A Khan Sequel ?

[RobertScorpio]

Re: Can We Have A Kahn Sequel ?

Personally I like the idea that someone else posted about the federations using the genesis device to try and recreate vulcan.

Enter: the little blond lab technician. Create a conflict between Kirk and Carol Marcus with him arguing with her that the work she is doing is more dangerous than humane.

Kirk will realize just how dangerous the universe would be if this device got into the wrong hands. Enter Gary Mitchell. Kirk bunked with him at the academy (although we will just assume we never saw him in Trek 11), and he ends up being assigned at the last minute to be the special ops officer on the bridge.
Enter Khan, and his followers being revived from hypersleep by the crew of the USS Reliant.

In the end, Gary Mitchell could end up being the one that dies to save Kirk and co. from Khan's wrath.

This is just a really vague way of developing ideas for this, but I figured why not. I do want to see old characters revisited in new ways because we won't know there fate since it's a new timeline.

I think Khan could be done BETTER this time out if written properly and played by a quality actor. Khan is considered the holy grail of Trek lore. Even for people like me who were kinda so so on WOK, I still think the Trek writers and producers would be absolutely stupid to ignore the opportunity to bring a big budget Khan film to the big screen.

Plus, like it or not, Paramount is going to have their fair say in the sequel, and if they base it on how well the Dark Knight did bringing back the most famous villain in Batman's past, well it will be obvious to Paramount what the sequel should have a hefty dose of. It does come down to $$$$. If they think more money can be made bringing back a redo of Trek's most popular villain, then writing a brand new story about new characters, you can bet what kind of sequel will be made.

Leave the new adventures and new aliens for a new tv series. Movies are too big an investment for film companies to be taking chances on "new storys". And if I was a movie exec I would be pushing for a Khan sequel for that reason alone. Star Trek Insurrection was a very original story for Trek, but we all know how that turned out. We got a redo of Gilbert and Sullivan lol. JOY.

Point being. Stick to what works, Khan would be welcomed back with open arms to the majority of people who love all things Trek. I'm willing to bet there were plenty who didn't want to see the Joker return in the Dark Knight, and because of solid writing, those same fans were treated to one of the best comic book films of all time. Trek should stick to the same formula.

Nuff said.

I'll take that as a compliment.

I wrote up a little bit in one of my previous posts about the fact that Khan doesn't have to be written as the bad guy - or at least not the willing and intentional villain.

I think there are ways to explore his character which would be both unpredictable and exciting.

I like your idea..well...most of it. But KHAN has to be the bad guy for the simple reason that the general public wont have to be 're-educated'. Rewrite your story just have him be the bad guy...think of this as a producer not a writer. You have the brand already there. "KIRK vs KHAN". No reason to spend script time retelling that part of it...

So...if I was the studio guy? I'd say..."Look Bubba, I like your idea..but can you imagine the poster "KIRK VS KHAN"!!! I love it already!!!"

Thats how it would go...trust me..

Rob

 

[Ovation]

No, no, no, and NO! The whole point of having a NEW "universe" is to NOT re-hash the old. I will be EXTREMELY disappointed if they go the Khan route.

 

[RobertScorpio]

No, no, no, and NO! The whole point of having a NEW "universe" is to NOT re-hash the old. I will be EXTREMELY disappointed if they go the Khan route.

I would agree to not doing it IF they can find a villain that is more pivotal than Bana, who I did like, but more central to Kirk. Just not enough of him, and thats okay, considering they had alot on their plate.

Rob

 

[Ovation]

Why does the "foe" have to be "central to Kirk"? Why can't the crew cope with new and unknown dangers? A "first contact" gone wrong through misunderstanding (which could generate the "action sequences") that is corrected through some compromise (which would be the "thinking" element). To make the whole thing resonate at an emotional level, include Pike in the story and have him be the one who dies owing to the misunderstanding--the "lesson" could be a refusal to given in to the urge to "avenge" Pike.

(just some random thoughts but I do stand by my contention that the "villain" need NOT be "central to Kirk" in a traditional sense)

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Why does the "foe" have to be "central to Kirk"? Why can't the crew cope with new and unknown dangers? A "first contact" gone wrong through misunderstanding (which could generate the "action sequences") that is corrected through some compromise (which would be the "thinking" element). To make the whole thing resonate at an emotional level, include Pike in the story and have him be the one who dies owing to the misunderstanding--the "lesson" could be a refusal to given in to the urge to "avenge" Pike.

A first contact gone wrong? First thought I have: "Booring". Personally, I'd probably like it, but it probably wouldn't have gotten the attention from non-Star Trek fans.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Why does the "foe" have to be "central to Kirk"? Why can't the crew cope with new and unknown dangers? A "first contact" gone wrong through misunderstanding (which could generate the "action sequences") that is corrected through some compromise (which would be the "thinking" element). To make the whole thing resonate at an emotional level, include Pike in the story and have him be the one who dies owing to the misunderstanding--the "lesson" could be a refusal to given in to the urge to "avenge" Pike.

