Abrams admits Koncealing Khan was Mistake, hopes Joe Cornish is next director | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Abrams admits Koncealing Khan was Mistake, hopes Joe Cornish is next director December 2, 2013

by Matt Wright , Filed under: Interview,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

In a recent interview with MTV, J.J. Abrams reflects on Into Darkness and now admits that it “probably would have been smarter just to say upfront” that Khan was in the movie.

 

On Khan:

“The truth is I think it probably would have been smarter just to say upfront ‘This is who it is.’ It was only trying to preserve the fun of it, and it might have given more time to acclimate and accept that’s what the thing was,” he said.

The idea to keep Khan on the D.L. apparently came from the studio, which, according to Abrams, didn’t want to give the impression that a comprehensive knowledge of “Star Trek” cannon was required in order to enjoy the latest installment.

On Joe Cornish:

“I don’t know if Joe Cornish is the guy. My guess is that’s up in the air. I adore him and love him and can’t wait to see what he does next. Hopefully it will be ‘Star Trek.’ Whatever it is, he’s brilliant. ‘Attack the Block’ was one of my favorite movies of the year when it came out.”

Read the full article and see the video of the interview over at MTV.com

Comments

1. Garth of Izar! - December 2, 2013

“Smarter” would have been to removed all references to Space Seed and Wrath of Khan, trusted your own instincts and just write an original story.

2. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 2, 2013

Pass.

3. Clinton - December 2, 2013

Cornish or otherwise, I would just like to know that there is forward movement on a movie that will hit a 2016 release date. We need our 50th celebration.

4. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 2, 2013

That was for you Red Dead Ryan

5. crazydaystrom - December 2, 2013

Ok, JJ. Ok.

6. Ahmed - December 2, 2013

Abrams: “I don’t know if Joe Cornish is the guy. My guess is that’s up in the air.”

If Abrams doesn’t know, then who does ?

7. Shaun - December 2, 2013

Disney and J.J. realized that Lawrence Kasdan knows how to make Star Wars work on the big screen, so now Mr. Kasdan is co-writing the new flick. I cannot wait to see what they come up with. Turning to Star Trek: Nicholas Meyer knows how to make Star Trek work on the big screen. It would be nice if Paramount and the producers who truly love Star Trek would make the same realization Disney did with Star Wars and bring a true pro back to the family for the next big screen outing. Age should not be a factor!

8. cannulator - December 2, 2013

Maybe someone from the Fringe Team.

They seem both visually and story focused with enough depth to create an original story.

9. Robert - December 2, 2013

The difference is that millions saw Lawrence Kasdan’s work. Same is not true for Nicholas Meyer. Trek needs fresh blood, not the Same Old Guys.

10. Dee - lvs moon' surface - December 2, 2013

“probably would have been smarter just to say upfront”…

yep, agree totally… but now it’s a little late to say that, right? so why talk about it now? :-)

11. Bill Peters - December 2, 2013

at #7 Shaun, the Studio likes the fact the new blood has brought in new fans and brought Unprecedented levels of revenue for the Flims, they are not going to change in Mid-stream, they will keep Bob and Co as writers, Mike Myers hasn’t done Trek sence Star Trek VI and was the last Director before the Bermen Era Films, it will be hard to bring him back if you want a story that fits in the new timeline and with some of the new feel.

12. Lawrence Boucher - December 2, 2013

Seems to me JJ also leaked a bit of news on new writers for ST3 at the end of the video clip. He mentions that Bob Orci is working with JD Payne and Patrick McKay on the script. There’s not a lot of info about their previous work other than that they were working on another script for Bad Robot, “Boilerplate” a couple of years ago.

13. Bill Peters - December 2, 2013

*Nicholas Myers, my bad

14. Yanks - December 2, 2013

Another apology? JJ and the boys must be feeling the heat. JJ gets the heat for using Khan, but it was Lindekof that talked the O.K. corral into using him. Harrison could have just as easily been an augment from Enterprise and solved a multitude of problems in the movie from the “big reveal” that meant absolutely nothing to those that didn’t know Khan and did nothing but piss off those that did to Khan’s super-blood to the stupid Wrath of Khan death rip-off reversal. All of that crap was gone if Khan didn’t have to be there. Then the story doesn’t need to be stupid, etc. They create a fantastic “new” Star Trek universe in ST09 and don’t have the creativity to use it and be original. This movie wasn’t bad, it was very frustrating. Now, this movie brought in tons of cash and for that I’m happy. Fingers crossed for the next one.

15. richpit - December 2, 2013

#12, agree totally.

16. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 2, 2013

@7 ” It would be nice if Paramount and the producers who truly love Star Trek would make the same realization Disney did with Star Wars and bring a true pro back to the family for the next big screen outing. Age should not be a factor!”

They tried that by bringing in John Logan for Nemesis, which was an complete epic fail.

Nice idea, but we’ve tried this and the result sucked.

17. Phil - December 2, 2013

Well, we won’t have to wait long to see what Joe Cornish does next, as he wrote the script for Ant-Man. Surprised JJ didn’t know this….

Well, as we saw in the run up to STID, when Orci is “working” on a script that could mean any number of things….

18. Shaun - December 2, 2013

Bill, I understand your point…and it’s probably how TPTB at Paramount feel. I personally enjoyed both of J.J.’s Trek flicks. I honestly wish there was someone involved with the production of the next Trek film who would make the same type of creative decision that Disney made by bringing back Star Wars’s best writer. I think it’s safe to say that The Wrath of Khan is still considered to be the best Trek film. Look what Nicholas Meyer created with a limited budget. Now…imagine his creative voice added to the current writing team and their production crew – I think it could be successful.

19. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 2, 2013

@15

They are certainly procrastinators by nature — that is a proven fact now. JJ even whined to Disney to delay SW from summer 2015 to Christmas 2015.

Creative guys, but horrible time managers.

20. Shaun - December 2, 2013

MJ, John Logan was not part of the family. He is Brent Spiner’s pal. Nemesis is what happens when actors think they can craft a story.

21. Scott Gammans - December 2, 2013

“The idea to keep Khan on the D.L. apparently came from the studio, which, according to Abrams, didn’t want to give the impression that a comprehensive knowledge of “Star Trek” cannon was required in order to enjoy the latest installment.”

SIgh. For the last time, a “cannon” is that thing that fires a big round metal ball or circus clowns, while “canon” is what argumentative Trekkies fire at each other.

22. Ahmed - December 2, 2013

@ 17. MJ — THE GRAND RETURN !!! – December 2, 2013

“They are certainly procrastinators by nature — that is a proven fact now. JJ even whined to Disney to delay SW from summer 2015 to Christmas 2015.

Creative guys, but horrible time managers.”

True, but what do we expect when they have like million projects all running in the same time. Almost every week, there is a new TV or movie project involving Abrams, Bob & Alex.

23. William Bradley - December 2, 2013

He’s not directing Ant-Man for Marvel, Edgar Wright is.

I think JJ more than has his hands full with Star Wars, even with old pro Lawrence Kasdan brought in to write it with him.

>15. Phil – December 2, 2013
Well, we won’t have to wait long to see what Joe Cornish does next, as he wrote the script for Ant-Man. Surprised JJ didn’t know this….

24. Mad Mann - December 2, 2013

So, JJ admits another mistake with STID. Lets see: he already admitted there was too much lens flares, the Carol/underwear scene was stupid, and the tie-in video game sucked. And now he states it was a mistake to keep Khan a mystery. Why not just say the whole premise of the movie was stupid?

Anyway, here’s hoping the next one is better. I think that dropping Lindelof from the creative mix is the best thing that could happen.

25. William Bradley - December 2, 2013

They are not procrastinators. Quite the contrary.

They are guys always looking to make another deal.

>17. MJ — THE GRAND RETURN !!! – December 2, 2013
@15

They are certainly procrastinators by nature — that is a proven fact now. JJ even whined to Disney to delay SW from summer 2015 to Christmas 2015.

Creative guys, but horrible time managers.

26. Ahmed - December 2, 2013

@William Bradley

Welcome back :)

27. Phil - December 2, 2013

@21. I didn’t say he was directing it, I said he wrote the script.

28. marty - December 2, 2013

the mistake wasn’t consealing khan, it was ripping off 4 other trek movies, including the wrath of khan.

29. Ahmed - December 2, 2013

@ 22. Mad Mann – December 2, 2013

“So, JJ admits another mistake with STID. Lets see: he already admitted there was too much lens flares, the Carol/underwear scene was stupid, and the tie-in video game sucked. And now he states it was a mistake to keep Khan a mystery.”

Yeah, like he is on an apology tour or something !!

30. c - December 2, 2013

I’ agree that it would have been better to just say it and I’ still have high hopes that for the next one paramount says everything before, during and after the film is done and ready, in other words a complete reverse on secrecy, it will keep me inpatient to see it and on the subject of Khan i for one I’m happy #2 was about him that way I’ don’t have to be asking myself when are they going to tackle that character, done that, been there…so now the best book brought to the screen should be the way forward and keep us up to date on all of it:
who, what, where, when and all of it, show us everything but no clips only live action filming including the green screens, just no done footage…never up and until a day before the opening on all of the states including Puerto Rico and the countries were into darkness did well.

31. Red Dead Ryan - December 2, 2013

William Bradley,

I have to agree with MJ. Bob, Alex, and J.J.Abrams all set deadlines for STID a number of tmes which they then broke because they had multiple other projects going on at the same time. Abrams has now done the same for “StarWars Episode 7″.

Also, Phil pointed out that Joe Cornish wrote “Ant Man”, not directing it.

32. crazydaystrom - December 2, 2013

18. Shaun
MJ, John Logan was not part of the family. He is Brent Spiner’s pal.

True. But he was a screenwriter much in demand at the time and still. He’d penned Gladiator for Ridley Scott and Any Given Sunday for Oliver Stone. And most promising for me and other Trek fans, an avowed lifelong Trek fan. So expectations were high for Nemisis.

Nemesis is what happens when actors think they can craft a story.

Yeah obviously it’s what can happen. Not so good.

33. The Keeper - December 2, 2013

Mr. Abrams.
It wasn’t a matter of concealing or not concealing “‘who” the villain was.
It was a matter of coming up with a new original story, untold and unseen with thought provoking action.
Rehashing the most famous villain and raping the most iconic scenes was your and those bumbling idiot writers big mistake.
Christ Almighty you guys must think we’re a bunch of friggin fools.
You wanna add any more insult to injuries?
I’m sure some lame excuse will drop out of some ones orifice soon.

34. Crimson & Gray - December 2, 2013

No sh*t, Sherlock! (Pun intended)

35. Phil - December 2, 2013

@31. Just before the they started shooting, and it became obvious that had just been finished, I went back and assembled a timeline of delays reported on this very site, and for what ever reason AP himself come on here and gave me grief about it. Bottom line was that while BR was busy making public pronouncements about the script being done, all they had for a long time was a rough outline.

I’m not opposed to BR taking on as many projects as they can get, as long as they hire talented creative staff to bring them to fruition. However, their management style seems to consist of them insisting they can get ten pounds of s**t in a five pound bag. All that guarantees is that eventually the bag is going to break….

36. LizardGirl - December 2, 2013

Well, at least JJ is humble enough to admit to mistakes made. I would’ve totally been done if he was all douchey about it. The secrecy stuff was getting old…and the flip-flopping to khan or not to khan stuff was exasperating. He owned the issues and didn’t blame anyone else for it, which is good.

I hope Mr. Cornish will be a good director for ST.

37. NuFan - December 2, 2013

I am expecting just as much secrecy for Star Trek 3 as the first two.

38. JR - December 2, 2013

Time to reboot trek again… how many times did they do that with Batman?

39. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 2, 2013

@20 @32

I completely disagree with the concept that John Logan simply signed onto a bad Brent Spinner story. At the time, I remember a big deal being made of them bringing in Gladiator screenplay writer John Logan to really take Star Trek to the next level.

@25 @31

No, these guys are proven procrastinators. I remember reading about Ocri, Kurtzman and Lindelof “sealed in and LA hotel room to finish the STID script” news story here on Trekmovie, and then it took another 1.5 years after that for the script to be finalized. Then I remember the news story here with the bullshit excuse of “we wanted to sit on the script for awhile, to let it percolate, and then come back to it later to see if it worked still.”

No, these guys are habitual procrastinators. Sure, having a lot of deals doesn’t help, and it certainly gives them built-in excuses, but guys think that they are above having deadlines on their movie projects.

40. Mike C. - December 2, 2013

Secrecy is now a not-so-good thing. Ah, OK – so that’s why we have so much info on Episode 7.

41. Allen Williams - December 2, 2013

The mistake was putting Khan in, in the first place. That movie was a complete waste of time. Why watch into darkness when I could just watch wrath of Khan which was WAY better? Its really disappointing though. 2009 was a pretty good movie.

42. Greg2600 - December 2, 2013

The inclusion of Khan period was the mistake, and Cumberbach’s portrayal was more akin to a Khan being a weirdo than a charismatic leader of men. Got it all wrong.

43. crazydaystrom - December 2, 2013

39. MJ — THE GRAND RETURN !!!
@20 @32

I completely disagree with the concept that John Logan simply signed onto a bad Brent Spinner story. At the time, I remember a big deal being made of them bringing in Gladiator screenplay writer John Logan to really take Star Trek to the next level.

Well yeah that essentially what I said-
“But he was a screenwriter much in demand at the time and still. He’d penned Gladiator for Ridley Scott and Any Given Sunday for Oliver Stone. And most promising for me and other Trek fans, an avowed lifelong Trek fan. So expectations were high for Nemisis.”

But I do remember Spiner speaking about working closely with his friend and neighbor Logan on Data’s arc in the story. And Logan spoke of Spiner’s wishes and contributions.

44. SkiesSeven - December 2, 2013

I hope the next villain (if there is to be one) isn’t some humanoid character bent on revenge like every other film. The best thing would be to pit the crew against the unknown. This could be anything from a space anomaly, to a space creature, to an omnipotent q-like entity, or some such idea.

Actually I’d just love to see the Enterprise find a Dyson-sphere or something. ILM do wonders with massive objects like that.

Star Trek has got to get back to exploration.

45. c - December 2, 2013

The entropy effect is a good book to put star trek back into sci-fy/adventure,…Does anybody have other trek books good for the big screen or agree or disagree with EF?

46. Plum - December 2, 2013

You know, STID is a mess. A glorious mess but a mess none the less. I’ve watched it twice. Haven’t touched it since. On the other hand, I watched Star Trek a dozen times and will pop it in once in a while. Win some loose some?

47. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 2, 2013

Good point, Yea, I like JJ’s post and it makes me feel more positive about his role in things; but I also see how Ahmed could draw different conclusions from it…truth is, we will probably never know the real story,. as they guys are all Prima donnas to some extent.

I don’t thing Game Hen (my nick-name for Cornish) is going to be the director. I think we would have heard news on that by now. Certainly if we don’t hear more concerning him by January, then they are probably going in a different direction.

I’d like to see Jonathan Nolan get a shot at directing this. And he has a business relationship already with Bad Robot on Person of Interest, so it might be easy to bring him in. Plus, he has written the screenplay for Interstellar, as well as Inception.

===================================

35. LizardGirl – December 2, 2013
Well, at least JJ is humble enough to admit to mistakes made. I would’ve totally been done if he was all douchey about it. The secrecy stuff was getting old…and the flip-flopping to khan or not to khan stuff was exasperating. He owned the issues and didn’t blame anyone else for it, which is good.

I hope Mr. Cornish will be a good director for ST.

48. dswynne - December 2, 2013

@38 (JR): They only rebooted the Batman franchise three times.

Once, when they did so for Tim Burton (after the one Adam West film).
Another time, when they did so for Chris Nolan (after four films)
The most recent time was in order to make way for the up-coming “Superman v. Batman” film (after Nolan trilogy).

Sorry, but they’re not going to reboot the Abram’s films at this time. At least, not after Pine’s fourth outing as Kirk…

49. Nony - December 2, 2013

I think it probably had more to do with the studio trying to avoid a backlash over the whitewashing before the movie opened, like what happened with The Last Airbender (also a Paramount flick).

50. ironhyde - December 2, 2013

I like to hear this from Abrams. It show’s integrity. The movie would have been better without Khan. In fact, the only real problem with it was Khan. Otherwise it was a really decent ethical and action-packed adventure. JJKhan wasn’t the same character as the “iconic” one they were trying to imitate, in either looks or attitude. I guess nowadays, we define Superhuman as violent and physical, rather than intellectual…. But even so, I appreciate Abrams saying this and I’m glad to see them learning from mistakes rather than pretending they didn’t make any.

Cheers! Hope they lift the mystery box for the next film even just a little

51. Vultan - December 2, 2013

#47

Jon Nolan would be a good choice as writer.
Has he directed anything?

As for John Logan, I think he could write a great Star Trek movie—if it’s based on Bread and Circuses. ;-)

52. dmduncan - December 2, 2013

It’s good to hear JJ say what was obvious to the rest of us.

53. Hat Rick - December 2, 2013

In the interview, did JJ actually spell “concealing” with a “k”?

;)

I guess one khan’t be too khareful.

54. Smike - December 2, 2013

Finally he admits it! Concealing Khan was major BS… especially lying about his identity time and again. As the man says: if you want to win the Kentucky Derby, don’t leave your prize stallion in the stable… Khan’s a prize trademark, conceal his identity and you lose part of his appeal…

P.S.: I’m sure JJ didn’t talk about the “Star Trek cannon”…

55. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 2, 2013

@53

That brings back some great memories, Rick. LOL

56. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 2, 2013

“Finally he admits it! Concealing Khan was major BS… especially lying about his identity time and again. As the man says: if you want to win the Kentucky Derby, don’t leave your prize stallion in the stable… Khan’s a prize trademark, conceal his identity and you lose part of his appeal…”

And that’s really the tragedy of casting BC as Khan — i.e. the whitewashing issue that would come up with announcing that months before.

Imagine instead, if they hadn’t gone cheap on the Del Toro negotiations. Then, you could have kicked off a huge “return of Khan” marketing campaign at Comicon in July 2012. They could have paid tribute to Montelban, N Meyer, TOS crew, etc…make the Khan thing a strength instead of hiding it like a weakness — and prepare fans for the return of Khan, while educating/reminding the public of the greatness of Star Trek II.

This was a huge missed opportunity. Think of what a missed opportunity the Unification 2-part episode was in TNG — that is the kind of missed opportunity that this was for the movie franchise.

Additionally, I can’t help feeling that if JJ hadn’t forced the issue to shoot in LA so that his rich kids could stay in their local private school, etc. etc, that a couple million of that $20M savings could have been used to finalize the deal with Del Toro. So, argh — its pains me to think they may have went with BC because JJ felt pressure to keep costs down to suit his family life in LA??

57. CmdrR - December 2, 2013

The problem was not the cover-up. It’s that JJ et al took a much better movie, stole its best emotional moments, and cut-and-pasted them on a generic 2013-era script about fist-fights.

STID is a fine 2013 movie. And disposable.Made money. That’s enough, right?

58. Phil - December 2, 2013

@56. Sorry, but if they would have taken the high visibility PR track, as you suggest, it really would not have made that much of a difference. Why? The drop in domestic box office wasn’t a failure of publicity, but a failure of the creative decision making process. Recycling Khan was a mistake, pure and simple – I had mentioned way back when that, barring BR creating a sci-fi masterpiece, that dusting off Khan (or any TOS villain, for that matter) created way to many problems then it solved. No amount of PR could hide the fact they were painting the pig with lipstick, hoping we would not notice. We keep coming back to Del Toro, and not giving him credit for the obvious reason he turned down the role – he saw this for the clusterf**k this was, and wisely took a pass. BR learned from this, and had Cumberbatch read from a phone book for his audition. It is what it is at this point, but hopefully the boys have learned from their paint-by-numbers mistakes.

59. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 2, 2013

@58

I have to completely disagree with that. A year-long marketing campaign that would have paid tribute to the class Trek II and original Khan, with Del Toro heavily involved in the marketing campaign, would have made a “night and day” difference in my opinion. Especially against the last minute lackluster domestics marketing campaign that they ended up with for STID. And, can you imagine if they had kicked this off at that July 2012 Comicon, with a panel with Del Toro, JJ, Pine, Shatner and Nicholas Myer. That would have been HUGE.

And to your story issues, “preparing” us all for Khan, and providing us a Del Toro Khan that was in line with Montelbahn-Khan in appearance and mannerisms, would have gone 75% of the way for most viewers in eliminating the angst and criticisms that we have heard about…especially at least in the first month of the release.

With my scenario here, I think $300M+ Domestic would have achievable, and the opening weekend (especially if they timed it to coincide with the international release instead of weeks later) could have hit $90M easily.

60. Dave H - December 2, 2013

@Phil

Del Toro accepted roles in “The Wolf Man” and “Savages” in the past three years. By comparison, those screenplays make STID’s screenplay look like Citizen Kane.

So your theory that this great, creative genius, Del Toro didn’t like the screenplay; well, that just doesn’t hold any water for me.

They weren’t willing to pay his asking price. That’s why he was not in STID. There is nothing more complex to it than that.

61. DiscoSpock - December 2, 2013

Dave,

Yea, I think the last good decision Del Toro made was way back in the mid-2000’s when he accepted the role in Che. His career, if anything, shows a lack of judgment on being able to credibly assess whether a screenplay in any good or not.

62. TUP - December 2, 2013

I love the people giving Abrams credit for his admission. His admission was that the studio screwed up. Yeah right.

Abrams has to be the most over rated filmmaker in Hollywood right now. Lost devolved into a complete mess that ruined a potentially great series for a lot of diehard fans. Clover field (with the classic Abrams secrecy) was boring. Both trek movies have shown an arrogance and disrespect for the source material.

I truly fear what happens on Star Wars. When it comes to khan you had two camps: fans who wanted nothing of it and fans who wanted a khan done right. The one thing every fan can agree on is these guys flat out don’t get it. How they could possibly think their khan was going to get over with fans is a magnificent failing of supposedly professional filmmakers. They thought they knew better. They were wrong. Now it’s the blame game time. What a joke. When these hacks are done with Star Trek it may be shelved even longer than after nemesis.

It might be time to relieve Bad Robot of their duties. Bring in Nick Meyer to make a truly epic 50th anniversary film.

63. TUP - December 2, 2013

Great points about del toro. I don’t believe we’ve ever gotten a straight answer on why he dropped out at the last minute.

Once this film was “set” the way to save it was obvious. Make BC Jochin (sp). Have the marketing reveal “Khan” is in the film. Jochin pretends to be Khan to protect his leader. Prime Spock’s inclusion reveals this duplicity (making his appearance mean something). This allows them to market khan while still preserving a surprise. End the film with the camera lingering on Montalban’s face in a cryotube.

Perfect? Far from it. But way more interesting than what we got.

And I say that as someone who likes the “death scene homage” but hated the amateurish way they “killed” Kirk and brought him back.

Both films are rife with examples of these filmmakers either not knowing or not caring about the source material. They use “new universe” to excuse their disrespect for canon and then cherry pick some of the best of canon…. Shows a profound arrogance.

64. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 2, 2013

@62.

You apparently have selective memory regarding the 49 years that Paramount has largely F’d over fans of this franchise. Sure, there have a a few times, like with TMP and Trek 2009, when they got behind it fully. But mostly, it’s been a tale of ambivalence and cheap-mindedness.

Again, we have been through decades of this crap with the second-class studio. Can you imagine Universal or Sony treating a major property this way?

And by the way Einstein, as I am obviously older than you, I lived and saw all the Trek movies on opening nights — in an era where pretty much about half of the Trek movies were good, with the other have having limitations or being not so good. So the fact that JJ is batting .500 so far with his two Trek films, simply codifies the historical average for Star Trek movies…so he’s not the Trek AntiChrist you make him out to be; rather, he’s done a great one and one with limitations…just like in past Trek eras.

You’d be well advised to brush up on your history of the Star Trek franchise, or you risk coming across as a bit of moron here to some of us who have followed and studied Star Trek for decades.

65. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 2, 2013

@60 “Del Toro accepted roles in “The Wolf Man” and “Savages” in the past three years. By comparison, those screenplays make STID’s screenplay look like Citizen Kane. So your theory that this great, creative genius, Del Toro didn’t like the screenplay; well, that just doesn’t hold any water for me.”

@61 “The last good decision Del Toro made was way back in the mid-2000′s when he accepted the role in Che. His career, if anything, shows a lack of judgment on being able to credibly assess whether a screenplay in any good or not.”

Guys, yes, EXACTLY !!!

66. Harry Ballz - December 2, 2013

@64

MJ, you da man! I agree with everything you just said!

Oh, and please remove the “THE GRAND RETURN!!!” from your posting name.

Make it just MJ.

Clean, simple, elegant…………………………….we’ll know the difference.

67. MJ - December 3, 2013

Sure, there you go, my friend.

68. madtrekfanuk - December 3, 2013

I’m with all those who have suggested bringing back Nick Meyer…. Ok maybe not as director but certainly as writer or at the very least have some kind of creative input. No matter what your feelings you cannot deny that what Nick Meyer really does well is character based stories. He just gets it and that is ultimately what drives Star Trek – characters.

I for one would love to see him back one last time……

69. Trek-Concern - December 3, 2013

I think Nik Meyer would be a bad choice. Yes his Trek films were entertaining and well made, AND intelligent. But both II and VI were incredibly dark and violent, by the standards of the day, and for Star Trek. He was the one who truly militarised Star Trek too. It was always there in Trek to varying degrees, but the optimistic, exploratory side was still the side people loved and remembered about the 60s series the most. And a huge part of what made people fall in love with the series, AND want to save it back then. Meyer had those stupid military style uniforms made, darkened the lighting on the bridge, and was responsible for tales of revenge & villain of the week in Trek. I’d prefer to see nu-Trek III take a fresh approach now all the pieces are in place. Meyer would be a good consultant, but even better….. Mr Spock himself – Leonard Nimoy.

In my humble opinion, they absolutely need to jettison hacks like Orci. I’m sorry, but a right-wing self professed lover of Bush has no place writing Trek! How could somebody like that pretend they understand Trek in terms of tone and philosophy? They’ve had two chances now, and all the faults lie at the writers feet. The cast, sets, special effects, music and direction have all been for the most part fantastic! But I’d take a superbly crafted story over FX any day of the week. And that’s why classic Trek is considered classic, and has lasted this long. It wasn’t some random fluke! There’s nothing classic or classy about nuTrek. Yet.

Bring in some proper sci-if writers! It’s not hard! I’m tired of the fanboy generation of writers to be frank. Trek needs proper ideas men and women. People who know science. Who know classic drama. Who want to raise Trek from the average moronic whom-bam effects driven crap that’s usually the norm. People who will give the audience some credit and not dumb anything down.

New professional writers are key to nuTrek III. Orci et al need to move on from Trek and give it a fresh shot of blood. How much time did they have for the sequel? And instead we get a hollow, brain deficient and unearned rehash of a far better previous film, and how much did they get paid for this mess??! No wonder they think they can write!

Get the true pros in! Trek needs it…..

70. Damian - December 3, 2013

The secrecy was certainly a mistake. Look, every Star Trek film has had a certain amount of secrecy about certain plot elements. But not the whole freakin script.

The one thing that saved STID for me was I read the overseas reviews before seeing it. I got used to the idea of Khan being in it so I didn’t have a WTF moment while seeing it.

Ashame. Cumberbatch is good enough that I would have been perfectly happy with him as John Harrison. They really didn’t need Khan, except to satisfy their own giddyness about going to the well of their favorite ST film, TWOK. And you can say what you want, they whitewashed the character. He should have either been a Sikh, as the character, or at least a Latino actor to match Montalban. But a white British guy. Made no sense. I mean how did Khan go from a Latino looking Sikh to a British looking British guy?

That being said, I liked STID a lot. I loved the Admiral Marcus and Section 31 angle. There was a lot to love about it. But using Khan? Mistake, IMHO.

I think the other problem with STID was that the studio almost seemed to take the USA for granted. They went on this whole world tour, releasing STID weeks in advance in other countries. Here, it almost seemed an afterthought. There really wasn’t the massive ad campaign here that you saw for Star Trek (2009).

I do agree with MJ, Paramount has a history of going on the cheap. I have a feeling the next film will be done at least somewhat on the cheap. Sometimes that has led to greater creativity, like with TWOK. But it has led to issues, esp. if you look at TFF. There they were really going on the cheap, but even worse, the studio interfered with the storywriting by insisting on more TVH comedy.

71. James - December 3, 2013

Well, I remember going to see Generations and I pretty much knew every story beat prior to watching it. Sure, the film was pants, but I’d have enjoyed it more if I didn’t know that the saucer was gonna crash, Kirk was gonna die etc….

Fair play to JJ Abrams for not unveiling every single plot point of the film. I hate modern trailers which spoil and explain the whole film. I hope he keeps the security as tight around the new Star Wars film, it will be nice to go in and watch without knowing everything about it.

I really liked Into Darkness.

72. Damian - December 3, 2013

70–I think the difference here was that they came out and said Khan was NOT going to be in it.

It may have been a different story if they weren’t adamant about it. They said numerous times the villain was not Khan.

73. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - December 3, 2013

Is it time for another Star Trek Reboot yet.

74. Mike C. - December 3, 2013

71 – Exactly. If you have to lie about the film, it might be a sign that there is something wrong. Either DON’T talk about it, or DON’T put Khan in there.

And now? As far as I’m concerned about Bob Orci and the rest… “DON’T believe them. DON’T trust them.”

75. Curious Cadet - December 3, 2013

@62. TUP,
“I love the people giving Abrams credit for his admission. His admission was that the studio screwed up. Yeah right.”

This too struck me. Since the beginning they have claimed the studio has stayed completely out of their business, Orci in particular on here, and that they had complete autonomy with final creative control over everything; even the trailers, many of which Bad Robot reportedly produced.

For Abrams to blame the studio for the idea just rings false from everything they’ve claimed and I’ve read. So he’s apologized for going along with the studio on one of the biggest marketing decisions they could make, to the extent that some involved actually lied about it — that’s some support for the studio’s questionable idea. While the apology is admirable, it absolves himself of the biggest responsibility which is formulating the ruse to begin with. It’s one thing to say you were just going along with your “boss”, its quite another to be the mastermind behind it. You’re both still going to be punished, but one of you is going to be hung in the public square and have rotten vegetables thrown at you. Abrams has conveniently avoided the latter fate with his “apology”.

76. TUP - December 3, 2013

MJ – gee did I offend you? Newsflash buddy, being older doesnt make you wiser.

As for the secrecy, all these guys gave reasons for it. Unbelievably disengenuous to now blame the studio.

Where’s Bob Orci on here to refute this.

Lying to your hardcore fans is no way to build trust.

77. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 3, 2013

A shame. Cumberbatch is good enough that I would have been perfectly happy with him as John Harrison. They really didn’t need Khan, except to satisfy their own giddieness about going to the well of their favorite ST film, TWOK. And you can say what you want, they whitewashed the character. He should have either been a Sikh, as the character, or at least a Latino actor to match Montalban. But a white British guy. Made no sense. I mean how did Khan go from a Latino looking Sikh to a British looking British guy?

I think I had a handle on that issue. JJ strengthened my argument when he says, “The idea to keep Khan on the D.L. apparently came from the studio.” I say a white-guy Khan was the point, even before a story!

My how the times have changed since this movie premiered.
The average poster here would cream someone for posting ANY negative thoughts about the reasons for this movies many shortcomings

Now, it’s almost every post!

78. boborci - December 3, 2013

for the record, I never lied. In fact, when asked about some of the other statements, i told the truth. If anyone can quote a a time I lied, I would like the see it:)

79. c - December 3, 2013

Yo soy Puertorriqueño, I’ m from Puerto Rico and cannot for the life of me understand why a fellow Puerto Rican would not take the opportunity to play Khan, I’ like Cumberbatch very much, but a Hispanic would have made a better Khan, yet no Khan and no idiot name like JH would also have been, but what’s done is done…Who the F^$%$^ does Del Toro think he is anyway…I’m sick to my s……

Plus nobody can or could play Khan like Montalban, he was like shatner a one of a kind actor, there acting abilities was/is special.

80. Yanks - December 3, 2013

Damian – The villian wasn’t Khan, it was ADM Marcus.

MJ – I’m not sure I agree with your stance that the could have brought more money in marketing Khan. We knew Cumby was cast, so that would have been a bitching point, and I don’t think the majority of Trekkies wanted to see Khan at all. … and you know us trekkies, that could have resulted in months of “I’m not going to see this” and the domestic numbers probably would have been less.

I think they “hid” Khan because they KNEW the trekiies would revolt.

I can see the argument both ways, but we all know how the “community” has enjoyed our new Khan (Cumby’s performance aside, he did fantastic).

Marketing it could have been disasterous.

The “right” answer was not to use Khan at all. John Harrison as an augment can be used to tell the same story and it eliminates all the stupid hard spots that using Khan gave us.

Had they not used Khan, I think I rank this movie in the top 2 trek movies.

81. Bamasi - December 3, 2013

77. I’m looking forward to the next movie. Any vague tidbits you can give us about the writing process? I’m guessing you’ve learned what worked and what didn’t work from the first two films. I’m sincerely hoping you can confirm less lens flare for the third outing.

82. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 3, 2013

boboric, you may not have lied, but your slight of hand is amazing.

83. boborci - December 3, 2013

80. we have learned a lot and we are excited to take some of the lessons for a spin;).

81. ha! remember, I said it was a canon character, I outed Bones when he said it was Mitchell, etc… I wasn’t always playing tricks;)

84. boborci - December 3, 2013

79. perhaps

85. Jai1138 - December 3, 2013

It still boggles my mind how divisive Into Darkness remains. How it’s considered a “failure” or “disappointment”, in an objective, commercial sense is ridiculous — it was a considerable financial success and received good, even great, reviews from a wide variety and from a vast majority of critics. Fan opinion when it comes to any Trek is and always has been considerable and factitous, something I’ve always taken as a sign of good health until the decidedly weird vitriol hurled at Abrams and team over ID (and ’09 for that matter). My purely emotional response as a general film goer, a professional filmmaker and a Trek fan for a very long time, was that ID rocks. It is a very good film and in my personal Top Ten of very different films for the year. As for the Khan controversy, my favorite movie going moment of the year occurred when Cumberatch says, “My name is… Khan.” and the woman behind me (who from what I could tell knew Star Trek) gasped in shock and awe. That’s what going to the movies is all about, Charlie Brown.

86. boborci - December 3, 2013

84. Thanks, Uncle Fred;)

87. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 3, 2013

Bob. One question.

From WHO and WHEN did the idea for Khan in STiD FIRST originate.

IDK is an acceptable answer.

88. c - December 3, 2013

Boborci can you please forget what we fans say or don’t say and just do what you very well know we want. You cannot make all of us happy at the same time…some of us like some episodes of the original series and some of us like others and hate the ones that the others like, such is life…

Paramount and others (BR) can make a awesome trek for less money and no JJ, all they need is to stop trying to make it the fans way, we are picky to the max, so do brutal trek, I said Trek not batman in Trek or mission impossible in Trek…

89. Jai1138 - December 3, 2013

85. You’re welcome, Bobby. Now, what’d ya want for Christmas? :)

(And I am being sincere — about the movie, that is!)

90. Kirk1701 - December 3, 2013

I think this is cool of J.J. I would’ve preferred if they’d sold this as a “what if” scenario. As in, what would Khan look like in this new universe? Would he still be largely the same person, but with a different set of circumstances to contend with? This is largely what we got, but we weren’t expecting it. I enjoyed seeing Khan play whatever role he needed to just to get his people back. It would be nice if the slugline was something like “Same man, different world.”

STID dealt with the same nature vs. nurture question as the first ST did. I like that. Can Kirk, Spock, and McCoy become the friends we know them to be if we take away everything familiar from their past? Would you and I make the same choices when faced with different circumstances? Does love for our fellow man transcend space and time? That’s some hard sci-fi right there.

91. boborci - December 3, 2013

86. TMmW

when we were writing the first movie, we toyed with ending on a coda of the botany bay being discovered, and possibly calling second movie the Wrath of Kirk.

92. boborci - December 3, 2013

87. if I take your advice, we have a paradox;)

93. TUP - December 3, 2013

I do agree they feared the backlash when casting BC as Khan. I think the arrogance was in believing BC was so good, he’d change everyone’s minds if only they saw him.

And as fantastic an actor as BC is, he was really nothing more than a one-note villain in STID.

Peter Weller was FAR more interesting as an actor and Marcus FAR more interesting as a villain.

I get that they tried to make a homage to WoK but there was so much wrong with STID it’s almost difficult to know where to begin.

And now, everyone is demanding an “original” story at a time (50th Anni) when the studio *should* be delivering an epic, generating-spanning villain.

94. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 3, 2013

90. TUP

Great analysis, TUP.

Hey. What does TUP stand for anyhow?

95. LogicalLeopard - December 3, 2013

You know, the silly thing about people complaining that the use of Khan was “unoriginal” is the fact that the WHOLE CONCEPT is “unoriginal.” It’s a TOS revival, so if you can use Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, it stands to reason that you can use Khan, Mudd, Gary Mitchell, etc. They are all characters that are flying around the universe presumably, so why not use them? And if they DIDN”T use them, after a few movies, people would say, “So, why haven’t they shown what happened to Khan yet? Is he still just floating around the universe? Did Klingons use the Botany Bay for target practice? Has he been revived, and is Section 31 using him? *L* But put him in the second movie, and people have a hissy fit.

I for one LIKE to see alternate future stories. How people would have ended up if things were different. I love what they’ve done with Kirk, and Khan wasn’t bad either. Could he have just been John Harrison? Nope, because everyone would have just called him a bad Khan clone. Can’t win for losing, so write the story you want. And apparently, the writers wanted Khan.

As far as the subject matter, I would have enjoyed the movie a little more if I would have known up front that it was Khan. I had formed concepts in my mind on how the movie would progress based on all of the constant speculation I participated in on this forum (which I enjoyed, btw). That’s not to say I didn’t enjoy the movie, because I did, but I think I’ve enjoyed it just a little bit more every time I see it, because I appreciate it for what it is and not what I thought it’d be. And that’s the bottom line of why many fans don’t enjoy it – appreciate it for what it is, not what you think it should be.

I think a lot of it is due to the connectedness we have. How many fans were downgrading TNG when it came out? I think people tended to like the series less and less the more connected we all got. Towards the end of DS9, and the beginning of Voyager, the internet was in full swing. Maybe the Internet helped kill Enterprise, by allowing people to communicate their displeasure in communities. Sounds like a crackpot theory, I know, but there’s something to that, I think….

96. Yanks - December 3, 2013

boborci – Thanks for acknowleding my existence :-) and in all seriousness, thank you for making trek a draw at the big screen once again. We can all nit-pic (and we will, it IS trek you know) but both these movies were really good and the franchise is stronger because of them.

Jai1138 – STID did receive favorible reviews (and rightly so), but one can easily see they are lower than ST09 and if you read them – the reasons (almost unanimously) they gave lower reviews was the use of Khan and robbing TWoK. It’s my opinion that STID would have surpassed ST09 had they chosen a different route.

That “vitriol” had to be expected. We all know this fan-base too well. (life long fan here that owns all that is trek on DVD, watched them a million times etc)

My experience in the theater both times was some folks left when Harrison revealed himself as Khan (not happy either). My experience both times was hearing gasps and seeing folks face-palm and shaking their heads when Kirk dies and Spock goes nuts. Granted, they were all around my age or older – but those are the trekkies that everyone fears.

So I guess my question is, knowing the fan base as we all do, why go there? Why not tell the story without using Khan? Khan was not needed to tell this story at all.

I have the DVD, and have watched STID a couple times, the 2 hours FLIES by… my point is this could have been universally hearlded as the BEST Star Trek movie. So in that vein, it’s disappointing.

97. Jonboc - December 3, 2013

# 84. “It still boggles my mind how divisive Into Darkness remains. How it’s considered a “failure” or “disappointment”, in an objective, commercial sense is ridiculous ”

Agreed. the mainstream audience, and THEIR word of mouth….not the fanbase…are the folks that made this move the highest grossing Trek, worldwide, ever. And, believe me, that mainstream audience isn’t having these daily arguments. You can’t please all the people all the time, secretive or not, JJ and company managed to please enough to make it the most lucrative Trek movie ever. They just need to keep on keeping’ on…everything will be just fine.

98. Damian - December 3, 2013

91–I can’t speak to everyone, but for myself, I was looking forward to wholly original stories involving the original crew.

There was a lot I liked about STID, despite my wish that they hadn’t used Khan again. However, that being said, I was taken aback by the direct rip-off of the ending of TWOK, even with the switched roles, and the whole Spock screaming KHAN was an eye rolling moment.

I’d personally rank STID in the top 5 of my Trek films, but those few things, along with the magic blood kept it from being one of the top 3 (TMP will always be number 1 for me–I’ve noted before TMP made me a Trekkie, believe it or not).

99. Damian - December 3, 2013

For the next film, I think it would really pay off to leave TWOK rest now. Nemesis, Star Trek (2009) and STID all went to that well now. I think Star Trek runs the risk of becoming a franchise about vengeance if they don’t break the habit now.

I’d prefer a non-villain story altogether, but even if you use a villain, their motivation does not need to be revenge. In fact, Khan’s original motivation in “Space Seed” was not revenge, but his belief that he was best equipped to lead humanity.

100. Tom - December 3, 2013

So who are the new fellows working on the script with Bob?
Is Alex still going to work on it too?

Make us proud for the 50th Bob!!
Sleepy Hollow still rocks!

101. TUP - December 3, 2013

@94 – TUP = The Unknown Poster but I shortened it because its too long to constantly type out on my iPhone…lol

@95 – I agree. I admit I was “Pro-Khan” from the beginning. I was excited at seeing Del Toro bring the character back to life. But the weird “war on terror”, government is the real bad guy story was flat. BC didnt have anything close to what he needed to truly be iconic. Too many plotholes. Missed opportunities.

When watching it, I thought “wow this looks great”. And when it was over I thought “That was good”. Then I watched it again… and it was less good. Still looked great but the story and performances never held me from seeing everything wrong with it.

Again I say, the best performance by far was Peter Weller and yet he was such an after thought (or so it seemed).

As for success, thats somewhat subjective. Superman Returns was a big budget success. But not *enough* of a success for WB, And ofcourse, SR tried to pay homage to the past too. (For the record, I felt SR was much, much better than Man of Steel).

Orci et al can brag about the box office return. But id like to think they are self-aware enough to know there was a lot wrong with the story of STID.

102. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 3, 2013

How they can leave our beloved characters in JJ’s verse is beyond me.

Do your selves a favor and just trash all the rest of Gene’s creation.
Go darker, Practice genocide on all the remaining unspoiled planets and races. Have the main characters at each others throats! Destroy the Enterprise!

Just make sure you return our TOS by the end of JJ’s STIII. As it was, as you found it, and most importantly – ONSCREEN!

103. TUP - December 3, 2013

Ill take back everything bad I’ve ever said if they end the next film with a “50 years later…” and show Shatner, Nimoy etc (CGI Kelley etc) on the Enterprise…and all is right in the Universe.

104. Jai1138 - December 3, 2013

96. Yanks
Good points and I think we’re in general agreement with the exception of Khan himself. To me, using him and upending the death of WOK was meaningful in a very smart, creative modern way — essentially allowing two films made by different people and different actors in the same roles to “talk to each other” over the space of thirty years. Additionally, and I could go on and on about this (and have elsewhere), Khan, Kirk’s death and Spock’s response beautifully fulfill the hero’s journey myth-form of storytelling (particularly Kirk’s voyage over the two films).
It’s interesting to note, and this was the point I wished to immediately reply to: yes, ’09 received more consistently positive critical response but much of that was bourne of pleasant surprise and the fact that ID was deeper, more complex. It brings to mind the original critical responses to Star Wars in ’77 compared to Empire in ’80 (people fail to remember, TESB was considered “difficult”, problematic and a downer by plenty of critics — and the best entertainment of the year by others.)

105. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 3, 2013

101. TUP

Upgrade lately? I thought the I-phone would hold a signature for next time.
But I understand. It’s Kinda’ like my “avatar”.

At least boborci is not hiding behing a surname (that we know of)

Boborci, I still loved seeing your STiD onscreen. I was very entertaining.
But like an oyster, it had an irritant that hopefully – WILL – become a pearl in STIII.

106. TUP - December 3, 2013

@105. Im just being lazy. lol

True about Bob but I’d rather see some value in his posts. Tell us “why” behind some of these decisions.

107. dlope - December 3, 2013

re 14 – yup my thoughts exactly!

108. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 3, 2013

YES!

Specifically relating to my question @86.

Or, did boborci simply “86” that query?

109. dlope - December 3, 2013

Regarding Khan v John Harrison, hiding his true identity wasn’t an issue to me. The real problem is that making him Khan at all serves no purpose in driving the story, save to give old Spock a reason to have a cameo.

John Harrison was compelling enough on his own (although I’m personally tired of mass destruction minded megalomaniacs in the movies)… on the other hand Khan was an exploitable gimmick – one which ultimately backfired and detracted from the story for this long time trek fan and added nothing of consequence to new audiences not so familiar with Khan in the first place.

I think the movie would have been much better off exploring the potentially epic ramifications of the destruction of Vulcan and all the interesting story possibilities that might have arisen from that.

Still hoping the next one is great, and we slow down the pace just a touch, focus on characters…. New Hunger games movie, you feel the real pain and anguish of the situations they go through, and the choices the characters make. That’s what makes a good movie.

110. shazam101 - December 3, 2013

Glad you have reappeared here at Trekmovie, Bob! It was a breath of fresh air to read your comments again. Into Darkness was very good and I enjoyed it. Do not let the haters here discourage you again! You are very professional and it has shown in your other work. I hope you are writing the next Star Trek film and good luck in your other projects.

111. Ahmed - December 3, 2013

And now BC is defending the decision to keep Khan identity secret

=================================
Benedict Cumberbatch Defends Khan Reveal in STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS; Says It Was Thrilling for Audiences

In a recent interview, Benedict Cumberbatch said he believed the reveal worked, or at least it did when he saw it with an audience. “That worked to an extent,” said Cumberbatch, adding, “for those people [who didn’t know], it was a good thing.”

[Here is the actual interview]

http://ca.ign.com/videos/2013/12/02/star-trek-into-darkness-benedict-cumberbatch-on-whether-keeping-khan-a-secret-was-a-mistake

=================================

It is interesting that unlike the American team (Abrams & Damon Lindelof) the British cast (Simon Pegg & Benedict Cumberbatch) are not willing to admit that there were some issues with the movie!

112. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

64. MJ — THE GRAND RETURN !!! – December 2, 2013

—@62. You apparently have selective memory regarding the 49 years that Paramount has largely F’d over fans of this franchise…You’d be well advised to brush up on your history of the Star Trek franchise, or you risk coming across as a bit of moron here to some of us who have followed and studied Star Trek for decades.—

You know, you don’t see critics of BR’s Trek here insulting the people who approve of it nor saying that they’re wrong for liking it. Yet, such derogatory comments are abundant and flow freely from the you and the handful of self-appointed BR Police here.

You guys immediately dismiss criticism of Bad Robot as “negative,” as though approving of their work is somehow requisite and to be expected; or, maybe you guys attack the dissatisfied Trekkies just to suck up to Bob Orci, I really don’t know.

