Home » Review

Getting Even With ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ – Review, Spoilers, Discussion

Best Star Trek Movies - Debate - Into Darkness
In 2009 JJ Abrams unleashed the prequel/sequel/reboot that reinvigorated the Star Trek franchise, bringing it greater critical and commercial success than it had ever seen at the multiplexes. To mark the occasion Movie-Moron has been honouring the age-old theory amongst Trekkies that the even numbered entries into the Star Trek film series are the good ones by ‘Getting Even With Star Trek’ and treating ourselves to viewings of those even-numbered Trek films. Our last discussion looks at Star Trek Into Darkness. This doesn’t hold back on spoilers, so only read on if you’ve seen the movie already or really don’t care about knowing every twist, and the ending. For those who are stopping here, know that we give it a B+ and you should get to the multiplexes to see it.

Previously In ‘Getting Even With Star Trek’
Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
Star Trek VIII: First Contact
Star Trek X: Nemesis

DNWilliams: Seeing as how you’re fresh to this series of reviews, we’ll kick off with a little background by way of introduction – want to tell the Movie-Moron readers what your relationship with Star Trek is?

Sheridan Passell: I’ve seen all the films. The TV shows have largely passed me by.

DNW: That does seem like a pretty weird way to come at the franchise, the Trek movies are quite a different animal from the shows.

SP: I’m not a TV person in general. Not enough hours in the day.

DNW: Would you consider yourself a fan of the films?

SP: For sure. Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, Generations and First Contact were all enjoyable. The reboot too. Wrath of Khan is the definitive entry.

DNW: I imagine you have a fairly unique perspective on the reboot, given that you’re mainly a fan of the film franchise. Something tells me you wouldn’t be crazy about The Original Series either.

SP: The Original Series didn’t appeal to me all that much, but the cast were charismatic.

DNW: What do you make of the return to those characters and the direction Abrams has taken things then?

SP: It’s definitely paid off. The studio tried to do the same after The Final Frontier but the fans wouldn’t stand for it. After Nemesis they really had nothing to lose, there was nowhere else for the movies to go. They didn’t have a successful TV show to port over ala Next Generation. So it was either create a whole new crew, which is just as risky, or reboot. By the time of JJ’s Star Trek there had been several successful reboots elsewhere so it was more viable.

DNW: The bitterest of fans would say that the franchise should’ve looked to the future as it had before, instead of returning to its roots. I feel very differently. The Abrams reboot is a real achievement in my mind; the fact that they returned to the characters that are the most ingrained in pop culture, restored the colourful and adventurous spirit of the original television show, all whilst actually respecting the canon of the franchise… masterstroke upon masterstroke, it shouldn’t be undervalued.

SP: They had tried new crews on TV and they hadn’t clicked in the way they needed to. You couldn’t have done a Voyager movie or that one with Scott Bakula. They executed it in the right way. The mistake would have been, when rebooting with a younger cast, to have them as ‘kids’ for too long. But they were in their adult mode pretty quick. Star Wars’s ‘early years’ treatment of Darth Vader is the textbook case of how not to do it. Get them to adulthood fast.

DNW: I agree. Things had gotten stale. Alright, shall we dive Into Darkness? On a surface level, I had reservations about the title. And not because it didn’t have a colon, like some people.

SP: It’s just the words ‘dark’ and ‘darkness’ have become very overused in describing a movie on the press tour and to see it in the title was a bit unimaginative. It’s not as bad as ‘rises’ though.

DNW: ‘Rises’ was thematically resonant with The Dark Knight Rises though. ‘Into Darkness’ doesn’t actually wind up being anything other than a title that the writers thought sounded cool, one that describes the stereotypical ‘darker, edgier’ sequel in a vague way.

SP: I wouldn’t say it’s especially much darker than the previous film.

DNW: Right? There was the question of whether or not you can actually ‘Star Trek into’ something, because the title Star Trek already implies a trek through the stars.

SP: It’s better than ‘Star Trek: InchErection.’.

DNW: Well, when you put it like that! Okay, opening scene: I loved this to pieces. The Enterprise are supposed to be observing a primitive world, Kirk and Bones are making a dash from the natives, and Spock is trying to stop a volcano from killing everyone.

SP: It was strong, good visuals.

DNW: The visuals WERE strong, the planet had a very distinctive look, which was great.

SP: Interesting to see the prime directive brought to the front so much. It’s in stark contrast to the start of Nemesis, where Picard drops down on a dune buggy for a joy ride and then get chased by the locals – So much for prime directive there.

DNW: Yeah, it couldn’t have been more different from the likes of Nemesis. It’s dynamic for a start.

Best Star Trek Movies Into Darkness
SP: Into Darkness does have Silly Movie Rule #1 – Characters can fall as far as they want, as long as it’s into water. The reality is that from any sort of significant height it’s virtually the same as hitting concrete. I’m looking at you, Skyfall.

DNW: And Fast Five.

SP: Oh yeah, but they project off a car mid-air, that’s never been tried in reality. …I suspect they’d be dead too.

DNW: One of them is also Vin Diesel, so we’re in unstoppable force, immovable object territory right there.

SP: He had the spirit of Telly Savalas holding him up.

DNW: Vin Diesel reminds you of Kojak?

SP: Hell to the yes.

DNW: …Okay.

SP: When they reboot Kojak there’s only one name on that list. Are we off topic here?

DNW: Off-topic is what we do best. But yeah, the sequence is great for a number of reasons, it’s exciting, it’s visually arresting and it doesn’t slouch on storytelling. You have a moral dilemma that the prime directive can present, the central theme of friendship brought into focus, and some great character work all in the opening minutes.

SP: Yeah, I’d go with that. Although Spock’s willing self-sacrifice does feel ever so slightly forced. It’s not like he’s saving anyone, just upholding a Starfleet rule. The Spock of the past was often up for breaking rules to help his friends out.

DNW: Dude, the rule is there for a reason. I thought that was quite well communicated by the deification of the Enterprise that capped the sequence, implying Kirk’s rashness shaped that society’s development considerably.

SP: Picard didn’t seem too bothered in his dune buggy. But okay, young Spock hasn’t loosened up yet, so it’s fine.

DNW: Trek, truthfully, never let the prime directive get in the way of a some good fun, but they sure do like to bring it up. It’s the principle, and Spock is a principled, logical man.

SP: Then we have some demotions and promotions, which take us back to where we started.

DNW: Yeah, Kirk finds out that Spock filed a report about the whole breaking-the-rules-to-save-his-life thing and, like you said, returns us to the status quo ante. Kirk is no longer the Captain of the Enterprise, Pike is, and Spock is no longer his crewmate.

Best Star Trek Movies Into Darkness
SP: Captain Pike is this series’ Kenny from South Park.

DNW: How so?

SP: He’s brutally crippled in the first movie, left for dead. Now he’s back, he can walk! – Dies. In the next film I’d like to see him brought back to life with Khan blood, reinstated as captain, then immediately sucked out an airlock.

DNW: I really like Bruce Greenwood in the role, he’s an insanely good paternal figure.

SP: He’s great. It’s sad they bumped him off. I found Spock’s prying into his dying moments quite intrusive. I thought it would be for some important piece of information, the mind meld was a key plot point in II and III, but no, he was just curious.

DNW: I figured he was trying to make the moment less painful for Pike by lending him some Vulcan zen.

SP: Pike didn’t look very relaxed, I’ve never seen anyone die worse to be honest. He looked mortified.

Best Star Trek Movies Into Darkness
DNW: Kirk is, naturally, very broken up about the whole situation. All of this was set up by Benedict Cumberbatch’s John Harrison of course, making it the second time Kirk’s father figure has been gunned down by the main villain in the movie. Harrison planned to take out as many senior Federation officers as he could in one fell swoop, but he leaves Spock, Kirk and RoboCop alive. This was a mistake.

SP: Yeah, Pike was hobbling around on a stick, surely you’d aim for the guy with the stick last.

DNW: We kind of skipped it, what did you think of Benedict Cumberbatch’s introduction?

SP: The musical cue when he first appeared was naff but I thought it was an effectively mysterious intro. He’s definitely strong in the movie. He’s going for the stillness school of acting and it works well. Quite different to the physical performance of the original Khan.

DNW: I don’t know about that introductory cue, but on the whole, I think Giacchino’s music is fantastic here. Cumberbatch does enigmatic well, and his it’s sort of like someone threw Kirk and Spock in a blender. I like that a lot.

SP: The score is very good, save for that cue to introduce Harrison and the self-satisfied cue later when old Spock appears. “Look who we’ve got!!!”

Best Star Trek Movies Into Darkness
DNW: I’m guessing Harrison being tied to Section 31 means very little to you.

SP: Was it referring back to anything in the TV shows?

DNW: Yeah, Harrison is a Section 31 agent, which is a covert operations division of Star Fleet. RoboCop runs it. I thought, with Pike down, RoboCop was being set up as a replacement father figure for Kirk. I was not correct.

SP: I always thought he was a villain, he was too supportive. Anyone in authority who’s super nice and supportive at the start of a movie often ends up being the villain.

DNW: Pike? Obi-Wan? Come on man, that’s just silly.

