With just under a week to go until Star Trek Into Darkness lands in UK cinemas, and a raft of very positive reviews already pushing expectation levels up to the max, it is important to recognise that the sequel still fits into a wider canon, regardless of how consciously the pre-release marketing campaign has resisted the explicit links between Abrams' work and the original series. This remains a Star Trek film, and though we are seeing a rebooted, or more appropriately, an alternate timeline, no Star Trek fan in their right mind is going to walk into the multiplex and willingly suspend that link. Ahead of the release, as Trekkers, we all want to know where the film fits on the quality scale already established by the other Star Trek films. Logic put it ahead of The Undiscovered Country, and Insurrection, without too much effort, and most reviewers have heralded the film as one of the finest in the entire series. I would go one further, and suggest that Into Darkness is even better than the film often held up as the greatest Star Trek film committed to film. I may suffer his wrath, but I have to say that Abrams' forthcoming sequel is better than Nicholas Meyer's 1982 classic. And here's why...
5. The Acting
Star Trek: The Original Series is a kitsch delight, and it was as camp and flamboyant as it was ground-breaking, but it wasn't ever the most technically impressive TV show of all time. The production quality was actually quite impressive, and strong story-telling often plugged gaps where finances and capabilities struggled, but there's no denying that the acting on show was more often than not, a crime against the noble art. By the time Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan came out, you might think Shatner and co would have toned it down a notch, having seen their beloved project canned once on the small screen, but in a curious, and ultimately fatal development, the cast seemed to see the opportunity of further films to hone their craft of over-acting. The Wrath Of Khan itself is dragged up no end by the performance of Ricardo Montalban as Khan, while everyone else continues their iconic, but not all that great brand of theatricality, especially Shatner. Into Darkness, on the other hand, features a collection of fine performances - Chris Pine is an exceptional Kirk, Zachary Quinto is great as Spock, and John Cho even handles his meagre responsibilities well, which is to say nothing of Benedict Cumberbatch's grand-standing performance as John Harrison. The acting across the board in Abrams' sequel makes The Wrath Of Khan look like an amateur production with a few bells and whistles, and though we can love its charm, the two are ultimately incomparable.