Urban: After The Disclosure

[TrekToday]

Karl Urban recently explained what happened to him in the aftermath of his Benedict Cumberbatch Star Trek 2 character disclosure. While being interviewed about his work on Dredd, Urban also spoke about character development and the secrecy surrounding Star Trek 2. Urban claims that there are good reasons for secrecy when it comes to a [...]

More...

 

[BillJ]

Still hasn't back peddled away from it being Mitchell.

Why would he get call from Paramount about his disclosure agreement if it wasn't Mitchell?

 

[Sindatur]

Still hasn't back peddled away from it being Mitchell.

Why would he get call from Paramount about his disclosure agreement if it wasn't Mitchell?

Maybe that's part of the act, and that's what they want you to believe

 

[BillJ]

Still hasn't back peddled away from it being Mitchell.

Why would he get call from Paramount about his disclosure agreement if it wasn't Mitchell?

Maybe that's part of the act, and that's what they want you to believe

Seems like an awful lot of work.

 

[JarodRussell]

Urban claims that there are good reasons for secrecy when it comes to a highly-anticipated movie. “What’s the point of investing all this time and energy and, you know, money into something, if by the time it gets to the cinema, the audience has read the script and knows all the sort of twists and turns in the movie?” he said. “So I can totally get it and I think that it’s a good way to be. Let’s just save it for the audience.”

Unless the name of the bad guy is a twist, I don't see his point.


Imagine the marketing for The Dark Knight with top secrecy that the villain is The Joker, or for Dark Knight Rises that the villain is Bane.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Top Secret MacGuffin
Star Trek II: The Wrath of We Won't Tell You Who
Arnold Schwarzenegger in Top Secret Character 2: Judgment Day.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Urban claims that there are good reasons for secrecy when it comes to a highly-anticipated movie. “What’s the point of investing all this time and energy and, you know, money into something, if by the time it gets to the cinema, the audience has read the script and knows all the sort of twists and turns in the movie?” he said. “So I can totally get it and I think that it’s a good way to be. Let’s just save it for the audience.”

Unless the name of the bad guy is a twist, I don't see his point.

Except Urban isn't talking about the villain's name specifically there, but the overall details & plot twists of the film.
And in that, he does have a very good point. We don't need to read leaked scripts or have 50 trailers showing the whole movie like Prometheus for example.

Imagine the marketing for The Dark Knight with top secrecy that the villain is The Joker, or for Dark Knight Rises that the villain is Bane.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Top Secret MacGuffin
Star Trek II: The Wrath of We Won't Tell You Who
Arnold Schwarzenegger in Top Secret Character 2: Judgment Day.

Irrelevant, since the marketing for the movie hasn't started yet. And when it does we will inevitably learn who the villain is, like we did last time, despite the initial secrecy.

 

[Trekkie2]

Still hasn't back peddled away from it being Mitchell.

Why would he get call from Paramount about his disclosure agreement if it wasn't Mitchell?

I imagine somebody had had enough of the fans being rousted. It's Khan, it's not Khan, Nimoy's in it, Nimoy's not in it, Mitchell's in it, Mitchell's not in it. After a while, it became a three ring circus. Paramount's putting the controls on its' monkeys.

 

[BillJ]

Still hasn't back peddled away from it being Mitchell.

Why would he get call from Paramount about his disclosure agreement if it wasn't Mitchell?

I imagine somebody had had enough of the fans being rousted. It's Khan, it's not Khan, Nimoy's in it, Nimoy's not in it, Mitchell's in it, Mitchell's not in it. After a while, it became a three ring circus. Paramount's putting the controls on its' monkeys.

I just think its odd Urban has never came out and said it isn't Mitchell instead tap dancing around it. At least not that I'm aware of.

In the real world, I'd be certain that someone let something slip they weren't suppose too.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Why would he get call from Paramount about his disclosure agreement if it wasn't Mitchell?

Doesn't say the calls even came from Paramount. He would have received lots from reporters, too, seeking elaboration/explanation.

I just think its odd Urban has never came out and said it isn't Mitchell instead tap dancing around it.

Because he's not supposed to talk about specifics at all. So legally, contractually, he still can't confirm or deny.

"Not at liberty to discuss Star Trek…"

 

[Therin of Andor]

Star Trek II: The Wrath of We Won't Tell You Who

Well, speculation was understandably rife about what ST II would be about. IIRC, the original studio leaks were that the movie concerned a "weather control machine", quite some time before we heard that they'd settled on returning a TOS villain. The male Dr Savik, the return of Dr Janet Wallace and her son, David, the return of Khan, and the "weather control machine" all came from different synopses, cannibalized together by Meyer and Sowards.

