JJ Abrams Reveals Star Trek Into Darkness Plot & Theme Details + Talks Lens Flares In 3D | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

JJ Abrams Reveals Star Trek Into Darkness Plot & Theme Details + Talks Lens Flares In 3D December 22, 2012

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams,Spoilers,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

Believe it or not, but the speculation and buzz for Star Trek Into Darkness we see in the US some other countries is not universal. In some markets the uber-secret approach to promoting the film just doesn’t work. An example is Japan where in an interview found by TrekMovie’s Tokyo correspondent, producer/director JJ Abrams actually provided some details about the film’s plot and themes. Get the spoilers below and also find out what Abrams had to say about lens flares in IMAX 3D!

 

Abrams: John Harrison is average guy in Starfleet with ‘secret agenda’

A couple weeks ago JJ Abrams, Benedict Cumberbatch and Chris Pine traveled to Tokyo to promote Star Trek Into Darkness to the Asian press. Traditionally Star Trek has not performed well in non-English speaking countries and Paramount is hoping to make improvements with Into Darkness. For example, in Japan Abrams’ Star Trek only hit 4th place in its opening weekend and ended up ranked 85th for the year with just $5.8M (compare that to Terminator: Salvation which made $34M and ranked 17th).

So in a newly released video interview with GyaO! (unfortunately not available for streaming outside of Japan) you can see how JJ Abrams takes a different approach than his usual hard-to-get super-secret style. Abrams explained the film in simple terms and emphasized how Japanese film-goers didn’t need to have seen his 2009 Star Trek to enjoy Into Darkness. And in so doing he ended up providing some new details…

JJ Abrams: So this movie doesn’t require you have seen the first movie. The characters are a group of people who have recently come together and find themselves up against this incredibly terrifying force. His name is John Harrison and he is sort of an average – that is what makes him so scary – he is just an average guy who works in an organization called Starfleet, and he turns against the group because he has got this back-story and this kind of amazing secret agenda. After two very violent attacks, one in London and one in the US, our characters have to go after this guy and apprehend him. And it is a far more complicated and difficult thing then they ever anticipated. "Into Darkness" is very much about how intense it gets and really what they are up against.

There has been a lot of talk about John Harrison and his relation to Starfleet. Now it appears that Abrams confirms that Harrison isn’t just ‘sort of’ or merely ‘appearing’ to be part of Starfleet, he actually is a member of Starfleet and he has turned against Starfleet. And of course Abrams talk of Harrison being an ‘average guy’ with a ‘back-story’ and ‘secret agenda’ should spark much fan discussion.


Abrams says John Harrison turns against Starfleet and has a terrifying secret agenda

In addition Abrams has now confirmed that the there isn’t just one terrorist attack but two and specifically London and one in the USA (quite possibly San Francisco, home to Starfleet Academy and Starfleet HQ, and seen in both of the released trailers). London’s skyline can also be seen in the teaser poster (amid rubble) and in the opening of the nine-minute Into Darkness preview currently in IMAX theaters with the The Hobbit


London (from teaser poster) and San Francisco (from Announcement Trailer) – both locations of attacks in Star Trek Into Darkness

The director had more to say about the film, specifically about the themes and the title "Into Darkness."  Abrams made it clear that despite the ‘dark’ title, this is still a film about hope (as fitting with the themes of Star Trek)…

Abrams: I love movies that are big and unabashedly a huge fan of big pop mass appeal movies. I do love that. I love being in a theater packed with people and everyone gasping at the same time and having that communal experience. I don’t like going to the movies to feel bad. I don’t like going to the movies to feel depressed and feel diminished. The reason you go to the movies is to feel bigger and stronger and happier. So this is a movie that they certainly go ‘Into Darkness,’ but I would be the wrong director if it was about characters staying there. This is very much a movie about hope, about love, about romance, and about facing something that is truly terrifying and finding a way through the connection of your family and surviving and being stronger afterwards.


Abrams promises that love and hope prevail in "Star Trek Into Darkness"

Abrams talks 3D and lens flares

The video interview with Abrams was done jointly by a journalist from GyaO! and Japanese visual effects artist and film director Shinji Higuchi (Floating Castle). The two directors expressed their admiration and respect for each other and also talked a bit of movie-making shop. Higuchi asked Abrams about working with 3D…

Abrams: I had never done anything in 3D and frankly it was a format that scared me a little bit because I really loved the sort of purity of the 2D, but I have to say – especially because we filmed in IMAX – doing a conversion to 3D with some new techniques with people who have done amazing conversion work on movies like Titanic, has actually opened up some doors to some really creative and really fun moments. So I am becoming a little bit of a convert to it.

Abrams also addressed his famous lens flares, now in 3D…

Abrams: When we made the first Star Trek we never added lens flares, it was always ‘in camera.’ And I do love them and I know I get beaten up some times because of it. But it actually works pretty well in conversion

If you have seen the nine-minute IMAX 3D preview of Star Trek Into Darkness (currently in IMAX Digital theaters showing The Hobbit) you can see that the director has toned down his famous flares a bit (or at least in the opening of the movie.


Abrams on the set of "Star Trek" showing how they make the flares
– promises they work in IMAX 3D for "Into Darkness" too

The Into Darkness director also said it was "obvious and inevitable" he would have a future collaboration with Higuchi and possibly shoot a film in Japan some day. The pair ended the interview by exchanging gifts (a Japanese tradition). Abrams gave Higuchi a hand-made wooden USS Enterprise.


Abrams shows off his gift of a statue from Higuchi, who holds his USS Enterprise gift

NOTE: Trekmovie will try to provide an update with the full video of Abrams interview along with another Japan interview with Chris Pine. So stay tuned. Thanks to TrekMovie’s Tokyo correspondent Tatsumi Nageta for providing the Japan interview content from GyaO! for this article.

Comments

1. Darkthunder - December 22, 2012

In other words, one of the most hated aspects of the 2009 movie, is most definitely making a comeback in ‘Into Darkness’, without any reduction in amount or intensity.

2. Smike - December 22, 2012

Lense flares in 3D…Oh dear… The one reason I was glad it would be converted to 3D was to get rid of those lense flares…But he still keeps them…

3. Ahmed - December 22, 2012

OK, he is NOT Khan. Hope that settle the endless discussion & move on to speculations about the secret agenda & the reason behind the attacks.

4. Vorus - December 22, 2012

If you think it can’t be Khan, just because JJ says he is working in Starfleet, you must not have seen the first film. They change stuff just because they can, whether it makes any sense or not. Delta Vega? Capt Pike’s Age? How Transporters work? Whether SF knows what Roms look like? All changed with little to no in-universe explanation.

I’m not exactly in the “Khan Camp”, but I won’t discount the possibility just off that one quote.

5. MORN SPEAKS - December 22, 2012

I was a pretty staunch believe it was Khan, but I guess now after this I’m not. It must be a new character, but those are definitely Khan and his brethren in those cryo tubes. So, was your source wrong Anthony?

6. I'm Dead Jim! - December 22, 2012

Wow! It looks like Higuchi got the short end of the gift giving stick., a wooden Enterprise? C`mon JJ!

7. Ran - December 22, 2012

“This is very much a movie about hope, about love, about romance, and about facing something that is truly terrifying and finding a way through the connection of your family and surviving and being stronger afterwards.”

Sounds like he is talking about “Sophie’s Choice”. At the end of the day, it will be a movie about pyrotechnics courtesy of ILM.

8. Jeyl - December 22, 2012

It must be nice for everyone who worked on the first movie to have the director of that film declare that it completely irrelevant. I myself consider continuity an important aspect in story telling. It solidifies that when characters do something important, it will actually matter later on. If your not going to honor or acknowledge things from the last film, well, you’ll probably end up with characters doing things that are out of character. I.e. Even though Prime Spock tells NuSpock that his life will be meaningful and important, NuSpock would rather die in a volcano than let some scroll worshipping natives get a glimpse of a
Space ship.

9. Aurore - December 22, 2012

“….His name is John Harrison and he is sort of an average – that is what makes him so scary – he is just an average guy who works in an organization called Starfleet, and he turns against the group because he has got this back-story and this kind of amazing secret agenda…”

“…. I don’t like going to the movies to feel bad. I don’t like going to the movies to feel depressed and feel diminished. The reason you go to the movies is to feel bigger and stronger and happier. So this is a movie that they certainly go ‘Into Darkness,’ but I would be the wrong director if it was about characters staying there….”

______

I like it.

Tell me more….No, be quiet.

On second thought, I can wait…for the movie to be released.

:)

(Very interesting interview with GyaO!)

10. Anthony Pascale - December 22, 2012

Yes Jeyl that is exactly what Abrams was doing. He flew to Japan to insult himself and everyone who worked on STAR TREK?

Or maybe he was actually trying to help find the new movie a bigger audience by letting Japanese movie goers know that they didnt need to have seen the last movie (which they likely didn’t) to see Star Trek Into Darkness.

Seriously, I worry about how some will go out of their way to create controversy where there is none.

You are once again bordering on the trolling you have been warned about before.

11. Karen - December 22, 2012

I like the flares. There is a kind of purity about them. But then I enjoy the process of film-making, so the flares work for me.

12. Ed Waters - December 22, 2012

I still don’t buy the identity of the bad-guy. JJ is very clever…

I’m sticking to my theory. It fits too well.

13. thorsten - December 22, 2012

ILM‘s Michael DiComo about Lens Flares in Star Trek 2009:
Anamorphic lenses like Panavision come with certain artifacts and signature distorsions. There are certain ways that flares happen in anamorphic lenses, so when we blow up these giant mega spaceships with huge explosions we need to mimic the trademark anamorphic lens flare, a long horizontal blue line. Let‘s say you have a shot on the bridge of the Enterprise with all those bright lights. When the highlight moves toward the edge of the lens it does this unpredictable magical and beautiful thing. It flares up and creates all sorts of aberrations and reflections within the lens. Our compositing team developed a lens flare toolkit for all starships. We also created those flares by filming a flashlight on a dark stage to combine these real anamorphic shots with the ones we mimic in our software. But the look adds greatly to the scope of Star Trek.

14. Bird of Prey - December 22, 2012

Conclusion: John Harrison is DEFINITELY NOT KHAAAAN!!! (The latter being neither an average guy nor a member of Starfleet!)

15. TJ Draper - December 22, 2012

I still refuse to believe even half of those lens flares are practical ‘in camera’ flares.

And yeah, it makes me sad that he didn’t take the criticism of his overuse of a nice technique to heart. Lens flares are fine, cool even. Lens flares taking over the movie IN EVERY FREAKING SHOT, are most certainly not okay.

Very disappointing.

16. njdss4 - December 22, 2012

More evidence to make it seem like this is an original villain. I hope it’s not just more deception.

I’m not happy to hear about the lens flares. Give it a rest already, JJ.

17. I' own every ST movie except 5 and ST 2009 - December 22, 2012

Yea lens flares is what Paramount allowed that will take away just a bit from this movie, they make the movie feel fast the first time but after you see it once then they become not so welcome to speed up the movie anymore, cuz now you know what comes next. Imaging buying the thing after a while you might not want to see it, if this happens to me I’ will never buy the third ST movie if it has the same effects no matter how good it is.

Look at it this way if it makes me unhappy to drink celery juice, yet I’ have to because that’s the price to get what I’ want, then why pay for more the next time around. I’m talking about buying DVD’s, and I’ have to drink just because he likes the juice, well it won’t happen. I’ prefer to see the movie on tv once every 4 years or more then to pay for flares.

Movie makers should consider longevity before they put stuff out, I’ will never buy pearl harbor the movie and will only see it once every 12 years maybe, ST should not be done in such a way that you can skip an episode, I may skip these movies in less then 10 years from now, even if I love this one, I’ loved the first one yet I’ have never bought it, I’ wonder why!

18. Brandon - December 22, 2012

“Abrams: I love movies that are big and unabashedly a huge fan of big pop mass appeal movies. I do love that. I love being in a theater packed with people and everyone gasping at the same time and having that communal experience.”

Translation…

“I could care less what fans want. It’s about ME.”

19. Ensign jack - December 22, 2012

SECTION 13!!!!

20. Garth Faction - December 22, 2012

Average people don’t have “amazing secret agendas.” His words are self-contradictory… he is what appears to be average but isn’t.

Lord Garth taking Harrison’s place… here we come

21. flake - December 22, 2012

John Harrison is not your average guy, hes able to leap 20ft into the air and resist a Vulcan neck pinch…. hes SUPER!

22. Ensign jack - December 22, 2012

Im telling you guys, this is a section 13 movie!!

23. Stargazer54 - December 22, 2012

I’ll put up with lens flares and some canon tromping as long as we get a good Trek story about courage, sacrifice, tolerance and living for a principal.

I’m with JJ on this one. I don’t go to the movies to feel bad either. In this second installment, I want to see something that makes me feel like there is a possible future where we rise above our petty differences. No matter the timeline.

(Meanwhile, ILM’s render servers are busily grinding out shots of exploding ships.)

24. Jeyl - December 22, 2012

Well, I feel that if you make a product you’re happy with that you should stick by that product. If we didn’t need to see the last one, why should this new film be any different if they decide to make another one? Would it not be unrealistic to assume that “Star Trek Into Darkness” will be treated the same way? I don’t want to see this movie if they’ll just say I didn’t need to see it.

And it’s not like this is anything new either. This is now the third consecutive Star Trek film that tried to appeal to a wider audience. More so with the last film since it started from scratch. It almost feels like no one has any confidence in Star Trek at all since nothing that’s being said involves what makes Star Trek it’s own unique thing.

25. Jelly - December 22, 2012

I never saw the problem with the lens flares. I haven’t watched Star Trek 09 in a couple years but I watched it a lot and they never stood out or distracted me. I liked the natural lens flares. Was JJ saying that with the 3D conversion that they are putting in digital lens flares? I didn’t quite understand that. If so that seems kinda silly to me but I trust JJs judgement more than anyone with this film.

26. Devon - December 22, 2012

“In other words, one of the most hated aspects of the 2009 movie, is most definitely making a comeback in ‘Into Darkness’, without any reduction in amount or intensity.”

No. Those are other words, but in the sense that they are your words. How many Lens Flares did you see in the trailers?

27. Ahmed - December 22, 2012

@ 22. Ensign jack – December 22, 2012

“Im telling you guys, this is a section 13 movie!!”

There is no Section 13, they are called Section 31.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Section_31

28. Peter Loader - December 22, 2012

Folks, it SECTION 31 and they are not in this movie.

29. dmduncan - December 22, 2012

Agreed. He’s more than average. What makes him scary, I think JJ is trying to say, is that you don’t SUSPECT him of being anything but an average guy, and then…

Pop goes the weasel.

30. Devon - December 22, 2012

” It almost feels like no one has any confidence in Star Trek at all since nothing that’s being said involves what makes Star Trek it’s own unique thing.” A niche franchise that was on a decline for 15 years before Star Trek 11? Good job!

And no, don’t give us the B.S. line of “A story about the human condition and morals and Gene Roddenberry is a god” crap. Doesn’t work anymore.

31. Commodore Adams - December 22, 2012

@10. Anthony Pascale – Boo ya!
————————————–

I’m glad jj came out and said this to end the incessant speculation. It’s not Khan it’s not Mitchell, done, over, “move along home”

Im surprised trek isn’t more popular than it is in Japan.

32. Exverlobter - December 22, 2012

I dont know why everybody makes a big deal about those lens-flares.
The first time i saw the Abrams-Film in cinema i did not even realise them!
Then i read all those complaints and saw the film a second time and payed attention to it
It did not distract me at all. I think its an interesting visual.

33. Peter Loader - December 22, 2012

Harrison’s amazing backstory has something to do with events that transpired under Pike’s earlier command.

34. Karen - December 22, 2012

To Jeyl: Can’t everyone just put JJ’s remarks in context and take them at face value? It was clear when he said “an average guy who works in an organization called Starfleet” that he was reaching out to Asian movie-goers who have never watched Star Trek in any format. Continuity is so important to self-confessed ST junkies like myself that it took me almost a year to watch JJ’s first ST film because I was so sure I would hate anyone else’s interpretation of the franchise. It took a few minutes for me to accept the new Universe created by his first film, but I was quickly on board despite the fact that my relationship with ST goes back to the series opener which debuted when I was 10. Give us all a break Jeyl, these movies are expensive to produce and market. With a solid worldwide audience base we will continue to see more ST in the future. Who knows? Maybe even a new series.

35. dmduncan - December 22, 2012

Hopefully the government fans out there won’t look at this film and say,

“SEE? We need MORE security to stop people like that from infiltrating our systems. Microchips! Implanted at birth! It’s the only way to be SAFE!!!”

36. Disinvited - December 22, 2012

If it is Khan, he must have been tried for his past century war crimes in the Federation future, found guilty, mind-wiped, reprogrammed as “normal” functioning asset of Starfleet. The questions for that plot is who/what restores his memory?

Still, Garth and/or Redjac seem to be in contention too.

37. With Fans Like These - December 22, 2012

I’m not fooled by J.J.’s clever word play. It’s Khan. Somehow, it’s going to be Khan at the end. Carol Marcus and Khan in the same movie together… this is the first part of the story that was concluded in Wrath of Khan. Nothing will change my mind. Looking forward to it. The trailer looks incredible.

38. Aurore - December 22, 2012

“…. I think JJ is trying to say, is that you don’t SUSPECT him of being anything but an average guy, and then…

Pop goes the weasel.”
______

…Well he did talk about a man with a “back-story and this kind of amazing secret agenda…”

Suh-WEET music to my ears…..

39. Pegleg - December 22, 2012

If this means more Spock Uhura wonderment then HOORAH!

40. dmduncan - December 22, 2012

38. Aurore – December 22, 2012

Mine too! I love where everything is going. Just consider me the anti-Jeyl.

41. Ahmed - December 22, 2012

@ 36. Disinvited – and 37. With Fans Like These –

I take it that if JJ came out in an interview & explicitly stated there is no Khan in the movie, you guys will not believe that as well & come up with all sort of strange theories just to prove Khan is there !!!

42. Anthony Pascale - December 22, 2012

It may be difficult to understand but STAR TREK is not a powerful brand outside the English speaking world. Yes there are fan clubs everywhere but in general the franchise is seen as something for kids or a joke in many markets.

As we recently reported the 2009 STAR TREK was the first film in the franchise to get a wide release in Russia. In Japan STAR TREK NEMESIS opened and closed after just 1 weekend. The country is about 40% the size of the US in terms of population and yet could only muster $6M in sales for STAR TREK 2009. This year THE AVENGERS made $45M, which was actually less than the latest RESIDENT EVIL movie!

It is the same story in Latin America and countries in Europe (with the exception of Germany where it does OK, but still not like Trek does in UK, US, Canada, Australia, NZ).

Bottom line is that Paramount is going to try even harder to make STAR TREK a global brand. So if that means telling the locals its OK to see the sequel without having seen the first one, then I think that is just fine. But there is plenty of continuity between the films. We saw the ship and crew leave Earth at the end of the last movie and the new one starts with the same ship and crew out on a mission in a strange new world. Uhura and Spock are still an item. Pike is still an admiral. I’m sure there are many more things that tie the movies together. . But all these things established in STAR TREK do not mean you NEED to see the movie to understand INTO DARKNESS. And it would be box office suicide to tell people who havent seen the first one to not bother seeing the second.

43. Douglas - December 22, 2012

Thanks for this background on JJ’s Japan visit. It’s fascinating how different the movie marketing is within different cultures. I enjoy learning about things like that from this site. I certainly hope this brings in a bigger market for ST outside the USA.
The translation of the descriptions from JJ make the plot of STID seem more realistic and complex. That bodes well for the movie.
That announcement trailer made it seem like the film was an upscale version of a SyFy Saturday night flick. As if somebody said, “OK, pull the leaver and let another psycho out of the mental institution; It’s time to make a movie”.
The John Harrison character described by JJ seems multilayered, more adult and someone to think about.

44. Craiger - December 22, 2012

I was right, Harrison is just a Starfleet officer gone rouge, no Khan or Mitchell at all. I also thought maybe he doesn’t like how Starfleet’s agenda is going and he wants to run it? However I do wonder what those cryo tubes with people in it are for?

45. Craiger - December 22, 2012

Actually does this sound like the Skyfall plot?

46. thorsten - December 22, 2012

Germany lags because TOS was called RAUMSCHIFF ENTERPRISE when aired first in the 1970s ;))

47. Anthony Pascale - December 22, 2012

Douglas

You are right to note that the ‘announcement trailer’ which came first was really the ‘international teaser’. That is why you dont see space shots and it frankly looks like a big summer popcorn movie that has Star Trek in the name. If you note how the Domestic Teaser (released on Monday) had a much more Trek feel to it, because the domestic audience is more Trek friendly.

Of course with the internet being the internet there is no way to keep the international teaser away from the domestic audience so it was presented as the ‘announcement teaser’ .

48. thorsten - December 22, 2012

Harrison is a grown augment. The guys in the tubes are the other augments, grown from embryos saved by Archer in ENT and frozen by Starfleet. Harrison wants to free his opressed people. That way OrciKurtzman were able to use Eugenic Wars stuff without the overused and expected Khan and Botany Bay…

49. Ahmed - December 22, 2012

@42. Anthony Pascale – December 22, 2012

“It may be difficult to understand but STAR TREK is not a powerful brand outside the English speaking world. Yes there are fan clubs everywhere but in general the franchise is seen as something for kids or a joke in many markets. ”

When I was in Egypt, only Star Trek 2009 was released in theaters. None of the previous Trek movies were released, even First Contact went to video directly.

When I went to see Star Trek 2009 the first time, there were just me & 5 other people in the whole theater !! In my second viewing, only 3 beside me were there. And all of them were non locals!!

oh & on Egyptian TV, they aired just the first TNG season & none of the remaining seasons or any of the other Trek series.

So, I totally agree with your assessment Anthony. Paramount need to try everything to get people in these areas to get interested in Star Trek.

50. Craiger - December 22, 2012

I think now the interesting thing about Harrison being a regular Starfleet officer having a beef with Starfleet will be to see what lengths he goes to in order to bring them down.

51. Aurore - December 22, 2012

“I love where everything is going….”
________

Oh, yeah. Me too. Me too. I see what you mean, dmduncan.

Speaking of which….
Spock and Uhura (apparently) kissing in the last teaser trailer.

I loved it. I know you did too.

:))

52. Phil - December 22, 2012

So, the flares are in camera. How would you like to be the guy following the camera around with a flashlight?

Oh, Star Trek marathon on SyFy this weekend. Now that I’m looking for them, there are plenty of lens flares throughout the franchise. Beginning to think it’s something for the JJ critics to bitch about….

53. mhmusic21 - December 22, 2012

#22 its section 31
But i agree, John Harrison may be a Section 31 movie
The comic books seem to hint at it!

54. BulletInTheFace - December 22, 2012

#8: At no point did he say the first movie was entirely irrelevant. He said it’s not necessary to have seen the first one to enjoy the second one. Those are two COMPLETELY different concepts. You’re just looking for things to get melodramatic about. Fan outrage is amusing.

55. Robert - December 22, 2012

“This is very much a movie about hope, about love, about romance, and about facing something that is truly terrifying and finding a way through the connection of your family and surviving and being stronger afterwards.”

In other words, he’s making a Star Trek movie.

56. BulletInTheFace - December 22, 2012

#37: No, it’s clearly NOT Khan, since you can see Cumberbatch standing NEXT to Khan in the trailer, when the two are walking out of the room containing the cryo-chambers. Khan is definitely in the movie–but the trailer made it clear that Cumberbatch isn’t playing him. What amazes me is that no one here seems to have even noticed Khan in the trailer. He’s quite visible.

57. Garth Faction - December 22, 2012

BulletInTheFace

And how do you know it is Khan?

58. Craiger - December 22, 2012

What if Harrison finds the Botany Bay unfreezes Khan but Harrssion is not an Augment himself. Maybe he does that at the end of the movie but Khan kills Harrsion?

59. BulletInTheFace - December 22, 2012

Of course it’s Khan–look at him.

60. Sekhmet - December 22, 2012

Am I the only one who liked the lens flares and are happy they’re making a comeback?

Yes?

…. okay

61. Basement Blogger - December 22, 2012

Films are a hobby to me so I’ve must have seen more than twenty 3D movies. They include conversions and movies filmed with 3D cameras. I cannot recommend one 3D conversion. Yes, Transformers: Dark of the Moon was a conversion but much of it was filmed in 3D.

The problems with conversions are that they are too dark (link) and compared to native 3D (movies shot with 3D cameras) are an inferior product. Conversions don’t capture the light and shadow of the live action. Nooks and crannies don’t show up either. Conversions are basically big pop up books because that’s how they’re converted. Link. Hence, 2D conversions do not look as good as those shot in 3D. And I’ve see Titanic 3D and Star Wars: The Phantom Menace 3D. Titanic cost a lot of money to convert. And only a few scenes worked. Star Wars was so dark that a little girl behind me said, “Daddy I can’t see anything.”

What about Star Trek Into Darkness? Here’s what we know. The bad. It’s a conversion. It will not look as good as a movie shot with 3D cameras. Want to see how great 3D works with a recent release? SEE THE LIFE OF PI 3D. The good. J.J. Abrams does know how the conversion process works since he took shots of sets without actors to ease the conversion process.

I saw the first nine minutes of Star Trek Into Darkness. My view was that it was a little dark but not as bad as other conversions. The 3D effects did not excite me. But remember this is only nine minutes of the movie. lete CGI scenes will probably look much better due to the use of the virtual camera. Looking foward to seeing the Enterprise in 3D.

1. How 2D movies are converted to 3D. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/01/how_do_you_convert_a_flat_movie_into_3d.html

2. 3D movies are too dark.
http://www.film.com/movies/why-is-3-d-cinema-so-dark

62. Jack - December 22, 2012

It should be okay to see a sequel without seeing the first/previous one. You could say the same for The Dark Knight (that you didn’t need to see Batman Begins).. Not so much for the Dark Knoght Rises.

That idea, that you need to see everything that came before, kept people away from Trek for years.

63. BulletInTheFace - December 22, 2012

#60: No, you’re definitely not the only one. Despite DarkThunder claiming lens flares were “one of the most hated aspects” of the last film, that’s only true among the die-hard geeky types who live to find fault with everything. For most people, it wasn’t an issue at all.

64. Jack - December 22, 2012

It should be okay to see a sequel without seeing the first/previous one. You could say the same for The Dark Knight (that you didn’t need to see Batman Begins).. Not so much for the Dark Knight Rises.

That idea, that you need to see everything that came before, kept people away from Trek for years.

Look at James Bond, in the best Bond movies, you don’t have to know anything about previous adventures to enjoy the story on it’s own merits.

65. Dee - lvs moon' surface - December 22, 2012

Suddenly he thought was an average guy named John Harrison … Then he discovers that he was not … and things really got bad!

;-) :-)

66. Exverlobter - December 22, 2012

@Anthony Pascale
I am from Germany and i can confirm that people tend to regard the franchise as “something for the kids”. I am 28 and went this year
for the first time to a Trek-Convention (i came because of Shatner). I told that one of my friends and he laughed at me and said: “C’mon, Star Trek? I hope you do not still watch the Teletubbies, do you?” But not only individual people, also the suits of the networks think that way.

Yeah, it would be nice if Star Trek would become bigger overseas. We often help films that do not deserve that at all,
If the international markets save crap like “Battleship” where it hugely bombed in the USA, but did good in international markets, then we surely should stop ignoring quality-stuff like Star Trek.

Anthony Pascale also already mentioned the Resident Evil-franchise which only keeps running, because of huge international demands (something i do not reallyunderstand)

Then there are other brands which are much more popular overseas. AN example was the recent “Skyfall”.James Bond is a brand which is overseas way more popular than in the States. You can also look it up at BoxOfficemojo, it made in the US about the same amount as the recent Star Trek-film, 270 Million, while it made almost 700 million overseas.

The Terminator-Franchise is also more popular here.
Interesting case.

Star Trek 2009:
US total Gross: $257,730,019
Foreign gross: $127,950,427
Considered a success

Terminator Salvation
US Total Gross: $125,322,469
Foreign gross: $246,030,532
Considered a flop

Worldwide gross of both films is almost the same! But Terminator is still a flop, because it did not well in the USA? In the end IMO only the overall-numbers should count.

67. Bob Mack - December 22, 2012

#56 – I thought it looked like Khan walking out of the “tube room” with BC also. But that sort of made me think it wasn’t Khan since I didn’t think they’d make it that obvious. Another possibility I suspect is that the producers of the trailer figured that some of us would “see” Khan in that shot and placed it there for that purpose as a deception, or a bit of a joke. What does Noel Clarke look like from behind? Perhaps it is him?

Bottom line, I have no idea if Khan is, or is not, in the film and I don’t think that any of us should be too certain of any conclusions regarding that.

68. Roddenberry was a Peacenik - December 22, 2012

What is so interesting with this movie’s international marketing campaign is how paradoxically ‘damned if you do/damned if you don’t’ it is. There seems to be a catch 22 at work, where Trek isn’t an established brand overseas so you have to make it look like a stand alone…but if each movie is a stand alone it makes it harder to establish a long term brand. If you have a series of films where each film is disconnected and tries to mirror your generic summer blockbuster, then each time you’re starting again from scratch, completely undifferentiatable from the pack and never building up the brand’s ‘mindshare’ in the overseas public at large. The fact that they can’t being to even show the Enterprise or anything ‘space’ related is almost like trying to market a Batman film where you could never show the costume.

What worries me is that this dilemma is set to get harder with each passing year. Domestic box office is an ever-shrinking share of expected box office total. So Trek is only a ‘brand’ with a part of the world that matters less and less to the studios, but yet Trek can’t seem to get a foot in the door in the part of the world that’s growing in box office share (i.e., everywhere but the U.S.).

I don’t know what the solution is but this doesn’t seem to bode well for the franchise. Those of us feeling that Trek was given a new lease on life with ST09 may have been premature.

69. Roddenberry was a Peacenik - December 22, 2012

Er…

“The fact that they can’t being to even show the Enterprise…”

should be

“The fact that they can’t even show the Enterprise…”

70. Dee - lvs moon' surface - December 22, 2012

AP please, I’m waiting for that video with Chris Pine … gosh…to have that link of the Japanese site, and can’t watch the video is driving me crazy! … lol

71. china - December 22, 2012

Cumberbatch seems very popular world wide (you only have to see the crowd reaction to him at Tokyo airport) so I think Paramount should focus on him as much as possible.

72. Darmok - December 22, 2012

I think this puts the Khan = BC/John Harrison rumor to bed. There is still a secret agenda or he has a secret which still stirs the excitement. It’s been established that he has superhuman strength so it’s certainly possible the story ties into the Augments/Khan story somehow. I understand JJ’s red herring’s are well-known but these trailers thus far do scream “Space Seed/TWOK”. It’d be really lame to tweak the trailers toward that storyline then do something completely different. I recall JJ saying in an interview after ST09 that Khan is still out there though his agenda is probably different.

AnyHo, an average guy named John Harrison, is it safe to say this is that minor character from those 14 or so TOS episodes. “The Great Orci Lie”, as history will call it, is that yes the villain is from TOS canon but that the lie is that it’s not exactly what you think. They took a minor background character and pushed him to the frontline as the villain in this timeline? Anybody else with me on this one?

73. mayanspacecadet - December 22, 2012

I’m actually pretty worried that the movie is going to suck. From the 9-minute teaser, it rrrrreally had the look of a shitty Transformers movie or some of hunk of crap that some of the creative team have been involved with. Yes I have high expectations, but so what? It doesn’t have to be dumbed down and elemental in order to be popular — look at The Dark Knight, the movie Abrams basically has said he is emulating (to a degree). Just hope I’m wrong about that.

74. No Khan - December 22, 2012

I’m not wild about current events Star Trek. Over time they can seem dated. All they need to do is the theme in another setting on another world not earth ugh! We already live it.

75. MJ - December 22, 2012

@10 Right on Anthony — I agree with you completely.

Enough of the nuTrek hate!!!

76. Clinton - December 22, 2012

Still frustrated that May 17th is so far away! Can someone fix that?

77. Aix - December 22, 2012

I want that wooden USS Enterprise! And somebody should make a meme out of that photo of JJ holding a flashlight (?).

78. MJ - December 22, 2012

@41 “I take it that if JJ came out in an interview & explicitly stated there is no Khan in the movie, you guys will not believe that as well & come up with all sort of strange theories just to prove Khan is there !!!”

Whether Khan is in the movie or not, it is going to be a Khan-centric movie. We’ve seen the Botany Bay crew in cryo scene from the trailer. Obviously, at the very least, Harrison becoms a Eugenics superman based on the Botany Bay Khan technology that Starfleet has unearthed, and becomes essentially a Khan facsimile for this movie. So again, this is going to be Khan-centric movie whether the actual Khan Noonian Singh appears in person or not.

79. Yea No Khan - December 22, 2012

25. I agree the lense flares never bothered me. I just watched it last night without a notice. I personally hate all distortion but ST09 just didn’t bother me.

80. MJ - December 22, 2012

@74. I do agree with you to some extent. At the very least, they need to not feature Earth at all in the 3rd movie.

81. Jason - December 22, 2012

A member of starfleet commits terrorist attacks on London and the U.S.

Gene Roddenberry would love that.

82. Aix - December 22, 2012

@71 Err. Cumberbatch is still a cult TV hero at this point, hardly mainstream. Though he has a very strong presence in the internet. I give him that.

83. Riker 001 - December 22, 2012

JJ…love ya Brotha but no…the lense flairs don’t work…if anything I hope your saying that about this movie because they were toned down some…other wise no…

84. Craiger - December 22, 2012

Just curious has all the secrecy backfired on them? We got the official word now on who the bad guy is from JJ himself and some people aren’t even believing that.

85. AyanEva - December 22, 2012

#60 I like the lens flare. It’s a bit blinding in IMAX dome though. I had to look away. lol

86. Trek was born on TV - December 22, 2012

Khan Noonien Singh was one of MANY enhanced humanoids of the time, and a great character that may or may not find it’s way back into this story. What is more likely is that the Botany Bay was intercepted by the Klingons, and Harrison is part of a plot that involves the Klingons. It is possible that Harrison appears average, but is otherwise working for a covert branch of Starfleet. Harrison may be sent to uncover the truth behind a rumor that the Klingons have found enhanced humanoids that were survivors of the eugenics wars. But Harrison, upon thawing what appeared to be the leader of the survivors, is coerced into pulling off the terrorist attacks. Harrison may be enlisting the help of Doctor Richard Daystrom (TOS: The Ultimate Computer) a computer wizard, and current chief of Starfleet Operations (Noel Clarke?) Daystrom aids Harrisons plans which include obtaining Starfleet starship, and command, and control prefix codes giving him unlimited access to everything, in exchange for a genetic cure- furnished by the leader of these enhanced humanoids- that will save his daughter. The ultimate plan would be for- okay, I’ll say it, Khan to have control of the Federation, and Starfleet. hence, the whole kit-and-kaboodle.
I know, sounds out in left field, but given the confirmed info. we have to date, I’m still feeling Khan. The hatred is there, the timing is right. We have Doctor Carol Marcus, Bio Molecular Geneticist in the prime universe, and apparently weapons expert in the J.J.verse. Klingons, who would salivate if they knew anything about Genesis’s secrets. There’s almost too much pointing to Khan, that if we don’t revisit the madman we may feel like we were lacking something when we walk out of the theater. That’s my current assessment of the available data, but until you hear it confirmed by Anthony it’s just theory….. And to theorize about Star Trek- is to theorize about the unknown. Oh, what a thrill It Is.

87. gingerly - December 22, 2012

A theory:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/William_B._Harrison

Has someone already posted this?

88. katie - December 22, 2012

It is starting to sound more and more like John Harrison is a character we will really be able to support. Cumberbatch states it is likely we will have empathy for him and it already sounds like he is a much more likable character than new Kirk, Spock or Uhura. If he is on a noble mission to bring down Starfleet, more power to him!

89. R. Banks - December 22, 2012

The thing I like, is that Abrams says Harrison is going to have elements that people can sympathize with. I’ve always thought that movie bad guys who have absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever came across rather flat, because I didn’t really care about them. When they die, it’s just good riddance.

One of my favorite movie bad guys is the Neil McCauley character portrayed by Robert DeNiro in the film Heat. He’s definitely a baddie, but he wasn’t just flat out evil. There were things I admired about the character. Even though there’s no question Pacino had to kill him in the end, I was sad to see him die.

90. gingerly - December 22, 2012

Um, I think I might on to something here….

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/R.M._Merik

Could this be who Peter Weller is playing?

This would account for his strength and resentment of Starfleet. If he was a fighting puppet, left to be a slave for an alien race.

91. Gary S. - December 22, 2012

78.You believe it is The Botany Bay survivors and it could be,
But, they have not yet been identified as such

92. Richard Daystrom - December 22, 2012

JJ seriously is just so full of himself.

93. katie - December 22, 2012

92 Yes, no question about that, unfortunately. :-(

94. BRF - December 22, 2012

Eh. Reading this reminds me of an interview that I once read w Brad Pitt about Terence Malick (of all directors):

“I don’t know why it’s accepted that people who make things in our business are then expected to sell them, and I don’t think that computes with him,” said Pitt, also a producer on the film. “He wants to focus on the making of it, not the real estate, selling the real estate. It is an odd thing for an artist to start something and then be salesman.”

I hear Abrams the salesman, not Abrams the director, in this interview. Not sure how much it really tells us.

95. thorsten - December 22, 2012

So Gingerly, you think Harrison wants vengeance because he did not get the Jupiter Eight the Proconsul promised him?

96. cugel the clever - December 22, 2012

@48

You’re right. Harrison is an augment (probably from the stock preserved in the Enterprise episode) and a member of starfleet. He probably learns that the Klingons have discovered the Botany Bay and he manages to free his fellow augments. Probably Khan is amongst them. I’m thinking that this movie might be a precursor to the next film in which Khan will be the prime adversary.

97. Corey - December 22, 2012

@55 Thank you! Man. Reading these comments is depressing. I’m an original Trekker from way back, but even I love Abrams Trek. There will always be folks who are more comfortable with their glasses half empty I guess.

98. Trek Fan - December 22, 2012

Well that definitely puts the whole Khan thing to bed once and for all. We are going to have an original story with an original villain. No Khan, no Khan story.

Now to figure out of that was Orci’s lie… saying that Cumberbatch was canon.

And MJ…
” We’ve seen the Botany Bay crew in cryo scene from the trailer. ”

We have???? Where was it said that it is the Botany Bay we see? Where was it said that those were cryo chambers? We don’t know what they are.

99. Mad Man - December 22, 2012

I wonder why Star Trek does so poorly in non-English-speaking countries when Avatar did quite well.

To answer my own question, it would have to be spectacle. The Chinese market loves that. Look at well Battleship did in China, even though it bombed in the US. It’s all about spectacle. So, for Star Trek to be profitable, the studios have to make it 3D and sell the gee-whiz factor of it.

I just hope that there is still a good Star Trek movie in there as well.

100. Fedup - December 22, 2012

I genuinely despise the romance in the movies. Just keep it out of my trek. We get they’re a couple. Please stop.

101. Gary S. - December 22, 2012

94, what could Abrams have said that would made you have felt you were hearing from Abrams the director?
Personally, I think we were hearing from both .
I dont really believe you can seperate the two .

102. thorsten - December 22, 2012

cugel, old friend… good to see you.
I would even go so far and say that the klingon connection may be the forehead mutation brought on by Soongs experiments with the augments… which is all quite funny because ENTERPRISE is not really part of my personal canon ;))

103. Shenanigans - December 22, 2012

Overuse of lens flares in ANY movie is annoying, distracting and shows a lack of imgination. Same goes for shakey-cam, “hand held” look as pioneered by “The Bill” British TV series from the 80’s-90’s. Seriously, we need to move on from this affectation – it’s been 30 years!

Some contemporary directors really need to exercise their imgainations a litle more.

104. Curious Cadet - December 22, 2012

@72 Darmok,
“It’s been established that he has superhuman strength”

Really, where? I haven’t seen anything official that proves this behind a shadow of a doubt.

105. Dennis Bailey - December 22, 2012

Get used to the lens flares. Get used to the action. Get used to the romance.

Or go watch reruns.

Not that it’s actually an either/or – I happily do both. :-)

106. Gary S. - December 22, 2012

103.
I might be a rarity,
But, I barely noticed the lens flares in ST09.

107. Yea No Khan - December 22, 2012

102 They need to ignore Enterprise IMO. i liked the show but some of it i could do without.

108. Shenanigans - December 22, 2012

105
You are one of the lucky ones my friend.

To be fair ST09 is not the only movie afflicted by this. It didn’t completely ruin it, but it certainly didn’t help (along with the aforementioned Parkinsons Cam).

109. cugel the clever - December 22, 2012

@102…

“personal canon”? there is no such thing. canon is the TV and films, nothing else. and, as much as many people didn’t like Enterprise; it is canon. i happened to like it and think it is drastically under-rated. the 4th season was one of the very best of the 28 seasons of trek which have been on tv.

110. Hat Rick - December 22, 2012

JJ sounds pretty good in the interview. He opened up the infosphere just a bit about the plot, but it’s still not very obvious what Harrison is doing, which is okay.

111. Gary S. - December 22, 2012

104,
Just guessing , But it might be because people speculated he made some leaps in the trailer , extraordinary leaps from great distances
at least that is one theory .
As far as I am concerened ,
The only thing we know about BCs character is he goes by the name of John Harrison and, he has returned from somewhere seeking revenge.

112. Corey - December 22, 2012

I liked the flares too. It was not a crutch used as a substitute for imagination, but as a stylistic flourish that breaks the two dimensional screen.

113. R. Banks - December 22, 2012

I never really gave the lens flares a second thought when I saw ST09.

In fact, I didn’t even realize that “lens flares” were even a film/moviemaking technique until I saw the bonus materials on the ST09 DVD where they talked about it’s use.

I don’t mind the lens flares, However, I do find the “camera shake” to be a nuisance and a bit overdone in some films, including ST09.

114. Gilberto - December 22, 2012

Khan will be CGI. Spilled beans, for the ones who know me…

115. Gilberto - December 22, 2012

Pony tail and all…

116. Ahmed - December 22, 2012

Bob, where are you ?

117. Vorus - December 22, 2012

@114 Gilberto:

This Gilberto? http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Gilberto_Lazcano

Are you trying to say you have insider info?

118. Corey - December 22, 2012

@113 Ha ha. I LOVE the camera shaking the most! When I was growing up my brother and I would play “Surprise Attack” from Star Trek II and throw ourselves around the family room like Nick Meyer was directing us.

119. J.C. England - December 22, 2012

I know I’m not the only one who loves
the “Lens Flares”. And I’m glad they’re
back, too!

120. Corey - December 22, 2012

@117 Good catch! Now you’ve got me wondering

121. MJ - December 22, 2012

@91 “78.You believe it is The Botany Bay survivors and it could be. But, they have not yet been identified as such.”

Just as I guaranteed Gary Mitchell was not the villain several weeks back (which I proved right on), I will also guarantee that that scene shows the Botany Bay survivors in cryo.

122. Red Dead Ryan - December 22, 2012

#108.

Parkinson’s cam? Really? What a ridiculous statement to make.

123. Red Dead Ryan - December 22, 2012

I have no problem with lens flares, as long as they’re used wisely, and not all throughout the film.

Lens flares work in the right scenes, and don’t work in the wrong scenes.

Last time, there were a few too many flares. Hopefully J.J Abrams uses a little less this time.

But still keep them. They add something to the film.

124. MJ - December 22, 2012

Wow, if Bob Orci and others from the production crew of the new Trek movie are reading these posts, It looks like Gilberto Lazcano just violated his non-disclosure agreement between IDW and Paramount that confirmed that Khan (a CGI version) will appear in the movie.

Wow, this guy is going be in some trouble here I would think.

125. Aix - December 22, 2012

The lens flares are great! It gave ST09 the sci-fi vibe, visually speaking. I imagine that without the flares, the movie will look dull, lackluster. It may be a bit overdone for some people’s liking but I prefer if the flares stay. It became a trademark for nuTrek as well. It’s cool.

126. Trek Fan - December 22, 2012

121. MJ

Just like you predicted that Khan was going to be the villain. You were wrong. Over and over and over. No Khan. John Harrison is JUST John Harrison… as stated by JJ.

Is it a money back guarantee? Because you will definitely have to pay up! :)

127. MJ - December 22, 2012

@102 No such thing as “personal canon.”

@108. “Parkinsons Cam?” Dude, you are a jerk.

128. Aix - December 22, 2012

@127 Isn’t a ’personal canon’ what the internet calls ’headcanon’?

129. MJ - December 22, 2012

@126. The guarantee I specifically made here, with the promise that I would leave this site it I was proven wrong, was that there would be no Gary Mitchell resurrection scenario in this movie. So WTF happened to your big Gary Mitchell resurrection scenario that you were so high on three weeks ago?

We”ve got the Botany Bay and a Khan related story coming for the movie in line with my points and history here, but NOTHING in this movie will relate to Gary Mitchell.

This movie is going to be a Khan-centric story for sure, and Khan will make at least some Cameo appearance to tie him to Harrison — you can take that to the bank.

I’d rather be 75% right than 0% right. And I have been consistent for 1.5 years, versus you ‘flavor of week” types of posters who can’t even stay on point or even really believe in what you are saying.

130. Trek Fan - December 22, 2012

What’s the matter MJ? What happened to your certainty that John Morrison was actually Khan. I believe your actual prediction was that “it couldn’t be Mitchell because it’s Khan.” You have such a Khan obsession that you will read anything about the movie to being Khan-ish. Let it go, Dude.

131. Ahmed - December 22, 2012

Every director try to have his own unique style, from Martin Scorsese tracking shots to Hitchcock camera angles.

J.J. Abrams loves lens flares, that is his style. Some people might not like it, like me, but these are his movies & he is entitled to use whatever technique he likes.

132. ReadyForDarkness - December 22, 2012

These are interesting comments… I still believe that it could be Khan. I’ve been thinking about the shot of the cryogenics tubes… the way that the camera zooms out suggests that it is meant to reveal the tubes themselves. I agree that it could be a shot near the end of the film that introduces the Botany Bay crew before the next film. However, I’m also wondering if it is part of a series of shots that establishes Harrison’s back-story. This would be similar to the series of shots that showed us Nero and Spock Prime’s back-story in the 2009 film.

Suppose that Weller’s character leads an organization that finds the Botany Bay. He awakens Khan so that Khan can infiltrate Starfleet as a single, inconspicuous operative who can still inflict serious damage. Khan agrees, partly because he does want revenge against the Earth that banished him (which explains Cumberbatch’s “I have returned to have my vengeance” line). He also consents because knows that the rest of the augments are still frozen and held as hostages, which explains the “Is there anything you would not do for your family?” line and Cumberbatch’s statement that he can empathize with the character.

Khan originally resembles Montalban, but his appearance is altered (which looks like “face melting,” a phrase that Bob has repeatedly used on here). He then joins Starfleet as a “regular guy” until he is able to implement his plan. After Khan’s attacks on Earth are finished, Weller’s character dispatches him to Qo’noS so that he can also inflict damage there, either to destabilize the Klingon empire or start a war between them and the Federation.

This would be a different take on Khan, but being forced to serve as a soldier for Weller’s character could explain what turns the Khan from “Space Seed” into a deranged, vengeful person like he was in TWOK and a villain who JJ could compare to Hannibal Lector or the Joker. I’m by no means certain about this, but it is yet another theory. :)

133. Curious Cadet - December 22, 2012

@87/90 gingerly,
“Um, I think I might on to something here….
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/William_B._Harrison
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/R.M._Merik
Could this be who Peter Weller is playing?”

Gingerly, I do like this line of thinking. What if William B. Harrison had a brother named John? What if the SS. beagle’s mission ended differently, and William was left behind by Starfleet? How would John feel about that? It really isn’t about the character. What’s important is the cause. The character being from canon is for the fans alone (and will hopefully delight us). The mainstream audience could care less.

Sadly, unless Orci was lying (and he says he wasn’t), Weller cannot be playing a character from Canon, and therefore no Merik. However, Harrison does have to come from canon. And a brother related to a named character technically comes from canon.

Too bad, because I do like Merik.

134. Trek Fan - December 22, 2012

MJ – you were 100% certain that Cumberbatch was playing Khan. Then when his character was given as John Harrison, you predicted that it was a fake name and he was actually Khan. Now, you are saying he will be tied to Khan.

Sorry dude… we haven’t seen the Botany Bay – no where is it stated that there is the Botany Bay in any of the trailers or the 9 minutes.

NOTHING in this movie relates to Khan. You can take that to the bank.

So, what exactly have you been right about again? The villain was Khan. Nope. Khan is using John Harrison’s name. Nope. Not Mitchell. Yes… but everyone actually saw that when it was mentioned that the villain was John Harrison… yet you were still convinced and confidant that it was Khan. Pretty poor batting average dude.

135. K-7 - December 22, 2012

Trek Fan, you are coming across here to all of us like someone with sour grapes. It seems to me that you just can’t stand that the entire movie is based around the Khan story just as MJ and several of us predicted. And so you attempt to launch this lame preemptive strike against MJ here in a vain attempt to save face? :-))

LOL Better try again,Trek Fan, because it’s not working. This is as lame as your Gary Mitchell zombie scenario.

136. Trek Fan - December 22, 2012

135. K-7

What… is it okay for you and MJ to talk like this and no one else? You and MJ are constantly talking this way to people that have differing opinions than your own.

And what are you smoking? Mitchell zombie scenario? What are you talking about?

Can’t wait to see you guys eat crow when the movie comes out and there is no Khan or Khan story. We’ll see how arrogant and smug you are then.

137. MJ - December 22, 2012

“NOTHING in this movie relates to Khan. You can take that to the bank.”

Trek Fan, you just messed up big time with this statement; I am going to remember that you specifically said this, and I am going to hold you to it when you are proven drastically wrong.

138. Basement Blogger - December 22, 2012

@ 129

MJ, you make some good points. I still believe John Harrison is Khan. Though I can see this being a Khancentric story also. Khan and his augments are in this story somewhere. You and I have had very tough fights and we agree on a lot of stuff too. On the issue that Khan is in the movie, we’ve gotten blasted by angry Trekkers who have called us illogical, and idiots. What gets me is that they don’t say anything about TrekMovie’s view. Cumberbatch is Khan. That story has not been withdrawn and TrekMovie stands by it. I mean Anthony Pascale had sources which is better than anything that anybody in this discussion can put forth.

139. Red Dead Ryan - December 22, 2012

Trek Fan,

Yeah, you seem familiar from somewhere. Oh wait, you used to go by the moniker “True Trek Fan”, didn’t you? I seem to recall Anthony ordering you to drop the “True” portion of your name a while back.

Just as well, since you have a hard time accepting the truth that the sequel is going to be Khan-centric, and you yourself don’t know what the truth is.

140. Trek Fan - December 22, 2012

138. Red Dead Ryan

No, sorry… I have always been just “Trek Fan”

Truth about it being Khan-centric? Really. What truth about it? Haven’t seen that at all… in fact, we are seeing it going further and further away from your Khan theory.

141. K-7 - December 22, 2012

Trek Fan, of course in reading your posts here tonight, there is no sense whatsoever of arrogance and smugness. ;-0

MJ, stick to your guns. It’s going to be a Khan-based story, as we have already seen the Botany Bay survivors in cryo and Harrison is shown to be using their Eugencis technology as he has Superman physical skills in the trailer. And this Gilberto guy from IDW just confirmed that Khan will be in the movie at least in a cameo or flashback story as a CGI character.

So obviously we are going to get a Khan-type of story utilizing canon based on the Khan story. You may have not been 100% right on this MJ, but I certainly agree that given you staked out this position over a year ago, it certainly looks like you hit the mark close enough here to be given some congrats. Certainly you don’t deserve to be derided by folks with sour grapes who were telling us just three weeks ago that it was a Gary Mitchell-based story.

Let me be the first to say it to you directly, MJ: Well done! Your Khan prediction has mostly come to pass, if not quite in the way that you expected.

142. Trek Fan - December 22, 2012

137. MJ

Agreed – and I will remember that YOU specifically said below, and I am going to hold you to it when you are proven drastically wrong.

“This movie is going to be a Khan-centric story for sure, and Khan will make at least some Cameo appearance to tie him to Harrison — you can take that to the bank.”

143. DeShonn Steinblatt - December 22, 2012

No matter what the article is about, the exact same people leap in here to announce it proves it’s not Khan.

And I like lens flares.

And action.

And big, pop MASS APPEAL movies.

So there.

144. Red Dead Ryan - December 22, 2012

#139.

Maybe you missed Gilberto’s post at #114 where he said Khan will be CGI? The very same Gilberto who works at IDW on the Ongoing comics.

And yeah, I still think you used to go by “True Trek Fan”. Nice try, though. :-)

145. MJ - December 22, 2012

@141. Fair enough, Trek Fan. We are both on record then. Let the chips fall where they may.

146. K-7 - December 22, 2012

#142. And he also “used” to believe in the Gary Mitchell resurrection scenario….whoops! ;-)

147. Red Dead Ryan - December 22, 2012

#141.

DS,

Totally agreed! Some people can’t stand the fact that the sequel will somehow involve Khan.

148. Trek Fan - December 22, 2012

144. K-7

Actually, smartass, I was giving a theory that Mitchell wasn’t really dead… I never said that he was resurrected. Get your facts straight

142. Red Dead Ryan

Sorry dude – that wasn’t me. I have always had just this name. Never changed it. But hey, believe what you want. You believe that Khan is in this movie and you believe that there will be a CGI Khan … you will believe anything.

149. Ahmed - December 22, 2012

@ 145. Red Dead Ryan – December 22, 2012

“Totally agreed! Some people can’t stand the fact that the sequel will somehow involve Khan.”

Tell me why it should involve Khan ? We already seen the story of Khan, not once but twice & it was done to perfection.

150. Trek Fan - December 22, 2012

145. Red Dead Ryan

And some people can’t let go of the fact that this is not a Khan story and Khan is not involved in the movie.

151. K-7 - December 22, 2012

Oh, OK, so hows that other theory of yours that he wasn’t really dead working out for the new movie? Which scenes in the trailer point to that?

152. K-7 - December 22, 2012

I’m referring to Trek Fan above.

153. gingerly - December 22, 2012

@133

Thanks for fleshing that out!

Yes, I can totally see it being his brother…

His cause would make sense because Starfleet didn’t care about his brother or the crew.

They just let him die.

What if….

The reason John is so strong is because he breaks into the storage area where the augments are held?

What if….

The whole opening to Noel Clarke’s character about his daughter was his pitch to get him to DO THIS for him.

Like ” I know how to save your child, but you have to let me see the augments.”

So, he goes in, takes what was used to make them strong, disposes of them (we see CGI image of Khan) and becomes super-strong.

He goes on his terrorism rampage, because Starfleet is too self-righteous, it decides who gets to live and die by virtue of the prime directive (which ties into the opening).

Noel drops his ring into the drink, because he REALIZES what he has unleashed, after Harrison’s first attack.

If I’m right, guys, you better give me kudos!

154. Trek Fan - December 22, 2012

149. K-7

Hmmm … let’s see. When the trailer came out and I say that my theory was wrong, I admitted it and moved on. Unlike you and your groupies.

155. Red Dead Ryan - December 22, 2012

Actually, guys, if you really think about it, Khan wasn’t done “to perfection”. He’s mostly remembered as a great villain due to the performance of Ricardo Montalban. Take that away, and you have a guy who was knocked out cold by a piece of plastic, and the same guy who had the opportunity to kill Kirk on Regula 1 station but decided to “drag out” his quest for vengeance years later. We never really got to see the “superior” aspect of Khan, either in “Space Seed”, or in “The Wrath Of Khan”.

So its quite possible that the writers of the sequel have decided to “boost” Khan’s physical and intellectual abilities to the point of “near-superhuman” as a means of credibly portraying a genetically engineered “superman”.

156. K-7 - December 22, 2012

@152. It’s easy to say that when 100% of what you were saying was proven wrong. You supposedly noble comment about being wrong is a throwaway; it’s meaningless. Whereas, STID based on the Khan back-story is still very much in play.

157. Jack - December 22, 2012

153. But wasn’t that kind of the point? Arguably? That blind allegiance and genetic ‘superiority’ and hubris are bad? That he thought he was, and acted superior?

Being really strong is one thing, but having the powers of a superhero seems a bit unlikely.

I’m thinking the plastic pipe was just a lousy prop. But, yeah.

158. Jack - December 22, 2012

141. “No matter what the article is about, the exact same people leap in here to announce it proves it’s not Khan. And I like lens flares. And action.
And big, pop MASS APPEAL movies. So there.”

Lol. Me too.

159. Trek Fan - December 22, 2012

154. K-7

Say what? LOL – you are smoking something. Yes, it was proven wrong and I had admitted it and am not dragging it out trying to find any way to prove I wasn’t wrong. Oh wait… let me try… let me take a page out of your playbook.

“The image that Bad Robot tweeted is showing an homage to 2001’s computer, HAL. Gary Lockwood was in 2001 and also played Gary Mitchell, so therefore this must mean this is a Mitchell-seque story!”

Yeah, you keep believing that this is a story about Khan and it’s “still in play” … and don’t forget to leave some milk and cookies for Santa! LOL

160. CmdrR - December 22, 2012

Guys killin’ guys equals plot points.
Not theme.
Just sayin.

161. K-7 - December 22, 2012

@159. My god, that is weak. Is that obscure reference all you got?

162. Trek Fan - December 22, 2012

161. K-7

I guess you have no idea what sarcasm is, Sheldon.

163. K-7 - December 22, 2012

Well if it was better done sarcasm I might have got it, Penny.

164. Bill Peters - December 22, 2012

:) I love what he said about it being good in the end and Hopeful.

165. Trek Fan - December 22, 2012

163. K-7

I think you missed the point again. Shall I explain it to you? When I said that I didn’t drag things out to try and prove I am not wrong… like you and your groupies… that is the kind of thing you would say to try and find a Khan-nection. Like MJ seeing clues in Bob Orci’s typos. Even after the movie is out and there is no sign of Khan – you will still be reading something about Khan in it. Maybe seeing a guy in the background with a ponytail and saying that it was a Khan cameo! LOL

166. Red Shirt Diaries - December 22, 2012

Trek Fan and K-7 — maybe you should “get a room”?

Seriously, I suspect that Trek Fan sees the writing on the wall here that the story is based at least partially on Khan, and so he is trying to save face with MJ, Red Dead and K-7 before its too late.

Think about it. None of Trek Fan’s theories were even close to being right, so being the wuss that he is, he attacks these guys since they were only partially wright on Khan so that he can try to claim some twisted triumph over them here? How F’d up is that?

167. Red Dead Ryan - December 22, 2012

Red Shirt Diaries,

Well said!!!

168. BulletInTheFace - December 22, 2012

#90: Merik?? There’s no way this film is based on Bread and Circuses, an episode many consider to be pretty weak. Such a film would never be greenlighted, and there’s nothing iconic about either Merik or William Harrison. I’d say there’s about a 0.00001% chance of this being the case.

169. BulletInTheFace - December 22, 2012

#91: They’re clearly the Botany Bay survivors. You can see Khan in the trailer, leaving the room. It’s obviously him, walking alongside John Harrison.

170. Ahmed - December 22, 2012

Why we can’t try to have a civil discussion where each one defend his/her views without the need for personal attacks on anyone who disagree with them ?

We are talking after all about Star Trek, an idea of a better future where people come together for the good of the human race.

I’m not in the Khan camp but that sure doesn’t mean that I will attack RDR or MJ personally, just express my disagreement with their views.

171. Trek Fan - December 22, 2012

166. Red Shirt Diaries

Ummm…. the only theory I have is based on the facts. That the villain is John Harrison, he is in Starfleet. That is all I have. It’s obviously not Khan and it obviously not a Khan story. It doesn’t get much more clear than that.

Saving face with MJ & K&?? Umm… huh? I just think they have been so arrogant in th elast few months that it’s about time someone talked to them the way they talked to others that had theories that differed from theirs. They would talk down to everyone else and come across as incrediblt arrogant as if they wrote the movie.

172. Trek Fan - December 22, 2012

169. BulletInTheFace

it’s “obvious” is it?

173. BulletInTheFace - December 22, 2012

#109: Of course there’s such a thing as personal canon–it refers to what a person takes into account in his or her own mind when it comes to Star Trek. The term “canon” is a pointless label, anyway, given a number of factors:

1) The TV shows and films are rife with continuity problems.
2) This isn’t the Bible we’re talking about, so canonicity is a non-issue.
3) There’s no Star Trek police force to stop a person from deciding to accept the novels, comics or McDonalds Happy Meal boxes.
4) Your definition is incorrect anyway, since the powers that be have deemed the comics based on the Abrams films canon.
5) It’s just a TV show.

174. gingerly - December 22, 2012

@168

The fact that it’s considered a weak episode would be the reason why they would use it.

No one would suspect and it would be ripe for new iterations of canon.

Like I said, if I’m right…

Posters better give me my kudos!

….in the form of….hmmm.

BK Star Trek glasses or Trek novels or something (hey, it’s worth a try!)

Hey bob! got any spare props hanging around?? ;)

175. BulletInTheFace - December 22, 2012

#129: I’m in 100 percent agreement with MJ. That is exactly what the scenario will be in the film. It’s obvious, given the trailer.

176. gingerly - December 22, 2012

@157

YES that was the point and why it’s ripe for a terrorism story as they put it.

The same points can be made in slightly altered ways.

177. BulletInTheFace - December 22, 2012

#134: You’re wrong. You can SEE Khan in the trailer. And you can take THAT to the bank.

178. BulletInTheFace - December 22, 2012

#136: You’re being just as smug and arrogant as you claim others are being. When the film comes out and the character who is obviously Khan in the trailer reveals himself to obviously be Khan, will you admit you’re wrong?

179. MJ - December 22, 2012

@170 “Why we can’t try to have a civil discussion where each one defend his/her views without the need for personal attacks on anyone who disagree with them ?”

I agree completely. Trek Fan blew in here today apparently trying to settle some score for some past perceived grievance with me that I just don’t get, when instead we could have all been discussing this civilly. He brings out negativity in a lot of us whenever he posts. Look at the series of posts above, and you can see that the point today when this discussion went downhill was exactly when Trek fan showed up.

180. BulletInTheFace - December 22, 2012

#150: Khan is in the trailer. Sure, they’ve not said his name–but it’s CLEARLY him. And he’s walking alongside John Harrison. So yes, Khan is in the movie, and no, Cumberbatch isn’t playing that character.

181. Red Dead Ryan - December 22, 2012

Trek Fan’s antics here can be explained by a simple, yet classic, line once spoken by Dr. McCoy:

“Its his revenge for all the arguments he lost!”

182. dmduncan - December 22, 2012

114. Gilberto – December 22, 2012

Khan will be CGI. Spilled beans, for the ones who know me…

***

I believe that. And do you know why? Because these guys would not cast Cumberbatch as Khan — not from the get go.

I was thinking Khan would be either CGI or a lifelike wax face — CGI if he’s in action and wax if he’s just a face under the glass of a cryo tube.

There are implications to this, i.e., Khan will look EXACTLY like we remember him from TOS. Another implication is that if the CGI isn’t strong enough to carry an entire movie featuring Khan in the future — I said IF — then Khan will be dying in this movie post haste.

183. Anthony Pascale - December 22, 2012

Debates and even disagreements can be fun…so lets keep them fun. No need to get personal or nasty. Disagree without being disagreeable

184. K-7 - December 22, 2012

#181

…as Trek Fan’s “predilection for irrelevancy dictates.”

185. BulletInTheFace - December 22, 2012

LIKE.

186. K-7 - December 22, 2012

#183. Agreed!

187. gingerly - December 22, 2012

114.

Did you just suggest a possible future of a movie featuring and entirely CGI Khan?

I.

Think I’d have a better chance of winning the lottery twice and then dying in a plane crash struck by lightening and subsequently devoured by sharks.

188. gingerly - December 22, 2012

Eep!

I mean 182, dmduncan!!! lol my man.

189. dmduncan - December 22, 2012

153. gingerly – December 22, 2012

If I’m right, guys, you better give me kudos!

***

No problem. Which kind?

http://www.kudosbar.com/

190. dmduncan - December 22, 2012

188. gingerly – December 22, 2012

Yes, I did suggest it.

Possibility has been on my mind for a while. Don’t know that the tech is there yet, tho.

191. Jack - December 22, 2012

Again, dropping a ring into a drink isn’t the typical “this symbolizes that I’m about to violate what I was sworn to do.” Leaving it on a table for his wife to see and go “Oh my God, what has he done?” Absolutely. Throwing it off a bridge/ building/ dock/ ship sure. But, plopping it into a glass of water?

It’s entirely possible. And I’m no slave to convention. But…

Could it not be Clarke’s character’s ring? And, instead, say, Cumberbatch’s character’s ring? And could it have something on/in it? DNA, explosives, a virus, medicine, a chemical weapon, Sea Monkeys, antacid, a transmitter, a tracking device, a creepy alien life form? Etc.?

Just an idea that I can’t stop repeating, apparently. :)

BTW, interesting to find out that Marcus is playing a weapons expert. I hope it’s not super-obvious that she first learns here that destruction and creation can be a nice combo?

It would be swell to see a wrap up of what “we” know so far, from the transcripts of the various interviews… With all these “Cumberbatch says…” stories in various sites, it’s hard to tell how many actual unique interviews are out there, and whether any one of them has any surprises beyond the standard “I can’t tell you anything” vague character explanations.

Anyone here know whether these advanced (5 months before) marketing mini-blitzes have been done in the past while for other big films?

Although, getting people into seats for the IMAX preview is probably part of the deal here.

I’m a little worried that there won’t be anything left for these guys to say between now and May. Will there be anything new left for the inevitable Entertainment Weekly cover story, the Cumberbatch GQ cover, and the how Chris Pine stays in shape for Trek Men’s Health story?

192. gingerly - December 22, 2012

Awww *bleep*. :D

Okay, Orci, don’t fail me now!

….my booty needs more junk! m&m’s please.

193. gingerly - December 22, 2012

@190

*hi-five*

Then you should get the actual kudos…I’ll see about bugging Orci for a prop or script page or something. ;)

What about the rest?

Like the fact that he’s totally coercing Noel into letting him in to see the augments because they have the cure for daughter and he needs it to get super-smart and strong.

194. MJ - December 22, 2012

@190. IMHO, as bad (sorry to have to be so real about it) as Mark Hamill and Carrie Fischer look these days, I would like to see if they might advance technology so that the could do CGI versions of Leia and Luke for the new SW movies. So yea, perhaps Khan as well in a future Trek movie. This would seem to be the next logical step in CGI.

195. dmduncan - December 22, 2012

@193

I want that phaser rifle. Phaser rifle will do nicely, thank you! ;-)

196. MJ - December 22, 2012

@191 “It’s entirely possible. And I’m no slave to convention. But…”

So he just doing his monthly ring cleaning rinse then, and JJ wanted to show us what a clean dude he is? ;-)

I mean, Jack, I think the symbolism is just so obvious in this case. And Trek’s use symbolism has typically been of the in-your-face obvious type.

197. Mark James Tucker - December 22, 2012

Finally YES! will this once and for all end the Khan nonsense.
Khan was anything but an oridinary guy

198. dmduncan - December 22, 2012

193. gingerly – December 22, 2012

As I dozed off earlier I had the thought that because this movie does seem to have family at the center of everything we’ve seen so far, it might also apply to Harrison, i.e., that HE is acting on behalf of HIS family. That HIS motive is the same as everyone else’s…

Wouldn’t it suck if it ends with Starfleet deciding to give Harrison and the survivors their own planet to tame and it ends up being Ceti Alpha 5?

Or how about this — Talos 4. Uninhabited, of course.

199. dmduncan - December 22, 2012

I kinda like the idea of some weird alliance between the genetic supermen and superwomen of the Botany Bay, and the masters of illusion of Talos 4.

That could be hellaciously dangerous.

200. Curious Cadet - December 22, 2012

@198 dmduncan,

Yes family …

You know … That HAL tribute tweet got me thinking … Why is Bad Robot tweeting anyway … are they trying to give us clues?

Anyway, it got me thinking about this passage from Memory Alpha:
“A medical study into Gary Mitchell’s family history found that several members of his immediate family, and distant ancestors going back six generations on his mother’s side, had esper-oriented abilities. One of his ancestors had an interest in “spiritual readings.”

So I started thinking, what if Mitchell’s past was changed radically by Nero as well, and he grew up in London with his esper-enhanced family. Among them, a half-brother named John Harrison, whom he was very close to.

And how would I react if I learned my brother was killed on a mission by James Kirk himself, and sanctioned by Starfleet, but the cirumstances are so top secret, it can’t be explained to me. And then, my brother’s body was just shot out of a torpedo tube and is floating somewhere in space.

If Mitchell’s brother could get the details of that mission, possibly take it to someone like Weller to help him retrieve the body and get his revenge on Starfleet …

201. Trek Fan - December 22, 2012

177. BulletInTheFace
” You’re wrong. You can SEE Khan in the trailer. And you can take THAT to the bank.”

Oh really? You can see his face? You know exactly who he is? Who is playing him? What proves that is him? HOW it is obvious? Have you seen the movie?

202. gingerly - December 22, 2012

199.

O_O!!!!!!

Don’t know how that could be done without a deus ex machina!

That would either be the coolest thing ever if they could realistically write their way out or….

A movie-killing Sylar situation where the villain just becomes so powerful he’s simply beatable.

This kills the story.

203. Trek Fan - December 22, 2012

184. K-7
” …as Trek Fan’s “predilection for irrelevancy dictates.”

You mean like predicting that it is NOT Khan? That is irrelevant? You ARE smoking something dude. Wow.

204. K-7 - December 22, 2012

#203. Trek Fan, Anthony said to cool it with your hi-jinks.

205. Dr. Cheis - December 22, 2012

So Harrison isn’t Khan. That means Khan isn’t the main villain, but he could still be involved in the plot somehow.

206. David - December 22, 2012

K-7 I think he was telling EVERYONE, (Including YOU) to tone it down a notch.
That this should be a fun discussion, your just as guilty of the negativty.

Now Back to the topic.

If 114 is indeed who he says he is, I honestly don’t know what I think of a CGI Khan. I mean why not just cast a guy who looks like Ricardo?

207. K-7 - December 22, 2012

@206. Agreed. And I got the message, but others continue on……

208. Trek Fan - December 22, 2012

204. K-7
Anthony said to cool it with your hi-jinks.

MY hi-jinks? Ummm…. he was talking to everyone… including you. You are just as guilty with the mudslinging dude.

209. Jack - December 22, 2012

196. MJ. Ha. Yeah, I’d thought of ring cleaning too. And my grandpas false teeth. And other sites have joked about it being alka seltzer. Which is because it does seem odd.

