Should read "JJ regrets using Khan at all". :lol
Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
Should read "JJ regrets using Khan at all". :lol
Solo4114
Master Member
Interesting piece.
From it, I take away a few things.
1. This whole "mystery box" thing that Abrams does.....it sucks. Look, it's one thing to keep the movie as a whole under wraps. I have a lot less of a problem with that. But the marketing approach of leaking this, but holding that back, or saying "It's not Khan/Purgatory......JUST KIDDING! It totally is," is just tedious and strikes me as a crutch for actually having a more compelling story that doesn't rely on surprises or gimmicks.
2. Paramount is disdainful of existing fans. Regardless of whether Abrams would've kept Khan a secret, he pretty clearly states that the studio did NOT want to market the film to existing fans. Why? Because THEY KNOW YOU'RE ALL JUNKIES ANYWAY. This is the new normal for films. Are you a fan of a given franchise? Well, **** you. The movie is for NEW people. You'll show up anyway, and like what we serve you, so shut up about your warp nacelles, you basement dwelling nerd, and GIVE ME YOUR LUNCH MONEY. Er....ticket money. Whatever. Seriously, is ANYONE in doubt that this is how studios operate now? Does ANYONE wonder why we see so many remakes/reboots/branded properties? It's because the studios know that fans are idiots who will show up if it says "[Franchise title]" on the tin, regardless of whether there's anything more than the most tenuous of connections between the original material the fan loved and the newly packaged and branded stuff.
3. If Abrams is apologizing....does this signal that he'll mature as a filmmaker? I do credit him for apologizing, actually, particularly since it's so rare to see these days. Outside of people like those involved in the Transformers franchise, it's rare to see folks disown or criticize or apologize for a less-than-stellar entry in a given franchise. And the likelihood of an apology only further shrinks when it's the director/producer you're talking about. Hell, has Brett Ratner apologized for X-Men 3? Has George Lucas apologized for the SEs or the PT or any aspect of them? Has Michael Bay apologized for...uh...anything he's ever made? Has Uwe Boll ever --- HAHAHAHA, sorry, couldn't get through that one with a straight face. Anyway, Abrams' apologies of late seem...surprising to me, to be honest. Even if it's just he-said/she-said, at least it's better than the "conspiracy of silence and marketing" we usually get.
Passable film ... but missed on several levels.
1. Too many direct references to ST 2: WOK ... The references just got too heavy handed. Quinto Spock yelling "Khaaan!" made me lol when I should actually be emotionally engaged.
2. Montalban Khan was such a powerful role that changing the part just made me feel that Cumberbatch was lacking. Montalban Khan was full of bravado and unapologetic arrogance - he was a big presence who projected leadership. I often felt he was an exaggerated version of Kirk who commanded a similar arrogant confidence. What made him a superb antagonist to me was that parallel. Cumberbatch Khan was a contemplative introspective psychopath and little more.
3. Moments like the Kirk death scene don't have the same resonance simply because he and Spock have barely gotten to know each other. WOK's Spock death scene worked because those characters have a solid history together and we've been with them through most of it up until that moment. Just the attempt to recreate that in this movie was shamefully paltry in comparison.
4. Personally I had a problem with Kirk going against orders - even if it's an apparently moral issue. It was also uncharacteristic of Spock to support that decision. Has nobody a sense of duty? I can elaborate on the duty/morality issue but it just made the film seem less credible. A new, unseasoned upstart Captain is celebrated when he defies an Admiral ... just doesn't sit right with me. The Federation just seems like a sloppy organization.
5. Khan-blood? Seriously? He's a product of eugenics ... It's difficult to suspend disbelief for this.
1. Too many direct references to ST 2: WOK ... The references just got too heavy handed. Quinto Spock yelling "Khaaan!" made me lol when I should actually be emotionally engaged.
2. Montalban Khan was such a powerful role that changing the part just made me feel that Cumberbatch was lacking. Montalban Khan was full of bravado and unapologetic arrogance - he was a big presence who projected leadership. I often felt he was an exaggerated version of Kirk who commanded a similar arrogant confidence. What made him a superb antagonist to me was that parallel. Cumberbatch Khan was a contemplative introspective psychopath and little more.
3. Moments like the Kirk death scene don't have the same resonance simply because he and Spock have barely gotten to know each other. WOK's Spock death scene worked because those characters have a solid history together and we've been with them through most of it up until that moment. Just the attempt to recreate that in this movie was shamefully paltry in comparison.
4. Personally I had a problem with Kirk going against orders - even if it's an apparently moral issue. It was also uncharacteristic of Spock to support that decision. Has nobody a sense of duty? I can elaborate on the duty/morality issue but it just made the film seem less credible. A new, unseasoned upstart Captain is celebrated when he defies an Admiral ... just doesn't sit right with me. The Federation just seems like a sloppy organization.
