If it's crap ... We'll tell you
Fresh off his well-received announcement that he won't be involved in the sequel to 'Prometheus,' writer Damon Lindelof has offered some insights into what we can expect from the sequel that he is actually a part of: 'Star Trek: Into Darkness.' Lindelof co-wrote the script for 'STID' with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. J.J. Abrams' highly anticipated followup to his 2009 reboot 'Star Trek' has been in the discussion a lot lately, as its theatrical trailer recently swept across the internet at warp speed. From what we could tell from the trailer (and, you know, the title of the movie) Abrams and his writing team have crafted a much darker sophomore adventure for the Enterprise crew. However, Lindelof mentioned that it won't all be bleak...
"We’ve been talking about this a lot...I think that one of the things that the best iterations of Trek, whether it was episodes show or the movies that were highly successful, is that they were able to find a blend of those two things where the stakes were monumentally life or death but there were still moments of great humor. It’s still Trek. I think that the ways that the characters relate to each other, even in times of immense stress can be humorous because several of them, particularly Bones, use humor as a coping mechanism for dealing with those immense stresses...I don’t think anybody wants to see a dour Star Trek movie."
This is good news, as one of the things I liked the most about 'Star Trek' was its comic relief. The exaggerated swagger of Chris Pine's Kirk, the banter between he and Bones (Karl Urban), and of course Simon Pegg's phenomenal take on Scotty? Come on, that stuff was golden. I like the way Lindelof phrases this, because it's obvious that the second film needs to venture into some more severe territory, and of course that negates the possibility of perpetual silliness, but the idea of humor being a coping mechanism and/or bred naturally of the relationships between the characters means that the brief moments of levity can be more seamlessly woven into the narrative. And that's not all Lindelof revealed about 'Stark Trek Into Darkness.' On the subject of how referential the movie will be toward franchise canon...
"The majority of the Easter eggs are already embedded before we go into production. I think that there are a couple things that along the way where you find an opportunity. But I think the fans want to feel that that stuff had a lot of thought behind it and that we’re not being casual about referencing the original series or the Trek-verse. And you have to do your homework especially because we started a new timeline. You have to be very responsible about the sequencing of things because it’s not we can do whatever we want now."
This is also good news, though far from shocking. The first film borrowed pretty liberally from, particularly, 'Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan,' with several story parallels and visual callbacks. But it was far more concerned with establishing its own identity, its own origins and, more to the point, its own timeline. Heck, the presence of Leonard Nimoy was the biggest homage to the original mythology, and even that aided in the construction of that new timeline. Given the fact that Abrams sidestepped the temptation to redo the Khan story, it's clear he's not slavish to referential pandering. That said, it will be nice to see what subtle touches turn up.
What do you guys think? Happy to see not all the humor will be superseded by the darker story? What subtle classic Trek references do you think might turn up in 'Stark Trek Into Darkness?'