Sure, we are seeing it with no context whatsoever. We don’t know whose ring it is. We can guess, I guess. But, yeah, I agree that the symbolically turning your back on an institution and promises to it/people by tossing a wedding ring, medal, police badge… etc. seems pretty typically, bluntly, easily (overused, oft-parodied) symbolic. But, again, why a glass of (presumably) water? It’s not particularly dramatic if that’s the end of it. And he’s really staring at the darned thing in that brief shot — just maybe, like he’s expecting something to happen.

So) Who’s Clarke? Where is he? Whose ring is it? Why’s he dropping it in a glass of water? Is it water?

I have no idea.

We know he’s in London, he has a wife and a sick kid, he drives a cool car, and Cumberbatch is (presumably) about to make him an offer…

A glass of water seems odd, symbolically. If it is indeed only a symbolic gesture.

Unless the plot makes the glass relevant somehow… (er, 1) the glass of water that would have been used to administer another dose of useless drug to his dying daughter, and he’s fed up with the Royal whatever hospital and the ban on genetic enhancements and he’s going to screw Starfleet somehow in a bargain with Cumberbatch to save his daughter (or some variation on this… I’m spit-balling here); or, 2) Clarke is giving up on Gin Tonics… and Starfleet).

Gotta say, I like the Daystrom suggestions some have made on here — although (and none of these absolutely rules him out) 1) Daystrom wasn’t a Brit, I think. And I’m assuming Clarke is playing a Brit in London, but who knows? 2) Bob told Anthony that Clarke’s character was new; and 3)
It bugs me that the only (it seems) black guy in the movie would be playing one of the very few black guys from TOS (because, what, are there only like 23 black people in this Trek universe? Kind of like that idea that Del Toro = Only Khan).

210. BeatleJWOL - December 22, 2012

Let’s just get one thing straight.

Fully CGI humans, starring with other flesh-and-blood humans? Not happening ANYTIME remotely soon.

Everybody’s seen Polar Express, right?

211. Curious Cadet - December 22, 2012

@206 David,
“If 114 is indeed who he says he is, I honestly don’t know what I think of a CGI Khan. I mean why not just cast a guy who looks like Ricardo?”

Yeah, I’m with you. When I first saw it in Terminator Salvation with Schwarzenegger, I thought it was incredibly cool. Now Arnold is still around and could have spoken for the CGI face, if needed and if he hadn’t been the Governator at the time.

But Montalban is dead. And the gag is kinda been done. What are they gonna do, CGI his face on another actor, and have some voice actor approximate Montalban’s accent … While giving us something less than a full spectrum performance from an amazing actor?

No thanks …

If Khan isn’t in the next movie, and this is just a silent cameo, then maybe. Fun for the fans. Nobody else will get it, much less understand it, sort of like putting R2D2 in the debris field, it just won’t matter. But if they’re going to do a Khan movie, for god’s sake cast a real live human being. And if they CGI Khan in this one, then it’s over.

212. Jack - December 22, 2012

Or.

Gary Mitchell really wanted a glass of water in both WNMHGB and the comic. And his eyes were (sort of) reflective, not unlike a glass of water. Therefore, it’s a clue that Cumberbatch is playing Gary Mitchell!

Although, Ricardo Montalban played a character on an island SURROUNDED BY WATER. And, he also offered characters the chance to live their fantasies (say, like their kids living). And he had a sidekick around Keenser’s height. Clearly, Cumberbatch is playing…

213. Jack - December 22, 2012

…Mr. Roarke. A character also played by Malcom McDowell, who was in Generations (playing a villain obsessed by, er, not quite revenge of the death of his wife, more like just wanting to hang out with her) and who was also in A Clockwork Orange, which was directed by Stanley Kubrick, who also directed 2001, starring Gary Lockwood, who played Gary Mitchell (and who also guest starred on Murder She Wrote).

Therefore, Cumberbatch is playing…

Kevin Bacon? I need to look at my Who’s Cumby Playing wall of maps and newspaper clippings again. Some of the strings might be tangled.

214. Jack - December 22, 2012

Sorry. Open bar at a Christmas party.

215. Trek was born on TV - December 22, 2012

Daystrom is an avid Gin drinker, it would seem…

216. MJ - December 22, 2012

@210. It will happen within 10 years…easily.

217. Elias Javalis - December 22, 2012

Seams to me Sta Trek has grown to a whole new level!

218. Curious Cadet - December 22, 2012

@ 67 Bob Mack,

http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q689/Killamarshtrek/cryomen_zpsfe3f4e35.jpg

Noel Clarke is 5’9″. Now granted we’re looking at what appears to be a bald dark-skinned head, but if the person next to him is Cumberbatch who is 6′ tall, then I’m thinking its not Clarke. Montalban on the other hand was 6′ tall as well. This figure on the left seems considerably larger than the Harrison figure, even accounting for perspective, so this wouldn’t be accurate either. And of course Khan could have shaved his head, but the size difference and hairless head seem unlikely. Especially if this CGI nonsense is true. Why go to the trouble of pasting Montalban’s face on an actor that’s considerably bigger than the actual character you’re modeling? Peter Weller is 6′ as well, so there’s a similar size problem, and then of course the hair.

When I first saw this, it read to me like two orderlies having just wheeled in a stasis pod and leaving. One is in front of the other, rather than two men walking out together having a discussion, just two guys doing a job.

219. MJ - December 22, 2012

@218. See my earlier post covering this — I think that is Khan too. The pony tail deal mentioned by Duncan and others did not pan out, but I still think that is Khan, with Harrison next to him.

220. Buzz Cagney - December 22, 2012

While definitely agreeing there were too many of them I liked the lens flares. They gave the movie a real depth and quality- an energy- that I thought worked well.

Anyway, guys, to you all A VERY HAPPY CHRISTMAS :)

221. gingerly - December 23, 2012

I’m guessing most of you don’t read fanfiction, but since this is pertinent to the conversation, I thought I’d post it here:

http://archiveofourown.org/works/599548

It’s fic about the first 9 minutes of STID and the writer is good.

Enjoy!

222. BeatleJWOL - December 23, 2012

@216.

Perhaps. In time to re-animate the animated series.

@221.

Very, very good. I’m currently reading the alternate reality Sybok story. Most excellent writing.

223. Garth Faction - December 23, 2012

The person we see MIGHT be Khan, but really, it could just be…. anyone. Sorry, no proof it is Khan in the trailer.

224. Jim Nightshade - December 23, 2012

I dunno how other countries can think Trek is for children….Treks stories in general have all been more ADULT in nature and character depth than most scifi movies…I would think franchises like STAR WARS would seem more childish in nature….even though I have to admit that the original trilogy had likable main characters and perfect casting along with state of the art efx that made the trilogy the most popular movies ever….
Looking at Japan for instance…Star Blazers or space battle cruiser yamato??? Borrowed quite a bit from Trek…although there are exceptions most ANIME is not very adult as in complex in theme and characterizations like even the least Trek adventures….
what would be considered adult scifi in Germany anyway??
Kinda ironic that JJ and CO are trying to make trek more popular by making it more action oriented as that would make casual moviegoers think it is becoming even more childish I would think….In any event it is a delicate balance to apply the heart of Trek and mix it with tons more action and EFX….I can see by just seeing the first nine minutes that it seems like there is more action than ever with lines like THE NEEDS OF THE MANY tossed in for the fans and some depth that doesnt really exist yet in those first nine minutes…I feel that sentence as I HAVE BEEN and always will be your friend as two of the most emotional most heartfelt lines in the entire franchise….and in general Ithink in the first trek 2009 they did use the friend line properly with original spock saying that as he was overjoyed(for a vulcan) at seeing Kirk even a younger Kirk…While the Needs of the many Line is not inappropriate in the first nine minutes of INTO DARKNESS I can see where some may think it is just being tossed out too casually….
Overall 3d wise I thought the use of 3d in these nine minutes was better looking than most 3d not as dark and looking very clever and immersive….cant get over the red vines all around em in 3d and a shot overhead downtown of a skyscraper down from the top was also cool…I bet the rest of the movie will not disappoint at least visually….I am hoping the rest of the plot will be deeper and this bad guy will be more sympathetic….Bad Robots writing directing and acting on FRINGE are perfect…Only 3 episodes left and what a ride that show has been…I hope Roberto JJ and Company will have another even more popular Trek Movie this time out….We will see…

225. Jim Nightshade - December 23, 2012

So if Khan will be there in cgi ala Young Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy then that was the back of Khan we saw in that shot…soooo he starts out as the KHAN we know but knows he is too well known/hated to openly get his revenge so he uses some face melt techno to change his appearance and speech to HARRISON….so as most of us have been saying it is KHAN but it ISNT khan and you got another SPIN on the traditional Trek Universe….Still think the Father of the dying girl gives Khan his identity/ring/inside info so he infiltrates starfleet and seems to be an insider…hmmm

226. Aurore - December 23, 2012

…CGI Khan?

:))

Oh, man…
Is this a fact, Mr. Orci?

Anyhow…
Merry Christmas, my fellow Star Trek fans!

227. Pasty - December 23, 2012

STAR TREK 09 IMHO was badly marketed in Germany, as if the distributor did not believe in this material. On the other hand, the TNG movies were very successful in the 90ties, with Insurrection being the most successful, by visitors, Star Trek movie in Germany off all times.

Movie visitors (Germany)
Star Trek 1,272,813
Nemesis 1,274,837
Insurrection 2,430,844
First contact 2,415,883
Generations 1,806,592
Undiscovered 532,132
Final Frontier 183,531
Voyage Home 509,933
Search for Spock 322,887
Wrath of khan 500,000 (est.)
Motion Picture 1,100,000 (est.)

by comparison:
Return of the Jedi 5,054,635
(source: http://www.insidekino.com)

Even Nemeses had 2,000 more visitors that Star Trek 09 (at least a stable audience to count on).
As said, Star Trek was on the top of it’s popularity in the 90ties and in my opinion the time between the pictures (four and six years)was to long and the audience faded and no new audience was build. Star Trek was over-present with reruns of all the series and movies and the kids were primed to Star Wars (the prequels, I’m a fan of the original trilogy).

#46 The German title “Raumschiff Enterprise” (“Spaceship Enterprise”) was not the problem (IMO it fits well), but it was treated in translation as children’s show. Only half the episodes were shown and they were censored (“Amok Time” was even changed to a different story).
As of first one, the movies went by the title “Star Trek”, which may have caused some initiation.

228. Parosu' Grasu' - December 23, 2012

Man I liked the 2009 movie a lot, but the lens-flares where to exaggerated in my opinion and distracted me a lot. I hope then in this second movie, they are toned down a LOT, because otherwise it will ruin some of the scenes. Please Mr. JJ don’t be stubborn and listen to your fans, they dislike them for a reason.

229. thorsten - December 23, 2012

@109. cugel the clever…
I agree on season 4. ENT showed there too late what it could have been,
like VOY had these moments with Deadlock, Scorpion and Year Of Hell. So yes, its canon, xindi and all. Manny Coto did a great job there.
Which takes me back to Harrison. I’m not quite sure what happened to the augment embryos after the events of Cold Station 12, but if Starfleet decided to grow them and then store them away in the freezer, as a serious threat, or even shutting down the program, that would ask for some vengeance of Harrison. So he blows up downtown London and SF, cripples Starfleet and races off to klingon space, trying to provoke war with them to finish off the federation.

230. Disinvited - December 23, 2012

#170. Ahmed

You might find it easier to spread that civility by not misinterpretting “If it is Khan…” as “It must be Khan…” and ridiculing the fun fans get from speculation as you did in message #41.

231. thorsten - December 23, 2012

@227…
I was kidding Pasty.
The german fanbase was never worried by the fact that 1701 is a Space- and not a Starship, or that she travels wil Sol, and not warp ;))

232. Elias Javalis - December 23, 2012

I still believe that the Villain’s true identity is under wraps!

233. David Cologne - December 23, 2012

@224:

Star Trek aka Raumschiff Enterprise (Starship Enterprise) was indeed considered as a tv-show for children back in den 1970s.
The reason for that was the dubbing.
In the 1970s some few tv shows were dubbed with a humorous tone, in Star Trek TOS they kept the original plot in the dialogues, but here and there the characters spoke in an humorous manner. (Kirk called the transporter a “chute” or “slide” as he talked to Scotty!!!!!)
They were also added some humorous lines which had nothing to do with the story.
For example in doomsday machine, Kirk was wondering if the miniskirts were too short…while in the original version he said something serious, but non-relevant for the plot.

In “amok time” aka “Weltraumfieber” (= “space fever”) the whole plot was changed. Scenes were cut in a different order, some omitted, the dubbing was totally different without any sexual hint. Spock was just having a nightmare about killing Kirk.
That version was redubbed and recut in the 90s to “restore” the original plot. For the dvd-release the omitted scenes had to be dubbed afterwards. So you hear 3 different speakers for one character.

The fans back then hadn’t known that not all episodes were aired, neither that the dubbing was so different. In Space Seed the eugenic wars were set in 2096 and not 1996! (But afterwards a wise decision) :-)

In the 80s the missing episodes were aired, but also dubbed in same manner to keep the same undertone.
It was considered as funny back then, and the funny dialogues have enjoyed cult status, but today it sounds old-fashioned and not THAT funny anymore.

TAS was even dubbed and shortened in a silly way and with different speakers (Kirk had the same German speaker as Picard had!!) and appeared even more childish. That was fortunately changed for the VHS (and the DVD) release.

The movies simply kept the name “Star Trek” and were not translated.
TNG however was called again “Raumschiff Enterprise – das nächste Jahrhundert” (the next century) but didn’t include that kind of dubbing, but it is said that the VHS-release in 1987/1988 (it wouldn’t air until 1990 in tv) of the first TNG episodes also included a different dubbing, which wasn’t that good.
Later it was renamed to Star Trek – das nächste Jahrhundert and simply TNG.

At that time i considered the name “Star Trek” as name for the movie-series (due to the name “Star Wars”), but not for TOS/TNG.
I even thought DS9 was something different, cause it didn’t include the names “Raumschiff” and “Enterprise” in it…

Today many people in Germany relate the name “Trekkies” to Fans of Kirk and Spock, but not to TOS itself! You still have to use the term “Raumschiff Enterprise”, so the people know what you mean. (And then again, they associate it with the humorous lines which appear as childish, today).
Hell, they even made a funny parody of it called “Traumschiff Surprise” in tv, with gay versions of Kirk and Spock, which even ended up in cinema (mixed with star wars and a bit the 5th element – I found it boring).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzJKlhCa85k

234. Blue Jay - December 23, 2012

I bet section 31 is in the run again ;-)

235. Disinvited - December 23, 2012

#224. Jim Nightsgade.

