First Star Trek Into Darkness Trailer Sends The Enterprise Underwater
Apologies for the providing site but here is the first trailer for Star Trek Into Darkness. It features Sherlock using a gravelly voice as The Enemy.
J. J. Abrams has been very cagey about who The Enemy is. The Enemy is known to be from the original series and the general opinion is that it is, KHAANNNN!!!
There is a minority opinion that it might be Gary Mitchell, who was the antagonist in the Pilot episode: Where No Man has Gone Before. I thought that it was just fanboy nonsense until I saw the trailer. There was a secondary character in in Where No Man has Gone Before; One Dr. Denher, played by Sally Kellerman. A little background for the less athletically nerdy. Gary Mitchell was Kirk's besty before Spock took over that lousy job. However, Mitchell was turned into a hostile god being by crossing the galactic border (real God, only knows why). And Mitchell became the first of Kirk's enemies. Doctor Denher also became a god but not as fast as Mitchell, because she was a girl and it was 1967. Anyway she helped Kirk defeat Mitchell at the cost of her life.
Here is Sally Kellerman as Dr. Denher
Here is Alice Eve playing Unnamed Character in Star Trek Into Darkness.
Maybe I'm wrong here but Alice Eve's Unnamed Character kind of looks like...
Two readers' responses:
Hey, Scoop. The bad guy is definitely not Gary Mitchell. That character and storyline was used in the first story arc of the new Star Trek comic series published by IDW. Those stories are considered in-continuity and canonical by Paramount.
Karl Urban, the guy who plays the new Bones, leaked that the bad guy was Gary Mitchell when he was promoting Dredd this summer, but there's some dispute about whether this was a slip of the tongue or planned "viral campaign" feint.
Another reader's comments:
Ok, Scoop, call me old fashioned, a stick in the mud or whatever, but I am a trekkie (NOT TREKKER) from way back. I saw the new Star Trek movie and it literally decimated the Star Trek Universe as it exists. I mean, after all, Spock’s mother was in ST4, as an elder lady and yet, supposedly in the new ST movie, Vulcan was utterly destroyed, along with I assume, Amanda Grayson (Spock’s mom).
That event begs the question of how did Kirk and crew come to land on Vulcan after rescuing Spock from the Genesis planet? Also, if Spock’s home was destroyed, where did the elder Spock come from that Spock the younger encountered in the ice cave?
These are two of the most obvious problems. I do not mind the redesign of the Starship Enterprise from what it was in TOS to the extremely futuristic design we saw in the new movie, but I do object to Jim Kirk’s father supposedly being the captain of said ship. James T. Kirk’s father was an insurance salesman in Iowa. He was not in Star Fleet.
One other thing that was hinted at in the movie. James Kirk was not born on a starship! He was born in Iowa, a fact that was made abundantly clear in TOS and the movies (Kirk to Jillian, over pizza after she says, “Don’t tell me, you’re from
outerspace.” Kirk: “No, I’m from Iowa. I just work in outerspace.”)
I realize the franchise belongs to CBS/Paramount and they can do anything they want with it, but the 2nd new movie now appears to be going to involve an enemy we saw first in TOS.
Can somebody (maybe one of your readers) explain these obvious discrepancies to an old man? The best I have been able to come up with is the new Star Trek is an alternate universe thing.
I really didn't follow all of that, but maybe some of our readers know something ...?
My opinion is that the vast majority of the audience for a blockbuster Star Trek picture falls into one of two categories: either (1) they saw the original series years ago, but have forgotten all the details, so are not aware of or bothered by conflicts in the back-story; or (2) they are too young to know or care anything about the original series, so they accept the film's version as the canonical one. I fall into category 1. I've seen every episode of TOS, but haven't seen any in the past 30 years, so I probably wouldn't even notice any contradictions with the established Star Trek universe..
On the other hand, some of the film's viewers are hip to the canon, and there is some of their savvy input below.
Here's how our readers responded:
Essentially, you're right, the new Star Trek exists in an alternate timeline. I assume it was done to give JJ Abrams and crew the freedom to explore new territory (excuse any puns) without violating the original canon, though that's strictly conjecture on my part.
Yes, it's an alternate timeline, a fact outright stated in the movie (apparently the reader left to use the restroom during that scene?).
As to Jim Kirk's father, several novels have established George as serving in Starfleet. I know, I know, novels are not canonical. But no episodes mentioned him being an insurance salesman either, so JJ Abrams wasn't out of line for putting George in Starfleet.
What the other guys said. The tendency for multiple co-existing realities to occupy nearby dimensions is canon in the series. Technically, it would even be possible for the two Kirks to meet (as he met several of his alts in the series), although that event might be constrained by practical reality (William Shatner is kinda old now). On the other hand, with computer effects, who knows?