Only a few details discussed below so should be safe for those thinking about seeing this movie.
Harlen Ellison has written a screenplay for Isaac Asimov's I, Robot. This screenplay will never be made into a movie. I've read it. Science fiction fans would enjoy it and Asimov fans would be glad that it was faithful to Asimov's words. That's not good enough for the budget this movie would require. The general movie audience would not connect with this one. It took that Will Smith rousing shoot-em-up vehicle to bring the notion of Asimov's words to the big screen. Star Trek had what it took to bring in the audience but the magic faded. Star Trek had been unable to change with the audience's expectations and the ways that it tried alienated many, if not most, of its long time fans. Has anyone in this group uttered a positive comment about Star Trek Nemesis? My thought after seeing it for the first, and only, time was 'Have I just seen the end of the Star Trek Franchise?' Then came J. J. Abrams' Star Trek and the franchise had an audience again. I was entertained by the movie but I thought of it more as a J. J. Abrams movie set in the Star Trek universe. My comment above tells what I had expected from this new movie.
Into Darkness entertained me in ways that J.J.'s first Star Trek didn't. That Indiana Jones opening segment seems like pure silliness at first but it is relevant to the rest of the story. If we cannot be sure about our dealings with our own society, why should we think we'd be sure in playing god with other societies? Questions raised within this story are the same questions we've raised in discussing re-watched episodes here. What should be done - what the Prime Directive says to do, the moral thing to do, or that which seems right, that which you know is right, to do in a given situation? Then there is the question of Star Fleet's direction. Should it be fleet geared for exploration in the hope of establishing peaceful relations with newly contacted advanced civilizations - but ready, if needed, to defend itself? Or, should it be a war fleet standing ready to fight against known and suspected enemies? This has been debated more than once within the Star trek universe. We have discussed the issue here.
The comedy in this movie felt right. From the reaction of a member of the Bridge Crew when told to put on a red shirt, to the banter between the sacred trinity (Kirk, Spock and McCoy), it approached the feeling of the original crew movies. While the explosions and broken things went beyond what I've known in Star Trek over the years, I can accept that they are what modern movie audiences expect and I didn't feel that they detracted from my enjoyment of the story. And about that quiet little scene near the end. While that could have been setting the stage for a future story, it was a pleasant little Star Trek moment for me. What is the moral thing to do and what is the right thing to do given the situation?
I'm sure others will disagree with my reaction, but I'm comfortable with having enjoyed this movie. Where do I rank it among the Star Trek movies? Fourth, after First Contact, The Voyage Home, and Wrath of Khan. Where do I rank it among movies overall? I don't know. After thinking about it, I'd say that First Contact is Seventh, after August Rush, Wind, Contact, Searching For Bobby Fischer, In Bruges, and Ghost Dog. Other movies would be between First Contact and The Voyage Home. Will I buy it when it's released on home video? Yes.
As I said above, I felt that J.J.'s Star Trek was a J.J. movie set in the Star Trek universe. With Into Darkness, I feel that J.J. has given us a Star Trek movie. It's not necessarily a Star Trek story for me and my generation, but he did entertain me this time and he gave me things to think about. That's all I ask of Star Trek. If it takes J.J. and his shiny red ball to keep Star Trek alive for now, than so be it. I'll listen to his stories while he shows us pretty things exploding.
|