At the 1 minute and 36 second point of the new Star Trek: Into Darkness trailer there is a genuinely out-of-nowhere 1 second shot of new cast member Alice Eve standing in what appears to be a shuttle and wearing nothing but a rather Victoria’s Secret-esque black bra and panties.

The film?  Looks pretty good, even if this trailer plays like a collection of scenes we’ve already seen done elsewhere (as argued here). Alice Eve, um, looks good in what amounts to a two-piece bikini (I get tired just looking at her abs), but why is this in there?

The British-born Eve is playing Dr. Carol Marcus, a character who in the continuity of the original films had an off-screen romantic relationship with James T. Kirk which produced a son Kirk knew nothing about until his son was a young man.   This is a crucial element to the plot of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and the presence of Marcus in the new movie has definitely been seen as giant, flashing-neon-light-sign hint that the villain in this film might turn out to be Khan.  Beyond that, I know I hadn’t given Eve a second thought.  Now, I am suddenly reminded that she is that one girl from She’s Out of My League, in which the premise of the film is entirely predicated on how almost preternaturally attractive she is.  So, oh yeah, she is most likely Captain Kirk’s love interest in the new movie.

Does the film really need to show Alice Eve in her underwear? Short answer, probably not, long answer, let’s wait until we see it in the context of the film [5/17 Update: I've seen the movie now.  The scene with her in her underwear is incredibly brief but entirely pointless.  Even one of the film's screenwriters agrees].  Is this gratuitous partial nudity incredibly out of character for Star Trek?  Well, not really.

The Original Series (1966-1969)

Star Trek has always been about boldly going where no one, man or woman, has gone before, and seeking out new life and new civilizations.  However, for the Original Series that mission statement might as well as have included the following addendum: to seek out new races of hot females with whom James T. Kirk can have sex or at least enjoy a solid make-out session.  Below is just a sampling of his conquests:

Kirk was probably no more a man-whore than Sam Beckett on Quantum Leap, who similarly locked lips with many a female co-star.  It is the natural by-product of an episodic show with a central male character who is both a lover and a fighter – he’s going to have a ton of love interests. The difference here is that the original Star Trek was made during the orgy-tastic heights of the sexual revolution.  As such, in addition to the many Kirk-on-hot-woman make-outs you also see a not-small amount of skin, especially for late 1960s television.

I don’t even have to go very far for an example.  The show’s original, William Shatner-less pilot, “The Cage”,  featured what amounted to a green-skinned Geisha girl dancing seductively for nearly two minutes:

The pilot was cut-up and aired as the first season’s 11th and 12th episodes (“The Menagerie 1 & 2″), but a truncated version of the seduction dance made it in.  So, not surprisingly after such an introduction the show was not reluctant to show some female skin.

You had your somewhat-to-very scantily clad aliens:

And your scantily clad versions of the main characters from the mirror (read as: evil) universe:

Ordinary female crew members from the ship, when not depicted in their mirror universe incarnation, could be fully clothed in ill-fitting polyester uniforms or suffer the “well, I guess I’m not sitting down at all today” indignity of wearing the shortest skirts imaginable:

And it wasn’t just the women.  Shatner was shirtless – a lot.  Here he is enjoying shirtless buddies time with Leonard Nimoy:

And the classic episode “The Naked Time” forever gave us this indelible image of a deranged, shirtless George Takei displaying what we mean when we say “a dancer’s body”:

Plus, in the “Charlie X” episode this happened.  It was awkward:

Homoerotic tickle fights? Starfleet is cool with it.

Trek Fact: After the original series was canceled but before The Motion Picture was made, Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry co-wrote and produced a sexploitation film chock full of nudity in 1971.

The Original/Next Generation Cast Films (1979, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1989, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2002)

All six of the original cast films are family friendly, PG-rated fare that carry over almost none of the original TV show’s fondness for attractive women wearing remarkably little.  Perhaps this was a sign of the times or a reflection of the original cast being a full decade older by the time they made their first film together.  Heck, in Star Trek: The Motion Picture you see almost as much of Deforest Kelley’s chest hair as you do Persis Khambatta‘s (aka the bald woman’s) legs.

The most skin any of the films show is probably Ricardo Montalban’s impressively chiseled physique as Khan in Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan:

KHAN!!!!!  You look…fabulous!

The Next Generation cast films may have upped the ante in terms of violence and language, earning First Contact and Nemesis PG-13 ratings, but there is nothing overtly sexual in any of them other than a subtle love triangle between the Borg Queen, Data, and Picard in First Contact.

The Next Generation (1987-1994)

The Next Generation premiered in a post-AIDs world, and its depiction of sexuality reflects that.  In the place of the more swashbuckling Captain Kirk is Patrick Stewart’s Captain Picard, a man more likely to sit in his ready room and enjoy a good cup of Earle Gray tea than court an attractive female alien while on an away mission.  Our characters, in general, are far more chaste and quicker to reject hedonism.

But, wait a minute, what about this?

Tasha Yar from “The Naked Now”, an episode inspired by the original series classic “The Naked Time”

Granted, it was difficult to shake old habits. The show’s second episode, “The Naked Now”, has the crew behaving like horny drunkards as the result of a ship-wide infection.  So, of course our tough as nails female Head of Security strips to a bare midriff ensemble she uses to seduce Data, an android whose explanation of his “fully functional” android penis has been the source of immense humor among Star Trek fans.  However, even here the implication is these characters would only behave in such a manner if inebriated against their will.

Plus, the show did not completely eschew the miniskirts for the female crew members from the Original Series. Throughout the run of the show, Marina Sirtis’ Counselor Troi had a rotating series of costumes, most of which distinguished her from the rest of the crew and their standard Starfleet uniforms.  However, early on they tried out a modern update of the infamous Original Series miniskirts, but the end result made her look like she was some sort of  Starfleet cheer-leader:

Counselor Troi the Cheerleader, Sensing Exactly the Opposite Thing of the Truth Since 1987

But, for the most part The Next Generation reflected the original cast films in that we were supposed to be in a time which has moved beyond the objectification of women.  The most you would get would be form-fitting outfits that were presented as ideal for utility as opposed to enhancing attractiveness.

Scientists in the late 80s thought that you would not lose any weight if you worked out wearing anything other than spandex.

Beth Toussaint as Ishara Yar from the season 4 episode “Legacy.” In the episode, this outfit is no big deal, not even acknowledged in fact.  Photo credit: wikipedia.org

Deep Space Nine (1993-1999)

To paraphrase Marty McFly, Deep Space Nine was pretty heavy.  After spending the customary-for-a-Star-Trek-show first two seasons figuring everything out, it grew into a heavily serialized WWII parable with the Federation, Klingons, and eventually Romulans the Allied Forces and the Cardassians, Dominion, and Breen as the Axis Powers.  There simply was not a whole lot of time for romantic relationships, and when they did they tended not to waste time in presenting male or females in skimpy clothing for no good reason.

If there was an episode set on the pleasure planet Risa then you might see some women in somewhat standard bikinis, as with Chase Masterson below:

Heck, even when they did Mirror Universe episodes in which Kira’s evil, sexually aggressive and usually lesbian counterpart was bringing her milkshake to the yard she was typically covered head to toe in leather.  If we were on the Holodeck, the characters might be allowed to loosen up, but still not shown in anything especially egregious as seen below:

Voyager (1995-2001)

This is where it both did and did not change.  Female characters had been wearing form-fitting outfits since Deanna Troi on Next Generation.  So, technically Jeri Ryan’s Seven of Nine, who joined Voyager in the fourth season and was almost always covered head to toe, was no different.  Yet before her the women looked like women whereas she typically looked like a comic book heroine, about which Jeri Ryan herself as even joked:

Eventually, possibly because Jeri Ryan kept fainting from the effects of the hidden corset (at least I assume she did), they granted her a new, slightly less hip-hugging costume.

The odd juxtaposition for a character whose costume meant to bring a video game or comic book heroine body-type to life is that Seven of Nine was just as chaste, if not more so, than everyone else.  Seven of Nine was assimilated into the Borg while still a 6-year-old girl and freed from the collective once an adult woman.  As such, she is basically constantly learning how to be an adult human (or, more accurately, refusing to learn).  Sexuality is considerably low on her checklist of things to learn.

The show mostly played the disconnect between her obvious attractiveness and lack of knowledge or interest in anything sexual for humor.  The best examples come in the episodes “Revulsion” and “Someone to Watch Over Me.”  In the former she notices a male crew member flirting with her and responds bluntly, and in the latter she has a “My Fair Lady”-esque lesson from the ship Doctor on how to date.  The below clip comes from “Revulsion” and features about as bluntly and clinically-stated an invitation for sex (“copulation”) as you’ll ever hear [the funny starts at the 1:20 mark]:

And in “Someone to Watch Over Me,” we get to see her on an actual date.  Here, you can see that she is trying…and failing every step of the way:

They did have her pose nude once, but it was presented for humor.  Plus, it was a holodeck version of her.  Ultimately, she may have rocked a mean unitard, but her character’s actual romantic life from the entirety of her time on the show is best summed up here:

Photo credit: startrek.com

What the Jeri Ryan experience taught the Star Trek writers and producers was just how sexy Star Trek could look without ever actually being sexy. Put Jeri Ryan into a skin-tight leotard with a hidden corset underneath, but don’t write her any differently than a normal character.  In fact, Seven of Nine is a rather standard Star Trek stock character type – the outsider (e.g., Vulcan, android, ex-Borg) struggling to understand humanity.  So, they decided to try it again with their next spin-off.

Enterprise (2001-2005)

With Enterprise, they took the Jeri Ryan experiment and multiplied it by 2.  They found their own Jeri Ryan in Jolene Blalock as the Vulcan T’Pol, and reached into sci-fi past to find a male heartthrob to play Captain Archer – Scott Bakula, prior man-whore for Quantum Leap.  They then devised of a method to consistently strip the characters, not just T’Pol and Archer mind you, down to their underwear and have them think nothing of it.  Basically, characters took partially nude group water-less showers together, and would often have to rub each other down with some sort of oil.   And you thought they were shameless with Jeri Ryan’s costume, didn’t you?

In the logic of the show, characters on away missions would have to go through a decontamination process before rejoining the crew.  This meant stripping to their underwear and entering a small room together for a set period of time.  It sure looked sexual, but to the actual characters it was the most mundane thing imaginable.  It may in reality be a ratings-starved show pandering to viewers, but in the reality of the show it was a logical precautionary method with which the characters had long since been accustomed.  You’d be right to guess that T’Pol was featured in such scenes quite often, with the below being of the more wholesome variety even though it involves two girls, a guy, and a dog:

Seven of Nine – Former borg with an emotionless veneer that belies an on-going effort to become more human-like, fondness for form-fitting unitards, and played by an extremely attractive actress.

T’Pol – A Vulcan, a race who suppresses their emotions, who ultimately begins exploring human emotions, fond of wearing form-fitting unitards, and played by an extremely attractive actress more willing to show more skin than the last one.

Yeah, it was obvious what they were up to.  However, T’Pol proved to be one of the most compelling characters on the show, and her romantic relationship with the human Trip (Connor Trenier) is among the best attempts at a such relationship in the TNG/DSN/Voyager/Enterprise era.  Plus, there was a sexual element to their relationship that was more honest than it was exploitative, although they probably showed just a little bit more of Blalock than they really needed to for the story.  You can see a hint of it toward the end of the below trailer:

It wasn’t all Blalock, though.  As a prequel to all Star Trek that had come before, they were able to re-introduce the O’Rion Slave Girls:

And they had a lot of fun hiding Bakula’s shirt and watching him look for it:

They even did an homage to the Original Series’ Mirror universe with “In a Mirror Darkly 1 & 2” from the final season, which featured the cast wearing replica Original Series uniforms and acting on replica Original Series sets.  This allowed them to shamelessly show off Jolene Blalock’s abs just as the Original Series had done with Nichelle Nichols in “Mirror, Mirror”:

J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek (2009)

But that was all before J.J. Abrams’ take on the Star Trek story.  He can do whatever he wants, and Alice Eve is not the first actress he has stripped down to her underwear lest we forget Rachel Nichols’ O’rion girl Gaila from the first Star Trek:

So, with Alice Eve they appear to again trying the sexy look without being sexy thing.  She’s half-naked, sure, but she’s also wearing a facial expression that says, “Don’t tell me you have something against nudity!”  It may be jarring, but Star Trek started out with a dancing Geisha girl and in its recent history they are not above taking advantage of the appeal of the female (or male) form.  This may or may not be a good thing, but it’s nothing new.

What do you think?  Did you not even notice Alice Eve and her underwear in the trailer until now?  Are there other examples you’re surprised I didn’t point out?

For a comedic analysis of sexuality in the Star Trek shows with a more in-depth focus upon a select few individual episodes, look here.

Related articles

• Star Trek: Now With Half Naked Chicks (optimuscook.wordpress.com)
• Beam me up hottie! Alice Eve strips off to her bra and pants in new Star Trek trailer (mirror.co.uk)

UPDATE: 5/19/2013-The movie is out now.  Head here to check out our spoiler-free review.

UPDATE: 5/2/2013 – The massive ship piloted by Cumberbatch in the trailer has a name.  That name?  The U.S.S. Vengeance.  I guess the U.S.S. Wrath and U.S.S. Retribution were taken, and the U.S.S. Khan was too on the nose.

Here is the part where I say stuff and you wait for it to end so you can get to watching the video.  Well, I think that about covers it then.  Here is the final theatrical trailer for Star Trek Into Darkness:

From the 1 minute, 15 second mark, what the hell is this?

Good Enterprise on left, the Big, Bad Evil Enterprise on right

Tor.com is arguing the giant black ship, which Benedict Cumberbatch captains in the trailer, looks an awful lot like the Enterprise E, i.e., the version of the Enterprise used by the Next Generation crew in the films Star Trek: First Contact, Insurrection, and Nemesis.  This doesn’t necessarily mean it is the Enterprise E, but the design similarities suggest it could be an Enterprise from the Mirror Universe.  I don’t know about all that.  Frankly, I’ve always thought the various star ships in Star Trek look pretty similar – saucer-shaped primary hull connected to a narrow or fat body supported by two elongated jet propulsion-esque parts called warp nacelles.  That describes more than just the Enterprise in the Star Trek universe.   However, there is a definite similarity here which is likely intentional.  It creates an effective, almost comedic juxtaposition in how out-gunned Kirk & company are going to be in their fight against not-Khan-but-probably-is-Khan.

The last time we saw Khan in the Star Trek universe (in Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan) he was on the deck of the Enterprise USS Reliant, a Federation starship he had commandeered in his plot for revenge against Kirk.  Cumberbatch’s villain in the new movie happens to have a ship which looks an awful lot like a Federation starship, albeit a hybrid one.  Doesn’t mean he will turn out to be Khan, of course.  Just something I thought I’d point out.

At the 1 minute, 56 second mark of the trailer Simon Pegg’s Scotty indicates the Enterprise might be destroyed or made unusable, likely as a result of Cumberbatch’s “You call that a ship?  Now, this, this is a ship!” battle advantage.  If such a thing does come to pass, it won’t be the first time the Enterprise has been destroyed in one of the movies or tv shows.  Below is not a list of every single version of the various starships to be called Enterprise in Star Trek, but instead a list of those which we have actually seen destroyed in battle:

NCC-1701

The ship survived a bald woman (Star Trek: The Motion Picture) and a bare-chested Ricardo Montalban (Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan) but could not make it past Christopher Lloyd as a Klingon (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock).

NCC-1701-C

Oh, Enterprise C, we hardly knew ya.  You showed up in the Next Generation episode “Yesterday’s Enterprise,” in which you, too, were destroyed in battle with the Klingons.

NCC-1701-D

We followed you through seven seasons of Next Generation and waited patiently during the speech-y Star Trek: Generations only to see you destroyed in battle with the Klingons. As the Simpsons version of Captain Kirk once said in a parody of Star Trek, “[exasperated sigh] Again with the Klingons?”

So, the Klingons have been behind every destruction of the Enterprise in the Star Trek universe, and the Enterprise appears likely to perish in the new film. You know what this means? Cumberbatch’s character in Into Darkness must be a Klingon.  Granted, he does not look like a traditional Klingon, but that hasn’t stopped Star Trek before:

Original Series version of Klingons

Next Generation and all spin-offs’ version of Klingons. This is Worf. He is not a merry man.

Okay.  I am only kind of joking, but I may actually be right.  As I was writing this article Hollywood.com published a very thorough argument that Cumberbatch’s character in the new movie is either a Klingon or aligned with the Klingons, who we see in the trailer as the anonymous foot soldiers wearing the shiny helmets. Check it out here.  The following is my summation of their argument:

1. In the original continuity, Klingons naturally look like Worf, pictured above.  However, in response to human genetic testing they uncovered and interpreted as a threat they began experimenting with splicing Klingon and human DNA to produce deep-cover agents who could infiltrate Starfleet.  The experiments, although initially successful, morphed into a virus which affected the entire Klingon community.  By the time of the Original Series, most if not all Klingons looked human.  This negated the intent to place deep cover agents as there is no element of disguise when all Klingons look human.  At some point between the Original Series and Star Trek: The Motion Picture the Klingons were able to reverse the effect.

2. What if in the new J.J. Abrams continuity the Klingons genetic experiments were successful but did not produce a virus?  What if the John Harrison character played by Cumberbatch is actually a Klingon in deep cover in Starfleet?  The trailer indicates Harrison might be working in alliance with the Klingons, but what if he is actually one of them?

If you consider the Abrams films tied to the continuity of the TV shows and prior films then actions from the show Enterprise negate this. However, if you consider the Abrams films free to do whatever they want this is certainly a possibility.  We have not actually seen what the Klingons in this new universe look like, and they already heavily altered the appearance of the Romulans in the first Star Trek.

When will we absolutely find out for sure?  On 5/17/2013 when Star Trek Into Darkness is released in the USA,  with a mixture of earlier and later release dates for other regions of the world.

Theorize with us in the comments.

Editorial Note: 4/23/2013-The above article originally stated that in Wrath of Khan the ship commandeered by Khan is the Enteprise.  A commentator responded to the article to point out that Khan actually captains the USS Reliant.  In response, the offending text has been corrected.  We hang our heads in shame, and kindly hand in our Star Trek fan badge and phaser.

Related Articles:

Star Trek: Into Darkness News: An Earlier Release Date, Early Reviews & A Look at the Klingons (weminoredinfilm.com)

It’s been a long four years since the original J.J. Abram’s Star Trek.  Abrams destroyed the planet of Vulcan, gave Spock a girlfriend, and called a gang of space pirates Romulans when they clearly were not Romulans as we had come to know them.  Trek fandom may never forget, but after four years … who am I kidding they’ll never forgive.  However, we are now that much closer to the next round of “how dare you, J.J. Abrams” plot developments.  As such, the Paramount press machine is in overdrive, so much so that we have fallen way behind.  Here is the latest run-down:

Release Date a Day Earlier Now.  Adjust Your Schedules Accordingly.

In a move totally and absolutely unrelated in any way whatsoever to the record-setting opening weekend of Iron Man 3, Paramount has decided to release Star Trek: Into Darkness a full day earlier in the United States, moving from Friday, May 17 to Thursday, May 16.  Previously, the film was to feature preview IMAX screenings in select US cities on Wednesday, May 15 before giving way to the standard midnight screenings of Thursday night/technically Friday morning.  Now, they’ve decided to simply treat the largely sold-out May 15 screenings as the sneak preview and just open wide on Thursday with showings available throughout the entire day.  The official explanation points to the excellent ticket sales of the sneak preview screenings.  Anyway who is cynical enough to think the studio is desperate to pad their opening weekend numbers so as not to look horribly inferior after the moneystorm Marvel and Disney just brewed with Iron Man 3 clearly have no idea what they’re talking about.

Then again, Paramount Pictures was actually the contracted distributor during Marvel Studios’ independent studio days, with the iconic Paramount mountain logo among the first images viewers of the original Iron Man films see during the opening credits. According to finance.yahoo.com, when Disney bought Marvel in 2010 they inherited that distribution contract, which expires with Iron Man 3.  Disney gave Paramount a lot of money to go away so that Disney could do all of the marketing.  However, as part of this deal Paramount stands to make 9% of Iron Man 3‘s worldwide gross if the film exceeds $1 billion in worldwide box office, which will happen at its current pace.  So, it is in Paramount’s best interest for Iron Man 3 to continue performing well.  However, their access to that sweet Marvel money is cut off meaning they really need their legacy franchise Star Trek to do well.  Plus, it would be nice to be able to look over at Iron Man and show off their new-old boyfriend in Star Trek and laugh, “Fine.  Good.  I’m glad we broke up.  Look how much money my new spouse makes!”

