Star Trek - Sequels Are Never as Good as the Original, Right?

Sequels are never as good as the first installment.  It seems like the filmmakers identify what worked best in the original and try to do more of it, but it ends up feeling forced.  For example, I loved “Cars.”  It was well done all the way around.  There were great characters.  It was clever.  The story was fun and had a point without being too heavy handed.  “Cars 2”, on the other hand, wasn’t nearly as good.  Mater, who was a great foil for Lightning McQueen in the first movie, was overdone in the second.  The subtle touches of “Cars” that made it clever weren’t nearly as subtle in “Cars 2”.  And the story was more silly than fun.

But the rule of disappointing sequels doesn’t always hold.  Here’s a list of “2’s” and “3’s” (or beyond) that, in my opinion, were as good as or better than their “1’s”:

“Spider-Man 2” (the Tobey Maguire era)

“Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows”

“The Dark Knight”

“Toy Story 2” and “Toy Story 3”

“Hellboy 2”

“Men in Black 3”

“Shrek 2”

“Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn”

“Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home”

“Star Trek First Contact”

“Star Trek Into Darkness”

(Is there a pattern there?)

Yes, I thought “Star Trek Into Darkness” was as good or better than J. J. Abrams’ first foray into the world of “Star Trek”.

Two of the things that I loved about the first movie were the portrayals of familiar characters by new faces and the way the series was rebooted.  All of those elements were present again in “Into Darkness”, all with the same feel as “Star Trek”, and all in the proper proportions.

True Trekkies would probably call me a heretic, but I like Chris Pine’s Kirk much better than I like William Shatner’s.  Pine has a much less annoying speaking cadence.  He has appropriate swagger and confidence.  And he’s not bad on the eyes, either.

Zachary Quinto as Spock is spot on.  He and Chris Pine play off each other very well.  I also enjoy the dynamic between Spock and Uhura.  It is a relationship new to the rebooted series, and it brings a new depth to both characters.  They are polar opposites, with Spock being cold and logical and Uhura being warm and passionate.  The blue uniform he wears and the red uniform she wears are almost symbolic that way.  And speaking of Uhura, I am excited that she has more of a part in the new movies.  Zoe Saldana has a lot of presence, more than I remember Nichelle Nichols having.

The rest of the Enterprise crew is just as well cast as Kirk, Spock, and Uhura.  Karl Urban’s Dr. McCoy is almost a clone of DeForest Kelley’s.  McCoy’s pessimism is fun, as are the continual metaphors and “I’m a doctor, not a [fill in the blank]” lines.  Simon Pegg as Scotty is hilarious.  It’s nice to see Sulu’s competence and ambition as portrayed by John Cho.  He handled his time in the Captain’s chair very well in “Into Darkness.”  (Oops, that was a spoiler.  But not too much of one…).  Anton Yelchin plays a very different Chekov than Walter Koenig did.  This new Chekov is a bit more high-strung than the original.  He seems to have more of a personality.

The two J. J. Abram’s “Star Trek” movies have a great cast.  The actors didn’t try to outdo themselves in “Into Darkness”.  They just seemed to continue on from where they left off in “Star Trek.”

And I can’t leave the topic of actors/characters without talking about Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison/Khan.  (Gah!  Another spoiler.)  I haven’t seen him in anything other than “Sherlock” (if you don’t count his silhouette in “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”).  He’s great in “Sherlock”.  And he’s amazing in “Into Darkness.”  His Khan has a subtle menace at times and a not so subtle rage at other times.  He’s just as scary as Ricardo Montalban’s Khan.

I read a couple of reviews of “Into Darkness” that didn’t appreciate the reuse of the Khan story.  They thought it was lazy.  But it worked for me.  I enjoyed the parallels as well as the differences.

First of all, the last movie introduced an alternate timeline that came about because of a group of Romulans that traveled into the past and changed it.  However, everything that happened in the Star Trek universe until that change stayed the same.  That includes Khan.  His origin is still the same.  It isn’t a stretch to think that he’d surface in the new timeline.

Second, just because Khan reappeared doesn’t mean that the story is the same as it was before.  In the original series, he was rescued and revived by the Enterprise crew.  Without giving spoilers, that is not what happened in “Into Darkness”.  In the original series he tried to take over the Enterprise as a first step toward his goal of the domination of the human race.  His goal in “Into Darkness” was much more destructive and far less grandiose.

Finally, elements of “The Wrath of Khan” did appear in “Into Darkness”.  But even those elements were changed.  Doers of certain deeds were changed.  There were heroics all the way around by the Enterprise crew, but in different ways than were previously seen.  So even though Khan was brought back by J. J. Abrams and company, there were plenty of things that made it different from the original.  And, to my point at the beginning of this, it didn’t feel overdone or forced.  It seemed like a natural progression of the new story.

That’s not to say that the movie didn’t have its flaws.  The science was a bit iffy here and there.  At the beginning there was a volcano on a planet that would have destroyed said planet if it had erupted.  But I’d think that whatever pressure is causing the eruption in the first place would still have to be relieved in another way so that the planet and its inhabitants would remain in danger.  (By the way, the planet’s name was Nibiru.  Wasn’t that the name of the planet that was supposed to destroy Earth on Dec 20, 2012?)  Also, the logic of putting the meeting room of Star Fleet’s big wigs relatively unprotected spot doesn’t make a ton of sense.  Then again, the bridges of all the Star Fleet ships are right at the top and relatively unprotected—though every enemy shot seems to miss them.

To sum up, this is one of those not-so-rare sequels that is as good as or better than the original.  The characters were great, and the story was a lot of fun.  I liked how elements from the original series were added back into the new timeline.  But looking ahead, I’m a bit nervous about the future.  This was most likely J. J. Abram’s last time at the helm of a Star Trek movie.  I hope whoever gets the captain’s chair next continues the trend of making sequels that are even better than the previous installment.