Star Trek Sequel

jawajohnnyjawajohnny Website User Posts: 143
edited December 2011 in General
After a lengthy delay due to J.J. Abrams directing Super 8, it looks like the Star Trek sequel (I refuse to call it Star Trek 2) is finally moving forward. It's been announced for a May 17, 2013 release, with shooting to begin in January.
Here's what's going down with the casting:
A few weeks ago, it was reported (and then confirmed) that J.J. Abrams was courting Benicio Del Toro to play the villain. Of course, that led to speculation that he'd be playing Khan... with The Latino Review confirming the rumor on Friday, citing a source within the production. J.J. Abrams quickly issued a "not true" comment, which everyone took to mean that Khan won't be the villain.
But today comes news that Benicio Del Toro will not be in the movie, after contract talks broke down last Wednesday. That of course gives Abrams' comment a totally different meaning (that Del Toro, specifically, will not play Khan), re-opening the possibility that Khan actually is in the film. Since both The Latino Review and Vulture have now reported that Khan is indeed the villain... I'd wager the rumor is true. So the obvious question now, is who should play him?
My top choices, in no particular order are:
1. Antonio Banderas - He has the voice.
2. Naveen Andrews - Khan is actually supposed to be Indian... so why not go the authentic route and cast an actual Indian actor? Also, he's previously worked with Abrams on "Lost".
3. Nestor Carbonell - Another "Lost" actor who I think has the presence/persona to pull off Khan.
4. Javier Bardem - He seems to be everyone's top choice... but I doubt it will happen, simply because he's already playing the villain in the next Bond movie, Skyfall.
While the principal villain has yet to be cast, two other roles have. Alice Eve has been confirmed to play a major character, new to Star Trek canon. I assume she'll be Kirk's love interest.
Also, Peter Weller joined the cast today in an unknown role. Since I don't see him as Khan, at all, I wonder if he's playing another villain? Or another Starfleet captain? Regardless... after seeing him in "White Tulip", a Season 2 episode of Abrams/Kurtzman/Orci's "Fringe" that stands as one of the series' finest episodes, I'm really excited to see him in Star Trek.
So... what do you guys want to see in the Star Trek sequel? What do you think of the casting decisions so far? Should Khan be in the movie... and if so, who should play him?
«1

Comments

  • SketchWorkSketchWork Website User Posts: 127
    Khaaaaaannn!!!! Noooo! Khan should be left alone. ST2 was such a good movie and is arguably still the best of all the ST movies made. I hope they move onto new exciting things.
  • StormyKnightStormyKnight Moderator, Website User, Ambassador, Imerge Beta Tester, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 2,726 Ambassador
    edited December 2011
    Seriously? They've got a brand new freaking universe to play in and all they can come up with is.........................Khan?
    I'm very disappointed. :((
    Hey Abrams- cut back on the lens flares will ya? Sheesh.
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator Website User, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 4,450 Enthusiast
    While I do love Wrath of Khan, I also think it is rather overrated - it may have established a lot of the themes and style that went on to define Star Trek (and particularly the classic movies), but it's also creaking at the seams due to a tiny budget, with the scale of the film very small, tiny sets and rather wobbly VFX in places. There's definitely room to do it in a grander fashion.
    That said, I don't see the point of simply remaking it. Far more interesting would be to embrace the rebooted universe and see how Khan fits into that - presumably he wouldn't go the same route as in the original series.
    The main thing I hope for from Star Trek 2 is a plot. The first film's plot was absolutely woeful, though they papered over it rather expertly with the driving pace, great production values, fun dialogue and excellent performances. I enjoy the movie, but absolutely have to turn my brain off at the door - which should NOT be the case with a Trek movie.
    So the same cast, crew and style, with a thought-provoking, issue-driven script would be fantastic.
    Maybe given that money and disease don't exist in the Star Trek universe, they should focus on those, given the current world economic woes and the health care debates in the UK and US. :P
  • AculagAculag Website User Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    I think Khan would be a really lazy choice for a villain, and I don't get why so many people want him to be in it. We've seen that movie already.
  • jawajohnnyjawajohnny Website User Posts: 143
    edited December 2011
    That said, I don't see the point of simply remaking it. Far more interesting would be to embrace the rebooted universe and see how Khan fits into that - presumably he wouldn't go the same route as in the original series.
    Yeah... I'm sure they'll put a new spin on Khan, much like Chris Nolan did with The Joker. In fact, the writers have pointed to The Dark Knight for inspiration for the sequel. If they go "The Dark Knight" route, with Khan as "The Joker" then I expect he'll antagonize Kirk not necessarily with his super-strength... but with his "superior intellect" that hasn't yet been compromised by a need for revenge (like in Wrath of Khan). So with Khan's intellect, there's huge potential for the deep, thought-provoking Star Trek plot we all want. They'll probably use Khan's Original Series episode, "Space Seed" as a starting point... and then go from there.
    Continuing with the Batman analogy, if Khan is "The Joker"... then the Klingons are "the mob". If the writers are thinking the same thing as I am... then I wouldn't be surprised if they were to appear in the film in addition to Khan. In both "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight"... the mob has a steady presence, while not being the main villains, so I can see the Klingon's being used in a similar role... perhaps with Khan manipulating them and/or using their resources.
    [quote name="Aculag"]I think Khan would be a really lazy choice for a villain, and I don't get why so many people want him to be in it. We've seen that movie already.[/quote]
    Overall... I think a lot of people are overreacting when they say they don't want to see Khan, or a rehash of something we've seen before. Weren't we all thinking the same thing about Heath Ledger's Joker before The Dark Knight was released? Look how that turned out. I highly doubt that we've "seen that movie already". Yes... we've seen Wrath of Khan. But again, like Chris Nolan has done with his "Bat Universe", I'm sure this film will likely be very different, with an entirely new interpretation of the character.
  • StormyKnightStormyKnight Moderator, Website User, Ambassador, Imerge Beta Tester, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 2,726 Ambassador
    edited December 2011

    So the same cast, crew and style, with a thought-provoking, issue-driven script would be fantastic.
    Maybe given that money and disease don't exist in the Star Trek universe, they should focus on those, given the current world economic woes and the health care debates in the UK and US. :P
    You mean like have the crew come back to the 21st century to get an extinct whale only to discover the world is broke so they can't buy the transparent aluminum that Scotty gave to the metal designer who dies from a new and improved plague brought on by global warming? By golly- sign me up! ;)
  • FXstudiosFXstudios Website User Posts: 7
    I thought the first one was great. Hardly anything wrong with it. New and mind twisting yet still keeping pretty close to the original Star Trek. They nailed it. I'm sort of skeptical if they can pull it off again. But I agree, same style, cast, and crew, they just need a new idea that is equally intriguing.
  • DanielMorganDanielMorgan Website User Posts: 324 Just Starting Out
    Why make a new alternate universe, if there just going to go to old stories. Khan is an icon of the original star trek, the new one should bring in new villains.
  • AculagAculag Website User Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    I totally agree, Daniel. It would just seem like fan service, and the first film had too much of that already.
  • AxelWilkinsonAxelWilkinson Staff Administrator, Imerge Beta Tester, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 5,242 Staff
    edited December 2011
    The fundamental concept behind rebooting the franchise is to update the old characters for modern audiences, right? that's why they did a story with the original crew members, rather than creating an entirely new crew for the Enterprise. In general, the response to the new Kirk, Spock, etc. is fairly positive (although I'm not a fan), so if it worked out well for the good guys, I don't see an issue with updating a villain or two as well. But the entire concept hinges on using the existing characters to tell new stories. Using Khan in a sequel doesn't seem like it should be any more of an issue than using Kirk is.
  • AculagAculag Website User Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    edited December 2011
    I wouldn't mind Khan existing in the new films, and being a part of the overall story, because that would make sense. I'm sure he'll show up one way or another eventually, but having him be the main villain in the second film would make that film essentially a remake/"re-imagining" of Wrath of Khan. Of course, no one involved in the production has said anything about Khan being in the film, people just assume he will be because he was in the second Original Series film. For all we know, that's the furthest thing from the truth. If Khan is going to be in the sequel, I hope they do something completely different with him.
    I'm all for the old characters showing up and being present in the new universe, I just don't want to see them remaking or rehashing old plots for the sake of nostalgia. To me, the "Hey remember this from the old series/movies?!" bits were the worst part about Abrams' Star Trek. I'm sure I'm in the minority there, though.
  • jawajohnnyjawajohnny Website User Posts: 143
    But remember... it won't be a remake of "Wrath of Khan". In this timeline, Kirk still hasn't met Khan yet... so if they were to "rehash" something... it would be the Original Series episode, "Space Seed". However, I'm confident that they understand the wishes of the fanbase... and will do something with Khan that we haven't seen before. Again, look what Nolan/Ledger did with The Joker. It was a completely different spin on him... and I imagine they'll do the same with Khan. That is, if they do Khan.
  • AculagAculag Website User Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    edited December 2011
    Good point. Somehow I didn't even consider that Kirk and Khan had known each other for a long time before Wrath of Khan. Hell, Kirk was Admiral at that point, wasn't he? Been a while since i've seen it. And yes, we can only hope.
    I'd still rather NOT see him just yet, but if they do it, I'm sure Abrams & Co. will come up with something interesting.
  • StormyKnightStormyKnight Moderator, Website User, Ambassador, Imerge Beta Tester, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 2,726 Ambassador
    edited December 2011

    The fundamental concept behind rebooting the franchise is to update the old characters for modern audiences, right? that's why they did a story with the original crew members, rather than creating an entirely new crew for the Enterprise. In general, the response to the new Kirk, Spock, etc. is fairly positive (although I'm not a fan), so if it worked out well for the good guys, I don't see an issue with updating a villain or two as well. But the entire concept hinges on using the existing characters to tell new stories. Using Khan in a sequel doesn't seem like it should be any more of an issue than using Kirk is.
    But when it comes right down to it, and this is the biggest complaint I have about Hollyweird these days, aren't we really just talking about a "remake"? Even if it stems from "Space Seed" as jawajohnny pointed out? There is so much potential there to create new and wonderous things like in the first movie. After Berman practically ran the franchise into the ground I thought the new Trek was refreshing. Doing the same thing over, granted even with variances in outcomes and different reactions, really isn't something original....it's just something different. Eventually it just becomes monotony. Is there going to be yet another tribble problem? Are Spock and Kirk going to duel again because of the Pon farr but Kirk wins this time or does Bones fight instead? Do they come back to get an extinct whale now? Does Spock find his brother posing as the devil instead of God? Instead of a peace treaty does the Klingon empire actually conquer the Federation? And on and on and on.
    I'm always willing to admit I'm wrong......if they "WOW" me.

