Star Trek: Into Darkenss **Spoilers, Sweetie***
Star
Trek: Into Darkness
May 2013
Into
Darkness is a bit of a double entente. It could mean the descent into darkness
of some of the key characters. It could mean a toe dip into the Eugenics Wars
(Did anyone other than me read this series?). Or it could be a brazen in your
face to old school Trekkies about the state of the “new” Star Trek.
Let
me start by saying, I grew up on the classic series. For the first decade plus
of my life, I grew up believing that Star Trek was real. I knew that there were
galaxies far far away and that I could boldly go where no one has gone before;
as long as I had loyal friends and a cocky attitude! My overriding thumbs up
comes from loving Karl Urban. I’ll watch him recite the phone book. Simon Pegg
is gobsmackingly funny. Of course, I have a massive crush on Zachary Quinto.
Having some of my favourite actors on one screen elicits a massive SQUEEEEEE
from my lips.
I
like the direction the new Star Trek has taken. It’s bold. It’s flashy. It’s
adrenaline fueled. Is it “classic” Star Trek? No. I don’t expect it to be. Star
Trek is an extension of Gene Roddenberry. Star Trek was his vision of how life
should be. It’s based on what Gene saw in HIS life, HIS experiences, HIS
expectations and frustrations with humanity. No one, NO ONE born in the 70s or
80s can hope to duplicate his vision. We aren’t privy to having the type of
social interactions he had. We can only view Star Trek and by extension write
about Star Trek based on our environment and societal commentary. We are a
product of our environment and sad to say, the American environment has been in
decline.
Instead
of fighting for a better tomorrow, most now just whinge and moan about the
situation. In our predominant sense of entitlement, we want things to change,
think someone should change it, as long as it isn’t us as we’re too darn busy.
The impetus to change things and make a social difference is replaced by the
need to consume things, to buy things, to loose ourselves in an illusion of
success. The collective America rushes about from one big thing to the next big
thing in a hyper zombified state of being. Shiny. Flashy lights. Squirrel.
That’s
what Star Trek: Into Darkness is. It’s shiny. It’s flashy lights. It’s fast
paced and kinetic. There is no depth or breadth to it. I don’t feel for the
characters. Unlike the family that TOS was, these actors see each other a few
weeks a year and with a four year gap in between. They haven’t had the time to
form bonds and become close. The lack of real and personal connection shows on
screen. They are all competent actors; but they aren’t friends or enemies or
have baggage.
As
an uber sci-fi geek, I acknowledged the Dr. Who nod: there are fixed points in
time and space that cannot be changed. Nudged. Nuanced. Haphazard. But
ultimately, there are some things cannot and did not “change”. There is a scene that should evoke emotional
stirrings but it was flat. I did shed a tear at the crucial moment, but in
hindsight, the tear was shed because I had seen it before and I was channeling
that image (which was essentially the same), those words (which were
essentially the same), and how it impacted my life.
That
being said; I understand how some die hard Trekkies will not like the film.
It’s a rehash of what’s gone before and a paltry one at that. Go into it with a
firm grasp of what it is. It’s fun. Things explode. Great score. Iconic scenes.
Cheesy one liners. Just enjoy it.
Comments