More Cumberbatch – Responds To Star Trek Villain Speculation [VIDEO UPDATE: Quinto Secrecy Slip Up?] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

More Cumberbatch – Responds To Star Trek Villain Speculation [VIDEO UPDATE: Quinto Secrecy Slip Up?] December 12, 2012

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Spoilers,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

There is even more from the Star Trek Into Darkness junket this week emerging. This time Benedict Cumberbatch denies one of the more prominent reports/rumors about his character, but also spills more about the film. Chris Pine also weighs in. Find out what potential spoilers they offered below. [UPDATE: More video from Access Hollywood, including a possible slip by Quinto]

 

UPDATE: Pine and Quinto Talk ‘Into Darkness’ w/ a slip by Quinto?

Access Hollywood have now posted videos from their interviews with Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto.

In this first video Zach talks about how Into Darkness is "bigger" than the 2009 movie and more "absorbing."

In this second video Scott Mantz (a huge Trek fan) asks about how the original Star Trek has many allegorical episodes and how Into Darkness ties into today, where they talk more about how the villain (Cumberbatch’s John Harrison) is a "terrorist." Pine also talks about how Kirk and Spock are two halves of the same person and how they are still on an arc together. Quinto talks about what a visionary Gene Roddenberry was and contrasts him with JJ Abrams.

And in this final video Quinto and Pine contrasted the villains in the 2009 Star Trek film and Into Darkness, and in doing so at one point Quinto accidentally says "Khan" instead of Nero. That should fuel some more speculation even in light of what Cumberbatch says below. Both talk about how Cumberbatch’s character has a big psychological impact on the crew.

Cumberbatch: I’m John not Khan

Cumberbatch was asked by Access Hollywood if he really is playing John Harrison, or could he be playing some other character? (name Khan)

“A few have asked that which is strange,” Benedict told Scott on Monday, joking about it being “strange,” considering it was wildly speculated he would play the youthful version of the character originated by Ricardo Montalban in a 1967 episode of the “Star Trek” television series – “Space Seed” — and later in the 1980s film, “The Wrath of Khan.”

“I play a character called John and not that other name,” Benedict continued. “It’s interesting. Speculation is speculation and that’s all fun.”

Like he did with MTV, Cumberbatch also referred to Harrison as a ‘Terrorist’, saying…

“I play John Harrison who’s a terrorist and an extraordinary character in his own right,” the Brit said. “He’s somebody who is not your two-dimensional cookie cutter villain. He’s got an extraordinary purpose, and I hope that at one point or other in the film you might even sympathize with the reasons he’s doing what he’s doing — not necessarily the means and the destruction he causes. But it was a great ride, not just because he’s the bad guy and the antagonist but also because he has a purpose and it’s hard not to see his point of view at certain points.”

Check out Access Hollywood for more from Cumberbatch.


Cumberbatch chatting to Access Hollywood

Access Hollywood’s Scott “Movie” Mantz also chatted with Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto, who offered some more nuggets on the Cumberbatch’s villain, saying

“Benedict is a much colder, cleaner bad guy. His primary weapon is the ability to manipulate and his ability to use psychological warfare on the crew,” Chris said of the character, whom he dubbed a “terrorist.” “[Kirk is] brought to his knees and has to face his own vulnerability and his own feelings of self-doubt about whether or not he is capable of leading his crew in the battle.”

Visit AccessHollywood for more from Abrams and Quinto on Into Darkness. There will also be interviews with other stars from the film later this week.

Comments

1. Peter Loader - December 12, 2012

Interesting…

2. Tanner Waterbury - December 12, 2012

I believe I am the first to say this with all due respect, but: Bullsh!t sir!

3. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

He’s not Khan.

He’s Garth.

4. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

“I’m not Talia.” Remember when someone said thaT?

I’m not saying he is or is not Khan. I don’t think he is, but it’s not proven he is not. That’s my point. I do think Garth fits it all best, but that’s me.

But John Harrison I’m sure is good friends with Richard Brook. I’m certain of it.

5. Valenti - December 12, 2012

“[Kirk is] brought to his knees and has to face his own vulnerability and his own feelings of self-doubt about whether or not he is capable of leading his crew in the battle.”

So is he going to hang over an abyss again? ;)

6. DeflectorDishGuy - December 12, 2012

Well, much as I wanted him to be something familiar from our universe, I’m actually glad he is John.

BRING ME CREATIVE PLOTS!! BRING ME NEW!! BOLD/FRESH!

7. No Khan - December 12, 2012

Since they couldn’t get Del Toro, Nestor Carbonell etc. They changed the script & created a new character John Harrison. Now is he an Augment? At this point I’m re-leaved its not Khan! After this movie is out I hope someone asks how close were they to doing a Khan movie.

8. MJ - December 12, 2012

@7 Nice dream!

9. Jenna - December 12, 2012

Um…is that “Quinto chatting…” supposed to be a caption for that pic of Benedict?

10. Maxie - December 12, 2012

“Not that other name”??? What a strange thing to say. I was 100% certain it wasn’t Khan, now with that comment I’m pondering what he meant by this, as a persons identity is not defined by name alone.

11. Red Dead Ryan - December 12, 2012

Of course he’s going to deny playing Khan. The John Harrison name is a disguise for the true identity of the villain, and is a handy marketing tool to throw us all off.

It is Khan.

12. MJ - December 12, 2012

@6 Pay attention to EXACTLY what he says here. The door is wide open for this character to not be who he says he is.

13. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

9 Jenna

It says his name is Quinto. That’s not a picture of Benedict, but of Quinto, because that caption says so, just like the caption for the villain says John Harrison. No one ever gets these wrong!

14. Sheldon Cooper - December 12, 2012

I’d love to see a Star Trek movie that isn’t about an insane person trying to destroy earth, kill Kirk or Picard, or have revenge for something.

How about a Star Trek movie that, oh I don’t know, explores something, a planet, another dimension, and has an adventure based on that.

There are literally a billion stories that could be told. Why there hell is it always about some guy wanting revenge?

15. Hythlodeus - December 12, 2012

Okay. That answer finally convinced me: it will be Khan!

‘I play a character CALLED John and not that OTHER NAME’ does not equal ‘I don’t play Khan’

16. summoner2100 - December 12, 2012

Interesting that he says: “I play a character called John and not that other name” Yeah, I’m just going to hold onto that for a bit.

*still thinks Kahn*

17. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

And now I’ve gone to an alternative universe where it says Benedict…

18. MJ - December 12, 2012

@15 “Okay. That answer finally convinced me: it will be Khan! ‘I play a character CALLED John and not that OTHER NAME’ does not equal ‘I don’t play Khan’ ”

Exactly!!!

19. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

Wired has some interesting news about Kirk/Spock:

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/star-trek-into-darkness-khan/

“We want to obviously pick up where the last movie left off, but not assume that Kirk and Spock are best friends at that point because they’re not. That was a big part of our challenge: to make sure we came in at the right point where they are still learning how to function as a family.”

20. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

I find that is, of course, an interesting way to put it — function as a family…. family…. again.

Also, this sort of sets the place for Mitchell again…

21. Punkspocker - December 12, 2012

This is an interesting article. http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/a-day-at-bad-robot-gives-us-a-better-look-at-star-trek-into-darkness. Just saying interesting. “April’s Gatling Gun” hmmmmmm

22. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

April’s Gatling Gun, imo, is just their way to say..

April Fools

23. Rose (as in Keachick) - December 12, 2012

I get the impression that John Harrison may be a crew member on the Enterprise and that his duties relate to either Medicine or Science. However, he is a manipulator, sowing seeds of disunity, even mutiny – he is jealous of Kirk…and his hobby is bomb making. I also wonder if the Enterprise itself is not subject to a skilfully executed Harrison terrorist attack and that a number of crew are killed. Perhaps Lt Uhura witnesses the horror firsthand along with Scotty, who comforts her. Maybe the one to die is Chekov trying to save another…Just musing

That being said, I hope Chekov doesn’t die.

24. Nadeshiko - December 12, 2012

Just so you all know, Cumberbatch is a bad liar. :)

25. Sebastian S. - December 12, 2012

# 15 & # 18

You guys are really dining on crumbs and hope, aren’t you?

26. NuFan - December 12, 2012

Pay attention to what he said. He’s being clever.

27. Jenna - December 12, 2012

@24 What? : ) He’s an amazing liar! (*actor*) Remember when so many bought his last MTV interview where he deadpanned that he never prepares for roles?

He is precise in his words though! He could have said “I am not Khan”. He did not.

28. Ahmed - December 12, 2012

@ 25. Sebastian S. – December 12, 2012

” # 15 & # 18

You guys are really dining on crumbs and hope, aren’t you?”

Looks like none of the Khan camp will believe he is not in the movie until the movie come out in May !!!
From now to May, people will keep saying it is Khan.

Supposed that he did turned out to be Khan but the movie was terrible, what good did it do then to have Khan ?

We should focus on the quality of the movie & not just the name of the villain

29. Mad Man - December 12, 2012

Whatevs.

I still don’t think I’m gonna see it. But I’ll follow the news of it like this since it’s Trek related.

30. Lurker - December 12, 2012

People are bitching about who the villain could be, the Enterprise coming out of the water, too much action, and anything else they can bitch about – but, you know what – this COULD be a great movie and be a throwback to a great character driven TOS type of story.

And until we all sit down and see it, the “I know what’s right for Star Trek” sniping should just stop.

31. MJ - December 12, 2012

“Supposed that he did turned out to be Khan but the movie was terrible, what good did it do then to have Khan ?”

Not sure what your point is? Of course I would rather have a great movie with no Khan than a bad movie with Khan. ?????

32. Rob - December 12, 2012

He’s very clearly not “just a guy”. The easy use of the large weapon and the resistance to Spock’s special one handed massage mandates as much.

I still say the key to figuring out his identity of to find out what the parents of the sick girl do for a living or to whom they are related.

33. Emperor Mike of the Empire - December 12, 2012

I do ot think he is Khan. But I do think he is something of an Augment or he went to the same planet Antos 4 as Capt Garth did. But till we see the Movie we are all just guessing.

34. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

I want a bad movie with Khan and I want it now. I will hire George Lucas to do Attack of the Khans. I’m sure it will be great!

Of course, I guess some people would rather have a bad movie with a pathetic villain than a bad movie with a good villain… I guess.. following the logic of some.

35. Maxie - December 12, 2012

Just for the record & in defence of Khan supporters, I was always positive it was going to be a new character. And when the news came out about John Harrison I was all ‘ nah nah told you so’ but after THAT comment from BC, I’m not so sure anymore.

36. Thomas - December 12, 2012

Sometimes I think that Cumberbatch could just say flat-out “I’m not playing Khan!” and people would still try to twist it into an admission that he is. He might as well just lie and say whatever he wants, since no one will believe it anyway.

37. Ahmed - December 12, 2012

@ 31. MJ – December 12, 2012

“Not sure what your point is? Of course I would rather have a great movie with no Khan than a bad movie with Khan. ?????”

Reading your posts & others about Khan, you guys made it sound like having Khan as villain is the single most important factor in the coming movie. IMHO, it is not.

We all love a good villain, someone who can stand up to the heroes & cause real & serious conflict. But in the same time, that by itself is not enough. The story, the characters need to be done well too. Otherwise, we will end up with a movie like “Prometheus”, visually stunning but with such a lousy script that harmed the movie .

Like I said before, I don’t care if he is playing Khan, Gary or someone else, just give us a good Star Trek movie.

38. Cincy Star Trek Fan - December 12, 2012

Interesting thoughts about the “called” vs “named” idea with respect to Kahn. I wouldn’t read to much into that-that’s how Brits talk. The don’t say I talked to a person named John. They would say I talked to a person called John. Different symantics from what we are used to.

39. Andy scunny - December 12, 2012

I just love that everyone is talking about all the speculation and characters so much! I’m sure that’s exactly why jj and team are being so mysterious! I think it’s a great way to promote a film! Gonna be awesome film! I trust u jj!! Lol

40. Michael Hall - December 12, 2012

Speculation about all this stuff is fine as a fun, harmless way to pass the time, but can someone explain to me the apparent need–based on a few tidbits (some of which are probably misdirection) playfully doled out by the writers, director, and actors in this movie–to defiantly assert which character Benedict Cumberbatch plays? And to endlessly debate the matter as if the question were serious and the evidence really conclusive one way or the other? I think it would explain much, including the reasons people will cheerfully kill each other over minor points of religious doctrine, and would probably make for the basis of a pretty decent Star Trek movie/episode in its own right. So please, feel free.

41. Trek Fan - December 12, 2012

Wow… still grasping at straws. Looking for “subtle clues” in how Bob Orci types a comment and now “it’s not what he is saying but how he says it.”

LoL. *shaking head* Whatever guys… this is becoming very amusing now> Thanks for providing me with a huge laugh today!

42. Nadeshiko - December 12, 2012

LOL! Looks like I mixed something undesirable up. I’m not a native English speaker so it’s hard for me to get things across.

I have never equated lying and acting in my mind. But it looks like it’s the same thing to all and it seems like it would be an insult to call a fantastic actor like Cumberbatch a bad liar.
I think he’s the one of the greatest actor of his generation. I’m just saying that in interviews, he treats it like a friendly conversation between two friends.(Almost all of his interviewers thought that they’re friends with Cumberbatch after) If he needs to lie without all seriousness, he usually plays with the interviewers.(See his first interviews with Horowitz) But if he really really needs to lie, you’ll never know if what he’s saying is the truth or not. But he rarely lies. He’d rather misdirect you into something than lie.

I just want to clear this whole debacle up.

:)

43. MJ - December 12, 2012

@40. Boredom, a bad economy, and hubris.

44. MJ - December 12, 2012

@37. I agree with you, AND I think it’s Khan. :-)

45. Amorican - December 12, 2012

Are y’all from ‘Murica? Have you never heard British people speak?

Read the first post on this thread:
http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=40976

By saying “I play a character called John”, he is saying his character’s name is John.

Which means his character’s name is not Khan.

Which means he is not playing Khan.

46. Amorican - December 12, 2012

Are y’all from ‘Murica? Have you never heard British people speak?

Read the first post on this thread:
http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=40976

By saying “I play a character called John”, he is saying his character’s name is John.

Which means his character’s name is not Khan.

Which means he is not playing Khan.

47. Amorican - December 12, 2012

Are y’all from ‘Murica? Have you never heard British people speak?

Read the first post on this thread:
http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=40976

By saying “I play a character called John”, he is saying his character’s name is John.

Which means his character’s name is not Khan.

Which means he is not playing Khan.

48. Amorican - December 12, 2012

Are y’all from ‘Murica? Have you never heard British people speak?

Read the first post on this thread:
http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=40976

By saying “I play a character called John”, he is saying his character’s name is John.

Which means his character’s name is not Khan.

Which means he is not playing Khan.

49. Amorican - December 12, 2012

Are y’all from ‘Murica? Have you never heard British people speak?

Read the first post on this thread:
http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=40976

By saying “I play a character called John”, he is saying his character’s name is John.

Which means his character’s name is not Khan.

Which means he is not playing Khan.

50. Amorican - December 12, 2012

Are y’all from ‘Murica? Have you never heard British people speak?

Read the first post on this thread:
http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=40976

By saying “I play a character called John”, he is saying his character’s name is John.

Which means his character’s name is not Khan.

Which means he is not playing Khan.

51. Amorican - December 12, 2012

Are y’all from ‘Murica? Have you never heard British people speak?

Read the first post on this thread:
http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=40976

By saying “I play a character called John”, he is saying his character’s name is John.

Which means his character’s name is not Khan.

Which means he is not playing Khan.

52. Amorican - December 12, 2012

Hey, somebody delete those extra posts!

53. Tobi - December 12, 2012

A Terrorist…hmm…isn’t there the slightest chance that Peter Weller plays Paxton again?

54. Sherlockcious - December 12, 2012

A NEW interview of Bendict: Meet the New ‘Trek’ Villain: Benedict Cumberbatch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wFmr1GuZLY
——————-
On the identity issue:
This past September, in the BBC1 live Tv program ‘One Show’ (xx-Sep-2012), Benedict was asked about the identity of his character in the Strak Trek movie –while, at the same time, one of those leaked pics from the shooting was being shown on set on a screen–.

Look at Ben’s reaction and answer… and the way he SMILES after that:

Min. 10:46, and specifically min. 11:06 !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH4VFNbPXmE

Well, imo the whole interview is a pleasure to see.
Now, tell me…
This man is pure intelligence, wit, cleverness and… charm.
It’s not surprising he is equally great at drama and comedy, play superbly an angel or an evil, a vulnerable being or a commanding, imposing person…
Whoever the ‘villain’ he is playing in ‘Strak Trek Into Darkness’ it will be epic in his hands and will bring a new dimension to the franchise, dramatically and cinematically.

I can’t wait to see him in STID, his Julian Assange, his Brian Epstein, his ‘Little’ Charles Aiken, his Smaug…

55. Jenna - December 12, 2012

Here’s another interview. He calls Harrison “noble” in some ways and that we will come to feel for him, in the middle of the film. Hmmm.
http://youtu.be/4wFmr1GuZLY?a

56. Jenna - December 12, 2012

@54 Whoops! Sorry. Didn’t see your post yet. That’s the same interview.

57. Sherlockcious - December 12, 2012

@56
It’s ok Jenna. :) Seems many of us are trying to share as soon as possible any piece of news on the matter.

58. Ahmed - December 12, 2012

An article at io9 about this speculation games:

Dear J.J. Abrams, Just @#$%ing Tell Us Who Benedict Cumberbatch Is Playing in Star Trek 2 Already

http://io9.com/5967942/dear-jj-abrams-just-ing-tell-us-who-benedict-cumberbatch-is-playing-in-star-trek-2-already

“I don’t know what you think you’re doing by simply refusing to tell people, but it’s gone from fun and mysterious to kind of annoying to unnecessarily, distractingly infuriating. No matter who Benedict Cumberbatch is playing in this movie, there’s no way the character’s identity is important enough to justify all this maddening, insane secrecy.

59. BulletInTheFace - December 12, 2012

#7: “re-leaved”? As in, “to have left again?”

60. BulletInTheFace - December 12, 2012

Look, my friends, it is patently obvious that he is not playing Khan. I can’t believe any of you still believe that.

(And for the record, we Brits tend to say “called” rather than “named.” So you all are reading too much into his wording–he said “called” instead of “named” because he is British.)

61. dmduncan - December 12, 2012

58

Pissing off io9 is a benefit of the secrecy I hadn’t considered before. Cool.

62. Dee - lvs moon' surface - December 12, 2012

He also said …“It’s interesting. Speculation is speculation and that’s all fun.”… he seems to be having fun with speculation, so why not keep it heading? … if it’s so fun!

;-) :-)

63. The Sinfonian - December 12, 2012

“I once knew a man, with a wooden leg called John.”

“What was the name of his other leg? Khan?”

64. izmunuti - December 12, 2012

I like that the villain has complex motivations, and isn’t simply evil because… well, he’s evil. Gives me some hope there might be something thoughtful (and Trekian) tucked inside all the action.

65. Gerry Alanguilan - December 12, 2012

“[Kirk is] brought to his knees ”

Cumberbatch is ZOD!

66. Max - December 12, 2012

Khan is not a terrorist. He’s a conqueror.

67. Josh C. - December 12, 2012

The biggest reason I think it’s not Khan is that Khan would just call himself Khan

68. Red Dead Ryan - December 12, 2012

Amorican,

I get it, you’re steadfast against the villain being Khan. But there is no reason you needed to post/spam the same thing seven times. Sheesh!

#60.

Again, where is the proof he isn’t playing Khan?

69. DeShonn Steinblatt - December 12, 2012

We will not be getting a straight answer from anyone in the cast or crew from now until May. If we accept that, the frustration will go way down.

