Benedict Cumberbatch's Character In STAR TREK 2 Revealed?

Benedict Cumberbatch's Character In STAR TREK 2 Revealed?

Karl Urban - who plays Dr. "Bones" McCoy in the movie - seems to have let slip who Cumberbatch will be playing, but something tells me the actor could be having a bit of fun with over-curious fans at a recent junket for Dredd. Possible SPOILER ahead..

By MarkCassidy - Jul 09, 2012 05:07 AM EST
Filed Under: Star Trek
Source: SFX

At a promotional junket for Dredd, Karl Urban may just have let slip who Benedict Cumberbatch is playing in J.J. Abrams' Star Trek sequel. When asked by SFX what it was like having the Sherlock actor on set, Urban replied:

“He’s awesome, he’s a great addition, and I think his Gary Mitchell is going to be exemplary.”




The fact that he just came out with it like that means he may well be just tossing a big red herring out there. Or, he has in fact just revealed something that the entire cast and crew have been adamant should be kept secret for ages now. For non Trek fans, Gary Mitchell appeared in the original series episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before", and was an old friend of Jim Kirk's until an encounter with a galactic barrier transformed him into a cruel, ruthless and extremely powerful villain. The most persistent rumor had been that Cumberbatch would be playing Khan, but this has been shot down by the likes of Simon Pegg. What do you guys think? Gary Mitchell sound about right to you? We will update as soon we can confirm or debunk this.

Star Trek 2 (not final title) is due for release 17 May 2013.









STAR TREK: SECTION 31 Trailer And Poster Sees Michelle Yeoh Emperor Philippa Georgiou Assemble A Team Of Spies
Related:

STAR TREK: SECTION 31 Trailer And Poster Sees Michelle Yeoh Emperor Philippa Georgiou Assemble A Team Of Spies

Quentin Tarantino Finally Explains Why His R-Rated STAR TREK Movie Is Never Going To Happen
Recommended For You:

Quentin Tarantino Finally Explains Why His R-Rated STAR TREK Movie Is "Never Going To Happen"

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

antonio
antonio - 7/9/2012, 5:19 AM
Hmmm..welll he has been rumored to be playing this role for sometime now.
Fantine
Fantine - 7/9/2012, 5:47 AM
cant wait :)
G
G - 7/9/2012, 5:54 AM
I think Urban's comment was meant to be funny.
StarkAnthony
StarkAnthony - 7/9/2012, 5:59 AM
Okay, even if Urban is telling the truth here, how is this supposed to be a spoiler? I mean as soon as the thing starts and they call him by name in the movie the "big secret" is out. Knowing the character he plays is in no way a spoiler. If it is supposed to be a secret in the movie, like where it's a plot twist, then you could consider it a spoiler. But they're probabaly going to tell you who he is like right away anyway. People and spoilers these days.
MrSundayMovies
MrSundayMovies - 7/9/2012, 6:09 AM
Not a great name for villain Gary Mitchell. Sounds like somebodies Dad.
MarkCassidy
MarkCassidy - 7/9/2012, 6:09 AM
Jesus Christ there is no winning with some people. I put the character in the headline and it would have been "Wahhhhhh spoiler warning WAhhhhhhh"
ralfinader
ralfinader - 7/9/2012, 6:12 AM
RorMachine - 7/9/2012, 6:09 AM
Report Comment Jesus Christ there is no winning with some people. I put the character in the headline and it would have been "Wahhhhhh spoiler warning WAhhhhhhh"

lol
beane2099
beane2099 - 7/9/2012, 6:26 AM
Doubt this is real. I'm content to wait till the movie comes out for the reveal.
DetBullock
DetBullock - 7/9/2012, 6:52 AM
O dear, I hate "Where No Man Has Gone Before", it's the only TOS episode I really don't like.
spidereaper
spidereaper - 7/9/2012, 7:37 AM
I was never a Star Trek fan until I saw the new one, so I am eagerly awaiting the sequel.
armalarm
armalarm - 7/9/2012, 8:04 AM
I call BS!

Gary Mitchell already appeared in the Star Trek Ongoing comics which takes place in the Abrams universe. That would be stupid considering they gave that story away.

