star trek:into darkness (WARNING: SPOILERS as of 4/23/13)

Re: star trek:into darkness

It's probably going to be something more simple...Section 31 illegally experimenting with genetics and creating a 23rd century Augment that they lose control of and shenanigans ensue.

Re: star trek:into darkness

No, they've already confirmed that Cumberbatch is playing someone from TOS canon. One of the writers (Bob Orci) named Gary Mitchell, Trelane, Harry Mudd, Talosians and a Horta and said "actually it's one of those I mentioned".

Section 31 is about as likely as Spider-man showing up inthe new Supermsn movie. Nobody outside of DS9 fandom has even heard of it.

Re: star trek:into darkness

got a source?

Given those choices, Mitchell would be a slam dunk.


(of course, he could always just later say "I lied")

Re: star trek:into darkness

Section 31 are very obscure, but that is also gives a reason to use them. It would be a nod to diehard fans, while also giving them a lot of flexibility to define the group however they wanted.

Wouldn't expect to see it happen though.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Man, I can't figure it. Unless Ocri's messing with us, nothing we know about the new antagonist fits ANY of those.

Gary Mitchell? The Starfleet uniform fits, but Ocri's connection with IDW comics should rule this out. Also, why would Mitchell want to wreck the fleet?

Trelane? I suppose, but it doesn't really fit. Trelane has powers (which we know are at least based in part on technology), but he uses them for his own amusement, and they seem limited to his planet.

Harry Mudd? A rogue and a scoundrel, but a "one man weapon of mass destruction?" It doesn't fit. Why bring a TOS character back and make him NOTHING like the original (this would also seem to apply to Mitchell and Trelane).

Horta? Please.

Talosians? Eh, maybe. But they didn't seem too interested in stuff happening away from their planet. If Abrams went "back to the beginning" of Trek, the Talosians would've come up immediately. And Cumberbatch seems suited to playing a "cerebral" character. And, gosh, isn't Talos IV a "war-torn world?"

Hmmm...

Of course it's possible that the script may have changed since Ocri's comment was made (2010).

Re: star trek:into darkness

It was on Trekmovie ages ago.

I think he did, after Karl Urban said something along the lines of "Benedict's Gary Micthell is going to be great".

Of course, it could all be a disinformation campaign.

Re: star trek:into darkness

I reckon it could be disinformation. Trekmovie later ran a story from a "source" that claimed that the villain was still Khan and that Nimoy shows up in the picture too. Nimoy did post a cryptic message about returning to the role a few months back, so I suppose that's possible. But the Khan thing just seem to be jumping on the bandwagon of the old Benicio Del Toro comments from JJ.

I reckon the villian is a Romulan named Ceasar.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Someone who's read the comic explain it to me:

How do we know that the comic does not, in fact, SET UP the plot of the film.

You get the whole business of how Gary got to be a "one man whatever" out of the way, perhaps to be touched on in the early minutes of the film to bring the uninitiated up to speed (flashbacks? nightmares?) - after all, we didn't need to see HOW the bad guy in Skyfall got to be a bad guy, a little exposition and we're good.
Since Gary would be a superhuman, we'd need a bit more than that but not a ton.

Then it ultimately turns out that Mitchell was not dead after all and is, in fact, a bit pissed off and decides to take it out on the whole Fleet.

In broad terms, why couldn't they do this?

Re: star trek:into darkness

Heh, Hollywood showing it's originality.....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/78098767@N04/8242826347

Re: star trek:into darkness

Let's also not forget the Terra Prime fringe group from Enterprise -- and we saw them use Enterprise as a reference point in the last flick, so that's not so far outside the realm of probability.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Oh, and if the film series ever does involve a Q....

I nominate Bruce Campbell for consideration.







(actually there are a lot of serious dramatic actors who'd be great - how cool would it be to have Sean Connery play a Q? But you have to admit Campbell could ham it up with the best of the "god like beings" we've seen previously)

Re: star trek:into darkness

Talosians would be a hilarious explanation, because it would almost certainly be all in the heads of the main characters. Which is why I doubt they'd do that. To be honest, I think Orci is lying, and this is probably based on some other obscure character in the same way the moon Kirk, old Spock, and Scotty were dumped on was basically named after some obscure planet from TOS. Although I wouldn't be surprised if it was Mitchell. In spite of his being in the comics, let's face it, comics aren't the movie, and I doubt they'd let anything they did in the comics stop them from doing something in the movie.

