What was Into Darkness trying to say?
What was Into Darkness trying to say?
![the background blur](https://fedia.io/media/5d/8d/5d8d86010789538d760e720f844e454bdbf269d9d7c3d107df1ad38b9a42928d.jpg?thumbnail=256&format=webp)
![](https://fedia.io/media/5d/8d/5d8d86010789538d760e720f844e454bdbf269d9d7c3d107df1ad38b9a42928d.jpg?thumbnail=1024&format=webp)
With the benefit of 11 years of hindsight, lets talk about Star Trek Into Darkness. Cards on the table: I don't like this movie at all. It's probably my least favorite Star Trek story across the entire canon.
While this movie was being promoted, no one would confirm that Cumberbatch was Khan despite rampant speculation. He's not even introduced as Khan, for the first half of the movie he's "John Harrison," and the Khan reveal is played as a big dramatic moment.
JJ Abrams' entire shtick is that he crafts "mystery boxes." So... is that it? Is Star Trek Into Darkness just a mystery box where the identity of the villain is the mystery, and Abrams & co. just worked backwards from there?
Lets be generous and say that's not it: Into Darkness had something to say. We have a conspiracy, a rogue admiral, an automated super-warship, the death of a mentor... it seems like we can pull something out of here, right?
... right?
You're viewing a single thread.