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.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Star Trek - Into Darkness (extra footage Japanese trailer)
- Thread starter Steerpike
- Start date
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Thread starter
- #3
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,
The plot thickens
I could be Khan,
TroubadourIt 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,
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.
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,
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.
- Thread starter
- #6
Personally, I'd prefer to see Harry Mudd as the main antagonist. If anyone would want revenge against Kirk & Crew, it'd be him.
Well then, please allow me to say that you sir, are a badass. Also please allow me to say: KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #8
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
Auror
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
Inkling
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.
Well he clearly has some loyalty to the characters or he wouldn't have had Leonard Nimoy in the first film.
- Thread starter
- #13
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.
I agree. It's fun to speculate. I'm still putting my money on Harry Mudd.
Mindfire
Istar
Here come the purists...
- Thread starter
- #16
Of course, we're in a new timeline, so purist considerations are secondary. Things are different.
saellys
Inkling
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.
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.
If caring about decent writing makes me a purist, I'll wear the mantle proudly.
Like characters' personalities and the Prime Directive!
Mindfire
Istar
Don't Star Trek characters have an established precedent of breaking the Prime Directive whenever it suits their needs anyway?
- Thread starter
- #19
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.
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.