It might have something to do with the unwarranted association of “kid’s movie” that comes with the G rating the first Trek movie received?

236. thorsten - December 23, 2012

So, Jim Nightshade, to your question “what would be considered adult scifi in Germany anyway??”
Germany has a SF movie tradition that harks back to Fritz Langs Metropolis, which was a mega blockbuster in it’s day and even influenced the looks of Threepio. When Trek aired first in 1971 it was in the Sturday 6 PM spot, and after germany had a short running SF show in the 60s called Space Patrol. It was quite amazing and lovely done, the bridge famously featured household items as props. Check it out here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGcIy76N9sY
So no one in particular considered Trek unserious SF. Plus there is a huge base of SF literature in germany, with publishing houses like Heyne printing every classic and new novel available. Germany has it’s own megaclassic, Perry Rhodan, a weekly pulp series that is big Space Opera and runs since 1961.

237. David Cologne - December 23, 2012

Oh, #227 was faster, but also has the same explanations. If you look at the # of visitors, the movies intil ST 6 appear not to have had a good marketing then. (Except TMP). Maybe that explains the confusion about the titles “Star Trek” and “Raumschiff Enterprise”, so that the fans didn’t know then that “Raumschiff Enterprise” aired as movie in cinema.

238. Jemini - December 23, 2012

I love JJ

239. David77 - December 23, 2012

@236
East-Germany had also had an own sci-fi-starship-movie before Space-patrol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYT4qTkWWJA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPejbwiGGl0

It includes some east-european propaganda, but was made very well for 1959 and even appears a bit trek-like, more than space patrol.
It’s worth watching it!

240. AB - December 23, 2012

@ 218. Curious Cadet

Why go to the trouble of pasting Montalban’s face on an actor that’s considerably bigger than the actual character you’re modeling?

———

Your post is exactly what I was thinking given the difference in the sizes of the two people in that shot. IF that’s supposed to be BC and a CGI Montalban, they’ve done a very bad job on the CGI work in this particular shot.

Also if Khan is in this movie, it’s possible he’s CGI but not animated. There could simply be a shot of Khan from Space Seed used to show Khan in a stasis pod and he’s never awoken or dies when the pod malfunctions.

241. thorsten - December 23, 2012

Heck, to see how serious we are about SF, just check our beloved ruler!
http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-440079-panoV9free-rege.jpg

242. YnrohKeeg - December 23, 2012

Guys, there’s a lot of talk of “cryo tubes”. Think with me for a moment here. Two cities suffered terror attacks. Mass casualties. Doesn’t it make more sense and have more gravitas to consider that those are coffins? That the shot is not “a room full of cryo-tubes”, but a place where those who have been killed in those attacks are being kept?

I mean, yeah, I still think there may be some Khan action going on. I just don’t think those are cryo-tubes. From a dramatic standpoint, I’m not as emotionally affected by a room full of sleeping supermen than I am at seeing lots and lots of people dead because of one of them.

243. thorsten - December 23, 2012

Well, Rich, there are about 24 tubes in that shot. The trailer established destruction in the cities by throwing around starships and stuff. If we consider scale and time constraints in trailers supposed to tell the non-Trek-world that there is a blockbuster coming, with mass murder of the innocents and such, you show devasted fleeing crowds (check) and the bad guy gloomily checking out his handywork. You don’t go into the London Starfleet hangar and show medical examiners leaving a room with 24 coffins. The scale doesn’t compute. This is a hint for the Trek folks, and not the general moviegoing public…

244. Ralph Pinheiro - December 23, 2012

Harrison is a mixture of Hannibal, Jack and Joker. I mean, 03 psychopaths. Then they reveal that he is an average guy (with the mind of 03 psychopaths?). Maybe he does not have powers,so Mitchell is completely discarded.
But he jumped up and down a Klingon, if not because of the local gravity, is someone with superhuman abilities. Khan? But he is a member of Starfleet. Khan out.

I think the missing piece to fit this is the character of Peter Weller.

245. Ralph Pinheiro - December 23, 2012

Montalban appear in CGI as Khan because the scene of cryo tubes. It’s possible, but I think the missing piece to fit this is the character of Peter Weller. He has something to do with it, perhaps as someone who knows about the origin of Harrison and (unwittingly) unleashed all that, or someone orchestrating Harrison with personal purposes.

246. Disinvited - December 23, 2012

Hmmm…if whatever makes it on screen is canon, does that mean all language dubs and subtitles too? Because I think the wiggle room for staying in canon has just expanded exponentially?

#173 BulletInTheFace

You mention that this isn’t the Bible. And thank God for that! Those original documents were written across time in different languages, dialects and writing styles, rife with problems of self-contradiction and inconsistencies from the task of trying to translate it all into any one tongue alone. However, owing to time itself and the lack of copying machines and printing presses in ancient times, it has had many different scribes as does STAR TREK for different reasons.

If your take was to mean that this aspect of STAR TREK shouldn’t be as solemn as Bible study then I concur. But a simple search of the internet reveals many theses, dissertations, essays and articles that might give us an inking that we may be in the minority?

247. Aurore - December 23, 2012

An average man with a back-story and some kind of amazing secret agenda….

“John Harrison is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful (human ?) being I’ve ever known in my life.”

That is what people will automatically respond when asked to describe him, in the movie.

You heard it here first.

248. Cygnus-X1 - December 23, 2012

66. Exverlobter – December 22, 2012

—-Worldwide gross of both films is almost the same! But Terminator is still a flop, because it did not well in the USA? In the end IMO only the overall-numbers should count.—-

You raise an interesting point.

Two reasons that come to mind for why Terminator Salvation was considered a flop despite a similar world-wide gross to Star Trek ’09:

(1) Net revenue and costs of doing business abroad. It may be that the profit margin is substantially lower for American movies showing abroad, due to taxes, duties, tariffs and distribution costs. So, abroad, a movie would have to substantially exceed its US profitability levels in order to make as much profit for the studio. No idea if this is a valid reason or not, but throwing it out there as a possibility.

(2) Sources referring to Terminator Salvation as “a flop” were doing so as journalists to an American audience. American movie reviews in American periodicals and websites tend to be written for American consumption. So if Terminator Salvation didn’t do well in the US, it’ll be referred to as a flop when speaking to American movie-goers.

(3) Predictability of markets. It may be that a movie’s success abroad is considerably more difficult to predict, and as such, a movie that luckily makes its money back abroad is considered a failure if it failed in its domestic goal. If a movie’s success abroad is harder to predict, studios are naturally going to account for that risk when green-lighting it, during production and when assessing its performance.

Again, the above are all total guesses on my part and I have no idea if there’s any validity to any of it. Maybe someone with experience in or knowledge about the film biz will chime in.

All that said, you make a good point that a movie’s performance abroad should be more referenced in its review.

249. porthoses bitch - December 23, 2012

@27 well suffice it to say you don’t hear much about WD 1-39 either…

250. Jefferies Tuber - December 23, 2012

Trolltown

251. thorsten - December 23, 2012

So Harrison is a master manipulator ans is able to use the weaknesses of the crew against them, a psychological force to be reckoned with…
fascinating.

252. chrisfawkes.com - December 23, 2012

It’s not Khan.

Millions of Trekkies around the globe just fist pumped the air after reading this article.

253. thorsten - December 23, 2012

Abrams: ‘It’s like driving in the fog’
JJ talking about secrecy and the creative process at the MIT Media Lab…

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/jj-abrams-media-lab-conversation-1128.html

254. falcon - December 23, 2012

Let me say this about lens flares and practical set design:

Who would have lights shining in the faces of crewmembers at their stations? Makes it real hard to read the displays. And those lights would invariably find their way into a lens if a camera was on board shooting it (like a “black box” in case of disaster). Is that really a good idea?

TOS had the right idea: muted lighting, bright displays and buttons, and soft shadows, because people need shadows.

255. Ralph Pinheiro - December 23, 2012

I remenber one episode of the third season Next Generation, The Hunted. military prisoner escapes. A genetically modified ex-soldier.

256. thorsten - December 23, 2012

so, falcon, how do your efforts in Blender come along?

257. Curious Cadet - December 23, 2012

@243 thorsten,
“Well, Rich, there are about 24 tubes in that shot …”

Total speculation on your part. The camera is pulling back and seems to be accelerating through the shot. To me this seems like an homage to Citizen Kane/Raiders of the Lost Ark warehouse scene (and the opening of STID is already a massive Raiders reference). At a minimum there would be over 80 tubes to account for the 84 augments aboard The Botany Bay (assuming this is Khan), so the camera had a lot further to pull back and therefore you only saw less than 1/3 of the entire room. But what if there are thousands in that room? If you were wrong about 60 unseen tubes, why couldn’t it be 1000 unseen tubes? Or 10,000?

Moreover, Khan’s supermen is not the only alternative, nor coffins for the victims of the destruction of London. Considering I see two orderlies in that shot (not Khan and Harrison wearing identical Good Humor Man outfits), and a stone wall outside the room, like a basement of that converted Medieval castle hospital, the most poignant thing I can think of for that scene is a room full of terminally I’ll patients being kept in stasis while a cure is found (and still far more than 24 tubes). How sad for the little girl’s family as they have to make the grueling decision to put her into stasis, perhaps for the rest of their lives?

The federation’s dirty little secret … Dr. McCoy euthanized his father dying of an incurable disease just before a cure was found. Maybe this is the answer to that. But unknown to the rest of the galaxy, like stem cell research in the USA today, the cures are available in outlawed genetic engineering.

258. thorsten - December 23, 2012

CC, of course the camera on the crane can pull back and reveal uncounted rows of tubes, totally with you and the Raiders ref there and all.
I was just talking about what TPTB decided to put in the trailer… not what it will look like in the movie. For Comparison check out the Raiders trailer, free of lens flares!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZOcoxjeUYo

259. Shado - December 23, 2012

Darn I had really hoped that JJ was past his len’s flare days– I mean, it was like watching a three year old with a hammer- everything needed hammering- and every shot needed a flair- I had retnal burns after the last movie

260. thorsten - December 23, 2012

Plus these are loving parents, driving out to the countryside, giving their sleeping girl a new rabbit… I don’t see how there should be a sub basement with all these tubes, dozens or millions, in which they store patients. But who knows what will come with Obamacare…

I stick with my theory, these are augments grown from embryos by Starfleet, and the Botany Bay is still out there in space, Khan and company happily dreaming of ruling Earth, never to be found by anyone in this timeline.

Come out Bob, and tell me I’m wrong!
;))

261. boborci - December 23, 2012

263. thorsten

another good theory.

262. pock speared - December 23, 2012

lens flares are cool. cooler than you.
it’s a lovely way of simulating the way light works the human eye, and film is all about light (and sound).
there was a time when the cross-dissolve made audiences angry as well. but those losers are all dead now.

i always liked engineering as well. excellent contrast between the “mind” of the bridge and the “heart” of it’s body.

also. looking forward to uhura’s space-tits.

263. pock speared - December 23, 2012

264. b’orci
is that amazing shot of william shatner crashing into san francisco bay a tribute to the original series, or just a coincidence?

264. BTE-Dan - December 23, 2012

Off topic –

If you are interested in signing a White House Petition to have NASA do a feasibility study and conceptual design of the Gen1 USS Enterprise interplanetary spaceship, please go to the link below.

http://wh.gov/QOb7

265. Killamarshtrek - December 23, 2012

@ 264 Bob Orci

I have a theory that Harrison years ago was part of black ops force who got caught up in a local planetary war & left for dead due to Starfleet’s none interference prime directive. His friends (or family) died but he escaped & has been plotting his revenge against starfleet ever since!

How’m I doing Bob?

266. Vulcan Soul - December 23, 2012

“Abrams: I love movies that are big and unabashedly a huge fan of big pop mass appeal movies. I do love that. I love being in a theater packed with people and everyone gasping at the same time and having that communal experience.”

Finally an honest assessment. Trek, once home of the geeks, is now in the clutches of a mainstream conformist, folks! Ah, what irony!

267. Curious Cadet - December 23, 2012

@263 thorsten,
“Plus these are loving parents, driving out to the countryside, giving their sleeping girl a new rabbit… I don’t see how there should be a sub basement with all these tubes, dozens or millions, in which they store patients. But who knows what will come with Obamacare…”

Have you forgotten how ST09 opened? The theater was in tears as Kirk’s mom was giving birth to him, picking names with George Kirk as he rode to his sacrificial death. A loving couple giving a new toy to a dying girl is sad enough, imagine if they are being asked whether to “pull the plug” — devastating. Cryo-stasis is the 23rd century answer to pulling the plug, and the metaphor would not be lost on today’s audiences — the net result is LOSS of a beloved family member.

As for Obamacare, since I proposed this is in London, I’m not entirely sure how this applies. The UK already has an amazing medical system, so I’m not sure why they would adopt a lesser compromised system dreamed up by partisan politics in the US … But I digress. Which would you prefer in the case of incurable disease, pulling the plug and ending a life completely, or suspending a person’s disease and allow research to catch up with the illness? Imagine the consequences of the practice. McCoy could have had his father cured and back in just a few years, but instead he was wracked with guilt for performing euthanasia which is still illegal in the 23rd century. Conversely, a cure may never come in the parents of a sick child’s lifetime — leaving a cured child to wake up in a world possibly without any recognizable loved ones, or family at all. Interesting moral delimma.

And which for audiences is a more compelling backstory for Cumberbatch … An augmented superman trying to save genetic supersoldiers which a history of unspeakable war crimes? Or someone who is trying to save his own nuclear family or friends from arbitrary Starfleet policies concerning medical treatment, abandonment, terroism, the Prime directive, or any number of other topics for which a modern audience might have sympathy with a frightening psychopath?

Not saying your theory isn’t plausible, and indeed it may be likely. But medical stasis is certainly no more implausible than growing augments from embryos and then freezing them until needed …

And lest we forget Kurtzman and Orci are well versed in this kind of thing with their superb screenplay for The Island.