But regardless, TUP’s comment had nothing to do with the history of the Trek franchise; it was a criticism of JJ Abrams’ and Bad Robot’s work, and it happens to be one shared by a good many people. In fact, TUP even references Nemesis as a bad time in Trek history, concerned that the post-BR era might see an even longer period of discontinuation. So, your criticism of TUP’s comment is totally baseless.

I don’t see critics of Bad Robot here calling you or others “morons” for being satisfied with BR’s Trek. So, why don’t you try and be almost as nice and genial as the people here whom you are constantly disparaging.

Or, should I say, “You would do well” to be nicer to those with whom you disagree.

I won’t even self-righteously demand that you apologize to TUP for calling him a moron, as you are so fond of doing.

Now, can we please all be friends? We are all Trekkies, after all.

We mustn’t fight amongst ourselves. We should unite against the common enemy…

BAD ROBOT!! :>P

113. TUP - December 3, 2013

I wonder who he watched the movie with.

First time I saw it on opening night, no one reacted (except my buddy who laughed). I assumed opening night was hardcore fans who knew he was Khan.

Saw it a couple of weeks later and the reveal garnered a mix of silence, snickers, one gasp and some *fart* sounds. ie. didnt go over. I’d wager that anyone shocked was less shocked that he was Khan and more shocked that the writers actually tried to make the pasty-faced Brit Khan.

114. Ahmed - December 3, 2013

@ 113. TUP – December 3, 2013

“I wonder who he watched the movie with.”

I was wondering the same thing when I watched the interview.

“How Star Trek Into Darkness Should Have Ended” video captured reaction to that Khan reveal moment brilliantly, perhaps someone should shows it to BC :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N15J4ibej8

115. Tom - December 3, 2013

#103 TUP

That would be awesome. Hope Bob is thinking somewhere along those lines.

116. Aurore - December 3, 2013

“Abrams admits Koncealing Khan was Mistake…”
________

“Koncealing” Khan was no mistake….whitewashing Khan was (a racist “mistake”).

In my opinion.

117. LogicalLeopard - December 3, 2013

101. TUP – December 3, 2013

@95 – I agree. I admit I was “Pro-Khan” from the beginning. I was excited at seeing Del Toro bring the character back to life. But the weird “war on terror”, government is the real bad guy story was flat. BC didnt have anything close to what he needed to truly be iconic. Too many plotholes. Missed opportunities.

***********************

Well, as to the flatness of the war on terror thing, that’s subjective. I understand that many people are so worn out on the subject in reality, allusions to it becomes tedious in movies/television. I think I probably was too worn out from living with the thought that the world would end in nuclear annihilation as a kid to much appreciate the cold war allusions in Star Trek VI, so I know how you feel.

As for BC, he handled his part very well, and I think he gave a worthy Khan performance. Iconic? Certainly not, because it’s virtually impossible for him to do so. There have only been two actors to play Khan, BC and RM. And since RM has done it up to this point, and made it into an “iconic” character, there was nothing that BC could have done other than be really good, which he was. It’s not Hamlet. If you had dozens of actors who played the character, BC might have a chance for him standing out as the best. But you dont. It’s like the new cast – they can never replace the old cast, they can just do a good job with the material they have. it’s a difficult thing to do, because you risk either being considered a pale imitation of or completely different from the original actor. I’m glad BC harnessed the rage and cold calculation that one would expect Khan to be capable of.

We’ve talked about plotholes before, so I won’t rehash that much. Other than no one helping them in Earth orbit, I can’t say I noticed any significant plotholes.

However, as far as missed opportunities, well, it’s hard to talk about those because we don’t know how those “missed opportunities” would have been received. People say that John Harrison should have just been John Harrison AFTER seeing the movie. If they had done that from the beginning, then people would probably complain that he was 1) a poor Khan rip off, 2) They should have made the bad guy Khan in the first place, instead of a cheap imitation. Many “missed opportunities” are disguised complaints about the movie. It’s fine to have those complaints, but i don’t know if you can say there were missed opportunities unless you talk about specific moments where you could have developed characters. Every movie is a missed opportunity to do a different movie.

118. LogicalLeopard - December 3, 2013

116. Aurore – December 3, 2013
“Abrams admits Koncealing Khan was Mistake…”
________

“Koncealing” Khan was no mistake….whitewashing Khan was (a racist “mistake”).

In my opinion.

****************************************

If as people say, Khan was “whitewashed” to prevent people from thinking of brown people as terrorists, than it’s not a racist mistake by definition. However, unless Khan was intended to be a Mexican Sikh, it was a “racist mistake” to cast Ricardo Montalban in the beginning. And as I remember, Khan is said to have been beleived to come from India in Space Seed. That is the sort of garbage that’s racist, “Oh, just put some ‘brownface’ on him and let him go, we don’t need to rewrite the script.”

119. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 3, 2013

113. TUP

It now seems that it was NOT the writers (as I suspect), or Director (self-admitted in this article, and video), so it looks like the Studio had a hard-on for this “story” (white-guy promoting am Inside job and perpetual wars) for quite some time now.

Boborci could shed some real light on this, if he would. At least I trust his word.

120. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

64. MJ — THE GRAND RETURN !!! – December 2, 2013

P.S. I agree with you about the history of Trek-in-film under Paramount. But a low-set bar does not fully redeem the choice commonly criticized with regard to BR’s treatment of Trek.

I don’t buy the excuse that we should all be happy for whatever Trek we get that’s not a total stinker like Nemesis and Generations. Like TUP, I’d rather have nothing than what BR is putting out.

121. Phil - December 3, 2013

As it’s been pointed out before, the reveal was meaningless. The idea it had to be kept secret because it was vital that the casual fan not have any knowledge of Trek history is also ludicrous, for a few reasons:

First. WOK is probably one of the best known of the original Trek movies.
Second: WOK is also one of the most frequently parodied Trek movies.
Third: If someone walked into a screening of WOK with no knowledge of Trek, the creative team did a hellva job setting up the story. I was marooned by Kirk, driven to the breaking point, and like a coiled viper I’m just waiting to exact my wrath. All established in the first ten minutes, now on with the show…no one had to see Space Seed to know what was going on. Can’t say that about STID Hari-Khan was about as much a mystery at the end of the movie as he was at the beginning.

JJ, be careful how you fess up to stuff. If someone were being a bit cynical, it almost seems like you are suggesting that the only people who could enjoy STID would be anyone with no knowledge of Trek – that’s a bit insulting, sir.

122. Stephan - December 3, 2013

111.

No issues with the movie.. Just issues with some “fans”.

123. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 3, 2013

@112 “You know, you don’t see critics of BR’s Trek here insulting the people…”

Hmm, we don’t? How about this, from TUP, who I was directly responding to:

“What a joke. When these hacks are done with Star Trek…”

So you don’t even notice TUP name-calling Orci and JJ as “hacks,” but you feel the need to jump in and lecture me on insulting people.

Wake up — TUP was the one doing the insulting, and my insults were in direct response to that. Sheesh, how about a level playing field here with your school marm-like patronizing lectured, dude?

124. Buzz Cagney - December 3, 2013

#118 so only white people are terrorists? o…..k
Benny was miscast pure and simple.

125. Damian - December 3, 2013

120–I actually disagree with you there. In Hollywood, something “bad’ is still better than nothing at all. Development Hell as they call it in entertainment is a horrible place for any franchise. If it’s not moving it’s dead.

Like it or not. Star Trek (2009) and STID were huge hits. You might hate it, which is fine. There have been movies I hated that have otherwise been hits. But they did make lots of money and were overall popular movies. That might bring in new fans, and along with it the possibility of future Star Trek, eventually beyond Abrams’ time with the franchise.

Even between Nemesis and Star Trek (2009) there was movement. After Enterprise ended, there was work being done on a script by Eric Jendersen. It ended up being shelved in favor of Star Trek (2009), but there was movement, or life in Star Trek, however faint.

126. Buzz Cagney - December 3, 2013

#85 Are you sure she wasn’t on a first date? Or spilled her drink in her lap? I know all I did at the big reveal was groan out loud. And I wasn’t on a first date nor did I spill my drink!

127. Damian - December 3, 2013

123–MJ. My guess is he’s referring to fans belittling other fans. I guess slamming the Abrams team is fine for him.

In all fairness, I’ve read these boards for a few years now. There have been guilty parties on both sides of the Abrams debate that have slammed the other party.

I wish people didn’t need to resort to attack of that sort, but that’s just the nature of comments on articles I guess. Not everyone is going to behave.

128. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 3, 2013

@118

“However, unless Khan was intended to be a Mexican Sikh, it was a “racist mistake” to cast Ricardo Montalban in the beginning. ”

We covered this a few weeks back. There are many Mexican Punjabis/Sikhs out there, with the origins dating back to the Punjabi diaspora to Mexico and other countries in the first half of the twentieth century (an incidentally, a sizable community in California. Additionally, there is a large worldwide community of Luso-Indians (Portuguese and Indian mixed race). So its pretty likely that Khan’s parents, were of mixed race, with one of them being a Mexican Punjabi or a Luso-Indian.

It’s racially uncomfortable to have to read some of these posts here that arbitrarily assume all Punjabi Sikhs are racially Indian — nothing could be further from the truth. This reeks a bit of sort of unintended race cleansing mentality here by the people who keep complaining about Montelban being cast as Khan, where we have to fit people into exact definitions of the known “pure” races and cultures. The world is more complex than this.

129. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 3, 2013

@127 “123–MJ. My guess is he’s referring to fans belittling other fans. I guess slamming the Abrams team is fine for him.”

Yes, but Bob posts here and is part of our community here. If fact, Bob posted today. But Cygnus gives TUP a complete free pass — he doesn’t even realize the insult to Bob because he obviously supports TUP in name-calling Bob — while I get his asinine lecture. Its completely disingenuous — Cygnus is a hypocrite who has a different set of rules for himself and TUP versus me.

130. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 3, 2013

@TUP “MJ – gee did I offend you? Newsflash buddy, being older doesn’t make you wiser.”

It’s not a given, for sure. But your comments point out to us someone who does not have a good understanding of Star Trek history, and convey to us that you are a person who takes a knee-jerk response to one Trek movie they didn’t like, without any sense of historical context of what came before in Star Trek.

That’s why I was being critical of you. I apologize for dropping the “moron” term on you. I hereby retract that bad term and instead substitute this term: “educationally challenged.”

131. Dave H - December 3, 2013

Re: Cygnus X-1,

I noticed as well that TUP was coming across in a pretty insulting way to Bob. Why weren’t you critical of that in the same way that you attacked MJ?

Let’s all try to be a little more even-handed, OK guy/gal?

132. LogicalLeopard - December 3, 2013

124. Buzz Cagney – December 3, 2013
#118 so only white people are terrorists? o…..k
Benny was miscast pure and simple.

************************

No, apparently from what I hear they didn’t want to continue to enforce the current “real life” association of terrorism with brown complected folks. There is no such association with white persons,which may have helped their decision. But like I said, this is what I HEARD on this bulletin board. I may have seen a reference along with it, but I didn’t save it or commit it to memory. That may not be true, because they offered the part to a hispanic initially (Benecio del Toro) and BC is said to have wowed them with a submitted video.

But my point is this: If you cancel out ALL of that, getting a white person to play a presumably Indian character who has taken on a new identity is NOT racist. Getting a white guy with either a deep tan, makeup, or combination of the two to play an Indian character IS racism. Same as getting white guys to play black guys through blackface or Native Americans, etc. And lets not forget, Ricardo Montalban was born in Mexico to two parents from Spain. Since Spaniards are considered Caucasian, that’d make RM Caucasian too. Which makes the outrage over a Caucasian playing an Indian role when a Cacasian played him in the first place really ridiculous.

133. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 3, 2013

@132

It was confirmed by several sources that Del Toro broke off negotiations because they would not meet his asking price. Del Toro is obviously not white, so I don’t buy the whole “terrorist affirmative action program” nonsense that the Supreme Court has tried to sell us.

134. LogicalLeopard - December 3, 2013

128. MJ — THE GRAND RETURN !!! – December 3, 2013
@118

We covered this a few weeks back. There are many Mexican Punjabis/Sikhs out there, with the origins dating back to the Punjabi diaspora to Mexico and other countries in the first half of the twentieth century (an incidentally, a sizable community in California.

So its pretty likely that Khan’s parents, were of mixed race, with one of them being a Mexican Punjabi or a Luso-Indian.

*************************************

But what shoots the holes in that theory is that Khan was SUPPOSED to have come from India, according to McGivers, right? I thought that was dialogue from Space Seed. I think there’s a significantly greater chance that they just wanted him to play an Indian Sikh instead of a Mexican Sikh or Luso-Sikh, especially the latter since he was speaking with a Spanish accent, not Portuguese.

135. Jon - December 3, 2013

#85 –

Fascinating comment on the “My name is….Khan” line.

Quite the contrast from my experience at the theater when this line was uttered…when Cumberbatch said it, my wife gasped in disgust, whispered something along the lines of “Give me a break!,” and walked out to use the restroom. Many of the other attendees also laughed out loud, and I wouldn’t say it was a “shocked” laugh but rather a derisive one that echoed my wife’s sentiments.

My reaction was essentially the same as my wife’s, although I managed to stay put despite my realizing at that point that I was not liking this film much either…

As always, the above is simply an accounting of my experience on the subject matter and my personal opinion…no denigration of other opinions is intended or implied…

Jon

136. Phil - December 3, 2013

@135. The ‘My name is…Khan” was good for a few snickers. Spock’s ‘Khaaaaaan’ yell generated some audible groans, and my 17 year old son leaned over and said, ‘you’re joking, right?’……I fear as time passes STID is probably going to descend into parody and become nothing more the film that was make between movies 11 and 13.

137. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 3, 2013

@134. Sure, so his parents moved back to India. PEOPLE MOVE!!!

Or, as I also mention, one of his parents could have been Luso-Indian, of which there are populations of in India.

The clincher here is that in the new comics backstory, Khan was raised in an orphanage in India. And in orphanages there, you will mainly find two types of kids — females and mixed-race males….MIXED RACE MALES.

138. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 3, 2013

All of these theater stories kill me. I saw it three times in the theaters, and people clapped at the end the first two times, and the third time was like a month later and it was only about 20 people.

This supposed “loud groan and fart-sound stories” I frankly have a hard time believing from some of you here.

139. Ahmed - December 3, 2013

@138. MJ

I guess then that the audiences in your theater cheered up when Khan revealed himself :)

In my theater, most of the audiences were nonchalant about the Khan reveal, but there were lot of groans & laughter at the infamous Khannnnnnnnnnnnnn scream by Spock.

140. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

131. Dave H – December 3, 2013

—Re: Cygnus X-1, noticed as well that TUP was coming across in a pretty insulting way to Bob. Why weren’t you critical of that in the same way that you attacked MJ? Let’s all try to be a little more even-handed, OK guy/gal?—

Are you kidding me, or what?

TUP didn’t say anything about Bob. He didn’t mention the name Bob. He was expressing dissatisfaction with the WORK of JJ Abrams and Bad Robot.

Do you guys actually justify your BR policing here on the grounds that criticizing the WORK put out by Bad Robot is somehow equivalent to criticizing Bob Orci personally as a poster here?

That’s some disturblingly twisted reasoning there, guy/gal.

141. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

disturbingly*

142. Dave H - December 3, 2013

#140.

You are the one twisting things now. When TUP said, ” When these hacks are done with Star Trek…”, he is obviously refereeing to JJ, Bob and company — calling them all “hacks”. And “hacks” is a derogatory term that refers to writers. So we have insulting language definitively directed at Bob and the other ST09 and STID writers from this TUP clown. And Bob is part of our community here.

I don’t know how to spell it out any clearer for you here? I know a double-standard when I see one. You have a different set of rules for you and TUP than you do for others, apparently.

143. Yanks - December 3, 2013

@ 104. Jai1138 – December 3, 2013

It’s interesting to note, and this was the point I wished to immediately reply to: yes, ’09 received more consistently positive critical response but much of that was bourne of pleasant surprise and the fact that ID was deeper, more complex. It brings to mind the original critical responses to Star Wars in ’77 compared to Empire in ’80 (people fail to remember, TESB was considered “difficult”, problematic and a downer by plenty of critics — and the best entertainment of the year by others.)
————————————————————————————————-
ID had a much better story, no doubt but if you read the critics reviews, even those that gave ID good marks, commented on how they were disappointed that Trek again revisited Khan. And of course the ones that gave it bad marks blasted it because of Khan. 09’s story was a joke really, but no one cared because our heroes were skillfully assembled in a beautiful “new” universe and the future was bright, canon was not a hindrance, new stories were sure to follow.

I think ID is the best movie of the year, it should be ranked right up there for sure. Just think if it wasn’t bogged down by Khan…
————————————————————————————————

Too all that have a “white-washing” issue… for gods sake, get a life. RM wasn’t the right race for Khan. You might have an argument had they not offered the part to someone of the “correct” race, but they did – so you don’t.

————————————————————————————————
@ 95. LogicalLeopard – December 3, 2013

You know, the silly thing about people complaining that the use of Khan was “unoriginal” is the fact that the WHOLE CONCEPT is “unoriginal.” It’s a TOS revival, so if you can use Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, it stands to reason that you can use Khan, Mudd, Gary Mitchell, etc. They are all characters that are flying around the universe presumably, so why not use them? And if they DIDN”T use them, after a few movies, people would say, “So, why haven’t they shown what happened to Khan yet? Is he still just floating around the universe? Did Klingons use the Botany Bay for target practice? Has he been revived, and is Section 31 using him? *L* But put him in the second movie, and people have a hissy fit.

I for one LIKE to see alternate future stories. How people would have ended up if things were different. I love what they’ve done with Kirk, and Khan wasn’t bad either. Could he have just been John Harrison? Nope, because everyone would have just called him a bad Khan clone. Can’t win for losing, so write the story you want. And apparently, the writers wanted Khan.
———————————————————————————————–
I would agree with you in part. Klingons, Vulcans, Mudd, Section 31 etc. are all part of the Star Trek universe and one would expect interaction with these different elements in the movies. I actually came to accept “Khan” as he was indeed floating around somewhere (although I didn’t want him). Where they went overboard was the whole Kirk death scene thing. That was just a rip-off, plain and simple. The first time I saw the movie I just shut down after that scene.

But that’s me, glad you enjoyed it.

I also don’t agree that John Harrison being just John Harrison would have been just as bad. Sure, some would no doubt bring up Khan, but they couldn’t make the plagiarism charge fit.

144. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 3, 2013

@Cygnus-X1 @DaveH

Guys, if Cygnus-X1 is willing to STAND-Up and be critical of TUP’s insults towards Bob and writing team, then I certainly we accept his criticism of my insults towards TUP and move onto a new topic.

But if Cygnus keeps making excuses and continues to backpedal here, then I will of course reserve the right to defend myself from his hypocritical remarks.

145. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 3, 2013

You guys kill me with the Khan was half white.

They did take considerable effort to cast the rest of the actors, based mostly on appearance.

But when it comes to Khan, that consistency goes out the window.

Please.

Khan Noonien Singh was supposed to be a White Guy this time because it fits the inside job storyline.

Was this because a macho movie-haus-boss new best?

I can’t say, but I would love boborci, whom loves a good conspiracy, to really respond directly, or at least to my question @86.

Has ANYONE claimed responsibility for pushing Khan on us? I’ve heard Lindelof’s name bouted around, but only that he was on-board for the Khan idea.

Seriously! Who came up with the Khan-centric storyline and when?

And when we have this figured out, then perhaps we can really find out
who put the tribbles in the quadrotriticale!?

146. Phil - December 3, 2013

@138. Hey, I’m the first to admit I didn’t see it until about three weeks after release. And my kid has an annoying habit of turning into Roger Ebert when we go to the movies. Could be that all the ‘stand up and cheer’ folks had moved on to the next movie by then…..

How did that scene from The Simpsons go?
Mr. Burns: Smithers! Are they booing me?
Smithers: No sir! They are saying ‘Boo-urns’….

147. dmduncan - December 3, 2013

118. LogicalLeopard – December 3, 2013

Oh it WAS racist, hence why I was so adamant in my opinion about NOT repeating the casting mistakes of the 1960’s when recasting for the role.

People (many, though not all, fans and producers) were seeing Montalban’s accent rather than the intent of the character when they started looking at Latinos to replace Montalban and they therefore failed to aim for what is in my opinion the highest goal in rebooting something, i.e., to do it better than it was done before.

I mean, THAT is the ostensible reason why Bob rejected time travel by slingshotting. That kind of lowball non-science may have been good enough for TV in the 1960’s but it won’t fly today, Bob seemed to be saying when he opted for the MWI/QM explanation of matters.

So it’s kind of surprising that THAT kind of modern thinking was absent for the casting.

148. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

142. Dave H – December 3, 2013

—#140. When TUP said, ” When these hacks are done with Star Trek…”, he is obviously refereeing to JJ, Bob and company — calling them all “hacks”. And “hacks” is a derogatory term that refers to writers. So we have insulting language definitively directed at Bob and the other ST09 and STID writers from this TUP clown. And Bob is part of our community here.

I don’t know how to spell it out any clearer for you here? I know a double-standard when I see one. You have a different set of rules for you and TUP than you do for others, apparently.—

I hadn’t seen where TUP referred to the BR writers as hacks, but even so—I’ve heard that term used pretty often with regard to BR. In fact, “hack” is precisely what my friends say. “Hack” comes from “hackneyed,” referring to trite, hastily written work. And if the opinion of TUP and others is that the writing on BR’s Trek films was hackneyed, then I support their right to make that criticism.

YOU are the one who needs things spelled out, my friend. And here it is:

My comments on this issue are informed by ONE set of rules: Don’t bully people who have a different opinion about things Trek than you do. Bob frequenting this site is totally irrelevant. We’re all here to talk Trek, and if Bob’s contribution to Trek, as a member of Bad Robot, is met with gut-level disapproval by some fans and most critics, which it most certainly has, then the perceived problems therein are going to be discussed. We’re not all just gonna role over and repress expression of our problems with BR’s Trek just because a member of BR happens to read the comments here. That’s a raw deal and I reject it flatly.

So, again, I would suggest that you and the rest of the BR police reconsider your attitude toward criticism of Bad Robot’s work. You don’t see TUP, Ahmed, myself or any other not-entirely-satisfied-with-BR Trekkies here trying to stifle your admiration of Bad Robot or insulting you for expressing it.

149. Ahmed - December 3, 2013

MJ,

I’m curious, are you suggesting that people shouldn’t criticize the works of Bad Robot writing team (Bob & Alex) or Abrams ??

150. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

P.S. And if a regular here were to repeatedly insult Bob Orci personally, then yes, I would have a problem with that. I have said so in the past when posters have been disrespectful toward Bob, and I would say so again. But you need to understand the difference between criticizing WORK and disrespecting a PERSON.

151. Marja - December 3, 2013

JJ’s great “No, DUH!” moment …

I really hope the fact that O&K are very very busy does not mean Trek3 will be delayed again and again while they claim to have a script ready. Please guys, do the decent and have a film up by Fall 2016 – and please don’t make it a “Summer Blockbuster” – with all its attendant box office performance pressure. While I liked much of the story of STID I was dismayed by the inclusion of Khan. Kirk does not need a “nemesis.” He needs a good science fiction-y problem to solve. In space.
——————————-
44 SkiesSeven, I’d like to see a SF oriented story for sure [That’s Sci Fi, NOT San Fran, guys!]. Just PLEASE, not Q or his ilk. Gad, that got done to death in ST series TV.

AGREED! No humanoids or others seeking revenge. Even though such plot devices are very popular in China, code name, “overseas.”
———————————-
66, 67, Harry Ballz and MJ

Great minds think alike, dudes, I was just about request the same thing of MJ … thanks MJ for changing back to your original handle :-)

152. Marja - December 3, 2013

IT’S SO NICE TO BE DISCUSSING TREK AGAIN!!!

69, TrekConcern, While I agree with you on Nick Meyer, I feel I must point out that Orci was being quite sarcastic when he said he was a lover of the Bush Administration. If you simply look at the allegories in STID, you will get that clearly.

153. Marja - December 3, 2013

Next, I hope JJ admits it was a mistake to open STID overseas A WEEK EARLIER than in the US!

And I hope Paramount admits that they gave the film crappy publicity in the US until the LAAAAAAAST minute.

How much better it could have done, hmmmm?

154. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 3, 2013

more slight of hand.

155. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 3, 2013

Careful, Marja.

You’ll draw some real Trek wrath getting too far into the politics of STiD.

156. Dave H - December 3, 2013

#148. You will notice how it took you an entire page — piratically writing a treatise here — to respond to my very simple argument that you are obviously applying a double standard here. We know what TUP said, and we know what MJ said. And you choose to selectively slam MJ while giving TUP a free pass for the exact same behavior. That’s it. I don’t need to “write a novel” here, because this is straight-forward. Now, if I was trying to weasel out of it, well then I can see your point — let’s “write a novel” then to distract everyone from how weak my core argument is. It’s that simple.

157. K-7 - December 3, 2013

This is fracking hilarious: Cygnus X1 actually lecturing people on good behavior here. :-))

This is akin to Mylie Cyrus lecturing teenage age girls on proper manners and etiquette.

LOL :-))

158. MJB - December 3, 2013

FYI, Orci and Kurtzman are not Bad Robot employees. Paramount Pictures hired them to write the Trek trilogy, not Bad Robot. There’s multiple players in the current Trek world….and it’s hard to keep track of them!

159. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 3, 2013

@148

“I hadn’t seen where TUP referred to the BR writers as hacks, but even so—I’ve heard that term used pretty often with regard to BR. In fact, “hack” is precisely what my friends say. “Hack” comes from “hackneyed,” referring to trite, hastily written work. And if the opinion of TUP and others is that the writing on BR’s Trek films was hackneyed, then I support their right to make that criticism”

Just like, in my personal opinion, TUP’s statement came across to me as moronic. “Moron” was originally a scientific term, coined by psychologist Henry Goddard from a Greek word meaning “foolish” and used to describe a person with a genetically determined mental age between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale. So when I see TUP call Bob a hack and a liar, claim that people disliked STID so much that they were making fart sounds during the showing, claimed that in ST-2000 that JJ and Bob did not care about the source material and were profoundly arrogant — then I feel that I have firm grounding myself to make the “moron” criticism of TUP.

Your statement and mine above are equivalent — they point out the same sort of critique. You try to hide yours as somehow being “above the fray”a and thus more legitimate than mine, but your muddling argument is overly complex and unconvincing.

I am fully open and honest with my critiques on this site. That is the difference between us. I admit when I am being critical, and even when I am being insulting, and I take full accountability for it. You, by contrast, hide behind platitudes.

160. Aurore - December 3, 2013

“If as people say, Khan was ‘whitewashed’ to prevent people from thinking of brown people as terrorists, than it’s not a racist mistake by definition….”
________

If people believe that “it’s not a racist mistake by definition”, then they are entitled to their opinion.

“….However, unless Khan was intended to be a Mexican Sikh, it was a ‘racist mistake’ to cast Ricardo Montalban in the beginning. And as I remember, Khan is said to have been beleived to come from India in Space Seed. That is the sort of garbage that’s racist, ‘Oh, just put some ‘brownface’ on him and let him go, we don’t need to rewrite the script.’ ”

We keep having this discussion, in a manner of speaking ( posts 1464 & 1467 ) :

http://trekmovie.com/2013/05/28/into-darkness-second-week-polls/#comments

Furthermore, as I already pointed out on another thread*, I believe (perhaps wrongly) you understood my position, a long time ago :

1576. LogicalLeopard – June 14, 2013

Ahhh…gotcha. So, what I gather that you’re both essentially saying is that they should have made the original situation “right,” or attempted to make it right, by casting an Indian in the role, or at least interviewing someone from that region. I get it. Very valid point, because from what I understand, there’s no evidence that anyone other than Hispanics were approached about the part.

I agree that they could have gone a little more out of their way to look for a Northen Indian. I say this in complete ignorance, mind you, of their actual search. They could have scoured the whole subcontinent for all I know, but it just appears that they didnt. But to me, it’s not a huge stretch to be able to find an Indian male actor, when India has a thriving film industry with plenty of action stars, who speak perfect English to boot. Yes, I know Bollywood movies are a little different than ours, but the actors should still be capable. Salman Khan? Hrithik Roshan? Been a while since I watched a Bollywood movie, I’m sure there are bigger stars now *L*

It is true that they would risk showing their hand by screening Indian actors, but really, they did that by screening Hispanic actors. Cumby did a great job, but I do have to admit that they missed a great opportunity to cast an Indian actor.

________

*
(Post 173) :

http://trekmovie.com/2013/09/11/star-trek-into-darkness-easter-eggs-blu-ray-edition/#comment-5166876

161. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

157. K-7 – December 3, 2013

What are you even talking about?

I’ve never insulted nor disparaged another poster here. In fact, until recently I’d kept my comments strictly material to things Trek, unless specifically addressed and prompted to answer a question that strayed off topic.

And I certainly don’t invent reasons to go ad hominem.

So, what on Earth could you possibly be talking about?

162. Marja - December 3, 2013

155 TMMW, that depends on what one considers the “real” politics of STID.

163. Ahmed - December 3, 2013

@ 153. Marja – December 3, 2013

“Next, I hope JJ admits it was a mistake to open STID overseas A WEEK EARLIER than in the US!”

This was a big mistake on their part. First they released it overseas a whole week before North America, which spoiled the movie for anyone who uses Internet. And then, they moved the release date in North America a day earlier & that confused many people who weren’t aware of the change.

Next time around, they should either release it first in North America or release it worldwide in the same day/week.

164. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

158. MJB – December 3, 2013

—FYI, Orci and Kurtzman are not Bad Robot employees. Paramount Pictures hired them to write the Trek trilogy, not Bad Robot.—

Are you sure about that? They seem to be involved in a lot of Bad Robot productions. And they have producer credits on the Trek movies. And what about those JJ TV shows that they’ve been involved with? Are the two of them just independent contractors that JJ happens to contract to do a lot of work for his projects?

I guess there’s one person here who could provide a definitive answer….

165. c - December 3, 2013

Del Toro is white:
we have white and black in Puerto Rico
we call blacks in puerto rico puerto ricans and we call whites in puerto rico, puertoricans also, so to us white is white and black is black, yet many puertoricans do discriminate against blacks here, so we are all human idiots that need true love in our minds so we stop calling people not white or not black enough, my opinion…

Enough all ready with the khan stuff, lets forget about it and make recommendations not about what the next movie should be about, but about what the next movie should not be about…, again my opinion.

166. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

156. Dave H – December 3, 2013

You’re not making sense and I honestly don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I think I’ve been pretty clear and straightforward here about the difference between criticizing work and criticizing a person. And as TUP didn’t call anyone a “moron” as MJ did to him, I really don’t see what point you could be trying to make.

167. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 3, 2013

““Next, I hope JJ admits it was a mistake to open STID overseas A WEEK EARLIER than in the US!”

Finally, something we can all agree on. And it premiered several weeks ahead of the U.S. opening, which made this even dumber in retrospect.

168. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 3, 2013

@166

Dude, we get it. All of these people who disagree with you, out of sheer coincidence, “don’t make sense.” You are the one who is right here, who “makes sense.” Fine, we get it.

;-)

169. crazydaystrom - December 3, 2013

138. MJ — THE GRAND RETURN !!!
All of these theater stories kill me. I saw it three times in the theaters….
This supposed “loud groan and fart-sound stories” I frankly have a hard time believing from some of you here.

MJ, I saw STID in the theater three times as well (IMAX 3D, regular 3D and 2D). In that first showing there were absolutely audible groans after the ‘My name is Khan’ line. And at each showing there was chuckling, giggling and groans when Spock yelled. Believe it or not. But if I’m lying I’m dying, as they say. And even if I’m dying, I ain’t lying. It’s the truth, a lot of folks were very disappointed about Khan.

170. Red Dead Ryan - December 3, 2013

I see that Cygnus X1 is up to his old tricks again. Going after MJ for name-calling while ignoring TUP’s insult directed at Bob. Cygnus is not only hypocritical, but biased as well. He seems to have an axe to grind with MJ — which is rather pathetic and disgraceful.

171. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 3, 2013

@169. Oh, I don’t doubt that. But this dude who claimed people were protesting Khan by making fart sounds? Come on, man? Really?

172. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

159. MJ — THE GRAND RETURN !!! – December 3, 2013

—Just like, in my personal opinion, TUP’s statement came across to me as moronic.—

Uh, no. Not “just like.”

You called TUP a moron for his opinions about Trek. You felt that he was not sufficiently informed to be expressing the opinions that he was expressing. As a matter of fact, your reasoning for calling him a moron was baseless.

But regardless, we’re all here to express opinions. Some of us like BR’s Trek, and some of us are less than entirely satisfied with it.

What you and your buddies have been doing is bullying the people who are less than satisfied with BR’s Trek, and justifying your bullying by equating criticism of Trek movie-making with personal disparagement of the people responsible for the movie.

You are making a false equivalence.

Criticizing movie-making with which Bob was involved, or specifically criticizing Bob’s writing, is not “just like” criticizing Bob Orci as a person.

I don’t know Bob apart from his interviews and comments here, but my opinion of him is that he seems like a lovely fellow. He seems like a fun guy to get drunk and talk Trek with. But I would also like to see him and BR hand the Trek baton off to another crew for a crack at it.

173. Blue Thunder - December 3, 2013

And once again, Star Trek fans lock horns over the Abrams issue.

Well, it could have been worse. Vic Mignogna and Farragut Films could have been behind the entire Khan issue. That would have been a nightmare!

174. Red Dead Ryan - December 3, 2013

Well, when I saw STID twice at the theater, there was no groaning or laughing. Both times the aundience clapped and cheered after the film ended. So I’m not sure what to make of the “groaning and laughing” comments apart from the fact they are clearly coming from the haters.

175. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

170. Red Dead Ryan – December 3, 2013

—I see that Cygnus X1 is up to his old tricks again.—

What “old tricks” are you talking about?

Seriously, I have no idea. I think this is the first time I’ve ever bothered to get into the weeds with anyone here over issues of comportment and netiquette.

176. crazydaystrom - December 3, 2013

171. MJ — THE GRAND RETURN !!!
@169. Oh, I don’t doubt that. But this dude who claimed people were protesting Khan by making fart sounds? Come on, man? Really?

I’ve heard of ruder things. I’m rarely surprised these days of just how low some people will go.

177. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

P.S. This and the last time a few weeks ago, but that was one post and I didn’t keep on about it because people had seized upon the wrong part of it.

178. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 3, 2013

@172

You are imagining differences between my insults of TUP and TUP’s insults of Bob and company BECAUSE IT SUITS YOUR AGENDA of being negative on most things concerning STID.

You can keep arguing about this if you must, but this is what it is. You are in self-denial, which suits your purposes of pretending to be an objective and reasonable guy who needs to set me straight on things here.

Just not buying what you are selling, dude.

179. Ahmed - December 3, 2013

@ 174. Red Dead Ryan – December 3, 2013

“Well, when I saw STID twice at the theater, there was no groaning or laughing. Both times the aundience clapped and cheered after the film ended. So I’m not sure what to make of the “groaning and laughing” comments apart from the fact they are clearly coming from the haters.”

Tell me, did they cheered when Spock screamed Khannnnnnnnnnnnn or when Khan revealed himself ?

180. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 3, 2013

Seriously.

From WHO and WHEN did the idea for Khan in STiD first originate.

This is now an open question – for anyone that might have an answer.

181. Ahmed - December 3, 2013

MJ,

You didn’t answer my question, do you object to people criticizing the work of BR writing team or what ?

182. Ahmed - December 3, 2013

@ 180. TrekMadeMeWonder – December 3, 2013

“Seriously.

From WHO and WHEN did the idea for Khan in STiD first originate.

This is now an open question – for anyone that might have an answer.”

There are conflicting reports about that issue. In this article, Bob saying that the whole team was thinking about Khan since ST09

==============
“”Khan was in our mind,” Orci said in the interview with John Champion and Ken Ray, set to be released Sept. 16. “When we were doing the ’09 one (‘Star Trek’), we can’t help but fantasize about a sequel, like W.O.K. — the Wrath of Kirk.”

Orci said he and fellow writer Alex Kurtzman even considered adding the discovery of the Botany Bay, the ship Khan and his other superhumans were marooned on, to the end of the 2009 film.

But while Khan might have been a villain Orci definitely wanted to explore from the beginning, it didn’t always stay that way.

“We started with Khan, went away from Khan, and then went back to him,” Orci said.

There was a push early on to do Khan, and even create a rather “Heart of Darkess”-type story with the character, Orci said. The Enterprise crew would be sent someplace to catch Khan after a terrible act, and then be forced to work with him.”

http://1701news.com/node/427/find-out-how-khan-almost-wasnt-khan.html

183. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

178. MJ — THE GRAND RETURN !!! – December 3, 2013

—@172 You are imagining differences between my insults of TUP and TUP’s insults of Bob and company BECAUSE IT SUITS YOUR AGENDA of being negative on most things concerning STID.—

I’m “imagining” that there’s a difference between criticizing a writer’s writing and calling a poster who disagrees with you a “moron?”

Uhh…if you don’t see the difference between those two concepts, there’s not much more I can do to elucidate it.

Suffice it to say, there’s a significant difference there which I am not “imagining.”

But, jeez…all of this kicking and screaming from you just because you don’t want to stop bullying dissenters? Why don’t you just try being nice? I’ve seen people here talk about how you ruin their day with all of your meanness on a regular basis. I can’t say that about anyone else here. Is it so unreasonable to ask you to be nice to people who disagree with you about BR’s Trek? I put up with all of your whining and complaining about my discussions with other posters about issues relating to STID. And I didn’t insult you or any of your buddies for going on and on AND ON about how much you didn’t like my responding to people who engaged me in those discussions.

184. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 3, 2013

Thanks Ahmed, but I still wish boborci would confirm that it was really up to the writers, and the there was no prerequisite story theme or ideas for ST09’s sequel.

I am still thinking there may be more to it. But, I will stop my pursuit of that angle.

Thanks Ahmed, much appreciated.

185. Ahmed - December 3, 2013

And here Damon Lindelof version of events leading to the inclusion of Khan

======================
Was it always going to be Khan? Was there another idea for what this movie was going to be?

I think that there were two conversations happening simultaneously, if memory serves. The first and foremost conversation was: to Khan or not to Khan? You know, we thought we were very clever; we had this list that we made, “Pros and Khans,” but then we got really confused, because the pros and the Khans were the same thing. It was like, “OK, so, just … we’ll call it ‘Khans and Not-Khans’ … ‘Khan or Not to Khan’ — and then it was like, “F**k it! We’re doing it!”

There was that conversation, of whether or not it was going to be him, and then the secondary conversation — which became the dominating conversation in terms of the early story process — was, what do we owe because we blew up Vulcan? The thing that we decided that happened was, wouldn’t it be cool if Starfleet starts to militarize? They’ve been attacked. This crazy fucking Romulan with a drill destroys Vulcan, which is sort of the founding planet in the Federation, and then comes after Earth. So, essentially, is Starfleet going to say: “Phew! That was a close one! Now back to exploring!” No! The hawks in Starfleet are going to say: “This can never happen again. We need to start militarizing.” And we thought that was a really interesting story, and in the spirit of Gene Roddenberry: “Let Star Trek basically reflect the time in which Star Trek is being written, as a 300-year-in-the-future mirror of the time that the audience is watching it.”

And obviously we don’t want Starfleet to militarize, so that’s going to be the force of antagonism in the movie, is that that’s happening, either in secret or openly. And then our protagonist is obviously the crew on the Enterprise — those guys have to fight for the soul of Starfleet somehow; they have to sort of make an argument against militarization. That being said, that’s going to be a hard argument for them to make, because maybe Starfleet should be militarizing. So the bad guy in the movie is going to be a guy who’s, like, going one step too far. It’s Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. We want him on the wall, but he’s lying about the code red. Spoiler alert: He’s lying. Jessup is lying.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9293739/a-not-brief-conversation-damon-lindelof-writer-lost-prometheus-star-trek-darkness

186. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 3, 2013

Cygnus’s double standards here are well documented. I remember him bitching about the Starfleet building windows in STID, but yet we never heard him bitching about t the “glass enclosed” warp chamber in Stat Trek 2 here, did we? Of course, here, the engine chamber in STID was much more realistic and secure than the engine chamber in WOK that had maybe 3/8-inch glass for containment, but he doesn’t want to mention that…i.e. because it would be “inconvenient”f for Cygnus to criticize WOK in the context of his continued slams on STID.

@Ahmed: We are talking about INSULTS here. And in regards to this, I don’t object to people insulting Bob here at all….all I ask then is that those same people give me the freedom to be insulting here to people who I think are coming up with dumb-ass things just like they thing Bob might be coming up with. In order words, drop the double standard. So if you are going to call Bob Orci a hack and claim that people demonstrated in movie theater against STID by making fart sounds, then I am going to probably call you a moron or something similar — so drop the facade at acting so shocked when I use this insult in response. That’s what I am saying. I am not trying to pretend that there is a difference.

187. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 3, 2013

@183

“I’m “imagining” that there’s a difference between criticizing a writer’s writing and calling a poster who disagrees with you a “moron?””

Now you are just lying.

188. MJB - December 3, 2013

164. Cygnus-X1
Bob’s tweet from a couple weeks ago:

Roberto Orci ‏@realboborci 20 Nov
@RonaldSuk and i am not a part of bad robot. work with them on occasion.

189. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 3, 2013

Everyone.

Just so we are straight here.

For the next Trek movie, or ANY movie.

Please no talking. no commenting, and absolutely no body noises!!!

190. K-7 - December 3, 2013

Recent comments from Cygnus on our friend, Bob Orci:

“AS IF the franchise needs Bob Orci’s special brand of bad writing to carry on. What an arrogant thing to say. Star Trek needs me. Duty calls. Oh, blow it out your shorts. Seriously….I can’t even be bothered listening to what this guy has to say any more. Two hours of him blabbering ain’t gonna fix the problems in his scripts… And now that writer is out doing self-promotion and talking about why he’s so well suited to be a Star Trek writer. What he should be doing is shutting up, locking himself away for a year and taking courses in fiction writing….But I’d settle for him just shutting up.”

191. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 3, 2013

On another note.

I sure wish some of those Nibirans would have jumped onto the Saucer section and started stabbing the hull with their spears when the Enterprise appeared from the ocean.

Then there would have been a real Prime Directive inquiry!

192. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

188. MJB – December 3, 2013

Thanks. I stand corrected.

193. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 3, 2013

@190

Yea, thanks for reminding us of his Orci hate-mongering.

So of course he’s going give TUP a free pass for insulting Orci with the”hack” term. Duh! He drank the cool-aid of nuTrek Bob Orci hate way back in 2009.

So any insults towards Bob here are simply constructive criticism that will help Bob improve the next movie. ;-)

But when I dare to insult what I see are just plain dumb-ass and wrong things I read here, all of a sudden I get the big lecture here from MR. MORAL HIGHGROUND. LOL

194. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

190. K-7 – December 3, 2013

—Recent comments from Cygnus on our friend, Bob Orci—

That was a couple months ago, but your point?

195. Ahmed - December 3, 2013

How about we all agree that it is fair to criticize the WORKS of actors, screenwriters or directors. But we should not attack them personally, we are here to talk about a movie after all.

196. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

190. K-7 – December 3, 2013

Let me anticipate your argument:

I was not complaining about a poster here. I was annoyed with the self-promotion of a writer in the wake of previous events relating to that writer’s reaction of criticism of his work.

197. K-7 - December 3, 2013

@196

In other words, you are covering ass and backpedaling now?

198. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

190. K-7 – December 3, 2013
193. MJ — THE GRAND RETURN !!! – December 3, 2013

But look, let me save you guys a bunch of time (not that you necessarily have anything better to do with it).

Can we strike a bargain here?

I will agree to shut up about all of your bullying of BR/Orci/Kurtzman critics (again, their work, not them as people), if you will agree to stop trying to silence that criticism and stifle dissent.

Do we have a deal?

199. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

197. K-7 – December 3, 2013

No, in other words…

Wait, no other words are necessary. I was pretty clear.

Actually, I may even have made that comment during the few days that Bob had LEFT this site, apparently for good. I don’t remember, though, as it was a rather short-lived departure.

200. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

I’m imagining the 5 of you now frantically searching through all of the past posts here to dig up something to use against me…

I’ll give this a few more minutes, then I have to go.

I can’t get into the weeds with you guys like this every day—I have work to do—so if you have anything else to say, now is the time.

201. SkiesSeven - December 3, 2013

@Marja

“I’d like to see a SF oriented story for sure [That’s Sci Fi, NOT San Fran, guys!]. Just PLEASE, not Q or his ilk. Gad, that got done to death in ST series TV.”

———

I didn’t say I wanted to see Q as the next villain. What I suggested is that I would like to see an antagonist with similar powers. In the other thread I said that Nagilum from TNG would be my personal choice.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Nagilum

202. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

I’ll stipulate to the equivalence that you’re trying to imply.

Do we have a deal or not?

203. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

195. Ahmed – December 3, 2013

I will agree to that standard.

204. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 3, 2013

Now there is something I will agree to. Thanks Ahmed — I see you as an honest broker here trying to do the right thing. So your bargain is the one I will respond to.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
195. Ahmed – December 3, 2013
How about we all agree that it is fair to criticize the WORKS of actors, screenwriters or directors. But we should not attack them personally, we are here to talk about a movie after all.

205. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

190. K-7 – December 3, 2013

Oh, and if I recall correctly, I apologized after making that comment.

206. Dave H - December 3, 2013

Ahmed,

I agree with your proposed truce. Thanks!

207. Cygnus-X1 - December 3, 2013

Great, so it’s settled.

Thanks, Ahmed.

Oh, and thanks for being so fair-minded and reasonable MJ, you cuddly teddy bear.

208. Ahmed - December 3, 2013

MJ, Dave H & Cygnus-X1

Thanks guys, it is good that we all agree to have a civil discussion about the one thing that we all share, Star Trek.

209. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 3, 2013

@207

No problem. Virtual Bear Hug from Me to You, dude!

:-)

At the end of the day, we all love Star Trek.

210. Damian - December 3, 2013

174–RDR

I saw it 3 times (once in IMAX which was awesome). There was some clapping at the end.

The audience was largely silent during the Khan reveal. No real reaction that I could tell.

There was some groaning at the Spock screaming Khan though. I think they went over the top with that one (I still say even JJ thought so because he quickly cut to the next screen–there was no lingering over the scene like there was in TWOK).

211. Damian - December 3, 2013

210 Edit—cut to the next scene (not screen).

195–Agree. I have no problem critiquing plot, acting, things of that sort. But there’s no reason for personal attacks. All that serves is to alienate people, including any involved with Star Trek present and past from posting. This site has been lucky to have Bob Orci, Rick Sternbach and Brannon Braga, among others, post here. I think they’re big enough to take criticism of their work, but nobody likes to be personally attacked or called names.

212. The Quickening - December 3, 2013

#22

True, but what do we expect when they have like million projects all running in the same time. Almost every week, there is a new TV or movie project involving Abrams, Bob & Alex.

I think that is one of the main reasons most of their work ranges from trite to terrible.

213. c - December 3, 2013

Seriously considering not coming to this site to participate on the postings, you know what who ever runs this posting site if he or she reads them he or she should mark the ones that only argue:

Oh so now to are backtracking from what you said…

or

you guys are looking at all the past post I’ve made to use them against me…

what a waste of time………….

the ones mark by any symbol lets say ########### in red then I would not read because I would know its arguing between what should be friends, all Trekkies

if you must argue to have fun, then can you please add a tidbit of humour, so I can justify having read the thing…

why is everything we don’t understand, always called a thing,… .

