With no Space Seed, how can there be a "Khan Movie"?

[Jackson_Roykirk]

...The only question is whether someone decides it will be interesting enough to make a movie about.

While I don't disagree with you, I personally don't think an "interesting plot" is necessarily important for a good movie. Really.

Don't get me wrong -- A really interesting plot can in fact be part of a good movie. However, so can a simple plot. I've always said that the difference between a good movie and a bad movie is not the plot, but the execution of plot.

I've seen films with simple plots that have been very well done and enjoyable, and I've seen films with fantastic plots that were executed poorly (and thus the great plot wasted). In fact, I think I enjoy the simple plots more. Maybe those films are just "cleaner" in my eyes.

 

[Set Harth]

(And remember, this is about normal folks - they don't know which of those thrown together means canon violation, or what a canon violation is, or why they should care.)

It wouldn't be a canon violation because it's an altered timeline.

Then again, they probably don't know that either.

 

[Sharr Khan]

UFO wrote:
...The only question is whether someone decides it will be interesting enough to make a movie about.

The only thing required is if the screenwriter(s) think they have a story which they might want tell. And also of course Paramount's stamp of approval. Which would I think largely be dependent upon how they think they can market the film.

 

[UFO]

...The only question is whether someone decides it will be interesting enough to make a movie about.

While I don't disagree with you, I personally don't think an "interesting plot" is necessarily important for a good movie. Really.

Don't get me wrong -- A really interesting plot can in fact be part of a good movie. However, so can a simple plot. I've always said that the difference between a good movie and a bad movie is not the plot, but the execution of plot.

I've seen films with simple plots that have been very well done and enjoyable, and I've seen films with fantastic plots that were executed poorly (and thus the great plot wasted). In fact, I think I enjoy the simple plots more. Maybe those films are just "cleaner" in my eyes.

I take your point and perhaps interesting wasn't quite the right word, but I had something else in mind. I mean, both the problem and the solution to the Botany Bay issue are well known to Spock Prime, so having Khan and Co defrosted in a high security prison ship may not have too much entertainment value. So something more interesting or at least entertaining such as KingDaniel's suggestion would seem to be necessary.

I would suggest that while the correlation you draw between complexity and interest may often be the case, I think simple plots can still be interesting and of course visa versa.

 

[Trekkie2]

We must have Khan in the next movie because uhhhh....because uhhhhh....yeah, I got nothing.

PR value for starters.

To normal folk, "Khan" does not mean RAWR RED ALERT UNCREATIVE HACKS DESTROYING STAR TREK!!!11!!! It just means, "yeah wasn't he some badass space guy...? Hey the last movie was good, maybe this will be worth checking out."

That kind of appeal to normal folk is how we got Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise back on the big screen. They're going for whatever has the most mass name recognition, and Star Trek really doesn't have a whole lot of options in that department. At this point, it's Klingons, Khan or maybe the Borg. (And remember, this is about normal folks - they don't know which of those thrown together means canon violation, or what a canon violation is, or why they should care.)

Of course, what was I thinking. The next movie is going to be Khan and his pet Monkey Monsters.

 

[Phoenicianknight]

We must have Khan in the next movie because uhhhh....because uhhhhh....yeah, I got nothing.

PR value for starters.

To normal folk, "Khan" does not mean RAWR RED ALERT UNCREATIVE HACKS DESTROYING STAR TREK!!!11!!! It just means, "yeah wasn't he some badass space guy...? Hey the last movie was good, maybe this will be worth checking out."

That kind of appeal to normal folk is how we got Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise back on the big screen. They're going for whatever has the most mass name recognition, and Star Trek really doesn't have a whole lot of options in that department. At this point, it's Klingons, Khan or maybe the Borg. (And remember, this is about normal folks - they don't know which of those thrown together means canon violation, or what a canon violation is, or why they should care.)

Of course, what was I thinking. The next movie is going to be Khan and his pet Monkey Monsters.

Hell, I'd pay to watch that!

I'm sure that it would be "Flying Monkeys" like in the Wiz of OZ!

 

[137th Gebirg]

If this is going to be Khan, it's going to be a different kind of Khan (or, at least, should be). We're likely more to see a Space Seed-style Khan, still fresh from the 20th century, still bent on global conquest, evolved likely to interstellar conquest once he realizes he's in the 23rd century. Someone will run into the Botany Bay - I'm going to guess NOT the Enterprise - unwittingly free Khan & his people, and it will be up to the Enterprise to stop him. He won't be the insane Khan driven mad by exile on a post-apocalyptic Ceti Alpha V. He will be Khan in his prime. So that, coupled with being Trek's top all-time villain that even non-Trek fans recognize, I think they're banking on the name recognition factor alone.

Personally, I'm disappointed. Wrath of Khan was needed to revitalize the franchise after TMP bombed in most people's eyes. The last NuTrek film did not have that problem. Bringing Khan in so soon after a proven success doesn't really make sense when there are so many other stories that could be told, but that's just me.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Armchair critics? Armchair critics are the one's who buy the expensive tickets and it's the writer's responsibility to do something creative to put those butts in the movie theater seats.

Heh - if that's the case, the writers satisfied the vast majority of the "critics" (read, paying moviegoers) with the last Trek film and should just follow their own judgment again this time.

 

[Trekkie2]

Armchair critics? Armchair critics are the one's who buy the expensive tickets and it's the writer's responsibility to do something creative to put those butts in the movie theater seats.

Heh - if that's the case, the writers satisfied the vast majority of the "critics" (read, paying moviegoers) with the last Trek film and should just follow their own judgment again this time.

There is no doubt about the last movie, I liked it and went to see it three time. I only ever done that with LOTR: FOTR and the last two Harry Potter movies. However, they didn't pull pull a monkey out of a hat, they pulled a pidgeon, and I expected the pidgeon. I like it because it gave some back story to the characters.

One shouldn't base the expectation of KNS in the next movie on the sheer fact that they interviewed hispanic actors before Cumberbatch. I'm going to say again that most of us know the villain is human looking augment (of some type, if he's able to take Spock on) As far as I know the Vulcan nerve pinch hasn't been used on an augment, so that would remain a mystery yet to solve.

 

[137th Gebirg]

I am curious if they will even still be called "augments", an Enterprise term. They were simply called "supermen" in TOS.

 

[Set Harth]

They should call them augmen. Or superments.

 

[Sindatur]

I am curious if they will even still be called "augments", an Enterprise term. They were simply called "supermen" in TOS.

Interesting Perspective, I hadn't considered that

Really, Augment wasn't used until ENT? Dang, I feel as if they were always called Augments but, yea, examining the evidence, the answer is undeniably yes

 

[Skywalker]

They should use Augments because (chronologically) that term supersedes the use of "supermen" in TOS. Plus it sounds better anyway. "Supermen" is too vague, and makes me think of Superman more than anything else.

 

[UFO]

They should call them augmen. Or superments.

Supermints!

 

[MANT!]

 

[UFO]