So, we were talking about Star Trek…right.  Sorry.  On the upside, the movie comes out a full day earlier in the US now.  Yay! On the downside, that sarcastic golf clap you might faintly hear from across the pond is coming from those in the UK and various other European countries who are still getting the movie a bit earlier than us, starting with the May 9 opening in the UK.

The Reviews Are…Not Bad

There have been press previews of the movie at this point, and many early reviews have made their way online.  ScreenRant.com has a good run-down of the most notable early reviews, and their summation of the reviews goes as follows:

“Star Trek Into Darkness isn’t a franchise game-changer along the lines of The Empire Strikes Back or The Dark Knight, but it offers as much – if not more – entertainment value than J.J. Abrams’ 2009 reboot.  The sequel blends earnest nostalgia for classic Trek lore with innovation and plot/character development, but not always in well-balanced portions.  This is an enjoyable viewing experience for older and younger Trekkies, as well as those who just love a good action-packed sci-fi blockbuster.” – ScreenRant.com

Our First Look at The Klingons

As part of the promotion for the film, there have been a series of viral videos featuring Benedict Cumberbatch’s villainous John Harrison character taking on each member of the crew one video at a time, starting with Kirk.  Or, as I like to call it, Dr. John Harrison’s Growl-A-Long Blog.  Below is the one where he calls out Zoe Saldana’s Uhura for having come to know the forbidden touch of a Vulcan named Spock:

I want John Harrison to leave my voicemail message on my phone.  Just have him say the most polite things possible, but do it in his big scary voice.  Anyway, if you blink you miss it, but there does appear to be our first look at the Klingons as they will appear in the film.  Here it is, courtesy of comicbookmovie.com by way of screencrush.com [look away right now if you want not to be contaminated by the malicious entity known as the spoiler]:

I…don’t know what to say.  My initial reaction was that it obviously can’t be a Klingon because, well, that’s not how the Klingons have ever looked.  In fact, this looks more like a cousin of the alien from Enemy Mine:

Except we don’t have Hamlet translated in their language…yet. Get on that, people.

However, upon closer inspection it does appear to have some of the traditional markings of a Klingon with the forehead ridges, which are simply far, far less pronounced than from The Next Generation forward.  In fact, it seems like a cross between the “they’re basically just normal humans” approach of the Original Series and “look with the big heads” approach of Next Generation and its spin-offs.  I am actually glad to have seen this before the film because I feel I will need to adjust but will have become used to it by the time it pops up during the movie.  That is, of course, if this random alien, who is seen standing in front of Klingons wearing helmets, is in fact a Klingon.  We don’t know that for sure…although it most probably is.

Where are my manners?  I bet he no more cares for me calling him Klingon than I would care to be called “Hu-man.”  If only I knew his name.  Eh.  Klingon is good for now.

The Tao of Scotty

Here is a profile of Scotty as played brilliantly by Simon Pegg:

ScienceFiction.com has a good run-down of the various other videos which have surfaced lately.

Is the anticipation for Star Trek killing you?  Or have you reached the “I want to stop hearing about it now” point?  If so, boy did we miscalculate our planned Star Trek coverage to roll out next week to coincide with the new film.  Either way, take to the comments and let your thoughts be known.

Let’s face the facts. Lists of  the best episodes of television, movies, novels, Broadway musicals, burgers and fries- you name it- are completely subjective and irrelevant. Favorites, especially pop-culture favorites, are in constant states of fluctuation. Depending on the time of day or the mood one is in, a list of favorites may alter entirely. However, lists are fun and they do, at least for that particular moment, allow you to really decide, once and for…well, the time it takes you to create the list, what your favorites really are.

For those immune to Star Trek’s charms (and I understand that mindset, believe me), the original series must seem irredeemably hokey, hammily acted, and egregiously self-righteous. Centered around a crew of ethnically diverse space explorers (with one humanoid alien for good measure) and their attempts to explore the galaxy and…”boldly go” and all that, the series may seem hard to tolerate to the outside observer. Fans of the series, who treat it as some sort of sacred text and discuss it as though it’s Shakespeare or Chekhov (I know there’s a character named Chekhov on the show. That’s not who I’m talking about. Stick with me here), can stimulate resentment towards the series through no fault of its own. Sometimes, there’s nothing worse than sci-fi fans, and I say this as a sci-fi fan myself. We can be obnoxious and hideously socially inept.

However, that doesn’t mean the original Stark Trek series isn’t an incredibly smart, strong, if short-lived (it ran for three seasons, from 1966-1969), science fiction program. There are individuals who take it as a source of pride they have no familiarity with the Star Trek, which is unfortunate. The series is incredibly charming and remains incredibly well done for the time in which it was filmed.

If you have no interest in trying out a few episodes of Star Trek, there’s probably very little I can do to persuade you otherwise. However, with Star Trek: Into Darkness already out in the UK and opening in the US this week now’s as good a time as any to check out the original series.  I have compiled a list of ten episodes, ordered from my least favorite to “drop whatever it is you’re doing and see it now”, which are as good a place as any to start. You may as well watch it and see what has inspired so much obnoxiously obsessive devotion.

(Minimal spoilers present, though major spoilers are kept under wraps. Read at your own risk.)

10) All Our Yesterdays (Season 3)

There are those who would tell you to avoid the series’ problematic third season like a brutal, deadly plague that kills you slowly (and probably with boils and blinding torment), and there are very few episodes I can cite to contradict that viewpoint. However, the series penultimate episode emerges as one bright spot in a flawed, flawed, oh so flawed season.

Basically, the episode revolves around the Enterprise’s most popular trio, Captain Kirk, Vulcan science officer Spock, and ship doctor Leonard McCoy arriving on a planet, stepping through a portal, and being thrust back in time. Kirk’s medieval adventure is pretty subpar, but Spock’s and McCoy’s plot, which finds them in prehistoric times and Spock in love with Zarabeth, a young woman trapped there (who, despite the harsh snow, is scantily clad, for reasons I don’t fully understand), works beautifully. Because they are in prehistoric times, Spock’s emotional reserve begins to break down and he finds himself more prone to anger and romantically drawn to the Zarabeth.

The episode is not perfect. As I said, the plot line involving Captain Kirk and one of the worst female actors the show ever cast is pretty dull, but the plot with Spock and McCoy is pretty great. Of course, all three Enterprise crew members reunite and leave the planet before a supernova wipes it out and, of course, Spock reverts to his more familiar, emotionless, default setting, but an emotional Spock is always an interesting Spock. It’s nice to know that even as the series was uttering its final death rattles, it was still capable of producing thoughtful and lovely television moments.

Check out a trailer below:

9) Trouble with Tribbles (Season 2)

Humor is a notoriously mixed bag in the Star Trek universe. You may stumble across episodes featuring Harry Mudd as you peruse the original series’ back catalogue, for instance. I advise you to ignore these and move on quickly. However, feel free to stop and give “The Trouble with Tribbles” a shot. There is nothing even remotely high stakes going on in the episode. It mainly involves small, furry, purring balls of simulated fur animals that take the whole ”be fruitful and multiply” thing waaay too seriously (yeah, there’s a plot involving poisoning a food supply and a Klingon secret agent, but that feels so perfunctory it barely warrants mentioning). It’s a pretty light episode, but the cast is more than game and acquaint themselves well with the comic material. I’ve probably watched this episode more than any other episode in the series. It’s a delightful hour of television.

Check out a trailer below:

8) Immunity Syndrome (Season 2)

This is an episode I rarely hear anyone discuss when best of Star Trek comes up in conversation. That’s a shame, because it’s awesome. Any episode that features the trio that is Spock, Kirk, and McCoy is already halfway to being great. Trios are difficult to pull off, and the original series created a likable, interesting, dynamic between these three characters. You have McCoy, who for a doctor seemed really unable to emotionally detach and really prone to angry outbursts, Spock, who was almost always emotionally detached and rarely prone to angry outbursts, and Kirk, the captain at the lead trying to establish a balance between the two. Conflicts frequently rose between the three that felt natural and interesting, but through their interactions it became obvious why Kirk would rely on them and need their friendships. They were the emotional extremes he needed to balance. McCoy was all emotion, Spock was all logic. Kirk’s job was to find a balance between the two, because somewhere between their two extremes existed the most successful leadership approach. The three of them complemented each other beautifully. This episode places a fair amount of its focus on their interactions and relationship, as well as the way in which they really do function as friends, regardless how often McCoy looks as though he really just wants to murder Spock on the spot.

Add in an energy-devouring alien amoeba presence and the scale tips into pure “fantastic” territory. It’s an exciting, cleverly constructed episode, complete with some nice character moments between the three central characters.

Check out a trailer below:

7) Doomsday Machine (Season 2)

This is another fantastically tense episode. A crazed commander, who has lost his entire crew to a planet-devouring alien and appears to be suffering severe emotional trauma as a result, takes control of the Enterprise and sends it plunging headlong towards a seemingly unkillable, alien, planet-eating machine (Don’t you hate it when that happens?).

The interesting aspect of the episode is the manner in which it goes out of its way to present Commander Matt Dekker as someone who has clearly taken leave of his senses (or they have taken leave of him. Either way), but not a villain. He’s traumatized and distraught, because his entire crew has been wiped out, but as an audience, we understand his trauma and feel a mixture of sympathy for his loss (after all, it’s hard to imagine Kirk taking the loss of his crew any better) and frustration because he cannot see the potential consequences of the cat-and-mouse game in which he engages. In the end, he loses his life to the creature, but he manages to give Kirk and the Enterprise the necessary knowledge to stop it. It’s a nice idea that the episode him allows to, unintentionally, die a heroic death and a smart, tense episode with terrific pacing.

Check out a trailer below:

6) Balance of Terror (Season 1)

Basically functioning as a WW II submarine movie in space, “Balance of Terror” introduced us to the Romulans (think of Vulcans, only with emotions), one of the series most interesting villains. It also deals with the paranoid, destructive nature of prejudice, as it is discovered that Romulans look astonishingly like Vulcans. An Enterprise crew member begins to feel Spock may be concealing knowledge from the rest of the ship. Yet, it’s also pretty optimistic about the nature of prejudice in the future, since he seems to be the only crew member who suspects Spock of such a thing (an interesting assumption for a series set in an era of civil rights demonstrations and violent race riots). The episode also gives us a tense, battle of wills between between Kirk and the Romulan commander, who rightfully points out that under different circumstances, he could have been Kirk’s ally. The episode creates an interesting dynamic between two individuals, forced to engage in a battle when they would just as soon avoid conflict. It’s a smart, tense episode, with a villain far more complicated than one would expect from a 1960s sci-fi television series.

Check out a trailer below:

5) Devil in the Dark (Season 1)

Another episode in which all is not as it seems. An alien is wiping out workers on a mining colony, and the Enterprise crew is called in to destroy it, but who’s the real villain on the colony? Is it the alien or the out-for-vengeance miners?

One of the major themes of Star Trek was the concept of seeing new places and encountering new life forms (even if, as it does here, the new life form looks like an ugly carpet), and this episode conveys both the wonder of finding/understanding new life, as well as the potential for terror that can accompany such a discovery. There are some moments that border on the ridiculous (Spock’s mindmeld with what is clearly a shoddily produced stuffed animal, while shouting “PAIN” is pretty unintentionally hilarious, but full credit to Leonard Nimoy for really working hard to sell it.), but the episode’s twist on the nature of monsters in the dark, as well as the optimistic endinge, makes it a lovely episode.

Check out a trailer below:

4) Amok Time (Season 2)

For all the talk about Spock being an alien, the series provided very little proof of what made him so different. Oh, don’t get me wrong. I know he’s got the pointed ears, the unflappable demeanor, the Vulcan mind meld, and the nerve pinch, but he seems, at least mostly, human. “Amok Time” reminds the viewer that there is more to Spock’s alien nature than meet the eye, and that lack of knowledge can make him both unpredictable and frightening. When he begins to unleash flashes of anger and aggressively demanding to be dropped off on his home planet, Vulcan, it’s cool and exciting, because it’s such a shift from the more familiar, typical Spock. What’s going on with Spock is tipped pretty quickly, but I went into the episode ignorant and that may be the best way to view it, so I’ll set specifics aside during this list. I’ll simply state that this episode gives one of the few glimpses into the workings of planet Vulcan, as well as a moment between Kirk and Spock at the episode’s conclusion that never fails to make me smile.

Check out a trailer below:

 3) Space Seed (Season 1)

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Star Trek can probably yell “KHAN” with mocking gusto. To many, it is the embodiment of everything that is so effortlessly mockable about William Shatner’s performance in the Star Trek universe. Well, you won’t find that iconic yell here, but you will meet the infamous Khan for the first time. He’s found, along with several other genetically enhanced individuals, on a drifting ship. Kirk, impressed with Khan’s mental prowess, completely lowers his guard and grants him an extreme amount of access to knowledge about the present and the Enterprise, and Khan uses that knowledge to take over the ship.

It’s nice for the series to introduce an adversary that is more than capable of matching wits with Kirk. There’s a point in which Kirk is only saved because a crew member who finds herself drawn to Khan still feels enough loyalty towards Kirk to help him out of a deadly situation. If not for her, he’s definitely dead. Ricardo Montalban, as the series most famous villain (though that is more connected to Wrath of Khan, far and away the best of the Star Trek movies, than this episode) makes for an appealingly icy, intelligent villain. If you’ve seen Wrath of Khan (and even casual fans usually have), this episode will add an extra layer to that film’s conflict and provide you with a sharp, effective backstory.

Check out a trailer below:

2) This Side of Paradise (Season 1)

So, there are spores that keep people young forever and turn them into laid back, emotionally content beings. Well, the Enterprise crew will put a stop to that, won’t they? I’m only kidding. I’m sure there are reasons to justify leaving the immortality-granting pods behind. It’s just…I don’t know exactly what those reasons are.

The real reason I like this episode comes down to the relationship between Kirk and Spock. When Spock becomes infected with the spores, and finally seems peaceful and well-adjusted (for a change), Kirk takes it upon himself to “fix” him by making him the frustrated, conflicted, outsider he once was. Spock should probably just say, “don’t do me any favors,” but it’s to the show’s credit that Kirk’s plan to wipe out Spock’s emotional serenity seems as acceptable as it does. Kirk doesn’t approve of anything taking away a person’s choice, and the spores are, at the very least, doing that, even if the lack of choice seems a happier alternative to the free will Kirk offers. It’s an odd, more complicated episode that you would expect, because the episode itself questions whether or not everyone infected is really better off cured, especially Spock, who spends so much of the series as a frustrated outsider. Granted, the spore-shooting flowers look spectacularly fake, but who cares when the character drama is this strong?

Check out a trailer below:

 1) City on the Edge of Forever (Season 1)

 (There will be spoilers below)

One of the assumptions of Star Trek is that the Enterprise crew will save the day. Granted a few “red shirts” we know nothing about and care for even less may fall during the battle, but everything will eventually be put right, and we as viewers will end the episode feeling comforted that all has been rectified. “City on the Edge of Forever” takes that idea and turns it on its ear.

After McCoy is infected with a powerful drug and runs into the 1930s era United States (There’s a bit more to the “how” of this than I’m giving you here, but it’s complicated and should probably just be seen, rather than explained.), and Spock and Kirk must journey after him. They arrive a few days before he will appear (wibbly wobbly, timey wimey), so must simply bide their time, wait for him to arrive, and try to get him back to the ship. However, while they are there, Kirk meets and falls in love with Edith Keeler (Kirk fell in love a lot on this show. He saw more action that most Studio 54 attendees.), a optimistic young woman, passionate about social causes and willing to give every down-on-his-luck individual a chance at earning his/her keep.

He then finds out that McCoy, when he arrives in the 1930s, will change history, saving Edith when she should have died, and leaving the world irrevocably altered. The answer is clear: Edith has to die.

Public perception of William Shatner’s acting on Star Trek is frequently based upon hammy line readings and strange, awkward, unnaturally placed pauses. There are certainly episodes in which those tendencies are, if slightly exaggerated for comedic effect in parody form, definitely present. Here, though, he’s fantastic. Playing both the lovesick romantic, and the devastated  wounded captain at the episode’s conclusion, he reminds the viewer how compelling he could be when he committed to the material. At the episode’s end, all he can say is, “let’s get the Hell out of here,” a rare moment of profanity in 1960s television. Granted, he’s over her loss by the next episode and she’s never mentioned again, but it’s still a strong, beautiful hour of television.

Check out a trailer below:

Star Trek is available to stream through Netflix and Amazon (free to prime members), and Hulu, as well as to purchase on DVD and Blu-ray.

Check Out Our Other Top 10 Lists for the Other Stark Trek TV Shows:

• Top 10 Episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation
• Top 10 Episodes of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
• Top 10 Episodes of Star Trek: Voyager
• Top 10 Episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise

So, what do you think? Are you fans of these episodes? Are there others you think should be on the list? Did I make any mistakes in my plot synopsis (and if you caught them, what is wrong with you? You should really go outside, see the world, or even read a book.)? Let us know your thoughts in the comments!

Let’s face the facts. Lists of  the best episodes of television, movies, novels, Broadway musicals, burgers and fries- you name it- are completely subjective and irrelevant. Favorites, especially pop-culture favorites, are in constant states of fluctuation. Depending on the time of day or the mood one is in, a list of favorites may alter entirely. However, lists are fun and they do, at least for that particular moment, allow you to really decide, once and for…well, the time it takes you to create the list, what your favorites really are.

In 1987, Star Trek: The Next Generation hit the airwaves, and fans were…less than thrilled. You have a bald Englishman playing the French Enterprise captain?! There would surely be a cure for baldness in the distant future, right? Plus, you’re resurrecting one of sci-fi’s sacred cows, which in and of itself is enough to incur the wrath of every basement-bound shut-in from coast to coast. The show was practically considered doomed to fail from the onset, but it surprised everyone, running for a total of 178 episodes, 4 big screen movies (only one of which, First Contact, is any good, alas), and spurned the creation of one of the most profitable sci-fi franchises of all time (after all, we would have never had Voyager, Deep Space Nine, and Enterprise were it not for Next Gen’s success, though we can argue whether or not we really owe thanks for all of the series just mentioned). Here was a Star Trek with adequate production values, a fantastically talented lead, and the same “boldly go” spirit of the original series. Since I already did a Top 10 of the original series, I thought it only seemed fair to pay tribute to the spin-off that sent the Star Trek franchise into warp drive. Plus, you know Star Trek: Into Darkness’s US theatrical release date is on the horizon, so We Minored in Film may as well have a Star Trek celebration week.

(SPOILERS EXIST BELOW. READ AT YOUR OWN PERIL.)

10) “Family” (Season 4)

Next Gen’s season 3 finale concluded with Enterprise captain Jean-Luc Picard (played by the completely awesome Patrick Stewart) assimilated by the Borg, one of the series best monsters (more about them below). Following his return to a normal state of humanity, he goes to his brother’s home to visit family. Meanwhile, Worf’s adopted, human parents come to visit him on the Enterprise, and Beverly Crusher gives her son, Wesley, a recording her late husband made for their son before his birth.

So much of Star Trek exists in a vacuum. A major, catastrophic event in one episode may never be referenced again in the series, so the typical fan could have assumed the series would never reference Capt. Picard’s Borg assimilation again, and to be fair, it probably doesn’t haunt him quite as much as it should. However, here the series at least gives the character a chance to fully reveal how traumatized he is by recent events, and Patrick Stewart does it beautifully. This episode, coupled with “Best of Both Worlds” (again, more on them later), made Picard a more human, relatable individual. The other storylines, revolving around Worf and Wesley are also pretty effective, especially Worf’s, who finds out his parents love him, no matter what (Awww!). But it’s really Stewart’s episode to carry, and carry it he does.

Check out a Trailer Below:

9) “Remember Me” (Season 4)

Gates McFadden was never given that much to do on Next Gen. I mean, sure, she’d stand around and look concerned or supply some comforting platitudes when required, but she rarely got a showcase episode. “Remember Me” kind of implies that’s a shame, because she’s great here. The plot revolves the unexplained disappearance of the enterprise crew, with only Dr. Crusher remembering their existences at all. Eventually, only she and Picard are left aboard (her attempt to point out how strange it is that this large ship is the home to them alone is a fantastic moment), until he too disappears and she becomes completely isolated. The explanation as to what’s really going on is a touch underwhelming, as is the solution to the problem, but McFadden brings her A-game, and the episode effectively portrays the psychological terror that accompanies such feelings of loss and fears of insanity (after all, remembering individuals no one else does would lead most to conclude you’re just insane).

