Star Trek Into Darkness (additional comments)

Have at it, everyone. I'll have my say soon enough. Until then, play nice.

I suspect the only reason I didn't hate it is because I had exactly zero expectations after the substanceless first film.

Something I did despise is how they dealt with the Prime Directive. Apparently the Prime Directive means that a species only deserves to be rescued from annihilation if they have warp drive. Otherwise to hell with them.

And apparently it only takes 15 seconds to warp from Kronos to Earth. For some reason the Klingons never take advantage of that.

I have to say, the movie was exactly what I expected - a highly entertaining popcorn flick with lots and lots of lensflare. Action-wise, this clearly topped the first one. I liked the fact that I got to see all this glory in 3D for the first time.

The movie definitely had a few weak points as well though. I would say the ending was a bit of a letdown. Also, some of the characterizations of the Enterprise's crew were a bit weak. And where was the humor? Most of the jokes didn't work for me. Some did.

This time around, everyone had to know going into this film what to expect. And that's what we got. Except the Spock/Khan thing. That was weird.

I think I'll go with three stars and add a quarter for the incredible audiovisual presentation.

I'm sure it will be the same ultra slick, empty spectacle that the last one was. I believe the original title for this film was:
2 Trek 2 Furious: Alpha Quadrant Drift.

Every time one of these JJTrek films are put out, I feel like I'm in some weird netherworld where most everyone I know can't tell quality from crap. I remember back in 2009, where people were ragging on Transformers 2 and exalting Star Trek 2009. And I kept thinking to myself: "They're the same f***ing movie!"

Saw it last night...and pretty much have to concur with The Sisko and Patrick; just another action-packed romp with little substance. It was entertaining, sure...but, after I left the theater, I had a yearning to go home and watch a REAL Star Trek flick, so I put on ST VI: The Undiscovered Country.

...no, effin' comparison and it made me kinda sad to see what these JJ Abrams ST movies have degenerated into.

I like JJ's take on Trek so far. However, I can't stress this enough: The expanded universe is essential!!

The Countdown comics that came out before the first movie, the Nero comics that explain Nero's time captured with the Klingons, and the ongoing IDW comics that follow what the new crew are doing between movies are crucial for a full understanding of the respect JJ's team is giving to Trek fans. The countdown comics basically are a TNG story 8 years after Nemesis. It starts off by explaining what Spock has been doing since the Unification episodes in season 5 of TNG and gives us so much more info on Nero and why he's a one note revenge villain. It's also nice to see Picard as an admiral, Data as a captain,(yes, Data - Data's neural net was successfully integrated into B4) ...we also get Worf and Geordi. Overall, it tastefully passes the torch to the reboot. I just love the connection to the prime universe that JJ's Trek has in its back-story - a connection that is sadly missed by a lot of fans. (Knowing that Geordi built the Jellyfish ship makes it so much better when watching!)
I also appreciate that the writers make it clear that the Prime universe is still there so I am OK with them doing whatever they want with these new movies.

Having more knowledge due to the expanded universe just makes this new Trek better for me. Maybe you guys read all the comics too and still have lots of problems, but for me the only problems I have with this new Trek are the writers playing it too safe with well tested trek ideas that we've seen many times. The first 20 min of the new movie is Prime Directive 101. Good stuff, but nothing new. However, to the non Trek fan this stuff is probably as golden to them as it was to me the first time I sat with it so it's all good. This is a retelling after all.

I also have no problem with this version of Khan. I like that his history is basically the same, but it's nice they change it up and got Section 31 thinking they need Augments. Section 31 and the Augments are two great elements of trek that never really got fleshed out much. They still don't in this new movie, but it's nice to see that maybe they will at some point in the comics or future movies. At the end of they day, JJ has to make Star Trek for the masses, and he's doing that with respect to the source material... that's all I really asked for.

@V

My problem (among many) with the JJVerse, is that it *shouldn't* have to use supplemental material as a crutch for their films. The onus of telling the story in a full and comprehensive way should be on the makers of the film. I shouldn't have to watch a movie that's full of holes or characters that aren't properly flushed out, to be admonished to read the comics or whatnot.

I just seen Star Trek Into Darkness this evening and I've got to say, I was really impressed! The story was sharp and thrilling, but still packed with emotion and kept the Star Trek ethos close to its core. It was socially responsible Trek for the modern times, with its theme of terrorism and how we need to always keep a firm grip on our humanity especailly in dark times.

The action was so amazing and clever, I loved the rifts on Wrath Of Khan. In a way the movie took elements from every era of Star Trek and celebrated the franchise in a really pleasing way. My only complaint would be that characters like Chekov and Sulu still need to given more attention and this cast doesn't quite have the magic feeling you get when the classic crew was together, but on the whole this movie was much stronger than the last one.

I predict a Jammer rating of 3.5/4!

I totally hear you, Patrick. It's not that great that the first one requires the countdown comic to really get a full grasp, but there is only so much they can do with the task of rebooting and trying to please fans and get lots of new people to like Trek in a 2 hour window.
I like that there is supplemental material because Trek by nature needs more than just 2 hours every few years and since there is no Trek on TV I'm happy they have it for fans like me.

As for Into Darkness... It's a self contained movie for the most part story wise and after the opening scene there is about an hour of development of characters and and of JJ's universe with lots of important story and back story. A lot of reviews say it's good but it's just an action packed popcorn film to turn your brain off too. That is so far from the truth, IMO.

If it were not for the engaging performances of Pine, Quinto and company, this movie would be an unmitigated disaster! This movie is not merely dumb, it's insultingly stupid.

The plot is painfully thin yet needlessly convoluted and nonsensical, the writing has no regard for character motivation or cohesive drama whatsoever and internal logic is thrown out the window immediately. Allusions to a post 9/11 climate are predictably as superficial as they are unfitting, and are abandoned about the time when the plot inconsistencies and story contradictions are beginning to pile up remorselessly.

The references and homages are generally uninspired and lazy, and the final riff on one of the most famous moments in Trek history not only falls completely flat - feeling emotionally unearned and thematically vacant - but its eventual (laughable) resolution is telegraphed so obviously the majority of the audience will see it coming from a mile away, destroying any impact the scene might have had. Never mind that STID is painfully unoriginal when it comes to the oh so hip and contemporary action. Almost every set piece is blatantly stolen from other (better) movies, J.J. Abrams' first Star Trek ironically among them.

I'm normally not overly concerned with (technical) plot holes, but STID's total disregard for how this world operates/why people do what they do is just infuriating. Especially two elements that get introduced over the course of the movie have implication that basically render the Enterprise, Starfleet and one of Wrath of Khan's most potent and poignant themes absolutely void.

And while, as I said above, the performances of the main cast are fine, the characterization of especially Kirk oftentimes feels off. It's one thing to present the Captain of the Enterprise as immature and inexperienced, it's something completely else to paint him as an irresponsible arrogant douche. The sole reason Kirk doesn't come across as an insufferable a-hole is that Pine infuses him with enough charisma and complexity to make him somewhat tolerable. And, of course, there's no real character arc to speak of.

Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain of the piece is sadly absolutely wasted, being reduced to a hissing and growling one-note character. Alice Eve is nothing more than eye-candy - her most memorable scene being the gratuitous underwear shot that was featured in the trailer (yep, as you might have guessed, she strips down for absolutely no reason whatsoever), Anton Yelchin as Chekov is barely in the movie while Karl Urban fantastic Bones unfortunately takes a backseat to the duo Kirk/Spock. Gone are the days of the triumvirate Kirk/Spcke/McCoy. And Zoe Saldana's role as Uhura basically consists of playing the nagging girlfriend of Spock.

To say STID is a disappointment is putting it lightly, even if approached with lowered expectations. Into Darkness is not only a bad Star Trek movie, it's a bad film, period.

I was a little disappointed. These versions of the characters are too new to be re-creating classic scenes, and the movie failed to Leave any emotional impact. And I loved the 2009 film. That felt fresh yet familiar, like coming home after 10 years. This just felt like a run-of-the-mill action film with a bunch of Trek tropes thrown in. I hate to say that, because I really wanted to like the film and will probably see it again.

I wasn't expecting much from the reboot but I was really dissapointed on the same line as Patrick. I was looking forward to some new material with the rebooted universe. Even though I'm not a huge fan of Star Trek (2009), I thought it did a decent job of creating a new story while staying reasonably loyal to the original series.

But this film just seemed totally derivative of Wrath of Khan and did nothing to impress me other than some cool action sequences. It's like Abrams thought it'd be a brilliant idea to rip off the Wrath of Khan, by far my favorite Star Trek film, except Kirk makes the emotional sacrifice and Spock's the one with the vengeance problems. And then of course Kirk is alive by the end of the film because of the miraculous Khan blood.

It was over for me when Kirk died (in a reasonably touching sequence), and then you have Spock yelling "Khan!" at the top of his lungs. I just found that ridiculously campy, and an unneeded reference to the original film while this movie could have had a character of its own.

SPR, you have major spoilers in your review...

I think spoilers are permitted here as this is intended for people who have seen the film and want to discuss it.

I really enjoyed Into Darkness. It certainly had all kinds of flaws, especially where realistic physics and logical consistency are concerned. That said, Into Darkness is a big budget summer blockbuster, geared to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It's virtually a distinct art form, and criticizing it for being what it is is like criticizing an impressionistic painting for not having clean lines and sharply defined shapes. Summer blockbusters may be a poor medium of expression for Star Trek, but that's a different argument. The question should be whether Into Darkness is a good summer blockbuster.

I thought, as in the first movie, that the characters were really solid and well cast. I enjoyed the humor. But overall, the plot was trash. Pure trash. This movie was an abomination on the Khan character. Cumberbatch overacted in every possible way and it became laughable. And Spock yelling out "Khhhhannn!" Jesus Christ what more can I say. It was like a fanboy wrote this movie and thought "Hey wouldnt it be hiliarious if we kill off Kirk instead of Spock and Spock yells Khan!??"

I will say I did like the reference to Section 31, and i loved how Praxas was blowed all up.

The question should be whether it is a good Star Trek film.

Peremensoe asks whether the question shouldn't be, "Is Into Darkness a good Star Trek film?"

To answer such a question, we first need to define what Star Trek is. Despite claiming to be science fiction, Star Trek has almost always sacrificed scientific accuracy in the service of dramatic storytelling. As much as I might like to believe a future like Trek's might become a reality, no episode or film has ever held up to real scientific scrutiny. Furthermore, even the best Star Trek stories are often inconsistent with each other. Therefore I find it difficult to accept that Star Trek is really about a convincing vision of the future.

IMHO, at its most basic, Star Trek is a vehicle for telling stories that empower human beings to understand and improve themselves. I think Into Darkness succeeds at that goal.

I have to agree with a lot of the negative points here, the biggest one being how this movie tries to rip off WoK and fails miserably in the process. It really feels like a pure fanboy film, in a highly unsophisticated way. You can clearly tell J.J. Abrams doesn't know the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek, no matter what he's claiming. To be fair, a lot of that blame should probably go to the writers though. What a cheesy, cartoony, empty, plot-driven script. That said, I did sort of like some of the character interaction in the first half of the movie. But with the appearance of the Dreadnought class ship, things really only go downhill from there. Does every Star Trek movie nowadays have to have a huge antagonist ship serveral times the size of the Enterprise to amplify the bad-ass-ness of the plot's villain? Apparently so. Yawn.

Is the new film pro US and anti-terrorist?

@The Sisko

Those are all very good points. I was watching TWOK and the difference in *tone* in comparison to JJTrek is startling. In fact Trek as we've known it was grounded in sincerity (even the comedy episodes). There was this dedication to a verisimilitude of seriousness that made the low budget, often wacky looking TOS, still come off as something to be taken somewhat seriously. In fact Roddenberry and Co. could have taken the easy route and plunged TOS to be like Lost in Space, but they took the high road and went with a making a thoughtful product. Were all the episodes gems? No. There are even a few that are dumb. But, they TRIED.

JJTrek is this live action cartoon, where you're being jabbed in the ribs every few minutes with "Get it? That's from the old series! Get it?" The main characters come of as caricatures of the original cast. These films have no real dramatic gravity because they're trying to inject too much "kewlness" for the sake of "kewlness" and mindlessly mash humor and drama together willy-nilly. Drama and comedy can co-exist in the same piece, but it takes a nuanced hand--like say, Joss Whedon. And JJ Abrams and Co. aren't in the same galaxy as Joss Whedon.

I don't know if I'm the first to say this but: TREK NEEDS JOSS WHEDON.

@Patrick

I'm VERY enjoyed "Firefly" but... I saw "Avengers" too... "Avengers" was "Transformers 2-3" class brainless acitoneer. Very dull actioneer for worse.

And if hypotetical Whedon-Trek will be I say "Hurrah!" but if it will be next "Avengers" (what is very possible, because Trek movies are blockbusters now)... I say "No f*ckin way!".

Erratum: And if hypotetical Whedon-Trek will be next "Firefly" I say "Hurrah!"/

@Q

The Avengers wasn't perfect by any stretch, but it was miles smarter than Transformers 1,2, and 3. And far, far smarter than the output of Kurtzman, Orci, and Lindelof on their best day.

But, back to Trek...

@Patrick

"Avengers" was smarter? I don't think so. Ok, Whedon's movie disaser has more coherent plot, but not smarter.

And - back to Trek - Kurtzman & Orci's Trek '09 writting was - yes - incoherent mush (with some good points), but... first Abrams' movie in toto have enough power and - hard to define - vitality to entertrain James Cameron himself.

Anyway... I'm enjoyed "Into Darkness". It is not a great movie, but it is very solid (and not stupid, Harrison's blood subplot is questionable, but I've read Greg Bear's "Blood Music"...), with best visual side from TMP's time, and actual, controversial (but not very deep) social message.

Gotta agree with Q on The Avengers. Just a Shallow wam bam fest That I have no need to see again.

Yeah, "Into Drakness" isn't stupid, it's breathtakingly, offensively dumb.

In regards to Whedon:
His "Avengers" is light years ahead of anything that both Abrams (and his trio infernal of writers Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof) and Bay have ever accomplished. It's not perfect by any means, but "Avengers" is a movie with consistent characterization and tone, coherent plotting driven by real character motivation (cause+effect), demonstrating a deft hand for balancing action, suspense, humor etc., its emotional beats work because Whedon understands basic human drama.

Abrams has no interest in telling a cohesive, organic story, he only cares about delivering impressive set pieces that are connected by a perfunctory plot that is a sad pastiche of far better original work.

"Avengers" and "Into Darkness" reside on the opposite ends of the story telling spectrum. The latter is the reason with have so many shallow, empty, emotional dishonest multi-million dollar spectacles. And if we aren't allowed to criticize this kind of brainless blockbuster summer fare, if we are content that these flicks aim for the lowest common denominator and don't demand more for our admission fee, than we - in all honesty - deserve to suffer through "Transformers", "G.I. Joe", "Amazing Spider-Man", "Prometheus" and what have you.

By the way: Every great (or at least good) Star Trek movie simultaneously happens to be a good movie in its own right. ;-)

I am stunned by how this movie got an 87% Rottentomatoes meter. It's an insult to intelligent moviegoers and Trek fans. I'm starting to think the only reason JJTrek gets so much love in critical circles is because of how bad Voyager, Enterprise, and Nemesis were.

@Brandon

I agree in 100%. Not only critics but some fans (this one too ;) ) so enjoyed JJTrek is how trashy VGR, ENT and NEM were*.
But... JJTrek insn't much worse then "First Contact" (called popcorn movie by RDM himself, in Fandom.com iterview).

* Trek without Piller, Moore, Wolfe and - in the case of ENT and NEM - Menosky too, was brain dead, campy piece of s***...

Digedag writes:
"Avengers" and "Into Darkness" reside on the opposite ends of the story telling spectrum. The latter is the reason with have so many shallow, empty, emotional dishonest multi-million dollar spectacles. And if we aren't allowed to criticize this kind of brainless blockbuster summer fare, if we are content that these flicks aim for the lowest common denominator and don't demand more for our admission fee, than we - in all honesty - deserve to suffer through "Transformers", "G.I. Joe", "Amazing Spider-Man", "Prometheus" and what have you.

Into Darkness may be the result of previous summer blockbusters that have succeeded with nonsensical plots (though I don't agree it is), but it can't be the cause, unless you're implying the existence of time travel.

You can certainly criticize such films, but as long as they're earning hundreds of millions of dollars, the studios are motivated to produce more of the same. Expecting them to do otherwise is illogical. Summer blockbusters are a commercial art, and they aren't going to change until large numbers of the movie-watching public stop paying to see them. Organizing boycotts would be a much more successful tactic. Paying to see one is counterproductive, regardless of how much you later criticize it.

Surprised by the negativity here, and not just towards Trek... geez, Avengers was great action/adventure. As for STID, I really enjoyed it. Couple things:

> "shallow, empty, emotional dishonest multi-million dollar spectacles"

Emotionally dishonest?

* Spock has shut himself off after the destruction of Vulcan (makes sense to me)
- and his walls come down when Kirk dies (ditto)

* A much more sympathetic version of Khan than we've ever seen ("Would you not do anything for your family?")

* Kirk coming to grips with a mistake, experiencing a crisis of command, taking responsibility for his actions


Shallow? The movie that *I* saw was asking whether it's possible for Starfleet's peaceful mission to continue in a universe where terrorists, Klingons, and people close to home all wish to do us harm. Kirk and ADM Marcus had different answers to that question. That seems like a real and relevant issue. The debate among the crew about whether to use the long-range torpedoes was, for me, engaging and nuanced, and very in-character ("Spock, don't agree with me. It makes me very uncomfortable.").


> "Does every Star Trek movie nowadays have to have a huge antagonist ship serveral times the size of the Enterprise to amplify the bad-ass-ness of the plot's villain? Apparently so. Yawn."

Sure, point. But another way to look at it is that the dreadnought is ADM Marcus's vision for the future of Starfleet: unmanned (or close to it), focused solely on combat. How many science labs do you think are aboard that ship?

The Prime-universe Starfleet is not a pacifist organization; the Enterprise has always carried weaponry. But the question is, are we out in space to explore and defend ourselves if necessary? Or are we out here to defend ourselves and explore as necessary? Are we SEEKING OUT NEW LIFE, or are we NEUTRALIZING NEW THREATS?

The tension of "how military IS Starfleet?" has been in the background of ST before. (Remember the briefing room in STVI? After it's proposed that the Federation end hostilities with the Klingons, one admiral asks, "Are we talking about mothballing the Fleet?" Spock (I believe) gives him a sour look and says, "our EXPLORATION and SCIENTIFIC missions will be unaffected.")

And it makes sense to me that this question would be coming up in this universe. Remember, this universe had a Romulan ship with unknown tech come out of NOWHERE and destroy a Federation ship and a FLEET of Klingon ships. It wasn't until 30 years after the destruction of the Kelvin that they learned the Narada was from the future. Not that that makes it much better. If the Narada can come back, what's to stop others from doing the same?

IIRC, the Narada was from 170 years in the future. 170 years ago from now is the 1840's. If a modern aircraft carrier went back to the 1840's, how do you think the nations there would respond? Would the Gatling gun have been invented earlier? What about ironclad ships and self-propelled torpedoes? Would the Army take over building the railroads out West? I'd absolutely believe that a post-incursion 1845 would look different than our "Prime" 1845.

Also, WRT the militarization of Starfleet, I read another review that mentioned that the Vulcans would be very much against such a thing, but in the JJVerse, the Vulcans are almost certainly not as influential in the Federation as they were in the Prime universe...

So I think the question of Starfleet's militarization is a logical one for this universe, as well as relevant to our 21st century concerns. At least in the US, we've DEFINITELY seen a militarization of our pop culture in the last decade. STID examines these issues through futuristic allegory, sure, but it asks some tough questions about how we react and respond to threats.


Okay, so the whole thing with Khan's magic blood was a bit hokey. And we all knew that Kirk wasn't going to stay dead. But Kirk staying dead wasn't the point. The point was Kirk CHOOSING to go in to the reactor to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for his actions and his crew. He doesn't order Scotty to do it, even though he could (and Scotty basically volunteers, at least to go with). Earlier, Pike said that Kirk was using blind luck to justify recklessness - this is about what Kirk does when his luck runs out.


So I thought it was much more "Star Trek"-y than ST09 (and I enjoyed the hell of of ST09). Definitely not the brainless actioner that some sectors of fandom want to paint it as.

Matt writes:
So I thought it was much more "Star Trek"-y than ST09 (and I enjoyed the hell of of ST09).

And I agree in 100%. In matter of both JJTreks.

@Clint:
Um ... what? These are just examples of recent movies that fit into that category of movies that despite their severe storytelling shortcomings and flawed execution have achieved a (honestly mind-boggling) huge success at the box office. I'm not saying that "STID" story is a direct consequence of, let's say, the plot shenanigans of "Transformers 2", but the obvious correlation (small hint: $$$) between the success of certain types of film is hard to deny. After all, somebody thought it a brilliant idea to hire Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof despite their dubious track record in the past. And said "Transformers 2" might have been critically panned but it nevertheless made almost a billion dollars worldwide. Of course the fault lies with the audience and their acceptance of bad storytelling.

Now, the consequence for disappointed movie goers would be - as you yourself point out - to stop paying money to see these films at the cinema. And yes, in order to judge a movie's quality one has watch it first. But while this might seem like a catch-22 situation, fortunately, we as intelligent humans have the ability to learn. For instance, the huge disappointment that is "STID" will result in me skipping future projects in which Lindelof, Orci, Kurtzman or Abrams are involved in any noteworthy way from now on. The same course of action applies for projects that are related to the other movies mentioned above. And I can assure you that "STID" won't find its way on my Blu-ray shelf either. So, no ten bucks for Paramount from me. Also, I'm gonna spread the word to all my friends (who know me as a movie aficionado) that they better don't waste two hours of their precious life watching this garbage.

