Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Confirmed: Benicio Del Toro's Role In STAR TREK 2 Is...


... nonexistent 'cuz he ain't gonna be in the movie! He's out!

Beaks here with breaking news from the good folks over at Vulture. According to their sources, talks broke down last Wednesday between Benicio Del Toro's people and Paramount due to, what else, money. Wednesday is key here, since it was last Friday when J.J. Abrams told HitFix's Drew McWeeny it was "not true" that - as alleged by Latino Review - Del Toro would be playing Khan in STAR TREK 2. Basically, Abrams's terse response was in reference to Latino Review's entire story, not specifically to the notion that Khan is the villain in STAR TREK 2.

So feel free to speculate anew! Is Khan in STAR TREK 2? (Vulture agrees with Latino Review that he is.) Who should play him? (Luis Guzman.) And, given that this is a completely different timeline, will he indeed be a villain?

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 5, 2011, 5:47 p.m. CST

    No Montalban? No Khan.

    by OgieOglethorpe

    Please.. find another TOS story to build a movie off of.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 5:47 p.m. CST


    by Cenanin

    Pretty sure Khan is an evil bastard to the core. Of course he'd be a villain, just because Kirk might not maroon him this time, he's still going to be a villain. Anyways, who cares. Don't re-do Khan, the magic was already captured, and you're not gonna re-capture it, do something original please. Thanks.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 5:47 p.m. CST

    WHOA - literally caught me off guard

    by Dharma4

    Good hook, Beaks. hats off.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 5:48 p.m. CST

    Agree it should be Nestor Carbonell


    He was born to play Khan Singh.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 5:48 p.m. CST


    by adml_shake

    that sucks I guess. Oh well, put another hottie in his place. ST needs another really evil female villain. Borg Queen, Durras Sisters, Troi, Valeris....

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 5:49 p.m. CST

    Get that weird looking Machete guy to do it

    by BoRock_A_Boomer

    The mexikhan

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 5:51 p.m. CST

    Nestor Carbonell FTW!

    by PapaKin

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 5:53 p.m. CST

    Barock_a_boomer, that's Danny Trejo

    by schadenfreudian

    you goddamn Philistine.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 5:56 p.m. CST

    Abrams probably pissed of Del Toro

    by MooseMalloy

    You know, the whole grandfathering thing...

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:01 p.m. CST

    Wasn't Khan supposed to be an Sikh prince?

    by justmyluck

    (scratching head about the Latin American prerequisite)

  • Wasn't he the genetic-engineered super-human ruler of south Asia? Yes, he was played very well by a Mexican-American actor, but that doesn't mean you can just plug in any Hispanic actor into the part and call it done.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:02 p.m. CST

    WHO FUCKING CARES?!?!?!?!?

    by Queefer Sutherland

    I'm fucking sick and tired of this ridiculous topic. I don't give a fuck if the villain is Khan or Truman Capote. What Abrams and his buttmonkey Orci do isn't Star Trek anyway.

  • They discover the Captain was only going back in to space to destroy a nightmare from his past. THE DOOMSDAY DEVICE! Upon discovery, they must work together to destroy it before it reaches the newly discovered Klingon home world. However they fail to stop it in time from destroying a major Klingon shipyard and the Klingons blame the Federation and their super weapon, thus starting the rift between the two. After some initial skirmishing, the Klingons and Federation ships unite in an uneasy truce to destroy it. A lone wolf in the Klingon empire continues to harass the assisting Federation ships, and meets it's match when it attempts to destroy Kirk and the Enterprise under the fog of war with the Doomsday Device. The film ends with the rouge Klingon destroyed and an uneasy truce that everyone knows won't hold.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:02 p.m. CST

    voice o. reason must have done a Vulcan mind meld.

    by justmyluck

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:04 p.m. CST


    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe


  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:04 p.m. CST

    Shah Rukh Khan

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    Assuming he speaky the english.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:05 p.m. CST

    Please...No Khan. But if you absolutely had to...

    by wierdo27

    Javier Bardem is the only choice. and voice? ...yes you can.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:07 p.m. CST

    "Rouge?" Shit. "Rogue!"

    by Pixelsmack

    Bah! This is why I am unemployed as a writer.

  • Now let's all discuss this topic for the umpteenth time and pretend as though we are discussing it for the first time. Living in the past goes with the nostalgia theme of this website.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Javier Bardem or find an actual Indian actor

    by mastermold

    Bardem is the man to play Khan. If he's not available, then shock everyone, go out and find an honest-to-goodness Indian or Sikh actor to play this Sikh prince.

  • A hispanic is a little more familiar to them and not as jarring to their xenophobic temperament.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:10 p.m. CST


    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    I've only ever seen him in Bollywood flicks with sparse english dialogue, so I didn't know. And, of course, "Researching is for fags." --JJ Abrams

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:11 p.m. CST

    I hope Khan isn't the villain, but if he is...

    by AlienFanatic

    ...I'd like to see them think outside the box a little. A thick accent is hardly necessary, but you need someone with a HUGE presence and acting acumen. You need someone stage-trained, with theatrical roots, not just someone that looks pretty and can act on camera. Honestly, I've never liked Benicio, so I'm not too disappointed that he's not going to participate. There's something sleazy about each of his performances, and I think that's just the wrong aura for Khan. You need a man in his late 30's to early 40's, as (if it's Khan) he needs to be old enough to have ruled earth for a time before being shipped off-planet. (Even in the alternate universe, the events of "Space Seed" are still part of the universe, so Khan's floating out there somewhere.) My Choices: • Esai Morales. Though he'll be pushing 50 next year, I think he's got the intensity to do well. Stephen Lang was even older in Avatar and you can't say he wasn't menacing. • Alfred Molina. Sadly, I think he's a bit too old, and he'd have to drop some weight, but god he owns every scene he's in. • Cliff Curtis. Physically, he fits the role and has an intensity that works. The main problem is that he's not a "name" which is what you want to balance out the cast list. • Naveen Andrews. I worry that physically Naveen isn't "big" enough for the part, but he's got a good look for it. I'd stick him in a gym for six months and work on giving him a lean, hungry look. I'm just not sure he's got the intensity to pull it off, though. As with all prognostication, I'm certain that none of these gentlemen will win the part. But it's sure fun to speculate. ---- That said, Montalban will always be THE Khan to me, but unfortunately times do change.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:13 p.m. CST

    Since New Trek already has Harold (Sulu)....

    by BacardiRocky

    why not get Kumar to play Khan?

  • Stop rehashing the past. Create something new. Repeat this to yourself, and don't stop until it sinks in. Strange, new worlds. Strange, new worlds. Strange, new worlds. Give us an exhilarating sense of wonder, and then throw some totally new danger into the mix, never seen before. If you insist on drawing from things already done, at least make it something that hasn't been seen a dozen times before, like the Tholians or the Gorn. And for frik's sake, NO MORE TIME TRAVEL. Take any exec that suggests a remake of Khan, drag them into an alley behind the studio, and shoot them twice in the back of the head, gangster style.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:16 p.m. CST

    I'm with Harry, papakin and marcel_the_negro_projectionist

    by SamBlackChvrch21


  • And reading the talkbacks is like watching groundhog's day...but it's good to know I'm not the only one here who knows of Shah Rukh Khan.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:17 p.m. CST

    Tom Welling

    by Queefer Sutherland

    The obvious choice to play Khan! Nobody else could do it better!

  • because the whole "Is Khan in Star Trek 2??!" debate is boring, HE IS IN STAR TREK.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:19 p.m. CST

    KHAN does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai


  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:19 p.m. CST

    Wasn't the first one

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    Just the Wrath of Nero? So... Can we please not do this at all? How about a full-scale war movie? Enterprise fucks up a treaty negotiation because Kirk violates the Prime Directive saving a piece of hot alien tail, and the Enterprise must forge a neutral zone or be fired on from both sides.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:19 p.m. CST

    Scott Caan as Khan!

    by Sequitur

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:21 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Why Stallone? Because Khan needs just two things to succeed. Crazy fake looking uber pumped pecs. Check. Crazy charisma over acting bad acting but cant take your eyes off it cool. Check. Only one human being on Earth right now could step into Ricardo Montalban's shoes... STALLONE IS KHAN

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:21 p.m. CST

    Kahn was done to perfection, do something else

    by mongo126

    Anything else. The Klingons, Ferengi, shit, do the damn Borg, but don't stomp on one of the iconic geek performances of all time. C'mon JJ, use that creative gourd of yours to put a spin on something else.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:22 p.m. CST

    Carbonell would be a perfect SPACE SEED era Khan.

    by Nickytea

    I can just see him saying, "WE OFFERED THE WORLD ORDER!" and slamming down his hand.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:24 p.m. CST

    It's been said before, but Naveen Andrews

    by Rob0729

    Right nationality, JJ Abrams connection. He would be the best for the role, but it sounds like they want to go with a name actior. Although they are going go with Peter Weller as the other villian and he isn't a huge name.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:25 p.m. CST

    JJ... Creative gourd...

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    LAWL. Assuming it IS Khan, he will be a good guy who helps the Enterprise crew in a skirmish, and sacrifices himself to destroy the (not)Genesis Device. Abrams only knows how to Shyamalan pop-culture tropes.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:25 p.m. CST


    by LarryTheCableGuy


  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:29 p.m. CST

    Naveen Andrews... Right nationality?

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    He's closer than Montalban or Carbonell, but... No. Semitic =/= Indo-Aryan.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:29 p.m. CST



    this he's in- he's out - he's in - he's out- khan might be the baddie because latino review wants it that way- will kahn be in these movies at all -etc etc etc- this shit isn't even news! i get more info from the talkbacks. it's like the roles reversed and now AICN articles are just two sentence musings.

  • Remember Montelban wasn't known as a tough or an antagonist in general, and his most recognizable appearance in the states is Fantasy Island, so previous career choices aren't really an issue when comparing some of Banderas's lighter fair. He has the Latin swagger, and with age he has developed what could be the perfect temperament for Khan, obviously he's done his share of action, even some psychological thriller work. it's up to the writers to make Neo-Khan as memorable as Khan-Prime, but I think Banderas could be the perfect off the wall choice that would also lend a sense of age and experience they would have had with Del Toro, with significantly more charm, safe to say.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:30 p.m. CST

    Cliff Curtis

    by CountryBoy

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:30 p.m. CST

    RIP Conrad Bain

    by la_sith


  • If only to stay in character while all those lens flares bounce around.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:32 p.m. CST

    I'll throw it out there anyway Edward Norton as Khan.

    by irc-Hollywood

    he'll re-write the script, but heck, he can chew some scenery.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:33 p.m. CST

    HULK HOGAN as KHAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by la_sith


  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:34 p.m. CST


    by la_sith


  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:34 p.m. CST

    big casting casting news!!!..

    by paul burnett

    ..for fuck sake, well done on who aint in the movie, who's next...oh thats right any actor whos star is ascending.......boom

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:35 p.m. CST

    Naveen Andrews is Indian just like Khan

    by Rob0729

    Just because Andrews played an Iraqi on Lost doesn't mean he is one. His parents are from India.

  • Just a tired pop-culture mashup pile of bullshit. The first film tread that line, of course, with all of the "Jim Henson's Star Trek Babies" imitations going on by the cast. Say what you will about all the incarnations of Trek, but one thing it has never done is just redo itself. Echo itself, sure, but not just literally the same exact story again. Khan's story has already been told, well enough. This is the point at which this new Trek becomes either the worthy next step in the franchise, or just a tired cash-grab. If it's Khan, it's garbage.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:38 p.m. CST

    Remember, this is NOT a "Wrath" episode

    by AlienFanatic

    The Wrath of Khan was a result of Kirk's handling of the events of "Space Seed." Ostensibly, if the film is indeed about Khan, Chris Pine & Co. would be dealing with the early Khan, who is an unknown entity. The writers have almost unlimited freedom to work within the Khan framework, meaning you have a megalomaniac genius with superhuman strength and concentration. The writers can think much, much bigger than the Space Seed episode for this one. Imagine instead that Khan had been freed from cryosleep but instead of meeting Kirk, he'd met a different captain and had gotten back to Earth. The dynamics would have been entirely different and Khan could have led an all-new effort to conquer earth. The possibilities are wide open, so stop limiting this to "Wrath of Khan II."

  • That's been already. And I for one would rather see an original villain for the next film. Hell, Klingons would be fine. And make them human looking too.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:39 p.m. CST

    sajay bashar..

    by paul burnett

    ..after a few pints i love goin for a federaatioooooooooooon!!!

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:39 p.m. CST

    Surely there's got to be more to seek out than Khan.

    by Kamaji

    We already had 'Khan-lite' with Nero.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:40 p.m. CST


    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    He's the son of Indian Semites. You're making the case that John Travolta could play Shaft as well as Samuel L. Jackson or Richard Roundtree, because they're all from the same country.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:41 p.m. CST


    by Rob0729

    As I said in my last post, both Andrews and Khan are from India. Yes, Khan was supposed to be Sikh which means he probably came from northern India and Andrews' parents are Kerlian which is southern India, they are all Indian. Granted northern and southern Indians have very different cultures.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:41 p.m. CST

    Sayid went BOOM!

    by BacardiRocky

    I still lol at the writers of LOST making Sayid (Naveen Andrews) a "suicide bomber" convenient!

  • and the rest of the movie will be rehashes of all that came before.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:46 p.m. CST

    Khan- bad idea

    by D.Vader

    I'd rather see some new villains from familiar alien faces. But that's just me I guess.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:47 p.m. CST


    by Rob0729

    I understand the cultural differences between the two regions, but they are still Indians which means they are the same nationality. From a physical standpoint, there isn't any really differences between the two. There are cultural differences. And the Travolta/Jackson reference is ridiculous. You show both those actors to an Indian audience and ask them which one is black, every single one of them is going to know the answer. You ask an American audience to look at a Sikh and Semite actor and ask them to identify the difference they won't.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:47 p.m. CST

    Khan done right

    by HornOrSilk

    Khan and Kirk have a beer....

  • Good luck getting cheap talent.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:50 p.m. CST

    (cough)...short on cash.

    by JDanielP


  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:54 p.m. CST

    khan says...only two schoolkids at one time...

    by paul burnett

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:54 p.m. CST

    an leave your bags outside you bloody buggers

    by paul burnett

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:55 p.m. CST

    Shahrukh Khan to play Khan

    by HornOrSilk

    You got it.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:56 p.m. CST

    New Star Trek will be a Bollywood Musical

    by HornOrSilk

    That's why they want Khan!

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:57 p.m. CST

    You mean to tell me...

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    You can't tell there's a difference between Naveen and Ben Kingsley? Or Sendhil Ramamurthy and Mahatma Ghandi? And sikh is a religion, numnuts.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:57 p.m. CST


    by Queefer Sutherland

    Interesting name. I can tell you what happened to you - you were born breach, and thus, did not get enough oxygen at the moment of birth, so you became profoundly retarded. The people in the middle eastern region are all pretty much from the same lineage. Your logic would not allow an episcopalian to play a catholic, even if they were from the exact same race. You, sir, are a gigantic fucking idiot.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:59 p.m. CST


    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    You sir, are a gigantic fucking racist.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:59 p.m. CST

    Fuck this movie.

    by grendel69

    Fuck Abrams and his Shit Trek. Fuck it up its stupid ass.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:01 p.m. CST

    As said above, make Khan female --

    by MooseMalloy

    -- and have her played by one of the endless hot Indian actresses that's out there.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:02 p.m. CST

    WTF? How much money did Del Toro want?

    by Mattman

    After Wolfman, Del Toro's asking price should be a hefty $5000.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:02 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    jdanielp, yep you're right - if they can't afford Benicio Del Toro (and let's face it he'd probably take the gig for 6g's of coke and a bottle of rum) then they can't afford any 'name' actor. My dream of Stallone as Khan will have to remain a dream. Maybe a leftfield choice? Christina Hendricks as Khan. Yes, I know she's a woman. But she's one of the few human beings on the planet with a chest to rival Montalbans. And I for one would like to see more of it.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:04 p.m. CST

    I'm surprised nobody has suggested...

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    Shmyan Shmox.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Khan would make the film a wasted opportunity

    by Charlie

    Sure they could probably do something awesome... However you have a shiny new enterprise, a hot young cast and the largest budget Star Trek will have ever had... You need to do something original!!!

  • It splits off when Nero comes through, but everything that happened before TOS and ST2009 (including Enterprise) is still canon. So having Kahn as a female would make no sense, unless it's a daughter or something.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Khan is Indian and should be played by an Indian..

    by ShogunMaster

    Therefore, Russel Peters is the logical choice.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:12 p.m. CST

    by Michael Semer

    Peter Weller is (according to Deadline) signed on for a 'principal role.' You can keep Benicio -- just give Weller something meaty and I'm there.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:12 p.m. CST


    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    Are we just naming Indian dudes now? I guess at least it's better than naming hispanic dudes.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:12 p.m. CST

    No more fucking Khan!

    by WordToDaWizard

    Why would they rehash the Story of Khan? It's been told! They re-rote Star Trek history so they can do what ever they want with the franchise. I don't want to see a new version of Khan. how about some originality for a change?

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:14 p.m. CST

    guillermo del toro as khan.

    by vulturess

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:16 p.m. CST

    Wilford Brimley as Khan!!!

    by Michael

    Watch.......Clark...... I mean....Kirk.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:20 p.m. CST

    Kirk! Somebody gonna get a hurt real bad! Somebody.

    by Omis

    I think you know who.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:21 p.m. CST

    And No more Goddamn Time Travel!

    by WordToDaWizard

    I'm fucking sick of it. Every damn Star Trek series and 3 of the moves involved Time Travel.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:27 p.m. CST

    Aamir Khan over Shahrukh Khan

    by DougMcKenzie

    Aamir is a way better actor, although Shahrukh probably has the physical edge. Shahrukh is like Tom Cruise short, but Pine is pretty short too, so it should not stand out too much. I'd put Abishek Bachchan out there too.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:29 p.m. CST


    by Chris Moody

    I don't know what role he was really going to play, so we can't really comment properly. There are better actors for less money available.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:30 p.m. CST

    Surprise plot...

    by Horned One

    I'd love to see them come out of left field and use one of the older novels as a basis for a story. The two that come to mind are Price of the Phoenix and Blackfire. If you haven't read either of these, they're worth a look.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:35 p.m. CST

    Gotta be Guyliner

    by DMAGnifier

    Nestor Carbonell

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:35 p.m. CST


    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    I went for Shah Rukh for camp factor. Aamir is probably a better Abrams choice for being so fucking diabolical looking.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:42 p.m. CST

    Haha, I was right, AICN wrong -- Khan is in ST2!

    by Wookie_Weed

    Now remove your lips from the ass cheeks of JarJar Abrams, please AICN.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:43 p.m. CST


    by Mr_Fancy_Pants

    Yep. You got it. Different timeline = totally different set of circumstances for the discovery of the Botany Bay. Maybe klingons find them and make common cause vs Earth. Maybe Khan fights the Gorn as the Thetans look on. Hell, maybe he rallies the remaining Vulcans and creates and goes after the Romulans. Who the fuck knows. Those who want a brand new villian are gonna end up with another tap water Nero.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:43 p.m. CST

    They should cast the Indian dude from The Guild!

    by Wookie_Weed

    Pump him full of steroids like Tom Hardy, he'll be right to go! No wait, even better. Paint Tom Hardy black and he'll be good to go! Audiences won't notice!

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:44 p.m. CST

    So when's the news that ST2 is delayed?

    by Wookie_Weed

    Or rather, when will AICN copy/paste the news from someone else's website?

