Mamo #283: Mamo Into Darkness

With The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey still dangling like a high frame rate sugar plum mere days away, and Skyfall back in first place, we turn our attention to Star Trek: Into Darkness, and the perils of being J.J. Abrams. Plus: between Oblivion and After Earth; is it science fiction time again?

To download this episode, use this URL:

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted

I second that TED talk. As much as I’m lukewarm on J.J.Abrams, I do love to hear him speak about stuff.


I actually quite like Star Trek 5.

I like the desert planet cinematography. I like crazy Sybok. I like Row Row Row your fuckin’ BOAT!

Sean Kelly

HFR was discussed on Leo Laporte’s Tech Guy show last weekend.

Here is the link to the podcast (discussion begins at 19:11):


I love Mamo, one of the best podcast out there.

Matthew Fabb

Matt Brown, you are incorrect about only being able to get HRD & IMAX tickets. I have only seen one screening for 2D version up in Brampton, but there has been plenty of tickets available for regular 3D screenings. That said, it seems to be easier to get non-HFR tickets out in the suburbs than in downtown Toronto.

The Cineplex site does give a nice way of breaking up how to see the Hobbit:
However, their “regular screening” is not 2D, which is what I expected but 3D and choosing “regular screening” won’t filter out the HFR 3D screenings. Also I imagine in general it’s going to be hard to find 2D screenings.

That said, it seems to me that people’s awareness of HFR is surprising low and agree that Friday night there will be lot of people upset when they unexpectedly see it in that format.

I’m curious what it does to initial word of mouth of the Hobbit. Will there be enough people who go along with it or will people start avoiding it, because definitely going in, it has really negative buzz to it.

I’m just hoping for at least one prankster running a theatre will start off the screening with this video:

Robert Reineke

Hitfix has an interesting theory about the identity of the villain.

Frankly, my issue with the whole “mystery box” approach is the degree to which Abrams uses the approach. At this point, it’s obscuring what the actual story is of the movie and reducing the trailer to an fx reel. Most villains aren’t inherently interesting in a vacuum, but in what they represent towards the main characters. Khan included. Khan is interesting in Wrath of Khan as he represents Kirk’s past catching up to him as Kirk grapples with age and mortality.

When you can’t even tell us what the story is about in a general sense, you’re not offering anything of substance. The guessing game of what’s in the “mystery box” isn’t as interesting when all you say is “it could be anything”. That’s not fun, that’s pointlessly frustrating. Especially as one of the possibilities is “it could be nothing”.

Any movie of large enough budget these days can sell us spectacle. Tell us what makes you more than the next Transformers and you’ll have our interest.

Matthew Price

I think it’s interesting to consider that Abrams, who is the primary proponent of Magic Box theory may also have completely misinterpreted that theory.

Robert Reineke

At the very least, Magic Box theory requires that the payoff be consistently good. The payoff to Lost and the reveal of the creature in Super 8, two big things associated with Abrams, certainly does put doubt in the mind that whatever is in the next Magic Box is as cool as he claims.

Rick Vance

It isn’t as much things have to die as it that they are devoured by the new thing and subsequently feel outdated isn’t it?

The Shadow isn’t as popular because he was one of the Primary influences on Batman and Batman has the limelight, same thing with Tarzan and Superman and say John Carter and Star Wars.

Which coincidentally is one of the reasons I am not that much into Star Trek. (that and the idealism reeks of pure fantasy)