Alice Eve’s Character in STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Revealed

by     Posted 1 year, 250 days ago

star-trek-2-into-darkness-alice-eve-slice

Today, we have yet another sign that the villain (Benedict Cumberbatch) in Star Trek Into Darkness will probably be Khan.  While we reported yesterday that the villain’s name was “John Harrison“, it’s doubtful that’s the character’s real name.  We also know that the footage that was shown to journalists had various cues like bits from Michael Giacchino‘s score playing off the music from Wrath of Khan, and the Japanese trailer has a very familiar visual at the end.  Last night, Steve was at a press event for the movie, and learned that Alice Eve will play Carol Marcus.  For those who need a reminder, Carol Marcus was a character in Wrath of Khan.  Played by Bibi Besch, the character invented the Genesis Device, and she also had a fling with Kirk.  Granted, it’s unlikely that the new alternate timeline would exactly mimic the original timeline, but I’m baffled as to why she’s even there in the first place.  Why make all the callbacks to Wrath of Khan?  Why live in that inescapable shadow?

If you haven’t seen it yet, hit the jump to check out the latest trailer.  The film also stars Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Anton Yelchin, Zoe Saldana, John Cho, Simon Pegg, Peter Weller, and Noel ClarkeStar Trek Into Darkness opens in 3D on May 17, 2013.

Here’s the official synopsis for Star Trek Into Darkness:

In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness. When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction. As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.

star-trek-into-darkness-poster




Like Us


Comments:

FB Comments

  • TheHOYT

    Ugh! No! I hope this is just misinformation to lead spoiler seeking fanboys astray … though, I doubt it.

    You’ve got a completely new sandbox to play in with the new time-line and all. Why hearken back to the old films?

    • Steve

      I’ve been asking that same question for months. It’s all on JJ to deliver a compelling answer.

  • J.R.

    I think that J.J. is going with theory that even if you change the timeline, you cant change destiny, Is obvious that Spock will die in this movie (check Japanese trailer)

  • Tyler

    Why you ask? Well, because it is from JJ Abrams. That guy can’t brush his teeth without spreading out false information and secrecy about it. This is what he does, and he does a damn good job at it. Just look at Super 8 and Cloverfield. Hell, look a the teaser for the first Star Trek.

  • ryan

    For the same reason they showed Kirk take the Koayashi Maru test, and had such an emphasis on the no win scenario in the last flick. There was a lot of history told in Trek 2 that wasn’t ever seen by the audience. That’s where Carol comes in here. We finally get to see their relationship and see Kirk actually fall in love. Plus by having her here, it gives the filmmakers another way to not only show you something you haven’t seen but possibly also change the timeline even further. What if the only women Kirk’s ever loved is killed instead of the relationship just fizzling off. Don’t you think that might have some interesting repercussions on James T. Kirk?

    • Sean

      Exactly.

      They obviously aren’t rehashing Space Seed or Wraith of Khan. They’re telling a brand new story. Sure they’re reusing characters, but these are characters we’ve only seen one or two times in 50 years.

      • Brad

        People have been comparing the use of Khan to Joker and Batman. But they are missing a crucial difference. In the Batman mythology, Joker is the antithesis of what Batman stands for. He is Batman’s equal and opposite. Khan, however, is an episodic character. Someone who appeared in one episode of TOS and then got a sequel of sorts with Wrath of Khan. Khan’s villainy does not help define Kirk in the ways that Joker defines Batman. So it’s understandable that people would be a little pissed that he’s being used again as some kind of High Mark for Star Trek adversarial stories. He’s not even from Kirk’s time. He is from Earth’s past. And not our Earth, some alternate reality where a Eugenics Global War was fought in the late 20th century. Wrath of Khan made for a fun ripping yarn as Kirk and Khan battled wits. But the real joy of that movie was not in its villain. It was what the movie said about the passage of time and about the crew as family. I can understand the desire to revisit those themes with the rebooted crew, but why now? Could this tale not be told in the third movie? It seems like they are playing their hand prematurely. And the callbacks to Wrath of Khan are more worrisome than they are exciting for many of us.

  • Mark

    I can’t remember a time when “Guess That Villain” was so pertinent to a Star Trek movie. Or any movie for that matter. I like to give Abrams a lot of leeway in the magic box department. I see the fun in keeping movie details hush hush until the film comes out, but unless there is some mind-bending twist involving the use of an established villain, why the need for secrecy? Secrecy for secrecy’s sake is not interesting. And the misdirection also seems very disingenuous. She plays Carol Marcus but she looks like Elizabeth Dehner. The prologue literally asks “who are you?” of Cumberbatch and he just smiles slyly. I’m glad someone is having fun toying with the audience, because I’m not.

