everything. There are literally hundreds of fan written novels out there as well as TOS writers that have stories that never made it onto a script. Please, I beg you Mr. Abrams don’t do it.

183. boxker - March 24, 2010

I would love to See Richard as Khan. You can have the Character without redoing Star Trek II. You could do it without redoing Space Seed. Although I would like to point out that the movie public outside of Star Trek fans aren’t likely aware of Space Seed. Supes has Lex, Sherlock has Moriarty, why can’t Kirk/Spock have Khan.

184. johnno - September 28, 2010

Spock Prime mind melded with Kirk in the latest movie. Thus Kirk may have memories of what Khan did in the original timeline. This in turn means that if they encounter Khan in a new timeline Kirk might be able to avert the forthcoming battle of wits. Also Spock Prime could be feeding information to Spock somehow whether via telepathy or other means. The possibilities are numerous now. Whether Nimoy appears in the next movie is irrelevant. Spock Prime and Spock may be communicating. The question could be whether it is detrimental to the new alternate Universe. Should he try to repair the damage? If he tried then how could he avert it? He’d have to go to the point where Nero arrived and take him on at the arrival point. Travelling to the future in his own timeline would not serve any purpose. When you think about it, it’s happened before when Janeway went back to change the past in getting Voyage home many years earlier. We don’t know the implications of that. So I think the story of changing what happened at the start when the Kelvin got attacked cannot be done. They’ll have to play the hand they’ve been dealt from here on in. Thus I think moving the story forward into Khan territory in the next film or the third is a good idea because as someone said before, he is to Kirk what Joker is to Batman. The Borg would be unbeatable, the Klingons and Romulans are predictable in many ways but an encounter with the Botany Bay is a good starting point. I like the idea of a twist when they encounter Khan and his people. Perhaps MacGyver didn’t make it on to this Enterprise and Uhura is the one he pursues. She’s with Spock, Khan nicks her from Spock and a different story unfolds coupling it with Khan trying to pinch the Enterprise. Maybe in this story he actually does meet Checkov so there’s a little sub-plot there too with a bit of comic relief around the fact that they never originally met in Space Seed. Space Seed was a one dimensional story with deep characters that led to a sequel giving the story more layers in TWOK. But that happened 15 years later. Another difference now would be that Kirk is only in his mid 20s and in Space Seed he was in his mid 30s. He wouldn’t have the experience to deal with an adversary such as Khan. Strangely Kirk went from Cadet to First Officer to Captain. Spock is a Lieutenant Commander so will have a bit more seasoning. Khan will probably see him more as his equal so may find it easier to lull Kirk into a false sense of security and beat him. Thus the film would focus on how Kirk can get to the climax of Space Seed from an even more disadvantaged position that the original one in Space Seed. If Uhura has fallen for Khan’s advances then there is the other dynamic where Spock’s emotions will surface again. Also, will Sulu, Scotty, Checkov et al be peripheral? I think they’d need good solid roles in this one. Also Space Seed was static in that it was aboard the Enterprise for the most part. It would have to fast moving with deep character development like TWOK but not a clone of that film. Khan’s purpose is to rule as he has no thoughts of vengeance presently. He believes he is more advanced than other humans. There simply has to be another angle if he is to appear in a new Star Trek movie. What is that angle and how can JJ Abrams make it exciting and different? If I knew the answer to that I’d be a screenwriter.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.