214. dmduncan - December 3, 2013

210. Damian – December 3, 2013

“There was some groaning at the Spock screaming Khan though. I think they went over the top with that one”

***

Yes. Not only did I groan, but that is what I hear from non fans I know who saw it. One called it “cheesy.”

@ 212. The Quickening – December 3, 2013

I think it’s true that you risk turning in a lot of crap when you have many different projects up in the air at the same time, simply because your time is limited and you can’t stretch it to give high quality coverage to everything you are doing, but it’s also unfair to be so sweeping.

K/OPP is aces with Sleepy Hollow.

215. dmduncan - December 3, 2013

213. c – December 3, 2013

I agree. There is too much trying to play “gotcha” or trying to settle last week’s or last month’s “score” with someone else, that doesn’t fall under the heading of Having A Debate Related to Star Trek, even if it’s off-topic, and which still provides some enjoyment and reason for coming here.

I know that it can be satisfying to do that, but it loads up the comments with repetitive verbal fights that aren’t very relevant to anything Star Trek-ish, and which aren’t interesting to read (or fun to scroll through trying to find out where the argument ends) in a wildly off topic sort of way.

Let’s try to do a little better ladies and gentlemen.

216. dmduncan - December 3, 2013

195. Ahmed – December 3, 2013

Good to hear you say that, Ahmed!

There’s a difference between giving feedback, and giving flak.

217. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - December 3, 2013

All i can hope for is an original story!!!!!!! Its space, there has to be at least 50 billion stories in the firs 10000 Light years…

218. dmduncan - December 3, 2013

217. DS9 IN PRIME TIME – December 3, 2013

All i can hope for is an original story!!!!!!! Its space, there has to be at least 50 billion stories in the firs 10000 Light years…

***

50 billion stories, but only a few of them really matter.

219. Chain of Command - December 3, 2013

Am I the only person in the world who could care less about the Star Wars sequels?

220. Ahmed - December 3, 2013

@ 219. Chain of Command – December 3, 2013

“Am I the only person in the world who could care less about the Star Wars sequels?”

Probably!

221. dmduncan - December 3, 2013

219. Chain of Command – December 3, 2013

Am I the only person in the world who could care less about the Star Wars sequels?

***

Doubt it, but I just finished the Star Wars marathon and I’m very eager to see where that franchise is going. I LOVED it all over again after years of not really caring about Star Wars.

Star Trek fans ought not bitch about Star Wars’ success. There’s a good reason—several really—why Star Wars has been more successful than Star Trek. Seniority rules don’t apply; Star Trek doesn’t deserve all the glory because it came first. Star Trek will only ever match the success of Star Wars (IF it is at all possible) by understanding why Star Wars has been successful, and no, it’s not because the “masses” are too stupid to enjoy a high falutin product like Star Trek.

Bob, Alex, and JJ figured out part of the solution, which is to make Star Trek more fun, but they’re also recreating the “history” of Star Trek’s problem.

222. Ahmed - December 3, 2013

@221. dmduncan

“Bob, Alex, and JJ figured out part of the solution, which is to make Star Trek more fun”

You know, I think that Abrams should ask Bob & Alex to write one of the Star Wars spinoff movies or even EP 8 or 9.

223. dmduncan - December 3, 2013

@222. Ahmed

With all due respect to Bob and Alex, I don’t think Star Wars needs them.

I mean JJ’s got Kasdan. And Kasdan is great. He’s also an important link in continuity between the old films and the new ones.

224. Marja - December 3, 2013

185 Ahmed, so Lindelof says:

what do we owe because we blew up Vulcan? The thing that we decided that happened was, wouldn’t it be cool if Starfleet starts to militarize? They’ve been attacked. This crazy fucking Romulan with a drill destroys Vulcan, which is sort of the founding planet in the Federation, and then comes after Earth.
Obviously Lindelof has no fecking idea how long it takes and how much money it takes and how much persuasion of the ruling body it takes to militarize to that extent. [In Hollywood, you get the budget and you can fly building things, because they aren’t actually the entire object, they’re just sets and CGI. That must have been his reference point :-P]

My only explanation is that the Federation and Starfleet totally freaked out when they saw the Kelvin logs. That’s 25 years. Just about enough time for all the above to enable that sort of militarization. Construction of Vengeance was probably begun around the same time as the flagship Enterprise.

225. Marja - December 3, 2013

215 duncan “I agree. There is too much trying to play “gotcha” or trying to settle last week’s or last month’s “score” with someone else, that doesn’t fall under the heading of Having A Debate Related to Star Trek, even if it’s off-topic, and which still provides some enjoyment and reason for coming here.”

Here is why I’m glad to be “talking Trek” again. And your point is very well taken. After lengthy OT discussions relating to my personal standards of debate, and apparently of living, too, I’m glad as can be that that particular thread is closed to comments. I should have thrown in the towel much earlier.

226. Marja - December 3, 2013

Well, Ahmed, I have to say that after viewing SWars “Episode I” I couldn’t care less about SWars Ep.7 … except now that I hear Kasdan is attached, I’m feeling a bit of anticipation.

The fact is, Lucas was an admirer of Trek. I think he took that Wagon Train to the stars and to a galaxy far, far away, but Trek was there first :-)

[Not to say Trek doesn’t have its antecedents, like, ummm, FORBIDDEN PLANET] :-D

227. Aurore - December 4, 2013

“Seriously considering not coming to this site to participate on the postings…”
________

Welcome!
Please don’t go.

From what I noticed, love always prevails on this site ; I am yet to see fellow posters not finding a way to agree to disagree…eventually.

:)

228. matthias - December 4, 2013

i agree with number one in this comments. they have to trust their own instincts.

229. MJ -- THE GRAND RETURN !!! - December 4, 2013

Weird,

I don’t recall ever seeing you post here before, and so here the one time you do post it is to bitch about others? I don’t get it?

I mean, if you posted some Star Trek topics here and it got buried in the middle of peoples arguments, then I could see your argument. But to basically hardly ever participate, and then when you do, to pick bitching out others arguments here — well it seems to me that you are much more part of the problem versus part of the solution?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
213. c – December 3, 2013
Seriously considering not coming to this site to participate on the postings, you know what who ever runs this posting site if he or she reads them he or she should mark the ones that only argue:

Oh so now to are backtracking from what you said…

or

you guys are looking at all the past post I’ve made to use them against me…

what a waste of time………….

the ones mark by any symbol lets say ########### in red then I would not read because I would know its arguing between what should be friends, all Trekkies

if you must argue to have fun, then can you please add a tidbit of humour, so I can justify having read the thing…

why is everything we don’t understand, always called a thing,… .

230. Aurore - December 4, 2013

” From what I noticed, love always prevails on this site ; I am yet to see fellow posters not finding a way to agree to disagree…eventually.”
_______

…And, I should know ; I personally often agree to disagree with some of my fellow Star Trek fans (on certain topics)…

231. Adama - December 4, 2013

Frankly, I’m pretty tired of all the STID bashing. By no means its a perfect movie (what Star Trek movie is?), but it was pretty solid, entertaining, moving, had good reviews and made pretty decent money. Whats’ up with all this post-hating? Why there are a sector of the trek fanbase that is constantly trying to make us feel ashamed for liking STID?

232. Damian - December 4, 2013

228–MJ

He does have a bit of a point though. Some of these threads run 1000, even 2000 posts long. Sometimes it seems half of those are people arguing about the same things they’ve argued ad nauseum in the past.

I’m guilty of that myself. While I try hard to debate and not “argue” I realize I sometimes repeat myself in my posts.

233. boborci - December 4, 2013

164. Yes. Alex and I have a seperate production company with not as clever a name as Bad Robot: We love working with Bad Robot, and we wish we could have worked with them on Transformers, Hawaii 5-0, Now Youu See Me, The Proposal, Ender’s Game, Sleepy Hollow, and Spider-Man.

Happy to continue to be producing partners on Trek!

234. boborci - December 4, 2013

184. I thank and respect Paramount for the fact that they had no prerequisites and trusted us completely. All complaints should be directed at our desks.

235. boborci - December 4, 2013

190 k7

I don’t think I have ever said trek “needs me.” I merely expressed the notion that it called to me… Literally… Paramount called and asked us to do it. So, you can either say, as a life long fan, “no thanks. Too difficult. No win scenario. Call somebody else…” Or you can man up and say yes.

Get the difference?

236. LogicalLeopard - December 4, 2013

160. Aurore – December 3, 2013
“If as people say, Khan was ‘whitewashed’ to prevent people from thinking of brown people as terrorists, than it’s not a racist mistake by definition….”
________

If people believe that “it’s not a racist mistake by definition”, then they are entitled to their opinion.

**********************

Yes, we all are entitled to our opinion. I think my point is pretty valid though, because racism is about promoting one group of people as superior over another. Casting Benedict Cumberbatch to play Khan to avoid denigration of a race doesn’t seem like it fits the bill of racism by any stretch to me. I’m African American, and I’ve seen my share of the white “Mugger #2″ on police shows, who wears that little rolled up black cap and the ebonics slang. Obviously, they’re meant to stand in for a black or a hispanic, but I don’t call that racist, because the goal is to demonstrate that “Hey, it’s not just brown people mugging people out there.”

*****************************

***************************
We keep having this discussion, in a manner of speaking ( posts 1464 & 1467 ) :

Furthermore, as I already pointed out on another thread*, I believe (perhaps wrongly) you understood my position, a long time ago :

*******************

Perhaps I didnt. I agree with you that it would have been nice to cast an actual person of Indian/Pakistani descent to play Khan. But what I don’t agree with is that NOT casting such a person is racism. They went with a good actor, playing Khan in a different, sensible direction – plastic surgery.

237. LogicalLeopard - December 4, 2013

143. Yanks – December 3, 2013

I would agree with you in part. Klingons, Vulcans, Mudd, Section 31 etc. are all part of the Star Trek universe and one would expect interaction with these different elements in the movies. I actually came to accept “Khan” as he was indeed floating around somewhere (although I didn’t want him). Where they went overboard was the whole Kirk death scene thing. That was just a rip-off, plain and simple. The first time I saw the movie I just shut down after that scene.

But that’s me, glad you enjoyed it.

**********************

I realize that’s a VERY subjective thing, and I understand why some people weren’t pleased by it. To me, I sort of saw it through the eyes of Kirk’s character development, thinking, “My goodness, that poor kid never really had a chance, did he?” So, I’m looking at the end of his life, this character who we clearly know has awesome potential, but instead of the feel-good juvenile deliquent makes good of himself, we get this. Death. Before he walked into his calling completely. So, I was paying more attention to that than the parallels of the scene, it had me completely sucked in. Actually, just like the original did. I was concentrating more on what was going on than the parallels.

Another point with me is that I love the alternate/parallel universe type thing, to see what would have happened to characters in different situations. Not so much the “Mirror Universe” storylines, which didn’t concentrate on pivot points so much as “Everyone is evil! Muhahaha!” So it was interesting to me to see the timeline diverge, but come around to a “mirror flip” on this situation. And although many people hated the Khan, I kind of liked it *LOL*

*********************************

I also don’t agree that John Harrison being just John Harrison would have been just as bad. Sure, some would no doubt bring up Khan, but they couldn’t make the plagiarism charge fit.

*********************************

There are ways it could have been finessed, but I still think you would have had a lot of people say, “Why not Khan?” if he was genetically engineered. It wouldn’t have been so bad if he were, say, a genetically engineered Section 31 agent. If he said, “My name is…..Joachim” it may have been even better, because fans would have thought it was an interesting fake-out from being the assumed Khan. But with a genetically engineered bad guy in your second movie, you can’t really avoid the comparison. People already accuse JJ of plagiarism with the Star Wars reminiscent shots of Kirk gazing at the Enterprise in ST09 and the “Will fit, will fit!” scene from STID.

238. boborci - December 4, 2013

231 a trap

“I wish you could have, too! All those things would be better!”

239. LogicalLeopard - December 4, 2013

So boborci,

Why didn’t anyone keep the Bonzo Madrid “He so pree-cise, he pee on plate and never splash” line in the Ender’s Game movie? *LOL* And why is he so SHORT?

240. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 4, 2013

boborci. Taking the blame for the Khan thang like a man!

Thank you for your response boborci. Its really refreshing to know that my favorite pastime – Trek – was not half baked by some dark new world order cabal.

Beyond the fact that Star Trek has been at the forefront directing our society to some of the most liberal and communist depictions ever put on American TV or Cinema.

241. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 4, 2013

227. Matthias

Hey? What happened to my #1 post?

It’s #2 now?

Bad switcheroo, TM.

242. TUP - December 4, 2013

I seemed to have missed a lot overnight.

Re: my “Hack” remark, it is NOT remotely the same as an insult towards a fellow poster on this site. Orci, JJ, Bad Robot etc are public figures. it is their work we are here discussing and “hack” is a reasonable expression of ones opinion, shared by many. Just because Bob posts here does not mean he’s just like a regular trek fan. I mean really, are we going to be required to kiss Bob’s ass every day to retain posting rights? Im sure he’s used to critiquing of his work since his first creative writing class in elementary school.

And to the person who called me a moron, what part of my opinion is “moronic”? Justify the position, thats fine. then I shall defeat it.

243. crazydaystrom - December 4, 2013

The evolution (or some would say, de-evolution) of this site since I first discovered it for myself back in 2008 is striking. What I found so attractive about Trekmovie.com, besides the fact that it was about my longtime love, was the general positivity of the comments here. And how humor was more than tolerated, it was appreciated. That will always appeal to me; I gotta laugh! Posters like Mongo and The British Naval Dude (that’s probably not exactly his monicker) were always good for a laugh or smile. And as well Harry Ballz, who pops in occasionally but for the most part stays on the chat side.

There never was 100% agreement on all things. How could there be? There were debates and arguments but there was a general maturity and respect of others that really is sorely missing these around here these days. The 2013 version of this site is more generally about “lovers” vs. “haters” of the AU, viciousness, vitriol and a sad, unpalatable knee-jerk ‘attack-doggy style’ and piling on that’s more than a little curious and contradictory considering the philosophies generally espoused by Star Trek since it’s inception. All this from Trek fans and supporters!?!

Yeah, it is to me curious and sad. This was the second Trek fan site I discovered pre-nuTrek. The first was The Official Star Trek Movie site and I used to contribute to the forum there a fair amount (with another screen name) but I can’t anymore for reasons I won’t bore you with, I’m being long winded enough here (and that place is sadly like The Walking Trekkie Dead these days). So this place remains my Trek site of preference. But WOW things have changed!

Yeah sure, change is perpetual and the nature of things. And lots of that change can accurately be characterized as “negative”. So I do have to wonder with the increasing rudeness and intolerance about, is this sort of thing here unavoidable? Inevitable? :-(

I think we can do a little better. I think we should try. For anyone who cares, I’m sure you realize the prevalent tenor of so many of the comments (and the responses/reactions to them) on this site shine an incredibly negative light on Trek fandom and reinforces the unattractive stereotype that exist about us? It begs the questions: Is it not a stereotype? Is it accurate, earned and deserved?
:-(

IDIC

244. TUP - December 4, 2013

Also, reading Lindelof’s account of why they decided on Khan is telling. I mean, what a thoughtful, in depth discussion: “F*ck it, lets do it”.

Although I will again admit, I *wanted* it to be Khan. I wanted a new take on Space Seed, not the weird cobbled together story we got.

And since I was critical of the “war on terror” theme, allow me to say I love Star Trek when it comments on contemporary issues. But the fact Marcus was so glazed over (even in marketing, there was little about the wonderful Peter Weller) that the story was less a commentary on real-world issues and more a snide jab at the “evil” government war mongerers and the poor misunderstood terrorists.

245. crazydaystrom - December 4, 2013

Yikes!
Didn’t mean to be quite so preachy/ranty.
Gotta get to work!

crazydaystrom out!

IDIC!

246. Damian - December 4, 2013

232–I wonder if Paramount will continue that for the next film though. I could be completely wrong, but I just get this feeling they want to put their hands in the cookie jar a bit more next time.

Studio involvement is not always bad. I mean, they were involved to an extent with TWOK and that turned out well. But they also interfered with TFF. While TFF was never destined to be a blockbuster for many reasons, it seems studio interference hurt that film.

I do get the distinct impression they want a lighter budget next time. But even that is not always bad. It may force everyone to be a bit more creative to stay in budget (as long as Paramount doesn’t hatchet the budget, which I don’t believe will be the case).

247. LogicalLeopard - December 4, 2013

240. TUP – December 4, 2013

I think that no matter who the person is, we should maintain some sense of decorum. It has nothing to do with public figures, we should refrain from personal attacks to any poster, public, or private. And yes, “hack” is not exactly a “reasonable” expression of one’s opinion, it’s a personal attack. It’s a derogatory (and usually not truthful) assessment of someone’s vocation and art. CRITICISM is fine, as in addressing specific points, which I’ve usually seen you do. OPINION is fine, “I didn’t like this, I liked that, I thought they should have done this.” But namecalling is never fine, because it shuts down discussion. Say I have my own Trekfanfic, and you call me a hack. Well, if I worked long and hard on it, I’d appreciate constructive criticism instead of being called a hack. And I’d probably not really care to hear anything you have to say after that.

248. dmduncan - December 4, 2013

237. LogicalLeopard – December 4, 2013

So boborci,

Why didn’t anyone keep the Bonzo Madrid “He so pree-cise, he pee on plate and never splash” line in the Ender’s Game movie? *LOL* And why is he so SHORT?

***

It threw me at first but I thought Bonzo being short kinda worked. He’s got a Napolean complex.

249. dmduncan - December 4, 2013

240. TUP – December 4, 2013

Come on TUP, you should know better than that. Hack is an emotionally charged word. It’s easy to foresee that if you stick it to someone, that person will probably feel insulted.

250. Ralph Pinheiro - December 4, 2013

Mr. Bob Orci.

Cumberbatch played an augment, created a character so brilliantly and shaped it in his own way that he didn’t need to be Khan.

Were you worried that Cumberbatch didn´t well in a new character?

251. Jai1138 - December 4, 2013

@135 Jon
A rational, sensible exchange of experiences regarding Into Darkness! I loved the film greatly; you didn’t care for it much but we’re both respectful of one another’s opinions and if we were delve further into our responses to the film, I expect it would be refreshing and what this site is about when I, personally enjoy it most. Cheers! (By the way, I’m a professional filmmaker and screenwriter and for fun this summer, and because I loved ID and had some free time, I wrote a Star Trek 3 — Abramsverse — on personal spec; serializing it on my FB page and FB film company page, Incredibly Fast Films Limited — announcing it here and to you for the first time… take a read; it’s a lot of fun and darn good. boborci can rest easy now; the heavy lifting’s done!)

252. MJB - December 4, 2013

Bob Orci,
Is ST3 on track for 2016 or is 2015 a possibility? I assume Star Wars 7 plays into your release date.
Any official Trek news coming soon?

253. dmduncan - December 4, 2013

234. LogicalLeopard – December 4, 2013

Casting Benedict Cumberbatch to play Khan to avoid denigration of a race doesn’t seem like it fits the bill of racism by any stretch to me.

***

Except that it’s hard to buy that explanation when Benicio Del Toro is the first guy they tried to get for the role, followed by a string of other actors, all of whom could also have passed for mid-easterners in other movies.

If I recall correctly, “Best available actor gets the part, period” is what Bob said, which fully explains why they thought Cumberbatch was the guy to sign. No addendum to that explanation needed. Because if the money was right we’d have seen Del Toro as Khan instead of Cumberbatch.

So for me that’s the real explanation.

Now, racism may or may not have had something to do with Cumberbatch’s casting (and I’m certainly not applying that charge to Bob whose solo casting work is exemplary), but the consequences of casting him were as predictable as sticking your bleeding hand into a tank full of piranha.

But I do think the racism charge belongs with the original casting of Montalban in the 1960’s, regardless of how good he was in the role, because they were following deeply entrenched racist casting policies in Hollywood when they put Montalban in as a Punjabi Sikh and painted him brown—a choice that was identical to casting John Wayne to play Genghis Khan, or Oland, Toler, or Winters to play Jackie Chan.

Fact is it’s not all even Hollywood’s fault. Those Jackie Chan films tanked when they were originally tried with Asian actors, because what (white) audiences wanted to see was fake Asians. They wanted to see white people made up to look like Asians so that white audiences could feel how powerful their race was that they could perform every role. Minorities weren’t needed.

And every time you whitewash a role I think you play into that sentiment, and I think we’ve seen evidence of the existence of that sentiment right here with white people complaining about criticism of Cumberbatch. It seems to damage the calm they feel when they see white people taking over all the important roles and other people complain about it.

So it’s hard for me not to suspect deep seated racism every time a darker skinned role passes to a white person or even a lighter skinned person.

I loved BSG, but Colonel Tighe turned white, and Boomer went from a black man to an incredibly sexy Asian woman. The only “black” cast member was Kandyse McClure—another sexy woman.

That may be too small a sample to draw conclusions from, but if I had to go on a hunch I’d say Ron Moore likes his minorities female and sexy.

254. Damian - December 4, 2013

I don’t think I’d go so far as to say casting Cumberbatch as Khan was racist. I think convenient is more likely. They liked Cumberbatch, they wanted Khan as a villain and they forced the 2 together.

I do agree with MJ’s earlier argument though, their comment that they cast BC to avoid casting minorities as terrorists does ring a bit hollow, esp. considering Del Toro was considered.

They should just admit they wanted Cumberbatch to play the villain and they wanted Khan to be a villain, so they married them together and get it over with.

255. Jai - December 4, 2013

I wasn’t going to say anything else on the issue of Khan’s ethnicity, but I think I’d better speak up because there’s still massive amounts of misinformation about Sikhs and Indians circulating here.

Heck, Mike Johnson, the series writer working with Bob Orci on the “Star Trek: Khan” comics has even claimed the Indian subcontinent is in “Central Asia”: http://www.startrek.com/article/writers-log-2-mike-johnson-takes-you-behind-the-panels-of-idws-khan-comics.

Nope. The Indian subcontinent is in South Asia. Central Asia involves Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan etc — basically the countries between Russia, China, Iran and Afghanistan, and the Caspian Sea.

Mike’s mistake causes him to mess up his justification of “Noonien Singh” adopting the “title Khan” too: Mike claims it’s a “centuries-old title used by rulers of Central Asia”. Nope, in that part of the world it’s a title historically used by local aristocrats, not rulers of the entire region (except for the Mongols, and I doubt Mike was referring just to them).

“Khan” wasn’t used by rulers of the Indian subcontinent either. They used the title “Sultan” if they were Muslims, variations of “Raja” or “Mahajara” if they were Sikhs or Hindus, and the religiously-neutral ancient Persian title “Shahenshah” — “Emperor”, literally “King of Kings”. “Khan” itself basically just meant “nobleman”; as a formal title it was a fairly low imperial rank in medieval India.

God knows what else will make its way into new Star Trek canon if someone who is actually from an Indian background doesn’t call BS on the latest, well, BS. Like I said, I was going to continue ignoring the nonsense I’ve recently read on other threads here; talkboards sometimes become echo chambers of misinformation, but it doesn’t usually matter in the real world because most people don’t even read this stuff. Unfortunately “this stuff” now seems to be influencing Star Trek’s writers too, so here goes:

Re: #128:

“Additionally, there is a large worldwide community of Luso-Indians (Portuguese and Indian mixed race).

“Large”? That’s seriously overstating it. They’re a tiny fraction of the worldwide South Asian diaspora. And people from that background are specifically from former Portuguese colonies in India such as Goa, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Sikhs — or Punjab and the rest of North India, which was never under Portuguese control and is about a thousand miles north of those regions.

“It’s racially uncomfortable to have to read some of these posts here that arbitrarily assume all Punjabi Sikhs are racially Indian — nothing could be further from the truth.”

All Punjabi Sikhs *are* racially Indian, in their specific case with ancient Indo-European/Indo-Iranian ancestry.

“Punjabi” as an ethnic identifier refers to modern people with subsequent ancestral roots in the geographical region Punjab. It’s in South Asia, and covers the modern Indian state “Punjab”, the modern Pakistani province “Punjab”, the Indian capital Delhi, and the modern Indian states “Haryana” and “Himachal Pradesh”.

If a person is not from that background, they are not Punjabi.

Re: #137:

“Or, as I also mention, one of his parents could have been Luso-Indian, of which there are populations of in India.”

Very small populations, mostly confined to people in or from Goa, and who are Christians. Nothing to do with Sikhs — or Punjab, or North India in general.

“The clincher here is that in the new comics backstory, Khan was raised in an orphanage in India. And in orphanages there, you will mainly find two types of kids — females and mixed-race males….MIXED RACE MALES.”

That’s completely untrue. Most males in orphanages in India are “mixed race”? In *India*? It’s as nonsensical as…someone claiming the Indian subcontinent is in “Central Asia”. I know a lot of people here don’t necessarily have much first-hand knowledge of South Asia, but it would be a good idea if they didn’t make things up.

Some people commenting on Trekmovie are clearly high school kids. Some others clearly have Aspergers. For those who are in neither of those groups, I appreciate they’re susceptible to misinformation from certain other people in this echo chamber. When it comes to topics involving South Asians, sometimes I have to remember this is mostly an American crowd, not Britain where South Asians are the largest (but still pretty small) non-white “ethnic minority”. I don’t know if people who’ve been citing Wikipedia don’t really understand those articles, or they’re selectively quoting bits to fit their claims but misrepresent the real-life facts.

But I would humbly request that people — the normal, well-meaning kind who are capable of checking their own egos (not the racists, the high school kids, or the unmedicated Aspergers patients) — listen to what I’ve said here, and what I’ve repeatedly said before, instead of stubbornly pushing a fictional version of the real world just to “make the facts fit” in their own perception of the fictional Star Trek universe. I know DMDuncan has already made this point a couple of times.

JJ Abrams admitting to mistakes in how the Supreme Court dealt with the whole “Khan issue” in STID is a good start to a much better approach to the Star Trek franchise. I hope Bob Orci and his colleagues adopt the same clear-thinking attitude themselves, whether it involves the Khan comics or Star Trek 3.

256. Caesar - December 4, 2013

No, including Khan was a mistake, not concealing him.

257. Phil - December 4, 2013

@250. No chance in hell of a 2015 release. Man of Steel 2 has a 2015 release, is an effects heavy movie, and they are already in production. Paramount is still thinking about Trek 13. The problem with a 2016 release date is that all of the names of the creative team that are attached to it so far are booked solid for the next 24 months at a minimum. K/O has the Spider-Man franchise and The Mummy working. Cornish is the writer for Marvel’s Ant-Man, and JJ is off in Star Wars land for the rest of his life. Throw in all the TV that Bad Robot and K/O is working on, and 2016 is improbable at best, impossible at worst.

Considering that the 2016 schedule is filling up pretty fast, Paramount is going to have to decide soon to s**t or get off the pot.

258. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 4, 2013

Oh, please. Please stop posting so much about such a little hack comment.

247. dmduncan

The real tragedy in STiD was the theme and tone of the movie. Period.

No one here wanted to discuss the inside job aspect of this movie. People (here especially) despised the thought that I put forth that perhaps, like in STiD, one of our Admirals, or a Presidents, could ever commit such dark actions and place even darker selfish interests before his country.

The plot was so dark that it left little room for the viewer to feel comfortable that there were any heroes left. Especially after Kirk was loosing so much footing throughout the movie.

I say many people who watched STiD were affected on a subliminal level.
The events depicted onscreen are too reminiscent of 9-11 or even the 7/7 bombings for people to feel comfortable being “entertained.”

Was STiD an allegory of recent events in US history and foreign policies?
I say yes. Obviously, with the inclusion of the tag at the end of the movie (and boborci, please, it would be high-time that you could comment on this). And that is precisely what made so many feel so down about the darkness in this Trek (amongst other negative story elements). People were disturbed by Marcus’ actions and the real-world possibilities of perhaps being played by our own government. Not a great theme while

That is what we were supposed to question and consider, right?

But in the end, this is what made STiD really hurt. People are just not going to swallow that “inside job” pill. The average American viewer is just not going to like watching “his government” commit unspeakable crimes of terror, because it is just too outside their “comfort zone.”

They could never accept it as a possibility because it threatens their comfy-cozy world. Even though I provided perfect proof in the form of that video everyone hated on me for posting so many times. Yes, that damned video, AGAIN.

And in two or three posts you may see the reactions that I am speaking about. Some people will just not be able to control themselves in the face of such a negative possibility staring them in the face.

See? That’s the perfect example of what really was wrong with STiD.

259. TUP - December 4, 2013

It wasnt racism to cast BC as Khan. It was arrogance. It was disrespect to canon. Disrespect to the fan base.

Including Khan was not the mistake. *This* story was a mistake. Including Khan when you couldnt find the right actor for the part was a mistake.

But lets also be clear – John Harrison as a brand new augment wouldnt have worked. Everyone would be thinking Khan. Thats why Harrison as Joachin works so much better.

Id actually love to know from BobOrci if there was any thought to changing the character from Khan to Joachin or someone else once BC was cast…

As for my “hack” comment, perhaps overly emotional. But I’ve been watching Star Trek since I was old enough to watch TV. Im a *bit* of a writer (for live performances) so I understand the love of the craft.

260. Damian - December 4, 2013

255-

I think Paramount is firm on 2016 because of the 50th anniversary. They’ll probaly still give the team a lot of latitude, but 2016 won’t be one of them.

Otherwise, they may have waited until JJ was available to direct, rather than seek out a new director.

261. Aurore - December 4, 2013

“Yes, we all are entitled to our opinion. I think my point is pretty valid though, because racism is about promoting one group of people as superior over another. Casting Benedict Cumberbatch to play Khan to avoid denigration of a race doesn’t seem like it fits the bill of racism by any stretch to me. I’m African American, and I’ve seen my share of the white ‘Mugger #2′ on police shows, who wears that little rolled up black cap and the ebonics slang. Obviously, they’re meant to stand in for a black or a hispanic, but I don’t call that racist, because the goal is to demonstrate that ‘Hey, it’s not just brown people mugging people out there.'”
_________

We do not share the same opinion on the casting of Mr. Cumberbatch as Khan. That much is certain.

And so, when I talk about that issue, evidently, it is not to coerce anyone into adopting my point of view, I have no interest in doing so. As you said ; we are entitled to our opinion.

I agreed to disagree with you on the matter many months ago.

“…Perhaps I didnt. I agree with you that it would have been nice to cast an actual person of Indian/Pakistani descent to play Khan….”

Respectfully, and, to be accurate, in all the posts I wrote on the Khan question, nowhere did I use the word “Pakistani” when referring to the character (the reason why I linked to some of my posts regarding the casting issue is for anyone else interested in this discussion to better understand my position, since I assumed you remembered what I had written when interacting with you. I have read your comments, and remember your thoughts ).

“…But what I don’t agree with is that NOT casting such a person is racism. They went with a good actor, playing Khan in a different, sensible direction – plastic surgery.”

At the risk of repeating myself ; I have read your comments, and remember your thoughts .

262. dmduncan - December 4, 2013

253. Jai – December 4, 2013

Heck, Mike Johnson, the series writer working with Bob Orci on the “Star Trek: Khan” comics has even claimed the Indian subcontinent is in “Central Asia”

***

Hey Jai. Good to see you.

Surprising to see those mistakes given the available research tools.

I found a similar error in Bob’s very good series, Sleepy Hollow, where the Mohawk “shaman” in one episode implies that pow wows are a stereotype that people have of modern Native Americans.

Nope. Pow wows are alive and well all across America. Not a stereotype at all. I mean, all you have to do is search the word “pow wow” to confirm it, so I think a lot of this stuff gets written from erroneous common “knowledge” or un-researched false impressions.

Kind of perplexing.

263. MJ - December 4, 2013

It’s a good point, but again, I have never seen this “c” person here before. So it’s like, why does this person feel the need to make his/her only contribution one that bitches about other posters. I mean, if c were legitimately trying to bring up or discuss Star Trek topics, then I would get this. But for someone who almost NEVER contributes here, I find that post condesending.

If this were a court of law, and “c” brought up these “charges,” then I think the result you would see would be that the case would be thrown out because “c” would be ruled to have “No Standing” to be able to bring those charges.

Does “c” have anything to contribute here besides bitching about others? It’s certainly an open question that I have. ???

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
230. Damian – December 4, 2013
228–MJ

He does have a bit of a point though. Some of these threads run 1000, even 2000 posts long. Sometimes it seems half of those are people arguing about the same things they’ve argued ad nauseum in the past.

I’m guilty of that myself. While I try hard to debate and not “argue” I realize I sometimes repeat myself in my posts.

264. Jai - December 4, 2013

DMDuncan, re: #251:

“But I do think the racism charge belongs with the original casting of Montalban in the 1960′s, regardless of how good he was in the role, because they were following deeply entrenched racist casting policies in Hollywood when they put Montalban in as a Punjabi Sikh and painted him brown—a choice that was identical to casting John Wayne to play Genghis Khan, or Oland, Toler, or Winters to play Jackie Chan.”

Or Yul Brynner as an Egyptian Pharaoh (with “exotic, foreign accent”) or the King of Siam (again with “exotic, foreign accent”).

Now, I’m a huge fan of Brynner; he was charismatic as hell, and I think he would’ve made a fantastic choice as Khan Noonien Singh as an alternative to Ricardo Montalban if an Indian actor wasn’t available…back in the 60s.

But that was then, and this is now, and the same arguments we’ve both been making about Montalban’s casting apply to Brynner too. Some people are also missing the point about Montalban’s accent, at least in Space Seed; it wasn’t supposed to be interpreted as specifically “Mexican”, just “vaguely exotic and foreign”. The same deal as Brynner’s various accents when he was playing a non-white character.

Anyway, I’m sure you can tell I’m pretty fed up of this whole subject. Apart from lack of free time, it’s one of the reasons I’ve recently stuck to just reading the articles here instead of engaging with the more dubious comments below the line. For some reason, some people come out with very strange statements whenever anything involving South Asians or the Middle East is discussed. Ignorance, lack of personal experience, trusting the wrong people for information, or maybe just a sign of the times. Some people will listen, but others won’t, and I’m not going to waste my time arguing with the second group. Remember the old joke “Honey, I can’t go to sleep yet, somebody is wrong on the internet!”

But I thought you made brilliant points in #251 (as usual), so I wanted to supplement that with my own thoughts. And it gave me an excuse to mention the great Yul Brynner ;)

265. MJ - December 4, 2013

@257

“As for my “hack” comment, perhaps overly emotional.”

Thanks TUP. I withdraw my “moron” comment directed at you, which was in response to that.

266. MJ - December 4, 2013

@262

Dude, we covered this in detail several weeks back. Khan, an Orphan, was most likely from a mixed marriage, with one parent either a Mexican Punjabi (from the mid-20th century Punjabi diaspora to Mexico and elsewhere) or a Luso-Indian. Based on this, Montelban was racially and adequate casting choice.

There is now need for a “clean racial” thing here — in fact, that is insulting to most of us who are from mixed race families. The idea that you or someone else would need to verify that he is 100% Indian is insulting to my intelligence, and out of date here in the 21st century.

267. Ahmed - December 4, 2013

@ 250. MJB – December 4, 2013

“Is ST3 on track for 2016 or is 2015 a possibility? I assume Star Wars 7 plays into your release date.”

I don’t think it would be wise to release Star Trek 13 in 2015, there are so many big movies coming out that year. Beside we all know that Bob & Alex are way too busy with their other projects, I don’t see how they will manage to get the movie out in 2016, let alone in 2015 if they don’t start now.

Here are some of the major releases in 2015:

Avengers: Age of Ultron
Star Wars Episode VII
Man of Steel 2
Terminator
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2
Mission: Impossible 5
James Bond 24
Inferno
Jurassic World
Fantastic Four
Ant-Man
Tomorrowland
Assassin’s Creed
Bourne 5
Mad Max: Fury Road
Finding Dory
Die Hard 6

268. dmduncan - December 4, 2013

256. TrekMadeMeWonder – December 4, 2013

No one here wanted to discuss the inside job aspect of this movie.

***

Well a few people did, but they didn’t have much company.

269. c - December 4, 2013

I said I read not that I post…

but I want to read about Star Trek, yes anyone can say they hate or love INTO… but to argue about you said, I said without including a wee bit of matter even if it’s red is pointless reading for me.

You can argue if you wish, but don’t make me read it……..can you please mark your post as (S)imple (M)indless (C)hatter with these letters in capitol form, please…

270. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 4, 2013

I somehow missed those comments, dm.

But the negative reactions to those posts became something of a controversy here. Mostly because of my insisting that it be discussed.

But it did cause a lot of anger – directed at me – for bringing it up so much, when it was never really openly discussed here.

Resentment and ad hominem attacks directed at me, (and Other Guy, of course : ) is all it ever generated.

That to me is a good indicator that this topic really did step on so many peoples nerves.

271. c - December 4, 2013

Friends you have readers here…many. many, many that never post, because we are interested in what you have to say, and in your ideas and the why’s and why not you love or hate any given movie. If I have offended anyone, it was not my intention, mindless chatter is mindless to those that the comment was not directed at and again I did offer a solution, kill your opponent if you must, but make it funny, sorry to all involve…

And you are right I, will shut up unless I have a topic or commenting on a topic from now on, also i can just do the math and figure out the people that have conversations just between themselves and not read those…

272. dmduncan - December 4, 2013

264. MJ – December 4, 2013

@262

Dude, we covered this in detail several weeks back. Khan, an Orphan, was most likely from a mixed marriage, with one parent either a Mexican Punjabi

***

That literally has no meaning. The term “most likely” applies only to variables we are trying to explain in the real world. The only thing it can apply to in Space Seed is whether the writers and producers intended Khan to be perceived as half Mexican, and there is no evidence at all for that.

That’s just what you guys came up with last month.

Looking at historical context including Hollywood’s casting habits, we can actually say that it is “most likely” that they disregarded Montalban’s personal ethnicity and saw him as the “best available actor” to portray what the episode makes him out to be: A North Indian Sikh (with the help of a little brownface makeup, of course).

Also, being 100% this or that race is a red herring that ignores the reality of racial types, AND that some groups have greater intermixing and therefore a broader racial makeup than others.

Using a member of the fringe to represent the core is in my view stealth racism, which hardcore fans are then unfortunately left trying to make sense of within canon.

273. Jai - December 4, 2013

Re: #253:

““Khan” wasn’t used by rulers of the Indian subcontinent either. They used the title “Sultan” if they were Muslims, variations of “Raja” or “Mahajara” if they were Sikhs or Hindus, and the religiously-neutral ancient Persian title “Shahenshah” — “Emperor”, literally “King of Kings”. “Khan” itself basically just meant “nobleman”; as a formal title it was a fairly low imperial rank in medieval India.”

Typo, that should have been spelt “Maharaja”.

274. Phil - December 4, 2013

@265. Current 2015 release schedule aside, Trek 13 in 2015 is just impossible at this point. Every movie on your list is either in front of cameras now, or will be after the first of the year. Trek 13 doesn’t even have a story yet. If Paramount doesn’t get off the dime and make some announcements in the next 90 days, the likelihood of a 2016 release is probably out the window, too.

275. Red Dead Ryan - December 4, 2013

The comics are not canon, so I wouldn’t sweat the details.

Also, TMMW, the word “hack” is an insult. It’s obviously used to degrade someone and their abilities. I understand that you and fellow Talifan TUP have a beef with Bob but you are out of line here.

276. MJB - December 4, 2013

I was thinking November/December 2015 might be a long shot for ST3 but Paramount probably wouldn’t want it to compete with SW7. So that leaves Summer 2016 or Nov/Dec 2016. It would be nice to have it come out on the 50th anniversary. Four years between releases…if it ends up Summer 2017 – – I don’t care for that but I guess it’s better than nothing.
I sure would like Trek to be back on TV – maybe the master Paramount/CBS plan is to finish ST3 and then initiate a new TV series – if they can get that rights issue worked out.

277. Ahmed - December 4, 2013

@ 272. Phil – December 4, 2013

“@265. Current 2015 release schedule aside, Trek 13 in 2015 is just impossible at this point. Every movie on your list is either in front of cameras now, or will be after the first of the year. Trek 13 doesn’t even have a story yet. If Paramount doesn’t get off the dime and make some announcements in the next 90 days, the likelihood of a 2016 release is probably out the window, too.”

Agree, that why I said “Beside we all know that Bob & Alex are way too busy with their other projects, I don’t see how they will manage to get the movie out in 2016, let alone in 2015 if they don’t start now.”

They need to start working on the script like yesterday, find a good director & get this thing rolling asap.

278. dmduncan - December 4, 2013

262. Jai – December 4, 2013

But that was then, and this is now,

***

Exactly. Why would you duplicate the mistakes of the past when the same pressures weren’t on you to do so?

Unless maybe you thought they weren’t mistakes?

279. dmduncan - December 4, 2013

268. TrekMadeMeWonder – December 4, 2013

A lot of people don’t want to know anything new AND they are good at self deception. VERY good at it. So I hope you didn’t take whatever crap you got to heart.

280. c - December 4, 2013

Also if you say something that you know to be just wasted reading for anyone not involve in your personal argument, you can include at the end of your post a (sorry c)

After all I just wasted getting my eyes tired from reading once again some thing that doesn’t matter to me and seeing a sorry c at the end, will calm me, I assured you.

281. dmduncan - December 4, 2013

262. Jai – December 4, 2013

Some people are also missing the point about Montalban’s accent, at least in Space Seed; it wasn’t supposed to be interpreted as specifically “Mexican”, just “vaguely exotic and foreign”. The same deal as Brynner’s various accents when he was playing a non-white character.

***

Excellent point, Jai. We’re talking about the white bread 1960’s here where a guy with such slight physical differences as a bowl cut and pointy ears was enough to make him seem completely alien!

Hilarious, but it’s really a measure of how ignorant the society was at the time that such small differences seemed epic.

282. TrekmadeMeWonder - December 4, 2013

273. Red Dead Ryan

I was using the term “Hack” euphemistically to call out that the discussion should proceed from that over-discussed and fruitless topic.

283. TrekmadeMeWonder - December 4, 2013

278. c – December 4, 2013

Also if you say something that you know to be just wasted reading…

c, exactly what does your “c” moniker mean?

(sorry all)

284. c - December 4, 2013

Maybe that’s why I like forums better then blogs…

In a forum we make questions or answer them, give ideas and debate them.., but on blogs people resort to…….oh cr….p, condescending again…

bye, bye

for now

285. LogicalLeopard - December 4, 2013

251. dmduncan – December 4, 2013

If I recall correctly, “Best available actor gets the part, period” is what Bob said, which fully explains why they thought Cumberbatch was the guy to sign. No addendum to that explanation needed. Because if the money was right we’d have seen Del Toro as Khan instead of Cumberbatch.

So for me that’s the real explanation.

*************************

True, and I wrote about that in a later post. It was what I HEARD was a reason for casting BC, or at least being comfortable with BC, and since I heard it in these forums, that didn’t exactly make it true. It seems more likely to be the way you describe.

**************************

And every time you whitewash a role I think you play into that sentiment, and I think we’ve seen evidence of the existence of that sentiment right here with white people complaining about criticism of Cumberbatch. It seems to damage the calm they feel when they see white people taking over all the important roles and other people complain about it.

******************************

Ehhhh…..I don’t know about that. It seems that more people are coming out against BC’s casting than in support of it. And as a black guy who supports the casting, I think that I and others are supporting the casting because it’s presumed that Khan took on a secret identity, complete with changes to his appearance. We’ve been down the rabbit hole with whether or not that was necessary, but I don’t think it’s an invalid theory. The lines from the movie make it clear that he was given a new identity, although it doesn’t specifically say that his apperance was altered. Since it obviously is, I think it’s a reasonable assumption.

And that’s what makes it different from “whitewashing.” If they had a flashback scene to Earth when they were all getting into the Botany Bay, and BC played Khan, I’d object too. Or if they showed him being taken out of the stasis tube at the Botany Bay. But he’s playing Khan under a very specific circumstance, which doesn’t make it whitewashing in my book. I see how some people may think differently, but that’s my opinion.

****************************
I loved BSG, but Colonel Tighe turned white, and Boomer went from a black man to an incredibly sexy Asian woman. The only “black” cast member was Kandyse McClure—another sexy woman.

That may be too small a sample to draw conclusions from, but if I had to go on a hunch I’d say Ron Moore likes his minorities female and sexy.

******************************

Now, HERE’s a completely different situation. *LOL* I’m not sure how to classify this, exactly. I didn’t watch the original, but loved the remake. I was aware that Boomer was originally a black man, but I wasn’t aware that Tigh was too. Now, I wasn’t all that offended that a black man was being replaced with an Asian woman with a specific story anymore than I was offended at the Starbuck switch, but…..you know, you may have a point there with the “female and sexy” minority thing. I’d like to see how that decision making process went.

286. LogicalLeopard - December 4, 2013

246. dmduncan – December 4, 2013

It threw me at first but I thought Bonzo being short kinda worked. He’s got a Napolean complex.

****************

Not to give anything away, but I thought that his being bigger than Ender was an integral part of the storyline, with virtually EVERYONE being bigger than him, other than Bean, and able to physically bully him. I see the Napoleon angle, but I didn’t like it.

287. c - December 4, 2013

“c” is for character you know like “that character c is so condescending or that character c may have a point even if its tiny…

I just like reading, i have no idea why i started posting, I’m not stupid, what is the matter with me, I know i have no ideas to offer…

Question: will I go see the next Star Trek movie, done by anybody, written by anybody, directed by anybody?

Answer: Yes, and after it many people here will pick it apart and that’s ok, just hope that if they argue it will something like this:

I never said that, you beautiful thing you, and the comeback is, yes you did my big boy you.

You see i also can be accuse of mindless chatter…

sorry all

288. Damian - December 4, 2013

264–MJ

Depends on what your source for Khan’s parentage is. In the Eugenics Wars novels by Greg Cox, Khan’s mother was the leading doctor from the Chrysalis Project that genetically engineered Khan and his people. In that case, he was not an orphan.

After his mother was killed, he was taken in by Gary Seven in the hopes of training him to help humanity.

Cox’s 3 Khan books are excellent reads. The comic back story is completely different apparently (I don’t follow the comics generally) but an excellent alternate take on Khan’s backstory. In the novels, Khan is from India and initially embraces his Sikh heritage, but later he decides he is above any heritage and that’s when he shaves his beard.

289. Damian - December 4, 2013

Cox does an excellent job, by the way, of trying to explain any inconsistencies in Khan in Space Seed from the Sikh’s in India, as well as trying to frame the Eugenics Wars using existing real world events in the 1990’s and his Rise and Fall novel does a great job of telling his story on Ceti Alpha V and any inconsistencies between Space Seed and TWOK (including how he knew Chekov–expertly depicting Chekov as a security officer which would tie into his time between TMP and TSFS as a tactical-security chief).

290. TUP - December 4, 2013

@ Red Dead Ryan. I already addressed the “Hack” remark. Calling you a dipshit would be an insult. Hack was my opinion of the shoddy job the entire production team did on this film, but more specifically the storytellers. I still cannot fathom how they didnt see this was a mess.

But when you go back to 09 and watch that film with a critical eye, you can see the mistakes. The convoluted plots, changing characters’ personalities, etc. Those things got even worse in STID.

And the plot was unfocused. As Lindelof said, even with “Cons” to using Khan they decided to “f*ck it” and use him anyway. They basically shoehorned in a canon character who looked, talked and acted nothing like the canon character and as a result, distracted away from what *might* have been an interesting story focuing on the Marcus’.

