The Wrath of Khan at 40: The Classic Lives On

I was far, far too young to watch The Wrath of Khan when I first saw it.

My first experience of the movie doesn't come from 1982 when I was *cough* just two *cough* but from about three years later on a videotaped version from one of the (at the time) four terrestrial channels we could enjoy in the UK. 

It was the first Star Trek movie I ever saw and for a six year old it blew my mind. Honestly, I didn't realise that I was probably far too young for this movie as I just lapped up every scene with relentless excitement and awe. It was incredible, proper space battle stuff, phasers and explosions; Amazing! What more could you want from a sci-fi film? Apart from being slightly terrified by those ceti eels in a very much edited-for-Saturday-afternoon version.

This video was watched and re-watched with frightening regularity because it was and still probably is my favourite film of all time. If I'm right I wore the tape out because it was viewed that often and now I know the film, as many, many fans do, line by line. Each word is subconsciously pre-empted, every nuance and action anticipated but loved all the same.

I mean, The Wrath of Khan's brilliance has endured for four decades and - in fact when I originally started drafting this - I even introduced it to my wife who took it a lot more positively than I expected.

Melissa is in no way (read: any way at all) a Star Trek fan and would be happy if the s**t was removed from the house this instant and burned. But she has allowed it for many years and knows it's a part of who I am. Anyway, cutting back to the point, she watched it and enjoyed it. I might have even heard the comment of 'good film' in there somewhere. Mel has been more akin to the general movie-goer friendly JJ reboots and after watching those she dropped in during my in-sequence movie watch with The Search for Spock coming to realise that the more recent blockbusters merely touch the surface and offer a line into the wider franchise.

Going back and watching The Wrath of Khan was a great experience to see her drawn in by the story, the action, the subtle undertones and admit that it was easily the best of the movies. It was pretty much as I did back in the mid-80's watching Ricardo Montalban chew the scenery for the umpteenth time and eye roll at the recognition of Chekov which is the stuff of Star Trek legend.

Khan is in no way a hard movie to say why it's so good and even the franchise itself has attempted to copy its brilliance with varying levels of success - First Contact and Into Darkness being those polar opposite examples. Indeed it's influence reaches into the writing of The Voyage Home, the writing and directing of The Undiscovered Country and ultimately to the direction of Discovery with the inclusion of Nicholas Meyer into the show's writers room. Heck, there's still that rumour that a Khan mini-series will happen and even in the last episode of Picard's second season there was an ominous reference to Project Khan in the hands of Adam Soong. It's influence cannot be underestimated which isn't bad for a movie that had a fraction of the budget of its predecessor. Think about it for a moment and just how much is reused. The Klingon K'tingas, Enterprise in spacedock, the crew uniforms are dyed rehashes of the ones from The Motion Picture and the two main sets - the bridges of the Reliant and the Enterprise are the same set. 

Even just with those you would be laughing and mocking a movie if it were made now and rehacked a substantial amount of its forebear but in that respect The Wrath of Khan is unique. The story is a huge upgrade, the stakes are unequivocally raised and slot in one of the most gut-punching final acts in cinema history and the sedentary plod through V'Ger is easily banished from the mind. 

People ask if you can single out moments from the movie which are classics but I find it hard to pull apart what is the perfect Star Trek movie. There is true heart, character and loss in every cell of the film from the opening "In the 22nd Century" right to Nimoy's one and only time recital of "Space; the final frontier...". No other Star Trek movie packs so much into its running time and effortlessly feels like every minute is finely balanced, every line just necessary; no more no less (more on that in a sec).

The legendary six day Meyer rewrite may have given The Wrath of Khan the kick that the franchise needed after the pedestrian nature of The Motion Picture it was a vibrant visual spectacular with those monster maroon uniforms, phaser battles, a submarine-like hunt in the Mutara Nebula and the Kirk/Khaaaaaaaaan exchanges but how come it's endured for so long and how come I still find it my go-to Star Trek movie more than any other?

It has matured exceptionally well with my younger self enwrapped in the action, the explosions and the burning starships but as I've grown older each viewing has brought something new to light and a new angle to view it from; life and death, winning and losing; vengeance and perhaps interestingly, growing older itself.  Like Kirk, I tried the desk job and it wasn't for me and I went back to something that I enjoyed before it was too late (!) and still after all that it still resonates. I might not be watching it with the regularity I managed in the late 80's but there are at least a couple of re-watches a year, even if it's just to enjoy the adventurous James Horner soundtrack.

Each scene delivers and provides almost a mini-cliffhanger as we bounce between the Enterprise, Reliant and Regula One with themes explored at the beginning re-emerging later in the movie without feeling forced. It's an action adventure that carries more weight than you think and barely has the two main protagonists speaking to each other let alone ever physically meet.

The Wrath of Khan really affected my views on Star Trek from something that I watched on a Wednesday night into something that I absolutely loved. I can remember recreating the final battle with my Ertl USS Enterprise which had been adorned with phaser and torpedo damage just as the ship had been in the Mutara Nebula - it was on the TV version of the ship however but my young mind could easily make the jump as the Enterprise rose up behind the Reliant/over the bedside.

Believe it or not this is actually going somewhere because June 4th 2018 marked 36 years since the movie was originally released and it still looks great in every frame and with every spoken line. It has everything you could possibly want from Star Trek and I firmly believe that without the success of this movie there would be no franchise today. The Wrath of Khan is one of those moments where Star Trek actually got it right in the right way at the right time. All the elements needed were where they needed to be and it pounced on the move to the cinema with veracity and energy rather than treading a similar line to The Motion Picture. 