Check out a Trailer Below:

8) All Good Things… (Season 7)

Season finales are difficult to pull off. Series finales for shows with no real ongoing plots or character drives are even more of a challenge, which makes “All Good Things…” even more impressive. It’s not a perfect episode, as the much of plot revolving the primary threat is pretty unremarkable, but my love for this episode really comes down to the episode’s final scene: the final poker game. When Picard joins the crew’s regular poker game, it’s a small moment that feels massive and significant. He’s with his family, those who know him best and those for whom he most cares. After a sub-par final season, “All Good Things…” reminds us why we’ve watched the series for so many seasons, and it’s the little character moments that have really driven the series.

Check out a Trailer Below:

7) “Measure of a Man” (Season 2)

You may have noted there aren’t any episodes from season 1 on this list. Yeah, there won’t be either. The fact this series got a second season, let alone seven total seasons, is something of a minor miracle when you look at what they were producing in their early goings (See: “Naked Now.” No, wait. On second thought, don’t). Much of its second season wasn’t any better, and then…this episode happened. It’s like, someone walked into the writer’s room, eyes beaming, voice so excited he can hardly form syllables and expel them into the air, proclaiming, “Hey, did you know we have a classically trained, Shakespearean actor in our cast?! No, really it’s true. We should probably do an episode that caters to that, huh?” I like to think little light bulbs appeared above the rest of the staffs’ heads, and, just like that, the brainstorming session to end all brainstorming sessions was underway.

If, perhaps, I’m over-playing this episode’s awesomeness, it’s because it feels so different from pretty much everything the series had done up to that point. The episode, centering around a scientist’s desire to disassemble everyone’s favorite Pinocchio/ Android, Data (played with extreme likability by Brent Spiner), Data’s desire to not be disassembled and whether he has the right to have any say in the matter, feels fresh and compelling. Data, up to this point, was a problematic character, because the series played fast and loose with exactly how he functioned (I know he’s fully functional, but that weird and creepy and really best just best left alone). He was supposed to be emotionless, but the early seasons sometimes indicated he felt emotions just fine. At the very least, he sometimes has an understanding of other’s emotions, only to then act completely ignorant of them later. Basically, he acted how the plot needed him to act. The series never questions whether or not Data exists as a sentient being, so the audience doesn’t either, but the drama on screen is effective nonetheless. Again, though we have Patrick Stewart, defending Data’s rights with a fiery  impassioned speech, who elevates the episode to an entirely new level. Spiner and Stewart interact well together, what with Data’s neutral line delivery and Stewart’s passionate powers of persuasion serving as the perfect contrasting styles and each enhancing the other. Really, though, this pretty much marks the beginning of Next Gen’s brilliance and indicated how amazing a series it could be.

Check out a Trailer Below:

6) “Deja Q” (Season 3)

Whether or not this is really the 6th best episode Next Gen ever produced is probably up for debate. Actually, it’s probably not, but I find the episode so enjoyable that it ended up here in-spite of itself. Star Trek takes itself very seriously most of the time, seeming to realize if it so much as cocks an eyebrow, the entire premise’s absurdity could all be revealed, and the entire show could fall apart. In addition, Star Trek often didn’t often do humor well. When it does, as I think it does here, it deserves noting.

Q, along with the Borg, is my favorite Next Gen creation. Next Gen was often a show whose sense of self-righteousness was in dire need of puncturing, and Q, the omnipotent, God-like, irritant who pops up every now and then filled that need quite well. Here, Q’s powers have been stripped and he appears on the Enterprise, whining and grousing about being a mere mortal. Of course, the crew is dubious as to his claim that his powers are no more, though that perception seems to stem more from irritation than logic. They just don’t want him there, and if he had his powers, he could simply go away. Granted, Q gets his powers back at the end, and it’s a pretty light episode, but at one point Picard is driven to an angry outburst by a Mariachi band. Take a moment to process that. A Mariachi band!

Check out a Trailer Below:

5) “Chain of Command, Parts 1 &2″ (Season 6)

“How many lights do you see?”

Come on, I think we all know the answer: “THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!”

Definitely the series’ most brutal episode (meaning part 2, which is the real reason this is in the top 10), in which a Cardassian commander (played with cold malice by the frequently cold and malicious David Warner) tortures Captain Picard, both physically and psychologically. Warner continually asks how many lights Picard can see (there are four), but Warner insists there are five, and inflicts pain upon Picard every time he insists there are four. There are other plotlines going on in the episode, but the episode’s power really stems from the interactions between Warner and Stewart. Warner’s dispassionate approach to torture, coupled with Stewart’s emotional line delivery gives their scenes an extremely compelling, visceral quality. It’s amazing how dark this episode still feels. The episode doesn’t hold back on the torture, even though its more suggested than explicit (eat your heart out 24!).  Stewart’s fully committed performance makes it difficult to watch. Everyone remembers the “THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!” line Picard defiantly shouts once he has been rescued, but it’s Part 2′s final lines, uttered by Picard, that are more moving and also, brutally, quietly devastating  Before he was rescued, he was about to state there were five lights, and, more horrifying, he feared he could actually see five lights instead of four. It’s a lovely, sad moment that undercuts Picard’s defiant shout, and makes the episode all the more brutal as a result.

Check out a Trailer Below:

4) “Tapestry” (Season 6)

“You see, Jean-Luc, you really had a wonderful life.”

Alas, this episode doesn’t end with Patrick Stewart running down a snow-covered street, shouting Merry Christmases to inanimate objects, and having a massive pile of cash piled into a basket for his legal troubles, but it might as well.

In this episode, Picard is near death, because his artificial heart is failing. Q gives him the chance to prevent the actions that resulted in him needing an artificial heart, Picard does so, but finds his life, while actual-heart enhanced, lackluster and unsatisfying. This episode really drives home how much of the series revolves around Captain Picard. We learn the most about him through the course of the series, and Patrick Stewart always made that an eventful, compelling journey. There are things I could nitpick here (Is this world Q presents for him merely a fantasy, or is it reality? Would not partaking in this one fight really completely alter Picard’s entire life?), but why would I want to do that when Stewart is so amazing in this episode?

Check out a Trailer Below:

3) “Inner Light” (Season 6) 

If you haven’t caught on by now, I think Patrick Stewart is brilliant on Next Gen, and this is one of his best. Picard awakens to find he is on a planet, with a wife and a new identity. He lives something close to forty years as this other individual, going on to have children (and grandchildren), all the while the Enterprise crew works to detach an energy bolt that has enjoined itself with Picard. What makes this episode so amazing, beyond Stewart’s performance, are the ideas on display. Through this glimpse into another life and culture, Picard gets to see the life we know he’ll never have– quiet, simple, domestic, more interested in learning a flute than exploring the galaxy. There’s a tragedy to that realization, even though Picard would probably never give up his Enterprise life by choice. Even so, it’s surprising how quickly he takes to his simple existence  He comes to love his wife, he loves his children and grandchildren, and he establishes friendships with those the encounters. In the end, his return to the Enterprise (he’s only been unconscious for twenty-five minutes, while he has lived nearly an entire lifespan) and the loss of that simple, complacent existence feels like a real loss, and the final scene of Picard playing the flute he spent a twenty-five minute lifetime struggling to master is a moment of beauty.

Check out a Trailer Below:

2) “Yesterday’s Enterprise” (Season 3)

Tasha Yar died a stupid, stupid death on Next Gen. However, this episode allows me to let that pass, because it gives her the send-off she deserved from the outset. She may have been a problematic character, but her death in season 1 was an insult to the loss of a series regular. Here, though, the series rights what it had once put wrong and allows her a fitting end. The episode takes place in a parallel time, in which everything is ravaged by wars, that seems to only exist because Tasha Yar remains alive when she should have died (again, a stupid, stupid death). Her choice to choose a more noble, sacrificial death here is extremely effective, and by the episode’s end (once everything’s back to normal) in which Guinan asks Geordi to tell her about Tasha Yar, one cannot help but feel her loss is significant.

Check out a Trailer Below:

1) “Best of Both Worlds, Parts 1&2″ (Season 3-4)

Come on, you knew this one had to be here, right? This season finale cliffhanger is, far and away, the best season finale the series ever produced, and the second part, while not quite as strong as Part 1, is still pretty effective. It also has the the Borg, the assimilating, adapting, robot/ organic, zombies of the universe. The Borg is so effective because they are near unkillable. They simply adapt when they encounter a new weapon and they assimilate almost everything they encounter into The Borg Collective. They’re basically Nazi Zombies, and you can’t get more horrifying than that. Granted, they are wiped out in the series, and the explanation as to how they’re back in the film First Contact is basically, “Um…Shut up!” However, here they’re at their best. The reveal of an assimilated Picard, coupled with Riker’s command to “fire” is a jaw-droppingly fantastic episode end. Also, it signals the ever-evolving character of Jean-Luc Picard, whose loss and assimilation here feels brutal and devastating. The series hit several highs over the course of its seven season run, but nothing tops these episodes.

Check out a Trailer Below:

Star Trek: The Next Generation is available to stream through Netflix, Amazon (free to Prime members), and Hulu. The whole series can be purchased on DVD and the first three seasons are on Blu-ray.

Check Out Our Other Top 10 Lists for Other Stark Trek TV Shows:

• Top 10 Episodes of Star Trek: The Original Series
• Top 10 Episodes of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
• Top 10 Episodes of Star Trek: Voyager
• Top 10 Episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise

So, what do you think, guys? Are you a fan of our picks, or are there other episodes you think should have made the cut? Let us know in the comments!

There are two different versions of J. J. Abrams’ Star Trek Into Darkness.  There is what the film actually is – a competently made summer movie blockbuster with eye-popping special effects, mostly cliched plot developments with a welcome twist or two the internet thankfully failed to spoil, and almost un-ending action.  There is, however, what the film isn’t which is to say this is not a Star Trek film.

Or, at least, this is not what Star Trek films used to be.  Granted, the special effects are far superior and the cast, for the most part, an equal match to the original.  However, there are no real philosophical discussions being engaged with in this film.  We aren’t navigating a new technology which literally remake planets (Star Trek II and III), searching for God (Star Trek V), pondering the nature of mortality (Star Trek Generations, Insurrection), or attempting to save an endangered species (Star Trek IV).  We are instead barreling forward from action set piece to set piece and being told a story which basically inverts a familiar one told by Gene Rodenberry and company many years ago.  The problem, then, is figuring out how to judge Star Trek Into Darkness for what it is and attempting to best ignore what it is not.

*SPECIFIC SPOILERS BELOW INCLUDE A DISCUSSION OF THE BASIC PLOT & A GENERAL REACTION TO THE FILM.  NO TWISTS ARE SPOILED.*

The film opens with an incredibly engaging pre-title card sequence involving Capt. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Dr. McCoy (Karl Urban) being chased by an alien planet’s indigenous people while Commander Spock (Zachary Quinto) attempts to use science to minimize the threat posed by an erupting local volcano.  Kirk refuses to leave Spock behind when the mission turns south, and his rescue efforts portends big things, both plot-wise and thematically.

After this re-introduction to our core characters, we get to the real plot of the film which involves a terrorist named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) who is enacting multiple attacks upon Starfleet for unknown reasons.  In response, Captain Kirk and the Enterprise are sent after Harrison by Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller).  This places a crew of scientific explorers on a military operation, which at least two characters are willing to point out while everyone else falls in line.  However, due to the film’s relentless pacing this and future revelations are not quite granted as much time to sink in as they could have, although one assumes that is by design as the crew is quickly thrown into a constant state of reaction with precious little time for analysis.

Joining the crew on the mission is a new science officer played by Alice Eve.  As has been much-discussed, you do see her in her underwear, but if you blink you’ll probably miss it.

It is at this point where the plot twists, some regrettably predictable and some not, creep in.  As such, I will offer no further discussion of the actual plot as we will soon be offering a follow-up column to this one devoted to a spoiler-filled discussion of the film [update:

Erica Bana as Nero from 2009′s Star Trek. Nero was basically a new version of the infamous Khan from the Original Series and Wrath of Khan, except here he was a Romulan who yelled a lot.

Speaking of which, Abrams’ original Star Trek had a famously undercooked villain.  Benedict Cumberbatch, who as others have argued features a name which appears to have emerged from a J.K. Rowling character name generator, emerges as a far more memorable villain than Nero.  His infamously deep tenor is used to chilling effect, and he also turns out to be a far more physically imposing presence than expected.  The role might prove slightly underwritten, as if (as originally argued by Film School Rejects) “ticking recognizable boxes is a valid substitute for earned emotion,” but Cumberbatch does get one dramatic monologue which he handles with the grace expected of such a stage-tested actor.  It is a definite improvement upon Bana’s work as Nero in the original.

Cumberbatch as Harrison from Star Trek Into Darkness. He occasionally dramatically overprounces words to unintended comedic effect, but it is an otherwise stellar performance in a slightly underwritten role.

The aforementioned action set-pieces are legion, though not uniformly engaging.  The film relies upon one too many tickling clock sequences (e.g., it’s going to blow in 5,4,3,2…), and somewhat blatantly lifts ideas from both Godfather III and Star Wars, with a recreation of the Millenium Falcon’s race through the Death Star in Return of the Jedi being the most egregious.  Though derivative, the scenes are well done.  They just pose the potential to disrupt the flow of the narrative for those who might be taken out of a story when they see the copying and pasting at play.  However, some of the action in this film is truly and masterfully stunning, with the crash landing of a ship (as highlighted by the film’s marketing campaign) being the standout moment (and actually aided, if just somewhat, by 3D).  There are more than enough edge-of-your-seat moments to keep audiences engaged and excited.

Abrams’ directing is, for the most part, on par if maybe a bit less emotionally engaging than that of his original Star Trek.  There are some slight pacing issues, as the film seems to suffer somewhat when it has to stop periodically for expository sequences.  The editing, at times, is a bit dodgy, but not enough to be distracting.  The lens flare, on the other hand, is horribly distracting.  For those who don’t know, a lens flare is, as described by the LA Times, the intentional flooding of the “camera frame with light to deliberately wash out or obscure imagery on-screen.”  The effect of a lens flare is seen below:

A signature Abrams’ lens flare from 2009′s Star Trek.

A lens flare moment from Star Trek Into Darkness.

The lens flare is Abrams’ signature cinematic touch – the thing that lets you know it is an Abrams film.  In explaining his usage of lens flare in Star Trek, Abrams argued (as quoted by io9.com) “I love the idea that the future was so bright it couldn’t be contained in the frame.”  He has not backed down from this with Into Darkness, in fact doubling his efforts it would seem.  Like anything else, the hope is the eye will adjust to the effect.  However, through 3D glasses the lens flare often seems to jump out at you, jarring the viewer even during quiet conversation scenes.  Even without 3D, the lens flare undercuts several dramatic scenes, particularly during Alice Eve’s big dramatic speech in the film.  There she is, acting her heart out, and there’s a big blue line cutting across the bottom of the screen for no apparent reason.  You want to yell out to the non-existent projectionist, “Focus!” until you realize the projectionist is Abrams, and it looks exactly as he designed.

So, what is this film?  An enjoyable action film with slight pacing issues, overused lens flare, and a decent story which has a nice twist or two with perhaps slightly too much reliance upon nostalgia.  So, what isn’t this film?  It’s not particularly fun.  There is some humor, with your own personal comedic predilections dictating how much of its works and how much of it doesn’t.  However, the sense of discovery from Abrams’ initial Star Trek is mostly absent.  Others are now arguing (TIME) whether or not Into Darkness is simply too dark, another example of a franchise caught chasing Christopher Nolan’s cinematic coattails.

Of course, on the other end of the spectrum is something like Data (Brent Spiner) playing with a little kid in Star Trek: Insurrection which is the type of plot probably best left behind.

Again, there is the version of this movie that is an imperfect but completely enjoyable action film. Then there is the version of the film that fails to aspire to be anything more than that.  This speaks to audience expectations more than anything else.  For what the film actually is, it is worth seeing.  For what the film isn’t, though, well, there are ten prior movies and five different TV shows for that.

Four years ago, Abrams stepped in to save the Star Trek franchise from its creative doldrums, drawing a clear line in the sand between what came before and what he was going to do.  Franchise canon is simply an idea generator he goes to for potential stories.  He will do whatever he dang well pleases with it because this is his story now – not Gene Rodenberry’s.  Now, we finally have the sequel, and with him on his way out to take over the Star Wars series we should thank him for reviving the franchise.  However, the man who famously doesn’t really like Star Trek and loves Star Wars is probably headed where he belongs.  After Into Darkness, it seems likely long-time Trek fans may not miss him.  As for those whose introduction to the franchise has been through him, well, it’s not a guarantee he won’t somehow find time to direct a sequel.  And a thousand Trekkies just punched the air in frustration.

See It – Stream It – Skip It

See It (although the 3D is not necessary)

That’s Good: Fantastic performances from all involved, both new (Weller, Cumberbatch) and old (Quinto, Cho); truly impressive special effects; action set-pieces are mostly thrilling; composer Michael Giacchino’s musical score is not as memorable as those by prior Star Trek composers Jerry Goldsmith (The Motion Picture and various sequels) and James Horner (Wrath of Khan), but it is rather effective

That’s Bad: Derivative action set-pieces; obstructive use of lens flare undercuts key dramatic moments; mines the past for story ideas it fails to equal or improve upon; poor editing during some action scenes; does not aspire to be anything more than a simple blockbuster action film (only a bad thing if you expect more than that from Star Trek)

Can I Go Now?: Michael Giacchino has composed the score for all of Abrams films as well as his tv shows Felicity, Alias, and Lost.  However, he will not be composing Abrams’ Star Wars film.  Why?  Because John Williams wants to do it, and who says no to John Williams.  Also, where else have you heard Giacchino’s name?  When he won the Oscar for Best Original Score for ripping our hearts out with the wordless opening montage of Pixar’s Up.

What do you think?  Let us know in the comments.

Related articles

• Star Trek Into Darkness: Review (cinefantastiqueonline.com)
• Review: Star Trek Into Darkness (lebeauleblog.com)

Damnit Jim, you sunk my battleship!

Last year, at this time Universal’s Battleship, the film adaptation of the Hasbro board game, opened to a colossal thud with an opening weekend gross of $25.5 million for a film whose budget was reportedly north of $200 million.  Unwilling to acknowledge that perhaps making Battleship into a film, a rather poor one at that, was a painfully stupid idea, the film’s director Peter Berg consistently blamed Marvel’s The Avengers for sinking his film.  He argued (to MTV News) that having been released domestically three weeks after Marvel’s box office phenomenon the audience was too busy seeing The Avengers for the fifth time to give his movie a chance.

Yeah, Peter Berg. The Avengers is why your movie bombed so hard. Sidebar: Please don’t make Rihanna shoot me with that gun for mocking you.

Maybe J.J. Abrams should start preparing his argument against Iron Man 3 (and maybe also to a far lesser degree The Great Gatsby).  Abrams’ new Star Trek: Into Darkness, made on a budget of $190 million and released two weeks after Marvel’s latest box office phenomenon Iron Man 3, is by no means the colossal failure that was Battleship.  After all, it managed a weekend gross of $70.6 million with Iron Man 3 and Great Gatsby behind it with $35.2 million and $23.4 million respectively.  So, it, in fact, earned double the amount of the next closest film.  It’s when you compare it to the previous Star Trek (2009) film, though, that the Scooby-Doo ruh-roh moment comes in (all figures are domestic, unless otherwise indicated, and come from the fantastic box office news site boxofficemojo.com):

The Star Trek: Into Darkness numbers are these:

• Opening Weekend Gross: $70.6 million
• First Four-Day Gross (adding in Wednesday previews and Thursday): $84.1 million

As a point of comparison, the Star Trek numbers are these:

• Opening Weekend Gross: $75.2 million
• First Four-Day Gross: $86.7 million

So, Into Darkness failed to live up to Paramount’s lofty projection of an opening weekend gross of $100.  Check out our discussion of Paramount’s complicated relationship to Iron Man 3 for why the studio really needs Into Darkness to do well.  Worse than that, Into Darkness didn’t even equal the initial output of Star Trek, even if it only failed to do so by a couple million here or there.

Here’s the thing, though – it’s actually worse than that.  Remember, Star Trek came out in 2009, the same years as James Cameron’s 3D extravaganza Avatar.

Because of Avatar 3D film and IMAX theaters (and their related inflation of ticket prices) have exploded (although 3D ticket sales are now on the decline).

