Star Trek Into Darkness Boldly Goes Where Star Trek's Been Before

<i>Star Trek Into Darkness</i> Boldly Goes Where <i>Star Trek</i>'s Been Before

"Who are you?" pleads a doomed man as Benedict Cumberbatch looms into his first close-up in Star Trek Into Darkness. The answer is Khan. And that's not a spoiler—it's a selling point. A less secretive director (i.e., all save the ghost of Stanley Kubrick) would trumpet that his $185 million movie stars Star Trek's greatest villain, but J.J. Abrams has so suppressed this fact that I suspect if you rearrange the letters in Khan Noonien Singh, you'll find the location of the Lost island.

Abrams' mystery-box marketing gave a boost to weaker, cheaper films like Cloverfield and Super 8, but if Star Trek Into Darkness bombs, the trick is on him. Cumberbatch, a tweedy Brit with an M.A. in Classical Acting and a face like a monstrous Timothy Dalton, has beefed up to become a convincing killer. He's brutal and bold, and the film around him isn't bad either. In the opening minutes, Khan terrorizes London, then makes like Osama and flees to the mountains of an enemy planet, causing Starfleet Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller—welcome back, RoboCop!) to make like Dubya and order his assassination, sans trial. Picture Zero Dark Thirty with bright pullovers and laser guns and you'll have Darkness, whose heavy-handed political parallels just might feel smart in a summer of Vin Diesel crashing cars.

Instead of Jessica Chastain's overrated ice queen, vengeance here will be served by the blubbering James T. Kirk (Chris Pine), who so bleeds his humanity across the Enterprise's deck that it's a wonder Chekov (Anton Yelchin) doesn't slip. Again, the central conflict is between the captain's swaggering impetuousness and the cold-blooded logic of First Mate Spock (Zachary Quinto). Even more than in the first film, Quinto's Spock is emotionally disjointed—even dangerous. In his first scene, Spock sacrifices himself to preserve Starfleet's Prime Directive. Kirk breaks the rules to save his life, and Spock is furious, which is to say he pens a memo of complaint. Demoted, Kirk struggles to reconcile his feelings for his friend. "He'd let you die," cautions Dr. McCoy (Karl Urban), while Spock's girlfriend, Uhura (Zoe Saldana), is so enraged by her boyfriend's death wish that she threatens to "tear the bangs off his head."

Details

Star Trek Into Darkness
Directed by J.J. Abrams
Paramount Pictures
Opens May 17

See Also: Lens Flares and the End of Film

Related Stories

More About

After setting up its War on Terror allusions, Star Trek Into Darkness becomes Paradise Lost in Space: It's a battle for the good captain's soul. Dispatched to Khan's hideout, Kirk is torn between Spock's wisdom and Admiral Marcus's war-mongering. Will he let his crew quit or die in his quest for justice? Can Khan destroy him simply by smashing his moral code? In Darkness' darkest scene, our hero beats a prisoner who's already surrendered. It's shocking stuff, but Abrams's screenwriters don't trust the popcorn audience to get their psychological implications. Instead, they externalize Kirk's turmoil by making him spend every second scene suffering unsolicited advice about what to do. That even his subordinates treat him like a passive sap neuters the character, despite an early romp where he beds twin hotties with tails. His only real love is for the Enterprise, that hermaphroditic ship shaped like three phalluses and a flattened boob.

To validate his 2009 reboot, Abrams worked in a space-time splice so Leonard Nimoy could cameo as old Spock, or "Spock Prime," as though he specializes in overnight shipping. Ironically, in 1982, Nimoy (who had already penned the bristling memoir I Am Not Spock) was so desperate to abandon starship that he only agreed to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan when promised his character would die. Spock croaked, but Nimoy's Vulcan heart was so warmed by the fan agony that the actor returned to direct Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and, post-resurrection, has clung to the franchise, even titling his follow-up memoir I Am Spock. Today, while William Shatner is sealed in his pop-culture terrarium chanting lounge covers of "Space Oddity," Nimoy returns again so that old Spock can advise young Spock on how to defeat Khan decades before the original Khan defeats the original Spock, causing such a doubled-back crimp in the chronology that in our universe, Wrath of Khan may now no longer exist. Thus freed, Abrams lifts Khan's climax, thievery that will enrage the devout as it suggests the Star Trek saga is merely a game of Mad Libs into which he plugs characters and catastrophes.