It's not him, case closed
Ceejay
Ceejay - 7/9/2012, 8:27 AM
Just because Hollywood once again has managed to take something out of its origins and principles of its source to create another action film franchise does not suddenly make you a Star Trek fan.

The millions of people watching Guy Ritchies Action Film version of Sherlock Holmes doing Kung Fu does not make them Sherlock Holmes fans as neither that or the recent Star Trek film have anything to do with what their relative creators originally made them to be.

This is just Hollywood Brand-naming for franchise use at its easiest. Take something cult/popular but outside the appreciation of the masses and dumb it down to their basic level of acceptance in an action film or action comedy style = probable hit!

Works every time..

Star Trek
Charlies Angels
Starsky and Hutch
Sherlock Holmes
21 Jump Street
Green Hornet

etc etc, just because they took everything you don't like about Star Trek and turned it into yet another easily digestible but nonsensical action comedy does not mean you're a fan!
DukeAcureds
DukeAcureds - 7/9/2012, 9:00 AM
Gary Mitchell appears in an adaptation of "Where No Man Has Gone Before" in the new IDW ongoing, which is set in continuity with the new JJ Abrams universe. So either this is wrong or this is wrong.
HelaGood
HelaGood - 7/9/2012, 9:15 AM
makes sense and totally works for me. im good.
NERO
NERO - 7/9/2012, 9:15 AM
Sounds about right. There can be only one Khan.
DrainBamage
DrainBamage - 7/9/2012, 9:17 AM
When it comes to the movies, I've always thought that Star Trek should stay away from the more paranormal and weird science stories. Those stories are fine for tv, but a story like Mitchell's...how do you spin a two hour movie around him?

One of the reasons I liked WOK, FC, Insurrection and TUC so much is because they were primarily military-like stories. No searching for God. No resurrections. No space doorways that take you to a land where you can have whatever you want.
tazmaniak
tazmaniak - 7/9/2012, 9:21 AM
Roberto Orci recently released a short list of characters that wouldn't be appearing in the film. Gary Mitchell was at the top of the list.

http://badassdigest.com/2012/06/25/these-5-characters-wont-be-in-star-trek-2.-khan-is-not-on-this-list/
mctrinket
mctrinket - 7/9/2012, 9:25 AM
If you have not had a chance to check out Cumberbatch in the BBC show "Sherlock" available on Netflix, you are missing out. It's terrific.

So good, in fact, they have a cheesy American knockoff of it coming out this fall called "Elementary".

But skip that and see the real thing with Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman (a.k.a Bilbo Baggins).
TwoBeast
TwoBeast - 7/9/2012, 9:48 AM
I think he's telling the truth. It is Gary Mitchell. About the adaption set in continuity, not many would have read it, so there would be no problem for them to adapt to film. "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is one of the best episodes.
BillyBatson1000
BillyBatson1000 - 7/9/2012, 11:57 AM
Just don't fking redo the entire Original Trek series beat for beat with occasional 'twists'. Enough already!
cosmicstranger
cosmicstranger - 7/9/2012, 11:58 AM
I would be highly interested in seeing Gary Mitchell in the Trek reboot verse. That would explain why Cumberbatch's character appears to be resistant to the Vulcan Nerve Pinch.

@TwoBeast- Agreed
dracula
dracula - 7/9/2012, 12:33 PM
to bad hes not kahn
inky
inky - 7/9/2012, 1:36 PM
Gary Mitchel is a good choice of antagonist for the second movie becouse nero aka eric bana was a total waste of space, khan would have been a better choice for the second movie but as khan was originaly the second movie villan its wise to leave him for another time.
i can only hope the next movie progresses the star trek franchize forward and not retard it.
Ichaos
Ichaos - 7/9/2012, 3:09 PM
Mitchel would be a better way to go story wise. Having the Reboot Star Trek 2 having Kahn competing with a Classic Star Trek 2 having Kahn would just start a violent nerd rage war.

If they do go that route it might be best to start stock piling pen protectors now as the ammo supply would quickly be depleted
cosmicstranger
cosmicstranger - 7/9/2012, 11:39 PM
@Ichaos- Ha-ha! Nice.
LP4
LP4 - 7/12/2012, 1:31 AM
Thank GOD NO KHAN!!! I never wanted him in the movie to begin with
View Recorder