Lindelof: Star Trek Into Darkness Mistake

[Saul]

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.

It's difficult to say nothing when you keep getting asked the same question though. I was watching an interview with Mark Hamill the other day who says he's not even allowed to say he's in the next Star Wars movie and that if he keeps a lid on spoilers until after the movie is released he'll get a certain amount of money for it. If he says anything before that though he doesn't get that money. I can see why people want to say anything but the truth.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Personally, I think casting Calculon as Khan was the real mistake.

I can't help but feel that the character would have worked a lot better with Antonio Banderas or even Ben Kingsley.

 

[Trekkin]

...

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.

And what have 21st-century SF fans come to desire? I had no idea we'd finally reached consensus.

Has this been codified someplace, so that I might go and read it to learn the definitive truth about what I desire? Why does no one tell me about these things?!

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

It's a dead end - Jenny's already changed her number.

Though it's still a better answer than '42' or 'dark and gritty.'

 

[Amaris]

And what have 21st-century SF fans come to desire? I had no idea we'd finally reached consensus.

Has this been codified someplace, so that I might go and read it to learn the definitive truth about what I desire? Why does no one tell me about these things?!

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

It's a dead end - Jenny's already changed her number.

Though it's still a better answer than '42' or 'dark and gritty.'

But I need to make her mine!

 

[Pauln6]

...

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.

And what have 21st-century SF fans come to desire? I had no idea we'd finally reached consensus.

Has this been codified someplace, so that I might go and read it to learn the definitive truth about what I desire? Why does no one tell me about these things?!

It's in my blog, obviously. Anybody who disagrees with it is not a sci fi fan but a casual viewer who collectively make up only 95% of the income stream (and yes, I have counted - twice) and who represent such a broad spectrum of opinions that there is no point trying to appease them in any event.

They should just appease me. What about that is so hard for anybody to understand?

Edit: I also understand that there are some people out there that actually liked Prometheus. If you are one of those people, please stop voicing any opinions immediately. I would prefer to think that you are entirely fictional. Nobody's standards of storytelling should be that low, no matter how many ships blow up.

 

[M'Sharak]

M', entirely fictional

 

[JWPlatt]

Edit: I also understand that there are some people out there that actually liked Prometheus. If you are one of those people, please stop voicing any opinions immediately. I would prefer to think that you are entirely fictional. Nobody's standards of storytelling should be that low, no matter how many ships blow up.

Made my day.

 

[Go-Captain]

I enjoyed Into Darkness, but it cannot be analyzed closely without it being ruined. Also, everyone knowing Khan is in it before release wasn't a mistake, how could it be when they were trying to keep it secret the whole time?

I think there is some worthwhile material in the movie such as exploring the use of drone weapons, and breaking borders in order to hunt terrorists, breaking orders when the law and morality call for it, and the validity of executing in the field rather than going to trial. The problem with the movie is, it starts those interesting threads but goes absolutely no where with them, and does nothing to explore why one action is better than the other. That's the point where it starts getting into the 9/11-is-an-inside-job conspiracy world and things are falling apart by that point.

Shoehorning in Khan as the villain could have worked with smarter writers, but the movie gets bogged down in not knowing what it really is about. When it gets to the point where we have to decide who is the better person, Kirk or Khan, we are left with Kirk being leader of the Enterprise for the same reasons Khan claims he should lead, because Kirk is better than everyone else, just like Pike claims for no apparent reason. We are left with Kirk being the better person simply because he defends the friends we just happen to sympathize with more, so it is really a tribal conflict where no party is morally superior in reasoning or actions.

 

[Commander Richard]

What they did with Khan was new and fresh. I loved it.

When the movie was being made, they should have just said that Cumberbatch was playing a character named John Harrison and left it at that. Then the big reveal could have come when the film actually came out.

 

[Trekkin]

They could have advertised that 'John Harrison' as just another new ally for the crew. It wouldn't have even been a misdirection.

 

[Commander Richard]

I'm rethinking my position a bit. Maybe they had to let it slip that Cumby's character was a secret and that he might be playing someone we know. That would drum up more interest than revealing that he's simply "John Harrison". Trek needs that.

 

[JWPlatt]

That's just way too coy. Iiiii haaaaave a seeeecret, nyahhhhh nyahhhhh! It's annoying enough from kids. It's embarrassing (on behalf of our species) and infantile from adults.

That said, I have an equally poor disposition toward rogue spoilers and the spoiler industry. If it spoils, or its coy, just keep it to yourself.

 

[CaptainWacky]

What they did with Khan was new and fresh. I loved it.

Yeah copying and pasting the TWOK script for Kirk's "death" was really new and fresh.

 

[JWPlatt]

Yeah, that was as if written by the totalitarian government in "1984." Or a sockpuppet of one of the writers of STID. Or the North Korea Department of Film.

 

[Commander Richard]

What they did with Khan was new and fresh. I loved it.

Yeah copying and pasting the TWOK script for Kirk's "death" was really new and fresh.

What we got with Khan himself wasn't a rehash of "Space Seed" or The Wrath of Khan. As for the other homages, they were fine with me. The only thing that I felt didn't work was Spock screaming "KHAAAAANNN!!!!".

 

[Trekkin]

Yeah, that was as if written by the totalitarian government in "1984." Or a sockpuppet of one of the writers of STID. Or the North Korea Department of Film.

Can we count that last sentence as a Godwin?

 

[JWPlatt]

I had no thought of Hitler or Nazis when I wrote that sentence.

Oh, damn. Very clever.