Simon Pegg: Reports About Cumberbatch’s Star Trek Sequel Character ‘A Myth’ |
jump to navigation

Simon Pegg: Reports About Cumberbatch’s Star Trek Sequel Character ‘A Myth’ May 29, 2012

by Staff , Filed under: Spoilers,ST09 Cast,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

Simon Pegg’s new movie A Fantastic Fear of Everything opens next week and while out promoting it, he is talking Star Trek. More specifically he is debunking (and denouncing) spoiler reports about Benedict Cumberbatch’s character in the Star Trek sequel. See below for more, but note article discusses previously reported spoilers.


Simon Pegg: It’s Not Khan

Today Simon Pegg is profiled in the UK’s Telegraph. His new movie A Fantastic Fear of Everything opens up in the UK on June 8th, but the article also covers other aspects of his career, including Star Trek. The article quotes Pegg on his fellow Brit, and co-star. While Pegg confirmed that Cumberbatch is playing a bad guy, he didn’t give any details. Here is an excerpt:

Pegg is full of praise for Cumberbatch’s baddy, whom he describes [as] “not just another disgruntled alien. It’s a really interesting… sort of… thing,” he squirms. “Obviously I can’t talk about it.”

While not wanting to get specific, Pegg did flatly deny reports and rumors that Cumberbatch is playing Khan…

“It’s not Khan,” replies Pegg, annoyed. “That’s a myth. Everyone’s saying it is, but it’s not.”

Pegg also doesn’t mince words when it comes to spoilers, saying:

“It just spoils the film,” he complains. “It masquerades as interest in the movie but really it’s just nosiness and impatience. You just want to say, ‘Oh f— off! Wait for the film!’”

For more see the full profile at

Simon Pegg in "Star Trek" (2009)

Thanks to Wayne for the tip.


1. The Mariner - May 29, 2012

They say that dry land is a myth.

2. Amish Electrician - May 29, 2012

Still will not stop the Khaners

3. MJ - May 29, 2012

I’m sticking with Khan. Anothy’s inside sources confirmed it.

4. Gary Neumann - May 29, 2012

The Klingon Bird of prey (TSFS) was pretty Romulan up to almost filming. Yet it’s very klingon now, isn’t it?

5. EM - May 29, 2012

It doesn’t matter to me whether or not it is Khan. I’m sure that Cumberbatch did a fantastic job!

6. Aurore - May 29, 2012

Toto said it best.
“No remakes. No rehashes.”

Now, bring on the “blinding face melter”…

7. THX-1138 - May 29, 2012

‘Oh f— off! Wait for the film!’”

We’ve been doing that, sporto. For 4 years we will be waiting for the film. It’s getting old.

It s heartening to know, however, that Simon would like us to “f— off”.

8. Captain Hackett - May 29, 2012

I still believe it is Khan BUT the character may be different from the original one, IMHO.

9. K-7 - May 29, 2012

@8. Yep. Khan essentially, but not Khan.

10. UMA Fan - May 29, 2012

You would think if it wasn’t Khan they wouldn’t tease us this much. This just sets us up for disapointment when it’s NOT khan.

Remember when Damon Lindelof was saying recently in a interview “to Khan, or not to Khan?”

WHY even say that? Why not just say, “No guys, it aint Khan in this one”

I’m actually hoping it’s Khan. It’s kind of like doing the Joker for Batman. They hype would be intense.

11. Lostrod - May 29, 2012

#3 – MJ

“I’m sticking with Khan. Anothy’s inside sources confirmed it.”

Mr. Pegg is definitely an inside source …

So if turns out to be Khan and he is just bluffing,his future credibility is shot. However, what he said does not mean Khan is not in the film in some way, just that Mr. Cumberbatch is not playing him.

Doesn’t eliminate the rumor that he playing one of Khan’s cronies.


12. Phil - May 29, 2012

Still can’t wrap my hands around the logic that it’s Khan, but a new, different Khan. New and improved. Not a bad guy, perhaps….wait, he’s still a bad guy. Not just another pissed off alien….what does that mean, exactly? Not a meglomanic? Not driven by revenge, just a cold blooded killer, perhaps? If he’s a villian, and all similarities end there, then why name him Khan at all? Contrary to what some may think, the public does not think of him like they do JR Ewing or Darth Vader, so what little backstory there is on him will be of no interest to the general moviegoing public. Still can’t shake the feeling that the decision to go this way will rank right up there with New Coke and the Edsel in colossially bad decision making….

13. Red Dead Ryan - May 29, 2012

I still think its Khan. Simon Pegg is not allowed to reveal anything, so he obviously has to go to great lengths to deny the rumors.

With “GI:Joe: Retaliation” being pushed back into March 2013, I wonder if the “Star Trek” sequel will be delayed yet again. It would explain why they won’t be unveiling anything at ComicCon.

We could be waiting until fall 2013 for the sequel.

14. NoSeth - May 29, 2012

No doubt. Is he telling the truth or lying?

Presumably, he’s telling the truth. I hope he is because it makes a huge difference if he is.

Originality is so much better than Khan.

15. Hugh Hoyland - May 29, 2012

The villain is “Paul”!

16. Marcus Sullivan - May 29, 2012

I feel like it might still be Khan and he’s just throwing us off the scent? I don’t know. But in all honesty, all this guessing is fun.

The film is done shooting and we have barely any better an idea what it’s about then we did three years ago. Compare that to when The Dark Knight Rises was shooting last year, and every other day there was a set photo of Bane or Catwoman or the new Bat-copter or whatever. I feel as though I’ve all ready seen a lot of that movie, but the Star Trek sequel is still a wonderful, exciting enigma. So I’m on board with Pegg’s comments about spoilers…even though I’ll read anything that leaks. I’m just glad they’ve been as successful as they have at keeping it all secret, even with the photos and rumors and all that.

The first time I saw the Enterprise warp off at the end of the 2009 movie, I grinned from ear to ear (and, I’ll admit, even choked up a bit) because even though I didn’t know where she was going, I knew it would be awesome when we finally caught up with her. And we still don’t know. The whole Trek universe is open for us, still. And that’s pretty cool. I’m game for Khan and I’m game for no-Khan, because I trust the guys at the top after the first movie. I trust them to reveal details at their own pace and I trust them to make a worthy sequel.

I’m sure there’s going to be a lot of moaning, as they’re always is, about how ‘we deserve more’ and ‘need details’ and whatever. But this is one life-long fan who’s just happy there’s more Star Trek coming our way and that it’s in the hands of people who’ve proven (to most of us) that they know what they’re doing. So until opening night comes around, I’m just going to relax and enjoy the ride. Because, to paraphrase Scotty…I like this [guessing game], it’s exciting!

17. Red Dead Ryan - May 29, 2012


This has nothing to do with Pegg’s credibility. He is under J.J Abrams’ orders to deny and debunk every rumor as though he is one of the “X-Files” Syndicate members covering up UFO evidence.

The best way to do that is to misdirect everyone to a false flag.

18. VZX - May 29, 2012

RDR: Wow, if this Trek movie gets pushed back again, I think it could seriously affect it’s success and that of the third sequel.

Anyway, yeah, I’m wondering now if Cumby is some kind of DNA hybrid of Khan mixed with other sources, like maybe Klingon.

19. Crusade2267 - May 29, 2012

#10 To hype the movie, of course. If they say one or two things that hint at Khan, they know that the whole internet will light up. Then if they say one or two things that hint at no Khan, they know the whole internet will light up.

Perhaps it is Zor Kahn, who exiled Zarabeth to the ice age in All Our Yesterdays, rather than Khan Noonian Singh, so both the Khan and No Khan camps are right.

20. Phil - May 29, 2012

@13. I’m assuming that Iron Man 3 will get a big boost from The Avengers coattails. I’d be suprised if most studions didn’t rearrange their schedules to avoid getting blown out by IM3.

21. Harry Ballz - May 29, 2012

18.VZX “DNA hybrid of Khan mixed with….maybe Klingon”

I can hear the title of the movie now…………..

Star Trek: Klingon, Khan & Ollie!

22. RedShirtWalking - May 29, 2012

#17: Unless, the “inside sources” are the ones engaging in willful misdirection, which is entirely possible.

23. Nony - May 29, 2012

Eh, I believe Pegg. Still don’t think they would cast Cumberbatch as Montalban-Khan, but he could be *a* Khan.

I like the idea that it’s one of the other Augments, adopted by Khan as an heir of sorts/backup leader in case something happened to him (what if Khan’s stasis compartment malfunctioned? Ooooops), who takes the title or name as his own. *flails, writes fanfiction*

24. Lords Of Kobol Book - May 29, 2012

Why can’t Cumberbatch be playing a co-hort of Khan’s, also rescued aboard the Botany Bay?

Personally, I think it would be cool if the Klingons find the Botany Bay first. Oof, that could be nice.

That’s if they’re leaning toward eugenics in any way. If it’s done right, they could do something totally original, too.

(I’m still hoping for some sort of Prime Directive plotline, maybe in movie three, I guess. Those debates frequently managed to involve what Star Trek truly is.)

25. Joalro - May 29, 2012

There’s so much talk about Kahn that I would be very surprised is Kahn isn’t at least a theme of the movie. Here’s an idea:

If I were Spcok Prime, one of the things I would be sure to do would be to let them know of the existence of Kahn in the Botany Bay. Since the future is already changed, Spock doesn’t need to worry about the “Temporal Time Directive” as I don’t think that applies anymore. Especially since a different future means that Kahn may get luckier this time around and achieve his goals. So they take action against the Botany Bay, capturing Kahn and his ship.

Cumberbatch may not be playing Kahn, but perhaps another escaped eugenics soldier, or maybe even more interestingly, as Starfleet officer who believes that Kahn may be the best chance Starfleet has at defense against other future threats Spock Prime mentions (such as the Borg). This may even set up Kahn for movie 3.

26. rm10019 - May 29, 2012

omg omg i was right it isn’t khan! even though i didn’t guess i was right! i feel so gratified that my 50/50 guess is right and this proves it, omg omg omg, you can all suck it and i am king of the interwebz! All Your Base Are Belong to Us!

27. THX-1138 - May 29, 2012

I don’t think you can have a “hybrid Khan”. This “Alternate Universe” was created after Nero went back in time. Khan and the Eugenics Wars happened before all of that. It would remain unchanged in the AU.

If a writer were to create a “hybrid Khan’ for this movie then he would demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of his own concept.

28. George Zip - May 29, 2012

Screw all that, Pegg. Are you still freaking around in a brewery, or do we have a proper engineering room this time?

I still just cannot get past that whenever I watch that film. It’s embarrassing.

29. George Zip - May 29, 2012

FWIW, after watching a few more episodes of SHERLOCK, I still think Cumberbatch could have been cast as Spock. Quinto is great, don’t get me wrong, but Cumberbatch could easily pull off Vulcan.

And I still see him as Gary Seven.

30. Cygnus-X1 - May 29, 2012

Why would Simon Pegg lie?

An actor in the film is a better source than some anonymous “inside” source.

It’s not Khan, and thank God for that.

Now if we can get the Klingons rumor likewise dispelled, we’ll be back on track.

31. loghaD - May 29, 2012

I knew it was all a Khan job!

Yeah, sorry; had to be done.

Anyway, it wouldn’t be completely un-Pegg-like to say it’s not Khan just to throw us off. However, I’ve still got my hopes on a cosmetically altered Klingon spy à l’Arne Darvin.
Could also be another augment; maybe this time around, Khan died in the resuscitation process, and some other augment filled the vacuum he left. It’d be fun seeing Ragnar Thorwald, but I’m guessing that Cumberbatch would fit better as Lord Stuffington Featherstonehaugh III; the most cunning gentle-augment this side of Brixton-upon-Smifton!
[Jokes aside, I really wouldn’t mind that; I’m thinking Jeremy Irons playing Charles Ryder, but EVIL.]

…or something completely new; that would be nice.

By the way, was “not just another disgruntled alien.” a jibe at Nero?

32. sunfell - May 29, 2012

Ah- I don’t care if Benedict’s character is “Khan” or not. All I see is Sherlock vs. Spock.

Ought to be a total hoot.

33. rogue_alice - May 29, 2012

Cumby plays a Tribble!!!

34. Red Dead Ryan - May 29, 2012


Pegg isn’t lying. He’s misdirecting us. He’s trying to debunk rumors.

Just because he’s an actor in the movie doesn’t make him a better source.

35. Bobby - May 29, 2012

Jeesh all of these crazy Khan-spiracy theories!

36. Basement Blogger - May 29, 2012



The way it looks now, Star Trek would open two weeks after Iron Man 3. If GI Joe opens in March, that’s plenty of time for Star Trek to warp in and be Paramount’s tentpole. Plus I got a feeling that there’s more to GI Joe’s pushback then just a 3D conversion. I mean they spend money promoting it already. GI Joe could be a Cobra bomb. At least the first one was.

37. Thorny - May 29, 2012

Well, I’ve said all along the desire to return to Khan must be irresistible, and I still suspect it is a Khan movie. But I’ll be glad if the Khan story was nothing but Bad Robot misdirection. I’m not a fan of going back to the Khan well this soon in the Trek relaunch, and while I like Cumberbatch, he just isn’t Khan.

38. Elias Javalis - May 29, 2012

I am a Star Trek fan for a long time, but honestly…iam 20 % excited for that right now!! The 80 % goes to Prometheus!!!

39. DavidJ - May 29, 2012

I’m inclined to believe him. After devoting an entire movie to establishing a whole new timeline with a whole new cast, I just have a hard time believing Abrams would REALLY want to make the very next movie… a remake of Khan.

Especially when they don’t even NEED to use a gimmick like this to draw people in. After the success of the first movie, the sequel is going to be a huge hit no matter what they do.

40. Dan - May 29, 2012

Benedict is playing Gary Mitchell. Explains why he is wearing a Starfleet uniform.

41. Dee - lvs moon' surface - May 29, 2012

AWW Simon…” just nosiness and impatience”…???… tell this to RDR… LOL…

………………………Ok… RDR I’m just kidding…… ;-) :-)

42. Ziggy Rot - May 29, 2012

#7: Stop being so melodramatic. For crying out loud. It’s no wonder Trek fans have a reputation for being socially inept.

43. GailaIsMyHomegirl - May 29, 2012

I’m more interested in the costume photos that just got leaked via some random kid’s IMDB page.

44. Jenna - May 29, 2012

28. Benedict talked about filming in the brewery.

I can see how Pegg would want to misdirect, perhaps under orders from JJ, but if he outright lied,a nd so emphatically, he’d get a LOT of flack later. The most telling thing for me is that he called the Batch’s character “a…thing” and then shut himself up. Can’t be too terribly human…

45. MaxxFlash - May 29, 2012

Bingo! Gary Mitchell. I’ve said it before too.

46. NoSeth - May 29, 2012

17–orders or not, if it turns out Pegg is lying, of course it would undermine his credibility. No one would believe a word he says ever again.

There’s no reason to lie either. If it’s not Khan, saying it’s not Khan isn’t that much of a spoiler because it doesn’t say who Cumberbatch is.

That’s fine.

47. Jenna - May 29, 2012

45. One problem with that is that once (and I can’t go find it, was in the middle of that 2000+ comment article, maybe someone else remembers) Bob Orci came on and made one title joke using the word Gary somewhere in it. Seemed really unlikely to me that he would make that joke if it was actually Gary in the film. (Not to mention the thing everyone else always says about him being dealt with in a recent story)

48. n1701ncc - May 29, 2012

i have been saying Gary Mitchell but Bob O said in so many words that it is not him. Maybe Bob was trying to pull my leg and throw everyone off the trail. I think Gary Mitchell makes perfect sense as well JJ saying that the crew was still coming together. Where no man has gone before shows that as well. Kirk and Spock learning to work with each other and how to play 3d chess. This may also be another reason why no title has been given, becuase if you say Where No one has Gone Before is the title then plot is out of the bag.

49. Phil - May 29, 2012

Sorry, but Gary Mitchell makes even less sense then Khan.

50. CJS - May 29, 2012

Maybe it’s both Khan and not-Khan. Maybe Khan was replaced with an impostor somewhere along the Botany Bay’s journey and it is really a shape-shifting alien (Founders?) or an android fashioned into a replica.

51. Phil - May 29, 2012

Playing a cohort of Khan? Yeah, meet Eugene, Khan’s accountant. Every good bad guy needs one. Worked in The Untouchables…..

52. Vultan - May 29, 2012

I’m wondering what Anthony has to say about this. After all, he did report from inside sources that it is (rumored to be) Khan….

53. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - May 29, 2012

It’s a remake of I Mudd and Cumberbatch is Norman.

54. NoSeth - May 29, 2012

I would guess within 99 percent certainty it’s not Gary Mitchell–unless it was a sequel to Where No Man…

Why? Because Orci is overseeing the IDW comics, which show the post-Nero timeline’s version of some of the TOS adventures. Where No Man was done, so we saw the Gary Mitchell story.

COULD they do something with Eve as Deneher? Sure. But to do that, they would have to somehow have Gary Mitchell survive those events.

It would be interesting, but not likely.

55. Christopher Valin - May 29, 2012

I’ve been thinking Cumberbatch is actually playing Khan’s follower, Joachim (he even resembles him a bit). Maybe Spock Prime warns them about the Botany Bay, and they worry so much about Khan that Joachim is the one who takes over (he seemed like he was practically ready to mutiny in TWOK).

56. Desstruxion - May 29, 2012

Cumberbatch is playing Kirk’s older, misunderstood brother.

57. Basement Blogger - May 29, 2012

Simon Pegg says it’s not Khan. And by the way Simon, it’s fun to speculate so cut us some slack. Anyway,can we look at the evidence and see it’s not Khan?

1. Star Trek DVD commentary from the writers that they wanted an end scene featuring the Botany Bay.

2. Trying to get Del Toro. Then the hunt for Hispanic actors. Continuity with Ricardo Montalban who played Khan with a Hsipaic accent?

3. Scene from the movie. Cumberbatch beats the daylights out of Spock. Chokes him with one hand. Makes him superhuman since Vulcns are stronger. Cumberbatch is clearly human or humanoid. Though, he’s wearing a Starfleet undershirt and has pointed sidedburns.

4. Cumberbatch works out for the role. Looks cut. See Montalban.

5. Cuberbatch dyes hair black for role,

6. Anthony writes on April 30 that it’s Khan. Anthony has an inside source and he is very, very careful about what he reports There’s been no retraction of that story.

So is it Khan’s crewmember? Then why the search for a Hispanic actor. Why dye Cumberbatch’s hair black? Did they start out with Khan and change it?. That makes no sense since they were looking at Hispanic actors as late as early December. That would mean a drastic change in the screenplay af a very late date

Gary Seven? Then why search for a Hispanic actor? Plus Seven is not a villain. Why dye Cumberbatch’s hair black? Gary Mitchell? Ditto, though Mitchell could be a bad guy..

Why would Pegg blow up his credibility if it is Khan? That’s a good point for those who like to attack MJ, RDR and myself when we point out the evidence. On the other hand, Pegg has been known to shoot off his mouth. Remember when he implied that Star Trek was a brand name that the studio wanted to make money off of? People associated with the Trek movies have messed with us before. Deflector dish name anyone?

I’m willing to be wrong. Evidence points to Khan. But the thing that I believe in is that Anthony would not write that it’s Khan unless he confirmed it. I think it’s Khan.

One last thing. Just because I belive it’s Khan, doesn’t mean I think it’s a good idea. Been there. Done that. Khan is pretty much one dimensional. Wants to rule earth. In Space Seed, he expands it to the universe. I agree he had more depth in The Wrath of Khan but he had motivation. Blames Kirk for his wife’s death. In this universe, we’re not there yet. Still, I will see the movie with hopes that the Supreme Court delivers a “deeper” film as they have said.

58. Ralph Pinheiro - May 29, 2012

Gary Mitchell died in Star Trek Ongoing. Forget him.

59. Kirk, James T. - May 29, 2012

Pegg is right we shouldn’t want to know what we’ll all know this time next year. I for one can’t wait, the first one blew me away, never seen Star Trek that big and that enjoyable and I love pretty much all of it.

Looking forward to the next movie and I’m looking forward to the official news/releases building up to the movie itself.

Warp speed ahead!

60. Jenna - May 29, 2012

57. I know it’s only one of your points, but the Batch’s hair has been dyed black for most of his roles the last several years, and frequently before that. For whatever reason (people don’t like red-headed men?) he’s a major hair-dyer, so that’s not a particularly compelling point. It could be viewed as just more evil somehow. No comment on your other points but just thought I’d add that in.

61. rm10019 - May 29, 2012

wow, before typing so much, you should first ask if anyone cares what you think. I don’t. and you just made my finger do more work than necessary scrolling past your interminable post.

62. Red Dead Ryan - May 29, 2012

Look, Gary Mitchell isn’t going to be in the sequel. They already covered him in the comics.

63. SB - May 29, 2012

I’m gonna go with Simon on this one. Oh f— off. Wait for the film.

64. Red Dead Ryan - May 29, 2012


“wow, before typing so much, you should first ask if anyone cares what you think. I don’t. and you just made my finger do more work than necessary scrolling past you interminable post.”

Seriously, dude, people have the right to post their opinions here. It’s not up to either you or your finger to decide that.




65. rm10019 - May 29, 2012

Mitchell, in the comic, was shot with a phaser rifle, not vaporized, and was left for dead, floating in a torpedo tube in space, not exactly iron-clad evidence that he is gone for good and he isn’t being played by BC.

Add to it that Dehner is missing from the adaptation and Alice Eve would fit the bill.

Of course I’m not saying he is, because we just don’t know.

66. njdss4 - May 29, 2012

I’m glad that Pegg is flat out denying it’s Khan. I really hope he’s not just trying to throw us off the trail.

67. Captain Peabody - May 29, 2012

I trust Pegg. No actor or person associated with the film has ever, to my knowledge, openly lied about the film, and I certainly wouldn’t expect them to. Inside sources or no, I’d say that Cumberbatch is not playing Khan.

68. Red Dead Ryan - May 29, 2012


The writers said that the sequel would not feature any villains from the comics. So it isn’t going to be Gary Mitchell.

69. rm10019 - May 29, 2012

68 – I haven’t read that, did the writers of the comics say that or Bob O? I would like to read that quote.

70. Damian - May 29, 2012

Like all the Star Trek movies, we’ll get some misinformation, misdirection and errors.

Really, all Pegg is saying is Cumberbatch is not playing Khan. I wouldn’t read much more than that into it. Some of the rumors will be true, some not.

Personally, I’m a bit disappointed we are using the villain of the week yet again. With the exception of TMP, TVH and maybe TFF (was Sybok really a villain?) all the films had had some sort of villain. I was hoping for something different. I’m also not too keen on using Khan again, for reasons I’ve already noted ad nauseum in other posts.

In the end, based on Anthony’s prior posts (being that he tends to be careful about what he reports), the Abrams team statements about Khan, Orci stating at one point he was reading “The Eugenics Wars” books, I think it likely Khan is in the movie. However, it seems likely based on other reports, that Khan is not being played by Cumberbatch. But that’s just my own amateur analysis of the reports thus far.

71. James Cannon - Runcorn Trekkie UK - May 29, 2012

One of Khans henchman was knocked out by a neck pinch from Spock in ‘Space Seed’…. Soooooo ….. Cant be an Augment unless the writers (ahem) forgot about this scene….

(where Kirk has been released by McGivers and Spock is next to go into the oxygen chamber …)

72. Red Dead Ryan - May 29, 2012


I think one of the writers said so in an article a couple of years ago. I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that’s what they said. I can’t remember who it was specifically that said it.

Anyway, I find it highly unlikely that they’d cover Gary Mitchell in a remake of “Where No Man Has Gone Before”, and then kill him off only to bring him back for the sequel.

73. Christopher Roberts - May 29, 2012

I’ll say it then. Khan will be the cliffhanger.

They defrost him and his first words are…

“Kkkkkirk. I am your father!”


74. rm10019 - May 29, 2012

72 – I agree but the subtle changes in the story, especially his ultimate disposition and Dehner’s absence made me wonder. This along with that very very early rumor of one of the aliens pictured thing… Mitchell, Mudd, Talosian, Horta etc. which has since been discredited?

I wanted Javier Bardem or Naveen Andrews to play Khan and personally have nothing against them using the character. I also like BC very much as an actor. We will see how it all goes, I just want a great face melting, brilliant film that makes audiences remember why people like Star Trek :)

75. Mark from Germany - May 29, 2012

Must be like this: Cumberbatch plays Q who appears to the Enterprise crew as Khan

76. Derf - May 29, 2012

holy entitlement

77. THX-1138 - May 29, 2012


You are an idiot of the first order. It came as quite a surprise to me that you could spell inept properly, let alone use it in a sentence.

I should point out that I am not at all impressed by Simon Pegg telling Trek fans to “f— off”. I like spoilers. And the easy cure for people who don’t like them is to just not pay any attention to them. Perhaps I will just “f— off’ when it comes time to take my family to see “Star Trek: Possibly Khan”.

Prometheus looks to be the better film right now, anyway.

78. Shannon Nutt - May 29, 2012

Perhaps it’s not Khan, but rather one of the other superman created during the Eugenics Wars…that might be interesting.

79. Red Dead Ryan - May 29, 2012


“Prometheus looks to be the better film right now, anyway.”

Curious. How do you know? All we’ve seen of “Prometheus” are a bunch of clips and trailers. We have seen nothing of the “Star Trek” sequel.

80. n1701ncc - May 29, 2012

Ok here is one out of left field…BC is Zefrem Cochrane and Alice is the woman who gets sick. They find Zefrem on the planet with the companion but instead the companion gets mad and turms Zef evil. Zef figures out how to fracture the warp core and will do this to save himself and the companion…

maybe BC is Finnigan and Alice is the hot babe that McCoy said that when he peeked it was medical reasons only… Shore Leave… that would be a fun movie..

81. NuFan - May 29, 2012

He definitely lied about the storyline of Mission Impossible but does he do this sort of thing a lot?

82. tman - May 29, 2012

I think Anthony should Automate this site so Pegg’s sagatious advise shows up either randomly or to end each comment list.

83. El Chup - May 29, 2012

I certainly hope he’s telling the truth. If so, this is the best news I’ve heard in ages. Khan would be an out and out insult to Montalban, no matter how good an actor Cumberbatch is.

84. THX-1138 - May 29, 2012


I would tell you but then I would have to kill you. But I will let you in on my tremendous gift for insight, particularly when it applies to this subject:

For starters, there have been a LOT of clips. And not one of them has disappointed me. Star Trek has shown me some pics of uniforms I’m not crazy about and Spock wearing a disco ball outfit. Plus he get’s beat up by Sherlock Holmes.

JJ Abrams is directing Star Trek and Ridley Scott is directing Prometheus. Not a knock on JJ per se, but c’mon. Sir Ridley Scott. I think he’s better.

Prometheus looks to be the better film right now. Because Star Trek: Possibly Khan doesn’t look like anything. Nobody has seen any of it.

Plus I wrote that because Simon Pegg kinda ticked me off with his comment.

85. WillH85 - May 29, 2012

Well this could be good news and would make me feel bad for dissing the writers…if it’s true. If it’s not true, then Simon Pegg just lost his credibility. I hope it’s true, though, and it’s not Khan. That would have me pretty stoked for this movie again.

86. CmdrR - May 29, 2012

No Kahn do?
Then… who’ll wear the mullet?

87. Sid - May 29, 2012


88. Scotty - May 29, 2012

NOT CANNON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

89. maspill - May 29, 2012

Maybe Khan doesnt survive the sleep and he plays another genetic super human who takes over from Khan?

90. Azrael - May 29, 2012

@84. I completely disagree, the only Ridley Scott films I care about at all are things like Gladiator and Robin Hood. I have no interest in watching Prometheus, and more certainty that I will not even watch it on DVD every time a preview of it comes on. On top of that I want to throw things at my TV every time I hear that stupid “mechanical howling” noise in the preview.

Frankly I think Scott is mostly a hack who gets lucky sometimes.

@61. Here are 3 options for you that will spare the rest of us your boring, repetitive, complaints about people expressing themselves.
1. There is a button on the top left of your browser window called “Back” it will take you to a previously visited page where you don’t have to read the comments (which no one is making you read in the first place). 2. There is a button on the top right of your browser window called “Exit” which will close said window completely and sever your internet connection. 3. Another button on your browser window is called “Home” and it will take you to whatever page you have decided it should.

91. Daniel DeLion - May 29, 2012

#77: Man, you are such a melodramatic, socially inept windbag. Grow up, kid.

92. Sebastian S. - May 29, 2012

~MJ? How would YOU like your crow? Sunny side up? ;-)
I’m kidding, of course… ;-P

But I’m also relieved as all hell, too!!! Thank you, Simon Pegg.
And sorry to those who are in ‘Khan denial’, but I’d take an open, public, high-profile source over the the previously unknown source. No offense to Anthony, but this is a remark from one of the actors in the movie. I’d call that as ‘close to the production’ as you could get. If this IS true (and I’d say very likely) then I for one am pleased as I can be. The Cumberbatch-as-Khan rumor felt so wrong-headed on so many levels….

Now if only Bob Orci would comment on this….

93. Harry Ballz - May 29, 2012


Azrael, I agree with you about Ridley Scott being “a hack who gets lucky sometimes”.

Case in point: Robin Hood (starring Russell Crowe) was one of the worst A-list movies I’ve seen in the last 10 years. Pure crap.

In spite of that, I must admit, the trailer for Prometheus DOES look good!

94. Alex - May 29, 2012


95. Rodney C. Johnson - May 29, 2012

One thing, if using Khan is the definition of ‘rehash’ than – the very first movie in the new franchise must also have been a rehash as it used ‘already established characters’. Yet I don’t read (many) fans complaining about rebooting Kirk & Co… there’s no difference, no really there is none at all.

The very fact the first movie exists destroys the rehash argument, proving the weakness of it. There are plenty of ways for a writer to reintroduce Khan, without retelling ‘Space Seed’. To bad so many Trek fans online have limited storytelling visions. Particularly since Khan has been used all but TWICE – though the way some scream, you’d think he had been a weekly villain or something.

And oh, I don’t believe Pegg, he’s not allowed to give spoilers away. I also trust this sites sources on the subject in this regard.

96. n1701ncc - May 29, 2012

now trelane would be awesome…Are you challenging me to duel. that would be so sporting of JJ.

maybe he is Dr Daystrom and Kirk is captain duncel

97. captain spock - May 29, 2012

Bob where are you please commit on this!

98. Sebastian S. - May 29, 2012

# 93

I wouldn’t call Scott a ‘hack’ per se. I don’t like ALL of his movies (I agree about Robin Hood for the most part), but his two forays into science fiction (Blade Runner and ALIEN) were simply awesome (in the literal sense of the word; not the slang). It gives me great hope for “Prometheus.” I think this might be the great science fiction homecoming we’ve been waiting for…

As for the rumors I’m reading here about Simon Pegg being an X-Files style ‘plant’ (that one’s too funny) who is deliberately planting a false ‘counter rumor’ to the Khan rumor? That’s just the Khan-denial talking. Pegg said it upfront with no equivocation. Anthony’s source never came forward publicly (nor did Bob Orci or Paramount confirm the source). BIG difference….

I doubt Pegg give such a firm denial if it weren’t true. He’s had a long career; I’d say he knows how spin and rumor control work.

At any rate, Pegg had another good point; saying anything else would be ruining the movie. So, from this point on? I’ll just wait and see (before the trailer comes out and ruins it for all of us in a few months… ;-D).

99. Vultan - May 29, 2012

Yes, Prometheus does look like a proper sci-fi movie. Have no idea if it’ll be good or not, but it looks promising. Scott can be hit or miss.

That strange sound used in the trailers is from the original Alien trailer. Nice continuity (of sorts).

100. THX-1138 - May 29, 2012


Scott>Abrams. That was the point I was getting at, as the question posed to me was how did I know that Prometheus would be the better film.


Oh how original. You don’t even have the brain power to insult me with an original line. Plus, how can you tell I’m a windbag from my typing? I don’t know about socially inept, though. Your mom thinks highly of me. BTW, she would like you to find your own place as she needs your room to keep her framed, autographed pictures of me.