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:45 p.m. CST

    Aamir Khan? Are you kidding?

    by Bobo_Vision

    Look at this photo of Shahrukh Khan. He looks perfect for the role here...he even looks like he's wearing a Star Trek-esque costume: <p> <p> Then watch this clip....: <p>

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:45 p.m. CST

    if JarJar makes Khan a woman...

    by Wookie_Weed

    ... he will never be able to set foot in a Star Trek convention again. He will be hunted down and killed like a dog.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:48 p.m. CST

    You know what I want to see? Some fucking STAR TREKKING

    by Wookie_Weed

    Not the uber-villain of the week. Star Trek is science-fiction, not a fucking superhero franchise!!!

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 7:50 p.m. CST


    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    WAY the wrong clip, man.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 8 p.m. CST

    Benecio del Toro's ego thinks...

    by Chris Moody

    ...he is worth $15 Million for 30 minutes in a movie roll? That is a cool half million per minute of screen time. And, of course, he probably wouldn't even be in 30 minutes worth of footage. :-\ BTW, he was never going to be Khan. They wouldn't touch that character. From all of the leaks online, it appears that the villain is entirely new.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 8:05 p.m. CST

    Is Oded Fehr busy?

    by thelordofhell

    He'd make a good Khan

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 8:09 p.m. CST


    by SminkyPinky

    And not in this film. Carry on...

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 8:14 p.m. CST


    by Bobo_Vision

    That was a good clip...hes practically wearing Khan's costume there. But that sword fight was pretty weak. It was like a sword fight in slow motion while they stand too far away to hit one another.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 8:17 p.m. CST

    It will be a young Khan...

    by zinc_chameleon

    and there will be a time-travel glitch/trick somewhere; we need to meet Khan when he is Master of Earth, and then watch him fall from grace. The novels were terrific in that respect. There's an especially great scene where he single-handedly breaks into to a genetics research centre, only to find out that the guards are all terrific marksman, and martial artists to boot, and he nearly gets his ass handed to him, except that one of the female Indian scientists has a thing for him, and he charms his way out of danger. Fast, furious, and funny!

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 8:20 p.m. CST

    HARRY MUDD will be the villain. I'm calling it NOW!

    by gk1

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 8:21 p.m. CST

    Bigtuna is right, George Takei, that wasn't Ricardo . . .

    by elmo

    So what's this about Star Trek 2, the Sting? It's going to be about a Con? Oh My!

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 8:22 p.m. CST

    Javier Bardem is the villain in SKYFALL, the next Bond film

    by NoHubris

    According to IMDB, SKY FALL is currently filming and he has two other movies in pre-production. I agree that he'd be an outstanding Khan, but it might be difficult to schedule him.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 8:25 p.m. CST

    Anyone else offended by the amount of money actors demand?

    by Wookie_Weed

    Seriously, what the fuck has Del Toro done that he can demand $30million? It's fucking despicable what actors get paid just to play make believe.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 8:39 p.m. CST

    Alexander Siddig

    by Fuzzy dunlop

    He's Indian and a trek alumnae (played Dr. Bashir on DS9 for 7 years). Also a great actor that has played big roles in cool movies like Syriana and Kingdom of Heaven. If he could beef up and bring the intensity he could own the role.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 8:39 p.m. CST

    If it's Khan?

    by Lesbianna_Winterlude

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 8:39 p.m. CST

    Seriously? If?

    by Lesbianna_Winterlude

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 8:42 p.m. CST

    Tim Tebow sucks cock.

    by Bunger!

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 8:50 p.m. CST


    by the clear and only choice. (And it's the 21st Century, people - you can't cast a Latino as Khan.)

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 8:53 p.m. CST

    If Khan is in this movie...

    by TheDiscoPlumber

    ...I'm not going to see it. I hated the first movie, but I'm actually looking forward to the next movie. Why? Because now that they have the origin story out of the way, and we're over the shock of the new universe, they can start telling their own stories. Wasn't that the point of the reboot? Why would they do a Khan story? Who do they think they're making happy? Old school fans don't want to see someone else as Khan. And new fans have no idea who he is. They did one thing right with this reboot. They nailed the cast. It's perfect. So just tell your own stories and forget about the original series. If you want to have a Harry Mudd cameo, fine. Show Mudd making the deal to buy his very first Tribble. Have original Spock walk by and say "I wouldn't do that if I were you". Done. Move on. Have Gary Mitchell, or Number One in the cast as background players. But please, no remakes of episodes.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 8:54 p.m. CST

    Benecio already said no to the role! These guys will update eventually!

    by CeejayNightwing

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:03 p.m. CST

    Carbonell looks the part

    by proevad

    Aren't going to do better than that, unless--wait-- you want charisma, intensity, etc. He doesn't have any--and if he does, he hasn't shown it in anything I've seen him in. He's Kevin Costner vanilla. I still would want Michael Shannon for Khan but he's doing Zod already. Shannon could play any race and because of his face, he could pull it off. And the Oscar goes to... Michael Shannon for My Mamas Sweet on Obama.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:07 p.m. CST

    Hey everyone I just got here...

    by don

    Hey! Have you guys heard? Kahn's going to be in the new Star Trek movie!

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:10 p.m. CST

    NO KHAN PLEASE, why not--

    by chifforobe

    --a fuckin' Tholian web, Doomsday Machine, some fun shit like that for god's sake?

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:11 p.m. CST

    My idea for Kahn? Willian Shatner!!!!

    by don

    Think about it, it's brilliant!

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:14 p.m. CST


    by Saen

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:16 p.m. CST

    Giancarlo Esposito

    by proevad

    Would be my second choice. Supposed to be young I suppose--but I mean really...who gives a shit if he's not. Get a good actor.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:18 p.m. CST

    Burt Ward as The Beaver!

    by Loosejerk

    Cocaine.....a helluva drug.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Stars have every right to demand $$

    by Hipshot

    If stats show they put butts in seats. If Del Toro demanded too much, it is because the execs crunched the data and concluded nope, he wasn't worth it. Del Toro is a fine actor, but not much of a "star" in terms of bringin' em to the box office. I see no problem with people getting paid if they can reasonably prove they can bring money to the project--which is what "stars" as opposed to "actors" are. Some stars are fine actors, and some actors are terrific stars. Some actors have no box office draw at all--pure support. And some huge stars aren't much as acting goes (Arnold, anyone? He was an o.k. actor, but HUGELY charismatic). Del Toro is as charismatic as drying paint. But a terrific actor.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:27 p.m. CST

    Jim Carey is my first choice for Khan


  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:27 p.m. CST

    Catch Me If You Khan

    by SiouxCitySarsaparilla

    Starring Leo DiCaprio as a fraudster who impersonates a starship captain.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:29 p.m. CST


    by Rob0729

    First, everyone who is from India have the nationality of Indian. It doesn't matter what part of India they come from. Someone from Florida is just as much of an American as someone from Massachusetts. Both Khan and Andrews are the same nationality. Second, I admit I don't know enough about Indian culture and religions. I know Sikh is a religion, but that is about all we know about Khan from the original Star Trek. Most Sikhs in India are located in the northern regions of India. I know that Andrews' parents come from the south. Third, you are confusing race with nationality. There are a number of different races in India from Asia to Middle Eastern African to to Nordic, but everyone who lives in India or are from India are the same nationality. Fourth, just because you know the different races in India, doesn't mean most Americans or even people of the world do. Yes, I can tell there is a racial difference between Naveen Andrews and Ben Kingsley, but I do also know their nationality is Indian. So my original point is correct. Andrews is the same nationality of Khan. He might not be the same race as Khan, but he certainly shares the same nationality.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:32 p.m. CST

    Hahaha, E-P-I-C-F-A-I-L

    by TopHat

    The villain will so obviously be Khan, its retarded. LAME, Abrams team. LAME.

  • The character is from Central or South Asia, from the Eugenics Wars, not from Mexico. <p> Because the actor in the TOS ep was Ricardo Montalban, JarJar would be seeking a "Latino." <p>

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:37 p.m. CST

    Richard Alpert!

    by HighPointBleed

    If they did it right, the whole Eugenics Wars... That would be something. And Nestor is no stranger to Abramsville.

  • Kahn't we just end it now and Kahntinue this diskahnsion at Komic Kahn?

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:39 p.m. CST

    Christopher Judge as Khan

    by Chain

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:40 p.m. CST

    Khan should not be in this Trek

    by Teddy Artery

    There's a whole new time-space galaxy for them to explore, why get so locked into specific characters? Maybe have Mudd somewhere in the background, but screw the old main characters. Get some new ones!

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:48 p.m. CST


    by Jaster Mareel

    Rockit Shaka Kahn!

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:51 p.m. CST

    get jack huston to be the bad guy

    by john

    the guy has range...he is mostly an unknown...but once the gals know he is in the movie, they will flock to the theaters...and geeks will get some amen

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:55 p.m. CST


    by Iahael

    Yeah, Nestor Carbonell would be perfect, I can see him in Space Seed, beat for beat. He'd probably play the guy closer to his conception as a genetically engineered 20th century tyrant than the kind of romantic prince Montalban played in the episode (still, he rocked, don't get me wrong). And, yes, I am offended by people engaged in essentially the most high profile theme park work in the universe pushing for these obscenely high salaries as the rest of the country turns into a giant McGhetto. Nestor, God love him, might even be affordable. T.'.

  • ...then talkbackers will have nothing to talk about since they will have no knowledge of the new villain. So....this is how it is to be played until the casting of the villain is announced....then the announcement that its a new character if thats a case...then the focus will switch to that actor and how much he sucks. Then further plot points will come out. Then a teaser. Then a poster. Then a trailer, and a few more. Then a screening. Then a flood of movie reviews...and then this film we be forgotten and everyone will be talking about the latest superhero movie, or a script will be announced for the next Indy film...or Robert Downey jr will be starring in a remake of a film that is near and dear to everyone's hearts from their childhood as everyone desperately tries to regress back to their childhood....and the womb.... <p> ROSEBUD......ROSEBUD......ROSEBUD......

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 9:59 p.m. CST

    Ben Kingsley

    by Turingtestee

    I would actually be interested in seeing that. I keep imagining Amrish Puri (Temple of Doom).

  • I'm glad he turned down JJ's offer if it was too low.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 10:10 p.m. CST


    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    Which brings me to my original point. By your logic, Shaft could be played by John Travolta.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 10:12 p.m. CST


    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    And for the record, Ben Kingsley and Naveen Andrews are both British, not Indian.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 10:13 p.m. CST

    I think some people here need to take a little break from AICN --

    by MooseMalloy

    -- their obviously dwelling too much over their imagined power over the film business.

  • He was TRULY going to play Khan.He knew how iconic that character was and he knew that it is the best bait for a Trek movie to make huge grosses.So he wanted his due shares.He wanted bigger percentages from his performance,more money than the usual paycheks he was getting during his career. Ofc the studio refused to his demands and now they are searching for someone other less known latin or even indian actor to pull this character with smaller payment. Mark my words.Khan is going to be the villain for the sequel.But the story will be after the Space Seed episode,where Khan tries to steal Kirk's ship.The revenge story will be played in another sequel.Actually NuTrek2 will be partly like ST5 where the Enterprise was taken by Spock's brother. But this time it is Khan who gets hold of the Enterprise and is taking it to some primitive planet,something like a new Eden or the new Vulcan Homeworld,in order to conquer it and Kirk is trying to stop him.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 10:24 p.m. CST

    Is it gonna be Peter Weller????

    by Bob Cryptonight

    Dr. Banzai in da house...???!!!!

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 10:39 p.m. CST

    Bruce Campbell for Khan

    by zombieslayer

    He can so do this part

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 10:48 p.m. CST

    Bruce Campbell fans remind me of Ron Paul supporters

    by proevad

    ...ain't ever going to happen. At least Nathan Fillion's name hasn't been mentioned yet. Those fanboys--talk about pathetic loserville.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 10:51 p.m. CST


    by proevad

    Losers like us got Jericho back on the air. For the record, that show sucked and I wasn't one of them--but you get my drift.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 10:51 p.m. CST

    Demian Bichir from Weeds

    by rsswope

    He channels Ricardo Montalban.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 10:52 p.m. CST


    by Cruizer Dave

    We've already had a great khan movie. Let's not ruin it's memory.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 10:53 p.m. CST

    I thought Justin Kirk would be a good Joker

    by proevad

    so bring on the Weeds people. Fine by me.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 10:54 p.m. CST


    by Talandir

    "Starring Leo DiCaprio as a fraudster who impersonates a starship captain." Wasn't that BOTH Chris Pine and Bruce Greenwood in the last movie?

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 11:05 p.m. CST


    by Talandir

    The difference is Bruce Campbell could actually do the job! Besides, neither Campbell or Fillion would risk their TV careers on this. Eric Bana better hope his Elvis impression is better than his pseudoKhan.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 11:07 p.m. CST


    by Queefer Sutherland

    Ben Kingsley may be a British citizen, but his real name is Krishna Bhanji. Let that sink into your tiny little stupid brain.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 11:09 p.m. CST

    "Believe It Or Not RiiChaaaardoooo, We

    by BigTuna

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 11:10 p.m. CST

    "Setting-Sail On A Star Trek Cruise".

    by BigTuna

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 11:11 p.m. CST

    Nestor Carbonell is too subdued

    by FrodoFraggins

    Khan is someone full of life and the lust for power. I'm not sure Nestor could be convincing in that kind of role.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 11:13 p.m. CST

    "She's A Papillion..Her Name is Ren".

    by BigTuna

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 11:22 p.m. CST

    whatthehellhappenedtome .....

    by exador

    If you've heard King Khan speak, you'd know his english is probably a fair bit better than ours ;) other words, he speeky the english pretty damn good. As much as i love Shah Rukh Khan's movies, I think a better choice for the Khan character would be Hrithik Roshan.. I think he'd nail it physically (he's got the body for fake chest needed lol and he's a pretty decent actor, if you dig bollywood movies (which i do)

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 11:22 p.m. CST

    I want a scene in Star trek 2....

    by Bobo_Vision

    ...where young Spock goes to Old Spock's quarters and says, "Ya ever fantasize about making out with yourself?" Old Spock: No... <p> Young Spock: Yeah, me either. That's weird. <p> (long awkward silence) <p> Young Spock: You know, if you gave me a handy, that's really no different than masturbation. <p> Old Spock: WHAT?!! <p>

  • All you need is lots of Lens flares and to eject your Warp Core which is, ironically what you need to escape from falling into the Event Horizon in the first place. IT doesn't have to be super-accurate to real world Physics, but for Christ;s sake, that's the most destructive object in the entire Universe (or Multiverse if you buy Jar Jar's alternate Timeline bullshit); how about showing it a little respect. Even LIGHT cannot escape from the event horizon of a black hole. LIGHT! The fastest non-warp thing in the Universe cannot outrun Black-holes, but Jar Jar's Enterprise can.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 11:37 p.m. CST


    by Sandy

    Thank God you aren't writing the new...well, anything. Terrible ideas...even as jokes.

  • .......catch up with a Ship moving at Warp speed (which is anywhere from 5-10 times the speed of light). And as a bonus you get to beam him directly into the Ship's nonsensical plumbing system with pipes large enough to fit a human being and which just happen to be transparent for god knows what reason. Also it's worth noting that unlike how we've built plumbing systems here on Earth for literally centuries, the Enterprise's ridiculous and ridiculously transparent plumbing system has not a single iota of valves, control valves or T-junctions, Y-junctions of any sort which one would assume would crush a small animal, much less a human being that's happened to be trapped inside it. But enough about their plumbing system. Back to their amazing Mega-Super-duper-califragilistic Transporter that can track a ship moving at warp speed accurately enough to land a person from a stationary planet on it. You would think with technology like that, why bother with ships at all?

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 11:46 p.m. CST

    Pity Faran Tahir got wasted in ST 1...

    by WeakThirdAct

    He would have made a helluva Khan.

  • ....with a substance that can generate black holes, instead of placing said substance in the planets upper Atmosphere where it will suck the planet's entire Atmosphere a few hours, if not minutes, thus removing it's protective layer from dangerous Electromagnetic radiation from it's Sun, and causing Environmental and Climatic disasters at a Global scale, along the way, you instead nonsensically try to drill into the planet's core which takes longer making it easier for you to be stopped and is a much more difficult process even for a 23rd Century mining ship. It would be like the US deciding that in order for the Atomic bombs to be most effective they should land crack Marine teams with miners on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to drill several Kilometers into the ground and detonate the bombs from deep inside the earth. Forget how long it would take to do it this way or how much harder it would be than just detonating them slightly above the ground where they are most effective. As long as it sets up an action set-piece where the heroes try to stop them from several miles in the air (And fail) then it's all okay.

  • ....when you have in your possession a substance that can magically create Black Holes (don't ask), as well as.....wait for it ...wait for it.........the ability to travel back into the past, rather than useing these two power-balance shifting amazing abilities to make your people (or what's left of them) rulers of the entire universe, you instead travel back to the past (where you over-shoot your intended landing time zone by over 25 years) and seek petty revenge against the guy who actually tried to save your planet. Forget traveling to them ore recent past and warning your people to evacuate your doomed planet (While gifting them with his magical mega-super-duper-califragilistic substance you happen to have in your possession, that can create the most destructive object in any known Universe or alternate timeline, and making them the de facto rulers of everything they shall ever set their eyes on). Nope; petty revenge sounds like a much better plan. Genius.

  •, as the Captain of said ship, foolishly and dimwittedly sacrifice yourself and inexplicably go to the enemy's ship to try and negotiate a truce (????????), not only potentially giving them a hostage, but also leaving your own ship in disarray and chaos rather than helping in the evacuation effort. Where's a Super-duper-mega-califragilistic transwarp transporter to beam you out of the enemy's into another ship('s plumbing ducts) that's moving at light speed when you need one?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:05 a.m. CST

    Stop saying Jar Jar

    by Bobo_Vision

  • jam it with Red- Matter and create Galaxy-sized black holes and plot-holes complete with plot contrivances and logical cock-ups and conveniences, all large enough for you to fly your star-ship through them but still escape it's event horizon by ejecting your warp core to enable you to escape from it at Warp speed minus a warp core. Somehow.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:10 a.m. CST


    by Kai_Mah'gra

    Why? He's just as ridiculous as the original. He did what no other director could do, which is bring balance to the I mean..... unite the lazy writing of the Star Wars prequels with even more lazy writing in Star Trek. For that reason alone, he deserves to share a name with the most infamous Star Wars character of all time - the symbol of the fact that George Lucas had really finally lost the plot. Jar Jar Abrams created a master-piece that only an uber-genius like George Lucas could possibly love.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:12 a.m. CST

    I was certain he was going to play the Tribble Queen.