Re: star trek:into darkness

I'm starting to think it's a put-on, that Cumberbatch is playing an entirely new character. (Although it's interesting to note that Cumberbatch's character--like Trelane--wears a military-type uniform with a long coat.)

Yes, I suppose there's no reason that the film will adhere to the recent comics continuity, but I can't help feel that there's NO WAY the Mitchell storyline would've appeared in the OCTOBER 2011 edition when the production of the movie was well under way. By that time, Ocri would HAVE to have known this storyline would be treading on the movie and STILL gone ahead with it. I don't think so. And, for the curious: although the comic's ending is different than the "Where No Man Has Gone Before" episode's, Mitchell is just as dead. The movie somehow picking up from there seems REALLY unlikely.

If Cumberbatch is playing Mudd or Trelane (or Mitchell), the character is a radical departure from the earlier incarnation. I'm pretty sure he's not going to be a Horta. If the character is any of the ones Ocri mentioned, it has to be a Talosian.

But I'm guessing it's none of the above.

Re: star trek:into darkness

I still say it's Lincoln.

Re: star trek:into darkness

It's Commodore Stocker

Re: star trek:into darkness

Colonel Green?

We never saw the original. Just the Excalbian version from "That Which Survives". Colonel Green preserved after his defeat in his "genocidal war" in the 21st century and "reanimated" by his followers among Starfleet generations later. Twenty third century technology meets twenty first century militarism

Nice way for the producer and directors to make a dig at a "George Bush era" mentality while "paying homage" to original Star Trek by expanding on a previously mentioned villan.

Yeah, I still think it is a horrendous idea.

Re: star trek:into darkness

HELLOOOOO!!!!!

Re: star trek:into darkness

hmm from what i can gather the film wont be particualy any good so i will be avoiding it like a rash.


in other words i'll be seeing it on dvd rather then at the cinema

Re: star trek:into darkness

Abe would have looked cool in a trench coat.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Caesar?
[?=Now there's a crossover I could get in line for][/?]

Re: star trek:into darkness

No way, gotta be the horta!

Re: star trek:into darkness

It's interesting that the identity of the villain is being guarded so closely. It's not like we won't find out months before the film comes out.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Teaser trailer comes out Thursday.

Re: star trek:into darkness

IIRC it's behind The Hobbit, and probably only in the US. All we'll get online is a dodgy pirate version.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Nope, it's coming online.

Longer one in theaters the 14th.

Re: star trek:into darkness

The first issue is a retelling of WNMHGB, with Gary Mitchell. It ends with Mitchell's death, of course, but what if he's not dead?

The fourth issue is a retelling of The Galileo Seven, where Spock is in command of the crashed shuttle. There's no big bad in that.

The twelfth is a retelling of The Trouble with Tribbles. Klingons and stuff, who will turn up, one presumes.

I will bet real money with anyone who wishes that it's Gary Mitchell.

Re: star trek:into darkness

If they take the comic book retelling of WNMHGB into account, with Kirk having "killed" Mitchell, that would give Mitchell a strong revenge motive against not only Kirk but Starfleet, who inculcated Kirk with the sense of duty that saw him kill Mitchell to save his crew. That's also aside from Mitchell viewing all of humanity with the contempt he showed in the original telling (and therefore presumably in the retelling, as well.)

But that's still just speculation based on the information/disinformation game they're putting out there for us to chew on. It could just as easily be someone mentioned but never fully fleshed out from TOS. Muad's been joking about it being Lincoln, but I could see Colonel Green being a strong contender.

Re: star trek:into darkness

The theme that seems to come through in the comics, particularly in the issues mentioned, is that of the Enterprise crew as a sorta family for Kirk. It's not an idea I'm terribly fond of, as Kirk of TOS didn't seem to be that emotionally needy.

Not certain enough to put money on it, but I'm fairly confident it ISN'T Mitchell. How about for a round of beers?

Re: star trek:into darkness

Actually, Enterprise showed the original in "archive video footage" during the episode "Demons", so yeah, we did... sorta.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Also, we see from the last movie that they're completely happy with a situation where the backstory of the villain is basically ignored and dealt with only via the comics.
Mitchell could come "back from the dead" looking for revenge.