Shatner And Khan Together Again. Did Abrams Save The Best For Star Trek 2?

Illustration for article titled Shatner And Khan Together Again. Did Abrams Save The Best For Star Trek 2?

We know J.J. Abrams tried to for a William Shatner cameo in his new Star Trek, but it never worked out. But Abrams is leaving the door open for future cameos. And Khan's invited too.

Advertisement

To be fair, Abrams isn't saying that Shatner will be in the next movie. (And it's early enough that if interviewers asked, "Could Gracie the whale and Squire Trelaine dance together in the next movie?" Abrams' response would probably be, "Maybe.") But still, this is the first indication from Abrams that a long-awaited Shatner cameo could happen in the next movie. And he even has a rationale for it.

Abrams told MTV:

"The point of creating this independent timeline is to not have the restrictions we had coming into this one. And one of those restrictions was that Kirk was dead."

The second name that came up was whether or not they'd be bringing back the most beloved villain in all Trekkerdom, Khan.

As for Khan, many people believe that since Kirk never stranded him on Ceti Alpha V, the character would no longer be the same villain we saw in Star Trek 2. But Abrams argues that it is still possible to feature Khan as the villain in the Trek sequels: "[Kirk and Khan] exist - and while their history may not be exactly as people are familiar with, I would argue that a person's character is what it is. Certain people are destined to cross paths and come together, and Khan is out there … even if he doesn't have the same issues."

Advertisement

Well at least it's good to know that they are toying with the idea of bringing him back. I feel like no matter the time rift, Kirk and Khan are destined to be enemies. If not in one way, then in another.

DISCUSSION

tcerruti
Logan05

I still don't get this alternative timeline non-sense. If they wanted to free themselves from the baggage of the original they should have gone with a cold reboot. Instead, they've actually perpetuated that continuity.

Which leads me Khan- If they had gone with a cold reboot instead of this alternate timeline crap there would be fewer reasons to compare whoever ends up playing the character to Ricardo Montalban. The character would also be free from the constraints of the original series.

The audience is smart enough to get the need for a reboot. They get that Roger Moore isn't Sean Connery without any time travel silliness. They get the Timothy Dalton and Daniel Craig aren't George Lazenby ( or Sir David Niven or Woody Allen for those classic Casino Royale fans). They get that Edward James Olmos isn't Lorne Greene and that Starbuck can be a chick. Why did the writers of the new Star Trek have to throw this lame explanation using an overused writers gimmick to restart the franchise?

I'm pretty sure, had they started cold, that they would not have lost any believability, particularly when the plot includes a Vulcan officer jettisoning his second in command on moon during a military crisis and a transporter device that renders starships obsolete.