(just some random thoughts but I do stand by my contention that the "villain" need NOT be "central to Kirk" in a traditional sense)

I do..I think its important that a villain be directly connected to one of the principles of the movie. Darth Vader and Khan are so remembered, I think, because not only were they bad..they had direct motive. Some movies fail at it, but the good ones hit home runs. Khan and Vader are homeruns.

In this year's 24 when Tony turns bad, we are all upset because he has direct connections to Jack...for example.

Rob

 

[Red Ranger]

Three words: Ming the Merciless! -- RR

 

[RobertScorpio]

Three words: Ming the Merciless! -- RR

Ha!! I get your point:..but I liked that movie.

But I will give you one word; ZOD.

and the best one I can think of? Terminator. Those Terminators are coming back directly because of their involvement with John Conner. Thats what makes those movies so good..


Rob

 

[schatenjager]

You're all forgetting what made Khan great. If they re-ran Space Seed, you'd have a Khan who was merely intent on power. In Space Seed, he simply tried to seize control of the Enterprise. Yeah, he was smart and yeah, he was strong but he didn't specifically hate Kirk and co. nor did he have anything against the Enterprise. He just wanted to control.

Star Trek 2 succeeded with Khan as the villain for two reasons. First, they brought back a character who people (remember, this was in 1982) remembered. People who were interested in seeing Wrath of Khan remembered Space Seed and knew the character. Secondly, Khan has been stranded on that dead planet for years. His wife died, because he was on that planet. He fomented years and years of hatred specifically directed at Kirk for abandoning him there. The Wrath of Khan wasn't about Khan being Khan, it was about Khan wanting Revenge on Kirk.

In the new Star Trek universe, were they to bring him back, they would really need to invent a reason for Khan to be a great villain again. Simply presenting the Space Seed version of Khan wouldn't be enough. We've already watched that show. Similarly, they can't simply make Khan into the Wrath of Khan character without giving him a reason to act that way. He wasn't bent on revenge upon waking up, it took decades on Ceti Alpha to get him that way.

 

[RobertScorpio]

You're all forgetting what made Khan great. If they re-ran Space Seed, you'd have a Khan who was merely intent on power. In Space Seed, he simply tried to seize control of the Enterprise. Yeah, he was smart and yeah, he was strong but he didn't specifically hate Kirk and co. nor did he have anything against the Enterprise. He just wanted to control.

Star Trek 2 succeeded with Khan as the villain for two reasons. First, they brought back a character who people (remember, this was in 1982) remembered. People who were interested in seeing Wrath of Khan remembered Space Seed and knew the character. Secondly, Khan has been stranded on that dead planet for years. His wife died, because he was on that planet. He fomented years and years of hatred specifically directed at Kirk for abandoning him there. The Wrath of Khan wasn't about Khan being Khan, it was about Khan wanting Revenge on Kirk.

In the new Star Trek universe, were they to bring him back, they would really need to invent a reason for Khan to be a great villain again. Simply presenting the Space Seed version of Khan wouldn't be enough. We've already watched that show. Similarly, they can't simply make Khan into the Wrath of Khan character without giving him a reason to act that way. He wasn't bent on revenge upon waking up, it took decades on Ceti Alpha to get him that way.

STAR TREK 12 has them meet him, and he tries to take over the ship...he gets away...star trek 13 he comes back for his wrath...

Yes, I know, its been done. And trek fans will flip out seeing it all over again..but who cares? The regular people out there know the basic history and if given the bells and whistles this one was, it would be action pack and hell, I would have someone die (sulu or chekov) and maybe an infant version of David Marcus...

Rob

 

[Ovation]

Why does the "foe" have to be "central to Kirk"? Why can't the crew cope with new and unknown dangers? A "first contact" gone wrong through misunderstanding (which could generate the "action sequences") that is corrected through some compromise (which would be the "thinking" element). To make the whole thing resonate at an emotional level, include Pike in the story and have him be the one who dies owing to the misunderstanding--the "lesson" could be a refusal to given in to the urge to "avenge" Pike.

A first contact gone wrong? First thought I have: "Booring". Personally, I'd probably like it, but it probably wouldn't have gotten the attention from non-Star Trek fans.

Not as a first movie with this new cast--but now they are established. And there are all sorts of ways a "first contact gone wrong" need not be boring. Despite its dated effects, first contact with the Gorn (I'm not suggesting it be the Gorn in the new movie, just providing an example) was not "boring" (at least not in the first half of the episode). Make Pike a casualty of that first contact--then get both sides to understand that fighting each other is not the most productive way to continue their relationship. The Federation needs new allies with the devastation of Vulcan--that provides the motivation for establishing contact (plus it's part of the "ongoing mission" and all that). (if I keep going, I'll be putting together a story pitch )

I do..I think its important that a villain be directly connected to one of the principles of the movie. Darth Vader and Khan are so remembered, I think, because not only were they bad..they had direct motive. Some movies fail at it, but the good ones hit home runs. Khan and Vader are homeruns.


