What may be in Trek XII? (potential spoilers!)

[Graham Kennedy]

Since we haven't talked too much about this and rumours are starting to fly, I thought I'd post what I've seen here. Pretty much everything in the thread is at least a potential spoiler, so there didn't seem much point in having all of the posts in spoiler tags. So don't read on if you don't want spoilers!




Seriously, look away!




So, here is what I've heard, summarised...

1) The next film will involve Khan as the bad guy.
2) Khan will be played by Benedict Cumberbatch, who you may know from the recent "Sherlock" series.
3) The Klingons will also feature

Regarding Khan... well, I'm not sure it's a good idea to go there. Comparisons will inevitably be drawn to Ricardo's Khan, who is perhaps the single best-regarded villain in Trek history. But then again, JJ has not shied away from having big boots to fill. After all, he recast Kirk and Spock and McCoy and the rest, and not only got away with it but did a pretty acclaimed job of it. So he's clearly willing to take on those kinds of challenges and has so far shown himself up to the task, too.

That said, Benedict Cumberbatch? This guy :



As Khan, of all people? He doesn't convey the physicality I would have expected from the "genetic superman". Nor does he look the least like the Asian warrior. I guess the magic of genetic engineering can be invoked to make a relatively slender guy ten times stronger than any muscle man, but I do wonder how that will sell on the big screen. Or alternately, I wonder if they will go a different route, and make Khan a much more intellectual enemy for Kirk. Will we get a story of ploys and tricks and manoeuvring?

Also, you have to wonder about the whole timeline aspect. I can buy a different actor as Khan without resting to "it's alternate" as an explanation - after all, Chris Pine doesn't look like a young Shatner, so there's no real reason why Cumberbatch needs to look like a young Montalban. But if they are going to change Khan's characterisation radically? If they are going to alter his back story? Change the Botany Bay significantly? What do we do to explain that? Push the branching point back, in direct contradiction to the previous film? Or just admit that the last two films are a total reboot, nothing to do with the original, and get over it?

Regarding the Klingons, from what I have read their part has been described as "one not easily cut from the film". Which makes me think that they have something significant going on in the film, but not all that significant. I will be intrigued to see what changes, if any, JJ goes with. Will he change their look yet again? Will he change their culture? Will they be allies of Khan, opponents to him, or players in their own right?

Lots to wonder about...

[Mikey]

Khan = manipulation. If the Klingons are that intrinsically involved, I can't escape the conclusion that it will be as pawns - perhaps unwitting ones - of Khan.

That said, on recasting Khan: well, the fact is that Abrams couldn't get Montalban. If the new film was set on using Khan, then a recast was necessary. Such being the case it's probably better to reimagine the character rather than to try and evoke Montalban from someone who isn't Montalban.

[Graham Kennedy]

I dunno. The cast do a pretty damn good job of "being" the TOS characters, after all.

[Mikey]

I dunno. The cast do a pretty damn good job of "being" the TOS characters, after all.

To an extent, but I never got the impression that Pine ended up doing a Shatner impression (for example,) nor should he have. They portray the same characters as the TOS cast, but I never saw what appeared to me to be an attempt to emulate the portrayals.

[Graham Kennedy]

I thought they did it to some extent - McCoy was almost a direct copy, right down to some of the same lines. Scotty was probably least like the original interpretation. I just couldn't see Pegg's Scotty becoming Doohan's fifteen years down the road. Pine I thought didn't ape Kirk as such, but came across as a "young" Kirk - he was Kirk but more impulsive, more sex-obsessed, more brash, more determined. Basically Kirk but lacking the maturity, which is just what we'd expect.

The trouble with this is that, we would expect the TOS characters to be somewhat different. They're younger, and people change as they age. Plus, given the Kelvin as a branching point, they have had somewhat different childhoods than the TOS characters got. So it's excusable.

But Khan... if we take the Kelvin as a branching point then the character in this film should be the exact same one as we saw in TOS. I can forgive him looking different because it's not like we can clone Ricardo, but why would his character be significantly different?

[Mikey]

There's the sticky wicket. OOU and production-wise, trying to have someone imitate Montalban is doomed to failure. OTOH, if you don't have your Khan imitate Montalban, you had better have a pretty slick IU explanation to hand as to why Khan isn't more like Khan. It's for things like this that, for good or ill, Abrams has a brass set when it comes to his creative direction.

BTW, I'll give you McCoy. Pine, I thought, took some cues from TOS but didn't try to impersonate Shat's performance; certainly Pegg and Quinto brought a good deal of themselves to their roles.

[Graham Kennedy]

The bullet that needs to be bitten is that the whole "Alternate timeline" thing really is just an excuse for a reboot. Fact is that this is a new and different spin on Star Trek and it's going to use what it wants to from the original, how it wants to use it, and discard the rest.

Gotta say, if we can get a movie that's as good as the last one then I don't really mind too much. I guess I'm mellowing in my old age but arguments about canon and timelines just don't mean as much to me now as they did 10 years ago...

[Mikey]

The bullet that needs to be bitten is that the whole "Alternate timeline" thing really is just an excuse for a reboot. Fact is that this is a new and different spin on Star Trek and it's going to use what it wants to from the original, how it wants to use it, and discard the rest.

Gotta say, if we can get a movie that's as good as the last one then I don't really mind too much. I guess I'm mellowing in my old age but arguments about canon and timelines just don't mean as much to me now as they did 10 years ago...

I agree with you 100%. Personally, I'd rather see an overt expression of the Abrams films being a reboot rather than a ham-handed and unsatisfying attempt to shoehorn them in to the milieu.

[McAvoy]

Yeah I just don't care about that anymore. This is nuTrek and it is what is keeping the franchise afloat for the moment.

I loved the new TOS actors except for the new Scotty. I honestly think he was chosen for the fact that he does comedy and he could have filled any other random member job to fill that role.

Hopefully Khan will be as good as McCoy. Though do you think DeForest Kelley could pull off the 'space is darkness and disease' line?

[Captain Picard's Hair]

Personally I was never as dedicated to strict interpretation of canon as some. Taken on its own, Abrams' first film was a highly engaging and fun story; if his second can live up to the original we should all be thrilled.

As to the characters, the new interpretation of Scotty bugged me too. It seemed like he was more of a vehicle for comedic lines than a serious character compared to the other cast members, albeit also portrayed as a genius and he did play his part to save ship and crew. McCoy 2.0 was almost too close, but I won't complain too much since he was a great character to start with and McCoy 2.0 was a joy to watch. I liked the new Spock, and also thought his character was a good portrayal of Spock's inner divide. Given that the plot of ST involved the Vulcans so heavily it'll be interesting to see how that storyline is continued. The interplay between a very young Kirk and Spock worked very well in the first film and I could see that friendship helping to mold the maturation of Kirk in a way.

The fact that the performance of Montalban can't be reproduced is obvious. On the other hand, this Trek film would start fresh with Khan, lacking the back story from Space Seed and the resulting rage which drove the plot of TWOK, so it's natural that the Khan of TWOK won't exist here. We only did get a relatively small glimpse of Khan in the original Space Seed. This leaves Abrams a fair bit of room to experiment with Khan, in a first meeting with Kirk staged differently. The origins of the character haven't been wiped out if Abrams is to respect canon, but that may not be necessary to re-imagine Khan's place in the story given that the circumstances will be different - if the story is well written. It's a bit risky to invite comparisons to the original character (and in another sense to invite challenges to canon, for those so concerned) but as with all media it all comes down to execution.

[Graham Kennedy]

From what I read, "the story is not simply a rehash of Space Seed".

Ooo, here's a "what if" they could play with (suggested by our rarely seem member T'Pau). What if Khan's ship was found by the Klingons? What if he struck some kind of deal or alliance with them...?

[McAvoy]

From what I read, "the story is not simply a rehash of Space Seed".

Ooo, here's a "what if" they could play with (suggested by our rarely seem member T'Pau). What if Khan's ship was found by the Klingons? What if he struck some kind of deal or alliance with them...?

Very interesting what if indeed.

[Mikey]

I didn't have any sort of the aforementioned problems with Pegg's Scotty, perhaps because his character was so close to mine in his use of wry humor in situations in which other people wouldn't be as apt to joking. I thought it was a good homage to TOS Scotty, because we saw that humor dropped when the most important thing (to him) was at question - the ship.

[Jim]

Any villian, ANY, would be better than Nero. A crew member could get a hang-nail and it would be better...

[Graham Kennedy]

Meh, I liked Nero.