"STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013

[Rico]

I'm perfectly fine with secrets.  What I am not fine with is misdirection when it comes to movie info.  Either say nothing or just let the "cat out of the bag."  My point is they are starting to annoy some fans and that's never a good thing.  I like doing the speculating and having some fun with it all, but I will say I'm disappointed in general on how they have handled the promotion of this movie so far.  From that 3 frames of footage JJ showed awhile back to this latest photo - I feel kind of messed with.  It's not that I feel "entitled" to anything, but don't jerk me around.  This is coming out harsher than I really feel but I'm trying to pass on some of the many comments I'm seeing online about all this.  I still think the movie will be terrific.  But I have to ask, why is it so darn important that we don't really know who the villain is?  How will that spoil the film??

[billybob476]

Agreed. I'm fine with this but does it matter if we know who he is? The Dark Knight wasn't hurt because we knew Bane would be the bad guy.

[Rico]

Agreed. I'm fine with this but does it matter if we know who he is? The Dark Knight wasn't hurt because we knew Bane would be the bad guy.

Exactly!

[Bryancd]

Agreed. I'm fine with this but does it matter if we know who he is? The Dark Knight wasn't hurt because we knew Bane would be the bad guy.

Actually that film was hurt BECAUSE Bane was the villian! ;)

[X]

Agreed. I'm fine with this but does it matter if we know who he is? The Dark Knight wasn't hurt because we knew Bane would be the bad guy.

Actually that film was hurt BECAUSE Bane was the villian! ;)

LOL Yeah, I expected more.

But seriously, I know that the internet spoils us, but remember when the Matrix came out? There was nothing at all to tell you about what would be happening. You had to experience it and that made it better.

Spoilers don't affect my movie experience one way or the other, but while I can agree that some spoilers don't ruin a film, has there ever been a case where not giving spoilers have ruined a film?

[X]

When you take time to think about it, if I was him, I wouldn't go out of my way to give details either. Remember what happened the last time? Every thing that was release got dissected to the frame. They show the ship being built and the internet erupts with complaint from trek fans that it wasn't built on Earth. Finally show the ship and it again erupts that the design is all wrong.

After the last outing, is there really any reason for him to show anything other than what he plans on showing and telling. I personally would just avoid the headache and let people wait until the release before giving them reasons to bash my decisions.

[Bryancd]

When you take time to think about it, if I was him, I wouldn't go out of my way to give details either. Remember what happened the last time? Every thing that was release got dissected to the frame. They show the ship being built and the internet erupts with complaint from trek fans that it wasn't built on Earth. Finally show the ship and it again erupts that the design is all wrong.

After the last outing, is there really any reason for him to show anything other than what he plans on showing and telling. I personally would just avoid the headache and let people wait until the release before giving them reasons to bash my decisions.

I agree but Rico makes a good point. it's not so much he is limiting the info, he and his crew are intentionally trying to play cat and mouse, so I don't see them as an inncoent in all of this. If anything, they have made it worse. I have also said previously and stand by it, I am not impressed by the marketing for this film btu i am sure it will be great.

[Meds]

Yeah lets face it we will all go and see this film but you can alienate some people. The Hobbit has done that with me. The studios saying you SHOULD watch this in 3D and in 48 beeps per eye ball has done the opposite and made me say "balls to you I'll wait for the blu-ray, though since reading kennys review about it being better in 2D I think I may go now when it comes to my little art house cinema in Jan. Marketing is important and I agree with Bry that the marketing for this film has not been my cup of tea, in fact I feel the same about Man of Steel.

[davekill]

During Trek's run on TV, the popular opinion was to keep the franchise moving forward.
Revisiting cannon is more itching powder than catnip for trek fans and IMHO bad form, sort of like bringing up politics at a family Thanksgiving dinner.

It's a safe maneuver on JJ's part to keep anxiety thus ticket $ale$ high, but kind of a cheap trick too.

As a result we're being 'jerked around' with familiar rehashed stories they are afraid to let go of, while there are lot's of ideas and cultures mentioned in Trek that have not been followed up on due to television time or budget restraints.

The Enterprise used to be a ship of exploration, not exploitation.

[Bryancd]

Yeah lets face it we will all go and see this film but you can alienate some people. The Hobbit has done that with me. The studios saying you SHOULD watch this in 3D and in 48 beeps per eye ball has done the opposite and made me say "balls to you I'll wait for the blu-ray, though since reading kennys review about it being better in 2D I think I may go now when it comes to my little art house cinema in Jan. Marketing is important and I agree with Bry that the marketing for this film has not been my cup of tea, in fact I feel the same about Man of Steel.

Well, in their defense they are trying to encourage people to try out a new technical advancement in film making as opposed to trying to be too cute for their own good with content elements.