So I apologize for using “hack”. Unfocused would be better. Poor would be better. Frustrating would be better.

291. LogicalLeopard - December 4, 2013

257. TUP – December 4, 2013
It wasnt racism to cast BC as Khan. It was arrogance. It was disrespect to canon. Disrespect to the fan base.

******************************

I fail to see how casting a white guy as Khan is arrogant and disrespectful to canon and the fanbase when A WHITE GUY PLAYED HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE *LOL* It is VERY easy to see that his appearance was likely altered, since he was given a new identity. That is in no way disrespectful to canon, or the fan base. The only thing that could be conceivably disrespectful to the fan base is not specifically including a line about his altered appearance in the dialogue. And that’s not disrespectful, that’s just underestimating fan hunger for everything to be specifically, canononically accounted for. Which isn’t going to happen, for the sake of drama, and has NEVER happened in Star Trek. They don’t explain things, you just see Kor pop up with a wrinkled forehead in DS9 and go, “Er….wha?”

*******************************

Including Khan was not the mistake. *This* story was a mistake. Including Khan when you couldnt find the right actor for the part was a mistake.

But lets also be clear – John Harrison as a brand new augment wouldnt have worked. Everyone would be thinking Khan. Thats why Harrison as Joachin works so much better.

Id actually love to know from BobOrci if there was any thought to changing the character from Khan to Joachin or someone else once BC was cast…

As for my “hack” comment, perhaps overly emotional. But I’ve been watching Star Trek since I was old enough to watch TV. Im a *bit* of a writer (for live performances) so I understand the love of the craft.

*******************************

And here’s where we ALL need to consider something. Just because we don’t AGREE with the decisionmaking of the storytellers doesn’t mean that is valid criticism. We can say, “I think Joachim would have worked better than Khan”, but we can’t say they made a mistake in doing so, because that’s a matter of opinion. I’m glad you took back the hack comment, as a writer yourself, you’d probably be ticked if someone called you a “hack” because of your work. And that’s what I was getting at, we all have some pet ideas that are special to us, but we have to be careful with insulting people. I was ready to insult EVERYONE who thought that Robert April of all people was the villian…..until it looked like it was, and he appeared in the comics *LOL* That shut me up really quickly.

292. Damian - December 4, 2013

283–I don’t think there was any intentional whitewashing with BC as Khan.

I think it was just a simple, we like BC as a villain, we want Khan as a villain, therefore BC is Khan. I think that’s really the end of it.

I just agree with MJ, that the team making this out to be some sort of political correctness crusade doesn’t wash.

293. MJ - December 4, 2013

“C”

With all due respect,

Your posts so far seem to be right in line with all the non-Star Trek commentary stuff that you were complaining about in the first place. Welcome to the “irrelevance club,” my new friend.

;-)

294. Mr. ATOZ - December 4, 2013

Giving us a crappy DVD/Blu Ray with little extras doesn’t help much either. Garth would have been a better choice as a character for BC. You’re still an amazing director – I put this more on the writers and the studio. Better luck with Star Wars.

295. dmduncan - December 4, 2013

283. LogicalLeopard – December 4, 2013

Ehhhh…..I don’t know about that. It seems that more people are coming out against BC’s casting than in support of it. And as a black guy who supports the casting,

***

Well it’s good of you to to give a benefit of the doubt but there were a bunch of very specific comments by a group of folks who clearly have no trouble with a Punjabi Sikh being played by a pale white brit with no explanation needed. They just accept it as entirely plausible and have bitched at those of us who are complaining.

It had nothing to do with imagined secret identities and changes to his appearance.

They had no problem with Cumberbatch in the role just as he was with no further explanation needed to accept him, in their eyes, as a Punjabi Sikh.

And that’s a different group of people from those like yourself who accept the casting but who DO still feel an explanation is necessary to account for the difference in appearance, and are providing one themselves (i.e., change in identity = change in appearance).

The group of folks I’m talking about didn’t seem to think THAT was at all necessary.

296. Garak's Pride - December 4, 2013

This c person is funny.

5 posts so far, with none being on a Star Trek topic, yet his/her schtick seems to be about complaining about people wasting time here with argumentative posts.

It’s like if Lenin complained that his friends were just too socialist for his personal tastes.

c, any thoughts on Star Trek?

297. Damian - December 4, 2013

289–Showing what a Trek nerd I can be sometimes, the Excelsior novel “Forged in Fire” explained how Kang, Kor and Koloth got their wrinkled foreheads (basically explaining how the Klingons infected by the Augment virus in Enterprise were cured).

298. TUP - December 4, 2013

LogicalLeopard – it was disrespectful to cast a very white Brit as Khan because they ignored the source material in a profound way. That was the reaction of some poeple in the theatre with me: disbelief.

They cast a crew in part because of their physical resemblence to the originals. So appearance WAS important. They were just so determined to tell *their* Khan story that it didnt matter.

And for the record, I’ve had my writing criticsed many times in public. You learn to dismiss the biased criticism from the reasonable and learn from it. I hope Bob takes it to heart.

299. LogicalLeopard - December 4, 2013

293. dmduncan – December 4, 2013

***

Well it’s good of you to to give a benefit of the doubt but there were a bunch of very specific comments by a group of folks who clearly have no trouble with a Punjabi Sikh being played by a pale white brit with no explanation needed. They just accept it as entirely plausible and have bitched at those of us who are complaining.

******************

Now granted, I’m not on this bulletin board all the time, and I’m on less frequently since the movie has been released, but…..who are these people who believe that? I can’t recall a comment from anyone who says, “Eh, it’s plausible BC is playing Khan straight, and I don’t need an explanation, nor have I come up with one to justify it. So stop complaining.” I don’t understand how someone does that, so I’m on your side with that one, that’s just kind of mindboggling.

300. Ahmed - December 4, 2013

@ 294. Garak’s Pride – December 4, 2013

“It’s like if Lenin complained that his friends were just too socialist for his personal tastes. ”

LOL

301. dmduncan - December 4, 2013

283. LogicalLeopard – December 4, 2013

I’d like to see how that decision making process went.

***

Could also be something like: Middle-tier, geeky, writer-producer Ron Moore wants to be surrounded by hot actresses on his spectacular new show.

302. dmduncan - December 4, 2013

Though that wouldn’t explain why Tigh went from black man to cranky old white guy.

303. LogicalLeopard - December 4, 2013

295. Damian – December 4, 2013
289–Showing what a Trek nerd I can be sometimes, the Excelsior novel “Forged in Fire” explained how Kang, Kor and Koloth got their wrinkled foreheads (basically explaining how the Klingons infected by the Augment virus in Enterprise were cured).

****************************

*LOL* I see that now, but what I was talking about is the fact that Kor showed up BEFORE Enterprise aired. And at the time, there was NO explanation made. And prior to ENT, the closest way of addressing it was Worf saying that Klingons didn’t like to talk about it in “Trials and Tribulations.”

So, consider: From Star Trek the Motion Picture in, what? 1979? Alllllllllll the way to Enterprise in 2000 something, over TWO decades, NO explanation for bumpy Klingon foreheads. And most of us, I imagine, didn’t have a problem with it.

But BC plays Khan, and says that Section 31 made a new identify for him, but people LOSE IT because he doesn’t look the same. Yes, it’s not explicitly said that he had his appearance changed, but come ON….there are MUCH bigger fish to fry when it comes to accepting unexplained changes in Star Trek. So that was my point, essentially.

304. LogicalLeopard - December 4, 2013

299. dmduncan – December 4, 2013
283. LogicalLeopard – December 4, 2013

I’d like to see how that decision making process went.

***

Could also be something like: Middle-tier, geeky, writer-producer Ron Moore wants to be surrounded by hot actresses on his spectacular new show.

*********************************

Or, he figured that hot actresses was the way to get people to watch, and separate it from run of the mill science fiction.

You know, when I was responding, and thinking that I wasn’t offended by the Boomer switch, but I might be less confortable with the Tigh switch had I known about it, I started thinking……is that because the change to a different minority or the change to a good looking woman? I can’t rule out that those sort of things weigh into my opinion subconsciously.

On a different note, it seems like everyone is playing fast and loose with race switches now, well at least caucasian-to-minority switches. Take the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Nick Fury’s a white guy in the mainstream comics, but for the “Ultimate Comics” line (a sort of BSG remake for Marvel comics) , for whatever reason, they made Nick Fury a black guy strongly reminiscent of Samuel L. Jackson. When the characters are picking who will play them in the movies, the Fury character even says that Samuel L Jackson will play him *LOL* And lo and behold, someone brings the comic to Samuel L Jackson’s attention, and when they make the movies, he plays him. Later, you’ve got the Norse Gods (who should be white by all definitions) being played by black and Asian actors. But people dont’ really care anymore, it seems. And that’s not a bad thing, necessarily. It’s more like an artistic touch. That’s not to be compared with Khan in STID though, which I think was written into the story.

305. Damian - December 4, 2013

301–

Part of that might me there was no internet in 1979. Otherwise, fans may have hit the internet complaining at how TMP can depict Klingons totally different than from the original series.

I liked Enterprise’s story about how Klingons came to be smooth headed for the original series. And the Excelsior novel explained how that was corrected, so the story came full circle.

But both those instances were based on Trekkies wanting an in-story explanation for the differences. It wasn’t a perfect story, but it was probably as good as they could do to fill in the inconsistencies (and I remember some novels in the 80’s occasionally citing a genetic reason for the difference in appearance).

306. Damian - December 4, 2013

But of course, the caveat is novels are not canon (I generally accept the backstory of the novels unless contradicted on screen).

307. TUP - December 4, 2013

You dont explain away the completely different appearance of a major canonical character with “dont be a lazy viewer” or “*obviously* Section 31 changed his appearance”. *That* is lazy.

Did Secon 31 change his voice? His mannerisms? His fighting style? His stature? his height? His personality? His motivations?

Come on….

The writers thought *their* take on Khan would and BC’s performance would ober-shadow all those issues.

They were wrong.

308. LogicalLeopard - December 4, 2013

303. Damian – December 4, 2013
301–

Part of that might me there was no internet in 1979. Otherwise, fans may have hit the internet complaining at how TMP can depict Klingons totally different than from the original series.

*******************

I think you hit the Klingon on the forehead, buddy! The internet is the difference. It allows people to find a community of like minded (or better yet, contrary minded) individuals so they can gripe, grouse, complain, and nitpick, stoking each other’s flames. Look at all of us. A LOT of movies were produced this year, but we’re still talking about this one. We go back and forth and sometimes rehash the same old arguments.

I posted a while back that I think the Internet had a minor role in killing Enterprise as well. Notice how the complaints about Star Trek series mount when the Internet came out. The internet become common place about, what, DS9? I didn’t start regularly using it until college in the mid-late nineties. Now, I don’t want to say that there’s a complete correlation and that the actual products don’t have anything to do with the criticism they got, but it’s a strange similarity. I’d say if you ranked those series, I think people would rank DS9 first, Voy second, and ENT last, on the whole. But before the internet, unless you had regular access to a large group of Trek fans, there wasn’t anyone to complain to. So things like the forehead issue, you just shrugged your shoulders and declared it to be a mystery.

309. Damian - December 4, 2013

305–I do tend to agree. I’ll admit, I’m anal about canon and the overall Star Trek story.

I can’t just ignore the total difference in appearance of Khan without explanation. I wouldn’t say I need to be spoonfed, but some on screen explanation would have helped immensely. Just as simple as some have suggested here, that Section 31 altered his appearance for covert operations (totally in line with their methods–or any intelligence service method for that matter). That was not done here, leaving a rather large hole, IMO.

That’s coming from someone who really liked STID, BTW. But I’m not a blind follower. While I loved the movie overall, I have no problem nitpicking certain elements.

310. Damian - December 4, 2013

306–True about the internet. The first time Star Trek really used the internet was when Generations came out, but the internet as we know it was really still in it’s infancy back then.

I don’t think the internet was really used like it was today with posting and comments until Voyager was out, maybe a bit later.

This site didn’t start until 2006 I believe it was. And I don’t think it really gained traction until about 2008.

Prior to that, it was mostly people sending in letters. And certainly back in 1979, not too many people were going to send letters to Paramount just to complain that the Klingons looked different in TMP.

311. TUP - December 4, 2013

I think part of the acceptance of the Klingons in TMP was:

– Far less Trek “out there” so the canon was much smaller

– Klingons depicted in TMP were what Gene had intended but didnt have the budget for.

– They looked much better.

Just like Del Toro would look different from RM but, just like all the principle actors look different from the originals but we accept the differences because the similarities and intentions outweigh them.

312. LogicalLeopard - December 4, 2013

305. TUP – December 4, 2013
You dont explain away the completely different appearance of a major canonical character with “dont be a lazy viewer” or “*obviously* Section 31 changed his appearance”. *That* is lazy.

****************************

That’s not lazy, that’s a valid interpretation of Khan’s line about him being given a new identity. Lazy is accepting a French captain’s British accent for years with no question, like we did with Picard, even though other people had the correct regional accents, like Scotty and Chekov. And yes, I fully admit to being lazy on that.

******************************

Did Secon 31 change his voice?

*****************************
Do you mean his voice or his accent? Khan is a genius, faking a British accent shouldn’t present a problem if Madonna can do it. *L* Besides, if he really is of Indian descent, he was exposed to English accents on the regular, because Indians probably get a lot of British culture imported.

******************************
His mannerisms?

***********************************

I’d say ANGER changed his mannerisms. Khan appeared to be ticked beyond trying to charmingly hose people like he did in Space Seed, or practicing space yoga. The arrogance was still there, though.
*************************************

His fighting style?
**************************************

Yes, probably. He WAS an Agent, stands to reason that he was either trained on or researched fighting techniques himself. I think the latter is more likely, so he’d know how his potential enemies (Section 31) fought so he could counteract them. And he put that to good use on the Vengeance

*****************************************

His stature? his height?

*****************************************

Not sure there was a difference in height and stature, but those are things that unless they are grossly obvious, they should not be considered. I’m pretty sure Chris Pine is taller than William Shatner, but that’s not something we’re supposed to notice.

******************************************

His personality? His motivations?

******************************************

Yes! His motivation changed his personality. Remember, he was trying to con the Enterprise crew in Space Seed, and he was trying to get revenge in STID. He wanted revenge in TWOK as well, but that’s a bit of a different situation. You’ve got a Khan that has been marooned in some of the harshest possible condition for YEARS, who can rehearse Kirk’s death until it becomes almost poetic. In STID, he hasn’t lost anyone – yet, but he’s been forced to work for people. Not just hurt, but humiliated. So that’s why we get more head exploding, and less “buried alliiiivee….buried alllliiiiiveee….” I’m thinking Khan had probably lost some sanity in TWOK as well.
***************************

Come on….

The writers thought *their* take on Khan would and BC’s performance would ober-shadow all those issues.

They were wrong.

*****************************

Now there’s something we can agree on. Well, to some extent. I say they were wrong for SOME PEOPLE. Not for all, or most. And in that case, maybe they SHOULD have known better. You can’t overshadow people’s favorite memories with good performances, good special effects, or even good sense. People like things the way they’ve always known them, without change. But then again, contrawise to that, maybe they just liked the idea and didn’t care what hard core fans thought. You’ll NEVER convince Trek fans no matter WHAT you do, because you’ll always have a vocal presense screaming that you’re an idiot.

313. LogicalLeopard - December 4, 2013

308. TUP – December 4, 2013
I think part of the acceptance of the Klingons in TMP was:

– Far less Trek “out there” so the canon was much smaller

– Klingons depicted in TMP were what Gene had intended but didnt have the budget for.

– They looked much better.

Just like Del Toro would look different from RM but, just like all the principle actors look different from the originals but we accept the differences because the similarities and intentions outweigh them.

*********************

You can’t say that “less canon” is an excuse. It’s a blatant difference. This isn’t even a correction, like making the “United Space Probe Agency” into “Starfleet”, this is a radical change. Even intentions don’t really matter, because Khan was intended to be a white guy at first anyway, I think a Norweigian or something. I think the Internet had a lot to do with it, as I’ve said before, but the Klingon forehead thing is wayyyyyy bigger than BC playing Khan, and it wasn’t even ADDRESSED for 20 odd years. I mean, no matter WHY they did it, why couldn’t they have addressed it? One of the movies could have easily said that maybe the Klingon’s experimented on themselves genetically, or they were the true dominant race and the earlier Klingons were a vassal state, etc. But nothing, not a peep, and we accepted that.

314. Damian - December 4, 2013

310–They probably didn’t address the Klingon situation mainly because maybe they didn’t feel they needed to. After TMP until Enterprise came out, the Klingons looked like they did in TMP and timewise, they were all after TMP. Basically you were left with something happened to make Klingons look different between the Day of the Dove (last series appearance) and TMP.

But then Enterprise came out, which took place before the original series and they decided to depict Klingons with cranial ridges, leading to questions. By season 4, they decided to tackle the issues once and for all. I was happy to have an in universe explanation finally, that seemed to fill in most of the gaps.

315. LogicalLeopard - December 4, 2013

307. Damian – December 4, 2013

Agreed. And I think there’s a very different thing that happens culturally with the internet that shifts our appreciation for things. It’s kind of an “Apollo” effect, alluding to the Apollo Theatre in Harlem, NY. People don’t go to the Apollo Theatre to watch good talent, they go to BOO people *LOL* It’s expected. They don’t even give people a full MINUTE to work through the song, one note goes wrong, and it’s boo central!

Same with the internet. It makes us WANT to criticize things. It’s made us all into Siskels and Eberts, giving our definitive reviews on movies/television/etc. Like you said before, you could write a letter, but you couldn’t guarantee that the letter would be read by anyone, or that the ONE person who read it would care. But on the internet, the people who read it might not care, but at least you have an AUDIENCE of people who WILL read it, or skim through it, or even respond to it.

316. LogicalLeopard - December 4, 2013

310–They probably didn’t address the Klingon situation mainly because maybe they didn’t feel they needed to. After TMP until Enterprise came out, the Klingons looked like they did in TMP and timewise, they were all after TMP. Basically you were left with something happened to make Klingons look different between the Day of the Dove (last series appearance) and TMP.

******************

And they didn’t need to, because there wasn’t organized resistance to it. People just WATCHED tv back then. But if TMP came out today, I promise you that wouldn’t fly. Which goes back to the same culprit – Internet

******************

But then Enterprise came out, which took place before the original series and they decided to depict Klingons with cranial ridges, leading to questions. By season 4, they decided to tackle the issues once and for all. I was happy to have an in universe explanation finally, that seemed to fill in most of the gaps.

************************************

There the Internet theory comes back in. When Trials and Tribulations came out, you had people already used to the foreheads for 20 years, and not much internet commentary. But when ENT comes out, you have ANOTHER unexplained quandary – Now it’s not smooth to wrinkled, but it’s wrinkled to smooth and then wrinkled AGAIN. And of course, you have the internet in FULL swing to receive it. So it was time, I think.

317. T'cal - December 4, 2013

Meh. It wasn’t a big deal to me. BC is an excellent villian and I liked this film even more than the first.

On a different note, I was watching a rerun of Modern Family that included Benjiman Bratt as Gloria’s ex, Javier. I saw and heard a Latino Khan when I watched this. Yes, he played Javier a bit over the top, but if toned down just a hair, he could’ve played Khan with the right amount of mellodrama and animation, giving a performance that would’ve been much closer to the style that the inimitable Ricardo Montelban played. Again, I loved Cumberbatch in the film, but I agree with those who question an Englishman being cast in the role of Khan.

318. William Bradley - December 4, 2013

Phil, since he’d already written the Ant Man script, we DO have to wait to see what Joe Cornish does next.

And as I said, he’s not directing Ant Man.

>>15. Phil – December 2, 2013
Well, we won’t have to wait long to see what Joe Cornish does next, as he wrote the script for Ant-Man. Surprised JJ didn’t know this….

27. Phil – December 2, 2013
@21. I didn’t say he was directing it, I said he wrote the script.

319. William Bradley - December 4, 2013

What Phil said was we don’t have to wait to see what Cornish does next since he wrote the Ant Man script. But he’s not directing it, so we do have to wait to see what he does next, right?

Would that it were so simple that those other guys are procrastinators, say the kind of guys who waste time on a message board when they should be finishing something on deadline.

No, instead, they are inveterate hustlers putting together the next deal.

>31. Red Dead Ryan – December 2, 2013
William Bradley,

I have to agree with MJ. Bob, Alex, and J.J.Abrams all set deadlines for STID a number of tmes which they then broke because they had multiple other projects going on at the same time. Abrams has now done the same for “StarWars Episode 7″.

Also, Phil pointed out that Joe Cornish wrote “Ant Man”, not directing it.

320. JR - December 4, 2013

Do you think he will conseal the identity of Mark Hammel’s character in the next Star Wars film?

321. TUP - December 4, 2013

Regarding Klingons, as far as we know, fans *were* outraged but had no outlet. By the time there was an outlet, we all accepted it. I still think less canon played a part and the fact TMP was intended to update a 60’s TV show with “advanced” SFX.

Leopard – youre responses to my Khan issues dont hold water in my opinion. First of all there was NO reason to change Khan’s appearance as canon established that he was not recognizable to anyone without doing some serious digging. You think anyone would notice a middle eastern man walking around Earth, especially one whos purposely being covert? Come on… and even if he did (which is unbelievably lame way to explain away his appearance) why would Khan continue speaking with a Brit accent AFTER he revealed his identity?

We can all come up with increasingly stupid reasons to excuse this but it doesnt change the fact that Bad Robot and their writers thought their film was so good no one would care that they replaced an ICONIC cannonical character with someone COMPLETELY different in every single way.

322. LogicalLeopard - December 4, 2013

316. JR – December 4, 2013
Do you think he will conseal the identity of Mark Hammel’s character in the next Star Wars film?

*LOL* Funny, but on a serious note, I think that decision may be wayyyyyy above his paygrade. Star Trek was pretty much an exhausted movie franchise. Star Wars is NOT the same thing, and I think the decision of secrecy will be with the producers.

Although I can’t really think of a reason for a lot of secrecy on the new SW films. They’ll probably give basic character descriptions and a plot. But it is SW, and the series IS reknowned for dropping two of the biggest bombs in movie history, Luke’s relation to Darth Vader and Princess Leia.

323. TUP - December 4, 2013

I think part of 09’s success was Nimoy, who they marketed – feel good decision to have him in it.

Shatner in the 50th Anni film would be good too. Crazy amounts of free PR.

324. dmduncan - December 4, 2013

Hey hey hey! Off topic, but for those who are interested in UFOlogy…get a load of this eBay listing; these things appear to be 1950’s designs from Frederic Weinberg, but they bear an UNCANNY resemblance to abduction-era things that appeared much later, and you will know what I mean when you see them! REALLY cool.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VTG-WEINBERG-WIRE-MANNEQUIN-HEADS-MID-CENTURY-MODERN-EAMES-ERA-RETRO-ATOMIC-50s/221325040574?_trksid=p4069.m2059&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D27%26meid%3D3168263681500353349%26pid%3D100039%26prg%3D1011%26rk%3D4%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D231107954441%26

325. LogicalLeopard - December 4, 2013

317. TUP – December 4, 2013
Regarding Klingons, as far as we know, fans *were* outraged but had no outlet. By the time there was an outlet, we all accepted it. I still think less canon played a part and the fact TMP was intended to update a 60′s TV show with “advanced” SFX.

************************

Well, we don’t know, and we have no evidence that there was widespread outrage. You’d think a letter writing campaign would have resulted in an explanation. That’s not to say that there WASNT an expanation, I remember seeing a cover to a magazine (maybe Starlog) that had an article called “The New Klingons.” I remember it throughly confused me because it had a Ferengi on the cover *LOL* So I was thinking, “They’re changing the appearance AGAIN? *LOL* I think (and maybe I heard) the real reason was they wanted to stop “blackfacing” people, which seems likely. But anyway, like I said, Trek has a history of huge, unexplained changes. Khan is probably the least of them, because at least there’s a bit of an explanation teased.

******************************

Leopard – youre responses to my Khan issues dont hold water in my opinion. First of all there was NO reason to change Khan’s appearance as canon established that he was not recognizable to anyone without doing some serious digging. You think anyone would notice a middle eastern man walking around Earth, especially one whos purposely being covert? Come on… and even if he did (which is unbelievably lame way to explain away his appearance) why would Khan continue speaking with a Brit accent AFTER he revealed his identity?

***************************

We’ve gone over this before, so the only thing I’ll say is that Khan clearly says he was given a new identity. We can debate whether or not he NEEDED one till the cows come how, and we have. *LOL* But the fact is that he was given one. Why does Picard keep speaking with a British accent even AFTER it’s revealed in TNG that he spent his entire early life in France and spoke French? I dunno, but none of us really seriously questioned that.

**************************

We can all come up with increasingly stupid reasons to excuse this but it doesnt change the fact that Bad Robot and their writers thought their film was so good no one would care that they replaced an ICONIC cannonical character with someone COMPLETELY different in every single way.

***************************

Well, to be honest with you…..most of us DID think the film was that good *LOL* I mean, remember the polls that came out on this site? Most people either liked it, or thought it was the best movie ever. The polls show that the viewers liked it, the critics liked it. So, if they were working on some master scheme of pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes, they succeeded.

Hey, you’re entitled to your own opinion. I get that. The only criticism I have for some of the opinions you discuss is that it looks like you make some definitive statements on whether or not some aspects of the film can be considered wholesale failures by anyone who assesses it with a logical mindset. I could be wrong in thinking you believe that, and if so, I’m sorry. I just think that some things that people such as yourself call “mistakes” are just decisions that you didn’t agree with. And you’re entitled not to agree with them

326. dmduncan - December 4, 2013

313. LogicalLeopard – December 4, 2013

And they didn’t need to, because there wasn’t organized resistance to it. People just WATCHED tv back then. But if TMP came out today, I promise you that wouldn’t fly. Which goes back to the same culprit – Internet

***

That and I think it was understood that in going from a financially strained TV budget to a big budget movie adventure, if you have the money to do things better, you just do them better. You don’t just upgrade the sets, you make the Klingons look more alien too and you don’t ask for fan permission just because they’ve gotten attached to the brown grease paint look and the cheap costumes.

327. Curious Cadet - December 4, 2013

@234. LogicalLeopard,
“They went with a good actor, playing Khan in a different, sensible direction – plastic surgery.”

There’s nothing “sensible” about it. Not only is that not proven anywhere, on or off camera, it makes no sense. If you want to disguise someone, you only need to change their facial features, not their entire race, especially if there is no reason to believe the average Indian in the streets of London might be a 300 year old world dominating dictator. Moreover, there is nothing in the movie that even hints that Khan was anything more than a weapons designer working out of Section 31, certainly no field work was ever hinted at. So there is no basis for this belief at all, except wishing it were so.

328. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 4, 2013

Y’know. I’ve read all your comments about Khan not being right, and Benedict’s casting explainations, his mannerisms, the accents, Section 31, his height, the Klingon ridges(?), as reasons why complaints exist that STiD was not the best Trek, or perhaps a good Trek at all..

BUT WHAT ARE YOU ALL SAYING???!!!
That Cumberpatch was a mistake? That the producers were too arrogant with their decisions?

OBVIOUSLY WRONG BUT HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?
These guys are suppossed to be masters of their professions and yet most here attribute all these many oversights to poor judgement and cinematic mistakes. Most are actually looking for reasons or providing excuses for how these decisions were made – whilst not lookng at the BIG PICTURE – as it stares back at you in the face.

KHAN!!!!! WHY WAS CUMBERPATCH CAST AS KHAN?
In my opinion to provide an unavoidable anomaly for the viewer to wakeup and simply say, “this can’t be Khan.”

WHY? THAT IS THE METAPHOR FOR THIS TREK.
Simply beause the metaphot for this Trek is – that “middle eastern fella” really was not at the helm when it came to the terroism. In this Star Trek into Darkness – or perhaps – hold on – in our own recent world history.

Shocking, I am sure, but brilliant and twisted, but it makes sense, if you just open your eyes and see the obvious I think you will see the truth in this thesis.

WAS THAT THE MESSAGE OF STID?
If you are still reading this then its a good indicator that message was present and that it can, is and has been logically contemplated.

329. Phil - December 4, 2013

@319. Shatner’s PR is never free. There is ALWAYS a price to be paid…

330. The Keeper - December 4, 2013

The gamble in reinventing Star Trek by creating an alternate timeline was a risk that paid of handsomely for the studio and most fans which left us wanting more.
We all envisioned a more action packed universe while exploring a brave new world and seeking out new life forms and new civilizations.
Best of all we were handed a wonderful cast of fine actors to portray the most iconic Star Trek characters and bringing them to life for a whole new generation and giving us old timers a taste of them in a new and different way.
I am an old time fan. I was there watching Star Trek (what you youngsters call TOS) when it first aired. Yeah, my family had money and we watched it in “living color” on NBC.

The second move, STID, I don’t know what Abrams and his writers were thinking.
The caste is still likeable, but the concept went stale.
You shot not only yourself in the foot with this story, but the foots of fans world over.
You choose to tell the single most unneeded to be told story possible, going ageist thousands of fans who begged before the script was ever written NOT TO GO THE KHAN WAY!
But you went ahead any way, slapping ever one in the face along the way.

What was the purpose?
What was the point?
To stir controversy?
Why not go for praises of glory with a purely original story?

Your logic escapes me and thousands of fans worldwide.
You’ve diminished our fate in your work and what you will do next with Star Trek.

The promise of a new director is fine…even thou I believe that Abrams was and is the perfect director for Star Trek despite what some fans may say or think.
The big problem is not that the director doesn’t know Star Trek.

The problem is the writers.
hey may know Star Trek.
But they don’t know what to do with it.

They reduced it to a bumbling mess of pointless action pieces and call rehashing stuff they did before in the first movie a “larger scale” tacking on the best of the best original series films and deflating our hopes and dreams of doing something more meaningful other then showing off the writers spiteful ego’s that they can do as they please and say F#ck the fans.
A proud moment for us all.

331. Jonboc - December 4, 2013

#317 “We can all come up with increasingly stupid reasons to excuse this but it doesnt change the fact that Bad Robot and their writers thought their film was so good no one would care that they replaced an ICONIC cannonical character with someone COMPLETELY different in every single way.”

…and they were right…well, with the exception of 3 or 4 I can think of. :)

332. dmduncan - December 4, 2013

324. TrekMadeMeWonder – December 4, 2013

Hahaha! That’s actually a SHARP way of looking at it, TMM. Very interesting POV. Good job.

333. Timncc1701 - December 4, 2013

It was a mistake to shoehorn Khan into this movie at all. Even if they got DelToro to play Khan, the death scene of Kirk was idiotic. The movie was good enough to do without the use of Khan or the Kirk death scene with WOK lines. If they had to go to Space Seed, why not make it one of Khan’s sleeper crew ad the villain and not flip the WOK death scene script. UGHHHHH…could have been so much better.

334. Ahmed - December 4, 2013

OT
=================
The 33 Dumbest Things That Happened In 2013

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/the-dumbest-things-that-happened-this-year?bffb

=================

From the list:

“I’m sick of the U.S Government. I’m moving to Califorina. F**K the U.S.”

and this road question:

“How far of a drive is it from Miami to Florida ?”

And another one:

Mark: what does “brb” mean ?
Abii: be right back
Mark: okay will you tell me when you come back

335. Timncc1701 - December 4, 2013

And a minor point. The Klingons looked like Milli Vanilli. Still, this is only a minor annoyance compared to the script.

336. Ahmed - December 4, 2013

Zoe Saldana short interview

==========================
Before I run out of time with you, I just want to touch on a few other quick things. I’m a huge fan of J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek films, big fan, but I’m secretly a little happy that he’s not doing the third one, and I’m gonna tell you why.

SALDANA: Why?

It means it’s gonna get made sooner, because J.J. would bounce into something else.

SALDANA: I know.

And then it would take a little time to get that third film going, and now, from what I understand, it’s filming next year, or at least that’s the goal.

SALDANA: Yes.

With J.J., it would never have happened that quick.

SALDANA: Yes, exactly, ‘cause I think Star Wars is definitely gonna take a lot of his time. I know that it’s a great thing that we won’t have to wait. I’m gonna be bummed because I love working with that man, but I know whoever’s going to step up to the plate is gonna kill it. And there’s an array of actors in this business right now that can really deliver, and so I’m excited to see who’s gonna come onboard.

I am too. I just saw Roberto Orci recently, and he said he was busy writing. So I was just very excited.

SALDANA: That’s a good thing. They’re always writing! Bob is always writing.

Exactly.

http://collider.com/zoe-saldana-out-of-the-furnace-guardians-of-the-galaxy-interview/

337. Tom - December 4, 2013

#323 TUP

I too am hoping Bob & co strongly consider Shatner for the 50th movie. I think it would be great with Nimoy as well. I know they would not do it unless it makes sense. I think the 09 scene he wrote for Shatner truly encapsuled the themes of Star Trek and the movie in general. If it could be done like that , then what better time to do it than than a movie coming out on the 50th anniversary of Trek. I understand that a group creative decision was made not to include it in the movie. I disagreed with it but respect it. There were scenes that made it in the movie that I thought were not as good. Anyway I trust Bob and team would do it right if they deem it worthwhile. Hey he has made Ichabod Crane in our time believable

338. dmduncan - December 4, 2013

From that Saldana interview it really sounds like Bob has an idea. Which is good news. Because by this time after ST.09 they sounded unsure of their footing.

339. dmduncan - December 4, 2013

334. Ahmed – December 4, 2013

Reminds me of that gag from The World’s End where one of the characters keeps saying “WTF!”, and Pegg’s character, who’s not up to date on internet lingo, finally yells “What the f*ck does ‘WTF’ mean?”

340. Red Dead Ryan - December 4, 2013

Honestly, I hope that there are no more appearances from old actors in the next movie.

Shatner no longer looks like what Kirk would look like in the 23rd century, plus for the past 25 years he’s been a parody of himself.

I thought Nimoy’s role in the 09 reboot was a perfect passing of the torch.

On the other hand, his appearance in STID was not necessary, and wasn’t as good. It was once too much.

So no, I think its time the new cast take the reigns, and for Chris Pine to be allowed to take command full time as Kirk.

341. Phil - December 4, 2013

@338 I’m sure he does have an idea, and is busy writing. He’s got three Spider-Man movies to do, The Mummy starts shooting soon, Van Helsing will need a story, and Hawaii 5-0 and Sleepy Hollow to worry about. I’d actually be surprised if he wasn’t writing something….

342. Tom - December 4, 2013

#340 Red Dead Ryan

I understand the position of not wanting old characters to show up. I just think if you were to do it the 50th anniversary would be a great time. Perhaps they should not have used Nimoy in STID but realistically Nu Spock would have been foolish not to tap Spock Prime for info. That was one of the drawbacks for putting him in the new timeline. How often or should they be privy to his advice. Now that he is there he is part of the universe and there are places to go with him. What is he doing there? rebuilding Vulcan? Can he go back to his timeline? etc. So even though the intent was to pass the torch, it did open up possibilities

343. jas_montreal - December 4, 2013

The new director should not be a star wars fan. Right now, Trek is on life support. I feel like I’ve just seen the Batman Forever of Trek universe.

344. MJ - December 4, 2013

@343

That has got to be about the dumbest and most insulting post I have read this year. If you are going to just berate and make fun of nuTruk, then why don’t you just get lost. Your presence here is no long desired.

345. MJ - December 4, 2013

@337

Sheesh, people are still wanting Shat to come back and play Kirk. We get this and Batman forever comparisons today? I feel like I’m in an episode of Romper Room here — surrounded by preschoolers who are drueling from their sugar highs!

346. Red Dead Ryan - December 4, 2013

#343.

“The new director should not be a star wars fan. Right now, Trek is on life support. I feel like I’ve just seen the Batman Forever of Trek universe.”

Trek is not on life support. STID is not the “Batman Forever of Trek universe”.

347. MJ - December 4, 2013

Exactly — like all the time Bob Orci spent on this site between ST-2009 and STID. Thanks William for proving my point for me.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

319. William Bradley – December 4, 2013

Would that it were so simple that those other guys are procrastinators, say the kind of guys who waste time on a message board when they should be finishing something on deadline.

348. K-7 - December 4, 2013

jas_Montreal

What is wrong with you?

Shame on you with all your hate!

349. Red Dead Ryan - December 4, 2013

#345.

“Sheesh, people are still wanting Shat to come back and play Kirk. We get this and Batman forever comparisons today? I feel like I’m in an episode of Romper Room here — surrounded by preschoolers who are drueling from their sugar highs!”

LOL! Yeah — there sure has been some asinine comments on this thread. I don’t know — couple these with TUP’s “hack” remarks, it seems that we can’t have a true “grown-up” discussion here. It’s like preschool in here — but with less maturity. :-)

350. MJ - December 4, 2013

Yea, c appears to be a card-carrying member of the argument club here. LOL

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

296. Garak’s Pride – December 4, 2013

This c person is funny.

5 posts so far, with none being on a Star Trek topic, yet his/her schtick seems to be about complaining about people wasting time here with argumentative posts.

It’s like if Lenin complained that his friends were just too socialist for his personal tastes.

c, any thoughts on Star Trek?

351. Dave H - December 4, 2013

Wow,

It seemed like just when people were really starting to get along better, here now comes jas_montreal with those remarks that insult the whole group of people here that liked STID.

:-(

For my part, this kind of proves what I have thought for awhile — jas_montreal is really the former Paul from Montreal, a known hate-monger of nuTrek.

352. K-7 - December 4, 2013

“For my part, this kind of proves what I have thought for awhile — jas_montreal is really the former Paul from Montreal, a known hate-monger of nuTrek.”

Dave — I’ve suspected that all along msyelf.

353. Phil - December 4, 2013

Hey, I’d really like to see Adam West play Batman again. George Reeves might be a bit musty, but a little CGI can fix up the real man of steel. Jackie Chan, my ass! Bring back Bruce Lee. Sure would like to see me a little more Kristie Alley as Lt. Saavik one more time now….mmmmmmmm

354. Phil - December 4, 2013

@343. Really? Apparently you missed Generations. Truly the gold standard of Trek mash ups….

355. Buzz Cagney - December 4, 2013

#342 they won’t need to turn to Spock now they have the fix all Khancure blood medicine. ‘Feeling a bit run down? Feeling as if you might be dead? No problem- Khancure will have you up and about in no time’.
Short of decapitation I see no particular peril in store that they would need to call oldSpock to take advise on.

356. Kev - December 5, 2013

Yeash guys calm down, your acting like this guy is rick bloody berman! the killer of all good things.

Abrams was assigned to make a decent summer pop corn flick using trek as the basis, and while it was by no means a masterpiece I still think it was a good film so lay off.

it aint 1982 after all, although it didnt reach the full potential of the story, but that is not the directors fault………

its the writers, and that is where you should be focusing and putting pressure on the studio about, writing is everything after all.

its the foundation, the start of the thought process and lays the framework of the rest of the visual work, and we can do better than the people behind transformers.

and killing pike was a mistake I think, badly wounding him with them going after Khan for his magic blood might have made a better plot point and motivation considering he is, or was Kirks second father for that matter.

and thus well all of the problems lie in the writing here, everything else is fine, although the ship design, that needs work…… however I have seen worse, far worse.

should take a look at what GM calls a corvette these days, it looks like an aztek screwed a skyline and poped that abomination out

while atleast while the design of the ship is as garrish as they come, i can atleast look at it without instant revulsion, and that design was the directors choice too.

so theres the one proper knock against him if you want to knock a chip out of him

357. Marja - December 5, 2013

Re: Bob Orci’s #233 Does anyone here know what “Bad Robot” is supposed to mean? He and Kurtzman called their company Paper Products or something, which to me is a bit wittier than Bad Robot b/c at least I can get the joke ….

253 duncan, “They wanted to see white people made up to look like Asians so that white audiences could feel how powerful their race was that they could perform every role. Minorities weren’t needed.”

I think that stemmed mostly from simple racism. It was the ’50s and there was not a lot of worry about racial equality. By the ’60s it was more institutional racism (which Roddenberry pretty much overcame. But he was a rare bird until later in the ’60s) : “Who do we want to hire? Let’s just use a white guy painted up and we’re ready to roll.” Hollywood hired and maintained groups of white actors to play all kinds of roles. Nimoy played Mexicans and Native Americans. Montalban (though a Mexican of first-generation Spanish extraction, with that lovely accent, he was still a white guy) played Khan. &c.

It was expedient for a “mostly white” industry in an insensitive age to employ mostly white people. And they perpetuated that so long b/c a lot of show business hiring depends on who you know. Who’s employed you before. Do they know your work. That sort of thing. Finally in the ’60s minority casting began to happen, but today we still struggle with these issues! It’s shocking to me. Except that institutionally, racism and sexism are, alas, alive and well.

[Although we mustn’t forget that Sheldon Leonard cast Bill Cosby opposite Robert Culp in “I Spy” I think in 1963?]

358. Tom - December 5, 2013

#345

Yes MJ I would like Shat to come back. Not as much though as The Grand Return of MJ!! Thanks for humoring me though.

359. crazydaystrom - December 5, 2013

340. Red Dead Ryan
Honestly, I hope that there are no more appearances from old actors in the next movie.
….
I thought Nimoy’s role in the 09 reboot was a perfect passing of the torch.

On the other hand, his appearance in STID was not necessary, and wasn’t as good. It was once too much.

I agree 100%!

360. crazydaystrom - December 5, 2013

343. jas_montreal
Right now, Trek is on life support. I feel like I’ve just seen the Batman Forever of Trek universe.

????
If anything the new movies to Trek off life support. I have issues with them, especially STID but a Batman Forever it ain’t.

349. Red Dead Ryan
…it seems that we can’t have a true “grown-up” discussion here. It’s like preschool in here — but with less maturity. :-)

In truth that’s been a big problem around here for awhile now. I’d been thinking ‘highschool’. But I like the preschool/Romper Room characterizations. Apt.
Oh well.

361. crazydaystrom - December 5, 2013

360-
…new movies *took* Trek off life support…

362. Damian - December 5, 2013

340–RDR, completely agree. Nimoy’s presence in Star Trek (2009) was excellent, linking the prime universe to the alternate universe.

I also agree, his presense in STID was completely unnecessary. Here we are, at the climax of the film, and all of a sudded, stop, let’s talk to Spock Prime about how dangerous is Khan. Did they really need elder Spock to tell them Spock was dangerous. Duh.

It really is time to let the new crew to sprout it’s wings. I don’t need to see some pretend feel-good yet another good bye from Shatner that would detract from the story, since they would have to explain his sudden resurrection. I loved Shatner as Kirk, and the original series is my favorite of the Star Trek shows. He will always be the Kirk for me. But I said good-bye to Shatner a long time ago.

Nimoy’s presence in STID is a perfect example of what happens when you shoehorn a cameo appearance. A sudden Shatner appearance would leave people unsatisfied, I would predict.

This new crew has started their new 5 year mission. It’s time to let them go.

363. Damian - December 5, 2013

343–Star Trek is far from being on life support. The last 2 films have earned more than any other films and have been popular among the masses.

Maybe Star Trek is on life support for you personally, if you don’t like Abrams version of Star Trek. That’s your opinion, fine.

But it’s hardly on life support for the rest of the world.

364. Damian - December 5, 2013

362—Aaarrgh, edits

Did they really need elder Spock to tell them Khan was dangerous.

365. LogicalLeopard - December 5, 2013

327. Curious Cadet – December 4, 2013
.”

There’s nothing “sensible” about it. Not only is that not proven anywhere, on or off camera, it makes no sense. If you want to disguise someone, you only need to change their facial features, not their entire race, especially if there is no reason to believe the average Indian in the streets of London might be a 300 year old world dominating dictator. Moreover, there is nothing in the movie that even hints that Khan was anything more than a weapons designer working out of Section 31, certainly no field work was ever hinted at. So there is no basis for this belief at all, except wishing it were so.

**********************

Well, yeah, I mean, technically they could have slapped a mustache on him and no one would have recognized him. But the basis for the belief is that Khan SAID that he was given a new identity? Why? You say that he was a weapons designer, so why would he need a new identity? Who knows? Who cares? The very fact that he was given one in the first place would make a reasonable person who noticed a change in apperance believe that his apperance was altered as well. The very fact that people don’t believe that is probably due to their dissatisfaction with Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan in the first place. And yes, everyone is entitled to that opinion, but lets not throw logic out the window. He said he got a new identity, for what purpose, we don’t know, but given the fact that 1) he looks completely different and b) they have the technology to make a person look completely different, you can logically assume that his apperance was probably changed with the package. Like I said, this is a MUCH easier and routine assumption than ANY of the assumptions we had to make about Klingon foreheads prior to ENT, so why everyone is spazzing out on it, I don’t know.

366. LogicalLeopard - December 5, 2013

326. dmduncan – December 4, 2013
***

That and I think it was understood that in going from a financially strained TV budget to a big budget movie adventure, if you have the money to do things better, you just do them better. You don’t just upgrade the sets, you make the Klingons look more alien too and you don’t ask for fan permission just because they’ve gotten attached to the brown grease paint look and the cheap costumes.

*****************

Now the million dollar question is, if fans can ignore the obvious breach in logic that smooth to bumpy headed Klingons present due to off-camera considerations, why can’t they do the same with BC’s casting? Maybe he was the best person they came across, and they went with him.

367. LogicalLeopard - December 5, 2013

347. MJ – December 4, 2013
Exactly — like all the time Bob Orci spent on this site between ST-2009 and STID. Thanks William for proving my point for me.

************************************
*LOL*

“The producers could care less about what the fans think!”

“Why do the producers spend so much time on this forum? They’re just goofing off.”

368. Damian - December 5, 2013

366–I think the hole in your argument there is Klingons weren’t a single character but an entire species. Before Enterprise finally answered the question, I made the assumption there was a genetic cause (it was the only thing that made sense). Seeing Kor, Koloth and Kang in Deep Space Nine, I assumed that the issue was taken care of. But their change was in how they appeared, and more importantly, they were the same actors, so it was just a simple change of foreheads.

In Khan-Harrison’s case, they completely changed his ethnicity. When I look at BC’s Khan, nothing about him reminds me of Montalban. With the new actors playing the crew of the Enterprise, the producers looked for people that would remind them of the original actors. It would be like them picking a Hispanic to play Kirk, it would not make sense.

BC’s acting was excellent, but I see a totally different character than Montalban’s Khan. There is nothing about them that seems remotely similar to me. That is the core of my problem with BC as Khan.

369. TUP - December 5, 2013

Red Dead Ryan – your opinion isnt more important than anyone else’s. I’d go so far as to say your lack of insight actually devalues your opinion.

The reasons to use Shatner far outweigh the reasons not to. In fact, the only remotely reasonable concern I’ve read is the desire for the new movies to be “original” and “stand on there own”. But Bad Robot has not shown that they want these films to be that. With Nimoy, Khan etc,

So why not Shatner? Give *good* reasons. Ill be happy to refute them…

370. Damian - December 5, 2013

369–One very good reason. Shatner’s Kirk died on Veridian III.

And it should be clear that Shatner is not going to play a Kirk relative, or an alternate Kirk, he would want to be “the” Kirk, like Spock-prime he would want to be Kirk-prime. Shatner has an ego (nothing wrong with that for an actor BTW) and he’s going to want a role at least as significant as Nimoy’s was in Star Trek (2009).

