J.J. admits keeping Khan's identity a secret was a mistake

[M.A.C.O.]

So instead, Paramount chose to angle their promotion of the film omitting that little tidbit. There's nothing wrong with that. It makes pefect sense that Paramount would want as many butts in the theaters and as many eyeballs on those screens because means the picture is selling tickets. Why this is such a complex issue to comprehend is beyond me.

Thing is, the reason they chose Khan is because it's "what everyone wanted." You'd think if you're going to include "what everyone wanted" in the movie, you'd want to promote the hell out of it, not keep it a secret. Hell, at the very least they could have made John Harrison the renegade Starfleet officer public a lot sooner than they did.

I guarantee you, hearing "the Enterprise crew fights Khan" or "the Enterprise crew fights a renegade Starfleet officer" makes the movie sound a lot more exciting than "the Enterprise crew fights someone."

The nerd rage and foaming at the mouth about this movie got to be ridiculous, and I knew, I just KNEW the minute I saw that article pop up on Pajiba that someone would post it here and (whether intentionally or not) misconstrue JJ's quote. I was not advocating that it was a better or ideal way to promote the film. I was attempting to point out the oversight by the OP's insinuation that this was all done to "snub" longtime Trek fans. That's all.

I never said the decision was done to snub fans. Only that I'm not surprised that Paramount chose to ignore aiming the film toward fans. What I was trying to articulate was, it was silly to be coy about the film's antagonist when Gen audiences wouldn't care who it was. Khan's identity was only something fans would catch on to. How many times did they lie about the film's villain identity? Who benefitted from them keeping the secret? General audiences wouldn't care who it was. Keeping it a secret only fueled fan speculation. The same narrow audience TPTB stated they weren't trying to appeal to.

 

[Sindatur]

Thing is, the reason they chose Khan is because it's "what everyone wanted." You'd think if you're going to include "what everyone wanted" in the movie, you'd want to promote the hell out of it, not keep it a secret. Hell, at the very least they could have made John Harrison the renegade Starfleet officer public a lot sooner than they did.

I guarantee you, hearing "the Enterprise crew fights Khan" or "the Enterprise crew fights a renegade Starfleet officer" makes the movie sound a lot more exciting than "the Enterprise crew fights someone."

The nerd rage and foaming at the mouth about this movie got to be ridiculous, and I knew, I just KNEW the minute I saw that article pop up on Pajiba that someone would post it here and (whether intentionally or not) misconstrue JJ's quote. I was not advocating that it was a better or ideal way to promote the film. I was attempting to point out the oversight by the OP's insinuation that this was all done to "snub" longtime Trek fans. That's all.

I never said the decision was done to snub fans. Only that I'm not surprised that Paramount chose to ignore aiming the film toward fans. What I was trying to articulate was, it was silly to be coy about the film's antagonist when Gen audiences wouldn't care who it was. Khan's identity was only something fans would catch on to. How many times did they lie about the film's villain identity? Who benefitted from them keeping the secret? General audiences wouldn't care who it was. Keeping it a secret only fueled fan speculation. The same narrow audience TPTB stated they weren't trying to appeal to.

See, I don't think they've ever said they weren't trying to appeal to "The Fanz", in fact, they've gone out of their way to appeal to fans. What they've said is they aren't aiming "exclusively" at fans. In other words, don't expect anything "Fan-Wanky" that will leave the General Audience lost or rolling their eyes, but, IMHO, they've never given any indication that there wasn't going to be any fan-wanking. It's just that the Fan-wanking needs to be non-objectionable (or unnoticeable/unimportant) to the General Audience.

 

[Kelthaz]

Announcing that Khan was the villain in the film would have proclaimed precisely that and anyone who had ever heard of Star Trek or had a passing familiarity with it would know 'Eh, more of the same stuff, why should I go see it?' ---at least, that was the logic Paramount, not Abrams, used to guide their promotion of the film.

Thank god Paramount wasn't in charge of The Dark Knight. They would have been afraid to alienate general fans and kept The Joker as a secret. Heath Ledger would have been advertised as a small time mob boss named Blake Stone who wants to take over the underworld.

Hiding Khan was incredibly stupid and the lack of an identifiable villain did hurt the film's potential. I was interested in the film because I'm a Star Trek fan, but to general audiences the trailers must have looked extremely generic. Paramount was afraid of scaring off the general audience, but that's exactly what ended up happening.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

So instead, Paramount chose to angle their promotion of the film omitting that little tidbit. There's nothing wrong with that. It makes pefect sense that Paramount would want as many butts in the theaters and as many eyeballs on those screens because means the picture is selling tickets. Why this is such a complex issue to comprehend is beyond me.

Thing is, the reason they chose Khan is because it's "what everyone wanted." You'd think if you're going to include "what everyone wanted" in the movie, you'd want to promote the hell out of it, not keep it a secret. Hell, at the very least they could have made John Harrison the renegade Starfleet officer public a lot sooner than they did.

I guarantee you, hearing "the Enterprise crew fights Khan" or "the Enterprise crew fights a renegade Starfleet officer" makes the movie sound a lot more exciting than "the Enterprise crew fights someone."

Actually, the hardcore fans just assumed that everyone wanted Khan, because it fit some preconceived notion that the hardcore fans had about what the lowest common denominator looked like. But the truth is that the hardcore fans have no idea what the general public, in aggregate, knows about Star Trek. The hardcore fans especially have no idea what the general public cares about enough to get drawn in by.

It sounds like Paramount wisely decided, based on actual research no doubt, that to the public at large that film was The Wrath of Who?

"Coming this year: Instead of something new and fresh, it's the Ultimate Showdown™ with the villain from that film you never saw and don't care about!"

 

[Bad Thoughts]

What JJ has offered is a "nopology," trying to evade responsibility for not the marketing of the film, but the writing and production decisions that caused some (justified) handwringing.

 

[thumbtack]

Bearing in mind I haven't seen STID so I don't know how well the reveal was handled, I thought the 'teasing' got a bit tedious, at least for fans.

PR dept: "There a super-sekrit villain surprise in STID!"
Fans: "It's Khan, isn't it?"
PR dept:"It's an awesome surprise!"
Fans: "Yeah, it's Khan."
PR dept: "Nooo, Cumberbatch is playing John Harrison, tee-hee!"
Fans:"Guys, we know it's Khan."
Karl Urban: It's Gary Mitchell! Oops, I totally leaked the secret!"
Fans: *sigh*

6 months later:

Cumberbatch: "My name is Khan!"
Fans: "No shit, Sherlock."

I can't think of a single fan who said it would be Khan, apart from myself and Dennis.



.

 

[Kelthaz]

I can't think of a single fan who said it would be Khan, apart from myself and Dennis.

I can't think of a single fan who didn't know that it was Khan. J.J. could learn something from Moffat on keeping secrets.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Cumberbatch: "My name is Khan!"
Fans: "No shit, Sherlock."

I see what you did there...

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I can't think of a single fan who said it would be Khan, apart from myself and Dennis.

Anyone who read a single post from Dennis on the matter can't claim not to have been confronted with the idea. Or forewarned.

 

[Ryan8bit]

I recall quite a few more than just two people saying it was Khan.

Actually, the hardcore fans just assumed that everyone wanted Khan, because it fit some preconceived notion that the hardcore fans had about what the lowest common denominator looked like. But the truth is that the hardcore fans have no idea what the general public, in aggregate, knows about Star Trek. The hardcore fans especially have no idea what the general public cares about enough to get drawn in by.

YES! Completely agreed.

 

[Kelthaz]

Actually, the hardcore fans just assumed that everyone wanted Khan, because it fit some preconceived notion that the hardcore fans had about what the lowest common denominator looked like. But the truth is that the hardcore fans have no idea what the general public, in aggregate, knows about Star Trek. The hardcore fans especially have no idea what the general public cares about enough to get drawn in by.

That's because Khan is the only villain in Star Trek that non-fans will recognize. If you're trying to reach a wider audience, using Khan as the villain is your best bet. It's either him or have the Enterprise encounter some killer space whales.

 

[Gaith]

I agree with SlashFilm's Germain Lussier on this one:

The big question is, would those numbers have been any different had they handled the reveal differently? I feel like the answer is “Yes,” but on the dark side. Had Abrams came out last year and said “Khan is the villain” the likely response from non-fans would been alienation (“Who is Khan?”) and fans might have felt betrayed (“I don’t want to see another Khan movie”). Plus, that big surprise, even if it was mostly ruined, surely sold tickets as people wanted to see the answer for themselves. The mystery helped drive buzz and discussion about the movie, plain and simple.

