Monday, July 09, 2012

Or the Star Trek 2 Villain May Be a Different Character We're Already Familiar With

Karl Urban, in an interview with SFX, on Benedict Cumberbatch being in Star Trek 2: "He's awesome, he's a great addition, and I think his Gary Mitchell is going to be exemplary."

So if Urban isn't just trolling we can expect Cumberbatch not to be Kahn, but to be a different character... from the original series.

Guys, this still falls under the heading of Telling Me a Story I Already Know.

You have fucking Star Trek to work with, guys. You spent the entire first movie just breaking off from established continuity. You can do anything you want. Why don't you want to do something original?

11 comments:

spiderkev said...

Because they know they'll never top Star Trek 2,4,6, or First Contact,but they could at least try.

William Mercado said...

Honestly I know you like the reboot, but there was not anything original in that one.
From the hero's journey to the Star Wars "homage" nothing original at all. The only good thing were the actors.

Neil Sarver said...

I did not care for the reboot very much. It was watchable, but the fourth or fifth time that the Star Trek movies have gone to the Wrath of Khan dynamic well, so it was pretty dry at that point.

The fact that they're essentially promising that this, too, will be a reboot/reimagining of some TOS episode or another just reeks of creative bankruptcy. If it's Gary Mitchell then it's...

***SNORE***

What?! I'm sorry, I couldn't even stay awake long enough to complain about that.

On the other hand, I might have gone if it'd been Harry Mudd, so I'm a big fucking hypocrite.

SamuraiFrog said...

spiderkev: Trying is all I ask, but they apparently can't be arsed.

William: It's not original at all; what I liked about it is that it felt like it had reinvigorated a franchise that had long since grown stodgy and dull. It was a test pancake; they had to spend the whole movie cementing in the audience's mind that it was separate from the old continuity (itself not a bold move). I was hoping that would clear the stage for the second movie to just go off and do something original. Apparently, that was too much to ask for.

Neil: Harry Mudd would have been funny. I guarantee you they would have cast Zach Galifianakis in that role. Take that however you like.

The really stupid thing, too, is that they already did Gary Mitchell in the terrible IDW comics based on the movie. Apparently even in the comics they've just decided to retell old episodes with the new cast and that kind of modern, self-conscious need to be cool that passes for edge these days.

If this is all they have to offer, why bother?

Neil Sarver said...

I guarantee you they would have cast Zach Galifianakis in that role.

True. It could work, too, with a decent script.

My friend, back in the day that was officially still on the list of possibilities, however unlikely it was, suggested Oliver Platt, which sounds a little more bulletproof.

Either way, I'd take nearly anything - as a concept, at least - over a sequel/prequel/remake/reimagining/rehash of an old episode!

That said, Harry Mudd, to me, seems to have the best potential to do something new with. Gary Mitchell, on the other hand, seems almost impossible to do in a way that will surprise or enlighten me.

Hopefully that's all due to my lack of imagination regarding Mitchell, though, and they've got some crazy effin' way to knock this shit out of the park.

William Mercado said...

Honestly, I was too busy being appalled and insulted by the terrible script to even enjoy the Trek reboot.

Too many plot holes, coincidences and contrivances, making Kirk a combination of Like Skywalker and James Dean, literally using the hero's journey for Kirk. Ice planet Hoth just a bad script, a bad script.

SamuraiFrog said...

Neil: When I rewatched TOS last year and the year before, Harry Mudd was the first guest character that really impressed me. He was the first character that didn't have to be "found"; he just emerged, fully formed, a great combination of actor and script. If they were to do the character again, I think there's enough there to do something different with. The more we talk about this, the more I'm sorry they didn't.

If I'm being honest, I think Mudd's too potentially smart and clever a character for the guys that wrote the Transformers movies to do anything with. Instead, they're doing science fiction's umpteenth version of the guy who gets godlike powers and goes crazy with them. Seen it.

William: Someone on Cracked broke down the whole story and showed how it's pretty much exactly Star Wars, which seemed pretty obvious to me as I was watching it. It's literally Star Trek as Star Wars. They turned it into pulp space opera. That's what I enjoyed about it.

I'm just never going to find it bad in some insulting way. And doing the Trek rewatch, I saw a lot of stuff that was bad in an insulting, lazy way. Abrams at least framed it in a way that was visually and viscerally exciting to me. It's better than most of the Trek movies made since 1989 (with the exceptions of Star Trek VI and First Contact).

Let me put it this way: I see the same things in the Trek movie that you do, but they don't bother me. It's fun enough that I don't care. I know it's not a smart movie, but I don't expect to see smart modern movies, which is good, because I almost never do. And the movies that do get held up as smart filmmaking are movies that I generally find ridiculous. Star Trek is a dumb movie, but it's fun enough to overlook its flaws and just enjoy. It's a slick, silly, B sci-fi pulp adventure movie. And on that level, I love it.

William Mercado said...

If the movie wasn't Trek I wouldn't be so put off, just another dumb loud summer action movie. Sure Trek in all it's incarnations have more than it's share of bad, mediocre and the occasional brilliant.
Also you have to understand I was a lonely little boy in the 1970s taking solace in TV especially the Star Trek TOS reruns so it means something more to me than to you.With Star Trek I expect more that loud and dumb

Bob Rutledge said...

Add me to the column that wants fresh, not remade, stories but in any case, dear gods, make them stop remaking before they get to SPOCK'S BRAIN.

Neil Sarver said...

If I'm being honest, I think Mudd's too potentially smart and clever a character for the guys that wrote the Transformers movies to do anything with.

I agree. I remember that's how I felt about the Reed Richards/Victor Von Doom relationship in the Fantastic Four movies. No, I don't think Lee, Kirby or any of the numerous people who have followed them are super-genuises - at least in the sense that Richards and Von Doom are supposed to be - but the best of them are smart enough to be able to plausibly imagine what that kind of super-genius might think like. The movie writers weren't able to demonstrate any such intelligence or imagination.

It's better than most of the Trek movies made since 1989 (with the exceptions of Star Trek VI and First Contact).

The difference I would say I perceive between Generations/Insurrection/Nemesis and Abrams's Star Trek is the earlier movies feel like they understand "Star Trek" and are shooting for good "Star Trek" and falling short. Star Trek is clearly not even shooting for it, which I find frustrating, even if I do agree that it is entertaining more often than not.

William Mercado said...

Neil Sarver, I agree with a lot of what you said. Maybe in a few years I can "enjoy" it as a movie maybe as a bad Trek movie but right now I am so disappointed and sad.