    And as long as we're on the subject- In the first Trek reboot Kirk grows up in Iowa, correct? Then did the big crevasse that he almost fell into come from Johnathan Archer's time and the crevasse was there because of the Sulibon attack on Earth? As far as I know there is no such land formation in Iowa and I can't think of any other explaination 'cause that would still be in the original timeline as set up by the "Enterprise" series -or- did I miss something completely?
    Edited: 11:07 AM - Or was that the Xindi not the Sulibon?
  • RossTrowbridgeRossTrowbridge Website User Posts: 423 Enthusiast
    Stormynight, I'm with you. I'm hoping for at least a semi-original villian in the new movie. I love the old stories as they are. I ended up feeling the same way about JJ Abrams' movie as I did about the first Star Trek movie. It was great seeing the characters on screen and the effects were great, but the stories both left a lot to be desired. ST1 had a great follow-up with The Wrath of Khan. I'm hoping ST11 does the same.
    As for the crevasse, it wasn't a natural formation. It was a rock quarry. There aren't very many opportunities to dig your stone out of a mountainside in Iowa, so the only way to go is straight down. Next time you watch the movie, look at the sides of the quarry. They're all square-cut. I've seen similar quarries when I've flown around the country, especially near Atlanta. A lot of times, they collect water in the bottom.
  • metalfishmetalfish Website User Posts: 28
    As long as they don´t let Abrams be the one who designs the look of the sets/ships and so on, it could get a good movie no matter who will be the villain. The design of the Ship, the bridge, the machine decks were the biggest negative point of the whole movie.. this was the first "Star Trek" movie where everything was ridiciously silly and useless looking... even those classic series looked more believable. Christmas lightchains around the displays? Come on :(( Those water tubes with the blade fan at the end could have been in the movie "Galaxy Quest", with Sigourney Weaver saying "why do we have this? It makes no sense!"
    I am a real Startrek fan, and i really liked the idea behind StarTrek.. those new possibilities it opened, the fresh touch it had, the new twist some characters took.. but if the next looks like the last one, i will be the last one on this planet that will watch it.
    btw, villain.. we need a thread or a task or a hard mission to complete in a startrek movie. One of the best STarTrek movies imho, the 4th one with the whales, had just a giant cigar as the "bad guy".... ;) I hope they will be more creative and will come up with somenthing more creative than "just another really bad guy"
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator Website User, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 4,450 Enthusiast
    The main problem with JJ's Star Trek (and the reason it was so exciting and fun to watch) was that it took its cues from Star Wars. If they can keep that sense of fun while tapping in to the more cerebral, character-led style of the old Star Treks, they could be on to a winner. The ingredients were all there in the first one, they just need a bit of stirring.
  • StormyKnightStormyKnight Moderator, Website User, Ambassador, Imerge Beta Tester, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 2,726 Ambassador
    edited December 2011
    metalfish- There were a few questionable things on set as you pointed out. The only thing they forgot was the lava lamp. :))
    Simon- I agree 100%. I'm keeping my fingers crossed in eager anticipation.
    rtrowbridge- I knew it wasn't a natural formation which is why I thought it might have been the Xindi weapon from when they attacked Earth in the Enterprise series. I found a clip on youtube of the Xindi attack and they hit Florida and went south. I thought they went northwest- evidently not.
    As to the crevasse itself- you're correct. It has smooth walls as seen in the following clip so it must be a quarry. Good call and thanks for clearing it up. It's a freaking BIG quarry at that! :))

  • DannyDevDannyDev Staff Administrator, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 338 Staff
    I seem to be the only person on the planet who thought the 2009 reboot was terrible! In fact it must rank at was of the worst films I've ever seen and this is coming from a long time ST fan @-)
  • BRTBRT Website User Posts: 4
    No kHan thanks. JJprise is ugly. Film was ok but doesn't have the replay life of the originals. I saw star trek 2009 once in the theater and watched it twice on home dvd and that's it. No real magic, charm or thought. Just an amusement park ride.
  • guitar74guitar74 Website User Posts: 506
    I wasnet to fond of the Abrams Star Trek first moive, Killed Kirk's father, destroyed, vulcan.. Come on, that story line is just not to good!!
  • jawajohnnyjawajohnny Website User Posts: 143
    edited January 2012
    Benedict Cumberbatch has joined the movie in a lead role. That's great news, as he's an outstanding actor. I wonder who he'll play, though? He definitely doesn't fit the "Latino" profile they've been eying for the villain.
    EDIT: Trekmovie is reporting that he has indeed been cast in the main villain role that they initially wanted Benicio Del Toro for.
    So. Is he Khan, or not Khan? :)
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator Website User, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 4,450 Enthusiast
    Very exciting to have Cumberbatch in the film, partially because he has an awesome name, but also because he's a fantastic actor. When I heard about it this morning I'd hoped he was playing the villain. Excellent!
  • TheRealJayWalkerTheRealJayWalker Website User Posts: 219

