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

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.

Sort by:   newest | oldest

Interesting…

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

He’s not Khan.

He’s Garth.

“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.

“[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? ;)

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!

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.

@7 Nice dream!

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

“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.

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.

@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.

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!

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?

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’

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*

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

@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!!!

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.”

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…

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

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

April Fools

Rose (as in Keachick)

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.

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

# 15 & # 18

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

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

@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.

@ 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

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.

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.

“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. ?????

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.

Emperor Mike of the Empire

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.

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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

:)

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

wpDiscuz