Star Trek XIV: What do you want?

[KlingonCereal]

No dramatic need, no. None whatsoever.

However, think back to the week in early May 2009 when Star Trek opened in general release. Think of all of the interviews conducted during that week with Abrams / Orci / Kurtzman that we saw and read and discussed and dissected.

Now -- in how many of that endless parade did the interviewer not ask some form of the question: "Okay, so you're doing Khan next, right?"

Not many at all. And Paramount, watching over the media response to their new movie, very definitely noticed this.

That is the primary reason we got Khan, even though he appeared nowhere in the early versions of the script prepared for the second (follow-up) film. Paramount insisted he had to be in there, so in he went.

Even if the question of Khan hadn't come up in nearly every interview / review for the first film, the insistence in discussions on fan sites like this one that Khan had to be next was still a big thing. You can bet Paramount was well aware of this, too.

We were always going to get Khan, regardless of whether you or I happened to feel he was necessary or even desirable. Khan was inevitable -- not because there was any dramatic need for him, but because too many non-dramatic factors refused to allow him to not be there. That writing was on the wall in May 2009, in language everyone could read.

This is a great perspective on the matter. It's been almost a decade of hindsight that allowed us to easily say Khan's addition was forced and unwelcome. Putting myself mentally back in 2010, I think I would've found the idea intriguing. XI wasn't a bad film, it had honored the franchise quite well - there was no reason to believe they'd butcher Khan or that it was a doomed idea from the start.

 

[fireproof78]

No dramatic need, no. None whatsoever.

However, think back to the week in early May 2009 when Star Trek opened in general release. Think of all of the interviews conducted during that week with Abrams / Orci / Kurtzman that we saw and read and discussed and dissected.

Now -- in how many of that endless parade did the interviewer not ask some form of the question: "Okay, so you're doing Khan next, right?"

Not many at all. And Paramount, watching over the media response to their new movie, very definitely noticed this.

That is the primary reason we got Khan, even though he appeared nowhere in the early versions of the script prepared for the second (follow-up) film. Paramount insisted he had to be in there, so in he went.

Even if the question of Khan hadn't come up in nearly every interview / review for the first film, the insistence in discussions on fan sites like this one that Khan had to be next was still a big thing. You can bet Paramount was well aware of this, too.

We were always going to get Khan, regardless of whether you or I happened to feel he was necessary or even desirable. Khan was inevitable -- not because there was any dramatic need for him, but because too many non-dramatic factors refused to allow him to not be there. That writing was on the wall in May 2009, in language everyone could read.

Exactly so. Khan has become the ultimate Trek villain, and expectations were quite high regarding that possibility. I honestly thought they would ignore all the noise being made but clearly it could not be.

 

[M'Sharak]

Exactly so. Khan has become the ultimate Trek villain, and expectations were quite high regarding that possibility. I honestly thought they would ignore all the noise being made but clearly it could not be.

From what I can recall, Orci was opposed to the inclusion of Khan, but pressure from Paramount, assisted by Lindelof, eventually resulted in story being altered first to include a Khan-like character under the character's original "Space Seed" story name*, then finally to include that character ultimately being revealed as Khan.


* I also recall that even the "John Harrison" name did not appear anywhere in the filming script, and was only dubbed in after all principal filming had been completed. How much of that was directly attributable to late script changes and how much to Abrams' "Mystery Box" approach, I'm not as sure about.

 

[fireproof78]

From what I can recall, Orci was opposed to the inclusion of Khan, but pressure from Paramount, assisted by Lindelof, eventually resulted in story being altered first to include a Khan-like character under the character's original "Space Seed" story name*, then finally to include that character ultimately being revealed as Khan.


* I also recall that even the "John Harrison" name did not appear anywhere in the filming script, and was only dubbed in after all principal filming had been completed. How much of that was directly attributable to late script changes and how much to Abrams' "Mystery Box" approach, I'm not as sure about.

Honestly, and this might be my faulty memory, more of that rested on Lindelöf and Orci than on Abrams' because they kept going back and forth on who the villain should be. But, as I said I might be remembering in error.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Cumberbatch's scenes were shot as John Erikson, which was redubbed to Harrison in post.

I loved Cumberbatch as Khan. A-1 scenery chewing.

 

[StalwartUK]

They wanted their "Joker" i.e. Khan, bearing in mind that the movie was aping "The Dark Knight", down to copying the design for one of the posters.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, the fan base has made Khan that Joker. We created it, as it were.

 

[Khan 2.0]

also the fact this was the 2nd Trek movie (sort of) meant Khan had to be there!

maybe they'll bring Khan back for a cryo cameo in ST4

 

[Brennyren]

Please, no. I never saw the point of creating a brand-new continuity, only to immediately use it to bring back one of the original series's iconic villains -- and worse, to set Into Darkness up for direct and inevitable and unsuccessful comparison to the best of the Prime-timeline films. If we get another Kelvin-timeline film, I'm rooting for one more like Beyond, with an original storyline and a fresh treatment of the characters.

 

[fireproof78]

also the fact this was the 2nd Trek movie (sort of) meant Khan had to be there!

maybe they'll bring Khan back for a cryo cameo in ST4

It meant nothing of the kind.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

maybe they'll bring Khan back for a cryo cameo in ST4

Can you refresh my memory on where the Khan cryo cameo was in the whale movie? I though you said these numerological parallels work like that.

 

[Kor]

I would still be interested in that crossover/time travel/whatever story with Chris Hemsworth.
But I think he might be out of their price range after playing Thor in the MCU so much.

Kor

 

[WarpFactorZ]

I would still be interested in that crossover/time travel/whatever story with Chris Hemsworth.
But I think he might be out of their price range after playing Thor in the MCU so much.

Kor

Hemsworth probably commands the biggest salary, but don't forget Saldana and Pine. Between the three of them, that's a lot of dough (then again, Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley probably also wrung them dry, because back in the day there wouldn't be a movie without them).

 

[Khan 2.0]

Hemsworth probably commands the biggest salary, but don't forget Saldana and Pine. Between the three of them, that's a lot of dough (then again, Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley probably also wrung them dry, because back in the day there wouldn't be a movie without them).

i dont think DeForest got that much compared to S&N who pulled in the (expected) millions (think i recall from the old Cinefantastique days they both got 2m each for IV and 4m each for VI). i recently read somewhere that Nimoy made sure Kelley got his 1st million for VI as it was the 1st time Nimoy was a producer on the films

yeh if they do stick Hemsworth in ST4 then hed no doubt be at least equal Pines fee (which was the main reason it fell apart before - think it was 6m each), then probably Saldana will want about 3-4m (and most likely Quinto similar - unless he has a Shatner/Nimoy style 'favoured nation clause' with Pine? but then hes not as in demand moviewise as Pine being in WW, D&D etc)

 

[johnjm22]

A fresh start.

De-canonize the TNG movies, Voyager, Discovery, Lower Decks and Picard.

Start telling new stories, with a new crew around the year 2400. Prime timeline.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

A fresh start.

De-canonize the TNG movies, Voyager, Discovery, Lower Decks and Picard.

How would you explain that in a behind-the-scenes interview?

 

[BillJ]

A fresh start.

De-canonize the TNG movies, Voyager, Discovery, Lower Decks and Picard.

Start telling new stories, with a new crew around the year 2400. Prime timeline.

There is literally an infinite multiverse out there for them to explore. There is no need to de-canonize anything. Tell new stories basically set in another timeline, it covers all the bases and allows for old favorites to be brought back from time-to-time with the right story.

 

[F. King Daniel]

How would you explain that in a behind-the-scenes interview?

How do the Halloween movies do it? Pretty sure they're all sequels and prequels to the original and ignore each other. Or Alien vs Predator and the rest of the Alien movies?

They 100% can do it. But if everything post-childhood Trek experience is hated, they'll hate whatever replaces it too.

 

[M'Sharak]

A fresh start.

De-canonize the TNG movies, Voyager, Discovery, Lower Decks and Picard.

Start telling new stories, with a new crew around the year 2400. Prime timeline.

They can start telling new stories any time they like, and there's absolutely no need to "de-canonize" anything.

Star Trek is a framework -- a setting for stories which ask "What if... ?"

What Star Trek is not is the sort of rigid dogma in which one thing must necessarily be cancelled or delegitimized in order to make room for something else to become The New True [whatever].

 

[johnjm22]

There is literally an infinite multiverse out there for them to explore. There is no need to de-canonize anything. Tell new stories basically set in another timeline, it covers all the bases and allows for old favorites to be brought back from time-to-time with the right story.

They can start telling new stories any time they like, and there's absolutely no need to "de-canonize" anything.

Star Trek is a framework -- a setting for stories which ask "What if... ?"

What Star Trek is not is the sort of rigid dogma in which one thing must necessarily be cancelled or delegitimized in order to make room for something else to become The New True [whatever].

I take the premise of this thread as a fantasy scenario: "What would YOU do?"

My response wasn't serious. It's what I would do in my dream scenario. It's not realistic.

I know not everyone cares about continuity or canon, but I do, so I would start cleaning things up. I also think too much Star Trek has been made. I would take out the garbage. These are MY views. YMMV.