Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue - Page 5

RAMA · February 8 2013, 11:54 PM

Im still banking this is not Khan but either a parallel Khan-like figure or someone from the Botany Bay or equivalent origin that is superhuman/genetically engineered.

Remember how Lex Luthor was turned into a ruthless businessman is several incarnations of the modern character? It may be something like that, where Khan is a modern terrorist as part of or head of an organization.

RAMA

RAMA · February 8 2013, 11:57 PM

DarthTom wrote:

Franklin wrote:

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.

The Illuminati is a fantasy creation, one that Robert Orci ironically believes in.

Greg Cox · February 9 2013, 12:03 AM

CaptainMurdock wrote:

First Benedict Cumberbatch is Khan, then Gary Mitchell then "John Harrison" Now Khan again. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS Paramount. I call BS on the whole thing. Simon Pegg said Kahn isn't in it. then Karl Urban said he was Gary Mitchell then Benedict Cumberbatch was revealed to be John Harrison. I think EW is just making a publicity stunt. I'm just waiting till I see the movie. I really hope it's not Space Seed redone.

Er, just to be clear, it isn't Paramount that keeps changing its mind. It's the fans and the press that keep jumping on the latest round of rumors and speculation and taking them as gospel. As far as I know, Paramount has never officially confirmed anything.

In the meantime, does anyone want to discuss the actual article, instead of speculating wildly about what it's NOT saying?

Ovation · February 9 2013, 12:18 AM

Greg Cox wrote:

CaptainMurdock wrote:

First Benedict Cumberbatch is Khan, then Gary Mitchell then "John Harrison" Now Khan again. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS Paramount. I call BS on the whole thing. Simon Pegg said Kahn isn't in it. then Karl Urban said he was Gary Mitchell then Benedict Cumberbatch was revealed to be John Harrison. I think EW is just making a publicity stunt. I'm just waiting till I see the movie. I really hope it's not Space Seed redone.

Er, just to be clear, it isn't Paramount that keeps changing its mind. It's the fans and the press that keep jumping on the latest round of rumors and speculation and taking them as gospel. As far as I know, Paramount has never officially confirmed anything.

In the meantime, does anyone want to discuss the actual article, instead of speculating wildly about what it's NOT saying?

Now why in heaven's name would anyone want to do that?

Admiral Buzzkill · February 9 2013, 12:26 AM

Especially when it says so little. Pretty pictures, though.

Phily B · February 9 2013, 12:40 AM

I honestly can't say I'm bothered if they retcon Khan a bit.

Matt S · February 9 2013, 02:45 AM

No point in doing Khan....! He's the most painfully obvious (ie boring as hell) choice, that I really hope EW has their head up their ass for this one

Admiral Buzzkill · February 9 2013, 03:14 AM

It's Khan.

Greg Cox · February 9 2013, 03:35 AM

Procutus wrote:

sttngfan1701d wrote:

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?

On the other hand, nobody seemed to mind when THE DARK KNIGHT rebooted the Joker one more time . . .

Procutus · February 9 2013, 04:09 AM

^

True enough, but I honestly feel that having Cumberbatch/Harrison be someone other than Khan would be a hell of a lot more interesting than rehashing the character, or retconning his backstory/origins. I realize I'm the minority on this one, but it just seems to me that there has to be other equally compelling villains in this new timeline.

And though I mentioned this to you in the past, I'll say it again: I really enjoyed your trilogy on Khan.

Greg Cox · February 9 2013, 04:21 AM

Procutus wrote:

^

True enough, but I honestly feel that having Cumberbatch/Harrison be someone other than Khan would be a hell of a lot more interesting than rehashing the character, or retconning his backstory/origins. I realize I'm the minority on this one, but it just seems to me that there has to be other equally compelling villains in this new timeline.

And though I mentioned this to you in the past, I'll say it again: I really enjoyed your trilogy on Khan.

Thanks! To be honest, I have mixed feelings about the possibility of a new take on Khan as well, but who knows? We'll see what we get in May.

Procutus · February 9 2013, 04:33 AM

Greg Cox wrote:

We'll see what we get in May.

Agreed. I greatly suspect that we really won't know just who 'Harrison' really is until then.

Joerib · February 9 2013, 05:11 AM

We can always kidnap JJ and force him to tell us...

EyalM · February 9 2013, 09:11 AM

Procutus wrote:

Greg Cox wrote:

We'll see what we get in May.

Agreed. I greatly suspect that we really won't know just who 'Harrison' really is until then.

What if we never know? What if Harrison just says he is using a pseudo-name but never reveals his true identity?
We never discovered the Joker's true identity in The Dark Knight, why not here?

Captain Nebula · February 9 2013, 11:28 AM

Cumberbatch as Khan is like somebody who doesn't look anything like Terrance Stamp (Michael Shannon) playing General Zod.

Wait a minute...

Seriously, tho, as long as it's a fun show.

February 8 2013, 11:54 PM	#61
RAMA Vice Admiral Location: NJ, USA	Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue Im still banking this is not Khan but either a parallel Khan-like figure or someone from the Botany Bay or equivalent origin that is superhuman/genetically engineered. Remember how Lex Luthor was turned into a ruthless businessman is several incarnations of the modern character? It may be something like that, where Khan is a modern terrorist as part of or head of an organization. RAMA __________________ “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”—Stephen R. Covey

February 9 2013, 12:26 AM	#65
Admiral Buzzkill The Man Location: Defying Gravity	Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue Especially when it says so little. Pretty pictures, though. __________________ I had steak and a loaded baked potato for dinner on Sunday. As a steak I enjoyed it a lot, but as macaroni and cheese I thought it was disappointing.

February 9 2013, 12:40 AM	#66
Phily B Fleet Captain Location: United Kingdom	Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue I honestly can't say I'm bothered if they retcon Khan a bit.

February 9 2013, 02:45 AM	#67
Matt S Lieutenant	Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue No point in doing Khan....! He's the most painfully obvious (ie boring as hell) choice, that I really hope EW has their head up their ass for this one __________________ Balok knows all!!!!!

February 9 2013, 03:14 AM	#68
Admiral Buzzkill The Man Location: Defying Gravity	Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue It's Khan. __________________ I had steak and a loaded baked potato for dinner on Sunday. As a steak I enjoyed it a lot, but as macaroni and cheese I thought it was disappointing.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

February 9 2013, 04:09 AM	#70
Procutus Admiral Location: Back behind my keyboard	Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue ^ True enough, but I honestly feel that having Cumberbatch/Harrison be someone other than Khan would be a hell of a lot more interesting than rehashing the character, or retconning his backstory/origins. I realize I'm the minority on this one, but it just seems to me that there has to be other equally compelling villains in this new timeline. And though I mentioned this to you in the past, I'll say it again: I really enjoyed your trilogy on Khan. __________________ I used to be indecisive. Now I'm not so sure.

February 9 2013, 05:11 AM	#73
Joerib Lieutenant	Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue We can always kidnap JJ and force him to tell us...

February 9 2013, 11:28 AM	#75
Captain Nebula Lieutenant Commander	Re: Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue Cumberbatch as Khan is like somebody who doesn't look anything like Terrance Stamp (Michael Shannon) playing General Zod. Wait a minute... Seriously, tho, as long as it's a fun show.