Without the renewed vigour and dynamism of The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek may well have become a sci-fi footnote of 79 episodes and two so so movies whereas instead it breathes life into the show which still exists today. If you were to encapsulate the effect of this story in one word it would have to be ‘monumental’. A moment that is off-referred to, imitated both outside and within the franchise and still as fresh today as it was in June 1982.

Indeed, just think how many references to Augments, Ceti Eels, Ceti Alpha V, Khan himself,

great fictional works, the needs of the many or even the Kobayashi Maru have pervaded the franchise since this point - how many times has it perhaps attempted to regain that moment of "perfection"? Maybe the other way of looking at it is that The Wrath of Khan spawned the greatest period of Star Trek's history but was it also the most polluting factor at the same time with everything being rated against the second movie in every sense meaning that future writers and directors were consciously or unconsciously using it as a base?

Now in 2022 I can add another few paragraphs to my love of this movie because I've finally watched the Director's Cut. The differences are subtle; the nod to Scotty's nephew, slight extensions to a few of the scenes that add a little more depth to the narrative (and an odd one or to that actually remove a touch of the dynamic) but as a whole it still proves that this is a classic. Polished up and with some great extras it's a must to any collection and will more than likely be pressed up against the inevitable 4k Blu-Ray render of The Motion Picture that's recently arrived.

Perhaps back in 1982 there was even more riding on the success of a sequel than there was from The Motion Picture. That had proved the franchise could work on the big screen and attract a good size audience and takings but The Wrath of Khan had to do more for less. This one had to prove that there was longevity to this direction and it did that in spades. Even today there is no other film I have watched or quote more than this one, there is no other movie I have seen more times than this nor one that I enjoy as much on each viewing.

Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan has been revered and imitated within its own franchise walls for 40 years and that love does not look set to dissipate any time soon. Maybe though there is one more thing for me to do with it and that's to see it up on the cinema screen itself as along with The Motion Picture and The Search for Spock it's one of only three Star Trek features I've not experienced in that environment. Fingers crossed it doesn't take another 40 years for me to make that happen. 

Enjoyed this article? Why not like and share to spread the word!

Like our page on Facebook 

Follow us on Twitter

Reanimating the Tribble - Star Trek Into Darkness One Year On

One year ago today not only did I receive the Revell USS Enterprise in the post but also went to the midnight showing of Star Trek Into Darkness.

Yes, seriously - 12 months have passed since the film that fans rate as the worst Star Trek movie ever was released on the unsuspecting public. Premiered on May 2nd, the UK became the first country in the world to receive Abrams' sequel into cinemas. 

As with Bond's Quantum of Solace there is the hope that this is just a faltering step in what could be the triumphant rebirth of Star Trek. Indeed, as with that 007 movie, the film to follow Into Darkness will be marking the 50th anniversary. While we know how Skyfall faired, we can only pray to the Prophets that Star Tr3k will manage to reverse the opinions of many in 2016.

Looking back, we'd got an inkling that this was going to be about Khan, there were going to be blatant homages to Classic Star Trek and that JJ Abrams would be heading further into action-adventure territory rather than a "more cerebral" take on the franchise.

We covered the buildup to the movie in fairly extensive detail - all the trailers, the virals, the rumours, the posters - just about everything and even in the final week, a daily digest of what was being gradually revealed to us. It was a masterful promotional campaign and for that we have to praise the team behind it. Each month we got more, the Enterprise rising from the sea, Harrison standing in a rubble strewn London, character shots, magazine features - I lapped up the lot and this might have been my downfall. Expectation on my part was in overdrive and far too high. It could, in no uncertain terms, absolutely fail to deliver. For fandom as a whole though, frenzy would be an understatement and there was more than a keen level of interest in the sequel. After all, the 2009 film had revitalised the brand, polarised fans and guaranteed the rejuvenation of Roddenberry's creation at least for a few years more.

Sadly at about 3am all I could muster to the other half as I dropped into bed was "It was OK..." and nothing more. I had been significantly underwhelmed in under three hours. Star Trek Into Darkness was enjoyable but there was something missing. Ironically three little viral trailers bore the answer - there was no soul, mind or heart to the movie; it was all out action with a rather impressive long range transporter to quickly fill in some irksome plotholes. It seemed to just exist and I have to say that I've only watched it three times since it's cinematic release. Once in 3D on the big screen and twice on DVD. 

I'd still rather watch Nemesis or The Final Frontier than Into Darkness even if only for the fact that it's not "Classic Canon" nor the Roddenberry Vision. I know that there will be those who are of the strict opinion that it's Total Garbage and won't hear anything to the contrary however, what were the successes here? What do we think that Abrams multi-million dollar sequel do right or do well? Surely there's something redeeming about last year's Star Trek offering?

Time for us to hit the DVD version and see what we can find that would keep our interest in the future...

Klingons

It took a bit of time for the full reveal here. We'd been teased with them in the deleted scenes from the 2009 movie but in Into Darkness we saw them face to face in full battlegear replete with armour, piercings, crinkly foreheads, batleths, d'k'targs and some mightly fine looking Birds-of-Prey. The fight sequence on Quo'noS is spectacular especially with Cumberbatch's arrival carrying some serious firepower. They did put up some resisitance but Khan turned out to be a one-man war machine.  These were brutal, pre-The Next Generation Klingons through and through where only honour and ass-kickings mattered. Well done to the writers for placing the action in the Ketha Province where one General Martok would be born in the Prime Universe. More of the same please.

