COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS 5-page preview

[Christopher]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Thing is, just think of all the funky hairdos we should be seeing. Maybe not for Starfleet officers, there's probably regulations...

Tell that to the women in TOS, especially Janice Rand.

[Saul]

Christopher wrote:

---

^Burden of proof. We have several pieces of evidence pointing to not-Khan. We had only one statement from a cast member suggesting Gary Mitchell, with no corroboration. We have zero evidence pointing to Khan, because rumors are not evidence. Given a choice between multiple conflicting hypotheses, the one that has several corroborating pieces of evidence (including the actual name of the character in official press releases, for gods' sake) is obviously preferable over one that has only a single unsubstantiated claim or one that has nothing but rumor to support it.

Trek Movie Report and Aint it cool news had announced last year that it was Khan after hearing the news from reliable sources. I take everything with a large pinch of salt from AICN but Trek Movie Report less so. Of course IT'S STILL RUMOR but there is nothing yet that proves that it isn't Khan. We've played these "it's not such and such a villain" in other movies before. So until I see the movie and until there's no big reveal that "oh my God this boring named guy Harrison who has super human strength is Khan!" then I will believe that it might or might not be Khan. There is still Zero evidence to say it ISN'T KHAN. Or if you would like to take the word of Simon Pegg who played a game and convinced his twitter followers one time that he might be dead then go ahead and take it at face value.

"I see no ships."

!!!!!!

[throwback]

By saying genetic engineering is forbidden, I feel that the person saying this is making a universal statement. From the "Doctor Bashir, I Presume" episode, I learned that the Federation permitted DNA resequencing for serious birth defects. This restriction in genetic engineering was created as a firewall against the supermen and superwomen who fought in the Eugenics Wars.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

We don't have any evidence that the villain isn't Khan; what we have are public statements by several people who are engaged in part of the production effort to keep the identity of the villain a secret.

And BTW, it's entirely possible that the majority of actors in the film don't know the actual identity of the character that Cumberbatch is playing, either. In some ways actors are the easiest people to keep in the dark about such stuff.

The suggestion that the villain is Khan is not based on a single rumor somewhere, but on several inside sources talking to writers at several websites over some period of time. There is no way of knowing yet just how this will pan out - but then, it sounded fairly outlandish a couple of years before Trek 2009 was released, when Drew McWeeny suggested online that just maybe Abrams was about to blow up Vulcan.

[thumbtack]

Christopher wrote:

---

We have zero evidence pointing to Khan.

Not a fan of Daily Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, I take it.

We'll dismiss the Entertainment Weekly fiasco, however, because that was clearly just the work of a trekkie-hating employee with an axe to grind.

[Christopher]

Saul wrote:

---

Trek Movie Report and Aint it cool news had announced last year that it was Khan after hearing the news from reliable sources.

Unnamed sources. And such early claims from "reliable sources" have been wrong many times in the past. Hearsay is not evidence and not worth wasting time with. It's just something the media sites use to fill space with when they don't have any actual news to report. Which is why it's so important not to confuse rumor with news. Journalistic standards in the Internet age have degenerated so badly that it's incumbent on the individual to read defensively and be very careful about what claims one takes seriously.

Of course IT'S STILL RUMOR but there is nothing yet that proves that it isn't Khan.

Again, that's getting the burden of proof entirely backwards. There's nothing that proves there isn't an invisible pink elephant levitating behind me right now, but that doesn't mean it would be rational of me to believe there was.

And I've seen the clip where Alice Eve says "It's not Khan," and it's completely off the cuff and unthinking. There's no sign she's being calculating or careful to throw people off. In fact, I think if she'd stopped to think about it, she wouldn't have said anything, because even a denial is giving away too many specifics by Abrams's standards. (I think Pegg got in a bit of trouble by making the same denial months earlier.) She just blurted it out absently in the context of an awards-show interview that was mainly about other stuff. Unless she's spent weeks practicing for that situation so that she could lie unthinkingly, I'd say she was telling the truth. And you'd have to be really paranoid to think she'd go to those lengths to deceive rather than just saying nothing.

Or if you would like to take the word of Simon Pegg who played a game and convinced his twitter followers one time that he might be dead then go ahead and take it at face value.

As I've said, it's not about a single piece of evidence. No single assertion is reliable regardless of the source, which is why corroboration is essential. At this point, we have several corroborating pieces of relatively strong evidence pointing away from the Khan speculations. We have nothing but hearsay and rumor in the other direction. If some real evidence comes along pointing to Khan, of course I'll reassess the probabilities, because that's what a sensible person does. It's not about beliefs or hopes or deceptive things like that; it's about estimating probabilities based on the evidence. Of course probabilities can shift as new evidence comes along, but there's no sense in pre-emptively expecting the probabilities to go against the evidence. It could be that John Harrison is a disguised Khan, but that is far from the most likely scenario at this point.

Anyway, it's a silly thing to waste time arguing over, because the movie will be out within three months and then we'll actually know.

[Set Harth]

Soon enough we'll find out just how reliable these reliable sources are.

Which will be important the next time around.

[Therin of Andor]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

How the hell do they get the pointed tip on the Starfleet sideburns, anyway? I found it impossible to line the razor up so I gave up.

I used to get my mother to do mine in the Starfleet style in the early 80s. And after I grew them purposefully, I went to do the Andorian again - and had to race out and buy white pancake makeup to cover my pointed sideburns.

