Entertainment Weekly Star Trek Into Darkness Issue

[Lord Garth FOI]

1. Of course he is playing Khan

2. In Space Seed Montalban had copious amounts of that same Klingon brown show polish makeup on

3. In Star Trek II he had the exact same pink completion everyone here seems to be bitching about with Cumby

4. Why are so many people POed that we are getting one of the finest, most intense, dramatic actors in the world playing a version of Treks most beloved arch villain ?

 

[Opus]

Ummm... They have to retcon 'Space Seed' anyhow. Last time I checked, there were no genetically engineered humans that took over the world in the early to late 1990's. (with big props to Greg Cox of course)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Both Abrams and the folks in marketing are completely aware of how all the rumors about Khan are being received.

They're not letting this all continue so that they can draw back the curtain in May on...some new guy who's borrowing the "Botany Bay" storyline but is not Khan.

Believe it.

 

[Matt S]

Why have such a good actor play a character that seems all new: acts different, sounds and looks different, yet ends up going around calling himself Khan?

When you have ZERO resemblance to the original character, why even 'go there?'

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Because he's an extraordinarily good actor playing the only Trek villain whose name means a thing to the casual moviegoer.

Whatever cavils long-time Trek fans may have about the casting are beside the point; we're all going to pay to see the movie (well, except for that one guy over there who's about to post "I have no interest in this/I'll see it for free/I'll wait for the DVD").

Why are so many people POed that we are getting one of the finest, most intense, dramatic actors in the world playing a version of Treks most beloved arch villain ?

Why does the phone always ring just when you're taking a bath?

 

[sttngfan1701d]

1. Of course he is playing Khan

2. In Space Seed Montalban had copious amounts of that same Klingon brown show polish makeup on

3. In Star Trek II he had the exact same pink completion everyone here seems to be bitching about with Cumby

4. Why are so many people POed that we are getting one of the finest, most intense, dramatic actors in the world playing a version of Treks most beloved arch villain ?

Because in 2012, you'd think they would actually cast an INDIAN to play an INDIAN.

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. He's as white as they come and this is not 1967, so there's no reason anymore to cast white guys for other racial parts.

That's why I hope that it's just a rumor he's playing Khan and he's actually playing Johnny Villian/John Harrison/Whoever.

And why play "a version of Khan" when you can just replay Khan? So I hope that whoever he is there's no connection to Khan and he's a new villain entirely.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Why does he need dark skin to be Indian? Last time I checked, the British ruled India for three and a half centuries.

In fact, why does Khan have to be Indian at all? Oh right.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Why have such a good actor play a character that seems all new: acts different, sounds and looks different

Like Lieutenant Saavik, Zefram Cochrane, Tora Ziyal, Kimara Cretak, Alexander Roshenko, Daimon Bok and Captain Braxton?

 

[BeatleJWOL]

Lieutenant Saavik

Forever to be referred to as "pulling a Kirstie Alley".

 

[Ketrick]

1. Of course he is playing Khan

2. In Space Seed Montalban had copious amounts of that same Klingon brown show polish makeup on

3. In Star Trek II he had the exact same pink completion everyone here seems to be bitching about with Cumby

4. Why are so many people POed that we are getting one of the finest, most intense, dramatic actors in the world playing a version of Treks most beloved arch villain ?

Benedict Cumberbatch is playing Khan, but not Khan Noonien Singh. His character's name is indeed John Harrison and he is an augment. The curveball they're throwing is that he's the descendent of Noonien Singh and therefore has a right to be called Khan whether it is being used as a name, a title, or both. This is the only answer that makes sense. This way he can be British, a member of Starfleet, and a one man weapon of mass destruction while at the same time being Khan in name and essence.

However, Khan Noonien Singh is almost certain to show up in the film in someway and not just as a flashback. That doesn't necessarily mean there will be a cliffhanger. I'm sure the Supreme Court would want to leave their options open as to what the next movie's plot is and who its villain is.

Section 31 or a similar group is likely to appear in some form as well.

 

[BillJ]

Many of those traits that make Khan, Khan would've been bred out after three and a half centuries.

 

[Ketrick]

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".

 

[BillJ]

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.

 

[DalekJim]

The movie comes out in a few months. Would it really be too much to confirm/deny the Khan rumours?

 

[Ovation]

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?

 

[DalekJim]

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?

 

[Ovation]

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?

 

[DalekJim]

Oh, OK.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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?

 

[The Doctor]

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.