Star Trek Into Darkness - Haters Are Illogical!

Star Trek Into Darkness is on the store shelves today. Since its release this past summer, have witnessed quite a few haters doing their hating online. But am going to list six reasons why no one should listen to them.

A little background first.

I was not raised as a Trekkie. And when Abrams' reboot came out in 2009, I didn't see it in the theater, for the commercials made it look like Beverly Hills 90210 in Space. However, I eventually watched it on Bluray and was impressed. That lead to my purchase of the original series and fascination quickly set in. Because of life circumstances at the time, I was able to watch all six Trek series (including the animated), in the order that they were filmed, within only a six month period. That's around 3 or 4 episodes of Trek per day.

Yes. Maybe fascination is too gentle a word. Obsession is more appropriate.

Therefore, no, I haven't been a Trekkie for decades. I can't name individual episodes by their original titles. I haven't been to any Trek conventions. I don't own a Starfleet uniform. But I understand the essence of what Gene Roddenberry was trying to create. I see the brilliance mixed in with the cheese. And yes, I have studied the Klingon language. Am far from fluent, but am competent with swearing, which ultimately, is all one really needs to know of the language from the planet Kronos.

All that being said, here are six reasons why you should ignore the haters and pick up a copy of Star Trek Into Darkness.

Build on the past without clinging to it.

1. Honors Trek canon, yet brings new life. Imagine you're J.J. Abrams. You have to make a film based on a franchise that's been around 47 years, has over six hundred episodes and 12 feature films. What do you do? Start completely from scratch? Or follow canon? From my perspective, by utilizing an alternate timeline, he was able to do both.

The two main criticisms I've heard regarding STID are that it either takes too much from Wrath of Khan, or that it is not enough like it. But such comparisons are futile. Gene Roddenberry created Trek so that people would let go of rigid, time-worn, dogmatic thinking. Not live by it.

And to help put things into perspective, here's a brilliant article that displays what a review of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan would have looked like if the internet existed in the year 1982. Sound familiar?

2. Pacing/Editing. It is the year 2013. People's minds are now used to processing more information at a quicker pace. Yes. I love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and the earlier films. But when looked at objectively, it can be stated that by modern standards...they...are...slow.

3. Special effects/CGI. They are flawless within STID. From the inside of the volcano, to the battle with Klingons, to the Enterprise rising through the clouds, there is no other Trek film or tv show that offers the same level of special effects mastery.

4. Sexiness.Trek is sexy. It is supposed to be sexy. In TOS, Shatner had his shirt off half the time and was constantly having romantic liaisons with beautiful alien women. DS9 had it's Dabo girls, VOY had 7 of 9 and ENT had T'Pol. It was only TNG that seemed to be lacking that erotic edge, but it did come out at a time when irrational levels of political correctness were taking hold in Western culture.

This scene? I and millions of others were okay with it. It's not the 15th century anymore and Puritanical standards are no longer needed.

Many seemed to have a problem with the scene involving the character Carol Marcus appearing for less than one second in her underwear. Many referred to it as "gratuitous." And...um...so? The human form is to be appreciated. Wasn't hearing any complaints at all about Chris Pine being in his underwear or running around in a skin-tight swim suit.

5. Musical score. Composed by Michael Giacchino, it is powerful, intricate and haunting. I still get shivers of bliss hearing the opening theme. It is the "off screen character" that adds whole new dimensions to the film. Here's a listen. Turn it up!

6. Brilliant casting. Pine, Quinto, Cumberbatch, Saldana, Eve, Urban, Pegg, Yelchin, Cho? All master craftsmen at what they do. I can't think of any other film made within the past decade that had so much talent on set.

100%, pure, industrial strength talent.

If you go by what you see online, many might have you believe that STID is an abomination. But that is a small, vocal minority that is to be ignored. Here are some numbers to consider: The film gets eight out of ten stars on IMDB and a 91% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It made over $70 million its opening weekend, and to date, in theaters, made almost $229 million.

In another decade or so, when a whole new generation discovers Trek, Abrams will not be mocked. He will be applauded.

Stephen Sumner is the science fiction columnist for Action A Go Go. He's proficient in Klingon swearing and has attempted the Vulcan process of Kolinar (with only mild success.) His favorite sci-fi series include Firefly, Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek. He can be followed on Twitter at https://twitter.com/VierLights or on the Tumblr machine at http://vierlights.tumblr.com/.