How much Star Wars is too much Star Wars?

Disney announced two days ago that their new plans, having previously purchased Lucasfilm for $4 billion, aren't just to make a new trilogy of Star Wars episodes, nor even to make a few spin-off films set in the same universe.  No, they are planning to make one Star Wars movie every single year, with off-shoot films alternating with official new 'episodes'.  How much Star Wars is too much Star Wars? The idea of a new trilogy of Star Wars films, set to debut ten years after the finale of the prequel trilogy, is perhaps also exciting, even as J.J. Abrams replacing George Lucas as the proverbial leader of this specific universe calls for cautious optimism (Is Star Wars without any real input from George Lucas really Star Wars?  Discuss...).  But how long will the casual fans remain excited about the prospect of new Star Wars films when they appear as frequently as Thanksgiving dinner for years and years on end?

Star Trek Into Darkness gets another weirdly generic trailer.

Isn't Star Trek supposed to be about star trekking?  Ya know, exploring strange new worlds, seeking new life and new civilizations, and possibly going where no man has gone before?  This may look like a decent action thriller, but it also feels like a painfully generic adventure that happens to be painted in Star Trek paint.  Benadict Cumberbatch shows up, Cumberbatch commits several acts of terrorism, Kirk goes after Cumberbatch.  I sincerely hope there is more to the story than that and there may very well be.  But what we've seen so far suggests the film boldly going where any number of sequels have gone before.  And, if I may, why oh why couldn't Paramount wait until next weekend to debut this with G.I. Joe: Retaliation?  Anyway, Star Trek Into Darkness opens May 15th in IMAX 3D and May 17th elsewhere domestically.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson  

Star Trek Into Darkness gets an action-packed new trailer.

The only spoiler bit is at around 1:02, where Captain Pike has some facial scars that I don't recall him having at the end of the first Star Trek (he was of course seriously injured, but I don't recall scarring). Perhaps Pike gets those scars when Cumberbatch escapes from his glass prison at the halfway mark, because "He planned to get caught the whole time!". Otherwise, this is a quick (78 seconds) and breezy action-packed trailer.  It's nice that they aren't focusing as much on Benedict Cumberbatch's mystery villain (I have a theory on that, broached by a friend of mine and backed up by what we've seen thus far, but I'm not sharing in case I'm right) and also showing off that the film isn't all gloom and misery this time around. The initial trailers tried to sell the film as a generic 'dark sequel' or The Dark Knight meets Skyfall meets Revenge of the Sith.  This new trailer plays in the Return of the Jedi/Tron sandbox with phasers set for swashbuckling adventure. 

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Crappy Super Bowl Episode. When good shows pander for Super Bowl viewers.

My mother used to say that every time she would recommend a television show to friends or family members, the next episode to air would inevitably be terrible.  It would seem that said curse has passed down to her son in a manner of speaking.  It's no secret that I've become a genuine fan of CBS's Elementary, finding to be not only much better than expected but arguably about as good as BBC's Sherlock in its own specific way.  No, Johnny Lee Miller doesn't have the raw magnetism of Benedict Cumberbatch, but nor is his version of Sherlock Holmes supposed to be a tall and striking creature of pure sexual charisma.  They are two very different shows, and they both mostly succeed on their own respective goals and intentions.  Elementary is akin to USA's Monk, albeit without the painfully cornball humor and (so far) without a main character who has no idea how civilization functions at any given moment.  So last night CBS gifted the show with a prime post-Super Bowl episode, surely a perfect way to hook the masses on this surprisingly good show, right?  Well... no.  Last night's episode was easily the worst episode of Elementary yet aired by a healthy margin.  Of course that shouldn't be surprising, since it was the latest show to fall victim to the Curse of the Super Bowl.

Star Trek Into Darkness gets a Super Bowl tease and (more intriguingly) a two-day early IMAX release.

Okay, so having Kirk ask who Benedict Cumberbatch is and having the villain merely answer "I'm better... at everything" is just being obnoxious, although I appreciate the subtle dig at those dying for confirmation about who he's playing in this sequel.  The rest of the tease is pretty much standard 'dark sequel' boilerplate, and I can't wait for someone to eventually cut together a super-cut of scary villain interrogation scenes with Joker, Loki, Silva, and whoever the hell Cumberbatch is playing, in turn followed by a supercut of their magnificent and meticulously planned escapes  ("He's been planning this for years!"  "He planned to get caught!" "He wanted to hit us where it hurts!").  What's interesting is the news that the film will debut on IMAX 3D two days ahead of its planned May 17th national release.  I wrote way back when that the successful five-day sneak release of Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol would start this kind of thing, and it appears that I was right.  Tom Cruise's Oblivion is getting a full week of exclusive IMAX play and Skyfall of course opened a day early in IMAX.  Now Skyfall made a whole $2.5 million on that Thursday, so we're talking more about word of mouth than actually amassing major IMAX bucks.  Still, the early sneak release means that Paramount is playing long ball, arguably sacrificing a shot at the Fri-Sun record books (however unlikely) for a chance to get the word out before the weekend even begins.  It's a promising strategy and one that also implies that Paramount has confidence in the product and/or will be having long-lead press screenings for critics more important than myself.  I'll still get the All-Media at worst, but I sincerely hope that Paramount actually screens this for press *in* IMAX, unlike nearly every major theatrical release from 2012 save The Amazing Spider-Man and The Dark Knight Rises.