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:12 a.m. CST

    @kai_mah'gra i like that too.......HAAHAHHAHA!!!

    by NorthTronic

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:12 a.m. CST

    AICN's role in movie news is...

    by Wookie_Weed

    non-existent. I'll just read the other websites AICN keeps copy and pasting from.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:14 a.m. CST

    Daniel Day-Lewis as....

    by notcher

    Anyone in any movie, because he's fucking awesome!!!! Guarantee you he plays a tribble and still gets an Oscar nod.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:19 a.m. CST

    Star Trek plot holes haven't been revealed from anyone...

    by notcher

    All the arguments I've seen regarding "Plot holes" in Star Trek have been just as "Contrived" as the plot twists in Star Trek supposedly were as argued by the critics on this site. Still haven't heard a single one that made me stop and think, they've all been argued, and they've all failed. My favorite is the "They didn't develop Nero enough" argument. They established his origin, his motive and his plan, what the fuck else do you need, a flashback scene with his dead wife where he says "I hate sand, it's rough and corse, and it gets everywhere!" Fuck off haters, take your BS arguments with you!!!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:20 a.m. CST

    You call yourself a fan of RICARDO MONTALBAN?

    by la_sith

    You aren't unless you have seen this:

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:21 a.m. CST

    Siddig El Fadil aka Alexander Siddig aka Julian Bashir

    by smackfu

    That's who should play Khan. He's the proper nationality, he's a good character actor, he plays a good villain, and he's star trek family.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:28 a.m. CST

    If Bardim is a no go I love Nestor Carbonel or Hulk Hogan

    by picardsucks


  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:39 a.m. CST

    why dupe it?

    by flipster

    wtf? isn't there like a dmca or something for making copies of copyrighted or something down in the states? what is this, china? where I am? ?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:39 a.m. CST


    by flipster

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:51 a.m. CST

    Richard Alpert

    by la te ral us

    Sorry...Nestor carbonara-whatever

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:53 a.m. CST

    Ghassan Massoud, Saladin in Kingdom Of Heaven...

    by NoHubris

    ...would also make a great Khan and dare I say, even give Montalban's Khan a run for the money.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:01 a.m. CST


    by darth_hideous

    lulziest star trek movie evar

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:12 a.m. CST

    Warp speed minus a warp core

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    Ever hear of inertia? In a frictionless environment? Also, warp is a factor. i.e., Warp 3 isn't (299792458 m/s) + (299792458 m/s) + (299792458 m/s) it's (299792458 m/s) X (299792458 m/s) X (299792458 m/s). So, setting aside the fact that traveling warp ANYTHING is fucking impossible (or, a plot hole in a SCIENCE FICTION movie, according to kai), a ship traveling a sufficient factor of the speed of light would indeed be able to escape a black hole.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:28 a.m. CST

    Ricardo Montalban hates tortillas

    by MooseMalloy

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:31 a.m. CST

    Thanks, Notcher!

    by Boborci

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:35 a.m. CST

    so this was waay more fun when..

    by shrimp_shack_shooter

    ..braindrain was here. What happened to (he)r?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:50 a.m. CST

    I see Weller as a TALOSIAN.

    by DrPain

    And I really hope Khan will make an appearance. Maybe they discover the Botany Bay in the very last shot.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:54 a.m. CST

    Khan can only be played by DWAYNE JOHNSON!

    by DrPain

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:06 a.m. CST


    by Kai_Mah'gra

    Did you for a moment stop to consider that to actually GET to Warp speed (or stay there even for the briefest of seconds) you actually need a fully functioning and fully attached WARP CORE? In the other Star Trek TV series (I don't know if they ever ejected the core in any of the previous movies), whenever the Enterprise (or Voyager) whenever they ejected the core they ALWAYS, ALWAYS did this while the ship was either stationary or at Impulse speed - Meaning : WHILE NOT AT WARP SPEED and WHILE THE WARP CORE WAS NOT ENGAGED. The reasoning for this is simple. In order to get to Warp speed and stay there, a ship (through the Warp Core) has to create a WARP FIELD, in which it actually travels while in WARP speed. Think of it as a 'wake' - like the one you see when a supersonic jet or a bullet travels at Supersonic speed, or the sort created when a boat travels on water). When this field is collapsed, the Ship is either destroyed, or falls back into normal space. Guess what happens to your WARP FIELD when you eject your WARP CORE? a) You can't get to WARP SPEED (because, obviously you can't generate a WARP FIELD). and b) If you somehow managed to time your jump for just before you got caught in the Event Horizon and were already in WARP space your field collapses and you fall back into normal space and right back in that BLACK HOLE's gravity well. BLACK HOLES have very very deep gravity wells. So you would have to have gotten very very very far away not to get trapped again, and that was NOT what was shown in the movie where they went through all the Visual effects trouble of CGI-ing what looked to be a visual representation of some sort of Event horizon or a barrier of some sort. And in their case anyway, they did not have the sort of shields that later versions of Star Trek had so the more likely scenario is they would drop out and be instantly destroyed either by the gravitational waves or their own inertia. You have to understand a little bit about how the WARP drive in Star Trek theoretically works to realize just how stupid what Jar Jar Abram and his nipplehead writer's wrote in that scene was. YOu obviously don't. And for the record, WARP drive is based on very real world Physics and real world understanding of how our Universe works. It is theoretically possible to bend or fold space and and if you betn it enough you could create a field that would enable faster than light travel. WE just don't have the energy capacity at our current level of technology to achieve this right now and the only things that currently actually observably bend space at the moment are very large stars and black holes. Google "Alcubierre Drive" for more information on how this actually works In fact, you know what, here I'll do the reasearch for you:- This is REAL WORLD SCIENCE that even NASA is currently researching in conjunction with the JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California):- As for your other point that this is a science fiction movie so none of this should matter, GOOD science fiction establishes it's own rules for it's non-real-world elements and sticks by those rules and stays consistent to them. In fact any good fictional narrative establishes the rules by which its world exists and stays true to those rules for the benefit of the logical coherence of the story. This is even more vitally important in the case of hard SCIENCE FICTION (like Star Trek, and even Avatar) which tell stories on worlds built onthe same scientific rules as our own and merely logically extrapolate those rules to allow them the fantastical elements of the story. "Extrapolate" or "Bend", if you prefer:- NOT "BREAK". You cna't have the speed of light as an immutable constant being important in one aspect of your story only to turn around and break that rule and deem it unimportant in barely the next scene. That's sloppy writing. That's what seperates this farce of a Star TRek movie with previous iterations of the franchise - including the very bad (story-wise) latter movies. They stayed true to their scientifically established universe which was closely aligned with our own, and thus avoided the sort of embarrassing logic plotholes that we witnessed in Jar Jar Trek. Stop making pathetic excuses for Jar Jar. You come off looking as bad as them and evenworse because you embarrassingly actually tried to use mathematics to justify that shit. Go buy (or borrow) "The Physics of Star Trek" by Quantum Physicist LAwarence KRauss and see just how much the Star TRek writers (the original ones who actually cared about this franchise) got most of their science CORRECT even while building this completely fictional world. Some of the science they actually postulated in the original series and next generation was actually prescient meaning that they only got the terminology wrong but were spot on on the physics of it as they were later proven right by scientific discoveries int he ral world. (for example they first talked of a "dark star" as an sort of Anti-star, a couple of years before the concept of a BLACK HOLE - as the antithesis of a Star- was fully realized in the real world and for the longest time thought of to be one of Einstein's greatest mistakes. Well he was right (even against his own belief) and they were right)). Come back and talk to me when you have more than a smidgen of understanding of Quantum mechanics or High school physics for that matter. Otherwise spare me your poorly thought out and pathetic Jar Jar Apologia. Even Jar Jar himself has admitted that it's a horribly written movie, so I don't know what they heck you're even defending him for.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:24 a.m. CST

    I mean, "Inertia"? Are you fucking kidding me with that shit?

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    What the fuck does Friction have to do with "Inertia"? You think object in space don't experience inertia because they're in frictionless environments? What the hell do you think they needed "Inertial Dampeners" in the later series of Star Trek for? Fucking joke. Do you even know what the formula for Inertia is? How do you factor Friction into that? Ever heard of Gravity-assist maneuver you moron? (also known as a gravitational slingshot maneuver) It's an actual method used by NASA in orbital mechanics to accelerate or decelerate space probes and the like using a planet's gravity and heavily relying on relative inertia of the probe and the effects of orbital gravitational dynamics in the ABSENCE of FRICTION and frictional drag (which would be used in an Aero-braking maneuver and thus actually utilising friction). And it's been used by NASA in virtually every single probe mission of probes sent on missions further than MArs or Venus Orbit. from the 1960's You see, this is why people like you with a limited, laughable understanding of science should refrain from discussing science in public settings. "Inertia" my ass. Unbe-freaking-lievable.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:34 a.m. CST punch JJ Abrams in the face for me?

    by Fortunesfool

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:43 a.m. CST

    notcher...ok, Ill take a crack at it. Now, first off

    by southafricanguy

    im not a hater. I did nt hate JJs trek, but I cant say I was very impressed with it either. But ok, well to say there are no plot holes is a simply false statement. I have nt seen it in a while so Im just going to go with what pops into my head. How about the long period of time (a good number of years) between Kirk's birth, and when Nero escapes from the Klingon prison? Why the fuck did Nero and the Romulans hang around in a Klingon prison for years (where they were tortured and beaten etc..) while waiting for Spock Prime to arrive form the future? Not that it matters since that was nt explained much anyway..... Or how about the question of why exactly a mining vessel would be equipped with Borg tech, and such a huge array of weaponary? And what the huge coincidences?? The way Kirk just happens to land apprantly not far away from where Spock is on that ice planet? On an entire fucking planet, they run into each other sooo easily. And dont even get me started on the even bigger coincidence that Scotty just happens to be there too.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:45 a.m. CST

    or even how the script literally jumps through

    by southafricanguy

    hoops to get Kirk in the Captains chair? Im sure there are others, but I could nt be bothered to go back and watch it to remember right now. It wasnt a terrible movie, and I really liked the cast (who carried the film on their backs imho), but it was nt that good for a Trek movie for me...

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:48 a.m. CST

    Cobra-Kai...u fucking mad genius you.....Stallone

    by southafricanguy

    as Khan?? Thats so batshit crazy insane, that it actually may just work....

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:21 a.m. CST

    Krauss and Alcubierre

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    Are full-of-shit, futurist assholes. Everything's awesome when you make up your own energy conditions, and ignore common sense. And friction's an opposing force, dumbfuck.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:28 a.m. CST

    Fuck it - Danny Trejo or Cheech Marin.

    by DiamondJoe

  • just fyi.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4 a.m. CST

    I find it odd that

    by Bourne Again

    a sikh king was named 'Khan'. Character should be named 'Singh' but that's the mistake from the original ST.

  • and make a contemporary movie about the current worldwide economical crisis.SCIFI is all about exploring and making commentaries and sometimes giving solutions on contemporary situations and problems that the world faces,either it is about politics,economics,societies,religion,etc or the human nature itself. Scifi is not only pew pew and boom boom.Especially good scifi like Star Trek WAS.Star Trek is about telling good stories with a message,making a point,exploring philosophical,social,political and psychological subjects,touching themes which relate to problems and challenges in our modern world. But from a television director and the writers of Xena/Hercules i dont expect to undestand what ST is about,what good scifi is about.In fact i dont expect thing from the younger,so called fans either. FUCK THEM ALL.AND FUCK GOOGLE WHICH KILLED FIREFOX.FUCK YOU GOOGLE.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:12 a.m. CST

    More no-news from AICN about JarJarTrek!

    by AsimovLives

    They task me! They task me!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:16 a.m. CST

    The new Trek CAN'T stand on it's own two feet: FACT

    by Professor_Monster

    They needed Nimoy and now they need Khan -- pathetic

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:20 a.m. CST

    Antonio Banderas even SOUNDS like Khan!


    well - Richardo Montoban

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:21 a.m. CST

    If you ask me, hire Sendhil Ramamurthy to play Khan.

    by AsimovLives

    He's an american of indian descent, so no "weird" foreign accent for americans in the midwest to deal with. And the guy is very easy on the female audience's eyes, and lately due to his work in COVERT AFFAIRS, he's pretty fit. And as anybody who watched THE SEED episode knowns, Khan is quite the ladies man. And he's relatively well known due to his work in HEROES and COVERT AFFAIRS. So, there you have it, you have your Khan. Easy, wasn't it?

  • Sad thing many haven't clue that in yet, even after almost 4 years after the retard hype that surround it faded away.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:28 a.m. CST

    to the people who hate on KHAN....


    as its been done already/it lacks originality/go with something totally new etc’..well then why bother having Kirk and Spock etc in the new films either? – dosnt that show a lack of originality? – the star trek universe is a big place, surely they couldve/shouldve gone with an all new crew on a new Enterprise…. Wrath Of Khan is the most popular, enduring ST movie of them all. the template that most of the other movies followed so itd make sense to capitalise on Trek 09s success with the most recognisable/popular villain for the sequel, done a new and different way - like TDK did with the joker after Batman Begins - ST09 was sort of taking its cue from the Batman reboot (set up with not so well known villain so no overshadow the main characters introduction - then hit everyone with the most well known for the sequel) so id expect them to follow doing similar stuff with the sequel Also Khan hasn’t been exactly overused - 1 episode and 1 movie... sounds lik eit might be Khan being the main villain discovered by another starfleet ship or a klingon ship - and set against a backdrop of a potential war between the federation and the klingons

  • Don't you think you are asking too much from the brain trust of Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman/Lindenof? Pity them!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:44 a.m. CST


    by viks

    World premiere?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:05 a.m. CST

    Hey Asi...whats up Amigo?

    by southafricanguy

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:05 a.m. CST

    Hey Asi...whats up Amigo?

    by southafricanguy

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:05 a.m. CST

    Hey Asi...whats up Amigo?

    by southafricanguy

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:05 a.m. CST

    Hey Asi...whats up Amigo?

    by southafricanguy

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:05 a.m. CST

    Hey Asi...whats up Amigo?

    by southafricanguy

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:05 a.m. CST

    Hey Asi...whats up Amigo?

    by southafricanguy

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:06 a.m. CST

    whoops...aplogies fir the multiple posts guys....

    by southafricanguy

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:10 a.m. CST Asi, putting aside the issue of the

    by southafricanguy

    Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof brain trust being behind the script for this. What r your thoughts on Khan being used again? Your thoughts on Benecio Del Toro playing him? And now that BDT is not playing him, who do you think could fill Montblan's rather sizable shoes? For my money in a perfect world (that is Trek 12 was being written by a really good screenwriter) and if they had to do Khan (why not, The joker was done many times before Nolan took a stab at it, and that worked out pretty well) I would really want Javier Bardem to play Khan...Del Toro would have been my second choice....

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:13 a.m. CST

    and yes Asi...they do task you...they are

    by southafricanguy

    laughing at your suprior intellect...

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:26 a.m. CST

    Star Trek 2: The Khan-Khan

    by Jason

    Holy fucking mother of shit, yeah! Orci gonna own your arse with Khan. This better have William fucking Shatner as older Kirk having to finish Khan off in the epilogue! Fuck yeah! He's gonna take his wrath out on Shatner Kirk, kill Spock, and Shatner gonna own some genetic Indian ass! Thanks for bringing back Khan and the Shat Bob Orci! Is it pronounced "or-kee" or "or-see"? Can't wait for Shatner and Pine to scream "Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!"

  • The guy deserves a break and a nice paycheck, and has plenty of actual acting talent and screen charisma to do justice to a role such as Khan. They'll probably skew young and hire fucking Kal Penn or someone though. KUMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:53 a.m. CST

    by moosemalloy: "make Khan female"

    by AsimovLives

    You do not know much about sikhism, do you?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:59 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    ourdad, apparently JJ Abrams has had Chris Pine on a daily regime of going down into his sound proofed basement and yelling KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN at the top of his lungs, in preparation for his big moment. SAG, i'm glad that you too can see the genius / insanity in the idea of casting Stallone as Khan. All these sensible choices being made about this guy or that guy. When it comes down to it Khan has to be a larger than life personality with larger than life pecs. Stallone is the man for the job.

  • It is the future, after all. Badass hot indian amazons... me like it! Starring Freida Pinto, Aishwarya Rai, Ayesha Takia, Parminder Nagra and Indira Varma.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 6:11 a.m. CST

    by mattman:

    by AsimovLives

    "Kahn can't be female. ST2009 still follows the canon up until that point. It splits off when Nero comes through, but everything that happened before TOS and ST2009 (including Enterprise) is still canon." We do not know that for sure. At first sight it might look like that, but stuff in the movie contradicts it. Like the product placement for Nokia and Budweisser. In the canon ST, there is no commercialism and capitalism in the future, and all brands of the past are history. So, it's hard to say, from the movie, what kind of paralel universe there is in the fucking movie. Is it a mirror universe or just a branching? Impossible to tell given the terrible way the movie was shat out of Abrams and Orci's asses.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 6:12 a.m. CST

    BREAKING NEWS! Khan has been cast!!!

    by Wookie_Weed

    Old Spice Guy will play Khan.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 6:12 a.m. CST

    by my liege

    So with all this Khan talk, I guess we're not going to a Star Trek movie in which the Enterprise at some weird planet with colourful sets, plants and alient, mini-skirted robot women and weird shit happening? Ah well, maybe one day we'll get an actual Star Trek movie...

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 6:19 a.m. CST

    IF Khan is done, he is played by Javier Bardeem, duh!

    by ZodNotGod

    I agree, too redundant and you can't tell WOK better than it was. I vote for Harry Mudd, not a bad, evil villain, but a fun, gadfly of sorts. Partner him up with the true bad ass.

  • ... because he was once played by an american-mexican actor. And his defficient-brain mind, he can't conceive the notion that Khan is not a latino but an indian, and this is why he wants Khan in the next AbortionTrek movie, regardless of all sense and reason. And JarJar will not do anything against it because he doesn't give a fuck about Star Trek anyway, and he wil just shoot whatever the fuck Orci will regurgitate on the "script" without a care.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 6:26 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Giancarlo Esposito is black-italian. but yeah, he's a damn good actor, no doubt about that.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 6:27 a.m. CST

    Oded Fehr is a cool choice... even though he's israeli.

    by AsimovLives

  • i mean stuff like in the early episodes of the original series (which bar the odd ep of TNG like WNOHGB, QWho, the spin offs largely ignored) - that quiet, eerie Twilight Zone vibe - the Ent alone charting a shadow haunted universe that hid some deeply strange things the kind of supernatural awe and dread we'll hopefully see in Promethues the previous movies havent really gone there either (except the failed ones - TMP and Trek V) instead focusing on action with a little side order of eeriness (ceti eels, genesis, whale probe, the nexus etc)

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 6:43 a.m. CST

    A different use for Khan

    by The StarWolf

    Given the Federation has already lost one planet, and nearly lost a second, not to mention a big chunk of its fleet, if they do trip over Khan, they'd make a proposition to him that he'd be in charge of military operations because they need the best they can muster against what are obviously nasty and very dangerour threats out there. It just might be the challenge Khan would relish.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 6:46 a.m. CST

    asimovlives - what is it you hated about JJs Trek exactly?


    every trek thread i notice the vile bile coming from you regarding JJ 2009 trek and bob orcis movies dont write an essay just about 5-10 bullet points thank you

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 6:52 a.m. CST

    Forget shah Rukh - go for Irfan Khan!

    by NeVerMind

    He is awesome actor with a menacing look, has a already done films in English (A Mighty Heart), is in the new mission Impossible movie so perhaps Tom Cruise can hook him up with JJ!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:02 a.m. CST

    Brandon Routh as Khan.

    by UltimaRex


  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:08 a.m. CST

    Rich Corinthian Leather!!!!

    by victor82

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:19 a.m. CST

    =Indira Varma=

    by KilliK

    FUCK.!!! i want to bang the shit out of that milf since the first time i saw her.which i think it was in L&O.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:20 a.m. CST

    cartmanez, I can't speak for Asimovlives, but I'll tell you why I hate

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    JJ's Trek. He took the work of a genius, a man who was a visionary, and gave us a classic. Then he said he'll send people back in time, and erase the future. So basically he took everything Roddenbury created, and said it didn't happen. He should created his own work instead of destroying someone else's.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:24 a.m. CST


    by Rob0729

    Both Kingsley and Andrews are of Indian descent. Their nationality is Indian. Just like African Americans, Italian Americans, Spainish Americans, etc.; Both Kingsley and Andrews are Indian Brits. Again,you are throw this race crap around as a red herring. No one knows what race Khan was. It was believed that he was Sikh (because a drawing of him from the 20th century in Spade Seed had him in a turbin) which means he was probably from the Northern part of India and more Nordic. For all we know, Roddenberry wanted him to be from southern India which would have given him African ancestry. I'm sorry if this touched a nerve and I am sorry you don't understand the definition of nationality, but back to my original point - Andrews is the right nationality. I let this argument go on too long.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:24 a.m. CST

    spaceghost1970, I threw it out yesterday in the other talkback.