So, the box office figures above are actual numbers.  What happens if we adjust the figures for Into Darkness to reflect 2009 ticket prices thus negating the benefit its’ overall gross received from inflated 3D/IMAX prices?  Or forget about the money entirely and look at total number of tickets sold to see how many people actually saw the film?

The Adjusted Star Trek: Into Darkness numbers are these:

• Opening Weekend Gross in 2009 Numbers: $66.6 million (vs. $75.2 million for Star Trek)
• Opening Weekend # of Tickets Sold: 8.8 million (vs. 10.1 million tickets sold on Star Trek’s opening weekend)

So, now we know around how disappointed we should be with the box office – which is to say probably a bit more than we might have guessed when looking at the actual numbers.  The big question is why this happened.  There are various factors to consider.

Quality wise, Star Trek Into Darkness is scoring fairly similar reviews, not as good but not bad, to those of its predecessor.  Into Darkness currently has an 87% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes and 73 (out of 100) on Metacritic, whereas Star Trek’s sits at 95% on Rotten Tomatoes  and 83 (out of 100) on Metacritic score (in our review of the Into Darkness we argue it may not quite feel like the Star Trek of old, but the film is an undeniably engaging action film perfectly suitable for the summer movie blockbuster season).  Moreover, the word of mouth for Into Darkness looks to be strong as the exit-polling performed by industry standard-bearer CinemaScore indicates those who viewed the film opening night gave it, on an average, an A (on a A-F grade scale).

So, to those Trek fans that passionately dislike Abrams’ approach to the material and view the box office as validating their less than stellar opinion of the new movie I would say that the metrics we have to actually gauge how much the general audience actually likes the film does not bear out that argument.  There is much more of an argument to be had over whether or not Abrams and Paramount’s unrelenting decision to hide the real (rather marketable) identity of the villain in all promotional material was a real mistake.

The real box office culprits might simply have been time and competition.  For fans, the 4-year delay between films might have turned from “they are totally making a sequel” to “geeze, why aren’t they making a sequel?” to “seriously, what the hell!” to “holy crap, I only care about comic book movies now!”  Abrams and his screenwriters have indicated the delay was largely due to their need to wait and find the right story (SPOILER: A snarky Trek fan could argue all they really did was watch two of the Original Series cast films and combine them together and call it good.  It took fours years to come up with that?).  At one point, Into Darkness was scheduled for a June 2012 release before Paramount delayed it 11 months to give Abrams more time and capitalize upon perceived weak competition.  However, Iron Man 3 wasn’t supposed to do as good as it is nor was Great Gatsby, which was originally supposed to have been released this past Christmas.

Star Trek, on the other hand, had far smoother sailing on its opening weekend in which its’ only real competition was the mediocre (quality and box-office wise) X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which was in its second week of release at the time.

First of all, why is Wolverine the only one allowed to look ahead? What is it on the ground the others are so intensely staring at? Also, all we need to know about this film is that the upcoming Wolverine pretends this one does not exist.

While Into Darkness failed to equal or best the domestic take of Star Trek’s opening weekend, it is outperforming it in worldwide box office.  According to boxofficemojo.com:

“On average, Into Darkness tripled the last movie’s debut across its 34 new [foreign] markets. Still, including last weekend’s territories its only trending up 80 percent over its predecessor, which earned a terrible $128 million in 2009. To date, Into Darkness has grossed $80.5 million overseas.”

And, on the plus side, even after adjusting for ticket price inflation Into Darkness’ domestic gross after four days of release is still nearly $30 million more than Star Trek: Nemesis made in 13 weeks of release ($84.1 million vs $58.4 million).  This is by no means a bomb.  This is the harder to talk about category of not a hit, not a bomb but  instead a slightly under-performing sequel.  Plus, it is at least outpacing 2009′s Star Trek worldwide, which is an arena not always kind to Star Trek films in the past.  It’s just not doing as well domestically as some would have hoped, and by some I mean everyone at Paramount.

What say you?  Let us know in the comments.

Related articles

• Star Trek Into Darkness Fails To Impress At Box Office (contactmusic.com)

Klingons, a tribble, the worst kept secret of the summer, and Alice Eve in her underwear for no real reason.  There is all of that and more in J. J. Abrams’ Star Trek Into Darkness.  I reviewed it and deemed it a perfectly enjoyable summer movie blockbuster.  However, the internet appears to be rounding up its cyber mob to shame Abrams into submission.  Has Abrams delivered us yet another Star Trek film destined to entertain the masses while angering the trekkers?  If so, do we care?

We saw Star Trek Into Darkness together and recently found the time to sit down to debate all of the above questions and venture off into multiple other directions as part of We Minored in Film’s semi-regular feature called We Debate:

 *SET YOUR PHASERS TO SPOILERS.  TRANSLATION=BELOW THIS POINT BE LOTS OF SPOILERS.*

Before we begin proper, we must give this movie the appropriate William Shatner salute. Altogether now, raise your chin to the sky and shout with your mighty lungs (and those of you at home can feel free to join in): “KHAAAAAN!”

Kelly: That’s going to make more sense in a couple of minutes.  Actually, if that didn’t make sense to you already have you even seen Star Trek Into Darkness or Wrath of Khan.  If not, why on Earth are you reading this?

Julianne: Shame on you, reader!

Kelly: Let’s start by establishing our level of Trek fandom as that seems to have quite a huge influence on how people are reacting to this film.

For some of us, it is difficult to acknowledge how many people have only come to know Star Trek because of the 2009 film directed by Abrams.

Julianne: J.J. Abrams original Star Trek in 2009 kick-started my fandom.  I did not grow up with Star Trek beyond seeing Wrath of Khan when I was a kid.  However, in the 4 years since Abrams’ first Star Trek I have seen every episode of The Original Series, Next Generation, and Enterprise and every single film.  My only blind spots are Deep Space Nine and Voyager, although with the latter I have seen all of the Doctor’s best episodes.  I have now been to a Star Trek convention, and may or may not own a tribble.

Kelly: I grew up on the Original Series cast films and The Next Generation.   I have seen every film, and almost every episode of every TV show (with my favorite show being Deep Space Nine).  I prefer Picard to Kirk, but I got rather verklempt in 1994 when Kirk died in Generations.  So, I have far more mileage on this than you, but I am something closer to a casual fan as I have never felt the urge to go to a convention or dress up in costume (it’s cool if you do; just not my thing).

Julianne: It would seem as if the only place to start is with addressing the Benedict Cumberbatch-shaped elephant in the room.  The secret they really sucked at hiding is now out – he’s not a Klingon.  He’s not Gary Mitchell.  He’s not even John Harrison.  He’s here, he’s out, he’s proud, he’s Khan.

Kelly: There’s two things here – there’s the part where we talk about whether or not we liked Khan in the film and the part where we talk about whether or not they should have done something new or different.

Julianne: I have no problem with Khan being in the movie.  I think Benedict Cumberbatch is perfectly good in the movie.  He is nowhere near as campy as Ricardo Montalban.  He is a far icier and calculating villain with a seriously physically intimidating presence.  Maybe it’s because I am new to the fandom, but I don’t have a problem with them using such an iconic villain and tweaking the story as they saw fit.  After all, if Shakespeare can be adjusted to a contemporary audience, so can Star Trek.

Kelly: Not to go all Jeff Goldblum on you, but just because they can doesn’t mean they should.  Why do Wrath of Khan if you can’t improve upon it and have years and years of other canonical material from which to choose?  As for Cumberbatch, I am in the very small minority of people who did not 100% love Benedict Cumberbatch in this movie.

Are we allowed to even suggest that Cumberbatch may not have been 100% brilliant in this film? The answer is apparently no.

Julianne: And just as Jon Stewart demanded an apology from JJ Abrams for admitting on The Daily Show to his not caring for Star Trek, I feel as if I should now demand an apology from you.

Kelly: You’ll get nothing from me!

Julianne: How dare you quote Richard Benjamin from Love at First Bite at me to get out of this one!

Kelly: You caught on to that, did you?  I didn’t dislike Cumberbatch.  However, there were times where I found myself actively fighting the instinct to find fault in his performance, and the only reason I was resisting was because I so love him on Sherlock.  At times, I thought some of his lines were so over-pronounced as to sound unintentionally comedic.

Juliannne: You bite your tongue.  I thought Cumberbatch was flawless.  I don’t think that everyone who is embracing him is doing so just out blind, slavish, Cumberbitchian loyalty to Sherlock.  Also, you really want to talk about potential hammy acting for the guy playing the role originated by Ricardo Montalban?

Kelly: Well, you see…that’s where this all falls apart on me.  I was intentionally avoiding comparing him to Montalban because as recent re-viewing of Wrath of Khan revealed his is a far more over-the-top performance than I ever realized.

Julianne: There is not a piece of scenery that does not have his teeth in it.  Oh, were the prop men mad. That being said, I think Wrath of Khan is still the best of the Star Trek films.  However, to say Montalban is not campy is kidding yourself.

Let not the poofy-necked coats sway you – these two versions of Khan are surprisingly dissimilar.

Kelly: I, in no way, dispute anything you have said.  I simply dared and instantly regretted to find even the slightest fault in Cumberbatch’s work as Khan.  However, I would argue it’s not actually fair to compare Cumberbatch to Montalban from Wrath of Khan.  Abrams and his screenwriters re-used Wrath of Khan’s evil villain hell bent upon revenge motif for 2009’s Star Trek with the villain played by Eric Bana.  What we have with Into Darkness is new.  This is different than even the  Khan’s from the Star Trek original series episode “Space Seed.” This is not the “from hell’s heart I stab at thee” version of Khan we popularly think of.

Julianne: I agree.

Kelly: Instead, they make Khan sympathetic and try to trick us into believing for a while that the main villain is actually Robocop himself Peter Weller as Admiral Marcus.  So, they gave us something a bit different until they got to the end and decided to lift a whole scene from Wrath of Khan, just with the Spoke-Kirk roles reversed.  If you have no connection to Wrath of Khan, this sequence of the film with Kirk dying from radiation poisoning while Spock watches from the other side of protective glass is probably fairly effective, even if Quinto’s screaming of “Khaaaan!’ is a bit wobbly.  However, because I’ve been living with that scene from Wrath of Khan for my entire life I couldn’t help but be taken out of the story.

Julianne: I understand the idea of it pulling you out of the story.  I didn’t necessarily have a problem with it, because I thought it worked so well in the film. For me, it was an incredibly effective scene– one of my favorites in the movie. Zachary Quinto is the perfect Spock, and he’s brilliant here, absolutely brilliant.

Kelly: Oh yeah, I agree. He’s great. What definitely worked well in the film, for the most part, was the obvious effort to give every significant member of the Enterprise crew something to do dramatically.  The original series and their films pretty much cared about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy and anything beyond those three was an afterthought.  However, here McCoy ultimately gets downgraded a bit in exchange for the crew members like Sulu and Chekov getting screen time.

I mean, seriously, how can you not like Simon Pegg?

Julianne: Initially when it seemed like Scotty was going to be gone for the bulk of the film, I was about to mutiny., attacking the screen in a blind rage.

Kelly: Of course, it’s a big misdirection because, although Scotty is not on the Enterprise for most of the film, he ends up being one of the film’s main sources of humor and ultimately helps save the day.  Plus, his mute R2D2-like alien friend was back, which I loved.

Julianne: I think you have to work hard to not find Simon Pegg funny.

Kelly: Speaking of funny, was I the only one who thought that perhaps Sulu was going to go mad with power during his brief stretch as acting captain of the Enterprise when Kirk and Spock were off to the Klingon planet.  I half-expected Kirk to find Sulu had begun executing crew members who refused to acknowledge him as captain.

Julianne: As soon as the credits started rolling, he killed Kirk right then and there.

Kelly: Yeah, that “captain has a nice ring to it” line was a far deadlier foreshadowing than we would have predicted.  Speaking of which, the death of Kirk aka “He’s dead?  No worries. We have a tribble for that.”  Did you in any way for one second think he was dead for good?

Julianne: Oh, no. However, I think that’s a pretty common reaction when watching a main character of any kind being killed off in a film or tv show.  I would argue that even Wrath of Khan ends with a pretty obvious guarantee that Spock is coming back.

Kelly: That begs the question, though, of why kill Kirk in the first place.  There’s no real suspense.  They were just doing it to complete an emotional arc for Spock as well as re-create an inverted Wrath of Khan ending.  However, ultimately it is an action which has no consequences.  For Spock to come back in the original films, we first had to wait the requisite length between sequels and then an entire film – a very long and unfortunate film –

Julianne: So, you prefer this approach, because your tone would indicate otherwise.

Kelly: It’s not that I necessarily wanted to see Star Trek The Search for Kirk.  It’s more that Into Darkness does the Wrath of Khan thing without any apparent consequences.  Khan survives.  Kirk dies.  Comes back.  Magic blood.

There’s something awfully familiar about this.

Julianne: As opposed to revival by magic planet in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock?

Kelly: But at least there for Spock to come back another character ultimately ended up dying.  Granted, I in no way mourned for Kirk’s son and his not-quite-William-Katt hair.

Julianne: His death really seemed like an act of mercy for the audience.

Kelly: However, at least there was some sort of consequence there.  It’s not that the death scene between Kirk and Spock is done poorly.  It’s just that why go there if you’re not going to completely commit to it.

Julianne: I would argue the main reason is going there it gives Zachary Quinto something interesting to do.  It drives home the nature of their relationship.  Kirk’s death is almost the MaGuffin for Spock to reveal his human side. For me, that’s what really makes it work. An angy, emotional Spock is the best kind of Spock.

Kelly: I say this as someone who very much so appreciated Quinto’s acting during Kirk’s death scene, but is it bit odd that when Spock lost his entire planet and mother in 2009’s Star Trek he became emotionally compromised and lost his temper  only after Kirk’s prodding, but here he completely loses it right away?

Julianne: I would actually argue “no”, and here’s why: Vulcan sucks and he was creeped out by his mother’s old age make-up.

Don’t cry for me, Spock…well, you could have cried for me a little bit.

In all seriousness, I would actually argue that most of that first film is setting up the idea he’s emotionally compromised and desperate not to show it, because his father’s there. However, from pretty much the moment he was emotionally compromised in Star Trek to the moment Kirk dies he has been suppressing his emotions, as he admits to Uhura and Kirk before they meet the Klingons.  So, in a way Kirk’s death is the thing that finally pushes him over the edge, the provrebial straw if you will.

Kelly: I did enjoy his fight with Khan after Kirk’s “death,” and was particularly delighted when his much vaunted move – the universally renowned Vulcan death grip – was but a mere annoyance to Khan.  Spock’s “I may not have thought this through” reaction was priceless.

Julianne: I imagine he must have thought, “Vulcan never told me that wouldn’t work.  Curse you, Vulcan!  You, too, New Vulcan, and your cryptic other Spock. You’re better off gone, after all.”

Kelly: Now, let’s talk about the true secret they actually managed to keep – they rolled Leonord Nimoy out of whatever hyperbolic chamber Walter Bishop put him in to show up for a cameo as the Spock from the original timeline.  His scene was rather funny, with his “now, you know I can’t talk about this, but that Khan is just no good and never will be.” Which then segues into, ”RUN! Get out now. Why are you all still standing there?”  Although, I thought it might have somewhat undercut the action a little to have an old guard from the original films pop up to remind Quinto’s Spock and the audience to not trust Khan.  Maybe old Spock would have had an opinion on the new look for the Klingons.

Julianne:  Trekkers would say they were wasted in this film.  I would say their helmets make them look like Shredder from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and that I was fine with them being there for only the briefest of scenes, but I speak as someone who has never particularly cared for the Klingons..

Kelly: They do feel underused here.  They show up, their leader takes off his shiny helmet, he makes the not so nice-nice with Uhura, and then he , his men, and 3 or 4 ships get completely and utterly decimated by the one-man army that is Khan..

Julianne: Doesn’t that build up Khan, though?  That’s kind of the point of that entire sequence – a race of warriors with the odds stacked against them, and Khan laughs at them as he crushes them beneath his boot.

Kelly: That’s absolutely the point.  It’s just for those who don’t know the Klingons and are being introduced to them for the first time they must seem like real push-overs.  The bigger problem is that the film is consistently building to a Starfleet-Klingon war, and seems set-up nicely for an ending which will hint at that in a sequel.  Instead, that is a thread left dangling for whoever takes over the franchise from J. J. Abrams.

We will be defeated rather easily, but we will take our humiliation with honor.

Julianne: Maybe they can join up with that primitive group from the beginning of the film who end up worshiping the Enterprise like it’s a god.

Kelly: Before Abrams, that primitive group would get an entire episode full of prime directive speeches.

Julianne: I don’t miss those.

Kelly: They  do tend to run a bit tiresome.

Julianne: We still get those, but they are now interrupted by screams of “Ah!” and running, and flying spears ,and volcanoes, and basically a lot of background distractions.

Kelly: They can still philosophize, just in-between panting for air.

Julianne: Philosophy.  You hear that a lot from classic Trek fans.  To me, there are two things Trek fans who don’t like Abrams’ approach to the material argue: that Abrams actively rejects Gene Rodenberry’s rose-colored view of a utopian future celebrating human harmony, and that Abrams fails to offer any real subtext or commentary on contemporary society.

To that, I ask if these are bad things.  Abrams’s view of the Star Trek world is a definitely more cynical in the same way that Doctor Who is both the most optimistic and cynical show of all time.  Good wins, bad loses, faith in humanity remains, etc..  However, no matter what point you go to in human history  or where you travel in the universe, the same basic character flaws (greed and anger, dozens others) drive the characters and make the world go ’round.  Abrams operates in the same area with his films, which is a view to which I respond. I like a more cynical view of human interactions, be it past, present, or future.

Kelly: Abrams, even if he may not even know the name of the show or have ever seen a single episode, is doing the Deep Space Nine version of Star Trek.

Julianne: Which is the version which occurred after Gene was dead, dead, dead.  Those social commentary episodes Trekkers love to talk about– hippies are strange, Native American rights are good, racism is bad episodes–yeah, those are crap.

Kelly: It is the aspect of classic Trek which has possibly aged worse than the special effects and costumes.

Julianne: Let’s not forget Next Gen’s attempt to comment on gay rights.

Kelly: The idea, then, is that one version of Star Trek had something to say, whereas Abrams version does not.

Julianne: However, when it had something to say, frequently it embarrassed itself.

Kelly: There is an undeniably regrettable quaintness to some of Star Trek’s vaunted bravery.  However, I must admit that in some cases I find it admirable.  Yes, looking for God in Star Trek V did not work out well for anyone, but there is still an interesting idea about the intersection of science and religion.

Do we fans wear rose-colored (or in this case rainbow-colored) glasses which prevent us from seeing the truth about prior Star Trek films?

Julianne: What about saving the whales in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, which I like, by the way?

Kelly:  The whale-sized maguffin.

Julianne: I always kind of wondered why the whales didn’t tell the aliens at the end, “They just brought us here.  We’ve been extinct for centuries.  Don’t buy their treachery, especially whatever the pointy-eared is selling.  He tried to swim with us, the bastard. Take them down.”  One could also wonder why the aliens didn’t ask, “Are there more than two of you?  What happens if one of you coughs on the other, because then we’re back to where we started?”

Kelly:  The point, however, is that I actually do somewhat admire the often failed attempts of the Star Trek films to provide some sort of commentary.  To be fair, Into Darkness is trying to make a commentary about a post 9/11 mentality in which the true enemy comes from within.  However, I think the film is too devoted to setting up action set pieces to delve into that.

Julianne: It’s most effective commentary is on that of the character of Captain Kirk.  He ignores and disregards rules, and is told by Admiral Pike that he is simply coasting on dumb luck and behaves as if he’s a god-like captain.  Then in the form of Admiral Marcus and Khan he is confronted by not one but two individuals who view themselves as either god-like or, at the very least, above the rules.  Both represent extremes of what he could become.  This is an interesting layer that Wrath of Khan doesn’t really have. This is a world in which the lesser of two evils must be chosen, and no answer seems right and noble. The Enterprise crew is a crew of noble ideals surrounded by  corrupt mercenaries.

Kelly: Hey, do we remember when Kirk was demoted at the beginning of this movie?  As in, losing the title of Captain and the Enterprise?  Because that really didn’t last very long.

Julianne: Yeah, but a lot goes down pretty quickly.  Plus, he’s the expendable pawn in Admiral Marcus’ plan.  So, it makes sense to give back the Enterprise to him if your ultimate plan is to erase any trail of Khan and the crew you like least.

Kelly: Speaking of Robo Admiral, he was kind of awesome in this movie.  Granted, it’s not really explained why his daughter has a British accent. However, do we really care when she’s in her underwear in a scene that even screenwriter Damn Lindelof admitted was completely gratuitous nudity.  To be fair, it is an incredibly brief scene.

