By Adam Frazier
| @
|
Friday, May 17th, 2013 at 10:00 am
Star Trek Into Darkness Director: J.J. Abrams
Screenwriter(s): Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof
Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Benedict Cumberbatch, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, Alice Eve, John Cho Paramount Pictures
Rated PG-13 | 133 Minutes
Release Date: May 16, 2013
“Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.”
With Star Trek Into Darkness, the 12th motion picture in the Star Trek franchise, director J.J. Abrams stays true to the main themes of Gene Roddenberry‘s classic television series while meeting all the requisite components of an action-packed summer blockbuster.
Roddenberry’s 1966 series highlighted the camaraderie of the USS Enterprise crew and the bonds of friendship between Kirk, Spock, and Dr. McCoy, but Star Trek is remembered most for using science-fiction allegories to explore present-day dilemmas.
In Star Trek Into Darkness, Abrams and writers Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof introduce post-9/11 anxieties into a futuristic utopia, examining how a universe built on peaceful intergalactic diplomacy deals with acts of terrorism and, as a result, the increasing militarization of the United Federation of Planets.
Commander John Harrison (Sherlock‘s Benedict Cumberbatch) carries out a series of terrorist attacks, bombing a secret Starfleet installation in London before attacking Starfleet headquarters in San Francisco. When the saboteur escapes, Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) leads a mission to the Klingon homeworld of Kronos to hunt down the most wanted man in the universe.
The film’s revenge-driven narrative is merely a vehicle for exhilarating sci-fi action sequences and dead on character moments. Plot has always been the most disposable element in the Star Trek universe, and Abrams does well to focus on the personalities aboard the Enterprise and the connections between them.
Chris Pine’s Kirk has the swagger and heroism of William Shatner’s original Kirk, while Zachary Quinto finds the necessary balance of logic and emotion that Leonard Nimoy mastered decades ago. Karl Urban, who plays Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy, offers a near-perfect imitation of DeForest Kelley’s sharp-tongued wit and emotive humanism.
As for the rest of the cast, Zoe Saldana takes a more active role as Lieutenant Uhura while Simon Pegg carries much of the film’s comedic weight as Montgomery “Scotty” Scott. It’s Benedict Cumberbatch, however, who propels Star Trek Into Darkness into new, exciting territory.
John Harrison is a one-man weapon of mass destruction, a superhuman Benedict Arnold waging war against the Federation. Charismatic, menacing, intriguing; Cumberbatch’s venomous antagonist is everything Abrams’ first villain, Eric Bana’s Romulan time-traveler Nero, lacked.
Abrams’ 2009 Star Trek reignited a classic franchise with action, humor, spectacular visuals, and a well-conceived origin story. While it isn’t as fine-tuned as its predecessor, Star Trek Into Darkness is a solid, easily accessible summer blockbuster with great performances and sumptuous sci-fi imagery.
I suppose this is the part of the review where I reveal a terrible truth: I am not a Trekkie. Like director J.J. Abrams, I grew up as an ardent disciple of George Lucas’ Star Wars universe. I really enjoy Abrams’ 2009 Star Trek because it captures the adventurous spirit of space-fantasy and dares to be [gasp!] entertaining – something the detached, static Trek series hasn’t been in years.
Star Trek Into Darkness will have its share of detractors; die-hard bellyachers will use their TI-83 scientific calculators to formulate all the ways Abrams has ruined their favorite franchise by making it fun, fast-paced, and watchable. The heartfelt humor and excitement of Abrams’ film will no doubt alienate those who like their Trek served like their Klingon proverbs for revenge: cold.
I know you’re trying to be witty & all with those Star Trek jabs, but you’re coming off as a dick. I’m a fan of Star Trek. Abrams didn’t make “it fun, fast-paced, and watchable” as Star Trek was already those things. The franchise has it in it to be thrilling, fun, adventurous & action-packed. (Ex: Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, First Contact, etc.) Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman & all the others involved haven’t “reinvented” it; they’ve just expanded & fleshed out this Universe.
you can say MANY great things about Star Trek, but as someone who’s seen all of the films, the original series, and enough of TNG to know the characters and their world, I just don’t believe you could truly call a Star Trek film “action-packed” until Abrams. Diving into the depths of a volcano, Jumping off cliffs, fist fights on top of moving ships, Millenium Falcon-style high-speed chases?
When I think of old Trek, I think of lots of people sitting around tables and talking about things – cut to them calmly telling someone to press a button that shoots a laser at a shield, until that shield is down, and then the ship sustains “critical damage.”
Saying Abrams is the be-all-end-all reason the most recent Trek films are good is similar to all those on the web saying the only reason Man of Steel is going to be a good flick is because Nolan has his fingers in it. It’s a crap excuse. A successful franchise is like a house. The only way you can add to it, expand or update the house is if it has strong enough bones to support the remodeling. The most recent Trek films were successful due to the fact that the franchise has the necessary framework & structure to hold it up. Abrams expanded the franchise & was able to do more up-to-date special effects that past Trek teams could only dream of, but that doesn’t mean the series didn’t have action. I’m not a fan of Star Wars. Personally, I think the story is mediocre & occasionally borders on the embarrassingly childish, but even I can see it has good bones & is a successful franchise for a reason. When Abrams comes out with episode VII are you going to say the only reason the Star Wars franchise is good is because Abrams updated it? Of course not. So why would you say that about Star Trek?
I never said Abrams was the be-all-end-all reason the recent Trek is good – but clearly he’s making a different genre of movie. Abrams never wanted to make Star Trek – he was never a fan of it growing up – it’s the rest of the Bad Robot crew that said “you have to do this,” so he did – probably because he never thought he’d get the chance to direct a Star Wars film.
So, he turned Trek into Star Wars – and he’s taken a lot of flak for that from Trek fans who call Star Wars “mediocre and embarrassingly childish” – but There’s a reason the Trek franchise was DEAD – and Abrams injected some much needed life into it.
Abrams isn’t the only reason the new Trek movies are successful: the casting is great, the production design and special effects are the best Trek has ever seen, Giachinno’s score is great.
If Star Wars Episode VII is good or bad – it won’t be solely because of Abrams. The idea here is that stale, tired franchises (Trek, Superman, Star Wars, Batman pre-Nolan) need new life breathed into them to make them relevant again. The best part of all of this is that George Lucas ISN’T making Episode VII – and after seeing Abrams’ two Trek films, it feels like he’s had two solid practice runs for his foray into Star Wars.
Out of honest curiosity & to clarify, do you think the only reason Abrams is working on Star Trek is because of peer pressure (“you have to do this”) & he only settled for the closest franchise to Star Wars at that time? I don’t know. That feels a bit ingenuous. I do agree that Abrams has refreshed the Trek Universe & expanded it, but it was far from “DEAD” before he put his stamp on it. Like you, I’ve watched all the movies as well as TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise & I’ve been a part of the STO community since it’s beta release. The fandom is still present just as it is for Star Wars, Superman & was for Batman pre-Nolan. You just need to know where to look. And more importantly you have to be interested in seeing it.
I think it was dead in the sense that nothing was happening with the franchise – Nemesis was in 2002 and Enterprise went off the air in 2005 – the fandom was still present sure, but the franchise itself hadn’t been a profitable brand in quite a while – really a reboot was the only thing they could have done to reinvigorate it.
You may have noticed that we're now AD FREE! Please support Geeks of Doom by using the Amazon Affiliate link above. All of our proceeds from the program go toward maintaining this site.
Students of the Unusual™ comic cover used with permission of 3BoysProductions
The Mercuri Bros.™ comic cover used with permission of Prodigal Son Press
No need for calculators. Just think of the major flaws in the story.
Comment by ralfyman — May 18, 2013 @ 3:02 pm
I know you’re trying to be witty & all with those Star Trek jabs, but you’re coming off as a dick. I’m a fan of Star Trek. Abrams didn’t make “it fun, fast-paced, and watchable” as Star Trek was already those things. The franchise has it in it to be thrilling, fun, adventurous & action-packed. (Ex: Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, First Contact, etc.) Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman & all the others involved haven’t “reinvented” it; they’ve just expanded & fleshed out this Universe.
