Star Trek: Into Darkness
Star Trek is no longer just for the nerds. When it was revived back in 2009 by J.J. Abrams, the crew of the Enterprise scored big with a whole new audience - the modern day movie audience - and the film was a hit. That reimagining was cool, fast and sophisticated. Starring a young cast that appealed to today’s moviegoers, the film reinvented Star Trek while still staying true to the classic elements of the franchise.
Earlier this year, we were treated with the sequel, “Star
Trek: Into Darkness”. The title sums it up perfectly to be honest, as the
overall tone and subject of the film is much darker. Captain Kirk and his crew
kick off proceedings on an alien planet, home to a primitive race who hasn't
even seen a spaceship before. When Spock enters a volcano - that’s right, enters it - his life is put at risk in
trying to stop it from erupting and destroying the peaceful beings of the
planet. Kirk knows he can’t expose the ship but this rendition of the classic
character acts first and thinks later. In rescuing Spock from being eaten by
lava, they expose their monolith of a ship to the alien race and get in trouble
for it. Meanwhile, in the shadows of the Federation, a subversive and crafty
character carries out a mission.
His name is John Harrison, and he has big plans for the
Federation of star ships. Quite simply, he wants to destroy the entire fleet
and every last crew member. When Kirk and co catch wind of this, they are
reinstated with their ship and land the job of catching this terrorist. But who
they are pursuing is not who he seems to be, and its here that the crew take on
what the title suggests - a descent into darkness. As events unfold, good guys
turn bad and bad guys turn good, but who is the real enemy and what will it
cost the Enterprise to complete their mission? I was a fan of the Star Trek
Generations crew of the 90’s that being the adventures of Captain Picard, his
animatronic sidekick Data and Wharf, the Klingon turned friend of the humans.
Their film series which ran from 1994 to 2002 was very much in the vein of the
Star Trek universe that had been portrayed up until then.
However, this new film in the long running series didn’t feel
like a Star Trek film. Sure, some traditional elements remain but this new
series has really found its own wings and is flying in a whole different
direction. Was I pleased with the result? I’ll honestly say I didn’t think Into
Darkness was as good as its predecessor from 2009, but with J.J. Abrams now
firmly in charge of where Star Trek is going, you can expect any future films
to continue to be quite different. But I suppose that’s the secret for any
franchise lasting as long as this. James Bond has only survived for more than
fifty years because each new actor that steps into the role brings a whole new
look, feel and quality to the character, and each new take on Bond is
reflective of the times.
But with Star Trek being set in the future, it can only
imagine what the times will be like 200 hundred years from now. Either way, audiences
don’t want to see the same thing over and over, but will settle for the core
ideas that make a franchise what it is. Many long-term Star Trek fans weren’t
happy with how Into Darkness turned out, but I say to them “embrace the new and
just go with it. Because the Star Trek of today is very new and it’s going
where it wants to go. I guess you could say it's boldly going where it hasn't
gone before...
No comments:
Post a Comment