Pajiba

If they actually did Harry Mudd and kept to the overall theme of the character I'd probably have Falcon Taint Punch someone.

Oh, god, if they did the Horta, would that give Bones the opportunity to say, dammit JIM, I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer? And have Spock mindmeld with the rock and moan...paaaaaain....paaaaaain...

That would make me obscenely happy

Maybe they'll name them the "whore-ta"

Well, the Gary Mitchell/"To Boldly Go..." villain/plot makes the most sense, but what exactly does it have to do with the Abrams' last Trek movie? Considering we never, ever, never saw Mitchell, the movie's going to have to do a lot of leg work establishing that he and Kirk are the best of buds, which will be jarring to fans of only this iteration. As far as they know, Bones was Kirk's BFF. It worked in TOS because we never saw Kirk at Starfleet, or as anything but the Enterprise's captain, so they could fill in as much backstory as they wanted. We know with the last movie that the details of Kirk's life changed dramatically, even if the broad strokes stayed the same.

Of course, Mitchell could simply be a new crew member who hits it off with Kirk at first, then starts giving him a taste of his own medicine before he goes god. The love triangle aspect will definitely appeal to studio heads who think women only want to see love stories in their action packed science fiction. So, yeah, it makes a certain amount of sense. But it just doesn't feel big enough for a sequel where we saw Vulcan destroyed and Leonard Nimoy's final portrayal of Spock.

Bring on the damn Klingons!

If they actually did Harry Mudd and kept to the overall theme of the character I'd probably have Falcon Taint Punch someone.

Careful with that, buddy. You're treading dangerously close to infringing on the title of Bad Ass Digest's advice column "Ask a Falcon Taint Punch". Not to be confused with their health section: "The Only Sissies Need Anesthesia Report".

Like I said, D-Day, Mitchell makes sense. I think it could even be a good movie, I just don't think it'll be big enough after Vulcan and Nimoy. For Trek fans, anyway (of which, clearly, I am one). I was also hoping for a story with more depth, along the lines of Undiscovered Country or some of the better TOS episodes (which, "To Boldly Go..." is one, but emotionally, not thematically). The "godly being" episodes aren't really that deep and are pretty boring. It took TNG and Q to get them right.

And I'm not against doing another Khan, but should they do that, go back to the TOS episode and not his Wrath. Saying that movie and Montalban's performance is untouchable is like saying no one can ever do another Joker story after Heath Ledger. That, to my mind, definitely isn't true.

Saying that movie and Montalban's performance is untouchable is like saying no one can ever do another Joker story after Heath Ledger.

I agree, and I think you're spot-on to assert that you have to go back to what happened before Khan gets stranded in order to tell the story. I do think it was important, and helped Trek II work, that both characters were at the age in which the movie takes place.

Part of the fun/problem when trying to dissect choices like this is not knowing where future films are going to go. When you have a clear money-making franchise, it's impossible to ignore the future of the series. So while a character like Mitchell would seemingly be a choice that grounds the next movie as a human-only affair, one can assume that somewhere within elements of the next movie will appear. Let's face it, at some point you're going to get Klingons, and you're going to get a large, "galaxy-defining" space battle.

Of course, the choice is up to Abrams. You can look specifically at 3 different choices in comic-book movies to see how this plays out.

Iron Man--Favreau hints at The Mandarin and the Ten Rings, but ultimately the Nick Fury/SHIELD storyline overpowers the need to tie into an Avengers movie.

Batman Begins--Ends with Bats and Gordon on a rooftop with the Joker card telling you who the bad guy is in the next movie.

Superman Returns--Attempts to set up a future with Superboy, but since the movie completely falls flat on it's face in terms of critical reception, you have to throw that out the window for the next iteration of the character.

So, if this bit of casting is true, does that mean the elements of Star Trek that hinted at Klingon conflict continue, does he abandon it all together? We'll see. I think Chris Pine as good a job as is possible with Kirk, and I need more Bruce "will you be my adoptive father" Greenwood in my life.

