Bob Orci open to the possibility of Khan

[TEH BABA]

Mel gibson as a nut seeking revenge against kirk.

 

[Vicki]

Anybody else read the Kurtzman & Orci interveiw in the May/June issue of Creative Screenwriting? Really good interview all about writing, mostly about STXI with some Transformers stuff.

This particular quote is about the Transformers sequel but it suggests to me implications about Khan.

Kurtzman: "All great sequels have an incredibly frightening bad guy who challenges your hero in a way that is unique."

Make of that what you will.

I don't want Khan because I don't want any retread stories from TOS. And really, Khan kills Spock and it stick until the following movie? Khan killed Spock because Nimoy wasn't under contract for the following movie. Anybody see Paramount going along with that now?

 

[Too Much Fun]

He's got to be thinking about "The Dark Knight" with that quote. I hope he realizes that Khan is not the Star Trek equivalent of The Joker, but somehow I doubt it.

 

[Jax]

It wouldn't surprise me if Orci and co had several different ideas and just leaked this one to gauge the reaction from sites like the TREK BBS, which has been done before to see how something would go down with the potential fanbase. Am sure the however Paramount knowing they have brought in new casual viewers that they will have to have an enemy to appeal to them too.

While STAR TREK got away with the fact that the story was more important than the enemy, any sequel would need a big villian to carry it.

 

[Peter the Younger]

It wouldn't surprise me if Orci and co had several different ideas and just leaked this one to gauge the reaction from sites like the TREK BBS, which has been done before to see how something would go down with the potential fanbase. Am sure the however Paramount knowing they have brought in new casual viewers that they will have to have an enemy to appeal to them too.

While STAR TREK got away with the fact that the story was more important than the enemy, any sequel would need a big villian to carry it.

I'd say that's likely. Trek has been trying to get out from under TWOK's long shadow for decades now; re-introducing Khan is a step in the wrong direction.

Having said that, Orci's statement is generally sound. But I'd prefer a connected, charismatic, calculating villain this time, someone who can play mind games with Kirk instead of just scowling and sneering.

 

[DaveyNY]

Gary Mitchell...

Introduce him in the next movie as Kirks' best friend... then go on to make him Kirks' worst nightmare...

Doesn't have to be a complete rehash of WNMHGB, doesn't even have to be close.

But it would be a perfect story/plot to show how Kirk gets closer to becoming the captain we know.


Oh, I voted NO for Kahn... at least for the first few movies...

 

[Rarewolf]

(especially considering he is out there.

All the characters are out there. Except those based on Vulcan.

Ultimately the Borg could invade and destroy the Earth in Star Trek XVIII, then just have Star Trek XX as a Time Travel story where Kirk goes back in time to save his father, putting things back on track Again the timetravel potential is out there.

 

[seekertwo]

No....Khan's had his movie...and no one could be as good as Ricardo Montalban in the role.....

That said, I would like to see one particular ST nemesis brought back and remade into someone far more formidable....maybe as a major player in the Orion Syndicate...someone who can be a threat and an engaging character all at once.....

How about it? Who's ready for the NEW Harcort Fenton Mudd?

 

[Captrek]

I would like to see one particular ST nemesis brought back and remade into someone far more formidable....

Yeah. The tribbles.

The “more formidable” tribbles are what you get when you feed regular tribbles after midnight. And they are gonna kick some serious ass.

 

[Checkmate]

I think a remake of Space Seed is a great idea.

Right now we have a young, inexperienced Kirk at the helm. We need to see this supposedly legendary tactical genius of his bloom into fruition. Two really great ways to do that is to introduce him to Khan, or to do a rehash of Balance of Terror.

Either would be very appropriate, chock full of character development, and offer plenty of opportunities for everyone in the cast to shine. Win-win. Of the two, however, Space Seed has the most opportunity to continue in the fast-paced action-oriented vein of the first movie. Balance of Terror is fantastic, but it's pretty slow with a lot of waiting.

Best of all? Neither involves any time travel at all, unless you consider cryogenics a form of time travel.

And just because the basic plot idea is being rehashed, that doesn't mean we'll get the same story. Not by a longshot. Especially considering the vast changes in the new Star Trek versus the original series.

 

[Franklin]

God knows that in the summertime people like to see fun movies with lots of humor, explosions, and nonsensical romance. That is why ID4 was a hit. It's also why Armageddon was a hit. These aren't "good movies," but they're fun enough that most people just don't care.

I know I'm in the minority around here-but I like both of these movies, and watch them at least twice a year. I would argue that they are good movies, and that being said-I think ST 09 is a better movie than either of them.

Oh, I love them too, but I love them because they're mindless fun. Now, if you can make a "summer blockbuster" that has humor, explosions, AND is intelligently written, more power to you. I'm just saying that the latter is not necessarily a requirement for enjoying a summer movie.

