Damon Lindelof Compares ‘Star Trek 2′ to ‘The Dark Knight’

Published 5 years ago by , Updated June 11th, 2014 at 1:42 pm,

At the end of June, producer/screenwriter Damon Lindelof indicated his post-Lost vacation had come to an end and that he was diving head first into writing duties on Star Trek 2. Free from the time restraints a weekly television show imposed, he was able to join Star Trek scribes Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci on a full-time basis.

Kurtzman and Orci previously revealed that they had settled on a front-runner for Star Trek 2’s villain and that the antagonist would play a larger role in the story. Although the duo claimed to be open to the idea of using Khan, the villain’s identity has yet to be confirmed.

Production is still a year away, so details are understandably sparse – but like a kid trying to sneak a peek at his Christmas presents, Star Trek fans are desperate for any hints the filmmakers can throw their way.

Lindelof was happy to drop one when E! recently caught up with him at a pre-Emmys party. He indicated that The Dark Knight has served as an inspiration for their approach to Star Trek 2:

“We’re looking at a movie like The Dark Knight, which went one step beyond Batman Begins… It was really about something, and at the same time it was a superhero movie. We don’t want to abandon all the things that made the first movie work…but we also really want the movie to thematically resonate.”

Let’s take a moment to relax a little bit and take solace in the fact that Lindelof is speaking about the film’s content and not its aesthetics. Blockbuster franchises always seem to feel that “going darker” is the only way to stay relevant and I think that’s an incredibly tired attitude.

Star Trek director J.J. Abrams once stated that his film stood “in stark contrast” to The Dark Knight and I’m pleased to hear that examining what made Christopher Nolan’s sequel so successful doesn’t seem to include conversations about de-saturating Star Trek 2’s palette. Rather, it sounds like he’s talking about crafting a film that transcends its genre and stereotypes.

Lindelof’s comment should appease fans – particularly the die-hard Trekkers who felt the quasi-reboot was a little heavy on style and light on substance in comparison to past Star Trek films.

Star Trek Sequel Damon Lindelof Compares Star Trek 2 to The Dark Knight

As a life-long fan, I thought Star Trek was unbelievably successful with what it set out to do. It took a franchise that was on its last legs and made it feel accessible and fresh to a general audience. Now that they’ve established a connection between that audience and the film’s characters, they’re free to start incorporating all of the complex moral and spiritual dilemmas Star Trek’s past incarnations were known for.

In fact, I thought the film did such an admirable job of reinventing the property and standing on its own that I’d almost hate to see them go back and recycle a villain like Khan. I know he’s the most memorable and formidable opponent in Star Trek mythology, but why invite comparisons to the most beloved entry in the franchise?

On the other hand, if anyone can prove me wrong it’s Kurtzman, Orci and Lindelof. I initially thought recasting Kirk, Spock, and all the other iconic roles was a terrible idea and Star Trek wound up being one of my favorite films that year.

We’ll keep you updated on both the storyline and villain for Star Trek 2. Be sure to stay up to date be following us on Twitter: @screenrant.

Source: E!

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Oh please daniel, why wouldn’t I comment on something that I’m a big fan of? Just to get into it with the likes of you?? Lol,,,,
    I bet I can find a comment by you on every single thread on Screen Rant right now… You think I’m trolling for comments. Hilarious.

  2. @Majorxero Hey major.. I read your comments.. And they are intelligent remarks.. I think you are totally misunderstood.. I totally agree with you.. However I did like Star Trek.. And bought the BlueRay.. I know what your saying.. Even though I liked Star Trek.. It wasn’t perfect. What you are saying is that it’s very hard to find ORIGINAL CONTENT.. Yes, classics are hard to find.. I too value my money and time.. And no, I don’t think you are an uwe bowel fan.. What is happening is: as the library in the movie industry grows at an alarming rate.. Writers are getting stupider and stupider!! Come on people! What majorxero is saying, older movies had BETTER imagination in their writings.. And they made sense!! Too many writers relying on too much REALITY in their films.. Movies were meant to help us ESCAPE reality!! That’s the whole point of moviegoing.. If I want reality, then I’ll just watch crappy news and feel miserable.. So please people.. Majorxero is NOT the bad guy here.. And the fact that so many movies what I call, are Overadopting tools and cues from other sources and movies.. So few films are unique and stand out.. Like they are all clones of a past hit.. Majorxero is not bashing.. He’s just frustrated(like me) about the LACK of originality in todays films.. And the situation is fixable.. But don’t get our criticisms wrong.. There are good movies out there.. Just not so much..

