TREK WEEK: In Defense of the J.J. Abrams-directed 'Star Trek' films

As the second annual ‘Trek Week’ continues here on Rhode Island Movie Corner, I’ll be doing something a little bit different today; something sort of along the lines of a ‘thesis’ as I work to defend two of my favorite films of the last few years; J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek films. Despite what some fans may claim, these two films are very important to the franchise as they very much resurrected it after almost half a decade of no new major Star Trek media. And they’re also very important to me as not only are they some of my all-time favorite films (the 2009 Star Trek film is legitimately in my Top 10 favorite films of all-time) but they also helped me get into the Star Trek franchise in the first place, and the same can be said for other people who went into it not being very familiar with the franchise. However, when it comes to long-time fans of Trek, these films aren’t really as liked. In fact, they’re pretty much hated by them for various reasons and said backlash got even more vocal when the 2013 sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness, was released. Simply put, the big argument amongst this crowd is that the films ‘don’t carry the feel of the franchise’. As a result, there’s now a lot of pressure on director Justin Lin and writers Simon Pegg and Doug Jung to make sure that the upcoming Star Trek Beyond does a better job at appealing to the long-time fans. And I won’t lie… all of this backlash kind of frustrates me. Because I am not embarrassed to admit that I am a major fan of the J.J.-directed Trek films. In fact, I kind of prefer them to the older Trek films. And yeah… I know that this will be considered as complete ‘blasphemy’ amongst Trek fans. However, I’m about to go over why I will defend these films to the bitter end.  

But first, let’s put things into perspective. In the early 2000’s, the Star Trek franchise was pretty much at rock bottom. The most recent Trek film, Star Trek: Nemesis, the last film to star the cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation, was both a critical and commercial dud, just barely earning back its $60 million budget at the box-office. In fact, from a box-office perspective, it is the lowest-grossing film in the series worldwide. Meanwhile, on the TV front, things weren’t doing much better. The main Trek show at the time, the prequel series Enterprise, constantly suffered ratings-wise during its run and by 2005, the generally polarizing series was canceled after only four seasons. The following year, the franchise’s creative head, Rick Berman, was relieved of his duties. In short, the franchise was in one hell of a creative rut. As a result, the next few years saw numerous proposals for a potential resurrection of the franchise from various filmmakers including Bryan Singer and even Trek alums like Jonathan Frakes and William Shatner. Ultimately though, the honor to revive the franchise went to writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, with J.J. Abrams, fresh off of his feature-length directorial debut, 2006’s Mission Impossible III, chosen to direct. And we all know how that turned out. On May 8^th, 2009, Star Trek was released in theaters and it was a solid critical and commercial hit. It certainly proved to be a success for non-fans of the franchise and opened the door for a new generation of Trek fans like myself. However, the same couldn’t really be said for long-time fans. And based on every single criticism that I’ve heard directed towards these films over the past few years, there are two main issues that the ‘Trekkers’ have with these films.

The first was the new film’s bold decision to establish an ‘alternate universe’. This concept of a ‘multi-verse’ had been previously explored in episodes of the various Trek shows but this was pretty much the first time that the films had ever gone this route. As the result of a supernova being turned into a black hole, the Romulan ship Narada ended up going back over a century in time and its attack on the USS Kelvin paved the way for a different series of events that still revolved around the franchise’s classic characters, namely James T. Kirk. A similar situation occurred last year with Terminator: Genisys and as you’d expect, that film also got flak for going that route. However, I actually think that this is a great idea as it allows the franchise to tell new stories within their universes with their classic characters without having to adhere to canon. But at the same time, another argument that people bring up about this kind of plot development is that it results in classic moments from the series ‘being erased from existence’… and I’ll just cut to the chase and say that this is not true. I mean, okay, it’s true that the creation of a new timeline does do away with beloved moments from previous films. However, it’s not like those films don’t exist anymore. If you can still go to a place like Best Buy and are able to buy the original Trek films without issue, then I don’t see what the problem is with a franchise establishing a new alternate reality. The main characters are still the same characters as before, expect that now they are being developed in different, and technically speaking ‘more modern’, ways.

