Star Trek Into Darkness:
**/*****, or 4/10
Warning!
Here be spoilers! But who cares?!
I'm not
having a good time lately. Star Trek Into Darkness has
recently been released to critical acclaim and positive box office
results. Tough luck for me, since now I have to continually remind
people around me whay this is not a good thing, same as J.J. Abrams'
previous “Star Trek” film (2009) was not a good thing. At
least this time many Trekkies are agreeing with me J.J.'s involvement
might not have been the preferred direction for the franchise to go
in hindsight – a lot of my fanboy colleagues at first disagreed
with me on J.J.'s previous monstrosity and ended up actually liking
it, bunch of morons! – since many have a hard time accepting his
take on Khan, which is a watered down, emotionally empty version of
the original 1982 Trek classic The Wrath of Khan. And even
Trekkies agree buggering their classics is not something that Trek
should have to endure. But it does, and the general audience –
bless their God given 'right to be stupid'! – loves J.J. for it.
Star
Trek Into Darkness opens with an overly Spielbergian action
climax á la Raiders of the Lost Ark, which is not surprising
since it's well known that J.J. has always been inspired by
Spielberg, as well as for his tendency to be blatantly derivative of
the master's work if he can help it. The public finds Kirk, Spock and
McCoy on M-class planet Nibiru where a giant volcanic eruption is
threatening the surivival of the local humanoid species. Of course,
Kirk cannot allow the Nibirians to be wiped out, even though the
Prime Directive dictates non-involvement with non Warp drive equipped
species. In essence this means Kirk should just let things happen as
they happen and ignore the species' plight altogether. Which was the
way Picard usually went for in TNG, if his crewmembers didn't screw
it up for him. In this case, Kirk does the screwing up himself,
saving the species but doing irreparable cultural damage when he's
allowing them to see (and afterwards worship) the Enterprise in all
its glory as it rises from the ocean. The audience doesn't get time
to question what the hell it was actually doing underwater in the
first place (well? What was it doing there?! You tell me!),
except to show off a few cool shots having a starship do something
that hasn't been done before, but only for the sake of looking cool
as opposed to making narrative sense. Of course this infringement
upon Starfleet's 'rule of rules' doesn't go unpunished and Kirk has
his command taken away from him. Rightly so, since if this (and in
fact the whole previous movie) demonstrates anything, it's that this
particular Kirk is too young, too impulsive and too stupid to
properly fit into a captain's chair.
Luckily
for Kirk however, Starfleet HQ is attacked and his friend and mentor
Captain Pike is killed – no wheelchair with simple yes/no vocal
interface for this timeline's Pike! – and Kirk can convince the
admiralty to give him back the Enterprise and go on a manhunt for the
terrorist behind the plot, a man named John Harrison, who is
ultimately revealed to be Khan so soon into the movie that it doesn't
really matter if I spoil it for you here (besides, there's a spoiler
warning above, nerfherder*!). Kirk tracks the villain down to Q'onoS
(but spelled 'Kronos', so people don't get confused aligning what
they hear with what they see onscreen) where he beamed to after his
last attack on Earth – nevermind Trek physics in this timeline, if
it avoids lenghty story telling and swiftly gets “our heroes”
where they need to go it works fine for Abrams – which ends up in
an all too brief showdown with a bunch of Klingons (ugly with
helmets, uglier without; but at least they speak something resembling
Klingon) before Khan is arrested and taken back aboard ship, where
the plot thickens. Or so Abrams would like us to think. Turns out
Khan is just a puppet in a larger masterplan of a naughty Starfleet
admiral who's out for a little 'coup d'etat' on the Federation for
his own inexplicable but undoubtedly nafarious ends. And that's the
film's biggest problem right there.
The main
issue against STID in regards to Khan as an antagonist is that for
the longest time he plays second fiddle to Peter Weller's villainous
Admiral Marcus. It's not until Marcus is disposed of that Khan comes
into his own. Until that time we have to make do with an overly
militaristic old fart threatening to subvert Starfleet in order to...
yeah, for what reasons exactly? Marcus' motivations remain rather
vague. But then, an admiral who keeps a model of a top secret warship
on his desk for all to see is hard to take serious anyway. At least
Khan has clearer goals, and they are not even so ignoble. In fact,
once Marcus, who forced his hand all the time, is out of the way,
Khan isn't even that much of a bad guy – he just wants to rescue
his own “crew”, much like Kirk tries to protect his – but the
script has him act like one after a completely gratuitous surprise
appearance by old Spock (Leonard Nimoy selling out once more), who
informs his younger alternative self, and the laymen in the public
(there will be many no doubt), just who Khan used to be in the
original time line, so the audience expects Khan to be just as evil
now. Consequently, he is, for no other reasons than to satiate our
expectations and to fill the void left by Marcus' demise which has
left the film without a proper bad guy. Unlike was the case with the
original Khan, there's no reason for Khanberbatch to have any real
personal beef with Kirk. In fact, they teamed up successfully against
Marcus only a minute before, making Khan even more 'less of a bad
guy'. The lack of a solid conflict between Kirk and Khan is a severe
weak point in establishing Khan anew, as is his so-called status as a
superhuman. Thanks again to poor scripting, Khan is hardly allowed to
show off his superiority, at least in the brain department. His
actions are more the result of opportunity than they are of careful
advance planning. Like everything in J.J.'s Trek-verse, Khan is just
not as smart as he ought to have been. At least Cumberbatch portrays
him with enough angry vigour and physical prowess to come off as
'fairly frightful'. But he's still a far cry from Ricardo Montalban's
original, far superior super human, who was truly dominating “his”
movie in terms of menace and intellect. After all, he caused Spock to
die.
In Star
Trek Into Darkness, it's Kirk's time to meet his maker. Thing is,
his untimely demise doesn't make for an emotionally gripping final
moment as he faces Spock, hands to the glass in an effort to reach
out in mutual understanding and respect one last time. Problem being,
this is not the Kirk we have known for so long and thus come to love.
We've been with this particular Kirk for only a few hours total and
that's simply not enough to care deeply enough about him to make us
feel anything when he kicks the bucket. And even if it did, we are
robbed of this intended emotional climax anyway thanks to a very
cheap and convenient plot device, courtesy of Khan. The genetically
enhanced dictator not only packs a mean punch, but he also has
healing powers in his blood. Long story short, giving Kirk a blood
transfusion returns him to the living – yes, you're reading this
correctly – and all's well that ends well. Seriously, what was the
point of having him die at all, apart from haphazardly echoing the
bittersweet, tearjerking final moments of Star Trek II?
Apparently it was only a way to piss Spock off once more, making him
go on an emotional rampage (again! That's twice in two movies:
apparently this Spock just isn't a very good Vulcan) and defeating
Khan for once and for all. Obviously, not without a little help from
his girlfriend Uhura. Women resucing their men out of tough spots is
as much a cliché as the age old damsel-in-distress these days.
And
there we have another weakness in the script when it comes to
characters: Uhura. Or better said: the rest of the crew. They don't
get that much to do and continue not to matter much. Uhura for some
reason has an actual boyfriend/girlfriend relationship with Spock,
even if this is completely illogical. After all, in the preceding
film planet Vulcan was destroyed, so why would Spock bother dating a
human girl instead of a Vulcan woman when there's already so little
Vulcan blood left to keep the species going? The whole how and why
behind their liaison is blatantly ignored, nor does it ever get
beyond the stage of petty squabbling interspersed with brief moments
of saying 'I love you'. And that's just not enough to make a
relationship with consequences of this magnitude a thing of logic. Or
realism. Then there's Sulu. Which is basically all that can be said
of his presence in this film. So moving on, we have Chekov, Russian
accent more cringeworthy and annoying than ever. This time he gets
his big break and is moved from helmsman to Chief Engineer, a
completely ridiculous career switch that would only make sense to
blind people (Get it? Of course you don't, you need to know Trek for
realsies to get that one!). What happened to Scotty, you might ask?