  • Max

    That’s interesting because Kirk and Carol Marcus’ first meeting has never been depicted. They already had a relationship years ago by the time Wrath of Khan came around. It’ll be interesting to have these nods to Wrath of Khan, but not have Khan.

  • varagor

    Once again, tank you for revealing potentially spoiling information on the title of your article.

  • Person

    Not gonna lie, I love Abrams’ disinformation and secrecy tactics. With the internet and social media it’s difficult to keep anything under wraps, let alone the main characters of a huge blockbuster movie. I like not knowing so much so that the movie actually surprises (though I get the irony of saying this on Collider where I read articles like this). I’m also not a huge Star Trek guy, so this whole “guess the villain” thing isn’t as painful for me.

    In any case, everything will be spoiled for us by the marketing campaign in the coming months, so enjoy the suspense while it lasts.

  • Cold Warrior

    Recall the conversation between Kirk and Gary Mitchell about the “blonde lab technician” Kirk almost married, which I think was a reference to Carol Marcus, although neither man disclosed the girl’s name. Apparently, Mitchell played a significant role in the relationship between Kirk and the “blonde lab technician” whom Kirk nearly married. I think that young blonde lab technician was Carol Marcus.

  • scifilove

    Carol and Kirk would meet most likely due to the federation needing to terraform worlds after Vulcan was destroyed in the reboot, bringing the two together as she is in the early steps of Genesis-type research. I’m excited to see a spin on this alternate dimension of Star Trek – connecting dots to the old plot lines here and there along the way.

    To those complaining about not getting enough information and having to guess the villain – The only thing released so far is a poster, and a teaser trailer. I’m glad that information is kept secret – it reminds me of a time when we didn’t have instant access to everything months before the film is released. 20 years ago, we only saw the trailer in the theaters, and that brief glimpse fueled months of speculation and guessing until you went into the theater to watch it. It was a lot more fun that way.

    • Mark

      You do have a point. I, too remember the days when information about upcoming movies was scarce and there was a real sense of discovery in the theater seats. I suppose any way to make that happen today is a blessing. This is just the first time – and perhaps I’m sensitive to it as such a fan of Star Trek – that the approach is more aggravating than exciting. I don’t want all the details spoiled. But the identity of the antagonist is usually the sort of basic information that we know at the start of a film. If his identity must be kept under wraps, I just hope there is a very compelling reason why it must remain secret. Otherwise it’s just pointless audience manipulation.

  • Pragmator

    I think Sean is right that they aren’t going to be telling the same Khan story (I hope not). The reason that Wrath of Khan worked was that there were several reckonings we encountered; Khan’s revenge, Kirk’s lost son, Spock’s death … all because of a history (especially with the first and third thing). I just can’t see Khan resonating that much–the intervening 15 years between the end of the original series and the debut of the movie franchise provided a lot of ageing of the history. Kirk was in the twilight of his career, grasping at his youth. This film won’t be able to draw on any of that nostalgia. They’re going to have to make this story stand on its own.

    Spock won’t be dying at the end of this one–that would be idiotic.

  • Tol

    Ultimately, I don’t really care who the villain is. If there is one other person who could cause supernatural devastation other than Gary Mitchell, that would be Q. If it is supernatura that is, and not the Genesis device put to mis-use.

    But it matters not to me. It could be Khan, Mitchell or Q or none of them. I just want to go see it.!

  • Grayden

    With an establishment franchise and property, there is a history that has been established. I think the first film was essentially saying that: There is a history of how things should have played out, but because of this well-used time travel mechanic, that history has now been altered. What “should” have happened won’t, at least not in the same way, and some things will happen that were never supposed to, and other won’t that should have. It is a clever way to take that established history from TOS and the films, and change them, omit, or create events and persons to make new stories. If this story does involve Khan, it’s not going to be a remake or rehash, but a completely different take in a completely different universe. The timeline won’t match up, because it’s not supposed to, and that’s the point. JJ has the freedom to do what he wants for that very fact.

  • Pingback: Star Trek Into Darkness: Alice Eve Is Who? (BIG SPOILER) « The Raptor's Claw

  • Brad

    JJ can do whatever he wants with the timeline following Kirk’s birth because that’s the part of the timeline that was changed. Anything before should be left alone.

  • Pingback: New Star Trek 2,Into Darkness Spoiler Revealed Genesis Device Maker To Be Featured | Hollywood Hills

  • Pingback: STAR TREK 2 Hands Scene Revealed; STAR TREK Fan Dissects Scene from INTO DARKNESS Trailer | Collider

  • Pingback: Alice Eve is Playing Carol Marcus in Star Trek Into Darkness

  • Pingback: Alice Eve is Playing Carol Marcus in Star Trek Into Darkness

Click Here