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..

Follow Mark "RorMachine":

By Mark "RorMachine" Cassidy - 7/9/2012

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.

Source: SFX

DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under "safe harbor" provisions and will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. For expeditious removal, contact us HERE.

30 Comments

	antonio - 7/9/2012, 5:19 AM Login to report abuse Hmmm..welll he has been rumored to be playing this role for sometime now.
	Theodora - 7/9/2012, 5:47 AM Login to report abuse cant wait :)
	G - 7/9/2012, 5:54 AM Login to report abuse I think Urban's comment was meant to be funny.
	StarkAnthony - 7/9/2012, 5:59 AM Login to report abuse 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.
	JamesClement - 7/9/2012, 6:09 AM Login to report abuse Not a great name for villain Gary Mitchell. Sounds like somebodies Dad.
	RorMachine - 7/9/2012, 6:09 AM Login to report abuse 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 - 7/9/2012, 6:12 AM Login to report abuse 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 - 7/9/2012, 6:26 AM Login to report abuse Doubt this is real. I'm content to wait till the movie comes out for the reveal.
	DetBullock - 7/9/2012, 6:52 AM Login to report abuse O dear, I hate "Where No Man Has Gone Before", it's the only TOS episode I really don't like.
	BattlinMurdock - 7/9/2012, 7:28 AM Login to report abuse @Ror You did the right thing. Some people don't understand the simplest things. By their logic, why not just post the entire script online? I mean, once the movie's out, people are going to watch the whole damn thing and ruin it for themselves.
	spidereaper - 7/9/2012, 7:37 AM Login to report abuse I was never a Star Trek fan until I saw the new one, so I am eagerly awaiting the sequel.
	dellamorte1872 - 7/9/2012, 7:46 AM Login to report abuse i highly doubt its MITCHELL. i think thats just a ruse b/c he is at an event.
	armalarm - 7/9/2012, 8:04 AM Login to report abuse 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 - 7/9/2012, 8:27 AM Login to report abuse 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 - 7/9/2012, 9:00 AM Login to report abuse 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 - 7/9/2012, 9:15 AM Login to report abuse makes sense and totally works for me. im good.
	NERO - 7/9/2012, 9:15 AM Login to report abuse Sounds about right. There can be only one Khan.
	DrainBamage - 7/9/2012, 9:17 AM Login to report abuse 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 - 7/9/2012, 9:21 AM Login to report abuse 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 - 7/9/2012, 9:25 AM Login to report abuse 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).
	hush - 7/9/2012, 9:46 AM Login to report abuse I love the new Star Trek movie, I found the old stuff pretty dull. I'm glad they are appealing to a wider audience. Star Trek - it's not just for trekkie nerds.
	TwoBeast - 7/9/2012, 9:48 AM Login to report abuse 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 - 7/9/2012, 11:57 AM Login to report abuse Just don't fking redo the entire Original Trek series beat for beat with occasional 'twists'. Enough already!
	cosmicstranger - 7/9/2012, 11:58 AM Login to report abuse 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 - 7/9/2012, 12:33 PM Login to report abuse to bad hes not kahn
	inky - 7/9/2012, 1:36 PM Login to report abuse 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.
	crashrendar - 7/9/2012, 2:15 PM Login to report abuse didn't jj or one of the writers say in an interview that gary mitchell was not in the movie?
	Ichaos - 7/9/2012, 3:09 PM Login to report abuse 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 - 7/9/2012, 11:39 PM Login to report abuse @Ichaos- Ha-ha! Nice.
	LP4 - 7/12/2012, 1:31 AM Login to report abuse Thank GOD NO KHAN!!! I never wanted him in the movie to begin with

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.