I want Khan.

[Dream]

The Klingons have been entremely overused in the TOS movies. A Klingon has appeared on screen in every single TOS movie EXCEPT for TWOK, but that movie still had their ships make a cameo. Maybe that is one of the reason fans consider it the best Trek movie?

I'm glad their scenes were deleted in STXI, and am hoping they won't appear in STXII.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Ok, so your point basically had nothing to do with mine. Got it.

Had everything to do with your "point".

Klingons haven't been used as much as say, Kirk and Spock, and they still work.

If I may expand and clarify.

Kirk and Spock are the leads, of course they would be used more often than Klingons. Not an apt comparison.

But see, that still has nothing to do with my original point. My point was that just because something has been done a lot doesn't mean it can't still be done again. The frequency with which it has appeared has no bearing on its future appearance.

The people who moan about Klingons appearing are the type that whined about Kirk and Spock being done again. It doesn't matter who the leads are, there are some fixtures that belong to Trek, and the Klingons are definitely one of them. To be upset about it or to start counting how many times someone else has appeared makes no sense.

So what if Khan only appeared twice? Kodos only appeared once! Or someone like Nero had never appeared. Or the Romulans had appeared several times before. It's a ridiculous argument and complaining about it seems petty, especially given the context of these movies being made.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The people who moan about Klingons appearing are the type that whined about Kirk and Spock being done again.

Nope, sorry, completely wrong.

I was thrilled that they were bringing back and recasting Kirk and Spock.

If I never saw another Klingon, I wouldn't miss them a bit.

 

[Ranger3]

It's funny how this thread keeps shifting back and forth from Khan to the Klingon Empire...

All that aside, if Khan or the Klingons are not the main adversaries of the next film, then how about Nomad? And before anyone says inspired by ST-TMP, need I point out that the possibility of Nomad presenting a threat would make for an interesting one.

Especially if Nomad thinks that Jim Kirk is its creator, and how Kirk handles it in the new timeline. It would make for some interesting acting on Christopher Pine's part.

 

[Trekkie2]

Are you trying to tell me the word of the producers and Pegg somehow outweighs the all-too-predictable speculation of some lame blogger cheeseball recast as inside information from an anonymous source?

Inconceivable!

That's what I'm going with. No fluffy, misunderstood, really nice but maniacal and tyrannical Khan works for me.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Another non sequitur.

 

[Trekkie2]

Another disappointed Khanist.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Since Khan will be the same, when released from cryo-sleep...

But he may be awoken by Klingons this time?

I seem to recall Bob Orci once saying that it would be fun to throw a Khan Easter egg into the sequel film, but turning it on its ear by having Klingons see the sleeper ship and they suddenly blow it to smithereens, like Klaa did to a Pioneer space probe in ST V.

 

[Ryan8bit]

The people who moan about Klingons appearing are the type that whined about Kirk and Spock being done again.

Nope, sorry, completely wrong.

I was thrilled that they were bringing back and recasting Kirk and Spock.

If I never saw another Klingon, I wouldn't miss them a bit.

Wait, so are you moaning about Klingons then? I thought you were of the opinion that whatever this creative team comes along with, you'll eat it up because you have faith in their ability?

And let's face it, the Klingons are just as inevitable as Khan is. If this movie is indeed Khan and there are no Klingons, then certainly a following movie would be highly likely to have Klingons. They are as much a part of Star Trek as Kirk, Spock, Scotty, the Enterprise, beaming up, etc.

That doesn't mean they have to be the main focus, but they will be there. The deleted scenes from the first movie are likely an indicator of that. Complaining about it is pointless.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Ok, so your point basically had nothing to do with mine. Got it.

Had everything to do with your "point".

Klingons haven't been used as much as say, Kirk and Spock, and they still work.

If I may expand and clarify.

Kirk and Spock are the leads, of course they would be used more often than Klingons. Not an apt comparison.

