Flux Capacitor wrote:
To me, it seems the perfect choice...why take a character that was already shown to be a credible villain and try to recapture that? Why not instead take a character that was a major missed opportunity and finally give him the story line he deserved?
This sums up my exact feelings about why it isn't Khan, and if it is, it shouldn't be.
The only reason Khan is so "iconic" is that he got to be in a movie, and because he was played by someone who became a very well known actor.
Picking a different TOS character for this role (and for matter, what if it's someone who was a neutral or even good guy?) seems more like a writing choice the writers would make.
There's just more of an open playground using a different character.
Cumberbatch as Garth would be every bit as iconic as Khan was.
The only way I really see this story having anything to do with Khan is if they go in a totally different direction from "Wrath of Khan" or even "Space Seed" - for example, Khan has something to do with the story, but Cumby ISN'T HIM. In that case, I really can see Abrams et al being as tight-lipped as they are.
That said, Star Trek has wasted perfectly good villains/actors before. Soran could have been SO much better - it's Malcolm freaking McDowell. His parts were pretty good. The rest of the film was pretty bad.
I'm hoping that the story is more complex than just a bad guy story. I am really missing stories like ST IV and ST VI.