So, Kirk peeks on her while she is changing clothes. Is it possible that Kirk has a long line of Starfleet HR complaints from female crew members who have also been “caught changing” by Kirk?

Julianne: People like to conveniently forget how incredibly sexualized women have been in the Star Trek universe.

Kelly: So, is this a good movie?

Julianne: It’s incredibly fun.  I enjoyed pretty much every frame of it, lens flares and all.  I don’t have a problem calling it good.  It’s a great action movie.  I think there is more to it than meets the eye.  It’ll definitely hold up more than last summer’s The Avengers, which I think if you go back and watch, really has a pretty dull beginning, a fantastic middle, and a blah finale with a cop-out ending.

Kelly: You’ll have to give me a moment.  I’m still adjusting my eyes to the memories of the lens flares, which are tolerable until you remember that by Abrams’ own admission they’re largely pointless.

Julianne: They make me think of old 70s sci-fi films.

Kelly: I wish I were similarly blessed because all it reminds me of is how pointless it is.  But I asked if this was a good movie for a reason.  Because this is undeniably a good action movie.  Is it a good Star Trek movie, though?  Well, to answer that you have to remember that not all Star Trek movies are actually good.

Julianne: Many of them are not.  Let’s be honest, the ones that are really, really good – that list just includes Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, and First Contact, right? I think Into Darkness is a good Star Trek film. It’s just different from the Star Trek films of our youths.

Kelly: I would add in Generations, and Insurrection is not bad.

Julianne: And everyone involved with Insurrection thanks you for your unwarranted kindness to them just now.  On the other end, I think you have to actively work to dislike Into Darkness, and I know there are plenty of internet nit-pickers who live for that kind of thing.  To me, though, this film’s qualities are so unassailably strong that if you dislike it ,the fault lies mostly in you and not in the film.

Kelly: I didn’t dislike it, I didn’t love it.  I can objectively look at it and appreciate a well-made action film.  However, I was never quite engaged with it emotionally.  In fact, the emotions I felt during Kirk’s death scene had nothing to do with what was on-screen but of the memories it evoked of Spock’s death scene from Wrath of Khan, which is an unearned emotional response predicated upon mimicking that for which some are nostalgic.  However, some of the action is undeniably astounding, and I didn’t really have a bad time with it.  I just didn’t like it nearly as much as you.

What say all of you?  Disappointed in us for not mentioning the Deep Space Nine “Section 31″ reference, or our failure to discuss the action scenes in any detail whatsoever?  Fuming over our willingness to poke fun at the goofy Star Trek whale movie?  Or wondering why we had no real response to the film’s incorrect implication that the Klingon planet Kronos is just a hop and a skip away from Earth?  Or did you actually laugh at our jokes?  Let us know in the comments.

Check Out Our Star Trek Into Darkness Coverage Elsewhere on The Site

• Review: Star Trek Into Darkness – Attempting to Appreciate The Darkness and Ignore the Star Trek
• Fans Wrongly Vote Star Trek Into Darkness the Worst Star Trek Film of All Time – Should Paramount Be Concerned?
• Declining to Boldly Go Into the Darkness: Making Sense of Star Trek’s Under-Performing Box Office
• Why Alice Even in Her Underwear is Nothing New for the Star Trek Franchise

Plus, Here are Some Other Stories From Different Sites:

• J.J. Abrams Created an Alternate Scene to Preserve the Secret of ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ (slashfilm.com)
• Star Trek: Into Darkness (living24fps.wordpress.com)

With the end of another weekend comes another batch of reports about how films-both new and old-fared at the box office.  This week, at the domestic box office Pixar, Sandra Bullock, Melissa McCarthy, and Brad Pitt all did very well whereas Jamie Foxx and Channing Tatum did not.  What are our main takeaways as an audience?

Let’s start with the raw numbers:

Top 10 Estimates for the 6/28-6/30 Weekend Domestic Box Office (Gross/Budget reported in the millions)

Monsters University – Great, But What Happens When Despicable Me 2 Opens?

In addition to its $45 million domestic haul, Monster University added $44.2 million in foreign gross for a combined worldwide gross of $299.7 million.   Here are the main takeaways from the performance of Monsters University:

1. The 45% drop-off from week one to week two is a little better than recent Pixar films Brave (49%) and Toy Story 3 (46%) and way better than Cars 2 (60%).
2. Pixar recently announced their intention to re-focus on original titles as opposed to sequels, that Finding Nemo sequel notwithstanding, which is an admirable move considering the stellar performance of Monsters University at the moment.
3. Despicable Me 2 is off to an amazing start after debuting early in 7 foreign markets for a combined gross of $41.5 million, slaying the competition in the UK this past weekend.  Monsters University could be headed for a significant nosedive this upcoming week when Despicable Me 2 opens domestically.

Bullock/McCarthy Debut Strong, White House Down Bombs

The Heat‘s hot debut reminds us that women like to go to movies, too, but people in general may not have known White House Down was a different movie than the eerily similar Olympus Has Fallen from a couple of months ago.  The Heat was only released domestically, but White House Down added $6.8 million in foreign gross from only a handful of markets for a combined worldwide total of $31.6 million.

Here are the main takeaways from the performance of the two new movies:

1. After Kirstin Wiig declined to return for a Bridesmaids sequel, talk of a sequel centered around Melissa McCarthy’s character died when she refused to return without Wiig.  Instead, McCarthy and Bridesmaids director Paul Feig did The Heat, a buddy cop movie in which the cops happen to be women.  Sandra Bullock came on board to do her Miss Congeniality schtick.  The result is the biggest opening of McCarthy, Feig, or Bullock’s career to this point, even after adjusting for inflation.   You know that means, right?  Even after adjustment, The Heat is off to a better start than Speed was in 1994.
2. White House Down cost $150 million to make and approximately $150 to market.  It has yet to really open wide worldwide giving those involved some hope it might make up its losses overseas.  Plus, word of mouth seems to be okay in America.  However, there’s no getting around at it – in its opening weekend in America this movie flat out tanked.
3. Sony Pictures is in a bad position now that White House Down appears to be bombing a mere month after Sony’s After Earth also  struggled at the box office.  According to The Hollywood Reporter, this comes at a time when one of their shareholders is making a lot of news with his proposal that the entertainment division of Sony be spun off from the main Sony Corporation.

World War Z Continues to Exceed Expectations

In addition to $29 million at the domestic box office, WWZ  made $70.1 million in 50 total foreign markets, giving it a combined foreign total of $135.5 and worldwide total of $258.8.  It’s 55% drop-off from week one to week two domestically sounds bad, but is actually right on par with most summer movie blockbusters and far better than what Man of Steel experienced.  All signs are encouraging for those who want them to get to the trilogy they had originally planned, but that final production budget of $190 million (plus the likely high but not officially reported marketing costs) means they probably need to continue performing well for a couple more weeks.

Man of Steel Stops the Bleeding, Killing It In Overseas Business

Last week, Man of Steel dropped a very bad 65% in its second weekend.  Fortunately, it only dropped 50% in its third weekend, and is now the second-highest domestic grossing film of the year to this point behind Iron Man 3 (granted, at $248 million its a distant second to Iron Man 3‘s $406 million).  In foreign markets, it added an additional $52.2 million bringing its combined worldwide total to $520 million, making it now easily the highest-grossing Superman film of all time (although Superman and Superman II still have it beat after adjusting for inflation).

This is the End and Now You See Me Continue to Do Well, The Internship Not So Much, Star Trek Into Darkness Update

Both This is the End and Now You See Me continue to perform above expectations despite each new week bringing new films with which to compete.  If the axiom about needing to double your budget before you are into pure profit is true, then This is the End is officially in the black (profit and comedy wise) with a worldwide total gross of $77 million on a reported production budget of just $32 million.  The same is true for Now You See Me, which has made $153 million worldwide on a reported production budget of $75 million.  It’s not difficult to see why there has been talk of a This is the End sequel.  That is, of course, unless you’ve actually seen the film and realize that plot-wise there is nowhere else to go, something co-writers/co-directors Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen have admitted in interviews.

Not faring as well is the Vince Vaughn/Owen Wilson re-team-up The Internship, which is set to leave the top 10 domestically and currently has a $56.5 million worldwide gross on a reported $58 million budget.  Owen Wilson needs a hit in the worst way.

Holding steady at #9 on the domestic Top 10 List for the second week in a row was Star Trek Into Darkness, which has now made $220 million domestically and $217 foreign for a worldwide gross of $438 million.  This domestic total makes it the second all-time highest grossing film in the franchise behind 2009′s Star Trek.  However, it starts to look really bad when you remember that Into Darkness cost $190 million to make (God knows how much to market), and it is well behind Star Trek‘s 2009 domestic total of $257 million.  Plus, after you adjust for inflation Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home also made more than Into Darkness domestically.

However, Into Darkness has done better than any Star Trek film before it at the foreign box office.  Nearly half of its worldwide gross (49%) is from foreign markets (comparatively, only 33% of 2009′s Star Trek worldwide box office came from outside America), and in unadjusted dollars the $438 million worldwide gross is the highest for any film in the franchise by a considerable margin.  If a sequel happens, it will be because of how well the film performed overseas and not how well it didn’t perform domestically.

Oi, enough with the numbers.  I’m done.  Leave a comment if you want.  Seriously, though, the early reports are indicating that Despicable Me 2 is going to be a HUGE hit this week.  Huge.  Who saw that coming?

Well, that got out of hand pretty fast.  Yesterday, Devin Faraci at BadAssDigest.com published a report claiming to have the inside scoop on who might script the next Star Trek movie (more on that in a minute).  In that same report, Faraci openly wondered why it was that he was still hearing rumors that J.J. Abrams was contemplating quitting his gig as director of Star Wars: Episode 7 due to production disputes with Disney.  Here it is:

“Speaking of losing jobs… why is it that I keep hearing tons of rumors that JJ Abrams is on the verge of dropping out of Star Wars? This has been something I’ve heard for a while now, and from multiple insiders. I know that he didn’t want to shoot the movie in England and was overruled, but that happened a while ago. This weekend at Comic Con I continued to hear these whispers. No director for Trek 3 has been found yet – might Abrams end up coming back after all, leaving Star Wars to someone else? I’m expecting Star Wars news out of the German Star Wars Celebration at the end of the month – if there is some sort of announcement of a title or casting and Abrams isn’t there, start wondering.”

Faraci is a 10 year veteran of web writing who has on occasion gotten the inside scoop on stories.  In this instance, he was not citing any specific source or claiming to break news.  Instead, it seemed more like a stream-of-consciousness musing.  Unfortunately, as far as the internet was concerned this amounted to yelling “Han shot first!” into a room full of Star Wars fans.  The story got picked up and spread as genuine news so fast that LucasFilm actually had to issue a statement, albeit a rather brief one (from DenofGeek.com):

“There is no truth to the rumour.  JJ is having a great time working on the script and is looking forward to going into production next year.”

They also followed up the statement with, “So cut it out you bunch of nerds or else we’ll stick Vader on you, and not that wimpy, Padme-loving Hayden Christensen version. We mean the real one…the good one!”

Yet there are still those who aren’t buying it.  Why?  Abrams admitted in an interview that he was not too keen on relocating his family (wife, 3 kids) to London, England for the planned 6 month shoot, but that was part of the deal before he took the gig.  Why?  LucasFilm’s new boss Kathleen Kennedy had already negotiated to at least partially film in London, the exact reason being tradition (all six prior films shot at least partially in the London) or budget (cheaper to film there than in California) or a combination of the two or an honest admission that we actually have no idea because they haven’t said.  It was reported last month that the exact location for Episode 7′s filming is to be Pinewood Shepperton Studios, beginning in early 2014.

However, way back in January The Hollywood Reporter indicated that Abrams actually initially turned down the job as director, with the mandated move to London being partially responsible.  He’s apparently barely ever had to film outside of Los Angeles let alone the entire state of California meaning his family, including teenage children, have never been uprooted before.  Directing Star Wars may be his lifelong dream come true, but it’s not his kids dream come true to leave all their friends behind for 6 months.  In that same THR story, it was revealed that Abrams initially only joined the project as a consultant.  They talked him to transitioning from that to being the director, but Kennedy acknowledged that due to the trepidation over the move as well as time commitments to Star Trek and various Bad Robot-produced TV projects it was still possible Abrams could revert back to simply being a consultant at some point.

Other than that, there is a “it’s been quiet…maybe a little too quiet” mindset taking shape.  When the film was announced, there was quite a bit of news coming out about cast (Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford back in reduced roles) and screenplay (being written by Toy Story 3 scribe Michael Arndt).  However, ever since Abrams was hired as director this past January there has been a Darth Vader-like death grip placed on news.

General-Audience: But, Lord Vader-Abrams, all I wanted to do was start a rumor about Jonathan Rhys Meyers being considered for a lead role in Star Wars 7.
Vader-Abrams: I find your lack of faith in my process disturbing!

This is in keeping with Abrams’ prior films, which he is notoriously secretive about (arguably to a fault, e.g., the decision to hide the obvious with Star Trek Into Darkness).  However, now that everybody has the thought of Abrams contemplating leaving in their head that secrecy suddenly looks more like a tell-tale sign of a troubled production.

Plus, there is the matter of Star Trek.  Into Darkness slightly under-performed at the box office this Summer, for reasons argued elsewhere on this site, but it ended up with a combined worldwide gross of $448.6 million on a budget of $190 million which meets the “did it double its production budget? If yes, it made a profit” rule of success.  That should be enough to get a sequel made, and one of the film’s producers, Bryan Burk, told Digital Spy that Paramount would like to have a sequel out in time for the 50th Anniversary of Star Trek: The Original Series in 2016.  That would mean it would need to go into production in 2015, which is exactly the time that Star Wars: Episode 7 is supposed to come out.  New Spock, Zachary Quinto, made splashes last week when he proclaimed the new Star Trek would go into production next year with Abrams back as director.  That seemed to align with earlier interviews from cast and crew indicating Abrams’s involvement with Star Wars did not necessarily mean he was out as director for a third Star Trek film.  However, the timeline was way off, and the story quickly refuted by Into Darkness co-writer/producer Robert Orci.  

I do believe that Abrams goes home everyday, walks in the door and drops to his knees to dramatically yell “They’re tearing me apart!” Marlon Brando style.

Abrams doing both a new Star Wars and Star Trek next year will not happen, even if he pulls a Spielberg (who directed E.T. at the same time he Executive Produced/un-officially directed Poltergeist).  If he finishes Star Wars 7 on schedule, Abrams could maybe do a new Star Trek in 2015 for a 2016 release.  However, that would likely overlap with the post-production of Episode 7 and definitely the promotion of it.  Moreover, both Abrams and Kathleen Kennedy have indicated they would absolutely push Episode 7 back if the story wasn’t ready in time meaning we should not be viewing its Summer 2015 window as a Doctor Who-like fixed point in time which cannot be changed.

The most likely option is that LucasFilms should be believed – Abrams is committed to doing the best Star Wars 7 possible (or simply can’t resist the opportunity to blind the world with endless lens flares keyed off of bright lightsabers).  If Paramount wants a new Star Trek soon they will probably move on from Abrams, whose production company, Bad Robot, will still be involved though.  It’s possible they could promote someone from within the Bad Robot ranks to be the new director.  Speaking of which, the part of Faraci’s report receiving less attention is the news that the third Star Trek film will likely have new screenwriters.  Into Darkness screenwriters Robert Orci and and Alex Kurtzman are reportedly returning as producers, but Ashley Edward Miller and Zack Stentz will take over as writers.  Who are they?  They are the credited writers of the first Thor movie and X-Men: First Class, and have worked with Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman in the past as writer/producers on Fringe.

With all of this speculation there is one definite answer to a question posed by most cynics, “Is there any chance, regardless of director drama, that they just choose to abandon this whole proposed new trilogy and finally let Star Wars and, by extension my childhood, die?”  The answer to that is a resounding no.  Episode 7 is still happening; Disney paid George Lucas way too much for LucasFilms for it not to happen.  Whether or not it should is, well, an entirely different issue.

It is a strange feeling to be a fan of a film or television franchise which appears to no longer care about you.  A lot of longtime Star Trek fans have felt this way about director J.J. Abram’s revival of the franchise, which began with 2009′s Star Trek and then continued with this year’s Star Trek Into Darkness.  As BBC Radio film critic Mark Kermode has argued, it’s like Abrams decided to eliminate the speechiness of Star Trek by having the characters engage in their ethical debates while running for their lives.  Abrams has been astonishingly honest about his lack of Star Trek fandom, and intention to approach the material as an outsider attempting to discover how to pull it from the clutches of the trekkies and deliver it an easier to swallow form for the masses.

It’s tough for some to admit, but there are plenty of Star Trek fans whose first Kirk and Spock were not played by William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy.

 Financially speaking, the strategy paid off for him and Paramount Studios when 2009′s Star Trek ended up as the highest grossing domestic film in franchise history, even after adjusting for ticket price inflation.  It may have backfired this summer with Into Darkness, which did okay-but-not-great domestic business, finishing 2nd in franchise history behind the ’09 Star Trek and 4th behind Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home after inflation adjustments.  People (or at least their new 3D theaters) overseas seemed to love it though, making it the highest foreign grossing (and, as a result, highest worldwide grossing) film in franchise history.  It’s final total of $452 million worldwide on a $190 million budget is the kind of business which will likely mandate a sequel (with a rumored 2016 release window), even if in one half of the world the film is thought of as a failure.

However, Paramount may have a bigger problem on their hand with domestic fan disenchantment than they realize.  At last week’s big Star Trek Las Vegas convention, Jordan Huffman over at ScreenCrush.com moderated a panel in which the end target was for all fans in attendance to reach a consensus opinion on the rankings for each Star Trek film in terms of quality.  Which film ended up being voted as the worst Star Trek film of all time – this being a franchise which famously has arguably more poorer films than good ones?  Star Trek Into Darkness!

Here’s the full list: 

1. ‘Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan’
2. ‘Star Trek: First Contact’
3. ‘Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country’
4. ‘Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home’
5. ‘Star Trek III: The Search For Spock’
6. ‘Star Trek’
7. ‘Galaxy Quest’ [as a Star Trek re-affirmation parody, it is thought of by some as an honorary Star Trek film]
8. ‘Star Trek: Generations’
9. ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture’
10. ‘Star Trek: Nemesis’
11. ‘Star Trek: Insurrection’
12. ‘Star Trek: The Final Frontier’
13. ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’

Holy smurf!  These kind of things are obviously horribly subjective and fun to quibble over which film belongs where.  Personally, I would have The Search for Spock and Nemesis even lower and, as a result, Generations and Insurrection just a bit higher.  But what does it say to Paramount to see that a room packed full of North America’s biggest and most passionate Star Trek fans deemed Into Darkness the worst Star Trek film of all time?

At one point, this mere shot from the Into Darkness trailer had many a Trekkie overcome with excitement/speculation.

Of course, all tolerance for dissenting opinions aside I can, without hesitation, say that those fans are wrong -there is no way in hell Into Darkness should be thought of as the worst Star Trek film.  This is, after all, a franchise which has crap-fests like The Final Frontier and Nemesis on its resume.  Into Darkness may be far too derivative of Wrath of Khan for its own good and overly reliant upon its non-stop action to distract from its nonsensical plot twists, but it is not that bad.

Moreover, as much as this kind of thing can be quantified Into Darkness is among the best reviewed films in the franchise, its current 87% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes falling behind only Star Trek (95%), First Contact (92%), and Wrath of Khan (90%).

At 21% on Rotten Tomatoes, The Final Frontier is officially the worst reviewed film in franchise history. That seems about right.

Abrams has received heaps and heaps of praise for his mainstreaming of Star Trek form Trek-averse reviewers and filmgoers  who admire his ability to make the once byzantine seem accessible.  However, there has been a growing chant of, “But what about us?” from longtime Trekkies who no longer recognize the Trek they loved in Abrams’ version.  Perhaps this has finally reached its boiling point.  To be fair, it’s not as if long-time fans have the exclusive right to dislike Into Darkness, as its certainly possible fans who only jumped on board in 2009 were turned off by the Wrath of Khan fan-baiting.  Overall, there is an obvious response bias whereby whichever film is the most recent will illicit the most passionate response for feeling fresher in the minds thus drawing upon rawer emotions among those voting.  So, ultimately, this may be a non-story.

However, there is no arguing that Into Darkness was a financial disappointment in North America, with the explanations for why ranging from taking too long at 4 years to arrive since the last film and adopting a secretive marketing campaign that annoyed more than it enticed.  Could disenchantment among North American Trekkies be another explanation?   If so, do they even matter at this point after Into Darkness played better overseas than any Trek film before it?  

