ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Spoilers for ST12!

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Apr. 30 2012, 7:56 pm

3 major spoilers to the sequel to Abrams ST film:


http://trekmovie.com/2012/04/30/major-star-trek-sequel-spoilers-confirmed/


 


1.  Leonard Nimoy is back as Spock Prime.


2.  Benedict Cumberbatch is playing Kahn Noonian Sign


3.  Klingons will be in the film.


I'm very excited.  I just saw Cumberbatch in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and he was pretty good.  Granted, that was largely an ensemble film anchored by Gary Oldman (he rules! How come he hasn't played a ST villain?), but I've read a lot of good things about Cumberbatch.  I'm also ok with them doing Kahn again, after the success of the ST XI, if the story is worthy of the character. 


I'm very very happy that Nimoy is back as Spock.  As has been said before by me and others (including one Pocketbooks writer who's book was never published), Nimoy's Spock has a pivotal role in the new timeline.  He knows many future events.  You could write several plots around that point. 


And who doesn't love Klingons? 


 

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this Apr. 30 2012, 8:04 pm

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yes!!!! This is going to be AWESOME!!!


 


I can't believe anyone was so naive enough to think this wasn't going to happen. As if no one had heard of "Zack Snyder" and Supermans Zod before... If you had to go back months and months to find a quote saying they were going to "do something original" then you knew your argument was flawed. lol.


A lack of any recent or clear dispelling of the Khan rumor from JJ should have been an obvious sign to everyone else. (and we all knew the "Not true" quote about Del Toro was just the same sort of crafty and shrewd worded comments (like Zacks) that excluded Del Toro from playing the role but didn't rule out the character.


 


AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this Apr. 30 2012, 8:33 pm

Just one other thing, no matter what capacity or how they chose to include him, or if he's big or small, I KNOW that everyone will eventually be on board with it!


And with great pride, everyone will swallow and accept whatever great explanation they've come up with to re-include him into the nu-franchise!!




You'll see! and I'll be happy to admire everyones understanding of this great direction they took!!


 


(Thank goodness... Batman re-got the Joker, so we can re-get the KHAN!!!)


Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Apr. 30 2012, 8:43 pm

On Khan: Call me a pessimist, but I have a feeling they're going to screw up Khan in some way.


On Spock Prime: I love Spock Prime, but I think he's going to end up taking away from nuSpock in some way.


On Klingons: I sincerely hope their appearence either complements those in TOS, or has an in-universe explanation for the ridges being present.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this Apr. 30 2012, 9:47 pm

Thank you BTW, OP.

looking for new ST movie news is pretty much the whole reason I've come here to this site.

I'm a huge modern day movie-goer and having to jump around between various sites for different rumors, and what not, is almost impossible. (MTV was the last site to have ST news. lol)

I always know to check directly at the source for the fans message boards!; Transformers, Dark Knight, Pirates...


been waiting a long time for some news.


Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 01 2012, 7:03 am

Thanks RS! I had read this last night and was absolutely floored that nobody here at StarTrek.com was really in the know or debating about it. It goes to show the direction this particular message board has taken though...more concern about Lt. Cmdr. Data's eyecolor / potential as a husband and "Star Trek A to Z" games than the most important news regarding Star Trek since the announcement that they were rebooting.


My take on the news:


1. Having Nimoy back can only be a positive. There's no better representative of the franchise, and as long as he is on board, there's an indefinable magic that comes with it.


2. Having Khan as the villian shocks me a bit (naive, obviously), but also excites me. It's ballzy for the creative team to go in that direction because it's such an iconic character. So, just like the ballzyness of recasting the original crew, they are again taking risks for the next flick by doing something extremely controversial. I'll go to see the movie just to see if they pull it off or fall flat. I'm sure many fans will do the same, regardless of how much of a fit they throw now.


3. Klingons are always a welcome addition to any Star Trek film. I could care less what they look like. That's not important to me. It wasn't important to me in TMP when they changed appearances for no reason. It wasn't important to me in Enterprise when they came up with a less-than-stellar excuse for it. Don't care. Just make them dastardly and warlike and I'll be happy.


 


Now, if this were the old days, we'd be bracing for a MASSIVE poop-slinging debate on this topic...but I suspect this thread will quickly get buried under various forum games and some inane Star Wars vs. Star Trek topic...or it will fail to get noticed because people are too busy in the extremely important "Are Kirk and Spock Gay" thread...


We shall soon see... 


 


PS, Rocket...if you frequent any other establishments for Trek discussion that you find worthy, can you post that comment to my profile??


 


 


 


 


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this May. 01 2012, 10:54 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>Just how reliable is this info?