Well, he had moral qualms (yes, there's some in Abrams' Trek at
last!) when he was asked to okay for a load of unconventional photon
torpedoes aboard ship, which he declined so Kirk gave him the sack.
My reason to fire him would have been Simon Pegg's overuse of
everything connected to the Scottish dialect, including some heavy
drinking. But even drunk he can be convinced to help Kirk out
regardless, and he shows up just in time to save the day, just so the
plot can fill some holes it wouldn't be able to fill without the aid
of ample alcoholic consumptions. Oh, and McCoy occasionally graces
the screen with his presence too, but not enough to truly matter
other than bringing Kirk back from the dead when the needs of the one
outweigh the needs of the Trekkies who just want this branch of the
franchise to be closed down for good.
Is there
nothing good to be said for Star Trek Into Darkness? Sure
there is. Zachary Quinto does a fair job imitating Leonard Nimoy, for
the most part. The visual effects, of which there are more than in
all the previous Trek movies combined, appear convincing enough,
except for the times they are obscured by lens flares. I gotta say, I
got a bit of a kick out of seeing Q'onoS, a dark, sombre, foreboding
planet with a single moon that was shot to pieces (Praxis no doubt).
But for the most part it was painfully clear J.J. prefers Star
Wars over Star Trek. Almost all locations and action
sequences felt like something out of Wars. For one thing, 23rd
century San Francisco looked more like Coruscant than it did Earth.
This Trek universe is populated with all manner of gizmos and
creatures that are meant as little throwaways just for fun, but will
confuse the hell out of true Trekkies. What the hell was that android
thing doing on the bridge? What's the deal with those Starship
Troopers type dress uniforms they're wearing at formal
gatherings? And why did the totally gratuitous and irrelevant semi-nude scene starring Alice Eve's body last so briefly? At least some of those throwaways refer back to actual
Trek: bonus points for the Enterprise NX-01 model on Marcus' desk!
And as a freebie, you get a bit of Section 31 in this film too.
J.J. is
definitely not a true Trekkie, as he has shown and even openly stated
many times before, but at least the writers took clues of previous
Trek and incoporated them in their script for Into Darkness.
This film is laced with references, some clever and subtle, others
not so much (think in-your-face, mind meld style). The general
audience will probably be unaware of virtually all of them, but that
will not be the case for Trekkies. The effort is appreciated, but the
undeniable result is whenever a reference pops up, it hearkens back
to better Trek and leaves a sour aftertaste, instead of the joyful
feeling one usually experiences when getting a reference. That, plus
the fact Star Trek Into Darkness feels like a soft and shallow
retread of one of the most classic Trek films makes this movie
another kick in the groin (or the knee, depending on where certain
species keep their genitals) for the true fanbase that has lived and
evolved with Trek for decades, but has a hard time accepting the
dumbing down of what was once an intelligent, witty and engaging
Sci-Fi franchise.
Fortunately
for J.J., turning Trek into an action driven brainless space opera
has landed him the gig for directing Star Wars Episode VII.
Hopefully that will soon mean Abrams will stop being involved with
Trek. Why shouldn't he after all? Star Wars is where his heart
lies as he has reminded us all too often. We can only hope Trek will
now be given to someone who really cares about it and understands how
it works. Though I fear permanent damage has been done to the
franchise by Abrams' lack of care, I cannot help but feel ever
inspired by Gene Roddenberry's faith in humanity and its continuous
striving for a better future. In Trek's case, it can't get much
worse. But at least Abrams' work has compelled people who didn't know
jack about Trek to seek out true Trek and explore its strange old
worlds. If anything, it suggests Trek will continue to live long and
prosper in some way, and so will the Trekkies.
*The
derogatory term 'nerfherder' actually stems from the Star Wars
universe, but you would hardly be able to discern Abrams' Trek-verse
from the Star Wars universe anyway, so what the heck...