The character that benefits the most from this new timeline is Captain James Tiberius Kirk. Of course William Shatner will always be the original Kirk but if you ask me, Chris Pine’s Kirk is actually a much more layered character. With Shatner’s Kirk, things usually ended up going his way no matter how difficult the situation was. After all, as emphasized in a classic scene in The Wrath of Khan where he reveals that he cheated on the infamous Kobayashi Maru test, a moment which was finally witnessed in the 2009 film, Kirk does not believe in the no-win scenario despite being told that it a situation that every Starfleet captain will likely face at one point. There were only a few instances where things didn’t really go his way, with the biggest one being when Spock died at the end of Wrath of Khan. Chris Pine’s Kirk, on the other hand, immediately starts off on a rough path. He had to grow up with the burden of having his father be George Kirk, who sacrificed himself to save the lives of the crew of the USS Kelvin, including his wife Winona and their then-newborn son [him]. So as a result, he became a reckless and arrogant delinquent until he was approached by Christopher Pike to enlist in Starfleet, ‘daring him to do better’ than his dad. I feel that this helped make Pine’s Kirk a very relatable protagonist, someone who has a lot of pressure on him to succeed. As a result, it’s cool to see how he matures as a leader over the course of these films. Plus, this idea of Kirk being under his father’s shadow seems to once again be relevant in the upcoming Star Trek Beyond as the second trailer opens with Kirk recounting how ‘he joined Starfleet on a dare’ and Bones remarking that now Kirk is trying to figure out who he really is.

As for Kirk’s eventual first officer Spock, the film further explores the character’s half-human, half-Vulcan heritage. Right out of the gate, he is shown to be ostracized by his Vulcan peers solely due to his father Sarek being a ‘traitor’ for marrying ‘that human whore’ Amanda Grayson. This prejudice is later seen when the heads of the Vulcan Science Academy remark about how successful Spock has been despite the ‘disadvantage’ of having a human mother. This effectively leads him to reject the invitation to the Academy and instead enlist in Starfleet. And while Trek fans of course know that Kirk and Spock are always portrayed as friends, the 2009 film actually doesn’t start out that way. When Kirk pulls his little ‘stunt’ during his Kobayashi Maru test, he is immediately accused of cheating by Spock and the two end up in a major moral conflict for most of the film, with Spock maintaining a generally cold and logical persona throughout. His emotions aren’t fully brought out until Kirk provokes him by questioning why he doesn’t show any emotion over the recent death of his mother, resulting in him lashing out at Kirk and subsequently relinquishing command to him on account of being emotionally compromised. This is then followed by Sarek finally admitting to him that he didn’t marry his mother because it was ‘logical’ but because he truly loved her. As a result, Spock is able to gain better control of his emotions, allowing for him and Kirk to finally set aside their differences and work together to stop the Narada from destroying Earth. Later, he is convinced to stay with Starfleet and be Kirk’s first officer, being told to ‘put aside logic’ and ‘do what feels right’. By whom, you may ask? Why, by his older self, of course!

Yes, the 2009 film pulled a major coup by having Leonard Nimoy cameo as an older Spock. His Spock is shown to be the one from the original timeline and was partially responsible for the establishment of the new timeline. When his attempt to save the planet Romulus from a supernova failed, it led to the creation of the aforementioned black hole and he and the Narada were sent many years back in time. When Kirk is marooned on the ice planet Delta Vega by the younger Spock, ‘Spock Prime’ (his credited designation in these films) helps him get back onto the Enterprise though he doesn’t come along to help Kirk take command of the ship, claiming that he cannot come into contact with his younger self. However, the two Spocks do end up meeting at the end of the film and the older Spock admits that he ‘lied’, or as he puts it, ‘implied’ about the whole time paradox thing. This is easily one of the best cameos in recent memory, though I use the term ‘cameo’ loosely because Nimoy’s Spock actually has a major role in the film. Nimoy is just as excellent as he’s always been in the role. At the time, it had been a long while since he last played the part but he slips back into the role with ease and gives the film plenty of emotional gravitas. Now I am aware that there were also plans to have William Shatner do a cameo but that ultimately didn’t happen. And to be honest, I think it’s actually a good thing because I feel that having both Shatner and Nimoy appear might have been a detriment to Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto as the younger Kirk and Spock. By just having Nimoy appear, it allows for Pine and Quinto’s versions of the characters to stand on their own while still giving the film a means of connecting the new Trek with the old Trek. Nimoy would once again appear, this time truly in cameo form, in the sequel when the younger Spock contacts him requesting information about that film’s main villain (more on that character later). Sadly, this would be the last time that Nimoy ever played the part as he passed away in February of 2015.

