J.J. Abrams regrets Star Trek Into Darkness reveal

Would rather have been up front about the villain

J.J. Abrams has been discussing Star Trek Into Darkness, and has revealed that in retrospect, he would rather have been up front about the identity of his villain (spoilers ahead).

Of course, Benedict Cumberbatch’s “John Harrison” was revealed to be none other than classic villain, Khan, a development that Abrams would rather have made clear from the get go…

“The truth is, I think it probably would have been smarter just to say upfront, ‘This is who it is,’” says Abrams. “It was only trying to preserve the fun of it, and it might have given more time to acclimatise and accept that’s what the thing was.

“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.”

Meanwhile, Abrams was also asked about Joe Cornish as a potential director for the third film, a notion he seems genuinely excited by.

“My guess is that’s up in the air,” says Abrams. “I adore him and love him and can’t wait to see what he does next. Hopefully it will be Star Trek. Whatever it is, he’s brilliant. Attack the Blockwas one of my favourite movies of the year when it came out.” We shall see…

What do you think of Abrams' comments? Tell us, below!

Comments

    • chibik

      Dec 3rd 2013, 7:04

      Speaking as a sort of "new fan" who is aware of the original Khan but has no strong feelings about the character, I rather enjoyed the reveal.

      Alert a moderator

    • thedanieljson

      Dec 3rd 2013, 9:17

      WOAH. Followed Adam and Joe for ages so the very mention of Cornish's name in something like this makes me very excited...

      Alert a moderator

    • trist808

      Dec 3rd 2013, 9:33

      Worst ... reveal ... EVER! I saw an advance screening and was sooooo disappointed when it turned out to him, I wish they hadn't used Khan, the casting was ridiculous. I've said this on another strand; the new timeline began when Kirk's dad died and Nero changed events in 2009's Star Trek. Khan should still look like Ricardo Montalban because he was frozen in status BEFORE the timeline diverged, he shouldn't look like a pasty white English bloke! If Cornish gets the third film, good luck to him and please give us something we've never seen before, give us what Trek should be!!

      Alert a moderator

    • chibik

      Dec 3rd 2013, 10:07

      @trist808: Of course, you could use that same logic to argue that Kirk should still look like William Shatner, because technically nothing that happened should have changed his appearance. Grant these guys some creative freedom!

      Alert a moderator

    • crystakura

      Dec 3rd 2013, 10:21

      Good movie but it wasn't Star Trek.

      Alert a moderator

    • trist808

      Dec 3rd 2013, 10:37

      @chibik, I'm all for creative freedom, but Darkness wasn't full of creative ideas was it? Don't get me wrong, I liked it, as a Trek fan I enjoy it, but it didn't blow me away, it didn't live up to the first films' potential. It was merely a re-imagining of Wrath Of Khan and Space Seed combined ... nothing new in there. And I hear what you're saying about Shatner, but Chris Pine does have more than a passing resemblance to The Shat and his ethnicity wasn't altered, where as Cumberbatch does not even remotely look anything like Montalban ... Khan's ethnic origins are important and that seemed immaterial to the film-makers. It's almost as though the film-makers hired Cumberbatch, to throw people off and set up the reveal ... a reveal that so many had already deduced months before the film came out anyway. And actually come to think of it, the timeline changed just as Kirk was being born remember? So not looking exactly like Shatner (or any of the others) could be explained ... but maybe we're both nit-picking. I just felt cheated that Darkness couldn't offer something totally new, it's a major fault of Star Trek in recent years, even in the last of the TV series, just repeating what went before ... just my opinion of course.

      Alert a moderator

    • chibik

      Dec 3rd 2013, 11:05

      trist808: Don't see how Nero's arrival could alter baby Jim's looks, but you're right, we're nitpicking. Personally, I feel it's an amazing film in its own right, but I don't hold the original series in such high regard as long time fans seem to.

      Alert a moderator

    • apo1978

      Dec 3rd 2013, 14:02

      I'm on team chibik! ;-)

      Alert a moderator

    • Ali1748

      Dec 3rd 2013, 14:27

      Eh considering how the die hard Trekies reacted to the movie it was a good idea to keep it secret, if they knew before they probably would have boycotted. I loved Into Darkness it's one of my favorite movies of the year.

      Alert a moderator

Most Popular