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    I feel for you.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:25 a.m. CST

    You shouldnt hate JJ.He is after all a lapdog who was

    by KilliK

    hired for the sole purpose to make bucks for the studio.If you want to blame someone for what happened to our beloved property,that is PARAMOUNT and nobody else. They hired JJ,they approved his changes,they gave him the budget to turn ST into SW.But then again it was the average movie-goer and the average trekkie who made his blasphemy into a BO hit.So the blame falls on their shoulders as well.

  • Yeah,i know they are going the Space Seed route for now,but i dont think that the nationality of the actor that plays Khan matters that much. Hell,they can have Jackie Chan as Khan fighting Kirk with Kung Fu.Orci and Kurtz did that kind of absurdity in Hercules/Xena,i dont see why they should do it in ST. After all the lowest common denominator aka retard will eat this shit like candy and then will announce JJ as the true savior of the ST property.God save us all...

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:33 a.m. CST

    One last thing

    by Rob0729

    Just because Ricardo Maltaban looked more like one race than the other doesn't mean that was the intention. We are talking about the 60s on TV. The actor pool to play an Indian character was really limited, hence that is why a Mexican played the character. So Roddenberry probably got the best actor he could no matter the race or nationality. Even though Khan is depicted with a turbin, I don't even know if the intention was that he was Sikh. It was probably because that was the stereotypical image of an Indian national of wealth and power back in the 60s.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:33 a.m. CST

    ccchhhrrriiisssmredux, if i was Benicio Del Toro...

    by AsimovLives

    .. i woud also ask a 5-15 million dollars paycheck for a role in Abrams Trek Zwei. It makes sense, since Paramount is so obviously over-spending on this movies, so why not take advantage of that? And also as compensation from the embaracement that is to be in a dumb movie made by a guy (JarJar) who obviously doesn't have a clue what he's doing and endure that shit for two or three months. 5-15 millions would pay all that shit off quite nicely.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:35 a.m. CST

    Peter Weller could be playing Khan.

    by Royston Lodge

    I'm just sayin...

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:36 a.m. CST

    Get someone Indian

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    Why not? That's the right ethnicity, and it would be a good opportunity to cast an Indian or someone of Indian descent. It's not as if Hollywood is overrun with Indian stars right now.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:38 a.m. CST

    killik, good point. Okay, I hate both now.

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:40 a.m. CST

    cartmanez, OK then.

    by AsimovLives

    What i hate about AbramsTrek? Everything. the exception is just some of the actors in the movie, more because of how good they are as actors and their good screen presence. And that's all the good i have to say about that shitfiest. The rest is total shit. Satisfied?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:45 a.m. CST

    Make Khan a black guy and have Idris Elba to play him.

    by KilliK

    why not?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:46 a.m. CST

    Star Trek 2: The Genesis of Khan

    by HornOrSilk

    Yes, I figured it out. Star Trek 2 will be another time travel reboot story. Old Kirk goes back in time to fix all the mistakes of Star Trek, and he figures out the best way to make it all right is to work with Khan. He knows where Khan was found, so he goes back with a plan to recruit Khan and so to have Khan there when Vulcan is attacked. Everything changes, once again, Khan ends up president of the Federation. The end.

  • To fix what the last one had done.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:48 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    This is your favorite tasked portuguese friend speaking. What i think of the reusing of Khan for the second abramsTRek movie? Well, it's deja vu, isn't it? They already used Khan before, in the first AbramsTrek movie. Only then they had the dignity to call him something else, even though an Horta could tell he was such a basic blunt obvious copy of the original. And now they are officially bringing Khan for the second movie. They must be feeling more confident this time, since they are shedding off all the pretense that remained. Bringing back Khan is pretty lame. It's Abrams Team again going for the obvious. It truly proves, besides a shadow of a doubt, that money is the only concern with this fucks. Sure, all movies mad ein hoylwood are comemrcial in nature. But so often we see movies which are made with passion, in that besides the hopes for fat commercial sucess, movies ar emade because the people who make them believe in them, they are stories the filmmakers wanted to tell. Best of both worlds. None of this is visible in the Abrams Team Trek movies. And now they are being even more obvious. It's sad, actually. Star Trek is a business, but it should be a bit more thne just that, if you ask me. It deserves more then to be treated as just an easy cashcow by souless executives and uncaring filmmakers. But that's me talking.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:51 a.m. CST

    Asimovlives -- well, this is JJ Trek

    by HornOrSilk

    Lame is the only option.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:53 a.m. CST


    by WarrenSmooth

    that the STAR TREK reboot turned out WAY BETTER than anyone thought it was going to be... I'll hold off on issuing an opinion on Part Deux until I see it.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:54 a.m. CST

    Does it really matter?

    by Jeff England

    This movie is going to suck hairy monkey balls, just like the last one did. I've got to believe Gene Roddenberry is rolling over in his grave. Every good thing he did in the older Star Trek iterations--use of real scientific theories (for the time), a realistic military structure for the Federation, and most importantly an innate hope for the future--was trashed for the sake of special affects and over the top action sequences. Jar Jar Abrams turned it into a B-grade Star Wars instead. But Americans will eat it up anyway, because America is the land of the Dim-Witted now.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:55 a.m. CST

    @asi well said mate.

    by KilliK

  • If one has to follow through with what happened in the lame reboot, and they were told they had to bring back Khan (like the Joker for Batman in every Batman series), I think the option is to change the outcome with his meeting with Kirk. Have him at first accept some role under Kirk, some task which he finds acceptable, prove himself a hero -- and use it to put himself into a powerful political position in the federation. Let him take over the federation from within at the end of the first movie with him. Have the second be an insurrection film against the Khan government. Make it somewhat like a quick B5. Let Kirk's first attack kill Khan's love. Eventually, Khan and Kirk have a fight to the death -- hand to hand combat. Kirk barely wins, but is arrested at the end. We are not told what will happen. I'm not saying they should bring him back ( I don't think they should) but if they do, they should make it much more twisted than people expect.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:58 a.m. CST

    Good news

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Del Toro is generally awful in big budget films (Wolfman!!!!).

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:58 a.m. CST

    My biggest beef with Jar Jar Trek as stated when I finally got to the DVD

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    because I correctly knew the movie would be crap is this: Instead of Starfleet attacking the unknown Romulan threat they decided to instead send a bunch of ships manned by cadets, not battle hardened officers, but cadets, who had not even graduated, and then let's put one of them in command of the flagship of the fleet which just happens to be sitting in drydock instead of being on a mission. Then, when all is said and done, after one mission, let's make him captain of the flagship permanently. Then there's the fact that people are competing for a chance to attend Starfleet Academy, and this guy joins up for ha has because he's asked to. For all these reasons this movie is total bullshit.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:58 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Since when ST:TMP is a failed movie? Only losers think like that. I'd expect we in our more enlighted days would finally be taken for grante what a good movie ST:TMP. You make it like we are still living in the fucking middle ages. Keep up.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:59 a.m. CST

    I saw Super 8 last night, I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Since I stayed away from most Super 8 talkbacks to avoid spoilers, but it seems JJ toned down the lens flare and went over board with the rack focusing.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:59 a.m. CST

    choppah you idiot, now I've spewed coffee on my keyboard.

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8 a.m. CST

    In Living Color's Wrath of Farrakhan is classic.

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

  • That could be the ultimate send up of all send ups.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:10 a.m. CST

    TMP - failed in the sense that no one liked it at the time


    people have grown to appriciate it over the past 30 years obviously it wasnt a failure at the box office as i think it made the most out of all of them even more than JJ Trek (when adjusted)

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:18 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "well, this is JJ Trek. Lame is the only option." You said it, brother.

  • Speak for yourself, friend.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:25 a.m. CST

    Super 8 was a good Spielberg movie

    by Samuel Fulmer

    The problem with Abrams on that one is that he tried so hard in aping the Spielberg 70's/80's style, that he brought nothing to the table. I still wonder what his "voice" is as a filmmaker other than lens flare. When you had someone like Brian DePalma borrowing heavily (ripping off???) Hitchcock he put his own spin on it and made it his own. The only thing I can think of as Abrams-esque at this point about Super 8 would just be bad over the top CGI in regards to the train crash (forget real world physics!!!) and the monster.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:27 a.m. CST

    Still the guy makes entertaining films

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Which are hard to come by these days.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:37 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    There's a good plausability to your notion of a Khan who could do his thing from the behind the curtins of Federation politics. I mean, Khan is supposed to be this super-smart, highly intleligent and educated super-man. And given what we learn of the Federation from the latest AbramsTrek, the thing is run by a bunch of childish idiots who mistake the federation for a high school and were so confused by the obvious cheating that NuKirk did on the kobiashi Maru test. So, the way i figure, Khan would need about one week to be the master and tyrant of all Federation. Easy pickings!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:38 a.m. CST

    Saïd Taghmaoui IS Khan Noonian Singh!!!

    by QuietMan297

    Say it ain't so, I dares ya

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:40 a.m. CST

    asimovlives especially since JJ Trek Federation

    by HornOrSilk

    Likes to promote heroes into authority positions. So all Khan has to do is stage a big victory. And then run for president. Of course, I don't think Khan should be done, but if he is done, this I think is the best way to do it. Really. It would be a combination of the best bits of the Star Wars prequels (just don't make it boring) combined with Babylon 5. The problem is it's too good an idea for JJ Trek.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:45 a.m. CST

    Only one person for Khan: "A.K.A. Pablo."

    by Behemoth

    Or any other Mexican.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:46 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    ST:TMP brough more of box office results then AbramsTrek, adjusted to inflaction. In fact, of all the TOS movies, only ST5 was the one that brough less compared to budget, and only by a small fraction. And that's merely from the home box office numbers (it's hard to find foreign box office numbers for ST5). ST:TMP was actually a smashing sucess, and convinced the Paramount moneymen that there was money on ST, both in film and television. They just decided that, next time, make the movies for lesser money, to futher maximire profitability. Also, adjusted to inflaction, ST:TMP budget was about 40-50 million less then AbramsTrek. And they didn't need to go to a brewery to shoot the engine room scenes.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:52 a.m. CST

    STMP definitely has it's boring parts

    by Samuel Fulmer

    But there is a sense of awe and scope there that is lacking from every other Star Trek film.

  • jkljkl

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9 a.m. CST

    Cheech Marin or George Lopez as Khan

    by estacado1

    You know you want it.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:03 a.m. CST

    samuel fulmer, Super 8 is a good Spielberg movie?

    by AsimovLives

    Why do you hate Spielberg so much? What did he do to you? Did he set your cat on fire and pissed on your cereals? Only somebody with utter hate of Spielberg would mistake Super 8 for a good Spielberg movie. What in your post i didn't understood?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:04 a.m. CST

    AsimovLives for KHAN!

    by AssyMuffJizz

    After all, Asi IS the ultimate NÜTREK villain.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:07 a.m. CST

    I enjoyed JJ's Trek for what it was, but . . .

    by Rob Jenson

    It just didn't feel like Star Trek. Instead of tackling Big Sci-Fi Ideas it was more interested in cheap action bits and talk of "destiny". Plus sloppy writing and horrible science. Possibly the part that annoys me the most, though, is how eager they were to get Kirk in the captain's chair. In the original series he's a military man that's worked his way up to the point where he was given his own ship. He earned it and it shows in his bearing and the respect the others have for him. In JJ's version he's just a kid who through awkward plot contrivances found himself captaining a starship because it is his "destiny". That just really, really bugs me -- not the screwy science but the fucking with the basic character of Kirk. They did a pretty decent job with Spock, all in all, but they bungled Kirk pretty damned good. I'm sincerely hoping they fix this in Trek 2. I like JJ and I have faith in him to deliver a fun, tense movie, but I'm not sure if he can make a Star Trek movie that actually feels like Trek.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:11 a.m. CST

    What I would say is

    by Samuel Fulmer

    If it was directed by Spielberg I think we'd all be saying, "Hey Spielberg has returned to form." Now granted Super 8 has the same stupid leaps of logic that seem to run wild in todays cinema (and even the current cinema of Spielberg), but Abrams directing it just somehow brings it down a notch because it's a total aping. Like I stated above, when others borrow another directors style they usually try to put their own spin on it (De Palma, Tarantino, etc.). With Abrams it's like he got so wrapped up in making a Spielberg film, that he didn't put anything else further into it. I'll admit though that to me Super 8 is better than preaty much any film Spielberg has made in the past decade with the exceptions of Minority Report and Catch Me if You Can.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:11 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    good point.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:12 a.m. CST

    assymuffjizz, can you imagine me there?

    by AsimovLives

    "Mr Abrams, i'm ready for my lens flares close up".

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:13 a.m. CST

    samuel fulmer

    by AsimovLives

    what you might call the boring parts is what i call the mood building parts. which is part of the reason why i like the movie so much since i first saw it.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:16 a.m. CST

    Kahn redux = no show...

    by Lord Elric

    And I'll bet I'd not be the only one.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:16 a.m. CST

    I find the boring parts of STMP tolerable

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Because we've got those great Jerry Goldsmith mysterioso music cues playing over them.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:18 a.m. CST

    Asi: I don't think age or race should matter with this part

    by proevad

    They need to get it right. It's Khan :-) Fuck the canon. Just one nerd's opinion.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:21 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I'm way more critical of the way they handled Spock in AbramsTRek then you. They made Spock to be an emo mommy boy. That rub me the wrong way. The choice of actor, for me, was quite good. But they fucked up the character in the writing and direction. Maybe your positive reaction to EmoSpock is more to do how well Quito played the part then the part itself, perhaps.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:23 a.m. CST

    Mark Margolis for choice 3

    by proevad

    I'll throw him out there too, since I'm on my Breaking Bad kick this week. Plus, he's been in Trek before.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:26 a.m. CST

    And finally for my last choice

    by proevad

    I'll play him if no one steps up. Many of you would doubt that I would have the chops to pull it off--but you were all wrong about Heath Ledger and look how that turned out.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:34 a.m. CST

    Asi...i came to appreciate the TMP later on

    by southafricanguy

    when i fist saw it i was not very impressed with it. I actually like the directors cut which imho is far superior. Tightens up the pacing, adds more character stuff etc...fixes a lot of the issue many have with it. I dont mind it being slower, but the long reaction shots do get comical after a while in the original version. But Wise's directors cut is very good as far as Im concerned. And while i like and appreciate it, I also See TMP as being somewhat of an odditiy, as just like JJ's trek which is trying too hard to be Star Wars (now please be aware I am not comparing the 2 in terms of quaility, I prefer TMP over JJs trek) TMP was trying too hard to be 2001:a space odessy. And trek was not 2001 any more than it is Star Wars. For my money....Nicolas Meyer is the one that got it right. WOK and TUC are the two best films that best capture the TOS show

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:36 a.m. CST

    just the right mix of intelligence, allegory, and

    by southafricanguy

    space adventure imho....Meyer got it the most right. So while I like TMP very much (I own the directors cut DVD) it was nt "right" either....

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:37 a.m. CST

    Asi...i still want to know who your choice would

    by southafricanguy

    be for Khan if it was up to you...

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:39 a.m. CST

    Personally I really want the Borg to get another

    by southafricanguy

    crack at the big screen, also could be very funto see Kirk and Spock vs the Borg

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:39 a.m. CST

    Del Toro asking for Will Smith money?

    by DanielnocharismaCraig

    Ahhhhhhhh helll nahhhh!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:46 a.m. CST


    by Rob Jenson

    Quinto did a great job as Spock, but no one can really do Spock "right" except for Nimoy. He justs brings that certain gravity to the role that no one else can match. Part of this is age, of course, and it does annoy me that they're trying to youthenize ST so much -- Kirk and Spock felt real in part because they were adults and had real life experience -- but at least half of it is just Nimoy Is Awesome. Shatner is pretty awesome too, if in a different way. He's one of those actors, like Bruce Campbell -- I know that's a weird comparison, but stick with me -- that's just fun to watch act. Not always 100% convincing, but a pleasure to watch do his thing. A ham, maybe that's the word. Nimoy is the opposite, but they work off each other wonderfully. Maybe that's the magic. NewKirk is just an annoying kid who should not be captaining a starship. I'm hoping the new movie takes place as many years after the first one as realistically possible and that NewKirk, or KidKirk, is aged up a bit and has a wealth of experience as captain behind him now.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:53 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    while i understand your point, the thing is that with such a character like Khan, it would just be an oportunity too good not to pass of having and indroducing to international audiences a cool indian actor, if you know what i mean.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:54 a.m. CST

    Mark Margolis is the shit!!!

    by AsimovLives

    Love that actor! "Ventura!!" "Yes, Satan?"

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:57 a.m. CST

    hell, me as khan is not so far fetched in that...

    by AsimovLives

    ... i'm brunet with dark eyes, and a bit of skin tan paint and the right accept i could pass for a indian. in fact, i have quite a multicultural generic looks, i can pass from a dark irish to a jew or arab, it would all depend on the make up job. give me blue eyes and paint my hair blonde and i could pass for a englishman, due to my very pale skin tone.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:06 a.m. CST


    by coz

    You know who should play Khan? HARRY. That's how fucking stupid an idea it is. You dumbasses have no taste or sense at all. Instead of insisting that this movie actually try to TELL AN ORIGINAL STORY, you fucking drooling retards want endless rehashes of the same shit. "Hey, that's familiar!" Well fuck you. Go watch the original with a hat on, or upside-down. You all keep complaining that Hollywood sucks so much. Well why is that? Maybe because YOU ASSHOLES DEMAND MEDIOCRE REDUNDANT CRAP! You don't even deserve BAD Star Trek. Asi, you keep right on dishing it out, my man. Someone needs to stoke the flames against that douchy, dick-nosed purveyor of mindless, derivative garbage and his slack-jawed sycophantic, imbecilic monkey boys. Sure, call me a hater. I hate it because it's garbage. Because so far I've seen no indication that these motherfuckers are actually trying. Because most of the rest of their body of work gives me no confidence. Because I grew up with Star Trek and it pisses me off and saddens me to see it turned from mostly thought-provoking, intelligent and fun to mostly recycled, flashy unimaginative bullshit. This is not how I want Trek to be for the next umpteen years. It's supposed to inspire us, make us wonder. The only thing I'm wondering now is how long we have to put up with this fucking moron at the wheel. My god, I'm actually pining for the days of goddamn Berman. And what the hell happened to YOU? You used to be cool, man, used to be discerning and have some taste. Has the post-modern, ironic hipster twat fad addled all your minds? Do you not even know if you're being sarcastic anymore? Not everything has to be, or should be, tongue-in-cheek. Honesty and seriousness are permitted. Stop praising and rewarding mediocrity. Demand better for your buck. Fuck Hollywood and their lowest-common-denominator shit mill. *No offense intended to the idiot cunts who also hate everything they've heard about this fucking movie. ;)

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:09 a.m. CST

    asimovlives - you are wrong


    "only ST5 was the one that brough less compared to budget, and only by a small fraction. And that's merely from the home box office numbers (it's hard to find foreign box office numbers for ST5). " in 1989 Trek V had a budget of around 30m and brought in 52m domestic. overseas wont have been much as they never were/are for Trek so about 20m - in fact i remember reading somewhere Trek Vs overall gross was about 70m. the least by far of the other original crew films but still not a flop the only Trek film to lose money domestically was Nemesis which had a budget of 60m but only did 43m domestic and 24m overseas

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:09 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    It actually make smore sense to close ST to 2001 then to SW. I loved TMP the first time i saw it, on TV age 14-15 or so. Love at first sight. And i think the differences between the former and the director's cut of TMP have been overblown. The movie is not that difference between the two versions. The supposed big differences betwen the two versions seme more like a marketing ploy from Paramount then what's actually in the movies, save the obvious shot of the V'Ger seen in all it's glory out of the cloud at the climax. Something which, for me, robs a bit the mystery of the V'Ger because one of the thing si always loved about it was the fact i never got a real full-eye of it, making it look even more gigantic. Meyers made a great ST movie, but i don't think that is the end all of ST movies. WOK is one way to make a great ST movie. TMP is another. ST3 is another. There's more ways to make a great St story into a film, and the fact the geekry is so exclusive and obsessed with WOK alone actually upsets me quite a bit. It's not just chocolate that's good ice-cream, there's great other flavours as well.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:10 a.m. CST


    by coz

    now that that's out of my system, I can get on with my day...