USS Vengeance

We spotted her in the background of the trailers during the Kirk/Khan space-diving sequence as well as realising that it was this starship and not the Enterprise that was taking a dip in San Francisco Bay when fans started comparing nacelle configurations. The Vengeance was a totally different design, unmarked with a registry and bearing all the hallmarks of a stealthy hunter cloaked in black. The tell-tale Starfleet traits of a saucer/sec hull/nacelles were still there but this was the deadliest starship we'd seen in the fleet ever - it even had a menacing warp sound. Dwarfing the Enterprise emphasised it's venom before we even saw a single shot fired. Her decent and obliteration of a good portion of San Francisco is total overkill and rarely has Star Trek managed to fit so much death and destruction into one movie especially at the hands of one of Starfleet's own ships. Certainly if there's one thing we remember about this movie it's the Vengeance. We all wanted a model and luckily some were quick to market.

Admiral Marcus

Peter Weller made everyone else look amateur and, for me, stole the movie. Hardcore, a believer in the preservation of humanity and in taking the first strike, Marcus was the epitome of the slightly unhinged Starfleet admiral that popped up on more than one occasion over the years. Not exactly evil, more driven in his beliefs, Weller's experience shows through in droves every time he's on screen. His reaction of "Oh s**t you talked to him." when he realises Kirk has met with Khan and found out all the dirty facts was great and almost seemed off the cuff. True facepalm moment superbly executed. Weller is also one of the few to have featured in both aspects of the franchise, having guest-starred in the final Enterprise two-parter in it's final season from 2005. 

The Five Year Mission

After two movies they finally got to the point. We've not boldly gone at all so far and one of the big criticisms of the revamp was the fact everything was very, very Earth-focused. Embarking on the fabled mission does lend us to believe that the next movie will take place Out There but the hints of Klingon aggression in Into Darkness might indicate that will be the major plot line. It felt that we'd come to the end of a formation period in the life of the ship and crew - major foes had been faced down, Pike was dead and the slate was clean - we could even forgive Kirk being returned to the rank of captain after his rapid rise and demotion through the ranks. Maybe. 

The Descent of the Enterprise

Not necessarily something that was done right more of a "Wow" moment. The fall of the Enterprise into Earth's orbit was stunning both internally and externally. Whether you agreed with it happening in the first place is beside the point as we watched the ship literally start disintegrating before our eyes. Seatbelts were deployed on the bridge and Kirk and Scotty start running up walls to make it to Engineering. Watching all the background action here - the crew falling about the set, the shuttles crashing about in the hangar or seeing the great starship rise from the clouds all made this a well crafted visual experience. 

The detailing was immense on the crumbling ship and it just looked incredible to see her in such a state. The less said about the Star Trek II homage at the reactor room door, the better. The Enterprise probably took more of a pounding here than ever before and the signs are there when the mains comes back on line. Add in the nifty mini-refit at the end and you've got a whole new merchandise line for 2016.

London

Thanks to +Aaron Gallo for this one: "The one thing that I really liked about the movie was the inclusion of Section 31. The opening scenes with Harrison (Khan) and Harewood brought a very relatable, human, moment to the film. Having Section 31 operating in a secret location under a library was a great idea and presented a link between Star Trek from Enterprise to Deep Space Nine."

I do agree with Aaron - and from this point of view it did hit the mark on exactly what Roddenberry envisaged for Star Trek - linking modern day events into the future just as he did with the Vietnam War, racism, the US vs USSR; telling real issues through the forum of the future and science-fiction. Here Abrams did get it right, presenting a real danger in a capital city as has been the case in many terrorist attacks. The conclusion that it turned out to be an inside job so to speak did lessen the impact that might have been had it been revealed that the Klingons or Romulans had been responsible.

The Tribble with Darkness

It's easy to point the finger at Into Darkness for not being Classic Star Trek and being the summer action movie but here we've tried to show that there are a few things at the least which made it a success and showed the potential of this new timeline where anything is possible. Yes, there were some ropey homages and fans can lambaste that Abrams mined The Wrath of Khan far more than he should ever have done. At least there were a few nods to past glories (and the computer game linked to the production) with references to the Kelvin, Section 31, the Gorn, the NX-01 and other classic ships in the Marcus Office scene, a tribble...but not enough that was new. Bringing a tribble back to life with superblood (eh?!) was hardly the epic ending we were hoping for - there was a fist-fight a la Where No Man Has Gone Before (networks love 'em) but not involving, surprisingly, Kirk.

Star Trek II, the Meyer one, is THE Star Trek movie and should never be touched. Some bits were twisted but still, this should have been fresh and new not recycled. OK, new fans would have no idea what we long-termers were screaming about but stealing from the greats (while total flattery) doesn't bode well to keeping your loyal audience. 

Not only did JJ and Co touch it, they left mucky finger-marks all over. Let's hope that the changes in personnel for the next adventure help to reassure fans that this new extension of Star Trek has a bright future and we can be won back. Happy first anniversary Star Trek Into Darkness - let's hope to some degree that we can look back and know that this was the turning point to producing some new Star Trek of first class quality. Abrams is likely to just produce following his defection to the Dark Side and with all the rumblings around Kurtzman and Orci's involvement or lack of/writing partnership split, the intrigue is just beginning. Heck, Orci might even direct. Maybe some of that Khan superblood should be injected into the script for the third movie? Might just do the trick, no tribble required.

Was there anything else that made Star Trek Into Darkness redeemable? Have we missed something out or chosen something that you would never have considered? Let us know below right now!

Did you know you can now join up with us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter or even +1 us on Google+? If you didn't why not drop over there now!

Three in Three

This week has seen three birthdays associated with the Star Trek franchise.

The 6th saw another year through for Nog, Aron Eisenberg (44) while the 8th saw Michelle Forbes, aka Ro Laren, celebrating.