Rob

Not every movie needs an irredeemably evil "villain". Not even sci-fi movies (in fact, especially not even sci-fi movies). I would, frankly, find it boring to revisit that trope so soon.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Why does the "foe" have to be "central to Kirk"? Why can't the crew cope with new and unknown dangers? A "first contact" gone wrong through misunderstanding (which could generate the "action sequences") that is corrected through some compromise (which would be the "thinking" element). To make the whole thing resonate at an emotional level, include Pike in the story and have him be the one who dies owing to the misunderstanding--the "lesson" could be a refusal to given in to the urge to "avenge" Pike.

A first contact gone wrong? First thought I have: "Booring". Personally, I'd probably like it, but it probably wouldn't have gotten the attention from non-Star Trek fans.

Not as a first movie with this new cast--but now they are established. And there are all sorts of ways a "first contact gone wrong" need not be boring. Despite its dated effects, first contact with the Gorn (I'm not suggesting it be the Gorn in the new movie, just providing an example) was not "boring" (at least not in the first half of the episode). Make Pike a casualty of that first contact--then get both sides to understand that fighting each other is not the most productive way to continue their relationship. The Federation needs new allies with the devastation of Vulcan--that provides the motivation for establishing contact (plus it's part of the "ongoing mission" and all that). (if I keep going, I'll be putting together a story pitch )

I do..I think its important that a villain be directly connected to one of the principles of the movie. Darth Vader and Khan are so remembered, I think, because not only were they bad..they had direct motive. Some movies fail at it, but the good ones hit home runs. Khan and Vader are homeruns.


Rob

Not every movie needs an irredeemably evil "villain". Not even sci-fi movies (in fact, especially not even sci-fi movies). I would, frankly, find it boring to revisit that trope so soon.

Well, you have your opinion, and I have mine. A good villain, and I mean one that is bad to the bone and ruthless, is what this next movie needs...and I suspect; it will.

Rob

 

[Ovation]

If that is the route they choose to take, I will be far less enthusiastic about a sequel. It won't bother me as much if it is a new villain, but if it is Khan, I will really be disappointed.

 

[Smiley]

Besides The Dark Knight, when has an iconic villain been brought back to great effect? Revenge of the Sith had a little Vader, but that's kind of a unique case. Quantum of Solace gave us a revised vision of SPECTRE (without Blofeld, of course), and that did not work so well. Lex Luthor is very memorable, but his appearances after the 1978 movie have not made a big splash with most moviegoers.

What the makers of Trek XII need to do is figure out what kind of story they want to tell and create a villain to fit that story. They don't need to get the public's attention again; they have it. Khan or the Borg are something you try when you need a surefire hit after low box office returns.

 

[Ovation]

Besides The Dark Knight, when has an iconic villain been brought back to great effect? Revenge of the Sith had a little Vader, but that's kind of a unique case. Quantum of Solace gave us a revised vision of SPECTRE (without Blofeld, of course), and that did not work so well. Lex Luthor is very memorable, but his appearances after the 1978 movie have not made a big splash with most moviegoers.

What the makers of Trek XII need to do is figure out what kind of story they want to tell and create a villain to fit that story. They don't need to get the public's attention again; they have it. Khan or the Borg are something you try when you need a surefire hit after low box office returns.

This.

 

[Silanda]

No, no, no! I don't want to see any more Khan, simply rehashing old ideas is not the way I want to see the franchise develop. I don't believe there would be much of an advantage to bringing him back anyway. It will piss off a lot of fans, the general audience who haven't followed Trek won't care that he is back, and it would bring direct comparisons between the next movie and TWOK. If it was anything other than totally, stunningly, amazing, that would not be a great thing to do.

 

[Mach5]

Khan in ST XII - Yes or No?

There's been so much talk about the possibility of redoing "Khan" in ST XII (Orci & Kurtzman even talked about Javier Bardem being worthy successor to Ricardo Montalban).

I personally don't like the idea of revisiting old stuff (I mean, could the nuKhan really live up to the original?)
I would like the sequel to go where no Trek has gone before, how about you guys?

 

[Shim]

Re: Khan in ST XII - Yes or No?

I'm not a huge fan of them - but surely XII has to have Klingons.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Re: Khan in ST XII - Yes or No?

Fuck no. To put it bluntly. Old Khan was insufferable enough, nuKhan wouldn't be any better. Most people who've just been introduced to Trek would think something in the lines of "man, that's a Nero ripoff", anyway.

 

[urbandk]

Re: Khan in ST XII - Yes or No?

N. O. No.