A New Twist to Cumberbatch's Role? (SPOILERS, I Guess)
- Thread starter The Wormhole
- Start date
Clearly, it is Lazarus. There is no more coherent, well-written story from TOS than The Alternative Factor and since this is an alternate timeline, what better iconic basis for the sequel can their be?
The sarcasm seething from your post is glorious.
Some of these arguments about who the villain could be are quite tiring. Some say that he will be an Indian superman. Or that he can make coffee cups move with thought. All we know is, he's called the Stig. Ok, not really. But he might as well be with how much we know. Not much about the villain can be stated as fact. Most of it is just speculation. And I will now try to debunk as many theories as I can.
Khan first. Here is a quote from a previous Trekmovie article:
"Bob responds to a rumor that the villain would be someone from the first season of Star Trek, to which Bob replied:
I don’t think so."
Source: http://trekmovie.com/2011/04/05/rob...lain-could-be-person-or-concept-villain-poll/
As we all know, Khan (and Gary Mitchell) was from the first season. Now Bob doesn't completely refute the rumor but he does make it seem unlikely.
In another interview, Alex Kurtzman said:
"Starting at a premise of what you want to see and then working a story around it is not how we do it. You have to start with what is the right story. And that if you can say "That’s a story that Khan fits into", that’s how you get to that."
Source: http://trekmovie.com/2010/09/11/sta...abrams-orci-kurtzman-talk-khan-klingons-more/
Ok, he mentions Khan. But that's not evidence for Khan. If you read what else he had to say you could figure out that the way they came up with the story was to have a basic story and then find a villain that would fit. That couldn't be done with Khan. Khan had a specific backstory and wouldn't fit into many plots.
From Benedict Cumberbatch:
"I didn’t know what I was going to do and I had very little time to establish the character in that franchise."
Source: http://trekmovie.com/2012/08/12/ben...mping-into-star-trek-sequel-with-little-prep/
Khan is already very established in Star Trek. If it hadn't already been confirmed that the villain was a canon character then this could have been evidence that it was a new character. It does make it sound like the villain is someone not well known or who had a small role originally.
And now the big one:
“It’s not Khan,” replies Pegg, annoyed. “That’s a myth. Everyone’s saying it is, but it’s not.”
Source: I don't think I need a source for this one. Besides, I can't find the link.
No one has mentioned this quote yet as far as I know. Yet it's hard to get away from. He also said that he wasn't lying and that it wasn't misdirection. Why would he ruin his reputation like that if it is Khan? The only explanation that makes sense is that he was telling the truth.
Now to debunk the evidence that everyone claims prove Khan.
Benicio Del Toro
First of all, it was never confirmed that they wanted him for the villain. Only that J.J. had wanted to put him in the movie. It could easily have been for Peter Weller or Noel Clarke's roles. It was a rumor started by Variety that he was going to be the villain. And no one from the production team ever confirmed it. Variety were also the ones that claimed to have been told by trusted sources (sound familiar?) that Alice Eve was going to play a new character which was later refuted by Bob Orci. Variety were also the only ones to ever report on the other Hispanic actors that were supposedly considered for the role. So I wouldn't use Del Toro as evidence for Khan.
Super strength
In the spy photos the villain is apparently able to resist nerve pinches and phaser shots. Spock was able to effortlessly knock of one of Khan's crew with a nerve pinch so I'm sure he could take down Khan with one too. Phasers I don't know since Khan was never shot.
Trekmovie's report
The strongest evidence for Khan. And the hardest to refute. As I noted earlier, Variety reported several things about the cast that were told to them by sources and at least one of them was false. So trusted sources may not always be reliable.
One other important piece of evidence against Khan is that Benedict Cumberbatch doesn't resemble Khan in the slightest. In the spy photos he is seen the be pale, brown-haired (brown, not black like Khan's), and wearing a Starfleet uniform. The press release confirmed that he's a Starfleet officer.
So there you have it, the villain is not Khan. I bet 47, 000, 000 bars of latinum on it.
I know you've probably stopped reading by know, but I also have to disprove Gary Mitchell. This is harder because there is more evidence for him but I can prove that he is most likely not the villain.
First of all:
"Bob was asked if the following were in the sequel and he confirmed that all are not…
Janice Rand
Gary Mitchell ("Where No Man Has Gone Before")
Charlie X ("Charlie X")
Ruk the android ("What Are Little Girls Made Of")
The Borg"
Source: http://trekmovie.com/2012/06/25/orc...v-show-rules-out-some-sequel-characters-more/
Now some have said that this could be the lie he mentioned, but in a Trekmovie interview he seemed to imply that on this issue he was telling the truth:
"TrekMovie.com: A couple of weeks ago you were on a radio show and you confirmed that Benedict Cumberbatch is not playing Gary Mitchell in the sequel. Then last week Karl Urban says he is playing Gary Mitchell. Both can’t be true.
Roberto Orci: All I can say is that when I did that radio interview I had just been doing 22 hours of press. I had just got off a flight from New Zealand…
TrekMovie.com: Nice callback, but are you sticking with your original comment and it isn’t Gary Mitchell.
Roberto Orci: I would say that I never lie. While Karl tests all those hypo spray props on himself [laughs]"
Source: http://trekmovie.com/2012/07/14/exc...haracter-details-talks-title-post-production/
So he was more than likely telling the truth about Mitchell not being in the movie.
Then of course there's the fact that GM died in the comic. Yes, his body is intact, but why do the story for the comics at all? You have to remember that the script was being written before the comics. So the writers would have to think "Why don't we make it that WNMHGB already happened in this universe and now Mitchell comes back from the dead?". It would make no sense. Also, Mike Johnson said that there would be a tiny hint of a subplot in the first issue. I can't find the exact quote but this means that whatever clue there is in the issue (probably about Dehner) isn't related to something as important as the villain.
So Gary Mitchell is highly unlikely. But more likely than Khan.
Thanks for reading this loooooong comment, if you did.
Khan first. Here is a quote from a previous Trekmovie article:
"Bob responds to a rumor that the villain would be someone from the first season of Star Trek, to which Bob replied:
I don’t think so."
Source: http://trekmovie.com/2011/04/05/rob...lain-could-be-person-or-concept-villain-poll/
As we all know, Khan (and Gary Mitchell) was from the first season. Now Bob doesn't completely refute the rumor but he does make it seem unlikely.
In another interview, Alex Kurtzman said:
"Starting at a premise of what you want to see and then working a story around it is not how we do it. You have to start with what is the right story. And that if you can say "That’s a story that Khan fits into", that’s how you get to that."
Source: http://trekmovie.com/2010/09/11/sta...abrams-orci-kurtzman-talk-khan-klingons-more/
Ok, he mentions Khan. But that's not evidence for Khan. If you read what else he had to say you could figure out that the way they came up with the story was to have a basic story and then find a villain that would fit. That couldn't be done with Khan. Khan had a specific backstory and wouldn't fit into many plots.
From Benedict Cumberbatch:
"I didn’t know what I was going to do and I had very little time to establish the character in that franchise."
Source: http://trekmovie.com/2012/08/12/ben...mping-into-star-trek-sequel-with-little-prep/
Khan is already very established in Star Trek. If it hadn't already been confirmed that the villain was a canon character then this could have been evidence that it was a new character. It does make it sound like the villain is someone not well known or who had a small role originally.
And now the big one:
“It’s not Khan,” replies Pegg, annoyed. “That’s a myth. Everyone’s saying it is, but it’s not.”
Source: I don't think I need a source for this one. Besides, I can't find the link.
No one has mentioned this quote yet as far as I know. Yet it's hard to get away from. He also said that he wasn't lying and that it wasn't misdirection. Why would he ruin his reputation like that if it is Khan? The only explanation that makes sense is that he was telling the truth.
Now to debunk the evidence that everyone claims prove Khan.
Benicio Del Toro
First of all, it was never confirmed that they wanted him for the villain. Only that J.J. had wanted to put him in the movie. It could easily have been for Peter Weller or Noel Clarke's roles. It was a rumor started by Variety that he was going to be the villain. And no one from the production team ever confirmed it. Variety were also the ones that claimed to have been told by trusted sources (sound familiar?) that Alice Eve was going to play a new character which was later refuted by Bob Orci. Variety were also the only ones to ever report on the other Hispanic actors that were supposedly considered for the role. So I wouldn't use Del Toro as evidence for Khan.
Super strength
In the spy photos the villain is apparently able to resist nerve pinches and phaser shots. Spock was able to effortlessly knock of one of Khan's crew with a nerve pinch so I'm sure he could take down Khan with one too. Phasers I don't know since Khan was never shot.
Trekmovie's report
The strongest evidence for Khan. And the hardest to refute. As I noted earlier, Variety reported several things about the cast that were told to them by sources and at least one of them was false. So trusted sources may not always be reliable.
One other important piece of evidence against Khan is that Benedict Cumberbatch doesn't resemble Khan in the slightest. In the spy photos he is seen the be pale, brown-haired (brown, not black like Khan's), and wearing a Starfleet uniform. The press release confirmed that he's a Starfleet officer.
So there you have it, the villain is not Khan. I bet 47, 000, 000 bars of latinum on it.
I know you've probably stopped reading by know, but I also have to disprove Gary Mitchell. This is harder because there is more evidence for him but I can prove that he is most likely not the villain.
First of all:
"Bob was asked if the following were in the sequel and he confirmed that all are not…
Janice Rand
Gary Mitchell ("Where No Man Has Gone Before")
Charlie X ("Charlie X")
Ruk the android ("What Are Little Girls Made Of")
The Borg"
Source: http://trekmovie.com/2012/06/25/orc...v-show-rules-out-some-sequel-characters-more/
Now some have said that this could be the lie he mentioned, but in a Trekmovie interview he seemed to imply that on this issue he was telling the truth:
"TrekMovie.com: A couple of weeks ago you were on a radio show and you confirmed that Benedict Cumberbatch is not playing Gary Mitchell in the sequel. Then last week Karl Urban says he is playing Gary Mitchell. Both can’t be true.
Roberto Orci: All I can say is that when I did that radio interview I had just been doing 22 hours of press. I had just got off a flight from New Zealand…
TrekMovie.com: Nice callback, but are you sticking with your original comment and it isn’t Gary Mitchell.
Roberto Orci: I would say that I never lie. While Karl tests all those hypo spray props on himself [laughs]"
Source: http://trekmovie.com/2012/07/14/exc...haracter-details-talks-title-post-production/
So he was more than likely telling the truth about Mitchell not being in the movie.
Then of course there's the fact that GM died in the comic. Yes, his body is intact, but why do the story for the comics at all? You have to remember that the script was being written before the comics. So the writers would have to think "Why don't we make it that WNMHGB already happened in this universe and now Mitchell comes back from the dead?". It would make no sense. Also, Mike Johnson said that there would be a tiny hint of a subplot in the first issue. I can't find the exact quote but this means that whatever clue there is in the issue (probably about Dehner) isn't related to something as important as the villain.
So Gary Mitchell is highly unlikely. But more likely than Khan.
Thanks for reading this loooooong comment, if you did.
I believe the source for that quote is this interview. (Scroll down a little past halfway.)
For what it's worth, in a grand and probably wrong attempt to put it all together, Weller could be the famous exobiologist Roger Korby (Korby was in his late 40s, Weller can play that), Eve could be the genius molecular biologist Carol Marcus (the age would be right), and Cumberbatch could be research biologist Sam Kirk (older brother by four years). They were working on something on some planet and things went terribly wrong. Sam's family is killed, and Sam is horribly transformed by the disaster. Maybe it was "fringe" science. Maybe something of questionable ethics.
Jim Kirk has to deal with a former love, maybe Korby goes rogue like he did in TOS and Kirk has to settle a score with him (maybe he holds Korby responsible for what happened to his brother), and then there's Sam, himself, who's become a one-man weapon of mass destruction.
Jim Kirk has to deal with a former love, maybe Korby goes rogue like he did in TOS and Kirk has to settle a score with him (maybe he holds Korby responsible for what happened to his brother), and then there's Sam, himself, who's become a one-man weapon of mass destruction.
Peter Weller is playing a new character, so he can't be Korby. Also, his character is a "CEO type" with his own starship.
My take, Weller is Starfleet's chief of staff, that would make him a CEO type and explain why he has his own starship. He's also to rogue officer who has detonated the fleet. Cumberbatch meanwhile is the one man weapon of mass destruction.
My take, Weller is Starfleet's chief of staff, that would make him a CEO type and explain why he has his own starship. He's also to rogue officer who has detonated the fleet. Cumberbatch meanwhile is the one man weapon of mass destruction.
Nope, no authoritative source has said that Cumberbatch is playing an iconic season 1 tos character, merely that an iconic season 1 tos character will appear in the film, however with no hint whatsoever if said appearance is of major story significance, or little more than a walk-on.
He may not be from Season One, but Orci has said Cumberbatch plays a pre-existing character from "Star Trek" canon.
Back in June, Lindelof called the villain a "very cool and nuanced force of antagonism." I guess that description is supposed to square with him also being a "one-man weapon of mass destruction," as described in the synopsis, and with the destruction shown in the new poster.
Back in June, Lindelof called the villain a "very cool and nuanced force of antagonism." I guess that description is supposed to square with him also being a "one-man weapon of mass destruction," as described in the synopsis, and with the destruction shown in the new poster.
I believe in the comics, Kirk's brother was drawn in Chris Hemsworth's likeness, so, yea, that'd be really strange to use Cumberbatch to play Kirk's brother, since Pine and Hemsworth have a similar look and can be easily be seen as brothers or Father and son (As portrayed onscreen), but, Cumberbatch looks nothing like either of them.
No, Sam was in an episode - the one with the killer organic pancake looking thingees....Operation Annihilate I believe. He was already dead and was played by the Shat
^*wags finger* Nuh-uh. 
Follow these other links for clues that correspond to what we know which add up to Garth. Keep in mind the Nuverse is under no obligation to follow prior canon exactly, it can draw from or pay homages to, however.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Antos_IV
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Garth_of_Izar
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Antos_IV
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Garth_of_Izar
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/The_Four_Years_War
I am convinced it is true more than ever.
Follow these other links for clues that correspond to what we know which add up to Garth. Keep in mind the Nuverse is under no obligation to follow prior canon exactly, it can draw from or pay homages to, however.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Antos_IV
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Garth_of_Izar
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Antos_IV
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Garth_of_Izar
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/The_Four_Years_War
I am convinced it is true more than ever.
Similar threads
