or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › “I’M NOT FUCKING PLAYING KHAN!” CUMBERBATCH DECLARES
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

“I’M NOT FUCKING PLAYING KHAN!” CUMBERBATCH DECLARES

post #1 of 49
Thread Starter 
by Renn Brown: link

"Seriously you guys, believe us!"
post #2 of 49

Oh.

post #3 of 49

That's such a "Khan" thing to say, Benedict.

post #4 of 49

JJ Abrams - The Boy Who Cried Khan

post #5 of 49
Whenever an actor says, "my character is not a two-dimensional villain," he's totally playing a two-dimensional villain. Even after the 3D post-conversion.
post #6 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Decade View Post

That's such a "Khan" thing to say, Benedict.

Exactly. "John Harrison" contains 3 of the letters in "Khan"... Coincidence? I don't think so!

post #7 of 49

He's probably this guy:

post #8 of 49

Look-- Benedict Cumberbatch is, like, entitled to his opinion and all... But I say he's playing Khan.

post #9 of 49

If he's telling the truth, THANK KHAN GOD ZOD. In the still accompanying the article, he looks a bit like Eric Bana. I'm calling it now. SON OF NERO. eek.gif Just you wait. He's gonna spend the whole picture calling himself John Whatever. Then, at the end, he's gonna stab Kirk and reveal his real name (Nero Jr.?) and who his father was. Possibly after they'd had sex earlier under false pretense.

post #10 of 49

What hath the Jar Jar mystery box wrought?

 

This.  This hath it wrought.

post #11 of 49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post

He's probably this guy:



And, like that, Benedict Cumberbatch has been fancasted as Bennu of the Golden Light! 

post #12 of 49

John Harrison, huh?  Well, if true , I nominate this for lamest villain name ever.

post #13 of 49

At least it would make sense why they kept it so secret...

post #14 of 49

Because I live Star Trek canon, I thought he may have been playing the father of the captain of the Enterprise-B, but his name was John Harriman. Perhaps there is an original villian?

post #15 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi View Post

If he's telling the truth, THANK KHAN GOD ZOD. In the still accompanying the article, he looks a bit like Eric Bana. I'm calling it now. SON OF NERO. eek.gif Just you wait. He's gonna spend the whole picture calling himself John Whatever. Then, at the end, he's gonna stab Kirk and reveal his real name (Nero Jr.?) and who his father was. Possibly after they'd had sex earlier under false pretense.

So... the Dark Knight Rises defense?  Well played Naisu, well played. Maybe not as clever as the Chewbacca defense, but I like your thinking.

post #16 of 49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

At least it would make sense why they kept it so secret...

 

He'll be "John" throughout the movie, then at the very end it'll be revealed that - in the late 20th Century - the "J" was actually pronounced with a hard "K".

post #17 of 49

Yeeeaaaah... this guy still sounds like a cookie to me. I hear his name and I think of a tall, cold glass of milk.

post #18 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

Whenever an actor says, "my character is not a two-dimensional villain," he's totally playing a two-dimensional villain. Even after the 3D post-conversion.

 

And when they say "you'll totally relate to him and understand his motivations" we'll totally just think of him as "the bad guy."

post #19 of 49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

Yeeeaaaah... this guy still sounds like a cookie to me. I hear his name and I think of a tall, cold glass of milk.

 

As it's been said before, "Cumberbatch" sounds like a fart in a bathtub.

post #20 of 49

Jesus.  I don't know what I'm more annoyed with, everyone going crazy trying to figure out who the villain is, or Abrams being so secretive and coy about the whole thing.  I don't think I have ever been turned off by a movie this far in advance.

 

That being said, this thread has been entertaining.

post #21 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Decade View Post

Quote:



And, like that, Benedict Cumberbatch has been fancasted as Bennu of the Golden Light! 

 

Fuck me.  I forgot about this show.  

post #22 of 49

My friend had an interesting theory that Cumberbatch was a renegade Vulcan with a grudge against the Federation for getting his home planet destroyed. I didn't have time to press him on it, but I guess in this theory he's been surgically altered and is in disguise as a human. That honestly is a pretty cool idea (Cumby sure LOOKS like a Vulcan), but I doubt it.

post #23 of 49

Yeah, I can get behind that.

post #24 of 49

This means I can't refer to him as Khanberbatch now.

 

I haz a sad and it hurts so much.

post #25 of 49
Assuming this is in any degree true, best news about this thing yet. I don't even care who he's playing; they could adapt "Plato's Stepchildren," as far as I'm concerned, just don't. Fucking. Do. Another. Khan. Recycle.
post #26 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

My friend had an interesting theory that Cumberbatch was a renegade Vulcan with a grudge against the Federation for getting his home planet destroyed. I didn't have time to press him on it, but I guess in this theory he's been surgically altered and is in disguise as a human. That honestly is a pretty cool idea (Cumby sure LOOKS like a Vulcan), but I doubt it.