  3. I haven’t seen 12 angry men..
    I’ll look it up and check it out..
    That’s the advantage of me having an open mind of watching movies.. :uD

  4. Remember sometimes and open mind is like an open toilet

  5. Actually articles I do and don’t comment on are about 50/50. Plenty of articles i had no interestin so I skipped.

  6. Exactly Andy that’s all it is. Normally mindless fun reads wouldn’t appeal to me but it’s Star Trek and Xmen being the comic fan and trek fan I am I couldn’t pass that up.

  7. I’ll be sure to keep that in mind.. I’m more like a filter: I let in good stuff, keep out the bad, yet.. a few bad things come through..

    • :)

  8. Just a quick comment to partially disagree with your admiration for the Star Trek movie. I, too, am a long time fan, but not a die-hard. I’ve seen everything, from all of the tv shows to all of the movies. I can tell you the difference between a Tribble and a Cardasian, but I don’t speak Klingon and never will. That said, I think that the last movie took a giant crap on ALL OF STAR TREK HISTORY! I agree completely that the movie was well done and I give them all the credit in the world for finally making a Star Trek movie that appealed to a mass audience. But, for the love of God, did you have to destroy Vulcan???!!!??? And wipe out the entire Star Trek history in the process??? I know, I know, clean slate, start over with a new palette, blah, blah, blah. But, they could have done that without insulting the die-hards. The general audience wouldn’t have known the difference or even cared. Flashy, yes. Funny at times, yes. Even well cast. But, come on, even Rick Berman had more respect for Roddenberry!

    • Yeah, I hated when Vulcan was destroyed too. Well, in Batman Begins, they burned down the Wayne Mansion.. These days, writers think that, putting in, a “Shock Factor” in newer versions of our favorite franchises, is a way to make it, “new” to the audience. In the Vince Vaughn version of Psycho, the storyline was exactly, like the original.. (except for Anne Heches butt) and it was very, boring. So.. we are going to have to expect more shock in our favorite movies. When writers reopen storylines, they need to stop making a nickelodeon version of them, and go back to SOLID old fashioned storylines.. The best way to redo an original story, is to make it deeper, and more detailed.. That has worked for centuries.. There is no reason they should change that system. Put in “REAL” reasons why the characters are where they are. Shock, is ok to me. But it shouldn’t be overkill like what happened to Vulcan..

  9. Blowing up Vulcan reminded me of Star Wars. That’s clever. (Sarcasim)

    And they milked it into a entire act of the film. Lazy writing, the story board concept artist had more to do with how that part of the film looked.

  10. Chris,

    “As a life-long fan, I thought Star Trek was unbelievably successful with what it set out to do. It took a franchise that was on its last legs and made it feel accessible and fresh to a general audience.”

    Uh, in a word…….no.

    I thought the movie had potential. I liked the cast and thought for the most part that the actors took possession of their iconic roles. The Spock/Uhura romance threw me for a loop but I thought they pulled it off. However, the most part in any media, whether books or tv or movies to me is the WRITING. If you don’t have a good script, don’t make the frickin’ movie!!! This is even more horribly true since this movie was made by the same people who made THE.MOST.COMPLICATED.TV.SHOW.IN.FRICKIN.HISTORY!!!!!!! Good god, you needed a program just to tell who the players were, and goshfreakindarnit, I am not an idiot and I have been watching sci/fi for 40 frickin’ years!!!!! Unwriting 40 years of tv and movie history was bad enough, but doing so in one of the stupidest ways possible was massive insult to injury (red matter—one of the DUMBEST plot devices imaginable). Yes, I know, they had a writers strike going on at the time and there are inter-studio politics to consider, however, I believe this is the major cause of why Hollywood keeps churning out one ‘American Idol’ after another ‘Top Model’ etc. Sure, they sell, but at what cost?

  11. I loved the new Star Trek. I enjoyed a couple of the older films, but this one was the only one I could actually watch over and over. Although, I didn’t like how the film depends on it’s prequel comic to help the film (typical Orci and Kurtzman).

  12. I know that no one on here is gonna agree but I loved the first Star Trek it’s my third fave right behind First Contact and here is the unpopular part Nemesis.

    1.First Contact
    2. Nemesis
    3. Star Trek Reboot

    I hate all of the original movies as well as the original series and Generations and Inserection were not very good. Personally while First Contact is the best I love Nemesis and don’t get the hate. I found it to have a great story and as always excellent acting.

    • I enjoyed ‘Nemesis’, and think it’s a little under-rated.

  13. I agree that I was astonished to see the destruction of Vulcan and the transformation of the Vulcans into a remnant refugee people, but that’s what making time-travel/alternate universe fiction is all about. If they cut down the lens flare and give us another great scrip, then I will be happy.

    I mention also that I watched the series in original network release as a child, and later attended the first Trek cons in NYC.