101. Daoud - May 29, 2012

@93 Robin Hood: Men In Tights with Cary Elwes and Patrick Stewart was actually a much better Robin Hood. His English accent was even better, for sure!
Now, as for To Khan, or not to Khan…I guess I’m now in the court of it being the Khan one tube over.
How about a character called Khan Ranjit Singh after:

Khan Noonien Singh’s tube in this one fails, and we see a hispanic-looking Sikh dead in his tube. Meanwhile, Khan Ranjit Singh survives!

102. Azrael - May 29, 2012


Abrams>Scott. That was the point I was making, and why I think Prometheus will suck. To each his own.

103. THX-1138 - May 29, 2012


What about Abrams is it that you like? And how do you feel about the original Alien or Bladerunner, two films that are almost universally regarded as benchmarks in science fiction cinema? I don’t really give a hoot about Robin Hood movies, so that doesn’t figure in to my equation. Super 8 was an OK movie, but not really in the same class as Scott’s contributions.

Again, to each his own. At least you didn’t call me names.

104. section9 - May 29, 2012


105. That stinks - May 29, 2012

Comics are not canon, but these comics were supervised by Orci and are not meant to contradict the new movie, or cover similar territory.

That’s why I’d be surprised if Cumberbatch is Mitchell.

106. Vultan - May 29, 2012

Why even compare Abrams and Scott? Their styles are completely different. Apples and oranges.

107. Daniel DeLion - May 29, 2012

#100: How old are you… 12? Crikee, man. Have some self-respect.

108. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 29, 2012

Simon Pegg – “…Cumberbatch’s baddy, whom he describes [as] “not just another disgruntled alien. It’s a really interesting…”

Pegg did flatly deny reports and rumors that Cumberbatch is playing Khan…
“It’s not Khan,” replies Pegg, annoyed. “That’s a myth. Everyone’s saying it is, but it’s not.”

I think the article is quite clear as you can see above. Sometimes I get the impression that people’s reading comprehension sits at sub-zero. It is clear that our favourite cucumber-patch is not playing Khan. Khan was human. He is playing an alien.

Of course, that is not to say that there may not be Khan in the movie somewhere, but he is not being played by Benedict Cumberbatch. Most people thought that it was a little strange to cast the cucumber as a person of Indian(Sikh) heritage and it seems so did JJ Abrams.

I also find it almost astonishing that some people would think the person being played by the cucumber fighting (Quinto) Spock in those first leaked rehearsal scenes could only be *Gary Mitchell. Starfleet has hundreds of members. Any one of these people could be fighting Spock, for whatever reason. I just don’t get the reasoning, maybe because there isn’t much in the way of reasoning going on.

Sorry – had to say it.

* Besides, Gary Mitchell is DEAD (in this alternate universe, as well).

109. Peter Loader - May 29, 2012

If its not Khan, then is was going to be. An alternative script as backup is a good plan and I’m sure they used it.

110. THX-1138 - May 29, 2012


Because I am a Trek fan and am nothing if not wildly opinionated and socially inept. Plus, an apparent windbag.

Actually I compared the two as a basis for my argument that Prometheus is going to be a better science fiction film (and probably a better film in general) than next years Star Trek offering. And, like I said before, my dear, delicate feelings were hurt when Simon Pegg told the fans who like spoilers and advance movie news to go and have unsatisfying sexual congress in an area away from him.

Yes, I understand it was an offhand and irreverent remark from that scamp actor who plays Scotty in NuTrek. But it did provide fuel for the windbag.

111. THX-1138 - May 29, 2012


How’s life under the bridge? And with that, you shall be ignored.

112. Azrael - May 29, 2012

@203. Fair enough questions, and you didn’t call me any names, so I will try to answer. The original Alien, to me, felt like a slasher movie in space. I don’t like slasher flicks so I did not care for it. I like Blade Runner, but feel it is overrated, and I prefer the Philip K. Dick story it is based on. I have found also that I enjoy more of Abrams’s movies, on average, than Scott’s, probably has to do with my own personality. To be fair I did not watch Alias, Lost, or any other Abrams TV show until the premier of Person of Interest, which also includes Jonathan Nolan, who was the deciding factor for me to watch it. I mention this so that I do not come off as an “Abrams Bot”.

113. Azrael - May 29, 2012

@103. Fair enough questions, and you didn’t call me any names, so I will try to answer. The original Alien, to me, felt like a slasher movie in space. I don’t like slasher flicks so I did not care for it. I like Blade Runner, but feel it is overrated, and I prefer the Philip K. Dick story it is based on. I have found also that I enjoy more of Abrams’s movies, on average, than Scott’s, probably has to do with my own personality. To be fair I did not watch Alias, Lost, or any other Abrams TV show until the premier of Person of Interest, which also includes Jonathan Nolan, who was the deciding factor for me to watch it. I mention this so that I do not come off as an “Abrams Bot”.

114. sean - May 29, 2012

For people saying this is ‘misdirection’ I’d like to paraphrase Inigo Montoya: I do not think that word means what you think it means. Pegg is saying unequivocally that the villain isn’t Khan and that the reports are wrong. That ain’t misdirection. That’s either A)the truth or B)a lie. Misdirection is ‘Look at my left hand and ignore my right hand’.

115. Azrael - May 29, 2012

Sorry for the double post guys, had an argunment with my phone.

116. Sebastian S. - May 29, 2012

# 114


(For the Inigo Montoya quote).

I also agree with your post. A flat out denial by one of the main cast members trumps a mysterious rumor from an unidentified, unconfirmed source in a dark alley smoking a cigarette with a fedora and trench coat any day of the week….


117. THX-1138 - May 29, 2012

#112 and #113

I am totally good with people’s tastes differing from mine. And I certainly don’t want to get lumped into the Abrams Bashers. But I do hold Star Trek up to a high standard and even though it’s an old argument, I was really disappointed that the last film wasn’t the origins story I had hoped it would be. So now I am one of “those” Star Trek fans that since I didn’t go along with the program feel like I have been sort of left behind. Dis-en”franchised” if you will.

Maybe Abrams will come in to his own, but I just don’t think his movies have a lot of “substance” to them. Good stories, neat FX, but ultimately forgettable.

118. Rico - May 29, 2012

I’m guessing he’ll be another genetic superman, just not the Khan character. Maybe when Benecio was in the running it truly was going to be Khan, but with Benedict they changed his origin a bit and name.

119. -H- - May 29, 2012

Maybe Benedict is still ‘Khan’, not being Khan. I mean, he could be Zor Kahn –misspelled as ‘Khan’ in previous licensed works–. This could lead us to guess that Alice Eve could be Zarabeth, from the same story. (TOS 3×23)

Also he (Benedict) could be another Khan that’s not “the Khan”, this is, he is no t Khan Noonien Singh

And also he could not be anyone or anything named ‘Khan’.

120. Travis - May 29, 2012

Simon Pegg is under orders from JJ Abrams to not say a damn word about this film but lets review the facts.

1: The production crew def. wanted to put the Botany Bay in the end of the 2009 film ( confirmed )

2: JJ Abrams has been giving hints about Khan even with a 2010 interview with MTV… is the bell making any rings??

3: The fact that JJ Abrams tried to hire Latino actors to play Khan… bell is now ringing!!!

4: Bendict Cumberbatch knocked JJ Abrams out of his chair with his evil iphone role interview! Was told by JJ Abrams to get fit in the gym, build up muscles, dye the hair black, and choke Spock with ONE HAND… Hello its KHAN!!!!

All of you want the Klingons in this film and so do I but the most famous enemy in all of the Star Trek series is Khan… Hands Down! Did the klingons make one movie in star trek the best ever??… No. The Wrath of Khan did… Why??? because Khan was the most dangerous and most logical villian for Star Trek to put Trek back on the map from a dismail Star Trek: The Motion Picture!

Still dont believe me???… Go look up The Dark Knight and come back to me and tell me why that movie jumped higher than any batman movie out… Hint: Make-Up!!!

121. Punkspocker - May 29, 2012

I believe you Simon!

122. Lee - May 29, 2012

Like poor marksmen, you all keep missing the target…..

Peter Weller is Khan, Benedict is one of his boys.

I quite certain about this.

123. mikey1701 - May 29, 2012

I simply KHAN’T fight the feeing that the villian will be Khan


i had to.

124. Tom - May 29, 2012

@10 Because they wouldn’t believe it anyways, that’s why. And Simon did say no Khan. People think when they say no Khan there covering up the thing. People believe what they want. Even if. J.J himself said no Khan , people wouldn’t believe him ether. Will find out next summer.

125. jello cutter - May 29, 2012

Im pretty sure that there are other star trek ideas that have nothing to do with Khan, And this ongoing obsession with Khan sounds like a bunch of loosers who never got over there last girlfriend and cant moove on with and get a life. This is why having JJ take over the franchise is the best thing for star trek. Hes not stuck in an rut looking backwards to and hanging on to a girlfreind (khan) who left him 40 years ago. Plaese let Khan go grow up and moove on.

And with the prometheus movie there is to much information on the internet to many clips and spoilers I feel like seeing the movie is just an obligation to fill in a few blanks. And im trying to avoid them but they keep getting shoved in my face by people who think guiving away secrets and ruining things for people is being clever and informed its not its just f annoying.

126. Whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - May 29, 2012

I agree with, n1701ncc. It’s Gary Mitchell.

127. dmduncan - May 29, 2012

Hehehe! The plot thickens!

If Pegg seemed annoyed by the Khan rumor as the report has it, then I believe him. I believe Pegg would get annoyed with a rumor like that if it were not true.

But I’ll officially wait to rub Red Dead Ryan’s nose in it until we know for sure.

128. Vultan - May 29, 2012


Hey, dmduncan, I’m no longer banging my head against a tree. ;)

129. Red Dead Ryan - May 29, 2012

Look, it’s going to be Khan. J.J Abrams could have easily have come out and said “No Khan”. He hasn’t. None of the writers have said anything.

As for Pegg, he has to say “it’s not Khan”. He has to lie. Abrams doesn’t want anything revealed.

I find this whole secrecy exercise ridiculous, but that’s the way Abrams is doing things. We won’t know who the villain is until the fall, at the earliest.

130. Red Dead Ryan - May 29, 2012

Well, Pegg is annoyed because he can’t answer anybody’s questions.

I don’t believe he’s annoyed at the Khan suggestion itself.

Its just the fact he has no choice but to NOT give anything away. Probably tougher for him to do than it is for the writers.

131. Bugs_nixon - May 29, 2012

Dont write the movie in your heads before you see it… You’ll develop unrealistic and unachievable ideas, and when your guess is wrong, you’ll be dissappointed.

132. Craiger - May 29, 2012

Do they feel they made a bad choice with Khan because of some of the fan backlash saying been their done that and that the villain should be someone new? What’s the difference between Trek fans and the general movie going audience? I would say if the general audience make them more profit especially ones that just go into Trek from the last movie why care about making some Trek fans mad about going with Khan? Trek fans could also look at it as a different take on Khan. It probably wont go just like Space Seed and TWOK. The way Trek fans should look it Khan, if it is Khan is how JJ will tell his story in a different way. That’s the way I think of it now. I thought Khan again but changed my mind thinking how JJ will do his own version of Khan. Just like how he did his own version of the Klingons in ST 2009. Why not just say its Khan but it wont be your father’s Khan just like when they said it wont be your father’s Trek.

133. Jeyl - May 29, 2012

Arik Soong thought Botany Bay was a myth.

134. rickindc - May 29, 2012

Three weeks ago I told you all that this movie has NO KHAN in it, Cumberbatch is playing the part of Col. Greene from TOS!

135. Chingatchkook - May 29, 2012

Well, he said that Cumberbatch is not playing Kahn…but he did not say that Kahn isn’t in the movie.

I’ll trust Anthony P’s sources, He’s always been straight up about reporting details like that.

136. David - May 29, 2012


Just one simple question for you: I know you can’t give details about the film away but in the most general terms, will there be much emphasis on space exploration this time or will it mainly be about conflict between Kirk’s crew and the villain?

I would love more of an emphasis on exploration of new worlds as this has never really featured in any of the Trek films. The fact you are filming in Iceland whets my appetite for that kind of thing.

137. Bucky - May 29, 2012

now I’m confused. Trekmovie sources are good. Also as much as actors & & directors writers tend to dance around direct questions like that, usually people just don’t flat-out lie and Pegg doesn’t strike me as the flat-out lying type.

But maybe Khan-influenced? Klingons enhanced with Augment DNA? That happened in Enterprise which is (still!) in continuity. That’s where the smooth forehead ridges came from. My brain hurts now. I’m gonna go lie down.

138. Craiger - May 29, 2012

#134 The only way Cumberbatch could be Colonel Green is in a flashback scene. Colonel Green was during the Eugenics War before TOS’s timeframe. If he is the main villian that wouldn’t work. Unless the Botany Bay also has Colonel Green onboard and that would be a twist JJ could do in the sequel. Maybe Green kills Khan and takes over?

139. Bucky - May 29, 2012

Oooh, Cumberbatch jacks himself up with Khan’s brain! They stole Khan’s brain!

140. Bucky - May 29, 2012

It’s a remake / mash up of Space Seed / Spock’s Brain. Two of TOS’ best & worst episodes put together. that would be amazing!

141. Jenna - May 29, 2012

116. Sebastian S
I meant to reply to your post this morning on the other article–the Fathom Frankenstein showings next week are not live, just so you are not disappointed. The show ran for three months just over a year ago and they had live airings of two of the performances at theaters worldwide near the end of the run. The kept those recordings and are reshowing them selectively at theaters this summer. Jonny Lee and Ben are actually quite busy doing other stuff right now (Ben said they are working on bringing the show to Broadway though!)

In fact, Ben’s mother told a fan at the BAFTAs on Sunday that Ben is flying back to LA this Wed and Thurs to do more on Star Trek. So I guess they’re not completely done with the main actors, or at least him. No idea if any of the others are joining him.

142. RetroWarbird - May 29, 2012

Garth … of … Izar. Superior to Khan, anyway, if his abilities were truly played with.

143. Christopher Roberts - May 29, 2012

138. Unless the Eugenics War and the Third World War have been retconned to be the same thing. Colonel Green was from the 21st Century. Khan from the 20th.

144. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - May 29, 2012

Fact: The worst cinematic Robin Hood of all time is Kevin Costner.

Maybe if Little John had introduced him as his American cousin, Robin of Kansas, he would have had a better chance. But Costner doesn’t play larger than life characters vey well. He’s much better when he’s the common man thrust into uncommon situations.

I have nothing to say about the Khan issue that I haven’t said already. So I’ll make it short and sweet – I don’t care WHO the villain is, as long as they do it well.

145. Craiger - May 29, 2012

#143 – I looked up those two wars and their is some confusion if they are the same thing. One has the Eugenics War 1993 – 1196 and WW3 in 2050. However in Voyager we saw no evidence of the Eugenics Wars when they went back into time to 1996. Spock states Eugenics was the end of your so called third World War.

146. Craiger - May 29, 2012

Sorry I mean 1993 – 1996 not 1196.

147. James M - May 29, 2012

I think it’s ridiculous we have to wait one full year for this movie to come out. Why don’t they just say if the villain or villains are Khan and Lt. Commander Gary Mitchell? Maybe we are in for a disappointment.

148. LizardGirl - May 29, 2012

Hmmm….Benedict Cumberbatch….Resistant to Vulcan nerve pinch….Villain….Alice Eve….Volcano….hmmm…. *imitates Sherlock pose*

149. Daoud - May 29, 2012

Eugenics Wars didn’t affect the United States. WW3 did.
This is silly.

150. The Quickening - May 29, 2012

Ways Pegg is techically not lying, should the film really be about Khan:

• If Cumberbatchs’ Khan is genetically engineered from Khan’s DNA, then Cumberbatch is technically not playing Khan.

• If Cumberbatch is Khan from the B-universe, Cumberbatch is technically not playing TOS Khan.

• Pegg is attacking spoilers–and rather crudely–and can say that he felt it necessary to speak up and misdirect to crush the rumor the film involves Khan.

• The movie is about Khan, but Cumberbatch is not playing him.

151. VZX - May 29, 2012

Maybe Pegg is just trying to mess with everyone. But he did kind of stupid-like. He ain’t the sharpest tool in the shed.

152. L4YERCAKE - May 29, 2012

Ridley Scott has made some not so great movies in his career for sure, but a hack???

Go watch ‘Blade Runner’ again. It is pure Ridley Scott and one of the most perfect films ever, ever made. ‘Alien’ definitely was the right combination of people coming together at the right time in the right way, but Ridley made ‘Blade Runner’ what it is, and it’s flawless.

I think the long wait til 2013 for the Star Trek sequel is making some folks pretty batty…

153. Red Dead Ryan - May 29, 2012

Whoever called Ridley Scott needs to have their brain replaced. He is one of the greatest directors of all time.

“Alien” is a classic. So is “Blade Runner” (though not a fan of it myself) “American Gangster”, “Gladiator”, and “Kingdom Of Heaven” are great as well.

154. Red Dead Ryan - May 29, 2012

that should read “Whoever called Ridley Scott overrated…”


155. CarlG - May 29, 2012

If he’s speaking truth, then God* bless you, Simon Pegg, and Roberto and JJ, too!

*referring to Yahweh, Allah, Bhudda, Vishnu, Floaty-Head-Guy-In-The-Center-Of-The-Galaxy, et al.

156. Rick - May 29, 2012

I don’t think it could be Gary Mitchell – He and Kirk served together during Kirk’s(TOS) rise through the ranks. In the JJAbrams world, Kirk went from cadet to captain on the Enterprise’s maiden voyage. I am inclined to believe Simon Pegg when he flatly denies that BC is playing Khan.
Personally, I would rather see a new character any way.

157. Azrael - May 29, 2012

I don’t need to watch either Blade Runner or Alien again, they are already part of my personal movie collection. My opinion of them will not change, and is completely unaffected by any wait for any movie, ST or otherwise. I have held this opinion since long before I ever began posting here. FWIW I do love Gladiator, and the much maligned RS Robin Hood. My liking of Robin Hood may be fueled by the fact that I have never watched the theatrical version, just the unrated extended cut on the DVD.

158. Lonzo5 - May 29, 2012

I call Gary Mitchell. It better be Gary Mitchell.

159. Lonzo5 - May 29, 2012

Also, part III better involve the mirror universe and bearded Zachary Quinto. Called it!

160. Lonzo5 - May 29, 2012


161. Montreal_Paul - May 29, 2012

159. Lonzo5

I’d go for that! Would love to see a mirror universe movie.

162. braxus - May 29, 2012

Im still wondering if it may be Trelane? Its the only other character that has the strength to keep up with Spock.

163. Montreal_Paul - May 29, 2012

162. braxus

I’ve been watching the remastered TOS lately and I have noticed that Spock isn’t all powerful. Heck, remember Spock’s Brain? An alien woman was able to overpower him and take his brain. How about Gary Seven or what about in “Plato’s Stepchildren”… even Kirk was able to knock him around in a few episodes.

164. DiscoSpock - May 29, 2012

163 – It was pretty clear that the brain-stealing alien woman used technology to knock out the entire crew, so she didn’t need to overpower Spock.

165. Montreal_Paul - May 29, 2012

164. DiscoSpock

True. I stand corrected.

166. Cygnus-X1 - May 29, 2012

34. Red Dead Ryan – May 29, 2012

—-#30. Pegg isn’t lying. He’s misdirecting us. He’s trying to debunk rumors.
Just because he’s an actor in the movie doesn’t make him a better source.—-

It doesn’t? So, he has a substantial part in the movie, but he doesn’t know who the main characters are? How can that be possible?

167. LizardGirl - May 29, 2012

Trelane would be a neat choice, except for the fact that he’s a spoiled child-like entity that doesn’t like to play fair. Why would he physically go toe to toe with inferior beings when he can just blink and have complete control over…everything? Benedict looked pretty riled up in that photo. I don’t think Trelane (like Q) could relate that strongly on an emotional level. Whoever Ben’s playing, I don’t think it would be Trelane.

168. LizardGirl - May 29, 2012

….Unless…..he somehow loses his power….

169. Sebastian S. - May 29, 2012

# 141.

Thanks, Jenna. That was very kind of you. :-)

However, my wife and I kind of did the ‘time zone math’ and figured it was probably just a taping OF a live performance. In which case, it’s just as good, IMO. I’d rather see a ‘perfected’ version anyway. No chance of line flubs or technical gaffes. But again; I sincerely thank you for your consideration.

Onto the thread topic….

It cracks me up; the Khan boys STILL won’t let go of the officially de-bunked Khan theory. Even after official confirmation by a member of the primary cast, they STILL put all their faith in half-baked ‘clues’ about the Botany Bay and hispanic actor casting (talk about misdirection) and an ‘official’ rumor from an unknown source who never went public (and never received confirmation from either Bob Orci, or Paramount).

Yet, they think WE’RE being mislead because we choose to put our stock in an official, flat-out denial from a main cast member (I’d call Simon Pegg a source pretty close to the production). I don’t mean to sound condescending, but exactly WHAT proof (besides a full-on trailer) would you accept that Khan isn’t in the movie? Paramount confirmation of Pegg’s comment, or Bob Orci’s word on these threads? Because I remind you that neither of those were given to the “Khan” rumors, either…

I’m taking Simon Pegg’s word at face value. No reason to lie, really. And I doubt he wouldn’t have leaked such a remark w/o Paramount’s go-ahead; it’s probably in his contract concerning PR and interviews. But it just sounds to me like the Khan theorists on these threads just aren’t ready to surrender that particularly bone from their jaws.

Personally, at any rate, I’d hope it’s a new character.
It can’t really be Gary Mitchell either as that plot (“Where No Man Has Gone Before”) was already played out in the recent ‘official’ IDW graphic novels (and Bob Orci did say those were relevant/canonical to the new movie as well). So, Mitchell is dead. Hence, I doubt Cumberbatch is playing him.
I vote for imagination; here’s hoping the villain is a new character….. ;-)

170. Anthony Thompson - May 29, 2012

I predict that MJ, Red Dead Ryan and others are going to have egg on their faces come May 2013! : D

171. Sebastian S. - May 29, 2012

# 170 AT~

I’m just hoping it’s a good movie, otherwise ALL of us ST fans will have egg on our faces….


172. Montreal_Paul - May 29, 2012

171. Sebastian S.

Even if the movie is of STV caliber… us Trekkies will still go see it at least twice… we will still buy it in DVD or Bluray… and we will still go see the next one and complain about how bad the movie was years later… just like we do with STV. Know what I mean? I have all the original movies (including STV) on VHS… then on DVD and now on Bluray. :)

173. Sebastian S. - May 29, 2012

# 172

Montreal Paul~

Oh, I hear you on that one… ;-)

I even own “ST: Insurrection” on DVD, and that movie was (IMO) the absolute nadir of the movie franchise (TOS or TNG). But you’re right; CBS/Paramount knows that we Trek fans are pretty much OCD-level in our quest for complete sets. Besides, who wants a gap in their DVD/Bluray shelves? LOL…


174. L4YERCAKE - May 29, 2012

There’s one thing I know for sure: In this new Star Trek universe, there is a ship floating out in space called the Botany Bay. Khan and his crew are out there somewhere. Whether Khan doesn’t survive his stasis, or who does or doesn’t discover the ship, it’s out there somewhere in this universe. Whatever part Khan does or doesn’t take in this upcoming sequel big or small, I refuse to believe the makers of the film will ignore that. Khan was a villain of huge stature and legend despite only two previous appearances. I don’t care what Simon Pegg says, to have another chance to flesh out Khan and use him to his full potential is too great to ignore. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Cumberbatch’s performance will be for the ages, and I hope his character recurs in every Star Trek movie coming up for years to come.

175. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - May 29, 2012

13 RR, GI Joe was delayed because it sucks, (and yes I have allready seen it,about 4 weeks ago at one of the screenings held at the Pacific grove)
the 3D is a smoke screen, they are going back and reshooting huge chunks of the movie, and doing the 3D conversion cause those of us who have seen it, and responded to the screening questioners said the movie was pure crap. they are worried cause they moved a film to what was their summer tentpole spot after allowing JJ extra time and pushed trek to next summer.
that this thing is going to bomb worse than Battleship did for Universal or John Carter did for disney. The fact that they are going into the summer without a big summer tentpole movie now says alot. and that along with the “converting to 3D will help our box office” comment.

Trek 12 isnt going to be pushed back further as a result of GI Joe2

176. Orly - May 29, 2012

Benedict Cumberbatch’s mother was talking to a fan at the Bafta’s and let slip that Cumberbatch was about to fly back to LA to do a few more days on Star Trek. This might be filming but is probably ADR work.

177. Sebastian S. - May 29, 2012

#47. Jenna~

Maybe he meant Gary Seven. (I personally hope not, as I’d rather Cumberbatch play a new character, but I just had to throw it out there….).

As for Khan being a great character? I agree, but I just think that it’s fairly safe to say that he’s not going to be in the 2013 movie. But if they do resurrect the character of Khan, it’s also possible that they might be saving him for the following ST movie (the inevitable next and possibly last sequel AFTER the 2013 movie). Saving Khan for ‘the big finish’ as it were…

But IMO, at this point (the mid-point) in the new movie franchise? It’s too early to have more TOS characters (even recast ones) into the mix. Personally, I hate to think that the new creative powers behind the new movies would be so limited in their imaginations…

We’ll see.


178. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - May 29, 2012

Ill take Simon at his word, and believe its not Khan.
some of these posters just dont want to let it go, they will probably still say its khan when the movie screens for the first time and its revealed he is NOT KHAN

179. hols - May 29, 2012

Cumberbatch is doing a lot more on this film than I was expecting. Have they beefed up his role?

180. Anthony Thompson - May 29, 2012


Yep. The same as some people here were convinced to their core that Shatner would be in the ’09 movie. Until the projectors started and he wasn’t in it. LOL.

181. Anthony Thompson - May 29, 2012


Beefed up his role??? He’s the villain! What did you expect? A bit part for the #1 bad guy?

182. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - May 30, 2012

viewer reviews are starting to come in from France, Belgium and Switzerland where Promethious opened up early early this morning. and overwhelming great reviews so far.
I myself will be seeing an advanced screening of Promethius tonight(wed) in L.A. and cant wait.

183. Tiberius Subprime - May 30, 2012

Lots of new directions this is going in….

I can see Cumberbatch not playng Khan, but the film might be about Khan in some way that could lead to the third film.

(And what about that muscle guy they hired for the film? No one seems to be talking about him. Could he be one of Khan’s henchment, unfrozen for whatever purpose?)

However, I am open to Cumberbatch being anyone: a new alien, an augmented human, Garth, Kodos of Tarsus IV, etc.

I reserved judgement until the film comes out.

(And although I did enjoy Abrams’s film for what it was, I agree that Ridley Scott is a more powerful and visionary director.)

184. Peter Loader - May 30, 2012

I say the plot revolves around Weller’s character. Cumberbatch is playing a younger version of Weller’s character who wants to remain young after being transformed by the accidental inclusion of Red Matter while using the transporter. The side-effects of which are an increase in strength and a darker personality.

185. Bradley - May 30, 2012


…You just won the thread.

186. Aelous 14 Umbra - May 30, 2012

I know the trooooth! Cumberbatch is playing … DR. SMITH! =D

187. P Technobabble - May 30, 2012

I’m waiting for the movie…

188. dżordż - May 30, 2012

Always knew it’s not Khan.

189. Tiberius Subprime - May 30, 2012

Oh, the pain. The pain!

190. Daoud - May 30, 2012

I’ll go with an Antosian-augmented (gee, where’d they get that tech?) not-yet-ready-to-shapeshift Captain Garth of Izar. After leading the fleet at the Laurentian System, something wicked that way happened.
Garth has a good strong name for a good guy gone bad. Plus, it totally brings Pike in as a colleague/bff of Garth… who had to send senior Captain Ron Tracey (CO of the Exeter, and Peter Weller) on the A{s}pockalypse Now type mission to recover Garth. You needed a psychologist, so sent Dr. Dehner (Alice Eve). Problem is, Garth has taken Tracey’s ship. So, better send Kirk and Spock for cleanup on Aisle K-7.

191. belindatheblonde - May 30, 2012

If Noel Clarke turns out to be the main villain we will all be completely LOKI’D come May 2013. And evil JJ drink our tears.

192. Damian - May 30, 2012

Colonel Green was later clarified to be involved with World War III. In the original series, the Eugenics Wars and World War III were considered one and the same, however as time went on, they were separated into two separate conflicts. Greg Cox’s novels (not canon, of course) portray the Eugenics Wars as a hidden unknown war tying together a series of smaller brush wars in the 90’s being controlled by the supermen, or Augments. Cox was trying to place the Eugenics Wars into reality but still be consistent with canon (he did do an admirable job of it).

World War III was noted a few times. The novel “Federation” noted an optimum movement that was trying to “perfect” the human race and in Enterprise Colonel Green was noted to be involved with trying to perfect humanity. Apparently WWIII was another attempt at Eugenics, though not involving genetic engineering.

Memory Alpha has a lot more details about the two conflicts based on little snippets of information from canon sources on screen. Memory Beta also includes a lot of non-canon information and tries to tie it all together.

193. RenderedToast - May 30, 2012

Considering Cumberbatch looks ridiculously like Joachim, Khan’s henchman, then maybe Khan dies early or maybe just isn’t thawed out, and we’re left with the 2nd in command running the show.

Would be an utterly bizarre choice though, relying as it does on the audience not wondering why it’s not Khan, so I very much doubt it.

I really hope Pegg isn’t screwing with us too, because Cumberbatch does not fit Khan at all, we can already see that from the set-pics.

194. RenderedToast - May 30, 2012

#190 “Garth has a good strong name for a good guy gone bad”

2 words: Wayne’s World.

Garth will never be taken seriously as a name ever again.

195. Damian - May 30, 2012

Re; Ridley Scott. I plan on seeing Prometheus. I don’t think there’s any real comparison to Star Trek though. I agree with another, comparing Scott and Abrams is apples and oranges. They have completely different styles.

Alien was one of my favorite sci-fi films. I actually liked it more than Aliens, though that too was a great film. Alien was a great horror, sci-fi film. It also took away the one thing that always bugged me about many horror films, like Amityville. Namely, get out. If a fly tells me to get out of my house, I’m not sticking around to ask questions.

In Alien, you can’t leave. They have to deal with it. There was a lot of tension, the set design was great, and it had a great score by Jerry Goldsmith.

196. Aurore - May 30, 2012


Now, bring on the “blindingly brilliant face melter”.
(No pressure, gentlemen.)


P.S. : Hi, Simon (Pegg)!

197. George Zip - May 30, 2012

I still don’t get the “everyone needs to wait to see the film and be surprised” attitude — I sorely wish I could truly be surprised and see it all at my first viewing of the film itself — as said before, the trailer will blow the whole thing out of the water. It does every time.

(Case in point, from the Trek universe itself: ST3, with the wreck of the ENTERPRISE flying across the screen, ‘come witness the final voyage of the USS ENTERPRISE’)

198. - May 30, 2012

I did not really believe it was Khan when it was reported that it was.

1. To do a Khan story would be ridiculous. Khan is not the equivalent of batmans joker. Any star trek characters that might fit that mould would be the Klingons or Romulans.

2. Khan was an ok character in space seed and only a good character when motivated to seek revenge on Kirk, To do another revenge story would be like doing a second iron man film where he was again fighting a villain in an iron suit after doing that in the first film. We have just had two angry alien Treks in a row.

3. Revisiting Khan sends a message that the team are suffering a lack of creativity. The exact opposite of what they are showcasing by reinventing Star Trek. To regain the essence of trek while presenting new stories is a fine enough line to tread already.

As ridiculous as i think doing Khan is i do however recognize that those who have wanted to see a Khan film are trekkies who have invested themselves at an emotional level.

To not deny that it is Khan earlier is disrespectful to those trekkies who deserve better treatment.

It is due to this already unfair level of disrespect they have had to endure that i shall omit my usual “suck eggs fellas” and say guys i could not feel your pain more were i betazoid.

For the rest of us this is great news.

Live long and prosper Simon Pegg.

199. DeShonn Steinblatt - May 30, 2012


200. Jack - May 30, 2012

Sometimes I wish Simon Pegg would just stick with no comment.

