(This post is going to spoil the daylights out of the new Star Trek movie. I'll put all the spoilers after the jump, but, if you haven't seen the film and have managed to avoid the big spoilers so far, consider yourself warned.)
Science fiction is important. Our fiction says a lot about our society, and our science fiction says a lot about what we want (or don't want) for our future. Star Trek Into Darkness is a terrific example of how our society shapes our fiction, and the other way around. You need look no farther than the dedication in the credits to see how wrapped up in social commentary our fiction is.
Star Trek Into Darkness was a moderate box office success. The film had mixed reception from both critics and fans, who largely hailed it as a good popcorn flick but lacking in the lore and depth that made the original Star Trek great. One major criticism of the movie is that it buys too much into Hollywood "guy culture" mythology, for a lack of strong female characters.
Discussion about race, on the other hand, has been scant, but not entirely favorable. I want to focus on one casting choice in particular, however, and how a little bit of revisionist history makes the whole Star Trek franchise more nuanced.
And seriously, stop reading here if you do not want the movie spoiled.