Hey, why not? Trek diehards have long-since proven they're impossible to satisfy. Instead, Abrams' glossy relaunch is tailored to fans who don't care for canon but know enough to grin when Dr. McCoy pokes a Tribble. Darkness is a cheery combo of classic catchphrases and young Hollywood heat, like blond babe Alice Eve as a weapons expert who can only examine torpedoes in her underwear.

Having crumpled up the franchise for kicks—not that I'm complaining—Abrams won't have the chore of smoothing out the Enterprise's future. Pine, who may yet prove to be a leading man in the model of Harrison Ford, will be pressed to return in sequels, as will Saldana, Quinto, and Simon Pegg's Scotty. (If the openly gay Quinto hasn't had the same big screen success as his co-stars, I hope it's because he sincerely prefers the theater.) But their intergalactic overlord will be in another universe entirely. Hey, Luke—who was your father again?

 
My Voice Nation Help
35 comments
TurtleTub
TurtleTub

I am a huge Star Trek fan.  Love all the incarnations of Star Trek, the animated series, the novels, vid games, et cetera.  And absolutely loved the JJ Abrams first outing despite die hard ST fans telling me it was way off, and I felt their opinions to be very extreme. But this second outing was too much for me.  First, it smacked of Lindelof's constant obsession with rewriting past cinematic glories but doing nothing more than putting a "spin" on things.   The most clever aspect of this film is the way it inverts "Wrath of Khan" to help Kirk and Spock to develop in characters in albeit different ways than the first film.  HOWEVER, if every time we get a new Star Trek film, I have to expect it to be an inversion of one of the previous "Star Trek" movies, then you can count me out.  Why the hell do I want to watch "Wrath of Khan" part II?  Khan was not the worst villain the crew ever faced -- Khan was just the most popular from a film franchise standpoint.  I mean even after we find out Khan is Khan -- Khan doesn't do anything truly Khan like.  It's like Lindelof expected that just by invoking Khan's name everyone should know what a big deal this fucker is.  But what about non Star Trek fans?  I saw this movie with people who had never seen Khan and asked me what the big deal was.  Considering that this movie does little to show the type of terrifying figure Khan supposedly is, I can see why they were confused.  

Moving past Khan - the film  was replete with Abrams typical beats.  The only thing worse than Abrams constant AE generated lens flares, is his overuse of crisis situations.  Everything is a fucking crisis in this movie.  Actually, it's worse than that -- it's CRISIS interrupted by untimely HUMOR succeeded by LOUD CRASH OR LASER BLAST to jerk you back into the original CRISIS, from which point the CRISIS then iterates to a NEW FUCKING CRISIS and then repeats the template.  Some crises only last a few seconds, some last minutes.  It just makes it complete overkill.

Now I love Leonard Nimoy as much as the next fan, but Abrams said we were only supposed to see Spock in the first one.  The assumption being that at some point Spock is able to return to the original timeline.  Then when the writers don't know what to throw at the audience next, they insert obligatory Leonard Nimoy moment.  This means now Nimoy has to be in the third because he's no longer a catalyst in the franchise; he's now a staple of this alternate Star Trek universe (does he ever get back to the original universe?  Or does this pretty much destroy the original fucking timeline for good and remember all those stories where we saw Spock later in life?  Are all those moot now?)  What the fuck?   I have to take all of this shit in because Lindelof wants to get his nut off by recreating Wrath of Khan.

I know it's Lindelof.  He's the only fucker arrogant enough and adept enough at convincing filmmakers they are making the right decisions even when they're not.  He's the dumbass who said no the people in Lost are not in purgatory.  Oh really?  You think the average fucking guy on the street knows the difference between purgatory and the shit that happened to the characters in Lost?  Good one motard.  What about his rewriting Prometheus so that it's basically a rip off of Alien except undercooked and done with slightly different themes?  This kook needs to stop plagiarizing Stephen King and needs to stop fucking rewriting every cinematic moment he loved as a kid.  COME UP WITH SOMETHING NEW!!!  GIVE US A NEW VILLAIN.  THERE WERE OTHER VILLAINS DURING THE EUGENICS WARS.

JJ Abrams did a great job with the visuals as always, and the action was stellar.  I still think Spock should have unleashed a FLURRY of pinches and pressure points (not just two major ones) on Khan but overall, I don't want to see Wrath of Khan again.  Fuck I don't even want to see Khan again.  Star Trek had amazing villains and characters they encountered.  Bring those on.  And get rid of Lindelof.  Fucker had the balls to tell George Martin he was wrong about Lost.  Loser.

marksmith0610
marksmith0610

The movie gives it away in the first ten minutes. Khan gives up his blood to save somebody! WHO THE FUCK ELSE WOULD THAT BE!?!

mmmpancakes
mmmpancakes

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!! You guys are reading the only magazine that panned the original Star Wars back in '77. LMAO

WalterNeff
WalterNeff

Well - that happened.

your pal, Walter

hypeful
hypeful

Congrats, Amy - in a mere two sentences, you managed to SPOIL a major plot revelation AND usurped  Armond White's throne as Most Garbage Film Critic. Seriously, an advance, unwarned revelation of critical and well-guarded plot elements is the VERY DEFINITION OF A SPOILER. I've already sworn off trailers in 2013 (thanks to the BEFORE MIDNIGHT trailer spoiler-showcase) and now I am swearing off reviews from Village Voice publications. Based on what I've read about your publication in recent weeks, now seems like THE WORST time to drive away readers. But whatevs...

Joel
Joel

It's really awful of Nicholson to dump that massive spoiler in her review especially after the filmmakers took so much care to keep it a secret for the audience. I'm definitely writing making this known to Paramount and hopefully they will deny Nicholson access to any future screenings and make her career as miserable as humanely for pulling such a total bitch move. Amy, do you feel better now having ruined the movie for it's intended audience? 

rosslincoln
rosslincoln

Let's all overreact to news that was spoiled weeks and weeks ago and pretend knowing it's Khan somehow ruins the movie for you. That's easier than being an adult.

tylergfoster
tylergfoster

Having seen the movie, it's genuinely not a spoiler. You think it's a spoiler now, but what difference does it make when the Khan of Star Trek Into Darkness doesn't share a single non-factual trait of the Khan from 1982?

Smithee
Smithee

Good lord people - cunt rag?  Though I understand where you're coming from, I hardly think it ruins the movie.  Maybe it takes one fun, knowing smirk away from you.  At the most.  But none of you see what a great writer Nicholson is?  I really think she's one of the best out there right now.  Maybe sometimes a little too clever, but the girl has better insights than most.

tracy339
tracy339

You people really suck.  You could have warned your readers before spoiling the film for them.

yoshimatzah
yoshimatzah

WHAT THE HELL. Thank you so much for ruining what had the potential to be a huge reveal -- that, as Harvey said, actual star trek fans have had the pleasure of SPECULATING on for months -- in the second sentence of your review without even the slightest hint of spoiler warning. I just read another review that HINTED at this reveal, but who actually knew that it isn't ok to just out and spoil it for everyone. Of course we fans have suspected the true identity of the villain forever. But you have robbed me of the pleasure of being surprised, that aha moment when you realize "oh holy shit it IS Khan!" Because now when I see it I will know it is coming. I will still enjoy the movie, but you have taken a serious element of that enjoyment away from me. Whoever edits this section I seriously hope you will consider editing this review before more people have their movie going experience spoiled. Or at least put a bloody spoiler warning alert at the top so that those of us who actually care about this sort of thing can close our browser window and avoid this bullshit.

yoshimatzah
yoshimatzah

WHAT THE HELL. Thank you so much for ruining what had the potential to be a huge reveal -- that, as Harvey said, actual star trek fans have had the pleasure of SPECULATING on for months -- in the second sentence of your review without even the slightest hint of spoiler warning. I just read another review that HINTED at this reveal, but who actually knew that it isn't ok to just out and spoil it for everyone. Of course we fans have suspected the true identity of the villain forever. But you have robbed me of the pleasure of being surprised, that aha moment when you realize "oh holy shit it IS Khan!" Because now when I see it I will know it is coming. I will still enjoy the movie, but you have taken a serious element of that enjoyment away from me. Whoever edits this section I seriously hope you will consider editing this review before more people have their movie going experience spoiled. Or at least put a bloody spoiler warning alert at the top so that those of us who actually care about this sort of thing can close our browser window and avoid this bullshit.

yoshimatzah
yoshimatzah

WHAT THE HELL. Thank you so much for ruining what had the potential to be a huge reveal -- that, as Harvey said, actual star trek fans have had the pleasure of SPECULATING on for months -- in the second sentence of your review without even the slightest hint of spoiler warning.

I just read another review that HINTED at this reveal, but who actually knew that it isn't ok to just out and spoil it for everyone. Of course we fans have suspected the true identity of the villain forever. But you have robbed me of the pleasure of being surprised, that aha moment when you realize "oh holy shit it IS Khan!" Because now when I see it I will know it is coming. I will still enjoy the movie, but you have taken a serious element of that enjoyment away from me.

Whoever edits this section I seriously hope you will consider editing this review before more people have their movie going experience spoiled. Or at least put a bloody spoiler warning alert at the top so that those of us who actually care about this sort of thing can close our browser window and avoid this bullshit.

jason
jason

Typical cunt rag, Village Voice move, to drop a huge spoiler into a review for a film that they want to see destroyed. It's not the first time they've pulled that crap either. 

Fuck you, Amy Nicholson! 


esprit333
esprit333

"like a monstrous Timothy Dalton"? Are you blind? Cumberbatch has an exquisite face. And do you actually heard of him before? Are you a real movie critic? 

Harvey_Manfrenjenson
Harvey_Manfrenjenson

"And that's not a spoiler"?  Of course it's a bloody spoiler!  The identity of Cumberbatch's character has been deliberately, teasingly, withheld by the director... precisely so we could have the pleasure of speculating about it and the pleasure of being surprised. 

I'm not even sure why you chose to reveal this bit of information, since you don't seem to have anything in particular to say about it.    

God, I miss Roger Ebert. 

InspectorHound
InspectorHound

@TurtleTub Lindelof was following Ridley Scott's orders on Prometheus. Ridley Scott came up with the story *and* had final cut on the movie. You want to blame somebody for Prometheus, blame Ridley Scott. It was his film from start to finish.

Lindelof was asked if the characters on the island were in purgatory. He said no. This was true. You're blaming him for someone *else* asking a question about purgatory? This is a new level of nerd-rage previously unseen by me. (Also, the fanbase of LOST was pretty damn smart. Certainly smart enough to know what purgatory is.) Also: I think Lindelof (and Cuse) know their own show better than George R.R. Martin, who didn't work on it.

In feature filmmaking, the directors or studios are king. The writerS (and there were three on this, Lindelof worked with Orci and Kurtzman, and they were all credited equally) followed J.J. Abrams' lead. Your comments about Abram's excessive crisis stuff are spot-on. 

matthewteaguemiller
matthewteaguemiller

Spoiling something that happens in the first quarter of the movie, and has been an established fact for a year? Get over yourself honey. Maybe you should just quit movies altogether. This is an excellent, witty and totally balanced review. Nicholson is no hack.

matthewteaguemiller
matthewteaguemiller

It's been established fact for a year that Khan is the antagonist. Nicholson then says so, and you are apoplectic. Maybe you should simply swear off movies?

Joel
Joel

@rosslincoln Really? I haven't read a single review that reveals that information so she was just being a huge cunt by letting the cat out of the bag. 

rosslincoln
rosslincoln

@yoshimatzah Rosebud is more of a spoiler than Khan. This movie has been out for three weeks already.

ILPS9000
ILPS9000

@jason 

While in some cases, profanity is OK (even preferred), this is just not right. So you don't agree. So you're mad as hell. No reason to be so nasty about it. NOT AT ALL!

Harvey_Manfrenjenson
Harvey_Manfrenjenson

@esprit333 Yes, I was puzzled by this too.  Cumberbatch doesn't look anything like Timothy Dalton.  

I think one of the problems with this reviewer is that she is simply trying too hard to sound clever, hip, and/or postmodern.  Every paragraph has two or three would-be "zingers" in it.  A few of them hit their targets, but others are insufferably pretentious ("a flattened boob and three phallic symbols") or simply inexplicable ("a monstrous Timothy Dalton").  

jmelat
jmelat

@Harvey_Manfrenjenson   Furthermore, the villain isn't Khan.....it's Osama Bin Laden.   There's your _real_ spoiler to cry about.

jmelat
jmelat

@Harvey_Manfrenjenson 
It's a review--written by someone who has _seen_ the movie.  If want a sterile, spoiler free recommendation on whether or not you should see a movie,  just take it from the tomato-meter or something.   
Spoiler-whiners are slowly ruining critic's ability to discuss films intelligently and thoroughly.  Moreover, if it's a good enough movie...spoilers shouldn't matter--this is why the better ones have repeat-viewers.    And here you all are whining that you were robbed of the tiny little thrill of hearing "I am KHAN!"     That it's "Khan" is pretty much irrelevent to the movie--it's just a name they used because it existed in original series somewhere.    They could have changed it to "I am.....BOB HOPE!" and it would have changed nothing.   It's one word they used, one proper noun.....and that's really all Abrams' new Trek is--a silly 'splosiony, kinda fun, but rock-stupid Space Action movie with a bunch of borrowed proper nouns and a few visual designs from a far more innovative, marquee-value increasing series of stories.  
Spoilers are things that have to do with the actual plot of the movie, the how and why--if you actually watched the movie to get a cheap thrill out of hearing "I am Khan!"....then wow.
Bruce Willis is really a ghost is a spoiler,  Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father is a spoiler.  Which creative grave they decided to rob to make their dumb little movie....is not.

Turtletub
Turtletub

@InspectorHound @TurtleTub Really?  I worked for big Fox in Los Angeles and in Baja and no directors are not kings.  The executives are kings.  The directors have a limited realm in which to make their creative decisions; they answer to execs.  In the director/writer relationship, a great degree of subjectivity holds sway... I have seen terrible writers convince directors that they are making the "right" decision during the development process.  There is no accountability and nobody really knows what the final impact of their creative decisions will be until the film is released.  To say that Ridley Scott alone bears the burden of responsibility for Lindelof's work negates the role and value of the writer in the creative process and thus perpetuates an age-old Hollywood myth.  By the way, I have also seen directors at the mercy of writers because the director has already committed to a particular project and needs to make the project work despite not having all the "kinks" worked out.  In that sense, the writer is no different than a visual fx artist whose job it is to simply make a particular effect work.  The writer has to make the story work, while the director will offer some advice in terms of character arc and development, but in reality his job is mostly  restricted at that point to a visual oversight process.

 If you've ever encountered Lindelof you know he occupies that substrate of persuasive writer in Hollywood who knows how to survive the industry, but whose creative decisions create much upheaval and division amongst the individuals to whom the story supposedly caters.   About the three writers, I know that Lindelof is Abrams' closer, the way that David Koepp is Spielberg's. I also know his preoccupations include putting a spin on past material.  I also know he doesn't really originate ideas but comes in after the script is already written to polish it up.

 As a fan of "Lost," I will say that yes, "Lost" fans are pretty smart.  But there were a lot of "Lost" fans who felt that making a distinction between purgatory and not was no different than Lucas trying to split hairs between interdimensional beings and extraterrestrials in KOTS.

ILPS9000
ILPS9000

@Joel

Just briefly going online finds reviews revealing Khan on May 2, 3, 6, 9 & 10, plus hints about it on Apr 26 & 30 (I stopped looking after 2 pages). Plus quite a few newspapers have revealed this in the last 48 hours, including the Detroit News. Are you going to write all of their reviewers and call them all huge cunts also? Cause if you don't, then you owe Amy Nicholson a real huge apology.

Joel
Joel

@ILPS9000 @jason Fuck her. She did far worse than that by destroying a fan's experience of the movie by dropping such a huge spoiler in her review with absolutely no warning. 

Turtletub
Turtletub

@InspectorHound @Turtletub Sorry.  Wrote the first response in a hurry.  You're right, it is Ridley's job as a director, and I do hold him responsible to some degree.  But this was one of those instances where Big Fox (which can be difficult at times) told Ridley that they wanted another writer.  Jon Spaihts confirmed this in the Blu-ray for Prometheus.  He said that although initially his script was received with enthusiasm there was some concern on Fox's part because he was an untried writer.  So they suggested that Lindelof be brought in to do some polish.  This polish however included a new angle.  That's when Ridley decided to go with the new angle, partly because he knew he had to appease the Fox gods and they are infatuated with Lindelof and Abrams (remember that both have some pull at Fox due to Fringe and other projects).   


You seem to be speaking about movie making apart from the industrial process.  Hollywood is really the art of negotiation and compromise.  To some extent, no one individual can be held responsible for every good or bad decision made in a movie.  But there are individuals who are venerated and protected by other individuals despite having a clear track record of failure and or inciting controversy.  Lindelof is one such individual. 

Turtletub
Turtletub

@InspectorHound @Turtletub Lindelof doesn't have ultimate control of Scott true.  BUT he is a convincing personality.  He has to be, because his work doesn't speak for itself.  That's one of the reasons he's used to polish up work done by others.  This guy spends more time apologizing or defending his decisions publicly than other screenwriters.  Why?  He has a track record of being polarizing. 

And execs do have say in writers. The company I worked for had a contract with Big Fox.  We got our development money through them.  We had to bring in writers on concepts and try them out.  Ultimately the studio would agree with a certain writer or not.  If the studio pushed for another writer, or wanted a particular feel, we went and got that writer.  If that writer didn't work out, we tried to get rid of them.  In some cases, we were contractually and financially obligated to keep a writer on board AFTER production began and that was a nightmare.  Some of our movies had more scenes contributed through interns and assistants than the actual writer who got paid half a mill to write the script.  

It ain't pretty.  It's not the way I learned in film school back in the day, but that's the way sausage is made in Hollywood.  Many times directors don't have final say in the end product. 

Is Abrams to blame?  Yes, in some ways he is.  But he is admittedly not a Star Trek fan.  However, Lindelof considers himself (along with the other two writers) to be a Star Trek fan, more specifically Lindelof has expressed his ardent love for "Wrath of Khan."  The other two writers have repeatedly demonstrated their capability in writing MANY different movies and genres (some work, some don't), but in this case Lindelof was the closer, just as he was on "Prometheus." Abrams was relying on his long term collaboration with him and "familiarity" with Star Trek to help steer him in the right direction with Trek.  Lindelof didn't.  Because every time Lindelof is brought in on a project he simply wants to make an alternate version of the one he enjoyed as a child - this includes his work on projects yet to be released.  

I'm guessing Lindelof began the story meeting with something like "If only we could get Spock to say "Khannnnn" the way Kirk did.  Wouldn't that be something?  How can we get these characters to that point?"  And then they hamfisted events and details into this script to make it work out like that.  Problem is, every beat felt so contrived, it was like a drunk with bad come-ons you've heard a million times before.  None of it sincere.  




InspectorHound
InspectorHound

@Turtletub You make a good well-written case--and, yes, studios should be read as "studios/executives," and in a lot of cases, directors have to answer to them. However, that's between the execs and the director (it's extremely rare for execs to specifically side with a feature writer over a feature director once a project's been greenlit). And (speaking as a writer with some on-set experience), feature directors certainly have more power than feature writers. If there was material in the scripts that Scott didn't like, he could've demanded rewriters or fired Lindelof (as he did with the initial writer). Lindelof didn't have *more*power than Scott.

In the specific case of Ridley Scott & Prometheus, it seems pretty clear he was the guy in charge. He initiated the project (
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/apr/27/ridley-scott-alien-prequels-3d), he was coming off of Robin Hood, with a respectable box office, so his career was (and still is) in healthy shape.

And a key point: Lindelof was not the first writer on the project--Jon Spaihts was. Scott himself selected Lindelof after Spaihts did several drafts, and Scott sat down with Lindelof for a week to brainstorm concepts and changes after making the decision to hire Lindelof. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(2012_film)#Development (also writing section)

We both agree that Prometheus is a seriously problematic movie. But I think it's clear in this specific situation--powerful director, multiple writers, clear evidence that director dictated storylines--the flaws are ultimately owned by Ridley Scott. 

" I have also seen directors at the mercy of writers because the director has already committed to a particular project and needs to make the project work despite not having all the "kinks" worked out.  In that sense, the writer is no different than a visual fx artist whose job it is to simply make a particular effect work.  The writer has to make the story work, while the director will offer some advice in terms of character arc and development, but in reality his job is mostly  restricted at that point to a visual oversight process."

I'm a writer who's had other people direct my work (plays/short film/webseries) and have directed work by other writers. It's *both* parties' job to make the story work.
 If I'm directing something with my initial concept, but written by someone else--and, for whatever reason, I can't write it myself--it is my job, point blank, to communicate what I want to a writer. If I can't communicate to a specific writer, it's my job to fire that writer and hire another one (as Scott did with Spaihts). I know the bizarre nature of the business sometimes require directors to commit to projects with kinks, but this ain't that: Scott initiated the project and had a very healthy amount of time for pre-production. Damon Lindelof is not a Svengali-like hypnotist who has some weird hold over Ridley Scott. He's a guy who, by all accounts, attempted to deliver what Scott wanted, and Ridley was satisfied enough to film it and the studio satisfied enough to release it.

ILPS9000
ILPS9000

@Joel

Reread what rosslincoln said to you. Just cause it's a spoiler to you, doesn't mean it is to others - but even so, you still overreacted. I don't think J.J. Abrams gives a flying fuck either or else he would have embargoed the film from reviewers. Grow the fuck up!

Oh, and by the way - did it ever occur to you that people's knowledge that it's Khan might actually bring more people in?

ILPS9000
ILPS9000

Accidental duplicate deleted

 

Now Showing

Find capsule reviews, showtimes & tickets for all films in town.

Powered By VOICE Places

Around The Web

Box Office

Scores provided by Rotten Tomatoes

Join My Voice Nation for free stuff, film info & more!

Loading...