Khan or no Khan?

[FarStrider]

There are so many variables to it. Promotion is a big aspect, in my opinion. Paramount promoted the new movie with such incredible aggression and power. Did Nemesis get a superbowl TV spot? All I remember was an E! segment in which they focused on what wedding rings Troi and Riker wear and that Data gets to sing again. That was truly awful.

Nemesis came out in December. . .of course it wasn't going to get a January Superbowl spot almost a year before it's release. All the promotion in the world won't help a bad movie. . . and with its bad word of mouth, not even Trekkers/Trekkies wanted to see it. . . plus, if Paramount executives didn't believe they had a good movie in ST09, you can best believe that they wouldn't have spent the money to promote it like they did. . .

Then there were much bigger names. JJ Abrams, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood, Zachary Quinto vs. Stuart Baird, Tom Hardy, Ron Perlman and Dina Meyer anyone?

Bigger names? The biggest names were Simon Pegg and Eric Bana. . . the main stars were Chris Pine, famous for "The Princess Diaries Two" and "Smokin' Aces"? and Zachary Quinto famous for being in a niche TV show that was on the chopping block and never having been in a movie before?

Then the overall feel you get from the movie. Nemesis was a borefest, not because of a lack of action or anything, but simply because of the whole direction. The chemistry didn't work on screen (I guess because the actors didn't even want to be there), and then Baird had the weird idea of creating a depressing mood, which is mostly the wrong turn to take.
And many more things...

Can't really argue with that. . .

But your criteria left out things like a story that people not only wanted to see again immediately, and recommend to their friends, but also wanted to see what happens next; and characters that people like with actors playing them that have chemistry. . . 3 of the 4 TNG movies didn't really have any of that. . .

And this is totally off topic. .. so, I'm bowing out. . .


~FS

 

[JarodRussell]

Nemesis came out in December. . .of course it wasn't going to get a January Superbowl spot almost a year before it's release. All the promotion in the world won't help a bad movie. . . and with its bad word of mouth, not even Trekkers/Trekkies wanted to see it. . . plus, if Paramount executives didn't believe they had a good movie in ST09, you can best believe that they wouldn't have spent the money to promote it like they did. . .

Well, Star Trek 2009 was also originally intended for December release, until someone changed his mind. And I think that word of mouth can be partially controlled. Of course Paramount's attitude changed. They let Nemesis turn into a bomb (almost intentionally, because I really can't see how nobody of the involved could have thought this could be a hit), but with Star Trek 2009, they increased the production and promotion budget. They should have changed their attitude towards Trek already before that, and Nemesis would have been in better hands. They let Stuart Baird direct this thing for crying out loud!

And this is totally off topic. .. so, I'm bowing out. . .

But not without trying to have the last word on the matter.

 

[Devon]

Well, Star Trek 2009 was also originally intended for December release,

They didn't produce a Superbowl spot for a Winter release, it was summer at that point.

And I think that word of mouth can be partially controlled. Of course Paramount's attitude changed.

The head of Paramount changed.

They let Nemesis turn into a bomb (almost intentionally, because I really can't see how nobody of the involved could have thought this could be a hit),

Which of course would be silly to "intentionally" do. Nemesis cost Paramount a lot of money and would have been dumb not try to recoup as much of that as possible.

but with Star Trek 2009, they increased the production and promotion budget. They should have changed their attitude towards Trek already before that,

New person at the top.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

This Trek movie was a bigger hit than the others primarily because so many people liked it so much and told other folks. That rarely happens with Star Trek movies, and never to this degree. It's not complicated.

And I think that word of mouth can be partially controlled.

Yeah...you don't really know anything about this kind of stuff, do you?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

There seems to be a lot of people stuck on the idea that if they do a Khan movie, it has to be TWOK style. They haven't met Khan yet... I'm sure there are plenty of ways that they can do the first meeting without it being "Crazed madman hunts Enterprise". We're complaining about the writers not being original by bringing back this villian, and yet we are failing to show any originality in thinking about what could possibly be done with it.

Bingo.

Most people just aren't creative thinkers. I'm continually struck by the paucity of imagination on this site (not to mention everywhere in real life). People can't go much beyond what they already know, to imagine what they don't know and haven't seen yet, and what they would want to see, if anything and everything were possible.

I have far more faith in the creative team of Star Trek to create something that will surprise and engage me than I have in the nay-sayers here. I threw out the challenge to anyone who wants to come up with an alternate idea, yet what do we see? Either other "old" ideas like Garth or vague suggestions that "it should have spaceships and be kewl."