While Kirk and Spock are obviously the main protagonists, the film also does a great job in setting up all of the other main characters. Not all of them get as much to do as the lead duo but they at least have one scene each that establishes their importance to the crew. While Dr. Leonard ‘Bones’ McCoy has perennially been the third most important character of the series, the film actually promotes Lt. Nyota Uhura to that position. And sure, a sizable part of her role in the newer films does revolve around her romantic relationship with Spock but I actually don’t mind that as I feel that this relationship gives Spock a valuable human connection. Plus, I also liked how, early on, Uhura didn’t really get along with Kirk as a result of his generally brash demeanor. But of course the film doesn’t forget about the Enterprise’s reliable doctor, Bones, and of the entire cast, Karl Urban probably acts the closest to his predecessor, DeForest Kelley. Urban absolutely nails the character’s generally grumpy but still very much humane attitude, especially in scenes where he’s arguing with Spock (“Are you out of your Vulcan mind?”). Helmsman Hikaru Sulu (John Cho) gets to be part of a major action sequence when he and Kirk space-jump onto a Romulan drill, which harkens back to a famous moment from the episode ‘The Naked Time’ in which Sulu, while under the influence of a mysterious substance, brandishes a fencing foil (from the 2009 film: Kirk: “So what kind of combat training do you have?” Sulu: “Fencing.”). The sequel even hints at a potential future as a starship captain, something that did happen in the original timeline, when he becomes acting captain and threatens ‘John Harrison’ with the load of torpedoes at the Enterprise’s disposal (Bones: “Mr. Sulu… remind me never to piss you off.”).

As for ensign Pavel Chekov (played by the late Anton Yelchin, who tragically passed away recently meaning that the upcoming Beyond will serve as his final turn in the role), the film immediately sets him up as a young mathematical prodigy. Said talent comes in handy later on, especially in a scene in which he is able to beam up Kirk and Sulu when they fall off of the Narada’s drilling device. However arguably his best moment came in Into Darkness, during which he’s promoted to the role of Chief Engineer when Scotty decides to resign. Simply put, the look on his face when Kirk tells him to go put on a red shirt is priceless, showing that he clearly knows what happens to most redshirts in Star Trek. Thankfully that fate doesn’t end up happening to him. And of course we can’t forget about the Enterprise’s trusty engineer, Montgomery Scott, who is first introduced working at an outpost on Delta Vega before Kirk brings him onto the Enterprise as Chief Engineer. Like Urban, Simon Pegg absolutely nails the role from the accent to the mannerisms and the films certainly utilize Pegg’s comedic ability to great effect, from the scene in which he awkwardly remarks how exciting it is on the Enterprise after the whole ‘Kirk emotionally compromising Spock’ scene to the scene in Into Darkness in which he drunkenly argues with Kirk over coms while at a bar following his resignation. In short, every member of the Enterprise crew matters in the long run and these films do an absolutely fantastic job in establishing a phenomenal camaraderie amongst its cast of leads. 

But perhaps the biggest issue that most Trek fans have with the new films is the fact that it seemingly focuses more on action than the layered, cerebral plots that the franchise has perennially been known for. And while it’s true that the films definitely have a very action-heavy style, I don’t really see how that’s entirely a ‘bad thing’. Chris Pine was recently quoted as saying that it’s not really possible to do ‘cerebral’ Trek anymore in 2016, saying that “it just wouldn’t work in today’s marketplace” of big blockbusters… and you know what? He’s totally right! Like imagine if they ever decided to do something similar to Star Trek: The Motion Picture… that would be a colossal disaster from a box-office perspective. It’d do about as good as a Terrence Malick film. The other thing is that I’d argue that while the films do lean more towards being sci-fi action films, that doesn’t mean that they don’t have strong themes and character arcs in them. In the case of the 2009 film, there’s things like Kirk trying to deal with being in the shadow of his father and Spock struggling to deal with his emotions as well as dealing with his half-human/half-Vulcan heritage. Heck, Nero (Eric Bana) is actually a pretty decent villain as far as Star Trek villains go. He has an emotional backstory to him as he seeks vengeance against Spock (the older Spock, specifically, though this plot of revenge is later carried over to the younger Spock) for being unable to save his planet Romulus from destruction. So as payback, he makes Spock witness the destruction of Vulcan… and boy is that an emotional gut-punch of a scene, especially when Spock’s mother Amanda falls to her death right in front of her son. Heck this whole film is full of effective emotional moments, including the opening as Kirk’s father sacrifices himself right as his wife gives birth. What can I say? J.J. does a great job when it comes to scenes like this.

