The four-year wait for INTO DARKNESS

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by MakeshiftPython, Aug 27, 2018.

  1. MakeshiftPython

    MakeshiftPython Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    This is something I really wanna delve into: Why was INTO DARKNESS delayed for four years? Has there ever been any more reasons on why Paramount felt it was necessary to wait for four years? It's hard for me to believe that this is all because everyone wanted to wait for J.J. Abrams to finish his pet project SUPER 8. Studios don't usually just wait four years to make a sequel just to wait for a director with exceptions like Christopher Nolan doing a third Batman film and Sam Mendes for a second Bond film. In those two cases, they had directed billion dollar hit films and were considered integral enough that studios only felt comfortable that they could replicate that kind of box office success again. ST09 certainly wasn't that big enough of a hit to wait four years for a director. Surely there were many other directors out there that would have loved to have a crack at making a Star Trek film. IIRC, Abrams wasn't even initially sure about returning for a second film, and I don't remember potential names being dropped like there were for TREK XIII when it was abundantly clear Abrams would be too busy with THE FORCE AWAKENS.
     
  2. pst

    pst Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Location:
    los angeles
    if you want to complicate things, star trek (2009) was filmed in winter of 07 through spring of 08. its release date was pushed from christmas 2008 to summer 2009 to capitalize on the summer box office. into darkness filmed in the spring and summer of 2012, if i remember correctly. so the delay was actually a year longer than is readily apparent.

    i think it was always assumed abrams would direct the film. i also recall (though i can't cite it now) that they waited for the writing team to get together, as they were all fairly sought-after at the time.

    we've litigated this to death, but yes star trek into darkness would be remembered a lot more fondly if it had come out in 2011. the entire franchise would look a whole lot different.
     
  3. BillJ

    BillJ History’s Greatest Monster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Covington, Ky. USA
    I'm pretty sure that is exactly what it came down to.
     
  4. MakeshiftPython

    MakeshiftPython Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    Which seems crazy. Paramount certainly wouldn't have waited for Jon Favreau to do some pet project before commencing on IRON MAN 2. I wonder if Bad Robot on a whole was insistent that they wait for Abrams to make a decision, because looking up news articles he was not even confirmed to direct it until June 2011, and Paramount wanted a Summer 2012 release.
     
  5. The Wormhole

    The Wormhole Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    According to The Fifty Year Mission (which does have errors in it) there was a delay in the scriptwriting process because Orci and Lindelof spent an entire year arguing over whether or not to use Khan.
     
    JonnyQuest037 likes this.
  6. MakeshiftPython

    MakeshiftPython Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    Assuming that's true, that's pretty inexcusable. I understand it was Lindelof that fought to have Khan involved because he was convinced he was Star Trek's "Joker". Which would be fine, if they hadn't contrived that whole John Harrison angle. Imagine if they had been more upfront about using Khan before release, it would have brought a lot more hype. Hiding it just to have that "shock" moment ultimately played dead. Was there any theater out there that had large audiences gasping at the reveal?
     
  7. JKM

    JKM Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    If that's true, I wish Orci had won that argument.
     
    Nyotarules likes this.
  8. Smellmet

    Smellmet Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2013
    Location:
    The Northern Shires of England.
    I never had a problem with them using Khan, in fact I was kind of expecting it. Wasn't there a rumour of them inserting a post credit sequence of the Botany Bay in at the end of ST09 or did I imagine that? I'm sure someone will put me straight.

    My beef with it was the execution. All the John Harrison nonsense, the casting (though I did enjoy aspects of BC's performance) and just the general secrecy could have all been handled much better IMO. If you're going to use Star Trek's 'big bad' then use it as a promotional tool for crying out loud.

    I wouldn't even have a problem with Khan making a return in a further instalment either.
     
  9. Khan 2.0

    Khan 2.0 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Location:
    earth...but when?...spock?
    Its like if Nolan/Goyer had hidden the joker (no card at end of Begins, ledger cast as a john doe a terrorist batman must save Gotham from, no joker makeup in promo pics/trailers etc) then half way thru the film batman visits captured john doe in cell.. 'who are you?'...john rubs his flesh coloured make up off..' call me..joker!'

    Had they been upfront and shouted 'its Khan!' in all he promo stuff then obviously it would've been more publicity ..but.. would the average movie goers have even cared? maybe that's why it was decided keep him secret as no one but fans will care/know and so they get the build up of 'is he Gary? is he Joachim? Lazarus? etc' (he obviously can't be khan) then the shock reveal which would hopefully generate interest amongst moviegoers
     
  10. JamesRye

    JamesRye Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2012
    I can totally understand why they wanted Abrams for STID. ST09 was a moderate success at the cinema, but was a stonking great hit on DVD and Blu-Ray. It's still the 13th best selling blu ray of all time (without adjusting for inflation):
    https://www.the-numbers.com/alltime-bluray-sales-chart

    I think STID is Abrams best film.
     
