'Star Trek: Into Darkess' questions for KH-Trekkers out there

[Boiler20]

"I'm not a 'Trekkie' or 'Trekker' as I understand they prefer to be called, but I do like the original TV series, skipped the other TV series, but watch all the movies when they come out.

I finally watched the latest film on Netflix and I have a question: Why did they chose an actor to play Kahn who looks like he could be Spock's twin? I mean, the height, hair color, hair style, build, etc.... He's basically a twin of Spock. Additionally, the new Kahn's voice has ZERO likeness to Ricardo Montalban's accented voice.

Question #2: What was with the more or less 'repeat', but reversed of the Spock death scene where Spock 'dies' in the Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Kahn, where Spock and Kirk on either sides of the glass, Spock having been exposed to radiation and soon to die? This time its Kirk on the other side of the glass. I was fully expecting Kirk to say 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, or the few.' But then, of course, they come up with some way for Kirk to survive...by injecting him with some of Kahn's super-blood.

All of it adds up to a 'W-T-F ?'. Is that discussed on any of the Trekker forums? What's the consensus, if any?

This post was edited on 2/15 7:11 AM by Boiler20

 

[BoilersRock]

I think it's as simple as avoiding a complete rehash of the original. Plus the first movie offers the convenience of a parallel universe and alternate plot after the whole wormhole bit.

 

[qazplm]

Both movies were full of plot holes and just a waste of time from someone who has seen everything except the last prequel series... I hate the obsession with prequels in Hollywood... They could have just gotten a new crew and story in the future.

 

[Beeazlebub]

1.) They picked Cumberbatch because he's on fire at the moment. He was excellent in "The Imitation Game" and continues to be excellent in BBC's "Sherlock". They likely saw how good he was at playing a brilliant, condescending prick in "Sherlock" and wanted to bring those qualities out in Khan.

2.) In some shallow effort toward originality, they switched the roles of Spock and Kirk. Not to mention the different timeline as BoilersRock said below.

While the first re-boot had promise, this one was bad. Abrams felt the need to have nearly constant action, and made a mockery of the original themes behind Roddenberry's Trek.

I would suggest watching the khan episode from the original series, then following up with the '82 version of The Wrath of Khan.
ST II Wrath of Khan doesn't get enough credit for being an excellent film outside the Trek community, and it still holds up to this day.

Also, both The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine are better than most of the movies. TNG in particular hit its stride after season 2.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by qazplm:
Both movies were full of plot holes and just a waste of time from someone who has seen everything except the last prequel series... I hate the obsession with prequels in Hollywood... They could have just gotten a new crew and story in the future.

Trek needs a new TV series. How sweet might a trek series from HBO or Showtime be?