5. Khan-blood? Seriously? He's a product of eugenics ... It's difficult to suspend disbelief for this.
:lol So true! :lol
One can always hope we will get a suit in power that is an old school Trekkie and give the Franchise some serious thought!
One can always hope we will get a suit in power that is an old school Trekkie and give the Franchise some serious thought!
seelsa73
Sr Member
Of course they care about reaching out more to the general audience than the fans, how else can they expect to make money. Movie's are, after all, a business. But that doesn't mean they have zero interest in pleasing the fans. Besides, not all fans of the original series hate the new movies and they're making mucho dinero, so they must be doing something right.
Remember when the first one was on the way out the first ad campaign they tried was "This isn't your father's Star Trek!" -- they pulled that pretty quickly when it looked like it was going to backlash.
But don't believe everything JJ says - he has no love for Trek or it's fans either. I'm sure there are meetings where he and his Paramount production pod laugh at those who made Trek what it is... of at least what it was.
But don't believe everything JJ says - he has no love for Trek or it's fans either. I'm sure there are meetings where he and his Paramount production pod laugh at those who made Trek what it is... of at least what it was.
Solid Trekkies are a minority of the general viewing public. The fact that they made money doesn't make it a good product. That's like saying that smoking crack is great because it's so profitable and users seem to love it.
I think I gave Abrams a fair assessment because I actually liked the first movie. The only problem I might have had was casting Harold Sulu and Shaun Scotty but I was willing to overlook that for now. The premise is full of promise and I want the series to succeed.
I'm not one to nitpick over details but anyone who has enough history with the show to be moved by WOK could understand this film was weak in comparison. Had Abrams done this story with a completely original villain I think I would have been more accepting of the story.
On a critical level it's technically not a bad movie, but it steps on the sentiments of that minority of people for whom the franchise means the most. Al Jolson with blackface in The Jazz Singer is an (unintentionally?) offensive portrayal - the film's popularity among the general public doesn't change that.
Into The Darkness is Abrams in "Trekface".
Solo4114
Master Member
This. to me, when I look at Hollywood these days, I see films that succeed on their own merits, and films that succeed on the branding of their properties. The first G.I. Joe film, for example, was TOTAL CRAP. If you changed JUST the name of the film and the characters in it, it would've failed at the box office. Maybe it'd get a cult following, but it would be no more successful than, say, Robot Jox.
The use of "Khan" in this film is pure branding. The character's portrayal bears only the most tenuous connection to the Khan of the originals. There's just no reason to use him at all, given how loosely connected the character is. UNLESS, of course, you want to toss it in as a sop to the fans. Except, the sop to the fans is ultimately unsatisfying for them.
As you said -- and I agree with -- the film would've been better if you changed the guy's name and his backstory slightly. Don't make him Khan. Make him...I dunno...Balthazar DeGeorge, a disgruntled Federation veteran who was part of a Federation weapons project that then got "iced." You can still have him trying to save his fellow soldiers, still give him the revenge goal, still give him magic blood and super reflexes, but we aren't saddled with the WOK off-key callbacks.
The reason these things go in is because the studios think -- and are often proven correct -- that if you brand a film, junkie fans will go see it because THEY HAVE TO. It's inconceivable for most hardcore fans that they'd skip a film even if they've ranted about what a betrayal it is, even if they hate the direction of the new franchise, even if so and so was horribly cast or whatever other parade of grievances they have. They'll still watch it. When I tell people I've never seen and won't ever see Indy IV, knowing how big an Indy fan I am, they're stunned. It's because they believe the same things that the studios believe:
Fans will watch anything -- compulsively -- if it bears the name of their beloved franchise. Unless and until fans start demanding better, the studios will keep following this format.
But what is the premise when it comes to JJ's Star Trek? Taking only these two movies into account, all they seem to care about is how Kirk and Spock are really good friends... that's it.
Solo4114
Master Member
Exactly.
I find it distracting since the reveal of John Harrison's real name being Khan is a reveal that doesn't mean anything. If nobody even knows who Khan is, why bother with the name change at all? You could cut out the whole name reveal out and their conversation wouldn't be different in the slightest.
Kirk: Who the hell are you?
John Harrison: A remnant of the time long past. Genetically engineered to be superior so to lead others to peace in a world at war. We were condemned as criminals; forced into exile. For centuries we slept, hoping when we awoke things would be different. But as a result of the destruction of Vulcan, your Starfleet began to aggressively search distant quadrants of space; my ship was found adrift. I alone was revived.
Kirk: Why would a Starfleet admiral ask a 300-year-old frozen man for help?
John Harrison: Because I am better.
John Harrison: A remnant of the time long past. Genetically engineered to be superior so to lead others to peace in a world at war. We were condemned as criminals; forced into exile. For centuries we slept, hoping when we awoke things would be different. But as a result of the destruction of Vulcan, your Starfleet began to aggressively search distant quadrants of space; my ship was found adrift. I alone was revived.
