Skip to main content

Star Trek: Into Darkness *Major Spoilers* Review



Having adequate time to think about Abrams' latest installment in the Star Trek Legacy, I must opine on those details I refrained from divulging in the previous post. Star Trek: Into Darkness at it's heart is a film about duality. Captain James T. Kirk finds not only his nemesis but himself in the polar opposite extreme. Both Kirk and Khan (yes Khan) are one and the same. Kirk thinks he is invincible, Khan is invincible. Kirk considers his crew his family, Khan considers his crew his family. Kirk and Khan both have extreme tempers and act ruthlessly. Khan or John Harrison as he is known in the first half of the film is bent on destroying Starfleet. Khan is a perfect organism. He has rapid-regenerating D.N.A that allows him to heal rapidly (think Wolverine), incredible strength (think Bane) and an intellect that rivals Spock. In fact, Khan is the combination of Kirk, Spock, and Nero. What is ironic is that Khan is both Kirk and Spock's enemy and their salvation. Khan saves Kirk and Spock's life on Kronos (Klingon Home world) and then he saves Kirk's life again via his D.N.A. It is as if Kirk and his crew cannot live without Khan, but they also can't live with him. A bizarre paradox that is quintessentially Abram.

Kirk faces great loss as he enters the darkness. Captain Pike, his mentor and father figure perishes at the hand of Khan. Kirk nearly losses Spock in a Volcano on a Class M Planet, he then nearly losses his entire crew twice: once to War Mongering Admiral and a second time when the Enterprise is plummeting to Earth. Kirk finds himself having to work with Khan to save his crew from the Admiral and then fight Khan right after. Who is friend and who is foe becomes blurred in this ceaseless conflict. It's as if Kirk is Yin and Khan is Yang and they are playing about in the playground of planets and the stars.

Spock's struggle to control his emotions becomes more difficult than ever . He risks ruining his relationship with Uhura and Kirk by being his Vulcan self, but if he gives into the emotion the raw sorrow of having lost Planet Vulcan and other trauma could consume him. Spock eventually comes to cataclysmic moment when Kirk is dying in a radioactive room (a spin on Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan when Spock is dying in the same room). Spock for the first time shows his real feelings for Jim as he watches his best friend breath his last. Spock then shifts from sorrow to scorn. He seeks out Khan and fights him in epic hand to hand duel over the skyline of San Francisco.

Inevitably Khan is defeated, but not destroyed. He is needed to bring back Kirk with his D.N.A. Khan and his crew are then put into cairo-stasis and kept in a secure facility. Kirk awakens to see Spock watching over him (in a Return of the King manner, Spock being Gandalf and Kirk Frodo). After recovering, Kirk a year later gives a rousing speech, reciting those famous Star Trek words that end in "too boldly go where no one has gone before." The final scenes are difficult to distinguish from the last Star Trek, Kirk steps on to the bridge in his traditional gold/yellow shirt and swaggers over to his chair where Sulu is now sitting (Sulu gets to command the Enterprise earlier in the film, although he did so in last Star Trek when Kirk and Spock  boarded Nero's Ship, so why did they make it seem like this was his first time?). Kirk takes command after reassuring Bones/Dr. McCoy that It's going to be fine. After checking in with Scotty, Kirk gives the command to go to Warp and the Enterprise disappears into the abyss for a Five Year Mission (The timeline of the Original Series).

The next thing I want to opine on is the conflict between Kirk and the Admiral. Star Fleet is a Peace Keeping Humanitarian Armada. Star Fleet personal are commissioned for exploration and observation, not intervention and inner stellar war. However, the Admiral having created a secret war star ship tells Kirk that the Klingons are threatening conflict and have conquered several planets. The problem is that Kirk and the Admiral are both right. Starfleet should remain a humanitarian peace keeping armada, but they should also create a military fleet to route and repel enemies like the Klingons. If Starfleet and the Admiral could have come to some compromises everyone would be safer. While Abrams intends for us to see the Admiral as a villain, we should note that he has a legitament concern and his idea of a militarized armada would be useful to protecting Starfleet installations, planets, and convoys. After all, one day Starfleet won't only being dealing with the volatile and violent races such as the Klingons and Romulans; they also will face the Borg and when that time comes they will have to adapt Starfleet regulations or die.

It is the themes, motifs, and deeply philosophical and sociological concepts that make Into The Darkness the best Abrams' Star Trek yet. Abrams was brilliant to put at the for front of this film issues in our world. Since 9/11 we have become familiar with terrorism. Since creation we have been familiar with the duality in ourselves; the struggle between the spirit and the flesh. We also understand how convoluted relationships can be, that one minute a person is our ally and then the next our enemy. Finally every human being, save for maybe a few true Vulcans can connect to the emotion. We empathize with the torrent of tears, the raw rage, and fester fears. Suddenly, Kirk and Khan blur and we realize It's much more complicated than we first thought. Then logic returns and we know that men like Khan must be brought to justice and good must triumph over evil.

The Genius of Into Darkness is that makes us faces out demons and decide to do what is right despite our emotions. The real test on Earth is to known when to show emotion and when to control it. It's easy to be like Kirk, uncouth and quick tempered or to be like Spock, reserved and frozen. But the place God wants us to be in between the two. There is a time to be emotional and time to be emotionless. Knowing how to balance between them both requires relating to the King of the Universe. So go see Star Trek; Into Darkness and learn how to the exhibit the Light that burns brightest in that blackness.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Israel’s Conquest of Canaan: The Nephilim and Giants

  Christianity Today asserts that the conquest of Canaan can be a “stumbling block” for believers. This probably is because of a foolish idea of comparing it to a modern conquest happening in our world. The truth is that God had Israel conquer Canaan because it was ruled by evil giants, “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.” (Numbers 13:33). These are Anakim or Nephilim, the children of angels and human women, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God (angels) saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. The...

Dispensationalism

John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was a man who did two things, he took 70th week of the Book of Daniel and stretched out to the End Times, and he was the father of  Dispensationalism , a belief system that God dispenses different peoples with separate blessings and covenants. According to Darb'ys doctrine of Dispensationalism, God dispenses different covenants. There are total of seven dispensations that divide the history of man: I. Dispensation of Innocence (prior to the Fall, "Do not east of the Fruit of Good and Eve, Eden), II. Dispensation of Conscience ( You must assuage guilt and sin with blood sacrifices.) III. Dispensation of Human Government (Multiply and Subdue the world, example the Tower of Babel Gen 11:1-9, and Genesis 1:28). IV. Dispensation of the Promise (Dwell in Canaan, Jerusalem) V. Dispensation of the Law ("Obey the Law of Moses and the Prophets"). VI. Dispensation of Grace (The Church, Jesus Christ has come...

Jesus’ Name in Aramaic

There has been a trend to render Jesus’ name Hebrew, יֵשׁוּעַ , Yeshua. The problem is neither Christ nor his apostles, nor the Jews in 30-33 A.D. spoke Hebrew, they spoke Aramaic. A ramaic is the oldest language on earth and was the language Jesus spoke. In fact, the oldest Old Testament is the Septuagint a Greco translation around 132 B.C.E. (165 Years Before Christ)that was translated from Aramaic. The Masoretic Text, The Hebrew Old Testament most Bibles use, dates from 7th to 10th Century A.D. (Medieval Times).  This translation does not cross reference with the words of Christ in the New Testament which are Aramaic and Koine Greek.  If the Aramaic was what Jesus spoke, then by what name would have been called? Jesus’ name in Aramaic is Isho or Eesho, spelled ܝܫܘܥ . That is the name of our Lord in Aramaic! He would have heard his name in this dialect, “Hail Isho or Eesho!” as well as the Greek, Ἰ ησο ῦ ς , Iesous.  Aramaic is disappearing, only a few peop...