Star Trek Sequel

[Warhammer]

Let's be honest here in regards to reusing Khan being a lazy. The same can be said and actually was said (even by me when it was first announced) when Paramount announced a reboot. Plenty of people said a prequel was lazy and that they should have just made a new film with new characters, etc. In the end, Star Trek exceeded expectations and made Trek relevant again. Using Khan isn't such a bad idea. If anything, not only will he be a new, fresh incarnation of the character but he will also generate alot of hype. People want him. And that translates into big $$$.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Hopefully we haven't forgotten that Khan is Indian, right? I have no problem with a Latino actor playing Khan, but all the alternative names being put out are all Latino. Might as well stick in Hugh Grant, Denzel Washington and Ken Watanabe in the running just to balance things out.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Anyone who thinks this Khan would be a carbon copy of what Montalban did in Wrath of Khan over 30 freakin years ago has a lack of vision and THAT is lazy IMO.

You're also a lazy reader since I didn't say that and instead pointed to how after all that work of rebooting and being able to do whatever they wanted next to just have them encounter Khan instead of a new villain, aliens or planet was lazy.

I hate reading comprehension too.

 

[Warhammer]

It'd be cool if they had Khan be a legit Indian this go around, but we know they aren't going to do that.

 

[flickchick85]

Hopefully we haven't forgotten that Khan is Indian, right? I have no problem with a Latino actor playing Khan, but all the alternative names being put out are all Latino.

That's because Ricardo Montalban was Latino, and he's who they're trying to recast. Regardless of the character's ethnic origins on the page, Khan=Montalban. That said, I do agree they should look at Indian actors as well.

 

[raybia]

That's because Ricardo Montalban was Latino, and he's who they're trying to recast. Regardless of the character's ethnic origins on the page, Khan=Montalban. That said, I do agree they should look at Indian actors as well.

I'm sure they want an actor with box office appeal. What indian actor has that? Hollywood as always will look for an actor with the most star power that can pass for whatever ethnicity is required for the role.

 

[flickchick85]

I'm sure they want an actor with box office appeal. What indian actor has that?

This is also true. The only "name" actor of Indian descent I can think of at the moment is Ben Kingsley. And Kal Penn, lol.

 

[raybia]

This is also true. The only "name" actor of Indian descent I can think of at the moment is Ben Kingsley. And Kal Penn, lol.

"Kaaaalllll!"

Nah I don't think so! Ever though it would be sweet Harold and Kumar reunion. t:

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't see what the big deal is. Big names don't make good movies (or even big box office numbers all the time). What big name actors helped the last movie?

 

[MadVillainy]

Well Star Trek is a brand so big that you dont need a big name to sell it


I dont mind if Khan is in it or not. I personally find him overrated. But I do like the Antonio Banderas casting idea

 

[raybia]

I don't see what the big deal is. Big names don't make good movies (or even big box office numbers all the time). What big name actors helped the last movie?

No actor...unless you count Leonard Nimory but the big draw was J.J. Abrams himself.

 

[flickchick85]

Banderas was recently awesomely vengeful in The Skin Live In. I could go for that pick. In fact, given the choice, I'd prefer him over Del Toro.

 

[cherokeesam]

What the freakin' freak. Are we freakin' stuck in 1981? What year is it? Superman battles Zod; Kirk battles Khan.

I think the alternate history that Assassin's Creed drew up is right: in their universe, 2012 marks the utter demise of Hollywood as the last movie studio closes up shop, unable to generate a single original thought anymore.

And people need to get their goddamn cultural geography straight: Khan Noonian Singh is an Indian, *not* a Latino. Trying to make the same racist mistakes Hollywood got over decades ago by casting another Latino as an Indian would be just as racist as trying to cast a white guy as an Ind --- er, Native American in a modern Western.

(*pssst: Johnny Depp is Tonto in the new Lone Ranger movie)

Crap.
I don't wanna live downwind of Hollywood anymore.

 

[raybia]

What the freakin' freak. Are we freakin' stuck in 1981? What year is it? Superman battles Zod; Kirk battles Khan.

I think the alternate history that Assassin's Creed drew up is right: in their universe, 2012 marks the utter demise of Hollywood as the last movie studio closes up shop, unable to generate a single original thought anymore.

And people need to get their goddamn cultural geography straight: Khan Noonian Singh is an Indian, *not* a Latino. Trying to make the same racist mistakes Hollywood got over decades ago by casting another Latino as an Indian would be just as racist as trying to cast a white guy as an Ind --- er, Native American in a modern Western.

(*pssst: Johnny Depp is Tonto in the new Lone Ranger movie)

Crap.
I don't wanna live downwind of Hollywood anymore.

Like it or not both Zod and Khan are part of those respective mythologies.

I for one am happy that in 2011 Star Trek and Superman are still relevant in pop culture.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I'm sure they want an actor with box office appeal. What indian actor has that? Hollywood as always will look for an actor with the most star power that can pass for whatever ethnicity is required for the role.