See, there are alternatives to time travel. And if some of the more widely read critics weren't so easily impressionable perhaps a lot of people would think twice before paying their movie ticket. Alas, "STOD"'s current Rottentomatoes rating makes me deeply pessimistic about the state of professional film criticism. But not to go off on yet another tangent ...

Anyway ...


... I have a problem with the notion that these kind of sub-par blockbuster movies are excusable because they are just "big dumb popcorn flicks" and as such inherently stupid and nonsensical anyway. "Die Hard", "Raiders of the lost Ark", "Back to the Future", "The Bourne Trilogy", "The Avengers", "The Terminator", "Inception", "Alien(s)" etc. pp. beg to differ.
Just because a movie falls squarely in the blockbuster category doesn't mean it has to be insultingly dumb.

And it's not as if I'm demanding movies to boast highly sophisticated, cerebral scripts and deeply complex characters that leave a huge impression on me for years to come. ;-)
My complain is leveled at the fact that "STID" (and similar films) disregards basic storytelling fundamentals and constantly violates its own established rules.

@Matt- Thanks for the fact-specific rebuttal to many of the criticisms aimed at this movie. I think that the first question that needs to be asked when criticizing a movie or TV show is "was this entertaining in some way?" "Did it engage my interest?" If a movie fails to do this, it probably will not be a very good movie, let alone a good quote "Star Trek" movie. Ifa person only ooccipies himself with the question of "Is this a good Star Trek movie?" (Whatever that means; what Star Trek "is" is a question to which there can be multiple and even inconsistent answers) Or "Does this movie feel like StarTrek?", cchances are the person will not get around to the "entertaining" question. I find that sad, because preoccupation with the latter two questions can cause q person to refuse to be entertained. I think-I believe-that whatever thing Star Trek is about, or ""stands for," it, at its best, goes about it in an entertaining way. how good did thisnmovie measure up as entertainment? Enough to allow me to say it was worth at least part if the ticket price. That ought to count for something.

By the way, MOVIEBOB tackles "STID" and its many problems in his usual eloquent fashion at:

moviebob.blogspot.de/2013/05/escape-to-movies-star-trek-into-darkness.html

Saw it this evening with my friend who knows very little about Star Trek. He loved it. Which is what the filmmaker wanted. I was entertained but not impressed, if that makes sense. I agree with everybody who says this seemed like it was written by a fanboy. Klingons? Check. Mention Harry Mudd? Check. "Needs of the many?" Check. Tribble? Check. "KHAAAAAN!" Check.

The movie briefly had potential. The temporary teaming of Kirk and Khan. If they continued that, the film could have been original and kept us guessing and debating about what should happen to Khan, after killing dozens then saving thousands. Instead they had to make him Pure Evil and get locked away in some garage.

But seriously that whole flipped Wrath of Khan ending. With Spock screaming KHAN. That's straight out of some very cheesy fan fiction.

Is it too soon to warp through the plotholes?

It appears Scotty's magical transwarp beaming formula allows one to beam from Earth to Kronos?? Aren't we talking hundreds of light years? (And lucky for Admiral Marcus that Khan chose to beam there, or else his Master Plan would've been worthless) So do we even need Starships to explore strange new worlds? Why build a massive starship to battle Klingons? Why not simply beam an invasion force to Kronos?

Where was the rest of the entire Starfleet when two starships were battling in Earth's solar system? It was nice, FOR ONCE, to see a city other than San Francisco be the target for the enemy. But that changed later in the film with Khan crashing his ship there. I know its Starfleet HQ, but insurance rates for the locals must be through the roof

Carol Marcus with a British accent? And explain to me why she stripped down? Bibi Besch is spinning in her grave.

Spock calls Leonard Nimoy for advice on Khan. Nimoy says he wouldn't divulge information, and proceeds to divulge information. Spock asked Nimoy how they beat Khan. What, if any, advice did Nimoy give and when was it put to use?

The film spent a great deal of time inventing plot twists and then undoing them:

Kirk loses command, Spock gets transferred. Then are reunited when the first crisis occurs.

Khan is played as sympathetic, Kirk temporarily allies with him. Undone when Khan betrays them.

Kirk dies a heroic death, tears are flowing, then the laughable miracle cure. Khan's blood can cure anything! Do you think this will ever be put to use again??

The more I actually think about the film, the more I dislike it.

@matt - I echo Dan regarding your excellent rebuttal towards all the negativity and criticisms.

I think this film had far more substance than ST09. The scene after Nibiru between Pike and kirk about prime directive was awesome.

I also enjoyed scotty`s resignation; the 72 torpedo dilemma; the `sentenced to death without trial` quandry; the militirization of starfleet; the foreshadowing of a Klingon war; McCoy`s arm caught in torpedo; the attack on starfleet HQ.


Overall a very solid, entertaining movie. My only gripe was the unnecessary 'one tear falling down cheek' scenes; way too many of those. lol

I don't really understand the negativity toward this movie either. Sure, it's a blockbuster, popcorn, action movie. But wasn't First Contact, too? And that movie gets much less hate, it's widely considered the best TNG movie.

@matt pretty much sums up how I feel. It's a very entertaining action movie with great acting, great set pieces and a fast, unrelenting pace. It's not perfect, but I think it's a very good action film.

Hopefully, the popularity of the JJ films bodes well for another Trek TV Show!

Really interesting reactions.

I'm not sure how I feel about STID yet. I noticed some logical gaffes -- how quickly the Enterprise can get from Earth to Kronos and back being chief among them. But I certainly don't hate the movie as some posters do.

Ultimately, I think the creators tried to jam too much plot in and didn't really let it breath. To have Kirk go from captain of the Enterprise back to the Academy(!) to Pike's first officer to captain again in 10 minutes was a bit much. I have a hard time seeing how Kirk would have been sent back to the Academy -- it they're going to do that, wouldn't they just court-martial him? Cutting out that machination and simply making him Pike's first officer would have been a better, more believable route.

The movie also suffers from something that happened a lot in the original Trek movies (and sometimes on the TV show). Why aren't other ships responding to the situations the Enterprise finds itself in?

It was just ridiculous to think that the Klingons wouldn't send ships to intercept the Enterprise (and intercepting Kirk's shuttle doesn't count). It's almost as ridiculous that the Enterprise and the Vengeance are left alone when they're in Earth's orbit. You can sort of shrug that one off more easily because of the attack on Starfleet, Admiral Marcus's involvement, etc. But it's still a plot hole.

All that said, I think JJJ get the characterizations right. Pine does pretty well as a younger version of Kirk. Keep in mind that this movie takes place in 2259, whereas Kirk's original 5-year mission on TV was in 2264 and on. That's a significant five years that would have allowed Kirk to grow up a lot.

Spock is also about right as a younger version of the character we see in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and on. He's really by the book, but he's not that confident about it. Throw in the destruction of Vulcan in ST, and the rest makes sense.

I actually thought Scotty's role in STID makes perfect sense and was well done (his rapport with Kirk is something that's stronger in the new movies -- which makes sense given the events of ST). McCoy is also about on par with what we see in TOS, which also makes sense as he's older than Kirk and Spock. I generally thought Sulu and Checkov were right, and Uhura (who is the biggest character departure from TOS) felt consistent from the 2009 movie.

Is the new Khan better? I'd have to say 'no', but it's a different take that I didn't mind. New Khan is much less flamboyant but he also feels more dangerous. It was a different take, but not a bad one.

Last point: I have a feeling that JJJ was still in setup mode in a lot of ways with this movie. It's possible that when this series of films is done, they'll work better as a group. This is particularly important with the Carol Marcus character, but it's also possible that the "Problems within Starfleet" will play a bigger role. It is worth noting that Admiral Marcus might have been over the top -- and how he built a ship without anybody noticing is kind of ridiculous. But it was in response to events of the first movie. In other words, one of the charter worlds of the Federation was just destroyed. It's not hard to believe that Starfleet would go a little darker than it did in the timeline in TOS when Vulcan was still, you know, in existence.

This movie really annoyed me. I sat through most of it with a mix of occasional amusement and probably more frequently eye-rolling. I was waiting for it to build up to the point where I could say I was impressed.

Instead, it built up to that ending. That ending. It was then I got annoyed.

I will admit I thought the idea of role reversal as quite cute at first. However, the scene falls completely flat for two main reasons:
1) We know the magic blood will undo everything within 5 minutes.
2) It's far, far too early in this franchise iteration to be doing this. They've shot the kill-off-a-main-character fox and the Kirk/Spock dynamic isn't nearly mature enough yet (I don't buy them as BFF's despite the movie's attempts to ram this fact down our throats).

And those criticisms are the general audience ones. When you're a fan of franchise, and in particular TWOK, the problems are only compounded by have awkwardly self-conscious this Easter egg is, how much not as good as the original version scene this is, and how patronising it is that the writers thought that this kind of gimmic is what will amuse us.

And then Spock yells KHAAAAAN!

I will give the movie credit for trying to be about something, but primitive neocon-bashing does not count as "substance". I can swallow the idea that Nero's time travel has accelerated the technology curve in the alternate universe, but thinly-veiled anti-Bush stuff has been done to death for a decade now, and I'm highly disappointed that (admittedly liberal) Hollywood writers can't come up with anything more.

And that doesn't excuse the feverish cribbing and half-assed "homage moments". Nemesis got relentlessly clobbered for apeing just the PLOT of Wrath of Khan, yet this butchered copy gets a pass? Iron Man 3 had thrice the wit and intelligence of this plot.

Personnally, I can't say I was disappointed. I expected a turn-off-your-brain 2.5 star "movie" (as opposed to a "film") and that's what I got.

There were things that were better than expecetd. The opening sequence was good overall. The Enterprise rising out of the water was one of the coolest things I've ever seen. Some of the characterization in the first half was good.

What didn't work at all were the references to WoK (the comparison between the two is not in its favour), and most of the perfunctory yet apparently obligatory ship-in-danger sequence at the end. I kept wondering how Scotty could be the only competent engineer on the ship, and how ridiculous it was that you could literally "kick-start" the engines.

Oh well, at least we have the original films.

Well that Cetacean Probe is still en route and much as Spock Prime has no plans to intervene in this timeline he really needs to give the guys a wake up call on this so we can avoid Star Trek III - The Search for Whales.

Seeing STID on Thursday but have been massively spoiled. I am open minded though.

> But it was in response to events of the first movie. In other words, one of the charter worlds of the Federation was just destroyed. It's not hard to believe that Starfleet would go a little darker than it did in the timeline in TOS when Vulcan was still, you know, in existence.

DING DING DING. We have a winner!

For such a "dumb" movie, the changes in the universe make an awful lot of sense, if you think them through. It's not just "business as usual" after the destruction of Vulcan. Would we want it to be?


> Spock asked Nimoy how they beat Khan. What, if any, advice did Nimoy give and when was it put to use?

I too would like to have seen what Spock Prime said. That said - are you REALLY complaining about this:

> Spock calls Leonard Nimoy for advice on Khan. Nimoy says he wouldn't divulge information, and proceeds to divulge information.

Did you see the same scene that I did? Spock Prime said that he had taken a vow to let NuSpock live his own life... but IN THIS CASE he would make an exception.

Because Khan's actions KILLED SPOCK PRIME. Remember that?

SRSLY PEOPLE. Wow... Talk about grasping at straws. (More on this when I play ship's counselor, below.)


Also: Did you see the look in Spock Prime's eyes through that scene? Amazing. (Man, Nimoy's still got it.)



> The film spent a great deal of time inventing plot twists and then undoing them

> Kirk loses command, Spock gets transferred. Then are reunited when the first crisis occurs.

Yes and no. Kirk needs to feel the consequences of breaking the PD. And given all the (justified) harping about how he GOT to the chair in ST09, I thought that having Pike (of all people) take it away and say he "wasn't ready" was powerful stuff. Clearly it hits Kirk hard.

If Kirk hadn't had that experience, the whole movie would have played out differently. I think the pre-Nibiru Kirk would have probably fired the torpedoes (and killed Harrison without a trial, and probably sparked a war, and probably gotten himself and his crew killed when either the Klingons or the Vengeance showed up).

In the aftermath of the attack, I can totally see why ADM Marcus would give the ship back to Kirk. Remember, Marcus is USING Kirk. And the Kirk who shows up in Marcus's office to demand that he be allowed to go after Harrison is the PERFECT tool for Marcus. Kirk in Marcus's office is SEETHING with rage, which is JUST what Marcus wants: someone who needs an authority figure and will shoot first and ask questions later (if at all).

And if Kirk wants Spock back, why would Marcus care? Marcus has probably never said 2 words to Spock. (In fact, allowing Kirk to have Spock back was probably Marcus's biggest mistake. Imagine how things would have played out without Spock.)

Seems kinda hard to call it a plot hole when it's one character manipulating another.

Oh wait, sorry, I forgot: this movie is "dumb". Characters would certainly not try to manipulate each other. I guess that having Marcus explain everything in detail to the audience would make the movie SO much smarter.


> Khan is played as sympathetic, Kirk temporarily allies with him. Undone when Khan betrays them.

To be fair (to the genetically-enhanced superman dictator - he doesn't need my help, does he?), Kirk betrayed Khan first when Kirk ordered Scotty to stun Khan.

I will say that Khan's motivation to destroy the Enterprise after taking back the Vengeance could have been better explained.


> Kirk dies a heroic death, tears are flowing, then the laughable miracle cure. Khan's blood can cure anything! Do you think this will ever be put to use again??

It might be. Transwarp beaming was. The writers seem to have taken the changes to the universe really seriously.


> I expected a turn-off-your-brain 2.5 star "movie" (as opposed to a "film") and that's what I got.

You and I were watching different movies. While you turned off your brain, I was thinking about the ethics of drone strikes and how we respond (and over-respond) to terrorism.

This movie reminded me of one of DS9's significant themes: holding Star Trek's peaceful vision of the future up to real scrutiny. STID asks how we can still have a positive, peaceful future in a world with terrorism and drone strikes.

But you might have missed all that, since you determined ahead of time to turn off your brain.


> What didn't work at all were the references to WoK (the comparison between the two is not in its favour), and most of the perfunctory yet apparently obligatory ship-in-danger sequence at the end.

Let's look at the comparable sequence from WoK. The Reliant has been crippled, Khan "spits his last breath at thee", and activates Genesis. The Enterprise has no warp drive so they beat feet on impulse. But they're not gonna make it without warp power.

Using your reasoning, we could say that this part of WoK is also a "perfunctory yet apparently obligatory ship-in-danger sequence".

Since you seem to have missed it, the POINT of these sequences is to see how our CHARACTERS RESPOND to the ship in danger - to see WHAT THEY DO in an imminent-doom, no-win scenario.


The "falling" sequence was, for me, tense, thrilling, and visually spectacular. I'd even say that watching the ship descend, and Kirk/Scotty make their way to the warp core, was way more exciting than watching the Enterprise fly away from the Reliant on impulse while a countdown plays on the bridge.

Yup, I just compared STID to WoK and STID won. (And I prefer WoK to STID overall. But not by much.)


> I kept wondering how Scotty could be the only competent engineer on the ship, and how ridiculous it was that you could literally "kick-start" the engines.

Who says that Scotty is the only competent engineer? Kirk doesn't go in the core because he thinks Scotty isn't competent. Where is THAT coming from?

The warp core is clearly not designed to be kicked. I think they need to put a warning label on it: PLEASE DO NOT KICK THE CORE. (That was a joke, in case you're humor-impaired.)


> We know the magic blood will undo everything within 5 minutes.

Sure. At the end of the reactor scene, my girlfriend leaned over to me and whispered, "they can use Khan's blood!"

But KIRK DOESN'T KNOW THAT. There's no way he could POSSIBLY know that: he hadn't seen Khan's blood heal the little girl or the Tribble. The point of the scene is not "will Kirk live or die?" The point of the scene is that KIRK TAKES RESPONSIBILITY in the ultimate way. The point is that the Kirk who goes into the reactor is NOT the Kirk who earlier said, "So they saw us, what's the big deal?" Pike is right that the "no big deal" Kirk doesn't respect the chair. The Kirk who goes into the reactor, does - because he has gone through CHARACTER GROWTH DURING THE MOVIE. (Oh, but wait, that can't happen, because this movie is "dumb".)

Again drawing a parallel: Does knowing that Spock comes back diminish the power of the scene in WoK? Not for me, because Spock makes the choice not knowing that he'll be back. The scene isn't about PLOT TENSION, it's about CHARACTER.


----


If I can play ship's counselor for a minute...

It almost seems like a lot of people are determined that they WILL NOT LIKE this movie, or the rebooted Trek in general. And that's fine. But let's not pretend it's because the film is "dumb", and let's not pretend that a film can't have BOTH fast-paced action AND philosophical depth.

I have no argument with anyone who says they don't like the style, pacing, or aesthetics of NuTrek. It's definitely a departure, and JJ's direction is very distinctive. You can tell that it's not Nicholas Meyer directing these. I love Nicholas Meyer's Trek films, and I'd love to see more of them. But if you wanted NuTrek to be a Meyer film, well, sorry, it's not. These movies are big, bold, and brash - and if that's not your thing, FINE. But "it's different and not really my thing" and "it's crap" are NOT THE SAME THING.

> the writing has no regard for character motivation or cohesive drama whatsoever and internal logic is thrown out the window immediately.

Character motivations may not be laid out on a platter for you, but as I've indicated, they are there. My last post didn't even get into all of them, such as the excellent work with Scotty.


> Allusions to a post 9/11 climate are predictably as superficial as they are unfitting, and are abandoned about the time when the plot inconsistencies and story contradictions are beginning to pile up remorselessly.

The militarization of Starfleet is clearly not "superficial", as it becomes evident that the HEAD OF STARFLEET is a WAR-MONGER. Fitting? Well, as I mentioned earlier, how is this a surprise when Spock is a member of an ENDANGERED SPECIES now?


> The references and homages are generally uninspired and lazy,

I thought Chekov's look of terror when Kirk tells him to put on a red shirt was hilarious.

Spock's "needs of the many" quote was apt and a great character moment - this is someone who's willing to lay down his life for a planet of natives who have "barely discovered the wheel". A man of deep principles, is Spock.

"I'm a doctor, not a torpedo technician!" Heh. Classic him.


> the final riff on one of the most famous moments in Trek history not only falls completely flat - feeling emotionally unearned and thematically vacant

If it didn't work for you, fine. It worked for me because it IS emotionally earned. As I mentioned before, I think Kirk's sacrifice is the PERFECT cap to his character arc in this movie.


> its eventual (laughable) resolution is telegraphed so obviously the majority of the audience will see it coming from a mile away, destroying any impact the scene might have had.

The impact is character, not plot.


> It's one thing to present the Captain of the Enterprise as immature and inexperienced, it's something completely else to paint him as an irresponsible arrogant douche.

I can totally believe that NuKirk would be an "irresponsible arrogant douche". Kirk Prime certainly had his arrogant moments, and NuKirk hasn't had the tempering, experience, or father figure as his Prime counterpart. He's still a natural leader but he's not the great Kirk we're used to.

I'm fine with that. That's interesting. It gives the character somewhere to go.


> And, of course, there's no real character arc to speak of.

If there's no arc, then why does Kirk - who said the Prime Directive is "no big deal" - sacrifice himself?

If there's no arc, then why does Spock - who doesn't understand why Kirk saved him from the volcano - lose control when Kirk dies?


> Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain of the piece is sadly absolutely wasted, being reduced to a hissing and growling one-note character.

A hissing, growling character who is concerned for his crew and motivated in part by grief. (He attacks London because he thinks they've been killed by Starfleet. Am I the only one who saw this movie?)


> Alice Eve is nothing more than eye-candy

Eye candy who can defuse an experimental torpedo and won't be beamed out to save herself.


> Anton Yelchin as Chekov is barely in the movie

Yeah, Chekov is hard to do much with. That's a benefit of TV shows - we can explore the secondary characters more. It was fun to see him out of his comfort zone, though.


> Karl Urban fantastic Bones unfortunately takes a backseat to the duo Kirk/Spock

Bones made at least as big an impression on me here as in ST09. Plus he's a key part of the ethical debate ("Don't agree with me, Spock."), and he gets to be a DOCTOR for real. I'd like him to have more, sure, because the actor and character are terrific.


> Zoe Saldana's role as Uhura basically consists of playing the nagging girlfriend of Spock.

And keeping her cool while negotiating with trigger-happy Klingons.


Seriously, did we see the same movie?

Matt, you are the man!!! I definitely saw the same movie you did. Awesome posts!

I'll just repaste my review from Amazon.com here:

I might be the only person on Earth who liked this movie more than I liked Abrams' Star Trek 2009. Unfortunately, that's partly because I disliked the 2009 Star Trek. But Into Darkness does have stunning visuals, some fun moments, and a much more compelling villain. It seems overall that viewers who don't know much about Star Trek seem to enjoy this movie and Abrams' larger take on Trek, whereas many viewers who do know Trek despise this movie. I'm more of the latter category (I've watched Trek since 1994), and while I don't *hate* Abrams' versions there are serious problems. Here are my thoughts.

SPOILER WARNING: I've included spoilers in my review. I found out about some key moments in the film before having seen it. I think in retrospect it was a good thing. There are some moments in the movie that can be maddening for Trek fans and having them spoiled actually allowed me to get my frustration out of my system before seeing the movie. I think I enjoyed the movie more having been spoiled. IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS, DON"T READ THIS REVIEW.

THE STORY

I love the beginning of this movie. Basically, Kirk violates the Prime Directive to save Spock. However, Spock reports him and Kirk gets demoted. The story connects to classic Trek and it gives the characters more emotional weight.

Unfortunately, the movie doesn't really continue with this intro. The rest of the movie follows rogue Starfleet officer John Harrison, who engages in several acts of terrorism against Starfleet. This part of the movie becomes a bit convoluted. Basically, the entire plot is an attempt by Starfleet Admiral Marcus to frighten Starfleet and to start a war with the Klingons, but what a convoluted way of going about it. When Harrison flees to the Klingon homeworld, Marcus sends the Enterprise to Kronos (yes, it's misspelt in the movie) to kill him. This part of the movie is fun, but a bit short on logic. Apparently, nobody thought to make diplomatic overtures to the Klingons to request that they return Harrison. Given that Harrison seems not to get along with the Klingons, it's hard to imagine they'd keep him.

