Oh, how the internets loves its casting rumors. Today, the nugget that caught my eye came from comingsoon.net, who not only floated the idea of Khan Noonien Singh being the villain in the next Star Trek flick, but that — “if they started filming today” — Lost’s Nestor Carbonell would be the deep-sleeping warlord who harries Kirk and Co.
Of course, they aren’t filming today, and comingsoon.net admitted as much, but it got me thinking: If they are gonna do Khan — and I’m not convinced they should — who should play the part?
My answer: a woman.
Star Trek, while always on the forefront of social equality — interracial kisses, minorities and women in leadership roles; heck, The Next Generation even did a transgender episode — there have not been an abundance of female villains. The second wave of Trek (NextGen, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise) had a handful, but only a few worth remembering. The Borg Queen was cool, but more like a sequel to a villain (the Borg themselves) than an actual villain.
And if we’re talking about young Kirk, full of vim and vigor, I think the perfect foil for him is a woman; confident, ruthless, brilliant — one who shares the same appetites as the captain of the Enterprise, with none of the moral restraint.
So, yeah, I want a female Khan. And I want Sarah Shahi (pictured) to play her. She was terrific on NBC’s canceled Life, and she can totally bring the necessary steel to the role.
What do you think? Am I crazy, or just crazy like a dude who likes foxes?
Regardless, this is the last time you’ll have to put up with my particular brand of craziness, as this is my last post for EW.com. It’s been an honor, boys and girls, to explore the nooks and crannies of the geekosphere with you, lo these past few years. The wonders of Battlestar Galactica, the pain of Heroes, the nigh-obsession with Nathan Fillion: I’m glad we got to do all of this together, and I’ll miss each and every one of you — even the ones who hated my guts. We geeks are a passionate lot, and I wouldn’t have had it any other way.
You can find me on Twitter, if you like: I’ll be the idiot holding it down at twitter.com/marcbernardin. So long…and thanks for all the fish.
Comments (1-30) of 105 Add your comment
If you’re talking about a female Khan, there’s no way you can overlook Anna Torv. She’d be amazing!
Two things:
1) Could you have picked a less flattering picture of Shahi? There’s a whole internet full of photos of her looking smoking hot and you pick the one where she looks like day three of six day coke-and-booze bender.
2)They should absolutely NOT use Khan for the sequel. THey’d have to nail it perfectly to outdo the original, and they’ll piss off a million Trekkies just by trying.
Perhaps the only way they COULD do Khan without pissing people off would be to recast the role as a woman. I mean, you can’t replicate Ricardo Mantablan, why not go as far from that as possible? I’m not saying I’m convinced but I am intrigued. More intrigued than, say, casting Carbonell, even though I adore him.
Khan’s a man, so casting a man would be a good idea.
but in their alternate universe, he doesn’t HAVE to be.
Their version of an alternate universe doesn’t allow for random changes in gender. The characters may change from then onwards, but gender is sort of set in stone…
geek point
its only an alternate universe after the point where the Romulan vessel killed Kirk’s dad.
so far.
I have to agree with John, at the time of Kirk’s birth when the alternate universe started, Khan would already be in statis aboard the Bounty Bay waiting to be revived.
However, I would like to see a female villain, just not Khan.
Maybe she could be named Khana. Would that be okay with the fanboys?
Marc – You were my favorite poster @ EW.com. Our brains seemed to be wired in a similar way. I have been an avid Twitter avoider, but now will have to give in and check on Twitter to see what your are up to. Good luck, remember your towel and that the answer is 42.
I would totally agree with that casting, although I’m not sure if the greater public would accept a female khan.
I’ve really enjoyed your articles, good luck on everything in the future!
I think a female Khan would rock, but Star Trek purists would cry foul.
more than they cried foul over an Enterprise that looks like an Apple Store? (You’re probably right. But I think think it’d be fascinating.)
I think it’d be highly amusing to read/watch personally.
I’ve really enjoyed your work, Marc. Good luck with whatever is next for you!
With that said, I think casting a female Khan is a bad idea! I’m also all for more juicy roles for women, but I think switching genders of an already established character is a mistake. Part of what made Khan so great was his pissing contest with Kirk – the machismo vs. machismo dynamic of the whole thing – not to mention the fake pecs! It would be a shame to lose that alpha male vs. alpha male element that made Trek 2 so much fun. Let’s flip it around – if someone proposed that Ed Norton should play Ripley in the newest Alien movie you’d say FAGHEDABOUDIT. Certain characters work because of the gender that plays them. You know I’m right!
You know what, though. When it comes to BSG, and they genderflipped Starbuck, there was a huge fan backlash, but it ended up being a really great casting decision.
Yeah, but BSG’s gender flips worked because the rebooted BSG was not part of the timeline of the original BSG. The new Star Trek is actually trying to get old Trek fans to watch (cause, there’s like TONS of them and I’m not talking weightage, either) as well as new people. Kahn being a woman would involve either a literal sex change operation or some sort of brain swapping thing. And I wish to see neither.
I’m torn. I hate the idea of a female Khan (why would the timeline change effect the gender?) but i love the fact that you used a “Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy”/Douglas Adams quote.
disagree about a female Kaaaaahhhhhhnnnnnnn!!!!!
But would love to see the Kirk-Carol Marcus love story that gave us David.
Which probably wouldn’t happen in the new timeline.
Not Marc!
I say female villain too, but for my own sanity, I can’t handle all the grumblings there would be if she were Khan. Just give us a new bad-ass one!
Yeah, that seems like the best idea – new female villain. Also, please have more than one major female character. 3 “cameo” female characters does not count.
They shouldn’t try to recast an already iconic character. They’re being lazy. They should think of something new.
This
I actually wouldn’t mind seeing Nestor Carbonell play Khan. He’s a good actor and it would be an interesting choice for the role.
I like it too, but my first thought was Naveen Andrews. He has shown that he can play both charismatic as well as bad-@$$.
That’s the dumbest idea i’ve ever heard! Khan a woman? Idiotic. That’s why i refused to watch the new Battlestar Galactica, when i found out they made Starbuck a woman and Cylons human looking. Just plain stupid.
Oh Marc, I will miss the awesome geekness of your posts here. You were very much one of my favorite writers at Entertainment Weekly. All the best for you and your future, definitely keeping up on the Twitter. On that note, Khan a girl I could totally live with if it’s done right.
@SLB: You’re refusal to be open-minded to change made you miss out on a great series. Oh well, your loss.
As for me, I just want ANY kickass female character on Trek, whether she be a villain or a heroine. I agree with Mia’s comment below that all the female characters were “tossed into the sexual-object ghetto.” Uhura isn’t well-rounded and engaging enough as a character to represent us ladies – aka 50% of the population who deserve better representation in ALL action movies aside from the standard love interest/damsel in distress/eye candy/generally secondary helper roles we get. I can’t believe it’s 2009 and we still have to fight for this. Television has caught up for the most part; why can’t Hollywood? Oh right, because it’s still overwhelmingly run by old white guys.
Um HOLLYWOOD is run by homosexual men who dont care for women!!!! thats why female roles are for the most part 2 dimentional or very under written. look at the new bond (I do like it) bit the women are less than worth talking about. And Daniel is pure eye candy for the “boys”. I actually thought the new bond was going to be a woman. But Daniel is doing the best job yet. (yes i do include Sean) but only cause so many of the “gadgets” back then were so cheesy.
Good-bye Marc! You will be missed. Best of luck in the future.
wait, for realz marc, WHERE ARE YOU GOING? BSG ends and now you’re time at EW ends too? WHERE WILL I GET MY SCI-FI FIX (once LOST is over???) WHERE ARE YOU GOING AND WHYYYYY?
First Alynda, now YOU. YOU WERE MY FAVORITE. WHY ARE YOU LEAVING???
While I think the idea of a female Khan would be awesome to see… I would be very reluctant.
This new Trek film completely tossed all its female characters into the sexual-object ghetto. Uhura was reduced to a mere shadow of who she is. So a female Khan would be nothing but tits and ass on the screen clad in a leather push up bra. There would be no depth to her.
Abrams knows how to create strong women (Alias and Fringe as examples) he just doesn’t know how to make strong supporting characters that are women (star trek and Lost). So he has to decide is Khan going to be a lead or supportive. And for goodness sake make her something women will want to watch.
And cast someone with some meat on her. Like Christina Hendricks from Mad Men. Now that is a sexy lady. A woman who, during battle, we can believe is equal in strength. I’m sorry but a model-thin whisp of a woman is not that. Someone who would play a Cardassian.
However, they should not touch Khan to begin with. Wrath of Khan is a perfect film – please don’t touch it.
Christina Hendricks would be an amazing Starfleet member. I can her in uniform right now.
I second (third?) the idea of casting Christina Hendricks as a bad@ss Star Fleeter.
I don’t know about making Kahn female, though. I don’t think there’s any way they could justify that narratively.
this is star treks joker role. the villian of all villians. They are not going to alter the role.
EXCELLENT analogy, ITA.
