From TOS to POS, Part Duh.... OR.... "I AM Your Daddy, and This Isn't Trek''

Rating: 3/10 (21 September 2013)

This is a continuation of my review from account "colinbarnard-1"
Abrahms' first 2009 outing was a betrayal of anyone who is a Star Trek fan, anyone who was enthralled by the Original Series and what Gene Roddenberry was able to achieve. Roddenberry wanted to have a series that was even more a drama than the action-adventure that NBC wanted when they green-lighted the series in 1966 with Bill Shatner as Capt. Kirk. Abrahms went on The Daily Show to affirm that ''Into Darkness'' was a film for all moviegoers, and ''not '' Trek fans. Translation: the film is a shoot-em-up designed to bring in the Clearasyl and video game crowd that also serves the purpose of keeping the Trek brand of ancillary products (books, DVD's and, mirabile dictu, video games) on the store shelf. Adherence to close to 1000 episodes of continuity be damned. In reality, it would seem, Mr. Abrahms has contempt for TOS, and it shows. One can shill a lot if one has contempt for both product and audience.
Oh, he and cast and crew repeatedly invoke Roddenberry, but apparently it's just lip service.
As for the title "Into Darkness"? The film would have benefited from a slower pace, more of a BSG feel to the characters, and far less gratuitous humour if it was truly supposed to be dark.
The same critique that was levelled against ST: Enterprise can be levelled against 'Ìnto Darkness': the film does not advance at all the continuous universe created by Roddenberry, and nurtured with love by Rick Berman. It presents no new ideas. At least, Enterprise stayed within canon to such an extent that it even devoted an episode to explaining why TOS Klingons looked different from ST:TMP Klingons. Into Darkness, like the film that preceded it, does not even pretend to respect continuity. All it does is take a number of vignettes from the movie series, from TWOK, to, well, TWOK, and mix them up with a number of continuity alterations, acting as interludes between the action sequences and special effects segments. I suspect The Great Bird of the Galaxy would not be amused. A Federation starship called Vengeance? Khan as a pale, chinless English fop?
I've been to the Punjab- nobody looks like Benedict Cumberbatch there. At least Ricardo Montalban had darker skin.
The so-called alternate timeline that was established in the 2009 film, which at the time was hailed by Abrahms as being an inventive way of mixing things up without violating continuity is actually full of continuity flaws. Clearly, the writers, the same crew as Into Darkness, did not bother to screen episodes like The Immunity Syndrome, City on the Edge of Forever, or Dorothy Fontana's Yesteryear (yes, Amanda Greyson dies in that episode, too, but Spock reacts to restore the timeline, like any good Temporal Policeman would).
Abrahms could have set his films in an alternate universe, a plot device he has plenty of familiarity with in Fringe. All of the changes could have been made without any concern for continuity with the Roddenberry- Berman universe. I guess someone at Paramount may have a little concern about not alienating die-hard fans. Sorry, no dice. And I am sure that I am not the only person who has been on-board since 1966 who is quite disgusted with Abrahms corporate tripe. I do not want to see Spock in love with Uhura, Scotty as a buffoon, McCoy as a buffoon and a Kirk who is an adolescent adrenaline junkie, which TOS Shatner never was, and the Enterprise, which in Roddenberry's universe was the central character of the show, being nothing more than a cross between an Apple store, and the insides of a sewage treatment plant. See the Enterprise-as- flagellum, Spock-as-flagellum sexual subtext in TMP.
The reader who has not been immersed in Trek for half a century may find my insistence that "the franchise" adhere to a completely consistent continuity to be picayune. Kevin Smith can complain about Superman shaving; I can complain about corporate greed screwing with art.
Abrahms almost certainly will not return to direct a third film. He has used his Trek experience to leverage himself into the franchise that he has wanted, and admired from the beginning: Star Wars. In fact, "Into Darkness" can be seen as his audition reel. It has more than a few scene duplications from Lucas' second trilogy.
So, am I overly fanatical about continuity, and Abrahms' lack of respect for it, and Trek as a whole? No. If the director Kevin Smith, who is a comic book fanatic, can devote a substantial amount of thought to how Superman is able to shave, then I can lament the betrayal of Trek by Abrahms, Orci, Kurtzman and Lindendorff. I know I am not alone, and this is hurting Paramount where they they only care- their ledger sheet.
Thank god (which neither Roddenberry nor I believe in) I didn't pay to see this film. I will not give Paramount my money. The rest of you can go to this shoot-em-up leave your brain at the door. In 20 years, it will still be Shatner and Nimoy who are associated with these characters, because they helped create those characters. Hopefully, if someone is making Trek in 2033, they will have read The Making of Star Trek, by a writer, humanist and self-described philosopher, junior grade, named Gene Roddenberry. Abrahms, I am afraid, will be remembered with Michael Bay as a Spielberg wannabe who was just a Hollywood player, cynically shovelling product for the masses. A pox on him, the studio, and this film.