Orci Drops Trek 2 Character Hints
2 min read
In an interview with TrekMovie.com, Star Trek 2 Co-writer Roberto Orci cleared up some information regarding some characters to appear on Star Trek 2 – well, perhaps.
Orci again debunked a rumor about the character to be played by Benedict Cumberbatch, and explained which characters played by actors new to the franchise would be portraying canon characters and which would not.
There has been plenty of buzz recently about Karl Urban‘s seeming slip of the tongue where he revealed that Cumberbatch would be playing Gary Mitchell (Where No Man Has Gone Before). “He’s awesome,” said Urban; “he’s a great addition, and I think his Gary Mitchell is going to be exemplary.”
But Orci, when asked about the discrepancy between Urban’s comments and Orci’s own previous statement regarding Cumberbatch, repeated Urban’s explanation for “misspeaking.” “All I can say is that when I did that radio interview I had just been doing 22 hours of press. I had just got off a flight from New Zealand…,” said Orci.
When asked directly if he was sticking with his original comment (that Cumberbatch would not be Mitchell,) Orci said, “I would say that I never lie. While Karl tests all those hypo spray props on himself.”
In the discussion following his comments on the matter, Orci admitted to readers that “…I lied once.”
So will Cumberbatch be Mitchell, or not? One could argue last week’s disclosure and walk back either way.
In fact, Cumberbatch, according to Orci, will be playing an established character. Orci was given a name of six actors with guest roles in Star Trek 2 and he revealed that two would be playing canon roles and four would not.
The four playing new characters are: Noel Clarke, Nanzine Contractor, Peter Weller and Joseph Gatt; while Cumberbatch and Alice Eve will be playing canon characters. Speculation on Eve’s character includes: Carol Marcus, Yeoman Rand, and Christine Chapel. Cumberbatch possible roles include Khan, Gary Seven and Gary Mitchell.
About The Author
The leaked images certainly support the Mitchell theory.
Has anyone considered that if Gary Mitchell is in the film, the character that Sally Kellerman played is probably who this Alice Eve’s “Canon character” would be?
Who cares the reboot ‘Trek’ sucks.
I remember in one of the pictures, Spock is giving “Mitchell” a nerve pinch, then I got to thinking of one of the newer trek comics that takes place during the reboots, supposed to take place right after the reboot movie…here is a summary:
The Gary Mitchell from the alternate reality created by Nero appears in the first two issues of the IDW Star Trek series; having been assigned to the Enterprise on Kirk’s request, Mitchell again succumbs to the barrier’s influence – a mind-meld performed by Spock confirms that there is no intelligence in Mitchell after the barrier takes over – but during the confrontation on Delta Vega, while Mitchell is tormenting Kirk, he is defeated when Spock sneaks up on the occupied Mitchell and delivers a Vulcan nerve pinch, incapacitating Mitchell long enough for his real self to take over and ask Kirk to kill him.
Kind of fits with those pictures…I kind of hope they didn’t just use the comics plot…
So Benedict Cumberbatch and Alice Eve are the ones apparently playing canon characters, according to this post. But the post doesn’t mention the Elizabeth Dehner character as speculation for Eve? Take a look at her, and then look at Sally Kellerman. If the Mitchell “slip” is true, Eve would fit as Dehner on look alone. … I’ll stay out of the debate about Cumberbatch’s look for Mitchell, though. 🙂
If it were Gary Seven… The Black Cat? CGI or real? 😛
well he looks a lot more like Mitchell than Khan. The baffling issue is the courting of Del Toro. I mean was he supposed to play Mitchell? Nothing really makes a whole lot of sense.
Orci seems to delve in the idea of conflict among the crew. That fits more into the Mitchell story than Khan story because clearly in both Khan episodes (or one episode and one movie), there was strong team play among them. It was the crew against Khan albeit Marla McGivers.
The Mitchell story relates to the development of the relationship between Kirk and Spock. It is a classic conflict that started their closer bonding. In that first episode, Mitchell apparently was Kirk’s real human best friend and Spock was delegated to being that robotic antagonist of logic, not someone Kirk was really close to nor particularly one whom he fully respected as a man although he was clearly depended upon. When Mitchell was killed, Spock fills in that need for an officer he can confide in.