Recent rumors indicate J.J. Abrams will be too busy with Star Wars to direct the still-as-yet-not-officially-announced Star Trek sequel, but his Into Darkness screenwriters Alexander Kurtzman & Roberto Orci are returning.  Plus, Abrams’ production company, Bad Robot, will still be involved.  So, as fans in Vegas scream out, “Into Darkness sucked harder than anything Star Trek has ever done before!” Paramount appears to be looking at the bottom line and proceeding with business as usual, with perhaps a heightened sense of needing to crank out a sequel faster this time around.

And, seriously, I wasn’t too crazy about Into Darkness, but it is not the worst Star Trek film ever.  Not even close.

Undoubtedly sensing that we’re all kind of giggling over how unintentionally funny Channing Tatum looks in the trailers, Warner Bros. made the seemingly surprising move yesterday to delay the Wachowski’s sci-fi epic Jupiter Ascending from its July 18 release to February 6, 2015.  The official reason?  To allow the filmmakers the time to finish the special effects.  The real reason?  Actually, while such a move used to be met with nothing but cynicism, and seen as a vote of no confidence in the film by the studio (the “clearly this means the movie stinks” reaction) these days we might just take them at their word.  Sure, it does seems suspicious this move comes after box office experts had been predicting a total domestic gross of just $58 million for Jupiter Ascending, especially bad considering the reported budget of $150 million.  However, while such delays used to be very rare and always the kiss of death they have become incredibly common over the past year or so, and aren’t always the sign of a troubled production.

Here is a run-down of why 15 recent films which were delayed, and how it worked out for each of them at the box office:

1)    Gangster Squad

• Original Release Date: September 7, 2012
• New Release Date: January 11, 2013

Reason for Delay: On July 20, 2012, James Eagan Holmes opened fire at a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado, killing 12 and injuring 70 others in the process.   So as not to appear insensitive to victims of a real-life tragedy, Warner Bros. instantly pulled its trailer for Gangster Squad from theaters because it highlighted a scene where gunmen opened fire behind a movie screen into an unsuspecting audience.  Less than week later, Gangster Squad‘s release date was pushed back so that they could go into emergency re-shoots and remove any offending material.  The announcement of this delay came roughly 6 weeks prior to the film’s originally announced release.

Did It Work Out for Them?: NO

Box Office: Gangster Squad, which had all the classical markings of an awards contender (e.g., period drama, marquee cast, prior award winner hamming it up while playing a real life figure), received mediocre reviews, and ultimately managed just 46 million domestic, $105 million at the worldwide against a budget of $60 million.  It ultimately succeeded in not offending anyone other than, maybe, movie fans who expected more from a film starring the likes of James Brolin, Ryan Goslin, Emma Stone, and Sean Penn.

2)    Jack the Giant Slayer

• Original Release Date: June 25, 2012
• New Release Date: March 1, 2013

Reason for Delay: Jack the Giant Killer debuted its initial teaser trailer in late 2011, and promised a mid-June 2012 release. Unfortunately, the trailer looked especially bad with rather spotty special effects.  So, in January of 2012 Warner Bros. announced its decision to delay the thing a full 9 months from its intended release date.  The official reasoning for the delay was to provide the filmmakers time to finish/improve special effects and ramp up marketing by pairing final trailers to guaranteed smash hit and similarly fantasy-themed Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.  Plus, they changed the name to Jack the Giant Slayer for marketing reasons, but it made no difference.

Did It Work Out for Them?: NO

Box Office: Regardless of whether it was Giant Killer or Giant Slayer its actual punch was rather meek, pulling in just $65 million domestic, $197 million worldwide, against a budget of $195 million.  Legendary Pictures reportedly lost between $125 and $140 million on the whole thing.

3)    G.I. Joe: Retaliation

• Original Release Date: June 29, 2012
• New Release Date: March 28, 2013

Reason for Delay: They needed the time to post-convert the film into 3D, partially as a reflection of the financial failure earlier that summer of the non-3D Battleship.  There were rumors that the studio people got nervous about the decision to kill off Channing Tatum’s character as a surprise early on in the film, forcing the director and company to go back into re-shoots to expand Tatum’s screen time and possibly do away with his death entirely. Plus, by moving they escaped having to compete against The Amazing Spider-Man, Ted, and The Dark Knight Rises.

Did It Work Out for Them?: YES.

Box Office: The Channing Tatum rumors were a bunch of bunk, and while the 3D conversion reeked of a studio desperate to shine a turd into something less turd-like it actually worked.  G.I. Joe: Retaliation pulled in $122 million domestic, $375 million worldwide, against a $130 million budget.  That made it a bigger worldwide hit/lower domestic hit than the first G.I. Joe.

4)    Star Trek Into Darkness

• Original Release Date: June 29, 2012
• New Release Date: May 16, 2013

Reason for Delay: Paramount announced a release date before J.J. Abrams had officially signed on, and by the time he did come around he only agreed to do it if they would push the film back a year.  He didn’t think the script was ready, and wouldn’t be rushed. This then forced Paramount to fast-track G.I. Joe: Retaliation to fill Into Darkness‘ intended slot [see above to see how that played out].  As admirable as Abrams’ intentions were to delay the film to make sure they got it right, it did ultimately mean he allowed 4 years to pass between his first Star Trek and its sequel.  As a point of comparison, Robert Downey, Jr. appeared as Iron Man in three films (Iron Man 2 in 2010, The Avengers in 2012, Iron Man 3 in 2013) in the time between the first Star Trek and Into Darkness.  

Did It Work Out for Them?: YES AND NO

Box Office: Box office experts believed the extra time would allow the Abrams Star Trek fandom to build to the point that Into Darkness would be one of the biggest hits of the summer, grossing anywhere between $250-325 million domestic and $400 million foreign.  It didn’t do that, instead finishing with $228 million domestic, $461 million worldwide, against a $190 million budget.  This did make it the second highest grossing Star Trek film ever domestically, first highest worldwide, and is more than enough to warrant a sequel.  Still, while the expectations may have been unfairly high they were certainly not met.

5)    The Great Gatsby

• Original Release Date: December 25, 2012
• New Release Date: May 10, 2013

Reason for Delay:  In August 2012, Warner Bros. looked at everything its Baz Lurhmann-directed Great Gatsby would be going up against at Christmas – The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Les Miserables, Django Unchained – and decided to push it back, arguing, “We think moviegoers of all ages are going to embrace it, and it makes sense to ensure this unique film reaches the largest audience possible.”  That sounds nice, but rumors of massive re-shoots and clashes with Lurhmann made it seem like Warner Bros.’ bona-fide awards contender had turned into a mess they didn’t know what to do with.

Did It Work Out for Them?: YES

Box Office: The finished film features a career highlight performance from Leonardo DiCaprio, who now absolutely owns the proper way to say the phrase, “Hello, old sport.”  It turned into one of the surprise hits of the summer, opening far above expectations with $50 million on the way to a final domestic gross of $144 million, $351 million worldwide, against a budget of $105 million.  By the time awards season finally arrived awards bodies embraced DiCaprio’s performance in Wolf of Wall Street, forgetting about Gatsby.  Oh well.  This Gatsby did what most awards-contenders can’t: it became a huge hit.

6)    Now You See Me

• Original Release Date: January 18, 2013
• New Release Date: March 2013
• Final Release Date: May 31, 2013

Reason for Delay: Nothing specific, actually.  Instead, it seems more like Summit/Lionsgate grew increasingly confident about the film’s box office chances, originally planning to dump it in January before pushing it to the historically more lucrative month of March before dropping it as an adult skewering alternative smack dab in the middle of the summer movie season.  Going up against usual box office king Will Smith’s After Earth as well as carryover business for Fast & Furious 6, The Hangover 3, and Star Trek Into Darkness most experts had Now You See Me as something which would have better served sticking to its March release.

Did It Work Out for Them?: YES

Box Office: Now You See Me was another one of last summer’s surprise hits, ending up with $111 million domestic, $351 million worldwide, against a $75 million budget.  A sequel has officially been announced, and is currently in pre-production.

7)    World War Z

• Original Release Date: December 21, 2012
• New Release Date: June 21, 2013

Reason for Delay: Paramount first announced the delay in March 2012.  Its third act needed to be completely re-tooled by screenwriters Damon Lindelof and Drew Goddard.  This resulted in  nearly two months of re-shoots in October/November of 2012, ballooning the budget to $190 million in the process and various reports in-fighting between Brad Pitt and director Marc Forster.  Beyond crafting an entirely new ending, other sections of the film were cut out entirely and replaced with new content so as to pull the film back from any overt politicizing and more toward fun, summer blockbuster entertainment.  All told, the re-shoots accounted for 30 to 40 minutes of the final 116 minute running time.

Did It Work Out for Them?: YES

Box Office: Going into the summer no one in their right mind was expecting World War Z to a bigger worldwide hit than Star Trek Into Darkness, both from Paramount, but that’s exactly what happened.  Audiences embraced World War Z to the tune of $202 million domestic, $540 million worldwide, enough to potentially get a sequel although there remain insider reports which argue the budget was far higher than the official $190 million and that this wasn’t nearly as profitable for Paramount as it might seem.

8)    The Lone Ranger

• Original Release Date: mid-2011
• New Release Date: December 21, 2012
• New New Release Date: May 31, 2013
• Final Release Date: July 3, 2013

Reason for Delay: The Lone Ranger actually kicked around Disney for a couple of years, with Johnny Depp’s attachment to play Tonto first announced in late 2008.  It kept getting pushed back because there’d be another Pirates of the Caribbean movie to make, which took priority.  They finally had a director in Gore Verbiniski by late 2010, and were seemingly good to go, merely waiting for Depp to finish filming Dark Shadows.  Then in August 2011, Disney dang near canceled the project altogether, shutting down production to force producer Jerry Bruckheimer and company to get their dang budget under control, which they ultimately did by deferring Verbinski, Bruckheimer, Depp, and Armie Hammer’s salaries by 20% each.  By the time they started filming, they seemed on track to meet their new May 31, 2013 release date, which was ultimately pushed back to the Fourth of July weekend not due to production difficulties but to take advantage of that weekend suddenly opening up after Steven Spielberg’s Robopocalypse was delayed indefinitely.

Did It Work Out for Them?: NO

Box Office: The repeated delays did give The Lone Ranger the feel of a lame duck, but Disney sure didn’t treat it that way, using every penny of its reported $150 million marketing budget to aggressively promote the film as if it could be willed into becoming a Pirates of the Caribbean-level hit.  Instead, it only grossed $260 million worldwide, $89 million domestic, all for a film which carried an official production budget of $225 million.  Disney reportedly lost somewhere between $160 and $190 million as a result.

9)    Elysium

• Original Release Date: March 1, 2013
• New Release Date: August 9, 2013

Reason for Delay: Elyisum, a sci-fi epic set on a space station occupied by the very wealthy while the rest of humanity lives on a ravaged, overpopulated Earth, was a tough sell for Sony, despite the presence of Matt Damon, whose commitment to the project was such that he actually shaved his head for the role.  So, when Disney set up Oz: The Great and Powerful to open a week after Elysium Sony got nervous.  When their RoboCop re-make which was meant to come out in August needed a little more time they jumped at the chance to push it back to 2014 and push Elysium back 6 fulls months to RoboCop‘s old release date, which also happened to be the equivalent weekend of when Elysium director Neill Blomkamp’s breakout hit District 9 came out in 2009.  These moves were announced in October 2012, giving Elysium plenty of time to go back to do some re-shoots, and for Sony to announce they were especially formatting the film for IMAX.

Did It Work Out for Them?: YES AND NO

Box Office: Elysium did fine but not great, ending with $93 million domestic, $286 million worldwide against a budget of $115 million.  This made it a bigger worldwide hit than District 9 ($210 million), but nowhere near as profitable since District 9‘s budget was a mere $30 million.  Among August 2013 releases, Elysium was overshadowed by surprises hits We’re the Milers ($150 million domestic) and Lee Daniels’ The Butler ($116 million domestic).

10)    Gravity

• Original Release Date: November 21, 2012
• New Release Date: October 4, 2013

Reason for Delay: Harry Potter: The Prisoner of Azkaban and Children of Men fans had been awaiting fdirector Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity for years, and had to learn to wait a fair deal longer in May 2012 when Warner Bros. announced the film was being pushed back nearly a full year.  Why? Because this is the type of film which was so impossible to pull off the filmmakers had to literally create the technology themselves.  Plus, WB might have wanted to mimic their release strategy for Argo and propel Gravity into an awards contender.

Did It Work Out for Them?: YES

Box Office: Gravity tied with American Hustle for the most Academy Award nominations (10), and walked away with 7 wins, 6 in the technical categories and 1 for Cuaron as Best Director.  Beyond that, it was a ginormous box office hit, bucking conventional wisdom about how much October releases can make by finishing with $716 million worldwide, $274 million domestic against a budget of $100 million.

11)    Captain Phillips

• Original Release Date: March 2013
• New Release Date: October 11, 2013

Reason for Delay: Although not ever officially explained, Captain Phillips 7-month delay was likely because Sony realized it had a bonafide awards contender which could play on the film circuits to build buzz, particularly about Tom Hanks’ performance, in the lead-up to an Argo-like October release.  After all, just like Argo Captain Phillips was a hostage drama based on real life events.

Did It Work Out for Them?: YES

Box Office: Captain Phillips managed to convert its critical acclaim to plenty of butts in seats, earning $218 million worldwide, $107 million domestic against a budget of $55 million.  It was actually a bigger international hit than Argo from a year prior.  Unfortunately, while the film picked up plenty of nods from various critics associations and less notable awards bodies its director (Paul Greengrass) and star (Tom Hanks) were snubbed by the Academy, who handed the film 6 nominations (most notably Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay) but no wins.

12)    Carrie

• Original Release Date: March 15, 2013
• New Release Date: October 18, 2013

Reason for Delay: Sony announced this move around 3 months prior to the film’s intended release, and it seemed motivated not by a need for tinkering but instead to simply run away from competition.  In March, it would have gone up against Oz: The Great and Powerful and The Host, and open less than a month prior to similar horror remake Evil Dead.  The move to October was designed to capitalize on the fact that for the first time since 2008 there wasn’t going to be a new Paranormal Activity movie coming out that month to dominate Halloween.

Did It Work Out for Them?: NO

Box Office: As it turns out, you can’t just simply toss out a horror movie at Halloween, and sit back and count your money.  Carrie failed to catch on, trailing The Evil Dead’s domestic ($52 million for ED vs. $35 million for Carrie) and worldwide ($97 million for ED, $84 million for Carrie) performance.  On top of that, Carrie actually cost nearly twice as much to make as Evil Dead ($17 million for Carrie, $30 million for ED).  By running away from Evil Dead did they sacrifice something by not getting to be the first big horror remake released in 2013?  Or was this movie never going to do any better than this?

13)    47 Ronin

• Original Release Date: November 21, 2012
• New Release Date: February 8, 2013
• Final Release Date: December 25, 2013

Reason for Delay: Carl Erik Rinsch had only ever directed commercials before 47 Ronin, but rather than make the transition somewhat seamlessly to big budget film like other music video/commercial directors before him Rinsch appeared in over his head, causing the film to ultimately be delayed by 13 months to allow for extensive re-shoots.  The tension came between the artier, Japanese samurai film Rinsch wanted to make, and the Lord of the Rings in the East blockbuster the studio wanted.  When Universal decided the movie needed to be filmed in 3D, a decision which necessitated building very expensive sets in England and Hungary, the budget skyrocketed, ultimately ending up at $175 million after tax breaks.  By the end, there were reports that Rinsch’s tensions with the studio had elevated to the point that he was seeking arbitration assistance from the Directors Guild of America.

Did It Work Out for Them?: NO

Box Office: Ronin 47 ended up with mere $38 million domestic, and although decent international play bumped the worldwide gross up to $150 million the experts say Universal likely lost between $120 and $150 million.  Universal clearly knew they had a turkey, officially announcing weeks prior to its release that they had already taken an unspecified write-down on the project which they were able to weather to due to the successes of Despicable Me 2 and Fast & Furious 6 earlier in the year.

14)    Monuments Men

• Original Release Date: December 18, 2013
• Final Release Date: February 7, 2014

Reason for Delay: According to Deadline, the film was delayed a little over two months before its intended release because the visual effects could not be completed in time.  Plus, composer Alexandre Desplat had yet to even record a musical score for the film.  The move was nonetheless surprising sine as a WWII period piece starring George Clooney, Matt Damon, Cate Blanchette, Bill Murray, and John Goodman, among others, it seemed an obvious piece of awards-bait.

Did It Work Out for Them?: PROBABLY.  There’s no reason to think it would have done any better had it made it’s Christmas release and gone up against far more formidable competition.

Box Office: It set career highs in domestic ($78 million) and worldwide gross ($154 million) for Clooney’s directorial career but couldn’t have made much of a profit considering its $70 million production budget.

15)    RoboCop

• Original Release Date: August 9, 2013
• Final Release Date: February 12, 2014

Reason for Delay: Similar to Jupiter Ascending, RoboCop was meant to be a summer release which was delayed to allow time to finish the special effects.  It, too, was ultimately dumped in February, which experts saw as a sign of the studio’s lack of faith in the project.  However, the studios have been experimenting as of late and responding to the requests of theater owners to spread out their big budget movies more evenly to try and make historically weak months like February more lucrative.

Did It Work Out for Them?: NO

Box Office: Well, that didn’t really happen for RoboCop.  At least not domestically, where it finished with $58 million, identical to Sony’s most recent sci-fi ’80s re-make Total Recall.  However, it is was quite the international hit resulting in a worldwide gross of $242 million against a budget of $100 million.  One imagines that type of international performance is what motivated Warner Bros. to try Jupiter Ascending out as a February release.

At least half of the films on this list ended up doing perfectly fine if not great, likely benefiting in each case from the delay.  Plus, in the form of World War Z and The Lone Ranger we have extreme examples of when a troubled production results in a big hit and when it turns into an embarrassing box office bomb.  So, it looks like there’s around a 50/50 shot that this delay for Jupiter Ascending ends up meaning nothing at all.

Source:

• The Delayed Films Of 2013: Why They Were Pushed Back & Which Ones Will You Be Seeing? | Indiewire.com

Roberto Orci is no longer directing Star Trek 3, meaning Paramount is no longer letting a guy with no experience directing anything ever handle the Star Trek film currently scheduled to arrive sometime during the franchise’s 50^th anniversary in 2016. Initially, it was unknown why Orci had stepped down, but now it is believed it’s because Paramount hated his script. He apparently wanted to use time travel to potentially undo the destruction of the planet Vulcan in the 2009 Star Trek, J.J. Abrams’ franchise reboot which operated from a script co-written by Orci and Alex Kurtzman. Huh. It occurs to me that I know of at least one person who would adore that plot. Allow me to explain.

My best friend used to go to Star Trek conventions, which was a bit odd for me since I’ve been a near-lifelong fan and never felt the need to go to a convention whereas she was flying up to Chicago to meet Leonard Nimoy and the rest at a convention less than a year after she became a fan. The result is that she has actually met far more actual Star Trek fans in person than I have at this point, and one of them really, really, really hated the J.J. Abrams version of Star Trek. Of course, this guy wasn’t unique since conference attendees in Las Vegas voted Abrams’ Star Trek Into Darkness the worst Star Trek film of all time last year. However, one of the main points of contention for this true, hardcore Trekkie my friend encountered was that he simply could not, in good conscience, accept the idea that 2009’s Star Trek reboot/sequel freakin’ blew up the planet Vulcan, pushing Spock somewhere close to “last of my race” territory. Spock and Uhura kissing was bad enough as was an Enterprise bridge coming off as a tired recreation of an Apple store or an Enterprise engineering section pulled straight out of a manufacturing plant. That all paled in comparison, though, to the high crime of killing all the Vulcan homeworld. For that, there could be no forgiveness!

The last time we saw the planet Vulcan

The oft-maligned Damen Lindelof was also involved with Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness, and in an interview with Collider he explained that the decision to destroy Vulcan was done to knowingly evoke 9/11 and increase the dramatic stakes for the new versions of these old characters.  He claimed that they were all very aware that many fans wanted to see more of the fallout from that destruction in Star Trek Into Darkness.

