Star Trek: Into the Darkness

Directed by J.J. Abrams. Written by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof and Gene Roddenberry. Starring Chris Pine (Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock) , Zoe Saldana (Uhura).

Bottom line: Star Trek Into the Darkness is able to retain the adventurous spirit of Star Trek while is a really good sci-fi movie in general and it is even better if you are a fan of Star Trek.

3.5/4

Henceforth, I will refer to Star Trek: Into the Darkness as simply Star Trek. After a few initial credits, we jump straight into an adventure on an exotic planet. The crew of the Enterprise is on an alien planet trying to prevent a civilization ending volcanic eruption. It is an exciting refresher of some key points about Star Trek and its characters. Spock is logical, Kirk is brazen and Star Fleet is an exploration-based organization. It is a clear indication about the quality of the proceeding movie. One shot in the prologue stuck out in my mind. It is a close up of some alien flora that opens in the sunlight. As it opens, the camera changes focus as Kirk and Bones run by. You get the feeling that a living planet exists beyond this chase scene. This attention to detail makes the movie engrossing.

On a similar note, I was, for the most part, a fan of the special effects. They are pretty and I really appreciated the place they had in the production. Science fiction films often run the risk of becoming eye-candy. Star Trek is not one of them. The effects rightly support instead of eclipse the story of the movie.

The plot begins as an unknown white British man approaches a couple whose daughter is dying from an unknown disease. This man can somehow do something modern (year 2241) medicine cannot. What is the price of the cure? The father performs a suicide bombing attack on a Star Fleet archive center. This unknown man has just single handedly declared war on Star Fleet. We soon learn that this man is Khan: a genetically engineered super-soldier cryogenically frozen in space for the past 300 years. He now awake and wants to destroy Star Fleet. Khan was a villain first introduced in a famous episode of the original series. He and his crew are remnants of Earth's age of genetic engineering. He and his crew are far faster, stronger, more intelligent than any human and they are ruthless tacticians. Their purpose is to purge the Earth and galaxy of weaker species. This episode was not the last appearance of Khan. In 1982, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan centers on the return of the adversary. Star Trek: Into the Darkness and this current franchise plays with the ideas of parallel universes so they have a lot more artistic freedom. In the case of Khan, the difference is race. In the original episode, Khan is Mongolian. In Star Trek II, he is Spanish. Here, as I mentioned before he is white and British. This shift screams academic paper topic.

Up until recently, I was never much of a Star Trek fan so when the 2009 Star Trek came out, I was not enthusiastic. I re-watched it, warmed up to it then watched the original star trek series. I will now say that I am something of a fan. As with the previous movie in this franchise, Star Trek: Into the Darkness is able to capture the spirit of Star Trek while retaining its individuality. I found some of the references unnecessary though it doesn't become a fan fest like Street Fighter. That is, not every reference is included simply for the sake of the reference. At one point, Spock contacts Leonard Nimoy (the original series' Spock) to ask if they encountered the villain and, if so, how did they defeat him. Spock's response is "at great cost." He is alluding to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, which I hadn't seen at the time. At one point, Sulu says, “Ready the landing ship we captured in the Mudd incident last month.” This is a reference to a character in an episode of the original series. Later, we see a Tribble (the little balls of fur from the original series). Yes, I get it Star Trek, you are a parallel timeline in the Star Trek universe but I don’t find these spattering of references amusing.

One issue I had with this movie is the quick cutting of the camera in the action sequences. I understand that quick cutting during a surprise attack, for example, emphasizes the chaos of the situation but it is not as enjoyable when I cannot parse the images on the screen. Fortunately, this was only a problem in a few scenes. My last issue with Star Trek was that it was a little predictable. I didn’t really think it was suspenseful or surprising as a result. Again, this wasn’t a major issue but I did find it worth mentioning.

When discussing this movie in relation to other Star Trek programs, a friend of mine brought up an interesting point. He is not a fan of this franchise because, he claims, Abrams is turning it into something closer to Star Wars. One example is the phaser, Star Fleet’s first choice of defense: a handgun-like device that emits a force field or a laser that can stun or kill. This new franchise has turned the device into a laser gun with which characters can have gun battles. Traditionally, the phaser has emitted something closer to a field instead of a projectile. The tone of a standoff differs drastically between the two. One cannot simply dodge a field so the action slows down, becoming more of a mental game. The fact that a mere handheld device can easily disintegrate someone emphasizes the anti-militarization theme present throughout Stark Trek (this one included). A laser gun leaves the theme for the larger story to address while we enjoy the immediate gratification of a gun battle. This type of detail makes me enjoy the original series that much more. Does it hurt my enjoyment of this franchise? As the movie, largely, emphasizes the anti-militarization theme, I am ok letting this pass. To discuss this theme, let me lay out the scenario.

We have a fugitive, a man who declared a one-man war against Star Fleet, hiding in hostile territory. The admiral of Star Fleet orders Kirk to lead “a manhunt, plain and simple,” to kill the terrorist. As the Enterprise nears the target location, he leads a small team to capture the villain and bring him back to Star Fleet to face a fair trial because it is “immoral” and “against Star Fleet regulations to condemn a man to death without trial.” Osama bin Laden, anyone?

When the party (Kirk, Spock, Uhura and two guards) attempt to find Khan, they are detained by a Klingon scout party. Kirk says that they exit their vehicle with gun blazing. Uhura objects. She speaks Klingon and correctly points out that if they attack first, the Spartan-like Klingons would obliterate them. She approaches them in peace, emphasizing their reason for being on the Klingon planet. In this case, violence even on the grounds of a proactive defense would lead to destruction. It is a theme developed further with the general militarization of Star Fleet.

The movie is careful in pinning the reason of Star Fleet militarization on an individual in Star Fleet. Star Fleet still has to be a positive organization with a focus on peaceful exploration otherwise; the core values of Star Trek would crumble. At one point, Kirk asks Spock for a status update, “Our options are limited. We cannot fight and we cannot flee.” Kirk and we as an audience face an impasse. How can we defend ourselves from a direct threat (the enemy is a star ship built solely for combat, for example) without compromising our morals? In different ways, Kirk and Spock utilize the weaponry of their enemy. Spock, being a Vulcan, cannot tell a lie so even on a basic level of honesty, the protagonists are ideal. What Star Trek promotes is not the defensive type of armament but the complete dissolution of offensive capabilities.

Another point that I would like to discuss is the position of women in Star Trek. There is a resistance to the typical, subtly, voyeuristic male gaze in cinema. Let me discuss some examples. First, when Uhura exits the ship to approach the Klingons. We assume Kirk’s perspective in the spaceship. In another movie, we would have a zoomed in close-up shot of her walking away from us but, here, we have a super long shot. The focus is on the Klingons and not Uhura’s behind. In fact, the shot is such that we can only see her back from the waist up. Now, there is shot or two that is so over the top, they do not fall into the normal type of female-objectification. Kirk and the admiral’s daughter are in a landing craft and she tells him to turn around. She begins to change into a space suit. In another movie, we would most likely take Kirk’s perspective as he peaks back to see her changing unaware of his gaze. This would be bad. Here, he turns and looks at her. First, we look at Kirk over her out of focus shoulder. She looks up and the camera cuts to a high-angle shot showing her entire body dressed in her underwear. The shot is so plain it feels clinical. It is a blatant shot of her body that feels actively and purposefully forced. In this way, I wish that more movies were like Star Trek.

Overall, Star Trek: Into the Darkness is a solid addition to the franchise. By the end of the movie, I was thinking, “I’d like to watch the next episode after this.” I would definitely recommend this to anyone who even mildly enjoys Star Trek and to anyone who enjoys Science Fiction. It would be worth it to go see it in theaters too (just for the complete cinematic experience). I have actually seen this twice in theaters and would be more than happy to see it again.