My prediction is that Trek XII will indeed be about Khan and that most people will love it (with the usual cabal of haters who will dig in their toenails and never give up). Khan's name recognition will be a smart contribution to the total boxoffice take, but if you can add $10M to a take of $100M, why not do it? That's $10M!

However, the idea of running Khan past non-Trekkies is interesting. I'll try it and see what response I get. When I told non-Trekkies "they're doing another Star Trek," I got a big MEH till I mentioned Kirk and Spock. That reaction convinced me that Trek XI would be a big fat hit, so maybe this ad-hoc market research work a second time.

 

[Ryan8bit]

That coupled with the fact they have referenced "The Dark Knight" gives me a strong hint of their intentions.

While that may be possible, I think their intention was just to relate to the success of Dark Knight and how that movie was a sequel that did better.

There need not be 15 years of exile to turn Khan into a rival as in the public's mind he already is Kirk's rival. They just want to see them play cat and mouse on screen for two hours or so.

This is assuming that people want to see a rivalry. I'm sure some do, but is that what everybody or even a majority wants to see? How often lately have we had megalomaniacal villains who are supposed to be great rivals, but they just end up completely falling flat?

Lets say there is no Khan, this time. Do you really think people are going to stop asking Abrams and the writers about it? I don't.

No, I think it would constantly come up. But on the other hand, let's say they do Khan now. Does this imply a lack of media attention later? Does this mean a third movie will not be as good? That people will not want it as much? I'm kinda guessing no on that one.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It wouldn't hurt to cast Khan with an actor who has an international following, either.

 

[Sharr Khan]

While that may be possible, I think their intention was just to relate to the success of Dark Knight and how that movie was a sequel that did better.

"The Dark Knights" success is an abstraction and not particular of that film alone. No, the reference had to do with the route they were going. As I recall the context. "We've been looking to Nolan's Batman and where he went took that" or words to that effect. Doesn't strike me they were talking about abstractions like the relative success of a movie. That actually makes no sense, clearly they want whatever movie they make to be a winner. No need to confirm that.

This is assuming that people want to see a rivalry. I'm sure some do, but is that what everybody or even a majority wants to see? How often lately have we had megalomaniacal villains who are supposed to be great rivals, but they just end up completely falling flat?

Well I want to see a "good story" with interesting moments in it. How they go about this is up to them. I get the impression we mean two different things when you and I say "rivalry". I want to see a villain that perhaps has some depth and sophistication and brings out different aspects of our heroes as he presents them with a challenge, Its always a hit or miss regardless of who the bad guy is. Could be Khan or some random bad guy. There is no reductionist formula that can tell us before hand if it will be a winner or not.

No, I think it would constantly come up. But on the other hand, let's say they do Khan now. Does this imply a lack of media attention later? Does this mean a third movie will not be as good? That people will not want it as much? I'm kinda guessing no on that one.

Yes it would and don't doubt me if it does not take place now, it will take place. There's a media aspect to this that no doubt Paramount & Abrams team know enough to seize upon and payoff sooner or later.

And they would find another bit of Star Trek mythology that the public has some interest in for whatever new film they make but surely media buzz and its built potential has to be considered. These movies are as much homage as they are "original" to the extent any Star Trek has ever been original that is.

Dennis has a point about international casting.

 

[FarStrider]

"The Dark Knights" success is an abstraction and not particular of that film alone. No, the reference had to do with the route they were going. As I recall the context. "We've been looking to Nolan's Batman and where he went took that" or words to that effect. Doesn't strike me they were talking about abstractions like the relative success of a movie. That actually makes no sense, clearly they want whatever movie they make to be a winner. No need to confirm that.

You keep saying things like this. . . like you are some sort of mind reader. . . I know I can't convince you that there are other interpretations, since you seem to have the notion of Khan firmly ensconced in your head, but this is what Bryan Burk said about "The Dark Knight":

TrekMovie: When you look at this next movie in terms of scale and budget, like the recent Iron Man sequel where they gave them another $50 Million, are you thinking same scale or bigger?
Bryan Burk: Monetarily I can’t talk about anything because there is no script yet. I can tell you as we go into it, that our aspirations are for the movie to be even bigger and better than the first one. I don’t mean that just in scope, I mean content and characters and emotionally. We had a lot of conversations about Batman Begins and how that movie kind of re-invented that franchise, and we looked at what The Dark Knight did and how that really ramped it up and they went to a different place with that film, and how those two films keep re-inventing themselves and are not the same thing every time. So we have strong ideas of what we want to do and we are hoping that this one is an even bigger film than the last one.

