Let's not assume that they're going to restrict themselves to TOS villains.

I find the Star Trek fan base fascinating they are crazy die hard and extremely protective of the series and everything pertaining to it. Almost as if it wasn't SciFi and was future history being told in the past. :)

Americans will always use Brits as the bad guy as Brits sound like they are actually educated. We can't have such things in America anymore, doncha know ?

Oh, there was this little blunder as well by Karl Urban (McCoy): http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/11/12664665-so-maybe-khans-not-star-trek-2-villain-after-all?lite

Would be funny if most of the trailer was fake........and the villain is really The Gorn


Although it wouldn't quite be lying to say the villain is "Sherlock Holmes".

Its Gary Mitchell for sure, and its all explained here, goto the end paragraph for TL/DR and follow alternate reality.

I like JJ's Star Trek, and i like the path hes chosen.

It's actually a thing in SWTOR voiceacting. The empire people are played by Brits, the Republic by US folk.



And you don't find Eve players die hard and extremely protective when the game is suggested to change? Fanboyism is universal..

As to the topic, I don't think I can be bothered about this. I'm a fan of the old Star trek from STNG forwards, but not this new incarnation. As I've said before, I managed to watch the first retcon movie by getting drunk first.
I know this retcon is more in the spirit of the original series, as it was more about action, but I still don't like it. I preferred star trek where problems were solved using brains instead of guns.

I was more referring to how people defend the viability of things. Such as how a blackhole acts, or guns, laser warp drives, etc. Fanboyism exists everywhere yes but what I am getting at is I find it fascinating that people go to such great lengths to prove that it COULD be true. That these things COULD exist. Its SciFi. I don't need explanations on the feasibility of its success just give me a good story and pretty explosions.

Whoa whoa whoa nelly for just a minute there...............

As a reader and watcher of SF for most of my 47 years, the ONLY thing that separates Ffantasy from SF is that true SF MUST be based in Actual or Theoritical Science. IT must be explainable. This is why Star Wars is not Science Fiction, it is Space Fantasy. With Fantasy, nothing has to be proven or be real at all. Without these factual or theoretical bases, you have no science fiction you have something else.

Mayhaps you should read Brian Aldiss' "Trillion Year Spree: A history of Science Fiction" so you will even know what you are posting about.

God I hope this was not a trollololol.

Clearly the mixup is that I don't make a distinction in fiction and fantasy. Sure it is wonderful that ideas are loosely based on scientific principles doesn't make the story any more true.

Given the Stardate (2259) and Cumberbatch's deeply anglo appearance, there is no reason to believe he is Khan Noonien Singh. Even if you argue that this is a new timeline, and that Khan could've been roused from suspended animation earlier than 2267, you've still got to deal with the ethnicity issue. This can't be Khan.


http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59938

Explain to me why a god would need a gun.

Alright this is getting stupid. Paramount releases this picture today. It's even at Huffington Post.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59945

There is indeed a character in the credits for the Space Seed (Khan) episode of TOS: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708447/fullcredits#cast

Regardless that does not seem to be a really important "iconic TOS character" as promised in earlier official news.

IMHO, at this point, the fans are sounding more angry and frustrated than intrigued, myself included. NOT a great way to promote your film at all. Boo Paramount.

Unless it really is Gary Mitchell under an assumed name at the start of the movie or something that is revealed later in the film, it's strange they would be so clumsy as to name him after that minor character from the Khan episode.

JJ Abrams just needs to get over the secrecy of his projects in this day and age, or just stay UTTERLY shut up till the end.

There, I feel better (pant, pant).


edit: reading further on the InterWebs this is indeed not going over well. We'll see what is said as official reaction. Have they not learned in 46 years not to tick off ST Fanboys ? Nope.

Who? seems to be the most common reaction to this. The character is basicly so obscure, that it's practically a new one. I don't think it's a bad choice though. A new villain for a new star trek. I certainly hope that the new star wars trilogy goes the same route and clearly separates itself from the old, instead of just repeating it.

So, he mentioned on the directors commentary that botany bay was next...we all inferred that as Khan...

Definitely not Gary Mitchell, then.

Good to be half right, even if it was arrogant assumption.

AK

I checked out the forums on startrek.com (OMG ) and no theories yet.

BUT, in the midst of all this nonsense we all seem to have forgotten that in the Trailer one can quite clearly see Christopher Pike walking.

Yeah but iirc he was only in the wheelchair in tos because of some radiation, not because of Nero. It was just a wink to the fans him being in a wheelchair at the end of the 2009 movie, doesn't mean he must always be in a wheelchair, does it?

Worf broke his back and had a brand new spinal column by the end of the episode...

Whats all this piffle?

The only important question to ask is can we see the ship for all the lense flare.

Snipped from Star trek.com

Gary Mitchell has:

GÇóHypercognition
GÇóConscious regulation of autonomic reflexes
GÇóTelepathy
GÇóExtrasensory perception of various kinds, including clairvoyance, clairaudience, and clairoratory
GÇóTelekinesis
GÇóThe ability to control energy, including both its directed use as a weapon against other organisms, and an invulnerability to phaser weapons
GÇóThe ability to manipulate matter, including the instant materialization and dematerialization of both organisms and objects


The official synopsis says 'one man weapon of mass destruction.

Combine that with Karl Urban's interview blunder of the name Gary Mitchell, and the shot of the blue-shirted blonde lady, and I think today's news has been a red herring.

Again: why would he need a gun?

Welp, apparently the blonde girl is not Dehner : Pretty neat who she is though !


http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59945