Star Trek: Into Darkness Has More Depth and Consistency

We were halfway through the year of 1999. Star Trek: Insurrection (a.k.a. “Star Trek IX”) had just released into theaters, and the shows Deep Space Nine and Voyager will still running strong on network television. Also, many were anticipating the release of Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace later that year, the first Star Wars movie released in 26 years.

How things have changed. Who would have thought that virtually all of the Star Wars and Star Trek movies for the next ten years would disappoint? And who would have thought that, someday, one rising director would helm films from both struggling franchises?

What J.J. Abrams has done for the Star Trek franchise is best put, to quote Spock, “fascinating.” With added special effects, more action sequences and slightly better acting, it’s become (at least) a bit more “cool” to go to a Star Trek movie. I’ve seen Trek movies in theaters before Abrams entered the arena. Believe me, the audience was different. Abrams has successfully expanded (if only a little) the appeal of Star Trek beyond its loyal fanbase. How the purists respond (as with Lord of the Rings, Marvel Comics, etc.) will always vary.

I did write on a late blog (still on my Facebook profile) to review Abrams’s previous Star Trek (2009). I lauded the effort and graded each actor’s portrayal of their respective character. But I complained about inconsistencies with the original story (that still likely wouldn’t be justified by the change in the time continuum) and a lack of depth. However, I thought that there were more consistencies and more depth in Star Trek: Into Darkness. 

Into Darkness takes place a little while after the conclusion of its predecessor, after the crew (and the actors as well) have developed team chemistry. After violating the prime directive, Kirk is graciously only demoted to first officer. Then a mysterious disgruntled Starfleet officer named John Harrison starts assassinating high-ranking officials, including Kirk’s superior officer and mentor, Christopher Pike. In reaction, Starfleet’s general sends Kirk and the reassembled Enterprise crew on an under-the-table mission with mysterious prototype missiles to John Harrison’s hideout . . . in hostile Klingon space. And things continue to unfold from there. 

Warning. There be big-time spoilers ahead. Skip down to the last paragraph to avoid them.

John Harrison is a pseudonym for Khan, and the corrupt Starfleet general was using him (and the Enterprise crew) to indirectly trigger a war with the Klingons. I suspected the former from the trailer, but they made a good call to involve Khan in this story, and they portrayed him well. Virtually every character of the classic Enterprise crew showed accurate glimpses of what Trekkies know them to be (e.g. Sulu’s aspiration to be a captain, Scotty’s ethics, McCoy’s dry cynicism, etc.), and things tied in together. There were even some surprise references (e.g. the involvement of Carol Marcus and the mention of Section 31) that made Trekkies feel happy and smart. There was a bit more depth in Into Darkness than its predecessor as well, with Kirk’s rowdy captainship confronted, Spock’s continuing inner battle between his Vulcan and human self, general ethics and leadership, etc. It was a decently deep, action-packed and enjoyable ride.

But, seriously, did they need to make that many references to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan? Spock’s shout was borderline dorky at best. And there was never any kind of rebuttal to Spock’s purposeful strive toward inward apathy (in order to avoid pain). That might have left a few people (at least grief counselors) hanging. I wanted to quote C.S. Lewis to Spock: “To love is to be vulnerable.” 

And seriously, Earth needs to improve the surveillance and security systems of its own orbits. The entire time that the Enterprise was powerless, falling and burning in the Earth’s atmosphere (Kirk died of radiation, restoring the engines to save the crew), I was always thinking that, nearby, there’s got to be some type of willing and able starship that could stop on over with a tractor beam. And a tractor beam, missile or shield sure would have come in handy to prevent Khan’s kamikaze, which seemed to have knocked down half the skyscrapers of San Francisco. That part was a bit unbelievable (I know that’s a strange word to use when talking about science fiction).

Anyways, definitely see the movie, Trekkie or not. It’s a fun movie, and it actually got a hot girl (my wife) asking me questions about Starfleet history. That’s a scenario I never dared to imagine as a Trekkie in high school.