70. BulletInTheFace - December 12, 2012

#68: He’s not. That’s extremely obvious.

71. MJ - December 12, 2012

Amorican,

You can repeat your post 100 times and I’m still not buying it.

72. TwilightTrek - December 12, 2012

I actually might like this movie.
1. I wanted a bad guy I could possibly root for.
2. If I read into this correctly.. I actually like the idea that the “bad guy” is actually a new character but yet still “cannon” in the sense that.. well there was a guy named Harrison on TOS. It gives them total freedom but with a slight nudge / name reference that connects him to old trek.
3. One of the things that really bothers me about “new Kirk” is how self assured he is. After all old Kirk was based off of Hornblower who was smart but self doubting. To me what makes old Kirk great is despite his faults, loneliness, and doubts he fought and overcame them and became a leader. Kirk was a sympathetic and strong character because the audience knew he hurt but he hid that from his crew for their sake. He was likable because he understood his crew and forgave their faults. His being a “macho confident leader” was a show he put on for his crew for their sake more than him actually being an arrogant jerk.. whereas for the new Kirk it’s the reverse.. He’s selfish and arrogant and it appears in this movie he finally learns humility.. I think it’s unfortunate the new Kirk had to evolve from selfish jerk to a humble more likeable guy.. He would have been a much more likeable and sympathetic character if he would have evolved from a self doubting but smart person who overcame his doubts and lead his crew by always taking the harder but more rewarding moral high ground.

Eh… that’s my rant on how poorly Orci and company understood the character of original Kirk.. I’m not even going to get into Scotty who is really a new character in all but name… hopefully that all changes in this new movie.

I’m confident “Die Hard into Darkness” will be a fun action movie… the funny thing is a year ago I joked saying.. I’m waiting to see Kirk run up a wall and do a flying drop kick off of it.. form what I see Cumby will be doing just that.

73. MJ - December 12, 2012

@66 @67

Guys….psst……he’s not a “real” person. :-)

He can be molded by the writers for this version of Trek.

74. Josh C. - December 12, 2012

also, there is no “proof” that Cumberbatch is or isn’t anyone. Where is your proof that Cumberbatch isn’t actually young Picard? What? you don’t have any? Well then obviously that’s who he is!

Of course, the preponderance of the evidence is that he is not, but nevermind that.

Personally, I’m not sure there is enough evidence to say with any certainty who he IS playing. Out of the usual three, I think Garth is most likely, but still an underdog.

If I had to present the most likely theory, it would be an augment who has little to no connection to Khan. Someone put forward a theory I think that perhaps there is a whole population which are basically decedents of Augments and normal humans, and Cumberbatch wants them to be recognized, albeit using violent means. Basically showing that even on Earth of the 23rd century there is still pretty open discrimination and bias toward a particular group of people just for who they are.

75. Red Dead Ryan - December 12, 2012

#70.

C’mon, you don’t post something SEVEN times over merely by accident. If it had been a double or triple post, sure, I could accept that. But not seven.

Clearly Amorican was spamming because he is so dead-set against it being Khan.

76. Red Dead Ryan - December 12, 2012

Again, there is no evidence to suggest that it isn’t Khan.

Why is that so hard for some of you to understand?

77. Josh C. - December 12, 2012

76 – sure there is

1) Do you really think Khan (where did he come from, by the way?) would go by a pseudonym, going around to random families and offering genetic cures for whatever reason? Really? Khan? The guy who didn’t even try to hide who he was in Space Seed and whose first act was to grab a knife and threaten McCoy?

2) What conceivable motive could Khan have that would ever make him even remotely sympathetic? He’s a madman bent on world and/or universal domination.

3) Most other evidence doesn’t make it any more likely that it’s him than it would be anyone else. Khan, Mitchell, Garth all have reasons for vengeance. They would all be “returning.” They all would plausibly have super strength and persuasive abilities. Heck, even treating someone with a genetic disorder could conceivably be done by someone like Garth as well.

You ask where is the evidence against Khan. I ask where is the evidence for Khan? Evidence that not only suggests that it might possibly be him (along with 50 other people) but that it is probably him?

78. Ahmed - December 12, 2012

@ 76. Red Dead Ryan – December 12, 2012

“Again, there is no evidence to suggest that it isn’t Khan.”

What about this part where he say:

“I play a character called John and not that other name,” Benedict continued. “It’s interesting. Speculation is speculation and that’s all fun.”

79. The Observer - December 12, 2012

Seem to remember some told us that hairstyles prove it’s Dehner, which prove it’s Mitchell. Well, they didn’t just tell us, they positively screamed it at us. But Marcus, on the other hand, proves nothing.

Now they tell us that the villain could be absolutely anyone at all.

Except Khan.

You do the math.

80. Gary S. - December 12, 2012

72 apparently you arent so confident .
or you wouldnt see the pointless need to mock the title.

81. Barry King - December 12, 2012

Charlie X!

82. Entropy - December 12, 2012

John Har-is-son = Khan Noo-ni-en Soong

SOUNDS CLOSE SOUNDS CLOSE

JOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHN
KHANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

good enough for me

83. dmduncan - December 12, 2012

“’I play a character called John and not that other name,’ Benedict continued.”

You know, I’ll bet that as part of his muddying up the water strategy, JJ Abrams told all his cast and crew to not even SPEAK the NAME Khan.

Which is a very very smart thing to do as a misdirection, because the resulting BLACK HOLE of references to Khan will actually draw people TO the idea of Khan MORE, until people’s own khanfirmation biases create a gravity well of certainty from which they cannot escape.

84. cakeface - December 12, 2012

Khan J. Mitchell has returned to have his vengeance!

85. Dennis Bailey - December 12, 2012

There’s a simple, straightforward English sentence that goes something like this:

“I don’t play Khan.”

Which is not what Cumberbatch said. Instead he made a “non-denial denial:”

“I play a character called ‘John’ and not that other name.”

One doesn’t come up with that tortured construction by accident. LOL

That doesn’t mean that he’s Khan, of course – what it DOES mean is that he’s been told not to give a straight answer to questions about his character’s identity, for whatever reason…and he still hasn’t.

86. TwilightTrek - December 12, 2012

@80 I’m confident I’ll like it.. I liked the first one. I just need to keep an open mind and remember it’s “new Trek” not the “old Trek” I hold dear. As long as I can keep them separate I can enjoy them. It’s when I try to think they are one in the same that I get bothered by what I see as fundamental differences.

87. pg - December 12, 2012

And this entire time nobody has asked Abrams or the writers who Peter Weller is really playing. He was looking mighty tan in his interview at a Dallas film fest back in the summer, and much more tan than he normally would look for a guy his age… May be reading into things but what if Khan’s ship was woken up back in the George Kirk era, or just after that, giving Khan plenty of time to age..

Could Weller be playing a very old Khan? Me thinks he could be.

88. Lt.LanaShelby - December 12, 2012

Somehow… I wonder if Talos V is involved in this…

89. Lt.LanaShelby - December 12, 2012

Umm… that would be Talos IV… ;D

90. The Optimist - December 12, 2012

So here is a couple of crazy thoughts.

Either John Harrison is a modified clone of Khan, a new super soldier developed by Peter Weller’s character, who is a section 31 operative, or….

John Harrison is a 2nd generation android developed by Weller and section 31. We know there is an android already in the film, perhaps a prototype, and Harrison is the masterpiece? We also know from the comics that section 31 has been using artificial intelligence (Laundru).

No evidence just some theories based on what we know.

91. Curious Cadet - December 12, 2012

With all due respect to everyone, there is little or NO OUT-OF-THE BOX THINKING going on here (as alluded to by Kurtzman), including from myself. All I’ve really seen here is obvious, bigger-than-life villains from TOS suggested as the antagonist of this film. We’ve been thinking like Nicholas Mayer adapting Khan from Space Seed to TWOK, rather than thinking the way Orci and Kurtzman think. Orci and Kurtzman aren’t going to go back to that same bucket of ideas. They’re going to hold a prism up to the light source and follow one of the rays from the resulting spectrum.

Besides, which is more fun: to keep trying to squeeze a Khan peg in a John hole, or look for another solution which fits perfectly?

92. Anthony Pascale - December 12, 2012

Added videos from Access Hollywood. Last one has interesting slip by Quinto

93. Superman - December 12, 2012

They find the Botany Bay. Except in this universe, Khan’s cryo unit fails before McCoy can save him.

They awaken Harrison. He’s given a Starfleet uniform, just as Khan was in “Space Seed.” But he’s no in Starfleet.

Harrison was subservient to Khan, but turns out to be an even more sinister threat than Khan would have been. He was planning on killing Khan eventually, but “fate” did the job for him.

94. Ahmed - December 12, 2012

Quinto was talking about Nero & in doing so, mentioned Khan. But he wasn’t talking about Cumberbatch’s character at that moment.

95. SciFiMetalGirl - December 12, 2012

So we have one slip up that says “Mitchell” and one slip up now that says “Khan” so now I don’t know what to think! Sheesh!

96. Emperor Mike of the Empire - December 12, 2012

O Boy!. Just throwing Gas on the fire. Quinto slipping up like that. I think it just might be Khan. Or at the least an Augment.

97. Emperor Mike of the Empire - December 12, 2012

We could have both Gary Mitchell and Khan in the movie. You never know.

98. Amorican - December 12, 2012

@75 Red Dead Ryan,

Something happened with my computer where I clicked “say it!” and nothing happened. So I clicked again. Nothing happened. 7 times, apparently, and nothing happened.

I refreshed the page, and there it was. 7 responses from me.

I was not spamming. Simply wondering why people are reading so much into that “called John” thing. There is nothing there.

I am not “dead-set” against it being Khan. It might actually be cool if done right. I’ll take this movie either way.

But, like I said, saying his character is “called John” does not mean anything deeper than that. He is not playing Khan.

Find REAL evidence, and I’ll happily change my mind.

