I am willing to bet that Q will be the villian in Trek 2.
- Thread starter Yevetha
- Start date
Why on Earth would Q be in this movie? He has nothing to do with TOS, and the general moviegoer wouldn't know who he is anyway. That's not how you get Joe Q. Public's ass into a theater seat. That's why Klingons are being used; even my best friend who absolutely hates Star Trek and thinks it's retarded knows who the Klingons are. But I'm sure JJ will spin them in a different direction than what we fans have previously been used to; that's what he did with Nero and his crew.
Plus, the only time Q was ever really a true "villain" was in the first season of TNG. If a superbeing has the power to instantly kill you at any time, why doesn't he just do it? That's why omnipotent beings don't really work as good villains.
I would think he'd be a better Soran than Q. But I wouldn't want to start unsubstantiated rumors...
Plus, the only time Q was ever really a true "villain" was in the first season of TNG. If a superbeing has the power to instantly kill you at any time, why doesn't he just do it? That's why omnipotent beings don't really work as good villains.
I would think he'd be a better Soran than Q. But I wouldn't want to start unsubstantiated rumors...
Maybe Cumberbatch will play a starfleet bad guy? Maybe a renegade captain or something? Maybe he is plotting something with the Klingons, or he has found something important and wants to keep it for himself? Maybe he is a human terrorist leader who commandeers a ship or a planet.... we won't know the answer for a long time yet 
November 22 2008, 08:38 PM (Pacific Daylight Time) - if not before.
Let's see, now:
1. It was announced that Benedict Cumberbatch had been signed to be in the movie.
2. Early claims that Cumberbatch had been cast as a villain/the villain were promptly denied by J.J. Abrams.
3. It is your opinion that Cumberbatch is the only person named so far (among those supposed to have been cast) who would be suited to the role of Q.
4. Therefore, Cumberbatch must be playing Q.
Yeah, I think you might be getting ahead of yourself, just a little.2. Early claims that Cumberbatch had been cast as a villain/the villain were promptly denied by J.J. Abrams.
3. It is your opinion that Cumberbatch is the only person named so far (among those supposed to have been cast) who would be suited to the role of Q.
4. Therefore, Cumberbatch must be playing Q.
Eloquent Dukhat. Given JJ's style and the theme of Star Trek he's not going to make some thought provoking drama. Look at Mission Impossible 3 and 4. High octane action films that moviegoers want to see over and over. In Trek 2 we'll probably seen a reimagining of the Klingons, space battles and more run and shoot scenes.
Yeah, we never saw aggressive Romulans before.
OP --
You seem to be saying "Cumberbatch would make a good Q, therefore he is Q".
Maybe he will be Q, but there is a big flaw in your logic. Just because Cumberbatch can perhpas be a good Q doesn't mean that Cumberbatch can't be good playing character who is NOT Q -- perhaps an all-new original character.
Personally, I think Cumberbatch would make a great Vulcan (perhaps a Vulcan Villain?), but that doesn't mean I think Cumberbatch will definitely be playing a Vulcan.
You seem to be saying "Cumberbatch would make a good Q, therefore he is Q".
Maybe he will be Q, but there is a big flaw in your logic. Just because Cumberbatch can perhpas be a good Q doesn't mean that Cumberbatch can't be good playing character who is NOT Q -- perhaps an all-new original character.
Personally, I think Cumberbatch would make a great Vulcan (perhaps a Vulcan Villain?), but that doesn't mean I think Cumberbatch will definitely be playing a Vulcan.
Last edited:
Q was a good television episode character but he would be a horrible movie character. I liked Q on television and even I wouldn't make it a priority to see that in the theaters.
I think Nero's attack on the Klingon's in Trek09 and the destruction of Vulcan is going to kick off a war.
I think Nero's attack on the Klingon's in Trek09 and the destruction of Vulcan is going to kick off a war.
And it doesn't get any smarter or more complex than Star Trek: Voyager!
I'd be willing to bet Q will not be the villain, nor will the Borg make an appearance. TNG's box office flame-out is still too recent. They'll avoid anything associated with it for a while yet.
Cumberbatch has the bone structure for a Klingon, Romulan or Vulcan. Rommies are out since we had them last time; Klingons seem to be due for some exposure.