I agree with Ryan8bit's interpretation: There is nothing in this quote that remotely implies Khan. . . He does say that they want to deepen the characters, they want to re-invent the franchise and do something different in the next film (which, can be read as 'Anti-Khan' considering that villains with a grudge against someone on the crew has been done to death now. . . .)

I'm just not seeing the codewords that point to Khan, here. . .

~FS

 

[Sharr Khan]

"The Dark Knights" success is an abstraction and not particular of that film alone. No, the reference had to do with the route they were going. As I recall the context. "We've been looking to Nolan's Batman and where he went took that" or words to that effect. Doesn't strike me they were talking about abstractions like the relative success of a movie. That actually makes no sense, clearly they want whatever movie they make to be a winner. No need to confirm that.

You keep saying things like this. . . like you are some sort of mind reader. . . I know I can't convince you that there are other interpretations, since you seem to have the notion of Khan firmly ensconced in your head, but this is what Bryan Burk said about "The Dark Knight":

TrekMovie: When you look at this next movie in terms of scale and budget, like the recent Iron Man sequel where they gave them another $50 Million, are you thinking same scale or bigger?
Bryan Burk: Monetarily I can’t talk about anything because there is no script yet. I can tell you as we go into it, that our aspirations are for the movie to be even bigger and better than the first one. I don’t mean that just in scope, I mean content and characters and emotionally. We had a lot of conversations about Batman Begins and how that movie kind of re-invented that franchise, and we looked at what The Dark Knight did and how that really ramped it up and they went to a different place with that film, and how those two films keep re-inventing themselves and are not the same thing every time. So we have strong ideas of what we want to do and we are hoping that this one is an even bigger film than the last one.

I agree with Ryan8bit's interpretation: There is nothing in this quote that remotely implies Khan. . . He does say that they want to deepen the characters, they want to re-invent the franchise and do something different in the next film (which, can be read as 'Anti-Khan' considering that villains with a grudge against someone on the crew has been done to death now. . . .)

I'm just not seeing the codewords that point to Khan, here. . .

~FS

Ok, part of it is I misremembered what I had read.
And I never claimed knowing for sure what they were doing. No more than anyone else here ever does.

I also took into account Paramounts resurgence in Khan related material, almost right on the heels of this interview. I have left room for other outcomes. As I am not in on their writers meetings it would be foolish to say I know for sure what they're going to do. Have I ever claimed to know for sure? If so I did not intend to leave that impression, I'm just going with my best educated guess.

Temis however had a point up thread about our narrow creative view as fans that discount new and interesting ways to carry out a Khan story. As I posted up thread JJ Abrams himself said "Khan is still out there... Some people are just destined to meet..." when he had been asked about a nuKirk and nuKhan confrontation.

Revenge need not be a driving force. I'm actually shocked that's the only mold Star Trek fans can see Khan fitting into one of a crazed mad man bent on revenge when he has the possibly of having many more layers and drives. Adversaries can come with varied intentions and still be threats. In fact Khan as a figure has the potential be something other than a crazed killer. Again, a point in his favor.

When asked I've offered how I might go about conducting various aspects regarding a new Khan story and also agreed with Dennis about the media possibilities. And why this aspect weighs in favor of Khan's inclusion. Not that I am a mind reader or anything of the sort.

My only other point is, and remains TPTB aren't about to pawn such a confrontation off onto subsidiary material. More than likely to do that would be viewed as a dramatic waste and better left for "The big screen". There are too many interesting storytelling possibilities in such a story to have it wasted on material that only Trek fans might buy.

Or like everyone else on the internet I could just be grasping in the dark waiting for answers. Really, what matters to me is they tell us a big, new interesting story. Personally I would want the bit of the nuTrekverse to "heal itself" and see to it that Kirk and Khan do confront one another. Part of the fun in this is a nostalgia factor for me some random "new" character who never had any bearing on Kirk or Spock and the crew is just less interesting to me than a rematch between two larger than life figures like Kirk and Khan.

I say the above with a certainty that there will be a villain of some sort, and it will be a person human or alien - anyone who doubts that is fooling themselves. What remains up in the air is if he'll be written like an Ernst Stavro Blofeld, or will be Kruge 2.0 - Though I'd be happy with someone a bit like Gen. Chang, thoughtful and a bit cultured.

 

[Pauln6]

I assumed that NuKhan would probably end up joining forces with the NuKlingons as a natural way of making him a Nu-antagonist without a revenge theme.

Still, Orions would be just as cool, or a multi-ethnic gang of marauders.

 

[UFO]

Revenge need not be a driving force. I'm actually shocked that's the only mold Star Trek fans can see Khan fitting into one of a crazed mad man bent on revenge when he has the possibly of having many more layers and drives. Adversaries can come with varied intentions and still be threats. In fact Khan as a figure has the potential be something other than a crazed killer. Again, a point in his favor.

I believe Khan was more that willing, if not happy, to kill the crew of the Enterprise long before he became crazed with vengeance, if that’s what you mean.

 

[JarodRussell]

Well, Star Trek 2009 was also originally intended for December release,

They didn't produce a Superbowl spot for a Winter release, it was summer at that point.

And I think that word of mouth can be partially controlled. Of course Paramount's attitude changed.

The head of Paramount changed.

They let Nemesis turn into a bomb (almost intentionally, because I really can't see how nobody of the involved could have thought this could be a hit),

Which of course would be silly to "intentionally" do. Nemesis cost Paramount a lot of money and would have been dumb not try to recoup as much of that as possible.

but with Star Trek 2009, they increased the production and promotion budget. They should have changed their attitude towards Trek already before that,

New person at the top.

I'm wondering, does that invalidate anything of what I said?
Paramount changed "its" attitude or Paramount got a new head with new ideas is essentially the same thing. And of course Star Trek 2009 got the SuperBowl spot after they changed the release date. But the fact of the matter is that they changed the release date and promoted it like hell. There are other summer movies that don't get SuperBowl spots.

And whatever happened to Nemesis... from the start this wasn't even thought to be a major success. Budget restrictions (a result of actor's salary rising extremely (Patrick Stewart alone from 9 to 14 million) but the budget between INS and NEM only rising from ~58 to ~60 million), a no name villain, they abolished the major sets already during filming, etc... it was like The Final Frontier all over again, when the movie from the very beginning didn't have the slightest chance to become a success. So it's either intentional or they were incredibly drunk when they greenlit such a thing.

 

[Pauln6]

And whatever happened to Nemesis... from the start this wasn't even thought to be a major success. Budget restrictions (a result of actor's salary rising extremely (Patrick Stewart alone from 9 to 14 million) but the budget between INS and NEM only rising from ~58 to ~60 million), a no name villain, they abolished the major sets already during filming, etc... it was like The Final Frontier all over again, when the movie from the very beginning didn't have the slightest chance to become a success. So it's either intentional or they were incredibly drunk when they greenlit such a thing.

There comes a time in every franchise when the producers think they can get more for less whether it's less story, less special effects, or cheaper actors/writers. If they get away with it once, they often try to get away with it again next time round, relying on more and more brand loyalty in place of substance. In the same way, as you confirm, actors will ask for more money, or a bigger part, if the success of a movie raises their profile for other work.

Other times, e.g. with the Spiderman 4 debacle, they try to interfere in the process and the whole thing grinds to a halt. Also, one of the weakest things in Spiderman 3, apart from the cheesiness of evil Spidey, was shoehorning in Venom, which was against Sam Raimi's instincts. Spidey 4 would have written itself if Venom had only appeared in the final frames of 3.

 

[FarStrider]

Ok, part of it is I misremembered what I had read.
And I never claimed knowing for sure what they were doing. No more than anyone else here ever does.

I also took into account Paramounts resurgence in Khan related material, almost right on the heels of this interview. I have left room for other outcomes. As I am not in on their writers meetings it would be foolish to say I know for sure what they're going to do. Have I ever claimed to know for sure? If so I did not intend to leave that impression, I'm just going with my best educated guess.

That premise is based on a marketing coincidence, though. . . Paramount knew this Khan related material was coming out months ago. . .they had to hire the artists and writers, design the tie-in plushie, pay someone to create it. . . pay the publishers. . . all of this takes time. . probably 6-9 months, or more. . . they knew when they had an opening for a comic book, and there is a set time when these things are announced (the book has to be sent to Diamond for review before it is included in the Diamond Distribution catalog, for instance - typically a book is included in the Diamond catalog 2-3 months in advance of it's ship date). . . so even if Burk hadn't said anything when he did, the company still would have announced the Khan related material at that time. . .it has NOTHING to do with the story that the Supreme Court is working on right now. . .

Temis however had a point up thread about our narrow creative view as fans that discount new and interesting ways to carry out a Khan story. As I posted up thread JJ Abrams himself said "Khan is still out there... Some people are just destined to meet..." when he had been asked about a nuKirk and nuKhan confrontation.