[Rico]

I'm still pretty ok and cool with it all in general still.  I just feel pretty strongly that they could be handling marketing things better.  It really makes you wonder why all the secrecy.  I can only think of two possible reasons.  First, if the villain is Khan I am sure they are expecting fan backlash.  Wrath of Khan is generally considered the best Trek film and to tread in that area is dangerous.  The second reason is simply there are some big surprises in the film and they are trying to keep a lid on those and avoid big spoilers.  I guess we'll know eventually why all the hush-hush.

[Bryancd]

The more I think about it, the more I actually think it's not Khan. Here's a REALLY out there but interesting theory from a guy who spent a day at Bad Robot Productions and confirmed the Carol Marcus character:


"Finally, I'd like to advance a theory.

I may be taking one of the most obvious bits of bait of all time.  Because I'll explain exactly how I ended up forming this "completely silly out of left field but what if" theory.  If you don't want anything spoiled about the film, you can most probably read the following because I think it's unlikely I am right.  In fact, today's press event was probably carefully calibrated to help generate some misinformation.

There is a character who exists on the fringes of "Star Trek" canon, and that's why I think it's a crazy theory. Would Abrams and Orci and Kurtzman and Lindelof really take advantage of their big cosmic reset button and tell the story of the character originally named Captain Robert April in the first pilot script for the original series?  When "Star Trek" finally did go to pilot, they changed April's name to... Christopher Pike.

In his episode of the animated show, which you can see on NetFlix Instant right now, he's a Commodore, a former captain of the Enterprise, taking a trip with his wife on the ship, and when a mysterious illness hits the crew and starts aging them in reverse, Commodore April and his wife, who are much older than anyone else, and as a result, they were the ones to save the day because they had more time than anyone else to solve the problem.  His wife was a Starfleet medical officer when he was the captain, too, so they were both tied to the Enterprise.

Meanwhile, in the books, April is revealed to be someone who came from Coventry in England.  You know England, right?  That's where London is.  You remember why that matters right?  Because of the one-sheet looking out on the London skyline.
And the opening of the film, which you'll see at the IMAX presentation, features a moment where Cumberbatch offers to help a family whose daughter is hospitalized in the London Children's Hospital. So it seems like England is important to this April character.  Hmmmm.  And why does the daughter need help?  Because she appears to be prematurely aging.  The guy who figured out how to reset the body clock to move in a different direction might be a perfect person to help that little girl... wouldn't you think?

What if you learned that in the books that April's executive officer was a dude named Commander George Kirk?  You know... the one that Chris Hemsworth so memorably played at the start of 2009's "Star Trek"?  On the other hand, in other books, Pike is April's second-in-command.

So what if something happened to April on a mission somewhere with Pike.  It didn't have to be on the Enterprise as long as the two of them were serving together.  And what if something terrible happened to April because of Pike and Pike came home and went on with his life?  What if April is the one who comes to Earth, not for revenge on Kirk, but for revenge on Pike?

After all, that shot at the end of the trailer that hits online and in theaters on December 17th has Cumberbatch asking, "Is there anything you would not do for your family?" while we see that oh-so-tricky shot of the two hands on opposite sides of the glass.  That's totally designed and cut to make you think they're going to try to reproduce the ending of "Wrath of Khan."

But what if it's not Kirk on the other side of the glass from Spock?

What if it's Pike?  What if he's playing for his "sins" and saving everyone else on the Enterprise at the same time?

Like I said... that's one crazy theory.  I'll bet I'm connecting dots that just don't connect.

But... one last thing.  In the trailer, you've seen the shot where Cumberbatch jumps, lands, and then swats a dude using a huge long hunk of metal.  Well, that hunk of metal is what the crew on the film called "The Big Gun."  That's what we were told during our tour, and as everyone was discussing it, we were standing in a room that had been specially set up for today's event.

And on the counter at the back of the room, there was a big book of production art that was open.  Laying right there were anyone could see it.  And on one of the two pages, there was a concept design sketch for that gun.
But instead of "The Big Gun," it was called "April's Gatling Gun."

As in the gun that April uses.  The gun that seems to belong to Cumberbatch in the trailer, which would suggest that Cumberbatch is April.

You see what I mean about misdirection?  What if they intentionally left that there, open to that page, in the exact area where everyone was standing, just to help obfuscate everything even more?

Or... even crazier... what if they really didn't think anyone would pay attention to that, and that's really what they're doing for this film?

Whatever the case, it's fun to play along as we count down to the release of both the trailer and the prologue in a few weeks, and I hope this sneak peek behind the scenes got you as interested as I am at this point."

[Bromptonboy]

Hmm, compelling reading, and a fun theory to think over.

[Ktrek]

I like it Bryan! You shoot it and I'll go see it!  :metallica:

Kevin

[Dangelus]

A possibility! :)