This second entry in the newly rebooted science-fiction series is a strange entity in that it not only continues the story of the first one (Star Trek, 2009), but also uses (steals?) a plot and character from one of the earlier Star Trek films, and finally ends at a point where the original television series began.  At the end, it’s almost as if the next Star Trek project would be a restart of the original series, with this new cast. And yet, Into Darkness is a big-budget, stand-alone movie (tied to the first one, of course) that ought to lead into other stand-alone films in the series.

The film itself, as directed by J. J. Abrams, is certainly exciting and action-filled.  So much stuff takes place that it’s a little difficult to keep track of all of it.  The trend now is for action and sci-fi films to stuff themselves full of convoluted story elements and create big, bloated action sequences — and Into Darkness certainly follows that template.  It capitalizes on terrorism fears while recreating — and altering — much of the history that Star Trek fans cherish so much.  This rebooted series is essentially a parallel universe of Gene Roddenberry’s original; the intent is pretty much the same but with odd twists and changes and tonal shifts.  For audiences new to the Star Trek universe — whoever they might be — such differences won’t amount to anything, but to viewers who have grown up with these characters, the experience is a bit of a mind-bender, and not entirely appreciated.

I enjoyed the film while I was watching it; it is dynamic, funny, exciting, somewhat surprising and even touching.  Abrams has a nice touch in terms of respecting moral values of the original franchise while whipping things around for thrills.  But the more I think about it afterwards (and I saw the film three weeks ago), the less thrilled I am with what he has created.  If this were an original story, I’d be saying that it was pretty solid movie entertainment, and I would recommend it unhesitatingly. However, it isn’t an original story, and frankly, this particularly story didn’t need to be made (or remade, which is probably a better description).  I think the writers were being very foolish when they decided to pick this particular plot, and I wish they hadn’t.

Does it work?  Yes, I have to admit that it does.  Maybe that should be the bottom line and movie (and television) tradition shouldn’t count for anything in this new sci-fi universe of anything goes.  And yet it does matter to me.  I can appreciate the new stuff but I will never lose my affinity for what has gone before, and I don’t care for Abrams and company trying to replace my good memories with their new stuff.  If they were to expand the universe in which they are playing, I would not object.  But the idea of altering the history of what has gone before is anathema to me.  That is my main objection to rebooting series, and it certainly applies here.

Now that Abrams is moving on to the Star Wars franchise it will be interesting to see what Paramount will do with Star Trek.  I wouldn’t mind a new TV series with this young cast, as long as episodes for the new “five-year mission” would be fresh and original, and not just stale rehashes of what has gone before.  The ending of Into Darkness is tailor-made for a new beginning.  But something tells me that we have seen the last of this particular Star Trek crew, and that the movie series has finally run its course.  If so, then J. J. Abrams and his writers have killed one of the biggest cash cows in cinema history. What a shame.  ☆ ☆ 1/2.  2 June 2013.