201. CaptRobau - May 30, 2012

I don’t think/hope it’s a character we know. When you think about it ST09 did not play safe. They killed off Spock’s mother and the rest of the planet Vulcan for god’s sake. I think they’re going to let Khan drift in space for the rest of eternity.

Pegg’s comment on it being a thing, could mean two things:

-Evil humans
-Abstract alien like V’ger

I’m not sure how they’d do the second one, because it doesn’t fit the blockbuster mentality.

202. DiscoSpock - May 30, 2012

172. Montreal_Paul – May 29, 2012
“Even if the movie is of STV caliber… us Trekkies will still go see it at least twice… we will still buy it in DVD or Bluray… and we will still go see the next one and complain about how bad the movie was years later… just like we do with STV. Know what I mean? I have all the original movies (including STV) on VHS… then on DVD and now on Bluray.”

Hey, speak for yourself! :)

I only saw STV once in the theater, never bought it in any format. I saw STVI and Generations in theaters, once each. I only have STVI on VHS and I haven’t watched it in a decade–I hated that film. I think I saw FC and Insurrection in theaters, but can’t remember, to be honest. I skipped Nemesis in theaters, and I don’t own any of the TNG movies in any format.

I saw Trek09 three times in theaters, then I bought the DVD and ended up giving it to a friend, so I bought the Blu-ray–the only Blu-ray I own so far.

I know a lot of fans are just as you described, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m just pointing out that some of us have a different threshold for what we’ll shell out money for, Trekwise. Some of us stand by our complaints by refusing to throw good money after bad.

203. Dunsel Report - May 30, 2012

I hope to see Benedict Cumberbatch transform the security guard Cupcake into a decahedron and then stomp it into powder.

204. Azrael - May 30, 2012

@195. That was kind of my point, I don’t like horror movies, I’m not scared by them, and not entertained either. Any movie which, to me, feels like a horror movie is going instantly to the absolute bottom of my personal movie rating system.

205. LizardGirl - May 30, 2012

Agreed. We would’ve been obliviously (happily?) going about our business debating Khan or not Khan. Now I don’t know what to think.

Some believe that Khan will be a complete no show, some think he will show but won’t be played by Benedict. Some still believe that he will be Khan….*sigh*

Okay, we have a running count of how many possible characters now:

1. Garth of Izar (insane, w/ the ability to transform into anyone he wishes)
2. Gary Seven (impervious to the nerve pinch)
3. Trelane (Q-like omnipotent being)
4. Joachim (son of Khan)
5. Mystery Character (maybe a completely original villain, imagine that!)
6. Would Doctor Who be a valid guess?

206. Sebastian S. - May 30, 2012

Even though I wouldn’t want a rehash of TOS’ “Space Seed”, I’d be OK with the Cumberbatch villain being another (previously unseen) survivor from the Botany Bay; maybe another ‘alpha’ augment who deliberately sabotaged Khan’s life support unit (the ‘malfunction’ we saw in “Space Seed”). Maybe he planned it before the ship’s takeoff, and Kirk and McCoy (in the prime timeline) inadvertently ruined his plan by saving Khan….

Maybe (in the new timeline) Peter Weller’s CEO character’s company finds the ship in a salvage operation (ala the Narcissus shuttle in ALIENS), and Cumberbatch’s augment character survives but Khan doesn’t. The new villain then makes a devil’s pact with Weller’s character somehow.

Again, this is just fan speculation. I would also love it if the character was completely new and had NOTHING to do with the Botany Bay whatsoever. At any rate, Pegg is right; anything more is simply spoiling the movie…

Here’s to surprises (and originality)… ;-)

207. Phil - May 30, 2012

@52. AP has already said he will stand by what is reported until new facts change the story, and considering that Mr. Pegg does tend to wander off the reservation from time to time I don’t know that a comment made in passing is considered credible. On the other hand, for all we know AP’s inside sources could be the fat guy in the security cart….

208. Sebastian S. - May 30, 2012

# 205

Or my vote… a totally NEW character. ;-)

And please dear God, NOT Trelane (I hated that episode…)

PS: I don’t recall that Joachim was ever established as Khan’s son (he looks pretty Scandinavian to be Khan’s son). I just thought he was a loyal second-in-command…

209. Aurore - May 30, 2012

@ David Knowles.

I’m still holding out hope for a new character.
A very well-written new character to the canon.
A villain I would fear , ie., take seriously, and, remember for years to come.

Of course.


210. Damian - May 30, 2012

204–True enough. I do know a lot of non-horror fans that liked Alien too for the sci-fi, thriller element, but everyone has their own tastes.

But in general, Alien is considered a classic. Ridley Scott does have a few classics under his belt as well as some clunkers. I’m interested in seeing Prometheus more as a fan of the Alien movies, not so much as a Ridley Scott fan (even though from what I understand, this is a very loose prequel of Alien).

Also, I find the analysis of Pegg’s comment amusing. All he said was Cumberbatch is not Khan. He never said Khan was not in the movie. I really wouldn’t read much more into it then Cumberbatch is not Khan.

211. LizardGirl - May 30, 2012

You could be right. 0_0 >I read somewhere that he was the son of Khan but maybe not.

Also, I thought it was interesting that Khan wanted to avenge Joachim’s death in particular. Considering that this death occurred after the death of Kirk’s son, I thought it was a “karma” of some sort. But I could’ve been reading too much into that scene and the surrounding circumstances.

212. Jack - May 30, 2012

I do agree with Pegg on spoilers, though. These sites that live for them, present company excluded, are putting up exclusive spoilers to make money/boost readership.

And, if it’s not Khan, well, I’m pretty thrilled that Bad Robot and Paramount didn’t issue any denials.

It’s in the can, but I’m really hoping it’s not a TOS villain/character — I can’t think of any who are particularly compelling, other than maybe Daystrom, Mitchell, Finney, or that “I hate Romulans!” guy from balance of terror.

Actually, cometo think of it — i liked all the speaking navigators before Chekov (Kelso, the guy who dates Balok, Riley).

BTW, does anybody ever complain about the continuity in First Contact? Cochrane looks nothing like the other guy, he’s not from Alpha Centauri — and we mostly had no problem with it because it worked pretty darned well. We even retconned it, like we did Chekov in Trek II (he really could have been a security guard outside of Khan’s quarters, nothing in Trekdom prevents it). My point? If it works, it works — even if it’s Khan.

i’m just hoping it works on its own and they’re not going through Days of Our Lives like contortions to tie it into TOS continuity. Although, I doubt these guys woud do that.

213. Jack - May 30, 2012

Ps. 77. Ignoring spoilers doesn’t work — they find you.

“It just spoils the film,” he complains. “It masquerades as interest in the movie but really it’s just nosiness and impatience. You just want to say, ‘Oh f— off! Wait for the film!’”

I agree 237%. He says in three sentences what I try to say in my endless, rambling posts.

I don’t get the “we shouldn’t have to wait” entitlement. It goes beyond just “gee, I wish we knew.. i can’t wait” Christmas Eve excitement. It’s demanding to know what the present is a year or two in advance. How is it NOT nosiness and impatience?

214. Azrael - May 30, 2012

@211. David Marcus died in STIII, after both Joachim and Khan had already been killed.

215. LizardGirl - May 30, 2012

Oh wow! I’m completely off. Need to go back and watch both again.

216. Anthony Thompson - May 30, 2012

210. Damian

If Cumberbatch is not Khan, then who would be? Are you insinuating that the film has two villains and that there was another actor cast as Khan that we don’t know about? Get serious, man!

217. BoltBait - May 30, 2012

“Wait for the film”?

I used to wait an entire week for a new episode. Now we have to wait, what, 4 YEARS?!

I’m tired of waiting.

218. Anthony Thompson - May 30, 2012

Our friend MJ has been keeping a mighty low profile since this was posted. I wonder why? : D

219. Red Dead Ryan - May 30, 2012

Well, I still think Khan is the villain. I’m going to stick with that if/until I am proven otherwise.

If I’m wrong, I will gladly admit it. But not until we have hard, definitive proof.

Simon Pegg’s comments aren’t proof. Because you have to take into account the circumstances, which lend a different context to his statements.

220. Damian - May 30, 2012

216–Maybe people are reading too much into Khan is in it. There has been a lot of speculation that maybe Khan appears, but is not the major villain.

Look, misdirection is one thing. But if Cumberbatch is Khan, what Pegg said is an outright lie. He said

–“It’s not Khan,” replies Pegg, annoyed. “That’s a myth. Everyone’s saying it is, but it’s not.”–

I mean that doesn’t leave much open to interpretation. So either Cumberbatch is not Khan, or Pegg is a liar. And I would have to revise my opinion of Abrams if Abrams ordered him to lie.

221. Hat Rick - May 30, 2012

Disinformation can be the greatest tool against the truth!


So maybe it is in fact Khan and Simon is simply helping to disguise that fact. After all, he hates spoilers!

Maybe, maybe!

222. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - May 30, 2012

Still say its not Khan, and find it funny that someone who is a true insider on the production is having his comment saying “its a myth that cumberbatch is khan” is being written off as being a attempt at misdirection. just accept allready, the writers are more original and more clever than to recycle Khan as the villian

223. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - May 30, 2012

queston for those of you who are insistant he is khan, will you be disapointed once its officially revelead that he is NOT khan?

224. Adolescent Nightmare - May 30, 2012

I think this is the third time Simon has said this. I am suspicious that only he is allowed to say this. Then again maybe it will be flesh eating tribbles.

225. The Quickening - May 30, 2012

#220 wrote:

Look, misdirection is one thing. But if Cumberbatch is Khan, what Pegg said is an outright lie. He said.


It depends on his mindset. Not really lying. Just misdirecting. See my #150 for possible ways to interpute what he could really mean.

226. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - May 30, 2012

I think your on to something, the tribble that scotty left behind on Delta Vega, is out for revenge now, and teams up with Khan to get revenge on scotty and keenser and spock prime(for facilitating scotty deserting him on delta vega. Star Trek XII: The fury wrath of khan or star trek XII the wrath of tribble.
seriously though the tribbles are the focus of an upcoming issue of the ongoing comic series, so no tribbles on the big screen save for something along the lines of the sight gag from the last trek film lol

227. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - May 30, 2012

225 dont take this the wrong way but i think you are reading (misreading at that) to much into what simon has said.

228. Daoud - May 30, 2012

Everyone on the Botany Bay had the last name Khan, didn’t they? Khan Noonien Singh, Khan Joaquin Singh, Khan Joachim Singh, Khan Larry Singh, Khan Elmer Singh, etc. Singhing along, side by side….

229. Sebastian S. - May 30, 2012

# 221.

How do you know that the initial anonymous, unconfirmed rumor about Cumberbatch playing Khan wasn’t the disinformation? ;-)

They might’ve been testing the waters to see how well a Khan plot for a future movie would play with the fans. If these threads are any indication? I’d say Khan’s reception in the new Trekverse would be about 50/50. If done well (and cast physically closer to the initial vision of the character), I could be OK with it, but honestly? I’d prefer a new character. Khan’s had one movie and one episode already; the new cast are only contracted for three total movies (only one more after the 2013 movie). They shouldn’t waste the opportunity retelling a familiar tale….

It’d be interesting to show the S.S. Botany Bay drifting in space, tumbling end over end in the opening sequence….. only to be blown into glowing shrapnel by a new villain (ala Pioneer 10 in STV). ;-D

230. CJS - May 30, 2012

Clearly the next Star Trek movie is going to be a musical. The only question is: Can Noonien Sing?

231. Sebastian S. - May 30, 2012

# 230

Oh, that’s brilliant! Great post….. ;-)

232. Phil - May 30, 2012

@230. I bow to your brilliance. Bravo!

233. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 30, 2012

The alternate Star Trek universe is just as populated with many millions/billions of beings, both human and alien, and yet some people here think that there can only be one real villain and that is Khan (from TOS and TWOK). Once again, I just don’t get the reasoning. Oh, and because Cumberbatch dyed his hair black, he must be playing Khan. Huh? There are probably a couple of billion males on this planet right now with black hair, but of course, who else could Cumberbatch be playing but Khan Noonein Singh? Honestly, this debate has gone beyond nuts.

Khan was a nobody in the 23rd century, became a somebody, more like a nasty, painful weeping hickey for a short time, and then became a nobody again. The Klingons were Kirk’s real nemesis – they even killed his son!

Cumberbatch could just as easily be playing a *reincarnated Sherlock Holmes. After all, Sherlock also has black hair. Sherlock was also meant to have a pretty good “right hook” (or whatever the expression is), meaning that he was a damned good fighter if he had to be. Spock was getting in the way – misunderstandings etc…

* Depends on your belief system as to whether something is possible or not. If warp drive is possible in this universe, why not reincarnation?

234. Indranee - May 30, 2012

He’s khan-ing us. Of course it’s Khan. :p

235. Jenna - May 30, 2012

233. Reincarnation is an idea, if he was really dead. (Or was that a ghost in the graveyard?) : )
234. (Hi Indranee!) I just khan’t see Pegg lying this blatently, as annoyed as he is about people trying to find out, and as much as he likes to play tricks.

236. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 30, 2012

I apologise for being a bit slow, but why is Simon Pegg answering questions that really belong to another actor, Benedict Cumberbatch, and then telling all and sundry to “f— off”? Benedict Cumberbatch could have easily said, “No, I am not playing Khan” and to the question, who then?, “You’ll just have to wait until you see the film. Not long now…less than a year away!”

Meanwhile, the “captain” makes a quick exit as soon as his work in Cannes is done and as far as everyone is concerned, has gone off the grid…ie no press and no questions which require a boring “no comment”.

Then we have dear Simon. I’m not sure he can help himself actually. I just hope that he doesn’t say something that could really get up JJ Abrams’ nose.

237. The Quickening - May 30, 2012


Just thinking out loud and pointing out how Pegg’s statement is not really iron-clad at all.

If I am reading too much into this, it’s because too many sources have indicated it is Khan. Actually, the film-makers have put themselves in a sorta catch-22. They certainly are aware now that a significant number of serious fans, don’t want Khan. And, I think they in someways are aware of what a good choice Khan would be from a commercial perspective–and the expectation that now exist in the market because of rumors regarding Khan being in the film. If it’s not Khan, from a PR viewpoint, there could be possible negative, deflated expectations, if it is Khan, there’s a backlash from the fan-base.

Also, if the antagonist isn’t Khan, and Cumberbatchs’ character is as lame as Nero, TPTB have set the film itself up for a letdown because people will say, “see, they should have used Khan.”

JJ, or someone else higher up in the production needs to speak up, and simply say, the film is not about Khan, nor does Khan appear in the film, nor does it involve him directly, or indirectly. Pegg’s statement, as it is, doesn’t carry enough weight.

238. Azrael - May 30, 2012

@237. I get your points, but disagree with your assessment of Nero.

Someone else mentioned that Cumberbach “should have been” asked that question, thing is if you check the article about Cumberbach at Cannes, they did ask him. His response indicated that he was not allowed to answer. Simon on the other hand is rather more excitable, and gets pissed at annoying questions, so his response is understandable, especially since the idiot asking the question seems to be unaware that Khan would have to meet Kirk and co before there could be a TWOK-like situation (look above and check the question).

If I was asked the same question, I would probably respond the same way just out of irritation at clueless people. Later all.

239. Montreal_Paul - May 30, 2012

197. George Zip

You are right that the teaser for STIII had the destruction of the Enterprise… but Harve Bennett & Nimoy wanted that to be a surprise and it wasn’t leaked out ahead of time. Paramount wanted it in the teaser.

240. Captain Karl - May 30, 2012

The should give Mr. Pegg one of those MIB memory erasers…lol…could you please look over here? (puts on his sunglasses)…FLASH…what you read is not true, Cumby is NOT playing Khan.

Mr Abrams has himself a nice Disinformation Agent going there;)

241. Jack - May 30, 2012

Here’s the whole bit from the article, after the Khan stuff. He’s not telling fans to f— off:

“Is that misinformation from the famously secretive Abrams camp? “No, I think people just want to have a scoop. It annoys me – it’s beyond the point to just ferret around for spoilers all the time to try to be the first to break them,” says Pegg, a fanboy’s fanboy who wrote an autobiography called Nerd Do Well and who seems to have forgotten that part of the thrill of being a comic book/film/sci-fi fan is about getting as many details as possible in advance. “It just spoils the film,” he complains. “It masquerades as interest in the movie but really it’s just nosiness and impatience. You just want to say, ‘Oh f— off! Wait for the film!’”