I’m a feminist who believes every movie and television show is benefited by more women. But I’m against this idea as a sci-fi fan. The non-rebooted Star Trek still has a lot of fans. This isn’t a defunct franchise that never had much of a following to start with. Just from personal experience as a former Trek fan what made the movie so super cool is that it wasn’t just ‘based on Star Trek’, JJ Abrams changed one huge thing in the Trek Universe history through time travel (which has been previously established in Star Trek as a thing) which allows him to change pretty much any event that happened afterwards without screwing with canon. Changing Kahn’s gender would screw canon up it’s backside. I’m all for a female villian. I just think she should be a new character. Maybe one of those green slave women decides enough’s enough and declares war against everything that movies. I’m hoping the next movie involves Klingons which, as a side point, could open the door for some talented little-known ethnic actress to show her chops to all of America.
as a fellow feminist I love your idea of the slave girl. That could be done really really well. But it could also just turn into a hot-damsel-in-distress film. But there definitely needs to be some more Klingons…for both their awesomeness and some diversity in the casting office.
Yeah, it really does depend on execution. It’s one of those things that could go horribly horribly wrong. Especially if the slave girl turned into one of those man-hating feminists who make me cringe.
I love when we as females have to specify that we’re feminists. It should just be assumed that as women of course we’re feminists, but sadly that’s not the case.
I really do not understand why all women aren’t feminists. Sometimes it’s other women who offend my sensibilities. Some women hate women. I guess they see other girls as competition? That’s just creepy and sad all at once.
I like some of your ideas. But I can suggest a sci-fi staple ethnic actress who’s not a star but has some fans that would probably make a great Klingon – Gina Torres (from Firefly).
Other suggestion for actresses to play a female villian – Claudia Black or Amanda Tapping or even Tricia Helfer or Katie Sachoff from BSG.
I’d love to see Tricia Helfer on the big screen. She’s a powerhouse of an actor but tragically under-rated. I never got into Firefly but Gina Torres is so familiar to scifi fans that she’d probably be a great draw for a Trek film. Lucy Lawless might be fun as well. She was so cunning on BSG. So many little-known actresses and they’d probably go with some wispy up and coming it girl. Kinda sad, especially since casting for the male characters was so well done (uh, sans McCoy).
hmm, i dont think like the idea, but i guess it makes sense, rather than an inferior male khan, a hot evil female khan might be better…
I’m gonna miss your posts! You were one of my favs, because you always commented on something that was interesting, in an interesting way.
And for your final post, I think you hit on something fantastic! Khan as a woman would be just crazy enough to work. It would be so different, that critics would have to wrap their heads around the awesome (points of which you previously described) before they could even get to the possibly – but probably not – bad sides to the idea.
There are a lot of different ways they could approach Khan, and this is one of my favorites so far.
or maybe khan’s sidekick?
I totally agree with your reasoning that a female Khan would be the perfect adversary for Chris Pine’s Kirk. I love your pick – Shahi was terrific on Life. If Shahi isn’t available, perhaps Stephanie Jacobsen (TSCC’s Jesse)? She’s pretty fierce too.
Will miss you at EW Marc & do already follow at twitter. Best of luck.
A female Khan is an interesting idea but I have to say I absolutely love the idea of Nestor Carbonell!
According to Trek universe, Khan and the other genetically engineered beings were created, IIRC, in the 1990s. Since the time-line change in the 2009 Star Trek film only affected the moment of Kirk’s birth on, the original creation of Khan would not have been changed. So, sorry, but Khan is a man even in reboot-world.
Thank you. I thought I was going to have to be the one to point out how wrong the idea was. JJ Abrams has been very attentive about the Trek Universe. Heck he even made Start Trek: Enterprise reference by having new Kirk mention Archer Family’s pet Beagle. So it only confirms that all points before the Timeline split is still intact. Sorry Khan is not a woman in JJ Abrams ver.
correct!!!!!!!
ok time to get Star Trek nerd here. Kahn can’t be a woman cause he was already conceived and born BEFORE the interruption of the timeline by NERO. Sad thing is i’m not that big of a trek nerd (never been to a convention) but did pay attention to the movies and tv show.
No way you can cast Khan as a woman. That said, I wouldn’t mind a strong villainess to go against Kirk. Get creative and make a new character. Now there’s a novel idea.
This is stupid.
Nestor would do a fine job.
Marc, thank you for all the wonderful BSG recaps (which helped me get through a few “say what?” moments over the course of the series). I also share your hilarious obsession with all things Fillion. So what’s next for you? And why is EW.com suddenly losing some really good writers?
That’s what I’m wondering. How many people have left in the last week or so? 3 at least?
First “BSG” and now you Marc..
It’s been fun, Marc! I disagree about a woman playing Khan, though. If my understanding of this new Star Trek series’ timeline is correct, things are only different from 2247 or so onward. That means whatever “happened” in Star Trek’s past before that point is still basically the same, and as we know, Khan was a man. Spock and the Romulans coming back in time didn’t change that.
I think that’s a great idea! Thanks for everything Marc, I’ll miss your love of Sci-Fi, Firefly and most importantly Nathan Fillion. I always looked forward to reading what you had to say. Good luck!