And I don’t want them to have to waste half a movie not only explaining his miraculous resurrection, but another time travel story too.

371. c - December 5, 2013

I’m a reader, not a post er, but your point is well taken.

let’s see on Star Trek in general or on into darkness…
I will go with into…
I am going to past the page about this movie and putting it in my collection of good movies period.

On future movies I would love to see a TV movie of Star Trek base on ideas from all the people here that post the most and of course that will automatically give me the ending seen.

For the cinema the next movie should continue with JJ as producer, boborci as writer if he writes done all our deslikes about into…and all our desires for this time line since that’s here to stay and comes up with a re imagination of another classic episode

Friends let’s help them give us more trek, not get in there way, writing original stories takes time and money…redoing episodes in such a way the big movies are made, gives all of us the opportunity to add fans to Star Trek that have never would otherwise care for it, talk about life support would not be an issue and let’s face it Star Wars is going to be awesome, we all know this to be true, so let Paramount, BR, CBS and others not have to worried about pleasing us, let them use us as guides only not criticize them that much at all or we might get more time without any trek at all.

Audiences want big movies in there theaters SW and ST will deliver, if we,us,you allow it.

372. TUP - December 5, 2013

@370

Im not sure Shatner wouldn’t take a smaller role at this point. He was definitely angling for a major role in 09 but later said if the cameo had been pitched as is he would have done it. I think he’s do it now. Truthfully, I want a meaningful role.

As sweet and emotional as the cameo was, it was a holo image of a now-dead Kirk…it was sad really. Call me crazy but I want Shatner in the big chair one last time saving the galaxy.

As for Kirk being dead. Everything can be undone with creativity. Remember, the ENTIRE set up for 09 which could have been a film in itself was revealed in a 90 second mind meld. That was a pretty convoluted story that they basically stepped out of the movie and said “okay, heres why this is all happening…”

He *could* play Kirk prior to Generations (using de-aging CGi).

He could also play AU’s Kirk. These films jumped time with no issue. A film that jumps between young kirk and old kirk wouldnt be an issue either. All it takes is for Nimoy to whisper the right words in young Kirk’s ears and he doesnt die…

Refuted.

Next…

373. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 5, 2013

332. dmduncan

Thank you, dmduncan!

I think the STiD metaphor is what saves this movie – and really gives me the feeling that that we are ALL too close to the action – ESPECIALLY when Kirk is seemingly “following the Khan” all to closely. Kirk even remarks that this is the case, in the movie.

Seriously people. We’re you not feeling a bit uncomfortable in your seats when this was happening to our heroes? JUST A BIT?

I know I was. I was thinking after the SF attack, “Hmmm, now that we are into the action, Kirk will be a bit exonerated by his brave actions again, understandable, and we can see how he is going to stop this new threat.”

But then Kirk is seemingly taking orders from Marcus, and being sent on this crazy mission!? I know I was starting to think Kirk was being played, and that wasn’t right. But this is a new Kirk, without the prime qualities of our original captain. His plan was to act covertly and appear as a civilian on his flight on the Klingon home world. In effect, Pine’s Kirk and crew are now even a bit MORE LIKE you and I.

This is where this Trek really made its uncomfortable decent into darkness for me the viewer.

Kirk was way out on a limb in those scenes and way over his head, and his crew were off their game a bit, too. So to the viewer, in this altered Trek world, the plot-line was really getting twisted and skewed to a point where it made me feel that it was getting way out of control and events started to feel uncomfortable – and stressed. So kudos on the tension and pacing produced in STiD.

My point is simply this. This production brought many of us TOO CLOSE to many real-life events for us to consider, or to even apparently want to discuss openly. Even when its the topic of the movie! This would be like watching Star Wars and not talking about what the Force is.

I am dismayed and that you guys all apparently feel this way. But to me, this behavior is so unusual, that it just deserved this expressly worded comment.

And if I sound bitter, AND YOU ALL SHOULD TOO, Then you will understand that “Hack” is just a small insult when compared to what you will find if you try to Google “bob orci twitter”

Star Trek Writer, 9/11 Truther Roberto Orci

Do you think he refers to himself this way? A Truther? Seriously?

Perhaps this is just a problem with today’s search-and-surveil society, but hack is small change when we take what should be uncomfortable important issues, and instead of discussing them, shoo them away, and make others responsible for the negativity. You know what mean, right?

This to me is ignorant hate speech. So please, THIS TIME, no negative “Wackjob” or “9-11 Truther” comments. about my pursuit of this key STiD plot point. It deserves attention and open discussion.

If you have something positive to add, like, “Yeah, it did make me feel edgy for Kirk,” then great post that. We should all understand that this movie was trying to reach us on a certain level with it’s inside job metaphor, and to hear some views is what I am simply requesting.

The importance of the STiD storyline should NOT be overlooked as it is the singular most important part of the story.

I say until you understand the metaphor presented, politely put, I don’t think you will fully appreciate this Star Trek into Darkness, or perhaps even your own world.

.

“THIS POST IS DEDICATED TO OUR POST-9/11 VETERANS
WITH GRATITUDE FOR THEIR INSPIRED SERVICE ABROAD
AND CONTINUED LEADERSHIP AT HOME”

324. TrekMadeMeWonder – December 4, 2013

Hahaha! That’s actually a SHARP way of looking at it, TMM. Very interesting POV. Good job.

374. Damian - December 5, 2013

372–Nice how you decided the argument was refuted.

I still think it’s a huge plot hole. Many here complained Abrams and Co. have already taken too many liberties, and yet, those same people want them to either reverse his death in Generations, or just ignore it all together.

Some people are so desperate to have Shatner in it, they even propose using CGI to de-age him. I think if they were to get Shatner in it, many of those same people would be hugely disappointed.

Shatner’s acting chops aren’t what they once were. I think that would show and would just serve to cause people to roll their eyes and complain about why the producers felt the need to shoehorn Shatner into the film.

It just sounds to me like some people can’t let the original cast go. I think they should just admit they want a new movie with Shatner, Nimoy and other surviving members of the original cast. I mean, let’s put Shatner in the big chair and to Hell with Chris Pine.

This may be the last film with this crew (based on statements in the past that they might only do 3 films). Let’s move on with an original story please, and no more cameos. Shatner will live on as the original Captain Kirk everytime I watch the original series or the first 7. I don’t want to see an embarrassing Shatner performance just to have one more final chance to see him play Captain Kirk, long past his acting prime.

But at the end of the day, I don’t think any of us has anything to worry about. There will be no Shatner in the next film. The producers have already noted even trying to get a cameo was ham-handed, and his death in Generations is final as far as they are concerned.

375. Curious Cadet - December 5, 2013

@365. LogicalLeopard,
“And yes, everyone is entitled to that opinion, but lets not throw logic out the window. He said he got a new identity, for what purpose, we don’t know, but given the fact that 1) he looks completely different and b) they have the technology to make a person look completely different, you can logically assume that his apperance was probably changed with the package.”

But this explanation does throw logic out of the window. You’re entitled to your opinion here, and it may turn out to be correct if Orci & Mike Johnson take the lazy way out and merely put Khan under the knife. But in real life, it makes no sense. I have no problem with the concept of changing his identity, I do have a problem with changing his race. They didn’t just add some forehead bumps to Khan, they bleached him, and turned him into a archetypal Caucasian. The Klingon change I understand. There’s no such valid reason to visibly change Khan the way they did by casting Cumberbatch, and however broadly one interprets the line of dialogue regarding his “new identity”, it does not justify what we got.

And yes, “plastic surgery” is a lazy way to explain this metamorphosis, especially considering the richness of imagination for such things in the Star Trek universe. Frankly Orci’s flippant response shortly after he began responding to such questions following the release of the film in the US, that maybe Khan was a “shape-shifter”, is preferable to “plastic surgery”.

Seriously, if this total ethnic transformation all boils down to ‘they changed his identity’ for whatever purpose, then that will be the cop-out of all cop-outs, especially since Orci has decided to shine a spotlight on an issue which should have frankly been left alone (suggested by his own response!). Heck he’s made Khan’s appearance the central mystery to the entire quasi-canon comic mini-series. When you do that over something this controversial among fans, you’d better have a really good explanation up your sleeve — and the typical soap opera solution of “plastic surgery” won’t cut it.

Like the Klingon transfiguration, the explanation should have never been attempted, but to the extent it was, they came up with a very creative and logical solution. The problem with explaining Khan is that any plausible explanation for changing his race had no foundation laid for it in the movie. So it all becomes speculation and conjecture with no basis in logic or fact, an answer for which by those in the know must be sought off-screen. And yes I’m well aware Abrams didn’t make this movie just for the fans, but come on … for whom exactly did they include Khan in the movie?

376. crazydaystrom - December 5, 2013

How many here think any reasons to be given to explain Khan’s difference in appearance was thought out before STID was released or was made up in response to the comments and outcry about casting an actor who looks so different than Montalban. I think it was the latter.

377. TUP - December 5, 2013

@374 argument refuted because it was. The argument was Shatner wouldnt do it unless its a big role and his character is dead. Neither of those are insurmountable.

Why is using de-aging CGI “depserate”? If you want an 84 year old to play a 60 year old, it makes perfect sense. It was used in X-Men among others.

Your argument that Shatner’s acting skills are not what they used to be is flawed. Why do you think that? He’s an award winning actor. He would have no problem, Im sure, stepping into James Kirk again.

378. TUP - December 5, 2013

376. crazydaystrom – December 5, 2013
How many here think any reasons to be given to explain Khan’s difference in appearance was thought out before STID was released or was made up in response to the comments and outcry about casting an actor who looks so different than Montalban. I think it was the latter.

***DING DING DING We have a winner. Absolutely. Just like the ludicrous promotion from Cadet to Captain “suddenly” factored into STID as if it was planned all along. Yeah Right. ***

379. Damian - December 5, 2013

377–Have you seen Shatner lately? His acting skills are far from what he was up to the 80’s. I noticed a marked difference just from Star Trek V, VI and Generations in his acting.

I love Star Trek, all Star Trek, Abrams, Berman, Roddenberry versions, doesn’t matter to me. And the original series is my absolute favorite. But I have no desire to see a CGI adjusted William Shatner in a new Star Trek production. I’ve said my good byes to Captain Kirk by Shatner a long time ago.

Kind of like music groups that go on that final, no really FINAL music tours before announcing the next tour.

Shatner is already a legend as Captain Kirk. He should be immensely pleased with the role, as he was an original (and in all fairness, I’ve seen no recent reports of interest by Shatner).

380. Adama - December 5, 2013

@boborci!

Glad to know you are back in trekmovie. I know that you try to listen to the fans and I’m very thankful for it. Great job with ST and STID, I know for sure you are going to top yourself with the third one. I guess you are pretty tired of hearing fan suggest things they would like to see in the next one, but I can’t help but express here mine, they are simple things.
– I love the beginning of STID, and I think it would be cool if in the next one, given that we are already in the five year mission, the begining were, as in STID, the end of an “ordinary” mission, but of one of the classic episodes! Wouldnt be cool to see taht the mission ending is, i dont know, maybe “Journey to Babel”, or “Arena” or even “Amok time”, but with your own twist?
– I love McCoy, DeForest and Karl, and I think that he is not being given the relevancy he deserves along Jim and Spock. We have to remember that he is Jim’s oldest friend in Starfleet, he should be the one who accompanies him to have a drink and talk shop. Also, we need more banter between Bones and Spock.
– I’d love the new Enterprise, but some sets stills doesnt have the iconic presence of the original ones, for example Engineering. Also, I’d love to see other parts of the ship other than corridors, the bridge and the engine room, like the Rec room (loved it in TMP) or the Arboretum.

That’s all. Thank you for your time.
And now, just a moment of wishful thinking… How cool would be to adapt Star Trek – Prime directive to the big screen? or a miniseries? oh, a trekkie can dream!

381. LogicalLeopard - December 5, 2013

368. Damian – December 5, 2013
366–I think the hole in your argument there is Klingons weren’t a single character but an entire species….

*****************

The point of my argument has nothing to do with it being a single character or a species, it has to do with radical, unexplained appearance change. I get that Kor & Co were the same actors with different foreheads (great move, btw, on DS9’s part) but the change was radical, unexplained, and left the viewer up to make their own assumptions, like you did. You assumed it was something genetic. You assumed correctly. So why do people have such a problem making a similar assumption on Khan’s part?

**********************

In Khan-Harrison’s case, they completely changed his ethnicity. When I look at BC’s Khan, nothing about him reminds me of Montalban. With the new actors playing the crew of the Enterprise, the producers looked for people that would remind them of the original actors. It would be like them picking a Hispanic to play Kirk, it would not make sense.
*************************

Yes, a radical appearance change, just like the Klingons. Aside from being brown, the Klingons seemed completely different. Different heads, different clothes, different language. Aside from having dark hair and being genetically engineered, BC looks completely different than Khan.
**************************

BC’s acting was excellent, but I see a totally different character than Montalban’s Khan. There is nothing about them that seems remotely similar to me. That is the core of my problem with BC as Khan.

***************************

Now THATS an argument I can get behind. BC did play Khan very differently. I personally attributed it to the situation he was in, being backed against the wall, all business, bent on revenge that he HADN”T had years to stew on, like in TWOK. But that’s how I justified it for myself, and I think it’s a totally valid argument that BC didn’t resemble the character of Khan.

It’s a challenging position for an actor to be in – You don’t want to do a parody or imitation, and you want to bring out your own interpretation of the character. But then again, you should have a respect for the fan base and show a glimmer of the prior performance.

382. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 5, 2013

Too cute. I have to post.

Happy Holidays!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrG4JnrN5GA#t=22

383. LogicalLeopard - December 5, 2013

375. Curious Cadet – December 5, 2013

But this explanation does throw logic out of the window. You’re entitled to your opinion here, and it may turn out to be correct if Orci & Mike Johnson take the lazy way out and merely put Khan under the knife. But in real life, it makes no sense. I have no problem with the concept of changing his identity, I do have a problem with changing his race. They didn’t just add some forehead bumps to Khan, they bleached him, and turned him into a archetypal Caucasian. The Klingon change I understand. There’s no such valid reason to visibly change Khan the way they did by casting Cumberbatch, and however broadly one interprets the line of dialogue regarding his “new identity”, it does not justify what we got.

********************************

You say “In real life, it makes no sense.” You’re right, because we don’t have plastic surgery to radically alter people like that. But I’m pretty sure they do in Star Trek. In DS9, they darkened O’Brien and Odo (who was solid at the time) to portray Klingons. I didn’t get the indication they used makeup, which could rub or wash off surrounded by rowdy, sweaty, drunken Klingons for hours. And although that’s about 80 years away from TOS, I didn’t get the impression that medical technology changed all that much. Orions at least were able to make green skin blue, to portray the fake Andorian in Journey to Babel. It doesn’t seem that complicated to me, such a surgery is feasable, and a broad interpretation of the identity statement would indicate that this is what happened. Much less speculation is required for this than the Klingon bumpy heads.

*****************************************

Seriously, if this total ethnic transformation all boils down to ‘they changed his identity’ for whatever purpose, then that will be the cop-out of all cop-outs, especially since Orci has decided to shine a spotlight on an issue which should have frankly been left alone (suggested by his own response!). Heck he’s made Khan’s appearance the central mystery to the entire quasi-canon comic mini-series. When you do that over something this controversial among fans, you’d better have a really good explanation up your sleeve — and the typical soap opera solution of “plastic surgery” won’t cut it.
*******************

I have NO idea what a better explanation would be. That doesn’t sound like a soap opera response, though it is a standard Trek response. Trek is full of episodes where people’s identity is altered.
*******************************

Like the Klingon transfiguration, the explanation should have never been attempted, but to the extent it was, they came up with a very creative and logical solution. The problem with explaining Khan is that any plausible explanation for changing his race had no foundation laid for it in the movie. So it all becomes speculation and conjecture with no basis in logic or fact, an answer for which by those in the know must be sought off-screen. And yes I’m well aware Abrams didn’t make this movie just for the fans, but come on … for whom exactly did they include Khan in the movie?

*************************

No foundation was laid in Star Trek for a plausible explanation of the Klingon foreheads. And when they did explain it, it really wasn’t logical when you think about it. What virus causes your forehead bones to melt away, and for your forehead skin to become smooth? Your last statement highlights what I think the problem is – many people have a problem with 1) Khan being in the movie at all, 2) BC being cast as Khan. Those are fine, but they don’t have anything to do with the feasability of BC being a surgically altered Khan.

384. TUP - December 5, 2013

379. Damian – December 5, 2013
377–Have you seen Shatner lately? His acting skills are far from what he was up to the 80′s. I noticed a marked difference just from Star Trek V, VI and Generations in his acting.

***Are you insane? You’re saying Shatner’s acting skills had deminished by Generations? Generations came out in 1994. TEN YEARS later, he was cast in Boston Legal and was nominated for FIVE Emmys, winning one Emmy and a Golden Globe. I doubt he forgot how to act since 2008.

Generations suffered from bad directing and a bad script. it scripted Kirk to act like a fool. In those moments when he was truly Kirk (most of the scenes on E-B, rejecting Picard as he walked up the stairs, giving Picard advice etc) were well done.

You can gripe about Shatner all you want to, but to say he cant act is absolutely false.

385. Damian - December 5, 2013

384–I’m saying his acting skills are no longer well suited to Captain Kirk. It may work fine in Boston Legal and other non-related shows he’s in.

I’m sorry, but I see his acting in Star Trek V, VI and Generations to be seriously sub-par. He acted like he did because of bad writing, that’s a new one. His acting in Generations was consistent with how he acted in V and VI. Now if you thought his acting in those movies was fine, then I guess we have a difference of opinion. I thought he became a self-parody beginning with V. It was easier to overlook in VI because VI was a good movie.

386. Damian - December 5, 2013

385–And to clarify, his portrayal of Kirk became a self-parody. I’m critiquing his portrayal of Kirk. I haven’t watched him in Boston Legal, so I can’t comment on that role.

387. TUP - December 5, 2013

You just proved my point. VI was a good movie so his acting was better. He had more to work with and a better director. And as I pointed out, he was excellent in some scenes in Generations with a horrible script.

But really, thats an awesome point you make. William Shatner cant act. 5 emmy nominations, 1 emmy win, 1 Golden Globe win but William Shatner cant act. Oh he just cant play James Kirk anymore. Of all the reasons for Shatner to not be in the next movie, thats the absolute most ridiculous.

Let me jump back into this Khan debate. Saying “hey Im not Harrison, Im actually Khan, they gave me a new identity” clearly implies a new name, not a new face, body, voice, personality, etc etc etc. To “assume” they changed his appearance is leaping to a conclusion based on facts not even remotely hinted at in the film. Cant make that conclusion.

The excuse for why BC played the character so differently *could* be chalked up to different expeirneces in the time since he was discovered. But that itself lends credence to the argument of why use the character in the first place?

Hey Trek fans, great news, we’re going to bring back an iconic Trek character. ofcourse he will look different, sound different, act different, be different and have a different name and motivations but its KHHHAAAAANNNN. Just an awful idea.

388. TUP - December 5, 2013

And further to my point, Shatner is a very good actor but he seemed to have never lost his classical stage training which was very evident in TOS. I think it was Nick Meyer that said he would force Shatner to do so many takes that he’d get angry and deliver a great performance. I’d assume that has to do with “subdueing” his natural tendancies. Everyone on Boston Legal raved about him so Im not sure if they did that there. Although BL gave him regular outlets for his natural “larger than life” portrayals so the quieter dramatic scenes maybe came easier.

A good script and a good director would get a wonderful portrayal of Kirk from William Shatner. Especially knowing it was his last time. The guy is, what, 84? My God…by the time someone with power decides how stupid it is not to have him included, it might be too late.

Having him portray the older version of Pine’s Kirk would solve the “he’s dead” issue. And hey, want to “restore” the universe and creat a mind-bending paradox? Have Nimoy’s Spock tell Pine’s Kirk about his future, thus avoiding dead in his universe and then that old Kirk warns Spock of his future thus avoiding the destruction of Romulus. Boom.

But seriously, a movie that actually follows the Godfather II style of “current” time Kirk and crew and future Kirk to eventually collide and resolve the film’s issue would be just fine by me. Also gets a meaningful role for Nimoy and allows for cameo’s from the other surviving members…

389. dmduncan - December 5, 2013

@366. Logical Leopard

Now the million dollar question is, if fans can ignore the obvious breach in logic that smooth to bumpy headed Klingons present due to off-camera considerations, why can’t they do the same with BC’s casting? Maybe he was the best person they came across, and they went with him.

***

Easy. It’s one point of a multilayered argument I’ve been making all along and even in my recent comments. Gene Roddenberry once remarked—and I think it’s on video—that someday someone was going to come along and do Star Trek bigger and better than it’s ever been done before. That’s also my position. If you CAN do things bigger and better then do them that way. Don’t make the mistakes of the past when you are not forced to by the same conditions.

What that means where Khan is concerned is that you ought to respect the history of the character without duplicating the casting process of the 1960’s because as Jai noted, “that was then and this is now.” So doing things better means observing the intent of the writers and producers who created Khan without following 1960’s era casting in a 2013 world. And if you do that, then under ideal conditions you will cast EITHER a genuine Punjabi actor OR an actor who can pass for a Punjabi, which also means that Benicio Del Toro really shouldn’t be your first choice—but he’s far better than Benedict Cumberbatch, who would make a great MIddle Earth Elf or Hobbit, but a not so good respectfully-casted follow-up (IN 2012, mind you) to Montalban-painted-brown.

If they had cast an actual Punjabi actor, whether he was Sikh or not, then THAT would have been an equivalent sort of thing to adding ridges to Klingons in TMP, because they would have been following the same principle Gene Roddenberry defined, i.e., to breakk free of the boundaries that kept you from doing things best the first time around.

Another point is that ff they started out with a complete reboot like BSG then none of this would matter, but that’s not what they did, so they are guilty of whimsically disregarding the logic of their own policy which they demonstrated they had on ST.09, and then abandoned when casting Khan.

Unless there was a completely different subconscious logic operating something along the lines of what TMMW intriguingly suggested.

Truth is, I’m not sure Bob is completely aware of exactly why he’s making the choices he’s making all the time; the overt symbolism of Now You See Me and a couple other things make me think that, so TMMW’s theory seems plausible.

390. Red Dead Ryan - December 5, 2013

TUP,

It’s pretty obvious to anyone here that Shatner’s acting style has changed. He simply does not resemble Kirk anymore. The last three movies he did featured Shatner hamming it up as a parody of himself. Shat-Kirk had become a sad punchline by the time of “Generations”. I know, because I remember people cracking jokes about him when I was in elementary school.

And that was twenty years ago. I’m sorry, but most folks — in particular the non-hardcore fans, would rather see Chris Pine in the captain’s chair instead of an 83 year old funny guy trying to recapture his glory years.

391. TUP - December 5, 2013

Its already been well explained by posters here that being middle eastern and being latino are not mutually exclusive. Obviously RM was a wonderful casting choice.

Who knows if Del Toro would have hit a home run, but it would have been more faithful to the source material. The plot was still crap though.

The only thing that shone through was BC chewing the scenery like a starving man. His performance was an interesting take on what was written to be a messy one-note villain.

392. Curious Cadet - December 5, 2013

@383. LogicalLeopard,
“You’re right, because we don’t have plastic surgery to radically alter people like that. But I’m pretty sure they do in Star Trek.”

That actually has nothing to do with my point. I’m certain they have the technology to change someone radically, black to white, blue to green, male to female, Herve Villechaize to Jeri Ryan. The problem with doing it with Khan is that it is completely unnecessary as required by the movie: merely to change his identity. There is NO logical reason whatsoever set up by the movie to change Khan’s racial ethnicity, whether the technology exists to do it or not.

__________________
“No foundation was laid in Star Trek for a plausible explanation of the Klingon foreheads. And when they did explain it, it really wasn’t logical when you think about it. What virus causes your forehead bones to melt away, and for your forehead skin to become smooth? ”

None was needed. The reason it changed was because they had the money and time to improve over what had been done originally.

As for how it was depicted on camera … how can you tell me in one breath that in 300 years the technology will exist to completely alter someone’s appearance as thoroughly as Khan’s in STID, but in another tell me how implausible it is that a virus can cause instant liquefaction of bone in a galaxy full of exotic alien viruses never before encountered? And anyway, that is the foundation of Star Trek — once you start pulling at the threads of things like transporters and warp drives then all bets are off. There’s a reason for pushing the plausibility of the fantastic with technology and science, there’s absolutely no reason to do it with something as basic as Khan’s ethnic appearance, at least as set up in STID.

393. TUP - December 5, 2013

390. Red Dead Ryan – December 5, 2013
TUP,

It’s pretty obvious to anyone here that Shatner’s acting style has changed. He simply does not resemble Kirk anymore. The last three movies he did featured Shatner hamming it up as a parody of himself. Shat-Kirk had become a sad punchline by the time of “Generations”. I know, because I remember people cracking jokes about him when I was in elementary school.

And that was twenty years ago. I’m sorry, but most folks — in particular the non-hardcore fans, would rather see Chris Pine in the captain’s chair instead of an 83 year old funny guy trying to recapture his glory years.

****I respect your determination to make your opinion fact but its not. You’re saying he cant do it because he was terrible in V, VI & Generations. You admit he was better in VI. You take the position he’s a terrible actor without considering his multiple awards because you didnt watch Boston legal. Sorry man, that doesnt fly.

Shatner would likely be one of if not the most decorated actor in the film. I dont see the “hammy” you speak of. TVH was far more “hammy”. There were some very, very good dramatic character moments in the next three. As bad as V was received, it had some of the best character moments in the series.

394. Danpaine - December 5, 2013

387. TUP – December 5, 2013

I’m pretty much in agreement with everything you said, except I can’t for the life of me come up with a plausible scenario where Shatner Kirk (my favorite Trek actor/character, btw) would fit into the next film. The writers have enough challenges facing them to make a more compelling, original genuine story this 50th anniversary without trying to shoehorn Prime Kirk in there somehow. As we all know, no matter how good an actor is, bad writing can’t be reckoned with.

And as far as Khan, it is what it is. I’ve shoved his existence in STID into that closet in my mind where all the bad parts of movies go. Ignored, forgotten.

Let’s have bad-ass Klingons/Tholians/Some New Threat. An epic space battle(s). A captain who’s matured into a real role-model, a leader. Something deep, shocking and memorable. This next movie needs to be Sharp.

Because after this trilogy, I smell another re-boot. At least by then I’ll be in my 50’s and won’t feel so bad trying to ignore it :)

395. TUP - December 5, 2013

Oh and I agree that 83 year old William Shatner is too old to play 35 year old James Kirk.

But 83 year old William Shatner is not too old to play 83 year old James Kirk.

When Shatner passes on, one of the major themes to his passing will be the regret by fans that he never played Kirk in the big bidget Trek revival. And that’s a very sad thing.

396. LogicalLeopard - December 5, 2013

Easy. It’s one point of a multilayered argument I’ve been making all along and even in my recent comments. Gene Roddenberry once remarked—and I think it’s on video—that someday someone was going to come along and do Star Trek bigger and better than it’s ever been done before. That’s also my position. If you CAN do things bigger and better then do them that way. Don’t make the mistakes of the past when you are not forced to by the same conditions.

What that means where Khan is concerned is that you ought to respect the history of the character without duplicating the casting process of the 1960′s because as Jai noted, “that was then and this is now.” So doing things better means observing the intent of the writers and producers who created Khan without following 1960′s era casting in a 2013 world. And if you do that, then under ideal conditions you will cast EITHER a genuine Punjabi actor OR an actor who can pass for a Punjabi, which also means that Benicio Del Toro really shouldn’t be your first choice—but he’s far better than Benedict Cumberbatch, who would make a great MIddle Earth Elf or Hobbit, but a not so good respectfully-casted follow-up (IN 2012, mind you) to Montalban-painted-brown.

***********************

So why couldn’t someone consider BC’s Khan to be bigger and better? It was a more contemporary perfomance than RM’s, and a pretty good one by most accounts. You don’t have to pick a Indian actor if you have a plausible reason for an appearance change. And as far as Benecio Del Toro, that is EXACTLY repeating the mistakes of the past. Either get an Indian to do it, or a non-indian to play an altered Khan.

And a lot of this I realize hinges on how good of a job everyone thinks BC did. And THAT hinges on people’s willingness to accept Khan, and/or BC as Khan. I personally figured, “It is what it is” and went with it. And that’s why I didn’t find it so objectionable. Actually, and I know this is sacriledge, but he actually started to LOOK like Khan to me after a few viewings. Maybe not like RM, but like somebody malevolent was hiding behind his face.

397. TUP - December 5, 2013

@394 I dont disagree. But thats why the creative types get paid the big bucks. As I said, a Godfather II style “dual” story would work if done right, especially “through” Nimoy Spock who could appear in both sides of the story. Think “All Good Things”. Its a shame the Nexus was such a horribly reaslied premise because it would be a great bridge, especially as you could use footage from genrations.

I’d also settle for an epic adventure that has the crew dealing with some issue that threatens the universe and everyones futures. They save the day and you have some words of wisdom from Nimoy Spock about how the future looks bright…transition to to 50 years later (or 30 with de-aging CGI) and the original crew on the Enterprise, Shatner in the chair, Spock at his side. A few words are spoken, an order given and they warp off…fade to black. Trilogy ended and we’re left with the content notion that all is right in the universe.

398. LogicalLeopard - December 5, 2013

391. TUP – December 5, 2013
Its already been well explained by posters here that being middle eastern and being latino are not mutually exclusive. Obviously RM was a wonderful casting choice.

**************************

Not so obvious. A Caucasian with a deep tan and Mexican accent is NEVER a good choice for a Indian superman. *LOL* And I think RM looks like a good choice to all of us, because he WAS the choice, and we’ve had 5 decades and two performances to eat up, with no alternatives. We can all say William Shatner was the best choice for Kirk, but if they would have gotten, I dunno, Lloyd Bridges, we would have probably loved him too.

****************************

Who knows if Del Toro would have hit a home run, but it would have been more faithful to the source material. The plot was still crap though.

******************************

I’ll give you your opinion on the plot, but I don’t see how a Hispanic is more faithful to the source material.

******************************

The only thing that shone through was BC chewing the scenery like a starving man. His performance was an interesting take on what was written to be a messy one-note villain.

***********************************

Interesting observation. You’ve got me thinking on whether or not this Khan was a one note villian. I dunno, I think there were some nuances in there, but you know, he didn’t seem too multidimensional. A lot of passion (which may be understandable given the circumstances) but one thing that made Khan interesting in Space Seed is that there was a duality – charming, and almost affected on one end, deadly on the other. So I totally get why people, like yourself (I believe), didn’t like how Khan was portrayed in this one.

399. LogicalLeopard - December 5, 2013

The conversation about Shatner being or not being in the next movie presents an interesting question: Outside of guest appearances from former Trek actors, what are some good ideas on how to best honor Trek’s anniversary? Please refrain from saying new writers, new take, etc. Use what we have, because that’s what we’re going to get *L*

400. TUP - December 5, 2013

Uhura is Swahilli
Zoe is Dominican and Peurto Rican

Sulu represented “all of Asia”
Takei is Japanese
John Cho is Korean

List goes on. The “resemblance” is more important than the actual ethnicity.

Point being, it matters not whether a latino or middle eastern or brit played the role of Khan as long as he could BELIEVABLY play the role of Khan established in Space Seed and Wrath of Khan.

401. Ahmed - December 5, 2013

@ 338. dmduncan – December 4, 2013

“From that Saldana interview it really sounds like Bob has an idea. Which is good news. Because by this time after ST.09 they sounded unsure of their footing.”

She also saying they will start shooting the movie next year (2014). If that is true, then shouldn’t the movie be ready for a Fall 2015 release if they start the shooting in 2014 ?

But again, I’m not even sure if she actually know for a fact that they will begin next year.

402. Damian - December 5, 2013

393–I do not admit Shatner was better in VI. To me his acting as Kirk got progressively worse from V to Generations.

What I was saying was that Star Trek VI was a great movie with a great story. That made it easier to overlook Shatners acting as Kirk.

Great, he won some Emmy’s. Good for him. That doesn’t mean he’d be great at another run at Kirk.

Shatner will live on for me in the original series and movies. Up to Star Trek IV, his acting served the role well. He is iconic. But it’s over. I said good-bye a long time ago. He gave his life twice, once for the Enterprise, and again much later selflessly for a civilization he never even heard of. To me, that’s a hero’s death in either case. That’s good enough for me. So no regrets for me.

And I am convinced that Shatner would want to be the Prime-Kirk. He has a bit of a competition with Nimoy. Based on what he’s said in the past, I am absolutely convinced he would insist on a role equivalent to Nimoys in 2009. He wanted the writers to canonize his Shatnerverse novels. That’s not someone who is just looking for a minor role.

403. Damian - December 5, 2013

TUP–

If you liked Shatner’s acting in V and VI, then we’re pretty far apart on the whole Shatner in the next film debate.

I don’t want to waste part of the next movie explaining the magical reappearance of prime-Kirk. I don’t need it. Chris Pine was good as Kirk, I don’t need to brush him aside so Shatner can have one last final farewell on the Enterprise bridge.

And I would predict if he were there, some of the same people who so loudly advocated for his appearance would be complaining about how hammy he was as Kirk and lambasting the producers for shoehorning him in (note I said some). I actually think it would be a sad moment of an actor long past playing the role trying to recapture a magic that was lost long ago.

404. Damian - December 5, 2013

401–I think they want a 2016 release to coincide with 50 years. If by some miracle it was ready for 2015, I would think Paramount would hold it until 2016. 2015 already has a full slate also.

They’d probably take some extra time to do some post-production work. Remember Star Trek (2009) was held back a few months. It was supposed to be released 12/2008, but Paramount wanted to wait until there was a bit less competition.

405. Danpaine - December 5, 2013

397. TUP – December 5, 2013

Agreed, I’d love to see that. But I’m 47. The first question that comes to mind is, would the type of story you’re suggesting appeal to the movie-going masses, the kids in their teens, twenties? The de-sensitized, immediate gratification, blow-em-up generation who go to the movies the most, and over and over again? (The new Star Wars film will do this, I’m certain).

I do not envy the script writers here – this next Trek story must be sexy and fast-paced enough to fill seats, yet memorable, deep and thoughtful enough to properly honor its 50-year existence. That’s one heck of a lot on their plate.

Different ballpark of course, but Skyfall, for example, did that very successfully. No offense to anyone in their teens or 20’s by the way – you do go to the movies the most. I know I did.

406. Ahmed - December 5, 2013

@ 370. Damian – December 5, 2013

“One very good reason. Shatner’s Kirk died on Veridian III.”

Sorry but this is a very ridiculous reason, you know why ? Because Spock died in WOK & then he came back in SFS. In fact Spock died in the TOS episode “Return To Tomorrow” & Sargon brought him back.

Remember the scene in ST IV when Spock mind-melded with Lt. Valeris

Spock: She doesn’t know…
Scotty: Then we’re dead.
Spock: I’ve been dead before !

Death is never final in science fiction. Ripley died in Alien 3 & came back in Alien 4 & there are lot of other examples that you can find in movies & TV series.

Saying that Shatner can’t come back to play Kirk because his character died in Generations is dumb, pure & simple.

407. Ahmed - December 5, 2013

@Damian

By dumb, I don’t mean you personally but the idea itself.

408. Danpaine - December 5, 2013

403. Damian – December 5, 2013

Agreed that Prime Kirk has no place in the next one (save a meaningful, well-placed and Necessary cameo).

And that’s hard for me to say, since Shatner as Kirk was a giant role model for me growing up. But Prime Kirk is long dead, and even though it was a sorry way they did it, it’s long done. Missed opportunities all around back in the 90’s, but that’s another well-worn topic on these boards.

409. TUP - December 5, 2013

As well he should want to play Prime Kirk. Not “Chef”, not Tiberious, not Uncle Bill Kirk.

410. TUP - December 5, 2013

Damian – they dont need to spend half the movie explaining Kirk not being dead. They spent 90 seconds explaining the entire convoluted backstory to 09.

Danpain – I maintain part of 09’s success was the inclusion and marketing of Nimoy. I maintain that what the public wants is not a reimagining or a new universe or a new take. What we want is TOS with updated SFX, modern budget, modern story-telling. We want Shatner, Nimoy and Bones as they looked in the 60’s. We have to settle for new actors ofcourse but we dont want convoluted changes…we just want our beloved characters doing what they do.

My take anyway…

411. Damian - December 5, 2013

406–The difference there is Spock was an alien. They were able to create a way to bring him back using his alien heritage.

Kirk is fully human, a bit harder to explain a return from the dead. Not saying it can’t be done, but that goes back to my other argument that they would have to explain his miraculous resurrection and use time travel to get him back from the 24th century, in the prime universe no less.

Sure they can ignore Generations all together, but that would just feed the naysayers that say Abrams and co. have no respect for prior Star Trek. Not to mention they created an elaborate storyline to create an alternate universe just so the prime universe canon would be maintained. They’re not going to suddenly say canon doesn’t matter now.

412. Damian - December 5, 2013

And it really comes down to that I want an original story for the next film, with this new cast plain and simple.

I would want that even if Shatner’s acting weren’t an issue for me. I have no need to see Nimoy in the next film either (frankly I didn’t need him in STID–it seemed like a complete waste of a few minutes).

It’s time to let this new crew take their places. I don’t need to see another ham-handed attempt to shoehorn Shatner in it just for a feel good for some Trekkies who aren’t ready to say good-bye.

I frankly thought the Enterprise send off at the end of Star Trek VI was an excellent good bye to the original crew. I would have really been fine if Generations were a TNG only movie.

413. Damian - December 5, 2013

Maybe it’s easier for me because I got used to new actors and characters in Star Trek a long time ago. I was a big fan of TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise too, so the idea of Star Trek without Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley et al. is no big deal.

414. Phil - December 5, 2013

Shatners Trek ship has sailed. That should be the end of the story, but just for giggles, consider that at the earliest when Trek 13 hits the cameras Shat will be 85 years old. Now, in real life admirals tend to be older people, so the expectation of these guys (or gals) as action heroes if slim – I could live with old Kirk standing behind the captain of his flagship, directing the action. Problem is, 85 year old Kirk still wants to be chopping wood, vaulting the guardrail, laying a little Kirk-Fu on someone, and getting the girl. Don’t think so – I’ll have a problem with old Han Solo being a space jockey in Episode 7, if they go that route, too.

If Shatner passes, I’ll certainly remember his TOS portrayal of Kirk fondly, but I’ll have no regrets whatsoever that he didn’t make it into the alternate universe. To that end, he has no one to blame but himself.

415. Ahmed - December 5, 2013

@ 413. Damian – December 5, 2013

“Maybe it’s easier for me because I got used to new actors and characters in Star Trek a long time ago. I was a big fan of TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise too, so the idea of Star Trek without Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley et al. is no big deal.”

Well, I was ok about it after ST09 but when they brought Nimoy back in STID for the second time, I was pissed off a little. Why they brought Nimoy & not Shatner. They either not bring any of the TOS cast in the second movie or they bring someone else, like Shanter.

416. Ahmed - December 5, 2013

@414. Phil

Well, Shatner doesn’t need to do any physical stuff. After all, Nimoy did nothing but giving his advice while sitting on a chair in STID & in ST09 he didn’t jump off building or anything like that.

417. jas_montreal - December 5, 2013

Wow…. Are you people serious? You think EVERYONE has to like something? I’m a huge trek fan since the beginning and that doesn’t mean I have to like the new Trek. I never insulted a person. I criticized the interpretation. There is nothing wrong with challenging an idea. We are not all slaves to an idea. A lot of ppl on trekmovie.com seem to be acting a bit like a angry mob now. Not cool. I’m not someone else, I’ve always been jas_montreal since trekmovie was posting in 2008 about trek09. So please stop making your own conspiracy theories. The admin’s of Trekmovie can see my e-mail addr and link it with posts in 2008.

418. Damian - December 5, 2013

415–I agree about Nimoy in STID. That really was just a waste of time. They did to Nimoy in STID exactly what they said they didn’t want to do with Shatner in Star Trek (2009)–it was a blatant fan boy let’s have Nimoy play Spock again. NuSpock certainly shouldn’t have needed Spock-prime to tell him Khan was dangerous. I mean, they do have historical records too from the 1990’s.

416–I think what Phil was saying is that is what Shatner would want to be doing.

Look, it should be clear, Shatner is not going to accept a small cameo role or a role not critical to the story (not that I’m interested in that either). It’s not like he’s so desperate to be in it that he would do anything.

419. Ahmed - December 5, 2013

@ 411. Damian – December 5, 2013

“406–The difference there is Spock was an alien. They were able to create a way to bring him back using his alien heritage.

Kirk is fully human, a bit harder to explain a return from the dead.”

Not at all, watch the TOS episode “The Changeling”, Nomad kills Scotty & later brought him back.

It is science fiction, you could do anything you want within that frame. Bringing people back from the death is the most easier & common thing to do in Sci-Fi.

420. Damian - December 5, 2013

417–jas

Ok. Am I missing something?

Right now we are having a bit of a debate about to Shatner or not to Shatner, but I don’t think there’s been any disrespect from either side up to this point.

Not sure what you’re mad about.

421. TUP - December 5, 2013

Shatner looks great for his age and is very active. If the role required him to chop wood or throw a right cross, he could do it (and thats why Stunt men exist anyway) but to be honest, James T Kirk was as much (or more) a tactician as he was a man of action.

Pine’s Kirk can run around fighting and bedding chicks. Shatner’s can be the guy in the chair out witting his opponents.

As for Spock in STID, I didnt mind it because I would never mind any cameo from the originals but again I say, they so easily could have made his role matter.

Quinto asks Nimoy Spock “Do you know Khan”. Yes Spock replies sighing. Young Spock transmits an image of Khan. “…but that is not Khan Noonian Singh” Spock Prime says. “However, I know exactly who he is…”

and thus, Spock reveals the ruse…that Harrison is actually Joachine. That scene then becomes absolutely pivotal.

422. Danpaine - December 5, 2013

412. Damian – December 5, 2013

I frankly thought the Enterprise send off at the end of Star Trek VI was an excellent good bye to the original crew.

Absolutely. I said the same thing here a couple of weeks ago.

414. Phil – December 5, 2013

If Shatner passes, I’ll certainly remember his TOS portrayal of Kirk fondly, but I’ll have no regrets whatsoever that he didn’t make it into the alternate universe. To that end, he has no one to blame but himself.


Yeah, agreed, unfortunately. He accepted the Generations script, played the part, pocketed the cash.

And Nimoy’s appearance in STID was so unnecessary, I remember sitting in the theater thinking….WTF, why????

423. Ahmed - December 5, 2013

@420. Damian

He is talking about last night’s argument after his comment at #343

424. Damian - December 5, 2013

419–I still don’t see how this would be an easy task. You have to send someone in the 24th century to Veridian III to resurrect Kirk, then bring him back in time in an alternate universe no less.

Sure it can be done, but for what purpose. Spock-prime came back from 2387. Kirk died in 2371. The years are all wrong. There’s 16 years he’s dead in the prime-timeline before Spock comes back.

Kirk was dead and buried, unlike Scotty. Why would someone resurrect prime-Kirk. The alternate universe was not created until 2387 when Nero went back in time, so there was no one in the alternate universe to bring him back (not sure why they would in the first place), and you have to account for the 16 years somehow. Was he living a secret life after being resurrected? Just too many plot holes needing to be answered for something I’m not at all interested in seeing. I don’t think the masses who these movies are geared for are interested either. They especially are not interested in some convuluted story not only to resurrect Kirk, but to get him back over 100 years in an alternate universe. And this won’t be make or break for most Trekkies. I don’t think you’ll see many Trekkies say they refuse to see it if Shatner is not there.

425. Damian - December 5, 2013

423–Ok, I see that now (I was looking at more recent posts).

Does seem kind of out of the blue though. Here we are having a nice debate about Shatner and out of nowhere he posts about being attacked for not liking Abrams Trek.

426. Danpaine - December 5, 2013

424. Damian – December 5, 2013

Yeah exactly. Well put. As I was saying, writing Prime Kirk in the story in a Plausible, Meaningful way looks like a no-win, to me at least.

I think the writers need to concentrate on writing a top-notch original story which both the general public and Trek fans won’t forget for a long time. And if I catch wind that Khan is even making an appearance in this one, I’ll wait until it hits cable. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice….

427. Ahmed - December 5, 2013

@Damian

How do you think the writers should acknowledge the 50th anniversary in the 2016 movie ?

428. Damian - December 5, 2013

Anyway, gotta go. It’s been fun debating the merits of the Shatner.

Don’t think we have much to worry about one way or the other. If they haven’t brought in Shatner to this point, don’t think they will now.

If you really wanna see Shatner, just pick up an episode or one of the original movies. He will forever live as Kirk right there.

429. Damian - December 5, 2013

427–Ok one more post.

A completely original story. I’d prefer no villains or Klingons personally this time around.

A real exploration story out where no Star Trek has gone before.

430. Ahmed - December 5, 2013

@426. Danpaine

“And if I catch wind that Khan is even making an appearance in this one, I’ll wait until it hits cable. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice….”

Agreed.

The Amazing Mr. Lindelof mentioned in an interview back in May that Khan might come back in the sequel.

======================
Q: Will we see Benedict Cumberbatch return in future films?

Lindelof : To answer that question would be to determine whether or not he actually survives this movie, but if he survives this movie, I think that we would be incredibly stupid to not use him again.

http://screenrant.com/star-trek-3-movie-villains-story/

======================

Well, it was incredibly stupid to have Khan in the movie in the first place.

Thankfully, The Amazing Mr. Lindelof is not writing the new movie.

431. TUP - December 5, 2013

Ahmed – absolutely! Very stupid to use him. Those comments are so arrogance. Man, is Lindelof really as big of a dick as he seems?

432. Ahmed - December 5, 2013

@431. TUP

I used to like the guy back in the early “Lost” years but later on, after that dumb “Lost” finale & then the way he f**ked up Prometheus, I lost interest in any projects that he is involved with.

Here is one of his brilliant ideas from that same interview

==========================
Q: When I was speaking to Bob [Orci] and Alex [Kurtzman] earlier, they did mention they’d like to bring The Borg and Q into this universe. Have they mentioned that to you?

Lindelof : “You can’t talk about Trek and not talk about the Borg, and certainly about Q. Very iconic adversaries from The Next Generation which is, outside of the original cast films, was my entry way into Star Trek, so I wouldn’t mind getting – towards the end of our run on Star Trek, maybe baby Picard could be born. There has to be some sort of crossover we’re not thinking of.”

http://screenrant.com/star-trek-3-movie-villains-story/
==========================

433. TUP - December 5, 2013

I actually liked the Lost finale. By then, it was so screwed up and destroyed, nothing they did would matter. I thought it was suitably emotional and brought them all together. Lost was a fantastic premise that was ruined by writer arrogance and hubrus. They admitted they introduced elements with no idea where it was going. Just baffling.

To be honest, I could handle Borg and Q…a Borg movie wouldbe a huge “average fan” draw too.

434. Danpaine - December 5, 2013

Honestly, at this point the Borg wouldn’t bother me, either. Pretty easy to explain (or not even), that they simply arrived in the Alpha Quadrant earlier in this new timeline.

The Borg ships and costumes, given big-screen budget and treatment, could come across as pretty damn scary if done correctly.

I’ve lost a bit of enthusiasm after seeing STID and how they used Khan. Maybe if they bring in a TNG villain, they’ll leave the rest of the TOS villains relatively unharmed.

435. TUP - December 5, 2013

First Contact led to the Bog in Enterprise. I think the idea was to create a pradox where the borg on Enterprise ended up sending the signal that eventually led to the Bog appearing in TNG. But it would be easy to imply it got them there earlier.

Ofcourse the problem with that is, time travel doesnt work the same in AU as it does in the original universe.

436. Damian - December 5, 2013

429–To follow up, I keep bringing up the novel “Chain of Attack” from 1987 by Gene DeWeese was one of my favorite books.

The Enterprise gets stranded in a far away galaxy and Kirk must get two sides that have been warring for centuries to try to make peace.

Great where no man has gone before story with completely new aliens, and the Enterprise showing the best of the Federation when they have to try to get the two sides to talk (and at the beginning of the book a sense of foreboding at first as the Enterprise encounters world after world that has been annihilated by combat).

437. Damian - December 5, 2013

434–The only thing there was the Borg were really well done in First Contact. They certainly made them look creepier than they ever looked.

I loved the Borg as a villain, but they are sort of played out. The Enterprise episode “Regeneration” did a good job of returning the Borg to their roots, but I’m not in a rush to see them in the next movie.

438. boborci - December 5, 2013

380. never get tired of hearing what u want. noted:)

439. TUP - December 5, 2013

An origin story for the Borg wouldnt be bad. Show us the creatures that originated the borg…or as some believe, the creatures that intercepted VGER and became the Borg.

Would Starfleet’s newfound commitment to scanning distant space (thanks to Nero) lead them to discovering VGER sooner?

440. LogicalLeopard - December 5, 2013

376. crazydaystrom – December 5, 2013
How many here think any reasons to be given to explain Khan’s difference in appearance was thought out before STID was released or was made up in response to the comments and outcry about casting an actor who looks so different than Montalban. I think it was the latter.

*****************

Considering there’s a line in the movie that seems to account for the change, I think it’s the former. But I also think that a game change happened when they didn’t get Benicio Del Toro to play Khan. I also find it hard to beleive that they were getting Benicio Del Toro to play John Harrison. Maybe another code name, not Harrison.

441. Damian - December 5, 2013

435–Another interesting novel “Engines of Destiny” also by DeWeese incidentally, has Scotty going back in time from after Relics, but before Generations, to stop Kirk from dying on the Enterprise B (he beams him off the last second).

That creates a problem though. Because Kirk wasn’t available to help Picard stop Soran on Veridian III, the Picard and the Enterprise are destroyed when the star is destroyed. Then they are not there to stop the Borg from going back in time to the 21st century. Kirk and Scotty are stuck in the 23rd century that has no Federation because Earth was assimilated. Very interesting Paradox created. Since Scotty saved Kirk, the Enterprise D with all hands were destroyed, and they couldn’t stop the Borg in First Contact.

442. Damian - December 5, 2013

439–To really show off my Trek nerdiness, the Destiny novels by David Mack depict the origin of the Borg.

While not officially canon, if someone were to change that on screen, it would negate how they finally ended the Borg and everything that followed in the relaunch novels up to now.

443. Damian - December 5, 2013

Though the Destiny novels were excellent (a final apolocalyptical battle with the Borg where they give up trying to assimilate the Federation and decide to destroy the Federation). I would love to see a mini-series based on Destiny which featured crews from the Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Titan as well.

But I know that’s not going to happen.

444. LogicalLeopard - December 5, 2013

Uhura is Swahilli
Zoe is Dominican and Peurto Rican

Sulu represented “all of Asia”
Takei is Japanese
John Cho is Korean

List goes on. The “resemblance” is more important than the actual ethnicity.

Point being, it matters not whether a latino or middle eastern or brit played the role of Khan as long as he could BELIEVABLY play the role of Khan established in Space Seed and Wrath of Khan.

*************************

Point of clarification, Uhura is Kenyan, I believe. Swahili is a language, not an ethnic group. Nichelle Nichols was an African American, Zoe Saldana is of Dominican and Puerto Rican descent, but it’s obvious looking at her skin color and features that she is of African descent. There are Puerto Ricans and Dominicans with a White/Indian mix, and there are those with a African/Indian mix. She appears to be one of the latter. So essentially, Nichelle, Zoe, and Uhura are all the same ethnic group. Just Zoe has more added in. Same could be said for Nichelle, because many African Americans are mixed with other ethnicities, mostly white and some Native American.

Like you said, Sulu was a non-descript Asian. Cho and Takei are both Asian, descended from people of different countries. Same racial group.

Ricardo Montalban is essentially Caucasian, born in Mexico from two parents from Spain. Benicio del Toro is…..Mexican, isn’t he? Or at least he’s of Hispanic descent (white/indian mix). Khan is Indian. All three of those people are from different ethnic groups.

So, basically, in the first two examples, the actors can “believably” play their characters because they are of the same ethnic group. In the last, “believable” only has to do with a tan or makeup.

445. Danpaine - December 5, 2013

441. Damian – December 5, 2013
435–Another interesting novel “Engines of Destiny”

I think I need to read that.

446. Damian - December 5, 2013

436–Quick follow up to my Chain of Attack note–the best part there is no real villain. A crisis the Enterprise has to solve, still plenty of action and space battles, but no true villain or motives of revenge. A break from TWOK formula that’s been used so often in Trek movies.

447. TUP - December 5, 2013

Youre beating a dead horse as people smarter than I have already shown that Midder Easterners could share latino ethnicity. Regardless, an actor is hired to play a role. RM could play the role believably. BC cannot play the role believably and it was a distraction to the story.

Re: Borg, I didnt read the Destiny novels. Didnt Shatner’s novels touch on the origin of the Borg as well? I recall reading those and remember VGER factoring into that and a Borg homeworld.

448. Ahmed - December 5, 2013

@ 441. Damian – December 5, 2013

“435–Another interesting novel “Engines of Destiny” also by DeWeese incidentally, has Scotty going back in time from after Relics, but before Generations, to stop Kirk from dying on the Enterprise B (he beams him off the last second). ”

Looks very interesting, will look for it.

449. Damian - December 5, 2013

445–I loved how he tied Generations and First Contact together.

When I read about the Borg assimilating Earth and stopping first contact I was like OMG, since Scotty saved Kirk, that stopped first contact from happening.

He did it well enough too, that it wasn’t an overt link at first.

450. Danpaine - December 5, 2013

448. Ahmed – December 5, 2013

Just bought it on Amazon. $8 for the Kindle version.

Thanks, Damian!

451. Damian - December 5, 2013

447–Yes, I read the Shatnerverse novels too. They do depict the machine planet as being the origin of the Borg. His novels are generally considered to exist apart from the continuity portrayed in the relaunch novels, in which Kirk is still dead.

Shatner’s novels started off well, but there was a bit too much woe is me. Esp. the later novels, he started depicting Kirk as more or less being screwed over by Starfleet of the 24th century. All he wanted was his wife and son and to live in peace, and those mean Starfleet people kept manipulating him. Other than that the were interesting books, but if you are a reader of the relaunch novels, you have to place them in a different continuity,

452. Damian - December 5, 2013

450–Glad to help. Not sure if there are still print editions out there since it is an older novel from 2005.

DeWeese did write a few Star Trek novels, but unfortunately he passed away in 2012–RIP.

453. Ahmed - December 5, 2013

@ 450. Danpaine – December 5, 2013

“448. Ahmed – December 5, 2013

Just bought it on Amazon. $8 for the Kindle version.”

Thanks for the heads up.

454. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 5, 2013

Star Trek into Denial? ; )

455. Ahmed - December 5, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness is nominated for Best Visual Effects Oscar.
====================

Here are the 10 titles that will be competing for a Best Visual Effects Oscar nomination:

Elysium
Gravity
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Iron Man 3
The Lone Ranger
Oblivion
Star Trek Into Darkness
Thor: The Dark World
Pacific Rim
World War Z

http://collider.com/oscars-visual-effects-gravity-pacific-rim/
====================

Strangely, Man of Steel, The Wolverine & Ender’s Game were not nominated.

Congratulations to STID visual effects guys :)

456. Adama - December 5, 2013

@boborci

Thanks! Its so cool just to know you read us!
When I first hear they were doing a Star Trek prequel, I couldn’t help but to think of the prequels Star Wars got and a shiver got down my spine… Most trekkies don’t notice, but we were so very fortunate to get you (yourself, Alex, JJ and the amazing cast), that sometimes Im infuriated by the constant nitpicking. The fact that you take your time to listen to fans its something that reinforces my point. Thanks again! LLAP!

457. Ahmed - December 5, 2013

@ 456. Adama – December 5, 2013

“When I first hear they were doing a Star Trek prequel”

Not a prequel, ST09 was a reboot!

458. Damian - December 5, 2013

457–Actually, sort of a reboot, prequel and sequel all wrapped up into one.

Reboot is obvious–new universe with new rules, not always in alignment with the prime universe.

Sequel–because the alternate universe originates from events that take place after Nemesis. Spock prime comes from the prime universe after his appearance in Unification.

Prequel because the timing is prior to the original series. Certain elements are intended to occur in both universes (the Kelvin was created before the incursion, Kirk’s Kobayashi Maru test is meant to be the same, Spock’s rejection of the Vulcan Science Academy in favor of Starfleet Academy all still take place).

That’s the one thing that I always thought was genius about Star Trek (2009), how it doesn’t just fit nicely into one category, but really takes all 3 elements.

459. Ahmed - December 5, 2013

While Paramount & Bad Robot are still pondering what to do about ST XIII, Bryan Singer announced today that a new X-Men movie, called X-Men: Apocalypse, will be out in 2016.

==========================
Release Date Announced for ‘X-Men: Apocalypse’ :

While it readies X-Men: Days of Future Past for a May 23, 2014 opening, 20th Century Fox is already working on the next installment of the X-Men franchise.

Fox has announced X-Men: Apocalypse as the title of the new film and has planted a flag on May 27, 2016, for its release.

Director Bryan Singer, who helms the upcoming X-Men: Days of Future Past, tweeted on Thursday:

“#Xmen #Apocalypse 2016!”

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/release-date-announced-x-men-663154

==========================

460. Adama - December 5, 2013

@457 Ahmed

Well, its kind of prequel and reboot at the same time. Anyway, then, when the announcement first came everybody kind of assumed that Paramount wanted to sort of emulate Episode I, I am talking of what I thought then, not what the movie finally was (fortunately).

Seriously, think it, hot of the heels of Némesis, there was so many things that could have been wrong with ST 2009, and even with all the backlash that (I think unfairly) STID is receiveing, most of the fans must admit that we are pretty lucky to see our favorite franchise and our favorite characters alive and well for a long time. We could have ended with an Anakin-like whiny Kirk! :D

461. Adama - December 5, 2013

458. Damian

Yes! One of the may many things I loved about ST 2009 is the way it tied nicely all Star Trek known timeline (canon, at least), I took it from the farthest future, Spock as an ambassador to Romulus, well after TNG (the comic prequel stated that his vessel was constructed by Geordi), to a post Enterprise point (Admiral Archer dog mention was nice, an actual appearance of Scott Bakula would have been great).
For me it all made sense, alternate timelines at all.

462. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 5, 2013

I think boborci had something to do with this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbp3Ra3Yp74#t=149

Looks freakin’ awesome!

463. Ahmed - December 5, 2013

@ 462. TrekMadeMeWonder – December 5, 2013

“I think boborci had something to do with this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbp3Ra3Yp74#t=149

Looks freakin’ awesome!”

Bob wrote ASM 2 script with Alex Kurtzman & Jeff Pinkner

464. Adama - December 5, 2013

462. TrekMadeMeWonder

After Spiderman 3 any Spiderman looks awesome :)
Seriously, though, it looks good, but the trailer itself is a bit weirdly edited. Amazing Spiderman was okay, had nice moments but didnt rock my world. I expect AM2 to up the ante a little bit more. At least the implication that we could end up seeing the Sinister Six in film make me hopeful for this.

465. crazydaystrom - December 5, 2013

380. Adama
…I think it would be cool if in the next one, given that we are already in the five year mission, the begining w(h)ere, as in STID, the end of an “ordinary” mission, but of one of the classic episodes! Wouldnt be cool to see taht the mission ending is, i dont know, maybe “Journey to Babel”, or “Arena” or even “Amok time”, but with your own twist?

That would be very cool indeed Adama. That was one of the types TOS references I’d thought we would be seeing in the AU.

403. Damian
I don’t want to waste part of the next movie explaining the magical reappearance of prime-Kirk. I don’t need it. Chris Pine was good as Kirk…

As well Damian. Anything more than perhaps some kind of coda to honor and again say goodbye to the original cast would IMO take away from and make lesser the story being told in the next movie. Unless is very good and incredibly well written it would come off as a ham-fisted bit of shoe-horning. I’m sure Paramount aren’t going to settle for that and I hope the writers won’t want to go that direction. Unless, again, it could be down with a mind-blowing story.

417. jas_montreal
A lot of ppl on trekmovie.com seem to be acting a bit like a angry mob now. Not cool. I’m not someone else, I’ve always been jas_montreal since trekmovie was posting in 2008 about trek09. So please stop making your own conspiracy theories.

It is strangely and sadly the way of a number of folks here, jas_m. I find myself scratching my head about that more and more.

466. Damian - December 5, 2013

461–Yes, an Admiral Archer cameo might have been nice. Bakula is reportedly a great guy and he always had great respect for the franchise.

And TATV was probably one of the least fulfilling finales in the franchise, so it would have allowed for a better good-bye (though the Terra Prime episodes did have a more appropriate finish–and featured another great performance by Peter Weller–ironically in a role opposing Coalition values, instead of obsessing over Federation security as in STID).

At this point, the opportunity for that is likely gone.

467. LogicalLeopard - December 5, 2013

447. TUP – December 5, 2013
Youre beating a dead horse as people smarter than I have already shown that Midder Easterners could share latino ethnicity. Regardless, an actor is hired to play a role. RM could play the role believably. BC cannot play the role believably and it was a distraction to the story.

***********************************

That horse is not dead. Section 31 faked it’s death like it did for Sloane *LOL*

And those comments have been dismissed. Khan was not established as being of Luso-Indian descent, and it’s irrelevant because Montalban isn’t Portuguese or Indian. Khan was not established as being a Mexican Sikh. It’s a muuuuuuuuuuuuuuch larger stretch to assume that Khan’s character is from Goa or Mexico, when that hasn’t been established at ALL, than it is to assume that BC is playing a surgically altered Khan, when at LEAST he said that he was given a new identity.

And abouuuut that…..I just watched a few bits from Space Seed again. About Khan, McGivers sez: “From the Northern India area, I’d guess. Probably a Sikh. They’re the most fantastic warriors!” Sounds like what she guessed by looking at him, so that’s not conclusive evidence of where he was born. But more interestingly, I watched the briefing that Spock gave again. He shows a picture of Khan in the current year, taken in Sickbay. Then he shows a picture of Khan taken from the 90’s. He said he ruled a quarter of the world, from Asia to the middle east. But what struck me is there was a PICTURE from that era. So, since he ruled a quarter of the world, and there was a picture, it’s not a small guess to surmise that the picture would be in the history books, and that EVERYONE would know him.

Buuuuut interestingly enough, McGivers didn’t, and she’s a history major *LOL* Would they know Khan wasn’t accounted for? Kirk says the history books didnt mention that people were missing, but Spock’s research reveals 80-90 names missing. So, I’m sure someone else had done the research as well. I hold to the fact that Section 31 didn’t want Khan running around looking like he did in case some nerd recognized him. Some factors from Space Seed make it likely, some dont. I just thought I”d share that.

As for believability, what was believable about RM’s performance?

468. Damian - December 5, 2013

465–Yes. I believe it was Vultan (I could be wrong) he had the idea of maybe having a teaser sequence featuring a battle with The Doomsday Machine. As long as the whole movie wasn’t some remake or redo of an episode, a teaser featuring a scene redone from the original series would be cool.

469. Damian - December 5, 2013

467–Later on McGivers tells Khan she knew exactly who he was. We’ve had debates about this on other boards. She paints him as a Sikh, he said he was honored.

It’s really much simpler than that. As I noted earlier, they wanted BC as a villain, they wanted Khan as a villain, so they married them together, inconsistencies be damned. It’s really not more complicated than that.

For myself, for the sake of continuity, and knowing section 31’s resources, I just assume his appearance was changed.

470. Phil - December 5, 2013

@463. Interesting. Another giant fighting robot (apparently) and a Dr. Manhattan cameo.

Orci is doing ASM 2, 3, and 4….among other things.

471. Damian - December 5, 2013

I guess the biggest thing with Khan for me is this,

I think Space Seed clearly established Khan was a Sikh from India. Yes, McGivers makes an educated guess (she is a historian after all), but later paints his portrait as a Sikh and tells Khan she know exactly who he is.

It’s absolutely clear to me Gene Coon and Carey Wilbur who wrote Space Seed intended Khan to be just that, a Sikh from India in the final episode. They wouldn’t have gone to that much trouble re: his origins otherwise.

It’s amusing, before STID there was no debate really about who Khan was. Now the producers cast a British guy in the role and now their version supersedes that of those who created the character in the first place? I don’t think so.

Khan was a Sikh from India. That’s how it was originally written. People can try to spin that any way they want, but for me, those are the facts. I’ve accepted BC as Khan and that some form of alterations were done for consistency, but that doesn’t change his origins for me.

472. Damian - December 5, 2013

471–BTW, remember her initial educated guess was before he was awakened. She painted his picture and told him she knew who he was after he woke up. It’s clear to me at least she confirmed her suspicions afterwards. There was no doubt left that she knew exactly who he was.

473. dmduncan - December 5, 2013

444. LogicalLeopard – December 5, 2013

Point being, it matters not whether a latino or middle eastern or brit played the role of Khan as long as he could BELIEVABLY play the role of Khan established in Space Seed and Wrath of Khan.

***

I’ve made that point many many times myself with the exception here that I would not say that it “matters not” if by that you mean “not at all.” There re a lot of clueless people out there who think Sikhs are Arabs and dislike them for that reason. The believability threshold of those people is extremely low because they are ignorant; the same is true of fans who don’t know much about science when they decide what “good” science fiction is and come up with Star Trek as the answer, contrasting it against Star Wars as “bad” science fiction, or even as fantasy.

So you have to work harder to convince an ACTUAL Punjabi Sikh that the man you’ve cast is convincing as the sort of person he or she really is. The believability standard must be higher there, so who you cast may still come into play even if no issues of fairness in casting for your movies ever comes into play.

So…with the standard being doing the best you can do or better than it was done before, it makes the most sense to cast an ACTUAL Punjabi actor WHO CAN HANDLE the role, and if you are unable to do that, then you start adjusting your standards downward until you find someone who is the best you can do. But there’s no reason why the role should not have been cast with those who would be most sensitive to the casting decision in mind. I.e., Punjabis and Sikhs.

Cumberbatch was WAY off the mark in that regard.

You may argue that Cumberbatch WAS the best they could do; I would counter with, I think they either threw in the towel too soon (because JJ said so), or they didn’t start the hunt soon enough.

467. LogicalLeopard – December 5, 2013

Oh I think it was established; it depends on the strictness of your usage, i.e., the parameters you are going by of what it means to “establish” something.

More importantly in addition to having been established, it has also been traditionally accepted that Khan is a North Indian Sikh, and a fan doesn’t have the power to rewrite that acceptance because he’s been thrown into tumult trying to come up with ways of making sense of Cumberbatch’s casting.

474. SkiesSeven - December 5, 2013

So long as there’s no Borg queen, I think this origins idea could work.

I really think it was a mistake to have an individual character represent a collective of drones, as was done in First Contact, because not only did this violate the whole idea of a collective intelligence, the queen herself was no more interesting than your average humanoid villain – which we have seen hundreds of times. Also, the “Hugh” character was clearly an attempt to humanize the Borg. For me, only “Q Who” and “The Best of Both Worlds” depicted the Borg accurately.

475. dmduncan - December 5, 2013

And I bolded “WHO CAN HANDLE…” above because I’m sure there are some who may be thinking of accusing me of arguing that a Punjabi actor should be cast even if he’s a lousy actor.

I have no doubt that competent Punjabi alternatives to Cumberbatch exist out there, but you may have to work harder to find a lesser known better fitting future star than the more obvious ill-fitting rising one.

476. dmduncan - December 5, 2013

462. TrekMadeMeWonder – December 5, 2013

Wow. I agree. Amazing Spiderman 2 looks epic!

477. SkiesSeven - December 5, 2013

@dmduncan

My own interpretation is that Harrison/Kahn has a different quantum signature from the original character. Effectively a completely separate character, with a different genome, different heritage, different origins – an alternate-universe Kahn.

Canon-wise, this is how I’ve settled on this. Even though officialdom will say otherwise, I choose to interpret it in this way.

478. dmduncan - December 5, 2013

396. LogicalLeopard – December 5, 2013

So why couldn’t someone consider BC’s Khan to be bigger and better?

***

You can, by a different set of rules than they had. It’s never been an issue of what is actually possible, only what is possible without getting blowback that they deserve to get because of what they did based on the rule set they broadcast to everyone, which is why I mentioned the BSG reboot several times now. Hell, they could have cast Khan as a woman if they wanted, and even avoided some of the blowback had the entire reboot not been established as a copy of the TOS universe before things diverged. I’ve never argued that it is actually IMpossible to do so on ANY level.

But as my philo teacher Dr. Rossman once said when I asked a similar question, and I paraphrase, “Sure you can use a word any way you want to define it, but why should anyone play that game with you?”

In other words, if you want the benefit of the rules you have to abide by the rules because no one is reasonably obliged to play along with your whims.

479. dmduncan - December 5, 2013

396. Logical Leopard

Actually, and I know this is sacriledge, but he actually started to LOOK like Khan to me after a few viewings.

***

Hahaha! I think you are brainwashing yourself, man! The guy’s skin is SO pearlescent. And his face is just so ethnically british.

I recognize nothing about him.

480. dmduncan - December 5, 2013

390. Red Dead Ryan – December 5, 2013

TUP,

It’s pretty obvious to anyone here that Shatner’s acting style has changed. He simply does not resemble Kirk anymore

***

Okay, well then give me an example of a recent Shatner role where the character he was playing is in any way comparable to Captain Kirk as the basis of your comparison to his performance then and now.

And don’t bring up the Academy Awards joke skit as a serious reprisal of the Kirk role.

It wasn’t. It was a joke. He was being Shatner with the Kirk suit on.

I mean, you COULD be right, but he hasn’t been playing that role for so long that I can’t fairly say that he CAN’T do it even if he had to, because he hasn’t made a recent failed attempt to do so as a comparison.

481. Bucky - December 5, 2013

Speaking of Khan, I highly recommend everyone dig into the IDW series, it’s incredibly awesome. Only 2 issues in so far and it’s kinda blowing my brain out every page, in a good way. And continuity is sated for Khan physical appearance! Probably!

482. Curious Cadet - December 5, 2013

@469. Damian,
“For myself, for the sake of continuity, and knowing section 31′s resources, I just assume his appearance was changed.”

And that’s fine, except you still have the illogic of changing Khan’s RACE. Alter his features all you want in the unlikely event someone accidentally recognizes him as a 300 year old dictator. But there’s NO need to change his race or ethnicity. That’s why BC as Khan is implausible because there’s NOTHING in the movie that requires it.

483. Red Dead Ryan - December 5, 2013

#480.

dmduncan,

You have to look back at his last performance as Kirk in “Generations”, especially during the Nexus scenes to see that Shatner was being Shatner. Riding horses. Burning toast. Acting petulant.

I mean, c’mon, at that point it all about his ego and instant cash-grab. He helped write the script and took part in Kirk’s death.

That was the end of his tenure as Kirk, and Shatner’s performances in TFF and TUC were already in sharp decline compared to TOS, and TWOK and TSFS, which were his best performances.

I’m not certain that he could find the same magic that he lost over 25 years ago. His acting style has changed, and he’s parodying himself (and Kirk) now.

484. dmduncan - December 5, 2013

482. Red Dead Ryan – December 5, 2013

You have to look back at his last performance as Kirk in “Generations”, especially during the Nexus scenes to see that Shatner was being Shatner. Riding horses. Burning toast. Acting petulant.

***

Dude, that stuff was WRITTEN. If you hire Shatner to write his own material then you shouldn’t be surprised by the outcome, and neither can you take that as an example of his current acting ability.

What he writes to act and how he acts what other people write for Kirk to say are way different things.

I’ve seen nothing that says Shatner CAN’T play Kirk, only things that show me he ISN’T playing Kirk. Not even in the DirecTV commercial did he play him.

485. Red Dead Ryan - December 5, 2013

#483.

“I’ve seen nothing that says Shatner CAN’T play Kirk, only things that show me he ISN’T playing Kirk. Not even in the DirecTV commercial did he play him.”

Well, I have seen him in non-Kirk roles –and especially recently — he is always playing some variation of himself.

Now its entirely possible that Bob and Alex could write a role for him in the next movie, but who is to say Shatner won’t want to make changes he sees fit that strays from the essence of who Kirk is?

I’m really not sure.

Though I do think Abrams should have offered the hologram scene to Shatner.

486. captain spock - December 5, 2013

bob orci ….one of the cast of star trek :ITD in this artical hinted that star trek:3 mite be filmed in the U.K. & not in the U.S. is this true?

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/star-trek-3-filmed-uk-221900752.html

487. dmduncan - December 5, 2013

485. Red Dead Ryan – December 5, 2013

If you let Shatner direct Kirk’s traffic then ST5 is what happens.

But then came Nick Meyer and TUC and Kirk was right back on track.

I think the lesson is if you want Kirk, get a director who can handle Shatner and keep him from being the idea man.

488. dmduncan - December 5, 2013

Watching Prometheus right now and being reminded of the Spock that could have been.

David may be a robot, but he’s midway in tone between old Spock and Data, and I think many will agree (have agreed) that he’s the coolest character in the movie.

It kinda sucks that I have go to Prometheus for the type of character pioneered by Star Trek because of what Star Trek’s Spock has become, which is to say, a pointy eared human.

489. Ahmed - December 5, 2013

@488. dmduncan

“It kinda sucks that I have go to Prometheus for the type of character pioneered by Star Trek because of what Star Trek’s Spock has become, which is to say, a pointy eared human.”

Remember one of ST09 TV ads, “This is not your father’s Star Trek,” !

“David may be a robot, but he’s midway in tone between old Spock and Data, and I think many will agree (have agreed) that he’s the coolest character in the movie.”

Agreed. Michael Fassbender & Christoph Waltz are the best actors in the new decade. I hope that one day, they will appear in a Star Trek movie.

490. Red Dead Ryan - December 5, 2013

#488.

“It kinda sucks that I have go to Prometheus for the type of character pioneered by Star Trek because of what Star Trek’s Spock has become, which is to say, a pointy eared human.”

Yes, I agree. I think the other characters were written well, but they got Spock wrong. It’s true that he’s always had emotions, but he had the discipline of Vulcan logic to keep them in check.

He was also an “outsider” observer of humanity, detatched from human failings, yet always struggling to reconcile his inner Vulcan and human halves during TOS.

But, unfortunately, a lot people are in favor of a fully human Spock just because it is a new timeline.

The thing is, if you use TOS characters, you have to have them remain true to themselves, otherwise, you might as well just create all-new characters from scratch.

491. Ahmed - December 5, 2013

@490. Red Dead Ryan

“The thing is, if you use TOS characters, you have to have them remain true to themselves, otherwise, you might as well just create all-new characters from scratch.”

Well said, RDR.

492. dmduncan - December 5, 2013

Yeah, Spock is the mature lady’s man and Kirk is the immature lady’s man, and it’s not enough of a contrast between the characters to me for this being Star Trek. David from Prometheus was making me miss the old Spock and how COOL it is to have that kind of character playing opposite all the others.

Even when David SMILES I don’t know if he feels something or if he’s just trying to be a more comfortable analog for humans to identify with, and it makes me wish that STID was the movie that was making me wonder those things, instead of Prometheus.

STID made me think Star Trek is hemorraging something vital to its identity.

493. Vultan - December 5, 2013

“STID made me think Star Trek is hemorraging something vital to its identity.”

Probably the best (and shortest) review of the movie I’ve seen. Exactly the way I felt—have been feeling about these movies for awhile now.

494. MJ - December 5, 2013

Shatner can no longer play a credible Kirk. Period.

MOVE ON !!!

495. Buzz Cagney - December 5, 2013

So Shatner couldn’t play a credible 80 year old Kirk? I’m not so sure he couldn’t. Bill is a better actor than too many give him credit for. With a Director who understands Bill and gets the material Shat could easily do anything he wanted.
Personally, i’d prefer not to see an 80 year old Kirk but thats different to saying he couldn’t do it.

496. I am having enough of you. - December 5, 2013

494: You are not credible regarding Shat in any form: after your endless hatred directed at him for years through your various sock puppets as demonstrated yet again in this thread. It shows that you can not move on and reveals serious psychological problems. Shatner a man in his early 80s, in every way beats you: one in their early 50s who’s real identity has been missing from this board some time.

Get a life.

497. MJ - December 6, 2013

Noope.

1. He no longer looks the part of what I think and elder Kirk in the 23rd Century would look like. His size and face are no consistent with an elder Kirk. This is unlike Nimoy, who staying the shape needed to play a future Spock. If the Captain Kirk as presented in Star Trek really existed in the 23rd century, I can guarantee you that the real Kirk, supported by medical science, would NEVER allow himself to get to near-obese conditions like Shatner has. He just doesn’t look like Kirk anymore.

2. He is no longer capable of acting as a credible Kirk. The last time he gave a passable performance as Kirk was 27 years ago in Star Trek 4…27 YEARS AGO. His performance as Kirk has consistently degraded since then, with weak performances in ST V and VI, a frankly lame effort as Kirk in Generations, and the horrid and embarrassing parody of Kirk at the Academy Awards last year.

3. He died in Generations. Hard to get around that.

498. Red Shirt Diaries - December 6, 2013

Agree with MJ.

William Shatner is simply not believable as Captain Kirk anymore. It’s sad, but it is what it is.

499. Marja - December 6, 2013

490. Red Dead Ryan “The thing is, if you use TOS characters, you have to have them remain true to themselves, otherwise, you might as well just create all-new characters from scratch.”

“Remain true to themselves” in an alternate universe in which their lives are completely different?

Sorry, I think in the nature/nurture argument, nurture wins out here.

Also, what defines remaining true to themselves? That definition varies from person to person. Look at all the different opinions on Spock in this board. “He has no emotions.” “He has emotions, but keeps them under wraps.” “He has emotions, keeps them under wraps, but when his WHOLE PLANET is destroyed, he’s not the same ol’ Spock for a while.”

As to creating “all-new characters from scratch,” that has been done several times, DS9, VOY, ENT and may be done on TV again, but I doubt they’d have pulled in as many new audience for a HUGE MOVIE that way in 2009. The “brand” Star Trek usually recalls the names Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Scotty, Sulu and Chekov. EVEN THOUGH THEIR PERSONALITIES ARE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT NOW due to life circumstances ….
——————————————————-
Shatner? A brief, dignified, retired 85-y/o Admiral Kirk cameo ONLY, if it must be.

I, too, feel his “Kirk” days are over. Shatner only reconciled with his fame as Kirk when he made “The Captains.” Watch and you’ll know why he poked fun at Trek all those years. He never fully realized what Trek and Kirk meant until he was talking with Sir Pat Stew in “The Captains.” A touching scene, and one that proves Shat just didn’t “get” it for too, too long.
——————————————————-
Borg? Q? Villains? More Klingons? More Khan???

YE GODS NOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let’s do something different, as suggested above, something that does NOT involve villains of any stripe.

Something, ummm, science fiction-y.

500. Captain Slow - December 6, 2013

Putting aside the fact that Shatner doesn’t resemble Kirk anymore. What in-universe way is there to get him into the movie? People bring up Spock coming back to life, but TSFS took place right after TWOK. Generations was set in 2371. Spock Prime went into the black hole in 2387. That’s 16 years of decomposition! Assuming that some scavenging animal didn’t dig up that shoddy grave Picard made. So you have to explain that Kirk’s rotten corpse was re-animated, aged rapidly, got fat, traveled back in time (and the writers said that they wouldn’t use time travel again), and ended up in the JJverse. HOW ARE THEY GOING TO EXPLAIN ALL THAT?! And what reason would there be?

Other people say that they can just CG his body so you won’t have to worry about his appearance. But then it’s not really Shatner you’re putting in the movie. It’s just a creepy digital puppet. And again, there is no reason for him to be in the movie. How would it serve the story for general audiences to go “What’s the guy from Boston Legal doing in Star Trek?”.

On the subject of the story, Bob Orci said on this site once that he knows what he wants to do in the movie, so the writers presumably have a story. He also said on the Roddenberry podcast that he wants to have a sci-fi mystery. So I think people who want a less actiony Star Trek will be happy.

501. Adama - December 6, 2013

To all people here complaining of what the character of Spock has become, may I suggest the reading of Diane Duane’s Vulcan’s World. I know its not canon, but it should be. It explains extremely well what is to be a vulcan, not the emotionless robot that apparentely some fans still believe a vulcan is, but a complex being that struggles to master his emotions.

For me, Quinto depiction of Spock is consistent with a young half-vulcan, half-human still trying to get a grip of his emotions. Nimoy’ Spock was older, more experienced, and at peace with himself. One of the stronger points of ST 2009 was how, with a few short strokes depicted Vulcan and Sarek-Spock relationship so well, specially for non-fans.

502. crazydaystrom - December 6, 2013

494. MJ
Shatner can no longer play a credible Kirk. Period.

MOVE ON !!!

I don’t agree that Shatner can’t do what’s necessary to get the job done if given good material to work with. I just don’t want the next movie to be about the young meeting the old or anything like that. I want a full on fresh, interesting Trek adventure. So I agree: MOVE ON!!!

503. Adama - December 6, 2013

501. crazydaystrom –

Completely right.

Shatner lost his right to be in future ST when he choose to try and steal the spotlight in Generations by having it be the Dead of Jim Kirk. That backfired because the movie was so so and his death was awful. Nimoy was patient, and waited till there was a good script for him, now Shat is jelous and wants to be on the spotlight again. I say that we, the fans and the filmakers, dont have to pay for the Shat whims.
I truly have the utter respect for the man and I have nothing more than gratitude for him, but I believe his time has passed. I even think that Nimoy in STID was nothing more than fan service. The new crew can fly on his own.

504. Captain Slow - December 6, 2013

@ 500 Adama

Spock famously smiled and yelled “The women!” in The Cage. If he acted like naturally then I don’t have a problem with him showing emotion after his planet is destroyed an his mother killed. And of course if he smiles when he sees that Kirk is still alive in Amok Time, when he’s more mature and controlled, then there’s nothing wrong with him crying when Kirk dies and he’s less mature. And for all the “But they haven’t been friends for that long!” complaints, in Amok Time they hadn’t been friends for much longer than in STID as far as I know.

505. Tom - December 6, 2013

Bob really nailed it with the Hologram scene. They should use it for the 50th anniversary. I think Bill and Leonard could pull off the short scene. Doesn’t impact canon. Doesnt detract from the cast. Expresses great themes of what Trek is all about which is why it would fit in with the movie.

506. dmduncan - December 6, 2013

495. Buzz Cagney – December 5, 2013

I agree. In the movies he had Robert Wise (a Hollywood legend), Nick Meyer, and Leonard Nimoy, and David Carson. In the movies where he has strong direction or/and, in the case of Nimoy, someone who knows him well and how to handle him, his Kirk is credible.

In the movies where Kirk does what Shatner wants, Kirk has way too much Shatner in him.

The director is the key.

507. Damian - December 6, 2013

500–Exactly my point. Some people are so desperate to get Shatner in it, they’re willing to have any ham-handed story for his resurrection. What possible reason would the crew in Abrams Star Trek have to try to go to the future, in an alternate timeline no less, and resurrect Kirk to bring him back.

And if they could do something like that, move to the original timeline, why wouldn’t they prevent Nero from coming back, changing things and destroying Vulcan in the first place.

Bringing Shatner back is full of pitfalls and plotholes that won’t just be able to be explained away in a 60 second this is how it happened.

I also am puzzled that people think his acting was fine in Star Trek VI. I actually think it was getting progressively worse from V to Generations. Star Trek VI was a great Star Trek movie. I personally believe that made it easier to overlook the acting problems by Shatner. It doesn’t mean his acting improved though. It’s just that sometimes an otherwise great movie allowed me to overlook the few weaknesses.

Finally, the writers of Generation had nothing to do with Shatner’s acting. That’s on Shatner, and maybe the director–though honestly, do you reallly expect David Carson to tell William Shatner that his acting was stinking up the joint and he needs to redo his scenes. Shatner had a certain amount of say as to what his scenes contained. His death, yes, that’s on the writers–I never had a problem with his death, but the how could have been better (ironically, his “death” on the Enterprise-B was probably more fitting). But that doesn’t dismiss his acting or make me believe he would somehow miraculously give an excellent performance as Kirk.

People change over time. Actors change. I really think Shatner’s changed to the point that he would be almost unrecognizable as Kirk and I think many here would be sorely disappointed.

(in all fairness to Shatner, he has seemed to let the matter drop, I have not heard any recent requests to be in the next film).

508. Damian - December 6, 2013

490–Completely agree RDR.

The writers have actually said some of the same things, that these are the same characters at their core.

I understand Spock saw his planet die, and I understand that has an effect. But they’ve got to get Spock back on track. It was a bit over the top in STID. Spock would be affected by Kirk’s death yes. But crying and screaming Khan, one step to far.

He needs to have better control. It’s his logical reasoning and his intelligence that made Spock such an excellent character. He wasn’t a robot, he had good emotional control, but there were times you could see what lied beneath–that’s fine. But he kept them under wraps. That’s what made moments like the end of Amok Time when he smiled without any intervention such special moments.

509. Hugh Hoyland - December 6, 2013

IMO it would have been fantastic to have the Kirk scene in ST 09. Could you imagine the impact (at least to Trekkies) that would have had? But it didnt happen, so not much we can do about that.

I still enjoy the heck out of STID and still rank it as my favorite overall Star Trek film to date (subject to change on my mood, ect..). But I’m just itching to see what Bob and the guys come up with for the sequel. or better yet a new TV series. :]

510. Hugh Hoyland - December 6, 2013

My opinion in Spock’s persona is and has been pretty close to what a lot of fans say about the “Triad”, they want it back to being the original “Triad” (Kirk, Spock, Mccoy). But I think we did see more of that in STID and hopefully more in the sequel.

But on the other hand I can also see why they are doing things the way they are. The S/U relationship does add something different to the mix and probably does connect better with new or casual fans. Maybe we can have both?

511. LogicalLeopard - December 6, 2013

469. Damian – December 5, 2013
467–Later on McGivers tells Khan she knew exactly who he was. We’ve had debates about this on other boards. She paints him as a Sikh, he said he was honored.

It’s really much simpler than that. As I noted earlier, they wanted BC as a villain, they wanted Khan as a villain, so they married them together, inconsistencies be damned. It’s really not more complicated than that.

For myself, for the sake of continuity, and knowing section 31′s resources, I just assume his appearance was changed.

*****************************

I made the same assumption. And I do believe you’re right in a sense. I’m not sure how the search went, but at the end of the day, they wanted Khan and they wanted BC, and that’s the product we got. I’m kind of of the opinion that they didn’t think they needed to go into an expository about how his appearance was changed, that saying he got a new identity was enough, but it may be like you said. Maybe they said, “Eh, let it ride, we don’t have to add new dialogue.”

512. The Quickening - December 6, 2013

FYI

Amazon.com is selling the blu-rays of Star Trek Into Darkness, World War Z & G.I. Joe: Retaliation for $7.99. Wouldn’t pay $20.00 for any of these, but $8.00 is tempting.

513. Captain Slow - December 6, 2013

@ 507 Damian

But he didn’t spend the whole movie roaming the halls weeping.

Here’s a new idea though. What if during his mind-meld with Pike, Pike hitched a ride and is hiding in the back of Spock’s brain somewhere? And part of the crying was actually Pike watching someone close to him die.

514. LogicalLeopard - December 6, 2013

473. dmduncan – December 5, 2013

So…with the standard being doing the best you can do or better than it was done before, it makes the most sense to cast an ACTUAL Punjabi actor WHO CAN HANDLE the role, and if you are unable to do that, then you start adjusting your standards downward until you find someone who is the best you can do. But there’s no reason why the role should not have been cast with those who would be most sensitive to the casting decision in mind. I.e., Punjabis and Sikhs.

Cumberbatch was WAY off the mark in that regard.

You may argue that Cumberbatch WAS the best they could do; I would counter with, I think they either threw in the towel too soon (because JJ said so), or they didn’t start the hunt soon enough.

*********************************************

Well, that’s a perfectly valid criticism. Obviously when you have a character of particular qualities, the best thing to do is to get someone who shares some of those qualities, so they won’t have to “act” them out. Take for example, that new Mandela movie that’s coming out. The most accurate thing to do would be to find a South African member of the Xhosa ethnic group. That way, the person doesn’t have to necessarily fake the accent, or would be more familiar with the accent that Mandela had. And of course he’d have the same skin color. The second best thing you can do is get an actor with the same skin tone, who is good enough to fake the accent – which is what they did by getting British actor Idris Elba. But the worse thing you can do is get a white guy and throw some paint on him.

Now, where the Mandela example fails is that you couldn’t do what STID looks to have done, got a white actor to play an Indian role, after an identity change in a time in which radical plastic surgery is relatively simple.

But to re-emphasise my position, I never said that BC was the BEST choice, obviously he is not. I fall short of totally criticizing his choice, because I don’t know how the process went. But as for the movie, I thought he worked fine. I bought into it, it didn’t take a lot for me to buy into it, and I question why people seem to think it’s canonically impossible. It’s one thing to criticise the casting, and it’s quite another to say it doesn’t work in the context of the movie. See what I mean?

515. LogicalLeopard - December 6, 2013

477. SkiesSeven – December 5, 2013
@dmduncan

My own interpretation is that Harrison/Kahn has a different quantum signature from the original character. Effectively a completely separate character, with a different genome, different heritage, different origins – an alternate-universe Kahn.

Canon-wise, this is how I’ve settled on this. Even though officialdom will say otherwise, I choose to interpret it in this way.

*********************************

Except for the fact that Khan would be the same, due to the fact that he was born and shipped out way before the Narada split the timeline.

In my opinion, it’s a lot easier to assume a paranoid Section 31 gave him plastic surgery to go along with the new identity they gave him.

516. Jonboc - December 6, 2013

Shatner has the acting chops to easily pull off an older version of Kirk. This nonsense about Shatner, the man WHO PORTRAYED Kirk, not looking like Kirk anymore is so ridiculous, it’s comical. And all the rubbish about Kirk, having died already, is just that….rubbish. This is a new alternate universe, all bets are off. And those crying about contradicting their beloved “canon” need just watch the 3 seasons of TOS…it contradicted itself left and right….news flash….people still LOVE it! Fact is, only a small segment of anal fans even bother to care about it.
The ONLY thing required to make a Shatner appearance worthwhile, is a good story. And since the next movie happens to be the anniversary of Shatner’s TOS, some sort of smart inclusion of his version of Kirk, would be most welcome. And, as we’ve witnessed, with things like the destruction of Vulcan and the inclusion of Khan, Bad Robot isn’t afraid to mix things up…despite possible hard core fan rejection.
Shatner’s involvement, in the next film, is, in no way a prerequisite to enjoy the next film…but it would be a hell of a lot of fun…much to the chagrin of Shat- haters everywhere! Lol.

517. LogicalLeopard - December 6, 2013

478. dmduncan – December 5, 2013
***

You can, by a different set of rules than they had. It’s never been an issue of what is actually possible, only what is possible without getting blowback that they deserve to get because of what they did based on the rule set they broadcast to everyone, which is why I mentioned the BSG reboot several times now. Hell, they could have cast Khan as a woman if they wanted, and even avoided some of the blowback had the entire reboot not been established as a copy of the TOS universe before things diverged. I’ve never argued that it is actually IMpossible to do so on ANY level.
***************************

Very true. I don’t think they really care about blowback, though, unless its widespread. And this isn’t widespread, I don’t beleive. Most people watched the movie, enjoyed it, and that’s it. To read these boards, you’d think everyone was up in arms. But people are usually vocal about things they don’t like, and so for every ten thousand people who loved it, there’s one poster on the BBS who hated it.

My big thing was isn’t about how good of a decision it was to cast BC, it was about how people thought it was a violation of canon. This forum has completely amazed me during the release of this movie. I just cannot fathom a few of the problems people have had about this movie, namely this and the whole “Can the Enterprise Go Underwater?” debacle. In any Star Trek movie, you’re probably going to find a handful of canon violations. But I’m not sure how those became two of the biggest debates. I haven’t seen a more inane debate since I started a “is a hot dog a sandwich” debate at work years ago.

518. Curious Cadet - December 6, 2013

@506. Damian,
“Bringing Shatner back is full of pitfalls and plotholes that won’t just be able to be explained away in a 60 second this is how it happened.”

Oh there are plenty of ways to get Shatner into the movie consistent with the logic we have seen used in STID. For instance:

Khan, ever the master of physical metamorphosis, is unfrozen by a loyal cadre of genetically modified humans who have survived in secret since the 1990s, who have infiltrated Starfleet. Khan learns how he was defeated — by an elderly Spock from another universe giving his younger alternate counterpart information about how Khan was defeated in another reality. He therefore sets his mind on revenge once again, and has himself physically altered to resemble Kirk from the future based on top secret data downloaded from Prime Spock’s jellyfish computers by Section 31 (access to which Khan conveniently provided in a secret base known only to himself). He then sets out on his plan to pass himself off as Prime Kirk and give Kirk and Spock bad advice to bring about their doom and that of the Federation. The penultimate moment in the film finds Prime Spock and pseudo-Prime Kirk in an Amok Time style fight to prove which of them is the fake and thus save the Alt-Federation.

Or, also consistent with STID canon, Kirk is not really dead when Picard buries him on Veridian III. When they beam his remains off the planet, they discover decomposition has not yet set in, and immediately put him into a state of suspended animation to preserve him. In stasis Kirk is transferred to a ship that encounters a temporal anomaly and is sent back in time and killing all aboard. The crew of the Alt Eterprise newly dispatched on their 5 year mission encounter this mysterious Federation ship from the future floating in space, whereupon they find Kirk in suspended animation. Bones, ever the curious and unorthodoxed scientific experimenter, decides to thaw Prime Kirk and randomly inject him with his Khan blood serum, which cures him. Old Kirk and New Kirk embark on a friendship that makes new Spock even more emotional since his older self refuses to have anything to do with him, after breaking his vow not to reveal anything about the future; and Prime Kirk is telling everything he knows in the form of boisterous stories about how he defeated the gorn with a bamboo canon, and punched a hot chick after he made it with her to escape their captors on Triskellion, et al. In what turns out to be the first comedy film in the alt universe, paralleling the success of ST IV, and directed by Nimoy again, Prime Kirk and Prime Spock are reunited through a plan of alt Spock’s to break up the two Kirk’s boys club and get his BFF back.

519. LogicalLeopard - December 6, 2013

479. dmduncan – December 5, 2013

Hahaha! I think you are brainwashing yourself, man! The guy’s skin is SO pearlescent. And his face is just so ethnically british.

I recognize nothing about him.

*********************

*LOL* I was brainwashing myself! And you know, I don’t think that’s such a bad thing. It helps to appreciate the movie. At some point, you have to not let some things nag you. It’s like the first movie, when they escape from the black hole, my wife is cheering, and I’m like, “How can you warp away from a black hole with no warp core? And how would a warp core explosion counteract the effects of a black hole? And why were there so many warp core thingies……”

520. Damian - December 6, 2013

516–The point being, they’d have to have a pretty complicated explanation, your explanations are proof of that.

I just don’t have the desire to waste valuable time of a 2 hour movie for a feel good role for a guy who’s moved far from Captain Kirk by this point.

The Shatnerverse novels have him resurrected by Romulans. I mean I can come up with a million ideas, but they all require extensive exposition. He can’t just appear out of nowhere.

515–True, and these aren’t the first time canon has been violated in some way. Every Star Trek court had violated canon at one time or another, even Roddenberry himself. Sometimes it’s a simple case that they missed something. I just look for consistency in the overall story.

For example, the Enterprise being built on the ground in Star Trek (2009). In all the past productions, starships were built in space. But I just accepted the change since this was after Nero’s incursion, that something involved with that changed history after that that the Enterprise was being built on the ground.

Or the Enterprise being under water. I don’t see why that should be a problem. We’ve seen Voyager and the NX-01 enter an atmosphere before, and on Voyager, in the episode “Thirty Days” they take the Delta Flyer under water, so it’s not unreasonable to think they could take a starship under water. And there was a Deep Space Nine novel where they hid the Defiant under water. So it’s been done before to varying degrees

521. Damian - December 6, 2013

518–I will say, while I don’t have a problem with the Enterprise being under water from a method standpoint, I never understood the why.

I mean, all throughout Star Trek, ships have encountered atmospheric problems before. Rarely did a starship need to enter a planet’s atmosphere. Usually they would send a team in a shuttlecraft.

This seemed more like a case where the team decided it would look cool to have the Enterprise underwater so let’s do it.

But in their defense, Star Trek has done inexpicable things before just because it would look cool. So the Abrams team is certainly not the first to do that.

522. Damian - December 6, 2013

Bob Orci does sometimes seem like a kid in a candy store. I mean I think he’s a great writer and all.

But he also says he’s a die hard Trekkie. Sometimes there’s little things in the movies like a kid with toys. Ooh, it would be super cool to have the Enterprise under water so let’s do it.

Nothing wrong with that, I wish there were some things I could do, but it’s amusing sometimes. A Trekkie writing a Star Trek film can lead to things like that sometimes.

523. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2013

More, Star Trek into Denial.

“In my opinion, it’s a lot easier to assume a paranoid Section 31 gave him plastic surgery to go along with the new identity they gave him.”

All of you watch as this movie plays at your trek heart strings. It’s just so funny to me that you all can’t see bob’s true meaning in this movie.
IS IT too dark for you to think about?

Boborci has said that he is open to the truth in some conspiracies.
And for someone the media spotlight to take such considerable risk being open enough to present that side of his thinking to the public, I think he 1st deserves some praise, and 2nd deserves some consideration about the main plot points of his movie. That this Trek into Darkness was in fact a plot about an inside job and terrorist strikes used to begin a war!

WAR. WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOT A METAPHOR!
So. Why are there NO thoughts about the crazy nature of this inside job portion of the into Darkness storyline?

I say it is logical to consider that boborci and company were clever enough to fashion this “inside job metaphor” packaged as entertainment for your gross consumption.

And I say gross, because LogicalLeopard, if you ain’t thinking about or even looking at what your eating, then you’ll probably eat ANYTHING.

524. Damian - December 6, 2013

521–I agree that Bob’s obsession with conspiracies influences his writings. I would say most writers are influenced by their world views.

I personally degree with the theory that 9/11 was an inside job and have debated that ad nauseum in the past. And I certainly see those elements in STID.

But I tend to look at Star Trek in universe, and less the outside influences. I may disagree with some of Bob’s theories, but I can still enjoy his movies. My believing 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda from without does not make me enjoy STID any less.

525. Damian - December 6, 2013

edit—degree=disagree (damn typos)

526. Red Dead Ryan - December 6, 2013

TrekMadeMeWonder,

Please knock it off with your “truther” agenda here. We get it. You think 9/11 was staged by Bush and Cheney, despite the evidence proving otherwise.

SHEESH!!!!

527. LogicalLeopard - December 6, 2013

521. TrekMadeMeWonder – December 6, 2013

WAR. WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOT A METAPHOR!
So. Why are there NO thoughts about the crazy nature of this inside job portion of the into Darkness storyline?

I say it is logical to consider that boborci and company were clever enough to fashion this “inside job metaphor” packaged as entertainment for your gross consumption.

And I say gross, because LogicalLeopard, if you ain’t thinking about or even looking at what your eating, then you’ll probably eat ANYTHING.

*****************

*Buuuurrp*

Well, it certainly tasted good. *LOL* Uhm, yeah, this is clearly a metaphor for the war on terror, and using the war on terror to advance a personal agenda. Does Bob or any of the other writers have the belief that 9/11, or any other such situation, was a manufactured inside job? Don’t know, don’t care. It made for an entertaining movie. The bottom line on conspiracy theory is that a lot of it seems more like inventive fiction than reality anyway, so having a writer that’s a conspiracy theorist probably makes for entertaining movies. Regardless, Star Trek has HISTORICALLY used current events and issues as a basis of movies and television episodes. I don’t know if the writer of STVI thought that a Soviet insider was going to conterfeit an assassination to resist ending the Cold War, but it made for an entertaining movie.

528. Damian - December 6, 2013

524–LOL. Does seem a bit paranoid.

Look, I’m cynical about the government. But not every conspiracy is true either.

But I’ve got to live my life. I can’t live in a cave and look over my shoulder my entire life. All I can do is live my life the best way I can. And frankly, I really don’t think I’m all that important. If the gov’t were watching my every move, I’m afraid they would die of boredom, I’m just not that interesting.

And this whole Bush Cheney did it thing is funny for an administration that couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

Somehow, they masterminded the biggest terrorist attack on our nation in history, in 8 months no less, and not get caught (when evidence clearly shows Al Qaeda started planning this soon after the 1993 bombing). I think they give the Bush administration way too much credit.

Just for the record-I have no great love for either political party. Democrats are boneheads too.

529. LogicalLeopard - December 6, 2013

519. Damian – December 6, 2013
518–I will say, while I don’t have a problem with the Enterprise being under water from a method standpoint, I never understood the why.

I mean, all throughout Star Trek, ships have encountered atmospheric problems before. Rarely did a starship need to enter a planet’s atmosphere. Usually they would send a team in a shuttlecraft.

This seemed more like a case where the team decided it would look cool to have the Enterprise underwater so let’s do it.

But in their defense, Star Trek has done inexpicable things before just because it would look cool. So the Abrams team is certainly not the first to do that.

*******************************

Exxxxactly! It was probably done to look cool, to get Pine, Urban, and Saldana in bathing suits, to do the Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid cliff jump, for a lot of reasons.

Actually, another reason that comes to mind is that they had to break the prime directive, and they thought the most dramatic way to do that is to have the natives see the ship. So, there’s two ways you can do it, either the ship comes down into the atmosphere, the ship comes down and parks on the ground, and they see it, or the ship comes out of the water. The last is the most dramatic and unique, and I believe to this point, hasn’t really been seen.

Like you said, there are a lot of things that are done for effect and not because they’re reasonable, but I never understood why people thought it was flat out unfeasable.

530. Damian - December 6, 2013

525–Bob has commented on it in the past. He’s big on conspiracy theories (ask him about JFK’s assasination sometime).

His comments indicate he at least believes 9/11 was an inside job is a strong possibility. I don’t think he’s ever ruled it out that it could have been a fully Al Qaeda undertaking, but I get the impression he believes Bush/Cheney had something to do with it, if not the whole thing (unless he was pulling everyone’s legs–but knowing his affinity for conspiracies, I doubt that).

531. Damian - December 6, 2013

527–Yes, and as I noted, Abrams is hardly the first one to do that. How many times in Star Trek have they had to beam someone up from danger and all of a sudden they can’t (when they’ve found workarounds before).

The reason is drama. I mean otherwise a 45 minute episode would turn into a 5 minute episode. They have to sometimes take liberties to move the story.

So yes, the Enterprise under water was done for dramatic effect. There’s no reason methodically it couldn’t have been done, it’s been done before with the Delta Flyer (albeit a much smaller ship). But sure, from a story line, there are holes. But that’s nothing new to Star Trek.

532. Damian - December 6, 2013

524–RDR,

How much to you want to bet we’ll now spend 4 or 500 posts debating 9/11?

533. TUP - December 6, 2013

A lot of Shatner hate for so-called Trek fans.

He doesnt look like Captain Kirk? He IS Captain Kirk! Jesus… He’s 83 years old. What will Chris Pine look like at 83 years old? I bet he’d be thrilled to be as active and sharp as Shatner.

You know the last time he played Kirk believably? His last appearance. Generations. Didnt like him “goofing” in the Nexus? Blame the writers and directors. He was tremendous in MANY scenes in generations. The moment he decided *not* to help Picard, the moment he realised it was the “past”, the moment he realised it wasnt “real”, his grin as he stepped into the turbolift, his death scene…all very good “Kirk” moments.

If he was in STID, he would have been the most decorated actor in the movie (I believe). He has many awards and nominations to prove his skills as an actor.

He often plays “goofy” characters because thats what he is offered…at 83, he works a lot and why not?

Quite frankly, if Bad Robot concludes their involvement with this as a triliogy, then I’d love for them to “restore” the timeline. I realise they slapped canon in the face when it comes to time travel but so what, revert it.

534. LogicalLeopard - December 6, 2013

Actually, I’ve figured out a good way to shoehor–err….use William Shatner in a new movie, and pay homage to Trek’s anniversary.

The Enterprise is summoned to the coordinates of their battle of their fight with the Narada to investigate an odd energy signature at the location. A lesser equipped Starfleet vessel is already there, but in addition to the Enterprise’s advanced sensor technology (outfitted for a 5 year mission) they also would like the crew’s expertise, because they were directly involved. Spock outfits the secondary ship with a doohickey that will help the Enterprise triangualate some readings…….and the ship vanishes.

And lightyears away, Vulcan reappears in it’s same spot.

Basically, it turns out that the Red Matter used to contain the Hobus explosion, and to implode Vulcan played havok with the entire multiverse and time/space continuum. In “containing” the subspace wake, the energy caused rifts that reach across both space, time, and multiverse and cause “cracks” to open up, at the initial points of contact (Near Earth, Vulcan’s location, The Narada incursion) and the crew has to figure out a way to repair the seemingly insurmountable damage before The End of Everything. With time/space rifts, you could pull in virtually any character from anywhere in the multiverse. The Vulcan that reappears is not the same Vulcan, but an alternate universe Vulcan, play on that any way you want, it could be a warlike Vulcan that never knew Surak, it could be Mirror Universe bearded Vulcan, it could be Vulcan-Prime. You could also draw random ships in, various models of the Enterprise, etc, making for lots of cameos. Even Kirk who never died on Veridian III, because Harriman went down to Deflector Control.

IAnd William Shatner could play Crazy Old nu-Kirk, who went through rifts in an attempt to repair them, but couldn’t find his way back to the Abrams universe, until now, making nu-Kirk think that he can’t possibly fix the issue. Think of Crazy Riker from that episode where all the Enterprises kept popping into the same area.

535. TUP - December 6, 2013

Trekmademewonder is actually onto something. I pointed out the same thing and some people here didnt like it.

The plot of STID is CLEARLY a reference to the War on Terror. The terrorist is just a kind, emotional misunderstood soul who was “forced” by the big bad “government” to engage in vile Black Ops, then turns on his handlers. The real bad guy is the “leader” and we should deel sympathy for the muderous terrorist.

Politics aside, I think it’s obvious. And regardless of my politics, I can dig a good “inside job” story, a good take on contemporary issues etc. But the problem was, they were so consumed with making the terrorist sympathetic that they neglected the most interesting aspect to the story – Marcus.

They played Marcus as a one-note evil leader. We didnt need to know anything more about him according to these writers. all the time was spent on gaining sympathy for the terrorist.

Really quite obvious.

536. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2013

Not needed, Damian.

I just don’t like being the only one to conversing about the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. It’s there. And its weird, and not ever acknowledging its presence is just striking to me. How you could consider all the other many elements in this movie and wonder why its that way with out ever looking up a bit and considering the source material and society around you is telling that there may be some real ignorant and immature attitudes here that just can’t get past the fact that this Trek was trying to day something, and Unless you consider it – FULLY- your missing the point.

And for the record, I never said whom may be responsible, only that there is plenty enough evidence to consider the possibility that there was more going on that fateful day. And I do post about more than the 911 angle, so take the good with the bad, Red Dead.

Thank you, others above, whom have taken a moment to consider this.
And this conversation is deserving, for bob, us, and our children’s sake.

537. Damian - December 6, 2013

531—Dude (or dudette for that matter),

You think his acting was good in Generations and Star Trek VI (at least based on your prior comments). Fine.

I do not. Starting with Star Trek V he became his own caricature.

I love James Bond movies, and Connery was great as Bond. Does not want to make me see an older version of Bond though.

538. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2013

BTW, I agree with all the recent Shatner/Kirk acting slams in his STV and forward..

But that does not preclude a really imaginative usage of Shatner in the next pic. Just keep close Directorial reigns on him.

532. LogicalLeopard

You should really expand on that premise. I’d like to hear more of that.

539. Damian - December 6, 2013

531–

And please don’t assume that anyone who doesn’t feel the need for Shatner to be in the next film hates Shatner.

William Shatner is THE Captain Kirk. I love the original series. The Motion Picture is my favorite Trek film and Shatner was fine there.

Most important for me is his character is dead. They spent an entire movie to bring Spock back from the dead. I don’t feel the need to waste valuable movie time explaining his sudden resurrection.

Had his character not died in Generations, I might be a bit more open to the idea (though I do have grave concerns about his ability to play the part now). In fact, I believe had he not died in Generations, the team would have had him in Star Trek (2009).

But Kirk did die in Generations. Shatner agreed to do that. He was never given any expectation or was never misled in anyway that he might be be given another opportunity to return. They made it clear at the time, this would be the end of the road for Captain Kirk. Whatever someone thinks of Rick Berman or Generations, they made their intentions very clear.

So just keep that in mind whenever anyone has a pity party for Shatner that he wasn’t invited to joing Star Trek (2009) or STID. He played the part, he cashed his check knowing that would be the end.

But I don’t hate Shatner. He was a key player in my favorite show. He’s a legend in my mind (and his—haha just kidding). That’s good enough for me.

540. TUP - December 6, 2013

Nimoy cashed his cheque when he “died” too.

Point about Connery is silly. Totally different. But since you mentioned it, one great idea I read online to explain the odd continuity with Bond is that “James Bond” is a title, not a name. It’s bestowed upon the top 00 agent. So the proposal was a film that opens with one of the Bonds (maybe even Connery if he was not up to a larger role) living in retirement and being murdered. Someone is picking off the old Bonds, requiring a few of them to work together.

I thought it was very creative.

541. Tom - December 6, 2013

The whole exposition thing about bringing Kirk Prime back would be a bit much. Some are saying it could take up most if not all of the movie. That is probably true. That is why Bob Orci had it right with the ST09 scene. Now if Bill or Leonard does not want to do a small scene then that is a different issue. Does anyone see a way that that the scene could work for the new movie? Seems like it could work just as well as it could have in 09. No exposition, no bringing back to life. Just a great scene to celebrate the 50 th anniversary

542. Damian - December 6, 2013

538–But they finished Star Trek II with a clue that Spock might not be lost. He was dead, but all was not lost. And Star Trek III occurred immediately after Star Trek II and they immediately started discussing a possible return of Spock.

We’re talking a 16 year difference between Generations and Star Trek (2009), both in Universe and Out (since Spock and Nero came from 2387).

I don’t think they’re really comparable situations. My original point is that it took a whole movie to bring Spock back, so you can’t expect a 60 second explanation on how Kirk returned from the dead and get away with it.

543. MJ - December 6, 2013

“He doesnt look like Captain Kirk? He IS Captain Kirk! Jesus… He’s 83 years old. What will Chris Pine look like at 83 years old? I bet he’d be thrilled to be as active and sharp as Shatner.”

No he’s not. He’s an actor playing the part of a character who lives in the 23rd century. Your comment is frankly delusional.

544. MJ - December 6, 2013

“I also am puzzled that people think his acting was fine in Star Trek VI. I actually think it was getting progressively worse from V to Generations. Star Trek VI was a great Star Trek movie. I personally believe that made it easier to overlook the acting problems by Shatner. It doesn’t mean his acting improved though. It’s just that sometimes an otherwise great movie allowed me to overlook the few weaknesses. Finally, the writers of Generation had nothing to do with Shatner’s acting. That’s on Shatner, and maybe the director–though honestly, do you reallly expect David Carson to tell William Shatner that his acting was stinking up the joint and he needs to redo his scenes.”

I agree completely…and the last straw was the slovenly-bufoonish Kirk we saw a the Academy Awards last year.

545. Damian - December 6, 2013

539–That might have worked with Star Trek (2009). I think they decided against it for 2 reasons, one was I don’t think Shatner was interested in a brief cameo. They had clauses in their contracts that Shatner and Nimoy would each get the same thing, so Shatner probably would want as much screen time as Spock got in Star Trek (2009). The second was I remember them saying it was too much like fanboys just wanting to get Shatner in the film. They could never work it out that it looked genuine. I personally think it probably would have looked cheesy, but I wouldn’t have been put off by it.

But I think the opportunity for that has passed. If they thought it was fanboyish then, I can’t really see how they would pull it off genuinely now (not to mention, despite some of the pleas here, I think Shatner has given up at this point–I don’t think he’ll be lobbying for a role in the next film).

546. Damian - December 6, 2013

541–I think he means that he or less created the character as we know it in the original series.

While I agree with the sentiment, it does not mean he’s still good for the role. People change, and I think his acting has changed to the point he doesn’t fit the profile anymore. No one is static, I’m different at 39 than I was at 20. That’s a fact of life. And IMHO Shatner has changed such that he really wouldn’t be recognizable as Kirk anymore.

547. TUP - December 6, 2013

MJ – no dlushion. William Shatner and James Kirk look exactly the same. Thus, Willaim Shatner looks like an 83 year old James Kirk. Grow Up kid.

Tom – the exposition would take as much time as the convoluted plot of 09 that was explained away in a 30 second mind meld in what of the most bizarre scenes I’ve ever seen in a movie. it would be like starting the Godfather half way through the sequel and having the entire history to that point summed up rather than depicted.

So if they can do it in 09, they can find a way to do it for Kirk.

548. TUP - December 6, 2013

Damian – since Shatner *stopped* playing Kirk he has been very acclaimed as an actor. William Shatner can act. As I said, he’d be the most decorated actor in the film.

Bad Robot had no issue with how he looks or they wouldnt have written the cameo in 09 so lets cut the “he looks too old and fat” crap.

549. Curious Cadet - December 6, 2013

@ 513. LogicalLeopard,
“Now, where the Mandela example fails is that you couldn’t do what STID looks to have done, got a white actor to play an Indian role, after an identity change in a time in which radical plastic surgery is relatively simple.”

You and I are going to bump heads on this continually. This is purely a fabrication of your imagination which is not supported anywhere in the movie. Nothing on or off screen has been said by anyone to suggest this was ever the intent. Not necessarily the part about changing his appearance, which I concede could be extrapolated from Khan’s “identity” remark — but rather why anyone would feel the need to change his RACE as part of that transformation! It makes absolutely no sense in context of the movie. And you justify this unsubstantiated, and illogical choice with your elective “brainwashing”, as you propose a simplistic answer to address canon that completely ignores the blatant whitewashing BC’s casting constitutes.

But once you ask the simple question: why did they need to change his race and ethnicity in order to conceal his identity? — your whole argument falls apart, since at a minimum the explanation requires a much more convoluted answer than can be justified by the information available in the movie.

550. Damian - December 6, 2013

548–Just for the record, I’ve never made any comments about his appearance. There have been plenty of overweight Starfleet officers depicted (particularly among the Admirals), so his weight is not an issue for me, and age is irrelevant.

I disagree with you about his acting. I don’t care if he won an Academy Award. Even the best actors aren’t suited for every role out there, and I personally think his acting has changed to the point where he wouldn’t play the Captain Kirk we remember and love.

That and the exposition necessary makes it undesirable for me. You were just complaining they did explain Star Trek (2009) enough. You’re telling me people that feel as you do about Star Trek (2009) would be satisfied with prime-Kirk just showing up and saying in about 60 seconds, Yo, I was resurrected by some Borg nanites, sent back in a vortex to another universe and time and here I am. How can I help you today?

I mean, unless you’re ok with a shoddy explanation when you get what you want (trying not to sound oppositional here, but I don’t know how else to phrase it).

I was more or less satisfied with the exposition in Star Trek (2009). Beyond the mind-meld (not sure what the problem there was), they also had a “briefing” on the bridge where the crew was discussing what had happened after Nero arrived. They pretty much laid out what had happened. And the plot of the movie involved the consequences of the incursion by Nero. It wasn’t a 60 second explanation, it really was a whole movie.

551. Damian - December 6, 2013

edit–didn’t explain Star Trek (2009) enough. God, I wish there was an edit ability.

552. TUP - December 6, 2013

Nowhere in STID did it state he had his appearance, enthicity, voice etc altered. Nor was there any reason to.

None of the crew of the Enterprise in Space Seed recognized Khan and they had the advantage of knowing he was from the 1990’s based on the ship. Why would anyone in the 23rd century bump into Khan and recognize him? They wouldn’t. 300 years from now if someone bumped into Saddam Hussein, would they recognize him? It wouldnt even enter their mind to think it was him.

We’re all on here arguing about this and the writers are laughing that we’re trying to come up with ridiculous excuses for their creative failings. Khan looks different because they cast BC and thought no one would care. Period.

553. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2013

Curious, Trekkies will always try and explain incongruities in these production.

It happens in most Trek productions and is most often a result of inconsistent and lazy attention to detail.

If Shatner were to stand up for himself here I think he might again say, in his most kind hearted voice, “Get a life!”

554. Damian - December 6, 2013

548–And consider this.

You apparently don’t have a lot of love for Abrams’ Trek. Do you really want them to take on a Shatner resurrection.

If you don’t care for what they have done thus far, do you really think you’d be happy with a Shatner return by Abrams.

555. Damian - December 6, 2013

552–I do agree with you there. They tried a half hearted Political Correctness argument which sounded hollow considering Del Toro was originally considered for the role.

They wanted BC, they wanted Khan. End of story.

553–But it’s fun debating inconsistencies. I would argue that’s what keeps Star Trek going, the fact that we all care enough to debate, ad nauseum, about the little things. I’d be more worried if Trekkies stopped caring and just accepted it.

556. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2013

TUP

“We’re all on here arguing about this and the writers are laughing that we’re trying to come up with ridiculous excuses for their creative failings. Khan looks different because they cast BC and thought no one would care. Period.”

If I may be so bold.

They said they chose Cumby because he was the best actor for the role.
Meaning it strengthened their hand by having Cumby because as he did not resemble Karl Montalban’s Khan, or even a man of Indian decent, I say that “they thought” Cumby’s white ethnicity actually strengthened the story concerning it’s relation to the inside job metaphor being portrayed.

To them it was not an ethnicity problem as they thought the message should be a discussion point, not that Cumby was wrong for the role, BUT he was OBVIOUSLY wrong for the role, and the reason they cast him fits the story and their message.

See?

557. MJ - December 6, 2013

“MJ – no dlushion. William Shatner and James Kirk look exactly the same. Thus, Willaim Shatner looks like an 83 year old James Kirk. Grow Up kid.”

You are comparing a fictional character in the 23rd Century to an actor today in the 21st century. They are not the same person. As an example, Chris Pin is now playing the part.

Get real!

558. Curious Cadet - December 6, 2013

@515. LogicalLeopard,
“Khan would be the same, due to the fact that he was born and shipped out way before the Narada split the timeline.”

Actually I don’t believe there is anything in canon the proves this, nor that Prime Spock is even the same Spock from TOS, nor even TNG. Prime Spock is supposed to be the elder version of Quinto — so he is playing a role different from that in TOS, since Nimoy as we know did not look like Quinto at his same age. Not to mention Quinto’s Spock was born BEFORE the split. Therefore, casting considerations aside, there is nothing to prove that Nimoy’s Spock was not from a completely different universe than any we had ever seen, and therefore one in which Khan developed very differently — as the very basis of QM MWI is that any possible reality one can imagine can and will happen.

__________________
“In my opinion, it’s a lot easier to assume a paranoid Section 31 gave him plastic surgery to go along with the new identity they gave him.”

I’ll go along with it is a lot easier to extrapolate simple plastic surgery to conceal one’s identity, I will not agree that it makes any sense to change his RACE and ethnicity with such a simplistic explanation. Once you acknowledge that’s what they did, then SkiesSeven’s explanation is no less plausible than your own.

559. Damian - December 6, 2013

What’s really amusing is everyone is getting all hot and bothered over something that has almost no chance of occurring.

If Shatner has not been in Star Trek (2009) or STID, he’s not going to be in the next one. So this debate really has no purpose–but that’s never stopped us before :).

560. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2013

Perhaps it would be OK for Kirk to be a 120 year old Admiral in the next Trek, but still played by an 80 year old Shatner.

Perhaps they would have to actually add the years to Shatner with makeup. That would really make some of us think differently about how old is too old..

BTW, I think Shatner looked far worse 50 years ago in the “Deadly Years.”

561. Damian - December 6, 2013

558–Other than the fact that the writers have stated Nimoy’s Spock is the Spock we all know and love from the original series.

Since they wrote the film and they have explicitly say that, I believe that is what is so. I mean, who am I to question the writers intent when they are the ones saying what their intent is.

If Bob Orci says he’s the original Spock, then he’s the original Spock. It’s his story.

562. Damian - December 6, 2013

560–The only one that aged somewhat like he looked in the Deadly Years was Nimoy. His appearance in “Unification” actually looked similar to his older appearance in The Deadly Years. The others, as they aged, looked nothing like they did in The Deadly Years.

563. Danpaine - December 6, 2013

I return 24 hours later, and STILL, the conversation about Prime Kirk and Shatner is going. Since he’s my favorite part of all of Trek, I can’t help but be impressed. Whether you’re for him returning (which I agree is unlikely) or against, the passion about the subject is noteworthy. I’m proud. Shatner certainly made that character his own.

561. Damian – December 6, 2013

By the way, Damian – I’m a couple of chapters into “Engines Of Destiny.” Great stuff. Thanks for the referral. If only we’d ever been so lucky as to see something like that making the big, or small screen….

564. Ahmed - December 6, 2013

MJ,

We get it, you don’t like William Shatner & you don’t want to see him play Kirk ever again. No problem dude, that is your opinion & you expressed it many many times.

565. Damian - December 6, 2013

563–Was a great book. I remember at one point Kirk scolds Scotty for doing what he did.

He did note he appreciated Scotty’s loyalty and all, but he inadvertently changed all of history as a result.

Since Scotty goes back in time from a point before Generations, he thinks Kirk died on the Enterprise-B. They don’t realize Kirk makes a future contribution to the timeline that affects the past.

It really was cool how DeWeese tied it all together, Kirk’s 2 deaths, the resulting impact on First Contact. The book also features Sarek (but no Spock, since Earth was assimilated, there is obviously no Amanda to marry Sarek).

Quite a mess Scotty inadvertently caused. He thought since he grabbed Kirk after he made the necessary adjustments to the deflector which saved the Enterprise-B that would be enough. No one would be wiser. He just didn’t know Kirk still had a future, however brief, that was critical.

566. Damian - December 6, 2013

In a way, Engines of Destiny sound just like the kind of story Orci would love to turn into a movie.

All those time paradoxes. Since Kirk wasn’t there in the future, the past was destroyed. Can’t create a better paradox then that.

567. Damian - December 6, 2013

564–Actually we are all a bit guilty on this argument. I know I’ve been repeating the same arguments over and over, as has TUP.

MJ actually hasn’t made a lot of posts this time around about Shatner.

568. Ahmed - December 6, 2013

After yesterday news about ANOTHER X-Men movie that is coming out in 2016, today we learned about new Terminator series.

============================
New TERMINATOR TV Series in the Works; Will Tie into Feature Film Reboot

Prepare for plenty of Terminator goodness over the next few years. Annapurna Pictures and Paramount Pictures are currently developing a feature film reboot of the franchise to be directed by Thor: The Dark World’s Alan Taylor, but in addition to that film it appears that a new TV series is in the works as well.

Megan Ellison and David Ellison, the producers of the new Terminator film, are producing this new TV show iteration with Thor and X-Men: First Class scribes Zack Stentz and Ashley Miller onboard to write and executive produce. Moreover, this new TV show will directly tie into the new Terminator movie, which is being planned as the first in a trilogy of films.

“The TV series will follow a critical moment from the first Terminator film (1984) and, where the film’s story goes one way, the upcoming series will take the same moment in a completely different direction. As the rebooted film trilogy and the new TV series progress, the two narratives will intersect with each other in some surprising and dramatic ways.”

http://collider.com/terminator-reboot-tv-show/

569. Stephan - December 6, 2013

Still waiting for a trek 13 announcement since every weekend in 2015 and 2016 seems to be occupied. :-/

570. Keachick - December 6, 2013

People still cannot discern the relevancy of using certain English words as opposed to others. Words like “maybe”, “possibly”, “probably” do not describe an actual verifiable fact. They are words referencing supposition. Supposition is not fact. The only FACT here is that some people, eg Marla McGivers thought, surmised, pondered on a notion, ie that the Khan she met was a Sikh from North India. However, he had given her absolutely no indication that he did belong or even believe in Sikhism. In FACT, his appearance should have lead her to think otherwise. Khan was happy to let Marla believe what she wanted about him, being the infatuated bubble-head that she was, because he realized she could come in handy later.

It seems that Spock did find records that verified that this (RM) Khan was born in Northern India, but that is all. Millions of people live in Northern India and the THREE main religions of that region are Hinduism (Sikh being one of many “denominations”), Buddhism and Islam. Space Seed’s Khan never came off as being particularly religious, except when it came to grabbing (again) as much power as he could for himself.

571. Curious Cadet - December 6, 2013

@552. TUP,
“Nowhere in STID did it state he had his appearance, enthicity, voice etc altered. Nor was there any reason to.”

I fully support LogicalLeopard’s assertion that Khan’s lines in the movie, “John Harrison was a fiction created the moment I was awoken by your Admiral Marcus to help him advance his cause. A smokescreen to conceal my true identity.”, clearly opens the door to question whether his appearance had been altered. His accent is neither here nor there.

But where LL’s logic breaks down is there is NO groundwork laid to explain why they would change his ethnicity too.

_________
“None of the crew of the Enterprise in Space Seed recognized Khan and they had the advantage of knowing he was from the 1990′s based on the ship.”

We don’t know this. We really don’t know if McGivers recognized him, and just kept quiet until she could confirm it, or study him (not knowing what Kirk might do with the information); which is why her “guess” was so accurate. We don’t know that just like Kirk’s problem with recognizing the “E Plebnista” in Omega Glory, that he just didn’t associate the name Khan and his appearance with the person he knew from the history books. Even the era of the Botany Bay doesn’t help in this case since Kirk was surprised to learn that any of the superman had gone missing, not to mention Spock’s initial dismissal of this possibility. Clearly once Spock put the pieces together, everyone showed a strong familiarity with and recognition of Khan. But they aren’t the one’s Section 31 would be hiding him from. They would be hiding him from the McGivers, and other professional or amateur historians who might not dismiss such an uncanny resemblance as completely implausible. I get that completely.

What I don’t get is why once his facial features were altered from being causally recognized as Khan, why they would then change his RACE. It’s completely unnecessary and illogical. Khan’s DNA would most likely not be on file anywhere, so there would be no need to mask him further (and if it was, then they have bigger problems than changing his race).

572. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2013

Bad Trek, better than no Trek?

I say no Trek is better for 2015…

…if they cannot get done corectly and on time and with all the right people again involved.

But for now. Why is it I want to see Into Darkness again so bad?

573. Ahmed - December 6, 2013

@ 569. Stephan – December 6, 2013

“Still waiting for a trek 13 announcement since every weekend in 2015 and 2016 seems to be occupied. :-/”

We are seeing the same thing that we saw after ST2009. The writers gave multiple interviews talking about their ideas for the sequel, how they have an outline & a possible direction. Few months later, nothing is happening & it is like that for 4 bloody years.

Meanwhile, other studios are announcing new projects & release dates for 2015 & 2016

574. TUP - December 6, 2013

While I agree with the argument about no need to change Khan’s enthicity, I stand by my assertion that there was never any need to change his appearance at all. No was looking for an obscure long dead dictator from the 1990s. Ludicrous to assume anyone would recognize him not to mention the fact he was working in the shadows. but yes, these excuses are just BS to excuse a very poor creative and casting decision.

MJ – are you dense? William Shatner played Kirk at 34, 40, 50 etc. Ofcourse he can play Kirk at 83. grab a clue.

Also, I don’t hate Abrams’ Trek. I liked 09. I liked STID. I just usually end up on the other side of the argument because I love Star Trek so much that the “little things” they didnt care about frustrate me so much.

Both movies could have been better if they had taken the time to care.

575. Damian - December 6, 2013

570–The writers of Space Seed obviously intended on him being a Sikh from Northern India. Otherwise they wouldn’t have wasted dialogue on it.

Some people are desperate to validate the complete change in Khan’s ethnic background as shown in STID. They can change his appearance, even make him a completely different character.

But that does not invalidate how he was presented in Space Seed and later in TWOK. Some are trying to read in between the lines because they can’t accept that the current producers would go out on a limb with BC. They obviously must have seen something no one else did in the close to 50 years that episode has been out, so goes the argument.

I mean, really, Khan overlooked McGivers painting him as a Sikh, and her telling him she knew exactly who he was, this done after he was awakened. That’s the canon. Trying to make up some hidden motivation that was in no way presented or alluded to just to desperately make it consistent with STID is the fiction here.

It’s frankly easier to assume he is what he was, a Sikh from northern India, who section 31 changed his identity for. No, that’s not canon either, but it fits the facts a bit easier than trying to say McGivers was really clueless and Khan was pretending to agree for some hidden motivation that we never saw before.

576. LogicalLeopard - December 6, 2013

549. Curious Cadet – December 6, 2013
@ 513. LogicalLeopard,
“Now, where the Mandela example fails is that you couldn’t do what STID looks to have done, got a white actor to play an Indian role, after an identity change in a time in which radical plastic surgery is relatively simple.”

You and I are going to bump heads on this continually. This is purely a fabrication of your imagination which is not supported anywhere in the movie. Nothing on or off screen has been said by anyone to suggest this was ever the intent. Not necessarily the part about changing his appearance, which I concede could be extrapolated from Khan’s “identity” remark — but rather why anyone would feel the need to change his RACE as part of that transformation! It makes absolutely no sense in context of the movie. And you justify this unsubstantiated, and illogical choice with your elective “brainwashing”, as you propose a simplistic answer to address canon that completely ignores the blatant whitewashing BC’s casting constitutes.

But once you ask the simple question: why did they need to change his race and ethnicity in order to conceal his identity? — your whole argument falls apart, since at a minimum the explanation requires a much more convoluted answer than can be justified by the information available in the movie.

***********************

Although the Klingons say bumping heads is fun, we don’t really need to do that. *LOL* Nothing has been said on screen to confirm my theory. True. Both you and I agree that it could be extrapolated from Khan’s identity comments. However, you ask why did they go to the extent of changing his race and ethnicity. The real-life answer would be (if the theory is correct) because they got BC to play him. The in-universe answer is….well, there really isn’t a reason that presents itself based on the events that we see on the screen. It’s possible that he was given a specific identity of a specific person, or an identity that fit the profile for a needed situation, but like I said, that has no basis in the movie we saw. You could fool lots of people by making him grow a mustache and a crew cut, its not needed, but it looks like it apparently happened, based on the fact that Khan has been pretty much established as an Indian Sikh, and BC looks nothing like an Indian Sikh.

All I need to satisfy my mind is two items 1) He was given a new identity 2) An apperance change could have been part of that identity, given the technology at that time and the unknown demands of Section 31. That’s enough for me to continue to enjoy the movie.

CASTING is a different issue. I can agree that they probably should have used this golden opportunity to make things right and cast a real person of Indian/Pakistani descent in the role, who would match Khan’s identity. But it didn’t happen. So I judge the movie on what I saw, not what I didn’t see.

So there are two points that seem contrary, but are not, because one deals with what happened IN THE MOVIE and the other deals with what happened IN REAL LIFE:

In Movie: The movie I saw made sense for a pasty white guy to be Khan Noonien Singh, as a result of radical plastic surgery in conjunction with a identity change.

in Real Life: Producers missed an opportunity to obtain a real Indian/Pakistani actor to play Khan. No doubt with over a billion people on the Indian subcontinent, a country which has a thriving movie industry, with many people who speak English, you could have put out a casting call in India to get someone. I presume, at least, because I have NO idea how all that works.

577. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2013

I say the decision was inspired and brilliant.

I am sure boborci would agree with me. ; )

578. Damian - December 6, 2013

Section 31 could have trained him to speak a certain way, as well as change his identity. This isn’t canon, of course, but we already know in the 23rd century, changing appearance is easy, and you can train someone to speak with a British accent.

That’s still easier than saying the writers of Space Seed, the creators of Khan in the first place, were wrong.

Anyway, time to go. I’ll try to catch up later, as debating Trek is always fun.

Have fun everyone debating to Shat or not to Shat, and who is Khan? Really?

579. LogicalLeopard - December 6, 2013

558. Curious Cadet – December 6, 2013

Actually I don’t believe there is anything in canon the proves this, nor that Prime Spock is even the same Spock from TOS, nor even TNG. Prime Spock is supposed to be the elder version of Quinto — so he is playing a role different from that in TOS, since Nimoy as we know did not look like Quinto at his same age. Not to mention Quinto’s Spock was born BEFORE the split. Therefore, casting considerations aside, there is nothing to prove that Nimoy’s Spock was not from a completely different universe than any we had ever seen, and therefore one in which Khan developed very differently — as the very basis of QM MWI is that any possible reality one can imagine can and will happen.

****************************

Well, when you get into that logic, you start sliding down a nasty slope. The producers meant for it to be Spock Prime. So, it’s Spock Prime. If you go into quantum theory or whatever, it could be a Spock that had an identical life aside from the point that he cut one of his hairs .00008 shorter than the other. That’s possible, but it serves no purpose. You could equally ask if the Spock of TOS is the Spock of TMP, I think five years were supposed to have passed, but all the actors clearly look older than 5 years.

Quinto doesn’t look like Spock did at that age. Neither did Shinzon look like Picard. Or the guy that played young Picard during that episode where he gets stabbed by the Nausicaan. Did transporter malfunction Ro and Guinan look like Michelle Forbes and Whoopi Goldberg? Probably not. Differences like that call for suspension of disbelief.

580. Curious Cadet - December 6, 2013

@561. Damian,
“If Bob Orci says he’s the original Spock, then he’s the original Spock. It’s his story.”

But it isn’t. It’s CBS/Paramount’s story. And even Orci himself has acknowledged that only what’s on-screen is canon — not what’s in the comics, not what he says, not what’s in earlier drafts of the screenplay.

And that’s all the matters. Nothing in the film precludes an alternate interpretation, and even Orci has said in the past they deliberately made ST09 vague so the audiences could interpret complex ideas like QM MWI in particular, in a simpler “Back To The Future” style manner — something which clearly changes Orci’s intent. So why not here? I believe Orci has even hinted himself that the alt universe may have evolved from the Enterprise universe, suggesting that was different than any other seen before, to account for the subtle changes seen at the beginning of ST09; in which case it can’t be the same Spock.

581. TUP - December 6, 2013

Ofcourse Nimoy Spock is “our” Spock. My God people…

Hey Maybe Khan is actually a martian. Nothing on screen indicates he is *not* a martian so he might be. He might be a cat. He might be a chevy. Nothing on screen says he isnt. Give me a break.

Bunch of rocket scientists on here.

Damian is correct.

582. LogicalLeopard - December 6, 2013

538. TrekMadeMeWonder – December 6, 2013

You should really expand on that premise. I’d like to hear more of that.

****************************

Thanks! Well, I came up with it on the fly, but upon thinking about it further, I think it’d be interesting if the red matter rifts in space just started ejecting increasingly odd oddities, like maybe the Kelvin, complete with Captain Robau, and Kirk’s father. Only the reality is different, because Winona Kirk isn’t pregnant. Maybe you have Tom Hardy do a cameo as Captain Picard of the Stargazer to establish that the rips are not only going into the past, but the future. Then you have Vulcan continually shifting – Initially you have a Vulcan that’s a nuclear wasteland, with everyone dead for a few thousand years. As they’re taking scans (at a safe distance) the Vulcan shifts into one that’s completely populated, but maybe never joined the Federation and is a vassal state of the Andorian Empire. Then Earth winks out, because a rift opens where Nero would have succeeded in a different reality, etc. Then it’s back, and it’s the Terran Empire earth, then it changes to an Earth ruled by Borg Queen Janeway, etc.

I’m thinking the solution may be found towards the end, when a multidimensional army of Spocks (Spocks that went to the Vulcan Science Academy, Captain Spocks of the Enterprise, Evil Bearded Spocks of the Terran Empire, etc) get together in a room to puzzle out a way to solve the situation.

I think it’d be a fun way to make a nod to the history of Trek, and present a Trek-style man-vs-environment situation. The only challenge is whether or not you can make it interesting for the general public to want to go see it.

583. Curious Cadet - December 6, 2013

@ 579. LogicalLeopard,
“Quinto doesn’t look like Spock did at that age.”

At the end of the day it’s not about whether the actor looks exactly like the actor who preceded or followed him. The point is that Nimoy is there to play an elder Quinto/Spock, not the other way around. Therefore, Nimoy is playing a role that is not necessarily the one he played in TOS, because we don’t know from canon which universe Quinto comes from. The argument that Quinto does not look like Nimoy a the same age is directed at the argument that says Nimoy himself is conclusive proof his Spock is intended to be the original. But that is not confirmed by canon.

584. Keachick - December 6, 2013

The Dr Who franchise belongs to the BBC. If my information is correct, BBC1 and BBC2 have been solely funded by the British taxpayer. I believe that the BBC can be partially funded by independent investors, however most of it is still owned and funded by the British Government with various statutes and Acts pertaining to the hows, whys, whens etc.

This means that the 50th Anniversary Dr Who *movie* recently screened via satellite around the planet was mostly funded by your average taxpaying Brit. Therefore, legally and in theory, they should expect to get something in return and it seems that many people are very impressed by what was given back, not just to the taxpaying Brit, but to the rest of the world as well. The BBC are the creators and caretakers of this publicly funded franchise. Dr Who belongs to the British everyman/everywoman…

Unfortunately, the Star Trek franchise is not blessed with the kind of caretaking that the Dr Who franchise enjoys. That is the reality. It has been owned by a private company which makes movies and television programmes. At some point there was a split, which now means that the television side of the sci-fi franchise is owned by a different company than the movie one. This has to be one of the most farcical and saddest of situations.

These private companies have really one responsibility and that is to return a reasonable (or even better) dividend to their shareholders. Providing for the real needs of the consumer is secondary. The consumer cannot be ignored for obvious reasons, however it can be easier to dismiss a minority opinion about a particular product, even if the consumer has faithfully consumed such over a long period, especially if the bottom line profit is not seriously affected. Clearly, with these two latest Star Trek movies, the returns seem reasonable, so shareholders and investors should not be too unhappy.

There are no laws, statutes, Acts…to govern what, when, how anything gets made or who the makers should consider when decisions are being reached, other than what the shareholders’ wallets will tolerate.

No ordinary US (or any other taxpayer) has helped pay for the making of these films, so there is no legal or reasons pertaining to ethics regarding returning loyalty to faithful fans/consumers. If the CEO of Paramount and/or CBS do not appear to care about what Star Trek fans might think, it is because they don’t have to, either legally, or in their minds, morally. They are simply taking care of product for the shareholders.

The mindset is different. This appears to not bode well for Star Trek. It probably never has.

Welcome to your world of private enterprise trumping all – good for many business ventures, not so good for others necessarily…

585. crazydaystrom - December 6, 2013

578. Damian
Section 31 could have trained him to speak a certain way, as well as change his identity

Well yeah they could have but why would the proud and determined Khan of Space Seed not have reverted to his normal way of speaking after revealing his true identity? No.Too much contorting here to rationalize the differences resulting from the casting decision.

586. Curious Cadet - December 6, 2013

@ 581. TUP,
“Hey Maybe Khan is actually a martian. Nothing on screen indicates he is *not* a martian so he might be. He might be a cat. He might be a chevy. Nothing on screen says he isnt. Give me a break.”

That’s a straw man argument right there. The fact is Orci has introduced QM MWI as the basis of his “reboot” and as such, he has opened the door, specifically referencing TNG: Parallels episode as an example, which calls directly into question the source of anything he presents in this universe.

Your other wildly irrational propositions have nothing to do with any facet of the film as presented by Orci, whereas he specifically gives us reason to question the origins of the characters, even adding to the speculation himself. So give me a break.

587. Danpaine - December 6, 2013

Star Trek VI premiered on this date in 1991, fyi.

Good times. That was a nice sendoff.

588. TUP - December 6, 2013

Curious Cadet – over your head I see.

Khan in STID is the same Khan from Space Seed. The altered universe did not diverge until well after the Botany Bay was floating in space.

589. TUP - December 6, 2013

Curious Cadet – you are wrong about Spock. Nimoy is not playing an older Quinto. He is playing the same Spock from TOS, the films etc. He is an original universe character in an altered universe. if Quinto Spock never dies in WoK (which we can presume wont happen), Nimoy Spock still DID die.

You’re talking circles to prove your point and failing.

590. Gary 8.5 - December 6, 2013

“If I were Human,
I believe my response would be GO TO HELL,
If I were Human”

591. LogicalLeopard - December 6, 2013

583. Curious Cadet – December 6, 2013
@ 579. LogicalLeopard,
“Quinto doesn’t look like Spock did at that age.”

At the end of the day it’s not about whether the actor looks exactly like the actor who preceded or followed him. The point is that Nimoy is there to play an elder Quinto/Spock, not the other way around. Therefore, Nimoy is playing a role that is not necessarily the one he played in TOS, because we don’t know from canon which universe Quinto comes from. The argument that Quinto does not look like Nimoy a the same age is directed at the argument that says Nimoy himself is conclusive proof his Spock is intended to be the original. But that is not confirmed by canon.

****************************************************

I disagree, Nimoy isn’t playing an elder Quinto as much as Quinto is playing a younger/alternate Nimoy. Spock came back in time, and slightly “across” it, so in my book, Quinto’s playing a version of young Spock because Spock Prime’s actions initiated the meeting. But really they arent’ the same person, because Spock Prime arrived in an alternate timeline.

But like I said, there’s no canon proof that the Spock of TOS is the same spock of TMP, TWOK, etc, when you go down that slippery slope.

592. LogicalLeopard - December 6, 2013

585. crazydaystrom – December 6, 2013
578. Damian
Section 31 could have trained him to speak a certain way, as well as change his identity

Well yeah they could have but why would the proud and determined Khan of Space Seed not have reverted to his normal way of speaking after revealing his true identity? No.Too much contorting here to rationalize the differences resulting from the casting decision.

