# Star Trek - Into Darkness (extra footage Japanese trailer)



## Steerpike (Dec 6, 2012)

OK, so based on this, who is the villain in the next movie? I'm going with Gary Mitchell. It seems to all fit, if you ask me.


----------



## Reaver (Dec 6, 2012)

I'm betting on Khan. Although The Wrath of Khan is the penultimate Star Trek movie, the whole franchise is being rebooted, so why not? It is a great story after all.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 6, 2012)

It could be Khan, but the actor they got to play the villain doesn't look much like Khan. He does look like Mitchell, though, and he's also shown in a Starfleet uniform. Mitchell was in Starfleet; Khan never was. Also, the blonde love interest looks like Mitchell's love interest from the original series. Apparently, Mitchell has already been established to exist in the reboot universe via the comics, so that adds another element. And he'd have super-human type powers. Both Mitchell and Khan fit the revenge scenario, but I think Mitchell comes closer to "family," both to Starfleet and Kirk.

The plot thickens 



I could be Khan,


----------



## soulless (Dec 6, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> It could be Khan, but the actor they got to play the villain doesn't look much like Khan. He does look like Mitchell, though, and he's also shown in a Starfleet uniform. Mitchell was in Starfleet; Khan never was. Also, the blonde love interest looks like Mitchell's love interest from the original series. Apparently, Mitchell has already been established to exist in the reboot universe via the comics, so that adds another element. And he'd have super-human type powers. Both Mitchell and Khan fit the revenge scenario, but I think Mitchell comes closer to "family," both to Starfleet and Kirk.
> 
> The plot thickens
> 
> ...



Mitchell has been in the first two issues of the apparently canon comic series set after the 2009 movie, however it was this new universe's version of the classic episode Where No Man Has Gone Before and despite slight differences ends the same way, with Mitchell's death.  I'm hoping its a new character for the new universe, same as Nero was.


----------



## Reaver (Dec 6, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> It could be Khan, but the actor they got to play the villain doesn't look much like Khan. He does look like Mitchell, though, and he's also shown in a Starfleet uniform. Mitchell was in Starfleet; Khan never was. Also, the blonde love interest looks like Mitchell's love interest from the original series. Apparently, Mitchell has already been established to exist in the reboot universe via the comics, so that adds another element. And he'd have super-human type powers. Both Mitchell and Khan fit the revenge scenario, but I think Mitchell comes closer to "family," both to Starfleet and Kirk.
> 
> The plot thickens
> 
> ...



You could indeed be Khan. I had hoped that you were opposed to eugenics, though. I didn't know anything about the comics, so I'll retract my theory and leave the hypothesizing to the better-informed.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 6, 2012)

Reaver said:


> You could indeed be Khan. I had hoped that you were opposed to eugenics, though. I didn't know anything about the comics, so I'll retract my theory and leave the hypothesizing to the better-informed.



Watch, you'll end up being right after all.

And I meant to say "I AM KHAN!"


----------



## Reaver (Dec 6, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Watch, you'll end up being right after all.



Personally, I'd prefer to see Harry Mudd as the main antagonist. If anyone would want revenge against Kirk & Crew, it'd be him.



> And I meant to say "I AM KHAN!"



Well then, please allow me to say that you sir, are a badass. Also please allow me to say: *KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!*


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 6, 2012)

Reaver said:


> Well then, please allow me to say that you sir, are a badass. Also please allow me to say: *KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!*



Can I interest you in a gently used Chrysler Cordoba with seats of genuine Corinthian leather?


----------



## Reaver (Dec 6, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Can I interest you in a gently used Chrysler Cordoba with seats of genuine Corinthian leather?



LMAO! Only if you call me on Skype or Google+ and make the offer in a voice like Ricardo Montalban's.


----------



## JCFarnham (Dec 6, 2012)

Hmmm, while Khan always interested me, I'm more interested in seeing something Gary-ish. Even if its a Nero-type rebrand of the character, if you see what I mean. Knowing Benedict, I know who I'd rather have him play. Though let's be honest, any part will do


----------



## saellys (Dec 6, 2012)

Are we actually basing the likelihood of Cumberbatch playing either Khan or Mitchell on hints in the trailer? Abrams has no loyalty to any of these characters, so he'll change whatever he wants and any villain from classic _Trek_ will be in name only.


----------



## Reaver (Dec 7, 2012)

saellys said:


> Abrams has no loyalty to any of these characters, so he'll change whatever he wants and any villain from classic _Trek_ will be in name only.



Well he clearly has some loyalty to the characters or he wouldn't have had Leonard Nimoy in the first film.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 7, 2012)

Reaver said:


> Well he clearly has some loyalty to the characters or he wouldn't have had Leonard Nimoy in the first film.



Not only that, the casting from the first film shows an homage to the original series. The scene in the trailer with the hands against the glass is clearly an homage to _Wrath of Khan_, though I don't think Spock is in the glass. Trying to rule out one villain or another based solely on some preconception about Abrams doesn't make much sense. The villain could we be neither Khan no Mitchell, but the speculation is interesting.


----------



## Reaver (Dec 7, 2012)

I agree. It's fun to speculate.  I'm still putting my money on Harry Mudd.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 7, 2012)

saellys said:


> Are we actually basing the likelihood of Cumberbatch playing either Khan or Mitchell on hints in the trailer? Abrams has no loyalty to any of these characters, so he'll change whatever he wants and any villain from classic _Trek_ will be in name only.



Here come the purists...


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 7, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Here come the purists...



Of course, we're in a new timeline, so purist considerations are secondary. Things are different.


----------



## saellys (Dec 7, 2012)

Reaver said:


> Well he clearly has some loyalty to the characters or he wouldn't have had Leonard Nimoy in the first film.



Nimoy's Spock's only purpose in the first film was to break the Prime Directive multiple times. Abrams clearly cast him to throw established Trekkies a bone in the hopes that they'd like his reboot better than _Star Wars_ fans liked the prequels. And it worked! The only two Trekkies in the world who didn't like '09 _Trek_ were my husband and his best friend. 



Steerpike said:


> Trying to rule out one villain or another based solely on some preconception about Abrams doesn't make much sense.



I wasn't trying to rule out one villain or another. I don't care a whit about who Cumberbatch is playing, and I'm not going to bother seeing this film. I just find it really amusing that people think they can deduce whether it's Mitchell or Khan or Mudd based on hints Abrams has dropped in one form or another, when he's made it abundantly clear that he'll change whatever he wants to change for no apparent reason just because it suits him.



Mindfire said:


> Here come the purists...



If caring about decent writing makes me a purist, I'll wear the mantle proudly. 



Steerpike said:


> Of course, we're in a new timeline, so purist considerations are secondary. Things are different.



Like characters' personalities and the Prime Directive!


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 7, 2012)

Don't Star Trek characters have an established precedent of breaking the Prime Directive whenever it suits their needs anyway?


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 7, 2012)

It's true Abrams can go any direction he wants. But now that the direction is chosen there is nothing wrong with speculation based on what we see.


----------



## Reaver (Dec 7, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Don't Star Trek characters have an established precedent of breaking the Prime Directive whenever it suits their needs anyway?



Absolutely. That has always been a pet peeve of mine. It's like: "Why even have a Prime Directive?" Captain Janeway was the worst offender.


----------



## Reaver (Dec 7, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> It's true Abrams can go any direction he wants. But now that the direction is chosen there is nothing wrong with speculation based on what we see.



Agreed. I like the reboot because I like to pretend that every movie except the Wrath of Khan even happened.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 7, 2012)

Reaver said:


> Agreed. I like the reboot because I like to pretend that every movie except the Wrath of Khan even happened.



What? You don't like turning a stealthy Klingon warship into a massive tanker for whales so their otherworldly & superior cetacean technology doesn't destroy the earth of the future?


----------



## Reaver (Dec 7, 2012)

Yeah. Hate to say it, but *in my opinion* "The Motion Picture" was too boring (its only redeeming quality is Persis Khambatta) and everything after the Wrath of Khan gets progressively worse. By the time they got to Nemesis it's like they weren't even trying anymore. 

So yeah, I'm happy with the reboot and the whole alternate timeline idea. I f**king loved that they wiped out Vulcan in the beginning of the movie. What a way to kick things off!


