Star Trek: Into Darkness, a review

MarkClark in ColorGuest Blogger: Mark Clark is the author of Star Trek FAQ (available now) and Star Trek FAQ 2.0 (available June 2013).

Very soon, Applause Books will publish my latest work, Star Trek FAQ 2.0: Everything Left to Know About the Next Generation, The Movies and Beyond (Unofficial and Unauthorized). This volume picks up where my previous book, Star Trek FAQ: Everything Left to Know About the First Voyages of the Starship Enterprise, left off, and continues the story of the franchise up to now. Or rather, up to last fall, when the manuscript was completed. The book concludes with the impending release of Star Trek into Darkness, about which little was known at the time. Since Star Trek FAQ 2.0 covers (among many other things) all the other films in the series, I felt compelled to share my thoughts about the latest Trek movie here. Consider this an addendum to the book proper. Feel free to print this out, fold it up and slip it into Star Trek FAQ 2.0 between Chapter 40 and the bibliography. No extra charge.

For the sake of brevity, I’m going to dispense with any plot summary and assume anyone reading this article has already seen the film. (If you haven’t, what are you waiting for?) Warning: Spoilers ahead!

The bottom line is simply that if you liked producer-director J.J. Abrams’ 2009 re-boot, then you will adore Star Trek into Darkness. If you didn’t enjoy the previous film, then you probably won’t go for this one, either. All the flaws from Abrams’ first Trek outing return, but so do all the strengths – and the good stuff is much better this time around. Like the last one, Into Darkness is handsomely mounted, impeccably performed, thrilling and often hilarious. The story moves at warp speed and is overstuffed with dazzling action and visual effects sequences, including the most spectacular space battles and white-knuckle chase scenes of any Trek film. And once again, the film is strewn with inside jokes and references to classic Trek people, places and things, including a tribble in sick bay. But, as before, the frenetic pace disguises gaping holes in story logic and faulty science (for a hilarious rundown of these gaffes, visit For me, the only really bothersome lapse was that exploding 72 photon torpedoes inside a starship would not only vaporize the vessel and everyone onboard, but would also obliterate everything else in the vicinity and possibly rip a whole in space. But Abrams’ biggest mistake was casting Peter Weller as Admiral Marcus. While the actor’s work is fine, the presence of Weller – who hasn’t played a sympathetic character since the Robocop films, and already portrayed a two-faced Star Trek villain in a memorable Enterprise two-parter (“Demons”/“Terra Prime”)  – telegraphs the “twist” that Federation power brokers are up to no good. This plot point would have been far more effective with someone warm and likeable (for instance, avid Trekker Tom Hanks) cast against type as Marcus.

On balance, however, the film’s assets far outweigh its liabilities. If Abrams isn’t very good with precise, logical plots, he excels at understanding audience expectations and playing off them. Evoking The Wrath of Khan enables Abrams and screenwriters Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman to toy with fans’ preconceived ideas; the film delivers everything viewers think they see coming, but never quite as anticipated. At times Into Darkness stands Wrath of Khan on its head, with suspenseful or amusing results. Among the most refreshing of these inversions is the sight of Spock, rather than Kirk, starring in a major action/chase sequence. Considering that Vulcans are supposed to be physically stronger and more agile than humans, this should have happened before. Abrams also has a gift for eliciting fine performances from his cast, and Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg and Bruce Greenwood shine again as Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty and Captain Pike. One of the major differences between this Trek and the original is that Abrams and company don’t even attempt to recreate the Kirk-Spock McCoy chemistry of the classic series. This is a Kirk-Spock bromance, with McCoy, Uhura and Scotty as supporting characters and Chekov and Sulu for window dressing. This is intended merely as an observation, not necessarily a criticism. It’s probably smart, since I don’t believe Pine, Quinto and Urban (or anybody else) could duplicate the rapport of William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley. Similarly, while Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance as Khan Noonien Singh has garnered much well-deserved praise, his icy take on the character couldn’t be more different from Ricardo Montalban’s alluring, romantic performance.

In Star Trek FAQ 2.0, I wrote the following about the 2009 film: “Although fans may disagree with some of the choices made by Abrams and Orci and Kurtzman, the reality is that after Nemesis and Enterprise, the franchise had been written into a corner. Abrams and his compatriots simply did what was necessary to break out of that trap, while crafting a livelier, more sensational and more emotional Star Trek with wide appeal beyond the Trekker faithful. The film may or may not mark the passing of the previous, statelier version of the franchise, but its success has assured that Trek will continue, in some form or another, for years to come.” Star Trek into Darkness only confirms that verdict. Although its opening weekend box office fell slightly below expectations (due largely to competition from Iron Man 3 and Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby), Into Darkness has all the markings of major hit, and figures to keep Star Trek in business for the foreseeable future.

At the conclusion of Into Darkness, Pine’s Kirk has finally begun to mature into something closer to Shatner’s version of the character, and the USS Enterprise is set to embark on its famous five-year mission. The galaxy is wide open. The most interesting question now becomes, where does the franchise go next? And who – with Abrams busy making a new Star Wars trilogy – will lead it? Look for musings on those topics in a future blog entry.


Star Trek FAQ 2.0: Everything Left to Know About the Next Generation, The Movies and Beyond (Unofficial and Unauthorized)

This book is not endorsed, sponsored, or affiliated with CBS Studios Inc., Paramount Pictures, or the “Star Trek” franchise. In the 1980s and ’90s, Star Trek rose from the ash heap of network cancellation and soared to the peak of its popularity with a series of blockbuster feature films and the smash sequel series Star Trek: The Next GenerationStar Trek FAQ 2.0 picks up where the original Star Trek FAQ left off, chronicling the historic comeback of the “failed” series and its emergence as a pop culture touchstone. The book provides accounts of the production of every Star Trek movie (including creator Gene Roddenberry’s struggle to retain control of the franchise) and every episode of The Next Generation (and the conflicts that roiled its writing staff). It also offers profiles of the actors, directors, writers, producers, and technicians whose excellence fueled the franchise’s success, and explores often overlooked aspects of the Star Trek phenomenon, including unofficial, fan-made productions. Star Trek FAQ 2.0represents the final frontier of Trek scholarship.



Hal Leonard Performing Arts Publishing Group, the trade book division of Hal Leonard Corporations, publishes books on the performing arts under the imprints Hal Leonard Books, Backbeat Books, Amadeus Press, and Applause Theatre and Cinema Books.

Posted on May 28, 2013, in Film & TV and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. Julie Fisher

    Great review as always from my favorite scholar of Trek. Especially good insights about the inversions. True too about focusing on the bromance at the expense of the other crew members. Sadly, the 2-hour movie format probably demands that. So bring back the TV show, Paramount!

  1. Pingback: Episode 7: Star Trek with Mark Clark | That's a Wrap!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: