Star Trek

Because it is. I'm sure it will be cool, but some originality would have been nice. Will it be enough to get a third movie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-13Ic19WUs

Complete lack of imagination recycling old villains. We have a watered down Kirk, a watered down Spock, and I fear we'll have a watered down Khan not fit to kiss Ricardo Montalban's feet.

BEFORE this goes any further, would you mind copying and pasting to us all what the third line in that video description says?

And BTW, even based on this "Trailer" you didn't even say why it's Space Seed "redone," so I have no problem telling you it isn't Space Seed Redone.

Vger23 made a really excellent post on the subject a while ago. I hope he doesn't mind if I repost it here:

"I have to admit, I didn't really want Khan. But, now that it's happened, and I've been able to process the reality of it in real-time...I see that it is an absolutely brilliant idea. It's brilliant for several reasons:

1. Love it or hate it or anywhere in between...it will intrigue the fanbase enough so that everyone will want to see how it gets pulled off. Some will go hoping to see it succeed. Some will go hoping it will fail. But we'll all go.

2. It's an iconic and recognizable character that could be explored much more deeply. In TWOK, even though Khan was iconic and evil, he was fairly one-dimensional. In "Space Seed" he was more of a gathered, arrogant, power-hungry superman with a deep intellect and a sense of romanticism. I think there's a lot of unexplored territory there.

3. As I mentioned earlier...it's a huge risk. That generates buzz and excitement...which (again) is what Star Trek needs in this era. That's what the last film did so well. The 2009 film was good, but not great...but what it did better than any other Trek movie was generate a buzz and get people excited. That's something the franchise had been missing for a LONG time. Khan is buzzworthy. There's no buzzworthyness about saying "Benedict Cumberdubmerbatch (or whatever) is playing a half-betazoid evil derranged terrorist bent on ruining the fabric of the space time continuum with his Dooberhickey device." Yawn. Just another forgettable bad guy with a random sci-fi motive for being mean to people.

4. It's a great marketing tool. The casual movie-goer doesn't give a $hit about having a "unique villian" (see Insurrection and Nemesis as prime examples of bad attempts at "unique villians." But, if there's any ONE Star Trek movie sub-title that just about everyone knows...it's "The Wrath of Khan..." and everyone knows that movie was considered the best one. It's recognizable, it's fun, and it will pique interest in folks who otherwise might have bought a ticket to another movie.

I think it's a great idea.

NOW, the pressure will be on the creative team and the actors. Because it's an "all or nothing" gamble. It will either be absolutely fantastic or it will be a horrendous disappointment. But, doesn't that sound familliar?? It was the same deal with re-casting and re-imagining the TOS universe for the first film. And, that paid off with the critics, general audiences, and most fans. So, this is the next logical step following that same philosophy."

[/quote]

 And BTW, even based on this "Trailer" you didn't even say why it's Space Seed "redone," so I have no problem telling you it isn't Space Seed Redone.

[/quote]

Star Trek 2 Fan Made Teaser Trailer (2013) - J.J. Abrams Movie HD

Oops! My bad! I didn't even read the description! It was so well made, who would have thought?

Riddle me this: Where do you suppose those shots of Newkirk in that "foggy" corridor, the hand brushing away the ice, he man behind the glass (Cumberwhatshisname?), came from?

Either way, kudos to the maker!

Simon Pegg has said that Khan isn't int he movie. 

Something about Hollywood lately - talking about / doing remakes and redoing old movies/concepts.

How often is the new version equal to or better than the original?

I would bet money that's just a red herring.

I'm quite surprised by this YouTube feature even though it does proove what I've been expecting.

i think so.

I don't know what to think.  BC enthralled me with his new interpretation of Sherlock Holmes, and there were a thousand ways it could have failed.  Note also that even placing the series in the present, with a current sensibility, they HAD to redo Hound of the Baskervilles, even with a very modern twist. Maybe there's no escaping Khan if you're doing Trek.

So maybe Khan is back, maybe he isn't............I'm content to wait and see.  But I am intrigued at the near secrecy of the whole enterprise.  (heh heh).

Thanks for re-posting my earlier thoughts on this, Mitchz95. You saved me a ton of effort. 

Everyone seems to forget that it doesn't really matter. So what if the villian's name and background story are re-cycled from a pervious Star Trek story? What matters is how that villian is written going forward. 

People are getting upset over things that don't matter. 

It's like saying "HEY...THIS IS UNORIGINAL CRAP! THEY USED THE SHIP NAME ENTERPRISE BEFORE IN THE ORIGINAL SERIES! CAN'T THEY DO SOMETHING NEW AND UNIQUE LIKE COME UP WITH A NEW SHIP NAME IN THIS NEW NEXT GENERATION SERIES??? UGGHHHHH!! THIS IS AWFUL AND AN INSULT TO TREK FANS EVERYWHERE!!!"

It doesn't matter, folks. It just doesn't. What matters is how well it is written and played. 

Sometimes I wonder....I really do.

lol. I love how Simon Pegg also took a swipe at Nero/the other villains.

"not just another disgruntled alien."

I'm sure they'll fix up Khan, or whatever villain they decide to go with.