The first title that I saw leaked was "Star Trek: The Uncharted Continent" (in "Starlog", IIRC), probably misremembered by a spy - which seemed even stranger when Meyer's actual desired title, "The Undiscovered Country" was rejected in favour of "The Vengeance of Khan".

The secrecy and uncertainty is part of the fun.

 

[Trekkie2]

Still hasn't back peddled away from it being Mitchell.

Why would he get call from Paramount about his disclosure agreement if it wasn't Mitchell?

I imagine somebody had had enough of the fans being rousted. It's Khan, it's not Khan, Nimoy's in it, Nimoy's not in it, Mitchell's in it, Mitchell's not in it. After a while, it became a three ring circus. Paramount's putting the controls on its' monkeys.

I just think its odd Urban has never came out and said it isn't Mitchell instead tap dancing around it. At least not that I'm aware of.

In the real world, I'd be certain that someone let something slip they weren't suppose too.

Not another word....works really well when coupled with a threat of monetary denial. I just used it this evening, so I know.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

BEFORE DISHONOR
by Karl Urban

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Still hasn't back peddled away from it being Mitchell.

Why would he get call from Paramount about his disclosure agreement if it wasn't Mitchell?

Maybe that's part of the act, and that's what they want you to believe

Seems like an awful lot of work.

If the whole Urban/Gary Mitchell thing was staged, it really isn't a lot of work. JJ could have called Urban one day and said "hey Karl -- just for shits-and-giggles (and to create some internet buzz and free publicity), why don't you casually drop a possible revelation that the villain is Gary Mitchell".

besides, Urban said it in such a way that it is hard to tell if he was serious or not, so they get free publicity JJ wants, AND when it turns out not to be true, Urban can say he was just messing around and didn't think people would take him seriously.

As for the non-disclosure agreement, that agree ment means you can't disclose ANYTHING. He would be in violation if he tried to back-pedal away from the Mitchel story by saying anything else about it -- even if he says "it is NOT Mitchell".

If someone said the villain is NOT Lazarus, or not Gorgon the friendly angel, or not a bunch of space-faring Mugatos, or even not a giant planet-eating space-tribble, they would be in violation.

 

[gastrof]

Ah, but the real question should be "Will we have 'walking freezer' Liz Dehner in it?"

 

[Albertese]

... the return of Dr Janet Wallace and her son, David, ...

Janet Wallace had a son named David? I know Carol Marcus had a son named David; that'd be funny if they brought back Janet Wallace and gave her a son named David, too.

I suppose that would be an unexpected twist...

--Alex

 

[Therin of Andor]

Janet Wallace had a son named David?

No. There was a proposed synopsis for ST II that included Kirk meeting old flame, Dr Janet Wallace, again - and discovering they had a son together. When the stories were being combined, they realised that an inference could be that Kirk had slept with a married woman. So a new character, Carol Marcus, was created for the full script.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Still hasn't back peddled away from it being Mitchell.

Why would he get call from Paramount about his disclosure agreement if it wasn't Mitchell?

Maybe that's part of the act, and that's what they want you to believe

They're sure crating an elaborate charade then. I hope it is Mitchell. makes a lot more sense than Khan.

 

[Set Harth]

Ah, but the real question should be "Will we have 'walking freezer' Liz Dehner in it?"

Dehner gets a bad rap.

I mean, all you gotta do is quote some poem and you're good to go.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I hope it is Mitchell. makes a lot more sense than Khan.

If they wanted to use Mitchell, they wouldn't have encouraged IDW to remake "Where No Man Has Gone Before" as a comic, and kill Gary off (again). They used the two-parter to namedrop Dehner - as a former romance of McCoy's - so it's far more likely that they will make good use of this easter egg in the new movie.

 

[Pauln6]

I hope it is Mitchell. makes a lot more sense than Khan.

If they wanted to use Mitchell, they wouldn't have encouraged IDW to remake "Where No Man Has Gone Before" as a comic, and kill Gary off (again). They used the two-parter to namedrop Dehner - as a former romance of McCoy's - so it's far more likely that they will make good use of this easter egg in the new movie.

My money is on Dehner too. Her absence from the comic was conspicuous and annoying, since in a modern re-telling for our more enlightened times they managed to reduce the number of female protagonists in the story from one to zero because she'd had an argument with her ex-boyfriend . Even by the lamentable sexist standards of the comic writers, this was still a really odd decision unless they wanted to use Dehner somewhere else.

I'm thinking crazy Captain Garth is being pursued by his physician (in which case she should a psychiatrist like in TOS rather than a psychologist as mentioned in the comic but maybe the writers didn't know the difference).