----------



## Sparkie (Dec 8, 2012)

I did sort of like The Undiscovered Country, just because of what they tried to do with the whole cold war allegory-thing.  Klingons were the Soviets, right?


----------



## JCFarnham (Dec 8, 2012)

Klingons have been a stand in for "the enemy" since the beginning. To me they were even communist China for a while.. before they got their forehead ridges.


----------



## Reaver (Dec 8, 2012)

Sparkie said:


> I did sort of like The Undiscovered Country, just because of what they tried to do with the whole cold war allegory-thing.  Klingons were the Soviets, right?



If Klingons were the Soviets then why would Pavel Chekov be part of the Enterprise crew? I really didn't see the Cold War allegory because the film was released in December 1991: the Berlin Wall had fallen two years earlier, Glasnost was in full swing, the Soviet Union was crumbling and for all intents and purposes, the Cold War was over.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 8, 2012)

Reaver said:


> If Klingons were the Soviets then why would Pavel Chekov be part of the Enterprise crew? I really didn't see the Cold War allegory because the film was released in December 1991: the Berlin Wall had fallen two years earlier, Glasnost was in full swing, the Soviet Union was crumbling and for all intents and purposes, the Cold War was over.



I think that's exactly why the Klingons are the Soviets in this instance. Granted, I only know about this movie from the wiki article, but my understanding is that ST6 is about the _collapse_ of the USSR, with the part of the USSR being played by Klingons. Apparently, the script was written on suggestion from Leonard Nimoy based on the idea: "What if the wall came down in space?"


----------



## Reaver (Dec 8, 2012)

That's all fine and good, making comparisons to the collapse of the USSR and all, but it doesn't change the fact that it was a crap movie and basically the proverbial "nail in the coffin" for movies featuring the original cast.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 8, 2012)

Reaver said:


> That's all fine and good, making comparisons to the collapse of the USSR and all, but it doesn't change the fact that it was a crap movie and basically the proverbial "nail in the coffin" for movies featuring the original cast.



I thought the even-numbered movies were supposed to be the good ones?


----------



## Reaver (Dec 8, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> I thought the even-numbered movies were supposed to be the good ones?



Not in my opinion. I don't even want to get started on the Next Generation movies.


----------



## MFreako (Dec 9, 2012)

Anybody else really excited about Benedict Cumberbatch playing the villain? I mean, the guy's one of the best actors I've seen for a while now. Watch BBC's Sherlock if you're not familiar with him, you'll love it.


----------



## Reaver (Dec 10, 2012)

MFreako said:


> Anybody else really excited about* Benedict Cumberbatch* playing the villain?



Is that really his name or are you making that up? It sounds like a character from Harry Potter.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 10, 2012)

Reaver said:


> Is that really his name or are you making that up? It sounds like a character from Harry Potter.



It's his real name. Pretty boss.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 10, 2012)

SHERLOCK is pretty cool. What's up with three episodes a season?


----------



## Reaver (Dec 10, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Pretty boss.



I don't think it's acceptable workplace behavior to call your boss pretty.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 10, 2012)

Reaver said:


> I don't think it's acceptable workplace behavior to call your boss pretty.



>_>

His name contains an exceptional amount of boss-ticity.


----------



## Ireth (Dec 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> SHERLOCK is pretty cool. What's up with three episodes a season?



They're more like movies than episodes, kinda -- I think they're each about an hour and a half long. Still, I do wish there were more of them. They're probably not going to be able to start filming the third season for YEARS, what with Benedict being so busy with The Hobbit and Star Trek. *flails*


----------



## Sheriff Woody (Dec 19, 2012)

Looking forward to this movie! The first was fantastic. I hope this new one is on par.


----------



## Reaver (Jun 18, 2013)

reaver said:


> *I'm betting on khan.* Although The Wrath of Khan is the penultimate Star Trek movie, the whole franchise is being rebooted, so why not? It is a great story after all.




Man I'm tired of being right.


----------



## Devor (Jun 19, 2013)

Reaver said:


> Man I'm tired of being right.



I always find that to be disappointing as well.


----------