Both are key characters in the franchise and I have something planned in regards to Nog for the coming months. It would have been live today but there are other things to sort aside from writing on here! For the record Eisenberg played Nog right from Emissary through to What You Leave Behind as one of the recurring guest cast. His is probably one of the most developed and expanded roles that Deep Space Nine brought to the franchise taking him from medical supply thief to Starfleet officer and war veteran in seven years. Oh - and Aron even turned up in one episode of Voyager as a Kazon in season two's Initiations. All the (belated) best wishes!

Michelle Forbes also guested - but before she became Ro - in The Next Generation as Dara, the daughter of Doctor Timicin in Half a Life. That role helped secure the role of the Bajoran ensign who would appear sporadically through the fifth, early sixth and penultimate episode of the seventh seasons. While Forbes is reknowned for turning down the chance to move across as first officer on Deep Space Nine there were a few key moments that defined her, namely her first appearance which brought the Bajorans immediately springs to mind. I'd probably add her interlude with Riker in Conundrum into the mix and would absolutely add her swansong of Preemptive Strike in the top three. In the show we never got to find out if she was among the casualties when the Jem'Hadar wiped out the Maquis however the novel series has her back in Starfleet and most recently commanding the brand new Deep Space Nine station in The Fall.

The 7th however is probably the most interesting of the three as it would have seen the 90th birthday of Gene L Coon. While his link to Star Trek is solely in the realms of The Original Series if it wasn't for this man then the landscape of show may have been very different. Coon produced the show from Miri to Operation: Annihilate! and then Catspaw through Bread and Circuses. That's a pretty impressive resume to begin with however spin that just one step further - Coon was responsible for some of the biggest introductions and original "game changers" of the show. Ever.

Take a look at the list here (right) of his writing credits. Yes, some of them are teleplays (co-credited) but what a list to have your name on. You're the man responsible for bringing the Gorn, the Klingons , the Horta (in a frantic four day writing session), Zephram Cochrane and (take a breath), Khan Noonien Singh (version one) to the screen. The mind boggles at the genius that was and the mind that was lost so abruptly in 1973 at the age of 49. It's made even more tragic in the note that Coon only discovered he was terminally ill a week before his death.

He was offered a spot on The Animated Series  but declined and I would love to speculate what he would have brought to The Next Generation - might the Klingons have been more prominent in the first season? Would the Borg have become a lesser villain? Who knows. What we can say is that he was essential in shaping the franchise in it's formative years and for that we must thank him.

On a slight flipside however and under the pseudonym of Lee Cronin, Coon was responsible for some of the antics of the crew in season three. While budget restraints brought about the basic and unfinished look of Spectre of the Gun, there is little that can't - or hasn't - been said about Spock's Brain. It's a shame that such an episode does blot a phenomenal portfolio of stories that have become much lauded over time. Could you imagine Star Trek without Kirk fighting the Gorn on Cestus III? Neither can we. More than that, Coon's mind inadvertently meant that The Wrath of Khan would be made  when Nicholas Meyer chose Khan as an interesting villain to build a movie around. In turn that means we have to give Coon a nod when it comes to Star Trek Into Darkness as well. Not bad to think that his legacy has lasted since 1966 is it?

Did you know you can now join up with us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter or even +1 us on Google+? If you didn't why not drop over there now!

Cue Your Angry Face Please, Admiral Kirk!

The first wave of Legacy Minimates Series 1 is out this week!

We've previously covered these eight twin packs on Some Kind of Star Trek so we'll skip the detail and just say it's time to get yourself down to the shops to get your fill. Costing around $9.99 (£6.39) per pair, these little (literally) beauties stand 2 inches tall with 14 points of articulation and an array of interchangeable accessories appropriate to the character point in Star Trek history. 

It was also a damn good excuse to stick the above picture on the blog because I just love it! (Thanks for the pic, Diamond Select - made my day) and just having the chance to get a mini-Kirk into the legendary Khaaaaaaaaaan pose is sure to get a lot of people reaching for their wallets or PayPal account log in details. Just check out the coat detail including the emergency beacon and the roll-neck sweater beneath - great detailing.

Kirk and Khan seem to be having a good week actually as we also get the release of the Space Seed diorama featuring the two legendary characters in action. Priced in around $24.99 (£15.98) you'll be able to spend hours recreating the Enterprise captain beating up the 1990's genetic superman.  Not only that, but it also includes the ability to place Kirk into a leaping position with support to pose the figure. Including a to-scale engineering wall panel this is a great addition to any collection - from the looks of it, this is one pipe dream Khan might wish to forget!

Star Trek: My Shadow of Darkness

Ok, this is gonna sound really bad but I'm fed up with Into Darkness.

There you go; I said it and I don't regret a word of it. I'm sorry I'm going to brass a lot of people off in the course of this but hey, it's my opinion and I've just been kidding myself that it doesn't matter. It does. This is my last article for some time on the subject I hope. I need a break from the overload and yes, I have written quite a lot on it leading up to the premiere but enough is enough. For the sake of Scotty, let's call time; final round.

startrek.com

So why do I feel like this on the 24th May 2013 when the movie has only been out in the UK since 9th May 2013? The simple answer is because I do but in the bigger picture there are a whole battalion of reasons why I've actually got bored of the latest Star Trek installment. I don't think it's awful or that JJ has destroyed Star Trek forever. I do have opinions on that and briefly I don't think he has - in a lot of respects he's updated it and made it more accessible for Generation Y and the Millennials because of how they view and digest media. For example the media campaign, the viral site and the app are prime examples of a job well done. They caught us and held us right through the build-up, enticing us with little extras, pictures, clips, sounds and prizes...should we have realised at that point that the whole was not going to be as good as the sum of the parts? Were our own expectations as a community so high that whatever JJ and his crew managed to pull out of the bag, Khan or not, would never have satisfied the carnal sci-fi hunger of every Star Trek fan alive?!

What bugs me to tears is the constant battering and microscopic breaking down of every single facet of the movie beyond anything I've seen before and I've seen Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. In fact because the internet was awash with them, I purposely avoided writing movie review here on Some Kind of Star Trek because I felt I was drowning in them 24/7. Instead we looked at the novelisation and the differences it highlighted in contrast to the movie itself as well as a more numerical take on the film at the box office. We wanted to avoid being samey and do something different; that's what we do -  that's what we encourage from bloggers who want to write here.  

startrek.com

Every Talosian and his ceti eel is kicking off about That Carol Marcus Scene and it's even been admitted by Damon Lindelof that it was gratuitous - purely to get the viewers and because they just wanted it there.  In fact I commented that it looked like a fan-boy pleaser way back when it first cropped up in the trailers (and subsequently every Into Darkness internet search).  Oh and now to counter all the criticism there's the Benedict Cumberbatch shower scene. Perhaps they doth protest too much? Is this actually a sign that Lindelof has made a bit of a mistake and now there's some furious backpedaling taking place? Seems to be the case from my perspective. In reference to the "original"  scene here - good grief; we get it and it's illuminated the internet like a nuclear explosion that will surely help increase the "meagre" takings Into Darkness has seen at the worldwide box office as might the new "deleted scene" that JJ is flaunting around the press in some vain attempt to show equality and that it wasn't meant to be as gratuitous as his writer has made perfectly clear. Two words: damage limitation. However...

That's also good and clever marketing whether you like it or not. There's no such thing as bad publicity and creating the furore over the Marcus scene has certainly brought the movie to the fore and it's portrayal of characters in the Star Trek universe right to the peak.. The portrayal of said female characters is particularly poor - Uhura and Carol are badly used, Kirk sleeps with two and Harewood's wife says not a word. The female navigator who replaces Chekhov gets a better part. Ultimately, the more we rant about it, the more people will want to see what we're all talking about and those box office coiffures will steadily expand. 

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the trailers and the hype all along the way. It was a really well orchestrated ride and the film is, well, average to say the most. There are a lot of massively negative and polar opposite scarily over the top reactions out there which just defy me as to how we can rant and rave at such diametric opposites with so much fury. Ladies, gents; it's a movie and one person's interpretation of someone else's idea. That's the be all and end all of it. I get the point of reviews but it just seems that we're going beyond the pail now even as hard-core fans. I enjoyed it but I've managed to remain in control of my emotions and my bladder when asked for an opinion and refrained from multiple exclamation marks at the end of sentences!!!

http://www.scottchambliss.com

OK, maybe just the once I haven't but there's more to Star Trek than two reboot movies from JJ Abrams. I'm at a loss as to why you would even want to go and see it multiple times (there's  guy on Twitter I saw who was thinking about going for a sixth time - DVD/blu-ray???) unless you just want to help make the movie get a few more bucks and not be the "disappointment" some have labelled it. Surely we should be happy that Abrams created two new slices of Star Trek even if they aren't necessarily everyone's cup of tea because it's got everyone jabbering on about it. Saying the acting is amazing or waxing lyrical that it's just the best cinematic experience ever seems like the recipe for a stomach empty of astronomic proportions that we don't need to hear. Sorry - just an opinion however in comparison to previous outings this has gone to another level. Maybe the overwhelming influence of social media (including this blog) and including Twitter, Facebook, Google+, websites, Pinterest, publishers, writers, etc etc have more than aided in the frenzy to get a word in edge-ways on the subject. I know for one that  I've mentioned about the borrowed dialogue from The Wrath of Khan as well as other bits that didn't satisfy me, bits that I liked, things that niggled but perhaps the Star Trek community should just come together and decide that as of June 1st 2013 we'll stop bitching about the damn film and move on. Let's go back to complaining about viral videos of Riker sitting down, if DS9 or Voyager was better or whether THAT Picard meme is really, really, really annoying. Right. Let's make it official, who's with me in making June 1st 2013 International Star Trek Out of Darkness Day. No bitching, grumping, hair-pulling, over-enthusiasm, glorifying or in fact any emotional reaction to the movie at all. Let's keep it decidedly Vulcan...Or not....

Some of the magazine and news slots have been pretty awful and inconsistent with terrible editorial errors (Heat magazine referencing John Anderson is one of my favourites (right)) that show a total lack of understanding and a desire to jump on the boat whether right or wrong - check your stuff first if you're in the limelight might be a word of wisdom! While you might want to pass a verdict, seeing the movie helps if you're going to write something about it in the first place.

Over-analysing Star Trek Into Darkness is just killing anything that was good/bearable about the whole experience. I can get the themes, the characters are fine, the effects are good but we're dissecting it way more than it needs to be as a global community. Let me say it again; it's a film. I would try and avoid all these posts, tweets and the like, but everyone has a fierce opinion which you can't get away from but let's just start taking deep breaths and calm the **** down. We have effectively become part of that very marketing campaign through our maelstrom of views and comments right across the world. JJ Abrams, Bad Robot and Paramount couldn't have wanted a better, free medium to give opinion because they can sit back, relax and take it all in without spending a penny/dime/centime. Cha-ching, that's the sound of success right there. What we're missing is the notion that the "rebooting" of the Star Trek universe is confined to two blockbuster movies in 2009 and 2013 but encompasses the whole franchise history at the same time. It has reignited interest in Star Trek both virulently within its existing fanbase and also within new fans who are discovering it through these more action-orientated JJ installments. Whether good or bad, people are interested, news abounds and I would suspect that searches for the topic on Google have gone absolutely mental. 

http://www.scottchambliss.com

It's not a failure the more we discuss it and keep the fires burning. It's incited a fanbase into meltdown but perhaps we need to appreciate it's an action movie for the modern age and not Prime Star Trek. It is what it is and there's nothing we can do about it - although if it manages to raise a new TV series to our screens a la The Avengers with Agents of SHIELD then I doubt we'll be complaining. Ok, we probably will won't we? It'll be all Abrams-ified and that'll cause another storm in a nebula.

Now I applaud people for their opinions whatever they may be, it's what makes the world turn, sells newspapers, governments fall and Star Trek forums the bloody battlegrounds they are, but for the love of Kirk and Picard, how many times can you read a review of the film saying the same thing? Or reviews that just talk about how it's not "like it used to be". Sorry people, it's called Change. Yes, Star Trek Into Darkness has it's faults, yes it has some great moments and lines that will go down in Star Trek lore I'm sure but it'll never be a classic nor is it one of the worst things ever. It's average at best and average at worst. I doubt the Oscars will be heralding it as the next multiple award-winning movie to rival Ben Hur or Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Effects and hair-styling more likely but don't hold your breath.

Dammit, it's even made me write this piece on how I'm fed up with it. What gets me though isn't that I'm annoyed or grumpy with everything surrounding the film. I love the merchandising that's come out, I love the magazines, the books, t-shirts, little starship models, faux Lego Kre-O kits, behind the scenes videos that have been playing, uniforms, the whole shebang and a kitchen sink - it's just how we're dealing with the film and those involved with it that makes me uncomfortable. We don't seem to respect other fans views on the movie for one thing and there just seems no end to the bitterness. Trekkers/Trekkies always get a name for being obsessive, over the top, nerdy etc and we're always trying to prove that we're the opposite - we're cool, we're down with the kids (ok - bit extreme) and definitely not total mummy's boy, living in the box room at age 50 geeks who trawl the internet to pass opinion and comment on the length of Riker's beard. Sadly while the film attempted to be cool and hip and everything we wanted (almost) so that Trek fandom would be respected a bit more, what did we all do....? Yeah...box room, internet, you can fill in the rest. We reverted to type without even a slight prod of a Klingon pain stick.

trekmovie.com

Anyway, back to the point; it's all got too much really. Whether it's psychoanalysis, Carol's underwear (two mentions here alone), deep-meaningful's over the plot themes, Chekhov's accent, Uhura and Spock's relationship or disgust at the size of the Vengeance nacelles, we've got to rein it in. There's more to Star Trek than one 133 minute movie and maybe, just maybe some "interpretation" of Gene Roddenberry's 1960's vision will do just that. Love it or hate it, the rebooted universe is here and we can't erase them from history (we can of course personally recognise or deny them entrance to canon) and would we deny someone the right to be a fan of Star Trek if this is what gets them involved to being with? I suspect not. In all that's good in Threshold there's worse stuff that's considered canon and even more dire material that's in the non-canon universe of novelisations. We're reading too much into these two segments. Seriously. We are.

I also would like to add an apology. I'm sorry if this has seemed like a blog rant but I needed to expunge these feelings from my mind before I got jaded by the whole experience. it's been a little unnerving at times and there's still something about the whole Into Darkness bubble that just makes me uneasy - perhaps it is the sense that it's action movie of the season rather than a proper Star Trek experience. Maybe it's just because we seemed to be promised so much more - the options are numerous, the whole less than the parts perhaps but still an acceptable movie. I only saw it once, in 3D and that was enough. Is that telling me something about how I saw the movie? Am I wrong to not want to go back and experience it again and again in such a short period of time? For now I'm happy to have seen it, read the novel, got the great Michael Giachinno soundtrack (lot of snippets on there from the 2009 movie as well as new pieces) and can wait for the blu-ray. It won't change my life and nor will I be willing Abrams pain and death for his take on Star Trek. But does this mean I'm not a true fan? That I don't care enough? Can I expect to be lynched from my bed in the early hours and forced to watch Into Darkness over and over again until I submit? 

The answer is no. The reason is, and you'll get there before I do, it's just a movie. I do love Star Trek and I would miss it if I didn't have a regular fix, read a book, write about it and get my other half reminding me that "I'm too obsessed" (she has a point and that's one reason why I love her - she grounds me back in reality) but if I really settle down and act like a normal person, it doesn't matter. I find it hilarious sometimes when people find out I'm a fan - they don't think I look like a Trekker. Appearances huh, don't be fooled!

Now to prove a point and take some of my own medicine to calm the **** down I'm off to watch Spock's Brain, Shades of Grey and Star Trek: Nemesis back to back....now stop sniggering at the back - go and wait for Star Wars Episode VII, then we'll see....

Additional images screenshot by SKoST unless stated

Star Trek Into Darkness: The Good, The Bad and the Book

"Well ****...you talked to him...." - Admiral Alexander Marcus

So how do you review a film that every man, woman, quadrupedal lifeform, Gorn, Tholian and Horta has reviewed already? 

It's hard, that's what it is. Damn difficult to write something new, quirky and different that means people will actually bother to scroll down further than the second paragraph. And yeah, expect SPOILERS; a few at least.

Well you've made it to the third paragraph which is a good sign. Now what I thought about doing was tell you why this film is utter garbage and should be jettisoned into deep space but that's unfair. Instead, let's look at the good and the bad with a "novel" twist. Literally. I've got my hands on the yet-to-be-released novelisation of Star Trek Into Darkness by Alan Dean Foster and it throws some new light on the latest installment of the stellar franchise.

So...shall we begin? (couldn't resist...sorry!)

Star Trek Into Darkness is a real mixed bag. It so clearly wants to be an action movie from the opening five seconds it hurts. The problem is that there was at least one cell in JJ Abrams brain that reminded him that this was a Star Trek movie and not Mission: Impossible 5. The opening sequence is a prime example of everything that is wrong with the film. There's a chase, some aliens we've never seen or heard of before (nor will again), the Enterprise hidden beneath the waves and Spock quoting lines from The Wrath of Khan. It's all signs and portents for what is to come but because this is the first new Star Trek since 2009 you desperately want to forgive the movie all its sins and revel in the experience as whatever it looks like, whatever it feels like, it's as near as dammit to "classic" Star Trek as we're ever going to get for a while.

But that can't be it? That can't be the logic to why this is a bad film can it? Well no. It's not a bad film although the promotional campaign has a lot to answer for but more on that later.

Benedict Cumberbatch does a decent enough job as John Harrison and subsequently a decent enough job as Khan (told you there were spoilers) although both on the screen and in the novel all mention of his historical Eugenics War background is sidestepped so quickly it's an obvious omission. There's not even a name-check for his sleeper ship stuck in there. What worries me with Cumberbatch is that he comes off more as a Malcolm McDowell/Tolian Soran kind of villain rather than a Ricardo Montalban/Khan. He's not a distinctly evil character and even late into the story he's still driven by a desire for revenge and personal justice and while he seems cold, calculating and all out better at everything there's never the threat you would have felt from General Chang, "Prime" Khan or even 2009's Nero at a push.  

The way the novel is written does work to this character's advantage as the mystery of John Harrison is retained right up to the point of revelation within the Enterprise brig. His appearances prior to this are shrouded, left to the reader's imagination and not spoiled by the movie's visual overload of action and effects. The encounter on Qo'noS for example is quick and brutal, emphasising the super-human nature of this character but never really gives a clue as to who he really is and while we're carried along by the swiftness that Harrison dispatches his foes both in hand-to-hand combat and with his oversized weapons, the drama of seeing this is lost and even providing background on the Ketha Province or details on what Harrison uses in his one-man charge can't make up for that. For those of you who like your Star trek trivia, the lowlands of Ketha were the birthplace of General Martok. The allusions I got from the novel and the way in which it describes this abandoned area of the Klingon homeworld suggest that the plague might have been something to do with the Augment virus we saw back in the final season of Star Trek: Enterprise. Kudos for the reference and the book pays better service to it than the movie.

Another element of the whole better realised is Noel Clarke's doomed Starfleet character, Thomas Harewood. We get to know this individual even within the limited pages he gets. The film almost romanticises the situation he and his wife face but the novel pinpoints the longevity of the couple's pain, the futility of the bedside vigil for their daughter and ultimately the sacrifice Harewood makes. Unfortunately it also gives away early on that where he works is not just an archive before it is revealed by Admiral Marcus to Kirk and Spock. Not a big fault but it could have been avoided with a couple of tweaks.

So what of the more prominent cast? Kirk buys a ticket on the world's fastest emotional roller-coaster for one - this guy gets suspended, promoted, demoted, returned to the Academy, reactivated and promoted faster than you can say Kobayashi Maru. Fact. His removal and reassignment to the Enterprise all happens at such a breakneck pace that the first ten minutes seem irrelevant given where he ends up anyway. What you do get from the book on the flipside is much more discussion and explanation around the process of why this all happens and adds to discussions between (significantly) Kirk and Marcus and earlier, Kirk and Pike. These additions provide more depth to their thoughts and personalities as well as vital plotting that gets snipped out of the final cinematic cut and there are more than one or two "A-ha!" moments throughout. Although the weight of Pike's loss on Kirk doesn't come across at the same level we see on the screen, there is a brief time of reflection which we lose that builds on the family and loss of a father figure that pervades this movie in either format. His journey is perhaps not as bounding as seen in Star Trek (2009) but there is development and his path takes him to a much more secure and wiser place - there's a maturity that he has gained over the course of the encounter with Khan that readies him for the five year mission ahead.

Spock and Uhura's relationship is more muted than in the 2009 reboot but this Spock gets all emotional over an officer he's only really known for nine months at one point which just seems, ironically, illogical. In all fairness he's a much more emotional Spock than Nimoy ever was and I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with that. I suppose when you don;t have a series to play out the human/Vulcan conflict, squashing it into 2 and a bit hours requires a bit more emphasis on the obvious. Given that, the "bromance" between Spock and his captain plays well against his love interests and ultimately seems to be of more importance to him than Uhura.

Equally illogical is Chekov's promotion to Chief Engineer but in the novel you realise that the decision is a forced one given Scotty's opposition to the experimental torpedoes loaded onto the ship. We understand more from Alan Dean Foster why he doesn't want them and his conscience as well as subsequently why Chekov becomes the ideal candidate as his replacement....or maybe Kirk just wanted him off the bridge. He's not got a lot to do apart from look at a broken warp core for most of the story and even the book adds little to the role. Sulu on the other hand gets two decent scenes which are the same in either format - on the shuttle during Spock's mission into the volcano and then getting a chance at the centre seat during the incursion into Klingon space. Nice precursor and hat nod to Star Trek VI and the Excelsior. The development is subtle in that he gets a chance at command and it allows John Cho a little breathing space in the role. McCoy gets to grump around and get some cracking lines which are fortunately in the film and the book In fact his presence at some key moments reminds you just how good a character he is. Foster has managed to capture his "likeness" very well. Urban could easily be Kelley. He's still the closest to the original out of the whole cast. I'm just narked that he's been diminished in prominence thanks to the requirement for a stronger female lead Star Trek character with Uhura.

