Discussion in 'Trek Literature' started by DWMarch, May 26, 2013.
It didn't get printed. The competition was too stiff.
IIRC, Abrams PROMISED us there would be no Khan in this movie. What good are you if you have to lie to people to get them to see your movie?
It was just marketing to pique the interest of movie-goers. Seems like it might have backfired on him though.
IIRC, the only emphatic denial was a Tweet by Simon Pegg, "It's not Khan" - at about the same time as Karl Urban mentioned Cumberbatch's "Gary Mitchell", which he used as a euphemism for villain-who-may-not-be-a-villain.
When did JJ promise?
They denied it alot, but I don't remember any promises that it wasn't Kahn.
You recall incorrectly.
It did backfire on him with me. I have said loud and often that I refuse to give Abrams a dime if he reboots an episode, especially if he brought back Khan.
I get that he rebooted the series. I applaud him for that. But why retell an old story?
And JD, I assume you have a copy of Star Trek II lying around. Could you go look at it before you spell it "Kahn" again, please?
Using Khan doesn't mean he's rehashing an episode (or movie). The overall plot, and most of the details, were unique.
"Most", he says. Is it too much to ask for "all"?
Khan's story has already been told. I never wanted anybody to tell(yes, rehash) it again. Didn't we already have a Wrath of Khan tribute in Nemesis?
Kirk's story has already been told too. But we've been given a fresh contemporary take on a classic, iconic character who now has an alternate history to take us in directions that are different, but strangely similar.
You know not of which you speak.
Khan's character arc in STID is completely different from his TOS/TWOK arc.
Yeah, of all the complaints you can levy against into Darkness, retreading "Space Seed" and The Wrath of Khan is not one of them.
Abrams didn't. Simon Pegg and Alice Eve both denied Cumberbatch's character was Khan, and Cumberbatch himself made a comment which was open to interpretation ("I'm tired of having to deny I'm playing Khan"). But Abrams and his minions never promised Khan wouldn't be involved. Indeed, it was one of his minions who first spilled that John Harrison was an alias. But also, when Karl Urban said Cumberbatch was Gary Mitchell, Orci wasted no time debunking that.
All I care about is if the movie is good. Star Trek Into Darkness is a good movie.
Many people misspell it. Does it really matter?
Thank you. I don't understand why a simple misspelling got such a strong reaction.
We're Star Trek fans. Strong overreations to trivial things is what we do.
Separate names with a comma.