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:22 a.m. CST

    Gerard Butler as Khan?

    by riskebiz

    Could work.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:23 a.m. CST

    Does AICN get any exclusives any more?

    by Musicman247

    I know Quint is over in Hobbiton, but it seems like every other story is a rip from another source.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:26 a.m. CST

    Cher as Khan

    by coz

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:26 a.m. CST

    Everybody loves the Borg, and with excelent reason...

    by AsimovLives

    ... but in my opinion, they are wrong for a TOS adventure. The Borg was always a TNG villain.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:26 a.m. CST

    Aretha Franklin as Khan

    by coz

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:26 a.m. CST

    Chakka as Khan

    by coz

    fuck you

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:32 a.m. CST

    So, you can't have white guys playing Charlie Chan anymore but...

    by impossibledreamers

    A Latino playing a guy from India is okay?

  • further evidence BDT couldve been playing Khan

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:38 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Will Smith paycheck is for the 30-40 million dollars range. If not more.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:39 a.m. CST

    How Khan will be used

    by zacdilone

    J.J.'s going to do a huge fake-out. Khan will be there in the beginning, but only as a diversion from the real villain.

  • they filming already so maybe he can go straight to Trek 2 to replace BDT Antonio Banderes is 52 so is abit older but could easily play an TOS era Khan

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:43 a.m. CST

    Cliff Curtis

    by E.J. Culbert

    Cliff Curtis was great in Sunshine and could work well in the physical role of Kahn Noonien Singh. Should they choose to use that character.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:43 a.m. CST

    Cool Asi....I see your points...but dude, who

    by southafricanguy

    would u choose to play Khan??

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:44 a.m. CST

    and what did u think of Benicio del toro

    by southafricanguy

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:45 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    No, i'm not wrong because i actually bothered to do the calculations. i got the figures, and i even adjusted them to inflaction and calculated the ratio between budget and box office returns. I post all that in a previous talkback a few months ago for everybody to read. And the end result was that, due to the massive costs of Abrams Trek, and it's average box office returns for a blockbuster standard, that movie came penultimum in the all ST TOS movie moneymakers list. Sorry. The story of AbramsTrek being a supposedly big ass moneymaker is just obvious Bad Robot propaganda to justify their stay on the franchise.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:46 a.m. CST

    Can Gerard Butler do an accent besides scotish?

    by AsimovLives

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:48 a.m. CST

    Bardem, not Berdem

    by Cletus Van Damme

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:49 a.m. CST

    asimov - if you actually read my post


    you would see i was replying to you saying Trek V didnt make its money back which you were wrong about do you only read the subject lines?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:51 a.m. CST

    Cliff Curtis is another good choice, even though he's maori.

    by AsimovLives

    But rarely he played a maori onscreen, truth be told (besides THE WHALE RIDER... great movie, by the way). He's always an arab or some vague nondescript etnic guy.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Nestor Carbonell

    by skredly

    is it. he's perfect and i hope they at least ask him.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11 a.m. CST

    Ok, for the last fucking time....

    by rogueleader66

    Go to Box Office Mojo, when adjusted for inflation, Star Trek 2009 had the biggest gross of all the Trek films, this is not open to debate, it is a fucking fact. Profitability? Different story. But as far as taking in the most money at the box office, when adjusted for inflation, Trek 2009 is on top, with TMP coming in a close second. This is not a statement on profitability or quality. You want to debate profits related to budget, blah blah blah, go ahead, it's a TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUE in regards to overall box office gross. Enough already with this pointless debate. Stop trying to spin facts to support arguments. Were talking BOX OFFICE GROSSES here, NOT profits. Rant over, and that's all I am going to say in this TB because I have had it with this stupid pointless debate that has been going on for two fucking years. Talk about something else already for fuck's sake.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:03 a.m. CST

    I miss

    by Brian Hopper

    the Brian Cox meme.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:04 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I think that they really should get an indian actor to play Khan. And not out of some politically correct attitude, but just because it would be an oportunity for some good cool actor to evidenciate in a blockbuster. I mean, take Jason Isaacs. He became known by the general public tue to turn as the evil villain in Roland Emmerich's utterly detestable THE PATRIOT. And from encefoward, he became a much sought after actor gracing the screeens, for our pleasure. Same thing could happen for a cool indian actor with this shit-to-be movie, if you get my meaning. If Khan was a Sikh, as it seems to imply by his own name (Singh is a very popular name among sikh males, it means "lion", thus, a badass warrior name), then it would be plausible for him to be a light skinned indian, given that the sikhs are from the Punjab region, mostly populated by people of the mughal and persian etnicity. Sikh itself is not an etnicity but a religion, a philosophy, an ethos and a culture, a badass warrior culture. Come to think of it, they are quite a lot like the klingons, but with better fashion sense and hotter women.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:04 a.m. CST

    by rogueleader66

    Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation (from Box Office 1 Star Trek Par. $275,002,200 5/8/09 2 Star Trek: The Motion Picture$260,867,500 12/7/79 3 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Par. $229,804,900 11/26/86 4 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Par. $213,655,500 6/4/82 5 Star Trek III: The Search for Spock Par. $181,163,600 6/1/84 6 Star Trek: First Contact Par. $165,101,400 11/22/96 7 Star Trek: Generations Par. $143,641,000 11/18/94 8 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Par. $142,450,100 12/6/91 9 Star Trek: Insurrection Par. $117,001,600 12/11/98 10 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier Par. $104,683,100 6/9/89 11 Star Trek: Nemesis Par. $58,587,900 12/13/02 Goodnight.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:07 a.m. CST

    Bottle of horseradish to play Khan

    by Mark Leffler

  • As a sikh, Khan with his delusions of ubermensh superiority, is a complete disgrace to his name and his people. Sikhism is quite a fascinating culture-.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:20 a.m. CST

    Whoa, Khan's a Sikh?

    by MooseMalloy

    That totally blows my mind dude.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:22 a.m. CST

    After Nero and Shinzon, two movies in a row...

    by NeoDevilbaneX

    ... both of them basically representing TPTB's attempts to do Khan-like villains, now for an encore they just go ahead and bring back Khan and we're supposed to get excited? And why does Star Trek need back-to-back-to-back supervillains?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:25 a.m. CST

    I'm relieved...

    by jorson28

    I've nothing against Del Toro overall, but for him to turn down a role in a movie like this over money is ridiculous. This is a big tentpole feature - probably one of Paramount's biggest for 2013. How much could he be worth as an actor, anyway? He's known mostly for independent fare and, to my knowledge, the last studio film he did was Joe Johnston's THE WOLFMAN, which had terrible problems in development and pre-production before it ultimately underwhelmed at the box-office. About the most notable thing I can think of Del Toro having done was TRAFFIC back in the late nineties, but in general, his acting seems TOO understated - besides the fact that his English is... odd at times. As for Khan, I'm going to be very disappointed if they use him. I don't care how many actors can or cannot pull it off, Khan was always based on what I call the Ahab archetype (which I'm sure existed long before Herman Melville's novel) and has gained such notoriety and popularity that he's really become an archetype unto himself. He belongs in the ORIGINAL Star Trek rhealm, not the new one. Anyhow, I'm fine with them sticking to the established alien races and such - Klingons, Romulans, even Cardassians (bringing them in earlier in the timeline), but if they go with a specific villain such as Khan - or any real familiar, specific villain from past Trek lore - they're undermining not only the virtues of the 2009 film but the very approach they took to begin with in resetting the timeline. This needs to be Kirk, Spock and company as we've NEVER seen them, changed by the events in 2009 and on a familiar, yet still noticeably different trajectory. One thing I hope they do is tone down the Kirk-Spock friendship. I just don't buy that shared loss and a single mission together at the very end of the 2009 movie is going to suddenly endear these two guys to one another such as three seasons of adventures on television and a half-dozen more on the silver screen did in Roddenberry's original. This Kirk and Spock have distinct differences - Kirk seems a bit less formally-educated and as played by Quinto, Spock (forgive me) just seems like a stuck-up, intellectual bully. The so-called "dynamic duo" of this Trek franchise appears to be the Kirk-Bones friendship, which Chris Pine even said he hopes to be explored in an interview he gave on one of the DVD/Blu-Ray extras.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:37 a.m. CST


    by proevad

    He abandoned them on a planet teeming with life. No way he could have known that something that fucked up could have happened in that solar system. Khan should have been angry at himself. He did it to himself. Arrogant neo nazi prick basically. Can't believe I just defended an imaginary pussy hunting starship captain--but there you have it.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:42 a.m. CST


    by proevad

    Really works well as a motion picture if you take a vicodin and sip tequila while you're watching it. Did it last week. Damn good movie. Plus, it has a bald hot chick in it.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:43 a.m. CST

    THE ROCK as Kahn

    by riskebiz

    Could be fun. Dwayne Johnson would be a fun Kahn.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:43 a.m. CST

    Vin Diesel as Kahn

    by riskebiz

    ...that would be fun, too.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:57 a.m. CST


    by steverogers5

    Benicio Del Toro is gone. Thank goodness. I don't really care much whether he was playing Khan or not, I just find Benicio Del Toro soooo overated. And have never understood the fuss about the guy. I don't even think he can act well, and yet he somehow ended up being up for an oscar. Ugh! Baffling.. Personally I think they should ditch Khan, and make their own iconic villain. And get somebody who can really eat the scenery. Like James Woods or somebody intense like that. That would be better, I think.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Javier Bardem...if he wasn't currently playing Blofeld

    by riskebiz

    ...or is it Ralph Fiennes playing Blofeld and Bardem is No.2?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Nestor Carbonell isn't a lead actor.

    by riskebiz

    He is a decent small character actor and doesn't have the gravitas to pull of such a big role as Kahn.

  • Give us something fucking original! It's about to be 2012! Fuck Zod - We want Braniac or Darkseid Fuck Khan - We want someone else! Give us an epic battle with Klingons! SOMETHING DIFFERENT FFS! Sick of these fucking 80s retreads. I am looking at you Bryan Singer!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Asimov, I at least expect a semi-intelligent reply from you

    by Mattman

    That wasn't it.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:14 p.m. CST


    by notcher

    Okay, first of all, the heavy weaponry on the Romulan ship makes perfect sense. It's a mining vessel in the future where other ships are going to have extremely powerful weaponry. It is safe to assume a mining vessel way out in the middle of space would need to have protection against the advanced ships of it's time for protection. Second, the Romulans did NOT hang out in a Klingon prison for 20 years, that was an extra scene on the Blu Ray DVD which was cut out. So therefore, that never happened. Nero's hatred for Spock kept the ship waiting while he planned his revenge. Pretty simple to me. I also feel the "coincidences" are only thus because the viewers know the characters already. Who's to say this isn't how the crew actually formed? It's like in the "Colors Trilogy, Blue, White and Red" when everyone in all three films ends up on the same boat at the end, did the critics rip on it for such a "Coincidence?" Nope. Who's to say how this group made it together? The enterprise needed to come together, and this is how it happened. Just because we know the characters already doesn't make it a coincidence, it's perfectly logical for anyone who would NOT know the characters think that these random people would meet in this way is perfectly logical. It's not a coincidence because we already know who will come together. The alternate dimension storyline is supported by a scientific theory that in an alternate dimension or reality, the same things would in fact draw to each other. It's funny how so many critics hated this film because it wasn't science enough, but when they base a part of the story on a scientific theory, the critics respond with "That's just BS scientific jargon!" The "coincidence" on the planet where Kirk lands near Spock isn't that far fetched. It is logical Spock would be nearing the Federation base after being stranded on Delta Vega by Nero, meanwhile Spock present would've shot Kirk near the same base so he could be rescued by Federation officers coming from that same base. Kirk running into Spock IS a coincidence, but a coincidence which could easily have been fixed had the writers simply had Kirk heading towards a beacon turned on by Spock Prime before being attacked by the creatures, forcing him to run in that direction. So in the case of a "could have been explained easily" plot point, I'll let that one coincidence go. If it ruins the whole movie for you, then I'm sorry, because that movie was a good one.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Anybody watch Weeds?

    by Nice Marmot

    Or used to watch it before it started sucking ass? If Kahn HAD to be recast, which shouldn't be happening, I'd check out the chops on that guy who played the corrupt mayor of Tijuana that Nancy was banging. . . .

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Nice, I see it was already suggested above . . .

    by Nice Marmot

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:27 p.m. CST

    Naya Rivera as Khan

    by CreamCheeseAlchemist

    or Tribbles or an actual gay character instead of "well, Spock and Uhura imply marriage equality".

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:31 p.m. CST

    Shatner needs to play Harry Mudd

    by proevad

    Let's do a dual villain--3 hour extravaganza. Need to give us something special-- waiting way too long for this fucking movie.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:31 p.m. CST

    One of my favorite examples of Abrams Orci and Kurtzman's ineptitude

    by Brian Hopper

    is this outtake from Shit Trek... I mean, you've got the stock nasty uncle character done to death in numerous previous films and shows. (Uncle Owen, anyone?) Jimmy Kirk with a Luke Skywalker-esque 'I'm looking at the horizon' twinkle in his eye (for anyone who doubts that Abrams is a Star Wars hack with no feel for Star Trek). And of course groan-worthy dialog... KIRK (plaintively) Please stay. ...straight out of a Lifetime movie. The whole setup reeks of the brief scenes in the Transformers movies in which Shia LeBeouf and Megan Fox have a pseudo-genuine moment (example: 'I think there's a lot more than meets the eye with you') and thus display the talents of the 'writers' for 'character development' in terms so superficial and amateur they belong in a high school play. As always with Orci and Kurtzman, the 'drama' has to be punctuated at all times with ultimatums, usually several per scene (Uncle: 'Go.' Older Kirk brother: 'I'll see ya.'), which they no doubt pat themselves on the back for because it's so punchy even though it reeks of excess testosterone and is, besides being unbearable to watch, completely fake in terms of how normal human beings interact. And who asked for Kirk as a kid, anyway? The whole idea is ill-conceived to begin with. It's the same mistake George Lucas made in giving us Darth Vader as a child. Good writers know how to establish character motivation and background without gratuitous kiddie flashback scenes. Then there's the 'acting,' which is so transparently bad the less said about it the better. What else? The jarringly fake lens filter effect in the scene's opening shot. A subtitle so you know it's 'Iowa.' And an Iowa strangely bereft of corn. The Kirk kids dressed in clothes from the discount rack at the Gap. That this crappy scene has nothing to do with and doesn't belong in the world of Star Trek goes without saying. But putting that aside, it is eye-rollingly bad on its own terms. Just thinking about the kind of minds that would conceive of and execute a scene so horrible hurts my brain.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:41 p.m. CST

    "an Iowa strangely bereft of corn"

    by proevad

    Jesus, take a walk every once in awhile. Not every square foot in Iowa is bursting with corn. You would fit right in there though, since Iowa stands for Idiots Out Wandering Around.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:43 p.m. CST

    I'm currently living in Louisiana

    by proevad

    Go ahead and come down and kick my ass. You don't have to be afraid. There aren't crawfish on every street corner.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:45 p.m. CST


    by notcher

    You just proved your own "Ineptitude." That scene wasn't even in Star Trek you fucking moron, it was a scene which was cut because it wasn't needed. You just disproved your own argument, because even Abrams and Orci felt it didn't belong in the film!!! Way to go pal!!!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:56 p.m. CST

    Madeline Khan as Khan!

    by Stabby

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 12:56 p.m. CST

    neodevilbanex - After Nero and Shinzon, two movies in a row...


    actually its more like 6 movies in a row as Insurrections bad dude was Khan like as was the Borg Queen (FC was pretty much TNGs WOK complete with Moby Dick quotes and a villain returning from the tv show wanting revenge), Soran was khan like in terms of being a sympathtic villain after a superweapon and Chang was abit the way of Khan too i dont think you could class Sybok as Khan like nor the whale probe but Kruge was certainly a klingon take on khan so it could be argued that nearly every movie since TWOK has had a khan like villain

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1 p.m. CST

    @notcher I said outtake. And this

    by Brian Hopper

    crappy scene is emblematic of the whole movie, which is filled with the same amateur-hour theatrics. But look who I'm talking to. A person who just said the ridiculous coincidence of nuKirk landing near Spock 'isn't that far fetched.' Ah.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Kahn was not a sympathetic villain

    by Mattman

    I was entertained by him, but I didn't feel bad for him. He's one of those types that steals your car, and then gets pissed at YOU when you call the cops and get his ass thrown in jail.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:02 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I don't go down that easy, pal. If those drands are in ST5, then the movie didn't do it's research. Meaning, they made a mistake, they didn't noticed, they went for cheap product placement, THEY GOOFED UP!! GOOFED!!!!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:03 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Bullshit! You just didn't liked what i wrote, that's all. There's a difference.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:04 p.m. CST

    Oh that's real cute, Asimov

    by Mattman

    In Abrams Trek it's a break of canon, but in ST5 it's just a cute little goof. What a hypocritical asshole you are.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:08 p.m. CST

    Cartmanez - Well if you look at it that way...

    by NeoDevilbaneX

    ... then that's even worse. Fuck this movie. This reference will probably only make sense to a few of you, but I feel about Khan in Star Trek XII the same way I feel about the prospect of seeing the Kurgan in the Highlander remake... I get why it's being done, but I don't have any interest in seeing it -- just like Kane and the Guardian were Kurgan clones of a sort, Nemesis was already pretty much a scene-for-scene remake of Star Trek II with a Khan-like villain... and that's only two movies ago. There were shades of Khan in Nero as well. Now for an encore, let's just actually go ahead and bring in Khan himself? Is there truly no original ideas on where to take this "new" Star Trek universe? And I'll ask again: why do back-to-back-to-back Star Trek movies need supervillains, anyway? I've always felt the Abrams' Star Trek movie was fine as a one-off thing, not "the new direction and starting point for all new Star Trek product" -- because it's a limited gimmick of a concept. The "fun" of Abrams Trek was, "Let's see how Kirk meets Spock and becomes the Captain of the Enterprise in a new universe with altered history and all the rules are off!" (which in itself seems a little dodgy to me... if we're to believe Kirk and Spock are so important to the franchise that we absolutely have to return to them in order to go "forward" with any Star Trek again, why begin by drastically altering their characters and histories to make them very different people?). It works as such, a fun little "what if" thing that happens in a vaccuum somewhere that we can watch and enjoy compartmentalized as such... but where can they really go from there that's compelling? "Edgy" reduxes/reimaginings of old Star Trek episodes and movies? "Missing" stories? Eh, maybe continue to explore Spock and Uhura's relationship? It seems as much creatively vapid as it does the antithesis of what Trek is supposed to be about. I mean, we all enjoy Mirror Universe episodes when they come out but you never hear anybody clamoring for an ongoing series of Mirror Universe episodes or movies.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:08 p.m. CST

    @proevad I've driven

    by Brian Hopper

    across Iowa and it is literally filled with corn. Of course some of the corn would have to be mowed down so Starfleet can build a spaceship that weighs eighteen quadrillion tons and then miraculously get it into orbit.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:10 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    what about the international figures? that's the whole result for the movie. why you americans are so obsessed with domestic figures? the whole totality of a movie's sucess came from the whole worldwide figures, domestic and international. But the better number to determine a movies TRUE sucess is from the ratio between budget and box office (and by that i meanworldwide box office). As in, you divide the total box office by the budget. That's how you will know how profitable the movie really was. that's the true measure of comemrcial sucess. And that's why, so far, STII and STIV are still the most sucessful ST movies ever made. They were cheapper to produce and made a truckload of money.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:15 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Fuck's sakes, dude, control your panties! and jsut because "hypocrite" is your personal favoreite word doesn't mean you have to misuse it all the time. Do like me, misuse "actually", it's far more harmless. There's more then goofing on brands as ST5's problems. But there's one thing that ST5 does well, and that, it still looks like Star Trek, instead of some bullshit Sw knock-off. It's not just the use of the brands in AbramsShitTrek that makes it a bad movie, it's ONE IN MANy! I'm actually very fucking forgiving in some one or two goofs and shit, but thrown in at a relentless pace as AbramsShitTrek did, that becames unforgivable. Where the fuck is the hypocrisy in there?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:16 p.m. CST

    What does God need with a starship?

    by NeoDevilbaneX

    Does anyone have any idea when they're actually going to do a new Star Trek TV show? (one NOT tied to the Abramsverse... fingers crossed) I still like the idea of a show revolving around a 29th century starship that's part of the Starfleet temporal police we met briefly in Voyager and touched on more in Enterprise. The door would be open for all sorts of storylines: time traveling (one episode, for example: TROUBLE in the 23rd century! Some cunt named Nero is dicking with the timeline, so it's time to go and collapse his own temporal vortex on him, the next episode it could be tracking down a temporal fugitive into the 24th, or 21st), normal exploration (a new method of space travel opens up whole new galaxies or something somesuch), and diplomacy.

  • he cant list any decent reasons for hating on JJtrek plus he got his Trek V box office figures totally wrong and then when i try to correct him he COMPLETLY misunderstands and goes off one about how TMP made more than JJtrek LOL sorry dude - too many mistakes for me. if i could set you on ignore id put you on it. but consider every post you make from now on unread.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Asimov, your hyposcrisy

    by Mattman

    Since you're IQ apparently plummeted overnight, I'll spell it out for you. Your hypocrisy is trashing ST2009 for product placement, and then excusing it in The Final Frontier (which is a far worse movie, btw).

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Remember when some AICN staff member said Search for Spock was no good

    by Samuel Fulmer

    And they posted the trailers for Spock and the 2009 Trek as if the 2009 Trek was the greatest thing ever. I remember watching both trailers back to back and thinking that the trailer for Search For Spock movi looked like it was for a real movie, and the trailer for the 2009 one looked like some new Star Trek amusement park ride a la Star Tours.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:26 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    In Space Seed, Kirk didn't abandon them. Kirk was quite soft-handed in his punishment of Khan. for a guy who wanted to highjack and enslaved the Enterpeise so he could go on a conquering path of war and destruction to the rest of the Federation, Khan's exile (and it's an exile) is quite merciful. A far more humane destiny then Khan would had given to his conquered enemies. And remember, Khan himself was pleased, he felt it an oportunity to show his superiority by taming an unconquered world. Dude took it as a challenge. And there was a promise that the Federation would check on them. Came WOK, and for some reason the movie doesn't bother to explain, the federation didn't kept it's promise of checking khan's colony. worst, the planet suffered an impossible planetary accident that hrew it out of it's usual orbit. and wheni say impossible, it's literally impossible for a planet to change orbit. why? it takes far less energy to smash a planet to tiny bits then it does to change an orbit. orbits can only change by either acceleration or decelleration, and to achieve that difference it would either need to add energy, or break the planet (which would also result in an emission of energy- think of car brakes heating up on braking), the palnet owuld melt before any noticable change of orbit would be noticed. And in WOK, we are talking major orbital hooping! Actually, one thing that does rub me the wrong way in WOK is the excuse they found for why the planet Khan's colony was situated was fuced up. no ned for major planetary hooping, a major change of clima, like a fast surging ice age or a super-draugh set in a decade or two, would suffice. Earth had some of those in our past and without the need for change of orbits with Venus or Mars! It might look like nitpicking, but it does take me out of the movie a bit. Always did.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:28 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    The Abramsprise must have been built with the anti-gravity thingies working full time, because a beast that large would sunk on the ground faster then an elephant on quicksands. Another reason why the building of the Abramsprise on Earth as seen in the movie is so stupid.

  • i liked ST09 but that had me LOLing i guess most trailers today are like trailers for amusement park rides. it seems to be the general consensus that everyone (esp kids) has lost their attention spans due to the instant access culture of the past 10 years or so - so every big movie has to be like a fast paced theme park ride with splosions and CG aplenty and the trailers reflect this 2012 felt like one of those Universal disaster rides on crack i guess Star Trek also felt like an amusement park ride at times too the days of big movies being filled with slow burning tension is a thing of the past (at least for now)

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:37 p.m. CST

    @Asi Plus, they needed the U.S.S. Abramsprise on the ground

    by Brian Hopper

    so alcoholic bar-brawler nuKirk could drive up to it on a motorcycle and stare at it meaningfully.

  • I know many in here see him just as an action guy, but he has been proving to be quite an acomplished actor who actually has a desire to prove himself as an actor. To be more then just a muscle boy. And he's charismatic like hell. Sure, he's a samoan or some other type of polinesian like, but it's not that hard to see him as an indian, as a sikh. Yeah, it would work! And realy, he's an impressive physical imposing figure. Imagine him next to Chris Pine. And Pine is no dwarf, he's quite a tall guy. But he would look miniscule compared to Dwayne Johnson, and that would be point, wouldn't it? It's not hard to see Dwayne Johnson as some ubermensch. He would look the part.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:41 p.m. CST

    the reason the JJprise was built on the ground


    was due to this image that surfaced on the net a few years ago:

  • And if the new NuTrek vilalin will also get to ride in a big ass badass gigantic ship that can cause TOTAL FUCKING DESTRUCTION not just on a whole Federation fleet but also on a planet as well, then it's official, this will be the 3rd time that ST movies rip off WOK. And in a row!! It's just a bit too much, isn't it? I mean, time for a change of plot, maybe? Talk about thinking INSIDE the box! This is abusive. Leave WOK alone already!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:47 p.m. CST

    Star Trek 2 needs Goldust

    by Samuel Fulmer

    That way he can have a "talk" with Quinto's Spock.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:48 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Actually, ST5 did made money back. It was actually profitable, contrary to popular myth. But compared to STIV it was quite a big disapointment for Paramount. Paramount used that as an excuse to kill some careers from the ST franchise. Mostly because ST5 was a difficult movie to make, it was flooded with production problems, backstage politicking, the studio's insecurity about Shatner directing, and constant budget cuts. Basically, everybody rubbed everybody the wrong way, and sparks flew. I wonder if St5 had the SFX with the same quality that ST4 had, if it would had been more well rceived? Sure, so much has to do with the more somber story and an atept tob ring a more heavy subjkect to Trek after the more lightweighted goofing around with the whales that the previous movie, but still, SFX do count some on a space adventure in the public's mind!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:53 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    i'm not sure about vidocin, but sipping some tequilla, vodka, rum or irish whiskey while watching a movie, any movie, is the way to go. Cold beer works almost as well. Maybe i have high tolerance for more slow paced movies, perhaps, which might explain my good opinion on the unjustly maligned STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE. That and the fact the movie is damn good!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:56 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You are stretching in your excuses for AbramsTrek. Think like this: if you found some reasoning like that in defense of TERMINATOR SALVATION, would it make any sens eot you? Would it make the movier any better? It wouldn't, would it? Same thing for AbramsTrek.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 1:59 p.m. CST

    i wonder what kind of $ BDT was offered?


    maybe a million? half a million? seems odd hed turn it down as hes never really been in a big budget hit movie (Wolfman didnt make its budget back and Trek 2 has a better than average chance of doing as well if not better than the first)

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:03 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives Jewsus Holy Fuck!!! Is that scene stupid!!! And i though i knew all the stupid that existed in AbramsTrek! In a rare moment of lucidity, Abrams did well in cut it out. I would had walked out of the fucking theater right there and then! And that scene just perfectly exemplifies how misguided Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman and Lindenof really are about Star Trek. After a nice guy like George Kirk, Winona would marry a guy like that? Her standards would suddently drop that low? A girl that looks like Jennifer Morrison does? In fact, why the bloody hell Winona Kirk didn't married Captain Pike? He seems like the logical option after Kirk Senior, don't you think? Team Abrams don't even understand their own characters! No, the dude is not the stock bad uncle, is the stock bad stepfather!! This is not Kirk, it's fucking Snow White! Snow White Kirk! Give me a break!!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:07 p.m. CST

    YOU KNOW they are writing a remake of WRATH OF KHAN.

    by Dr_PepperSpray

    Stop speculating, you know it to be true. Why go out on a limb and make something original when you can just repackage something already on the shelf? <P> JJ is a hack, and Bob Orci can't write. Now, feel free to lens flare away.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:10 p.m. CST

    Who say Benicio Del Toro turned it down over money? That's

    by Brian Hopper

    just a PR line and probably has nothing to do with the truth. Maybe the script for Shit Trek 2 is shitty like shitty Shit Trek 1 and he didn't want to be involved with it.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:16 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    that is just mean and a lie. and you know that.

  • all were approached and turned down roles in the star trek movies BDT turning down star trek is nothing new

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:19 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    read my former post adressed to you again, please. you will notice that i said soething mor ethen just that for reasons why i dislike AbramsTrek. The product placement is ONE DROP among the sea of idiocity in the movie. By the way, two wrongs do not make a right. As i said befor,e in case you can't be arsed to check it out, i said the product placement in ST5 is not a good thing in the movie's favour. Got it? Pleas,e read it again. but first, take a minute and relax. you are very tense today.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:20 p.m. CST

    samuel fulmer

    by AsimovLives

    Whenever i see anybody trashing The Search For Spock, then i know that's somebody whose opinions i cannot trust. Quite a faithful litmus test.

  • i think Murphy in TVH wouldve worked pretty good though. itd probably wouldve have made a lot more overseas as well.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:23 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Yeah, that shot of NuKirk looking at yet-to-build Abramsprise. Abrams just had to have that one shot. Abrams just had to have his hommage scene to Top Gun. Of all movies to be hommaged in a Star Trek movie, Top Gun! Tells it all about the mind of JJ Abrams, doesn't it?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:24 p.m. CST

    I think it'll be more of a remake of "Space Seed" than anything

    by NeoDevilbaneX

    With lens flare. And more Uhura kissing Spock.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:26 p.m. CST

    choppah - i think BDT was like a huge fan of Wolfman though


    and originally it was going to be directed by someone else but it all went south

  • ... there is a movie that actually has one too and it predates AbramsTrek. It's a finnish Sf parody called STAR WRECK, which maybe you have heard about. It's part fan-fic/part legitimate theater released movie, and the image of a Enterpise-like Starship being build on a dock (i think it's actually the Voyager ship), is part of the parody thing in the movie. The villain-hero of the story then uses it to conquer the rest of the world, with a very funny shot of the ship hovering over the Statue Of Liberty. In that movie, the scene of a starship being build in a earth dock is used for laughs. In AbramsTrek, i'm supposed to take that seriously, and fel,it like a very important movie full of pathos and stuff. Doesn't work! In fact, it's as funny as in the finnish comedy movie, if not more so because it actually wants to be taken seriously.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:33 p.m. CST

    Actors will work on projects they believe in

    by Brian Hopper

    for next to nothing. And there is big money behind this project anyway, so I'm sure they had the millions to pay BDT. I highly doubt this was about money.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:36 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Actually, and if memory serves, Del Toro was the boss of THE WOLFMAN remake. It was his baby, and he shopped that movie around for a decade before it was made. It's quite common for movies who are made in which their boss or creator was the star. This also means it probably was his idea to have Emily Blunt as the female lead in the movie. Smart boy!!

  • As often it's a question of money, there's also ego. Ego is as important for this actors/stars as is money. The umbrella excuse of "crative differences2 many times do mean shit like "the pay was not high enough" but it also means "you must be kidding me, you want me to say this shitty dialogue? i have standards, you know?". You could ask, but then why did Eric Bana made AbramsTrek? Couldn't had just been mone,y could it? And the answer is that, yes, it would had just been money, dear boy. Anybody who saw Eric Bana's own directed movie LOVE THE BEAST, knows that the love of his life is a Ford Falcon he bought when he was 15, which he calls THE BEAST. Bana is a fanatic about car racing and rallies, and he turned what was already a powerful muscle car (the Ford Falcon is Mad Max's car) into a 600 BHP beast of insanity! And then he used it to race the Tasmanian Targa Race. And he crashed, as you would. And he completly fucked up thre car. Jeremy Clarckson of Top Gear called Bana insane for putting the power of a top Ferrari on a muscle car. He's right. Bana himself felt he went mad. The car is so fucked up it might not be able to be repaired. Or if it can, it will cost a huge amount of money (materials, expertise, etc). This happened before his ST gig. So, yeah, Bana did the movie for the money, so he can have a chance to repair his love of his life, his adored Beast. Also in the movie is a very candid moment of Bana preparing for a movie premiere with some movie he made with Drew Barrymore. And you can tell how unconfortable he is with it all. He even drinks a few brewskies before, he calls it "courage gravy". It's quite obvious he doesn't like much his involvement in obvious commercial blockbusters and the whole parade during the selling and release. Bana being in such a tripe AbramsTrek movie is a paycheck he does for ulterior porposes. To have money so he can repair is favorite thing inthe world, and so he can then make smaller, cooler, better, more offbeat movies like HANNAH and whatnot. And sometimes, an actor just tells the makers of such movies to fuck off. Sometimes, even money can't pay up the embaracement.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:50 p.m. CST

    @choppah I guess I'm making a different point...

    by Brian Hopper

    yes, actors care about $$ (I know a bunch). My point is, this whole 'BDT won't be in Shit Trek 2 over money' line is PR spin. Frankly, the whole Del Toro thing was about PR from the get go... Bad Robot using the casting as a publicity tool. I doubt it was about money. Also, I'm predisposed to think the project is terrible. Maybe it isn't. Maybe Del Toro just didn't want to do it because Star Trek is not (and has never been) perceived as A-list material. Plus, as we all know, every actor ever in ST will be hounded to his grave by fanboys eager to have him appear at conventions etc. A lot of actors are leery of the nerds. Finally, maybe he didn't want to play an iconic character like Khan. (And it is Khan, by the way. This is well known in L.A. casting circles.) Overall, smart move on BDT's part.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:51 p.m. CST

    The Rock would be pretty awesome young Khan

    by DrPain

    He's got the charisma and the muscles.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:51 p.m. CST

    money's a major factor but its not the only thing

    by Bobby Brown

    soderbergh got the guys in oceans 11 to work for scale, and julia "horseface" roberts' only payment for the film was a rose and a hundred dollar bill.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:53 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Actually, i'm making time so i can watch the 4th episode of the dannish TV thriller series Forbrydelsen (The Killing). The show is brillant!! There is an american remake, but it's not as good.

  • we live for this shit! LOL imagine being offered a role in a star trek movie and going "meh star much it pay?...1 million ? nah "

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 2:59 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "Whether it's a goof in ST5 or not, it's not Abrams' goof. ST5 opened the door for product placement" Nonsense! As i said before, TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT. Also, the product placement existed IN ONE MOVIE! It was not an running thing in all of ST. It was the bad call of a movie that was running low on budget cash. An isolated event in a movie that is the laughing stock of Star Trek. And if that was a case of Abrams following a lead, that makes him even more stupid then i initially though he was. At least i could give him points for originality, for the stupid idea of shoving product placement in Trek. If he was just follwing the bad precedent of a bad call from the past, it makes him just an even bigger idiot. Stupid is as stupid does, and Abrams made stupid by following th example of a stupid thing done before. Way to defend Abrams, pal! If the use of Nokia in his ShitTrek movie is his atempt at subdue, then he's even more untalent then i first though he is. Every of your atempts to cover his as just make him look even worst. In my words... GOOFED!!!!!!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:01 p.m. CST

    Wait they had Nokia phone in NuTrek? Funny if you

    by KilliK

    think that Nokia right now is not doing financially very well.It probably wont exist in the 23th century.ha.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:05 p.m. CST

    as for Depp in the pirates movies...

    by AsimovLives

    ... of course the moeny that have come from them is very useful to Depp. However, notice that those are Depp's only cashcow. The rest of his career is mostly in low budget offbeat stuff. There is an ocasional movie like that one with Angelina Jolie i couldn't be arsed to watch, but those are the exceptions. His bread and butter is the more off-beat stuff. He's the complete reverse image of Tom Cruise, who's mister blockbuster franchise boy, and only very rarely he does a more offbeat movie. If you want a poster boy for the actor to whom money is all there is, Tom Cruise is your boy, not Johnny Depp. Also, Depp has always said he loves playing Jack Sparrow. He actually enjoys the experienc ein making those Pirates movies. The due gots payed and he actually enjoys making those movies and playing the character. Seems more then just a "money dear boy" deal to me, if you ask me. Getting payed riches for making stuff you love, sounds like living the dream. Can you blame him for it? I sure can't.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:06 p.m. CST

    "every ST actor being hounded to his grave by fanboys"


    LOL thats got to be a factor for some actors 'theyve offered me star trek...moneys not too bad but those damn fanboys will hound me to my grave...fuck it no!' imagine Sean Connery being accosted by fanboys for playing Sybok. hed have about 10 life sentences by now.

  • i wonder if Harlan Ellison is busy drawing up some kind of lawsuit for that?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:11 p.m. CST

    actors believe in many things

    by AsimovLives

    actor want to get rich, likee verybody else. if do so because they are doing what they lov,e that's living the dream. actros aslo love to work on projects with merit, stuff they feel proud in participating, stuff they believe. how often an established actor makes a movie for peanuts, way below their price tag, just for the fun of making a movie they really like and believe? too many examples to count. In the past i have been very critical of Chris Pine in AbramsTrek. In the William Shatner documentary THE CAPTAINS, i got the oportunity to see a different side of him. In the interview, when Pine is asked why he became an actor, he talks about theater, which is his first passion. and you should see him all lighted up whenhe talks about acting in theater. He just beams, his eyes betraying the profound love he has for the craft of acting, and specially to act on stage. That is his love. AbramsTrek are paychecks. Sure, you get ot play an iconic character (or so it was before it was raped by Orci/Aberams/Kurtzman/Lindenof), but the money brings oportunities. He's a young man, he's collecting paychecks for a rainy day, for when something better but pays less will came about and rekindles the pasionhe has for the craft. AbramsTrek certaily isn't that. Actors work for pay... and for pleasure. They love acting.

  • Three films that I'm guessing Cruise didn't do for the cash, especially Eyes since it ended up taking about 3 years to make and kept him from making any other films during that timeframe. Granted Cruise usually does big budget films, but so does Depp.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:16 p.m. CST

    "Confirmed" = "according to unnamed sources" ???

    by MoaKaka

    And make sure you end the report with "FACT!" and "'Nuff said!" so people know it's true.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:16 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "think that Nokia right now is not doing financially very well" Well, in here it's everywhere. If i throw a rock to the air, i'll hit somebody with a nokia for sure garantee. maybe the finns don't like greece!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:18 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "its funny isnt it - to actors its just a gig but to people like us its our lives!" I love that you pointed out that dissonance. It's quite funny! Well, that's what it takes to be a geek, isn't it? Just like something froma bad action movie of the 80s, THIS IS PERSONAL!! Actually, some actors are also geeks and they take as much joy out of it as we do too.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:19 p.m. CST

    Nokia in Trek 2009=Pan Am and Atari signs in Blade Runner

    by Samuel Fulmer

  • The dude is a major hardcore SF geek and make no mistake.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:21 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    appearences are deceiving.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:25 p.m. CST

    And for the record Depp's best performance post Pirates is

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Public Enemies. The movie itself could've been better, but he gave a great understated performance, kind of a 180 from the crazy fools he's played in preaty much every film post Pirates.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:26 p.m. CST

    Knowing studio execs, here's how it ends...

    by Embeedeuce

    However they attack a Space Seed reboot, it ends w/ Kirk/Pine dumping Khan on Ceti Alpha whatever. Thus setting up a potential real reboot of Wrath. Not saying it's smart, not saying it's good, but I can totally see the powers that be seeing Khan and the Wrath property as a no-brainer to make money.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:28 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    No, in Star Trek future there ar eno brands anymore. there is no capitalism. there are no corporations, no advertizement, no brand products, none of that stuff. If you actually watch both TOS and TNG, eventually you will notice that Earth in the ST universe is a post-apocalypse world. After a WWIII that made the two previous World Wars look like a bar brawl, the entire human society was rebootted. and a new society emerged, free of the things that plagued it before. and one of them was corporate commerce and industry. No capitalism. So, no, there are no brands in the future. Beside,s think about it, and this goes tripe for TNG: with a replicator machine, what's the fucking use of a brand? if you chose orange juic,e you will get an orange juice right there. No need for fucking Fanta, would it? In TOS there ar eno replicators, but it's quite obvious that if you go to a bar and order a drink, you are not paying for it. It's free of charge. yoru work for the federation as a starship crew member is the pay you give for society, and society pays you bad with a free drink of your favoerite poison at ther bar. Except romulan ale, that shit is illegal. But Bones can get it anyway.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:28 p.m. CST

    Depp as a drunken sun-bleached gold-toothed Khan.

    by Embeedeuce

  • I'm no Neu-Trek was entertaining, but not really Trek. But one thing it did do right was showing that people are still people...drinking, fucking, etc..., that the spirit of individuality and the ability to be a fuck up still exists;..unlike what Roddenberry wanted and demanded in his later antiseptic, sterile humanity cold and devoid of any sense of individual freedom of action. I think in retrospect that the reason the Klingons became so damned popular during the run of The Next because people could better relate to their characterization than they could that of the humans as depicted. So although I want to see more thought, character development, and intelligence put into the next Trek...I'm all for keeping those things that connect that universe to our own. Bring on the Product placement..., I'll be the first to buy a 6 pack of Blue Moon that is actually Blue.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:31 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    you say ST5 established that brands exist in the future. And the rest of ST tells otherwise. What will win? The one single goofy movie everybody pretends it doesn't exist? Or the whole rest of ST, from Enterprise to TOS to TNG to DS9 to Voyager? Balanced pretty tipped there, pal. A feather doesn't weight more then the ostrich.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:38 p.m. CST

    samuel fulmer

    by AsimovLives

    I fully agree with you about Depp in PUBLIC ENEMIES. I love that kind of understated acting. Though to be fair, i have to say, my favorite actor in PE was Christian Bale. But i'm quite a fan of him since i first saw EMPIRE OF THE SUN back in the day. Anyway, PE is a damn fine movie, a bit underated, with fine performances all over the board. But my favoreite acting moment in the movie is not form either of those two. It's in the final moment in the movie between Stephen Lang and Marion Cottilard. That scene kills me. I can't say which is best, Lang or Cottilard, but that scene has to be one of the best endings i have seen for quite a while. And all because of clever sparse dialouge and damn fine great acting from two great actors. Damn!

  • Becasue that was the running motif throughout the first movie. It's not even me saying, that cames right from Abrams mouth in the audio comentary. I wonder how many tiems will NuKirk will be hanging for dear lif ein the next movie? Give the law of expantion in this holywood blockbusters, in which somethign that happend once in the first movie has to be more and bigger in the next, i wonder to what shits will NuKirk hang about for the next shit-movie-to-be. Who wanna bet the climax of NuTrek will be NuKirk figthing NuKhan in some tall structure, in some cheap rip off from some Star Wars movie, and at some point NuKirk will fall and hangs from a great height, while some bad shit below, like, say, lava, boils below?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:43 p.m. CST

    @Asimov Nokia does have financial problems

    by KilliK it doesnt matter if you see them everywhere.what matters is how many people use them.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:44 p.m. CST

    Asimov-Yeah I just wish it had either been shot on film

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Or with better cameras, because I think the cheap digital camera look hurts the film and makes it look kind of well cheap which isn't the case since it cost upwards of 100 million to make. Don't get me wrong I like crazy kabuki performances from Depp (like Sweeny Todd for instance), but sometimes I get the feeling he just tries to be weird for weirds sake, even when the material may not demand it.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:47 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I'd hate the kind of claim and fame he got from AbramsTrek, when all of it sounded so retard and misguided. Receiving accolades for th wrong reason is not the type of shit i would wear proudly on my sleeve. Your persistent defense of AbramsTrek is so-un-chopper like. You are losing your choppiness. You are chooping yourself! And for what? AbramsTrek??? I'm worried about you, friend! I'm dead worried!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 3:54 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    People drinking and fucking has been a constant in Star Trek since TOS. Abrams didn't do anything new. all he did was made those Trek characters act like retard rich holywood teens assholes. The anticeptic thing is overplayed inthe people's minds in regard to ST. Yeah,the ships were anticeptic, and they better be! Higene wa always a big thing in the navy, and for good reasons which should be quite obvious. What would you rather, a ship filled with filth? St is supposed to be a better future. Better future, better hygene, seems like a sure consequence. Also, the hygenical anticeptic St seems more form the TNG series. TOS still looks a bit more used up future, despite the advancements. Maybe a consequence of the low budget for sets, perhaps. But if one disregard the obvious carboard sets, the TOS enterprise is actually a nice place ot be, if you cna't stand anticeptic enviroments. Also, actually if you come to think of it, the bridge in AbramsTrek is the most anticeptic thing even in the histroy of ST. It looks like some herbal pharmacy with pretense to stylishness. With added lens flares to make it lok even more like a sterilization machine. Which clashes quite a lot withthe rest of the look of the movie, and not just with the world below on Earth but also with the rest of the the ship. Specially the brewery.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:04 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "Find the episode of Star Trek that says brands don't exist anymore" Quite often in TOS and TNG. Even in the movie FIRST CONTACT makes allusions to that, given Picard is meeting 21th century people. The future created for ST is one where there is no capitalism and no brands. That's the universe that ST is. Either you accept it or not. It doesn't have to make sense for what you know of our world because that is the world that was created for that show. It's a different world from our own. It's a different world with a different society with a difference economic system. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, it is as it is. Abrams just couldn't give a rat ass about it, or he was so desperate for added cash to his over-spending movie he just wiped his ass to what was established (as he would) and went with it anyway. Two wrongs do not make a right,the product placement in ST5 and AbramsTrek is both wrong for the universe the movies are set in. And your coment about no Pepsi in Superman II is reaching at strawns. C'mon, man! Really, you think Abrams Trek is so deserving of all your dedicated defense? You actually think that fucking movie is good?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:07 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Didn't knew that about Nokia. And to consider how important they are to finnish economy... which makes just makes their former coments about the bad economic situation of the southern european countries and how they were so hesitant to bail us out come to bite them in the ass, doesn't it? This shit killed any sympathy i used to have about the germans. Any american who now mocks and pisses on the germans is welcomed by me. Piss away!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:07 p.m. CST

    @asimov well said.Obviously someone hasnt watched the series

    by KilliK

    and the previous. Hell even the pathologically serious Picard had his share of pootang in the series and in the movies.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:08 p.m. CST

    and the previous movies.

    by KilliK

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:08 p.m. CST

    Also...Trek has never been consistant in it's economic viewpoint.

    by conspiracy

    In the Original series at least some part of the galaxy was most definitely a market evidenced by people like Harry Mudd, and Cyrano Jones and references to Federation Credits. It is only during the Next Generation and Trek IV, where Roddenberrys unrealistic Utopian views are given full consideration, that we stop hearing about credits...although the rest of the Galaxy...(Ferengi etc...) seem to still be at least marginally based on a market economy. Seeing as how Neu-Trek takes place during the time of Federation Credits, and before full implementation of Genes Socialist is reasonable that we would see brands and products familiar to us all. Coca Cola has been around 100years, no reason why they wouldn't be here in the 22nd or 23rd Century as well. And if they didn't...well I agree with Choppah...that'd fully suck

  • Not the worst way to waste an evening, i might add.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:09 p.m. CST

    I am both American AND German

    by Mattman

    Therefore I piss on myself. (and Asimov, when I get the chance)

  • BINGO.that bridge was like a beauty shop from a reality show where chicks were polishing their nails and discussing how their boyfriends were performing during sex.

  • Only if you teach me how to swordfight... And I think I just figured something out... Choppah is Liam Neeson.

  • Here is a reason: World War 3 which almost annihilated Earth in the ST universe.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:16 p.m. CST

    that "vosloo" guy that was the mummy in the mummy movies

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Asi..when I say Antiseptic I wasn't refering to the sets...

    by conspiracy

    but rather the cold antiseptic nature of the society as depicted. It seems a joyless, lazy place where the safety net has taken away all the wonderful unpredictability of REALLY living. I think that is why the Klingons, and characters like the "Q" are more popular that the human characters...they are flawed, dangerous, full of life...and ultimately less alien to us than are the humans depicted.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:33 p.m. CST

    killik...Mercedes Benz, Messerschmitt, Toyota, etc...

    by conspiracy

    all survived WW2...there is no reason to believe that even after WW3 that people would not return to what they knew. If some guy can make a warp capable ship less than 10yrs after WW3, then certainly someone would start up the old Budweiser plant as well. People are resilient creatures, as well as being creatures of habit.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:34 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    actually, it has been consistent in shedding more and more any traces of currency based economy. what might had looked vestigial in TOs is absoltuly absent in TNG foward. There is trade going on in Federation. But it's not capitalistic. It's not very well defined, but one thing they do define it: it's not capitalistic. In fact, the ferengi are used as the foil of the federation higher values because they are so fucking super-capitalistic. the ferengi are the butt of joke in the ST universe due to their capitalistic obsessed culture. "Roddenberrys unrealistic Utopian views " Hard to say if so. Imagine yourself tryingto describe to an ancient roman a society without slavery. He would think you were mad and telling jopkes and describing an impossible utopia run by unicorn and fairies. Just because our world is so dependent on a capitalistic economy doesn't mean there is no other competent economic system. We are just stuck with this one until it runs it's course. As it happened in the past with other economic systems which have goen the way of the dodo, so will happen with out present. To what it will evolve to, nobody can say. But it will look strange and exotic, maybe even utopic to us today. "Coca Cola has been around 100years, no reason why they wouldn't be here in the 22nd or 23rd Century as well." Tell that to PanAm. It coudln't even reach 2001. And that's just not transportation. Take for example Morland Brewery (what's a talk about AbrasmTRek without mention of a brewery?). It used to be a big, founded in 1711. It lasted until 2000. That's 3 centuries. Lasted more then the entire life of the Coca-Cola Company. So, just because your favorite sof-drink outfit is still operational doesn't mean it will last eternal. And as i said before, a point which seem it's constantly overlooked in the AbramsTrek defense party, the Earth in ST universe is a POST-APOCALYPTIC SOCIETY. Actual localized nuclear war happened. Society completly collapsed. Everything ended. It was all turned to rubbles. Things got so bad, the entire human society rebooted. Real Noha's Ark Flood type shit. And in the rubbles of the past, and the society's atempt to start again better and avoid repeatingthe mistakes of the pas,t and with a emphasis on scientific and cultural betterment, to reach the stars, and they would bother to rebuild the Coca-Cola just so they could have a bit of a sugary drink? Easier to squeeze an orange, mate! The product placement in AbramsTrek is not some thoughout worldbuilding for the universe made for the movie. It was just Abrams getting more cash from shoving brands onscreen. Without a care if it fit to the story he was telling. Very much like what Micheal Bay did when he shoved brands in the middle of the clones colony in THE ISLAND, where it makes no sense whatsoever. Funny enough, Orci and Kurtzman were also involved with that piece of hsit movie. Product Placement in AbrasmTrek now looks less an accidental necessity.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:34 p.m. CST

    choppah..Agree about the Bat thing...

    by conspiracy gotta love a chick that would fuck a 6' tall bat, god knows there is nothing a broad like that would NOT do. Good times...

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:45 p.m. CST take things far to literally....

    by conspiracy

    And yes...human beings, WOULD most definitely rebuild what existed and go on..Coca-Cola plant and all, or whatever was the worlds favorite drink at that time..."Slusho" Perhaps? History proves it.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:54 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Of course my arguments makes sense IN THE CONTEXT OF THE UNIVERSE CREATED FOR STAR TREK. That's the whole point! AbramsTrek, supposedly, is a movie which has it's paralel universe thing created by the branching that occured when Nero's Narada went time traveling and destroyed the ASS JJ Abrams Grandfather comanded by George Kirk. As such, the Federation presented in Abrams Trek should look and be still quite a lot like the Federation of the original ST shows. THe destruction of one single starship wouldn't be enough to bring back dead brands form the pas,t would it? Abrams just didn't cared! That's it! There's no more profound though to that movie then just that. It seems that you want the universe of the ST Federation to be some hybrid between the stuff you saw in Abrams' movie and what you think the world is today. The ST universe is as they created, to be a capitalism-less world. and more emphasis was given on it as the show went on. So, i'm sorry, my good friend, and it's you who ar enot makijng sense in your persistence in defending brands in the ST universe. Any geek should know that for a fact. It's the ST universe AS CREATED, and not as HOW YOU PREFER IT. Notice that in this duiscussion, i haven't even coment of what i think will be the economy of the future and what i think would be best. Because it doesn't matter waht i think of it. What matter sis what they made for the show. That's it. You chopped yourself, friend. As for Trek 09, as you call it: I agree that generally speaking,the cast is pretty great. Most actors were very well chosen. I do have a issue with two of the actors, however: Zoe Saldana and Chris Pine. But from what i have seen them in interviews, maybe my problems is more to do with how godawful their characters were inthe film and the terrbe shit they had to say and do then with the actors' talent at acting. so i'm on hold on that. Stylish design? Disagree. The movie is that i call prettified ugliness. It migth look good if you show off a lot of eprfume like michael by type cinematography, but i'm not that easily fooled. It's glittering, it's false pretty. It's nevue rich nonsense And there was nothing stylish about the fcuking brewery, i tell you that. Wonderful sense of humor and adventure: Well, perhaps, if i suddently forgot everything that makes me enjoy movies and started seeing Michael Bay as the only way movies should be made. Because the humour was juveline, inapropriate and stupid (computer of the 22nd century can't understand a common russian accident? yeah, fucking right!! xenophobic humour is histerical!), and the action only had a false sense of pacing and adventure because it was edited inthat michael bay super-fast way so that the filmmakers can hide the fact they shot the entire movie wrong. Yeah, making movies exciting by constant close ups and super-fast editing. It's so easy, even Michael Bay can do it. Not impressed at all. Bascially, Abrams Trek is a Star Trek movie as directed by Michael Bay. That shit aint right! AWFUL middle act that nearly obliterates the entire movie: No, it actually obliterated the movie. And it's not just the mdidle that's awfu, the begining and then ending are too. And the middle act is so awfull it's enough to kill ten movies. So naturally, the AICN geekry loved it.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:57 p.m. CST

    How about Alexander Sidig as Kahn.

    by cookylamoo

    He's the go to guy for middle eastern these days.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:57 p.m. CST

    Also, I'm not defending Neu-Trek...

    by conspiracy

    but I will defend some of the choices made...not everything in it is bad Asi...sure the writing is bad, the plot is NOT Trek. But it isn't the 100% horrible mess you want it too be either..., there was some decent acting by guys like Urban and Pine given what they had to work with. The direction wasn't ALL bad...there were some good choices made that helped in connecting that universe to our own like the bar scene (although I still don't understand how you can go from bar fight to academy overnight). I know you HATE Abrams trek Asi...but can't you release your anger and fine ONE thing about it you liked? Otherwise you are going to let this color your perception of the next film, as you will be predisposed to hating it and not letting it stand on it's own merits...and THAT is illogical.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 4:58 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    It doesn't fucking matters what you or i think would happen if human society was rebuilt. All it matters is what amnd how the creators of ST created their own universe for the shows. You got it now? It doesn't matter at all what i want or prefered or liked, it's what they did for the show. You understand it? What's so hard to understand?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    That means you are from two countries that are fucking up my corner of the world. Nice! I'll send you the bill when things really hit the shitter.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:02 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    in a world where vicent gallo can be a sex symbol, you as the bat-monster vampyre from Coppola's Dracula is a sure thing witht he ladies. You are going to score! Make way for your next ex-wife!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:09 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "but rather the cold antiseptic nature of the society as depicted. It seems a joyless, lazy place" I can't infer that just by watching the interior of a spaceship in which efficiency is a top proiority, can I? If anything, from so many of the episodes shown, specially those when the characters take a break, there is a lot of stuff like tourism and gambling and chilling out at bars and guys meet girls and have sex all over the Federation. And it's all for free. The luxuries of 5 star hotels free of charge. If you ask me, that's the place to be. And then you have to add to the fact that evertybody in ST's Federation are working on the job of their dreams. It's not the best job they got, it's their dream job. Suddently, the federation doesn't look that cold joyless place. If anything, it's impossibly cool. Hell, they have poker nights at the enterprise, for Crom's sakes! And drinks that give you the pleasure of alchool without the bad side of hangovers! You heard that? And you call that a cold and bad place to live in? Hell no!!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:09 p.m. CST

    Asi...Trek..the Original TREK...WAS a capitalist society.

    by conspiracy

    I mean for fucks sake in Trek VI, The Undiscovered Country the following is said... Kirk: What are we doing here? Bones: Maybe they're throwing us a retirement party. Scotty: That suits me! I just bought a boat if this is a time when overabundance exists, and there is no exchange based economic system in place can good old Scotty BUY anything? Also...Bones smuggled in Romulan Ale from a freighter captain through the neutral zone. If there was no economic gain to be had through such trade, economic sanctions such as this would have zero effect on the Romulan empire and would serve only to limit your own peoples standard of living... No...the Romulan ale ban screams that there is indeed benefit to be had by the Romulans through trade with the people in the Federation, and that the Federation seeks to limit such trade as a way to isolate them economically.

  • debating the economic systems of a fucking make believe universe, and whether or not Brands would exist in the Trek verse... I"m going home and fuck my wife, watch some porn, check on my stocks and try and wash the geek taste out of my mouth with strong drink...lmao

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:20 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "American Budweiser originated in 1876, Levis in 1873. They've survived two world wars already." Dude, are you serious, or are you just pullingmy leg? What part of TOTAL FUCKING GLOBAL DESTRUCTION BY NUCLEAR WAR AND COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF EVERYTHING IN CIVILIZATION you are not understanding? Bud and Levis never had to deal with a nuclear post-apocalypse, had they? And those brands existed in USA, where no bombing ever happened. VW, Siemens, Mitsubichi and Bayer nearly disapeared fromthe face of the earth because their instalatiosn were bombed the shit out by the allies, without the need for nuclears. It it wasn't for american fiancial help fromthe Marshall Plan, those firms wouldn't exist today. In fact, the whole Germany and Japan raised up because of american investment after the war. Even Britain need that, and it was an ally. If it weren't for the amerian investment form the Marshall Plan, i wouldn't be driving the car i have today, my VW Eos, because the firm that made it wouldn't exist anymore. Hell, the first car i owned was an honda Civic, which woudn't exist either if it eas not for the financial helpt hat Japan got form the USA after the war. And that's stuff from countries which were conventially bombed out by convential weapons. Without the USA finacial investments, they would had never raised as they did. you want to know an example of a country that din't got that help and how it turned out? ALBANIA. Check it out. It's still suiffereing today from the econimic collapse caused by WWII because they didn't got bail out investments. That's the result of conventional bombing, and it was apocalyptic. how worst it would be with a GLOBAL TOTAL FUCKIGN DESTRUCTION APOCALYPSE that would had affected the whole world equally? Everything back to the stone age!?! Real THE ROAD scenario. Levis and Bud? They would be history like the dodo.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:27 p.m. CST

    OK, i get it, you guys are taking the piss.

    by AsimovLives

    I get it now. Well, you had your laughs already. It was funny. For a moment you guys convinced me you are actually serious about your arguments. I fell for the obvious joke. I was p'unked! Good job, fellas!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:29 p.m. CST

    Get an actual Sihk Actor - John Abraham

    by Bumpasses Dawg

    This guy would destroy Chris Pine.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:30 p.m. CST

    I like how Asimov keeps missing the point

    by Mattman

    And the point is the FICTIONAL Star Trek universe contradicted itself long before Abrams came along. Conspiracy and Choppah and myself have illustrated this with irrefutable evidence. ST5 introduced product placement. Brands exist in the Star Trek universe canon before Abrams. Check and mate.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:31 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You will fuck your wife AND watch porno?? You know, this is how one is get caught in a lie. You are not married! C'mon, you is gonna believe you know? If you are actually marrie,d you are either going the get a divorce, and she will own all your copies of your precious Michael Bay and Jar Jar Abrams blu-rays with her. Or she cheats you with the plumber... and the garbage man... and the paper boy... and your tax accountant!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:37 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Do you even know how chess works? You made no big victory. And your AbramsTrek fucked up, regardless if you think otherwise. And the funny part is, that's a minor problemthe movie has compared to other, more pressing problems. Which just shows how deeply fucked up your AbramsTrek is.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 5:40 p.m. CST

    How to play chess, by AsimovLives

    by Mattman

    Rule 1: Never address irrefutable facts, and call the other player's pieces 'fucked up' when all other tactics fail.

  • i'm going to get me some Jameson whiskey glass and watch the 4th episode of "Forbrydelsen", the original danish "The Killing" TV show, from which the less good american remake was made from. See ya tomorrrow.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 6:10 p.m. CST

    The Usual Suspects, Too!

    by fain88

    "He'll flip ya'......flip ya' for real."

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 6:11 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Darling, what's that on your breath? -Conspiracy's wife Uuh.. what do you mean babe? - Conspiracy That smell. You've been talking geek again haven't you? Uuh.. no babe. Course not. Yes you have. You've been talking geek with those goddamn geeks online. HAVEN'T YOU?! I.. uhh... babe.. I just got sucked in and before I knew it... (sobbing) But you promised me. You promised me those days were over...Tell me, tell me what it was. TELL ME! It.. it was STAR TREK. The fictional galactic economy and product placement within the Star Trek universe. OH. MY. GOD. I'm leaving you and don't even ask for a farewell fuck. No.. You can't.. You KHAAAAAAAAANNNN!! (what have I become?).

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 6:21 p.m. CST

    Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas?

    by Mattman

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 6:24 p.m. CST


    by fain88

    That made me laugh out loud. Danke.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:03 p.m. CST

    I used to give a shit about who played Khan

    by proevad

    but then I took an arrow to the knee.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:07 p.m. CST

    Anyone remember one single scene in Public Enemies?

    by proevad

    Just one? I don't, and I saw it sober.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:12 p.m. CST

    Anyone remeber one single scene in Ali?

    by dahveed1972

    I recognize the skillz, but still.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:13 p.m. CST


    by proevad

    Yeah--but only one.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:20 p.m. CST

    I think the Federation circa TNG was a benevolent dictatorship...

    by DougMcKenzie

    I mean didn't they have synthehol instead of real alcohol so people could not get drunk? Part of the reason for the Maquis uprising was people trying to get out from a fairly oppressive and intrusive Federation. Also it seems while their wasn't a currency people were alotted things like Transporter Credits, Replicator Credits, and Holosuite Credits. I think they were probably handed out evenly, meaning, Trek was a true Communist society. Oh Gene how subversive of you!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:32 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives ( to hate JJ ) But Not Much Else

    by Real Deal

    Now hold on there a second! I've been a big fan since 1966 and I know that there probably would be no brands in the 24th ( we all have replicators ) era but back in Kirk's time I've never heard that there are no brands or commerce. I even remember a line from the the first season where Kirk is talking to a pilot ( Tommorrow is Yesterday " ). The pilot says the ship must have cost a lot and Kirk replies ( not correcting him and saying we have no money ) " There are only 12 like it in the fleet ". I don't remember a single reference to the fact that there were no brands or commerce in that era. I can understand when you have replicator tech that would change things but they still seemed to be paying for their drinks at K-7.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:42 p.m. CST

    everything sucks

    by Bobby Brown

    capitalism sucks. the future sucks. jj abrams sucks. star trek sucks. everything sucks so much we cant agree what sucks least. fuck.

  • Romanek did all the talking, and Del Toro barely said anything, other than he was a fan of the original. He had very little to do with the production apart from his performance (which sucked).

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:01 p.m. CST

    I don't understand how Khan will be a great villain in this

    by Jon Snow

    with the revenge angle taken out of it. Guess they are just going to make him a master race cheerleader like he was in Space Seed. Yawn. Having said that, I pick Aasif Mandvi. Don't laugh--because he will hurt you.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 12:42 a.m. CST

    If they are going to use Khan then use

    by Wheel99

    Naveen Andrews.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:11 a.m. CST

    Cliff Curtis would KILL as Khan.

    by AnnoyYou

    The man is a terrific, totally underrated actor, and while he is actually a Kiwi, he's played every ethnic role out there. He's also imposing enough to play a superhuman. Wow. Wish they'd consider him, but I know they'll probably go with a more recognizable actor.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:13 a.m. CST

    Hah - Mark Strong will probably get the role.

    by AnnoyYou

    He's Anglo-Indian and scary, plus in everything now. Actually he'd be a good Khan.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:16 a.m. CST

    Sorry, sorry - Strong isn't Anglo-Indian.

    by AnnoyYou

    He's actually Italian. Still, he'd be a good choice.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:08 a.m. CST

    M. NIGHT...

    by hoombop KHAN.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 4:44 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    That's so funny, and so true. Orci/Kurtzman/Abrams/Lidenof are not exactly nkow for writing smart characters, are they? So they will go for what they know best, they will go for shit blowing up instead, in lieu of smart characters out-thinking each other.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 5:32 a.m. CST

    annoyyou, i agree with your enthusiasm about Cliff Curtis.

    by AsimovLives

    Not only is he a kiwi but a maori as well. but as you said, he has that multi-etnic look to him which, despite the wrong etnicity, he could play an indian without many bat an eyelid. It's great to see such love for, in my opinion, such an underrated actor. However, Eric Bana is also a damn fine actor, and Abrams and company made him look banal and uninteresting as that rent-a-Khan he played in AbrasmTrek Uno.

  • I would not complain if he was chosen as Khan... but can he let some left overs for the others to eat as well? i know he's gotta eat, but man, does he need to be in every movie made today? Let something for the others!

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 5:45 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I finds your unbreakable enthusiasm and passion for Stargate endearing.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 6:04 a.m. CST

    real deal

    by AsimovLives

    Both the cost of something and commerce doesn't necessarily means that money and capitalism (including brands) exists. Money is so ingrated in people's minds that when we say something is costly, the imediate idea is of money and comemrce as we know it. The cost of something means the amount of materials and effort that went to make it. The cost in money reflects that, in a monetary society. In a non-monetary society, to say a ship would be very costly means there was a lot of material, many of them hard to find/exotic, and a lot of work spent to making it. That's a cost. Commerce, as in trade, cna also happen without money. It's called direct trade, in which one article is directly traded by another. This type of trade was actually the one that existed for most of the history of mankind. money is a relatively recent thing, compared to the whole history of mankind. So, there is trade in the Federation, but it's of a non-monetary, non-profitable kind. Many call this a communist/socialist type of economy. Actually socialist economy is one form of this type of non-profit economy. Money is not the only way economy can work, it's just the one we are so used to we take it for granted, and many have a hard time to conceive the notion of a different world, like in ST, where none such exists. Roddenberry and his sucessors created a universe, the Star Trek universe, where there is no capitalism and no money and no brands. That's how we should take it. Just because some disagree with this type of economy or can't conceive the notion that such could exist is besides the point. St is deliberatly created not to be like our today's world. Something that Abrams and friends don't seem to be able to understand.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 7:41 a.m. CST

    proevad and dahveed1972

    by AsimovLives

    I do remember scenes from those movies. And not just one, but a few. Why you wouldn't?

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 8:04 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Playing with credit might not be the same as money. I know what you are thinking, that calling it credits is just a fancy way to give a different name to currency and avoid bringing dollars to the future. There is a good point to be made that in the TOS series they were still a bit uncertain how to depict the future's economy. But certainly right from the start the intention of the creators of ST was to create a universe where, at least the Federation, nobody was concerned and boggled down by economic considerations. As for the brand thing, i dn't understand the persistence sen in here that brands has to exist in ST's future. Since it's quite clear that they have a non-capitalistic economy, that they are not a capitalistic society, thus without corporations and such, it's a matter of course that there would be no brands for such corporations like Budweisser and Nokia. No brands is just a natural logical conclusion from the absense of capitalism. When i see many of people in here trying to find nooks and crooks trying to find excuses for why brands have to be (even going so far as using the ST movie they most dislike and otherwise pretend it doesn't exist, ST5), i'm reminded of those ambulance chasing lawyers, who find absurd loopholes in the law and clearly deturp the inteniton of the law to get their crook clients free. It's quite clear that when the ST creators invented ST and it's non-capitalist economy, the obvious implication is that everythign that is today's economy which would include such things as brands, would not exist. They clearly didn't felt the need to be so nitpicking as to specifically say that brands don't exist as well, because it's like, d'uuhhh!!!!

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 8:09 a.m. CST

    Stop calling it Star Trek 2!

    by Nem_Wan

    Is there a rational reason why the next Bond film was known as Bond 23 and the next Star Trek film isn't called Star Trek 12? Reboot? BZZZT! Bond rebooted.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 8:15 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    and what you said about ST:TMP and it's supposed bad reception by the public is very true. It's just today's dogma bullshit that proclaims the movie to have been a fiasco among audiences and box office, when it truth it was the very opposite. You have been saying good shit in this talkbacks. I like you. Where have you been before? Are you new here? If so, welcome to this den of inequity.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 10:40 a.m. CST

    Just in... Brian Cox is in talks with the folks at Paramount!!!

    by space doughnut

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 11:20 a.m. CST

    You could definitely make a cool alt Khan story.

    by FluffyUnbound

    Just stipulate that the history change meant that some ship other than the Enterprise found the Botany Bay. Without Kirk and Spock to foil him, Khan succeeds in commandeering a ship and conquering a planet. So now the Federation wants to undo the damage these rogue humans have done to the Prime Directive, but Khan is kind of a Putin-like figure who has the support of a lot of the population he conquered, and they help him fight. So it's kind of a "We will force the Prime Directive on you even if you don't want it!" kind of story. Dial it up with Khan being the super-genius Khan who took over the Enterprise in 10 minutes instead of the dumbass Khan who got lured into a nebula and blowed the hell up, and you've got a great politico/adventure/war story.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Regis Philbin is looking for work.

    by Bumpasses Dawg

    Just stick him in the old Montalban fake chest and wig and you're good to go.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:30 p.m. CST

    There was commerce in TOS

    by Dave

    Remember an episode called The Trouble With Tribbles? Cyrano Jones, a licensed prospector. He collects shit and sells it for money...oh, sorry. Credits. Sounds like commerce to me. So stop with all this nonsense about no commerce, no money, blah blah blah. People who are so called "casual" fans of Trek, or "admirers" should shut the fuck up and stop talking about a subject you have already stated your not an expert on.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:47 p.m. CST

    That Gerard Butler as Khan idea...

    by NoHubris

    ... is a GREAT one.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:55 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    i already read that in the thor talkback. thanks anyway.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:57 p.m. CST


    by Dave

    Why don't you ask your new buddy themeofme, what he thinks of Game Of Thrones?

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:57 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    certainly Abrams turned Star Trek into a mundane uselessness beret of it's own identity in his eagerness to make it SW-like, so yeah, you do have a good point there. Truly, the next AbramsTrek movie is a big case of "so fucking what?"

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    so now the "TOS was still a work in rogress, nothing should be taken too serious from that" is conviniently put aside so that an american who can't concive of a world without capitalism can have his peace of mind and rest his trouble head on the concept of a future world that sounds kinda commie? You are not impresing me much with your argument there, pal.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:05 p.m. CST


    by Dave

    I dont know what your referring to, but you addressed nothing that I said about there being commerce in TOS. Go ahead, tell me it wasn't there, you can't, because it was there. I never said anything about TOS being a "work in progress" In fact what in your post has anything to do with what I said. You're not impressing me AT ALL pal.

  • Anybody? Almost confirmed again huh.... I'm not goning to jump into this Commerce in Trek argument it should be pointed out that the Econonmy portrayed in Trek is one of the bigger inconsistancies in the whole damn franchise.... It tends to change with each iteration and/or writer... So everybody's right and/or wrong, I guess....

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:56 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    TOS was made when the whole ST universe was still under construction. and given the relatively low viewing figures and it's cancelation at season 3, which the producers knew it would happen soon enough since season 2, it seems they gave up on building a more coherent universe for the show, because really, why bother? notice how the internal universe in season 1 is far more consistent then in season two foward. Nowdays we have a defined ST canon, which didn't existed back in the Tribbles episode. Nowdays, there is a St bible, and there is a canon, and the ST universe is very well established. and in that, there is no capitalism. anybody who woulod give a little fuck about the St saga would at least incorporate that to the new movie. which Abrams, in his Sw obsessed mind, he didn't because he can't give a fuck about ST. and that weasel canp't evne conceive the notion of adapting his style to a story or an established universe, no, the little worm had to bend ST to his liking. Because that's what hacks beret of imagination do. it takes imagination to imprint your style to an already established universe. hack fucks like Abrams instead build paralel universe so he doesn't have to do the effort. and the stupid brand product placement shit in his movie is just on sympton of his disrespectful hackery.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:58 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    the thing about Trek commerce should be seen as how it's established now. makes sense to me that way, anyway.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 3:03 p.m. CST


    by Dave

    You have always professed your not a Trekkie.... For someone who claims to be a casual fan, you sure seem to think you know everything about the show. Regardless, so now we "ignore" the canon of TOS? Is this how you can support all of your theories and opinions on all things Trek, because you don't have to acknowledge things that happened in TOS? That show was the basis for all things Trek...but it should be ignored, or at the very least, tossed aside as "incomplete" Weak. Really weak. There was commerce in Trek. You just cannot accept it. But it's ok, no need to elaborate further, I got all the info I need.

  • Of course it makes sense to you, then it legitimizes your point of view. When you ignore canon, that tends to happen. Anything that supports your point of view makes sens to you. Even when it's wrong.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 3:24 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    well, old timer, you are going to start saying more, aren't you? please?

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 3:29 p.m. CST


    by Dave

    Come on, ask your new friend how he likes Game Of Thrones.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 3:29 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    just because i'm not a trekkie and a casual watcher doesnp't mean i have to be ignorant about it, does it? this much you will know for sure: you will never see me caugh up dressing in ST gear or learn fucking klingon!! and i have done more research about St stuff after the fucking Abrams movie. i have always respected St, i always remebering liking it since when i was a kid and the show was aired on Tv in the late 70s. and this is the thing about ST: i'm no expert, but i'm no ignorant either. and i hare respect for the saga. and above all else, and beside the fact the fucking Abrams movie is a bad movie on it's own right, it's the fuckinf disrespect that it shows from start to finish that really rubbed me the wrong way. i don't need to be a trekkie to felel insulted by the callousness of Abrams and his monkey team. And i never said that there wasn't commerce in Star -Trek. read all my posts and try find me saying otherwise. what i said is that there is no CAPITALISTIC COMMERCE in Trek. There's a difference. if you are going to criticise me, do for something i actually said, please. thank you.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 3:34 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "When you ignore canon, that tends to happen." But as i said before, canon is established now, quite recently. thanks to efforts to such people as Michael and Denise Okuda. the finalized canon is a recent thing, but it's easy to look up if one just makes an effort. so no, it's not a convinient thing for me. nowdays the canon is established. it's there for anybody to read if one bothers to make the effort. which fucking abrams didn't.

  • that makes sense. but making sense in his movies or TV shows was never abrams forte. he's more the guy who throws shit at the wall and see what sticks.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 3:36 p.m. CST


    by Dave

    But let's continue to ignore established ST TOS canon because it was, how you said...incomplete. Now enlighten me, if TOS is incomplete, then who exactly DID establish ST canon?

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 3:40 p.m. CST

    "then who exactly DID establish ST canon?"

    by AsimovLives

    You could say it started with the creation of The Star Trek Encyclopedia writen by Michael and Denise Okuda, first publishe in 1994, and later augmented. Though before that, and starting with TNG, a ST bible was iniciated to create internal consistency for the show. they still allowed some inconsistencies to creep in, which is why teh encyclopedia was comitioned, to smooth stuf out and crate a more coherent and congentent mythology (so the speak).

  • So i guess toilets don't exist in Trek either huh? Wow that is an advancement.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 3:46 p.m. CST

    I hate to tell you this Asimov.....

    by Dave

    But Trek canon was created on September 8, 1966. End of story. End of discussion. You are beaten. Just admit it and be at peace with yourself. Good day and good night.

  • A book compiling events of a pre-existing series does not establish canon. The canon was already there to begin with.

  • They may not have energy scarcity, but they still have scarcity. They never explain how the economy or political system in Trek work because if they tried everyone would laugh.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 5:29 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    you killed any atempt at seriousness of your arguents with the toilet shit. end of story. nice chatting with you, but i have nothing more to say to you. next time try to have an actual argument, buy one if you need to. jesus wept!

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 5:30 p.m. CST

    by mattman

    by AsimovLives

    "A book compiling events of a pre-existing series does not establish canon." Oh but it did. that was even the point of the thing.

  • and it sems people are rewarded by their merit, even though not through the means of great material wealth. it's both a provider for everybody tho have great standards of living, and then reward those who excel by merit and talent. if the eonomy of ST seems a bit simplified, maybe that's the whole point. so that economy doesn't became such a taxing thing in that society, which is far more oriented to scientific discovery and peacekeeping.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 5:36 p.m. CST

    "if someone prefers the taste of Jack Daniels to Jim Beam"

    by AsimovLives

    neither for me. my latest prefered poisons are irish whiskeys, namely Telamure Dew and Jameson. but if i have to name a great american beverage, that would be SOUTHERN CONFORT. that drink is awesome!

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 9:52 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    You said : " Both the cost of something and commerce doesn't necessarily means that money and capitalism (including brands) exists. Money is so ingrated in people's minds that when we say something is costly, the imediate idea is of money and comemrce as we know it. The cost of something means the amount of materials and effort that went to make it. The cost in money reflects that, in a monetary society. In a non-monetary society, to say a ship would be very costly means there was a lot of material, many of them hard to find/exotic, and a lot of work spent to making it. That's a cost. " That's all fine and good but can you show me where in TOS they established that there are no brands or that money was no longer used? Yes I knmow they went through WWIII and that society had changed but that in itself doesn't imply that there were no brands or that they didn't use money. TOS only please.