    Galileo7 and pst like this.
  11. JKM

    JKM Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    That's just JJ, he always does that, Mr. Secrecy. I remember reading about him taking similar pains to hide things with one of his SW films. Reminds me of a squirrel with his nut.
     
  12. Smellmet

    Smellmet Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2013
    Location:
    The Northern Shires of England.
    Well, I think he was wrong to take this approach with STID. Trek needs all the help it can get on the promotion front.
     
  13. MakeshiftPython

    MakeshiftPython Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    And Bad Robot seemed to have heavily underestimated how savvy fandom is when it comes to these things. Khan was rumored as being the villain in the sequel before the first film even came out. It was a question that would always be thrown at the filmmakers "will Khan be in this?". It doesn't help that when Cumberbatch was cast they kept the character's name a secret, fueling more rumors of him being Khan, when they could have easily said he was playing John Harrison the day he was cast. If Abrams wanted a big twist, the obvious route to go was not revealing Harrison was Khan but that Khan wasn't the main antagonist. After 3/4 of the film having the characters believe Khan was the terrorist, it's revealed that the real culprit was Admiral Marcus and Khan was just a pawn.

    When it comes to these big plot twists, the most clever has to go with how Marvel and Nolan pulled it off. In all the marketing for IRON MAN 3 they hyped up Ben Kingsley as the Mandarin, with the big twist being that he's NOT the "real" Mandarin, and it worked. Same with how BATMAN BEGINS did a similar type of twist with Ra's Al Ghul.
     
  14. Rahul

    Rahul Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    It was because J-J- Abrams is an "auteur" and wanted the same deal Christopher Nolan had: Nolan did "Batman Begins" - then his own little movie "The Prestige" - then "The Dark Knight".

    Abrams thought he could emulate this formula: One movie for them, one for him: He did ST09 - then "Super 8" - then "STID".

    The problem was - Christopher Nolan was much better prepared, and was working on multiple projects at once, and had a lot already done before the first release. That meant he delivered three movies consecutive in four years - "Batman Begins", "The Prestige", then "Dark Knight" - but at the same time, between "Batman Begins" and "Dark Knight" passed only three years, which is just slightly longer than the usual two years between two consecutive movies. Nobody even noticed. Then Nolan was able to let more time pass between the second and third Batman - 4 years - and make "Inception" between them - because his Batman at that point was firmly established as a brand already.

    J.J.Abrams had the problem he started working on the next project only after the previous one had finished. And that ST09 - while bringing Star Trek back to mainstream - didn't leaves as big as a mark as "Batman Begins" did in memory.

    Four years simply was too long. But I fully understand J.J. Abrams wanting to do his own pet projects inbetween. And Paramount for waiting for Abrams - he gave them a big blockbuster with his personal touch, taking that away from him to deliver the next one 2 years later could have soured their whole relationship.

    And then - Into Darkness was not as big a draw as ST09. It's not a bad movie per se - but it soured a lot of hardcore fans, and simply didn't get those newbies back that turned in for ST09. Despite having more expensive tickets because of 3D, it domestically made less money, which means a LOT of less people actually saw it. I think Batman simply had wide audience appeal no matter what, it was "cool" in mainstream even when nothing new was produced, and people waiting for the next one simply made them want it even more. Whereas with "Star Trek" there is a perceived "nerdyness"-notion, that - if one of them reaches mainstream appeal - you need to immediately follow up with the next one.
     
    JonnyQuest037 and Smellmet like this.
  15. Galileo7

    Galileo7 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Location:
    usa
    [​IMG]
    I think it was worth the wait. :bolian:
     
  16. JonnyQuest037

    JonnyQuest037 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Location:
    Parsippany, New Jersey, USA
    ...Do groans count?
     
    Nyotarules likes this.
  17. ISS Enterprise

    ISS Enterprise Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016

    The 4 year gap between The Dark Knight and Rises was also rumored to be as the org villian was Leo Dicaprio to be the Riddler, but that fell through and had to rewrite with Bane
     
  18. Kor

    Kor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2001
    Location:
    Christopher Pike, future Orion Pirate
    Nolan also makes more artistic movies.

    Kor
     
  19. Rahul

    Rahul Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    I guess it's a big different if you have to wait 4 years between the first and the second installment of a franchise, or between the second and the third.

    The lattaer case might have been actually in favour of "Dark Knight Rises" - because the property was so well established at this point, everybody was going to see it.

    But having to wait for years for the second part of a franchise is a problem: It makes peopleforget the first movie during that time. And who could blame them? If it had been such a success, they surely would have made a sequel already, right?

    Having two movies and waiting for a third one is a franchise. Having only one movie and waiting so long for the second part, makes that simply a delayed sequel.
     
  20. ISS Enterprise

    ISS Enterprise Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016

    I'm with you, the 4 year wait was not intelligent and wasted the opportunity and having Khan as the villian or in the script we got wasn't best choice, IMO

    Both fall on the studio who couldn't find their back side in a room full of mirors