Join me as we take a ponderous look at J.J. Abrams' upcoming sequel to opinion-botherer Star Trek, where we'll be digesting several important issues surrounding the movie. Lens flare: good or bad? Can Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci write a sequel that doesnt suck? (See Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen) Is tagging "Into Darkness" on the end of a perfectly good title really the best way to convey that a film has a darker tone? Would subtlety be a stronger marketing ploy? What's the consensus on calling the movie Star Trek Into A Tonal Shift To Keep Nolan Fans Happy instead? Read on to find out.
The trailer for the stupidly named sequel has done little to dissuade my thoughts that this will be a grand improvement to the first entry. Where the first film introduced the characters and assembled the team, this one looks like its planning to develop them, push them into tight spaces, and see how they work together cohesively - all within the confines of a blisteringly barnstorming earth assault storyline. Like The Avengers, but, uh... better.
Furthermore, this film grants an opportunity for its main cast to grow into their roles: whilst the alternate reality arc allowed them to be liberal with their characterisation in Star Trek, they had a duty to the fans to keep character traits present. Now that all the pleasentries are out of the way, they can push on and help build a quality ensemble cast working in a contained unit, something the first movie lacked.
Though Star Trek has the influence of Damon Lindelof, you only need to talk to anyone who has anything to say about Prometheus to realise just how little that is respected. All in all, there are things to be feared when it comes to the direction this film may take. However, if the first trailer is anything to go by, they have gone (I apologise) Into Darkness to bring the film to a more emotional, desperate level. Which basically means: as far away from Transformers 2 as humanly possible. Which is brilliant news.
Check out the trailer below: