INTO DARKNESS is STAR TREK Lite

“Thy love did read by rote and could not spell.” – Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare

I have seen the new Star Trek movie, Into Darkness three times. I continue to enjoy it, and it continues to bother me. While the movie makes strong and important statements, and clearly captures the Star Trek characters and their relationships, it also baffles both the neophyte and long time Trekker with problems and inconsistencies. As with the prior film, it sacrifices substance for spectacle. Most of all, it reveals that its creators care more about the trappings of Star Trek than about what makes Trek meaningful.

Spoiler warning: the discussion that follows assumes you either have seen the movie or do not care if important elements are revealed.

The commentary on September 11^th and the statement that we must be true to our ideals seem like  good starts.  The “darkness” that our characters encounter is the journey into the woods bringing maturity, responsibility, and character. The conflict between warriors and explorers in Starfleet is a concept that could have had more airtime in earlier stories. These themes are worthy of Trek.

Unfortunately, they are thin icing on the cake. They are not important elements of the film. The problems are clear from the first moments of the movie. Why hide a starship underwater when keeping it in space keeps it out of sight more effectively? If Spock can be beamed out of an erupting volcano, why can’t the device to stop the volcano be beamed in? Most importantly, why are our characters interfering with a developing culture? While the original series broke this rule several times, it always did so as a means of exploring a significant issue. There is no issue here. There is no reason to break the Federations’ most important law. The characters give lip service to the problem, but there is no substantive exploration at all. The starship rising from the water and the fiery volcano are the focus.

Not only does Kirk not value the prime directive, he lies about his actions in his report, and believes that he will get chosen for a special mission because he is the captain of the fanciest ship. If we are trying to establish Kirk as an immature and cocky copy of Han Solo, it works. But that isn’t Kirk and that isn’t Starfleet. It doesn’t make sense.

Admiral Pike’s anger at Kirk rings true. The smug response from Kirk and Spock is humorous because it does not. Kirk’s quick return to a powerful position shows that Starfleet doesn’t take the Prime Directive seriously either. Even with a warmongering Dick Cheney-like admiral at the helm, it is difficult to swallow.

Then there is Kahn. Like “red matter” in the prior film, Kahn’s blood is a plot device. However, it is more difficult to take a second time. Good science fiction is based on science and must remain believable and consistent. The use of Kahn’s blood throughout the picture not only telegraphs the ending, but trivializes the sacrifice that we know is coming. Whether or not Kirk knows that there is a miracle cure doesn’t matter. We do. The situation is contrived and predictable and does not have the elegance or truth of the original. It is yet another theme tossed out without development or substance.

Like the first film, we have a single villain out for revenge. Like the first film, the Enterprise is defeated by a super ship. The first film killed Kirk’s father and this one kills his surrogate father. This second “new” Star Trek feels like a rerun, like the filmmakers have only one note they can play.

But it isn’t only Star Trek XI (2009) that gets recycled. The film riffs Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Kahn. The repeated lines and reversals at the end seem to be no more than Trek trivia. Both Alice Eve’s underwear and Leonard Nimoy’s cameo are gratuitous. And much though I got a kick out of seeing Kirk in bed with not one, but two versions of Lieutenant M’Ress, that too was fun for its trivial value and did not contribute at all to the heart of the matter – if the matter has a heart.

Into Darkness is stuffed full of Star Trek furnishings but it feels like dress up.  It reveals that its creators see only the superficialities of Trek. This isn’t about canon. I can live in a galaxy without Vulcan. This is about being faithful to both the ideas and the audience. This is about writing honestly and consistently. This is about honoring the science part of science fiction. This is about digging deeper than props, costumes, and pretty pictures. Star Trek at its best takes an important idea and dramatically confronts its complexity.

Into Darkness is Star Trek’s shadow. It is an echo of Treks past. It is fun and exciting nostalgia. It is mediocre science fiction. It is Star Wars masquerading as Star Trek. Let’s hope that the third picture doesn’t have this trouble, and can delve deeper and ring more true to Gene Roddenberry’s values and methods.