Everyone was totally down with JJ Abrams Nu-Trek when Star Trek...
Everyone was totally down with JJ Abrams Nu-Trek when Star Trek (2009) came out, but suddenly after Into Darkness (2013), we’ve seen a distinct backlash against the revamp. Everyone talks about how it’s too dark, too actiony, too sexist, too prone to tropes. But I really felt like Star Trek Into Darkness was a distinct statement against what Star Trek had become post Deep Space Nine: a militarized concept, which the Next Gen films began to take on. Voyager tried to get away from that and back into space exploration, but Deep Space Nine had gone so far down the rabbit hole, exploring space war and politics, that there was no turning back. DS9 was pitch-perfect in tone and how it explored that theme, but Star Trek was forever altered by the concepts presented on that show — for better and for worse.
When Trek ‘09 came out, it was brisk, light, daring, and above all, FUN. Were the sci-fi socio-political themes up front? No; it was a sci-fi action film, an ADVENTURE, and it was perfect in that presentation. Now, where many argue that Into Darkness held no social themes, I hold that it does. There is a distinct message about reactions to terrorism in the second Abrams Trek film, but it isn’t overtly stated. Yes, there’s trapping of action film fantasy in the movie, and yes, the underwear scene wasn’t presented the way it had been meant — but the film is about reacting to terrorism. And what is the wrong way to do it.
In the beginning, there was Nero and the Narada. Nero came back in time, attacked the USS Kelvin, and started the Federation on a long road towards defending and militarizing themselves against incoming threats. This was sped up after Nero’s attacks on both Vulcan and Earth, giving the Federation just cause to militarize versus becoming the space-faring exploration organization we know and love from The Original Series onward. As we then see, based on the USS Vengeance, the Federation begins a dark path towards curbing any and all threats to their expansion, utilizing resources to protect their homefront at all costs. Thusly does Khan become a weapon for the Federation; thus do we see how terror corrupts the terrorized.
By the end of Into Darkness, we see the crew of the Enterprise embark on their five-year mission to explore, to seek out new life, to do the opposite of that which has corrupted and deteriorated Starfleet. Now we see the Federation of Planets that was present in the original vision of Gene Roddenberry, except we had to travel through the darkness in order to do so. It is a metaphor for the United State in way. When terrorized, the US turned to dark methods in order to “protect” itself versus being a force of goodwill towards the rest of the universe (world). Of course, we have to see what depths the Federation is willing to go to to protect itself before we can see the more altruistic methods that it is known for.
And yet, it’s said that Into Darkness holds no socio-political commentary. It is a “dumb action film.” Of course, I could be reading into it too much. But, I feel like the message is there; you just have to look beyond the thin veneer of sci-fi action to see.
