I was quite enjoying 2009's Star Trek remake, right up until the end, in which New Kirk orders the destruction of the crippled Narada. Star Trek is supposed to be an optimistic view of humanity's future and yet here the heroes more or less murder their opponents, backed by stirring music leaving the audience with no doubt that it's a heroic act and not, you know, a war crime.
So to my mind, New Kirk is more a villain than a hero and so when I see the trailers for the new film show him getting his comeuppance at the hands of Benedict Cumberbatch -- who is almost always excellent, and is playing a character who is not just a cackling villain but seems to have a legitimate grievance -- I have to admit that I am intrigued.
The problem is that based on the first film, I have no confidence at all that anything interesting will happen. New Kirk will blunder in like a thug, his mindless violence given tacit approval by the film-makers, any questions raised by Cumberbatch's character's motivations will be ignored, and New Kirk will not learn anything or develop as a character. Perhaps worst of all, Cumberbatch is going to be wasted in the role of a punch bag.
Of course, I am being unreasonable. There's no way the film-makers are going to allow their hero to lose, but the way they've set him up that's the only outcome that I could see satisfying me. I'm going to see Star Trek Into Darkness this week, so let's see if they can surprise me.