I know the original New Trek movie probably divided the Star Trek fans pretty sharply but I enjoyed it tremendously. I have always been a fan of the original series and was really interested in seeing this new vision. I thought the casting was perfect and enjoyed the change of pace from the other films. Anyway, here is the teaser for Star Trek Into Darkness with the full trailer out on December 17th. There is a big debate among the fans over the villain - is it Khan, Gary Mitchell, a reimaged combination of those two, or someone else entirely? So far, my money is on Gary Mitchell but I guess I will have to wait until May 2013 to find out...
I actually looked up on IMDB and it said Kahn (rumored). Though he does look a lot like Gary Mitchell. And if the villain is Gary, that would make the blonde woman in the blue uniform Elizabeth Dehner (especially since she seems to have the same hairstyle that the character did back in the original episode).
ReplyDeleteI actually hope it's not Kahn, since I'd like to see that role go to an actor of color. The original character was supposed to be from India and the actor was Hispanic.
I have noticed there are definitely some things that would point to Khan. The only reason I think it is Gary Mitchell is because of the things you pointed out...lol. It seems that Abrams is using people that resemble the originals so I just went went with it.
DeleteI completely agree about your thoughts on Khan.
The only thing that's making me doubt Gary is the eyes.
DeleteConfirmation on the hair, tho.
True on the eyes...I wasn't sure about that, either.
DeleteNice link. I forgot about Memory Alpha.
Actually Kahn was the product of an eugenics program. They bred him as a superior human. He is the product of various "races." It would be more apt to think of him as Brazilian in that regard. His empire did cover India and the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteI didn't see the first film. My wife just got a free copy of the DVD. She knew I actively avoided seeing the film. She suggested that we watch it. I told her I would rather watch Titanic (a movie I refuse to watch since I am not being a 16 yr old girl)than the new Star Trek. I think she was surprised about how much I despise the idea of recasting the Original Series. There is only one Captain Kirk and he sells for Priceline now. (Then there is the whole issue of messing up with the timeline - not that TNG/Voyager didn't already do that enough.) To top it off, I think Abrams is an overrated hack. I have never seen anything of his that I liked.
With that said, the movie was a huge success. I wish it had been a success, but not so much of one. If I did well, but not super, Paramount was going to do enough TV show. Bryan Fuller had wanted to do a new series. It would be a different ship and crew, but set in the TOS timeline. I think that would have been a lot better in terms of quality as well as the franchise.
I stand corrected...I was paying more attention to the Montalban than the back story. He did perform quite well in the role.
ReplyDeleteBelieve me, I understand your apprehension about recasting. I felt the same way. I' ll add more when I get off of work...
I just don't want to watch a movie that is going to make me angry. I don't want to be there going, "that couldn't have happened, "Kirk wouldn't do that," "that is not how time travel works in Star Trek," "Sulu doesn't get to speak that much," etc.
DeleteI just wished they would have set it in the TOS period, but had a different ship/crew. Although I have to say my appreciation for the TOS period has less to do with that period and more to do with the how TV shows used to be written. Watch shows pre-80's and good guys killed the bad guys. People die every episode because the world/universe is a dangerous place. Characters were permitted to be dominant. Now, the good guy never kills that bad guy unless it is in immediate self-defense.
We live in a TNG era where it is better to surrender that it is to fight.
That's cool, man. I feel like the characters are pretty much intact but just cranked up to 10.
DeleteThat's exactly why I appreciate the new movie - it made the Star Trek universe dangerous again. There are deaths and injury aplenty in this movie instead of the TNG throw up your arms and surrender bullcrap.
I completely agree about the writing on the shows. TOS was way better written than the TNG era shows. Good writing uses diversity to build relationships, bonds, friendships, etc. among characters that share similarities while also creating drama, tension, and other emotions from their differences. I feel like TOS excelled at that while the TNG era shows seemed to turn all of the bad guys into good guys to show some politically correct outopian paradise that is boring and stale. TOS had a multinational cast of characters and a half-Vulcan to show diversity. It worked quite well. I really feel that the TNG era shows just used diversity as a gimmick. TNG was reasonable with an android, betazoid, and Worf but by the time of Voyager it felt like they were trying to outdo all of the other shows. You had a Vulcan on your show? Heh, we have a dark-skinned Vulcan on OURS! Oh, and you had an android on your show? Heh, we have a Borg going through the 12 step anti-assimilation program on our show! What's that - you got nothing else? Just in case we have a Ferengi barkeep, a Native American, AND a holographic doctor!!!
UGH!
I never picked up the diversity thing. I just took everything as a gimmick. People like Kilingons, so we will put more Kilingons in, but they can't usually be the bad guys. Borg got us high ratings, do lets add Borgs all the time. Hmm, guys don't find half-Klingons attractive so lets find a tall blonde to put in a body suit.
DeleteThere was something about the writing and the acting pre 1980's that is missing. Watch TOS and then watch The Wild Wild West. Notice the similarity in looks and temperament between James Kirk and James West (even similar hair.) Notice that they are always confident and calm. They play dominant powerful men and that comes across. They both say that they do not want to do violence, yet both are skillful at it and quick to use it. Good guys can start violence and even kill in this era of TV. (Notice now that good guys can only kill in self-defense.)
I see the trailers for the new Star Trek, and the actors display emotions and insecurities. There isn't the confidence that used to be there. There is an intensity to the acting. That replaced to calm confidence of previous eras.
I think Bond's are another example of this. Compare Connery's Bond to the more recent one's. There was a comforting clam and confidence of 60's Bond versus contemporary Bond.
Until recently, the character of Michel Weston on Burn Notice came close to the pre-80's era lead male. But that is all that comes to mind.
A lot of this simply relfects cultural change and writing. I think the new Star Trek films would be been received far worse if actors attempted to portray the characters how they would have been decades ago. That is because contemporary actors cannot act that way and attempting to do so would look more like a caricature of the original cast.
To see what I mean about emotion, intensity, and contemporary display of human frailties, you can watch this clip from the first new movie. Then compare that to anything in TOS to see the difference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKLmMrq6Rok
Well stated reply. I completely agree with your point and I feel it is missing also. Burn Notice is great for that reason. You are correct about the cultural change and writing in contrast to the actors portrayals in the new movies. Believe me, I consider these new movies an interesting "what if?" ride but they do not replace or come close to TOS. I have all 3 seasons of TOS on DVD and pull them out quite regularly to watch a few episodes.
DeleteI do like the new movie better than Insurrection or Nemesis. I thought the TNG movies were just dreadful.
DeleteThe movies could be fine. I think there are difficulties with established franchises. For example, Indiana Jones 4. I didn't think it was a bad movie. I think it would have been better received if it wasn't an Indiana Jones film. In the same way, you could probably make almost the same Star Trek films, but make it about the previous Enterprise Crew under Christopher Pike, and it would shine because it lacks baggage.
DeleteA few years back, I tried to watch TNG reruns. I found them painful to watch. I wondered how I could have ever watch it. I thought Voyager was the worse of all the Star Treks. With TOS, they made ethical points but you were supposed to pick them up. For example, the one with the black/white face aliens. That was about racism. Yet, there were never meetings on the bridge talking about diversity, tolerance, ethical issues, etc. Picard was always talking about ethical issues. They were done poorly and the matter of debate was sophomoric at best. Students after half a semester of Introduction to Ethics have a better handle on ethical thinking than any of the writers of TNG.
Anyway, I am very odd in that I find Deep Space Nine getting better with age. DS9 and ToS are the only Star Trek I can watch. While I think Kirk is the best Captain ever, I am probably at the point where I would watch DS9 over TOS. But I am weird. I don't like Klingons, but I do Romulans.
Of course that leads to an interesting debate between Pre-TNG Klingons and TNG Klingons. On the one hand, you have deceitful authoriatian communists, and on the other side you have a barbaric warrior culture that lives by some honor code and prize conquest. They seem more like vikings or dwarves. In either case, a society like the TNG Klingons could never exist, especially at the level of being a major space power. When promotion works on principles of killing, and your government is controlled by feudalistic clans that oppress the people, there isn't a free-market, etc. there is no way you develop air power well enough warp drive.
But, if the new Star Trek films ever deal with Klingons, it will be interesting to see what they do.