I wish the movie had explored the consequences of Kirk's violating the Prime Directive and show Kirk actually struggle to get his command back. However, he's back in the captain's chair within a few minutes. This is fine. It gives the initial scenes a bit less emotional weight, but the second third of the movie is still fun. Where the movie really weakens though is the final third. It basically becomes a rehash of The Wrath of Khan. Things happen way too quickly, without any space to breath and let the emotional impact of events sink in.

There are a bunch of stupid plot twists that drove me nuts. Why on Earth was the Enterprise underwater in the beginning of the movie? I'm sure it was because Abrams thought it would look cool, but it makes no sense. Why would Admiral Marcus tell Kirk to fire torpedoes with Khans crew at Kronos? Why not just regular torpedoes? Sure, you could come up with contrived explanations, but like the 2009 movie this movie stretches logic.

THE VILLAIN

Given that I claim the final third of the movie borrows heavily from The Wrath of Khan, it's worth mentioning that John Harrison is Khan. Yes, despite all denials to the contrary, he is Khan. This is both good and bad. Benedict Cumberbatch is one of the few actors who can bring enough menace and charisma to the character to make a believable Khan. However, in this movie Khan's motives are pretty mundane. He just wants to get his 72 crew members back. Khan here has no ambitions to rule the galaxy, no epic quest for revenge. In fact, in one scene, Khan actually tears up when talking about his crew.

In short, while there was potential, Khan in this movie just never rises to the level of epic villain. The only reason anybody would care about Khan is because of the legacy of The Wrath of Khan. For much of the movie, Abrams could have substituted almost any other name for John Harrison without changing the villain's role. In fact, by making the villain Khan, I think it forced viewers who had seen Star Trek II to drew too many comparisons with Khan from that movie. It might have been better to just have had a fresh villain, perhaps a human or alien terrorist.

THE CHARACTERS

As with the 2009 Star Trek, I'm impressed with how well the new batch of actors mimic their counterparts from the Original Series. That said, Into Darkness is even less about the ensemble and more about the Kirk and Spock bromance. There are two problems here. First, one of the key relationship dynamics in the Original Series was the three-way dialogue between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Spock represented logic, McCoy represented emotion, and Kirk was the balance. However, in the Abrams movies McCoy has been relegated to a background character and to compensate has taken Kirk to an emotional extreme. I think there's a real opportunity missed for a band of brothers relationship between the three men.

Second, Spock is just too emotional. I don't mean that Vulcans never have emotions. However, in the Abrams movies, especially Into Darkness, Spock's default is emotional. This becomes particularly bad near the end, when Spock becomes enraged, yells "KHAAAAAN!", and goes off to chase Khan. The problem is that we never see Zachary Quinto's Spock as the cool, collected, logical Vulcan we see from the TV series and original movies. It's fine to show Spock's emotional side sometimes, but making him too emotional minimizes those moments.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

This is really where the movie shines. Abrams really knows how to paint a pretty picture. The intro sequence with the red planet and the white aliens with yellow robes was wonderful. The battle scenes are intense and when the Enterprise takes damage it really appears pretty damaged. Despite my other complaints, I do wish other Star Trek movies looked this good.

That said, the movie just doesn't slow down. There's no room for viewers to breath and absorb the emotional impact of events. Nicholas Meyer, director of Star Trek II & VI, says it's important to make some scenes special and some scenes mundane. However, in Abrams' movies, all of the scenes are so bold and busy that viewers really don't get a sense of which, if any scenes, are special (perhaps except radiation chamber scene). It's like a roller coaster ride with lots of ups and downs but to straightaways.

THE ENDING

As I said above the final third of the movie was the biggest disappointment. There's a situation where Spock grieves for Kirk. It's pretty much a direct rip on Wrath of Khan. I'm fine with a subtle homage. But what really frustrated me was that the end sequence is just a big fistfight between Khan and Spock. The scene lacks any tension and moreover takes place on a moving transport shuttle on Earth in broad daylight. While I think Abrams usually gets the visuals right, here the visuals were not only silly but also didn't provide a climax for the final battle. There was no battle of wits, just a pedestrian brawl.

One reviewer (I think the Transporter Room 3 podcast) said it best: at this point, the characters haven't earned this ending. We've only had one movie before this one with Kirk and Spock. It's not clear how that emotional became so deep. It just doesn't work when viewers know that Kirk will be resurrected. I think the ending could have been just as effective if Uhura had died, and made more sense.

THE VERDICT

Overall I give Into Darkness 3.5 stars. It's better than the 2009 Star Trek in my opinion, but Abrams still doesn't seem to understand Star Trek. This is all popcorn movie with little intellectual or emotional heft. More importantly, Abrams seems a bit too willing to make large leaps in logic and to fall back on action sequences rather than develop the plot. I'd still recommend seeing it. Despite my complaints, I did enjoy the movie and I'll buy the blu-ray. It just lacks the thoughtfulness of Star Treks II and VI, and that's a shame. If Abrams does make another sequel, I'd recommend he watch Star Trek II and VI, but not just to copy the plot twists, but also the thoughtfulness in those films.

I also enjoyed Into Darkness more than its predecessor, but it was also riddled with plot holes, questionable dialogue, and a script that felt like it needed at least another draft. As ever, there were action setpieces galore to the exclusion of more careful development of characters and plots. Others have touched on the retread nature of this movie, and I don't have much to add, except that none of the emotional payoff that was intended by much of the ending was earned, and so it fell flat.

> Am I the only one who saw this movie?

Well, you seem to be the only one that saw an alternate version of the "Into Darkness" - after our time line was altered thanks to one extremely upset fan who traveled back in time and prevented the quartet of Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof from ever becoming engaged with the franchise - that was directed by Joss Whedon. ;-)

Well, it's pretty obvious that we have extremely different opinions regarding Into Darkness' respective merits and shortcomings. So, it's rather unlikely that I'm going to change your mind. And that's okay, different tastes and stuff :-)), but just a few things to contemplate:


> The militarization of Starfleet is clearly not "superficial", as it becomes evident that the HEAD OF STARFLEET is a WAR-MONGER. Fitting? Well, as I mentioned earlier, how is this a surprise when Spock is a member of an ENDANGERED SPECIES now?

Oh, how does this make itself felt apart from one war-mongering Admiral? How does Starfleet demonstrate this supposed development? How come this is a "Section 31" operation, an organization that works separately from the rest of the Federation and most importantly in absolute secrecy (but has a dockyard with a secret battle ship in plain sight) because their actions wouldn't possibly approved and sanctioned by the officials?
There are no real reverberations, no apparent evidence of this alleged change of attitude in Starfleet's modus operandi. Nor does the tone of the film reflect this in any significant way. For all we care, ol' Robocop could have acted out a revenge scheme because the Klingons killed his son during a camping trip, it wouldn't make a difference. He tells us some paranoid alibi reasoning about inevitable war or whatever, but it's ultimately an empty motivation spouted by a character that - like his daughter - serves only one purpose, to propel the plot forward. It's not reflected by the actual world the character inhabit. We're just told - in the most clumsy and unsubtle way imaginable - something without actually showing us some proof.

Hell, Spock who - as you mention - is part of an endangered species doesn't even weight in on the matter. Clearly, since he's directly affected, he could provide some interesting insight, perhaps some divisive and polarizing (logical) arguments. Or any other character could reflect on whether Admiral Robocop's private little war (HA!) is justified given the oh so dire situation of Starfleet. But this would require to actual deal with a complex topic, to offer different viewpoints embodied by characters who have an actual, understandable motivation to feel that way. But I guess it's difficult to address political and moral issues other than in a perfunctory way when you want to craft an entertaining space romp. Oh wait, "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" totally did touch upon these things while delivering an enjoyable movie going experience.


> Eye candy who can defuse an experimental torpedo and won't be beamed out to save herself.

Yeah, she's a story telling device to further the plot, not a character. See above.


> A hissing, growling character who is concerned for his crew and motivated in part by grief. (He attacks London because he thinks they've been killed by Starfleet.

Still a one-dimensional character though. There's no complexity or depth. Most important, him being Khan is absolute negligible. In fact, the narrative would have worked better if he would have been an original antagonist created from scratch. After all, what idiot thinks he can force a megalomaniacal war criminal to do his dirty work for him because he thinks he has some leverage (Khan's cryogenically frozen pals). Probably the same who conceives an needlessly convoluted plan to start a war.

Absolute wasted potential.


> And keeping her cool while negotiating with trigger-happy Klingons.

So, she speaks Klingon and doesn't tremble with fear when confronted with a potentially dangerous situation. That's a skill set expected of a Starfleet officer I'd argue. Bravery is a trait. This has not really something to do with good characterization. Every emotional reaction and behavior displayed by Uhura over the course of "STID" is Spock-related. Gee, the time line shift obviously somehow erased feminism.


> I thought Chekov's look of terror when Kirk tells him to put on a red shirt was hilarious.

Apart from the fact that "Red-shirt" gags at this point are becoming tiresome (after all, ST09 already milked this particular cliché), but this kind of "Get it! Get it! We poking fun at your old boring Trek. Aren't we hip!" is just infuriating because it's just lazy. That's the equivalent of name-dropping. Oh, wasn't there some mention of a certain Christine Chapel and a guy named Mudd?

Hey, Nothing against a clever reference or an affectionate homage, but this kind of smug back-slapping just leads to eye-rolling on my part. The "The needs of the many" falls in the same category. It wants to be profound, but a) comes at a time when the audience has just settled into their seats b) is, again, a rehash of a sentiment that has not been earned yet, lacking the necessary build-up. In the end you're left with another shallow reference that the audience recognizes because it's endlessly parroted in pop culture ever since, but that once had an actual conviction behind its utterance, a deeper meaning thanks to its careful setup that led to a real - and earned - emotional response.


> The impact [Kirk's "death"] is character, not plot.

It has no meaning if we know that he'll be resurrected ten minutes later. This COMPLETELY undermines the emotional resonance of the scene.
Also, in order for this to actually provoke a genuine reaction from the audience, it takes time to digest. This, however, is rather difficult if the movie moves along at breakneck-speed, immediately indulging in the next poorly though-out action set piece. Never mind the fact that this scene is a poor and frankly unimaginative rehash of one of the most famous and gut-punching sequences in Star Trek history, thus severely diminishes its intended impact. And, of course, this scene comes far too early in the lives of these (new) characters. Again, we aren't nearly as involved in their friendship as we were when "Wrath" came around.
Also, I fail to see how the Prime Directive fits into Kirk sacrificing himself at the end of the movie.


And one thing. Kirk doesn't really take responsibility for his actions. And by the way, how lazy is it for the movie to have one person (Pike) straight up tell the audience what character arc the protagonist has to to undergo before the credits roll? Film is a visual medium, for crying out load! Show, don't tell. Anyway, Kirk risks his life to save his crew. Nice sentiment (although to be expected of a Captain, I guess), but that's not the same as taking responsibility. See, Kirk risks his life all the time for other people. He does so at the beginning at the movie when he steals the holy script of the native inhabitants of the planet to distract them. He risks his life (and that of everyone on the ship) to save Spock. He puts his life constantly on the line throughout the film, sometimes to save other people. Too bad this movie doesn't explore the heroes mortality like "Wrath" did, but wants us make to believe that Kirk learns to take responsibility.

You know what would have been a sign of character growth and acceptance of the consequences of rash and short-sighted decisions? Ordering Scotty to climb into that radioactive chamber to repair the damage and live with the knowledge that Scotty's resulting death is his fault. After all, Kirk is the Captain. Leaving the ship without its freakin' commanding officer in an emergency situation to fix a broken the drive core although an engineer is far more suited for this job, thus diminishing the chance of success ... is pretty irresponsible (also, dumb). Hell, that was even a major plot (that beautifully tied into the characterization of one character) point in one of the later TNG episodes.

On that thought:

> It[Kirk's sacrifice] worked for me because it IS emotionally earned.

How is it emotionally earned. When a) did Kirk realize the fundamental(!) errors of his ways and b) adjusted his behavior accordingly? When did we see him actually mature? I sincerely hope you're not referring to when he apologizes to the crew on the bridge. Acknowledging his mistake when facing imminent annihilation hardly qualifies as serious character development. Admitting a wrong (and obvious) decision, especially given the circumstances, is hardly earning him respect or can be interpreted as a sign of real character growth. Neither is the act of sacrifice symbolic when the character in question isn't afraid to risk his life for the sake of other people and has done so numerous times up to this point.




So, now Star Trek is a universe in which death is a minor inconvenience and almost instantly curable thanks to 72 frozen "Übermenschen", which the movie conveniently forgot about when Bones desperately needed that blood sample.
Long-distance beaming across the whole quadrant is possible, basically making space flight obsolete. Although beaming a moving object still only works when the plot demands it.
A war with the Klingon Empire impending (or are they gonna let the violation of their territory and killing of over a dozen warriors go unpunished).

PS: I apologize for numerous typos in my last comment. It's late and English is not my native tongue, so there are bound to be some grammatical hiccups that went unnoticed.

I submit DS9's "Trials and Tribble-ations" as an example of how to do affectionate, subtle references to TOS.

JJTrek's nods to TOS are about as subtle as an SNL sketch.

Patrick, as much as I love the Trials and Tribble-ations episode, I wouldn't call it subtle! But you're right, that's how you pay an homage with respect. It also acknowledges that it's resting on the shoulders of greatness AND adds a new, unique twist.

> You know what would have been a sign of character growth and acceptance of the consequences of rash and short-sighted decisions? Ordering Scotty to climb into that radioactive chamber to repair the damage and live with the knowledge that Scotty's resulting death is his fault.

Wow, great minds think alike. Digedag, I had the same thought. There's actually a TNG episode in which Troi has to order Geordi to his death in a holodeck training simulation. That scene was a powerful moment for Troi, and that was the lesson Kirk needed to learn in this movie.

"I'm starting to think the only reason JJTrek gets so much love in critical circles is because of how bad Voyager, Enterprise, and Nemesis were."


Voyager was... bad?

LOL, in my opinion it was way better than TNG and Deep Space.

"Most important, him being Khan is absolute negligible. In fact, the narrative would have worked better if he would have been an original antagonist created from scratch."

There are actually a lot of good choices that were missed. Captain Garth, Commodore Decker or Gary Mitchell all would have been better choices than Khan here, although only Garth could have plausibly had magic blood.

"It has no meaning if we know that he'll be resurrected ten minutes later. This COMPLETELY undermines the emotional resonance of the scene."

Exactly. Spock's death in TWOK worked because NOBODY, including the writers, knew he was going to be resurrected later. When Picard was assimilated by the Borg, Patrick Stewart's contract was up in the air and it was totally plausible that he might not be coming back. When the Enterprise, no bloody A, B, C or D, was destroyed in TSFS, it at least stayed destroyed until the end of the next movie, and there was no guarantee there would actually be a Star Trek IV.

This is more like when Tom Paris turned into a lizard. Some magic medi-babble and he just gets better. Did anybody believe he was going to stay dead? Not for a minute.

Unfortunately, the circumstances where this works are mostly outside the writer's control, and don't come around all that often. You've either got to be prepared to *really* kill your main characters, or you've got to get your emotional impact from somewhere else. Otherwise it just feels cheap.

And I agree that *this* version of the characters have not "earned" the kind of friendship that they are trying to portray. In 2009, Kirk and Spock could barely stand each other.

The thing is, I really like these actors and this take on the characters (except Simon Pegg, because Scotty was never a comic relief character... except in Final Frontier, and we all know how THAT turned out). I wish the reboot-trek had been done as a TV show, with the same cast. But then... "The casting was great but everything else was terrible," that's pretty much everything JJ Abrams has ever done.

I don’t know where to begin. It is a nice looking film. I’ll give them that. I wasn’t bored. I’ll give them that. They can quote Star Trek history but they don’t understand it. And the plot just doesn’t make a whole hell of a lot of sense. Might I add, that Khan as the villain will go down as the worst-kept secret of the year. Did anybody actually go into the film not suspecting the guy was really Khan?

Why Khan? I guess they wanted the reaction I heard in the audience when I saw it. Two out of 100 people loudly whispering “YES!” when he said “My name is Khan”. Other than that, why Khan? Those unfamiliar with the Trek universe just knew Khan as a real bad guy. And here that was his only characteristic, aside from wanting his people back. The real Khan had a thirst for power, but he was never a genocidal monster as Spock Prime seemed to imply. He was the best of the tyrants, remember? And why would Admiral Marcus use him to build an advanced starship? Yes, Khan was brilliant. But he was from OUR century. It would be like trying to revive Isaac Newton to help build the atomic bomb. In Wrath of Khan, the only reason he was defeated was because Khan, despite his genetically enhanced intelligence, was not experienced. But now he’s played as a fool, allowing 70-some missiles to be beamed aboard his ship without, you know, checking to see if the flipping things were armed!!

That whole business with Khan’s crew inside the missiles was very confusing. Khan hid them there? Whenever he did this, instead of individually storing all of them, wouldn’t it have been better to revive them all then and there? Boom…Instant army! And after the Godfather III take down of Starfleet Command (which, conveniently, only Spock, Kirk and Marcus survive), Khan beams to the Klingon planet? He knew exactly where the advanced starship was. Why not beam there and have one hell of a weapon to leverage the release of your people? He was able to single-handedly take down a battalion of Klingons and a couple Klingon battle cruisers, surely he would have been able to neutralize a couple dozen engineers on the advanced starship (which he, in fact, does do later). If the filmmakers really needed a tie-in to the original series, the Khan character should’ve been Gary Mitchell. Especially if they kept the thread that Kirk and Mitchell were good friends. That could’ve been a good story: Kirk having to hunt down an old friend who had developed superior powers and was out of control.

We have Peter Weller playing essentially the same character he played in the fifth season of “24”. Except now he is yet another corrupt Federation admiral. Like the others, he is naturally working outside of the purview of Starfleet, so there are no lasting repercussions to the integrity of Starfleet. By the way, even today our own government has missiles tucked away in Washington DC that can shoot down a threat to our nation’s capital. And yet with all their 23rd Century technology, and already knowing they’re vulnerable by nearly being destroyed by Nero in the last film, Starfleet can’t do anything to stop a ship about to crash directly into the city that is the home to Starfleet headquarters??

Kirk’s breakdown when Pike died made emotional sense. Spock’s breakdown when Kirk “died” did not. They didn’t get along until the last 10 minutes of the first film. And we barely got to see them bond in this film. The movie hadn’t earned the right to have the half-vulcan Spock go off on some vengeance streak. By the way, in regards to Kirk (and the Tribble’s) rebirth. Why would injecting Khan’s magic blood into a dead organism, where blood is not circulating mind you, heal the entire body? I guess that’s why it’s magic.

I could go on forever. This movie isn’t a Star Trek movie. It’s a big-budget, admittedly easy to watch, blow-stuff-up-real good spectacle set in space with characters named Kirk, Spock and Khan.

Oh yeah, somebody write down that transwarp beaming equation. Hand it to Captain Janeway about 100 years from now. She will need it in the Delta Quadrant since you can use it to apparently beam your way across many LIGHT YEARS of space.

Could you imagine in TNG's "Skin of Evil" that at the end of the episode Dr. Crusher synthesizes an antidote to Tasha being dead using the black goo off the recently enveloped Commander Riker? If you thought that episode was held in low regard before...

WHO CARES about the crew's characterizations as youngbloods???!!! It spoils the legend.

To quote Patton Oswalt as he bashed the SW prequels:

"I DON'T GIVE A SHIT where the stuff I love comes from! I just love the stuff I love!!!"

> Well, it's pretty obvious that we have extremely different opinions regarding Into Darkness' respective merits and shortcomings. So, it's rather unlikely that I'm going to change your mind.

I'm not trying to argue you into changing your mind. At most, I'm trying to point out that (again putting on my ship's counselor's hat) the reasons why you ACTUALLY don't like the movie are different from the reasons why you SAY you don't like the movie.


> Oh, how does this make itself felt apart from one war-mongering Admiral? How does Starfleet demonstrate this supposed development?

By thawing out a genetically-enhanced war criminal and putting him on a leash to develop weapons (and God knows what else). By developing a warship and crewing it with private security. Y'know... as you do.

ADM Marcus is not "one Admiral". He's the HEAD OF STARFLEET. And Carol's dialogue states that he runs MULTIPLE WEAPONS PROGRAMS.


> How come this is a "Section 31" operation, an organization that works separately from the rest of the Federation and most importantly in absolute secrecy (but has a dockyard with a secret battle ship in plain sight) because their actions wouldn't possibly approved and sanctioned by the officials?

ADM Marcus IS "the officials". Now, I sure HOPE that his actions were not known or sanctioned by the Federation Council... but that wasn't explored one way or the other.

And how exactly was Vengeance "in plain sight"? She was concealed inside a hangar bay, which was itself concealed behind one of Jupiter's moons.


> There are no real reverberations, no apparent evidence of this alleged change of attitude in Starfleet's modus operandi.

Except the genetically-enhanced war criminal in a STARFLEET UNIFORM. And the dreadnought crewed with private security. And the long-range photon torpedoes. AND Pike's description of Starfleet from the last movie as a "peacekeeping and humanitarian armada". Other than that, no evidence at all.


> For all we care, ol' Robocop could have acted out a revenge scheme because the Klingons killed his son during a camping trip, it wouldn't make a difference.

You repeatedly trivialize or dismiss Marcus's motivation without actually saying WHY it's "empty". To me, ADM Marcus's motivation works, and I'll explain why in just a bit.

Before that, though... If you think (or arbitrarily decide) that the motivation of the film's VILLAIN - a motivation which is EXPLAINED IN THE MOVIE and is a CONSEQUENCE OF other events in the universe - is "empty", then OF COURSE the whole film falls apart.

The same tactic can be applied to WoK. Khan's motivation is EXPLAINED IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT FILM'S UNIVERSE, but if you throw out that motivation as "empty", then nothing in the film has meaning anymore.

Arbitrarily dismissing a character's motivation doesn't mean the screenplay hasn't done its job. It means you have a chip on your shoulder.


So why does Marcus's motivation work for me? Because I've seen plenty of people in my country (USA) react in very similar ways over the past, oh, 12 years or so. Deep down, ADM Marcus is AFRAID. He looks out into space and he doesn't see the FINAL FRONTIER - he sees the THREATS AND DANGERS out there. He doesn't see NEW LIFE AND NEW CIVILIZATIONS - he sees Romulans with black hole machines.

And he's NOT ENTIRELY WRONG. As the singularity where Vulcan used to be can attest. That's DEVASTATION on a scale that we've NEVER SEEN BEFORE in Trek... how could it NOT affect Starfleet and the Federation? Would we WANT things to be "business as usual" after Vulcan?


I've seen plenty of people say that we have to cross ethical lines to "defend our way of life" (ADM Marcus's words). My government has done that plenty of times - just ask anyone subjected to "enhanced interrogation" or detained indefinitely without trial at Guantanamo Bay. STID not only engages with these issues, it takes a stand that defending our way of life by crossing ethical lines is SELF-DESTRUCTIVE. (Kirk doesn't kill Marcus; Marcus's own creation turns on him.) This stands in stark contrast to a culture that seems to be deciding that we have to "do whatever it takes" to fight those who wish us harm.


> Hell, Spock who - as you mention - is part of an endangered species doesn't even weight in on the matter.

Spock most certainly DOES weigh in on the issue of whether to assassinate Harrison using the torpedoes. (Again, did you actually WATCH this movie? Was your theater having SOUND PROBLEMS so that you couldn't hear what characters were SAYING?)

At that point, no one on the Enterprise KNOWS Marcus's goals. What they DO know is that they've been assigned to kill a Federation citizen without a trial and possibly spark an interstellar incident. There is vigorous ethical debate about THAT. (I know that because I LISTENED TO THE WORDS.)

Once ADM Marcus shows up, he points a gun at the crew's collective head. There's no occasion for ethical debate at that point, plus I'm not sure anyone on the command crew actually AGREES with Marcus. (Maybe the cybernetic guy wants to go all "war machine", but he doesn't get a vote.)

Again to compare with WoK, the ethical debates about Genesis all happen BEFORE Enterprise comes under fire.


> Yeah, [Carol is] a story telling device to further the plot, not a character. See above.

Carol is certainly a MINOR character. But her motivations are consistent, her reactions are believable, and she doesn't suddenly develop new skills or abilities as the plot demands.

What exactly is the difference between a "minor character" and a "story telling device" in your mind? Did you want this movie to be ABOUT Carol?


>> A hissing, growling character who is concerned for his crew and motivated in part by grief. (He attacks London because he thinks they've been killed by Starfleet.
> [Khan is] Still a one-dimensional character though. There's no complexity or depth.

See this pattern? I provide an example of something - in this case, character depth - and you say, "nuh-uh!", with NO REASONS GIVEN. This has happened with Marcus's motivation, Khan's character, and Kirk's demise. Not a particularly strong argument on your part, especially given that, for the most part, all I am doing is RECOUNTING THE EVENTS OF THE MOVIE.

You can arbitrarily decide that this character is "one-dimensional" but that doesn't make it so. In fact, this Khan is WAY more dimensional than the WoK Khan - STID Khan has more complex motivations (protect his crew, get out from under Marcus's thumb, and steal the Vengeance and defrost his people). The WoK Khan IS a one-dimensional character. He EXPLICITLY turns down the possibilities in front of him ("We have a ship, we can go anywhere we want!") in favor of HURTING KIRK.


> Most important, him being Khan is absolute negligible.

Khan seems like he would be a PERFECT CHOICE for a Sec31 black ops asset. For one thing, he can do things that baseline humans can't. ("I am better." "At what?" "Everything.") Plus, he has NO PAST. No facial recognition scans are going to pick him up. No past connections are going to compromise his loyalty.


> Every emotional reaction and behavior displayed by Uhura over the course of "STID" is Spock-related. Gee, the time line shift obviously somehow erased feminism.

I agree that it would have been nice to see some more complex characterization of the females. I never said this movie was PERFECT, only that a number of your critiques did not have basis in the events of the movie.

And speaking of things that have no basis in reality, "erased feminism"? Do I really need to respond to that?


> "Get it! Get it! We poking fun at your old boring Trek. Aren't we hip!"

If you took it this way, I think that says less about the movie and more about YOU.


>> The impact [Kirk's "death"] is character, not plot.
> It has no meaning if we know that he'll be resurrected ten minutes later. This COMPLETELY undermines the emotional resonance of the scene.

Your argument is that the "emotional resonance" hinges on whether we think he'll be brought back. I disagree. "Emotional resonance" is not the same as "tension". "Will Kirk live or die?" is a point of TENSION. "Why did Kirk do this?" is the EMOTIONAL RESONANCE. There may not be tension about Kirk's ultimate fate, but because THE CHARACTER BELIEVED HE WAS GOING TO DIE, there is DEFINITELY emotional resonance.

As I said earlier:
>> Does knowing that Spock comes back diminish the power of the scene in WoK? Not for me, because Spock makes the choice not knowing that he'll be back. The scene isn't about PLOT TENSION, it's about CHARACTER.

By your logic, STIII "COMPLETELY undermines the emotional resonance" of Spock's death. But it doesn't, at least not to me. I ask seriously: has STIII "completely undermined" Spock's death scene for you? If so, I 1) feel bad for you, and 2) think you're missing the point of Spock's death.


> And by the way, how lazy is it for the movie to have one person (Pike) straight up tell the audience what character arc the protagonist has to to undergo before the credits roll? Film is a visual medium, for crying out load! Show, don't tell.

We WERE shown. The WHOLE POINT of the Nibiru sequence was to show us Kirk's irresponsibility and recklessness. We saw Pike's dressing-down because 1) it's an important character note, and 2) at that point, Kirk doesn't think he's done anything wrong.


Hmm, wait a minute...

>>> And, of course, there's no real character arc to speak of.

So you believe that there's no arc to speak of, AND that Pike tells the audience what arc the protagonist is going to go through.

PICK ONE.


> Also, in order for this to actually provoke a genuine reaction from the audience, it takes time to digest. This, however, is rather difficult if the movie moves along at breakneck-speed, immediately indulging in the next poorly though-out action set piece.

"The pace was too fast" is a genuine stylistic complaint. Sounds like that choice didn't work for you. It did for me, but we can (subjectively) disagree on that.

Do you understand the difference between saying, "the pace was too fast", and "Marcus's motivation was not explained"? One of those is a SUBJECTIVE statement about what works for you, and one is a FACTUAL statement about what was in the movie.


> Anyway, Kirk risks his life to save his crew.

No, Kirk SACRIFICES his life to save his crew. That's a big difference.

Kirk is a guy who loves to take the big risks and win. "Risk" means "probability". AS FAR AS KIRK KNOWS, the probability of him surviving the warp core is ZERO. That's not a "risk", that's a sacrifice.


> He puts his life constantly on the line throughout the film, sometimes to save other people.

A risk is not the same as a sacrifice.


> Kirk doesn't really take responsibility for his actions.

Only if you can't recognize the difference between a "risk" and a "sacrifice".

Once more, with feeling: KIRK THINKS HE IS GOING TO PERMANENTLY, IRREVOCABLY DIE BY GOING IN THE REACTION CHAMBER.


> You know what would have been a sign of character growth and acceptance of the consequences of rash and short-sighted decisions? Ordering Scotty to climb into that radioactive chamber to repair the damage and live with the knowledge that Scotty's resulting death is his fault.

Agreed, that WOULD have been an interesting choice.


> Leaving the ship without its freakin' commanding officer in an emergency situation to fix a broken the drive core...

There wasn't much Kirk (or anyone) could do from the bridge at that point. It was all Sulu could do to keep the ship upright.


> When a) did Kirk realize the fundamental(!) errors of his ways and b) adjusted his behavior accordingly? When did we see him actually mature?

* He does not use the torpedoes against Harrison
* He captures Harrison even though he's clearly tempted to just kill him ("I am authorized to END you!")
* He refuses to turn Harrison over to ADM Marcus
* He gives himself up to spare his crew
* He CHOOSES to SACRIFICE HIS LIFE

Compare this to the guy at the beginning of the movie who asked "What's the big deal?" about breaking the Prime Directive. Kirk - Nu AND Prime - has always had an ego, and at the beginning of the movie, he's using his command to justify that ego. (Pike: "You think the rules don't apply to you." Kirk: "Some of them shouldn't.")

A man who's primarily driven by his own ego doesn't make the sacrifice play. At least, not without CHARACTER GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.


> Acknowledging his mistake when facing imminent annihilation hardly qualifies as serious character development.

It counts as TAKING RESPONSIBILITY, which is exactly what you said Kirk did NOT DO. But he DOES do it. It's RIGHT THERE, in the movie that I SAW but you apparently did NOT.


> So, now Star Trek is a universe in which death is a minor inconvenience and almost instantly curable thanks to 72 frozen "Übermenschen", which the movie conveniently forgot about when Bones desperately needed that blood sample.

As was established in the movie, the thawing process is tricky and Bones doesn't really know how to do it. Plus, there's no guarantee that Khan's crew have the same abilities that Khan does.

Like the old Vulcan proverb says, "A genetically-engineered superman with a healing factor in the hand, is worth two in the cryo-tubes." (Another joke.)


> Long-distance beaming across the whole quadrant is possible, basically making space flight obsolete. Although beaming a moving object still only works when the plot demands it.

The Enterprise doesn't have transwarp beaming (TWB) because SECTION 31 CONFISCATED IT. Again, EXPLAINED IN THE MOVIE.

And TWB will certainly not replace space exploration. The whole point of exploration is to see if there's anywhere to beam TO. Additionally, we've never seen TWB work on anything larger than two humanoids.

It will be interesting to see what happens with this tech. I for one was glad that this was taken seriously and not just swept under the rug as a plot point in ST09.


> A war with the Klingon Empire impending (or are they gonna let the violation of their territory and killing of over a dozen warriors go unpunished).

It'll also be interesting to see how this plays out.


----

> However, in the Abrams movies, especially Into Darkness, Spock's default is emotional.

Except for when he's about to die in the volcano - he's logical then. And when he submits a factually correct report about Nibiru. And when he makes a logical argument against using the torpedoes. And when he calmly explains to Uhura why he's shut off his emotions. And THE ENTIRE MOVIE UNTIL THE LAST 15 MINUTES.

Other than those times, sure, totally emotional. He's a blubbering wreck.


> Apparently, nobody thought to make diplomatic overtures to the Klingons to request that they return Harrison.

Harrison DOES NOT OFFICIALLY EXIST. Going through channels would almost certainly expose things that Marcus wants kept secret.


> I wish the movie had explored the consequences of Kirk's violating the Prime Directive and show Kirk actually struggle to get his command back. However, he's back in the captain's chair within a few minutes.

As I mentioned a couple posts ago, Kirk gets his command back because ADM MARCUS IS USING HIM. Yeah, it is a bit "convenient" in screenplay terms, but it also makes sense once you realize what Marcus is doing.

Marcus is improvising the entire time. He didn't PLAN for Khan to attack London or San Fran - but when that happens, he USES Harrison's destination ("a place he thinks we can't go") and Kirk's rage to further his goals. (You don't get to be the head of Starfleet by being an idiot.)


> Why would Admiral Marcus tell Kirk to fire torpedoes with Khans crew at Kronos? Why not just regular torpedoes?

ADM Marcus does not know that Khan's crew are in the torpedoes. As explained in the movie.

The torpedoes are long-range weapons that can be fired from the edge of Klingon space. As explained in the movie. (We've only ever seen photorps used for short-range ship-to-ship engagements.)


> Sure, you could come up with contrived explanations

Or you could listen to the explanations that are given in the movie. Seriously, folks, go to a different theater with a working sound system. You'll enjoy movies much more.


> It might have been better to just have had a fresh villain, perhaps a human or alien terrorist.

I'd definitely like to see a fresh villain. But they kinda had to do Khan. We all know he's out there. And he's a major character in the ST universe. I do hope we get a fresh villain - or no villain at all - next time.


> But what really frustrated me was that the end sequence is just a big fistfight between Khan and Spock. The scene lacks any tension and moreover takes place on a moving transport shuttle on Earth in broad daylight.

Agreed on this.


----


> Spock's death in TWOK worked because NOBODY, including the writers, knew he was going to be resurrected later.

So then, STIII must make Spock's WoK death completely "not work" anymore, right? Because EVERYBODY knows he's going to be resurrected later.

Of course not. Spock's death works because he made a sacrifice that was both logical and emotional. It works because it made Kirk confront death in a way he never had before. In short, it works because of the EMOTIONAL RESONANCE.

If you think Spock's resurrection in STIII completely undoes the impact of Spock's death scene in WoK, I think you may be missing the point.


> This is more like when Tom Paris turned into a lizard. Some magic medi-babble and he just gets better. Did anybody believe he was going to stay dead? Not for a minute.

Tom Paris did not make any hard choices or sacrifice himself to turn into a lizard. Tom Paris becoming a lizard did not teach him or anyone around him anything about themselves. Spock's death did. NuKirk's death did. (Kirk Prime's, alas, did not.)


----


> Well, you seem to be the only one that saw an alternate version of the "Into Darkness" - after our time line was altered thanks to one extremely upset fan who traveled back in time and prevented the quartet of Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof from ever becoming engaged with the franchise - that was directed by Joss Whedon. ;-)

One final thing to wrap this up... I don't care if the script was written by AN INFINITE NUMBER OF MONKEYS (anybody get THAT reference?). What matters is what's on the screen. Looking down your nose at the creative team may make you feel better about yourself, but it doesn't allow you to INVENT problems with the movie.

To borrow a line from the great, unfortunately recently deceased Roger Ebert:

"I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it."

This movie is the equivalent to a lobotomy. Good Lord, what a ridiculous mess.

> that was directed by Joss Whedon. ;-)

Oh, now THAT would be awesome.

>> that was directed by Joss Whedon. ;-)

> Oh, now THAT would be awesome.

Yes, indeed. That would be a dream come true. Although I would already be content if the powers that be could hire someone who has a genuine affection for the property, or at least respects it enough to not turn it into the copycat of another well-known franchise.

I gotta say, compared to Star Trek 2013 even last year's rightly maligned Prometheus suddenly looks like a paragon of cohesive, tight writing. Abrams Star Trek sequel violates so many basic rules of storytelling 101, it's not even funny anymore. And while his first foray into Roddenberry's universe also featured plot holes and inconsistencies en masse, the swift pacing and compelling portrayals of the young cast swept you off your feat before you could level a complain against the porous narrative and carried you along for the ride until the closing credits rolled. This movie unfortunately lacks the momentum of its predecessor, giving you enough time to become painfully aware of the staggering amount of deficiencies and shortcomings* that others here have already pointed out.

I'd imagine in years to come Trek 2013 could serve as a fine example of what not to do when crafting a compelling character-driven and structurally sound movie.

But since the actors are by far the best and imho only redeeming part of the movie, I cling to the hope, somewhat illusory I fear, that third time's the charm.


*And obviously that's not completely lost on the people involved. Damon Lindelof just apologised for Carol Marcus' knickers scene, admitting that it was gratuitous and objectifying. Go figure.

It would seem there is only one official ship in starfleet in the 23rd century...

Not surprisingly, Damon Lindelof was responsible for Prometheus as well. The guy doesn't know how to tell a logical story. Why does he keep getting hired for big sci-fi films? (Actually, maybe that's why)

One word to sum up the movie - superficial.

The references (see laughable rip-offs) of TWOK are horrible - Spock yelling Khan's name, the screen with the hands of Spock and Kirk separated by the glass, the direct quotes ('You'll flood the whole compartment!'). they make me think that Abrams and Co think Star Trek is a collection of lines and scenes that can be repeated with slight changes to make new Star Trek.

Kirk still acts like a bratty kid and Spock like a moody teenager. The visuals are great, but the plot falls apart if one thinks about it (what motivates these people? How does one build a giant starship in the solar system that no one notices? And on and on...

The whole time I kept thinking to myself how great TWOK was and how perfect the acting, dialogue, and acting was. In fact, all I wanted to do was go home and pop in the TWOK dvd.

This movie took TWOK and made something almost silly in its poor execution.

For Matt, who keeps insisting that section 31 confiscated transwarp beaming.

How does one confiscate an equation? I would think Scotty would have it memorized (he certainly knew it when he saw it) or have it saved on a 23rd century flash drive, or have it written on a post it note. If all else fails, contact Spock Prime and say "Can you give me that equation again?"

I liked the 2009 film. Not so much "Star Trek Into Darkness". It had too many plot holes.

These were the problems I had with STID:

1. Why would Admiral Marcus need to revive Khan to figure out how to fight the Klingons? It would be like someone today reviving Napoleon to figure out how to fight the North Koreans. Second of all, Starfleet has had 100 years to prepare for the Klingons by this point. The two sides have always been portrayed as powers of equal strength. The Klingons are a threat, but they're not an overwhelming one. Humanity also seems savage and primitive enough that they don't need Khan's insights. The humans in the Abrams films, unlike the Roddenberry series, would fit right into today's world.

2. Khan would never allow himself to become a pawn of Starfleet or Section 31. He'd never save Kirk from the Klingons. And he's not really that ruthless in this film. He should've killed Kirk right before beaming his corpse back to the Enterprise or fatally wounded him at least so he'd be dying and in as much pain as possible even as he intended to destroy the Enterprise. He does horrible things but he himself doesn't act villainous enough. The original Khan, as well as Kruge in "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock", were much more black-hatted, which is what Khan should be.

3. The movie was supposed to show Kirk becoming more mature and growing into an adult. When he's repeatedly punching Khan, he's acting like a 15-year-old. When he constantly turns his head whenever a woman walks by, he's acting like a 14-year-old. When he's having a threesome, it's like a teenage boy's fantasy. I see nothing in the film that shows he became more mature. All I see is a kid who had a bad experience and a rough mission, then made a good speech at the end. He's not an adult. He's still reckless. He's still immature. I don't think this is the type of Captain you want to send out on a five-year mission into the unknown. Is this who the Admiralty wants representing the Federation? The only rationale I can think of is to get Kirk out of the way. It would make more sense to have him in Federation space, thinking outside the box to solve unconventional local problems where he can be of help and they can keep an eye on him.

4. Spock is much too emotional. Spock shouldn't be yelling "KHAAAANNN!!!" and going crazy while fighting him. Spock shouldn't be jealous when Dr. Marcus is assigned as Science Officer and, yes, he was jealous. Spock wouldn't give Pike lip.

5. The treatment of Doctor Marcus is extremely sexist. She undresses while Kirk is in the same room and the only reason is to show a shot of her in her underwear. When she screams after Admiral Marcus is killed, it's like something from out of a '50s B-movie. They can't even stay away from the sex jokes while McCoy is down with her while they perform "surgery" on the torpedo.

6. Why would Khan's blood restore anything to life? They don't even try to explain it. It's just magic blood that can somehow reanimate every cell in your body. Does that mean Khan could be immortal? Not that the film is even smart enough or aware enough to pose the question.

7. While we're at it, there's an entire ethical dilemma that's not even touched upon. Now that the location of the Botany Bay is known, should these escaped supermen and superwomen stand trial? I'm surprised they were all just left in suspended animation but that could've been mitigated if there was at least a discussion about what should be done with them. But why ponder those types of questions when they'd take up too much time that would be better spent on chase scenes and explosions?

8. There's absolutely no comparison between the scene when Spock was dying in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" and the reverse scene in "Star Trek Into Darkness".

9. When Spock is fighting Khan on Earth, it feels more like "The Matrix" than "Star Trek". And why just beam down Uhura to let Spock know not to kill Khan? Maybe Uhura is the only one who can get through to Spock quickly enough but she's Communications Officer. There should be at least one Security Officer as well.

10. Why would that officer toward the beginning of "Into Darkness" blow up a building just because Khan/Harrison saved his daughter? Seems like an extreme thing to agree to.

11. Starfleet has sensors, ships in orbit have sensors, spacedock has sensors. Why did it take Kirk to figure out that "Harrison" was about to attack where the briefing was being held?

12. This is last because I realized as I was watching that this was the least of the film's problems: if you're going to cast someone to play Khan, it should either be a Hispanic actor, like Ricardo Montalban was, or an Indian. The fact that a 1967 episode and a 1982 film are more diverse than a 2013 film is inexcusable. This is not to slight Benedict Cumberbatch but I think he was miscast, unless they had him just be John Harrison. On that note: I understand that Khan went by a false identity but, if you're going to have the false identity, why not go the rest of the way and have McCoy or Khan himself mention that he was surgically altered?

I enjoyed watching the move... mostly because it reminded me of why I loved Deep Space Nine...

I do no think this was as much a rip of Wrath of Khan, as it was ripping off (or homage) to DS9...

(1) the plot was pretty much Homefront and Paradise Lost... replace Changeling with Klingon false threat to divert attention (attack on the heart of Starfleet in San Francisco, which was until DS9 was never seen visually in any trek)
(2) reveal that an Admiral is behind the conspiracy and attempting to milaterize Earth
(3) using the good guys (Sisko/Odo or Kirk here) to unwittingly push the agenda without knowing it, and evetually realizing they were had and trying to stop it
(4) Admiral having his own loyalist starfleet agents with their own Starship (thank you Red Squad), which have a showdown with the good guys ships (in ds9 they were pummeling the Defiant, here the Enterprise). and the good guys having a subplot that involves investigating the Admirals loyalist crew (Scotty here, Nog in DS9)

--
I think what made me enjoy it was mostly Peter Weller as the lead villain (enjoy him always) and the "Mother" of references to Section 31. Which was originally created in Deep Space Nine.
In thinking about it, there is symmetry... in DS9, Bashir was genetically engineered and Section 31 tried to recruit him (and he tried to destroy them for the good guys)... in this one Wrath was found by Section 31, became an agent for them and tried to destroy them also.