 

If the secret is that he had extensive plastic surgery to alter his appearance, surely he would be a... Kardasshian.

post #27 of 49

I demand you donate that Rep point to charity, Bailey. Even Duke Fleed probably groaned at that pun.

post #28 of 49

Hey, it's not my fault their name sounds like a Star Trek alien race.  You don't not swing when the ball is placed right there on the tee for you.

post #29 of 49

I might start giving a shit about this movie when all Trek news stops being about who the fucking villain will be, but at this point I'm just going to see it for the sake of having an opinion on it. I'm at that point where I khan't stomach anymore hemming and hawing over the identity of the heavy.

post #30 of 49

 I thought the villain was going to be Gary Mitchell. While I thought seeing a godlike being going nuts on the big screen would make a good movie, its probably a good idea to do a new character.

post #31 of 49

As a person who frequents sites such as this, I know that what I'm about to say will make me hypocrite, but fuck it:  the internet ruins a lot of shit as far as films go.  I may be alone, but I applaud JJ's Fort Knox approach to his films.  We always whinge about trailers showing too much, but whine when we don't see enough.  You all want to know right now if he's Khan, and if you did find that out, you'd bitch and whine and nitpick about it all the way up to release day and beyond.  JJ doesn't want to hear your whining, and dammit I agree with him.  If he's Khan, we'll know soon enough.  If not, then he's not.  Just this once, kids, don't try and rip the wrapping off your gift and tape it back together before Xmas.  Just let it fucking be.

post #32 of 49

I doubt that any of us are actually wringing our hands on this issue. It's just fun to spitball & bullshit with each other about it. We all know that JJ ain't gonna disappoint.

post #33 of 49

JJ's approach isn't about keeping things secret.  Make everyone say "No comment" and move on.  JJ's approach is about cultivating an air of bullshit mystery!! which is completely empty.  He's not Fort Knox, he's PT Barnum.

post #34 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

JJ's approach isn't about keeping things secret.  Make everyone say "No comment" and move on.  JJ's approach is about cultivating an air of bullshit mystery!! which is completely empty.  He's not Fort Knox, he's PT Barnum.

 

Seriously, this. Abrams isn't motivated by a need to preserve the integrity of his projects, he's motivated by a need to self-aggrandize and hype his shit in the weirdest, most bizarrely inappropriate ways possible. He's not making anyone interested in the actual movie, he's just getting people to talk about who one of his stars might be playing. It's juvenile showboating bullshit.

post #35 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

My friend had an interesting theory that Cumberbatch was a renegade Vulcan with a grudge against the Federation for getting his home planet destroyed. I didn't have time to press him on it, but I guess in this theory he's been surgically altered and is in disguise as a human. That honestly is a pretty cool idea (Cumby sure LOOKS like a Vulcan), but I doubt it.
So you're telling me that JJ is remaking his own Star Trek 09 film but with a Vulcan villain? Ugh
post #36 of 49

This all moot anyway. Clearly Cumberbatch is playing the resurrected Darth Vader.

 

11.jpg

post #37 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post

 

Seriously, this. Abrams isn't motivated by a need to preserve the integrity of his projects, he's motivated by a need to self-aggrandize and hype his shit in the weirdest, most bizarrely inappropriate ways possible. He's not making anyone interested in the actual movie, he's just getting people to talk about who one of his stars might be playing. It's juvenile showboating bullshit.

 

And it's working apparently. Just look how many articles are published about the new Star Trek movie every other day.

post #38 of 49
At last, the truth is out.

post #39 of 49

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

 

And it's working apparently. Just look how many articles are published about the new Star Trek movie every other day.

 

EXACTLY what I was stopping by to post. If people weren't endlessly yapping about it -- if folks just said, "Eh, we'll see what's what when the movie opens" -- this mystery box stuff would cease to be. But one glance at the Internet will tell you that film nerds are putty in J.J.'s hands.

 

I honestly think the bigger concern is whether, from a dramatic standpoint, it makes sense to tell a new Khan story (which I think this movie will indeed do) using a shitload of in-movie sleight-of-hand and plot-twist shenanigans. Doesn't strike me as the right way to serve up Khan 2.0.

post #40 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

And it's working apparently. Just look how many articles are published about the new Star Trek movie every other day.

So?

The fact that an incessantly annoying promotional tactic works does nothing to validate its existence for anyone except the people making money off It. Apply this post directly to your forehead. Apply this post directly to your forehead. Apply this post directly to your forehead.
post #41 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by zak chase View Post

Quote:

 

EXACTLY what I was stopping by to post. If people weren't endlessly yapping about it -- if folks just said, "Eh, we'll see what's what when the movie opens" -- this mystery box stuff would cease to be. But one glance at the Internet will tell you that film nerds are putty in J.J.'s hands.

 

I honestly think the bigger concern is whether, from a dramatic standpoint, it makes sense to tell a new Khan story (which I think this movie will indeed do) using a shitload of in-movie sleight-of-hand and plot-twist shenanigans. Doesn't strike me as the right way to serve up Khan 2.0.

 

The trouble is that people are doing this in December. We'll be burned out on it by the time the movie comes out.

post #42 of 49

Here's the thing, though: part of the reason we care so much (well, me, anyway) is because having Khan in this movie is a stupid, awful idea. And we're all desperately hoping that JJ Abrams dodged that bullet, despite evidence to the contrary.

