Lindelof: Star Trek Into Darkness Mistake

Damon Lindelof admits that one decision made during the filming of Star Trek into Darkness may have been a mistake. In an...

More...

 

You read carefully between the lines of Lindelof's admission, and therein lies what J.J. has told him... Kylo Ren is Khan!!

 

I don't think it was a mistake. It's just the trend these days. Nobody apologized for hiding characters in the dark knight rises or spectre or star wars and any other reboot/sequel on the way.

 

I don't recall exactly, so I could be mistaken on this, but didn't one or more of the writers, director, or producers deny that Cumberbatch was playing Khan at some point?

That's where I think it could be a mistake. It's one thing to keep a tight ship on releasing character spoilers and to say "no comment" or "you'll have to wait and see", which is their prerogative, but it's another to flat out deny who the actor is playing only to reveal that yes, they were in fact playing Khan later on. Especially since it was the worst kept secret ever.

I don't get the fans who feel betrayed or seriously upset by a silly little white lie about a movie like that, though. The only mistake is in making people not take you as seriously when you make announcements or denials in the future.

 

I don't think Into Darkness was a mistake. I liked it fine myself.

 

I don't think it was a mistake to hide the fact it was Khan. I think it was a mistake that it was Khan. I think it was a mistake how badly they handled Khan. I think the whole idea of it was a mistake.

 

There was all that "John Harrison" subterfuge going on.

 

That's not what WAGSS was saying at all.

I agree, but that's also not what WAGSS was saying. WAGSS was considering whether the overt lie was okay or not.

Reading for comprehension is a great thing.

It was Simon Pegg who outright lied about Khan. And, as I've said before, I enjoyed it as a middle finger to all the people who find spoiling others pleasurable or some sort of power play, or to those who just have no sense of delayed gratification, feeling entitled to complete transparency into film productions and celebrities (who, sadly, often feed into it). Pegg later mentioned similar sentiments about trying to make sure fans get the best entertainment experience possible without being spoiler beforehand. I despise coy marketing like what they did. But the lie wasn't coy and I also despise the parasitic spoiler industry. Hiding anything or everything about the film is okay. Just shut up with the coy. Oh, and on the other end of it, stop showing the whole movie in the trailer (Terminator: Genisys).

 

I think the main problem was (as others have said) flat out lying about it. It was probably the worst kept secret about a Trek film for ages, and yet they just kept trying to put it back in the bottle by having multiple people give false answers when asked. You're much better off not saying anything at all.

 

That's fair. I loved the film, and stayed pretty much unspoiled (except for the 10 seconds right before that moment because my friend leaned over and said "It's Khan!", so thanks Larry), but I get that the straight out denial might have rubbed some the wrong way.

The only time a lie would upset me is if there is something promised and it's not delivered upon. For example, "you'll see Spock in this film!" and then there's no Spock, and the film is actually about a nameless avant-garde Lt. Commander who plays gin rummy for 2 hours.

 

No one except Pegg flat out lied about it. Let's get that out of the repeat-it-often-enough-and-it's-true pipeline. What you say is just as hypocritically false as the accused actions. They were coy about it, but did not lie. But serves anyone right for not being able to wait for the actual movie and taking Pegg's feeble lie at face value instead of the likely poke at spoilers that I suspect it was meant to be. Pegg doesn't like spoilage so whatever he says maybe should be heard through that filter either way.

 

And Karl Urban. And Benedict Cumberbatch...technically. He was slightly trickier with his answer than others, but when asked if he was playing Khan he said, "I play a character called John and not that other name."

For the record, I don't care that they lied. I wish it'd never even come up in the first place. If they had just publicly named BC's character right from the start and not talked about it more than that, fewer people would have cared one way or the other. The filmmakers created the question themselves.

 

That's being coy - not lying - hence "technically." I don't like it either.

 

Karl flat out lied. I would argue that Benedict was both coy and lying. He was coy when he said he played someone named John, and he lied when he said 'not that other name'.

 

In fairness, what could they have done? "Oh yeah, I mean I would be in hot water if I actually told you because I likely signed a NDA, but uh, yeah, sure, it's Khan."

 

Again, the whole thing with keeping Khan a secret was not flawed in concept, but in execution.

 

This really. If it had been Garth of Izar without the ludicrously faithful TWoK homage I think it would have grated slightly less. In fact, if Garth's shape-shifting was due to genetic manipulation by the shape-shifters, the super-blood feels more sciency and carries the risk of going nuts, which could have fed into the next movie.

All that said, this is still an enjoyable movie but one with lots of very silly childish moments that essentially doesn't help update Trek to what 21st century sci fi fans have come to desire. It's not alone in that regard.

 

The phrase is used a lot for what's popular, what sells, since the ticket or purchase is the vote. So, regrettably, it is codified in sites like Rotton Tomatoes for people to post large graphics as proof. I have my own issues with STID, but I'd watch it again at home - not the theater - and it did seem to sell and do well on the codify sites, eh?

 

According to this cocktail napkin I found in the garbage, the correct answer is 867-5309.