    Very exciting to have Cumberbatch in the film, partially because he has an awesome name, but also because he's a fantastic actor. When I heard about it this morning I'd hoped he was playing the villain. Excellent!
    It is a cool name and very Harry Potter. You could imagine his name as a Defence Against the Dark Arts professor. Should be interesting to see who he's cast as though. Khan doesn't spring to mind for me and hopefully it will be handled well. I liked the first one but I think a lot of this was due to the casting, which I think was spot on with maybe and exception of Pegg as Scotty.
  • AculagAculag Website User Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    I've only seen him in Sherlock, but he is amazing in that. He's been getting some really good roles lately.
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator Website User, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 4,450 Enthusiast
    He does seem to have done that actor thing of suddenly being everywhere all at once (see: Chris Hemsworth, Sam Worthington, Shia TheBeef a few years back). I'd be intrigued to know if there's a particular agent/agency that has the ability to do this to actors, as it's always rather suspicious how it happens.
    The difference, of course, is that Cumberbatch isn't a Generic Hollywood Lead, which immediately makes him far more interesting to watch.
  • DarrenDarren Website User Posts: 164
    Agreed - My daughter (11) is already a fan of Sherlock and turns all her friends onto the show because of Mr. Cumberbatch. I'm just wondering who the villain is.... :-?
  • AndrewAndrew Website User Posts: 379 Enthusiast
    edited January 2012

    He does seem to have done that actor thing of suddenly being everywhere all at once (see: Chris Hemsworth, Sam Worthington, Shia TheBeef a few years back). I'd be intrigued to know if there's a particular agent/agency that has the ability to do this to actors, as it's always rather suspicious how it happens.
    The difference, of course, is that Cumberbatch isn't a Generic Hollywood Lead, which immediately makes him far more interesting to watch.
    No specific talent agency- just the big ones in-general that have the sort of power and influence to get foots in doors. UTA, ICM, CAA, WME, etc. but even then, its interesting to see what brings these people out of obscurity to where they're even represented by big LA entities like those. The agency I'm repped by, for instance, is Gersh- and I know they've been pushing clients of theirs like Kyle Chandler (Super 8) and John Slattery (Mad Men) hard to be the next 'flavor-of-the-month' with those age demographics. It's cool to see, actually.
    No actor in the past 10-15 years has been the Generic Hollywood Lead, though. Not since the star system pretty much tanked in the early 2000s. Look at your list of actors: a gawky teenager, an Aussie soap opera star, and a muscular action hero. All have acting chops and, in my mind, became stars and saturated because studios liked them for their presence, not archetype ('real American hero', 'villain', etc.) they represented. Surely they're marketable, yes- but moreso for the flawed personalities they portray. The studio system is making Ryan Reynolds Green Lantern, not using Shia Labeouf- an impronouncable and unmarketable name, and boyish face- in Transformers.
    I remember a few years ago when the big three names came out for both Transformers and Speed Racer, and they were Emile Hirsch, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Shia LaBeouf. Three boyish-looking, dark-haired, talented actors. I remember thinking there was no clearer choice for either role than Hirsch- and yet 3 years later, the careers and likability, for my money, of Shia and JGL are so much higher than Hirsch. Sure, they're all taking different projects and in different spots now- but they all represent the same sort of generic acting archetype- so I find it interesting to see the choices they make and how Hollywood adapts to and shapes those decisions.
    Some of the choices are suspect these days, but what's great about the current and, sadly rather fragile state of Hollywood is that it bets big on rather unknown talent- and rewards those people if they succeed. And I think that's cool.
    Not that I think he's particularly spectacular, but the same is true this year with Taylor Kitsch, who is starring in Battleship and John Carter- and was one of the few bright spots of the otherwise abysmal Wolverine movie in 2009. Likewise with Chris Hemsworth's brother, Liam, who is in the upcoming Hunger Games film- and hell, even Tom Hardy.
    For my money, he'll be the next Sam Worthington. Just fingers-crossed he doesn't fizzle (albeit not terribly bad) the way Worthington seems to have in the past 9 months.
  • DanielGWoodDanielGWood Moderator Website User, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 1,021 Just Starting Out

    For my money, he'll be the next Sam Worthington. Just fingers-crossed he doesn't fizzle (albeit not terribly bad) the way Worthington seems to have in the past 9 months.
    Are you kidding, he's in WRATH OF THE CLASH OF THE TITANS!?! 8-|
    Seriously though, love the casting of Cumberbatch. Partly because we all get to keep saying his name, but he's also been great in Sherlock and Tinker Tailor (However I'm hoping he'll reconsider and become the next Doctor Who, so hopefully Hollywood won't get too obsessed with him).
  • MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast
    I want to see tribbles.
Sign In or Register to comment.