I saw INTO DARKNESS as the second half of a double feature, paired with the previous STAR TREK film, which relaunched the franchise with a sexy new crew and sleek new look. I figured it wouldn't hurt to refamiliarize myself with the new continuity, since the new film would presumably make reference to and build off the events of its predecessor.

While I'm glad to have had the chance to see the 2009 film once more on the big screen -- it's still a lot of fun -- it turns out I needn't have worried about missing any references or callbacks. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is not just self-referential -- it's self-consciously referential, with characters all but turning to the camera to make sure we caught the reference each time they make one. Which they do constantly.

One of my favorite websites for learning the craft of writing is Wordplayer, the website of Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio (PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN). They go years sometimes without posting new articles, but when they do it's always worth it, and the archives are always worth reading and re-reading. In one of their articles they talk about the off-screen movie, the sense that the characters are coming from somewhere and going to somewhere in between the scenes we actually see on the screen. The sense that they have a life beyond the plot.

There is no sense of an off-screen movie having occurred between STAR TREK and STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS. Any references the crew might make to previous adventures are all to the single adventure to which we were also privy, as though they have absolutely nothing else to talk about or reminisce over. I find this hard to believe. I can't even go to Disneyland for a day with my roommates without coming back with half a dozen inside jokes and anecdotes.

Hell, even George Lucas understood this. Ham-fisted as they were, Obi-Wan and Anakin made offhand references to off-screen adventures ("Who rescued you from that pit of gundarks?"; "That business on Cato Nemoidia doesn't… doesn't count"), giving their relationship a sense of time and depth.

Really, that's enough said right there: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS had me looking wistfully back on the character development of the STAR WARS prequels. Good Christ.

I can't discuss the story (such as it is) in any depth without getting into spoilers, so… yeah. Spoilers from here on out.

---------------------------

Right, so Benedict Cumberbatch is Khan. Not "basically" Khan -- literally Khan. As in WRATH OF KHAN. His character starts out with the alias John Harrison, but that's really just so they could put John Harrison on the callsheets in the entirely vain hope of throwing the internets off the trail. In a dramatic scene (which, to his credit, Cumberbatch nails) he reveals he's really Khan.

Now, I know that WRATH OF KHAN being the greatest sci-fi movie of all time is one of the Five Pillars of Nerdslam, but personally I've never really clicked with it. It's a fine movie, no doubt, but I'm not offended at the very temerity of reimagining it.

What I am is disappointed. Abrams' first STAR TREK went to great lengths to establish that we were now dealing with an alternate timeline, jettisoning the albatross of canon and freeing up the franchise to truly, boldy go where it never had before. Forge new destinies, let their imaginations run wild.

And the first thing they fucking do is exactly the same thing they did last time. Except that a few of the beats are, like, opposite day. For example, in THE WRATH OF KHAN, Kirk and Khan never meet face-to-face; INTO DARKNESS not only has a face-to-face confrontation, they go so far as to join forces against a common enemy. And then, of course, they flip the script so that Kirk sacrifices his life to save the Enterprise, leaving Spock to curse Khan's name to the heavens (and the less said of that, the better).

I tried to take this film on its own merits, not comparing it to WRATH OF KHAN, but the film steadfastly refused to let me do that, constantly making choices and references that only made sense in the light of a familiarity with the other film.

And then the worst thing happened. New Spock put in a call to Old Spock -- you know, Nimoy's Spock from the old timeline -- and flat-out asked him to summarize the events of the very movie INTO DARKNESS was ripping off.

I'm not even going to get into the scene-by-scene specifics of how ravingly dumb this movie is. The flick spends the first half hour of the film stripping Kirk of everything he achieved in the first movie just to give it all immediately back to him a few scenes later. McCoy injects Khan's superblood into a dead tribble because I dunno science or whatever. On and on -- we'd be here all night. I'll save it for the Friends in Your Head commentary. For now, suffice it to say: it's just lazy.

That's the word for this film. Lazy premise, lazy plotting, lazy humor -- except for some solid quips by Spock that must have been written by someone else -- and just an all-around lazy movie.

Worse still, for all its attempt to seem daring and clever by taking on the franchise's sacred cow, it's ultimately a gutless film. WRATH OF KHAN had the balls to kill off Spock, a beloved character with years of affection cultivated for him by his shipmates, and more importantly, the audience. They brought him back in the sequel but as far as KHAN was concerned, he was dead.

INTO DARKNESS doesn't even have the spine to leave Kirk dead for more than five minutes. The final act is Spock and Khan in a fistfight because Khan's blood can (as they discover when it resurrects the tribble that McCoy injected with it for -- this really can't be overstated -- no apparent reason) bring Kirk back. Which it does -- and now therefore death can never mean anything in this franchise. There is no tension now. They have cured death for all time.

If the filmmakers had really wanted to do something daring, they would have killed off Kirk and left him dead. Forever. No SEARCH FOR SPOCK resurrection. Kirk is gone and the other characters spend the next film coming to terms with it, alongside whatever other adventure they might be having.

Yeah, I know. Paramount never would have let them get away with it. But if you can't get away with a bold reimagining, don't do the reimagining at all, I say. Come up with something else. You've got a whole universe to play in.

I wanted nothing more than to come out of this movie having had a great ride and jazzed for Abrams to bring the dazzle to the next STAR WARS movie. But now, man. I just don't know.