99. ACB - December 12, 2012

@93

I actually was thinking something like that would be interesting too. Perhaps Abrams has the guts to kill Khan in cryo and have Cumberbatch play a random but canon character like Joachim from STAR TREK II, played by Judson Earney Scott..

Here is his imdb link: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0779401/

For those who don’t know that name he was Khan’s right hand man in the film who dies in his arms during the nebula attack. Cumberbatch does resemble the original actor……hhmmmmmm……..

100. Maxxflash - December 12, 2012

Nope. Y’all are dead wrong. He’s John Harrison-Noonian Singh Khan’s step brother on his cousin’s uncles side. He’s pissed that little Khannie was murdered by Kirk prime. So as recalled by a now aging James Kirk, Shatner cameo, tells the story to his life partner Spock on the retirement side of the Nexus ribbon. END SCENE!

101. Legend of Link - December 12, 2012

Watched the Star Trek trivia interview on Access Hollywood. Hilarious. haha

102. David C. Roberson - December 12, 2012

Did anyone else hear the reports from the Press event at Bad Robot? Some reported that Benny Batch’s big gun from the announcement trailer was labeled as belonging to someone named April. Upon this, I realize that Peter Weller looks like an older Benny Batch. Could Robert T. April (aka first captain of the Enterprise in the Prime UNiverse) be de-aging himself and exacting some sort of revenge on Starfleet? Sounds fun to me. Also, since the 9 minute preview says Benny Batch is healing a kid with an age-related disease, that sounds a lot like what Robert T. April did in TAS’ “The Counter Clock Incident”… not to mention the fact that the teaser poster reveals London (April was a Brit) and “John Harrison (Benny Batch’s supposed name in the movie) was a famous Brit clock maker. Sounds like this thing is coming together:-D

103. Commodore Adams - December 12, 2012

@ 95. SciFiMetalGirl – ditto.
—————————————————————————–
Which is why I am done with speculation regarding STID. I am quite content to simply absorb whatever I read in these types of interview articles, minor spoilers, or viewed in the trailers and just wait. I know I am going to be excited and satisfied with whatever surprises are in the movie. Speculation on a subject is fun….for a time but it looses its appeal even with new info presented, it just gets too outlandish, repetitive, or just plain dull. Oooo Quinto made a slip up, or was it intentional, it probably does not mean a damn thing. Lmao sorry to sound like a bitter nut., and by nut I mean scrot.
—————————————————————————–
@ 91. Curious Cadet – Agreed, its either no imagination or too much imagination, strive for balance.

104. Steve - December 12, 2012

I’m sorry but why are they always talking about Kirk and Spock as two halves? The original was about Kirk, Spock AND MCCOY!!! Spock was one side, McCoy was the complete opposite and Kirk had to find the middle ground. Why is that lost on the new writers? I was so disappointed at how small McCoy’s role was in the 2009 movie and I’m starting to think I’m going to be disappointed again…

105. David C. Roberson - December 12, 2012

#104: Agreed completely. McCoy was an integral part to the original Star Trek, and unfortunately, it seems like these new movies are far more interested in pushing Uhura as the third piece of the puzzle.

106. NuWisdom - December 12, 2012

What if John Harrison is actually… FLINT? That Immortal who went by different Aliases throughout history.

107. Psamtrk - December 12, 2012

Ok guys, let me let the Khan out of the bag.

The role was originally Khan hence it was offered to Del Toro, Ramirez then Molla. Along comes Cumberbatch who Is a fantastic actor but can’t pull of Khan. So Harrison is created to allow Cumberbatch to be Khan without being Khan.

Do you really think Del Toro was offered the role of John Harrison?

108. MJ - December 12, 2012

@79 “Seem to remember some told us that hairstyles prove it’s Dehner, which prove it’s Mitchell. Well, they didn’t just tell us, they positively screamed it at us. But Marcus, on the other hand, proves nothing.”

Yes exactly, the former “Mitchel mafia” here, which has shockingly disappeared now from all signs of ever existing, INSISTED that the hairstyle thing led to Dehner, and some of them were very forceful about it.

Of course, now, nobody here ever thought it was Mittchell…no, they were just sure it wasn’t Khan all along.

Yea, right! :-)) LOL

109. ACB - December 12, 2012

@107

Exactly, and if he is a canon character (like how I mentioned Joachim from STAR TREK II, played by Judson Earney Scott) and only expanded into a more substantial role for Cumberbatch with out infringing on Khan that could be interesting.

110. Sebastian S. - December 12, 2012

# 76 Red Dead Ryan~

And you’ve absolutely no evidence to suggest that it IS Khan.

Cumberbatch (and several others, including Anthony have) said the character’s name is John Harrison. He is clearly a pale, blue-eyed caucasian. He speaks with a very distinct British accent. He is clearly in starfleet (even has the haircut). Cumberbatch says Harrison is a terrorist. I don’t see how you Khanophiles can still think it IS Khan, let alone mock others for believing what the proof thus far suggests.

You have zero evidence, yet you think we’re off our rockers? Okayyy….

111. MJ - December 12, 2012

@107. That is the perhaps the only non-Khan theory I could buy into here which fits the evidence.

Well done!

112. Nony - December 12, 2012

Oop, Zach. So let me lay things out just so I can keep all the evidence straight.

BC: “I play a character called John and not that other name.” Note that he says “called”. People call you John because that’s what they believe your name is. They don’t know if your real name is actually something else.

Pegg interview: “Given internet rumours that Cumberbatch has been cast as Kirk and Spock nemesis Khan, will this be a very different “wrath of Khan” from the 1982 film of the same name? “It’s not Khan,” replies Pegg, annoyed. “That’s a myth. Everyone’s saying it is, but it’s not.””
-He says they’re not doing *Wrath of Khan*. The movie. Not that they’re not doing the character of Khan.

Urban: Prankster who spent all of Comic-Con using his geek clout to drum up Dredd publicity. Video footage of his Mitchell interview was never released, leaving us unable to see the joking face he might have made as he said it.

113. njdss4 - December 12, 2012

I think the movie would have much more potential if it were an original villain, but we’ve been tricked too many times to just take these guys at their word. We probably won’t find out until we get to see the movie next year.

114. David C. Roberson - December 12, 2012

108: What’s funny is that people think Carol Marcus automatically leads to Khan when most Trek fans assume that the blonde lab technician that GARY MITCHELL hooked Kirk up with prior to WNMHGB was Carol Marcus. Personally, though, I am currently on the Robert T. April train.

115. dmduncan - December 12, 2012

HOLY SH*T!!! Did Zachary Quinto just slip up and confirm that NERO was KHAN???

116. Nony - December 12, 2012

@107 Psamtrk

Sounds plausible. They’d probably be willing to do a lot of things to get Cumberbatch, a guy with a voice made for trailer voice-overs, legit acting cred, and a pre-existing rabid fanbase.

117. Fascinoma - December 12, 2012

I am totally looking forward to seeing this new villain and I will be presently surprised if he turns out to be someone familiar (especially Garth).

Meanwhile, watching you lot arguing among yourselves is entertaining enough to keep me busy for a while. ;)

118. Vultan - December 12, 2012

#110

Sebastian, I’m thinking the villain of this movie will be a resurrected Lane Pryce. Well, he was British.

Seems obvious now when you think about it.

119. CraigM - December 12, 2012

Geez, the guy doing the interview for Access Hollywood got on my nerves something fierce. Wanted to slap him.

120. MJ - December 12, 2012

@110 Hey Sebastian, how did that Gary Mitchell thing work out?

Oh and, love the Alice Eve doo — a dead ringer for Liz Dehner for sure, dude.

Sure, there is a slight chance that Red Dead Ryan and I might be proven wrong on this, but we at least haven’t let ourselves fall into “the flavor of the week” stuff like many of you have here. We been consistent all along and actually have a position that we believe is correct.

121. NuWisdom - December 12, 2012

Steve, I wondered that as well. I suppose it could be worse. They could do a Kirk/Spock slash relationship/hookup LOL

122. Curious Cadet - December 12, 2012

I’m not saying its this at all, but this similarity has been driving me crazy …

I think it’s the fact that Cumberbatch’s lips are the same color as his skin, and his hair has been died black.

http://scifanatic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/stid-t1-36.jpg

http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/1/12/Lore.jpg

123. Gary S. - December 12, 2012

We dont know who Del Toro was going to be and, it dosnt matter,
he is not part of the production.

124. Hat Rick - December 12, 2012

My goodness. The Khannections drawn between slip-ups is intriguing. First the Michellaneous mention by Karl Urban, and now this.

Is anyone Khanvinced it’s either one? “Gare” we draw any Khanclusions? Mitch to think about, indeed.

125. ACB - December 12, 2012

@123

No, but he was Abrams first choice.

126. Nony - December 12, 2012

@124 Hat Rick

I’d say at this point it’s still inKhanclusive, but things are definitely getting interestSingh. :)

127. dmduncan - December 12, 2012

Wait, wait, hear me out, hear me out…

NERO has four letters…

KHAN. HAS. FOUR. LETTERS.

In addition, the O in Nero is the 16th letter of the alphabet, while the H in Khan is the 8th letter of the alphabet.

16 divided by 8 = 2!

TWO as in STAR TREK II, the WRATH of KHAN.

Isn’t it obvious???

Eric Bana is Ricardo Montalban!!!!

128. Sebastian S. - December 12, 2012

# 120 MJ

“@110 Hey Sebastian, how did that Gary Mitchell thing work out?”
____________________________________________________

If you actually READ my posts for the last four or five threads, you’d know I’d abandoned the Mitchell theory a while back. I’m not married to bad or unsupported ideas unlike you and your merry band of Khanophiles.

And unlike you I’m actually capable of changing my mind when my ideas are no longer supported by facts. I realize this is a heavy concept for you.
Give it a minute to sink in….

;-)

129. MJ - December 12, 2012

@128. Well played! ;-)

130. dmduncan - December 12, 2012

*high five*

Come on, somebody give it to me. Did I nail it, or what?

