Why not have some kind of mysterious force of nature which would be the threat...
New Abrams interview about the next Trek movie...
- Thread starter skep155
- Start date
Kirk and crew need a credible threat to themselves and the Enterprise. By the time the new movie comes out,Kirk will only have been in command a couple of years. I want to see him make a mistake that could have dire consequences but he, the Enterprise and crew manage to save the day. Action and character development could make this an even bigger hit if they play it right.
I think to do Khan they combine "Space Seed" with elements of "The Wrath Of Khan" - with the understanding that they may never revisit the character as the TOS version did.
Specifically, it's a different Federation ship that finds Khan and his people on the "Botany Bay," he successfully takes that ship over and the Enterprise crew have to fight it out with him in space, ship to ship.
Reading between the lines, they're talking a lot - not a little - about Khan. It's the defining debate - not so much "should we do this or something else instead" as "can we use Khan successfully, and how do we do it?"
Specifically, it's a different Federation ship that finds Khan and his people on the "Botany Bay," he successfully takes that ship over and the Enterprise crew have to fight it out with him in space, ship to ship.
Reading between the lines, they're talking a lot - not a little - about Khan. It's the defining debate - not so much "should we do this or something else instead" as "can we use Khan successfully, and how do we do it?"
Dennis, I think they are talking a lot about Khan because everyone and their pet monkey keeps asking them about Khan.
well, I hope it's not Khan. *crosses fingers and toes*
although, I think Temis mentioned Naveen Andrews as Khan in one of her recent posts
!!!
Naveen Andrews would make a fantastic Khan IMO! ya know, come to think of it, that woman has the uncanniest ability to pick a good Trek cast
IIRC, I think she was talking about Quinto and maybe even Pine a long time ago!
although, I think Temis mentioned Naveen Andrews as Khan in one of her recent posts
!!!Naveen Andrews would make a fantastic Khan IMO! ya know, come to think of it, that woman has the uncanniest ability to pick a good Trek cast
IIRC, I think she was talking about Quinto and maybe even Pine a long time ago!I'm saying that it's probably their strongest leaning. You know, you can look at five different choices as all equal, or you can look at them in terms of "this is the one we like the best, there are real downsides, there's really great stuff about it, can we do it well enough to overcome the downsides?"
And maybe they decide they can't. But if someone put a gun to my head and made me bet money, I'd bet on Khan.
Sure. And Shatner kept talking about not being in the movie because people kept asking him about it.
And also because he wasn't in the movie.
People keep asking them about Khan because of the terms in which they don't rule him out. You know, they have no need - for publicity or any other reason - to keep the "Khan" ball in the air if they don't want to do it. They could say "we're really not likely to do that" and the level of interest in this sequel would not drop one iota.
It's like when people kept asking if the design of the Enterprise was "faithful to the original" and Orci would give answers like "the shape of the Enterprise is iconic..." that is, if they could have given a more definitively reassuring answer they would have. The fact that they didn't spoke volumes. The fact that they don't way downplay the possibility of Khan speaks volumes.
In the public mind, if Kirk has a nemesis (no I won't apologize for using that word
) it's Khan and no one else.I think Khan would be a mistake.
I'm saying that it's probably their strongest leaning. You know, you can look at five different choices as all equal, or you can look at them in terms of "this is the one we like the best, there are real downsides, there's really great stuff about it, can we do it well enough to overcome the downsides?"
And maybe they decide they can't. But if someone put a gun to my head and made me bet money, I'd bet on Khan.
Sure. And Shatner kept talking about not being in the movie because people kept asking him about it.
And also because he wasn't in the movie.
People keep asking them about Khan because of the terms in which they don't rule him out. You know, they have no need - for publicity or any other reason - to keep the "Khan" ball in the air if they don't want to do it. They could say "we're really not likely to do that" and the level of interest in this sequel would not drop one iota.
It's like when people kept asking if the design of the Enterprise was "faithful to the original" and Orci would give answers like "the shape of the Enterprise is iconic..." that is, if they could have given a more definitively reassuring answer they would have. The fact that they didn't spoke volumes. The fact that they don't way downplay the possibility of Khan speaks volumes.
In the public mind, if Kirk has a nemesis (no I won't apologize for using that word
Well if they do go with khan Pine better be able to pull this off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp-MXaNlD5g
And personally, I think they should do Khan.
He's Trek's greatest villain.
Also, there's no reason why they shouldn't "play the hits" AKA do their modern take on Trek classics like Khan and City on the Edge of Forever.
Everyone on these forums (or most of them) will scream about how it's a bad idea and how it can't be done.
But that's what most of them were saying about bringing back Kirk and Spock in the first place.
I'm sorry, did you think I was attempting to speak for anyone but myself?
In case its not clear, I am not advocating military action nor threatening to launch a boycott if the next film doesn't have a villain.
Everything I say is my own personal, SUBJECTIVE opinion unless I say otherwise.
Not sure why everyone is assumed to be speaking their opinion here but me in your eyes.
It's my opinion. When I speak IRREFUTABLE TRUTH I'll let you know mmmkay?
So that means they have to be my favorites?
You're right it is.
Having a villain doesn't magically make a bad movie good. Again, I never said that and why you felt the need to imply that I did is beyond me.
I liked a lot of things about The Voyage Home and consider it a good movie overall.
Kirk and Spock are at their best in TVH, showing great chemistry and comic timing.
The conclusion of the Spock character arc also awesome.
It is possible for me to think Trek movies are better with personified villains and not automatically hate every movie that didn't have them.
One final point: I actually think TMP had a personified villain. They brought in a new character and VGer takes control over her, allowing the villain to talk to the crew.
VGer clearly has an agenda and a goal and a reason for what it's doing.
It's not the Doomsday Machine nor is it mindless.
VGer is a villain.
Now I still don't care for TMP, which has a villain (in case you think I am again speaking IRREFUTABLE TRUTH this is just my opinion) and I like TVH, which doesn't.
So clearly, it isn't a make or break thing.
I have an opinion and I stated it without equivocation.
Apparently you and indranee have a problem with me not pussy footing around the issue.
I think Trek movies need villains. I think it makes it much easier to pull off a good movie.
That doesn't make me dumb, as you seem to think, since you tried to make it imply that it meant I automatically checked off "has villain" on some master list and made myself like Nemesis and Insurrection, just because they had villains.
If they decide to do Khan they'll have succeeded in riling up teh Intarnets for another two years - this could be bigger than "Shatner's not in the movie?!!" And all of that after having basically pleased about 90% of the established fan base with the first movie. They'd have to be gluttons for abuse (or just not care much).
I have six words to apply to this: "DO IT! DO IT! DO IT!"
The authors are dead. I'm sure that the heirs to their estates would be pleased - they'd get paid again.
Similar threads