Paramount does because it is raked in bucks.
quite possible.
the only thing is that Gary Seven was a good person and he meant well and the story took place in the 20th century yet another back in time issue.
He did indeed mean well, and he was antagonistic towards the Enterprise crew because he believed at first that they were meddling (which they ended up doing… but it all worked out in the end… meh.)
But yes, then it would be yet another goddamn time travel story. And I do sincerely hope that K&O (those knuckleheads) are not going to be quite that stupid.
Which does not change the fact that Gary Seven is a pretty neglected character with a lot of potential, and Cumberbunds would make an awesome Gary Seven.
She also looks a great deal like Grace Lee Whitney. However, they’ve FORTUNATELY shown in the last Trek that looking like someone is not all they want in an actor for a canon part.
As much as i think WNMHGBF merits a big-screen redeaux, I just don’t think they’re doing it. JJ loves to jerk us all off.
You didn’t see it.
I’d like to see it happen, but I doubt it will.
In the new Trek Comic they explore the Mictchell character, the deal was is that stories in the comic would only use character not in the next movie. In the new timeline Sally Kellerman character Dr. Elizabeth Dehner was not on the Enterprise when the events of Where no Man has gone before take place…
Maybe he didn’t see it, but he’s right. What Abrams & Co did to Star Trek goes against everything what Roddenberry would have wanted. What use is a retro movie about the future? Why not go into a future that lies much farther ahead, in the 27th century or something like that?
Rehashing things that have been is pointless and proves a lack of imagination
Saw it and hated it. I love Trek, but not the reboot.
Question, Guest: are you aware that this is a Star Trek fansite of sorts? The new Star Trek movie was loved by a very large audience and even my wife, who is not a fan of Sci-Fi AT ALL, loved this enough to see it twice in the theater.
My apologies for my bitterness. I have been a Trek fan for a long time and for me the reboot was not Trek at all, just a poorly written Sci-fi action film. The music and the acting were done well overall. My wife also loved it and she is also not a sci fi fan either.
My guess is they did not make it for you Guest. You sound like your burnt out on Star Trek and it is time for you to move on to something else you feel does not suck. Star Trek is new to thousands of people each year. I myself, did not start watching Star Trek until 1991, TNG. I had a lot of fun watching TNG unfold, going back to the TOS episodes and discovering Kirk and Crew, Happy for DS9, Super happy for VOY, then the TNG movies…and so on. For me, I can just imagine right now, how many people seen the new Star Trek and are now on Netflix or Amazon, watching all the Star Trek series back to back. How fun it would have been for me to have all Star Trek in one place, watch one after another, wow, and fives series and bunch of movies to fill me up :O)
I am most definitely not burnt out of Trek. I continue to watch TNG and DS9. If the reboot gets new to people to watch the older Treks than great, but for me the reboot lost what made Trek Trek. I know I seem to be in a small minority….
Thank you for stating your point a little more clearly thank “it sucks”. If you had said that in the first place instead of just “it sucks”, you probably would not have been bludgeoned like a baby seal.
So is Cuberbatch going to be Gary Mitchel? Is there going to be a Gary Mitchel? The question hasn’t been answered.
Deep Space 9 went against most of what Roddenberry wanted, what with clandestine organizations within Starfleet, a militarized Starfleet, full-scale space war which he felt glorified violence, and worst of all, long complex story arcs instead of purely episodic television.
Enterprise went ‘retro’ (although in this case ‘backwards’ and ‘retarded’ also fit quite nicely). They did spend much of the run being pointless and lacking imagination, though the fourth season tried hard to right the wrongs.
In short these heinous crimes were already perpetrated well before Abrams and those knuckleheads became involved.
The rehashing in this case is to show events that had not been seen before, such as Kirk’s (admittedly alternate) youth, and everyone else but Spock’s time in the Academy. It also gave an opportunity to explore the characters from different
I don’t claim the movie’s perfect, in fact if you’ve been on this site enough you know my problems with it. However I do think it is perfectly good Trek; not the best by a good shot, but better than we’ve had in some time.