Why does Abrams keep playing it safe?

[CoveTom]

The story of Romeo & Juliet has been done a thousand times. The characters haven't been put into a thousand different stories. When you do Romeo & Juliet, you are retelling the same story. Yes, you might interpret it differently or change up the setting a bit. But no one is going to do a version of Romeo & Juliet where they end up married and live happily ever after, for example. But we're not talking about retelling the story of Khan here. We're talking about taking the character of Khan and putting him a totally new story, completely different from his original one, making significant alterations to him in the process.

Put it another way. Imagine if someone today wanted to write a brand new story that included the characters of Romeo and Juliet but had absolutely nothing to do with the classic tale we're familiar with. Sure, they come from two different families who don't like each other much. And, sure, they want to be romantically involved. But after that, nothing matches the original story. We're instead going to put them into a mystery where they're trying to solve a murder. Or whatever.

Do you think that would go over well? Do you think people would even still recognize them as the original characters of Romeo and Juliet?

Granted, with all due respect to the writers and producers of Star Trek, we're not talking about Shakespeare here. But the principle is the same. At least in my mind.

 

[DonIago]

I think we don't know whether TPTB have any intentions for Khan, much less what those intentions specifically are.

 

[Greg Cox]

^ Why would you want to, though? What would be the value of that? Why not do something with a completely original character?

Why did they bring back the Joker in The Dark Knight?

Because they had a new take on a popular character? Works for me.

Not that I really think Khan is in the new movie . . . .

 

[controlfreak]

Why did they bring back the Joker in The Dark Knight?

Because they had a new take on a popular character?

And look how great that turned out. We've had three Jokers in our recent lifetime..four, if you count the animated show. They all worked without rehashing their story verbatim.

Also consider Khan is a different character in TWOK than he is in Space Seed. If Khan shows up in this universe he will be cast from that mold. Orci had mentioned The Dark Night in coming up with a new Star Trek story.

Of course we all know that the villain will be Joni Mitchell.

 

[UFO]

I think Khan can survive a single reboot.

Well, if he can survive being "Buck Rogerized" ... . God that sounds painful!

 

[thumbtack]

If they can tell new stories with Kirk and co, they can do the same thing with Khan or any other old character they choose to use.

Unless, of course, you were hoping there would be no radical changes to the old canon. That this universe would eventually be folded back into the old one.




.

 

[Set Harth]

Your Vulcan's dead, son. Accept it.

$

 

[Nerys Myk]

The story of Romeo & Juliet has been done a thousand times. The characters haven't been put into a thousand different stories. When you do Romeo & Juliet, you are retelling the same story. Yes, you might interpret it differently or change up the setting a bit. But no one is going to do a version of Romeo & Juliet where they end up married and live happily ever after, for example. But we're not talking about retelling the story of Khan here. We're talking about taking the character of Khan and putting him a totally new story, completely different from his original one, making significant alterations to him in the process.

Put it another way. Imagine if someone today wanted to write a brand new story that included the characters of Romeo and Juliet but had absolutely nothing to do with the classic tale we're familiar with. Sure, they come from two different families who don't like each other much. And, sure, they want to be romantically involved. But after that, nothing matches the original story. We're instead going to put them into a mystery where they're trying to solve a murder. Or whatever.

Do you think that would go over well? Do you think people would even still recognize them as the original characters of Romeo and Juliet?

Granted, with all due respect to the writers and producers of Star Trek, we're not talking about Shakespeare here. But the principle is the same. At least in my mind.

How is it the same principle? Khan's already be used to tell two different stories on film and two or three in book form. Space Seed was ripe for a prequel and a sequel by its very design.

 

[Greg Cox]

Khan's already be used to tell two different stories on film and two or three in book form. Space Seed was ripe for a prequel and a sequel by its very design.

Hey, thanks for the plug!

I admit to mixed feelings here. I don't really expect to see Khan in the next movie, but it might boost the sales of my books!

 

[horatio83]

I simply don't understand why anybody would want to reboot the franchise and then reuse characters like Mitchell or Khan whose story has already been told to the end.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I simply don't understand why anybody would want to reboot the franchise and then reuse characters like Mitchell or Khan whose story has already been told to the end.

Kirk's story was told to the end, once upon a time.

People like Kirk especially, and Khan too. It's really that simple a reason to bring characters back.

 

[BillJ]

I simply don't understand why anybody would want to reboot the franchise and then reuse characters like Mitchell or Khan whose story has already been told to the end.

You can tell different stories using those characters. I always thought it was a given that Abrams would bring in a villain from Trek's past at some point.

A different writer teamed with a different director and actor will give you an all-new interpretation of a character. We've had Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey play Lex Luthor and Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger play the Joker to varying degrees of success.

Plus, it's been thirty years since we've seen Khan on the screen and nearly fifty for Gary Mitchell. There are probably millions of potential ticket buyers who have never been exposed to either character.

 

[Greg Cox]

Plus, it's been thirty years since we've seen Khan on the screen and nearly fifty for Gary Mitchell.

I feel old . . ..

(Waiting for somebody to complain that thirty years is "too soon!")

 

[-Brett-]

If they can tell new stories with Kirk and co, they can do the same thing with Khan or any other old character they choose to use.

Unless, of course, you were hoping there would be no radical changes to the old canon. That this universe would eventually be folded back into the old one.

Can't tell if serious, but anyone who expected that was kidding themselves.

 

[Set Harth]

Plus, it's been thirty years since we've seen Khan on the screen and nearly fifty for Gary Mitchell.

I feel old . . ..

(Waiting for somebody to complain that thirty years is "too soon!")

Justin Bieber's Khan will be the best Khan of all.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Alice Eve will play Madeline Kahn.
Peter Weller will play Gary Lockwood.
Benedict Cumberbatch will play the Mirror Universe's Doctor Who.

That should make everyone happy. Or really sad.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Where do I buy my ticket?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Plus, it's been thirty years since we've seen Khan on the screen and nearly fifty for Gary Mitchell. There are probably millions of potential ticket buyers who have never been exposed to either character.

The biggest difference between them is that Khan requires too much backstory and Mitchell requires hardly any at all. He's good to go for a two-hour flick.

Khan would require too much explanation. What's the Eugenics War? What does "eugenics" mean? What did he do then? Why was it bad? Why is he still alive now? And by then the audience has gotten bored and gone to the lobby for popcorn. Doesn't pay to overestimate attention spans or vocabularies.

 

[BillJ]

Plus, it's been thirty years since we've seen Khan on the screen and nearly fifty for Gary Mitchell. There are probably millions of potential ticket buyers who have never been exposed to either character.

The biggest difference between them is that Khan requires too much backstory and Mitchell requires hardly any at all. He's good to go for a two-hour flick.

Khan would require too much explanation. What's the Eugenics War? What does "eugenics" mean? What did he do then? Why was it bad? Why is he still alive now? And by then the audience has gotten bored and gone to the lobby for popcorn. Doesn't pay to overestimate attention spans or vocabularies.

Seems like the TV episode nor movie had any serious troubles covering these bases the last time he was used. The Wrath of Khan spent about ten minutes on back story about the same amount of time Star Trek 2009 spent on Nero.

Regardless of who the bad guy is, they're going to have to spend time fleshing out his motivations and history.

 

[Greg Cox]

Seems like the TV episode nor movie had any serious troubles covering these bases the last time he was used. The Wrath of Khan spent about ten minutes on back story about the same amount of time Star Trek 2009 spent on Nero..

True. In Wrath, Khan's entire backstory is pretty much confined to one brief conversation with Chekov and Terrell. "He never told you the tale . . . ?"

So, Khan is a genetically-engineered tyrant banished from Earth centuries past. That seems pretty easy to grasp.

"Space Seed" fleshed things out a bit more, but you didn't need any history lessons on the Eugenics Wars to enjoy or understand the movie.

(In fact, I'm not sure the term, "Eugenics Wars," was ever used in the movie. That was just in "Space Seed.")