That's the Best They Could Come Up With?

[shatatattat]

well the wrath of kahn was only good star trek movie so they trying to draw power from that

 

[sbk1234]

I'm sure one reason why they're using Khan (assuming that's correct which it probably is) is that it'll be a challenge creatively to reuse that character without rehashing Space Seed and TWoK and come up with a different spin on the character.

Respectively, I don't think ANY filmmaker ever chose a previously used character for the reason that it will be a creative challenge. The decision to use Khan was done because someone with the power to finance - either Abrams, or Paramount execs, or someone - decided they can make more money easier by using Khan. They felt the potential rewards out weighed the risks included in using a previously established - and very popular/powerful - character.
If they wanted a creative challenge, they would have CREATEd a new character.

 

[Franklin]

I'm sure one reason why they're using Khan (assuming that's correct which it probably is) is that it'll be a challenge creatively to reuse that character without rehashing Space Seed and TWoK and come up with a different spin on the character.

Respectively, I don't think ANY filmmaker ever chose a previously used character for the reason that it will be a creative challenge. The decision to use Khan was done because someone with the power to finance - either Abrams, or Paramount execs, or someone - decided they can make more money easier by using Khan. They felt the potential rewards out weighed the risks included in using a previously established - and very popular/powerful - character.
If they wanted a creative challenge, they would have CREATEd a new character.

Using Khan creatively will be (or was, since shooting's over) as big or bigger a challenge than creating a new character. And, I doubt very much the leading force to use him would've been commercial interests or pressures from outside the creative team. It certainly helps a bit that Khan has some name recognition, but that won't bring in extra dollars at the box office if the story sucks. In fact, it could hurt. In that way, using Khan is actually taking a big chance. They better have a damn good reason for it. As is a great story.

And as far as Khan's name recognition goes, one wonders how much cache that really holds any more among movie goers who weren't really Trek fans but enjoyed TWOK in 1983. Hell, they're all old like me, now, and may not even really recall Khan except in the vaguest terms (as in "Oh, yeah, that was the movie where Dr. Spock [sic] died. Didn't Khan fire him out of a torpedo tube or something?")

 

[Ubik]

I'm sure one reason why they're using Khan (assuming that's correct which it probably is) is that it'll be a challenge creatively to reuse that character without rehashing Space Seed and TWoK and come up with a different spin on the character.

Respectively, I don't think ANY filmmaker ever chose a previously used character for the reason that it will be a creative challenge. The decision to use Khan was done because someone with the power to finance - either Abrams, or Paramount execs, or someone - decided they can make more money easier by using Khan. They felt the potential rewards out weighed the risks included in using a previously established - and very popular/powerful - character.
If they wanted a creative challenge, they would have CREATEd a new character.

Using Khan creatively will be (or was, since shooting's over) as big or bigger a challenge than creating a new character. And, I doubt very much the leading force to use him would've been commercial interests or pressures from outside the creative team. It certainly helps a bit that Khan has some name recognition, but that won't bring in extra dollars at the box office if the story sucks. In fact, it could hurt. In that way, using Khan is actually taking a big chance. They better have a damn good reason for it. As is a great story.

And as far as Khan's name recognition goes, one wonders how much cache that really holds any more among movie goers who weren't really Trek fans but enjoyed TWOK in 1983. Hell, they're all old like me, now, and may not even really recall Khan except in the vaguest terms (as in "Oh, yeah, that was the movie where Dr. Spock [sic] died. Didn't Khan fire him out of a torpedo tube or something?")

OF COURSE it was for financial reasons. It's the same reason Hollywood is currently only making sequels and franchise pictures - name brand recognition, it is believed, is less of a financial risk than a completely new story or set of characters. When you're pouring 200 million dollars into a picture, you want to make damn sure, if you can, that you get butts in the seats. Using well-known names is an attempt to do just that.

And you're wrong, Franklin, if you think a bad story or a bad movie will mean a financial failure. Name recognition alone can almost guarantee a financial success (please see Transformers II and III for relevant examples.)

You're also under-estimating the brand recognition of the name "Khan." It's almost as popular as the name "Kirk" or "Spock." They even made fun of it in Seinfeld, knowing full well the majority of the Seinfeld audience would get the reference.

The reason they are using Khan (if they are) is the same reason they chose to recast the original crew - money. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, about this entire rebooted franshise that suggests to me that the filmmakers are interested in doing anything new with these movies. What they are clearly trying to do is recreate the success of the old, recapture what used to work about Star Trek. They are risking very, very little.

I would much rather they spent less money on the movie, making it less of a financial risk, and actually tried to take the franchise in a new direction, somewhere it has never been before.

 

[Franklin]

Respectively, I don't think ANY filmmaker ever chose a previously used character for the reason that it will be a creative challenge. The decision to use Khan was done because someone with the power to finance - either Abrams, or Paramount execs, or someone - decided they can make more money easier by using Khan. They felt the potential rewards out weighed the risks included in using a previously established - and very popular/powerful - character.
If they wanted a creative challenge, they would have CREATEd a new character.

Using Khan creatively will be (or was, since shooting's over) as big or bigger a challenge than creating a new character. And, I doubt very much the leading force to use him would've been commercial interests or pressures from outside the creative team. It certainly helps a bit that Khan has some name recognition, but that won't bring in extra dollars at the box office if the story sucks. In fact, it could hurt. In that way, using Khan is actually taking a big chance. They better have a damn good reason for it. As is a great story.

And as far as Khan's name recognition goes, one wonders how much cache that really holds any more among movie goers who weren't really Trek fans but enjoyed TWOK in 1983. Hell, they're all old like me, now, and may not even really recall Khan except in the vaguest terms (as in "Oh, yeah, that was the movie where Dr. Spock [sic] died. Didn't Khan fire him out of a torpedo tube or something?")

OF COURSE it was for financial reasons. It's the same reason Hollywood is currently only making sequels and franchise pictures - name brand recognition, it is believed, is less of a financial risk than a completely new story or set of characters. When you're pouring 200 million dollars into a picture, you want to make damn sure, if you can, that you get butts in the seats. Using well-known names is an attempt to do just that.

And you're wrong, Franklin, if you think a bad story or a bad movie will mean a financial failure. Name recognition alone can almost guarantee a financial success (please see Transformers II and III for relevant examples.)

You're also under-estimating the brand recognition of the name "Khan." It's almost as popular as the name "Kirk" or "Spock." They even made fun of it in Seinfeld, knowing full well the majority of the Seinfeld audience would get the reference.

The reason they are using Khan (if they are) is the same reason they chose to recast the original crew - money. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, about this entire rebooted franshise that suggests to me that the filmmakers are interested in doing anything new with these movies. What they are clearly trying to do is recreate the success of the old, recapture what used to work about Star Trek. They are risking very, very little.

I would much rather they spent less money on the movie, making it less of a financial risk, and actually tried to take the franchise in a new direction, somewhere it has never been before.

Remember that the Khan reference in "Seinfeld" was 16 years ago in first run. I'm also just wondering how many non-fans who saw TWOK thought so much of Khan as a character (rather than the Khan as he was in the situation) that he stuck with them and they'd like to see him again in another type of story.

I will grant you that using Khan, either by design or serendipity, allows the publicity machine to ramp up comparisons and create curiosity and buzz to a degree they couldn't do, otherwise. There will be plenty of Cumberbatch interviews where he'll be asked if he watched "Space Seed" and TWOK to prepare for the role. He'll be asked, "What makes your Khan different?" Pine will be asked if Kirk's conflict with Khan is as personal this time as it was in TWOK. To that end, if the renting of TWOK surges as Summer 2013 approaches, I guess that would be a good sign.

 

[horatio83]

Let me start by saying that I liked Star Trek 09. I want to like this next one. But with all the ideas of what to do with a new Trek film, Khan was all they could come up with? There's really only been 11 Trek films, and they feel the need to reuse the villain from one of these again? I really, really hope this will be an outstanding film, and I'll love it, but I'm dissapointed if this rumor is true. Anyone else share these feelings?

It wouldn't be so horrible if the last two movies hadn't already tried to copy Khan and totally failed at it.

 

[I am not Spock]

If the general public knows anything about 'Star Track' at all, it is Kirk, Spock, and Bones. That's all there is to it. (And maybe to a lesser extent, 'the one with Patrick Stewart and that gold robot guy')

The movie series is not made for the hardcore fanatics. If we go and see it, great, but they need more than the hardcore Trekkies's asses in seats, to make the film a success.

Nobody except for us hardcore Trekkies knows, or cares, about DS9, Voyager, or Enterprise.

 

[sbk1234]

^^^And that includes not knowing anything about Khan, so what's the point?

 

[BillJ]

^^^And that includes not knowing anything about Khan, so what's the point?

Well... if there just doing another bad guy with an uber weapon and an axe to grind. Why not use Khan? He'll get compared to Khan either way.

 

[Set Harth]

Who said anything about an uber weapon?

 

[BillJ]

Who said anything about an uber weapon?

Just a gut feeling...

 

[Therin of Andor]

And that includes not knowing anything about Khan, so what's the point?

I disagree. The general public (think they) know plenty about Khan, even if they never saw "Space Seed" or ST II! He even made it into an episode of "Animaniacs".

 

[sbk1234]

I think what really gnaws at me is the pretense that there is still some connection to the original continuity. Even though this is an alternate time line, it's supposed to have been the same up 'till the Narada came through, yadda, yadda, yadda. Therefore, to my mind, Khan should still look like RIcardo Montalban. That he doesn't seems to contradict that, and make this into simply a reboot (which it really is, anyway).
Perhaps if Khan didn't become so ingrained with such major events in Star Trek continuity (death and birth of Spock) this wouldn't bug me so much.


But I still think it's the wrong way to go. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^With any recasting, a little suspension of disbelief is essential. Everything in the last movie looked different. They even "recast" the Enterprise, so to speak. The stories themselves fit in the same multiverse continuity, even though everything looks modern and everyone looks different now.

FWIW, Trek's just changed actors and personalties in characters in the same continuity before (Saavik and Cochrane)

 

[horatio83]

Even though this is an alternate time line, it's supposed to have been the same up 'till the Narada came through, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I think the problem is rather that they tried to much to explain why things are different now inside of the story.
Imagine that there had been no Nimoy and no 'bad guy messes with the timeline' story, just a clean and simple reboot. Nero is just a random bad guy and Kirk becomes friend with Spock without having met the other Spock. No inside jokes and familiar Trek aliens galore and this movie would actually have ended the continuity obsession of the franchise instead of intensified it.

 

[Hawkeye92]

I'm sure one reason why they're using Khan (assuming that's correct which it probably is) is that it'll be a challenge creatively to reuse that character without rehashing Space Seed and TWoK and come up with a different spin on the character.

Respectively, I don't think ANY filmmaker ever chose a previously used character for the reason that it will be a creative challenge. The decision to use Khan was done because someone with the power to finance - either Abrams, or Paramount execs, or someone - decided they can make more money easier by using Khan. They felt the potential rewards out weighed the risks included in using a previously established - and very popular/powerful - character.
If they wanted a creative challenge, they would have CREATEd a new character.

^
This.
Orci, Kurtzman and Abrhams are good at creating nostalgic imitations of things we love. They do a good job, but not very creative, they offered no substance in the last the last one and I doubt there will be any substance in this new one, unless they pull out a Superman 2/Empire Strikes Back/ TWOK out of this, but I doubt it. These guys are like a movie cover band, they are good imitators, but not as good as the real thing and their orinals suck.

I have to agree, if they wanted to be creative; they could have created an entire new character or used one that isn't well known. They blew up Vulcon for shock value and just because they could . They created an alternate timeline instead being creative and finding a way to make a good prequel that existed in the real timeline without looking goofy. They are rehashing old ideas and an old character that frankly, I seriously doubt they will be able to top. I'm sure they wil make him cool and badass, but again, I doubt there will be any real substance.

This I say as a fan of he last movie and a proud owner of the blue ray, but it is not Star Trek, it's imitation Star Trek or Star Trek lite if anything.

 

[sonak]

Even though this is an alternate time line, it's supposed to have been the same up 'till the Narada came through, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I think the problem is rather that they tried to much to explain why things are different now inside of the story.
Imagine that there had been no Nimoy and no 'bad guy messes with the timeline' story, just a clean and simple reboot. Nero is just a random bad guy and Kirk becomes friend with Spock without having met the other Spock. No inside jokes and familiar Trek aliens galore and this movie would actually have ended the continuity obsession of the franchise instead of intensified it.

agreed that a reboot would have made more sense. Much like "superman returns" and it's attempt to be a reboot but not really be a reboot.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

No inside jokes and familiar Trek aliens galore and this movie would actually have ended the continuity obsession of the franchise instead of intensified it.

Call me skeptical, but even in the unlikely event that someone had been able to persuade the franchise owners and filmmakers that a complete break from the older continuity and full restart in a new one was the best way to proceed, I strongly doubt that anything short of the end of the Universe (and thus existence as we know it) would be likely to put an end to continuity arguments among the Trek community-at-large, no matter how many familiar and comfy aliens were included.

 

[sonak]

...

No inside jokes and familiar Trek aliens galore and this movie would actually have ended the continuity obsession of the franchise instead of intensified it.

Call me skeptical, but even in the unlikely event that someone had been able to persuade the franchise owners and filmmakers that a complete break from the older continuity and full restart in a new one was the best way to proceed, I strongly doubt that anything short of the end of the Universe (and thus existence as we know it) would be likely to put an end to continuity arguments among the Trek community-at-large, no matter how many familiar and comfy aliens were included.

eh? How can you have "continuity" arguments about a re-booted Trekverse? There'd be nothing to go off of for continuity, it'd be new.

 

[BriGuy]

I don't see it as any different to Batman fighting The Joker again and again. Khan is Kirk's "greatest nemesis ever", and now 30+ years later we get to see them go at it again, in a NEW story (it's NOT a remake of Wrath of Khan or Space Seed, any more than The Dark Knight remade 1989's Batman) with modern SFX and a $150 million budget.

That's my take. It may suck, it may rock (hoping for the latter!). But bringing back classic villains in new scenarios isn't a problem for me.

And how can we get "classic villains" if they're not created in the first place?