131. Psamtek - December 12, 2012

@123 You don’t see a pattern in THREE high profile Hispanic actors being offered the same role?

132. Sebastian S. - December 12, 2012

# 118 Vultan

Did you see Lane (Jared Harris) as Gen. Grant in “Lincoln”? I almost didn’t recognize him. He is a truly chameleonic actor.

It’s a really good movie too, if you have a chance to catch it! ;-)

133. Sebastian S. - December 12, 2012

# 130 dmduncan~

Sure. Why not? ;-D

(hee hee….)

134. ACB - December 12, 2012

I’m telling you guys he is probably Joachim from STAR TREK II, played by Judson Earney Scott. imdb link: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0779401/

…..My goal is to have Judson Earney Scott in front of a camera by the end of the month denying the rumors before we all find out Cumberbatch is really Wesley Crusher.

135. Trek Fan - December 12, 2012

120. MJ

You see… people that accept that they are wrong, admit it. Like others.. we all followed what the clues were. EVERYTHING was pointing to Mitchell. As soon as the name of the villain was revealed, we admitted we were wrong and that was it. We didn’t try to grasp at straws to say that Harrison was really Mitchell using a fake name. We didn’t go on about it being a Mitchell-esque story. We admitted we were worng.

But… there are people like you that won’t admit they were wrong. Even after the Supreme Court CONFIRMED the name of the villain… even after seeing that there was nothing Khan-like about the villain… you still won’t admit you are wrong.

See, simple as that really.

136. MJ - December 12, 2012

@130

Hi Five, DM !!!!!

Please sir, may I have another?

137. Sonak - December 12, 2012

The biggest bore in Trekdom used to be chatter about Shatner returning in the 2009 film or its sequel. Now it’s whether or not Khan will be in the film.

Why can’t people just be happy with TWOK and Space Seed?

138. MJ - December 12, 2012

@132. Hey, agreed – Lincoln is Spielberg’s best movie since Saving PR. I felt like it was actually Lincoln that I was watching.

139. ACB - December 12, 2012

Lincoln was an above average film. Well shot, well acted but nothing really new or real about the depiction. It was a bit glossed over.

140. MJ - December 12, 2012

@139. wtf?

141. Jack - December 12, 2012

“EVERYTHING was pointing to Mitchell.”

Nothing was pointing to Mitchell, at all. Apart from Urban’s joke.

The other stuff (weapon of mass…, Eve has Dehner’s haircut) could have applied to anybody.

142. Trek Fan - December 12, 2012

141. Jack

Actually. yes, it was.

143. dmduncan - December 12, 2012

It’s like doing science. They release some facts, we develop a theory to explain them. We test the theory. If new facts don’t fit the theory, we abandon it and develop a new theory to account for the new facts.

Apply, rinse, repeat.

At some point, when the release of new facts have stopped altering the theory, we will say we know what the movie is about and who the villain is.

No ego, no territory to stake out and defend against the release of new facts which don’t fit.

Just honoring the data. Solving the puzzle. Playing the game.

144. dmduncan - December 12, 2012

136. MJ – December 12, 2012

Haha!

145. ACB - December 12, 2012

@140

Yep

146. Vultan - December 12, 2012

#132

Yes, I did see Lincoln. I was a little distracted by Harris as Grant, simply because I heard beforehand he was playing him. It was sort of like playing “spot the actor” while watching Towering Inferno. Harris did a great job though. Great movie too.

I’m looking forward to Mad Men season 6, even though the British one has, ahem, moved on….

147. Sebastian S. - December 12, 2012

# 138

MJ~

Are you sure Daniel Day Lewis wasn’t playing Khan?

;-D

148. Red Dead Ryan - December 12, 2012

#139.

“Lincoln” was a great movie. It didn’t gloss over anything. It wasn’t supposed to be about his entire life biography. It was showing how he was working to end slavery.

Sorry, but you are wrong on this.

149. The Great Bird lives - December 12, 2012

A copy of Khan’s DNA is stored in a Starfleet genetics lab, along with samples of every known virus, and xenophobic pathogen the Federation has ever encountered.

Gee, what could someone do If they got there hands on that DNA?

I will say no more.

Live Long and Prosper

150. Disinvited - December 12, 2012

#147. Sebastian S.

Wait …..you’re saying a Genesis explosion blows Khan back to the 1860s where he sees the error of his genetically superior ways and frees the slaves?!

THIS TREK SEQUEL IS GOING TO ROCK!!!

;D

151. sean - December 12, 2012

Well, Quinto’s slip doesn’t say much, since he says Khan when he means Nero, not Harrison.

Secondly, if Cumberbatch is playing Khan, then this is a major reworking of the character, since Khan had no nobility, no sympathetic backstory. He was a man in love with power. His vendetta against Kirk in TWOK is all misplaced rage and hubris. If Khan has been reworked to be fighting for a cause greater than himself, that is certainly interesting.

However, I hope they have a damn good reason why he’s being played by a white British man.

152. ACB - December 12, 2012

@148

Spielberg himself acknowledges all this when he describes his movie as a “dream” and as a work of “historical fiction” (see his Dedication Day speech, November 19, 2012 at Gettysburg on YouTube for a good example)

They also condense, conflate, and simplify the politics behind the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which is the focal point of the movie.

The movie also struggles to portray the details of the lobbying effort (relying heavily on invention, imagination and more than a little corny comic relief).

Watching the movie, for example, it’s easy to forget that Lincoln was pushing for approval from a lame duck Congress where his numbers were worse than they would be in the newly elected Congress. Why would he do that? The movie does not address this.

So, accurate? No. But excellent anyway? Absolutely. In other words, don’t go to this movie (or any historical movie) to learn the facts. Go to imagine the experience and to enjoy the illusion that a great filmmaker can create.

153. Vultan - December 12, 2012

They should just go ahead and give Day-Lewis the best acting Oscar. I can’t think of a better performance from the past year.

By the way, anyone else love the irony that the Lincoln-hating Bill the Butcher was also played by him?

154. Cygnus-X1 - December 12, 2012

It’s Khan.

And that’s how you gotta do it.

You get these guys in a room for 16 hours answering questions until their minds are so mushy that they slip up.

Cat’s outta the bag. It’s Khan. You can see the glimmer of anxiety in Quinto’s eyes as he tries to recover, the poor guy.

Plus, “a terrorist with superior mental and physical abilities whose biggest weapon is his ability to plant ideas in peoples’ minds and psychologically manipulate them” is EXACTLY who Khan was.

I mean, if Harrison isn’t a pseudonym for Khan or somebody closely related to Khan, then Orci & co. really went to a lot of trouble to make this villain resemble Khan in type. And why would you have so close an imitation of Khan? Might as well just have the genuine article or some version thereof.

But Quinto’s slip-up confirms it. Khan was definitely on his mind, and I don’t find it likely for Khan to have been on the actor’s mind without also being a part of the movie that he’s been talking about for hours and hours and hours.

The good thing to come out of Quinto’s slip-up is that it shows that you don’t need torture to get information out of people. All you need is a press junket. And…

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!

Khan’s so manipulative a character that he messes with the minds of people in real life.

155. sean - December 12, 2012

I liked Lincoln, though it did feel like a bit of a slog to get through. At some points Lincoln felt like the cliche sage character from movies who avoids direct answers and only responds in anecdotes. And I did find the lack of any reference to Frederick Douglass rather questionable. All the actors were great, though.

156. Disinvited - December 12, 2012

I’m still fascinated that Speilberg’s first choice for Lincoln was the Singer James Taylor.

157. Red Dead Ryan - December 12, 2012

#152.

What movie doesn’t do what Spielberg did? It’s pretty tough to get in all the details in a two-to-three hour long movie.

#154.

Yup!

158. John W. - December 12, 2012

If it is Khan, then I suppose in this film they will pay much more attention to the superior intellect. That would be a way of doing the same thing but doing it differently.

159. Red Dead Ryan - December 12, 2012

#156.

I thought it was Liam Neeson?

160. ACB - December 12, 2012

@155

Yeah the exclusion of Fredrick Douglas was a little odd. Hell, he was in Glory for at least a scene. But it’s ok to have a film dealing with civil rights at the forefront but to go ahead and exclude on of the greatest civil rights activists in history when he was directly helping Lincoln at the time……….sarcasm

161. ACB - December 12, 2012

@159

Actually it was Day-Lewis, but he declined it for about 4 years. Then Spielberg brought in Neeson, but they parted ways after 7 years working on the film. Day-Lewis never wanted to do Lincold. It took Leonardo DiCaprio to talk him into it.

162. Amorican - December 12, 2012

@154. Cygnus-X1

“But Quinto’s slip-up confirms it. Khan was definitely on his mind, and I don’t find it likely for Khan to have been on the actor’s mind without also being a part of the movie that he’s been talking about for hours and hours and hours.”

Doesn’t confirm anything. The ENTIRE Trekkie-internet IS talking about Khan, as are reporters who ask questions. Khan doesn’t have to be in the movie for it to be on Quinto’s mind. Nerds the world over won’t shut up about him.

And to MJ and Red Dead Ryan who think I’m spamming, I was not. Nor am I dead set against Khan.
I am a little worried about submitting this because it might post multiple times again. Wish me luck . . .

163. Sebastian S. - December 12, 2012

# 150 Disinvited~

Sssshhhh!!!!! Now you’ve done it.
You’ve ruined the movie for everybody….

;-P

164. Vultan - December 12, 2012

#160

Yes, I agree. Fredrick Douglas should’ve been included. And at the risk of overexposure, Morgan Freeman could’ve played him.

They seemed to shift all the diehard abolitionism to Thaddeus Stevens.

165. ACB - December 12, 2012

@164

That’s because that type of role gets attention during award season and it is structured for that. Sad, but true.

166. Hugh Hoyland - December 12, 2012

The only solid evidence I can gather from the trailer as to the villains identity is the scene where he “jumps” through the air, lands and takes the Klingon out with a rather large (and presumably heavy) weapon or “tool”. And doing so with obvious super human ability.