*********************************

By that logic, Patrick Stewart was horribly cast as Jean Luc Picard. I see your logic, don’t get me wrong, but accents are notoriously off in Star Trek. Scotty and Chekov throw the whole thing off. You could rationalize all the American accents as actually being Federation Standard accents, but if Scotty and Chekov have accents, why doesn’t Uhura? Why does Picard sound English? Why does Laforge sound American?

593. Stephan - December 6, 2013

This Khan topic reminds me why I shouldn’t admitt in public that I am a trekkie. If these issues are the main topics to be associated with a trek fan I am not proud to be one. I became a trekkie to discuss about higher morally interesting dilemmas and to talk about what we can do to be better humans in a better world…
But now I feel like we all are guys like the comic book guy from Simpsons.

594. Gary 8.5 - December 6, 2013

#590 was in response to 587.
My Favorite line from Star Trek VI.

595. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2013

582. LogicalLeopard

Whoa! Way to much for one movie. Perhaps a series of trilogies or tv year series.

I think think something along the lines of what you said in the 1st sentence..

… the red matter rifts in space just started ejecting increasingly odd oddities, like maybe the Kelvin, complete with Captain Robau, and Kirk’s father. Only the reality is different.

An alright idea.

It looks like this will be a four picture deal before this group breaks up.
So I think there is should be continuing darker theme to these sequels. Just like the darker tone they have expressed for thse past two pics. I said it before, go real dark, and real tragic, but leave our crew mostly intact enough to accomplish a hopeful goal.

Maybe a great 50th episode would show the Enterpise and crew racing ahead of that red matter rift in time and space. All along the way meeting familiar characters of Treks past, and future, in an effort to save all time and space.

596. TUP - December 6, 2013

Wait…so because one argues that Khan should not have had a Brit accent, you somehow leap to Picard should have a french accent? Come on…

Khan should not be a brit because Khan is NOT a brit. Did you watch Space Seed? That’s Khan.

597. crazydaystrom - December 6, 2013

592. LogicalLeopard
By that logic, Patrick Stewart was horribly cast as Jean Luc Picard. I see your logic…

No I think you don’t see my logic here. The Steward/Picard comparison is not an apt one.

If I read him correctly Damian was speaking of a character in universe who was trained to speak a way he did not previous to that training. Picard’s character was established and always, in universe, spoke with Steward’s real world accent. Two different things. Now if Picard had been recast (which very well may someday happen) and the new actor played Picard with, say, a French accent, THEN you would have an apt comparison.

598. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2013

596. TUP

boborci was right when he said, (and I paraphrase his words)

“It’s Khan-gitive dissonance.”

599. Captain Slow - December 6, 2013

To all the Shatner supporters, come up with a plausible, interesting way of explaining in just 90-seconds how Kirk could come back to life, age to the point Shatner is at now, travel back in time, and end up in the JJverse. If you can do that you get an Oscar.

600. MJ - December 6, 2013

To you Einsteins talking about Brit’s playing Frenchies, and vice versa, you are aware that these countries have intermingled populations significantly since (and before, including back to the Romans) the Norman Conquest, right?

Talk about coming across as ignorant???

601. Ahmed - December 6, 2013

Since in STID they came up with the brilliant idea of bringing back Khan, a 300 years old man, to design new 23rd century weapons, then it possible that Prime Kirk was brought back to life, using Borg or other alien technology. Who ever brought him back to life, will try to use his knowledge against the Enterprise in the new timeline. All this could be told in a mind meld scene similar to what we saw in ST09.

Star Trek is SCIENCE FICTION. Death is not permanent in Sci-Fi, if the writers want to bring someone back they could do it easily.

602. MJ - December 6, 2013

“MJ – are you dense? William Shatner played Kirk at 34, 40, 50 etc. Ofcourse he can play Kirk at 83. grab a clue.”

Nope.

He still looked like the fictional 23rd Century Kirk at those ages. Now he looks like an early 21st century fat man. Captain Kirk — the one from the 23rd century, not the actor from the 20th century who played that role for a few decades — Captain Kirk would not let himself go like that in his latter years, and he would have late 23rd Century longevity and other ultramodern medical support to keep him fit well past his 100th birthday (assuming he didn’t die anyway in Generations). If you don’t believe me, just go back and watch The Deadly Years again — that older version of Kirk portrayed their looks nothing like Shatner today.

Keep giving me all your bullcrap one line quips about me being “dense,” etc, but it’s not going to change the fact that you are simply WRONG on this. No amount of posts with insults or supposedly clever remarks from you can change this simple fact.

603. Barry Jennings - December 6, 2013

How could anyone who has read more than a hundred pages on the subject of 911 believe the official conspiracy theory?

604. Damian - December 6, 2013

580–Somehow I don’t think Paramount is going to come out and say, no that’s not Spock prime. They are banking on him being the Spock we’ve come to know. The writers have said the point of change occurred with Nero’s incursion and that is even stated on screen when they are discussing the situation on the bridge. I’m paraphrasing, but they said basically everything that occurred since Nero came back changed history from that point on. I agree with 591–Quinto is playing the younger version of Nimoy, I would never say Nimoy is playing on older Quinto.

The new cast of the original crew was chosen much better to Khan. There they made an effort to match as much as possible the original actors. It wasn’t perfect, but I think they did a good job.

That’s different from the Khan casting. There is no similarity between BC and Montalban. There is nothing about BC that reminds me of Montalban, and that’s the real fundamental difference. I do agree with 585, my rationalization for the in universe reason for the difference is weak, but it’s the best I can come up with the reconcile the difference between the two.

600–And I thought Stewart did a good job playing a Frenchman too.

593–Stephan, don’t let it get you down. We do have lots of heavy debates too. We just get wrapped up in the minutae sometimes. That’s how you can tell we’re passionate about Star Trek. We’ll argue about where did Khan really come from and is Spock really Spock.

605. Ahmed - December 6, 2013

@602. MJ

“If you don’t believe me, just go back and watch The Deadly Years again — that older version of Kirk portrayed their looks nothing like Shatner today.”

Perhaps you should have provided the makeups guys back then with a time machine, to make sure they get it right !!

When they age actors using makeups, they don’t expect the actor to actually look like that when they hit that age in real life.

Your reason doesn’t make ANY SENSE AT ALL, just my personal onion

606. Damian - December 6, 2013

604–Ahmed, yeah, have to agree with you there. I’m with MJ about not having Shatner, but that was reaching a bit there.

593–Also, this is a safe haven to discuss Star Trek. I mean, if I were on a hot date with say, Carrie Underwood (who’s incredibly HOT btw), I probably wouldn’t be asking her if she thought Nimoy was really playing Spock from the prime universe. But here, feel free to let your Trekkie out.

607. And you're a liar Mr. Walsh. I think we understand each other. - December 6, 2013

544: The Academy Award Shatner Macfarlane ST bit was a comedy skit. How should have Shat played Kirk in it: as a serious drama?

People were happy to see him as Kirk again and it was well received and funny as it was meant to be. Most of the comments at this site approved, and again you tried to spin it again in your usual troll hating fashion.

It seems you can’t stand the fact that he possesses some of the very
traits of Captain Kirk in real life that we admire: to never give up and rest on ones laurels but live life to the fullest. And no wonder: for it was he himself who imbued Kirk with many of the traits we admire. That you keep harping about appearances at your age is extremely shallow, immature and suspect. Where you taught in Jesuit school to be viciously disrespectful of exemplary senior citizens? Truly shameful.

As to Nimoy (and I like him a lot as well) looking younger than Shat, I’m sorry but no it’s vice versa. Shat is doing very well: he doesn’t need anything from anybody. But with the 50th anniversary approaching, it would be a crying shame to not use the Shat in some form even a la ‘Trials and Tribulations’ . The epic story possibilities are endless.

608. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2013

I’m telling you guys. Using BC fit the mesage of the movie pretty well.

Some of you guys really need to stop being so engrossed by the Trek universe as not to see the obvious.

Here is yet another example – from a non-trek website – that presents a somewhat harsher accusation than I would express, of how STiD was inspired by many recent popular conspiracy theories.

http://badassdigest.com/2013/09/11/how-star-trek-into-darkness-is-a-crypto-truther-conspiracy-movie

609. Dunsel Report - December 6, 2013

Badass Digest has had some of the sharpest writing about why STID doesn’t work as a story that made any kind of sense dramatically.

http://badassdigest.com/2013/06/12/film-crit-hulk-smash-the-age-of-the-convoluted-blockbuster/

The reason STID was divisive is the same reason that Hulk here identifies “Man of Steel” as being something that worked for some and not others.

http://badassdigest.com/2013/07/03/film-crit-hulk-man-of-steel/

ST09 wasn’t as divisive because every frame showed affection and care. This Khan movie was not as well-crafted.

610. LogicalLeopard - December 6, 2013

595. TrekMadeMeWonder – December 6, 2013
582. LogicalLeopard

Whoa! Way to much for one movie. Perhaps a series of trilogies or tv year series.

Maybe a great 50th episode would show the Enterpise and crew racing ahead of that red matter rift in time and space. All along the way meeting familiar characters of Treks past, and future, in an effort to save all time and space.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Admittedly, thats a lot. Traveling the rifts would be a good idea. And actually, speaking of tv movies, the rifts could be the jumping off point for tv movies or a new series. Say, the movie has a few cameos, and the tv move has more fan oriented cameos, other peole through time looking for a way to stop the rift. From that, you could springboard a new series, say a rebooted TNG? Or a huge mashup of everything. Say it takes place in the 50’s or 40’s woth Captain Picard, chief Engineer Sisko, Science Officer Janeway. Or not. Actually, I like the idea of a series to fill in the gaps between ToS and TNG. The uniforms still hold up….

611. MJB - December 6, 2013

It sure is disappointing to see ‘buzz’ on EVERY other franchise (ie Terminator news today) and nothing with Star Trek. I’m now worried that the exec’s are losing interest in making Trek a healthy long-term franchise.

612. Danpaine - December 6, 2013

605 – Damian, you just made me laugh out loud. Kudos.

613. LogicalLeopard - December 6, 2013

596. TUP – December 6, 2013
Wait…so because one argues that Khan should not have had a Brit accent, you somehow leap to Picard should have a french accent? Come on…

Khan should not be a brit because Khan is NOT a brit. Did you watch Space Seed? That’s Khan.

Er…wha? *LOL* Picard SHOULD have a French accent because hes from FRANCE. And he wasnt just born there, he was raised there until he went to the Academy. So why does he sound English? Picard is not a Brit, just like Khan. I saw Space Seed, did you see the TNG episode “Family?” Khan is not the only person with a contrary accent. And why you mention Space Seed, i dont know, because RM didnt exactly do an Indian accent either.

614. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2013

607. Dunsel Report

I somehow just beat you to the “Badass” website report.

Did you see my post?

615. MJB - December 6, 2013

I spoke too soon! NEW Star Trek news:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-trek-3-beams-up-663729

616. Damian - December 6, 2013

611–

I don’t get it. I thought Stewart did a good job as a Frenchman.

And it’s really not the same thing anyway. I mean, someone else isn’t playing Picard, if they were recasting the part, I’d expect them to find someone similar to Stewart to play the role.

If they recast Khan, it’s my personal belief they should have looked for someone similar to Montalban. BC and Montalban are nowhere near alike.

And I find it interesting that know all of a sudden Khan’s heritage is somehow unclear in Space Seed now because of STID. I don’t know how much more clear it can be. I mean should McGivers said I know exactly who you are. You’re a Sikh from the Northern India area, like I said earlier.

She painted his portrait as a Sikh, for crying out loud. You think Khan might have said to her, hey idiot, I’m not a Sikh, and you call yourself a historian.

I believe they should have looked for an actor similar to Montalban if they wanted to go Khan. I would have been ok with actor from India if they wanted to make it more accurate to the character. That I could have understood. But a British guy. That doesn’t fit with any of the facts at all, not even where Khan ruled–unless you want to overrule Space Seed on where he ruled too.

617. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2013

599 Captain Slow

Perhaps not an Oscar, but this was just an attemot to fulfill your request.
A one off! : )

Actually. Using Shatner in the next one could be quite easy. Try this…

It’s Verandin III and a dying Kirk lies on the canyon floor.

The camera pulls close as he lies broken on the gound under the bridge supports. Kirk begins speaking a slow and halting monolog

I alway’s knew I would die alone.

A series of images play out onscreen as we see Kirk being lifted into the air (like at the end of Gladiator) angelic music rising.

But somehow I always knew there was another frontier.

We look on from a distance as Kirks essence rises, past the launch platform and hill tops, and toward the enrgy ribbon.

Then surrounded in light.

But now I see another. … a younger me.

The screen fades and is then replaced be explosions rocking the Enterprise. An anxious younger Kirk wipes his brow as his crew looks to him for an answer. Scotty is heard over the comm. We cannot take another hit!

A dark voide is heard, “You now have two minutes.”

As the crew tries their controls for what seems like a last chance to do anything, we see our captain envoped in a flash of light.

The next shot is from behind Kirk as he spins a close up shot of his face is shown as he tells Uhura to open hailing frequencies.

The crew stops and looks to their captain, who has now stepped to the side of Uhura’s station. Looking though the lens flares, Kirk sees his older self speaking back through the glare and reflections.

To himself, “Go ahead. It will work, Jim.”

Kirk straightens himself and begins.

This is the Captain of the Enterprise. Our respect for other lifeforms requires that we give you this warning. One critical item of information that has never been incorporated into the memory banks of any Earth ship. Since the early years of space exploration, Earth vessels have had incorporated into them a substance known as corbomite. It is a material and a device which prevents attack on us. If any destructive energy touches our vessel, a reverse reaction of equal strength is created, destroying

Another booming voice is heard. “You now have two minutes.”

Kirk continues, “…Destroying the attacker! It may interest you to know that since the initial use of corbomite more than two of our centuries ago, no attacking vessel has survived the attempt. Death has little meaning to us. If it has none to you then attack us now. We grow annoyed at your foolishness.”

Systems and lights come back on and return to their standard bridge sounds.

Spock, “Engine and systems coming back on, Captain.”

An exterior shot of the Enterprise is shown as the incroaching and insanely large bulbulous space ship ejects another smaller craft onscreen

The booming voice is again heard, “Do not be deceived by the size of this pilot vessel. It has an equal potential to destroy your vessel.”

Back on the bridge a sweating and troubled looking captain looks into the camera with a worried expression and says, “We are going to have some good voyages jimmy-boy.”

Exterior shot as the now pulsating craft leads the Enterprise away.

Large words appear onscreen as the music rises!!!!

STAR TREK INTO INFINITY

618. Damian - December 6, 2013

610–I love Star Trek, but yes, there are times I probably wouldn’t talk about it.

On the other hand my wife hates Star Trek and I love torturing her. I love telling her when I see an actor who was in Star Trek. It was real fun when she watched that movie with Chris Pine and Tom Hardy. That was 2 for 1.

“Hey there’s Captain Kirk and Schinzon—hey, is there an echo in here”

619. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2013

edit…

Exterior shot as the now pulsating craft leads the Enterprise away towards a strange swirling and expanding energy rift.

Large words appear onscreen as the music rises!!!!

STAR TREK INTO INFINITY

620. Ahmed - December 6, 2013

Thanks to MJB for the heads up :)

===========================
‘Star Trek 3′ Beams Up Trio of Writers: J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay are set to tackle the third installment of the franchise alongside Roberto Orci.

J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay have been tapped to write Star Trek 3 for Paramount and Skydance Productions.

The duo will join Roberto Orci, who co-wrote the first two installments of the reboot with partner Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof. Orci is working without Kurtzman on this one.

The next Star Trek film is untitled and unscheduled, but Paramount and Skydance are hoping to have a film in time for the franchise to celebrate its 50th anniversary in 2016. Stars Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Zoe Saldana are expected to return.

J.J. Abrams will not be helming the movie due to him directing Star Wars: Episode VII, but he will still be involved as a producer.

Star Trek 3 has no director at this stage, although Joe Cornish, who helmed the geek-favorite movie Attack the Block, is high on the wish list.

Payne and McKay already have a relationship with Abrams. The duo wrote the script adapting Boilerplate, the graphic novel by husband-and-wife comics team Paul Guinan and Anina Bennett.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-trek-3-beams-up-663729
===========================

621. Damian - December 6, 2013

618–Aaargh, its XIII, not 3 (ok I know I’m nitpicking but still).

Interesting to note they consider the stars Pine, Quinto and Saldana. I think it’s pretty clear that Kirk-Spock-Uhura are considered the new triad by the new team. I wouldn’t say they marginalized Urban, but I think he’s been relegated to supporting character.

622. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2013

Great news, Ahmed!

And to think I already have the 1st page completed!

Awesome!

623. boy - December 6, 2013

510. Hugh Hoyland – December 6, 2013
My opinion in Spock’s persona is and has been pretty close to what a lot of fans say about the “Triad”, they want it back to being the original “Triad” (Kirk, Spock, Mccoy). But I think we did see more of that in STID and hopefully more in the sequel.

But on the other hand I can also see why they are doing things the way they are. The S/U relationship does add something different to the mix and probably does connect better with new or casual fans. Maybe we can have both?
====================================

Prepare for disappointments. A lot of people here scream about how bones has been sidelined and uhura gets the blame when in reality the wirters never had the intention of making a trek trinity with kirk, bones and spock.

the writers had set from the get go, as far back as 2007ish that they wanted to tell a kirk and spock story, they never had an intention to add bones to the mix. in the special feature of STID there is a short documentary about the history of the kirk and spock dynamic.

Uhura just seemed she has taken bones place because she is the leading female but people should stop blaming her for that. There is always a leading female in every film.

624. boy - December 6, 2013

510. Hugh Hoyland – December 6, 2013
My opinion in Spock’s persona is and has been pretty close to what a lot of fans say about the “Triad”, they want it back to being the original “Triad” (Kirk, Spock, Mccoy). But I think we did see more of that in STID and hopefully more in the sequel.

But on the other hand I can also see why they are doing things the way they are. The S/U relationship does add something different to the mix and probably does connect better with new or casual fans. Maybe we can have both?
====================================

Prepare for disappointments. A lot of people here scream about how bones has been sidelined and uhura gets the blame when in reality the wirters never had the intention of making a trek trinity with kirk, bones and spock.

the writers had set from the get go, as far back as 2007ish that they wanted to tell a kirk and spock story, they never had an intention to add bones to the mix. in the special feature of STID there is a short documentary about the history of the kirk and spock dynamic.

Uhura just seemed she has taken bones place because she is the leading female but people should stop blaming her for that. There is always a leading female in every film.

625. Ahmed - December 6, 2013

@ 620. TrekMadeMeWonder – December 6, 2013

“Great news, Ahmed!”

Thanks but MJB was the first one who broke the news here.

626. Ahmed - December 6, 2013

@ 619. Damian – December 6, 2013

“618–Aaargh, its XIII, not 3 (ok I know I’m nitpicking but still). ”

It is very annoying when the media keep calling it Star Trek 3. Star Trek III was released in 1984, this one is Star Trek XIII.

627. Gary 8.5 - December 6, 2013

Good luck to the new writing team and Alex Kurtzman in whatever he chooses to do next .

628. Damian - December 6, 2013

I usually refer to it as “the next Star Trek” film. I understand they haven’t numbered the films since Star Trek VI–and they don’t want to infer that you have to watch the first 12 to see the next movie.

But calling it Star Trek 3, something that already exists, will only serve to confuse some.

I imagine the title will follow the same convention as STID. They won’t number it, but give it a subtitle.

629. TrekMadeMeWonderr - December 6, 2013

I guess we are at least fortunante that there are are previous even ten movies.

That’s at least easier to keep trek of.

630. Ahmed - December 6, 2013

More info about the new guys, J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay.

============================

As Heat Vision reports, Payne and McKay will join Orci as the writing team for Star Trek 3. A couple of years ago, J.J. Abrams’ Bad Robot set Payne and McKay to pen the adaptation of the graphic novel-picture book Boilerplate: History’s Mechanical Marvel.

The duo also have written a script for Relativity’s Goliath picture, which appears to be stuck in development, and at last count, a feature film adaptation of the Spike TV series Deadliest Warrior.

As you may have guessed, none of these have gone to fruition. It’s a safe bet that Star Trek 3 will see the light of day, but how much of the script is owed to them remains to be seen.

http://collider.com/star-trek-3-roberto-orci-j-d-payne-patrick-mckay/

============================

I checked IMDB & it is blank !!

Patrick McKay
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4259881/

John D. Payne
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4260438/

631. Barney - December 6, 2013

Major breaking news.

WE HAVE NEW WRITERS FOR TREK 3

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a536612/star-trek-3-hires-writers-roberto-orci-jd-payne-and-patrick-mckay.html

632. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2013

I checked IMDB & it is blank !!

BLANK!!!

boborci, give me a call. I have more professional movie credits!

If I were not ever so humble in my career approach I would have pitched you something serious!

.

.

BLANK!!! : o

633. DiscoSpock - December 6, 2013

Ahmed,

MJB already broke this story here.

634. DiscoSpock - December 6, 2013

But, The Deadly Years IS CANON. This is how an aged Captain Kirk would look — IT’S CANON. Fat 83 year old William Shatner the actor today IS NOT CANON.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
604. Ahmed – December 6, 2013
@602. MJ

“If you don’t believe me, just go back and watch The Deadly Years again — that older version of Kirk portrayed their looks nothing like Shatner today.”

Perhaps you should have provided the makeups guys back then with a time machine, to make sure they get it right !!

When they age actors using makeups, they don’t expect the actor to actually look like that when they hit that age in real life.

Your reason doesn’t make ANY SENSE AT ALL, just my personal onion

635. Ahmed - December 6, 2013

@ 633. DiscoSpock – December 6, 2013

“Ahmed,
MJB already broke this story here.”

I’m sorry but do you even read my post before you comment on it ??

Here is the top of my comment

” 620. Ahmed – December 6, 2013

Thanks to MJB for the heads up :)”

636. LogicalLeopard - December 6, 2013

597. crazydaystrom – December 6, 2013

By that logic, Patrick Stewart was horribly cast as Jean Luc Picard. I see your logic…

No I think you don’t see my logic here. The Steward/Picard comparison is not an apt one.

If I read him correctly Damian was speaking of a character in universe who was trained to speak a way he did not previous to that training. Picard’s character was established and always, in universe, spoke with Steward’s real world accent. Two different things. Now if Picard had been recast (which very well may someday happen) and the new actor played Picard with, say, a French accent, THEN you would have an apt comparison.

——————————

So youre saying,

1) Khan is speaking with an accent he was trained to adopt in STID. (This is not something established in canon, but we assume its part of his new identity.)

1) The character Picard spoke with an English accent, like Patrick Stewart. Even though his character was borb and raised in France, spoke French (he sang Frere Jacques in French with those kids)

Okay, so yeah, its not an apt direct comparison, because on one ebd you’re asking the question of why does Khan continue to speak with what we presume is an accent adopted for a cover identity after he blows his own coververses why does a Frenchman speak with and English accent when he’s French.

But Im not making a direct comparison. I’m asking why are people bothered by the preposterousness of Khan not reverting to his natural accent in one movie when we all accepted the GREATER preopsterousness of Picards situation for seven seasons and four movies?

637. Ahmed - December 6, 2013

@ 634. DiscoSpock – December 6, 2013

“But, The Deadly Years IS CANON. This is how an aged Captain Kirk would look — IT’S CANON. Fat 83 year old William Shatner the actor today IS NOT CANON. ”

LOL, so the makeup guys went into the future & they saw how Captain Kirk will look like when he is old & then came back & used the makeup to match his looks ??

You hate Shatner so much, that you don’t even make any sense at all.

638. LogicalLeopard - December 6, 2013

600. MJ – December 6, 2013
To you Einsteins talking about Brit’s playing Frenchies, and vice versa, you are aware that these countries have intermingled populations significantly since (and before, including back to the Romans) the Norman Conquest, right?

Talk about coming across as ignorant???

****************************

Vell, Meester Em Jay (authentic German Einstein Accent) Zere ees a diffrunce beetween intermeengling through rrrreproduction and intermeengling accents.

*cough*

Sure the populations have intermingled, and I’m sure there are expressions and language intermingling too. But do you honestly think that French people in the 24th Century sound like English people, while Scottish People, who SHARE THE SAME ISLAND with English people sound like….well, Scottish people?

639. LogicalLeopard - December 6, 2013

Y’know, Shatner is really taking some abuse. A guy turns 83, and he’s not entitled to be fat? He can’t act? I got two words for you: DENNY CRANE! *LOL* Give him a break, he’ll probably never be in the next movie, but if they wanted to shoehorn him in, they could. All they have to do is get an alternate version of Kirk, either an older version of Pine or a alternate version that didn’t die at Veridian III

640. Red Dead Ryan - December 6, 2013

#639. LogicalLeopard

C’mon, there’s no way that Shatner could logically be included in the next movie without some convoluted and lame reasoning taking up a significant portion of the movie.

Plus, Pine and Shatner don’t look much alike.

641. Curious Cadet - December 6, 2013

@ 588. TUP,
“over your head I see. Khan in STID is the same Khan from Space Seed. The altered universe did not diverge until well after the Botany Bay was floating in space.”

No I’m afraid you are.

QM MWI posits that there are infinite parallel universes, where anything that can happen will. If we accept this premise, based solely on Bob Orci’s intent (I don’t believe even Abrams has ever acknowledged QM MWI), then not only can we not know which universe “Prime” Spock came from, but the Khan from this universe could easily be totally different than in the Space Seed universe. There’s nothing in either movie that tells us, regardless of what Orci says off-camera, and considering Khan looks completely different than in Space Seed, that is one likely explanation.

You may not like it, but that’s how it works **IF** you subscribe to Orci’s QM MWI philosophy, which he tied to Star Trek canon with the TNG episode “Parallels”.

On the other hand, QM MWI is not canon either, it’s merely Orci’s stated intent. So the time travel in ST09 could work just like it did in TOS, and everything could be restored once the Enterprise learns how to slingshot around the sun, which didn’t happen for 7 more years in TOS.

642. dmduncan - December 6, 2013

519. LogicalLeopard – December 6, 2013

*LOL* I was brainwashing myself! And you know, I don’t think that’s such a bad thing. It helps to appreciate the movie. At some point, you have to not let some things nag you. It’s like the first movie,

***

And one way of not letting it nag you is to stop being a customer of it. That’s what I did with Enterprise, for example. I didn’t bitch…probably because there was no one to really bitch TO. I just drifted away from watching the show and did other things instead.

I actually prefer to let it nag me in this case as long as someone is listening. I suppose I still have some dim hope of trying to make it better with my feedback.

643. dmduncan - December 6, 2013

Matt Wright, if you are reading these—do you have a direct email @ Trekmovie that I can contact you at?

644. Curious Cadet - December 6, 2013

@ 637. Ahmed,
“so the makeup guys went into the future & they saw how Captain Kirk will look like when he is old & then came back & used the makeup to match his looks ??”

Here’s the thing about how Kirk aged in The Deadly Years — the canon explanation:

It was accelerated. Considering how dramatically his body changed in such a short time, his metabolism must have been cranked, burning every calorie he had to effect the massive changes. He was like a teenage boy in reverse. There was no time for Kirk to gain the gradual fat layer that an aging senior with slowing metabolism and reduced activity would have years to acquire. So there would definitely be a difference between how Kirk’s appearance would be changed if he aged normally and how it was when rapidly accelerated.

We all saw Scotty gain significant weight in the later films, something that didn’t happen in Deadly Years. So there’s canon evidence that something different was happening in The Dead Years than in the normal aging process.

645. Ahmed - December 6, 2013

@643. dmduncan

Matt email address is listed in the about page:

matt [AT] trekmovie [DOT] com

646. crazydaystrom - December 7, 2013

640. Red Dead Ryan
#639. LogicalLeopard

C’mon, there’s no way that Shatner could logically be included in the next movie without some convoluted and lame reasoning taking up a significant portion of the movie.

And that is the reason this Shat fan would rather he not be a major part of the film.

And the fact of the matter is at his and Nimoy’s age they could die at any time. Morbid thought, I know, but the reality of mortality. Most people who reach their eighties do not make it to their nineties. I hope these guys do but the odds are significantly against it. Assail me for that bit of morbid reality but it’s just another of several reasons to be very careful about considering any of the original cast for important roles in the next movie. A small but poignant bit as was written for ’09, sure. But no large parts that the whole film pivot on.

Hmm, morbid + reality = mortality?

647. Disinvited - December 8, 2013

Well FWIW here’s another OF’s perspective:

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a536609/disney-secures-indiana-jones-future-film-rights-from-paramount.html

“I don’t think there is any barrier to Indiana Jones being an old fart. I’m old enough that we don’t need [Sean] Connery anymore – I’m old enough to play my own father!” – Harrison Ford

648. crazydaystrom - December 8, 2013

647. Disinvited
Yeah Ford loves Indiana Jones. Wish he felt the same way about Han Solo.

649. Curious Cadet - December 8, 2013

@ 647 Disinvited,

Wow that’s harsh. Ford is only 10 years younger than Connery.

Frankly, I’d rather see Connery play almost any role they’d hire Ford for these days. He’s aged much better than Ford, and is still consistent with the actor I fell in love with in my youth. Ford seems to walk through roles anymore. Heck, being the same age as Shatner I’d prefer to see Connery play Kirk, accent and all.

650. Trek Lady - December 8, 2013

@Damien “Like it or not. Star Trek (2009) and STID were huge hits. You might hate it, which is fine. There have been movies I hated that have otherwise been hits. But they did make lots of money and were overall popular movies. That might bring in new fans, and along with it the possibility of future Star Trek, eventually beyond Abrams’ time with the franchise. ”

I spend a lot of time dabbling in online fandom, and my overall impression is that ST2009 brought with it an influx of excited, new fans into the fandom, but STID alienated many of those very same fans without bringing in very many more….

651. TUP - December 9, 2013

Logicalleopard – Khan didnt have a brit accent in Space Seed. He was not a brit.

Picard being born in France… so what? There are no Brits in France?

652. UniversoStarTrek - December 9, 2013

Abrams is now in Star Wars. It is time to look to the future and not the past.

653. LogicalLeopard - December 10, 2013

640. Red Dead Ryan – December 6, 2013
#639. LogicalLeopard

C’mon, there’s no way that Shatner could logically be included in the next movie without some convoluted and lame reasoning taking up a significant portion of the movie.

Plus, Pine and Shatner don’t look much alike.

****************************

The key phrase there is “convoluted and lame reasoning taking up a significant portion of the movie.” *LOL* That’s mostly true, but not exclusively true. I’d like to think my “Crazy Alternate Future Kirk” cameo works – the setup is already a part of the plot of the movie and the cameo would be just that, a quick cameo. As far as Pine and Shatner not looking alike, they don’t have to. All that’s required to sell it is that the audience knows Pine is Kirk, and they know that Shatner is Kirk. It’s like the first movie with Nimoy and Quinto.

654. LogicalLeopard - December 10, 2013

Logicalleopard – Khan didnt have a brit accent in Space Seed. He was not a brit.

Picard being born in France… so what? There are no Brits in France?

******************

Picard was born and RAISED in France. There may be Brits in France, but Picard is not a Brit. He was born there, and apparently lived there until he went into Starfleet. And his parents werent British either, he is from a long line of Picards who were winemakers. The character of Picard should NOT have a British accent, any way you cut it, period. Even if you believe that English is Federation Standard, or Federation Standard “sounds” like English to us, and Picard speaks it flawlessly, without accent……why doesn’t Scotty or Chekov speak it flawlessly? Doesn’t make sense, any way you cut it. But why don’t more people object to it? Because we SUSPENDED DISBELIEF and rolled with it. And I’m fine with that.

Khan wasn’t a Brit, but Khan wasn’t Mexican either. McGivers pegged him as Northern Indian. I don’t know what kind of accent RM was attempting, but it wasn’t Indian. So, if you’re saying that Khan should have reverted back to his regular accent in STID, which one is that? Is that the one from Space Seed which is NOT accurate, or a more accurate one that RM never spoke with?

655. TUP - December 10, 2013

The fatal flaw with your logic is, ofcourse, that Picard *does* have a brit accent. So it is of no use in any debate about Khan.

Khan was *not* Brit, but also did not have a Brit accent. That is estbalished canon. Period.

As for Shatner’s inclusion requring a convoluted plot, both 09 and STID had convoluted plots. 09 dealt with theres by having the anvil-dropping mind meld between Spock and Kirk that explained away an entire films’ worth of backstory in 30 seconds.

656. LogicalLeopard - December 10, 2013

654. TUP – December 10, 2013
The fatal flaw with your logic is, ofcourse, that Picard *does* have a brit accent. So it is of no use in any debate about Khan.
***********************

Er….what? *LOL* I know he does, and it doesn’t make sense. Just like Khan DOES speak with a British Accent in STID, but it doesn’t make sense for him to continue after his identity is established, right?

*LOL* This is kind of becoming laughable. Picard speaks with a British Accent. He shouldnt, because he is French. Khan continues to speak with a British Accent after he reveals himself to be Khan. He shouldn’t, because there’s no reason for him to do so. Do you acknowledge those two facts?

***********************

Khan was *not* Brit, but also did not have a Brit accent. That is estbalished canon. Period.

***************************

So what kind of accent is Khan supposed to have? A Mexican one?

****************************

As for Shatner’s inclusion requring a convoluted plot, both 09 and STID had convoluted plots. 09 dealt with theres by having the anvil-dropping mind meld between Spock and Kirk that explained away an entire films’ worth of backstory in 30 seconds.

**********************************

Uhm….that’s what I was saying. It’s hard to imagine working Shatner into the movie without taking up a significant portion of the movie, and having a shoehorned, lame reasoning. Hard to imagine, but not IMPOSSIBLE. It’s like the example you mentioned. Prior to seeing the movie, I wondered how they would work him in. It didn’t really seem worth it. But when you see the movie, it works pretty prefectly because it’s imbedded in the overall story. That’s what I was talking about with my example, from post 534.

657. LogicalLeopard - December 10, 2013

You know, maybe everyone should stop focusing on Shatner and look at other ways of honoring Trek’s 50th Anniversary. I think it should not be limited to the movie. There should be a good television documentary special, a television movie, and a bigscreen movie. Bonus if you can have them all tie in somehow, even if it’s through the use of an app like the STID app.

Question: If there was a television movie produced, what would you like to see? Something in the Abramsverse? Something focusing on the loose ends of DS9 or ENT? A merge of DS9/TNG/VOY?

I think it’d be great to make something that could spring off into a new series, if popular enough, but I’m not sure how that would work. If it’s Abramsverse, it probably wouldn’t take place simultaneously with the movies, because the producers woudn’t want anything to step on potential plots for future movies. Also, there’s the “Next Generation Rule”, or basically the thought that people won’t see movies if they can see the tv show at home. I think it’d be interesting to see a TNG reboot one-shot special. Maybe even have a cameo from some of the movie actors. Karl Urban’d probably wear old person makeup to help launch the Enterprise, wouldn’t he? *L* .

658. TUP - December 10, 2013

30 seconds of the movie is a “significant” time to explain Shatner’s inclusion? They took 30 seconds to shoe-horn a convoluted explanation for Nero, Spock, the future, the red matter, time travel etc etc etc. Im saying these writers have shown that they wont let confusion get in the way of the story they want to tell.

As for Khan, here’s my point. Picard, as established in canon, is a French born person with a slight accent (its much closer to Kelsey Grammer than it is to the Queen). Who knows why that it is. Maybe in the 24th century, that region of France has a strong Brit population. Maybe Picard spent a lot of time across the river. Who knows. I knew a girl who grew up here (Canada) and went to England to teach for a very short period of time. She very quickly developed an accent.

But…Khan was established in canon as looking and talking like RM. Now you cant cast RM but just like EVERY OTHER CHARACTER, you can cast someone who resembles the character.

Canon means Picard speaks how he does.

Canon means Khan does not speak how he does in STID.

659. LogicalLeopard - December 10, 2013

657. TUP – December 10, 2013
30 seconds of the movie is a “significant” time to explain Shatner’s inclusion? They took 30 seconds to shoe-horn a convoluted explanation for Nero, Spock, the future, the red matter, time travel etc etc etc. Im saying these writers have shown that they wont let confusion get in the way of the story they want to tell.

*******************************************

Like I said, it all depends on how it’s done. It seems like a daunting task, but it can certainly be done. I think the real question is, “Why?” I don’t think there’s a sufficent demand for Shatner. I’d like to see him play Kirk again, but not enough to demand it, or even suggest it.

*********************************************

As for Khan, here’s my point. Picard, as established in canon, is a French born person with a slight accent (its much closer to Kelsey Grammer than it is to the Queen). Who knows why that it is. Maybe in the 24th century, that region of France has a strong Brit population. Maybe Picard spent a lot of time across the river. Who knows. I knew a girl who grew up here (Canada) and went to England to teach for a very short period of time. She very quickly developed an accent.

***********************************************

That’s the point. Picard didn’t spend a lot of his time across the river, and the area is not known to have a strong Brit population. Everything about Picard’s history, and there’s a considerable amount, indicates that he grew up in France speaking French around other French people. Yet he has an English Accent. Sometimes people have an accent shift when they spend a singificant amount of time around others, but it’s never a total shift so much that you’d think they were born there. And I’m sure your friend didn’t come home sounding like she was born and raised there and/or spoke that way for the next few years.

You can’t really get around it – there is NO reason why Picard should have a British accent. None, whatsoever. He grew up on his family’s generational vineyard and went straight to the academy. Which, incidentally, is in the United States. So, he’d be surrounded by people of all different accents, Terran and Alien, at the Academy, and if he ventured outside of the complex, would be surrounded by Californians. NO reason for him to have an accent. Yet we all overlooked it.

**************************************

But…Khan was established in canon as looking and talking like RM. Now you cant cast RM but just like EVERY OTHER CHARACTER, you can cast someone who resembles the character.

Canon means Picard speaks how he does.

Canon means Khan does not speak how he does in STID.

*********************************************

So, you’d have the same argument if they picked an Indian actor, if he spoke with an Indian accent. He should speak with a Mexican accent, like RM, right?

I see what you’re saying as far as canon, but it really sounds kind of silly. Accents of Trek do NOT always match up to how they should sound. Picard is the best example of that. You could have a similar argument about Uhura and LaForge, except that Uhura’s background is not very well defined in canon, and Laforge spent a lot of time traveling as a child. . Picard was ROOTED in France for his early life, until he went to SFA.

So my point is this: Khan doesn’t sound right? Not a big deal – Suspend disbelief. If we can do it for Picard, we can do it for Khan.

660. Basement Blogger - December 10, 2013

The big problem with STID was not the secrecy of Khan. It was the utter lack of publicity one year before the movie’s release. In this day and age, if you’re one year out from release, you got to have a presence at Comic Con. Second, the Supreme Court should have been doing ANY publicity for Star Trek in general. Maybe for SyFy, there could have been a Star Trek marathon of TV shows. With hosts J.J. Abrams, Bob Orci and maybe a TOS star. Star Trek needed a Czar, someone who would bang the drum for Star Trek. Bob Orci would be the perfect guy. Let’s just hope for the fiftieth anniversary, that there’s a yearlong celebration of Star Trek.

661. TUP - December 11, 2013

Re: Picard/Khan – If they cast an Indian actor I would not expect him to speak with an RM accent. I would also not expect him to speak with a thick Indian accent either. You cant clone actors so you work with what you’ve got. If they cast BC as James Kirk would we except Kirk with a Brit accent? No, thats ridiculous. But we accept this Kirk has a large mole where William Shatner does not. Those are irrelevent things. BC playing the exact same character that RM played is not irrelevent.

Re: Shatner – The time to strike was when the iron was hot, which was closer to Shatner’s time on Boston Legal where he became a very respected and awarded actor. But I think the right marketing campaign would work – if they announced Shatner early, held up his credentials and had him doing “serious” PR, it would garner a lot of interest.

I think Nimoy Spock could easily explain whatever reason they use for Shatner’s inclusion, whether its to explain what happened in “his” time or explain the Nexus or whatever they do. Remember, if you were a casual fan who didnt see 09, you watched STID and were baffled at Nimoy’s appearance. There is a certain amount of leeway where someone who doesnt know anything about Star Trek has to just accept things.

re: Khan Secrecy/Lack of Publicity – certainly, Paramount and Bad Robot dropped the ball marketing STID. The secrecy is silly in this day and age. Abrams erected a giant wall at one point during filming. I mean, I get it, but you just cant keep all the secrets as this movie proved. EVERYONE knew he was Khan so it wasnt a surprise, it was a disappointment. And quite frankly, BC’s portrayal and the script made it rather ridiculous

662. LogicalLeopard - December 11, 2013

As far as Picard/Khan, an Indian actor would HAVE to fake a Mexican-type accent to stay faithful to Khan’s actual accent in Space Seed, if that accent is canon. An Indian accent would not be canon. Thats why when it comes to accents, I just prefer to suspend disbelief, because they’ve made some pretty big errors in the past, namely Picard. I don’t know what it is about accents in Hollywood. Doohan and Koenig are asked to fake accents, but Stewart and Cumberbatch aren’t. That just strikes me as weird. Upon a little more thought, I think a possible reason for the lack of an accent switch with BC is that they didn’t want to draw away from his performance. An accent switch would have been truer to the character, but might have produced an unwanted distraction or been denounced as a caracature. You and I might disagree, and prefer to see an Indian accent, but I think that may have been the reason.

Re Shatner: Well, you wouldn’t need a marketing campaign, you just could keep it “secret.” I don’t know any person who would avoid going to see a movie because William Shatner had a cameo in it, outside of anyone who may know him personally and hate him. But the bottom line is, why? There’s only three reasons I can think of to include any TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT actor in the new movies: 1) It is the first movie in a new series, in need of a “passing of the torch,” 2)The story calls for it 3) The actor/character is in such high demand, they would attract a greater audience. Number one doesn’t apply, because this is the third movie, number two may or may not apply, given the story, and number three is not true. The public isn’t going to flock to see William Shatner and the fanbase is divided on him. Like I said, I don’t think anyone is going to stay home if he was in the new movie, but he’s not going to exactly draw many people to the theaters, either. So why use him, unless your story can allow for him? And you definately shouldn’t write a story to use him in. There are too many directions you can go in with this new cast to devote time to writing a story about incorporating William Shatner into it.

As far as secrecy, I agree with you, secrecy is pretty silly in this day and age. I don’t think everyone knew it was Khan, because we all vacillated between different people on this BBS until the movie premiered, I think. At one point, I thought the suggestion that he was Robert April was beyond ridiculous, then a week or so later, I was entertaining it *LOL* But I think you should keep things free and easy, no walls, etc, just cover up the major surprises. Like if you were to do a cameo, do that on a secure set.

663. TUP - December 11, 2013

Dont keep Shatner secret. I maintain part of 09s success was people wanting to see Nimoy as Spock “one last time”. I guarantee that no matter who’s in the next movie, if Shatner is in it, it becomes “Star Trek 3 featuring William Shatner’s return to the iconic role he originated” and thats good.

664. No Khan - December 12, 2013

Using Khan was the mistake!

665. dmduncan - December 12, 2013

659. LogicalLeopard – December 10, 2013

But…Khan was established in canon as looking and talking like RM. Now you cant cast RM but just like EVERY OTHER CHARACTER, you can cast someone who resembles the character.

***

Oh but when I suspend disbelief in TOS, it is regarding what they had to do relative to what they were aiming for.

So when I watch Space Seed I suspend disbelief regarding Khan’s Mexican accent, because there was no canon when that episode was shot, and therefore the true explanation for why Khan speaks with one is not within canon. Canon is fan revisionism to make sense of a fictional world that they want to pretend they can live within, in which contradictions interfere with the illusion and so must be explained away.

That’s why I like to mention the graphic posters of space imagery on the bridge. That’s canon too. And those posters were intended to represent monitors. Of course that is the illusion they were aiming for and which you have to suspend disbelief to accept them as, because they are terribly unconvincing as such.

So if I am a canonista, it would have to be regarding intent as opposed to how most fans seem to be canonistas; in other words, I look at what they were trying to do, when I think about canon, rather than what the limitations they were laboring under forced them to do, whereas most fans look literally at what they did, and then tie themselves into knots trying to explain away nonsensicalities.

In the end they fail, and simply have to suspend disbelief as I do, but I eliminate the wasteful step those fans take by not trying to make all the nonsense parts fit together.

You guys get to where I am eventually, so I keep the stove warm and the light on for you. ;-)

My point of view also explains what I mean by doing things bigger and better than they did before.

If you compare what they were trying to do to what they actually did, then wherever they failed to hit their target creates the chance for others to “hit” where they “missed.”

Now, last night I caught George Takei on Conan. Apparently, Benedict Cumberbatch was on as well, but I missed his portion. When Conan asked George about his take on the Benedict Cumberbatch casting, George basically expressed the same shock that so very very many of us had. And that was about ALL he expressed to Conan about it.

So it looks like the only people who thought it was a good decision were Benedict Cumberbatch and the ones who made it and tried to keep it secret until the last second.

666. TUP - December 13, 2013

If they wanted to cast someone more resembling the history of the character, then WoK was the time to do it. They didnt (fortunately) and thus, RM truly iconicised the character.

I caught WoK on TV last night and two things jump out at me.

1) How absolutely absurd the casting of BC was.

2) How could William Shatner was. He was very selfless in playing Kirk as an aging former great Captain. he let himself look old and weary. And played a lot of subtle emotion. Fantastic actor.

667. Gary - December 18, 2013

Slightly off topic: Bob Orci, do you know if they are planning a blu ray of this with the IMAX footage uncropped?

668. The Keeper - December 18, 2013

Poor Benedict Cumberbatch, he’s scared his career by accepting a role that never should have be written about in the first place.
JJ might be a good director, but his choices in trusting his writers has destroyed his creditability.
To blindly continue to go with even one of these writers leads me to believe that another empty thoughtless and insulting installment awaits us all.

Of course while JJ is now merely only producing Star Trek, Bob Oreo (pun intended) will no doubt continue with his smuggish ways in regards to the foundational fans that are the true support of Star Trek and basically spit on us all while wiping his ass all over the core of Star Trek just so he can have his way.

Bob do us all a favor and leave already.

669. Disinvited - December 18, 2013

#668. The Keeper – December 18, 2013

It is not as if JJ sat it a chair with his name on it and magically stopped being a writer himself. After reading interviews from Lindelof and Giacchino detailing the changes Abrams demanded and the angles he wanted explored, I’m convinced he is ultimately responsible for the narratives he released and not just as a titular head would stop the buck.

So the STID spoils, kudos, and/or jeers are his to bear from my perspective.

670. Keachick - December 22, 2013

To the Keeper: “do us all a favor and leave already”.

Anyone who writes “basically spit on us all while wiping his ass all over…” renders any opinion they might have as being defunct.

671. K-7 - December 31, 2013

Spock’s Bangs, I presume?

=========================================

668. The Keeper – December 18, 2013
Poor Benedict Cumberbatch, he’s scared his career by accepting a role that never should have be written about in the first place.
JJ might be a good director, but his choices in trusting his writers has destroyed his creditability.
To blindly continue to go with even one of these writers leads me to believe that another empty thoughtless and insulting installment awaits us all.

Of course while JJ is now merely only producing Star Trek, Bob Oreo (pun intended) will no doubt continue with his smuggish ways in regards to the foundational fans that are the true support of Star Trek and basically spit on us all while wiping his ass all over the core of Star Trek just so he can have his way.

Bob do us all a favor and leave already.

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