I still loved it. I had a big douchey grin on my face the whole goddamned time.

I know I'm in the minority, but I really hope I get more.

I agree with you on the marketing aspects of the film. Especially the "is he, isn't he?" stuff. But I'd made up my mind to see the thing as the credits for the first one rolled. So, it probably didn't bother me as much as it did others. Still, very weird.

However, I disagree with your statement about "intelligent audiences." Maybe you've cooled on Abrams and especially Lindelof (if you ever liked either of them to begin with). And maybe some of your friends have as well (maybe you're speaking specifically about "insiders" and people you know, in which case, I can't speak to those minds). But there are plenty of intelligent people who still enjoy their work.

George RR Martin has taken back some of the vitriol he spewed about LOST. Because he, like other "intelligent audience members" misinterpreted it.

And I'll also disagree that Into Darkness was more rehash than something new. There is certainly some rehash. I suppose there's enough for me to understand someone being turned off by it, but it's still minimal.

I'm with you, man. I loved it.

To me, comparing The Wrath of Khan to Into Darkness is similar to comparing Good Will Hunting to the fabled Good Will Humping.

I am sure I would derive plenty of "enjoyment and satisfaction" from the latter title and heck, I'm sure I (and many others here) would view it on multiple occasions. However, in no way does that mean that the stimulating storylines found in Good Will Humping come close to the Academy Award winning screenplay of which the it was erected upon.

TL;DR I thought Into Darkness was quite entertaining and do not believe it prevents anyone (even those who hated it the most) from watching/owning The Wrath of Khan

I agree.

But would you say that Into Darkness is not worth seeing because of Wrath of Kahn? Or would you say that Wrath of Kahn prevents (or should prevent) anyone from watching/owning Into Darkness?

You're a fan. Star Trek doesn't have many fans and certainly not enough fans to warrant the enormous cost of this film.

After six weeks, it's not equal to its predecessor in terms of domestic gross versus costs. And given that exhibitors earn a higher percentage with each passing week, it's unlikely that Into Darkness will be much of a "winner" for Paramount (although it's foreign grosses are nearly 50% higher).

The bottom line is that this film isn't performing as expected, which makes it unlikely that Paramount will even entertain investing $150 million into another Trek film, let alone $190 million.

With Abrams off doing Star Wars, the future of this franchise is murky at best.

I don't disagree with any of that. It makes me sad, of course, because I love what these guys are doing. But I agree.

Recently, I read that Into Darkness has been thrown around as an example of how the industry is going to become more reliant on international ticket sales and less influenced by the US market.

What are your thoughts on that?

Not at all. I feel that Cumberbatch's performance alone warrants a viewing of Into Darkness. In addition, even though many here have claimed that the movie is more/less a carbon copy of Khan, it's really not. Sure, it explores a few plot points that were previously visited by the series, but overall, I feel the plot of Into Darkness varies more from Star Trek II than Man of Steel does from Superman I.

That's not to say that the movie is without flaws. Like any J.J. Abrams film/work, he seems to get so caught up in creating plot twists and "mindblowing" story-arcs that he creates blackhole sized plot-holes in the process.

Focusing a moment on Abrams, he is developing a reputation for being almost deliberately unfaithful to the universes of which his franchises operates. This fact has alienated a lot of "purists" from his work, and those expecting him to be faithful to Star Wars universe may be in for a unwelcome surprise.

On the whole, I feel Abrams is one of the more overrated directors currently in the business, and believe he and his brand could suffer a huge blow if his interpretation of the Star Wars Universe fails to meet the expectations being constructed around it. I believe Abrams is a slightly smarter version of Zack Snyder, because even though Abrams has shown he is committed to style over substance, he has demonstrated the ability to tell a story which causes the audience to become emotionally invested in his characters.

Anyways, to answer your question, I felt Into Darkness was entertaining and had a story original enough to be worth a watch.

The Dark Knight Rises is another example of a film that was stronger internationally than nationally (though Aurora :( may have had an effect on TDKR's domestic output).

More reliant? Nah, not really. I think the fact that Into Darkness has doubled its overseas earnings is more of a pleasant surprise (if not outright shock) than something Paramount was expecting to happen.

Overseas earnings rarely play into the reasoning behind producing and funding a Hollywood movie. Banking on non-Americans to get behind American films and concepts, especially in the wake of a non-movie star type of film such as Star Trek, is not the type of gamble that studios and producers like to make.

But that's much different. Batman comics have been around for more than eight decades. There's an enormous built-in audience.

Then, you add European principles such as Christian Bale, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman and of course, Christopher Nolan (not to mention Australian Heath Ledger), and you've got immediate interest from an overseas audience.

An added plus is that the movies themselves were phenomenal.

Even though it would mean losing the current cast members, I'd just as soon see a new series set in the rebooted universe. Seems like that would be the best of all worlds - the new takes on previous stuff would be interesting. Would have the potential to be the best Star Trek series ever.

:thumb:

Well said. And I agree with a lot of it.

Regarding Abrams, how many times has he been "unfaithful" to a franchise? We could argue Star Trek all day, so I'll give the naysayers that one. But what else? How is he developing a reputation for it, if he's only done it once (twice if you count ST 09 and ID separately)?

I don't think Abrams is one of the greats. He certainly has flaws, but so do people like Lucas and Spielberg. But, I think what you just said about his ability to connect and make audiences care is really important. And one of his biggest strengths as a filmmaker.

Hmm, now that you mention it, does anyone know how popular Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock is overseas?

I now wonder if that could provide the explanation behind the weak domestic and strong overseas totals for Into Darkness.

Do you think the industry could begin to see a shift in that direction, though? Given Spielberg and Lucas's recent thoughts on an "implosion" and some sort of coming change/adaptation to the model.

Is this something you could ever see happening?

I don't know about his international appeal, but I can tell you I saw the movie a month after it came out and my theater was full of teenage girls.

While I certainly agree from a conceptual standpoint, I think that after the failure of Star Trek: Enterprise, it would be difficult for Paramount to invest in and produce a new series at this time.

But even more importantly, I think they'd have extreme difficulty finding a network partner to even air it. You're basically looking at a Game of Thrones type budget ($40-$50 million) to do it "properly" and I can't see that happening because I doubt the ad money is there to support it.

That's been the biggest issue facing the live-action Star Wars TV program. They've got more than 100 scripts completed but can't find a network to air the show because of the enormous cost to produce each episode.

Why would they need a budget that big? All of the visual effects are done on a computer now. It's not like GoT where so much of it has to be filmed on location. For Star Trek you need a main set with various ship spaces, but other than that, they can do so much with green screen technology now, it seems like that would be a great cost saver. As long as they don't get eaten alive by salaries, I think it would be doable.

And Star Trek with Captain Kirk will certainly sell better than Star Trek with Captain Whoever.

VFX are still very expensive, especially if you're filming the majority of your scenes in front of a green screen. Shooting thirteen or twenty six episodes at 42 minutes each is going to be costly, not to mention time consuming, if they want it to look realistic.

I'm totally with you but I'm not sure there's a TV audience out there that will support the cost of doing business. Otherwise, they would have done it by now.

You're depressing me. :sulk:

Sorry, Man.

Game of Thrones is produced overseas, where it's far less expensive to film, no unions, etc. and it still costs $3.5 to $4 million per episode to produce. So if you do the simple math, you're looking at $48 to $52 million per season.

To do a new version of Star Trek, you're easily looking at $5-6 million per episode because it would be filmed in Los Angeles on the Paramount with tons of VFX.

For comparison, TNG cost nearly $3 million per when it went off the air in 1994 and Paramount could no longer afford it.

Would it have to film in LA? Couldn't they farm it out somewhere else to cut costs?

I doubt that Paramount would do that because it's one of their highest profile properties. Then of course, you're looking at the added expense of housing actors and a crew six months out of the year, which becomes very expensive rather quickly.

That's especially difficult for a show with a limited audience on what would most likely be a syndicated or non-premium cable network.

Does anyone know what BSG cost per episode?

You make it sound impossible. How did they do the new Battlestar Galatica so well? Great stories and the special effects about as close to real as most movies, a talented cast and you'd actually heard of a couple of them. That show didn't have a fraction of the following Star Trek does.

.

It cost nearly $2 million per episode when it went off the air. I don't think that SyFy has attempted anything as ambitious since.

With Star Trek, you're going to pay at least $2 million in salary alone given the sheer number of cast mates and necessary star power in order to pull off Kirk, Spock and Bones.

If the show is successful, those salaries will double in no time.

Ironically, the last time Battlestar Galactica was on SyFy was the last time I watched SyFy.

SyFy channel is soo cheap. So much potential wasted.

I know I'm missing out by not seeing Mega Shark v. Giant Octopus VIII.

I don't know.

SFX extravaganzas seem to consistently draw big overseas. I mean even 2012 made a ton of money didn't it?

People don't need a translator to understand a spectacle. Obviously you know more first hand than I, but even still it seems surprising that very wealthy and intelligent people overseeing these enormous investments would overlook this.

By the way, did anyone read the Playboy interview with Abrams last month? He was asked about the direction he would take the universe, and he wouldn't really give an answer, but it was implied that he didn't like the storytelling or "ideas" of the original movies. After the discussion on him in regards to what he's done with Star Trek, chew on that for a bit thinking about him and Star Wars.

Maybe it just means he didn't like the Ewoks. I know I didn't really care for them.

You might be on to something, but could we the moviegoer really be so lucky?

Probably not.

No, I only buy it for the pictures.

http://www.playboy.com/playground/vi...ar-wars?page=2

Playboy Interview: J.J.Abrams
by David Hochman

PLAYBOY: What happened between saying no and saying yes?

ABRAMS: It was a wild time. I was near the light at the end of the tunnel with my work on Star Trek. I felt I needed a bit of a breather, actually. But then Kathleen Kennedy [the new Lucasfilm head who oversees Star Wars] called again. I’ve known her for years. We had a great conversation, and the idea of working with her on this suddenly went from being theoretical and easy to deny to being a real, tangible, thrilling possibility. In the end it was my wife, Katie, who said if it was something that really interested me, I had to consider it.

PLAYBOY: There’s much to discuss, such as the rumors of old cast members returning.

ABRAMS: [Smiles]

PLAYBOY: Will this be a distinct new trilogy?

ABRAMS: [Smiles]

PLAYBOY: Can you do away with Jar Jar Binks?

ABRAMS: You won’t like this answer, but it’s so early it would be insane to discuss details or get into plot points about what this unfilmed movie will be. And I’m not going to give my opinion on the original movies or characters.

PLAYBOY: But as a lifelong Star Wars fan, surely you have broad ideas about what needs to happen going forward. Three quarters of planet Earth came down on George Lucas for practically ruining Star Wars in Episode I. The Star Wars universe revolted.

ABRAMS: Here’s the thing. I try to approach a project from what it’s asking. What does it need to be? What is it demanding? With Star Wars, one has to take into account what has preceded it, what worked, what didn’t. There are cautionary tales for anything you take on that has a legacy—things you look at and think, I want to avoid this or that, or I want to do more of something. But even that feels like an outside-in approach, and it’s not how I work. For me, the key is when you have a script; it’s telling you what it wants to be.

PLAYBOY: Star Wars needs to look different from Star Trek, certainly.

ABRAMS: As with anything, because these are very different worlds, they shouldn’t feel the same aesthetically. They can’t. You’re right. But again, I don’t apply aesthetics first and fit a movie into that aesthetic. If I had come into Star Trek with those eyes, I would probably have been paralyzed. The advantage here is that we still have George Lucas with us to go to and ask questions and get his feedback on things, which I certainly will do. With Star Trek it was harder because I wasn’t a Star Trek fan; I didn’t have the same emotional feeling, and I didn’t have Gene Roddenberry to go to. But I came to understand the world of Star Trek, and I appreciated what fans felt and believed about this universe and this franchise.

PLAYBOY: As recently as last fall you said that directing a new Star Wars comes with a burden of “almost fatal sacrilege.” Do you feel that?

ABRAMS: I meant if I viewed this from a fan’s point of view—and no one’s a bigger Star Wars fan than I am—or from a legacy standpoint, it would scare the hell out of me. But instead of trying to climb this mountain in one giant leap, I’m just enjoying the opportunity and looking to the people I’m working with. I’ve known Kathy for years. I’ve worked with the screenwriter, Michael Arndt, for a long time. I’ve known George for a number of years and he’s now a friend. Even if this wasn’t Star Wars, I’d be enormously fortunate to work with them.

PLAYBOY: How much of your personal vision can you put on this?

ABRAMS: For me to talk to you about what the big themes or ideas are before they exist is disingenuous, but naturally I have a big say in how this gets put together. When I get involved with something, I own it and carry the responsibility of the job.

PLAYBOY: Star Wars, Star Trek, Mission: Impossible—you’re the king of the reboot. Don’t you want to make something original again?

ABRAMS: I have to say, as someone who almost to a point of embarrassment has associated himself with a number of projects that preexisted, I’m not looking to do another reboot. There’s one project, which I can’t talk about yet, that we are going to do in the TV space that is an exception. But the truth is, one of the reasons I at first easily said no to the notion of Star Wars was the thought that I had to do something original again. I mean, it’s what I’ve done on TV with Felicity, Alias, Lost, Fringe and everything else. It’s the thing I was looking forward to doing next. The best-laid plans, you can say—but when something like Star Wars comes along, you either roll with it or not.

PLAYBOY: What’s the spirit of an original project you’d want to do?

ABRAMS: I’m open. My favorite movie is The Philadelphia Story. I love Hitchcock movies. I’m a huge fan of Spielberg, and I love David Cronenberg. I’m all over the place in terms of stuff I like. There’s an amazing book called Let the Great World Spin that we’ve been developing with Colum McCann, the writer, and I’d love to do that. Not because of anything other than I feel the characters are beautiful and alive and have incredible heart and soul. But I’m open to anything.

PLAYBOY: How do you juggle your various responsibilities? In addition to the movies, you’re executive producer on Revolution and Person of Interest on TV. Earlier this year you wrapped Fringe after five seasons. You have a wife and three kids. You write music, you design things, you’ve given a TED talk. Presumably you eat and sleep too.

ABRAMS: I like to work hard, and I surround myself with people who are better at what they do than I am at what I do. And as much as we say yes to many things, we say no to almost everything. We’re very selective. We know how to get things done. For Star Trek it was Damon Lindelof, Bryan Burk, Alex Kurtzman, Bob Orci and me. With Jonathan Nolan on Person of Interest, he was someone we were dying to work with. He came in with a great idea, but he had never done TV before. He and [co–executive producer] Greg Plageman have been running that show beautifully. Eric Kripke is running Revolution. We had a team of talented producers on Fringe. So it’s not like I’m in the room and running operations on these shows.

PLAYBOY: So in the final days of Fringe you weren’t bounding into the writers’ room, yelling, “We have to explain who those creepy people chasing Peter were in the first season!”

ABRAMS: By the time we got to the fifth season my involvement was zero. It’s like with Lost. Damon and Carlton Cuse were running that show spectacularly and deserved to end the series as they saw fit. If I saw something really objectionable, I might jump in, but they knew what they were doing.

PLAYBOY: Were you satisfied with how Fringe ended? There were certain questions that never got answered, such as, if the Observers were wiped out, why was Peter still in our universe?

ABRAMS: Right. [Fringe co–executive producer] Joel Wyman and I had long discussions about points like that. But I don’t know of any movie, including Back to the Future, despite the clarity of that film, that deals with time travel or, in this case, an alternate universe and time travel, that doesn’t have issues with such paradoxes. And given the enormity of the issues Fringe was dealing with, it was an amazing finale. After everything that transpired in that last season, for Peter to swoop up Etta at the end and have that moment with her and see that couple with their kid, there was a kind of profundity and emotional satisfaction. Walter’s sacrifice allowed for his son’s and Olivia’s ultimate happiness to come true. That was a far more meaningful ending than explaining how the Observers work into that time frame. What exactly happened with amber, and does it make sense? These are questions you could ask, but I would hope the audience is smart enough to figure things out for themselves and allow for unexplainable situations.

PLAYBOY: Your biggest TV hit, Lost, got some groans at the end for leaving things open-ended. People are still arguing over it. What was the “sideways” world? Were the passengers of Oceanic Flight 815 actually dead the whole time? Looking back, do you think Lost fans deserved a less ambiguous ending?

ABRAMS: No. I loved the ending. I thought it definitely provided an emotional conclusion to that show. There may have been specific technical things people felt they wanted to understand, like what the island was exactly or why it was. But it’s like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction. If you show me what’s in there, I promise you it will disappoint me.

PLAYBOY: It’s like the mysterious pendant in Revolution that’s the key to explaining what disabled electricity on the planet.

ABRAMS: Yes. If you’re looking for the thing that ultimately explains what the answer is, or, let’s say, what God is, no matter what physical manifestation you see or hear, you’ll never be satisfied. Could our shows answer every question people have? Maybe, but I’m guessing the answers won’t be as satisfying as trying to figure out the answers.

PLAYBOY: Do you actually believe there are alternate universes?

ABRAMS: I’m definitely fascinated by the possibility. Whether it’s alternate universes or time travel, the idea that reality isn’t exactly what we assume it is is the sort of primordial ooze of any great out-there story, certainly in sci-fi and arguably in non-sci-fi as well. The idea that just around the corner something unbelievable might exist, that behind that door might be something you could never imagine. I’ve always been obsessed with the feeling that there’s another level of understanding in the world, whether it’s something as fantastical and fanciful as The Wizard of Oz, as dark and freaky as The Ring or as wild and thrilling as The Matrix. The idea that this world we know isn’t just this world we know but that a package might arrive at your door or a phone call might come in, and suddenly you’re in a portal to a different realm.

PLAYBOY: Paranoia also figures into your work. Do you really think the government or corporations are watching us in ways we should be concerned about?

ABRAMS: Oh yeah, for sure. I’m not saying in this instant they are. But I defy anyone who lives in any size metropolis to travel 20 minutes and not see a bunch of surveillance cameras. Those cameras aren’t there to ignore you; they’re there to see you, and all that information is going into banks of digital recorders and oftentimes facial-recognition software. We’re all being tracked. When you have a fairly average life and you’re not doing anything particularly interesting or illegal or wrong, why should that bother you? Well, it means we’re all being recorded, our activities are being watched, and our privacy is being compromised. I think that’s something to be aware of, at the very least. It’s the premise behind Person of Interest, which is a show about being observed. On the positive side, the heroes of that show are good guys, since it’s also a show about wish fulfillment.

PLAYBOY: You’re certainly cautious about sharing information. It’s not just Star Wars you don’t want to talk about. You famously withhold almost all spoiler information on your projects. What prompted that?

ABRAMS: That’s a paranoia I’ve developed since the Superman script I wrote years ago was reviewed online. I always had a sense of how I enjoyed entertainment, which was to sit down in front of a TV or inside a darkened movie theater and be surprised by everything that happened on the screen. It used to be that to get a spoiler you had to really seek it out. Now you have to work to avoid it. If something happens on Downton Abbey or Homeland, you practically can’t speak to another human being or you’ll hear what happened. The truth is, people don’t like spoilers. When we were doing Lost, fans would ask me what was going to happen. Before I could even open my mouth, often they would say, “Don’t tell me.” Would I have wanted to hear from Rod Serling what was going to happen on each episode of The Twilight Zone? No way! The buy-in with entertainment like that—or with any great thrill—is that you’re going on an adventure and you don’t know where you’re heading. That’s the stuff of show-business magic.

ZACHARY QUINTO SAYS ‘STAR TREK 3′ WILL SHOOT NEXT YEAR, ABRAMS MAY DIRECT AND MORE

At a special public interview at the 2013 Galway Film Fleadh on Friday, July 12, Zachary Quinto discussed his illustrious career and his roles in Star Trek, Heroes and American Horror Story. BuzzHub had a front-row seat, and witnessed first hand what Quinto had to say about his current and future projects, including some revealing and intriguing information!

When asked about his role as Spock in J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek films, Quinto told the audience:

He was also asked if he would want to reunite with Abrams and appear in Star Wars Episode VII, and he said he would not, without giving a particular reason.

At one point in the interview, Quinto mentioned that J.J. Abrams was planning to direct Star Trek 3, which is another surprising fact, but once again, he did not elaborate.

Thanks for posting that. I just read that. Good news. I hope it's true. Though, with JJ's SW schedule, I have to wonder. But, yeah... here's to hoping.

It's completely false. Abrams has a two year commitment to Star Wars and will spend 2014 in London.

This film has been a major disappointment, $190 to make, $223 domestic earnings, yet it cost $40 million more to make than the original, which grossed $257 million domestically.

Is $450,000,000 worldwide really a disappointment?

In terms of worldwide gross, Into Darkness had made something like $50 million more than the '09 movie the last time I looked. I don't have any idea how significant that is, but as I recall increasing the international take was one of their goals. Star Trek as a franchise has never done well in international markets. So maybe clearing 200 million international is a salve for the less than spectacular domestic take.

Those figures do not include global marketing or the percentage that the movie theater takes as profit participation.

The first film earned more than $100 more than the production budget domestically. The second film hasn't earned even $40 million over production budget.

Paramount didn't spend $190 million on production for this kind of gross.

Kurtzman and Orci are returning to pen Star Trek for a third time. Lindelof will NOT be joining them this time around.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=107395

This will make Dane and Clay's day.

Yep, no problems here.:shake:

I'll be shocked if they get more than a $125 million dollar budget and I wouldn't be surprised if it was closer to $100 mil.

They still made a shitload of money.

Do you think it had to do with the timing of the release?

I think it was the marketing. They did well with the overseas markets (Star Trek has never done well outside the US) but shit the bed selling the film here.

What they cleared domestically was less than the last movie by at least $10 million, due to the budget. Foreign will make up for much of that but the movie was far from a home run.

I think it has to do with the limited Trek audience. It just doesn't resonate like a Superman or Batman or Avatar or Star Wars.

Oh, and as I said from the very start, calling it Star Trek into Darkness cost them money from the get go.

Maybe if they paid ticket stub rippers $15/hr.

Right, but it's not like they LOST money (*cough*Lone Ranger*cough*).

Maybe if they had released it in March or April, before the real summer blockbusters were out, they would have cleared more?

Yeah, but what were they supposed to do? Name it Star Trek 2.1: Kahns Origin?

Director rumor for ST3: http://latino-review.com/2013/08/05/...t-star-trek-3/

I nominate Nicholas Meyer.

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/6B22Uy7SBe4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Brad Bird would make my dreams come true.

LOL that is great- how true- the last one was pretty lame. But at least they ended the movie with No Doubt there will be a next one.

He'll do Star Wars long before Star Trek

Digital early release today on iTunes, Amazon, Vudu etc!!

I can still dream, (especially if Abrams does somehow sign that multi-picture deal) right?

Dream away! :D

Thanks, bud. :)

I just finished this for the first time.

WTF? What a let down.

Joss Whedon would be my first choice to direct ST3.

Yeah, not gonna happen.

He's too immersed in Marvel world.

If he weren't committed to Avengers 2 & Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and had the availability to direct... he would be, IMO, the hands down best choice to direct ST3.

Still pining for Mr. Bird.

Harve Bennet or GTFO

Abrams now fully admitting that the Khan mystery was a mistake. Hmmmmmm


http://badassdigest.com/2013/12/02/j...e-mystery-box/


It ended up coming off like we were being coy. We were just trying to not ruin the thing. The truth is that after one screening everyone knows whatever it is. The idea was that for the first hour of the movie the characters in the movie don't know, and it felt like if there were articles about KHAN! it would take away from the story. The truth is I think it probably would have been smarter just to say upfront ‘This is who it is.’ It was only trying to preserve the fun of it, and it might have given more time to acclimate and accept that’s what the thing was. The truth is because it was so important to the studio that we not angle this thing for existing fans. If we said it was Khan, it would feel like you’ve really got to know what ‘Star Trek’ is about to see this movie. That would have been limiting. I can understand their argument to try to keep that quiet, but I do wonder if it would have seemed a little bit less like an attempt at deception if we had just come out with it.

<div style="background-color:#<div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:uma:video:mtv.com:982937/cp~vid%3D982937%26uri%3Dmgid%3Auma%3Avideo%3Amtv.com%3A982937" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#</a></p></div></div>

Try not ripping off the other movies sometime, you hack.