maybe they cloned Khan because they really wanted super-soldiers.Bara_no_Hime said:
At first I was expecting the (un)surprise of "John Harrison" being Khan. Then I saw this trailer and it seemed too much like he's a here-and-now kind of guy to be Khan.Bara_no_Hime said:
If there is to me a disturbing trend in Hollywood, it's this. In the wake of Heath Ledger's standout performance, you start seeing shades of this in Tom Hiddleston's Loki, Javier Bardem's Bond villain Silva, Andrew Scott's Moriarty, and now (to a lesser extent) this. The same "rage against the machine" motive seems to be driving Ben Kingsley's Mandarin, if the Iron Man trailers are any indication; these two trailers seem to be carbon copies of each other. Not to mention the last two Star Trek baddies - Tom Hardy's Shinzon and Eric Bana's Nero - were venegeful psychopaths along the lines of the original Khan. And that's what this feels like to me, based on the trailer: Joker-Khan.teebeeohh said:
Well, he said something like "I am superior to you in every way" - which to me is a giant red flag for Eugenics Super Human.teebeeohh said:
Actually, I didn't catch it, either. Neither did I recall seeing most of the typical landmarks: Buckingham Palace, Big Ben, that giant ferris wheel on the Thames. Maybe in the full movie these things show up but the Union Jack was the only thing that told me London until it was specifically named in this trailer. I always figured it was San Francisco, since Starfleet HQ/Academy and the Golden Gate Bridge are the only parts of earth ever shown at any time in Star Trek. Keep in mind these are the same guys who had the Enterprise built in Iowa rather than show Kirk anywhere other than the exact place where he grew up.Avaholic03 said:
TheSchaef said:That right there is why my reaction to the rumor that the sequel might do the Khan story again was "what, you mean for the third time in a row?" I get that TWoK was the most critically successful Star Trek movie prior to the 2009 reboot[footnote]Although it was The Voyage Home that had the biggest box office success, save the whales plot and all.[/footnote]. I just wish they'd try to do something new, because there's so much more to Star Trek than that one movie. Then again, there's so much more to Star Trek than revenge and explosions, as evidenced by my favorite of the movies, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Or by, you know, basically any episode of any of the series.Bara_no_Hime said:
Now that Abrams has Star Wars like he wanted in the first place, can we please take him off of Star Trek duty? Because he clearly neither gets what Star Trek is about, nor really cares. When he was making the 2009 movie, he pretty much admitted that he was just making a Star Wars movie with the Star Trek characters, since they were what he had to work with. Since he's directing the new Star Wars movie, I don't see why we have to indulge him in that anymore
Bara_no_Hime said:
Woah woah woah.TheSchaef said:
It's Abrams. It's a theoretical copy of what we have already seen, but it is not. It's not-Khan. But it is Khan.Loop Stricken said:
Don't think I noticed the Union Jack, but in the scene where the craft destroys the conference I'm sure there were UN flags in there. Which is completely wrong if you follow Trek lore. After WW3, and with the arrival of the Vulcans, all the governments(that were left) agreed to form one body, then go on to become the Federation.TheSchaef said:
