Jj Abrams Should Never Make Movies Again
By · Published on May 21st, 2013
Rumor has it that J.J. Abrams is known to approach strangers, hold his finger beneath their nose while stifling a laugh and and then ask them if they tin tell which box it smells similar. That probably isn't true, but the man virtually definitely loves a good mystery.
Every bit writer, managing director and/or producer he's been attached to dozens of films and TV shows featuring mysteries both big and pocket-sized. The secret to Lost'due south island, the reveal of the monster in Cloverfield and the alien in Super viii, the explanation equally to why Felicity cutting her hair… all mysteries we eventually saw answered afterward a glorious catamenia of intense curiosity. Hell, we're still eagerly awaiting an answer to what exactly he was thinking while writing Gone Fishin'.
Abrams famously explained his attraction to the thought of a "mystery box" during his 2007 TED Talk, and it basically boils down his belief that "mystery is more than important than knowledge." There'southward a semantics argument to be had there, but the core betoken is a audio i that generally gets lost in an online earth used to having all of the answers and information bachelor 24/vii. People who read books don't (usually) read the ending get-go, then why exercise so may of us want to know equally much as possible most the plot points, casting and cameos in the movies we've all the same to watch?
Abrams simply prefers equally little as possible be revealed in advance of our eyeballs really seeing his work onscreen, and while that's an incredibly beauteous (and sadly naive) ideal it'due south however netted dandy success. So if it's a brave idea that's worked well in the past, why and how did it get and so terribly incorrect with his new picture, Star Trek Into Darkness ?
Fair alert, a single spoiler (yeah, that ane) exists in the paragraphs that follow. You lot most likely already know it, but go on at your ain risk all the aforementioned.
"Withholding information is much more engaging."
It wasn't long afterward Abrams' 2009 Star Trek reboot hitting it big that the speculation began as to the possible return of the original franchise's favorite villain, Khan Noonien Singh, for the inevitable sequel. The late, bully, leathery Ricardo Montalbán brought the grapheme to life on the Television series first before returning on the big screen in Star Expedition Ii: The Wrath of Khan. The character is a legendary bad guy, and his appearance in the moving-picture show came pre-loaded with backstory and emotional weight between him and Captain Kirk that ultimately increased audience anticipation and satisfaction.
When information technology came time to start work on the sequel Abrams and his writers (Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, Damon Lindelof) chose to go the easy route and bring Khan into their new universe for seemingly no reason bated from "Heh, fans will love it!" The graphic symbol'southward presence was never revealed publicly, only difficult-hitting investigative online journalists leaked the story and before long the internet was flood with suspicions and rumors about Khan's return. Abrams and visitor played mum, even to the betoken of flat out denying it, but as evidenced by the film playing in theaters, we know now the rumors were true.
"Abraaaaaaaaaams!"
Abrams' conclusion to keep Khan'south presence inside his mystery box was a mistake. While I don't believe it'south to arraign for a smaller than expected opening weekend like some do, this detail undercover and its subsequent reveal add admittedly nothing to the feel of seeing the film.
First, Abrams and his trio of questionably talented simply incredibly lucky and smart screenwriters disregarded Abrams' own advice from his TED Talk where he says "the investment of character… is the stuff that'south really inside the box." He acknowledges that likewise frequently people making sequels are "ripping off the wrong thing. You're not supposed to rip off the shark or monster, if you gotta rip something, rip off the character, rip off the stuff that matters." With Into Darkness, they treat Khan similar the shark from Jaws or the monster from any number of horror sequels by bold his name and past appearances volition wholly inform this new incarnation.
Second, belongings something back like this from audiences, both in the lead upwardly to the pic but also within the picture show itself, implies the eventual revelation will hold real value. But equally Jack Giroux asked in this feature, what does Khan even bring to this universe? Non only is there no narrative history as at that place was with Wrath of Khan, but Khan is only "Khan" because of what happened in a different timeline. He has no personal beef here with anyone we care nigh, meaning there's no "Oh shit Khan's back!" moment for u.s. to relish. And that's non fifty-fifty taking into business relationship the audience members who've never watched the original serial or movies. The proper name "Khan" means absolutely naught to them, and there's nothing magically mysterious well-nigh merely changing a character's proper noun from John Harrison to Khan.
3rd, and about simply, the mystery box should be a place for unknowns. Hence the name. Different the creatures of Cloverfield and Super viii or the truth about Lost's isle, secrets that actually could have ended upwards being annihilation, Khan is a known quantity loaded with luggage. The smart play here would have been to create a whole new bad guy free of preconceptions. Disallowment that, why non admit Khan was going to be a role player in the film and then have the bodily surprise be that he'due south a good guy? Abrams' films are in an alternate timeline for the very reason that they're not leap to Star Trek catechism. Why not take real reward of it?
Hither'south the twist: I still stand by the core truth of the mystery box.
More and more the possibility of walking into a motion picture and being genuinely surprised by the appearance of an player or major plot turn is disappearing. Anchorman 2 is even so vii months away, simply I already know of half a dozen cameos. The latest trailer for the surprisingly fun Five/H/South ii gives abroad several money shots and grapheme fates. These films and many more could benefit from having mystery boxes of their own, and I find it hard to believe that most people would have a problem with that.
Opposite to what some think, the box is not the trouble in the case of Star Trek Into Darkness. This particular mystery is. I'm hoping Abrams can dust himself off and learn from his mistake here, but I for one don't want to see him give up on the thought that fun and surprising motion picture revelations vest in a darkened theater and not at the click of a mouse. Will the box follow Abrams into the Star Wars universe with Episode VII? Our own Neil Miller asked this question last calendar month and seemed to think that even if Abrams wanted to he'd exist quickly overruled by that franchise's corporate overlords. That's probably true, but even if the obvious characters and actors are made known to us here's hoping Abrams finds room for some real surprises too. His fingers aren't going to smell themselves.
Haven't seen Abrams' 2007 TED Talk yet? Check it out below!
Related Topics: JJ Abrams, Star Trek
Rob Hunter has been writing for Pic School Rejects since before you were born, which is weird seeing every bit he's so damn immature. He'due south our Chief Film Critic and Acquaintance Editor and lists 'Broadcast News' as his favorite film of all time. Feel gratuitous to say how-do-you-do if y'all run across him on Twitter @FakeRobHunter.
Recommended Reading
Humanity is Once more on Trial in 'Star Trek: Picard'
Two classic 'Star Expedition' villains render, but maybe they're non the baddies we once thought they were?Captain Janeway Returns to the Final Frontier in 'Star Trek: Prodigy'
In one case over again, Paramount+ is pushing 'Star Expedition' into assuming new frontiers. Are y'all ready for a kiddie (all-ages) human gamble?In New 'Star Expedition,' is Discovery "A" OK?
We look at the history of Starship registry numbers and why the latest may be a controversial add-on to the canon.'Star Trek: Discovery' Flavor 3 Still Proposes a Bleak Future
'Star Trek: Discovery' season three puts the dreams of the Federation on the individual, reminding the viewer that it's on them to make a future worthy of the franchise.Source: https://filmschoolrejects.com/j-j-abrams-is-using-the-mystery-box-all-wrong-55ed492dd92a/
0 Response to "Jj Abrams Should Never Make Movies Again"
Post a Comment