The alternative logic is that American audiences will see Star Trek anyway because it's Star Trek, and the last movie was good, and this one may be good as well. I like Eric Bana, but let's be honest, Eric Bana alone does not sell tickets.

Then add in an actor who American audiences don't know, but is a name actor in the biggest movie market on the planet (hint: it's not the US of A). Then JJ Abrams gets to sleep in a bigger pile of money at night.

 

[Thundercrack85]

To be fair, a ton of actors don't match their character's nationalities, or even ethnicities. American Kirk was played by a Canadian. Frenchman Jean-Luc Picard was played by an Englishman. East African Uhura was played by, well, two actresses who weren't East African.

So, I don't see Khan being played by a Spanish Mexican actor as "racist".

 

[raybia]

The alternative logic is that American audiences will see Star Trek anyway because it's Star Trek, and the last movie was good, and this one may be good as well. I like Eric Bana, but let's be honest, Eric Bana alone does not sell tickets.


Then add in an actor who American audiences don't know, but is a name actor in the biggest movie market on the planet (hint: it's not the US of A). Then JJ Abrams gets to sleep in a bigger pile of money at night.

I wholeheartedly agree but the damn suits won't. I hate those guys.

 

[cherokeesam]

Like it or not both Zod and Khan are part of those respective mythologies.

I for one am happy that in 2011 Star Trek and Superman are still relevant in pop culture.

I *do* like that Zod and Khan are part of their respective mythologies.
That's why, like many others, I believe that monkeying with those characters and rebooting them does *not* respect the mythology.

To paraphrase Jamie above: if JJ wants to make a *new* Trek series, then why cannibalize parts from the *old* one?

 

[Thundercrack85]

I have no problem with using Khan. Or Zod. But let them do something new with him.

Why is it okay to use Kirk but not Khan?

 

[cherokeesam]

I have no problem with using Khan. Or Zod. But let them do something new with him.

Why is it okay to use Kirk but not Khan?

Because Kirk and crew *are* the series. Khan isn't. He's a guest star for one episode, who was given a much larger role for one movie that stands alone on its own merit.

 

[raybia]

I *do* like that Zod and Khan are part of their respective mythologies.
That's why, like many others, I believe that monkeying with those characters and rebooting them does *not* respect the mythology.

To paraphrase Jamie above: if JJ wants to make a *new* Trek series, then why cannibalize parts from the *old* one?

Do you realize what you wrote? JJ Abrams essentially "monkeyed" with OR "canniblized" the entire Star Trek Universe.

 

[cherokeesam]

Do you realize what you wrote? JJ Abrams essentially "monkeyed" with OR "canniblized" the entire Star Trek Universe.

No, he didn't. He wrote a *prequel* to the original series. Other than some very minor adjustments attributable to the time travel plot of the movie, there is nothing in Abrams' film that radically alters TOS continuity, and it is intended to be canon.

Throwing Khan into the mix, on the other hand, goes *against* canon, unless JJ just intends to redo "Space Seed" or TWOK. In which case....he's going against canon.

 

[Thundercrack85]

If you want canon, why not just watch the original series?

The new movie was successful because it changed things up (and actually had good effects). It should keep doing that.

 

[raybia]

No, he didn't. He wrote a *prequel* to the original series. Other than some very minor adjustments attributable to the time travel plot of the movie, there is nothing in Abrams' film that radically alters TOS continuity, and it is intended to be canon.

Throwing Khan into the mix, on the other hand, goes *against* canon, unless JJ just intends to redo "Space Seed" or TWOK. In which case....he's going against canon.

Oh yes he did. Please tell me you aren't serious. No radical alterations? (George Kirk died but not in the original, Christopher Pike was the first Capt. of the Enterprise but it was Robert April in the TOS, Vulcan destroyed, Spock mom died, Spock and Uhra a couple, Kirk becomes Capt. 6 years sooner, etc.)

JJ's prequel is actually the beginning and creation of an alternative universe in which he has carte blanche to do whatever he wants with. In other words, there is no canon. He is making up his own canon as he goes.

 

[cherokeesam]

Roberto Orci: It is the reason why some things are different, but not everything is different. Not everything is inconsistent with what might have actually happened, in canon. Some of the things that seem that they are totally different, I will argue, once the film comes out, fall well within what could have been the non-time travel version of this move.
TrekMovie.com: So, for example, Kirk is different, because his back story has totally changed, in that his parents…and all that. But you are saying that maybe Scotty or Spock’s back story would not be affected by that change?
Roberto Orci: Right.
Anthony: Does the time travel explain why the Enterprise looks different and why it is being built in Riverside Iowa?
TrekMovie.com: Yes, and yes.
​

^From an old Screenrant article.

Doesn't say anything at all about JJ being given "carte blanche" to rewrite Trek history. The *only* things that have changed, other than subtle visual designs to make the costumes and sets look less like cheap 1960s television, are changes to pre-TOS "canon" which were never properly mapped out in the first place. (e.g., Kirk's parentage, the ship being built in Iowa instead of SF, etc.)
​