Isn't Star Trek supposed to be about star trekking? Ya know, exploring strange new worlds, seeking new life and new civilizations, and possibly going where no man has gone before? This may look like a decent action thriller, but it also feels like a painfully generic adventure that happens to be painted in Star Trek paint. Benadict Cumberbatch shows up, Cumberbatch commits several acts of terrorism, Kirk goes after Cumberbatch. I sincerely hope there is more to the story than that and there may very well be. But what we've seen so far suggests the film boldly going where any number of sequels have gone before. And, if I may, why oh why couldn't Paramount wait until next weekend to debut this with G.I. Joe: Retaliation? Anyway, Star Trek Into Darkness opens May 15th in IMAX 3D and May 17th elsewhere domestically. As always, we'll see...
Scott Mendelson
Scott Mendelson

So, it's officially official. Disney just put out a press release, which means I can write about it without fear of it being debunked moments after publication. J.J. Abrams is indeed directing Star Wars: Episode VII. And what do I have to say about that? Well... not much really. There is indeed a part of me that feels that it is wholly inappropriate and/or unnatural that the same director will be behind new Star Trek *and* new Star Wars movies. Back in the old days, I believed in the perhaps simplistic idea that every franchise would get their own special director. Sam Raimi had Spider-Man, Bryan Singer had X-Men, and Chris Nolan had Batman. Obviously that idea no longer exists. Bryan Singer can helm X-Men and then go on to attempt to reboot Superman with Superman Returns before taking back the X-Men franchise from Matthew Vaughn, who is now rumored to be among Warner's top choices for a Justice League movie. Even with more and more franchises being rebooted and/or changing hands, it seems like an awfully incestuous little circle, with only a handful of directors seemingly ending up helming these major properties. Say what you will about Marvel, but they deserve kudos for thinking outside the box on pretty much every major film thus far when it comes to a director.



With the first glimpse of Star Trek Into Darkness, most of the discussion centered around how the second Star Trek 2.0 picture seemed to be channeling Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight to an almost embarrassing degree. But to be fair, a trailer is a piece of marketing seemingly separate from the film itself. And moreover, even if the new Star Trek does end up going along the lines of 'lone agent of chaos upends the simple morality of Star Trek and makes Kirk/Spock question their ideals while causing destruction and killing off a major character or two', I would argue it's less about overtly ripping off The Dark Knight and more about simply following the sequel playbook. In short, most sequels go darker, a trend that goes back to at least The Godfather part II. And most sequels question the somewhat simplistic morality of the first film, as seen in the likes of The Matrix Revolutions and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. But rather than dissect the sequel template (because 
