Opposable Thumbs / Gaming & Entertainment

Star Trek Into Darkness: Impressive but imperfect

After three viewings, here's the verdict.

Production, effects, and format (aka “To 3D or not 3D?”)

Many things will burn/explode.

Although a number of effects houses contributed to the finished product, the overall visual effects for Star Trek Into Darkness were—to no one's surprise—once again overseen by the incomparable Industrial Light & Magic. The film's budget was reportedly $190 million, with a good chunk spent on absolutely flawless visual effects. No matter the viewing format, the movie was an endless buffet of eye candy (and I mean that in the most positive way possible).

There were a few minor changes to visual effects between the 2009 film and this one. The most noticeable is the "warp effect," which was presumably updated to take advantage of 3D technology (although it looks fine in 2D as well).

The new film also makes the Enterprise seem more like the self-contained (if sprawling) entity that it is. Whereas various sets were located on different sound stages for 2009's Star Trek, many of them were built in an interconnected fashion on a single, large sound stage at Paramount Studios for Star Trek Into Darkness.

Especially pleasing to me were new engineering sets designed and built for the sequel. Although the brewery backdrop (yes, they literally shot engineering in a brewery for the first film) is still heavily used to impart an overall industrial feel, a new set was built to depict an actual, monolithic warp core. It's still more industrial and less tidy than we've seen in past iterations of Trek, but it once again felt to me that the core was the singular heart of the ship—something that was missing in the first movie, as minor a complaint as that might seem.

Most of the props and costumes from the first film are also prominent in this sequel, but we have new Starfleet dress and duty uniforms (Hats? Okay, I guess we're going with hats), a couple of new handheld weapon designs, etc.

We also get to see more of the Klingons in this movie, including extensive footage of a small class of Klingon patrol ship and—most excitedly for fans—we get to see their faces for the first time. I won't mention the context in which we run into the Klingons or reveal whether not Klingons in this reality have their signature ridged foreheads, but I will say that I liked the overall Klingon aesthetic.

Our antagonists' vessel in this movie is also well-done. It manages to be imposing without being nonsensical—as I found the Narada in the 2009 movie.

As for the viewing format, I saw the movie once each in the three formats available to me: IMAX 3D, traditional 2D, and Real 3D. The IMAX 3D showing felt most impressive and immersive (which is as designed, I suppose). The larger screen format allows the film's impressive visuals to shine, and the 3D was understated for most of the movie but still done well. It didn't add significantly to the experience, but it certainly didn't detract. I seemed to notice more lens flare (yes, that's back, too) in the Real 3D showing, but it's important to note that this was the last showing in my schedule, so it's possible that I was simply subconsciously paying more attention to that sort of thing by the end.

To summarize: If you have the opportunity and aren't bothered by 3D films in general, go see the movie in IMAX 3D. There's nothing inherently wrong with the Real 3D format, but its smaller screen is slightly less impressive. However, if you're one of the unfortunate souls plagued by headaches when watching a movie in 3D, you can rest assured that you're not being denied the full experience by watching the movie in "regular" 2D.

Story and pacing

Our villain.

WARNING:  If there are going to be spoilers, this is going to be the place. I'll try to keep them minor and sparse. But if you're on a 100 percent spoiler-free diet until you can see the movie, you'll probably want to skip this section.

As I mentioned, the story of Star Trek Into Darkness begins as an allegory of the so-called "War on Terror." Questions of exactly how far a society can go in pursuing those who attack it without compromising its own ethical integrity are prominent. It's not a subtle comparison, to be sure, but it serves the story well and generates a good deal of friction between members of the victimized society who want revenge and those who advocate maintaining the principles on which that society was founded. There's even an obvious reference to modern ethical dilemmas like the use of unmanned weapons to carry out the extrajudicial, targeted killing of terror suspects.

This premise bogs down somewhat about two-thirds of the way through the movie after following a rabbit track into very familiar territory for Star Trek fans. I won't say what that territory is specifically, but there's one major plot point that will have viewers familiar with the Trek universe gasping in surprise (unless you've already had the film spoiled for you or figured it out from one of the clumsily edited trailers). That major plot point in and of itself isn't a negative, exactly. It's not the choice I would have made as a writer, but I accepted it and moved on—no big deal.

Unfortunately, the writers weren't content to leave it alone. They go on to essentially copy-and-paste entire portions of earlier Star Trek material into the latter third of the movie, with what I'm sure was just enough modification to avoid having to pay the writers of that earlier material royalties on the new movie. The re-tread isn't executed poorly, and if it were fresh material, much of it would be compelling and emotional.

One of the most emotional moments of the movie—a great tragedy for our heroes—has much of its gravitas stolen from it by the fact that the mechanism by which its consequences will be circumvented is blatantly telegraphed to the audience not once but twice in earlier scenes.

I won't go so far as to say that the latter third of the movie turns this from a good film into a bad one; it doesn't. But it's disappointing that J.J. Abrams and company fell short of making what could have been a truly great Star Trek movie by jumping onto this odd track in the back half of the film.

From interviews I've seen with the primary writers (Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and Damon Lindelof), I'm choosing to believe that they honestly intended it to be an homage to the franchise and a treat for fans. I've even spoken to a few fans who thought it was just that, so there are other ways to look at it.

Finally, I have one remaining question about the writing in this movie: What is it with J.J. Abrams making people jump off of and/or onto things? Seriously, people in this movie are forever jumping off tall buildings, cliffs, or out into space. It's bananas.


The heart of the series.

Star Trek Into Darkness is a fun but flawed movie. I still recommend going to see it—for both casual fans and die-hard Trekkies.

Moviegoers without much familiarity with the Star Trek universe are likely to find it a stomping good "popcorn" movie. Fans will have more mixed feelings. They will likely be enthralled and entertained by the majority of the movie, but they may be disappointed by a few key missteps in the narrative. For those fans, it might feel like a wasted opportunity.

In the end, Star Trek Into Darkness hits the mark on most of the traits that successful Star Trek movies and summer blockbusters have in common: plenty of action, plenty of eye candy, a bit of humor, and just the right amount of heart.

Expand full story

You must to comment.