Speaking of the score, Michael Giacchino’s music for these newer Trek films are two of my all-time favorite film scores. In creating said score, Giacchino does something that David Arnold did when he did the music for the 2006 James Bond ‘prequel/reboot’ film, Casino Royale. And that is that he makes the smart decision to not primarily utilize the iconic Star Trek theme created by Alexander Courage. Instead, that piece is fittingly used during the end credits and I must say that Giacchino’s version of the theme is quite a rousing cover of it. But as for the rest of the film, Giacchino does an absolute fantastic job when it comes to creating motifs that can be either really emotional or invigoratingly thrilling during the film’s equally thrilling action sequences. In regards to the latter, this mainly comes in the form of this reboot series’ main motif (exemplified in this track, ‘Enterprising Young Men’). I absolutely adore this motif and I especially love how it can be used in both emotional scenes (e.g. ‘Warp Core Values’ from Into Darkness) and scenes of grand spectacle (e.g. the aforementioned ‘Enterprising Young Men’, during which we see the first look at the Enterprise, and ‘Sub Prime Directive’ from the opening of Into Darkness as the Enterprise rises out of the ocean). In the case of the former, just look at tracks like ‘Labor of Love’, which is played when Kirk’s father sacrifices himself while his wife gives birth, or ‘Buying the Space Farm’ from Into Darkness, when Kirk makes the same bold sacrifices that his father made and shares one last moment with Spock.

And yeah… let’s talk about Star Trek Into Darkness. This is one that I’ve been dying to stick up for these past few years because ever since it came out, it’s been subjected to much scrutiny from ‘Trekkers’. So much so that at a convention in Las Vegas that was held a few months after the film premiered, it was named the WORST film in franchise history, with one fan apparently claiming that the JJ films shouldn’t even recognized as Star Trek films… and boy does all of this piss me off. First off, Into Darkness is ‘worse’ than The Motion(less) Picture, the yawner that is Insurrection, or the actual near-franchise killer that was The Final Frontier? But the thing that really rubs me the wrong way is the statement about the films not belonging in the franchise. You know, the franchise that was pretty much dead and would still be dead if it wasn’t for the J.J. films? They seriously ranked a non-Trek film, 1999’s Galaxy Quest, higher than Into Darkness. That shouldn’t even count! UGH! So what is it about Into Darkness that Trek fans were so upset about? It was over the big bait-and-switch pulled by the filmmakers in which it was revealed that Benedict Cumberbatch’s villain character was in fact the legendary franchise antagonist Khan… except in the months leading up to the film’s release, everyone kept denying that he was Khan. And to make things more problematic, the film then proceeded to re-imagine some notable ‘moments’ from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, namely the bold sacrifice by a main character to save the Enterprise from being destroyed and the vengeful screaming of Khan’s name. However, is the film as big of a ‘rehash’ of Wrath of Khan as Trekkers claim? The truth is… it really isn’t…

If Star Trek Into Darkness was about Khan trying to find a terraforming device capable of giving new life to a dead planet or destroying every living thing if used on a planet with life, then I’d probably be more susceptible to call the film a ‘rip-off’ of Wrath of Khan but that’s not what the film is about. Instead, it’s about Khan enacting revenge upon Starfleet for using him and holding the rest of his people hostage. And really, you want to know how many things the film ‘borrows’ from Wrath of Khan? Aside from having Khan being of the villain, of course, as well as introducing the character of Carol Marcus, who gave birth to Kirk’s son David in the original timeline, there’s really only two major sequences from that film that are redone here; the aforementioned sacrifice and KHANNNN! scenes. Seriously Star Trek Nemesis was a bigger ‘rehash’ of Wrath of Khan. I’m not joking; the final battle of Nemesis is almost note-for-note the exact same finale. Two ships captained by a Federation captain and his greatest ‘personal’ nemesis fighting in a part of the galaxy where they are unable to target each other to attack, ultimately culminating in the death of probably the most popular character of their respective casts. Now as far as the whole thing about the cast and crew denying Khan’s identity before the film’s release, I actually don’t blame them for trying to keep the whole thing a secret. In the digital age, it’s become much harder for studios to prevent leaks of spoiler-heavy material. In fact, I already knew that Cumberbatch was going to play Khan months in advance due to someone at Entertainment Weekly making the idiotic mistake of identifying him as Khan when they debuted a pair of magazine covers for the film, one with Kirk and Spock, the other with Kirk and Khan.