Abrams might now think keeping Khan secret was a bad idea, but it was likely a bad idea that worked to their advantage.​

 

[JWPlatt]

Nothing about Abrams' regret over lens flares or retailer exclusives. So sad...

 

[JarodRussell]

I agree with SlashFilm's Germain Lussier on this one:

The big question is, would those numbers have been any different had they handled the reveal differently? I feel like the answer is “Yes,” but on the dark side. Had Abrams came out last year and said “Khan is the villain” the likely response from non-fans would been alienation (“Who is Khan?”) and fans might have felt betrayed (“I don’t want to see another Khan movie”). Plus, that big surprise, even if it was mostly ruined, surely sold tickets as people wanted to see the answer for themselves. The mystery helped drive buzz and discussion about the movie, plain and simple.

Abrams might now think keeping Khan secret was a bad idea, but it was likely a bad idea that worked to their advantage.​

Ok, erm, why would the general audience have been put off and asked „Who is Khan?“, but they weren't put off and asked “Who is John Harrison?“

 

[Hober Mallow]

Ok, erm, why would the general audience have been put off and asked „Who is Khan?“, but they weren't put off and asked “Who is John Harrison?“

Exactly. It wouldn't have made any difference.

And yes, the cat was definitely out of the bag before the movie hit theaters. I was one of the ones who insisted for a long time that there was no way they were going to go with so obvious a villain as Khan, and even I knew before going into the theater that Khan was definitely in it. Online film reviews had spoiled everything leaving no doubt at all.

 

[Sindatur]

I agree with SlashFilm's Germain Lussier on this one:

The big question is, would those numbers have been any different had they handled the reveal differently? I feel like the answer is “Yes,” but on the dark side. Had Abrams came out last year and said “Khan is the villain” the likely response from non-fans would been alienation (“Who is Khan?”) and fans might have felt betrayed (“I don’t want to see another Khan movie”). Plus, that big surprise, even if it was mostly ruined, surely sold tickets as people wanted to see the answer for themselves. The mystery helped drive buzz and discussion about the movie, plain and simple.

Abrams might now think keeping Khan secret was a bad idea, but it was likely a bad idea that worked to their advantage.​

Ok, erm, why would the general audience have been put off and asked „Who is Khan?“, but they weren't put off and asked “Who is John Harrison?“

I'm not saying I agree with the logic, but, the logic would be that John Harrison was sold in the marketing as simply being John Harrison, someone you didn't need to know anything about going into the Movie, whereas what people are suggesting is that the marketing for Kahn, should've gone something like "After 31 Years, Khan finally returns to your Screen in Star Trek Into Darkness", which might make the uninitiated worry they needed to study up on Kahn before seeing the movie.

But, as it worked out, at least in my experience, the rumors of "Kahn" that were unconfirmed, made casual fans even more curious to see the movie to see if the rumors were true

 

[Devon]

Nothing about Abrams' regret over lens flares or retailer exclusives. So sad...

Considering the question to him was "Do you have any regrets in the way Khan was divulged" there wouldn't have been any reason for Abrams to talk about that.

 

[BillJ]

Let's all just agree J.J. Abrams is the Anti-Christ and move on.

 

[Sindatur]

Nothing about Abrams' regret over lens flares or retailer exclusives. So sad...

Considering the question to him was "Do you have any regrets in the way Khan was divulged" there wouldn't have been any reason for Abrams to talk about that.

Plus, he already apologized for his Lens Flare addiction, and I seriously doubt he had any control over the DVD/BluRay Content

Let's all just agree J.J. Abrams is the Anti-Christ and move on.

LOL, Christ...Roddenberry...Same difference

 

[UFO]

Let's all just agree J.J. Abrams is the Anti-Christ and move on.

Because there is no Anti-Christ, it has been necessary to invent one.

Ok, erm, why would the general audience have been put off and asked „Who is Khan?“, but they weren't put off and asked “Who is John Harrison?“

Captain Mainwaring: Ah, good man. I was waiting to see who would be the first to spot that.

I'm not saying I agree with the logic, but, the logic would be that John Harrison was sold in the marketing as simply being John Harrison, someone you didn't need to know anything about going into the Movie, whereas what people are suggesting is that the marketing for Kahn, should've gone something like "After 31 Years, Khan finally returns to your Screen in Star Trek Into Darkness", which might make the uninitiated worry they needed to study up on Kahn before seeing the movie.

Oh, I see. What a shame the people who were worried about that don't have any control over how the marketing is done. Hold on ... .