JJ Abrams only says these things because fanboy media outlets (TrekMovie.com, Io9, Science Fiction magazines and the like) keep ask him about it. . .

My only other point is, and remains TPTB aren't about to pawn such a confrontation off onto subsidiary material. More than likely to do that would be viewed as a dramatic waste and better left for "The big screen". There are too many interesting storytelling possibilities in such a story to have it wasted on material that only Trek fans might buy.

That's assuming that general fans would be interested in that story. . . there is no proof that they will be. . .

Or like everyone else on the internet I could just be grasping in the dark waiting for answers. Really, what matters to me is they tell us a big, new interesting story. Personally I would want the bit of the nuTrekverse to "heal itself" and see to it that Kirk and Khan do confront one another. Part of the fun in this is a nostalgia factor for me some random "new" character who never had any bearing on Kirk or Spock and the crew is just less interesting to me than a rematch between two larger than life figures like Kirk and Khan.

But it won't be a rematch. . . they haven't met in this Universe. . .

I say the above with a certainty that there will be a villain of some sort, and it will be a person human or alien - anyone who doubts that is fooling themselves. What remains up in the air is if he'll be written like an Ernst Stavro Blofeld, or will be Kruge 2.0 - Though I'd be happy with someone a bit like Gen. Chang, thoughtful and a bit cultured.

I actually don't doubt this. . . Kurtzman has talked about how in movies like WoK, Superman II, The Empire Strikes Back and The Dark Knight the villain becomes more important. . these are the models of 2nd movies that were "better" than the first movie that they are looking at, and what they say want to do in ST12. . .

~FS

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That's assuming that general fans would be interested in that story. . . there is no proof that they will be. . .

Whether they'll be interested or not will be settled when they see the movie.

Whether Khan is the best-known Trek "villain" to the general public is, however, known and proven. He is the "Joker" of the franchise.

 

[Ryan8bit]

That actually makes no sense, clearly they want whatever movie they make to be a winner. No need to confirm that.

Well, as FarStrider posted, it is kinda what they said. They were talking scope more so than villain. Obviously they want this movie to do better, but sequels in Hollywood are generally miss, not hit. So they want to see what they can do to make it a hit. Maybe that involves Khan, I don't know. Somehow I feel that no matter what they end up deciding, that it will be a hit regardless.

Yes it would and don't doubt me if it does not take place now, it will take place.

I think I'm with you on that.

 

[I am not Spock]

The thing with Nemesis is that by that point, Paramount were treating the Trek franchise as little more than one of their direct to DVD franchises, just making low budget features and hoping the fanbase would lap it up and make it profitable. It may as well have been like Halloween H20 or whatever to the beancounters.

By 2002, Trek was over. As far as the mainstream was concerned. Only six years before, First Contact had been a hit, and I thought in 96 that Trek would be with us forever. What happened? I think Insurrection may have spoiled the party. Even as a 16 year old walking out of the theatre in 98, I thought 'THAT was it?'

I wouldn't mind seeing Khan again in Trek XII, as long as they put a fresh spin on it.

 

[Devon]

I'm wondering, does that invalidate anything of what I said?

Not meant to.

Paramount changed "its" attitude or Paramount got a new head with new ideas is essentially the same thing.

The fact that the heads changed is the reason why Paramount changed it's attitude. It wasn't one giant entity that suddenly had a mood swing.

And of course Star Trek 2009 got the SuperBowl spot after they changed the release date. But the fact of the matter is that they changed the release date and promoted it like hell. There are other summer movies that don't get SuperBowl spots.

That's the decision of the production company's marketing department.

And whatever happened to Nemesis... from the start this wasn't even thought to be a major success. Budget restrictions (a result of actor's salary rising extremely (Patrick Stewart alone from 9 to 14 million) but the budget between INS and NEM only rising from ~58 to ~60 million), a no name villain, they abolished the major sets already during filming, etc... it was like The Final Frontier all over again, when the movie from the very beginning didn't have the slightest chance to become a success. So it's either intentional or they were incredibly drunk when they greenlit such a thing.

No one is going to pump $100 Million into something to make it intentionally bomb. If the studio didn't want it to succeed, they didn't have to make it, and would save themselves the money in the process. At the same time, the reasons for the film's failure can be attributed to other factors. The "incredibly drunk" reason, believe it or not, is a more plausible reason.

 

[Blackbird]

It's a tricky one.

I would like to see a new Khan but I would hate to see it detract from TWOK, which was my personal fave TOS movie.

If done well then it could be brilliant. But TWOK casts a long shadow...