And speaking of Khan, Benedict Cumberbatch is fantastic in the role. He doesn’t try to be Ricardo Montalban’s version of the character and that was certainly a smart move… otherwise the film would’ve gotten even more flak from Trek purists. Cumberbatch brings a ‘Hannibal Lecter’ esque vibe to his performance, which of course is straight-up exemplified in scenes where Khan is held captive on the Enterprise. But perhaps the most interesting part about Cumberbatch’s take on the character is that this film’s Khan is in some ways a very sympathetic villain. When Khan reveals his true identity to Kirk and Spock, he then proceeds to recount his past history. His ship and crew were found adrift by Starfleet’s Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Marcus, who subsequently took Khan’s crew hostage in exchange for having him develop weapons and the Admiral’s new ship, the USS Vengeance. Ultimately this of course leads to Khan enacting revenge upon Starfleet when he is led to believe that Marcus had killed his crew. However, as we learn, he didn’t and instead had them placed in cryogenic freeze inside 72 of the advanced torpedoes that Khan had been developing. Marcus then proceeds to give said torpedoes to the Enterprise to use as leverage against him. Khan immediately recognizes this when Kirk and crew confront him on Kronos and he willingly surrenders. And boy is the scene in which Khan emotionally recounts how he was led to believe that Marcus killed his crew yet another emotional gut-punch of a scene, buoyed by Cumberbatch’s absolutely powerful performance as well as the final line of his ‘monologue’; “Is there anything you would not do for your family?”

Once again, the film does a fantastic job of portraying the relationship between Kirk and Spock, which hits another snag at the beginning of the film when Kirk violates the Prime Directive and lets the Enterprise be seen by a primitive race in order to save Spock from an active volcano. And because Spock is very much someone who goes ‘by the book’, he ends up reporting this to Admiral Pike and Kirk is relieved of his command as a result. Obviously Kirk is pissed and Spock’s general ‘lack of emotion’ once again proves to be an issue for him. It even strains his relationship with Uhura as a result of him seemingly embracing his death at her expense. The film also continues to focus on Kirk’s reckless behavior, as Pike comments that this kind of attitude could get everyone under his command killed. That ends up being Kirk’s arc in this film; learning to take better responsibility for his actions. Because when ‘John Harrison’ attacks Starfleet and Pike ends up being one of the casualties, it leads to him recklessly going after Harrison to avenge the death of the person who become the closest thing that Kirk ever had to a father figure in his life. And sure, while Spock is the one who is with Pike when he dies, Kirk’s reaction to his death is still pretty damn emotional as is the scene where Spock mind-melds with Pike before he dies. Ultimately by the end of the film, Kirk follows in his father’s footsteps by saving his ship at the cost of his life by entering the ship’s radioactive reactor chamber and realigning the warp core.

And folks, I won’t lie in saying that the scene in which Kirk and Spock share one final moment before Kirk dies from radiation poisoning brings me to tears every time that I watch it. And yes, I know that it’s almost exactly the same as that scene from Wrath of Khan but aside from one or two lines of dialogue that are lifted from the previous film (e.g. ‘ship out of danger’), the filmmakers actually do enough to differentiate this scene from its predecessor, namely in regards to context. In Wrath of Khan, this was pretty much the first time that Kirk truly has to deal with a ‘no-win’ scenario. In Into Darkness, this scene reaffirms the friendship between the two. All throughout the film Kirk tries to prove to Spock why he risked violating the Prime Directive to save Spock from the volcano and it is in this moment when Spock realizes why he did it; he wasn’t going to let his best friend die. And as for the once-again infamous ‘KHAANNN!’ scene, this time performed by Spock, yeah it’s ridiculous but the same could be said for when William Shatner did it in Wrath of Khan. With that said, some have argued that this scene is ‘pointless’ due to the fact that it wasn’t necessarily Khan’s fault for the Enterprise falling helplessly to Earth. And yet, like the argument that the film is a complete retread of Wrath of Khan, that’s not entirely true. Sure, most of the damage sustained to the ship was caused by the film’s other ‘villain’, Admiral Marcus, but Khan ended up taking control of Marcus’ ship, which then proceeded to further attack the Enterprise. So I’d argue that said further attack is what ultimately led to the ship falling to Earth. So yes, even if it’s only in a minor way, Khan WAS partially responsible.

And yeah… maybe I should talk about the big elephant in the room. And that is in regards to the film’s major McGuffin, Khan’s blood. As shown in the beginning of the film, Khan is able to blackmail a Starfleet officer into bombing a Starfleet facility by offering to help save the officer’s terminally ill daughter with the use of his blood. And as you might expect, Khan’s blood is what is ultimately used to save Kirk. Bones realizes this when a dead Tribble that he has been experimenting on suddenly comes back to life as a result of the blood. Is it ridiculous? Yes. Is the part with the Tribble rather blatant fan-service? Yes. Am I in any way bothered by this plot-point? No. Because believe me, the Star Trek franchise has seen plenty of silly plotlines over the years, like in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home when the villain was a giant space log that was trying to talk to humpback whales. And yes, I think it’s pretty clear that this plotline of, to quote its critics, ‘magic blood’ probably isn’t going to brought up again in future films, which would effectively make this ‘new discovery’ that could fix a whole lot of problems rather pointless in the long run. But again, I’m not too bothered by that because at the end of the day, Into Darkness is just like its predecessor in being a very fun and action-packed adventure buoyed by effective emotional depth and terrific character development. Worst Star Trek film of all-time this is not… not by a long shot.

Now I will admit… I’m quite biased towards the J.J.-era films. I’ll admit that prior to 2009, I knew little about the Star Trek franchise but I was interested in seeing the 2009 film after hearing that it got really exceptional reviews from critics. So I went to go see it with my dad, loved it, and afterwards, I learned that he was a fan of the series. As a result, I started to get into the series more and more. But time and time again, I found myself coming back to the 2009 film, mainly after I bought it on iTunes (which was pretty much the first major film ‘home media purchase’ that I ever made) and then proceeded to watch it numerous times. So yeah… you could say that the 2009 film is a very personal one for me and because of that, it legitimately has become one of my Top 10 favorite films of all-time. As a result, Into Darkness became my most anticipated film of 2013. When I first saw the film, I gave it a 4.5/5 rating but then had to start dealing with the slowly increasing backlash towards the newer films, mainly brought on by Into Darkness, to the point where I wondered if I was being a bit too lenient towards it. But when I bought on Blu-Ray on the week it came out, I re-watched it and was thrilled to see that not only did I still love it, it was even better in my opinion the second time around. So I updated my rating to 5/5. I’m an unapologetic fan of the J.J.-era Trek film and feel that they are far better than what Trek purists constantly put them out to be. Sure they may appeal to non-fans more due to their more action-focused pacing but I argue that they still do enough to capture that Trek feel, namely through the great characterizations of its protagonists and its strong emotional depth.

You can bet that I’m very much excited for Star Trek Beyond, which clearly has a lot to prove. It certainly hasn’t been easy to appease to long-time Trek fans, especially considering that they hired another ‘action’ director, Justin Lin, to take over for J.J. Abrams, who of course was busy working on a different Star film that you may have heard of. However, I don’t see how that’s a ‘bad’ thing due to Lin being one of the best action directors in recent years thanks to his work on the recent Fast and Furious films. Plus, Lin has made it clear that he is a fan of Trek, which I guess you can say is better than what was the case with J.J., who admitted that he was a bigger fan of Star Wars (But I sure as hell ain’t holding him to that, mind you). The film surely will also benefit from having Scotty himself, Simon Pegg, handling script duties as Pegg’s sci-fi fandom background as well as his work on the Cornetto trilogy will no doubt provide the film a solid pedigree. However, when the film’s first trailer was released, the ‘too much action’ argument was brought up once again, with Pegg admitting that even he wasn’t a fan of how the action-oriented trailer was put together. Me personally, though, I thought the trailer was perfectly fine. I also didn’t really get the complaint about the use of ‘Sabotage’ by the Beastie Boys being out of place considering that this was part of a major sequence in the first film. However, thankfully the second trailer was received much more positively and based on all of the clips that I’ve seen from it, many of which once again showcase the amazing camaraderie amongst the new cast members, I’m confident that Star Trek Beyond will be yet another super fun sci-fi adventure. However, I’m also hoping that this one will fare better with Trek purists because, well, I’m getting sick of having to defend these newer films against them.

And that marks the end of my very, very long defense of J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek films. Anyone else share my thoughts towards the newer films? And if so, are you excited for Star Trek Beyond regardless of how long-time Trek fans might respond to it? Be sure to sound off in the comments below.

Next time: My review of Star Trek Beyond