SP: Pike is pissed with him to start with. The first thing he does is shout him down.

DNW: Hmmmmmmmm.

SP: Trust and fondness have to be earned, everyone needs an arc. If a boss character starts off overly friendly and nice, you know it’s probably heading for trouble.

DNW: Well, he does authorise Kirk to use lethal force on Harrison right away, which should set alarm bells ringing.

SP: That too… Anyway, the dilemma for Kirk is well constructed, with deliberate parallels to modern day terrorism and how we respond to it, questioning whether a retaliatory response just ends up doing more damage in the long term. Would you fire missiles at John Harrison on Kronos, knowing only what Kirk knew at the time?

DNW: I don’t think I’d do it, but I wouldn’t be too upset if somebody did. The thing with Section 31 that’s significant is that it is decidedly not from Original Series Trek, it was introduced in Deep Space Nine in fact. I really like that they brought it in, and then with Harrison fleeing to Kronos, a place the Federation dare not boldly go, they also introduce the Klingons to the new Trek universe, who were around from the start pretty much.

SP: I enjoyed the anticipation of the Klingon reveal here, it was all exciting stuff. I like how the Klingons have been re-established as a major threat.

Best Star Trek Movies Into Darkness

Part 2 (Of 2) >

Pages: 1 2

Share This Post

From Around The Web

3 Comments »

  • gd smith said

    I think they called it Into Darkness because they were trying desperately to hide the fact that the villain was exactly who everyone thought it was from the second the project was announced and because the film is basically Wrath in a different order. Then again, I thought the last one was basically STVs Year of Hell but not as good. This is very entertaining, but come on it’s the 21st century and there are Indian actors

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  • chris gossard said

    I thought it was (again) a very disappointing view of the ST universe…primarily for the plot holes that were throughout the film. Actually the whole story was weak.

    Plot holes (to name a few):

    As soon as the “he who will not be named” villain transported himself light-years from earth in the early part of the movie, I lost interest — it was just a stupid “stunt” to show Klingons. I mean, sheesh, this version of the Federation has this advanced technology that even TNG didn’t have and they are still screwing around with starships?

    And the whole “phone a friend” thing with the Spocks…this new Spock is so weak he can’t even figure out stuff by himself? JJ with his gratuitous fan-boy crap.

    And where did Scotty get the shuttle craft for his jaunt to Jupiter, do they just leave these lying around for non-Federation folk to do joy rides? And if this is a top secret installation, they sure do have crappy security letting a shuttle craft just fly up unnoticed.

    Yeah, the “death” scene was ok, but are we really that invested with these versions of Kirk and Spock? Christ, they aren’t really even friends yet…why did you think it was powerful? oh, yeah, I know, you got teary-eyed because you were thinking Shatner/Nimoy and not Pine/what’s his name!

    And, granted, no one is going to replace Ricardo as the villain (or Shatner & Nimoy, et all for that matter), but to change “he who will not be named” into a Caucasian with the name Khan (oops!), that’s just plan wrong. Should have called him “Smith” or something similar since there was really no connection to the original.

    And the whole blood thing…damn, JJ thinks the viewers are so simple that he can’t just drop a hint at the beginning of the film, he has to beat everyone over the head with it by having McCoy do an experiment on a Tribble; again, gratuitous fanboy stuff…guess this universe will never have The Trouble with Tribbles that TOS universe did.

    I have seen every ST movie during the opening weekends and was hoping for a lot more. very disappointing. this new universe bores me.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    • gd smith said

      Well said,
      The Khan thing really annoyed because the character is very specific and I thought the point of Abrams reboot was that the future was altered, not the past.

      Khan Noonien Singh’s history was established in “space seed”. He is a Sikh superman born in the 1960s in India as part of a Eugenics program to improve the human race. The Cumberbatch thing is actually insulting. It would have been better if they had either stuck to him being John Harrison or had him play a new character, Instead they decided to go for the most obvious, biggest, Star Trek villain and dumped on the back story to perpetuate a complete non-surprise. Casual Trek fans don’t have a problem with this, but I will remind Science Fiction fans that JJ Abrams is taking over Star Wars, so prepare to be very very annoyed when the next sith lord turns out to be a 7ft Ewok called Darth Solo.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave A Comment

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.




Today’s Popular Posts


Sin City: A Dame To Kill For - Review


10 Upcoming Marvel Movies To Be Excited About


20 Potential Villains For The Next Spider-Man Movie


5 Reasons The ‘Fifty Shades’
Movie Will Be Awful


30 Funniest Animated Gifs About Movies

Like, Follow & Subscribe

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe via Email