It's just that I don't see Trek on par with the ID4-types of movies (or the Transformers, for that matter, which makes buckets more money than Trek). Escapism is fine, but I've always though Trek's characters have some depth, motivations, and challenges that are not just two-dimensional or purely reactive. And, they are mostly intelligently thought out and presented. That opens them up to intelligently written stories, too.
Certainly one could do Trek as mindless space opera, but it seems to be underreaching. I'd like to think Abrams and the others have more pride in ownership, and feel they can make more than enough money to satisfy Paramount without dumbing things down and being formulaic. The canvass is blank. Why paint by the numbers?

 

[RoJoHen]

I know I'm in the minority around here-but I like both of these movies, and watch them at least twice a year. I would argue that they are good movies, and that being said-I think ST 09 is a better movie than either of them.

Oh, I love them too, but I love them because they're mindless fun. Now, if you can make a "summer blockbuster" that has humor, explosions, AND is intelligently written, more power to you. I'm just saying that the latter is not necessarily a requirement for enjoying a summer movie.

It's just that I don't see Trek on par with the ID4-types of movies (or the Transformers, for that matter, which makes buckets more money than Trek). Escapism is fine, but I've always though Trek's characters have some depth, motivations, and challenges that are not just two-dimensional or purely reactive. And, they are mostly intelligently thought out and presented. That opens them up to intelligently written stories, too.
Certainly one could do Trek as mindless space opera, but it seems to be underreaching. I'd like to think Abrams and the others have more pride in ownership, and feel they can make more than enough money to satisfy Paramount without dumbing things down and being formulaic. The canvass is blank. Why paint by the numbers?

I never suggested that Star Trek should do that. I was just explaining why people like movies like ID4.

 

[Franklin]

Oh, I love them too, but I love them because they're mindless fun. Now, if you can make a "summer blockbuster" that has humor, explosions, AND is intelligently written, more power to you. I'm just saying that the latter is not necessarily a requirement for enjoying a summer movie.

It's just that I don't see Trek on par with the ID4-types of movies (or the Transformers, for that matter, which makes buckets more money than Trek). Escapism is fine, but I've always though Trek's characters have some depth, motivations, and challenges that are not just two-dimensional or purely reactive. And, they are mostly intelligently thought out and presented. That opens them up to intelligently written stories, too.
Certainly one could do Trek as mindless space opera, but it seems to be underreaching. I'd like to think Abrams and the others have more pride in ownership, and feel they can make more than enough money to satisfy Paramount without dumbing things down and being formulaic. The canvass is blank. Why paint by the numbers?

I never suggested that Star Trek should do that. I was just explaining why people like movies like ID4.

That's cool. I understood that. We reach.

 

[RoJoHen]

Super.

 

[Captain Robau]

Please, God. No Khan retread.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Independence Day was totally brainless, and it made almost $310 million in the U.S. To this day, my only response to that box office number is, "God knows why."

Because it was a lot more fun to watch than "Star Trek: The Motion Picture," and about as smart.

 

[indranee]

God knows that in the summertime people like to see fun movies with lots of humor, explosions, and nonsensical romance. That is why ID4 was a hit. It's also why Armageddon was a hit. These aren't "good movies," but they're fun enough that most people just don't care.

I know I'm in the minority around here-but I like both of these movies, and watch them at least twice a year. I would argue that they are good movies, and that being said-I think ST 09 is a better movie than either of them.

Oh, I love them too, but I love them because they're mindless fun. Now, if you can make a "summer blockbuster" that has humor, explosions, AND is intelligently written, more power to you. I'm just saying that the latter is not necessarily a requirement for enjoying a summer movie.

ID4 is a completely guilty pleasure for me. I always watch it when it's on cable. it's a stupid movie but it's hella fun. especially the mad scientist turn by Brent Spiner. oh, and almost every scene with Jeff Goldblum.

 

[indranee]

Anybody else read the Kurtzman & Orci interveiw in the May/June issue of Creative Screenwriting? Really good interview all about writing, mostly about STXI with some Transformers stuff.

This particular quote is about the Transformers sequel but it suggests to me implications about Khan.

Kurtzman: "All great sequels have an incredibly frightening bad guy who challenges your hero in a way that is unique."

Make of that what you will.

I don't want Khan because I don't want any retread stories from TOS. And really, Khan kills Spock and it stick until the following movie? Khan killed Spock because Nimoy wasn't under contract for the following movie. Anybody see Paramount going along with that now?

cool! I'll have to get my hands on this one. thanks!

 

[Jeri]

Thanks, Vicki; I would love to read that.

 

[indranee]

Gary Mitchell...

Introduce him in the next movie as Kirks' best friend... then go on to make him Kirks' worst nightmare...

Doesn't have to be a complete rehash of WNMHGB, doesn't even have to be close.

But it would be a perfect story/plot to show how Kirk gets closer to becoming the captain we know.


Oh, I voted NO for Kahn... at least for the first few movies...

yep. pick up way after WNMHGB. shades of Space Seed but w/o Khan. TWOK didn't do much explaining and had LOTS of plot holes. didn't matter. I've always wondered what happened to Gary. you just know he didn't really die.

done well, this could be great.