Have I confessed yet what kind of a thrill I get from reading Radio Free Babylon's Coffee with Jesus?
That's not the reason for this post's title. The post's title has everything to do with Star Trek: Into Darkness. One could easily paint me the hypocrite for liking that film (went to see it with Sherry last night). After all, I'm the father who insisted my kids watch IV, V, and VI before the prequels. Am I not supposed to be the purist? The historian? The preserver of all things past.
If a movie adheres to orthodoxy and is boring in the process, why should it be made? Star Trek has captivated my imagination for years, though I must admit that at times it became bureaucratic and institutional. When Deep Space Nine was at its best, it was pushing limits. But it was also prone to predictability, too.
Star Trek: Into Darkness doesn't just sin, it sins boldly. It resurrects and rearranges the story line of one the more compelling TOS episodes as well as the consensus pick for best of the original cast movies. It drops the ball at a few points (Jim Kirk apologizing to his crew?) and gets a bit predictable (Oh, so Jim loses command of the ship again (and we're only two movies into Abrams' reboot of the series)). But when it blasphemes, it does so with provocation and edge. Splendidly fun.