Scott Mendelson

J.J. Abrams is directing Star Wars Episode VII. A look at how the surprising politics of Star Trek may bleed into Star Wars.

So, it's officially official.  Disney just put out a press release, which means I can write about it without fear of it being debunked moments after publication.  J.J. Abrams is indeed directing Star Wars: Episode VII.  And what do I have to say about that?  Well... not much really.  There is indeed a part of me that feels that it is wholly inappropriate and/or unnatural that the same director will be behind new Star Trek *and* new Star Wars movies.  Back in the old days, I believed in the perhaps simplistic idea that every franchise would get their own special director.  Sam Raimi had Spider-Man, Bryan Singer had X-Men, and Chris Nolan had Batman.  Obviously that idea no longer exists. Bryan Singer can helm X-Men and then go on to attempt to reboot Superman with Superman Returns before taking back the X-Men franchise from Matthew Vaughn, who is now rumored to be among Warner's top choices for a Justice League movie.  Even with more and more franchises being rebooted and/or changing hands, it seems like an awfully incestuous little circle, with only a handful of directors seemingly ending up helming these major properties.  Say what you will about Marvel, but they deserve kudos for thinking outside the box on pretty much every major film thus far when it comes to a director.

Star Trek Into Darkness gets a very generic 'sequel' trailer.

Oddly enough, I did not see this trailer with my Friday afternoon showing of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.  Now that I've seen this trailer, what do I think?  Well, it looks pretty solid.  Yes it still feels like we're following the 'dark sequel' template, almost as if it's in a Mad Libs book.  Yes we get not one ponderous 'character arc in a monologue' speech but two ponderous 'character arc in a monologue' speeches.  I could say that once again the film is being marketed as "The Dark Knight but Star Trek-style", but I think that's almost too easy of a label.  But the film both looks pretty epic in scope *and* seems to involve quite a bit of, trekking across various stars.  They do seem to be teasing both references to Wrath of Khan and a major character death. 3.5 years ago, I pegged Chekov (Anton Yelchin) as the likely 'killed off halfway through character, and the fact that Yelchin's star hasn't exactly risen since only adds credence to said theory (that we see him in a red shirt when Pike is monologuing about Kirk's arrogance getting his friends killed doesn't help).  Anyway, this looks somewhat like generic sequel 101, but it still looks awfully entertaining.  As always, we'll see, in this case when Star Trek Into Darkness drops on May 17, 2013.  What are your thoughts on the above trailer?  Do share below...

Scott Mendelson

New Star Trek Into Darkness image evokes serious deja vu....

 Gee, I wonder if Benedict Cumberbatch intentionally allows himself to get captured in the second act as part of a devious multi-pronged plan to escape and cause havoc in the very lair of his enemies?  Will said post-capture/pre-escape sequence also allow Cumberbatch to monologue about how he and Kirk and/or Spock really aren't that different, that their apparent control is merely an illusion, and Kirk and Spock are foolish for supporting governmental institutions that will discard them once they outlive their usefulness? We'll see soon enough, but don't bet against it!

Scott Mendelson

Star Trek Into Darkness gets a very 'Dark Knight' teaser...

I don't know if this qualifies as a teaser for a trailer, but since this seems to be a complete piece in-and-of itself, I'll let it slide.  Obviously the scope looks huge, but jeez how badly do J.J. Abrams and company want to market this as The Dark Knight of Star Trek films?  From the 'I'm going to shake you out of your comfort zone!' monologue from the lone bringer-of-chaos villain to the Inception/Dark Knight trailer music, it's humorously clear what the marketing template is.  Of course, if the film turns out to just be 'making a Nolan Batman film, but with Star Trek', that may be an issue (Star Trek generally hasn't faired well when going 'dark/gritty'), but for now let's presume that it's just Paramount marketing.  Of note is the second Japanese teaser, which includes an additional final shot that A) may be very very spoilery and B) ends the teaser on a more potent musical note.  Watch at your own risk, although I can't imagine a film as top-secret as this one (we still don't know who Cumberbatch is playing) would tease something that major in the first piece of marketing.  Anyway, the full teaser-trailer will be attached to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey on December 14th and Paramount is keeping it offline until December 17th, which would be cooler of them if they hadn't just released this online-only teaser.  And of course the 9-minute IMAX tease will be attached to IMAX prints of The Hobbit.  Star Trek Into Darkness (still an awful title, natch) opens May 17th, 2013.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

Star Trek Into Darkness gets a very 'Chris Nolan' poster.

When I wrote 3.5 years ago that Paramount hoped that the inevitable Star Trek 2 would "pull a Dark Knight", I didn't realize how literal I was apparently being.  Coupled with the teaser trailer attached to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Beginning and a 9-minute IMAX sneak peak attached to IMAX prints of same, this first teaser poster shows Paramount is copying the Chris Nolan Dark Knight playbook to a tee.  Snickering about obvious similarities aside, this is a very stylish and impressive poster.  It's the first official glimpse at Benedict Cumberbatch as 'He who has not yet been named', with implications that he does score a big win at some point in the picture.  So yes, it's a poster in the vein of the last three Chris Nolan films.  But  that doesn't mean it's not a very effective piece of marketing and/or art.

Scott Mendelson