>My comments for what they're worth:

>Can't have too much Nimoy

>Can have too much Kahn but I trust JJ will have a different slant on it. Hhhhmmm

>Tough TOS-Era Klingons are OK with me

>


It's supposed to be extremely reliable Servalfan, according to the Trekmovie.com article.  Bob Orci chimed in saying he could not confirm or deny any of these elements, for what that's worth.  Also, Nimoy let slip on CNN that he was going to be in ST12.  Finally, Cumberbatch did say that his character was "strong."


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this May. 01 2012, 11:01 am

Quote: Vger23 @ May. 01 2012, 7:03 am

>

>Thanks RS! I had read this last night and was absolutely floored that nobody here at StarTrek.com was really in the know or debating about it. It goes to show the direction this particular message board has taken though...more concern about Lt. Cmdr. Data's eyecolor / potential as a husband and "Star Trek A to Z" games than the most important news regarding Star Trek since the announcement that they were rebooting.

>My take on the news:

>1. Having Nimoy back can only be a positive. There's no better representative of the franchise, and as long as he is on board, there's an indefinable magic that comes with it.

>2. Having Khan as the villian shocks me a bit (naive, obviously), but also excites me. It's ballzy for the creative team to go in that direction because it's such an iconic character. So, just like the ballzyness of recasting the original crew, they are again taking risks for the next flick by doing something extremely controversial. I'll go to see the movie just to see if they pull it off or fall flat. I'm sure many fans will do the same, regardless of how much of a fit they throw now.

>3. Klingons are always a welcome addition to any Star Trek film. I could care less what they look like. That's not important to me. It wasn't important to me in TMP when they changed appearances for no reason. It wasn't important to me in Enterprise when they came up with a less-than-stellar excuse for it. Don't care. Just make them dastardly and warlike and I'll be happy.

>Now, if this were the old days, we'd be bracing for a MASSIVE poop-slinging debate on this topic...but I suspect this thread will quickly get buried under various forum games and some inane Star Wars vs. Star Trek topic...or it will fail to get noticed because people are too busy in the extremely important "Are Kirk and Spock Gay" thread...

>We shall soon see... 

>PS, Rocket...if you frequent any other establishments for Trek discussion that you find worthy, can you post that comment to my profile??

>


V'ger, your thoughts mirror my own.  You're right about point 2.  Having Khan in the film is incredibly ballsy, just as the recast of the classic TOS characters was.  You can't say that this creative team is taking the easy way out after their initial success.  They are totally inviting comparison again, and that means ST12 had better be great.  It's maximum risk/maximum reward.  It's definitely a gamble, with a potentially huge payoff. 


But a great man said, "Risk is our business!"  That should be synonymous with ST, which is also why Berman and Braga's latter-day iterations VOY, ENT, INS, and NEM generally failed with fans. 


As for frequenting other ST sites, no, I don't have any suggestions or references there, V'Ger.  I haven't really been on this one much at all lately first, because I'm busy with work and family (how's your boy btw?) and second because honestly, I feel like most of this stuff has been discussed to death and there just seems to be the same threads (and silly inane comments from the usual jokers) over and over again.


Anyway, hope you're doing well, and take care!


RS


 


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this May. 01 2012, 11:37 am

I'm just gonna copy and paste my comments from a similar thread:


Just to be fair, it hasn't OFFICIALLY been confirmed, but that's JJ's M.O. to be hush-hush.


I think Cumberbatch is a great actor. BUT I'm disappointed that he's playing the role of a Sikh. At least Ricardo Montalban could kinda, sorta if you squinted, pass as someone from Northern India. If they had to use Khan as a villain why not use an Indian actor? It's 2012, ST was pushing it with the use of minorities back in the 60's, so no real excuse not to be as "authentic" as possible with casting this go around.


I plan to see the movie opening weekend and hope it's good and does well.


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 01 2012, 1:14 pm

Quote: rocketscientist @ May. 01 2012, 11:01 am

Quote: Vger23 @ May. 01 2012, 7:03 am

>

>

>Thanks RS! I had read this last night and was absolutely floored that nobody here at StarTrek.com was really in the know or debating about it. It goes to show the direction this particular message board has taken though...more concern about Lt. Cmdr. Data's eyecolor / potential as a husband and "Star Trek A to Z" games than the most important news regarding Star Trek since the announcement that they were rebooting.

>My take on the news:

>1. Having Nimoy back can only be a positive. There's no better representative of the franchise, and as long as he is on board, there's an indefinable magic that comes with it.

>2. Having Khan as the villian shocks me a bit (naive, obviously), but also excites me. It's ballzy for the creative team to go in that direction because it's such an iconic character. So, just like the ballzyness of recasting the original crew, they are again taking risks for the next flick by doing something extremely controversial. I'll go to see the movie just to see if they pull it off or fall flat. I'm sure many fans will do the same, regardless of how much of a fit they throw now.

>3. Klingons are always a welcome addition to any Star Trek film. I could care less what they look like. That's not important to me. It wasn't important to me in TMP when they changed appearances for no reason. It wasn't important to me in Enterprise when they came up with a less-than-stellar excuse for it. Don't care. Just make them dastardly and warlike and I'll be happy.