Time constraints of the screen versus the page are more than evident, as with the 2009 reboot, mean that expansive, action-slowing dialogue gets left on the cutting room floor in favour of the time limit and pacing for a cinema audience. The novel gives us more - it's like having the biggest deleted scene section on your DVD right in front of you for analysis. Even better is that you can see where parts were added during filming or worked in a slightly different way. What we have from Foster is the "definitive" writers version  - the way Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof devised their screenplay and the way they walked into production on Day One of filming.  Say Harrison's escape from Earth for example - in the movie I felt a plot-hole appear around the transwarp beaming issue - how could he escape with a portable kit all the way to Qo'noS? Here we find out it was a series of hops from one transporter to another which makes more sense but might have been a little confusing to fully explain on screen. This just adds more weight to the essential matter of getting your hands on the novel. 


While we can all gripe about action over themes and characterisation, I think knuckling down and reading the book will add another dimension to the film, unaffected by lens flare or over-dramatic effects. Now I'm not saying that we should be looking  for this on the next Booker Prize list for example, however what I am saying is that this might help give fans both Star Trek and non-Star Trek a better understanding of what the overall picture was from the writers before things were adjusted or shifted. Heavy reliance on the action piece is another prevalent force within the book. You become very aware that while there is a lot of additional dialogue and insight into character motivations and personalities, you are being shunted from one action point to another; Earth to Qo'noS, Qo'noS to Vengeance, Vengeance to Earth and so on. The subtlety of the themes that made Star Trek great are even more evidently missing when you read the story because it's aimed so heavily at the mainstream to garner the limelight and the cinema-goer's hard earned cash at the box office. We can all scream and shout that Abrams has removed the heart and soul from the franchise but the reality is that money will spawn a sequel which will tread the same lines and concept once more.

What is almost totally lost by the novel and Foster is the humour of the movie. Some of the lines are missing and I noticed this during the scene in which Carol "Wallace" reports for duty aboard the shuttle on the way to the Enterprise as well as slightly earlier when Pike chews out Spock over his attitude. We just don't appreciate the fun of these moments in the book. They are lost within the page and lack the quirks that the actors on screen add to their characters. The depth that is added gets missed which is a shame especially considering the number of "Prime Universe" novels which hit these characters running. I'm not saying Alan Dean Foster misses the boat because these aren't the "same" people Shatner and Co played but there are elements of their personalities that the page fails to capture.

One thing that I can praise the novel for is the fact that it manages to avoid using chunks of The Wrath of Khan references that nearly ruined the movie for me. There's homage and then there's going too far and this just skirted the right side of that line. Sadly the end third was as frantic off screen as on with the last battle seemingly over in a heartbeat and the crash of the Vengeance just doesn't have the same resonance in text that you get from the visuals. The background to the event is well written, looking at the catastrophe on the ground and what causes the ship to miss Khan's intended target of Starfleet Command but the impact just lacks the gravitas of a full blown effects team at work. 

The shame with the movie is that both this and the fall of the Enterprise are featured in so many clips, trailers and feature toes that their full force is mellowed by the time you see if unfold in Star Trek Into Darkness because it's been played out so many times. At least the chase between Khan and Spock gets some weight added to it. Odd thing really but looking back over this review you realise how much this book relies on the action and description of on screen events. The characters are in the back seat from the off as we're plummeted into that first chase sequence and a dangerous situation. Don't get me wrong, both the book and the movie are entertaining however the people within seem to lack soul and it's hard for us to care for them. Indeed you do end up rooting for Khan because he's a more faceted individual than anyone else. So what am I actually saying about this? Ok, I don't hate it but I'm not waxing lyrical that it's the movie the franchise was in need of nor will it be a contender for film of the year. It's a good movie and the book is a fantastic companion volume that fills in the gaps of said action movie. 

The characters are lacking and I think Scotty comes off better in the movie than the book for having a substantial amount of clichéd Scottish dialogue slashed yet his character in the book is nowhere near as comedic as it is played by Simon Pegg. Indeed it shows how the movie adapted from the screenplay and must have worked better in some ways when it moved in front of the cameras.

There were a few bits that bugged me when I went to see Star Trek Into Darkness and this novelisation manages to either successfully avoid acknowledging their existence of provides an answer to the gaping pothole. For example, Carol Marcus has a distinctly English accent while daddy, Admiral Marcus blatantly heralds from the other side of the Atlantic. Here we find out why as we also see why only Khan and not his cryogenically frozen superman can provide the final solution. 

More than likely I burnt through this book because I had only recently seen the film and it's afterimage was still firmly locked in my mind but it is a page turner and will satisfy the questioning mind of questions a Star Trek fan or cinema goer. Sadly through while Foster is capable of conveying the thoughts of characters that we may not totally perceive on screen, his ability to describe and animate action sequences is his downfall and there's no substitute for seeing Star Trek Into Darkness on the big screen. Hats off to Paramount and Bad Robot though. It's been a masterful campaign trail which culminated in the movie opening in the US on May 16th. From what I've seen of the US reaction it's been mixed to say the least and I still feel uneasy to some degree over a week later. The novelisation was a great help and I feel happier after having poured over it. Things make sense, narrative is explained and perhaps the impact of actions are better addressed than they are in the movie. Maybe the all action marketing campaign was a little too good and it will be interesting to resist this movie in five years time or even just after the release of Star Trek 3 which must now be something of a formality given the record breaking success of the second reboot. 

And finally... and probably more due to the nature of a novelisation we are spared that glorious panning shot of Admiral Marcus' model collection. Why oh why does no one even question what the hell the big ship on the end of the row is and why is everyone so surprised when they finally see it turn up?!

You can get your hands on the novelisation of Star Trek Into Darkness by Alan Dean Foster from Simon and Schuster priced £12.99 ISBN 9781471128899. The movie, Star Trek Into Darkness is (of course) in cinemas right now....

You can also read my review of the Star Trek (2009) novelisation now