Skip to comments.'Star Trek Into Darkness' Review: Kirk and Co. Revisit Franchise Highlights, Bush-era Critiques
Posted on 05/16/2013 7:43:24 PM PDT by EveningStar
Director J.J. Abrams' 2009 prequel to the dusty Star Trek property got the space saga out of mothballs and back on the pop culture radar.
Star Trek Into Darkness resumes the franchise's penchant for futuristic allegories to modern times. Well, if you consider the Bush years the state of today's foreign policy debates.
The '60s series never bludgeoned viewers with its mission statements, and the Star Trek sequel similarly embraces razzle dazzle over speechifying. Abrams is too keenly focused on ambitious action sequences, those maddening lens flares and the bond between the ship's crew that made those prior voyages such a pleasure...
Star Trek Into Darkness doesn't reach the dizzying highs of Abrams' initial Trek adventure, and logic-loving sci-fi fans will wince at the sillier plot developments. Conservatives may bristle at the politics bubbling underneath the franchise. Abrams doesn't lose sight of his own Prime Directive--ensure the franchise lives long and prospers beyond cheap talking points...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Just saw it and I loved it. It was very entertaining.
I plan on seeing it myself.
I saw the movie tonight. Not bad but it reminds me more of the Fringe series than a Star Trek.
Were there any liberal talking points in the film?
Loaded question. I am a huge Star Trek fan so I tend to divorce myself from the politics of the series and enjoy the action, the dialogue, the special effects. I guess there were some liberal ideas tossed in but there was a helluva lot of action and a good story on top of it. Judge for yourself, or not, but if you like Trek, buy a bucket of popcorn, take your seat and put your worries on hold for a couple of hours.
I beg to differ, the original Star Trek series was full of 60s era social commentary.
At this point in my life, I’m not stupid enough to not see the digs at conservatism, et al. I just no longer care.
I’ll still see what I want and when (I now just wait for the dvd release) and critique them online.
Any conservative sensitive to being treated like crap just shouldn’t pay attention. The audience is really very small for the left’s hatred.
There were liberal ideas in the original Star Trek series, of course, but I still really enjoy watching the episodes. The stories were really good, the characters were believable, the show really had pizzazz. And since it was made in the 1960, a lot of the old American values were still strong. I enjoy watching it.
On another thread I swallowed the hook so to speak of bypassing this film because of its Bush bashing liberal stance as touted on that thread but now I feel like its my choice, I’m a big boy, well an older big boy anyway and frankly I am thrilled to see an alternative JJ Abrams version of Star Trek that offers new visions instead of a locked in theme or history.
So this saturday afternoon I’m taking my son to go see it.
i’m’not, the specs of show i happened to see were boring as hell.
you gotta remember roddenberry was a big un guy, that was what the whole federation of planets was, with their prime’directive of non-interference which they broke ever episode. they came in peace but the phasers sure got hot.
i think star trek actually speaks volumes about liberal hypocrisy when you examine the main themes. hot scantilly clad women, but “independent” but not too much. we’re peaceful but we’ve got lots of weapons we use all the time. we have a policy of not interfering, until we break it and start interfering. total liberal un type mentality.
first interracial kiss - kirk and uhura.
I thought it was Kirk and that green chick!
I will wait until it is available on Kindle
Well in everyone’s defense, we did end up with Obama after Bush. Really can’t get much worse than that. Did we end up with a liberal President after Reagan? NOPE....Bush was a disaster in most ways and continues to be so today due to his Presidency being followed by Obama. Bush was a nice guy, but really didn’t fight for himself. I think that is his biggest negative.
The first season of Fringe was great. I loved the mad scientist character named Walter.
It will never take the place of William Shatner and company IMO, but I will see it
I’m old enough to have watched the original each week! Sure, they were “liberal” but not like the crazy left wing idiots today.
Reagan gave us Bush...
Why? (Why is it embarrassing, not why didn't you ever watch an episode of an X Files remix?)
I think is speak more to the “Walk softly but carry a big stick” idea. Kirk will take the first punch, he’ll give you the early rounds, but after you wear yourself out, he’ll stomp you in to the ground, in my view a very American attitude.
Oh yes, at least a dozen or so, both overt and covert.
I would buy the DVD, but only if I could edit out a total of an estimated 3 minutes of gratuitous not so subtle propaganda, that contributed nothing to the plot but was intended merely as clumsy subconscious indoctrination to accept the 'new reality.' A poke in the conservative eye, so to speak. I shall mention the first one.
The year when the story takes place may not have been mentioned, but I'm assuming 23XX or so. The jarring rap music (!) in the first few minutes of the film made me want to walk out even if I didn't get my money back. The only thing that prevented me from walking out right then was not wishing to embarrass my wife.
Yes, spoiled the entire movie for me.
In my entire life that was the fourth movie I should have walked out of. Yes, there was more indoctrination, including the end, where unconditional pacifism is touted as the ultimate achievement of civilized moral and ethical man.
As a result I hated the movie. On my personal scale of 10 I would give it a 2.
Without the offensive 3 minutes it might have been a a 9.