The Even Odd Rule Actually Applies

Star Trek Into Darkness

2013

D: J.J. Abrams

**********

Pros: Villain, Effects, Action, Music

Cons: Some Logical Problems, Forced Fanservice, Rushed Ending

 

 

         Simon Pegg, being a company man, asserted that the Star Trek reboot broke the Even/Odd Rule, but a more absurd lie could hardly be told.  Not only is it untrue of the odd-numbered movies of the original run (whose reputation largely suffered from their not being crowd-pleasers), I believe this rule ironically applies to the reboot movies far more.  I seem to be in the minority, but I thought Star Trek and Star Trek Beyond were unwatchable pieces of garbage while finding Into Darkness pretty fun.

        Much of this is due to Abrams’ own interests and passions.  Abrams admitted that he was always more of a Star Wars fan, which explains his reducing Star Trek to a phoned-in attempt at a Hero’s Journey.  This also explains why The Force Awakens, as bad as it is, was at least watchable.  However, even most non-Trekkers enjoy The Wrath of Khan, which Into Darkness is inspired by.  As such, Abrams was able to muster enough interest to develop characters, even though the very idea was a reflection of his lack of imagination.  At least he mixed up the story a little bit, unlike TFA.

       Perhaps what makes such a big difference between Into Darkness and the other two reboots is the presence of a charismatic, nuanced villain whose motivations actually make sense.   In Star Trek we had a supposedly complex normal person driven mad by the destruction of his home and family, and instead of taking the opportunity of time travel to fix the problem, irrationally blames Vulcan and wants to murder everybody; he is effectively one-dimensional in the context of the movie’s conflict and plot.  In Beyond, the villain blames society for subjecting him to dangers that he consented to as a space explorer and wants to murder everybody; he is effectively one-dimensional in the context of the movie’s conflict and plot.  Both characters are played by actors usually good at playing human beings, but are too restrained by heavy makeup and bad writing to actually act.  

       In contrast John Harrison (later revealed to be Khan Noonien Singh) is played by Benedict Cumberbatch in all his glory.  His performance is stylized a bit to maximize his wonderful baritone, but his performance is still nuanced and charismatic.  In this timeline, he was awakened early by Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller), who uses him as a consultant in designing a battleship able to fight the Klingons in a war he was anticipating, using Harrison’s crew as a bargaining chip.  When Harrison escapes, he understandably projects his own savagery onto Marcus, assuming he has murdered his crew in retaliation, and begins a campaign of homicidal revenge.  While clearly villainous and acting on violence, you can feel for him when he utters an effectively simple line that our hero can relate to: “My crew is my family, Kirk (Chris Pine). Is there nothing you would not do for family?”

       This provides an effective foil for Kirk, who must face the reality of making sacrifices for the good of his crew and his ship.  He does so without resorting to the murderous methods his enemy does, his civilized morality's contrasting with the villain's barbaric and tribalistic (but still human) one.

        Unfortunately, Marcus’ reasoning makes little sense.  It’s made clear that Marcus needed Harrison’s “savagery” to design a ship like a warrior.  Why would you need a barbarian to think to put some guns on a ship?  In fact, this also goes against the a subtle theme in the franchise in which the Federation, which values creativity and innovation, ends up making more effective warships than the Klingons.  It’s the same paradox that was reflected in the Spartans vs. the Athenians and the North vs. South Koreans.  Harrison even reinforces the buffoonery by asking Spock (Zachary Quinto) how he can break bone when he cannot even break a rule, oblivious to the entire concept of justifiable violence and extenuating circumstances.  

        Strangely enough, The Wrath of Khan itself preemptively deconstructs this!  For all his intelligence, Khan's lack of experience in space tactics makes it difficult for him to think 3-dimensionally; he ultimately succumbs to Kirk's hard-earned expertise.  Then again, he might just be a match for the reboots relatively green itnerpretation of "Kirk."

        The resultant plot is fun enough.  Kirk and Harrison form an unsteady alliance against the rogue Marcus culminating in a delightfully gruesome death for the admiral.  A better way to make an alternate timeline version of this iconic rivalry is for Harrison to show mercy to Kirk and his crew, demonstrating a sense of gratitude and honor while having an interesting twist: imagine a universe in which these two characters ended up being friends of a sort.  Instead, the villain decides to murder Kirk and Co, which lacks the personal drama of the original timeline. This plays out in the far lazier twist we’ve grown to expect from Abrams: the same thing happens except with Spock and Kirk’s roles reversed.  After the villain’s ship is crashed into the water, (the opening sequence has the Enterprise's hiding in a lake for apparent reason than to cut a misleading trailer in which it seems to reemerge like a phoenix after the crash, much like the trick of showing Finn’s holding a lightsaber at times) and without the sacrifices made in Star Trek III, Kirk is revived using the villain’s blood, which is tested on a tribble, another bit of fanservice for pseudo-Trekkers.  In the end, our villain is harmlessly frozen, a moral victory for a civilization that values mercy and due process.  I like the theme and the intriguing plot, even if it is a reflection of the writer’s being a 9/11 truther.

         Another moment I liked is when Scotty (Simon Pegg) refuses to sign off on cargo that is not properly inspected, which turns out to be part of Marcus’ conspiracy.  He displays integrity by forfeiting his job, but the movie displays its characteristic ignorance of military structure by having him being replaced by an ensign (Anton Yelchin’s Chekov) as CHENG.  Spock and Uhura’s (Zoe Saldana) questionable romance continues, but there is a good line in which Spock explains to her that he purposefully shut down his emotions when he thought he was going to die because he cared so much for his loved ones and did not want to feel grief; sometimes one has to be emotionally distant to care.  

         The movie has great production value that enhances its action and makes it really fun to watch.  People don’t often talk about how important sound design and mixing are to this, and Michael Giacchino’s theme helps as well.  I like the sinister design of the Vengeance, as well as its intimidating buzz, and of course I love the design of the AU Enterprise.  The design falls flat when we see a Klingon ship; I’ve always loved the look of their craft, but this one has the “generic spiky green alien ship” look.  The Klingons themselves are flat, and Uhura tries to appease them with generic mentions of the word “honor.”  While most people complained about a bikini scene involving Carol Marcus (Alice Eve), even more egregious was how the Caitians fell victim to normie thirst. 

        Star Trek Into Darkness, despite its flaws, is a fun, well-paced movie with plenty of twists, and I was invested in the conflict.  The confrontation on Kronos, which could only be interpreted by the Klingons as an act of war, also sets the stage for the subsequent war, which we obviously could not have because that makes too much sense and would be too interesting.