Could Khan Be Back For 'Star Trek' Sequel?
#1
Posted 19 November 2009 - 07:31 PM
New movie will play with time, relationships and possibly even the popular classic villain
The idea of bringing back Khan is enough to give any Star Trek fan goose bumps. He was harsh, calculating and is considered the greatest villain of the franchise.
But, although no decisions have been made on if there is even a place for Khan in the new movie, director J.J. Abrams has hinted he could be back.
"We're not even at that stage yet," he said. "But the fun of where we are on the sequel is we could use some of what was done before in a new way. But we haven't even figured out what we would use yet, so it's very early on."
Whether or not Khan will indeed be back is something that may play out into a potential third movie. Previous reports have teased that the next story could play out over two movies similar to that of other franchises, however screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have insisted that their aim is to make the next movie as good as it can be ... and if that means keeping the story as a single entity then that's what they will do.
One thing they are conscious of, though, is not in re-walking the ground tread in the first movie. High on the agenda: The relationship between Spock and Uhura.
"You can't play that same joke again," Abrams said. "It's got to be about 'What is their relationship?' and 'Who are these people?' That's why the next one, hopefully while still maintaining the sense of fun and adventure, can go a little bit deeper in terms of the script."
And part of the way they may accomplish that is through some play on the timing of the movie.
"One of the things we like to do as storytellers is drop you in the middle of something," producer Damon Lindelof said. "And the question that you're asking yourself is 'Where am I in relation to the last time I left these guys?' Could this be something that predated even, perhaps, some of the adventures that they had in the first movie? Does it happen five years later? Is it happening two seconds later? Who knows? So we're not going to tell you."
The current "Star Trek" movie is now available on DVD and Blu-ray
Freddie Prinz Jr will be Khan. Bank on it. If they can make the kid from the 3rd Rock from the Sun Cobra Commander, anything is possible.
#2
Posted 19 November 2009 - 08:34 PM
#3
Posted 20 November 2009 - 01:08 PM
#4
Posted 20 November 2009 - 02:12 PM
#5
Posted 20 November 2009 - 05:33 PM
#6
Posted 20 November 2009 - 06:35 PM
According to the Star Charts book, the Planet Sarpedien (not sure of proper spelling) that the Enterprise visited in "All Our Yesterdays" is right smack in the middle of Cardassian Space. So given that point, then in the mid-23rd century, I'm sure the Cardassians would have been a known species, even if they were not yet a major power or a military threat.
#7
Posted 20 November 2009 - 07:27 PM
#8
Posted 21 November 2009 - 05:56 AM
It's not often I find myself agreeing with the Donster these days, but I'm dead against the new movie franchise trying to tread in the footfalls of the old one. For a start it shows a lack of imagination, but it also doesn't make best use having a new continuity to play with. I'm really dead against Khan or any other old Trek movie villain showing up just to give the writers an excuse to play out their own fanboy reworkings of old Trek stories, or to cash in on Khan just because Khan is popular. I say that they should leave that to the fanfic writers and press on with trying to find something new to play with in their new continuity.
I'm really not interested in reworkings of old Trek movies. Thatw ould be a deal breaker for me, along with more Klingon Kliches - no thanks. Create your own aliens guys!
#9
Posted 21 November 2009 - 06:47 AM
#10
Posted 22 November 2009 - 09:56 PM
My buddy had a great idea...what if the opening of the film ( First 5-10 minutes) is a quick work up of one of the 5 year mission episodes like "Corbomite Maneuver" ...than after the credits... starts a whole new story never seen in TOS.
#11
Posted 23 November 2009 - 12:22 AM
THANK YOU! I thought I was the only one that didn't care for TF2 as much as i liked the first one
#12
Posted 23 November 2009 - 03:39 AM
Anyway, I really hope that the writers capitalise on their new territory and just produce a load of new stories instead of trying the fanboy retreads, because doing that will quite simply make them as guilty as some of those worst Prime Universe writers. Going back to Khan is just lazy.
#13
Posted 23 November 2009 - 06:42 AM
It's a shame they used him up as Capt Robau because I think that Faran Tahir would have made a KILLER Khan.
#14
Posted 23 November 2009 - 07:17 AM
This is the problem I have with much of Hollywood these days: they claim something is going to be "new" , "fresh", and "edgy", but what we actually get is a more high-tech rendering of an old story. The plot of ST09 was basically lifted mostly out of old Trek movies, and to my mind, the only way they can do anything interesting with Khan is to have him return to Earth as a genuine threat. I mean, do we really need to redo Space Seed when it was such a great episode to begin with, and why would anyone try and better TWOK.
And I'm surprised you'd think Robau would be any good as Khan, he doesn't have much screen presence. I'd rather see Lou Diamond Phillips or Johnny Depp in the role - crikey that would be a coup!!
#15
Posted 23 November 2009 - 08:05 AM
That sums up my thoughts on this as well. But then again, it could easily happen because of that fact. I think they were extremely lazy to begin with to have to "start over" instead of dealing with the "prime" universe's continuity.
#16
Posted 23 November 2009 - 10:10 AM
I disagree. I thought that was ingenious. I mean, how do you have tension when you know how everything is going to work out? How do you change a character's life forever when you know where he's going to end up? Doing this made it a whole new ball game. It also allowed them to make changes that can be explained away. The Enterprise looks different (and while I don't LIKE it, it was necessary to redesign it. The old girl just wouldn't have the impact today, either exterior or interior). If we're still in the "prime" line, how do you explain it? You can't. In the current line, you can easily say, oh, the attack by the Narada changed Starfleet design, they were more militaristic in tone to respond to the Romulan threat. Timetables changed, the Enterprise got shelved until later, new tech got implemented as a result, etc, etc. It's easy to explain. Not so in prime.
And to those who say "move forward, move to the 25th century." Um. No. Sorry, but Trek IS TOS. I love all Trek, DS9 is my favorite, but when you're doing a movie like this, you gotta go with what the public will relate to best, and that's TOS. There was a brief time in the 90's when TNG could fly, but that time has past. And has anyone read the Star Trek Online synopsis that takes the "Star Trek" story forward in time? Unnecessarily complicated, with political and economic and social stuff. That's NOT the stuff of the summer blockbuster Trek needed to be. You want to see that on screen? It was done. It was called Star Wars Episode I. I mean, the opening scrawl was about trade negotiations?!! Not. Going. To. Cut. It. Yes, it did well because it was Star Wars. But we all know how bad those newer movies were.
#17
Posted 23 November 2009 - 11:12 AM
I guess I still harbour a hankering for the days when Trek wasn't summer blockbuster fayre, 'cos I kind of like all the talky stuff, but I guess you show balance since you're a fellow DS9'er!!
I guess I'd really like to be nodding sagely with you and saying isn't it great that the clock's been set back to zero and let's see Kirk et al evolve differently due to the intervention of Nero. I'd really like to be able to say with you that I'm excited that we don't know where we're headed next, and actually at the moment, the writers themselves aren't, but all this talk of Khan (and recently Klingons and the Borg too) make me feel worried that the writers are going to simply latch onto what worked so well in the past, forgetting that TWOK was very a much a movie of 1982 and what made it such a surprising departure (and it was, much to the chagrin of trekkies who didn't like the "militaristic" feel of TWOK) was the towering performances of Shatner who bought gravitas and vulnerability to Kirk and the massively hammed-up Khan, a villain who actually had a point and worked his pain quite in the way that Nero didn't.
#18
Posted 23 November 2009 - 01:37 PM
And to those who say "move forward, move to the 25th century." Um. No. Sorry, but Trek IS TOS. I love all Trek, DS9 is my favorite, but when you're doing a movie like this, you gotta go with what the public will relate to best, and that's TOS. There was a brief time in the 90's when TNG could fly, but that time has past. And has anyone read the Star Trek Online synopsis that takes the "Star Trek" story forward in time? Unnecessarily complicated, with political and economic and social stuff. That's NOT the stuff of the summer blockbuster Trek needed to be. You want to see that on screen? It was done. It was called Star Wars Episode I. I mean, the opening scrawl was about trade negotiations?!! Not. Going. To. Cut. It. Yes, it did well because it was Star Wars. But we all know how bad those newer movies were.
I agree with you 100% on that, i mean you took the words right out of my mouth!
#19
Posted 23 November 2009 - 01:47 PM
It's a shame they used him up as Capt Robau because I think that Faran Tahir would have made a KILLER Khan.
I agree that Faran Tahir would have made a great Khan.... I also think Arnold Vosloo from The Mummy would make a great Khan as well.
#20
Posted 23 November 2009 - 01:50 PM
I DEFINITELY like TF 1 better than ROTF !!!
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users