Comment by Morgan — May 18, 2013 @ 9:30 pm
you can say MANY great things about Star Trek, but as someone who’s seen all of the films, the original series, and enough of TNG to know the characters and their world, I just don’t believe you could truly call a Star Trek film “action-packed” until Abrams. Diving into the depths of a volcano, Jumping off cliffs, fist fights on top of moving ships, Millenium Falcon-style high-speed chases?
When I think of old Trek, I think of lots of people sitting around tables and talking about things – cut to them calmly telling someone to press a button that shoots a laser at a shield, until that shield is down, and then the ship sustains “critical damage.”
Comment by Adam Frazier — May 19, 2013 @ 8:31 pm
Saying Abrams is the be-all-end-all reason the most recent Trek films are good is similar to all those on the web saying the only reason Man of Steel is going to be a good flick is because Nolan has his fingers in it. It’s a crap excuse. A successful franchise is like a house. The only way you can add to it, expand or update the house is if it has strong enough bones to support the remodeling. The most recent Trek films were successful due to the fact that the franchise has the necessary framework & structure to hold it up. Abrams expanded the franchise & was able to do more up-to-date special effects that past Trek teams could only dream of, but that doesn’t mean the series didn’t have action. I’m not a fan of Star Wars. Personally, I think the story is mediocre & occasionally borders on the embarrassingly childish, but even I can see it has good bones & is a successful franchise for a reason. When Abrams comes out with episode VII are you going to say the only reason the Star Wars franchise is good is because Abrams updated it? Of course not. So why would you say that about Star Trek?
Comment by Morgan — May 20, 2013 @ 1:09 am
I never said Abrams was the be-all-end-all reason the recent Trek is good – but clearly he’s making a different genre of movie. Abrams never wanted to make Star Trek – he was never a fan of it growing up – it’s the rest of the Bad Robot crew that said “you have to do this,” so he did – probably because he never thought he’d get the chance to direct a Star Wars film.
So, he turned Trek into Star Wars – and he’s taken a lot of flak for that from Trek fans who call Star Wars “mediocre and embarrassingly childish” – but There’s a reason the Trek franchise was DEAD – and Abrams injected some much needed life into it.
Abrams isn’t the only reason the new Trek movies are successful: the casting is great, the production design and special effects are the best Trek has ever seen, Giachinno’s score is great.
If Star Wars Episode VII is good or bad – it won’t be solely because of Abrams. The idea here is that stale, tired franchises (Trek, Superman, Star Wars, Batman pre-Nolan) need new life breathed into them to make them relevant again. The best part of all of this is that George Lucas ISN’T making Episode VII – and after seeing Abrams’ two Trek films, it feels like he’s had two solid practice runs for his foray into Star Wars.
Comment by Adam Frazier — May 20, 2013 @ 8:19 am
Out of honest curiosity & to clarify, do you think the only reason Abrams is working on Star Trek is because of peer pressure (“you have to do this”) & he only settled for the closest franchise to Star Wars at that time? I don’t know. That feels a bit ingenuous. I do agree that Abrams has refreshed the Trek Universe & expanded it, but it was far from “DEAD” before he put his stamp on it. Like you, I’ve watched all the movies as well as TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise & I’ve been a part of the STO community since it’s beta release. The fandom is still present just as it is for Star Wars, Superman & was for Batman pre-Nolan. You just need to know where to look. And more importantly you have to be interested in seeing it.
Comment by Morgan — May 21, 2013 @ 2:19 pm
I think it was dead in the sense that nothing was happening with the franchise – Nemesis was in 2002 and Enterprise went off the air in 2005 – the fandom was still present sure, but the franchise itself hadn’t been a profitable brand in quite a while – really a reboot was the only thing they could have done to reinvigorate it.
Comment by Adam Frazier — May 21, 2013 @ 2:53 pm