268. Ahmed - December 23, 2012

@ 230. Disinvited – December 23, 2012

#170. Ahmed

You might find it easier to spread that civility by not misinterpretting “If it is Khan…” as “It must be Khan…” and ridiculing the fun fans get from speculation as you did in message #41.

I don’t think I was misinterpreting. It was clear from the two posts that I was commenting on, that no matter what JJ or the actors say, some people will remain adamant that Khan in the movie somehow.

I love to speculate as the next guy, but you need to change/adapt when new information come out.

269. BillT - December 23, 2012

Here’s the problem I have with lens flares. When you watch a movie you want the feeling that you are there, like you’re a fly on the wall or as a crewmember observing the action. Lens flares hammer it into your head that it’s a film. Your eyes don’t see lens flares in real life unless you’ve had a very bad Lasik procedure. I don’t care if they look good in 3D or not. They’re distracting.

270. BillT - December 23, 2012

@56 Bullet in the Face who said “No, it’s clearly NOT Khan, since you can see Cumberbatch standing NEXT to Khan in the trailer, when the two are walking out of the room containing the cryo-chambers. Khan is definitely in the movie–but the trailer made it clear that Cumberbatch isn’t playing him. What amazes me is that no one here seems to have even noticed Khan in the trailer. He’s quite visible.”

There is a bald headed guy standing next to someone coming out of the cryo room. There is no pony tail as some have noted, but it’s a shadow, as shown by watching it frame by frame. It may be Kahn but it’s not “clearly” shown. The person on the right is not “clearly” Cumberbatch either.

271. Disinvited - December 23, 2012

#268. Ahmed

Reread my message #36. I in no way stated or implied that Khan must be in the sequel.

272. Victor - December 23, 2012

I hate all this Spock/Uhura things. It’s totally sucks.

273. Dytallix B - December 23, 2012

If John Harrison is from canon, I think it’s more likely to be this guy than the officer from the Beagle … http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Harrison

Remember Benicio del Toro was going to play the part at one point, and note the text in the dotted box on the above page. Why wasn’t he in the briefing room with the others when Khan took over the ship? Because he was actually an augment!

Well, there’s my theory anyway.

274. matthew - December 23, 2012

call me late to the party…but which trailer has “khan” walking beside harrison?

275. matthew - December 23, 2012

@270: BillT – okay I see the scene you are talking about now.

I agree, it’s awfully hard to tell if

A) it is a ponytail.
B) it’s harrison.

i don’t have an opinion one way or another as to whether it’s khan (i’d prefer it not be, nor any augments) but i am looking forward to the movie.

276. Craiger - December 23, 2012

What if Harrison is a Klingon Sleeper Agent?

277. Curious Cadet - December 23, 2012

@273 Dytallix B,

Cumberbatch wouldn’t necessarily be the officer from the Beagle. He would have to be a brother named John. Or, his name changed due to the timeline.

The problem with the other Harrison, is that he was A) Hawaiian, and B) a background actor who has no connection to anything. Presumably the canon connection is strictly for the fans and new audiences would not care. Therefore using an obscure crewman jack-of-all departments who is only relevant as a well established member of the Prime crew would be a waste of goodwill with the fans who would likely not care, much less accept it. He’s just a name for whom an entire convoluted back story would have to be crafted to explain his relevance and appearance in this universe.

That being said, considering he continued to serve on the Enterprise after Space Seed, there is nothing notable about his connection to Khan in the Prime universe, which is not to say things couldn’t have transpired differently in this universe — but that’s a pretty weak character on which to base a story about Khan. The only way this would work IMO would be if we had seen the events of Space Seed already, and this time Harrison (with at least one different parent) sides with Khan as did McGivers (who knows, maybe there’s no McGivers and Harrison is the gay character everybody’s been asking for — Khan doesn’t care, he exploits anybody he has to by any means necessary … this ain’t the sixties anymore), but instead of marooning them on Ceti Alpha, this Kirk throws them in the brig and hands them over to Starfleet. Harrison gets out on good behavior and begins working to seek revenge on Kirk and Starfleet and to free Khan and the others from cold storage. And who knows maybe that’s just what we see in the forthcomng countdown comics …

Either way, for me the officer from the Beagle has much more interesting potential vis-a-vis his relationship to Merik who himself has a notable relationship with Kirk. As a fan, I would rather see something creative spun from this character than attempting to shoehorn in the other. As if you still want Khan in the story, maybe it’s Merik who discovered Khan this time …

278. Robman007 - December 23, 2012

I love the extreme level of arrogance by some who throw a huge hissy fit over this film (even though they have never seem it) because of the plot details and “what would Gene think?”

I tell ya what…hate to break your hero worship or whatever, but dude created Star Trek to make money. Not for the fans, not to deliver a message, but to make money. It happened all the time, from the IDIC pennants being pimped to the studio keeping him away from the 11 foot filming model after the show was over. The “peace loving, utopia” land garbage came much later in his life after all the adoring fans created this wonder “perfect world” fiction at the conventions. His objections to the TOS films came because the studio essentially gave him the boot after the failure of TMP.

Stop using that as an excuse to bash a film that you have never seen. If you don’t like what you’ve seen, then don’t watch it and continue to wait for that perfect TV series or movie series that will never happen. Just stop with the “what would gene say” crap

279. R. Banks - December 23, 2012

Quote by Curious Cadet @267

“But I digress. Which would you prefer in the case of incurable disease, pulling the plug and ending a life completely, or suspending a person’s disease and allow research to catch up with the illness? Imagine the consequences of the practice. McCoy could have had his father cured and back in just a few years, but instead he was wracked with guilt for performing euthanasia which is still illegal in the 23rd century. ”

McCoy withdrew life support from his terminally ill father.

The withdrawal of life support from a terminally ill patient is NOT considered Euthanasia, either legally, or ethically.

280. Disinvited - December 23, 2012

#277. Curious Cafet

FWIW the STAR TREK reference, STAR TREK CONCORDANCE by Bjo Trimble, lists a crewman, Dr. Harrison played by John Bellah who doesn’t look Hawaiian, in the episode THE NAKED TIME.

281. Greg2600 - December 23, 2012

Dear JJ, your lens flares stink and your conversion of Star Trek into a comic book movie fanchise stinks.

Who gives up the plot to a movie 6 months before it comes out?

282. Bernd Schneider - December 23, 2012

Abrams: “When we made the first Star Trek we never added lens flares, it was always ‘in camera.’ And I do love them and I know I get beaten up some times because of it. But it actually works pretty well in conversion.”

What a pathetic excuse. The sets of “Star Trek (2009)” are full of totally pointless small spotlights that inevitably create reflections with every camera pan. Lighting a set to avoid lens flares was once an art. Nowadays some film makers and unfortunately a growing part of the audience think that this shitty pseudo-realism belongs to a good movie, just like hand-held cameras and rapid-fire cuts.

Lens flares makes me feel dizzy, 3D makes me feel dizzy. Lens flares in 3D will make me avoid this movie in 3D at any rate.

And what about the countless lens flares in pure CG scenes? Are they “in camera” too? Don’t tell me anyone that it is rendered using a non-ideal model of an anamorphic lens.

283. Mark James Tucker - December 23, 2012

Even if those are cryo tubes that doesnt have to mean khan.
Dont forget TNG had their own Crygoenicly frozen sleeper ship story line as well, and none of those people were Genetic supermen.

Just sayin

284. Mark James Tucker - December 23, 2012

Also correct me if i am wrong, but we have never seen a big fight on the Klingon home world before in one of the movies.
SO who’s to say the gravity isnt lighter their than on Earth.
And that ANYone from EARTH whether he is geneticly enhanced or not could jump like Cumberbatch does in the trailer.

It would be as crazy as saying the astronaughts who have gone to the moon are supermen because they could leap very high on the moon.

285. Disinvited - December 23, 2012

#282. Mark James Tucker

You make a good point and as I recall there was a CEO on one of the TNG sleepers so this may be Weller’s character introduction.

286. Valenti - December 23, 2012

Too bad I can’t see any 3-D due to my eyes. Thus, the lens flares will probably be nothing but a bother to me.

287. Ahmed - December 23, 2012

The only 3D movies that I seen were Avatar & Clash of the Titans (2010) & I seriously hated the experience.

Until they come up with a way to watch 3D without the bloody glasses, I will watch movies in 2D.

288. TrekMadeMeFat - December 23, 2012

Most sites seem to have reached agreement that the figure on Khan’s left is the muscular and bald Joseph Gatt.

289. Anthony Pascale - December 23, 2012

Most sites? Well not this one.

It’s not Gatt

290. TrekMadeMeFat - December 23, 2012

With all this secrecy, I knew they would start contradicting each other in interviews, but I never expected J.J. to start contradicting himself.

291. Captain Archer - December 23, 2012

288. TrekMadeMeFat

When was it stated that Khan was in the movie? The villain is John Harrison – and JJ conformed that he isn’t Khan.

I believe that the cryo chamber is actually where they are creating android type humans like this Gatt2000 – part human, part cybernetic.

292. TrekMadeMeFat - December 23, 2012

@289

Tell!

293. Anthony Pascale - December 23, 2012

I’ve already reported that Gatt is bald in the movie and has a flashing blue cybernetic disc in the back of his head. He is a bridge officer on the USS Enterprise. Character name (or nickname not sure if used on screen) is “GATT 2000″

294. TrekMadeMeFat - December 23, 2012

@293

Thanks! Keep digging!

295. MaxineLiang - December 23, 2012

@ #82 Aix, I don’t agree with #71 China’s comment as the global marketing strategy is complicated; it’s not wise that the marketing only focuses on any single cast member, but whether Cumberbatch is mainstream or a cult TV hero is based on different markets. He’s definitely mainstream in the UK, and quite popular in Asia, Russia and some European countries. At the beginning of the year when Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, in which he played a main supporting role alongside Gary Oldman was released, it can obviously tell that he’s one of the major selling points from the marketing materials, e.g. posters and websites’ designs, by the local distributors in these countries, and that’s before Series 2 of Sherlock had been released; now he’s even more popular since Sherlock S2 came out. It’s not a coincidence that about 500 fans waited for him at the airport in Japan on a workday afternoon earlier this month; that’s Paramount JP released the info that he was visiting JP through a JP magazine ‘Movie Star’, which has Cumberbatch as Sherlock on its cover of Jan 2013 issue and asked his fans to welcome him at the airport; the only surprising thing is that no one expected there came so many on a workday. He’s also quite popular in China at the moment, and both China and Russia are big 3D movie markets. It’s tricky as to his popularity in the States as Sherlock is broadcast on PBS, not on a TV network, but its viewing figures of S2 are somehow more than some episodes of this season’s Mad Man, and of course lots of people (especially diehard fans) in the States got to watch this show from the internet (as being resourceful) when it came out in the UK in Jan this year and not to mention many people actually caught up both seasons on Netflix after S2 aired in May. Also his hit show Frankenstein of the National Theatre has been doing encore screenings worldwide since this June due to popular demand helped too.
I’m not indicating he’s a super movie star or anything like that, but generalizing his current status as a cult TV hero is untrue.

296. Jack - December 23, 2012

Sigh. MJ and Ryan. How do you guys know which Gilberto this guy actually is? And that he’s the same Gilberto you claim and whose name you’re repeating. Again, it sounds you’re rounding up another posse (like when you guys were telling us, on every thread, that Montreal Paul was Stunkill and was impersonating Bob Orci and everyone else). I get it, you jump to conclusions.

You may ultimately be correct. But — any evidence?

297. Gary S. - December 24, 2012

Until Anthony verifies this Poster calling himself Gilberto actually works at IDW, it is just another guy named Gilberto .

298. Jim Nightshade - December 24, 2012

ok thanks for the background info on trek n scifi in germany and japan guys…i had no idea dubbing added tones n jokes that made it seem childish….jj n co have a tough time in those countries trying to change the tone…seeing hobbit in 3d imax it seemed to me the trek previews 3d was brighter,clearer n better thought out…yuh i also thought opening sequence another jj homage to spielberg/raiders..not a bad director to aspire to…oh yeh they also showed an upcoming 3d rerelease of jurassic park n it looked incredible….3d rerelease of i robot didnt look as good..

299. thorsten - December 24, 2012

Merry Xmas, everyone!

http://thorstenwulff.com/Spock12.jpg

300. Ian B - December 24, 2012

I have to admit, I never noticed the lens flares. I saw the movie twice at the cinema, and never once consciously noticed a lens flare. So I guess from that my posiition would be that they aren’t distracting, and if JJ likes them, he should just carry on doing them.

I’m not keen on this whole 3D fad thing though, it seems kind of pointless to me. I will carry on watching things in 2D when I can, because basically I want to watch a story on a screen. In a sense, a bit like theatre; I want to sit somewhere away from a stage and watch the activity on the stage, and I’m really quite happy that it’s all obviously not real. That’s a good thing about theatre, not a bad thing.

Cinema is an “on a screen” art form and I’m happy with it that way, especially if it saves me wearing a pair of dorky glasses and feeling a bit sick.

301. Jeyl - December 24, 2012

“Bottom line is that Paramount is going to try even harder to make STAR TREK a global brand. So if that means telling the locals its OK to see the sequel without having seen the first one, then I think that is just fine.”

For the last film to reboot everything and start from scratch only to try and make the next film more appealing than before, I have to wonder. Do you really believe that nothing that makes Star Trek special to you will be lost in that kind of direction? Must the goal always be to cater to those who clearly aren’t all that interested in Star Trek than just trying to make your Star Trek movie as good as it can possibly be? Yes, it’s suicide to tell people who haven’t seen the first film to not see the second, but there’s nothing suicidal in saying that the you can get more out of the experience if you watched the film where the crew got together.

302. Bob Tompkins - December 24, 2012

Lens flares.
Crap.
I noticed a few in the preview but I was hoping we’d get away from that.
As to the 3D, the IMAX version of it still leaves me a bit nauseated.

303. Wil - December 26, 2012

I’m sorry, but JJ has removed most of the elements that made me love Star Trek. It’s now just an action film (soon to be films). I can see them making big money, but no real expansion of the franchise.

304. Phil - December 26, 2012

@284. Well, Klingons were always portrayed as big and muscular, which tends to suggest heavier gravity, not lighter.

305. ug - December 27, 2012

“In other words, one of the most hated aspects of the 2009 movie, is most definitely making a comeback in ‘Into Darkness’, without any reduction in amount or intensity.”

In other words, he’s emulating another auteur who doesn’t give a crap about fan reaction: George Lucas.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.