 

So yeah, Abrams is getting everyone to obsess over it, but only because we believe he's actually that dumb. Seems kinda self-defeating.

 

I actually agree with Harley to an extent--I think wanting to keep your movie somewhat of a surprise is admirable, and a lot of this annoyance is magnified by internet rumour mill sites who are used to spoiling themselves silly. But there's a difference between keeping the script under wraps and endless, showboating, pointless mystery box hype over the identity of the villain. We're going to know who Cumberbatch is before the movie hits, count on it. So unless that was just Abrams' way of making sure nobody was paying attention to any of the other, legitimate surprises, it's all kind of pointless.

 

Even keeping things secret has a knack to it, and Abrams is as unsubtle and misguided about that as he is about telling Star Trek stories.
 

post #43 of 49

I'd like to think he is telling the truth, I really would.  And it's almost Christmas so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

But woe to you Benedict if you are lying, woe to you if you squander my good will.....

post #44 of 49

At this point I'm getting more curious about the CEO Peter Weller is playing. I have a feeling he's manipulating Cumberbatch's character or something.

post #45 of 49

After seeing the trailer again before The Hobbit, that Vulcan theory is really starting to ring true for me. Comerbatch's character obviously has a moment with Spock while locked in that cell, and the speech about "doing anything for your family" that plays over it seems to fortify it.

post #46 of 49

I kind of liked Drew McWeeny's theory on the villain, but I'm a casual Trek fan and I've paid very little attention to news about this movie, so I have no idea how valid it is. http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/a-day-at-bad-robot-gives-us-a-better-look-at-star-trek-into-darkness/3

post #47 of 49

I'm starting to lean towards the Garth of Izar theory, if only because keeping his identity secret was a plot point in the original episode, if I recall correctly. So all this rigamarole would make sense.

 

But it's probably not that.
 

post #48 of 49

Okay, everyone needs a pet theory, here's mine. I'm basing it on an assessment of Team Abrams as competent but uninspired storytellers, with occasions of staggering ineptitude/genius. Thus, they're either not capable or uninterested in doing a dark, psychological thriller in which we see Gary Mitchell and James T. Kirk as best friends, see Mitchell gain god-like power, then go mad with it. But, they are smart/commercial enough for basic branding. Benedict Cumberbatch looks and sounds literally nothing like Khan. Look at Karl Urban in the first movie. He's absolutely doing an impression of Deforrest Kelley. I don't think we'd go from that to "oh, Khan is a slender pale Starfleet officer with an English accent instead of a Colombian superman." It's just bad branding.

 

However, they will trade on the name value of Khan, so I'm going with Cumberbatch as "___ of Khan". Possibly he's a follower/rival of Khan from a separate cryo-ship (in which case, expect dialogue about how he was worse than Khan/even Khan was scared of him). Or a modern-day descendant of Khan/Khan's forces. "You know me as John Harrison, but my proper name is John... Harrison... KHAN." Either way, he's been reawakened/activated and infiltrated Starfleet, along with followers maybe, like a terrorist cell. 9/11 parallels ahoy with the villains as terrorists, which is safe now that Obama's president and the filmmakers can't be mistaken for Republicans (see Iron Man 3, Zero Dark Thirty). He eventually uses this infiltration to screw over Starfleet: i.e., going from being captured to crashing the Enterprise, blowing shit up, etc. His goal is to find the Botany Bay and revive Khan, who'll serve as Sealed Evil In A Can. If accomplished, this will rally Augments embedded throughout the Federation, but if Team Kirk gets Khan, they'll be demoralized or surrender, thus giving the good guys an easy "blow this up to save the day" plot. However, since franchises are all about the build-up now (Amazing Spider-Man 2 leading up to Green Goblin, Green Lantern leading up to Sinestro, Avengers leading up to Thanos), the final shot will reveal that Khan has survived and now has a bone to pick with Kirk in Star Trek 3. Bonus points if he somehow is revived and screws Cumberbatch over so he becomes an 'ally' of the Federation/friend to Kirk, all the better to be an even bigger villain in 3 when he betrays their trust.

 

In fact, with Team Abrams' over-the-top secrecy, it wouldn't surprise me if early rumor Benecio del Toro got the role of villain after all, but it was simply a small cameo leading up to him as full-on Khan in the next movie. Sorta like Samuel L. Jackson showing up as Nick Fury in Iron Man. 

post #49 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Savage View Post

I'd like to think he is telling the truth, I really would.  And it's almost Christmas so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

But woe to you Benedict if you are lying, woe to you if you squander my good will.....

 

Now, now, now........he "technically" wouldn't be lying if he actually does turn out to be Khan.  Direct quote: “I play a character called John and not that other name”.  Notice how he never actually utters the name Khan?  Come on now, Benny!  If you are exasperated with the questions, give a definitive statement.  Or are you sidestepping issues so Abrams won't disappear your ass?

 

All joking aside, Khan or not, we all know he'll knock BIG BADDIE out of the park and that's all that really matters.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › “I’M NOT FUCKING PLAYING KHAN!” CUMBERBATCH DECLARES