A little speculation post? :)

Jan 23, 2013 04:10

Hello everyone! First post from a short-time stalker. I just recently came up with a possibly mad idea about the villain identity and did a write-up about it here. You're welcome to give it a looking over and come back here for discussion, debate, chastising, praises, or to just generally let me know I'm nuts ( Read more... )

misc movie shit, picspams, star trek xii: into darkness, benedict cumberbatch

Leave a comment

dwer January 24 2013, 15:43:55 UTC
So here's my problem with this.

Star Trek: Enterprise was essentially a flop. The vast majority of people who will go watch this movie will have seen, at most, two or three episodes. So if this really is a reference to stuff that happened in that series, it's, at best, a nod to the fanbois, and it's gonna require a lot of exposition.

Except you're talking about the big-baddie. I don't see the ST team doing that. It's gonna be something that casual fans will know about.

Reply

tactile_contact January 24 2013, 20:10:01 UTC
I can see your point. Honestly, I had never seen an episode of Enterprise until I started looking for references for Harrison, and it sort of took me roundabout to these episodes. And those five are the only ones I've watched. And nod or not, if they were to do this, I think new people would take it in regardless.

Casual fans didn't know about Nero, and neither did more hardcore fans because Nero was completely new... I'm assuming, anyway. (He was, wasn't he?) And who better to play a big-baddie than a Klingon? :)

I know I'm probably wrong. I'm just playing around with ideas. This sounded like something that could fit, given the information we have so far. But just watch, we'll actually end up with Q! XD

Reply

dwer January 24 2013, 20:12:36 UTC
Nero was a new character. But the point I guess I'm making (and apologies for not making it in my original comment) is that Cumberbunny's character has specifically been said to be canon. I'm just saying that the writing team, if they weren't lying, would pick a more well known character, is all.

Reply

lil_insanity January 24 2013, 20:31:45 UTC
Haven't people determined that the only "Harrison" is just a generic redshirt who was on TOS? So he's technically a canon character, but since his background was never mentioned, MAYBE HE WAS ACTUALLY A KLINGON DUN-DUN-DUN!

The only possible flaw I can see in this is that while he didn't appear in The Trouble With Tribbles (where Tribbles detected a Klingon disguised as a human), Tribbles were all over the ship, so you would assume he would have been detected if he was on board at that time. However that episode was in season 2, and I don't think Harrison was seen past season 1.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Harrison

Reply

dwer January 24 2013, 20:35:37 UTC
well, my reasons for him not being an obscure character from ST:E are the same reasons I have for him not actually being John Harrison from ST:TOS -- the character is too obscure.

Reply

lil_insanity January 24 2013, 20:49:32 UTC
They said that he was a character from canon. AFAIK they never said that he was well-known.

Who do you think it is? They've already publicly stated that it's not Gary Mitchell (and that doesn't make sense anyway now that they've released his name as John Harrison).

Reply

dwer January 24 2013, 20:51:25 UTC
I think the name is a misdirect.

Reply

tactile_contact January 24 2013, 22:24:48 UTC
I agree, I think the name is a misdirect, an alias. But saying the character is canon could be a very generalized statement. Every character that has ever appeared, and every species that has been mentioned are technically canon. It may be that they are just trying to stir the pot by saying the villian is a canon character, to push us into thinking it's a well-known individual. Either way, I'm sure Abrams and the rest are having a blast watching us all foam at the mouth trying to figure this out.

Oh, and TOS Harrison may not have been detectable by the tribbles as a Klingon augment, because the augments have human DNA as well as Klingon DNA. ;) We'll never know.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up