But see, that still has nothing to do with my original point. My point was that just because something has been done a lot doesn't mean it can't still be done again. The frequency with which it has appeared has no bearing on its future appearance.

The people who moan about Klingons appearing are the type that whined about Kirk and Spock being done again. It doesn't matter who the leads are, there are some fixtures that belong to Trek, and the Klingons are definitely one of them. To be upset about it or to start counting how many times someone else has appeared makes no sense.

So what if Khan only appeared twice? Kodos only appeared once! Or someone like Nero had never appeared. Or the Romulans had appeared several times before. It's a ridiculous argument and complaining about it seems petty, especially given the context of these movies being made.

Using Kirk and Spock to prove your point is faulty because they are the leads. They are the focus of TOS, TOS movies and the New films. Its like trying to make the same point using Superman when talking about Superman films.

 

[Ranger3]

Another non sequitur.

You sound like Nomad everytime you use that phrase, you know that?

 

[Ryan8bit]

Using Kirk and Spock to prove your point is faulty because they are the leads. They are the focus of TOS, TOS movies and the New films. Its like trying to make the same point using Superman when talking about Superman films.

Mmm... not quite.

It doesn't matter if they are the leads or not. The producers weren't forced to make a movie about Kirk and Spock. It's what they chose to do, and it was the marketable decision. The argument would be very similar if someone had said, "The original series cast has had its run of episodes and movies. They need to move on to new crews and new adventures." Or substitute any sort of fannish ideas about continuing DS9, Voyager, or Enterprise.

I don't see any difference now, with the exception that our leads are established. I disagree with the argument when it's, "Oh, Khan has been done before," just as much as, "Oh, Klingons have been done before." It doesn't matter what's been done before or how often it was done in the past. That kind of thinking would have kept the movie from being made (or a great deal of movies in Hollywood). It's too restrictive. This is a re-imagining and they should be free to do whatever they feel.

And really, it sounds very strange to me that people accept that they're going back to the old crew, but freaking out that they might encounter villains or races that were in the original series and movies.

 

[horatio83]

The Klingons in ST09 have been far better than the Romulan Khan.

 

[Trekkie2]

I do have to admit that there is some type of correlation between Khan and the line that Ayel speaks as he's holding Kirk by the throat, in the movie. The line is, "Your species is even weaker than I expected." I'm sure there were other humans in the penal colony but they would not have had strength that neared a Romulan's ability, unless they were augmented. Again, if Khan is in the movie, it's a bit part and probably limited to the same time frame that Gaila had, and they'll have been contending with the Romulans for control of the prison population, which makes them bad guys.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Another non sequitur.

You sound like Nomad everytime you use that phrase, you know that?

Hope that I never realize that TrekBBS is populated by imperfect lifeforms.

 

[spaceoddity]

As a Star Trek noob, what's so significant about Khan? I keep hearing his name EVERYWHERE in talks for the next movie. What is he about? Why him?

 

[Gothowitz]

As a Star Trek noob, what's so significant about Khan? I keep hearing his name EVERYWHERE in talks for the next movie. What is he about? Why him?

Khan [from Space Seed and The Wrath of Khan] is held up to be Star Trek's Empire Strikes Back.

Of course, once you actually look at ESB without the rose-tinted glasses you find it's a deeply stupid movie.

Go from there regarding Khan.

 

[Kelso]

As a Star Trek noob, what's so significant about Khan? I keep hearing his name EVERYWHERE in talks for the next movie. What is he about? Why him?

Khan is easily the most memorable and iconic Star Trek villain. He's the closest thing we have to a Vader or Joker.

The movie that featured him is generally known among casual fans as "the good one."

 

[Nerys Myk]

As a Star Trek noob, what's so significant about Khan? I keep hearing his name EVERYWHERE in talks for the next movie. What is he about? Why him?

Khan is easily the most memorable and iconic Star Trek villain. He's the closest thing we have to a Vader or Joker.

The movie that featured him is generally known among casual fans as "the good one."

Nah, that's the one with the whales.