The idea of a Vulcan villain is interesting as long as he's not too close to the Rommie idea. Cumberbatch needs to be playing a villain since he's playing a major character and there isn't room for yet another heroic major character in a mere two hour movie.
But still, my quatloos are on the turtleheads.
Cumberbatch has the bone structure for a Klingon, Romulan or Vulcan. Rommies are out since we had them last time; Klingons seem to be due for some exposure.
The idea of a Vulcan villain is interesting as long as he's not too close to the Rommie idea. Cumberbatch needs to be playing a villain since he's playing a major character and there isn't room for yet another heroic major character in a mere two hour movie.
But still, my quatloos are on the turtleheads.
Q Borg!
Amen. I'd hate them to do anything TNG related.
The reboot is all about bringing it back to basics.
And I like Klingons
Especially rebooted ones
The reboot is all about bringing it back to basics.
And I like Klingons
Especially rebooted ones
Don't hold your breath waiting for that.
Ah, but Abrams is more concerned with the general audience, for whom the issue is not being tired of anything, but having heard enough to become intrigued. (He knows that Trekkies will go see the movie even if it's an all-singing, all-dancing tribble extraganza.)
The general public knows: Kirk, Spock, Enterprise, Vulcans, Romulans, Klingons, Khan, uh...at this point it all gets real foggy...so that's the universe from which Abrams will choose for the movies. Don't expect much more till Trek gets back on TV and has the luxury of playing to a more specialized audience.
The problem with Klingon's is over so many television episodes they've gradually been reduced to losers.
They need to be `reboot` as space Urah-kai - serious, ruthless, overly formidable bad asses, that simply can't get punched out by the likes of Patrick Stewart. Totally ferocious. Imperial. Terrifying. Lethal. Efficient hand to hand and weapon killers.
Warf = fail.
They need to be `reboot` as space Urah-kai - serious, ruthless, overly formidable bad asses, that simply can't get punched out by the likes of Patrick Stewart. Totally ferocious. Imperial. Terrifying. Lethal. Efficient hand to hand and weapon killers.
Warf = fail.
That's kind of an arrogant way to phrase it, but the notion is valid, that the general public knows certain surface things about Trek, and those are the things that can catch their attention and make a movie successful. It's not because they're stupid, just that nobody has time to pay attention to everything.
For instance, there's a Ghost Rider movie out now. I'm sure there are Ghost Rider fans who would scoff at my near-total ignorance of Ghost Rider lore. All I know is, it's some guy with some curse that makes his head burst into flames, and hey, I'm proud that I even know it's a curse and not just a bad skin condition. That's the level at which the general public understands Star Trek.
Sure - and since the general public only knows Klingons as
"those funny forehead guys (wait, didn't they used to not have funny foreheads, or was that the other guys, with the ears?)", then they are eminently rebootable.
Spelling = fail.
Worf..
BTW your avatar is awesome. lol
With respect, that’s another trite assumption (that you can’t do something in two plus "movie hours" that you can easily do in one "episode hour") that needs to be dropped post haste in my view (along with the "stupid masses" hypothesis of course). We’re unlikely to do anything we think is impossible and won’t even bother trying if we don’t think most people can appreciate it
That’s only because Mr Abrams appears to share your view of what is and isn’t possible, sadly. A Star Trek movie should be popular because it presents something worthwhile in an entertaining way. Not because it pushes the "right" emotional buttons, but little else. By the way, my view is that the fog actually drifts in before most people get to Khan, contrary to popular opinion here I guess.
The assumption was not that the general public don’t know enough about Star Trek, but that:
Hmmm, you know, that sounds a bit like "A Christmas Carol".
The question is why wouldn’t they appreciate that? Presumably because they aren’t smart enough. And why does it work for an episode, even if ST fans have not seen such a character before (unless they know Dickens of course)? Presumably because the people who watch ST are more intelligent and can cope with such things. Its trotting out those twin dogmas ("stupid masses" and "movie limitations") that got us STXI and will probably produce something similar next time. Well, that and the fear of losing money by doing something "risky" of course. Maybe JJ needs a smaller budget, not a bigger one, just to take the pressure off?