>Now, if this were the old days, we'd be bracing for a MASSIVE poop-slinging debate on this topic...but I suspect this thread will quickly get buried under various forum games and some inane Star Wars vs. Star Trek topic...or it will fail to get noticed because people are too busy in the extremely important "Are Kirk and Spock Gay" thread...

>We shall soon see... 

>PS, Rocket...if you frequent any other establishments for Trek discussion that you find worthy, can you post that comment to my profile??

>

V'ger, your thoughts mirror my own.  You're right about point 2.  Having Khan in the film is incredibly ballsy, just as the recast of the classic TOS characters was.  You can't say that this creative team is taking the easy way out after their initial success.  They are totally inviting comparison again, and that means ST12 had better be great.  It's maximum risk/maximum reward.  It's definitely a gamble, with a potentially huge payoff. 

But a great man said, "Risk is our business!"  That should be synonymous with ST, which is also why Berman and Braga's latter-day iterations VOY, ENT, INS, and NEM generally failed with fans. 

As for frequenting other ST sites, no, I don't have any suggestions or references there, V'Ger.  I haven't really been on this one much at all lately first, because I'm busy with work and family (how's your boy btw?) and second because honestly, I feel like most of this stuff has been discussed to death and there just seems to be the same threads (and silly inane comments from the usual jokers) over and over again.

Anyway, hope you're doing well, and take care!

RS

 

 


 


Hey RS!


Glad you were able to get back at me.


I agree entirely. These kind of risky, controversial moves get my blood pumping again...and that's what excites me about Star Trek! It reminds me of the excitement of TNG's initial controversy (replacing a classic) or Trek II and III (killing Spock, destroying the Enterprise), or DS9's risky choice to do a series on an alien station.


Coaches who punt every 4th down may keep their jobs longer, but those games aren't as exciting to watch. Coaches who risk it and go for it on 4th and short in their own territory every now and then,..they are risking a lot more, but it's a lot more exciting to watch AND those are the guys who have more of a chance of winning a game they shouldn't every now and then. Same thing here with the new creative team. They're going for broke, I think because they know that the bland "play it safe" approach is what brought the franchise down somewhat in the end.


So, while it might irritate and disappoint / alienate some fans (after all, what creative decisions in Star Trek DON'T have that effect??)...at least it creates controversy and excitement. People who say that using Khan is "rehashing" and "not creative" are completely missing the point. It's a much greater (and more exciting) risk to re-visit an iconic vilian than it is to create a new one. I for one am now completely amped just to see how and if they pull it off.


As for the family, we truly have the most blessed and amazing situation. Our little guy just turned 6 months, and he is a happy, silly little guy (wonder where he gets that from? ) and he's so easy (knock on wood) ! He's also healthy and seems to be developing well...so again, thank God for that! I hope everything is well on your end of things too...make sure you get me an update, sir!


 


 


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 01 2012, 2:52 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>if this true that skinny loser is playing khan then i hope REAL trekkies boycott this abomanation of a movie. nobody gives a rats a** about this alternate universe as it is now we get this BS. anything abrams does belongs in the sewer mission impssible III included. how original bringing back khan whats next christopher lloyd as a klingon? i heard nimoy is done with trek so i doubt that is true besides id rather have picard from the future of the prime universe. BOYCOTT THIS MOVIE AND GIVE US FANS A TV SHOW IN THE PRIME UNIVERSE NOT THESE GQ MAGAZINE MODELS WHO CANT ACT DAMMIT SCREW THIS STAR WARS/STAR TREK HOLLYWOOD HYBRID TRASH. 

>


 


Dude...?? Woah....


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

randy kerr

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 425

Report this May. 01 2012, 3:34 pm

i dont wish to know on how it ends i will Waitego the movie comes out for sale.


i love all star trek shows and movies.

Trekkie-forever

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 13

Report this May. 01 2012, 3:36 pm

All I could think of when I heard whom Benedict Cumberbatch is going to play:


KHAAAAAAAAAN!


After that, I thought:  They are going to ruin him.  Nobody else can play him like Ricardo Montalban. 

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this May. 01 2012, 4:18 pm

Makes you rethink the possibility of a reboot Picard now doesn't it?

You can whine and moan all you want, but soon enough you'll swallow every explanation that they give and understand why this is AWESOME!!!!!

You really haven't understood yet that this franchises' direction in the 2000's is entirely inline with all the other adapted old TV shows to modern movies. Any back references made to old Star Trek lore are just for nods to the hardcore fans. It's not some kind of developed or scripted canon made to fit with consideration to the old franchise.

This was never supposed to be "your fathers Star Trek"... remember


 








 


Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this May. 01 2012, 4:32 pm

^ "Awesome" is a matter of opinion.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum