RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,531
Posts: 5,512,705
Members: 25,138
Currently online: 620
Newest member: Bazzzz85

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 8 2013, 12:27 PM   #31
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue

Many of those traits that make Khan, Khan would've been bred out after three and a half centuries.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2013, 01:32 PM   #32
Ketrick
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Maryland
Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue

BillJ wrote: View Post
Many of those traits that make Khan, Khan would've been bred out after three and a half centuries.
That's only true if none of his descendents or their mates were augments. Also, you don't seem to be taking into account the aggressiveness of Augment DNA which was shown in "Affliction" and "Divergence".
Ketrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2013, 01:43 PM   #33
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue

Ketrick wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Many of those traits that make Khan, Khan would've been bred out after three and a half centuries.
That's only true if none of his descendents or their mates were augments. Also, you don't seem to be taking into account the aggressiveness of Augment DNA which was shown in "Affliction" and "Divergence".
I doubt they're going to tie their story to Enterprise, a show no one watched.

Either it's Khan or it isn't. I honestly don't see them make Cumberbatch an off-spring or a clone.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2013, 03:07 PM   #34
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue

The movie comes out in a few months. Would it really be too much to confirm/deny the Khan rumours?
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2013, 03:16 PM   #35
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue

DalekJim wrote: View Post
The movie comes out in a few months. Would it really be too much to confirm/deny the Khan rumours?
Why? Will many fewer people go to the movie if they don't confirm or deny? Will many more go if they do confirm or deny? The answer to each question, of course, is a resounding NO! So again, why?
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2013, 03:19 PM   #36
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue

Ovation wrote: View Post
Why? Will many fewer people go to the movie if they don't confirm or deny? Will many more go if they do confirm or deny? The answer to each question, of course, is a resounding NO! So again, why?
To avoid confusion?
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2013, 03:28 PM   #37
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue

DalekJim wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
Why? Will many fewer people go to the movie if they don't confirm or deny? Will many more go if they do confirm or deny? The answer to each question, of course, is a resounding NO! So again, why?
To avoid confusion?
Hardly a concern worth noting. What's there to be confused about? Cumberbatch is the villain. It's got Kirk, Spock and the gang on hand to take on the villain and it's a summer action sci-fi movie made by people with a strong track record of providing entertainment that appeals to a wide variety of people. Again, what's there to be confused about?
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2013, 03:30 PM   #38
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue

Oh, OK.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2013, 04:31 PM   #39
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue

I have no idea how they'll justify Khan in this movie. That said, an idea I'm personally fond of is that Khan and his people have many descendants (think about the logic of it), who over the centuries have formed a conspiratorial network while plotting an uprising. Get a little of that Dan Brown action going for them y'know?
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2013, 04:41 PM   #40
The Baby Stig
Rear Admiral
 
The Baby Stig's Avatar
 
Location: Dunsfold Aerodrome, Surrey
Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
I have no idea how they'll justify Khan in this movie. That said, an idea I'm personally fond of is that Khan and his people have many descendants (think about the logic of it), who over the centuries have formed a conspiratorial network while plotting an uprising. Get a little of that Dan Brown action going for them y'know?
Well, once the timeline gets fucked by Nero, anything could happen to the Botany Bay that preempts the 'scheduled' recovery by the Enterprise. Maybe the fear inspired by the Narada thirty years ago prompted a conspiracy, like you said, that recovers Khan early for some nefarious purpose.
__________________
Some say that his arrival was foretold by a Check Engine light shining over Bethlehem and that he was born in a manger on Christmas Day.

All we know is, he's The Baby Stig.
The Baby Stig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2013, 06:01 PM   #41
Procutus
Admiral
 
Procutus's Avatar
 
Location: Under a silver moon
Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue

sttngfan1701d wrote: View Post
Having Cumberbatch is fine. Having him as a villain is fine. Having him play John Harrison is fine. Having him play Khan Noonien Singh is just silly.

This. I'm perfectly fine with The Batch as John Harrison or any other new villain, but having him turn out to be Khan is just a wrong fit. I mean, I thought the whole idea of creating a branch universe in the first movie was so they could tell stories that are not strapped by years of Trek history and details. So why NOT create a new antogonist?
__________________
Proud user of Windows XP since 2006.
Procutus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2013, 06:16 PM   #42
Saul
Rear Admiral
 
Saul's Avatar
 
Location: 東京
Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue

Procutus wrote: View Post
sttngfan1701d wrote: View Post
Having Cumberbatch is fine. Having him as a villain is fine. Having him play John Harrison is fine. Having him play Khan Noonien Singh is just silly.

This. I'm perfectly fine with The Batch as John Harrison or any other new villain, but having him turn out to be Khan is just a wrong fit. I mean, I thought the whole idea of creating a branch universe in the first movie was so they could tell stories that are not strapped by years of Trek history and details. So why NOT create a new antogonist?
Cos Khan is a great villain. Star Trek needs a good villain. Batman has his Joker, Superman has his Lex Luthor. Star Trek needs a good baddie rather than another mustache twirler from the create a generic villain machine. We can't do the borg. That would be a wrong fit. But Khan, he hasn't been done to death and there is space to explore the character a bit more and make him fresh and appealing to a new audience. Isn't that the purpose of branching out into the new universe? Same crew, same ship yet it's different. Why can you accept bringing back those characters but not the villain which proved to be one of the most challenging for them?
__________________
"It's not that you can see the strings, it's that 40 years later you're still looking at them." - Steven Moffat
"This movie was big. Imagine how big it could have been with me in it?" William Shatner
Saul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2013, 06:39 PM   #43
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
I have no idea how they'll justify Khan in this movie. That said, an idea I'm personally fond of is that Khan and his people have many descendants (think about the logic of it), who over the centuries have formed a conspiratorial network while plotting an uprising. Get a little of that Dan Brown action going for them y'know?
Like the Freemasons?
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2013, 06:59 PM   #44
DarthTom
Fleet Admiral
 
DarthTom's Avatar
 
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue

Franklin wrote: View Post

Like the Freemasons?
The Illuminati.

Enlightenment-era secret society founded on May 1, 1776. In more modern contexts the name refers to a purported conspiratorial organization which is alleged to mastermind events and control world affairs through governments and corporations to establish a New World Order. In this context the Illuminati are usually represented as a modern version or continuation of the Bavarian Illuminati.
DarthTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2013, 06:59 PM   #45
Ryan8bit
Commodore
 
Ryan8bit's Avatar
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some sort of conspiracy given that Orci is writing it. The thing I wonder though is if such a thing happened, why did it not also happen in the original timeline? Regardless of whatever the conspiracy is, how could it even be linked to the Botany Bay since no one even really knew about it? Perhaps the only way anybody would know it now is because Spock Prime told them.
Ryan8bit is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.