Well, I didn't specifically mean in Nolan's next Batman movie, Rykker. But, yeah, I think that could also work if done right. It would be jarring to non-comic audiences, but any fan of the genre would, I think, get it. Or should. You do make a good point that only one actor has ever played Khan (I don't think that character appeared in the animated series, but I've only seen a handful of episodes). To that I say: Give Javier Bardem a chance!

D-Day, I think the lack of the Ten Rings and any continuation of the Mandarin plot is one of the biggest reasons I didn't care much for Iron Man 2. It just seemed like a one-shot jammed into the middle of a trade paperback. They could've kept everything about the S.H.I.E.L.D. storyline, such as it was, and continued building on the Mandarin... and it would have helped establish Thor, in that magic and science can co-exist in this movie universe. Sigh.

As for The Dark Knight, as the Joker said, It's all part of the plan...

I don't really know what to say about your theory that they planned to do a Superboy story for the sequel... I mean, I liked that movie and even I know the super son stuff was awful. (As well as not even making sense.)

I think the reason I'm so ready for some Klingons is because of the deleted interrogation scene from the blu-ray of Star Trek. It takes them back to being the galaxy's badasses instead of the galaxy's toilet paper. Though, I have it on good authority they use bidets in the future...

For Hate's sake, I spit m-- clarification's sake, I wasn't arguing against another Joker, but implying that it would be easier to do, since it already has been done multiple times, than finding another Kha--

To that I say: Give Javier Bardem a chance!

Ok, then.
That, I could see.

Why have a TOS villain at all? My thing is that you went to so much trouble establihsing an "alternate timeline" while avoiding a Trekkie revolt, now you can finally start telling stories the way you want them to be, rather than being slaved to the often-insipid original series canon.

The last movie went a long way in fixing the Star Trek franchise. It scrapped Roddenberry's incredibly naieve notions about Starfleet officers never being prejudiced or having conflict with one another, it performed a drastic "camp" reduction without removing its whimsical spirit entirely. While Kirk is still Captain Wonderful, he's not nearly the hyper-perfect Mary Sue character he was in the series, and the rest of the cast actually has a chance to do things themselves from time to time.

The best things about Star Trek when compared to other sci-fi series is the focus on teamwork and fellowship in a very clearly-defined universe. We already know what Klingons and Romulans are, we don't have to have them explained like in other sci-fi stories. That's a huge advantage, because you can move straight into the story itself. Why waste all that by tossing in an old chesnut like Harry Mudd?

Geeking for a minute.....

Don't you think the "old" Spock in the new alternate universe might tell the new Kirk, Spock and Starfleet about all the upcoming "major" problems that wouldn't have been affected by the change in time line (Kahn would still be out there somewhere, the whale watching probe from ST4, Vger, etc.). I mean, old Spock would be kind of a dick not to give them a heads up right? And by doing so, the new team could clean up those messes a bit easier (at least you would think).

I mean they better start looking for some damned humpback whales soon because that probe is a'comin.

C'mon old Spock, don't be a dick.

If you're going to keep on with Trek related news, please be accurate.

Alas, it is you, Mr. ninja, who needs to check your info for accuracy before calling someone else out.

This is Gary Mitchell, the guy to whom everyone else is [correctly] referring.

This is Gary Seven; completely different character.

(and this is Charlie.)

Steven quoted an informant (and that same quote was posted at multiple sites across the Web. I first read about it Tuesday.), so even if the info in his post was incorrect, Steven would not be the proper person at which to direct your missive.
Regardless, the informant mentioned Gary Mitchell, and it is Gary Mitchell, not Gary Seven, to whom he was referring.

You're making ninjas look bad. That's not healthy for you.

Maybe Darth Vader will make an appearance, since that's clearly what JJ was going for.

My only complaint for the '09 Trek film was that they had a red insect-like creature on Hoth, I mean... that ice planet that Kirk found old Spock and Scotty. Talk about unlikely!

I would also hope that they come up with new shit.

Kirk will kill Wesley Crusher's grandfather with the Tantalus Field.

wonkey i like the way you think...