At first I was leaning towards Mitchel despite the “Khan” vibe I was getting. He looks more GM than Khan for sure, buts talks like neither. He also has no glowing silver eyes. And Mitchels powers where more than just super strength. He could manipulate matter rather easily.

I have to admit Im a bit stumped on this right now.

167. sean - December 12, 2012

#164

And hey, Stevens was a vocal and tireless opponent of slavery. It was just kind of weird to have a movie about the abolition of slavery and not include one of the most famous African-American abolitionists in history. Unfortunate implications and all that.

168. Psamtek - December 12, 2012

I think it is a rework of Khan…Harrison has been enhanced thus he knows better than everyone else. He wants the universe to stop fighting so he destroys Starfleet then heads off to Kronos to do the same to the Klingons. He is a kind of terrorist for peace.

169. LizardGirl - December 12, 2012

If they say it’s John Harrison, then I’m not going to worry about it (not that I did before mind you). It’s just not worth the frustration to fight the sources on this. Why all of a sudden say the villain’s name when they could have stayed silent about it? And then, to top it off, the director, writers and actors are coming out of the shadows and speaking about Star Trek Into Darkness around the same time. This seems official.

The theories have been interesting and engaging to say the least. But it seems the buzz machine is on. So hopefully from here on out the information that the public receives, especially officially released information, is accurate and non-misleading. We can only hope.

There’s still much they can’t talk about but it’s great to see that they’re sitting down and actually talking about Star Trek for once.

170. Vultan - December 12, 2012

#167

Oh, I agree. Stevens very much deserved the attention the movie gives him. As did Douglas.

Like you said, weird.

171. ACB - December 12, 2012

@168

Or he could have attacked the Klingons on Kronos to instigate a conflict with the Federation…the plot thickens

172. The Great Bird lives - December 12, 2012

He was grown in a testube using Khans DNA

173. Emperor Mike of the Empire - December 12, 2012

Ok. I got it. He is the Son of Khan!!!!!

174. Rob - December 12, 2012

I for one am starting to groove on the April theory, and the theory that Wellers is an industrialist/clandestine player who may or may not have the means to create Khan LIKE beings.

The key will be to determine what Cumby is asking as a price to help the sick girl. Who do the parents know? Who do one our both work for? Is the girl their biological offspring, our is she adopted? In short, if Harrisons motive can be ascertained, we will know whats up.

Any thoughts about cumby portraying David Marcus PRIME? I would have no idea how they could explain his presence in the altered timeline, but it could explain his hatred for both klingons and Starfleet AND give added gravitas to his family references, as well as a good kick in the kiester to Kirk.

175. Alf, in pog form - December 12, 2012

Bet JJ Abrams is reading these comments laughing his head off.

176. Disinvited - December 12, 2012

#159. Red Dead Ryan, #161. ACB

I think your points are I should pay closer attention to how the boob tube spins the story:

http//www.inquisitr.com/430742/james-taylor

Point taken. Thanks

177. MJ - December 12, 2012

@153 “They should just go ahead and give Day-Lewis the best acting Oscar. I can’t think of a better performance from the past year.’

Agreed — in fact, it’s one of the greatest performances of all-time.

178. The Great Bird lives - December 12, 2012

In the 21st Century, it is impossible to create a clone from whatever DNA could be recovered that belonged to Khan Noonian Singh- but in the 23rd century it is possible. In fact- certain enhancements can even be made to make him smarter, and stronger… But this isn’t the Khan of our universe- this clone has no previous memories. No, only the history books serve to explain his true nature- in particular, the history of the Eugenics wars, and how humanity dealt with these Supermen.

Starfleet finds this ‘John Harris’ to be quite adept, and a perfect candidate for the academy. And since someone went to extremes to hide ‘John’s’ true nature, no one seems to find him anything but ordinary- aside from his superior intellect, and stamina, that is…

It would seem the Federation has forgotten the lessons of the past, and has grown complacent- leading to a false sense of security…

This is my current, best theory…

Opinions?

179. Johnny - December 12, 2012

Guys. It’s absolutely NOT Gary Mitchell. He was in the comic, and he DIED. They’re not going to explain some sort of resurrection and revenge story to re-introduce Mitchell. It just wouldn’t make sense for people who didn’t read the comic. It’s not the same thing as Spock Prime mind-melding with Kirk in the first film.

While there isn’t hard “evidence”, there are plenty of indications that it might be Khan. Physically, he has the super-human strength. He appears to have some intellect as well. Now why is he a white British guy? Well that could be some sort of deep cover, couldn’t it? He’s impersonating someone with access to Starfleet, for example. Benicio Del Toro could have done the same thing — just with less of a physical disguise, obviously.

What is his ultimate motive? Well my guess would be that he’s working for Peter Weller’s character — who is the main villain of the film. He discovered the Botany Bay, and unleashed Khan on the world for whatever reason. And when Kirk and the Enterprise foil Weller’s plan, Khan gets pissed and ends up looking for vengeance?

180. Fascinoma - December 12, 2012

To me, the Occam’s Razor answer is that John Harrison is really the cover identity for the super secret dude named…

John Harrison.

To try to make him into Khan or Mitchell, you have to do a lot of shoehorning and come up with all kinds of theories.

I could vaguely see him as Garth at this point, but two thirds of my money is on him being…

John Harrison.

And to be honest, at this point, I’m way more excited to find out about this new character than I would be to find out he was some canonical character. And I suspect this is what Abrams had in mind.

181. The Great Bird lives - December 12, 2012

He IS John Harrison, but he was hatched with Khan’s DNA!

182. Captain Peabody - December 12, 2012

For the love of Waru, he is not Khan. At this point, that is one of the only things I’m sure about concerning this movie.

Of course, if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. But I don’t think I’m wrong. And the producers, directors, and actors of this film also don’t seem to think I’m wrong.

183. Hugh Hoyland - December 12, 2012

We can also gather from Johns voice over that he’s been gone, is now back. and wants “vengeance” for something wrong he believes was done to him.

Where’s he been? Wheres he back to? What was done to him that makes him seek vengeance in return?

So many questions to think about!

184. Hugh Hoyland - December 12, 2012

Sounds like an augment run off Earth.

OR a Vulcan? Looking to settle the score. Is that John and Spock holding their hands up to each other against the glass giving the Vulcan “Live long and prosper” sign? No pointy ears though. Dang!

185. Curious Cadet - December 12, 2012

@154 Cygnus-X1,

“Cat’s outta the bag. It’s Khan. You can see the glimmer of anxiety in Quinto’s eyes as he tries to recover, the poor guy.”

What I’m seeing is that there was likely some discussion about the villain off camera, or edited out of this interview. When Scott Mantz asks about the villain, he uses air quotes when he says “John” and smiles as if they have already been discussing the various rumors, including Khan. The look on Mantz’ face is one of amusement at the slip up, but not excited surprise you would expect of someone who just got the biggest scoop of the year. And for him not to press the question, just makes no sense, if this really was a slip. This seems like Khan was fresh in Quinto’s mind from a previous discussion, and nothing else. In other words, it didn’t just come out of the blue.

That said … Pine snaps his head a split second after Quinto says “Khan” and the expression in his eyes changes abruptly as he looks at him. But Pine’s a smooth operator if this is in response to a slip, as he doesn’t register surprise, shock or otherwise.

186. Vultan - December 12, 2012

#177

No argument here. The way he disappeared into the role of Lincoln, with the accent, the body language—simply magnificent. At no point did I think I was watching someone playing Lincoln. He was Lincoln.

Can’t wait to see what his next role will be.

187. Khan Harrison - December 12, 2012

MJ and a couple of you other guys need to just give the Khan thing a rest.
We get it, you think its Khan- great. Duly noted. Now ffs give it a rest.

188. Curious Cadet - December 12, 2012

@ 178 The Great Bird lives,.

“It would seem the Federation has forgotten the lessons of the past, and has grown complacent- leading to a false sense of security…”

I like it. It’s a good motive for vengeance, especially if Starfleet is using the clones like the soldiers in the Bourne Legacy. You can certainly feel empathetic for why the soldier is doing what he’s doing, even if you don’t agree with his actions.

But there’s no real reason to mix Khan up in this scenario, AT ALL.

That said, yeah I can see a “Delta Vega” kind of reference coming out of these guys. The Starfleet scientists explaining (with pride) how they discovered and used the DNA from “Khan Noonien Singh”, and modified key sequences which altered his appearance in the process. The non-Trek audience could care less, gives Orci the claim to canon, is a definite twist on that character, and allows them to attribute certain traits to nature while telling the story of nurture, with the end result essentially following the same character arc as Space Seed to TWOK.

In which case, I applaud them, but can’t really say this is Khan, because it isn’t.

189. chrisfawkes.com - December 12, 2012

Getting more bizarre by the day how some still think it is Khan.

190. MJ - December 12, 2012

@187

Very funny, dude! HaHa!

191. Josh C. - December 12, 2012

wait, we’re now to saying Harrison is some clone of Khan from DNA that just happened to be laying around? If they wanted to use and alter augment DNA, why not use the embryos they have on hand? why go through the bother of cloning Khan.

I mean, really. this is getting silly at this point.

192. TomBot3000 - December 12, 2012

If it was April, what the heck could he want vengeance for? It’s been awhile since I saw the Counter-Clock Incident, what possibly could be in that to lay a foundation for motivation?

193. KHAAAN the weasel - December 12, 2012

” you might even sympathize with the reasons he’s doing what he’s doing ” – hmmm, maybe he’s trying to restore the timeline…

194. Rose (as in Keachick) - December 12, 2012

Why should there be a deep cover up of anything?

John Harrison is a quiet man with a big grudge with an ideology to back up his grudge. The world, and Starfleet in particular, needs to change, be taken out, rebuilt into what Harrison thinks it should be and he quietly sets about manipulating people, causing discord and distrust – it is the typical “divide and rule” strategy. He clearly believes he knows what is best for Starfleet and the world and he means to make it happen, even it means much is destroyed. Collateral damage is just part of the price, the sacrifice made for the greater cause.

