JJ listened, the writers not so much

Rating: 6/10 (31 May 2013)

Seems one need qualify themselves here so here I go. I'm a 40+ year Trek fan that fell in love with the series watching reruns on our black & white TV. I've since purchased and watched everything Trek, been on multiple message boards discussing everything Trek again and again and I have worshiped at the altar of Gene Roddenberry (Vegas Star Trek Con). "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" (TWoK) has always been my favorite movie. I know my Trek as well as if not better than most.
This is a difficult one, many highs and lows. I'll start with the cast. Once again this is the highlight of our new 'Trek'. Chris Pine gives his best acting performance ever. All of the actors understand their characters and work amazingly well with one another. The only question mark I might have is Alice Eve, and she hasn't been given enough yet to make a sound judgment. I do have some issues with how a couple of these characters are being written, but that's not the actors fault. Cumberbatch not being a "man of color" is not a problem. He played the part brilliantly. Kirks development in 2 short movies is outstanding. Peter Weller (John Frederick Paxton not Robo-Cop) is also outstanding. While I understand the need for Pike to die to aid in the development of Kirk, I'm sad to see him go. Bruce Greenwood's Pike was truly outstanding.
The plot: I've read probably 100 reviews here and at Rotten Tomatoes. It's obvious to me that folks don't understand the plot (or don't want to). This is probably a result of the fast pace "shoot'em up" theme in the movie (which most seem to dislike). I had to see it twice to follow it, but it is there and it's strong. Only in a JJ Trek movie does the plot get criticized because it aptly addresses current political issues. In all other Trek, those episodes and movies are considered 'Trek at its finest.' The hypocrisy I read from fellow Trekkies here is disheartening. Look past all the 'window dressing' you don't like and listen to the plot. It speaks loudly concerning current drone policy, GTMO detainees, 9/11, family, the "War on Terror" and gives us things to contemplate which is very Trek.
Now this Trekkie noticed lots to be upset about in this movie, but the plot shouldn't be one of them. The resurrection of a classic Trek character, Khan's reveal, after masquerading as John Harrison about 2/3'rds of the way through the movie, was meaningless to those unfamiliar with "Space Seed" and TWoK and didn't do anything for the Trekkies either - aside from getting under their skin. But OK, Khan's awakening does follow Trek canon and I'm OK with using him (now). What REALLY fires up this Trekkie was the complete lack of original thinking (writing) and using a rip- off-reversal of one of Trek's classic, revered and most iconic moments (Spock's death in TWoK). They actually thought Kirk entering the warp core, dying and saving the Enterprise and her crew was good writing e- gads oh, they also thought having Spock "loose it" and scream "KHAAAAN!" like Kirk did in TWoK was somehow in character for Spock (in either timeline). nuSpock didn't act like this when his planet was destroyed AND he lost his mother. Whatever made them think that losing his "friend" who he's known for about a year and who he's been at odds with for about half that time would provoke such a un-Vulcan response. Double "e-gads". All Harrison needed to be was an augment.
Some technical Trekkie stuff that makes one slap their forehead you ask? How about Kirk speaking to Scotty in a bar light-years away from Enterprise on his communicator or Harri-Khan's briefcase sized trans- warp thingy or rocket thrusters on the bottom of 1701 or the SSN-1701 or no radiation suit in engineering or why not give Kirk some anti- radiation meds after the interior door was shut or cold fusion stopping a frakin volcano? There, now you know I'm a Trekkie. (This nit-picking has been done to every single Trek movie and episode BTW. It's a labor of love) JJ did listen to the fans. He reduced the shaky cams, lens- flares and we now have a warp core that looks like something from the future rather than a beer distillery. (Thank you.) The problem is the writers didn't listen or just don't get it. They played the standard reboot theme of taking literary license with past production to the point of "WTF". Spock is still Spock. Nero's incursion shouldn't change that. Uhura shouldn't change that. (Oh, if it's not painfully obvious now, the Spock/Uhura thing needs to stop.) I understand the need to give Uhura more, but please don't do it at the expense of McCoy. He's too important here. Star Trek isn't Batman, or The Hulk, or Star Wars. It's not a place to "play". Star Trek has always been more than those. I hope the writers for the next installment take that to heart a little more than they've shown in the first two. The crew is assembled. They've been through hell a couple times. Let's use our imagination and create something fresh and new, something we can dream about, something positive. Pop-corn block-buster with lots of action - sure. But it also has to be a "Star Trek" movie. Make it "Trek" and you will be heralded. I want to take my kids to the next movie and I want them to learn something about life without seeing someone squeeze someone's head until it bursts.
How do I rate this visually epic, beautifully scored, Trek challenged movie? 6 of 10 I think. Trek is at home on TV, so this Trekkie will demonstrate some IDIC here and welcome this movie into the community.
I highly recommend "Star Trek Into Darkness". 9/10 had they not defined plagiarism with the ending.