I had no idea that anyone cared that much about the Vulcans. Love Spock? Sure; that’s a given among Star Trek fans. You might even find those enamored with Jolene Blalock’s T’Pol from Star Trek: Enterprise, who was basically Spock with rather pointy breasts (a Vulcan striving to understand humanity and bickering with her ship’s Captain as prelude to a lasting friendship). However, to me the Vulcans were never anything more than the originator of the Star Trek stock character type of the outsider struggling to understand humanity, a lineage beginning with Spock and extending to Data (an android) on Next Generation, Odo (a changeling) on Deep Space Nine, Seven of Nine (ex-Borg) on Voyager, and finally T’Pol. That’s not to say that all of those characters were always attempting to become more human or even wanted to, but they all served a similar function. Prior to Enterprise, actual Vulcan society, however, was mostly relegated to the random TV episode dealing, such as Next Generation’s multi-parter depicting some kind of political uprising on Vulcan, ultimately involving Spock and his dad, or any number of episodes involving Voyager’s resident Vulcan, Tuvok. Still, to me the Vulcans were mostly the people whose especially stern faces formed the background for why it was such a big deal whenever the half-Vulcan, half-human Spock came close to cracking a smile.

What I failed to see is that many people responded to the notion of the Vulcans basically being a highly evolved version of us, containing all of the same baser impulses and anger issues as humanity but tenfold. Their serene nature was a result of a people constantly suppressing their natural instincts, thus preaching a message of self-discipline and self-meditation. So, if I thought the Vulcans were maybe a tad boring others thought they were immensely noble with a kick-ass go-to move in hand-to-hand combat what with the Vulcan Nerve Pinch.  A similar dynamic occurred when Russel T. Davies killed off the Time Lords when he revived Doctor Who, pleasing those who never cared for autocratic, d-bag aliens who wore funny hats but annoying those who found the Time Lords to be an entertaining and fundamental element of Doctor Who.

The Vulcans clearly have their fans. After all, everyone who sports Vulcan ears at Star Trek and similar nerd conventions can’t simply be dressing up as Spock, right?

And now, for no reason, here’s a picture of Kirk and Spock having shirtless buddies time together

Interestingly, among the trio mostly commonly credited as being responsible for the new Star Trek – Abrams, Kurtzman, and Orci – Orci is the one believed to have been a huge Star Trek fan prior to his involvement with the films. So, the exact plot he had put together with Star Trek 3’s two screenwriters was apparently going to do what Star Trek does best: Time Travel. According to BadAssDigest:

My sources tell me that the script Orci was working on saw the Enterprise, the Vulcans and a new alien race competing to get a time travel device. The Vulcans want to go back and stop the destruction of their planet, and the time travel schtick is what would allow Chris Pine and William Shatner to share the screen […] I’ve been in touch with some folks and it seems like the script was one of the problem factors. Paramount shut the production down last month, sending home all the design people while they battled over the direction of the screenplay. I imagine all this stuff is gone now.

Orci will still officially be involved with Star Trek 3 as a producer, but the industry scuttlebutt is that Paramount is now targeting Edgar Wright or Joe Cornish to direct. Whoever they hire will likely get to start with a story from scratch, which honestly sounds like the best idea. If Devin at BadAss is right, the script Orci had whipped up sounds like a story worth telling in maybe an officially sanctioned tie-in novel but not in an actual movie. Star Trek purists might even quibble over whether or not the high and mighty Vulcans, their lives forever ruled by logic, would even want to bend all of time and space to erase history, and anyone who remembers Star Trek Into Darkness could argue, “Wait, that movie was all about the impending war with the Klingons. So, how in the world does Star Trek 3 not finally involve the Federation Vs. The Klingons?”   Plus, they spent two freakin’ movies finally getting around to sending our new Enterprise crew out on their 5-year mission. Can we finally get to that, please?

I say all of that, though, as someone who does not particularly care for the Vulcans, but I know there are those who adore them. Does Orci’s plot focusing on the Vulcans and a mystery alien race actually intrigue you? Or should we simply be rejoicing that Paramount has apparently scrapped all of this before this craziness went any further?   And are you even looking forward to a Star Trek 3 at this point? Let me know in the comments.

Source: BadAssDigest

So, Roberto Orci is out, Justin Lin is in, and we have a release date, July 8, 2016. That’s where we’re at with Star Trek 3 now.

Back in May when Orci was first announced as the director of Star Trek 3, things turned ugly pretty fast. That was to be expected. Orci is the same guy who’s co-written the screenplays for successful but divisive films like Transformers, Star Trek, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and his views as a 9/11 truther as well as his admirable but usually ill-advised habit of taking to the internet to engage with fans directly usually ends in shouting matches, like the time he told those critical of Star Trek Into Darkness to “FUCK OFF!!”

Oh, crap. Orci said what to the fans?

Now, here he was being handed the keys to the Star Trek kingdom just in time for the franchise’s 50^th anniversary in 2016 even though he’d never directed anything before. Heck, when Paramount let Leonard Nimoy direct Star Trek III: The Search for Spock at least he’d directed a couple of TV shows episodes before that. Even William Shatner had directed 10 T.J. Hooker episodes before he got to step behind the camera for Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Orci had none of that.

Did that really matter, though? At the end of the day, how much does it matter who directs Star Trek 3 or the third entry in any established franchise?

As FilmSchoolRejects argued:

“The insulation of studio filmmaking has largely made the director’s name irrelevant. Particularly when we’re talking about a third or fourth entry. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is a great example (quick, who directed it?) where the look and feel of the franchise’s universe were back in play because internal memory wasn’t going to let Gore Verbinski’s replacement start from scratch.

The Amazing Spider-Man and its sequel (which Orci was co-writer on) were further reminders that a studio can take a director with a unique vision and mute it sufficiently enough to produce something with mass market appeal. The second film has a few moments where Marc Webb’s touches shine through (particularly the romantic elements), but both movies feel more like Spidey was Mad Libbed into the standard superhero structure.

To be blunt, there’s not much room for directorial authorship in these movies, and there may be none at all with a Part III.”

This is an argument which has nothing to do with Star Trek, specifically, and everything to do with the way films are made these days.  However, I can immediately think of several franchises where it absolutely mattered who directed the third installment, Joel Schumacher with Batman Forever and Brett Ratner with X-Men: The Last Stand. Schumacher’s universe was an immense departure from the one previously established by Tim Burton, and Ratner was a competent shooter with none of the heart previously brought to the material by Bryan Singer. FSR’s point remains: How much does it really matter who directs third installments of modern film franchises? Get a good director of photography, lean heavily on your department heads, and find someone to simply steer the ship and do his or her best to keep the studio happy. That’s pretty much been the film studios’ dream ever since producers Jon Peters and Peter Guber ran roughsod over Tim Burton and forced him to make the Batman film they wanted, not the one he wanted in 1989. In recent years, Marvel Studios has placed an emphasis on bringing in directors who can provide a unique voice to the characters and story while allowing the actual visuals to mostly adhere to the Marvel formula, Joe Johnston’s sepia-toned Captain America: The First Avenger being an obvious exception.

Do you remember who directed this?

So, does it really matter that Justin Lin, not Roberto Orci, is directing Star Trek 3? Beyond being a bit of fan service, would it have even really mattered if they went and got Jonathan Frakes, who had been campaigning for the gig big time, having now established a career as trusted TV director after helming Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek: Insurrection back in the day? Oh, the First Contact fan in me really, really wants to say it absolutely would have mattered, but I have to admit that I completely forgot that Frakes even directed that movie until looking it up while writing this article.

I would argue that it does matter that they hired Justin Lin because it signals what Paramount wants from Star Trek 3. They didn’t just go hire the guy who turned Fast & Furious into the 15^th leading film franchise in the entire world to now come in and deliver something that performs on the same mid-range level as Star Trek ($385m worldwide) and Star Trek Into Darkness ($464m worldwide). No, this is them trying to really push Star Trek into the realm of the mega-franchise. Hire a guy who’s shown he handles ensemble casts and action scenes well, help him deliver the most blockbuster-y Star Trek film of all time, and hype it to no end during the franchise’s 50^th anniversary. Maybe after that Star Trek will move up the franchise list, where it is currently ranked 24^th after 12 films. The franchise in front of it? Toy Story, which only has 3 films. I should point out this list I keep referring to is ranked according to worldwide box office, and is not adjusted for inflation. That’s a pretty big variable considering that the first Star Trek came out in 1979, but the point remains that for as much as we all know Star Trek that’s more due to the TV shows than films.

This is all their fault

Hiring Lin is not a move to placate the fans who voted Star Trek Into Darkness the worst Star Trek film of all time. No, if they wanted to do that they would have hired Jonathan Frakes, or maybe someone with serious sci-fi cred, such as Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code), who is believed to have been on their shortlist. Justin Lin is a guy who makes fun action movies and random, fun episodes of Community, and in a post-Guardians of the Galaxy world the key word for sci-fi going forward is probably “fun.” Perhaps moving things that direction is not really the best decision, considering that J.J. Abrams already did plenty to re-make Star Trek into a bonafide action franchise, but at the very least this should mean no more damn lens flare. If the rumors are to be believed, they are starting from scratch on this, throwing out the prior scripts Orci had shepherded. That means they now have roughly 16 months to get this film done in time for its release. Let’s hope they don’t move too fast through the most important part: Finding a good story to tell.

Wow. I can’t believe I waited until the very end of the article to make a lens flare joke. Isn’t that kind of the obligatory thing to do when talking about Abrams’ films? Either way, what do you think of the hire? Did I too quickly dismiss Frakes, who maybe could have done an amazing job with the ginormous budget the film will surely receive? Or is it actually more important that now neither J.J. Abrams nor Roberto Orci are directing this meaning that regardless of who the new guy is he can bring in a fresh feel to things? Let me know what you think in the comments.

Source: FilmSchoolRejects

There’s an odd thing about being an American sports fan: You never want the athletes to gain a sense of perspective (or at least you’re supposed to be worried once they do). The second they start saying things like, “Well, it’s just a game,” is the moment they’ve apparently lost focus. Yes, we know how silly it is to devote so much time and energy to rooting for our favorite team, but we want to believe the players are just as obsessed with winning as we are with seeing them win. When they just miss out on going to the World Series we don’t want Prince Fielder of the Detroit Tigers telling reporters afterward, “It’s not really tough for me. It’s over […] If you have responsibilities you shouldn’t take your work home, you know? I’ve got to still be a father and take care of my kids, so, you know, I’ve got to move on.” How dare he use that moment to set an example for his kids – who were apparently standing nearby at that moment – on the important of balancing your work and family life! If we’re hurting after a loss the athletes should be too. We want them to be just as fanatical about their job as we are about the team they play for.

It’s that type of fanaticism that so many of us on the internet bring to film and TV. It’s not so much that we have an odd love-hate relationship with the actors ala athletes. For example, it’s not like I’m going to become enraged if I wanted The Imitation Game to win Best Picture, and after it loses Benedict Cumberbatch says something like, “It’s not really tough for me. I just got married, and my main focus right now is just enjoying my new wife’s company.” What I’m getting at is more about how we as fans can sometimes lose perspective about films. For example, as a geeky movie blogger I am supposed to be singularly obsessed with the things I write about the most, like Batman, Arrow, The Flash, and comic book movies. It’s never supposed to occur to me that (picking a random example) maybe spending more than 2,000 words dissecting the 1 minute, 30 second Daredevil teaser is a bit much because what the flip do I care? I love Daredevil! I shouldn’t waste time constantly asking myself, “Is this really that important?” just as I should never ever undercut my passion with a throwaway phrase like, “Eh, it’s only a movie. It’s not that big of a deal.”

However, somewhere between hyper-obsessed nitpicking and totally blasé going with the flow is a more elusive territory of detaching yourself from it enough to remember to have fun with it while still being critical. That can be difficult if you live in a constant echo chamber of movie news, reviews, satirical videos, and social media chatter, which is the type of place where before you ever even saw Star Trek Into Darkness you’d already hammered out multiple debates about how angry to feel if Cumberbatch’s John Harrison turned out to be Khan as expected.

The poofy collar on the coat was a dead giveaway

Andrew Jupin, co-host of the WeHateMovies podcast, thinks that it’s because of these kinds of things that we as an audience have kind of forgotten how to have fun with big budget movies. It came up during his recent appearance on the How Is This Movie? Podcast when the host asked him about his thoughts on The Dark Knight Rises, one of the most nitpicked blockbusters in recent memory:

“[The reaction to that movie is] part of a larger problem with big budget moviegoing in that we have kind of forgotten how to have fun at the movies. I think that comes from the fact that everyone has a blog now. Everyone’s putting movie reviews on Tumblr, using Letterbox, Tweeting, or putting stuff out on Facebook. So, we’re in this hyper-critical age right now where everybody has something to say, and everyone is looking to tear something down. I will be the first to tell you that The Dark Knight Rises isn’t a perfect movie. There are many things about it that are silly or just flat out bad. Marion Cotillard’s death shake that she has in that movie is one of the silliest things I’ve ever seen.”

He’s not wrong – it is unintentionally funny. I would add that it’s not just the hyper-critical environment we live in which contributes to the need to tear down but also the ways Hollywood eventivizes all of its major releases, giving us months and months of build-up, cross-media marketing and licensing.  It’s also the unparallelled access to information we have, such as how sites like BoxOfficeMojo and Rentrak give us an additional but far more dubious criteria for judging films, i.e., box office gross. Jupin continued:

“But in the grand scheme of things that’s a totally fun movie, and I had a lot of fun watching it. I don’t feel the need to pick it apart. I feel the same way about Interstellar. There are people who argue that Nolan brings this on himself, that he claims to be this very heady filmmaker. But I think it’s kind of the opposite. He just happens to be a smart guy who makes these very adventurous movies, and it appears he’s this very pretentious suit-wearing so-and-so but when you look at the crop of stuff you to compare him to it’s kind of like that mentality where guys will say, ‘Oh yeah, college boy!’ I hope for a day when we’re okay with just kicking back at the movies again. It’s problematic because I am tired of the comic book movies and the sequels and the reboots and adaptations and the whatevers, but as long as that’s what’s coming out I’m not going to take it so seriously. I just enjoy being stupid in a big, dark air conditioned room for a while.”

Of course, if you have a deep, deep passion for Batman and see things wrong with The Dark Knight Rises I’d understand, but I am more drawn to his overall argument about our increasing inability to truly and simply have fun at the movies in this hyper-critical age. For example, I was recently on an Arnold Schwarzenegger kick, re-watching The Running Man and Total Recall, which was actually one of the most expensive films ever made at the time. The latter holds up far better than the former, but I found myself starting to nitpick certain things, thinking back to when I was a kid and wondering why I wasn’t more bothered by some of the gaping plot holes of The Running Man or confusing moments in Total Recall. Then I remembered that it’s because back then I didn’t care if The Running Man totally held together; I just cared if it was fun. For the most part, it still is, not amazing, but fun for exactly what it is – a cheesy 80s sci-fi action film with some prescient social commentary.

Running Man – Fun, but not quite the biting social commentary I had remembered

When Avengers: Age of Ultron arrives in May will I just be able to have fun with it, or will I be obsessed with the ways it both does and does not honor the most recent Iron Man/Captain America/Thor films? Will I be throwing out the standard Marvel criticisms, e.g., lazy macguffins, last act aerial battles, no one stays dead, etc.? I know that Terminator: Genisys, another summer blockbuster, is probably going to be a logical mess of confusing time travel logic, but will I let that distract me from simply having fun with it, assuming it’s not completely terrible?

Will I feel the urge to blog or live tweet while watching it?

Mark Hamill probably summed it up best for all of us when he was talking about the fan anticipation for Star Wars: The Force Awakens, telling The Hero Complex:

“The audience should ‘forget about it [and] look forward to all the summer movies. I’m telling you, it’s just a movie. These people that build it up in their minds like it’s going to be the second coming of, I don’t know what — they’re bound to be disappointed.”

Of course, he’s wrong.  To many, Star Wars ceased being “just a movie” a long time.  Yet, he’s also right.  The Force Awakens is quite literally just a movie.  Why does realizing the latter feel like betraying the former?

What do you think? Have we forgotten how to have fun with big budget movies? Or is part of the fun for you totally geeking out on all the little stuff, hashing out plot holes and other silly moments as well as your favorite moments? Or do you reject the entire notion of simply sitting back and having fun with a movie for two hours because that means you’re not critically engaging with it? To the comments!

Source: HITM podcast

What is Star Trek about? I don’t mean who made it (Gene Roddenberry, Rick Berman, JJ Abrams), who starred in it (Shatner, Nimoy, Stewart, Quinto, etc.), or what was the basic premise (the adventures of the crew of a spaceship in an idealized version of the future). I’m not even trying to be specific to any one version of Star Trek, be it the Original Series, Next Generation, or even Star Trek Into Darkness. I am asking what, at the end of the day, is Star Trek really about? It’s not specific to one man or character nor is it really obstructed by pop culture’s love for hating Star Trek fans. When it comes down to it, Star Trek is just about people exploring new places and discovering new stuff. That core principle has been twisted and contorted to fit new mediums over the years, but it was an idea designed for the weekly exploits of a TV series, not every-once-in-a-while big budget movies. It’s an idea the J.J. Abrams films, for all of their strengths, seem to have actively run away from, pushing off the whole “5 year mission to seek out new worlds and new civilizations” thing for as long as possible.

As a result, Star Trek fans new and old have been left in an odd position these past couple of years, forced to accept new movies when in fact they might simply have preferred a new TV show (something is better than nothing, right?). That’s how you have someone like Michael Dorn out there seemingly talking crazy talk (a new show centered on his Next Generation character Worf as the captain of his own ship, co-starring Marina Sirtis and LeVar Burton, in no way connected to the new movies) and receiving national media attention. The same thing happened when Bryan Singer tried to get a new Star Trek TV show off the ground, or when David Foster made waves in 2011 with his concept for a new 5-7 season series in “pre-2009 screen canon.”

This is Worf. He is not a merry man.

Basically, everyone looks at what’s happening in film and TV right now (the Franchise/proven property is king!) and doesn’t understand why something like 12 Monkeys gets a TV series (albeit a truly awesome one) while Star Trek does not. If Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Wrath of Khan, and Search for Spock helped get us to Next Generation surely the 2009 Star Trek and Into Darkness will lead us to the next Next Generation, right? I mean, come on! Next year is Star Trek’s 50^th Anniversary, and the only celebration Paramount has planned is a new movie which doesn’t even have a finished script yet even though it starts filming next month. Beyond that, we have no real idea what they’re up to, although I seem to remember hearing something about a special new 50^th anniversary book (can’t find any sign of it right now, although this one coming soon on Amazon looks good). You can also assume they might do some kind of reunion special gathering together old cast members for new interviews. But as of right now it looks really bad compared to the remarkably engaging 50^th anniversaries enjoyed by Doctor Who and James Bond in recent years.  So, yeah, no new Star Trek TV show seems set to surprise us anytime soon.

Why We Still Don’t Have a New Star Trek TV Series As of late 2013, not even J.J. Abrams knew what the deal was, telling Entertainment Weekly:

I have been hearing for as long as I can remember that CBS, who has the rights to the series, has just been saying they’re not interested. That’s the word I’ve been told.

That’s an important distinction he made, referring to CBS. The actual film/TV rights for Star Trek don’t rest at the same place. Paramount and Abrams’ Bad Robot are responsible for the movies, but CBS owns television and most of the consumer products licensing. A new TV series is apparently more on them than anyone else, and they didn’t have much to say at the time:

We love the Star Trek franchise, its fan base and the many possibilities for its future when the time is right.

Devin Faraci of BadAssDigest, the place behind many a comic book movie rumor, indicated his inside sources told him:

CBS is still feeling burned by the post-TNG glut of Trek shows. They feel that the number of series they had going made the franchise feel less special, and they’re gunshy about having too much Trek in the public eye. Right now they’re pretty happy with the attention the movies are getting and they’re in no rush to dilute it.

That actually makes total sense. It was a fan’s dream having Deep Space Nine and Voyager going at the same time that Next Generation movies were happening in the ‘90s, but to an outsider it probably just seemed like a crap-ton of Star Trek, fodder for all those nerds (Hey, screw you, hypothetical other guy!). Plus, even with everything J.J. Abrams did to make Star Trek cool for a general audience he still ultimately failed to catapult the franchise into elite status, at least as measured by box office. Moreover, Into Darkness indicated Paramount still has trouble selling Star Trek to young people, with only a quarter the film’s opening weekend audience being under the age of 25 compared to nearly half (45%) of the audience for that summer’s true blockbuster, Iron Man 3, ticking the under-25 box. The tie-in video game they made also tanked.

Does this mean the next Star Trek movie needs to have a mop-top kid sucking up screen time?

So, it really seems like it’s the long-time fans who are campaigning for another TV series, largely due to dissatisfaction with the Abrams movies and fond Next Generation/DS9 memories. Paramount, on the other hand, hired Justin Lin to make the next movie, a guy you hire off of Fast & Furious for the sole purpose of finally getting Star Trek over the box office hump, not to return it to its roots. CBS seems disinterested in the whole affair.

How It Could Come Back

Mark Altman of TrekMovie.com argues what pretty much everyone in Hollywood thinks about anything these days: Why can’t they just copy off Marvel Studios?

Oh, Kevin Feige, if only the rest of Hollywood could literally clone you.

It’s a great idea, really, but it faces the same exact problem everyone else has which is there is only one Kevin Feige. For the Marvel model to work, you need a Svengali figure, a true visionary not only masterminding everything and following a well-thought-out plan but doing so without having to cut through the normal Hollywood studio red tape while also maintaining good working relationships with all of the directors, writers, actors, etc. Part of the problem is not just finding the right person for the job but also creating the right infrastructure which can accommodate that model, and outside of Marvel Studios no one else really has that other than maybe John Lasseter’s lordship over Walt Disney Animation Studios and Pixar or Kathleen Kennedy’s control over the new Star Wars universe, both of which have had behind-the-scenes scuffling indicating early growing pains. But if Star Wars suddenly has an animated series setting the stage for a new trilogy of films and spin-offs, which are all moving forward with precision-timing, each one seemingly recruiting a more promising new filmmaker (Gareth Edwards! Rian Johnson!) than the last, why can’t Star Trek do the same kind of thing with more of a TV element?

The guy who made this show is a Star Trek fan?  Mind blown.

Altman has no real answer for who would be their Kevin Feige, but he does have an interesting take on who might be available to work as a showrunner on a hypothetical new series:

There’s also some huge Trek fans out there who you’d never associate with the franchise and whose end result I couldn’t begin to imagine which would make it even more exciting. Some of the names that come to mind are the man behind “The Negron Factor,” Mad Men’s Matt Weiner (who used to hang out with the Star Trek writers back when he was on the lot doing Becker) and uber fan Seth McFarlane as well as filmmakers like Bryan Singer. But you’d be shocked to know how many established TV showrunners and Co-Ep’s are major Trekkers who would do virtually anything (and work for less than their quote) to shepherd a new Star Trek to the screen. Much like AMC’s infamous bake-off’s, it’d be great for CBS Studios to hear a myriad pitches from some of the town’s most accomplished writers to hear their thoughts on new directions for the franchise we couldn’t even begin to contemplate.

Where would such a show end up? That’s the problem. CBS has the rights, and Star Trek absolutely does not fit their profile. Netflix and Amazon aren’t going to be able to swoop in here, although a deal like CBS has with Amazon for Stephen King’s Under the Dome is one potential model. No, the only potential homes for any kind of new Star Trek show would be on something CBS owned, and after you discount the actual CBS channel you’re left with Showtime, EPIX (which Paramount owns), and the CW (which CBS co-owns with Warner Bros.). Showtime could make something like a sci-fi Game of Thrones, EPIX would seem more like a spiritual successor to the syndicated days of Next Gen, and the CW would probably do a Starfleet Academy kind of thing, filled with crazy hot young actors and love triangles galore. The CW would love that!  Its president, Mark Pedowitz was asked about it earlier this year at the Television Critics Association Press Tour, “As a lifelong Star Trek fan, I would hope to have Star Trek at The CW.  Hopefully it will get released and we’ll be able to look at it as a TV series. At the moment it’s a feature film and I have heard no discussion about it going out as a TV show at all.” Todd Vanderwerff, formerly of AVClub and now of Vox.com, has a slightly different opinion for how this should play out. He’s not so interested in Star Trek getting its own Kevin Feige or where exactly contractual rights would lead it. He wants to see whether or not Star Trek could maybe work as an anthology series, ala True Detective, American Horror Story, or Fargo. He basically looks at the joy Altman expressed over the prospect of an all-star bake-off and wonders why anyone would have to lose? Why not take the True Detective model even further and actually replace show-runners each season, not just actors?

Hannibal and Pushing Daisies creator Bryan Fuller (a Trek alum), for instance, would love to make a Trek series with Angela Bassett as captain of a starship. With the anthological miniseries format, both Fuller and Bassett could squeeze a 10-episode season into their busy schedules. Or think of what Battlestar Galactica‘s Ron Moore (who worked on many Trek series before BSG) could do by returning to the universe that gave him his big break in television, with everything he’s learned since. Wouldn’t you kill to see him reunite with the Next Generation cast for one last big adventure? The wickedly sly and funny Jane Espenson, who’s written for everything from Buffy to Once Upon a Time, also worked on Trek. Give her a dream cast and the budget to make a series of adventures featuring that cast, and I’d bet you’d see something amazing, and possibly more comedic than Trek usually gets.

What he’s talking about kind of reminds of a TV show version of how comic books sometimes do special issues where every other page of a story is animated by a different yet equally prominent artist, ala the first issue of DC’s new Harley Quinn comic book a little over a year ago. It sounds fun, impossible, likely unrealistic, the complete opposite of the way all the old Star Trek shows beautifully connected to each other, but fun. It’s like what if instead of 7 seasons a piece for Next Gen, DS9, and Voyager overlapping each other, each show with an almost completely different cast, you had just one short season of Next Gen followed by a totally different season of DS9 followed by…well, you get the idea.

The anthology format has proven it can support crime stories, but what about something in the sci-fi genre?

I don’t know how well that idea would actually work, especially as far as how it relates to the movies, but I do agree that Star Trek needs to be back on TV. Towards the end of its TV life, Star Trek was finally starting to explore long-form serialized storytelling, such as the Dominion War of Deep Space Nine, or the season-long Xindi story of Enterprise. That type of storytelling is commonplace now, and it’d be great to see Star Trek get the chance to adapt to the new landscape.  But that’s all in the land of the mostly hypothetical. In the here and now, we have a movie on the way. Maybe once this new trilogy of films is done CBS will be willing to start talking TV series again.  The more pressing concern, really, is that Simon Pegg and company finish that dang script.

What do you think about Star Trek’s future or lack thereof on TV? Do you actually really like the whole “let’s just make it Sci-Fi True Detective?” thing? Let me know in the comments.

Sources: TrekMovie, VOX

This article contains spoilers for Southpaw, Terminator: Genisys, Jurassic World, Star Trek Into Darkness, Terminator 3, Terminator Salvation and even Rocky V

I’ve seen Jake Gyllenhaal’s new movie Southpaw. It’s okay, kind of like a grittier version of Rocky V if instead of just going broke Rocky also lost custody of his son and had to start boxing again. The actual boxing on display is possibly the most realistic I’ve ever seen in any boxing movie, and Gyllenhaal looks like a beast in the ring. Shame about [spoiler] dying.

Wait. What the heck am I talking about? I haven’t seen Southpaw. It only feels like I have because I watched the trailer when it dropped 3 months ago, and now that Southpaw is in theaters all the reviews confirm that the early trailer truly was a condensed version of the full movie. Rachel McAdams, playing Gyllenhaal’s wife and mother of his daughter, dies a third of the way into the movie, but she’s dead less a minute into the trailer. It’s the instigating event that derails Gyllenhaal’s life and ultimately sets him on the path toward redemption. However, did they really have to spoil that in the trailer?

Doesn’t this argument sound awfully familiar by now? It feels like we have been complaining about trailers giving away too many spoilers for at least a decade. Southpaw is the example of the moment. Around a month ago it was Terminator: Genisys. A couple of weeks before that it was Jurassic World. Last summer it was The Amazing Spider-Man 2. If you go even further back, both Terminator Salvation (2009) and Terminator 3 (2003) gave away their big twists in trailers.

But why? Why do studio marketing departments feel so desperate that they need to give the plot away for free? According to the various production houses which actually make the trailers, it’s because their focus testing consistently shows that we want to be spoiled. Speaking to EW, one of the execs responsible for the Southpaw trailer admitted, “There was a lot of discussion internally about whether to show the wife’s death. But as much as people complain, the more of the plot the trailer offers, the more interest it gets. People have felt burned in the past.”

The logic is that we have become weary of trailers not because of spoilers but because of how many times they mislead us. Trailers always want to shove movies into a neat little recognizable box, but that’s tougher to do now that so many movies are made outside the studio system thus freeing them to straddle multiple genres. In my own personal experience over the past couple of years, it’s been remarkable how many times I have watched an indie comedy that turned deadly serious. I have come to expect it at this point. It arguably makes for more interesting movies with recognizably human (i.e., flawed ) characters, but marketing those types of movies is a real bitch. So, a dark drama with some comedic elements (e.g., August: Osage County) will be sold to us a comedy, but then we’ll walk out complaining, “That wasn’t funny at all.” However, if a trailer gives away more of the plot we’ll at least feel more assured that we know exactly what to expect from that movie.  Or so the argument goes.

John Connor in Genisys

Dan Asma, co-owner of trailer agency Buddha Jones, told EW, “We prefer to be mysterious. But testing consistently says that numbers spike when you give away more.” Even if it gives away too much, that predictably sets off a renewed round of arguments about spoilery trailers which means plenty of articles which will have to mention something like Southpaw and thus remind people that Southpaw is a movie they might like to see in theaters right now.

I don’t know how much I personally buy the argument that we might want to be spoiled more because we’ve been burned too many times by misleading trailers. I’ve always assumed spoiler-heavy trailers were made as acts of desperation to stand out in an increasingly crowded market.  After all, those movies whose box office prospects are on better footing, like anything Pixar or Marvel Studios makes, don’t have to stoop to that level.  But maybe the more desperate trailers really do stem from what they find out in early focus groups.

There hadn’t been a good Jurassic Park movie since the first one over 20 years ago. So, Jurassic World kicks off with an instant conversation-starter: Holy shit! Is Chris Pratt going to control Velociraptors in this movie? The early Genisys trailers didn’t seem to move the needle much in convincing people to give another Terminator movie a chance. So, Paramount figured why not give away the big spoiler to get people talking the same way Terminator 3 let it slip that Arnie would go from good to evil and Salvation proudly announced the main character was a Terminator who thought he was a human?

Interestingly enough, when Paramount chose not to spoil the big Star Trek Into Darkness twist everyone had already guessed they were criticized

A non-Rocky boxing movie hasn’t made significant money since maybe The Fighter. Why not reveal that Southpaw’s version of Adrian dies early on? Oh, that makes it stand out a little more.

It comes at a cost. When you already know the plot twist it can almost be comical sitting in the theater and marveling at how much the movie wants to surprise you. That’s why directors Colin Trevorrow, Alan Taylor and Antoine Fuqua have had some unkind things to say about the marketing campaigns for Jurassic World, Genisys and Southpaw. However, Fuqua told EW, “I had to roll with it. The audience, I guess, needs a little more.”  That belief might be why some people have stopped watching trailers entirely.

Source: EW

JJ Abrams has been asked about those Star Trek lens flares plenty of times now.  Yesterday during a two-hour sit-down interview with Stephen Colbert at the Montclair Film Festival Fundraiser was simply the latest.  However, with Star Wars: The Force Awakens less than a month away perhaps you want a re-assurance that there won’t be any scenes in the movie where we can’t tell what’s happening because JJ went a little too crazy with lens flares.  Well, here it is.  Colbert brought it up by pointing out that there are apparently 721 instances of lens flare in Star Trek.

According to Abrams, “When we were doing Trek, what I loved was this idea … that the future that they were in was so bright that it couldn’t be contained,” Abrams said, explaining that he loved how many movies from his childhood had out-of-focus oval lights in the background and the lens flares on those “have a great streaky quality.” And when he made Star Trek, Abrams said he told their director of photography, “it would be so much fun if we had that kind of look.”

“I didn’t think we’d have quite that number of them,” he said. “I just fell in love with how it looked, and I started to get in trouble with it with people because they were like, “Enough already.”

There’s less of it in Star Trek Into Darkness, but it’s still there, proving particularly distracting during one crucial scene involving Alice Eve’s character, when she’s pleading with her dad to, um, basically stop being so evil.

It turns out that after viewing that scene even Abrams’ wife told him enough was enough, “There was one scene where Alice Eve was so obliterated by a lens flare that I was showing the scene to my wife, Katie, and she was like, ‘OK You know what? Enough. I can’t see what this scene is about. Who is standing there?…I can’t see her.'”

Fear not.  He’s learned his lesson, “As you’ll see in the Star Wars movie, I’ve allowed lens flares to take a very back seat,” he said. “There are a couple [moments] where you have to have them.”  For the most part, though, his approach to lens flares with Star Wars was, “This is not the movie; these are not the flares you’re looking for.”

So, there you have it.  One less The Force Awakens thing to worry about.

Source: THR

No, seriously, what the heck is going on in the new Star Trek Beyond trailer?

The basics, I get: Something bad happens which destroys the Enterprise and maroons the surviving crew members [translation: the ones whose names we know] on a forest-like planet which has drone aircrafts and mean-looking aliens corralling stragglers into slave labor camps, maybe.

This pale-skinned female alien is a total badass who saves Kirk and claims to know what’s really going on.  Let’s call her Pale Furiosa:

This intimidating-looking fella is presumably the lead villain thus meaning that has to be Idris Elba.  The actor’s distinctive voice can be heard to proclaim, “This is where the frontier pushes back!” Oh, I see what you did there, Simon Pegg and Star Trek: Beyond co-writer whose name I don’t remember.  The classic Star Trek voice-over prologue always starts, “Space, the final frontier, these are the voyages of….”  Well, what happens if that frontier pushes back?  It’d look an awful lot like this guy, who vaguely reminds me of maybe the Remans in Star Trek: Nemesis mixed with the Jem Hadar of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine:

At some point, Kirk does this because you don’t hire Justin Lin to direct a movie after he’s just made a Fast & Furious sequel and not expect him to work in some kind of car/motorcycle stunt:

We see what appears to be Starfleet Headquarters in San Francisco coming under attack:

We see surprisingly little of Spock, plenty of Uhura looking sad, a pretty good joke for McCoy, several action-y shots of Scotty and not much else.  The whole thing is barely a minute and a half long, and in that time it also has several seemingly random shots, like this one of a claw-handed alien looking up, surrounded by destruction:

The biggest takeaway from this first look at the movie is that they have again decided that the best way to make a Star Trek movie is to actively work against what we popularly think of as being a Star Trek movie.  A bunch of people up there on a space ship seeking out new civilizations and getting into trouble?  Most of the time, sure, but not in this movie.  In this movie, the Enterprise will blow up, go boom (or something like that).  There is an interesting symmetry to that.  [Spoiler warning] After all, in the original films Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is when the Enterprise was first destroyed, which is why they have that Klingon ship in Star Trek IV.  It was a hugely controversial decision at the time because to some Star Trek just isn’t Star Trek without the Enterprise.  Of course, that was years before Deep Space Nine and Voyager unshackled the franchise from the Enterprise.

Now, here we are entering Star Trek‘s 50th anniversary, looking forward to the third entry in the rebooted film franchise.  Maybe the third time around is simply when you have to destroy the Enterprise.  Those are the rules now.

Yeah, but didn’t they also do that in Star Trek: Generations?

Um, shut up about that.  Third time’s a charm, that’s what I say.  Plus, they just crash-landed the ole ship in Generations.  It’s not like a vicious asteroid field tore it to shreds or Kirk tricked the Klingons into boarding the ship after he escaped and set the self-destruct timer, leading to an epic Christopher Lloyd freakout:

Beyond that, I know remarkably little about this movie after that teaser.  That’s kind of exciting, especially after the “Benedict Cumberbatch is playing John Harrison.  Not Khan.  No, not him.  We would never do that.  Wink-wink” fiasco that was the advertising for Star Trek Into Darkness.  With Beyond, all I know is that the Enterprise probably won’t be in it for very long, and there will be plenty of action with several new alien races (or re-imagined older ones).  Sure, it looks roughly like what you’d expect a Justin Lin-directed Star Trek movie to look like, if maybe he watched Mad Max: Fury Road beforehand for inspiration.  That looming war with the Klingons from Into Darkness may or may not be in play here, although I’m guessing Kirk’s budding relationship with Carol Marcus didn’t work out since she’s not in the trailer nor is Alice Eve listed on the film’s IMDB page.  In fact, I’m betting that watching Beyond immediately after Into Darkness is probably going to reveal multiple plot points which will have been dropped in-between movies due to change behind the scenes.

Or not.  Because, like I said at the start, I don’t really know what’s going on in this trailer.  This most definitely is not the Star Trek I grew up on, more like a turbo-charged version of the JJ Abrams Star Trek, sans lens flare.  The temptation is to criticize this for being too action-heavy, although BirthMoviesDeath pointed out that you could have said the same about the trailer for Wrath of Khan.  You could also complain that this doesn’t exactly look like it will be a movie worthy of the franchise’s 50th anniversary.  However, I don’t think there’s nearly enough here to make those kinds of conclusions.  Instead, the answer to the question “What the heck is going on in this trailer?” is that there are lots of explosions, fighting and death-defying stunts.  Spoiler alert: There will be action in this movie.  What else?  Wait for the next trailer to find out, and if this isn’t the version of Star Trek you prefer just remember that there’s a new TV series on the way on CBS in 2017.  Before then, I’ll give Star Trek Beyond a chance on July 22, 2016.

Star Trek Into Darkness, alternately known as “The Wrath of Spock,” ended with several clear directions they could take things in a sequel.  The Federation was going to have to deal with its looming war with the Klingons, and Kirk was probably going to grow closer to Alice Eve’s Carol Marcus or at least catch more glimpses of her in her underwear since she officially joined the crew of the Enterprise.  Beyond that, Kirk & Pals were finally (finally!) setting out on their long-delayed five-year mission to seek out new life and new civilizations.

Funny thing about that: J.J. Abrams is now off in a galaxy far, far away, his would-be replacement Roberto Orci was more or less fired and his script completely scrapped, and Simon Pegg and Doug Jung co-wrote a new script as fast as possible while the newly hired director Justin Lin went into pre-production. We got our first glimpse of what they came up with when the 90-second teaser dropped online earlier this week, and to some it looks like more of the same from this rebooted version of Star Trek just with maybe more Fast & Furious-esque stunts this time.  The fact that Justin Lin has apparently made another Star Trek action movie is not surprising.  What might be vaguely surprising, though, is that this new movie doesn’t appear to be honoring anything which was leftover from Into Darkness.  Carol Marcus is long gone, and the Klingons don’t appear to have anything to do with what’s going on.

Or are we reading too much into a mere 90 seconds of footage?  Could they be holding back on some of those elements until later trailers or possibly until the film actually comes out?  Probably not.  Devin Faraci of BirthMoviesDeath got some answers from Justin Lin about this.

First of all, Into Darkness’ “magic blood” ending could be seen as an indication that McCoy found the cure to death. Will that be a thread in the movie?  Nope:

[Co-writers] Simon [Pegg] and Doug [Jung] and I have spent some time on that. [laughs] Star Trek has been around for 50 years, and every filmmaker that comes on has a different point of view, and it’s a universe that can support many points of view and journeys and adventures. I embraced what JJ has brought – without him this whole group wouldn’t be together – so I’m definitely very appreciative of him. At the same time, do we address it? No, but we don’t discount it. We don’t sit there and say it doesn’t exist, it’s part of this universe now.

Okay.  What about Carol Marcus?:

We pick the crew up about two and a half years after Into Darkness. There were many iterations where we did go and explore [Carol Marcus], but we figured it was two and a half years… It was something we talked about and worked on, but in the presentation of this film it didn’t quite fit in. It’s there with the transporter and everything [laughs].

As they’d say in Arrested Development, say goodbye to these!

It’s your loss, Kirk.  Now she’ll never have your secret son who you won’t meet until you’re 50.  So, yeah, take that.

Well, at least are Spock and Uhura still together?  Probably not:

What we’re doing is appropriate to the two and a half years. It’s a continuation in a way, and I don’t want to ignore things and act as if they don’t exist, so there’s an acknowledgement and I think their relationship is consistent to the way it was before.

Translation: They’re on a very, very long break.

Here’s the question: Are you annoyed that they’re going to pretty much ignore Star Trek Into Darkness?  Were you looking forward to Kirk and Carol together again?  Geeking out over the prospect of a full movie with the Klingons as the bad guys?  Or are you happy to be rid off of both of those things since most people only remember Alice Eve’s underwear in that movie, not the character she played, and the re-designed Klingons lost some of their appeal?  Or did you go even deeper with it and only really care about the “magic blood” and crazy transporter logic of Into Darkness?   Or does none of this really matter because, dropped story lines or not, this still isn’t the version of Star Trek for you?

Source: BirthMoviesDeath