Is, like the writer, said “part of the thrill of being a comic book/film/sci-fi fan is about getting as many details as possible in advance?” I know I disagree wit that all the time, but then, well, why the heck do I come here?

I do want to read what they’ve officially released etc. and, I guess, like all of us, I’m hoping that my griping might make it to the ears of those involved.

242. Sebastian S. - May 30, 2012

What amazes me is that so many here who would rather believe unconfirmed rumors from anonymous sources than a blatant ‘official’ denial from a main cast member. Seems pretty cut and dry to me….

Another post above said they didn’t believe Pegg’s Khan denial over ‘multiple’ sources indicating Khan is in the movie. Where did they find ‘multiple’ sources?!? Who are they? Could you cite just one, please?

As far as I can see, not even ONE source close to the production has gone on record to say that Khan is in fact, the villain in the new ST movie. There was one anonymous source (who spoke to Anthony on this site). How do we know THAT story wasn’t a red herring? But I’ve not yet heard of ‘multiple’ confirmed sources for the Khan rumor. Just one anonymous source on this site, and that’s all….

But if people want to believe smoke and mirrors and half-baked ‘clues’ that add up to nothing? Go right ahead. My money’s on Pegg’s word. He just called it, and did NOT retract. And he has no motive to lie. And the whole ‘Pegg is part of a disinformation campaign’ thing is ridiculous; this isn’t a CIA black op. It’s a movie….

243. dmduncan - May 30, 2012

The disinformation may have come from Anthony’s sources, which was the biggest source of “evidence” to think it’s Khan.

I don’t think Pegg is disinforming anyone. He’s kind of volatile, and an impulsive reaction like that suggests authenticity.

Besides, being concerned that John Cho, a Korean, could play a Japanese character, but NOT being concerned that Cumberbatch could play a south Asian Sikh is so radically inconsistent that JJ should be on a couch in a shrink’s office if it turns out he did pick Cumberbatch for Khan.

244. Jack - May 30, 2012

242. The loyalty to Anthony is kind of nice, but yeah. I wonder what that comment earlier about Pegg lying about Mission Impossible was referring to? I hadn’t heard that.

Well, we apparently don’t have much else to do for the entire year before this thing comes out — at least this keeps us talking (and talking, and talking) about it.

The Khan frenzy is kind of ridiculous, even if it IS Khan.

245. Azrael - May 30, 2012

@242. Just so you know man, I wasn’t saying I don’t believe Simon a few comments back, just acknowledging that I understand his exact use of language. Personally, like I have said before, I don’t care if it is or isn’t the big K-word, cause I do believe there will be some Klingons, and I have been wanting to see them done better than whats his name in STV, or Lursa and Be’tor taking down the E-D with an 80 year old ship, and a trick the Romulans came up with. I am willing to bet we could sit here and speculate until release day and still not really know what we are in for when we walk into the theatres, and I am fine with that.

Speaking of Klingons (kinda), I would hope that if (BIG if) Michael Dorn gets a go-ahead for his Captain Worf idea that Cmndr. Reginald Barclay is part of his crew. As one more small note, in response to those who say Dorn (at 60) is too old for an action movie, I would point to the highly successful movie “The Expendables”, and it’s upcoming sequel, which feature multiple stars of greater than 60 years of age. Just sayin’, it could work.

246. dmduncan - May 30, 2012

237: “If I am reading too much into this, it’s because too many sources have indicated it is Khan.”

Yeah but they’ve all been shadowy, dubious sources. The rumor is reported on AICN and Trekmovie, but the original source of the rumor is totally unknown by any of us.

I’m willing to trust Anthony’s judgement, but obviously he’s human like most of us (some of you sound like you could be from outer space), making judgement calls about the reliability of his sources — and judgements can be wrong.

With Pegg flat out denying Cumberbatch is playing Khan — as opposed to just not saying anything about it — that is stronger than anything else I’ve read because it comes from a person who actually DOES know who Cumberbatch is playing. Pegg KNOWS. He’s not a shadowy source. And he said it’s not Khan.

247. dmduncan - May 30, 2012

And I don’t mind a Khan story, but Cumberbatch as Khan bothers me, and I haven’t been able to get over the notion. I don’t care how good of an actor he is. It would have been a regrettable decision to cast him as Khan. Just as bad as John Wayne playing Genghis Khan.

Now this past weekend I saw CROOKED ARROWS, starring BRANDON ROUTH, and he was PERFECTLY credible as a mixed blood Native American. He was SO good in the role I completely forgot he was also the perfect heir to Christopher Reeves’ Superman.

I don’t imagine Cumberbatch playing Khan would have the same effect on me.

248. Sebastian S. - May 30, 2012

# 246


Just like you, dmduncan, I’m NOT slighting Anthony Pascale AT ALL. Nor am I inferring that he (in ANY way) deliberately spread false information. His job is to bring us ST news (and he does a wonderful job), and I sincerely believe that he took his source at face value (as many of us probably would have).

My only problem is that the source (even now) hasn’t identified him/herself and has not come forward to deny Pegg’s statement. And NO ONE confirmed the anonymous source, either. I like how Pegg just came right out and said, “It’s NOT Khan.” No ambiguity; no shadowplay. Just a clean denial.

I’d take a main cast member’s clean denial over an unconfirmed ‘phantom menace’ style source any day. Simple as that. ;-)

249. Sebastian S. - May 30, 2012

# 247.

Cumberbatch is a fine actor. I’m a HUGE fan of BBC’s Sherlock. And in fact, my wife and I just bought tickets to Fathom Event’s “Frankenstein” play, starring Cumberbatch (alternating as both the monster and it’s creator), broadcast into theatres next week (and we can’t wait!).

But, like you, it just felt like he was physically miscast, that’s all. No slight on his talents at ALL. Tom Cruise was amazing in “Born On The Fourth of July”, but IMO he really struggled in “Interview With The Vampire.” He was simply miscast, that’s all. It would’ve been the same with Cumberbatch, IMO.

Since Khan went into deep freeze before the timeline diverged into the Abramsverse, he should bear at least a passing resemblance to the previous incarnation of the character (no matter what ‘race’ the actor is; this is about expectation and consistency). The only way it could’ve worked is if the character had undergone some kind of radical genetic surgery/alteration (ala the vilain in “Die Another Die”) upon revival, as to avoid being fingered in the 23rd century (as what eventually happened in “Space Seed”). Perhaps a service provided by the villainous Peter Weller character for his own reasons.

But since the Khan rumor is officially denied by a main cast member, in my opinion the issue of Cumberbatch playing Khan is pretty much moot now….

250. Vultan - May 30, 2012

Back to the subject of “Prometheus,” I’m afraid my curiosity got the best of me. I read a full plot outline on Wikipedia, totally spoiling the story for me, but I’m glad I did. Because the story… well, I won’t spoil it for anyone else. I’ll just say it’s not what I expected.

And I’ll probably wait for a rental rather than see it on the big screen. Probably.

251. Red Dead Ryan - May 30, 2012


Hmmm, there may be a difference between what you’ve read on the internet and what you will see in the movie. Well, that’s what I hope anyway.

danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow said he was hearing good things about the movie.

252. Anthony Thompson - May 30, 2012

182. danielcraig…

Where is your review?

253. Vultan - May 30, 2012


From the reviews I’ve read it sounds like Scott has directed something visually stunning… but… well, I’ll just leave it at that. I know many here are looking forward to it. Don’t want to spoil anything.

254. captainkirk - May 31, 2012

I hope all of the Khaners now feel like idiots.

255. Aurore - May 31, 2012

“I hope all of the Khaners now feel like idiots.”

Khan’t we all just get along?


256. Cervantes - May 31, 2012

Personally, it’s not Cumberbatch playing a Nu-Khan character that bothers me, as he’ll be great no matter who he’s playing. If it is Khan, then he’ll give a very effective and watchable portrayal I’ve no doubt.

Rather, it’s the fact that the makers would even dain to re-hash a character that was done so brilliantly onscreen previously. Yes, I know the WHOLE ‘Enterprise’ crew are re-hashed characters that were done well before…but I’d at least expect something totally different for the ‘villain’ to give us *something* new to chew on in the J.J.-verse.

‘Nero’ the Romulan didn’t turn out to be a very memorable adversary in the first one, but at least he was a new character that I hadn’t seen before…

And no, I wouldn’t be interested in Cumberbatch playing one of Khan’s ‘supermen’ cohorts either. I’d rather a good character culled from the actual TOS episodes, rather than stolen from the TOS movies.

257. T'Cal - May 31, 2012

I don’t think that Khan is the best choice for the next film and I would prefer a new character and story. I want to see Kirk portrayed as the skilled tactician and diplomat that he is supposed to be. I want to see him consult his Bones and Spock for advice and to cull the best ethical points from the former and the best logical points from the latter and devise a unique and successful response to whatever threat they are dealing with. I want Klingons lead by a true adversary that is a true match for Kirk. I don’t want a bad guy who screams, “Kill everything!” I want one whose goal is to do the right and ethical thing for his people from his perspective, which is very different from ours. I want an intelligent solution.

258. Ivory - May 31, 2012

Interesting to note that both Pegg and Leonard Nimoy have gone out of their way over the last couple of weeks to deny all rumors/leaks. I won’t call anyone a liar, but this could very well be a misinformation campaign.

Only time will tell

259. - May 31, 2012

Some of you guys will still believe it’s Khan 12 months after the films release.

Simon Pegg has proved the rumors were wrong.

The idea that anyone would lie outright simply for a misinformation campaign is highly unlikely. Asking someone to trash their own credibility just for your marketing is not something that would be deemed ethical and Abrams would not do it. Also it would take a pretty weak person to agree to do it.

Stop the delusion guys. I’m sure it was nice while it lasted but it’s over. Khan is not in the film.

260. Ralph Pinheiro - May 31, 2012

Trek Brasilis photos. Anjini Taneja Azhar with star trek cast. Pegg and Yeltin in militar uniforms. Probably playing the daughter of the characters of Noel Clarke and Nazneen Contractor.

261. Montreal_Paul - May 31, 2012

I believe Pegg & Nimoy… I am less likely to believe “an unnamed inside source.” I don’t believe that the actors would lie when asked about Khan or Spoke Prime being in the movie. Pegg could have easily said, “I can’t talk about it.” The “inside source” could be a plant from JJ sending out misdirection.

262. Aurore - May 31, 2012

Thank you for the photos, Ralph Pinheiro!

263. boborci - May 31, 2012

this movie will be out before you know it.

264. Ralph Pinheiro - May 31, 2012

Hi, Mr. Bob. I liked to see Peeg and Yeltin in militar uniforms. Starfleet, for me, it’s more a military force than a non-military one.
I can´t wait do see the first trailer.

265. Anthony Thompson - May 31, 2012

Bob, do you care to chime in to confirm Simon Pegg’s statement?

266. Aurore - May 31, 2012

262. boborci – May 31, 2012
this movie will be out before you know it.


And, let me guess, it’s about Khan, and, you’re in it…as Khan, evidently.
…Being Hispanic and all…


267. Aurore - May 31, 2012

“this movie will be out before you know it.”

Now that Paramount is moving G.I. Joe to March 29, 2013 to add 3 D (?), will my sequel come out on June 29 th?


You’ll deny later…


268. rogerachong - May 31, 2012

Here is my pennies worth if you care for it. Peter Weller is a CEO just like Peter Weyland in Prometheus, a megalomaniac who wants to cheat death and live forever. This is practically identical to the quest of the replicants in Blade Runner by the way -end Prometheus spoilers-

Lo and behold there is a discovery of genetic samples from the old Eugenics Wars period in a secret underground Earth laboratory thought to be a myth. Here is the key question; what will a man like Peter Weyland do with such a find or as David said, how far would you go to get your answers. The answer to that question can spell out the plot for Star Trek 12.

Good writing is all about asking the right questions. I believe that BC could be one such superhuman who is activated to enact a deadly scheme which when foiled can lead to the resurrection of Khan in one form or another. Anyways it can all potentially lead to an original sequel that is blindingly face-melting and a rollercoaster ride to booth. LLAP.

269. Ralph Pinheiro - May 31, 2012

I liked it , rogerachong. BC can find the Botany Bay and want to resurrect Khan. In the end, the ship is destroyed. Khan apparently dieds without waking. BC also dies.

270. china - May 31, 2012

I hope they’ve written a great end for Cumberbatch. The foe in the last film was so underwritten. Cumberbatch deserves better.

271. - May 31, 2012

I did not mind Nero’s death but the last scene of him on screen he should have closed his eyes and a single tear run down his cheek.

272. VZX - May 31, 2012

262. boborci – May 31, 2012
this movie will be out before you know it.

…Yeah, but will we do with ourselves until then? We’re starving for new Trek! It’s like the 70s all over again! Feed us, Orci, feed us!

273. Phil - May 31, 2012

@269. Reliant explodes, and Spock sacrafices himself for his ship mates. Heroic.

274. Planet Pandro - May 31, 2012

I’m getting the idea that we are in for a very “Batman Begins”-esque villain switcheroo ending. CumberKhan will be presented as one thing and thought of as that thing for the bulk of the movie, and turn out to be another (surprise!) TOS character in the end. Or the other way around.

275. Phil - May 31, 2012

@267. We talk about good writing, and god knows there has been a lot of digital ink spilled about how Trek is different or better then other SF franchises, but is it really? The closest thing Trek has done to “2001” quality writing was TMP, after that, it’s been strictly formula – Enterprise and crew overcome the bad guy of the month. 2009 got away with it because it was a relaunch. If you think about it, because Trek society is not really well defined, we have quite a contradiction between what little we have been told on screen (no money, the drive for possesions has been eliminated, altuistic society) and what we have been shown, which seems to be a universe full of blood thirsty revenge seekers, or evil meglomaniacs on a quest for power. The Batman movies were in this rut until Chris Nolan came along, and this underscores my dissapointment with all the chatter about Khan. JJ and his guys needed to create a similar epic in size and scope to TDK in order to wrap up their three film arc, and instead it looks like we are getting leftovers.

276. Aurore - May 31, 2012


….On the off-chance that you weren’t joking, Mr.Orci…. how soon is “before you know it” ?

277. Phil - May 31, 2012

@275. May of next year.

278. LizardGirl - May 31, 2012

I will have to amend an opinion I had earlier. Just a small little thought. Not sure if it was on this thread or another. Jack @241 brought this out.

Simon didn’t tell US to f–off, he loves us! He was speaking about all of the reporters and interviewers, who really don’t care about the franchise, but just want to be the first to know something over their competitors.

Simon, you’ve got a mouth on you but I love you, buddy! If you say it’s not Khan, then it’s not Khan. I trust you.

279. Red Dead Ryan - May 31, 2012

I really hope the sequel doesn’t get pushed back again. But May 2013 is a busy month for blockbusters. “Iron Man 3″ will be riding on the waves of “The Avengers”, and both “Fast And The Furious 6″ and “Pirates Of The Carribean 5″ come out within weeks of Trek 2. Those movies will do big business too. And the fact that Paramount moved “GI:Joe Retaliation” to a release date not too far ahead of the Trek sequel might be another clue.

It will suck if it gets pushed back to winter 2013.

280. Aurore - May 31, 2012

276. Phil – May 31, 2012
@275. May of next year.

You make too much sense.

I hate you.


281. Anthony Thompson - May 31, 2012

279. RDR

What does “Star Trek 2″ have to with GI Joe???

282. Picard's Fish - May 31, 2012

how come no one is discussing the new military-esque uniform pics mentioned in #260?

283. Picard's Fish - May 31, 2012

or to be more specific:

284. Jack - May 31, 2012

275. @Phil. Agreed on the writing of most of the later Treks. Heck it’s looking like Prometheus will be “crew gets knocked off, one by one…” — this is something that drives me nuts about most future-based sci-fi movies of the last 30 years (Sunshine, Supernova, Pandorum, Event Horizon, Red Planet) — they always seem to turn into hide-from-the-killer horror movies….

A neat exception: Moon. But hardly box office gold.

The problem with answering big questions like “Where did we come from?” is that the answers we invent in movies are usually pretty boring. I liked the various creation myths where we were ripped out of some animal god’s spleen or something… or we were created after somebody lost a bet.
Even with Trek V — you know going in that they won’t find God, so…

Now I’ll shut up until I actually see the damned thing (Prometheus).

And Bob, it’s true about before we know it. Just a year ago we were griping about it having been two years since the last Trek movie. Seems like yesterday.

285. Vultan - May 31, 2012


I think the only proper way to do a in-search-of-the-Creator story is to leave it spectacularly ambiguous in the end, like in “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Lots of symbolism with endless interpretations (from the audience).

I don’t think we’ll get that with “Prometheus.”
But I’ve been wrong plenty of times before.

286. Adolescent Nightmare - May 31, 2012

Simon has a right to dislike fanboys.

287. rogerachong - May 31, 2012

In the uniform Simon Pegg looks as though he is infiltrating the Kremlin sans Tom Cruise in MI4: Ghost Protocol. The oinly difference is the starfleet insignia at the front of the hat. Looks cool but if you remember that scene in MI4 the uniform is just like the Russians.

288. Borgminister - May 31, 2012

I’m just happy those aren’t Nazi uniforms and the Xindi aren’t involved.

289. The Quickening - May 31, 2012


So we have shadowy, dubious sources on one hand, and a fun-looking quack–who’s a buddy of the controlling director who wants nothing revealed about the film at all. A questionable source as well. Ever since Zack Synder lied about Zod being the main antagonist in the new Superman movie, a wait and see attitude is probably best.

290. Christopher Roberts - May 31, 2012

263. boborci – “this movie will be out before you know it.”

Oh do tell. Why? :)

Is there a possibility of it being moved to a Christmas opening this year?

291. dmduncan - May 31, 2012

My attitude is always wait and see despite having the fun of speculating. And I wouldn’t put it past Pegg to lie either, if it suits him — but I don’t see any evidence of lying. Not even the evidence of a wishy washy answer that maybe could be interpreted the other way. Pegg, if that quote is accurate (and we are making the assumption that it is), was definitive in his denial. If you say x is the case, you have to have evidence of x no matter what x represents.

And “Zack Snyder lied about Zod, ergo Simon Pegg is lying about Khan” doesn’t make much sense. Yes, he still could be lying, but it seems to me that shouldn’t be someone’s standard first suspicion, especially given how definite he was in his answer.

292. Sebastian S. - May 31, 2012

# 282 Picard’s Fish~

I like the hats. The uniform looks like a variant of the cadet dress uniform. Capt. Pike also had a hat (atop his “TV set” in his quarters) in “The Cage.”

IMO, it’s a nice bit of throwaway TOS-era continuity. ;-)

# 284 Jack~

I loved “Moon”!
Saw it twice at the movies (had to really hunt for it the first time; found it at a small university art house theatre). Duncan Jones’ “Moon” was one of my favorite sci-fi movies of the last decade (and it was REAL scifi; not space opera).

Jones’ followup “Source Code” was OK, but frankly not quite as interesting as “Moon.” It was more like a “Quantum Leap” remake (Scott Bakula even has an uncredited voice cameo, I believe)

293. dmduncan - May 31, 2012

I like Jones’ movies so far but wouldn’t go so far as to call them “real” SF. For instance, why was gravity earth-normal inside the moonbase?

(Of course the real answer is because moon gravity was not in the budget, but still).

294. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 31, 2012

Having as large an organisation as Starfleet being basically military in attitude and action leads to dehumanisation and alienation. 200+ years from now, human beings are supposed to have moved a little bit beyond that way of behaving. Having a militaristic presence all about may be comforting for some, but for most others, it is intimidating and stultifying and can have the affect of denying the human dignity – free spirit.

295. Sebastian S. - May 31, 2012


(Exactly! The same reason it was so on Moonbase Alpha in Space: 1999).

It is still real sci fi, IMO.
My personal definition of scifi usually means that a human issue or problem is examined in an allegorical or exploratory fashion (usually through a scientific prism). In this case, the issue of identity (through the use of cloning) and isolation. Corporate amorality, too (with a company that goes through human beings like Maxi pads). There was a LOT of subtext and layering in that film.

Ultimately, the ‘artificial gravity’ wasn’t a real issue for me….

296. Vultan - May 31, 2012

I enjoyed Source Code—up to the ending. Should’ve ended right at the kiss as the eight minutes runs out. Everything after that moment should’ve been a DVD extra and nothing more.

Looking forward to Duncan Jones’ Ian Fleming biopic.

297. Sebastian S. - May 31, 2012

# 294 Keachick~

But even in the future, there will be militaries.
Starfleet has always been (for better or worse) a military organization. Nick Meyer nailed it when he called it “Horatio Hornblower in Space.” And just look at the uniforms in “Wrath of Khan.” They look like they should be driving U-boats. But it still worked…

They’re naval stories, redressed with a Gulliver’s Travels/Swiftian twist. I realize that in some ways, ST has moved beyond that, but at it’s core, that’s what it is and has always been. Roddenberry, Gene Coon and Harve Bennett were ALL military guys, and the show reflects that.

And as I’ve said, hats in Starfleet have a precedent as well:
See my link in post # 292.

298. Vultan - May 31, 2012

I think Nick Meyer got it right.
Starfleet is gunboat diplomacy.

299. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 31, 2012

#263 – Bob Orci – Please, when will People Like Us be released in Australia/NZ and the UK. What is going on here? Do you know anything? Could I perhaps be the first to know?…;)

I am tired of looking the movie up on IMDb and seeing only three countries where the film is being shown, ie USA (29/06/12), Argentina and Hungary. Also it doesn’t make sense.

300. Jefferies Tuber - May 31, 2012

The hats are more exciting than the casting of Bandersnatch Cumberbund.

301. Phil - May 31, 2012

@299. Hey, it’s a low budget flick, it may not get a wide release. A studio isn’t going to pour a ton of money into promoting something that’s basically an indie flick. Also, Bob has no control over that, so your best bet is probably to keep checking Imdb or Box Office Mojo.

302. Strelitzian - May 31, 2012

To be honest, I never really bought the whole “Khan” thing – it just didn’t ring true to me.

303. dmduncan - May 31, 2012

Anything that is “hard SF,” which I also call “real SF,” should stay within the bounds of known or plausible scientific reality. It can be costly to do that in a movie.

304. Jack - May 31, 2012

293. In the future they’ll have gravi-floors! I’ll have a reverse one under my scale so I can stay the same weight I was in high school.

305. Sebastian S. - May 31, 2012

# 303


And um… where would one purchase one of these reverse grav floors, exactly?

I think my current scale just has a negative attitude…. ;-D

# 302


And knowing that “Moon” was a low-budget movie is precisely why the gravity issue within the base didn’t bother me. It had bigger thematic and storytelling fish to fry….

306. Red Dead Ryan - May 31, 2012


I understand what you’re saying, but I still consider “Moon” to be hard sci-fi, even with the Earth-gravity moonbase. Sometimes corners have to be cut. It would be a lot harder to depict moon gravity.

307. Jack - May 31, 2012

286. Wait, aren’t you a fanboy? Why else would you be here? Other than solely for the exciting heckling opportunities…

BTW, a belated gripe for all the jabs at “old” people in some of your posts… What difference does our age make? You’ll stop being a fan of stuff when you hit some magic age? We can’t all be however old you are (15, 30, 45?) forever. And, man — your comments can be just as condescending and self-important as the rest of ours — so you fit in just fine (some days I’d swear from your comments that you were an embittered, chain-smoking retiree).

308. Anthony Thompson - May 31, 2012

danielcraig had bragged here that he was seeing Prometheus last night (Wednesday). Haven’t heard a peep from him since!

309. Jack - May 31, 2012

305. “It would be a lot harder to depict moon gravity.”

Just film the thing on a big trampoline, or in one of those inflatable bouncy rooms. Problem solved. Man, I should make movies.

310. Jack - May 31, 2012

304. Ask me in the future.

311. Red Dead Ryan - May 31, 2012


Problem is, on a trampoline, you’d still be coming down to fast.

I guess actors could be attached on strings hanging from the ceiling so when they walk, they are lifted slightly up in the air to simulate a lower gravity environment.

312. Jack - May 31, 2012

Yep. True. I have no idea, really, how to achieve this. Film it under really clear water? I guess they could be on some sort of crazy bungee cord harness things? Yeah, in reality I have no idea. Maybe they’ll have a non CGI low grav scene in Trek ’13 and they can tell us (once everything’s been declassified) how it’s done.

Would the lower gravity on the moon (for all yous who’ve been there) be noticeable to somebody watching you if you were just walking around your moon house, doing non-jumpy things like watching tv, searching for your clones and making models and not dropping things? Those velcro slippers and hairnet things in 2001 were a smart way to solve this gravity problem, for the screen, without fx… although, in the scenes on the moon, like that briefing, I think they just had standard gravity, no?

313. dmduncan - May 31, 2012

The people who don’t cut those corners — people like Stanley Kubrick was — separate themselves from the pack who cut them. But those folk don’t come around too often.

If you shoot the interior walking scenes slightly slower, that could be part of the solution. As long as you didn’t have speech synched with the movement during walking, there wouldn’t be a mismatch between his words and his lip movements to give away the illusion. And if Rockwell moved his arms slightly faster so that in slower motion his arms appeared to be moving at normal speed, that would also help the illusion. If Gerty was moving in the same scene, he would have to move slightly faster to compensate for the slower motion shots.

If I had the cash to build it, I would create a compact rolling robot that the actor was attached to at the waist by a harness and an arm. As the actor stepped the robot would sense the movement, raise him slightly off the floor and lower him at a slightly slower rate (same principle that the Segway and homebuilt self-balancing unicycles use, just different axes of movement and programming). The robot would be counter weighted at the base like a forklift, and green so the entire apparatus could be screened out in post. And it wouldn’t need to be that big. Just heavy. It would look something like a motorized dolly with an arm.

And let me just repeat: that’s IF I had the cash to build it. I’m not saying that’s what Duncan Jones should have done.

You guys wanted to know how to solve the problem — that’s two ways, one cheap the other expensive but potentially much more versatile.

314. dmduncan - May 31, 2012

People on strings? I can always tell when people are on strings because there’s too many brains controlling the action. A computer controlling the movement programmed to moon gravity conditions and initiated by actor input, as the Segway is, would look very realistic.

Expensive? Yeah, in Hollywood that would be expensive because everybody charges an arm and a leg for everything. In somebody’s garage? Not so much.

The guy who built the self balancing unicycle in his garage did it, including the programming, for about $1500. That’s about the same price that some tech in Hollywood would charge you to replace a screw on your movie camera.

315. Phil - May 31, 2012

Really, the viability of a scf-fi movie hinges on getting the depiction of moon gravity right? A quarter of Americans believe we didn’t make it to the moon, so just leave it as an unexplained technology and move on. It won’t take anything away from a good story….

316. dmduncan - May 31, 2012


Oh please. NObody is suggesting that the absence of moon gravity detracts from the viability of the movie or audience ability to enjoy the story. Straw man.

But there IS a clear difference between hard SF and the other kind, which movies normally favor. Moon waffled between kinds.

Kubrick COULD have waffled similarly. He could have had his spaceships making engine noises in space, and most people probably would have preferred THAT. That he chose to do things precisely the way that he did them marked him as a special kind of filmmaker.

317. Vultan - May 31, 2012

Kubrick could do what he wanted with 2001 because he had the money and the reputation at that point to do it. I imagine Jones wanted to make Moon as realistic as possible, but he didn’t exactly have a Dr. Strangelove on his resume. In fact, I don’t think he had anything besides his father’s name.


318. dmduncan - May 31, 2012

I imagine he just wanted to tell a good story featuring one guy stuck on a moonbase doing nothing but producing energy for other people to use.

319. DiscoSpock - May 31, 2012

#312 (and others) — The lack of low-gravity movements in Moon didn’t bug me at all, and I love hard SF. It didn’t bug me because it makes sense not to show the effects of low gravity when the characters are already accustomed to it. Follow me?

Rockwell had been living on the moon, so to him, that gravity had become normal. That’s what happens to humans in new environments; we adapt. It’s one thing I liked in the ENT episode “Unexpected,” when Trip first visited the alien ship. It was a totally alien environment, and as cheesy as it was, they tried to show us how disorienting that experience would be. But then, after Trip had time to adapt, we saw/heard things normally.

Same for the people in 2001 on the Moon for the meeting; they were used to being on the Moon, so that gravity felt normal to them. Same for Rockwell.

None of what you dreamed up in #312 would add anything to the experience of seeing a movie like Moon. If you’re really into “real SF” and “hard SF,” you already know this.

320. Vultan - May 31, 2012

Well, here’s what Roger Ebert said about Moon:

“Moon” is a superior example of that threatened genre, hard science-fiction, which is often about the interface between humans and alien intelligence of one kind of or other, including digital. John W. Campbell Jr., the godfather of this genre, would have approved. The movie is really all about ideas. It only seems to be about emotions. How real are our emotions, anyway? How real are we?”

321. dmduncan - May 31, 2012

“#312 (and others) — The lack of low-gravity movements in Moon didn’t bug me at all, and I love hard SF. It didn’t bug me because it makes sense not to show the effects of low gravity when the characters are already accustomed to it. Follow me?”

That might make sense if the objectivity of the movie didn’t matter and it were made from a subjective perspective. But that wasn’t Moon. You are essentially trying to explain a budgetary issue as an in-story psychological issue. But if you really aren’t bothered by the lack of moon gravity inside the base then that shouldn’t be necessary to do. Nor should there be any difference in gravity outside the base, which I remember there being when he was walking outside the base in his suit.

But it didn’t bother me either. Being bothered by it is certainly not MY issue. And I’m not even clear who’s supposed to be making it a reason not to like Moon. I accept and like Moon for what it is. I just don’t call it hard SF. I call it movie SF.

Some people may not know the difference between hard and soft SF, or that there are people who write the stuff to whom that difference is important, and the very reason why they write the kind of stuff they do.

They are, in other words, as nerdy about the science being accurate as many Star Trek fans are about canon.

322. dmduncan - May 31, 2012

319. Vultan – May 31, 2012

As with his review of ST.09, I don’t know WHAT that man is chattering on about.

323. dmduncan - May 31, 2012

318: “None of what you dreamed up in #312 would add anything to the experience of seeing a movie like Moon. If you’re really into “real SF” and “hard SF,” you already know this.”

Says who? You speak for yourself, and don’t get to decide that for others. I don’t like 3D enough to give a crap about whether it’s shot in 3D or converted; it doesn’t add to or subtract from my experience of the movie one way or the other.

But tell Basement Blogger the difference doesn’t matter to HIM, and see how he takes the news.

Would you have also told Stanley Kubrick it didn’t matter that he shot scenes in Barry Lyndon by candlelight and he might as well have done what everybody else did at the time and used electricity?

You may not, but I notice when filmmakers go the extra distance to do little things like that, and I like it, and I admire filmmakers who innovate like that.

324. Vultan - May 31, 2012

And Ebert’s review of Trek ’09 is the reason I keep reading his reviews. Don’t always agree with him, but in these cases I think he’s spot-on.

325. Vultan - May 31, 2012

But I wouldn’t let the Earth gravity in “Moon” drag me down. ;)

326. Phil - May 31, 2012

@315. Hardly. Considering how some in the Trek fan base embrace technobabble, or the raging debate about proper engineering room asthetics, there are those who would write off low budget sci-fi for exactly that reason. Sad, because folks will miss a good story because of the lack of flashy effects….

327. Jack - May 31, 2012

323. He loves Proyas. I still think Dark City’s overrated, but good. And i wasn’t happy at all with Knowing, but Ebert loves it. I got into an email argument of sorts (I was emailing, he was answered in his movie answer guy) with Ebert about Trek ’09 because, I think I was afraid to admit to myself that I actually agreed with some of his points. Usually when he goes on tangents about things like fullerenes,
how black holes are supposed to work, and why people are anachronistically parachuting instead of transporting or fighting with fists instead of rayguns — or he misses (deliberately, I suspect) pretty obvious plot points or explanations — it means he’s not engaged in the movie. He said it was a darned entertaining movie, but he couldn’t recommend it — essentially, because it was action/space opera and not sci fi… I blathered on about how the science in Knowing was preposterous too, and about what makes him an expert on black holes and how Trek wasn’t always about ideas and philosophy and how he’d complained about the previous Treks being talky… and ultimately he was right about Trek ’09, I think. The specific details, in-story disclaimers and plot loopholes don’t matter if it’s not generally working for you. I still liked the movie, and loved the portrayals and the pace… but there wasn’t much story there. I was just thrilled that it didn’t suck, that they got the spirit right, that it looked good and that critics liked it.