Gary Mitchell is also a very ordinary name; same with John Paxton or just about any of the names given to characters in Star Trek. James/Jim Kirk could be anyone, same with Leonard McCoy…I can’t believe the stupidity I have read here at times.

195. Disinvited - December 12, 2012

#192. TomBot3000

For what every senior citizen craves revenge: so-called cost savings through forced early retirement?

196. KHAAAN the weasel - December 12, 2012

@174 Rob: The thought of John Harrison actually being David Marcus is intriguing to say the least! Although I’m getting kinda tired of time travel as a plot device that would be interesting to see: “Jim, Spock never never told you what happened to your son. Jim, search your feelings: I AM your son!”

197. Admiral_Bumblebee - December 12, 2012

It’s all marketing to lead us in wrong directions. First Karl Urban “accidentally” says that it is Mitchell, then they “reveal” that the villans name is John Harrisson, now Zachary Qunito “let’s slip” that it is Khan… Suuuure.

In the end, there will be no villain at all! Or at least even after watching the movie we will have no idea who the villain is ;)

198. Curious Cadet - December 12, 2012

@194 Rose,

Absolutely. That’s all it needs to be. But you are forgetting, John Harrison is based on some kind of Canon. He also has extraordinary physical powers. So he is hardly just a “quiet man”. And of course there’s the Darkness, which suggests something clandestine.

So the fun is reconciling exactly how this superior physical specimen fits into existing Trek Canon.

199. Curious Cadet - December 12, 2012

@191 Josh C,
“If they wanted to use and alter augment DNA, why not use the embryos they have on hand? why go through the bother of cloning Khan.”

That’s easy … “He was the best of the tyrants”. Arguably if you’re going to tinker with genetics, you use the best you can get as a template. Plus, you get to make all sorts of insider comparisons with the original character that the fans will love that you can’t with just any old augment DNA.

Now here’s one for you — If they wanted to maroon somebody on a world in their story, why not create a new name for it? Why cause confusion by calling it the same name as another planet that is in no way related? It already got silly 4 years ago …

200. B Thomas - December 13, 2012

His name is ”John”, eh?

It’s not Khan. it’s Juan…

201. Cygnus-X1 - December 13, 2012

162. Amorican – December 12, 2012

—-Doesn’t confirm anything. The ENTIRE Trekkie-internet IS talking about Khan, as are reporters who ask questions. Khan doesn’t have to be in the movie for it to be on Quinto’s mind. Nerds the world over won’t shut up about him.—-

You think Zach Quinto’s mind was just brimming over with the speculations of Trekkies on the internet? Please, he’s probably got no time to wade through sites like this one. The guy’s in press mode. When he’s done sitting in that room for 16 hours answering questions about Star Trek, the LAST thing he’s gonna do is go check out the internet chatter about Star Trek.

And I’d be surprised if there weren’t some agreement between the studio and the reporters regarding the content of the interviews. They’ve probably been told, “look don’t press for more about the villain than we’re willing to reveal at this point. We don’t want to ruin the surprise.”

202. Cygnus-X1 - December 13, 2012

185. Curious Cadet – December 12, 2012

—-The look on Mantz’ face is one of amusement at the slip up, but not excited surprise you would expect of someone who just got the biggest scoop of the year. And for him not to press the question, just makes no sense, if this really was a slip.—-

I disagree. To me the look on the reporter’s face was one of “OMG!” and a little embarrassed empathy for Quinto who’d just screwed up. The reporter knows better than to press the question while Quinto’s trying to recover from what was obviously a slip-up.

I suppose it could be that Quinto had been talking with that reporter off-camera prior to the interview and the question of Khan had come up, and Quinto’s slightly embarrassed reaction was because he’d just stepped in the big pile of doggy doo on-camera that he’d been told to avoid like the plague, at which point Quinto just wanted to immediately move past the issue because ANY mention of Khan raises the follow-up question of whether it is or isn’t, and if it isn’t Khan, Quinto doesn’t want to reveal that, either.

But I don’t think so. My reading of Quinto’s reaction is that it’s Khan. Khan’s been on his mind for 2 years, and at that point in the interview Quinto was making a comparison between the villain of the first movie and the villain of this movie, and out comes “Khan” which he then corrects to “Nero.” Nero being the villain of the first movie, and Khan being the villain of this movie.

It’s Khan. I’ll be surprised and humbled if I was wrong about this.

203. vera - December 13, 2012

“Pine also talks about how Kirk and Spock are two halves of the same person and how they are still on an arc together”

Yes! Very happy about it! Star Trek is and should be about Kirk&Spock.

204. Doug - December 13, 2012

Urban let slip it was Mitchell. Quinto let slip it was Khan.

205. MJ's Been Khaned - December 13, 2012

Yeah how about giving it rest their BIG guy.

206. Cygnus-X1 - December 13, 2012

204. Doug – December 13, 2012

—-Urban let slip it was Mitchell. Quinto let slip it was Khan.—-

Big difference between those two utterances.

Urban’s was obviously intentional.

Quinto’s was obviously not.

And Urban’s intentional reveal of Gary Mitchell is yet a further suggestion that the villain is Khan. He was trying to throw us off the trail.

So, let’s summarize all of the evidence heretofore:

(1) A source inside the production reputable enough for Anthony to go public with it said that the villain is Khan.

(2) Urban intentionally tries to throw us off the trail with his “Mitchell” utterance.

(3) The villain, though his name at this point is John Harrison, has ALL of the attributes of Khan—super strength, super intellect, charisma, psychologically manipulative.

(4) Orci said that the villain is from Star Trek canon, and “John Harrison” is nobody of any significance from Trek canon, which suggests that “John Harrison” is a pseudonym.

(5) Zach Quinto, while comparing the villains from the first Star Trek movie and the new Star Trek movie, slips-up and says “Khan,” then quickly corrects it to “Nero.” Nero being the villain from the first Star Trek movie, and “Khan” presumably being the villain from the new Star Trek movie.

(6) If it’s not Khan, the next most likely possibility is Gary Mitchell, and there is ALMOST NO evidence that “John Harrison” is Gary Mitchell. Further, Gary Mitchell was a member of the Enterprise crew; why would he be going by the pseudonym “John Harrison?” Seems a very weak possibility that it’s Mitchell.

I think the evidence in support of Khan is pretty solid at this point.

If the villain isn’t Khan, he’s got a hell of a lot in common with Khan.

And why have a knock-off of Khan instead of Khan? Better to just go with the real thing.

It’s Khan.

207. Cygnus-X1 - December 13, 2012

PLUS the “Botany Bay” reference.

PLUS the original casting choice of del Toro to play the villain, and then a Venezuelan actor (when the studio couldn’t reach a deal with del Toro).

PLUS the Khan-like outfit that Cumberbatch is wearing in the photo from the fight scene.

.
.
.

It’s Khan.

208. Pointed Sideburns - December 13, 2012

@207 Cygnus-X1

Harrison was also a crew member in TOS. Why are you not excepting that he is a new villain?

209. Aurore - December 13, 2012

“It’s Khan.”
_______

Unlikely.

It is Juan (Esteban) Hernández.

It was officially confirmed ( by me ) on this very site, a few days ago.

210. Cygnus-X1 - December 13, 2012

208. Pointed Sideburns – December 13, 2012

—-Harrison was also a crew member in TOS. Why are you not excepting that he is a new villain?—-

(1) Because he was of no significance in that TOS episode, and they’re not going to make a movie about an insignificant nobody.

(2) Because that background character from TOS had none of the attributes described of the villain, whereas Khan has ALL of the attributes described of the villain.

(3) I refer my right honourable friend to the evidence enumerated above in 206 and 207, as well as in the following thread (John Tenuto).

211. Star Trek Into the bank vault - December 13, 2012

“Were not remaking Star Trek II’
No your just stealing the most moving and important parts of it feigning an homage, to elicit good will from the audience.

Just like the Artist ripped off Vertigo’s score music to elicit an emotional response from the audience.

212. Cygnus-X1 - December 13, 2012

209. Aurore – December 13, 2012

“It’s Khan.”
_______

—-Unlikely. It is Juan (Esteban) Hernández.—-

Who the hell is that?

213. Cygnus-X1 - December 13, 2012

211. Star Trek Into the bank vault – December 13, 2012

“Were not remaking Star Trek II’
—-No your just stealing the most moving and important parts of it feigning an homage, to elicit good will from the audience.—-

That’s what many of us have been troubled by since the notion of Khan as the new villain was floated 2 years ago or whenever it was.

I’m optimistic, mostly because of the great actors involved. But we shall find out in 6 short months.

214. Aurore - December 13, 2012

In all seriousness, I must say that, if it is a case of “the dude playing the dude disguised as another dude”, I would be extremely curious to see how the story could be “original and unique and different”….

But, that’s just me.

215. Aurore - December 13, 2012

212. Cygnus-X1 – December 13, 2012
209. Aurore – December 13, 2012

—-Unlikely. It is Juan (Esteban) Hernández.—-

“Who the hell is that?”
_______

He is mine…..Um… I mean….He is my creation.
An Hispanic character.

Benedict Cumberbatch is Juan in the sequel.
He just doesn’t know it yet.

:)

216. Dom - December 13, 2012

What is the obsession with ‘Kirk and Spock?’ They aren’t two halves of the same person. Kirk, Spock and McCoy are three thirds of the same person. They’re the warrior, doctor and priest archetypes. McCoy preaches emotion and humanity, Spock preaches logic and Kirk is the warrior/philosopher who make the final decision.

217. Classy M - December 13, 2012

I’m having a vision of fans leaving the cinema after the premiere of Star Trek into Darkness.

Fan 1: Wow. I can’t believe he wasn’t Khan.
Fan 2: Well, it was obviously subtext…

102: Can we please give Cumberbatch some dignity and NOT call him ‘Benny Batch’? He’s a Shakespearean actor, for crying out loud. You wouldn’t call Patrick Stewart ‘Paddy’, would you? Or maybe you would.

218. Thalos - December 13, 2012

Juan Hernandez.. now that would be an epic name for a villain.

219. Spock Jenkins - December 13, 2012

Sorry, the first line should have read: “In a large way…”

220. Jay - December 13, 2012

Whatever the connection, there is no doubt a connection to Khan in this movie. Just don’t know what it is yet. I don’t think BC is Khan, but he is clearly an augment in my opinion, and somehow linked to Khan. I suspect we will find out how in the movie.

Aside from that, I love how JJ makes you sympothize with the villain. It makes the move so much more intense and emotional when you can feel sorry for the bad guy, when you understand his motivations.

This is what makes JJ so different from guys like what’s his name that did Transformers. One reason I really didn’t like those moves was because I never cared about the bad guys…. heck, half the time I didn’t care about the good guys and if they lived or died. It was just a pure action movie with no real story at all.

That is why 2009 Trek was so much better than any of those Transformer movies, and why i suspect this one will be even better.

221. Jonboc - December 13, 2012

Urban says Cumberbatch is a great Gary Mitchell. Quinto makes a slip and mentions Khan when he meant Nero. Carol Marcus’ hair just happens to look just like Denher’s. These guys are slippery and sly as an Dellyon eel-fox. Even the most compelling evidence to support your choice of villain may be nothing more than misdirection. Well played JJ and company. Believe nothing!

222. Eugenic Sushi - December 13, 2012

213. Cygnus-X1

Sir, you mentioned “PLUS the “Botany Bay” reference.”

Where exactly did the reference come from?

I was on the Khan boat, but I am jumping out of it and I am trying to understand some things here.

For example, after so much time, why the heck would they reveal a name that was supposed to be secret in a subtitle of a picture? Kinda sounds strange when you think of it.

223. Nik - December 13, 2012

@216

Star Trek was always about Spock and Kirk and their friendship. As it should be.

224. Butch - December 13, 2012

Although this is a new timel line, it seems that Kahn would still be in space sleep during this time. I do think, however, that John Harrison is an augment of some time and may be a type that wants to reintroduce the eugenics wars.

225. The Sinfonian - December 13, 2012

TOS Harrison (played by Veto) was in over 27 episodes. He was there all the time.

Weller is playing Khan. Thus, Khan is a villain, and Khan is in the movie.
Weller said he had a ship. He does. It’s called “Botany Bay”.
It was jostled by Nero’s arrival in 2233. Khan has had 26 years since revival, thus he’s a lot older now than Montalban was in Space Seed. He’s also damaged. He was leading a revolt on an alien world against the Klingons. His right hand man is a AWOL Starfleet officer, John Harrison, whom he has gifted with genetic developments. (Much like in Enterprise when Future Guy sends things to the Suliban). Makes perfect sense.

226. The Professor - December 13, 2012

What does it matter who the viilian is? Lets go to the movie and see if it is good.

227. AnonymousWasAWoman - December 13, 2012

217. “Can we please give Cumberbatch some dignity and NOT call him ‘Benny Batch’? He’s a Shakespearean actor, for crying out loud. You wouldn’t call Patrick Stewart ‘Paddy’, would you? Or maybe you would.”

Classy M, thank you for the good, kind thought, but on behalf of Shakespearean actors everywhere, I can assure you we have no dignity. Really. We wear tights and pumpkin pants. Dignity is the first thing to go.

228. pg - December 13, 2012

Weller absolutely has the acting chops to pull off an old, rugged version of Khan, wouldn’t surprise me at all if he’s indeed playing Khan.

Makes sense then that John Harrison would wanna open a can of whoop on the Klingon homeworld, avenging whatever happened to Khan’s people..

229. Classy M - December 13, 2012

227: Ha! Good point, AnonymousWasaWoman.

I have no problem with diminutives, per se, but ‘Benny Batch’ is just awful. To my British ears it’s like fingernails on a blackboard. i can live with ‘Cumby’ or ‘Batch’, though.

230. section9 - December 13, 2012

Sorry guys, but if they are going to have Cumberbatch as Khan, the Mugatu Rule applies:

“No Rich Corinthian Leather, No Peace!”

231. Dom - December 13, 2012

223. Nik

No, that’s mainly the preserve of slash fiction fangirls and fanboys. ;) The Kirk and Spock thing is a fallacy. If anything, the McCoy character is what lifted the other two above being mere ciphers. Neither character ever really worked all that well without McCoy’s presence.

232. Classy M - December 13, 2012

I forgot to say: Congratulations to Benedict Cumberbatch for his first Golden Globe nomination (best actor in a miniseries for Sherlock.)

233. JFK was shot by a lone gunman - December 13, 2012

I have a idea… what IF John Harrison is a composite character from the
original series? IOW, two characters as a single person? Khan was not
the only “dangerous intellect” TOS presented! Many people want it to
be Khan so they ignore the evidence it is not Khan and grab at the
proverbial “straw” to prove their point in the form of misguided “evidence.”

Speculation is OK except do not necessarily convince yourself you are
correct until the film premieres in May. I can imagine all of the negative
dichtomy “the villain is Khan” or “the villain is Mitchell” or the “Villain is
Garth” speculators will post if they are proven wrong in their assumptions.

Simply wait until the movie comes out and allow yourselves to be pleasantly surprised. That is the logical course of action.

Cheers!

234. Sub Trek - December 13, 2012

I’d like to throw into play again that Paul Weller is a perfect fit for an older BC. Just open two browsers next to each other and do an image search for both actors. Was he cast after BC or before that?

235. R. Banks - December 13, 2012

@225-

I like your take on the possible character roots, and your ideas for the plot of the film. It makes sense, and is somewhat complex, but not unreasonable or difficult to understand.

Your scenario would make for one hell of a movie IMHO.

236. Curious Cadet - December 13, 2012

@210 Cygnus-X1,
“they’re not going to make a movie about an insignificant nobody…Because that background character from TOS had none of the attributes described of the villain, whereas Khan has ALL of the attributes described of the villain.”

With all due respect, this is the kind of in-the-box thinking that is dominating these discussions …

1) it is very unlikely that “John Harrison” refers to the recurring BG character from TOS.

2) who was Nero but an insignificant nobody?

Orci has told us John Harrison comes from Canon. He has told us Weller does not come from Canon. Orci does not lie. Cumberbatch looks nothing like Khan. The character’s name is John Harrison, not an alias, not a lie, not a pseudonym. The majority of the audience is not going to care what connection John Harrison has to canon.

The out-of-the-box answer is that John Harrison plays a character that is directly connected to Canon in some fresh way (kurtzman’s word), but nothing so obvious as Nick Mayer pulling the antagonist directly out of a TOS episode and dropping him into some new situation in a movie. This connection is most likely 100% for the benefit of the fans, not to draw audiences based on some “iconic” character from the franchise. And let’s face it, Khan is no Darth Vader.

237. Smike - December 13, 2012

Maybe he’s Q / Trelane being a Q. That would give the word Q-Cumber a whole new meaning… LOL

238. Vince - December 13, 2012

Sorry I am not backing down. He is playing Khan. At this point I don’t believe anything they are saying.

239. Aurore - December 13, 2012

218. Thalos – December 13, 2012
“Juan Hernandez.. now that would be an epic name for a villain.”
_______

:)

240. Aurore - December 13, 2012

“Believe nothing!”
______

And, trust no one…without my permission.

241. Marshall McMellon - December 13, 2012

@ 234- IIRC, Peter Weller was one of the earliest (if not THE first) cast announcements for STID. Pretty sure he was cast well before BC.

242. Crone - December 13, 2012

Why can’t I see the video where Quinto says Khan instead of Nero? Has it been pulled?

243. Crone - December 13, 2012

Never mind, now I can.

244. Bob Tompkins - December 13, 2012

I hope the 47% in the poll who thought the villain is Gary Mitchell get over it.
Kirk knows Mitchell and is not going to be fooled by a pseudonym.

245. Ken - December 13, 2012

He can’t be Kahn. Cumberbatch has none of the physical characteristics of Kahn. I”d have bought Del Toro as Kahn. So, no. Absolutely can’t be. If he does wind up playing Kahn…..a big, big, big, big thumbs down from me.

My guess is he COULD be playing another survivor of the Botany Bay. In this time line, maybe John Harrison survives and not Kahn Noonian Singh.

246. Dolphinboy - December 13, 2012

Anyone remember when trek was about exploring strange new world’s etc? Who cares if the villain is khan Mitchell or bob from next door, as long as the story captures the true spirit of trek and not just a few dollars.

Not a huge fan of trek 09 but that’s just me. Hope STID is better and look forward to finding out

247. Vorus - December 13, 2012

The interview with the “slip up” seems VERY preplanned and set up to me. I think they’re just trying to keep the theory-crafters busy.

248. The Great Bird Is The word - December 13, 2012

@232 Congrats

249. ME!! - December 13, 2012

@82: It’s “Singh”, not “Soong”.

“Soong” is (unfortunately) the last name of the creator of Data (undoubtedly written by a lazy, tired individual since the similarity in the names is a bit too close).

“Khan Noonien Singh”.

And whoever claimed Khan didn’t try to hide his identity…when was the last time you watched the episode? He purposefully avoided giving his full name to someone he did not know. He attempted to avoid identifying himself again during dinner, but in his arrogant and prideful defense of those genetically engineered dictators like himself, he accidentally and inadvertantly revealed he was one of them, but still avoided identifying himself. Later, when Kirk indicated he knew who Khan was, Khan was impressed that Kirk figured it out.

As for pulling a knife on McCoy, that action has nothing to do with who he is and more to do with his lack of fear and sense of superiority, not to mention his criminally twisted mind.

250. John Tenuto - December 14, 2012

#249

The reason for the similarity in names is that Gene Roddenberry had a friend during World War 2 named Kim Noonien Singh who he had lost touch with and was hoping the name would alert the person to him wanting to talk again. Hence, Khan Noonien Singh and Noonian Soong. He used the name to try and reach his friend.

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