Lindelof & Abrams Talk Star Trek History Respect, Scripting For Cumberbatch, 3D & More In New SFX Mag

The brand new SFX Magazine has a huge cover story all about Star Trek Into Darkness including interviews cast and crew and more. SFX have provided TrekMovie with some excerpts including JJ Abrams talking about how the movie works for long-time Star Trek fans and Damon Lindelof talking about how the role of the villain changed to accommodate the casting of Benedict Cumberbatch.

 

Abrams and Lindelof talk Into Darkness in SFX

The cover story features interviews with producer/director JJ Abrams, producer/writer Damon Lindelof along with many of the cast members. One of the things Abrams talked about is how the movie is made to work for both Trek fans and non-fans, noting:

“Of course you can’t make this for everyone. There are going to be detractors, people who hate it. But I think that the important thing is this movie, at least the ambition behind it, is… if you’re a Star Trek fan, you’re going to be very happy. Because the movie acknowledges, in a big way, what has come before. If you’re not a lifelong Star Trek fan, like myself, what I think and hope is that you’ll have a great time and you’ll feel something and you’ll be gasping and shrieking and laughing and crying and all that stuff in a way you would not expect to in a Star Trek movie.”

Damon Lindelof was asked if the search for Hispanic actors to play the Into Darkness villain (including the almost-signing of Benicio Del Toro) should be taken as a sign that they were trying to find an actor who could step into Ricardo Montalban’s shows (as Khan). He wouldn’t take the bait, but did say something about how casting Cumberbatch changed the way the role was written…

“One of the things we like to do, character-wise, is have a conceptual framework for what we want a character to be, and then we write a script. The articulate way of answering your question but not answering it is, that character would have been written differently if it was Benicio, versus the way he ended up getting written for Benedict. But we didn’t change the story. They’re very different actors.”

And while Lindelof and Abrams both admit they weren’t’ fans of 3D to begin with, Damon made the case for why Into Darkness:

“I would say that the 3D in Trek is better than the 3D in Prometheus in terms of the way the movie was designed. Because A.) It was built into the story, B.) It wasn’t used in a gimmicky way, and C.) Every shot that J.J. did was cognitive of the process.”


May issue of SFX

More Star Trek Into Darkness

The May issue of SFX magazine went on sale today and there is much more in the Star Trek Into Darkness cover story interview with JJ Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana and Karl Urban – as well as Paramount’s Brian Miller on the new game. And a two-page interview with the film’s antagonist Benedict Cumberbatch. There is also fun ‘Star Trek Prebooted’ feature with light-hearted speculation on what Trek would look like in the 1890s, the 1930s, the 1950s or the 1970s, illustrated by veteran Star Trek comic book artist Mike Collins.


Fun SFX spread re-imagining Star Trek in different eras

You can buy buy the print version online or you can pick up a digital version Apple Newsstand, or Google Play.

 

Sort by:   newest | oldest

Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnn!!!!!!!!!

Yay – an interview with the awesome four – CP, ZQ, ZS and last, but not least, KU, whose McCoy has a bit of a kiwi past (you read it here first)…:)

Well, between now and May, it’s going to be one big bout of ANTICIPATION!!!

Pretty much a confirmation in my book. Looking forward to watching the new spin on it.

Khan hope the heck not. so glad Jj openly admited to the fack hes not a trekker, wishing you all the best doing wars JJ , yes i am a life long time star trek fan of 46 1/2 years, hopefully I not be dissapointed with this movie.

John harrison is an agent in one of the trailer i have recently seen, well maybe the carture Harrison is an agent with section 31& not Khan.we are praying hes not Khan….

your saying that If Benicio Del toro got the part we would have been written differently he would not have played the part of harrison .maybe del toro would have played the part of Khan perhaps gees now i’m glad del toro never got a part in trek.

the movie was done in 3D hopefully it was done also in 2D, cant wait untill the movie come out nooooooooo Khan ..if it is Khan i will be very dissapointed in the surpreme court…

“There are going to be detractors, people who hate it”

And i hate those people:-)

Well, what do you know? The UK ordering system actually works for single issues, not just subscriptions. Beats trying to find the issue on ebay because I sure won’t find it in the shops around here. Now to wait the couple of weeks for it to actually turn up so I can read it.

It’s going to be good.

He will never be as good as Montalban, but I look forward to seeing Holmes/Smaug’s portrayal of Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.

Am I the only one that saw the cover and read the name of the magazine as SEX?

lol you are totally right Kapten 10

#10, Kerk, I think we’ll see intimations of SEX in the PreBoot section – it looks hilarious

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO KHAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNN

Alas, sorta looks like it, to wit:

“… at least the ambition behind it, is… if you’re a Star Trek fan, you’re going to be very happy. Because the movie acknowledges, **IN A BIG WAY**, what has come before….”

and

“… articulate [READ: COY] way of answering your question but not answering it is, that character would have been written differently if it was Benicio, versus the way he ended up getting written for Benedict.”

DAMMIT

I wondered what you were talking about, Kapten Kerk, so I had to look at the article again. As I thought, no SEX, just SFX.

I would like to know how “Every shot that J.J. did was cognitive of the [3D] process.” if he couldn’t even bother to film it using a 3D camera?

” if you’re a Star Trek fan, you’re going to be very happy.”

If by “fan” you mean not really or only if nothing else is on, sure Mr. Lindelof, “fans” will be happy. If you mean “fan” as in someone who actually cares about Star Trek, well, do yourself a favor and just go make Star Wars movies and leave Star trek alone!

@ 15.
Well said. I am a lifeline Trek fan and hated the first one Abrams and co. made. I think this is pandered just to those who are sci-fi/action fans, because they figure that will make more money.

Also about the “Pre-booted” Star Trek was around in the 70’s. Motion Picture anyone?

Cant wait not to see Khan in the movie, I would be sad if Star Trek could not get past the only movie the general public has seen and can reference in large numbers. I’v been thru the 1980s and I dont want another haircut like that. But then again the dayglo coloured lens flairs would be pretty.

I’ve been a Star Trek fan since the sixties, and I enjoyed the reboot movie – even though I had a few quibbles with it (destroying Vulcan – was that really necessary?). In fact I enjoyed it a lot more than the last 3 Next Gen movies. I am quietly confident I will enjoy STID too, although obviously I won’t know for sure until I’ve actually seen it.

Ditto #18. Killing off 99.99% of all the Vulcans sucks. They were too big of a part of what the Federation was to do that. Should have been at LEAST the 10,000 on Earth & in ships at the time Nero struck.

So now the Vulcans will be pretty much a non-factor in the new Federation’s future unless (1) they drop the “too cool” act and start cranking out babies, FAST or (2) they send back Kirk II on his first time travel job to SAVE VULCAN!

While I still hope that, well, Cumberbatch isn’t Khan – as that would be kinda cheap – I actually haven’t lost my faith in the writers’ ability to deliver a compelling story.
So if the villain turns out to be Kha(aaaaaa)n nevertheless, I sure hope that the revelation is going to be wrapped in a nice and unexpected plot twist.

Surely the whole point of using your franchise’s BIGGEST villain is to provide a selling point for your movie. But if no-one knows he’s your villain, what’s the point? I just don’t get it?!

#14: Almost exactly what I was going to say. When it comes to 3D, it’s not just the thought that counts.

@21 suspence

@10. Kapten Kerk –
“Am I the only one that saw the cover and read the name of the magazine as SEX?”

SFX magazine is fairly notorious for designing their covers the way this one is with the bottom of the ‘F’ covered. The effect subliminally projects SEX.

After reading most of the comments on this site since I began visiting here it’s a wonder anyone makes anything for the fans these days. The MINORITY of you are just so bitchy and ridiculous that why would Abrams make a movie that just suits a minority of backward looking, scared, basement dwelling, Shatner loving, virgins.

Fools all of you who think JJ Abrams has destroyed Star Trek.

Is it me, or does the title of the magazine look like “SEX”?

#26- got my attention.

I’ve read this article
there is one mention of a Kirk/Uhura/Spock triangle (from the interviewer part) that I don’t get. There was no triangle in the first movie and I hope the writers didn’t make any stupid triangles in the sequel
The first one worked so well BECAUSE it didn’t really have a triangle and many applauded the writers for that.

Still do not believe he plays Khan – But to be honest: The hispanic actor Ricardo Montalban didn`t look indian in “Star Trek II” at all…

Less Uhura, more McCoy.

The 1950s Enterprise kinda looks like the one we’ve got right now!

15, 16: I’d appreciate it if you’d stop presuming to speak for all Star Trek fans. After four freaking years, I’m getting a bit tired of these implications (sometimes outright declarations) that the only true Trekkies /hated/ the 2009 movie, no in between.

Let me be clear on a few things:

I acknowledge its problems.

I acknowledge not everyone liked it.

I do not expect everyone to.

I thought it was good, but not quite on the level of fantastic.

But it is rather presumptuous and pompous to imply that you are the only true Trekkies because of your opinions. Guess what? Trekkies also like Voyager and Enterprise sometimes, which as far as I can see are much more reviled in general than the 2009 movie!