I was angry at him over his Superman Returns review, because damnit, I really wanted to like it after seeing it, out of sheer force of nostalgia — look, Superman was flying to the John Williams theme! And he was right about that too — it was missing joy.

328. Jack - May 31, 2012

And, no, the gravity in Moon didn’t bug me personally.

329. Red Dead Ryan - May 31, 2012

I actually like “Knowing”. I think its one of Nicholas Cage’s better performances. One of his very best, in fact.

330. Jack - May 31, 2012

I don’t know what it was for me — I just didn’t buy it. Maybe I need to see it again. And I think I’d already heard Ebert’s raves — I tend to not love movies (or restaurants or blind dates) that have been raved about in advance, because I’m a contrarian bastard.

331. dmduncan - May 31, 2012

I find Ebert incoherent, and that Moon quote Vultan posted reinforces my findings.

@326: BTW, Star Trek has never been hard SF, yet Ebert liked TMP (where Siskel did not), so the man’s not even consistent in his standards. ST.09 was SF as much as if not more than TMP, and a good deal more original in it’s core premise which was at least not a reboot of an old TOS episode (The Changeling).

So we will have to agree to disagree.

332. dmduncan - May 31, 2012

Pete Travers’ review of ST.09 was the one I was most sympathetic to at the time.

“Summer officially hits warp speed with Star Trek, a burst of pure filmmaking exhilaration that manages to pay homage to the classic 1960s TV series and still boldly go where no man, William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy included, has gone before. I couldn’t be more surprised. After six TV series and 10 movies (1982’s The Wrath of Khan being the only standout), the franchise has been milked so hard, it’s a wonder the udders haven’t dried up and disintegrated. So how does this newbie break the jinx? By plugging in livewire J.J. Abrams, a director of style and substance (M:i:III, Lost), who fuels this origin story with killer action, bracing wit and a sense of true discovery.”

Yep! Couldn’t have said it better myself!

333. LizardGirl - May 31, 2012

@286 Well then, if you’re implying that Simon hates fanboys then he would, first of all, hate himself more than anything, then he’d hate at least a couple of his friends, maybe some family and of course many other people that have supported him throughout his career, which may or may not include yourself.

But that’s only if you’re implying…

334. DiscoSpock - June 1, 2012

#321 “I just don’t call it hard SF. I call it movie SF. Some people may not know the difference between hard and soft SF, or that there are people who write the stuff to whom that difference is important, and the very reason why they write the kind of stuff they do.”


I think it’s your attitude and tone that made me want to argue about your ideas. You keep making comments like the one above that come across with a sneering arrogance, as if YOU know what “hard SF” is and most of the rest of us are morons. You “some people” comments combined with your “I call it” stuff creates a condescending tone that makes some of us bristle.

Many of us love hard SF, so you have no monopoly on taste. Many of us are very well-versed in SF literature, so you have no monopoly on this knowledge.

Maybe if you toned down the arrogant sneering at others, others would feel less of an urge to argue with you.

Also, it’s one thing to dislike Ebert–no argument there–but it’s silly to say that Vultan’s Ebert quote shows his incoherency. Every word in that quoted piece makes perfect sense, especially to someone with a solid knowledge of SF literature and hard SF.

335. Picard's Fish - June 1, 2012

#292 Sebastian,

thanks! I’ve never noticed that detail before. Great spot.

336. Sebastian S. - June 1, 2012

# 335. Picard’s Fish~

Glad to be of help.
One of the few rewards for my extreme nerdiness… ;-D

It is kind of a unnoticeable background thing, but it does serve to show that hats in Starfleet are not without precedent….

337. Jack - June 1, 2012

292. “Jones’ followup “Source Code” was OK, but frankly not quite as interesting as “Moon.” It was more like a “Quantum Leap” remake (Scott Bakula even has an uncredited voice cameo, I believe)”

Wow. I hadn’t known that bit about Bakula.

338. Picard's Fish - June 1, 2012

#336 definitely intrigued to see the context in which they’re used.

it’s too bad there’s not a separate post on this site with a link to these new photos. they’re great fodder for discussion, and minor spoilers at best!

339. - June 1, 2012

We have been authoritatively told It’s not Khan and yet still some klingon.

340. dmduncan - June 1, 2012

334. DiscoSpock – June 1, 2012

Hahaha! Disco wants to party!

I don’t give a **** about you or your reaction to anything I’ve said. And most of all I don’t give a **** about what you think of me. I’ve been on this site since 2009, the regulars here all know me, and explaining myself to another pretentious newbie with a magic crystal that instantly sees into the character of total strangers isn’t on my to-do list today. So I think I’m just going to keep being me and saying things the way I do. Thanks for your advice, but you can keep it.

I much prefer to express my views and let others express theirs, and we can all just agree to disagree in harmony, but if you can’t accept that, and you can’t cease making faulty character assumptions about someone with whom you are obviously unfamiliar, then say what you feel you must.

I fight back. With presumptive old cranks like you I actually enjoy it.

And to the others here (particularly NCM, whose feelings I always consider) I apologize in advance for where this may go.

“Also, it’s one thing to dislike Ebert–no argument there–but it’s silly to say that Vultan’s Ebert quote shows his incoherency. Every word in that quoted piece makes perfect sense, especially to someone with a solid knowledge of SF literature and hard SF.”

Great. Then explain the relevance of “every word” in that quote to the movie Moon, in which the relationship between Gerty and the man was a peripheral rather than a central feature. The movie wasn’t about man’s relationship to alien or artificial intelligence so much as it was about people’s relationship to each other, since every piece of flesh in the movie was hung on the skeleton of PEOPLE screwing PEOPLE.

The movie has a human/machine relationship IN IT. The movie isn’t ABOUT it.

So Ebert the Incoherent is mentioning things in that quote that are irrelevant to the actual movie, which also doesn’t have much to do with Campbell. So you walk the talk and tell us how “every word” (your words, not mine) in that quote is relevant to the movie Moon.

You have the floor, Disco. Let’s see your moves.

341. Jack - June 1, 2012

340. We all, individually, clearly need to get laid.

342. Picard's Fish - June 1, 2012


Ebert may be incorrect, but his writing is hardly incoherent

343. Vultan - June 1, 2012

Probably best to read Ebert’s full review of “Moon.” Out of context it may sound incoherent, but you should consider the year in which “Moon” was released: 2009. The same year of “Transformers 2″ and “Star Trek.” His reference to Campbell is a callback to those old days of harder, more big idea-oriented science fiction instead of the more prevalent action/fantasy/space opera of today. And “Moon” was about ideas.

And, going back to the original argument, it was harder science fiction than most—even with Earth gravity on the Moon. And all done on a $5 million budget! Not bad, actually. Not bad at all.

344. Azrael - June 1, 2012

See, I gotta back up duncan on this one. Not only is he completely within his rights to express himself in any way he pleases. I have also never, in 30 plus years, read/heard any movie reviews from Mr. Ebert that I even slightly agreed with, in fact he routinely trashes movies I like. The only value I have found for Ebert’s reviews is this, if he hates a movie there exists a very small chance I will love it, and if he loves a movie there is a virtual 100 percent chance I will hate it, otherwise he has no value whatsoever to me and no validity whatsoever on any review of any movie ever made.

345. Picard's Fish - June 1, 2012

#344.. you must really hate First Contact, eh?

346. Picard's Fish - June 1, 2012

#344.. you must really hate First Contact, eh?

347. Picard's Fish - June 1, 2012

#344.. you must really hate First Contact, eh?

348. Azrael - June 1, 2012

Triple posts don’t make your point, they make you an a**hat.

349. Jack - June 1, 2012

I love the guy (Ebert). I like his writing. I often don’t agree with him, but he always gets me thinking…

350. Vultan - June 1, 2012


Those are some wide brushes you’re painting with there. I seem to recall him liking The Avengers well enough, and several of the previous Trek films. So I wouldn’t call him a complete cinema snob. Maybe half and half. ;)

But really, I don’t think anyone is going to agree 100% with critics, even their critic of choice. In fact, we shouldn’t.

351. Jack - June 1, 2012

So what is hard SF? There’s a lot of debate, isn’t there?

It’s interesting reading Ebert’s Trek reviews over the years — he liked TMP but later realized, he said, that the sci-fi stuff is not why people go see Trek — they go for the camraderie and the characters… He’d griped about Trek veering toward action and soap opera at least once before ‘Trek 09. His Nemesis review was spot on — I think, and it covered a lot if the repetetive, self-referential tropes that had been in all recent Trek… (like silly battles that consist just of sparks and steam shooting out of unlikely places and lots of “Sheilds down to _%” and not much more).

I used to be a big fan of Stephanie Zacherek (sp?) at Salon, until she folded up shop a few years back because she said that, incredibly, it was increasingly impossible to make a living wage as a reviewer/print journalist.

I like Justin Chang’s stuff at Variety, too.

Used to be a big Pete Travers fan, years ago, and I almost never read him now. Not sure why, exactly. I don’t seem to get anything from his reviews anymore.

352. Vultan - June 1, 2012


Have you heard Mark Kermode’s reviews? He’s a reviewer for BBC Radio. A bit snobbish. A bit weird at times. But his rants are entertaining, particularly the ones concerning Michael Bay.

353. The Quickening - June 1, 2012


It makes sense in the context of the industry we’re dealing with, doubt and possibility. I still say it’s just better to wait and see.

354. Jack - June 1, 2012

352. No, I’ll check him out.

PS. We all have movie science/logic pet peeves. I’d guess DM’s include gravity, and sounds in space

My top one is probably that computer displays, keyboards and control panels in movies have to make a little sound (kind of like that irritating click when you text on iphones, if you don’t disable it) for EVERY SINGLE character/command typed in (or, variously, for every second of a countdown, or sometimes, for every character that appears in a message, and those characters appear slowly, one letter at a time).

See: TNG. It sounded cool and futuristic, but really, it would drive everyone on that bridge batshit crazy pretty quickly.

– Also, steam coming out of places where no steam should ever be.
-Same with sparks
– far too many flashing lights on displays etc. and graphics which couldn’t possibly convey any meaning

A lot of these things are conventions, like Movie Alzheimers (where someone is perfectly, incredibly lucid for minutes at a time when required by the plot) or Movie Cancer (which is usually sad, but everyone looks really good, just a little pale, tired and bald… and they’re either entirely cured or die).

355. dmduncan - June 1, 2012

343. Vultan – June 1, 2012

That Ebert quote does not stand on its own. And I’m looking forward to anyone making sense of it without reading whatever else is around it in its original form. In contrast, you don’t need to do that with that Travers quote, which succinctly talks about the actual movie and what he thinks of it.

And I agree with you about Moon. It was a good movie. I was watching it on Netflix this past Tuesday. It’s possible that some folks got their manties in a bind by my innocuous mention of the erroneous gravity depiction in that movie because they like the movie and although that gravity mistake didn’t bother them at first, now that I’ve mentioned it they may notice it the next time they watch it. Moon was a good movie and I fully understand that there are budgetary reasons to cut those corners, and you may have to cut them to get it made. I’ve no problem with that.

But beyond that, nobody can credibly say depicting accurate moon gravity wouldn’t add to anyone’s experience of the movie. Balderdash. You look at all the trouble Kubrick went through on Barry Lyndon just so he could capture the authenticity of the period by filming scenes under candlelight when he could have faked the same thing, which 99 out of 100 other directors would have done, and then suggest nothing was gained in the viewing experience by NOT going the path of least resistance? Is that why John Alcott (being driven by Kubrick) won the best cinematography Oscar that year? He won it because it didn’t make a difference? If I’m crazy, then I’m as crazy as Kubrick because I understand why he did that.

And the subject of hard and soft SF has been on my mind lately because an author of hard SF whom I know made a tiny TINY error in a newly released book he wrote, and he took the time after discovering that hardly-noticeable-by-99%-of-humanity error to alert readers to its presence in a newsletter. I would never have known it was there, but it was important for him as a hard SF author for his readers to know about the mistake.

That guy is persnickety about his science, just like Neil deGrasse Tyson — surely one of the few people to have noticed the stars were wrong in the sky of Cameron’s Titanic, which mistake Cameron has now fixed for the re-release!

Now since we are all used to Trek, those little things don’t bother us. Trek is full of them. And we’ve been getting along fine with that stuff for years. But he’s not much of a fan of TOS, and accuracy is very important to him in the material he writes.

354: “PS. We all have movie science/logic pet peeves. I’d guess DM’s include gravity, and sounds in space”

No actually. The earth gravity on the moon did not bother me, Jack. I was innocuously pointing out a fact of the movie that some people apparently didn’t like to hear. They were more bothered by my comment than I was bothered by it in the movie.

My only pet peeves are cliches. Things done to exhaustion, and we are seeing them again, i.e., your hero is faced with a decision of which wire to cut to defuse the bomb, or a character dies with his eyes open and somebody has to wave their hand across his face, and the eyes are magically shut on the other side of the wave.

And I don’t need to get laid, Jack. I need a long vacation from what I’m doing so I can sit somewhere and finish some things I’m writing, and start other things I’m not yet writing.

356. dmduncan - June 1, 2012

353. The Quickening – June 1, 2012

Fair enough.

357. dmduncan - June 1, 2012

351. Jack – June 1, 2012

So what is hard SF? There’s a lot of debate, isn’t there?


When the science in your story accurately follows the known laws of physics. It’s also cool when the story comes out of the science in the same way that the core premise of ST.09 came out of MWI/QM, and when it wouldn’t be the same story if the science were not there and it were not accurate.

But obviously it’s not a hard line where everything is either on one side or the other. It’s a continuum.

“Used to be a big Pete Travers fan, years ago, and I almost never read him now. Not sure why, exactly. I don’t seem to get anything from his reviews anymore.”

I tend not to read reviews at all anymore. Even when Star Trek came out I hadn’t been reading them, but it was so exciting and I wanted the movie to do well so that there would be more, so it was hard to resist the impulse to peek at whether it was getting raves or rants.

358. dmduncan - June 1, 2012

344. Azrael – June 1, 2012

See, I gotta back up duncan on this one. Not only is he completely within his rights to express himself in any way he pleases. I have also never, in 30 plus years, read/heard any movie reviews from Mr. Ebert that I even slightly agreed with, in fact he routinely trashes movies I like. The only value I have found for Ebert’s reviews is this, if he hates a movie there exists a very small chance I will love it, and if he loves a movie there is a virtual 100 percent chance I will hate it, otherwise he has no value whatsoever to me and no validity whatsoever on any review of any movie ever made.


I think everybody should just be their own critic. Does Ebert read some other critic’s review of a movie he’s going to see before he sees it? Probably not, I’m guessing. Ebert knows that nobody can tell him what HE thinks of a movie. And the same is true for each one of us, really. You have to see a movie for yourself to know how you feel about it. There’s such a wide margin for differences in taste between people that nobody can really answer the question for you, with their review, about how you will feel when you see it. And when I watch ST.09, I hear and remember nothing at all of what Ebert said about it. My opinion of how GOOD it is, is so much stronger to me than his opinion, because the evidence is in my reaction to the film, which has been consistent after the third viewing, when I knew that I understood the movie and what it was doing.

359. dmduncan - June 1, 2012

When is Bob Orci’s Conspiracy Central forum going up, Anthony? AJ is livestreaming from the Bilderberg conference. This would be a good time for that forum to be running!

360. Jack - June 1, 2012

355. “And I don’t need to get laid, Jack. I need a long vacation from what I’m doing so I can sit somewhere and finish some things I’m writing, and start other things I’m not yet writing.”

Ditto, actually (uncannily).

361. Yggs - June 2, 2012

Cumberbatch is playing Dr Corby (hence the SF uniform), Eve is playing Nurse Chapel, and Peter Weller is Brock.

Spock in spacesuit is going down into planet underground to get a better look at this ancient technology that human Corby was assimilating.

Ta-DA! is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.