Re TOS sideburns: There was supposedly a "studio barber" the actors were sent to, and I've also read interviews with Fred Phillips where he mentions trimming the sideburns in the makeup chair, but...

Did you know that John Winston (Transporter Chief Kyle) was a professional Hollywood barber when not called in for acting work? A friend has a pet theory that he was probably Gene Coon's regular barber, since all(?) of Mr Kyle's episodes have Coon's credit on them. Perhaps John Winston was the barber who did all the Starfleet points for TOS, or was the go-to man whenever Desilu Studios needed a barber?

I've tried to track down Mr Winston for interviews quite a few times: he is... elusive. Just after his ST II appearance, he was no longer registered with the Screen Actors' Guild. I know he did a ST fanfilm a few years ago, but he never did a "Starlog" interview. One of TOS and ST II's mystery men.

(He even came here, to Australia, in the 70s and did an episode of "The Evil Touch", which our TV mags mentioned at the time.)

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, his hair was perfect.

[Saul]

Christopher wrote:

---

Unnamed sources.

Which they seemed to trust enough to make such a big announcement. Even if it was a slow news day, Trek Movie report hasn't been on the ball with news that much in recent times but for something like this they were and seemed to be confirming the claim made by AICN rather than reporting it.

Again, that's getting the burden of proof entirely backwards. There's nothing that proves there isn't an invisible pink elephant levitating behind me right now, but that doesn't mean it would be rational of me to believe there was.

Well that's one way to see it. Another way is that you see a bunch of people running away and screaming from something behind you then you might run with them too before turning around as you might consider some people to have some good sense and...journalistic integrity.

And I've seen the clip where Alice Eve says "It's not Khan," and it's completely off the cuff and unthinking.

She's an actress. People lie, the faster the less obvious they think it will be read. But i'm not saying she did lie or that there is a pink elephant behind her.

If some real evidence comes along pointing to Khan, of course I'll reassess the probabilities, because that's what a sensible person does. It's not about beliefs or hopes or deceptive things like that; it's about estimating probabilities based on the evidence.

So again i'm speculating that from the trailers we see a guy with superhuman strength. A guy named John Harrison, a background character who was featured in an episode called 'Space Seed' which was our introduction to Khan.
Now just based on some of those things I can still speculate that it's Khan. I didn't just pull it out of my ass and outright proclaim that "it definitely is or isn't" because this is a movie where people's expectations will be played with and JJ Abrams is known for keeping things under wraps. I think a few red herrings will pop up from time to time.

Anyway, it's a silly thing to waste time arguing over, because the movie will be out within three months and then we'll actually know.

Actually it's not released here until September.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Christopher wrote:

---

Unnamed sources.

What has that got to do with anything?

[SalvorHardin]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

How the hell do they get the pointed tip on the Starfleet sideburns, anyway? I found it impossible to line the razor up so I gave up.

I know, the actors probably have hairstylists to do it for them, but we're supposed to believe that everyone in Starfleet shaves in this manner so it's a legitimate enough question.

Not that it matters much, I shave my head completly bald these days anyway, but I'm still curious all the same.

It's fairly easy to do using one of these.

[The Wormhole]

Enough of your fancy gadgets. I'm not just a traditionalist in the Trek sense, I'm a traditionalist when it comes to shaving, too. That means cream and a blade.

[SalvorHardin]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Enough of your fancy gadgets. I'm not just a traditionalist in the Trek sense, I'm a traditionalist when it comes to shaving, too. That means cream and a blade.

We do not use any of that caveman nonsense in the 23rd century, sir.
We have a more evolved sensibility.

[Christopher]

Saul wrote:

---

Which they seemed to trust enough to make such a big announcement.

Yes, but I don't trust them. They've been wrong before. The Internet is full of "reliably sourced" movie rumors that turn out to be total BS. And yet people keep forgetting all the false ones and bizarrely assuming they can trust the next one.

Well that's one way to see it. Another way is that you see a bunch of people running away and screaming from something behind you then you might run with them too before turning around as you might consider some people to have some good sense and...journalistic integrity.

That's an invalid rebuttal, because it doesn't fit the facts in this case. Yes, there have been some people -- mostly months ago -- saying it was Khan, but there have been plenty of other people saying other things, and the growing tide of assertions and evidence in recent months has been away from the Khan rumors. Yes, there was a time a few months ago when I was thinking it looked like it might actually be Khan, but since then, the trend has been in the other direction.

And people run and scream from a lot of things without good sense. Last week I saw a lot of posts from people panicking about the risk of asteroids hitting the Earth, even though we know that large impactors are very rare. And yet those same people are probably not at all worried about things that are far more likely to kill them, like traffic accidents. The reactions and beliefs of the crowd are not reliable indicators of probability.

So again i'm speculating that from the trailers we see a guy with superhuman strength. A guy named John Harrison, a background character who was featured in an episode called 'Space Seed' which was our introduction to Khan.
Now just based on some of those things I can still speculate that it's Khan.

But Khan wasn't the only Augment. To me, the most likely prospect at this point is that Harrison is a different Augment, that they're approaching the story of the Eugenics Wars and the Augments from a different perspective. It's possible that Khan will be involved in the background as a mastermind, or that maybe this story about Harrison will be setting up Khan as the big bad in the third film, the way The Avengers set up Thanos. There are a lot of possibilities here. An open mind lets you consider more possibilities. It's better than clinging to a single preconception and trying to twist everything to fit it.

Actually it's not released here until September.

But we have the Internet now, and there's bound to be plenty of spoiler discussion once the film is out.