I might also add, if you hated the first movie so much and have already made up your mind about this one… why are you even here? Last I checked, this is TREKMOVIE.com, not TREKMOVIESUCKS.com. Just saying.

The preboot stuff is awesome. I wish the pic was just a little bigger to read it all.

Well said 32. Jovius the Romulan!!

25. Picard, Jean-Luc : you hit the nail on the head!

@25 We don’t have to resort to those kind of insults.

#36.

Yes we do. Now go away.

Jovius the Romulan

I’m not a big fan of the first film. However, unlike some people, I can acknowledge “X is bad” doesn’t mean “Those who made X are always bad.”

I liked Fringe. I think Fringe is a key in understanding what will happen in the New Universe. It’s about alternative takes to the classic series, which means, the same cast of characters should show up. Khan is a big one there, but not the only one.

Some of it can be done quite well, even if I think the set up wasn’t done so well. So I have hopes for the movie even if the first didn’t grab me.

Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire

On may 15th at 7pm Central Time. All Answers about Star Trek Into Darkness will be Answerd. Then at or about 11pm on May 15th Anthony Pascale better be ready for a Nuclear Explosion on Trekmovie.

As Kirk Said. Sound’s like FUN!

I am impressed with these words, but be warned. If this movie does not fit well in the Trek mythos, I WILL never see or trust anything JJ again.

However, if this movie is a solid Trek throughout, then you have my alligiance JJ, for decades to come.

“Fools all of you who think JJ Abrams has destroyed Star Trek.”

Pretty much. Fools is a little strong, but incorrect works. Unless, by destroyed, they mean ‘made it popular with moviegoers and critics.’ I get tired of this ‘lowest common denominator’ crap — because, that’s not really what happened in Trek 09. Yep, it had problems and the script had weak parts (although not as weak as some previous Trek entries) but it captured the spirit of Trek (the real Trek that was on TV, not the idealized, highly intellectual, highbrow Trek some people here seem to think they watched).

Well, I might be Shatner loving, but I am not a basement dweller (don’t have one), not inordinately scared or backward looking and this keachick with her three kids certainly ain’t no virgin…:)

Just saying…

@25 Totally agree.

@41: Well said. I also dislike the “how dare they make TREK mainstream!” attitude, because it ignores the fact that TOS started on a major television network pre-cable…how mainstream can you get?

Trek ’09 wasn’t perfect, but it’s a film I can watch again and again and enjoy. And I love this statement:

“…it captured the spirit of Trek (the real Trek that was on TV, not the idealized, highly intellectual, highbrow Trek some people here seem to think they watched).”

If people didn’t like the ’09 film, fair enough. That’s to be expected. But resorting to insults and claiming that everyone who liked it is an idiot is a fool’s game.

Not everyone loves change. Which is not to say that those who do not embrace change are somehow bad people, just like those who do embrace change are not automatically good people. But I do think that everyone should be able to express a respectful tolerance for different opinions, especially if those opinions (pro or con the topic in question) are expressed in a rational, thought-out manner. If we are fans of (any) Star Trek, we should be able to agree to disagree and make our points without name-calling and spiteful rhetoric – which I have read from both sides of the JJ “divide” (as well as other divisions). Tastes and preferences differ, and no new Star Trek since whichever series brought you on board can expect to be universally appreciated by the entirety of Star Trek fandom. I appreciate the effort on behalf of the current team to bring more fans to the franchise; who knows what they will end up discovering during their exploration.

I really wish I cared what Damon Lindelhof had to say, but I don’t. I honestly don’t. ST would be wise to just drop him from any future incarnations. Let him go mess with another franchise.

Re: “idealized, highly intellectual, highbrow Trek”… didn’t we all tire of that in the first two seasons of TNG? XD I swear every other episode Picard was making some speech about how humans had evolved beyond their sins. Actions speak louder than words. Humans, no matter how society has improved, are still human and prone to human failings. Even TNG showed that in later seasons.

It sounds to me like Starfleet (or even the Federation itself) is keeping some pretty dark secrets in “Into Darkness”. What is the price of utopia? How far are we willing to go to protect it? These are the questions I am hoping it asks of the audience and something I loved about Deep Space Nine. While it always remained optimistic in the end, it asked some pretty hard questions from time to time about how the Federation stays afloat amongst all the threats in the galaxy and why it has such a high opinion of itself.

In the end, I feel Star Trek at its best is not something that thinks itself better than everyone, but gets everyone to think.

#47.

Well said! Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Just wait, in the third film they’ll fix the timeline and we’ll see the new cast sitting on the old, tv bridge set in the closing shots.

And this will have never happened.

Then again, none of it did.

wpDiscuz