Kirk: Why would a Starfleet admiral ask a 300-year-old frozen man for help?
John Harrison: Because I am better.
Even giving Khan the name John Harrison was pointless since anyone who wanted to know more about him would no doubt discover the same exact thing Kirk did, which is that a year ago John Harrison didn't even exist. So are you telling me that when there's a meeting with Starfleet Captains and first officers talking about how to deal with a Starfleet officer named John Harrison that no one will look up his profile or history?
It'd make more sense to stick with the name Khan and erase any mention of him and his followers from the history records since records of that time were already established to be "fragmentary".
What I meant was the prospect of rebooting the series with an alternate timeline. That's all.
Now that I think about it there’s another crucial departure worth noting. TOS stories focused more on the stories/missions while the element of Kirk and Spock’s friendship was developed very slowly and organically over the course of many episodes. Moments that centered about their relationship were infrequent and, hence, more effective and meaningful.
In comparison, Abrams Trek, is almost entirely character/relationship-centered which makes it feel more contrived.
In fairness it’s nearly impossible to create emotional resonance that could compare to TOS which had, literally, generations of stories to develop. But with that in mind they shouldn't have even tried to steal emotional leverage from TOS.
A Khan story could have worked … in, say, the 4th or 5th sequel after the characters have matured and know themselves and each other. Pine Kirk is still an unseasoned newcomer on the bridge whose relationship with every other character, including Spock, is entirely new and undeveloped.
The Shatner Kirk actually knew his ship and crew and was in command with a clear sense of purpose – even if misguided at times. Kirk was knowledgeable and experienced. Pine Kirk spends more time in self-doubt/self-pity and introspection than actually completing a mission. He’s all balls with no experience, knowledge or sense of responsibility. I don't even have the sense that he's earned the respect of his crew yet. I hope Pine Kirk actually matures throughout the series because I don’t know how many more iterations of the Enterprise the Federation can afford to replace.
Last edited:
I believe what was meant was that the character should have been Harrison and not had anything to do with Khan. At least that's how I read it.
Riceball
Master Member
Better yet, they should have just gone with a full reboot and therefor avoided any comparisons to WoK, TOS, etc. since that's what JJ has essentially done. All this whole, alternate timeline business isn't really given how much they're altering things that shouldn't have been affected by the split in the timeline and just pissing off the fans every time they do. By doing a full reboot they could do whatever what they want and nobody would be able to complain that much about how so and so isn't anything like his character in TOS or how X couldn't happen because the beginnings of it were before the split and should therefor be unaffected. By doing a reboot they would have then been free to pick and choose what they wanted to use, what they wanted to change, and what they want to ignore to their heart's content.
Solo4114
Master Member
But that still begs the question of why change it at all. Or, for that matter, why reboot it at all. Why bother keeping this or that bit of the story, but jettisoning the rest?
Simple: marketing.
There is quite simply ZERO reason otherwise to do a reboot. You only reboot if you want the strength of the brands involved. The names, the characters, whatever. You KNOW that "Khan" will sell tickets (or at least you believe it will). You know it is at least familiar. So, as long as the exterior packaging is familiar, you make your movie a safer bet. Fans will be curious -- even if it's only to see how their beloved franchise has been treated poorly. Casual viewers will think "Oh, cool. Let's see how they did this bit."
It's often done to help elevate an otherwise mediocre story into something that people will still pay to see.
To me, what the weird part about Into Darkness was that it didn't seem to NEED that stuff. I found the story entertaining on its own. The parts I liked least were the "fan service" bits like the reactor sequence, and the fact that the villain was named "Khan" yet otherwise seemed largely unrelated. It was those moments that were LEAST effective for me, largely because they seemed unnecessary and too knowing.
It makes me wonder if the issue is that the writers are so disdainful of the fans that they figure these wink-wink-grin-grin moments and "in-jokes" will keep them entertained, or whether they lack confidence in themselves to write a story, so they fall back on established tropes.
--EDIT--
Weird. Dunno why it posted that twice...
Last edited:
kialna
Sr Member
He elaborated more on that saying that it was also worth it at jimmy kimmel. I'm on mobile but he said something along the lines of "the lying was worth it when you get that physical reaction in the room when people go "WHAT?!"
I knew it would end up here. It's hilarious to me, especially the jimmy kimmel fragment, because he impersonates some trekkies and told about that he doubted to research what khan meant to trekkies.
"I would've gone home crying probaby"
Edit: here's the link
http://youtu.be/uulrVsNkrzM
I knew it would end up here. It's hilarious to me, especially the jimmy kimmel fragment, because he impersonates some trekkies and told about that he doubted to research what khan meant to trekkies.
"I would've gone home crying probaby"
Edit: here's the link
http://youtu.be/uulrVsNkrzM
Similar threads