--
The other thing I kept thinking during this movie was the Futurama quote by The Robot Devil "Ah, my ridiculously circuitous plan is one-quarter complete"... this movie pretty much kept moving at a break neck pace to avoid people thinking about the plotholes.

enjoyable nonetheless (I still wish they never created this reboot and just continued the original timeline).

I hated the whole Khan's healing blood plotline... The moral implications of this were never got into.

In the original wrath of Khan, they talked about Genesis weapon (and they did go into the morality of using the device). Here they in essence use Khan's blood to give life, but never talk about the moral implications, just a plot device to move the story forwad. why even chase down Khan, when you have 72 others with the same blood.
Hell, this is where I miss Babylon 5, they had an episode called Deathwalker, where they went into the moral implications of creating a immortality serum (which required the death of millions to create the serum so a million more can live forever). Hell, wouldnt there be a concern that well if they can heal Kirk, why not use this blood for healing everyone else on Earth (use the 72 to heal humanity)??? They would have been better not going into this plot device... unfortunately this is where movies have to dumb down ideas (and 2 hours is not enough to delve into the deep)

Whoa, Matt. No need to take everything so personally. I'm glad you enjoyed the film, in fact I wish I had enjoyed as much as you did.

Despite my previous post, I did not literally 'turn off my brain' when I went to see it. I think I went in with an open mind. And for the first half of the film I was pleasantly surprised. It was the ending that let me down.

In WoK, Spock HAD to sacrifice himself to save the ship. That was the event that brought all the themes of the film (age, death, the no-win scenario) full circle. I can't imagine the film ending any other way.

In STID, I fail to see the dramatic purpose of having Kirk die and then revived five minutes later. I did not believe for a single moment that he was actually dead, though in retrospect if he HAD really died (that is, been punished for his arrogance) it would have been a better film, but still not as good as WoK.

My comment about the engineers a nitpick, for sure, but I found the idea of Chekov becoming chief engineer during Scotty's absence despite seeming completely clueless in the role quite implausible.

Watched STID yesterday, TWOK today and the difference in tone and quality was striking. Like it or not, Abrams and Co have invited this comparison with open arms (you know, by using half the dialog from TWOK).

TWOK was a movie with adult characters with deep personalities, raw emotion, awesome writing, brilliant direction. STID was a movie about kids flying cool looking ships, lots of people punching each other, superficial ‘homages’ to TWOK, and a plot with more holes than substance.

I have zero problem with bringing back Khan. In fact, I think Cumberbatch is a wonderful actor. But the problem is that there is nothing new in this movie. Its a rehash of best elements of TWOK but without the feeling and meaning.

When Kirk turns around and see’s Spock’s empty chair in TWOK, you can feel that emotion, the dread of what has happened, the instant knot in your throat kind of feeling. When the analogous ‘death’ scene happens in STID it felt cheesy, predictable, and induced eye rolls, rather than the kind of emotion the death scene in TWOK.

In the TWOK Spock saves the ship because it is the logical thing to do and Kirk has to finally face the no-win situation as both the audience and him lose someone they had known for a many years, etc… In STID Kick saves the ship so new Spock can yell ‘Khaaaan’ really loud and then go fight Khan on a floating thing (Wooo, more punching!!!!!!!!) after a giant ship crashes into a city and kills hundreds of people no one seems to be concerned about.

STID is not smart, its not well-written, its predicable, and it takes the wonderful film that was TWOK and twists it into something unintelligent and without feeling for people who think Star Trek is about people running around saying famous lines and acting like children.

And on top of that, the film borders on sexist, which runs counter to what we usually consider the essence of 'Trek.' Of course there is the already much debated, much lamented underwear scene. All I have to say is any scene that communicates that its OK to disregard a woman’s wish not to be looked at while almost naked just because she is attractive (i.e. no really does not mean no if she is hot enough) and puts the name Star Trek on it makes me sick. That is a message that does not belong in film, much less something that used to be socially progressive like Trek.

And to make things so much worse, they take a character that broke racial barriers on network television and inspired future African-American actors and astronauts and drew the praise of MLK and reduce Uhura to someone defined as the girlfriend of Spock who cannot act professionally on an away mission and is only in scenes to worry about Spock or advance his character’s plot. (Yes, her scene with the Klingons was great, but overshadowed by the rest of her dialogue).

Yes, women in Star Trek in the 1960′s dressed in revealing outfits. I am not saying classic Trek always got it right. But much of that was a function of TOS starting Trek half a century ago. What Trek really did was challenge racism and sexism. THAT is what made Trek special – it was intelligent, profound, ground-breaking. The idea of a black woman working on the bridge of a starship was radical at the time, and to reduce that character to what she is now is a joke.

I'm suprised with the amount of negativity surrounding the film on here. While I'd be the first to admit that STID is far from perfect, it's a very enjoyable and engaging Star Trek movie and a welcome addition to the franchise.

Perhaps part of why I got such enjoyment from it is that its my first time I've ever seen a Star Trek film in the cinemas. In the past I ended up narrowingly missing out on them (in truth I rarely get the cinemas these days anyways) but this time I didn't miss out and it was a really awesome cinema expirience. Not to mention I had lovely hotdogs, very nice coffees, an ample supple of lush snacks....I was in movie-buff heaven!

I won't repeat what I already said in my first comment, except to say it was stronger than Star Trek 09 (which I enjoyed) and it was one of the better examples of blockbuster mainstream Trek since First Contact. Hell, it even got my Trek-hating girlfriend interested! It had the amazing action, visuals, themes, characterization, emotion, fun, humour and charm which embodies the best of big screen Trek. Not perfect, not classic; but solid and a great ride.

As an aside, I think people are over-reacting to the silly lightwieght "underwear" scene. If it had been Kirk in his underwear and Carol sneaking a peak, I bet no one would have batted an eyelid. To say its offensive is pollitical correctness gone haywire, it was a small injection of juvinile humour that highlighted a particular trait of our ladies-man Captian...it made me, my mother, my girlfriend and everyone in the cinema laugh.

Anyways, I'll conclude by saying I hope in hindsight some of the negativity thins out a bit. If not, I'll still stand by STID and when it comes out on Blu Ray I'll be buying it without a doubt. A solid 3 or 3.5 film.

Weiss,

You are right that the story was done previously on DS9. What you miss is how much better it was done first time round because then they didn't have confused motives and also they actually told that story, rather than setting it up and abanoning it.

I loved the movie, and have to say I agree with Matt in all his points

> As an aside, I think people are over-reacting to the silly lightwieght "underwear" scene. If it had been Kirk in his underwear and Carol sneaking a peak, I bet no one would have batted an eyelid. To say its offensive is pollitical correctness gone haywire [...]

It's not political correctness, it's a real issue. It's objectifying, reducing an already paper-thin character to a PASSIVE sex object to be goggled at. Worse, the movie forces the audience to adept Kirk's voyeuristic viewpoint during that scene. It doesn't help that there's no reason for her strip down to her panties in the first place. Even if she has to change her wardrobe, showing her in a state of undress is unnecessary and serves no narrative purpose. It neither has bearing on the following events nor does it in any discernable way add something substantial to her character. After all, we didn't get a look of Bones in his undies although he helped Carol Marcus with the torpedo defusing, did we?

Couple this with Uhura's de-emphasized role and the fact that she is now basically defined by her relationship to Spock, and Star Trek 2013 suddenly appears in an almost reactionary light that is in stark contrast to Trek's usual reputation as one of the more progressive and emancipated franchises.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that including that scene is proof of its creator's overly misogynistic and chauvinistic mindset, but it reveals a casual kind of sexism that is nonetheless worrisome.

See while Kirk is also shown sans shirt at one point during the movie, his semi-nude display is at least appropriate for the scene. He's engaging in a threesome, it makes sense for him to remove his clothes*. Furthermore, he takes on an ACTIVE role during that moment. He's obviously enjoying himself. Living out a teenage boy's fantasy, as someone above aptly described it. While it's extremely cliched and bordering on caricature, this scene, as redundant as it is in the greater context of the movie, informs the audience that Kirk's a carefree and charismatic guy who likes to indulge in his, how to put this delicately, ... more animalistic instincts, therefore offering a bit of characterisation that helps to illuminate who exactly this new Kirk is.

And I bet if there had been a role reversal and Carol Marcus had sneaked a peek at Kirk in the buff, I'm sure he would have enjoyed the moment, thus taking control of the situation. That's the difference.


*The reason nobody leveled a complain against the scantily clad green-skinned Space Babe™ with whom Kirk had a tête-à-tête in Star Trek 2009.

I'm a little surprised at the amount of negative comments as well. I didn't think the film was perfect by any stretch, but I did enjoy it. A few of my thoughts for now:

For one thing, I didn't care for Kahn's magic blood bringing Kirk back to life either. But is it any more ridiculous than Spock coming back to life via magic planet Genesis?

Also, Carol Marcus' underwear scene WAS gratuitous and unnecessary. Then again, it lasted 5 seconds. Seven of Nine wore a skin tight catsuit for 4 years. Troi wore low-cut dresses through much of TNG's run. The women of TOS wore mini skirts and go-go boots. And then there's T'Pol. When you factor in episodes like The Child, Ménage à Troi, and Turnabout Intruder I think Star Trek has a pretty bad track record when it comes to treating women fairly. At least STID had a strong Uhura character who did more than answer the phone for the men and fan dance naked.

@ Jason

It's more than what she was wearing in the scene. It's the idea that it's ok for someone to look at a woman who is undressing after she twice asks him not to. It's a message that has no place in Trek (much less anywhere).

@Jason:

Fair enough. But it has to be said, even though certain female characters were sexualized to a certain degree and definitely acted as eye-candy for the audience, Seven of Nine in her tight fitting cat suit springs to mind, they never were REDUCED to their looks. While I wouldn't call someone like Deanna Troi necessarily a strong female character, most women on Trek were depicted as professional and capable officers. Seven, for instance, became one of the most complex, intriguing and multi-faceted characters on Voyager next to B'Elanna Torres and Janeway. DS9 had Kira who was a genuine strong, albeit conflicted woman. And while Jadzia Dax unfortunately wasn't as well drawn, she was a confident and self-assured woman in absolute CONTROL of her sexuality.

And the TOS comparison is somewhat flawed since the show was produced at the height of the sexual revolution when wearing mini skirts and, generally, showing skin was seen as a sign of sexual liberation, feminism and empowerment. You also have to bare in mind just how reactionary and uptight the TV landscape was back then and how this situation dictated the limits of how faithful Roddenberry's utopian vision could be translated to the screen.

Now, Trek admittedly had its fair share of questionable moments when it comes to the gender equality, but overall it seldom succumbed to outright pandering to the male crowd*, making its female characters PASSIVE victims of the male gaze for no reason but pure titillation.

And that's the main issue here, when audiences leave the cinema the only memorable thing about Carol Marcus' appearance that will stick with them will be that gratuitous underwear shot - because the character is basically a blank slate that only exists to serve the clumsy plot.


*But even IF Trek had one of the worst track records in this respect, hypothetically speaking, it wouldn't excuse the new Star Trek's shortcomings in this area. "XY has always been/is known for ..." is a poor and through and through depressing argument.

Before people start invoking Spock's resurrection in STIII:TSFS, I'd like to point out it took an *entire* movie to bring Spock back. And within that movie, there's peril, tragedy, and SACRIFICE. It wasn't bringing Spock back "zip zop" 5 minutes after succumbing to radiation poisoning at the end of TWOK. *That* would have been a cheat and it would have robbed TWOK of its powerful ending.

If only that Klingon hadn't removed his helmet... unless we're supposed to believe Nero also fixed the Forehead Problem somehow.

Starting with the opening scene, I had a very peculiar mixed reaction. I appreciated the *outline* for this movie, but I hated the way that outline was executed. "Yes, this is a necessary scene," I kept saying to myself, "but they didn't have to do it *this* way."

And the Trek references were, as others have said, insulting. They even repeatedly referenced the 2009 movie, like we forgot about it!

Wait... did Admiral Marcus know Khan's blood was a magic immortality serum? McCoy figured it out in, like, 20 minutes. But Marcus couldn't have known because, if he had, he would've put Khan to better use than simply leveraging his "savagery" to design weapons. No matter how jingoistic he was, he's not keeping a secret like that.

For that matter, it's incoceivable that Khan helped Marcus for any length of time, considering that he tried to take over the Enterprise and revive his comrades at his earliest opportunity in the prime timeline.

I know, I know. Anything that happened, happened because it's "kewl."

@ Tokei-ihto that's fair enough, you make some good points even if I don't agree entirely. After all, the scene was clearly as a call-back to the TOS era and spoofing Kirks' reputation as a ladies man and 1960s attitudes. Given the modern twist he's made as the fool of the situation. I also got a hint that Kirk naturally spun around thanks to the intense discussion and forgot she was in her underwear.

If it had been Kirk hacking into a security camera where Carol was changing so that he and the entire bridge crew could snigger and wolf whistle at an oblivious Carol...it would have been a different story.

As it is, it was harmless and not sexual at all and no more offensive than Trois' mother flirting with an embarrassed Picard.

I wont comment futher on this scene, I say lets agree to disagree!

OK, seen it. Will give a fuller review tomorrow but I really enjoyed it.
Yes this is not traditional Trek but I was glued to the screen for 2 hours.
Being spoiled didn't, erm, spoil it for me. Can understand why they wanted the secrecy.

Oh and my Wife thought the underwear scene was amusing.

3.5/4 on Jammers Ratings for me.

Oh and I forgot to add that Carol was a strong woman, defying her own father and facing peril with an admiral resolve. She'd be a welcome addition to the cast for future movies. I rememember her for this, not for the throw-away comedy underwear scenerio.

Sorry I couldn't somehow edit my other comment, I feel a bit bad for cutting over Latex Zebras' post!

@ Jo Jo Meastro , Lwaxana Troi's flirting with Picard was very sexual. You know if Picard didn't have a suppressed crush on Dr. Crusher Lwaxana would have forced him into bed.

I think the problem with the Carol Marcus scene was it seemed like forced humor, not natural. It was like she announced twice the Kirk shouldn't turn around, then he does. Ha, Ha, I guess. The scene with the Orion in the bikini in 2009 Trek wasn't controversial because it was part of the scene and was funny.

@Maestro:

No problem. And I don't want to reduce this discussion to that one scene, especially since the movie quite clearly has other, arguably more glaring issues.

It's just that the underwear shot, in many ways, is an amalgamation of the problems that ultimately bog down Star Trek 2013, even if the scene itself it's not the worst offender.

There's not only no reason for her to strip down, but the movie doesn't even bother to come up with one single flimsy explanation for why Carol Marcus gets undressed. Even the most ridiculous exploitation and slasher flicks, whose sole purpose and key-motivation is titillation, offer up at least some kind of contrived reason for its female cast to get rid of their clothes. Not so this movie.

Also, Kirk's reputation as a ladies' man has already been firmly established by the threesome scene earlier in the movie on which I commented in my previous post, making Carol Marcus' striptease all the more redundant.

And as I already explained, for all its carefree depiction of skin and near nudity, TOS' women were never just objects to be ogled at but had an actual agenda and, furthermore, demonstrated an amount of self-confidence about their sexuality that is lacking from Star Trek 2013*. Here, Carol Marcus, as Tim has repeatedly pointed out, is clearly not enjoying Kirk's lustful glances, deeming it, at the very lest, unprofessional and inappropriate given the current situation and the task (defusing the torpedoes*) at hand.

I'm also not comfortable with the implication for Kirk's character here. That he sneaks a peek at Marcus although she unambiguously told him not to paints him not as a confident womanizer but as a lecherous frat boy. And while I'm aware that this new version is still an inexperienced young man whose lack of a father figure as a guiding presence in his life had an impact on his development, his inconsiderate and downright immature behaviour throughout the movie is in stark contrast to Shatner's Kirk who, for all his bravado, gung-go attitude and sexual appetite, actually was someone with a strong moral code and honour, someone who always displayed a huge respect for the opposite sex, never violating a woman's privacy or making advances against her wishes. The original Kirk also never acted out of spite and, in fact, almost always proceeded with caution, using his brains before engaging in a potentially dangerous situation.

It's one thing to have the protagonist of your story evolve and mature of the course of the movie, it's something else to change the fundamental virtues that once characterized him and made him such an outstanding and endearing icon in the first place.


*Besides, not only is Carol Marcus a painfully thin character whose relationship to the big baddie is the most prominent feature about her, basically reducing her to a plot device, as if being blatantly sexualized wasn't enough, but the screenwriters even have the nerve to make her incompetent at her job, too! After all, she totally botches the disarming of the torpedo, only surviving thanks to sheer luck (and an action movie cliche) and the fact that the torpedo wasn't carrying a warhead.


But okay, enough of this.

Tokei-ihto, I must admit I can definitively see where you're coming from when you showed the bigger picture surrounding it and I think much of the flaws found in post-DS9 Star Trek is down to catering for the mass audience ("babe" characters included). Compared to some of the embarrassing brain dead rubbish found in Enterprise, STID looks as sophisticated as 2001 Space Odyessy.

I think I read the scene slightly differently to you, it seemed more like Kirk temporarily forgot she was changing due to the intense discussion and embarrassed them both (I could be remembering wrong though). Coupled with the fact it made my mother and girlfriend laughed made me see the scene as more innocent and non-sexual than you.

I still maintain STID is one of the stronger entries in blockbuster Pop-Trek, but you've given me something to think about and I will agree there is a need to bring the franchise back to its more mature roots if its to maintain its integrity.

Sorry for the wierd grammar, posting from my ps3 has its drawbacks!

I dont know if someone else already raised this in one of the previous comments (since I havent read fro every single one). But didnt anyone else notice that it made absolutely NO SENSE for Uhura to be able to beam down onto the platform but for them NOT to be able to beam Spock and Khan up..if you can beam someone down usually that means you can beam up..theres no interference or shileding just because they ar emoving isnt a hindrance since they have to beam Uhura onto a maoving target..and Spock and Khan werent fused to the platform like when McCoy was stuck in the warhead..so I think this was a minor technical flaw..what does everyone else think? Anyone else catch that?

@ Leif, I don't think anybody else mentioned that, but somebody else mentioned that it'd have made more sense for Enterprise to beam down a security escort. Also, you'd think it'd be easier to beam somebody off a moving vehicle than it would be to beam them on. But that's only one small logical misstep in this movie - STID is full of problems like this.

> I think I read the scene slightly differently to you [...] made me see the scene as more innocent and non-sexual than you.

And that's fine. As long as people who feel that way don't deride others that take serious issue with that scene because they see it as an example of the casual sexism that Hollywood is oftentimes guilty of indulging, there's nothing wrong with that sentiment. And, of course, audience members (like myself) who have a problem with this kind of depiction shouldn't insinuate that everyone who doesn't take offense at that scene is a insensitive chauvinistic jerk oblivious to the (perceived) problematic nature of the whole thing.

Sometimes a little mutual respect can go a long way.


@Leif:

Yeah, unfortunately that's just one of many instances were the movie violates its own established rules to further the plot.

What's so annoying about this particular scene is that it could have been easily fixed if the writes just bothered to do their job. Not only have we already seen that fast moving objects can be beamed up (for instance in Star Trek 2009), but they could just have the transporter temporarily malfunction due to the damage the Enterprise took during the battle and its uncontrolled plummet through the atmosphere afterwards, so that Spock has to take a shuttle to San Fransisco before Scotty can fix the damage in order for Uhura to eventually beam down. Of course, this still wouldn't explain why they didn't could just beam Spock and Khan up to the Enterprise the moment the transporter works again.

But then I just made up this alternative course of events in a minute. The writers had almost three years to figure this sh*t out and they still failed at the most fundamental level.

Never mind that the idea of Uhura just materializing behind Khan and knocking him out is a hugely anticlimactic resolution to that what is supposed to be the culminating action scene of the movie anyway. They probably realized that Uhura was incredibly underwritten this time around and tried to give her something to do. Thematically it's also an unsatisfying denouement to the (rather unconvincing) Spock-Uhura relationship arc.

Oh well ...

Leif: "...so I think this was a minor technical flaw..what does everyone else think? Anyone else catch that?"

Once the movie established that man-portable, interstellar-range transporters exist, the entire plot became a "minor technical flaw."

Of course, Wrath of Khan has a similar flaw when Enterprise is inexplicably unable to use the transporter to disintegrate the ticking Genesis device. Or earlier, when Khan could've used the transporter tactically against the unshielded Enterprise.

I just saw it. I went in totally spoiler free, so I didn't even know Kahn was in the movie or that Spock Prime showed up. Very proud I went in pure.

That said, I thought it was a very fun movie, but not a particularly great Star Trek movie. But I guess this is what Star Trek has become: mindless fun with characters occasionally play-acting like the Original Series crew.

The one thing I really disliked was the unearned lifting of Wrath of Kahn. Not just in the concept (one dies to save the ship, the other grieves), but in the sometimes-verbatim lifting of dialogue. I mean over and over in that climax they just took words spoken by McCoy in STII and applied them to Scotty. It felt forced.

As did the entire climax. In Wrath of Kahn, when Spock nerve-pinches McCoy, that's a payoff to 15 years of history between the two frienemies. When Spock dyes in front of Kirk, it's the same decade+ payoff. It is earned.

This was not earned. And I get that the writers were going for the oppisite: kirk dying "establishes" the friendship between them, whereas in STII it's climaxes it. But there was no weight to it; no punch. Especially since everyone in the theater knew Kirk was coming back. Shoot, I immediately thought of Kahn's blood.

When Spock died, he stayed dead for 2 years and didn't return without heavy sacrifice (Kirk's son and the Enterprise itself). Kirk's death wasn't undone, it was undercut. There was no sacrifice to undo it. It was just...reversed.

All that said, it was a very fun movie. It was a great sequel to this new era of Trek. It's just not the Trek I grew up with, and the Trek I grew up with could be fun, adventurous, thrilling, emotional, AND intelligent. This movie was three out of those five things, and tried to be four out of five. I just don't think it ever tried to be intelligent.

Out of five? A very low THREE stars.

This isn't the first time we've seen mindless plots, overemphasis on action, and objectification of women. It's the exact same stuff Jammer and many fans loved to hammer "Enterprise" for, only with a bigger budget and an unhinged directorial style.

This movie isn't the only culprit -- it's not the only Trek movie culprit, either -- but still it makes me wonder: do Foley artists ever ask why they need to record sound effects for scenes set in vacuum? Or are they just happy for the extra work?

OK, can't bve arse to write a proper review. Especially on someone elses review site.

Trek has to move with the times and in this Iron Man/Fast Furious World of movies Star Trek of old just wont shift tickets, it just carries too much nerd history with it. Yes that is a shame but even now, after been out for a few weeks, this is not going to make a billion, or even close. That is what the studios want these days.

I put off any unhappiness about the feeling of this as Trek with the hope that come the 50th Anniversary they're not just rolling out a Threequel but announcing a new series on TV. That, I believe, is what us Trek fans really want. Not abig spectacle every 3-4 years.
If it takes a few movies that 'reboot' and get people interested then so be it. As long as when it comes to a new TV series they genuinely combine Star Trek of old with enough whoomp for the ADHD generation of today.

Oh and the only thing that really annoyed me was the Klingon heads, yes it still looked cool but why the **** did it need to change?

@ Latex Zebra, that's part of the problem though, isn't it. As dumbed down as Abrams' Trek is, it still isn't making much at the box office. Even with a budget of $190 million (around 15 times Wrath of Khan's budget and three times Nemesis), it only made $249 million thus far. Abrams' Trek has made more money than past Treks but it's also benefitted from a much larger budget. In short, the movies are certainly making money, but they're not making a killing.

In short, I'm not convinced the Abrams formula is really reviving Trek so much as drawing in some of the summer movie crowd. Will these new "fans" really be drawn to an *intelligent* Trek TV show?

The first film benefitted from the novelty of the reboot. But, that novelty has now worn off. What are they going to to do now?

If Paramount is smart, they'll try and segue their recent success into a Trek series with a sophisticated mindset (like TOS, TNG and DS9). Voyager, Enterprise, and JJTrek have proven that dumbing down Trek will only get them so far.

Thanks guys, those of you who responded to my previous question. And just to give my overall take, I thoght it was a few miles ahead of the first film..in terms of plot and villain, which for me were the main weaknesses of the 2009 film. The alternate Kirk/Spock relationship thread juxtaposed with that in WOK I think was the highlight of the film and made Kirk's "death" scene respectable in this film's context if not the equal of Spock's death in WOK--especially since this theme was set up from the opening scene where Kirk decides to save Spock's life PD be damned and the ensuing conflict. And Captain Pike's death scene was a poignant moment I wasn't expecting and Admiral Marcus made a reasonable secondary villain/adversary. And the 9/11 themes of terrorism/vigilance were relevant and respectable. But the ending chase was too simplistic and unsatisfying..maybe a better ending wouldve involved the Klingons or more interesting conflict with Khan. And I agree with some of the comments above that Carol Marcus wasn't much of a character..in fact I was thinking she couldve been any random new character they couldve introduced into this reboot for the little she resembled the original Carol Marcus--who was a biologist while this one seemed to be a physicist...seemed more contrived to add another similarity to WOK but since she wasn't working on Genesis why bother..But since she'll apparently be back for the next movie (and perhaps so will Khan since he's on ice at the end of this movie but not dead) hopefully she'll get some development.

@ Leif, when Spock and Kirk discuss extrajudicial killings, I got excited. I like the idea of Trek taking on post-9/11 themes. However, the movies ending really didn't explore them. If anything, the message I got at the end was it's OK to punch terrorists out if it looks cool and they hurt your friends. ;)

Many of the comments above appear to be debating whether the plot makes sense as a whole, whether its delivery leaves enough space for emotion to seep through, and whether there is any depth to the storyline. I have gone to see this film twice now and had very different experiences which, I think, help to illustrate why this movie (and, indeed, both Trek 2009 and STID) is receiving such flak from some people and such admiration from others.

ONE

After the first watching, it takes a while to unwind the plot backwards, but after that it becomes fairly straightforward. I won't go into any detail (because it would take too long and because it's been looked at by many of you above), but suffice it to say the plot is an extremely intricate and mostly well-oiled machine. The machine moves very fast, and as a result is very, very distracting. Tied to the plot are a set of running comedy routines which, taken at their best, pay an homage to the comedy of the original TOS show, and, taken at their worst, form a shameless parody of it. Between these two, however, it is understandable that many people could not find an ounce of substance in the film, because so little time is allotted for characters to express emotions that aren't immediately turned either into laughs or interrupted by attackers.

So, I left the theater with the impression that A) the film was visually stunning, B) that there was a clear effort to create a believable future, C) that there was a certain amount of political commentary going on, and D) that the number of details fighting for attention demanded a second viewing. There were a lot of problems; for one thing, a lot of the references to old trek were extremely forced, as if the writers felt a compunction to design new scenarios into which they could insert classic dialogue or direct references. The "Needs of the many/few" bit at the beginning, while I agree it logically works, somehow failed emotionally, as did Spock's exclamation of "Khaaaaan!" upon Kirk's pseudo-death. Quite simply, while I could understand the logic of what was going on, I felt as if someone had gone up to a whiteboard, said, "Okay, who is Spock?" and then listed a few one-word attributes before moving on to the next character.

SECOND VIEWING

And... yeah, it got better! Because I knew generally what was going on, I didn't have to focus on unraveling exactly what big thing was going on in each scene, but could focus on the little things. And there are a lot of little things. Take the scene with the officer whose daughter is dying; we are treated to a lot of information about him and his family, as well as little pieces of the wider world. He walks into a building labelled "Kelvin Memorial Archive," a nice bit of continuity I didn't catch the first time; the world he inhabits has a sadness to it that is really strong, and the second time around I could say, "oh, that's Khan, who knows his blood has convenient medicinal purposes and has found a way to use this to push his agenda." This makes logical sense, and gives us an idea of Khan's cunning planning.

Then there are the torpedoes, which many people above seem to be wondering about. The first time around, it seems like a cheap James Bond-type presentation of gadgetry; here is your mission and here's this extra-special missile. On closer inspection, however, and with the whole plot in mind, we see that Section 31 is using Kirk to simultaneously kill Khan and all of his crew - and yes, they did know that the crew was in the tubes, because Khan explains that he was caught in the process of sealing his people in (By the way, I'm not entirely certain that bringing 31 into this was a good idea. Like everything else, it makes sense, but in this case it makes it too easy to pretend that the evils were confined to just a few people, and therefore not as important).

A lot of the film is like that - on the first viewing, it can be quite off-kilter, and because it moves so fast and through so many twists and turns it's hard to rationalize what's going on. On closer inspection, however, it turns out to work, and, more importantly, the emotions get a lot clearer. While I still thought the scene with Kirk dying on the inside of the reactor was horrifyingly overwrought (I have thus far been steadfastly endeavoring not to directly compare this movie to The Wrath of Khan, but I'll make an exception here - the original was infinitely more powerful because there was no necessary preamble, and the dialogue wasn't as awkward or drawn-out as it is here in STID. In the original, the basic conversation was laid out at the beginning of the film, when Spock tells Kirk that the good of the many outweighs the good of the one - so when we see it again, the exact words of the conversation are fairly quick and can take the backseat to Kirk's horror at Spock's rapidly deteriorating condition. In STID, Kirk and Spock just stare at each other and talk - and then keep talking - and then keep talking - and at last Kirk goes unconscious and Spock, who has already demonstrated more than enough emotion to satisfy what the scene is trying to say, shouts Khan's name. The writing is very poor there), in general, the film has a good number of good emotional scenes. The confrontation between Kirk and Pike is done perfectly - Kirk thinks he can just talk his way out of punishment, but Pike is fed up with that kind of thinking so they talk over one another for a while - this is handled superbly and fits into what Kirk has been developing into. The tensions between Spock and Uhura initially looked like an excuse to insert two wonderful gags ("Are you two guys fighting? What's that even like?" and "Is this going to be a problem?" "Unclear") but morphed into a way to show that Spock is responding to the destruction of his planet by shutting himself off even more than usual.

(I'd say I promise no more tangents,but that's unlikely and I have to add - in general, the writing for Spock in this movie is great - he delivers a deadpan, non-emotional statement, and someone in his vicinity responds with an ironic emotional outburst. It's great. Every now and then, though, there are lines that just sound out of place - lines which sound childishly simplistic in the midst of an otherwise expansive vocabulary - for example, "a reflection of my not caring" sounds odd because "reflection" and "not caring" don't coexist very well. Similarly, when Spock says, "I do not know [how to turn off my emotions]. Right now I am feeling," I had the sudden urge to begin laughing at how unnecessary that second sentence was - I mean, the guy was crying, how much more do you feel you have to add)

We are also treated to a lot of characterizations which allow us to see characters from many different angles. Admiral Marcus, for example, is not merely a paranoid military-type; after the attack by Nero, he goes out into deep space looking for tactical advantages against whoever might come next - and finds Khan.

Khan is, understandably, deeply enraged by the fact that his crew is being held hostage to force him to work for 31, so we get some development there (someone above mentioned that Commodore Decker would have been a better villain here. This movie could have been so much more if that was the case; maybe they went out and found the Doomsday Machine, tried to harness it, and failed; we could A) have an excuse to ONLY analyze one villain, Marcus-Decker instead of Marcus & Khan, and B) have a legitimate excuse to build another ship many times the size of the enterprise and then blow it up). I will say, with some hesitation, that this is a more subtle and human interpretation of Khan than the original, even if, at the same time, he seems more powerful and intimidating.

IN CONCLUSION, I'll predict that this film stands up to scrutiny better over the long term than Trek 2009 will. Part of why it's so easy to worry that the new films have plot lines too deeply tangled and complex to allow for emotion is that when we first see them, the plot is not yet clear. Later, however, we can see each element for what it is, and begin to see if the whole thing is cohesive. And - yeah, this is a nicely assembled whole. It has a few glitches in the writing, and certainly is trying too hard to reference other Trek, but that is probably a phase. After all, Star Trek The Motion Picture spent it's whole duration trying to be The Original Series in a movie - what made Wrath of Khan effective was the feel of continuation, rather than re-iteration. And hopefully, this new franchise will see that establishing a continuous development of new ideas rather than simply being content to joke about old ones is the way to go.

It's a good movie. Go see it if you haven't, and if you don't like it, I'll bet it's because the machinery (sorry, plot) is stealing too much of the spotlight the first time round.

As I mentioned before, I really liked the movie. But after some thought and reading through other people's comments, I really do understand people's objections to this film.

As was alluded to already, I think most people will agree that STID is an action/adventure film first, and a Star Trek film second. This is a reversal from the first 10 movies which (for better or worse) were made for fans of the franchise with the hope that some casual viewers would tag along. And I can honestly see how that would bother long-time fans. With the action/adventure element, you're going to get more explosions, chase scenes, and yes, more gratuitous shots of women in their underwear. And there is no reason a fan has to like it. If someone wanted to write this whole "reboot" off as a bad idea, that Paramount should have just left Trek alone, I would have a difficult time arguing against it. If there was never another Star Trek movie after Nemesis or show after Enterprise I would have been OK with that. Trek has been fundamentally changed and fans of the franchise have a right to disagree with the direction it has been taken.

With that said, I like the new direction the franchise has gone. Yes, I could do without the aforementioned underwear scene and the action could have been toned down; but I am a long-time fan who has felt that Trek had become stale. I was skeptical when I first heard about a reboot. Yet the last two films have made me excited for Star Trek again. Were they perfect? Absolutely not. But I have accepted the fact that another TNG (or a DS9 or a VOY) movie was never going to get made.

I have also accepted the fact that for any sci-fi movie to be made now, it HAS to appeal to a wide audience. This film's first weekend proved that point clearly. It made almost $84 million from Thursday to Sunday (in the US) and it fell short of expectations. To put it another way, STID made $17 million more in 4 days than Nemesis made during it's entire theatrical run, and it still wasn't good enough for the studio. Granted the budget was much larger for STID, but it shows the current state of the movie industry.

The bottom line: if Star Trek movies are going to be made in the current climate, then Star Trek Into Darkness is what we can expect. If you don't like it, I completely understand. But if you're like me, you can still enjoy what Trek has become, and look at it as Trek 2.0 rather than Star Trek XII.

@ Geordi, interesting points. I haven't seen STID a second time, but I went in thoroughly spoiled so I knew the plot going in and followed it closely. There are still a lot of things that don't make sense, like how Khan used transwarp beaming to go to another planet ;)

However, I fully agree in that I think STID is a much more interesting film than 2009 Trek. I feel like there's at least an attempt to build an interesting plot with an interesting villain, rather than just the "mad villain trying to destroy Earth trope. "

But overall I just don't think Damon Lindelof is up to the task of writing good dialogue and an intelligent plot. If Abrams is brave enough to remove him from the next Trek movie, I think it'll turn out a lot better.

@ Jason, that's the question though, isn't it? If making Trek a mindless action movie with lots of women in underwear (I'm exaggerating, obviously) doesn't make it a box office success, then what is the hope for the franchise? Is it that it's not as fun an action movie as Iron Man 3 or Avengers? Or is it that Trek fans are disappointed with the lack of an intelligent plot? Or do audiences just not like sci-fi? I don't know, but I think Paramount ought to start asking these questions and not just assume that dumbing down Trek will sell more tickets.

I went, I saw, and I was appaled. I was left lobotomised after 2 hours of non-stop explosions, shaking camera, "witty" banter, teenage angst, chases, fistfights, lens flares, and general idiocy.

The movie shows a complete lack of regard not only for Star Trek themes and ideals (this doesn't bother me *that* much, I'm not a purist Trekkie who can't handle something different), but more importantly for the very basic skills and rules of intelligent moviemaking. Shots are too short and chaotic, scenes pile on top of each other like dead lemmings without any attempt at thematic coherence while sense of spatial orientation in camera work simply DOESN'T exist. I didn't have a clue as to where someone was during an action scene.

Character work isn't much better, though actors themselves are quite good, especially Quinto as Spock and Cumberbatch as Khan, and do what they can with material given. But, what is given is so precious little. Most characters are reduced to one-note caricatures - Kirk the Rule-Breaking Hero, Spock the Logic Spouter, McCoy the Sarcastic Healer, Scotty the Comic Relief and Chekov the... something Inconsequentially Forgettable.

The movie is liberally peppered with scenes and homages to old Trek (Carol Marcus, destroyed Praxis, Section 31 etc.) and, though I was amused by those, they also show "all polish, no substance" mentality.

All in all, tt was a preposterous, loud, and excessive audio-visual nightmare that would have been proudly at home in the biographies of Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer.

@Dom - I'd certainly agree it will be a tough sell but TV is big business at the moment and I think the Trek name can carry enough momentum following this film, and has enough big names behind the scenes wanting to get involved, for something to happen. I hope. Surely the execs can see that Trek suits TV better than movies.

Whether this would bare any relation to 'our' Trek is another matter and everything decent on TV these days seems to be dark. That said, DS( was hardly light and airy.

Latex, I think it's only a matter of time until we get a new Trek series. What that show will be like is a completely different question. I'd guess the most appealing option is something that will capitalise on the success of the new movie franchise and that seems to me to be a recipe for a high-budget disaster likely to be cancelled after one season.

Dom: "...overall I just don't think Damon Lindelof is up to the task of writing good dialogue and an intelligent plot."

Why blame him without also blaming the writers who gave us the first two Transformers movies? Truly this was the same formula as those abominations but in Trek drag.

@Grumpy

Oh, I didn't know that. Checked on IMDB and you right: Orci and Kurtzman are writers on those... things as well. And they *were* directed by Michael Bay. Well, I guess the circle is complete.

Without an exploration of the human condition and the dedication to quality storytelling, Star Trek is no different than Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers.

My take on ST:ID was that it did actually *try* to be more than just another outer-space action movie, but it only got halfway there. As someone pointed out above, the militarization of Starfleet, or lack thereof, is a legitimate issue in both the original Trek universe and the new movie universe. In that sense, having the plot set in motion by a Starfleet uber-hawk, and having a major plot point being humanity's history of warfare coming back to haunt us, were both good choices.

But it only explored these issues up to a point. There were a number of instances where some sort of moral or sociopolitical question could have been addressed and was passed over. For example:

(a) Kirk is all gung-ho at first and even accepts Scotty's resignation, brushing off objections to Marcus's orders, then suddenly announces that he intends to take Harrison/Khan alive. I'm glad he did, obviously, but it was abrupt enough that I half-expected him to reveal later that he was lying just to keep the rest of the crew's noses clean.

(b) While it wasn't as bad as launching one of the torpedoes would have been, that skirmish on Kronos still seems likely to attract the Klingon government's attention. How was war averted? Did Starfleet have to admit the existence of the supersoldiers and Section 31?

(c) What happened to the supersoldier that they removed from stasis in order to freeze Kirk?

(d) Would Spock have killed Khan if Uhura hadn't beamed down to tell him that they needed Khan alive? IMO, Spock doesn't entirely acquit himself here since he doesn't stop hitting him until then.

(e) What would Khan have done if they hadn't stunned him immediately upon finding Marcus? It might have been more interesting to see Starfleet and the Federation have to come to grips with the history of the supersoldiers, but instead he turns into an unrestrained murderous nutjob at the end.

@ Grumpy,

To be honest, I don't really know much about Orci or Kurtzman and haven't seen the Transformers movies. However, I have seen Lost and Prometheus, both Lindelof creations, and some of the same problems of incoherent storytelling are present in those movies/shows as well. So, you're probably right, I should blame the whole writing team ;)

Ok, I just saw the movie Star Trek: Into Darkness, and my overall reaction/rating is that it's a 2 or 2.5 out of 4 stars; it wouldn't take too much for me to go to 1.5, but to be fair, I guess 2-2.5 is appropriate. I'm disappointed it's only taken this reboot effort 2 movies to already be tempted to steal so much from one of the "great" trek movies-- that being The Wrath of Khan. My reaction to the Kirk dying scene where they quote I shall forever be your friend...blah blah was that it was really cheap-- an attempt to make this movie better by stealing from another movie, and when it doesn't come off great, then it just looks cheap and dishonest. Can't come up with great story and tension on their own through truly original plot, so let's just steal it from somewhere else. Boo, hiss, cheap. The movie has great action scenes, but those wear thin when the story/plot is just not thought out well enough. I personally would appreciate more attempt at storytelling, and plot development, and less of the mindless, loud actions sequences. If the next Star Trek reboot movie doesn't go anywhere more than this one, then the reboot will be shortlived, and not bound to go to many more frontiers.

Here's my review I took from Icheckmovies.com (great site), I added a few things:

I admit, I used to be one of the hugest Trek fans one could hope for as a kid. Now I look back and can see how the franchise has progressed over the years, and can see how this particular iteration fits into the canon. It's one of the finest films I've ever seen visually and sonically - the production design cannot be faulted in any way. There is incredible spectacle and relentless pace. The central 4 actors (Pine, Weller, and *particularly* a sadistic and volatile Cumberbatch; and an amazing, collected, conflicted, sharp Quinto) all prove their weight, the dialogue is snappy, and overall it remains a digestible and pleasing full-throttle combination of original-series camp, TNG pontification, and DS9 dramatic conflict, as filtered through a crowd-pleasing popcorn filter: it hits all the bases and rockets from setpiece to setpiece. There are several surprising about-faces in a complex, political narrative (even what was a seemingly excessive marketing campaign was in fact smartly misleading on more than a few plot points), and many inside jokes that will please the diehards to boot. It took me a while to appreciate it on a more substantial level until I realised the meat of the thematics: the nature of sacrificing for what once considers family, be it crew or country, a journey that all central 4 actors play out to the hilt with some real and meaningful consequences. Though the plot seems full of holes to some, the events are well-orchestrated to the ends of character development and contemporary comparison, even if it doesn't breathe deep enough into its best intentions to seem anything less than threadbare to some. Frankly, those who decide to hate Abrams Trek for its roots in flashy action vis-a-vis philosophical technobabble will find enough to hate here under a banner of 'marketing-driven patchy cynicism', but that's just playing nerd-stuck-in-the-mud Rorschach test, then refusing to acknowledge any other *kind* of substance or evolution, and rationalizing a desire to complain after the fact. That's fine, Trek can evolve just fine without that attitude, and at least this is fun and not stiff faux-cerebral stuffiness like the worst of its' TV-based counterparts. It's not perfect, some will rightfully call it lazy - it's perhaps still too stooped in the existing mythology to carve new ground; right down to borrowing model designs and plot elements, some of the characters get short shrift, and the ending is far too sudden and tidy (a huge ship crashes into San Francisco and nothing else is said of it) but it's got plenty going for it, and is a more than satisfactory addition to be sure. Continuing Trek's redemption from mediocre trope-ferreting, it's a real adventure that you should see on the biggest screen you can find.

I thinkI agree with Sam's review most.

I'll keep this short. Meh. I thought the idea of doing away with all the old continuity was so that fresh, new ideas could be brought to the Trek universe....so let's bring in Khan? What?
Also, I don't like the idea of New Spock having to run to Old Spock to get pointers on how to deal with Khan. It'd be nice to think this new crew could come up with a new way to deal with him instead of being handed Wrath of Khan 2.0

Sadly, in a recent interview on Yahoo news, the STID writers basically admitted that they made Cumberbatch Khan at the last minute and squeezed him into the story:

They developed the story and character, and then decided if it would be fun for fans for the character to be Khan. As I said in my review, the villain in STID doesn't really feel like Khan and could have been any generic villain. I guess that's how he was originally developed...

That is unfortunate, Dom. Now that I think about it I tend to agree with it.....it does feel like a rush job. I wish there had been another way for Kirk to get command other than Pike dying. I really liked that character.

@ Mahoney, sorry I can't post the link in my comments, but hopefully you can find the interview via Google. The title is "Check This: 'Star Trek' Writers On Planting Easter Eggs With Tribbles and Khans"

With this reboot I was looking forward to a new series of adventures....not a reimagining of events I've already seen. Hey.....what do you think of a new TNG series based on this new reality?

A TNG reboot? Please no! I'm sick of reboots. Why would we need a TNG reboot? If we want to watch TNG, we can always watch it on Netflix. Do we really want to recast Captain Picard, Data, etc? The only time I think a reboot was necessary and proper was the Battlestar Galactica reboot, which was infinitely better than the original. Otherwise, I don't really see the point.

If we want another Trek TV show, I'd much prefer a new one (ideally helmed by Ron Moore or Joss Whedon). I could easily see a new Trek set in the 26th century and a more serious tone.

The 2009 Trek reboot was pretty much an attempt to capitalize on the popularity of Kirk and Spock despite the original actors being too old to go on any more adventures. It works for nostalgia, but as you said in your comments the movies have not been particularly fresh or original.

Around 2006, there was an attempt to make a new Trek animated TV series called Final Frontier. The storyboards are online. It was actually a pretty neat idea. The Federation has been knocked down and became more militaristic, but the captain of a new Enterprise wants to revive the spirit of exploration and humanitarianism. It wasn't a perfect idea, but I'd prefer something original like that.

I didn't notice any product placement this time round.

Or am I completely conditioned now and... Wait I really fancy a Bud Classic and shall order one on my Nokia.

It felt like watching Nemesis on a grander scale

@Rhino

You're right. In a way, nuTrek is everything Voyager, Nemesis, and especially Enterprise wanted to be, but on an infinitely greater and louder scale.

Maybe I'm biased, but I can't really see anything resembling TNG or DS9 or even TOS in any of this. It's essentially mindless popcorn summer fun with some technobabble plastered over it.

I loved it.

It's not TOS' Kirk- but, by the standards of the rest of the films, it's one of the better ones.

I had a huge grin for the whole runtime. Felt like revisiting old friends.

I do wish it'd taken more time to focus on Section 31/the Klingon War dilemma, but I expect that'll be something for the next film.

@ Clara "by the standards of the rest of the films, it's one of the better ones."

True, but them be low standards...

@Paul

Completely agree. It just didn't have much emotional resonance in contrast to the Battle of the Nebula/Spock's Death in WoK, Data's "Resistance is Futile!" in FC, or DS9 in general.

I walked out of the theater thinking "Well I guess that was pretty fun", but felt kinda empty like I did with Data's death in NEM. Decent 2.5/4.0 or very generously a 3.0/4.0.

@Rhino

For me it's 1.5 star movie, 2.0 if I'm feeling generous. I must admit TV has spoiled me these last years. After watching the likes of BSG, Breaking Bad, Justified, Fringe, Game of Thrones and many other shows, I simply have no patience for bland and noisy "spectacles" looking for the lowest common denominator.

I saw "Star Trek Into Darkness". It was fun. I enjoyed it.

I can totally see why people who don't know or just don't like TOS or TNG, DS9, or the earlier films would like it.

Those older versions of trek were often slow and talky. They occasionally tried to act as though they were actual science fiction and acknowledge some of the laws of physics. They frequently tried to ram ideals or morals down our throats, or make us think about things from a different perspective. Once in a while they even portrayed complex issues in shades of gray, rather than absolutes. (Sometimes the assumed villain going in actually turned out to not even be bad!) They spent years building up relationships between characters. And on top of all that, they kept trying to sneak in this "if we work together, despite differences in gender, race, religion, even species, we CAN learn, and make things better" subtext- all that Roddenberry clap-trap.

It is safe to say that JJ has avoided all of those pitfalls, and crafted a action packed, highly entertaining film free from any of that old baggage. In fact, he's done it twice, now. Face it - we need "Blow stuff up" films for people who don't love overbuilt cars, giant transforming robots or super spies.

So, for those nay-sayers who suggest that what they loved about Star Trek, what made it stand apart from all those other fantasy adventures set in space, is absent- well, suck it up. If you really claim you want entertainment that requires you to think, you're barking up the wrong franchise. Go read a book.

@ E2, I can't tell if your review is sarcastic or serious. The WHOLE point of Star Trek is that it's supposed to be more thoughtful and engage in moral allegory. Saying that we should just turn it into another franchise that blows stuff up is basically saying we should remove the "Star Trek" from Star Trek. There are plenty of other action franchises set in space, including Star Wars and Starship Troopers. There's no need to dumb Trek down.

Looks sarcastic to me.

As far as making Star Trek more action-packed and less thoughtful to appeal to the "masses", STID is the end result of that effort.

How did that effort turn out now that we're there and the music has stopped? 75% of the audience is over 25 (so much for going "younger") and ~70% is male.

Maybe Star Trek should be a 21st Century version of itself instead of trying to so hard to look like Star Wars or The Dark Knight.

Clarification: "Look like" as opposed to "be like". I just realized it might've seemed as if I were knocking The Dark Knight and the original Star Wars trilogy. That wasn't what I meant to do. :p

Regarding this STID abbreviation I see floating around, in my native language stid means shame.

Always makes me chuckle :)

I'll keep this brief. I'm just glad the term being "thrown under the bus" will survive another 300 years.

Why did they have to get Kahn back to save Kirk? McCoy could have taken the Magic Blood(TM) from any of the other guys in Kahn's crew.

What was Kirk doing in bed with the two chicks with the tails? Since everyone in the bed was still wearing their underwear I'll assume they're all saving themselves for marriage.

Plenty of people have already commented; most have already gotten the gist that this is an irretrievably terrible film, though I see that some are in some serious denial.

This, therefore, isn't so much a review as a cathartic bit of rage.

Things the writers of Star Trek Into Darkness need to learn:
-Cold fusion is not, despite the use of the term "cold," a process that freezes lava.
-A single volcano erupting is not going to cause a planet to explode.
-Starships cannot operate as submarines.
-The Prime Directive is not something that a Captain can say "So what?!" to without being court-martialed and spending the rest of his life in prison.
-Scenarios where you convince a good man to commit a terrible crime if you'll cure his terminally ill daughter only work if you don't cure the daughter first.
-There is more to McCoy than a southern accent and "I'm a doctor, not a..." grouses.
-Starfleet dress uniforms are not bellhop uniforms.
-The Klingons haven't conquered two planets since the Federation learned of them, they've probably conquered dozens, because it's been A HUNDRED YEARS.
-Saying that Kirk is an interstellar ladies' man does not mean that what Star Trek has been missing are scenes of alien threesomes; nor that women spontaneously tear their clothes off in his presence.
-You don't thaw someone out to take advantage of their savagery by having them be a weapons designer for you, not unless you have a society so unbelievably pacifistic that no one remembers how to build a damn gun.
-If you kill THOUSANDS of people in a major climactic scene...it's probably good to at least acknowledge it a moment later.
-The laws of physics do not change because someone is an interesting character; if you violate this rule, the last person in the universe you should have proclaiming it is the coolly logical Vulcan.
-Oh, and referencing something your audience will get as an in-joke only works if by doing so, you don't make clear you don't understand what the hell you're saying and just piss them off. (Such as Praxis, Ketha Province, Section 31...the list goes on.) And simply stealing lines from a much better film doesn't help you, either, nor does ludicrously claiming that the Starfleet Captain's Oath says "These are the voyages of Starship X, it's X-year missions, to seek out new life and new civilizations..."

I suppose I shouldn't knock McCoy so much, since he's obviously going to go down as the best doctor in human history-since HE'S CURED DEATH. This movie ripped of Wrath of Khan, sure, but it also ripped of The Fountain pretty solidly as well. Kudos, you idiotic plagarists.

Okay, I'm going to go find some tasty blood pressure medication and do something less dangerous to my health than focus on this anymore.

I thought Into Darkness was great entertainment. Bigger than the first film, without sacrificing substance or being overly excessive.

The first film was a big spectacle - it wasn't low-brow by any means, but not particularly intelligent from start to finish. It was just a big fun sci-fi movie. Into Darkness found time for ethical questions in amongst the action and humour, and that brought it much closer in line with the kind of stories Trek told on television.

Simon Pegg was very good - his comic timing and the way he delivers certain lines was great. Zachary Qunito's take on Spock continues to impress. Paul Weller seemed to be having immense fun chewing the scenery. And I think Chris Pine provided a nice progression of Kirk's character. It was refreshing to see a young Kirk who was uncertain and scared. Benedict Cumberbatch was a great villain overall. I was worried from the trailers that he was just going to be delivering lines in a very cheesy and over-the-top manner. There were certainly occasions when he did so, but they tended to fit with times where Khan was particularly angry or mental. Easily the most compelling Trek villain since the Borg Queen, and I liked how they gave him some small shades of grey.

The way they tapped into Wrath of Khan was very bold, I thought. I never had a big problem with the alternate universe created in the last film. Some people seemed to think that it erased what we had been watching for the past 40 years. I never felt that way, and Into Darkness confirmed that the original timeline was still very important. Talking to Old Spock about how Khan was defeated, and the mirror outcome of Kirk sacrificing himself to save the ship, were absolutely superb. I'm sure it was still great for non-Trek fans, but hearing all the familiar dialogue from Kirk and Spock's final conversation in Wrath of Khan play out with the roles reversed was tremendous. Scotty saying "You'll flood the whole compartment" gave me chills, as you knew right away what was coming. I found out about John Harrison's true identity a few days before the film, and in the lead-up to seeing the film I was a little annoyed that they sought to re-do such a memorable character. But their take on Khan really impressed me - it gave him a new menace So while they riffed on one of the greatest scenes in Trek history in the final act, this was still a very different Khan.

In terms of problems, I think they could have done a slightly better job of explaining Khan's past for those who were unfamiliar with him, but perhaps I'm remembering the dialogue wrong during his reveal. They treated us to another "Enterprise vs Massive ship" scenario, which has been done to death in Trek films (the Borg cube in First Contact, the Scimitar in Nemesis, the Nerada in the last film), but didn't do very much with the Vengeance once it was introduced. McCoy was still a little sidelined despite having some great lines here and there, but I think Kirk-Spock is always the most interesting aspect of that original triangle. Carol Marcus in her underwear was even more gratuitous than it looked in the trailer, and the writers have even acknowledged how pointless this was. The pace of the film might be a bit relentless, though I think there are more moments of calm or transition than other reviews suggest. But I think Mark Kermode's review on BBC Radio 5 Live said it best - you'd really have to go out of your way not to enjoy the film.

I don't think Into Darkness was trying to one-up Wrath of Khan. It was a nice homage, and a great way of maintaining the relevance of the original timeline whilst taking the same characters and circumstances in a different direction. If Old Spock hadn't been consulted about Khan, I think that would have been worse. The problem with time travel devices in Sci-fi movies is that they're often not exploited as much as they should be. Young Spock calling him up for some insight was completely "logical" and fit the character. I wasn't expecting Nimoy to pop up, but I think it would have been silly to make such a big deal out of there being an Older Spock in the alternate universe in the first film and then never mention him again.

Kronos being so nearby was a mistake. They got to Vulcan very fast in the first film too. I'm also still not comfortable with the idea of there being a transporter capable of operating across such vast distances or from a stationary position to a ship at warp, even if it was Old Spock who helped Scotty to introduce it. But at least they haven't just discarded the technology altogether.

With the events of the first film, at least there's a logic behind Starfleet becoming more militaristic and more paranoid about security. And with the damage done to Starfleet in both films, there's a case for an all-out conflict with the Klingons in the next movie given that Starfleet would be weaker than it was in the original timeline (and hence the Klingons might be more motivated to come knocking on the front door). But I think the essence of Star Trek works better in a TV show format than a film. First Contact is really the only Trek film that balances action-adventure with the Roddenberry vision of what humanity will become (and that vision was far more cemented in TNG than TOS). Action and spectacle will always be on the menu for the mainstream audience, for better or worse.

As nifty and bold as some of the call-backs to Wrath of Khan were, there's the danger of going too far too soon. Spock's death in Wrath of Khan is gut-wrenching, and that emotion was earned through three seasons of television and the character being a pop culture icon for nearly 20 years. Having Kirk sacrifice himself to save the ship in the new film fits his character, but the emotional response they were trying to stimulate with his death hadn't been earned in the same manner. Spock screaming "KHAAAAAAAAAN" was cool on an in-joke level, but a bit of a stretch on a character level.

Kirk's death and Spock's reaction felt like a scene that would be more affecting in a third film as opposed to a second. Kirk getting the command of the flagship by the end of the first film was tough to swallow. Then you have him being demoted and reinstated within about 10 minutes, and then dying and being brought back to life in the final act of Into Darkness. They're burning through a lot of big moments for characters that are meant to be in their early years. It's also a case of trying to have their cake and eat it, by resetting the timeline and yet still riffing on the original stuff (and going so far as to echo both Space Seed and Wrath of Khan). We've seen cities and planets getting destroyed and massive holes in space. We have very advanced transporter technology that they're already taking to the extreme (beaming all the way to Kronos, for goodness sake).We've seen the Enterprise trashed. Into Darkness very much felt like JJ signing off on the franchise and you have to wonder where they go from here.

But overall, I had a lot of fun in watching this film. For the universe that JJ has created, this was an improvement on the first film in several departments. Whether that's a universe that appeals to everyone is a different debate.

@ Baltar, I agree with a lot of your criticisms, but Kirk (and Picard) actually violated the Prime Directive a lot more without any consequence. The one thing I did like about STID is that there was at least an attempt, albeit half-hearted attempt to show Kirk getting disciplined for having violated the Prime Directive. Also the brief scene of the natives worshiping the Enterprise was a corny but effective way of showing the consequences of violating the Prime Directive.

Another point - a larger enough volcano could conceivably emit enough ash to cause a global cooling. Some paleontologists think the eruption of volcanoes in the Deccan Plateau in India killed off the dinosaurs. But, no, a single volcano won't explode a planet.

I agree with Chris NIs' summary of the film. It's very fun and engaging Star Trek that may not be flawless, but it certainly is entertaining and hits much more often than it misses. It does have substance, emotion and character depth that's all in the earnest human rough-and ready spirit of TOS. Far from subtle, but always charming and sometimes very poignant. I'm going to take a guess it'll get 3 stars, leaning towards 3 and a half.

What I'd love to see happen now is to bring the new film series up to 6 like the TOS movies and for the conclusion to be a devastatingly powerful, seriously epic and human ending where the mirror crew have to embark on an illegal fatal self-sacrifing mission to close the loop on the mirror timeline and give the original timeline a rebirth (the Guardian from City On The Edge Of Forever figuiring into the story). It would be full of destruction and pain, yet filled with beauty and humanity enduring and sparking a new age of hope and a better future. This is what I'd like anyway!

Hi Nic - I'm not sure Matt is "taking things personally." I am not a mind-reader. Moreover, a lot of the posters have made denuciatory and declamatory one-liners that reflect hatred of and venom toward this movie (hate is never palatable, but it is always at its least palatable when it is unsupported by facts or reasoning) contrasted with Matt's specific, thoughtful and sober analysis. I eagerly await some of those to whom Matt responded in detail to reply back to him. I think it is always easier to criticize than to defend, because human beings are hard-wired that way (as a friend once told me, when I was childishly looking for a compliment, "People don't generally compliment you on routine things well-done. You will likely be criticized for a routine mistake.")

I spoke to the following point in 2009, and I too was in effect told to calm down: for those conversant in Star Trek history, no doubt you remember: Gene Roddenberry did not conceive of TOS as a drama shorn of interpersonal conflict where characters struggled to reach a utopian ideal. The characters in the original series routinely argued with each other. That reflects reality, in any century, as far as human beings are concerned. Twenty years down the line or so, when TNG came out Roddenberry attempted to reinvent what Star Trek "meant: lack of interpersonal conflict, Starfleet as not a military organization/organization heavily involved in "police actions" (TOS' Enterprise was involved in a number of such actions, and was in general used for militaristic purposes - even if defensive - more than the TNG Enterprise was, I think); Starfleet as an organization where traitors are hard to find. Roddenberry was shown Star Trek VI shortly before his death, and complained that the movie was too "militaristic."

If the CREATOR of Star Trek can change his mind about what Star Trek is or should be about, I find it impossible to understand how fans can attempt to impose a definition of what Star Trek "is." Part of the fun of discussing "Trek" and watching it over the years, for me, anyway, has been discussing what has made Star Trek so successful - and when I talk to different people about this, different people have different opinions. These people support their opinions with facts, and are not denigrated by those who claim that their actualization of "Trek" is and should be the only one.

Another point: While STID will probably not outgross its predecessor, it will, it appears, have a higher rate of return on its investment than most of the other Trek films have had. A major reason why the STID and its immediate predecessor fared so well is because non-fans saw these movies - a fair number of non-fans. STID received a Cinema Score rating of "A," which means a lot of non-fans also LIKED the movie. Evidently they were able to follow it. Fandom in days gone by often would hold the future of Trek in its hands: if the fan base did not show up to see Star Trek VI after V failed critically and commercially, perhaps there would have been no more movies.... No two CONSECUTIVE movies between Star Trek 1 and 10 were bombs, box-office wise, and the fans can be thanked for that. Surely, fans probably now realize that their input, and catering to their tastes, is less important to Paramount than it used to be, since the Star Trek movies, quite arguably, can exist as a going concern without having to rely ONLY on the fans.

Some people no doubt abhor this - i.e. they now believe "the only reason the movies can now survive is because they have been dumbed down for a mass audience. That is not an "accomplishment." (Perhaps people abhorring this explains some of the bile directed at this movie). IMHO, not one of the first ten Star Trek movies appealed primarily to the intellect. (Anyone who thinks otherwise, please share your thoughts). Some people no doubt abhor how this movie contains more special effects, more action, more cuts, more editing generally, than its predecessors. These items are value-neutral, though. They do not make a film better or worse.

One poster quoted Roger Ebert's review of "North" (1994), which contained a line to the effect of "I hated hated hated hated.. this movie." The late Ebert was also fond of saying something else: A movie is not what it is about, but how it is about it. If someone wants to condemn STID for being nothing more than an action picture, that person is condemning what the movie is about (and is also attempting to short-circuit legitimate debate - after all, to paraphrase something else Ebert once said, "Once you have called a movie an action movie, what else is there left to say about it?" The actual line Ebert used is, "Once you have called someone a Feminazi, what else is there to say about such a person?) rather than how it is about it. STID, while it is far from being a perfect movie, is, I think, an action/adventure movie that earns its thrills/laughs and some of the tears it attempts to make drop, because it goes about its story in an entertaining way, with excellent production values and a great cast that puts its own spin on things, and a script that, if criticized solely on the basis of what is on the page, moves us along from a series of exciting events to another, while even allowing for a little moral commentary that Roddenberry trying to reinvent Roddenberry Prime would have approved of (the militarism here was expressly singled out as leading Starfleet in a dangerous direction). Oh, and the screenplay does not spell things out for us (some people call that shoddy writing; reasonable people can disagree). That offends some, no doubt. One person complained that Admiral Marcus' motivation was not explained. Actually, it was (the destruction of Vulcan was, he claimed, an event that underscored the need for Starfleet to be more "proactive" against threats).

What I disagree with is not so much the reviews on this post that announce how bad this movie is, but rather the fact that a number of these reviews seem to be using, as evaluative measures, narrow, rigged criteria (i.e. "is this movie a Star Trek movie?") that when used will automatically result in this movie not "measuring up."

JJ listened, the writers not so much...

This is a difficult one, many highs and lows. I'll start with the cast. Once again this is the highlight of our new 'Trek'. Chris Pine gives his best acting performance ever. All of the actors understand their characters and work amazingly well with one another. The only question mark I might have is Alice Eve, and she hasn't been given enough yet to make a sound judgment. I do have some issues with how a couple of these characters are being written, but that's not the actors fault. Cumberbatch not being a "man of color" is not a problem. He played the part brilliantly. Kirks development in 2 short movies is outstanding. Peter Weller (John Frederick Paxton not Robo-Cop) is also outstanding. While I understand the need for Pike to die to aid in the development of Kirk, I'm sad to see him go. Bruce Greenwood's Pike was truly outstanding.

The plot: I've read probably 100 reviews here and at Rotten Tomatoes. It's obvious to me that folks don't understand the plot (or don't want to). This is probably a result of the fast pace "shoot'em up" theme in the movie (which most seem to dislike). I had to see it twice to follow it, but it is there and it's strong. Only in a JJ Trek movie does the plot get criticized because it aptly addresses current political issues. In all other Trek, those episodes and movies are considered 'Trek at its finest.' The hypocrisy I read from fellow Trekkies here is disheartening. Look past all the 'window dressing' you don't like and listen to the plot. It speaks loudly concerning current drone policy, GTMO detainees, 9/11, family, the "War on Terror" and gives us things to contemplate which is very Trek.

Now this Trekkie noticed lots to be upset about in this movie, but the plot shouldn't be one of them. The resurrection of a classic Trek character, Khan's reveal, after masquerading as John Harrison about 2/3'rds of the way through the movie, was meaningless to those unfamiliar with "Space Seed" and TWoK and didn't do anything for the Trekkies either - aside from getting under their skin. But OK, Khan's awakening does follow Trek canon and I'm OK with using him (now). What REALLY fires up this Trekkie was the complete lack of original thinking (writing) and using a rip- off-reversal of one of Trek's classic, revered and most iconic moments (Spock's death in TWoK). They actually thought Kirk entering the warp core, dying and saving the Enterprise and her crew was good writing… e- gads… oh, they also thought having Spock "loose it" and scream "KHAAAAN!" like Kirk did in TWoK was somehow in character for Spock (in either timeline). nuSpock didn't act like this when his planet was destroyed AND he lost his mother. Whatever made them think that losing his "friend" who he's known for about a year and who he's been at odds with for about half that time would provoke such a un-Vulcan response. Double "e-gads". All Harrison needed to be was an augment.

Some technical Trekkie stuff that makes one slap their forehead you ask? How about Kirk speaking to Scotty in a bar light-years away from Enterprise on his communicator… or Harri-Khan's briefcase sized trans- warp thingy… or rocket thrusters on the bottom of 1701… or the SSN-1701… or no radiation suit in engineering… or why not give Kirk some anti- radiation meds after the interior door was shut… or cold fusion stopping a frakin volcano? There, now you know I'm a Trekkie. (This nit-picking has been done to every single Trek movie and episode BTW. It's a labor of love) JJ did listen to the fans. He reduced the shaky cams, lens- flares and we now have a warp core that looks like something from the future rather than a beer distillery. (Thank you.) The problem is the writers didn't listen or just don't get it. They played the standard reboot theme of taking literary license with past production to the point of "WTF". Spock is still Spock. Nero's incursion shouldn't change that. Uhura shouldn't change that. (Oh, if it's not painfully obvious now, the Spock/Uhura thing needs to stop.) I understand the need to give Uhura more, but please don't do it at the expense of McCoy. He's too important here. Star Trek isn't Batman, or The Hulk, or Star Wars. It's not a place to "play". Star Trek has always been more than those. I hope the writers for the next installment take that to heart a little more than they've shown in the first two. The crew is assembled. They've been through hell a couple times. Let's use our imagination and create something fresh and new, something we can dream about, something positive. Pop-corn block-buster with lots of action - sure. But it also has to be a "Star Trek" movie. Make it "Trek" and you will be heralded. I want to take my kids to the next movie and I want them to learn something about life without seeing someone squeeze someone's head until it bursts.

How do I rate this visually epic, beautifully scored, Trek challenged movie? 7 of 10 I think. Trek is at home on TV, so this Trekkie will demonstrate some IDIC here and welcome this movie into the community.

I highly recommend "Star Trek Into Darkness". 9/10 had they not defined plagiarism with the ending.

Late to the party, and don't know if "Matt" is even still around, but if he is: just wanted to say I, for one, saw the same movie you did, and I very much appreciate your observant, thoughtful, and impassioned comments about it. Your posts taken together represent probably the most perceptive analysis and discussion of "STiD" I've seen. You've left me with little to add. (Though I would correct one factual point -- Adm. Marcus did know Khan's people were in the torpedos; Khan said he was caught trying to hide them in the torps and he went rogue on the incorrect assumption Marcus had killed them afterward. Doubtless Marcus, having rethought the wisdom of the whole genetically-augmented-superwarrior thing after Khan's rampage, saw firing them at Khan as a way to eliminate all his problems and any evidence in one fell swoop, and get his "inevitable" war with the Klingons as a bonus.)

@ Yanks,

I agree with much of what you said. But one point: it's not that critics didn't understand the plot, but rather that many (including myself) thought it was shallow. It's not enough simply to have Spock make a blatant allusion to remote assassinations of terrorists. The problem is the movie never really turned that short plot point into a coherent theme exploring the ethical problems with remote drone assassinations. If anything, the ending cheapens the whole experience by having Spock punch Khan in a bloody rage. So is the movie saying that extrajudicial killing is OK as long as it's done by the good guys? Or that revenge is OK when somebody kills your friend? The past Star Trek movies, while not always great, at least had consistently followed one or two key themes, but STID seems to raise issues but kind of drop them by the wayside.

After the ship crashes into San Francisco why are people going on about their lives a few hundred metres up the road? Hailing cubs, jumping on trams, buying a sandwich, etc.

Cabs that should be.

"If someone wants to condemn STID for being nothing more than an action picture, that person is condemning what the movie is about."

The problem is not that the movie is an action picture, the problem is that's an incredibly dumb, lazily written action picture that disregards any form of coherent narrative and internal logic.

And in regards to the Matt criticism/praise: While his effort to defend the movie is admirable, unfortunately he lacks a basic understanding of storytelling (consistent characterization -> character motivation -> character action -> plot development), semiotics and tonality ... to actually craft a convincing counterargument that isn't made up of mostly tangible details why STID supposedly succeeds on so many levels others felt the movie horribly failed.

dear matt sure has a lot of accounts here.

We should start a pool on Jammers rating of this film.

I'm predicting 2 1/2 stars

That's all I would give it

I predict 2 stars (2.25 if that were allowed by Jammer's rating system)

I bet he gives it either a low 2.5 or a high 2.

Up until the third act, I would've given it a 2, but trying my hardest to not laugh in the theater during the "death" scene, and then not being able to take the film seriously at all after that, knocked it down to a 1.5.

Lachlan... good question, and the answer is one of the few scientifically accurate moments in the film. See, it's a faster-than-light starship. Therefore, it gets where it's going before anybody can see it!

I disagree with Digedag. It was entirely credible how dumb it was. And the writing wasn't lazy; I could hear them writing their asses off. The writers may have been careless and misguided, but they were not lazy.

Lastly, I think everyone should agree that criticism is out of bounds when it sinks to "You're stupid if you like this" or "You didn't like it because you missed the point." Try to focus on the work, not the audience.

Here's wanting consistency. If Khan was woken up earlier, why didn't he look like Ricardo Montalban? Why wasn't he the same age as Ricardo Montalban in the episode Space seed? Why was he actually younger? That makes no sense. He would've been the same age as he was Kirk woke him up as when some nameless Federation admiral did years later. Also? Why is Kirk surprised when Khan tries to kill him at the end? After all, he had Scotty shoot the man with a phaser! Would you be surprised if you had somebody shot with a phaser and then they became your enemy at the end? I'm sure that Red Letter Media will get all of this, but also why was McCoy, Leonard H. reviving a dead Tribble that came from nowhere plot wise? Was he Kirk's personal shower loofa Tribble that was accidentally stepped on by one of the Klingons? By the way, how are we going to explain why the Klingons look different this time? Did Dr. Phlox go back to genetically work on the Klingons again and this time make sure nobody was able to grow hair on their thick Rocky craniums? This is no longer action schlock; this is jjschlock.

After all that work in the first film to cut themselves free from continuity, why would they place this story in the context of all of the previous trek lore? Nonsense. They have so much to work with and still they have to go back and revisit Star Trek to the wrath of con in order to reverse every key plot point. The next Star Trek movie will probably be about returning to the alternate future to hunt down two whales named George and Gracie who are threatening to take over the earth unless Kirk promises to take them to Seaworld in a stolen Klingon bird o' prey. Oy!

Throughout. I wondered why Robocop was used to the Federation at. And by the way, did you notice this was the same guy who played the head of Terra prime in that one episode of enterprise? What a total redirect! Why use that guy? And also consider that the name Harrison was one of those names for section 31, which was a clear misdirection I would've preferred that they actually make a Starfleet section 31 movie in which Kirk has to infiltrate section 31 in order to prevent war. Maybe he'd even run into a guy named Joe Bashir an ancestor of Dr. Julian Bashir on Star Trek space nine. That would've been 1000 times better than the film they created in which Kirk has to ally himself with ConMan and then get Scotty to shoot him in the face. After Star Trek six, I had my fill of Scottie shooting people in face.

Fair enough. I admit that I sometimes get carried away a bit when discussing movies (or TV series, video games and books) and inadvertently might offend someone. If that's the case here, I duly apologize.

However, I firmly stand by my opinion that STID is lazily written. See, when the writers don't care to provide clear (and consistent) character motivation, don't bother to make sure their plot doesn't constantly violate the established rules of the movie's universe, arbitrarily introduce elements that have vast and severe consequences that change the very nature of the world they've created just to tie up the plot, and built their story around set-pieces instead of incorporating set-pieces organically into a character-driven narrative - that the very definition of lazy - and therefore bad - storytelling. And no, this being an action movie or a summer blockbuster doesn't mean STID gets a free pass.

Many others have already mentioned the gratuitous underwear shot of Carol Marcus. Now, that particular scene is aggravating for many reason, but the one that is probably most symptomatic of STID's shortcomings is that Orci/Kurtzmann/Lindelof, once again, didn't even come up with an excuse for it. They couldn't be bothered to give a simple reason for why the future Mrs. Kirk has to strip down. They just didn't care. And that's just lazy.

They are either awful at their job, not understanding basic principles of good storytelling, or they just don't give a damn. And while I think that especially Orci and Kurtzmann are talentless fanboys high on their own hubris, I just can not imagine that they weren't aware of the numerous inconsistencies, the lack of clarification, the dubious character motivation, etc.

No, they didn't feel the need to make the script tighter and more meaningful because ... BROOOOOMMM?!

The last post was in response to Grumpy's comment.

Did anybody notice that Marcus got kicked in the stomach in the fight on the uber ship? I wonder if that was what the underwear shot meant to hint to us? Maybe without telling us directly the shot was hinting that she got pregnant by Kirk and that kick hurt or killed the baby? I know it sounds far fetched but it seems plausible and would be another Khan tie-in.

Unless Kirk now can impregnate women by merely lustfully looking at them, that's a definite no. Besides, Marcus isn't removing her clothes because she wants to engage in a bit of the ol' in-out with Kirk. In fact, she's clearly not enjoying Kirk's voyeuristic glances as she repeatedly tells him not to peek. And it becomes very clear from both her intonation and her facial expression that her rebuke is not meant to be interpreted as a thinly veiled attempt at flirting.

Also, I somehow doubt - given how blatant the references and pseudo-themes are presented through-out the movie - that any form of foreshadowing would be handled so comparatively subtle.

However, at the end of the movie Kirk and Marcus share a glance that is supposed to indicate a growing affection - never mind that the movie itself at no points hints that Marcus might be developing feelings for Kirk or at least is sexually attracted to him - for those members of the audience who neither are familiar with Trek lore nor have realized by that point that this timeline's Kirk is trying to screw anything with a heartbeat.

@ Sam S, I appreciate your call for reason, but I have to agree with Digedag on this one - parts of the STID script were just lazy. It's one thing if you're writing a script on a tight deadline or just can't make the dialogue work or if a director totally mangles it. However, with STID there are just a lot of lazy plot contrivances that are used, such as super transwarp beaming. I'm not saying that the writers themselves were lazy, just that the plot is lazy.

Frankly, I do think Lindeloff is incapable of putting together a logical plot that is realistic and adheres to the laws of science (see also Prometheus). He seems like he understands what he's doing, but thinks audiences will appreciate dumbed down characters or plot. He doesn't show much interest in science or getting things right on that side. The Prometheus DVD extras are pretty enlightening about his style of scriptwriting.

Plot contrivance. That's the word(s) I was looking for. I wish there was a similar term in my native language to perfectly describe this particular sin of story telling.

And of course I wasn't implying that the writers were lazy in the sense of not writing the script aka nor working at all. But they are guilty of being lazy in so far as they apparently didn't bother to craft a sound story that wouldn't completely collapse on first viewing and immediately reveal the nonsensical nature of the plot.

And I'm not talking about (technical) plot holes that you can find in almost any movie if you only look long and hard enough (see the awful and stupid "Everything wrong with movie XY in 3 minutes" videos on youtube). I normally don't care about this stuff as long as the movie abides by its own rules and presents a solid, character driven narrative in which the protagonists' course of action is contextually reasonable and dictated by understandable motivations.

The main problem I see is that especially Orci/Kurtzmann seem to operate according to the dictum "Wouldn't it be cool if ... (we saw the Enterprise under water/have a Star Wars dog fight)", "How great would it be if ... (a ship would crash into the San Francisco Bay/we have Khan in this movie)" "I've got this mental image of ... (Khan standing on Qo'noS/having a foot chase in a half destroyed SF)" They're basically stringing together a sequence of "cool" set pieces. The actual story seems to be an afterthought. That leads to protagonists being imposed with uncharacteristic traits and incoherent motivations, or, in the worst case, simply acting as plot devices.

Take Scotty. His moral concerns regarding the transportation of the torpedoes is not the result of an well-established character trait - in fact, in TOS, Scotty was portrayed as a capable "acting captain" who wasn't averse to using the Enterprise's weapon arsenal when the situation called for it (He even owned a sword!), definitely never opposing Kirk due to some pacifistic attitude -, no, his resignation is solely motivated by plot necessity. He needs to be absent from the Enterprise so he later can sneak aboard the - allegedly top secret and, one would assume, closely-guarded - Vengeance and sabotage it.

Now, wouldn't it have made a bit more sense from a character standpoint if Spock were the one to oppose Kirk, pointing out his illogical behavior driven by his wish for vengeance (and, in doing so, further widening the gulf between the two, something the writer obviously were going for anyway in terms of character dynamic for three quarters of the film)? Or how about McCoy, the ultimate humanist of the crew? Surely he wouldn't have approved of Kirk's decision. And while it's unlikely that Bones would have left the Enterprise, he surely would have given Kirk a mouthful. Honestly, I can't remember McCoy even mentioning the issue, definitely not arguing heatedly over it. Perhaps someone else of the crew could have stepped in?

Well, it doesn't matter because the plot calls for the Vengeance to be incapacitated for a short amount of time. So in order for this plot point to work they needed the engineer of the group on board of the enemy vessel. to recapitulate, Scotty basically acts out of character and displays a never before seen feature (even for this altered timeline, before someone digs up this argument) that gets abruptly introduced so the movie's narrative can move forward. The plot dictates the characterization and character action when it should be the other way around.

And this is just one of many example.


By the way, I'm not bashing STID out of principle because I'm sternly against Abrams' reboot or something similar. I'm criticizing the movie because I love Trek, because I think that the new cast is terrific and could really shine if given the opportunity and, in general, because there's so much potential to make a really good (Star Trek) movie.

But instead we've got the awful and aggravating STID. And I'm not even going to touch upon what a stupid idea it was trying to rip off Wrath of Khan and on how many levels STID failed to accomplish it successfully!

Anyway, here's a movie in which Spock yells "KHAAAAN", apparently so agonized by the death of Kirk that he has a surprising and for a Vulcan highly atypical emotional outburst - a reaction far more extreme than the one he showed when confronted with the destruction of his home planet and the extinction of his entire species! The funny thing is, though, we've never seen Kirk and Spock being friends. If one watches the movie one could almost assume that the two can't stand and barely tolerate each other. And no sign of real bonding over the whole course of the film. Strange! Even Uhura, his girlfriend is given the cold shoulder throughout because Spock doesn't want to make himself vulnerable (Pain! Pain!). Which of course begs the question what Uhura actually sees in this relationship which almost seems like a poorly thought out idea on part of the writers who wanted to introduce a new element into the franchise just for the sake of it. But again ... characterization, blah blah ...

Oh well ...

Well said, Digedag.

Ultimately, what I'm most disappointed about is the fact that The Powers That Be decided to turn Star Trek into just another incarnation of a Summer Blockbuster Hey-At-Least-It's-Fun Movie Franchise.

I just need to ask why. Aren't there enough popcorn flicks around? Is mindless summer fun, even if done entertainingly (and this movie certainly isn't), really what Star Trek does best?

Also, to comment on Digedag's notion that the writers operate solely under "wouldn't it be cool if...?", just go read a couple of interviews by Abrams and the screenwriters. That's exactly what they were going for. To me, they come off as kids let loose in this great theme park salivating at the prospect to turn over this rock and push that button.

I mean, for crying out loud, Abrams flat out said he never really liked (or was it understood?, I can't remember) all that Trek philosophy! Just google it! He's basically the guy who likes to give this revamped car a spin around the block before jumping to the next sweet thing. Is there a project these last 10 years he saw to completion? He comes in, retools or invents a bunch of stuff, and leaves for greener pastures. What kind of creative approach is that?

I enjoyed your posts Digedag.

Speaking as someone who saw her first Trek movie in a theater this year (I wasn't into Trek in '09), I'd say the movie was fun.

I'd like to think this is my Trek now. This is something I can relate to because it's happening in real time for me. As the actors age, so will I. Regardless of whether or not STID worked as a movie, it definitely worked as my yardstick for the world of Trek.

Digedag, I actually agree with you, especially this: "They're basically stringing together a sequence of 'cool' set pieces. The actual story seems to be an afterthought." I made a similar observation earlier (I spelled it "kewl"). Whether that's laziness or not is a semantic dispute. I picture them breathlessly telling the story, like Patton Oswalt's Star Wars filibuster, and "lazy" is not the word that comes to mind. If anything, it's an excess of effort pointed at the wrong priorities.

And my comment about out-of-bounds criticism was not aimed at anyone in particular... but anyone who recognizes themselves in that description should rightly feel shame. Shame!

"The late Ebert was also fond of saying something else: A movie is not what it is about, but how it is about it. If someone wants to condemn STID for being nothing more than an action picture, that person is condemning what the movie is about..."

Rebuttal:

You could substitute anything for the word "movie" in that sentence and have it still make sense -- for example, "franchise." And STiD, as a straight-up action movie with sci-fi and Trek elements, does not fit the "how it is about it"-ness of the Star Trek franchise. It is perfectly possible to condemn it on that basis.

Speaking of "wouldn't it be cool if...?", as Paul M. put it, I recall that Wrath of Khan was assembled the same way. They took the best parts of separate pitches (Khan's revenge, Kirk's son, Spock's death, the Omega/Genesis project) and crafted a story that tied them together. And the art director said, Wouldn't a nebula battle be kewl?? And the producer said, wouldn't a training simulator intro be kewl??

Maybe the magic of that film, which elevates it to great cinema beyond being good sci-fi or Trek, is that Nick Meyer (uncredited for the final script) covered the tracks. The characters are speaking, not the writers.

@ Grumpy, that's partly right about TWOK, but I think Meyer also took care to realize he was, at the end of the day, telling a story. Also, Meyer comes from a much more literate background, by which I mean he reads the classics like Shakespeare and clearly took inspiration from them (hence Khan's famous quotes). He had an understanding of storytelling in various media, including novels and theater. So, when he turned to TWOK, he wasn't approaching it just as a movie, but as a story. He knew how to create character moments that didn't require a lot of special effects or action scenes.

By contrast, I think too many scriptwriters and directors today are primarily or exclusively in cinema. JJ Abrams and Lindelof and company know how to put movies together, but they don't seem to know how to put stories together. Unlike Meyet, I could never see Lindelof writing a best-selling novel for example.

I'd say something similar about the actors (although the problem isn't all that bad). Many film actors today only know TV or movies. Unlike the Patrick Stewarts or Leonard Nimoys of the world, they're not stage actors. I think that actually makes a difference. Stage acting requires you to be a character for a prolonged period of time, with no cuts, and forces you to learn how to improvise. During a live show, there's nobody to hold your hand. They have to know how to hold an audience's attention because the audience is right in front of them. Many of the STID actors are quite good, but I can't connect to them as characters the same way I connected to Picard or Spock or even Dukat and Weyoun.

@Dom "By contrast, I think too many scriptwriters and directors today are primarily or exclusively in cinema. JJ Abrams and Lindelof and company know how to put movies together, but they don't seem to know how to put stories together."

Hence the rise of MTV generation directors who learned their craft on music videos. A 3 minute cool snippet with lots of cutting and camera angles.

2 stars and that is being generous. I think this film and the last one shows what a bad idea it is to let fanboys with no writing talent take over multi million dollar entertainment properties. Thiis film was devoid of a single original or well developed idea. It relied on nothing but barely clad actors, hyper active action sequences, plot contrivances and really good visual effects. There was no solid characterization, no interesting villain, no story just a bunch of stitched together scenes. It stole elements from earlier trek where the elements were handled infinitely better,,, khan, revenge, section 31 etc. Instead we get cliches,,,, the rogue admiral, his pawn rising up and turning on him, magic cures. And casting a white man for khan was lame.

The crew comes across as star trek brats who get a fancy starship to play around on. Star trek was in better hands with brann8n braga than orci, kurtzman, lindelof and abrams. There is no rhyme or reason for a lot of the stuff that happens in the film. It seems this generation of writers think action and kewl ideas are good entertainment. They arent. Even as a mindless flick it fails.

@david: "Star trek was in better hands with brann8n braga than orci, kurtzman, lindelof and abrams."

It's a coin toss, in my opinion. I see Abrams Trek as everything Voyager and Nemesis wanted to be, but weren't.

So, while I am extremely critical of nuTrek, I admit that the franchise was moving in this direction for a long time, 15 years at least. And to be honest, the heart and soul of Trek was always on TV, not the big screen, even with the best Trek movies.

I only hope that one of these days we'll get a new Trek TV show. In that sense, I root for Abrams and Co. to succeed,if only to pave the way for a new incarnation of Trek.

Unfortunately It's unlikely that we'll see a return to the small screen in the foreseeable future. If I remember correctly, Abrams actually had plans to launch a TV series alongside the reboot some years ago that were ultimately squashed by the complicated legal position concerning the ownership of the rights to Trek.

And while STID is by no means a commercial failure, the movie nevertheless wasn't able to fulfill the (perhaps unrealistic, clearly too optimistic) box office expectations, making it somewhat of a financial disappointment for the studio.

But yes, Star Trek ultimately belongs on TV. It's the place for which it was originally conceived, were it had its finest hours and prospered the most. And it would be interesting to see how Star Trek would adjust to today's TV landscape and the challenges of serialized storytelling.

And I agree with your assessment, Paul, that many of the flaws that plague Abrams' version of Trek also were prevalent in the two last TV installments as well as in TNG's last cinematic outing.

There was also a good point made by Dom earlier. I agree that Abrams - being a Spielberg disciple through and through - definitely knows how to put a movie together. And seen individually many of the action sequences work beautifully on a visceral level, the only major point of criticism being the generic nature and familiarity of it all. However, unfortunately he lacks The Beard's talent for not only effortlessly infusing the action with human drama and conflict (let alone real purpose), but making the characters the ultimate anchor point of the story and the driving force behind the narrative.

In regards to Lindelof: It may come as a surprise, but I honestly think that it's unfair and a bit too convenient to put the blame of STID's numerous shortcomings solely on Damon Lindelof. Yes, he's the scapegoat of large sections of the Internet these days thanks to the debacle that was Prometheus. Yes, his rewrites ruined a perfectly fine (albeit not exactly world-shattering) script and turned the movie into a huge mess that shares many of the STID's problems like the unmotivated and oftentimes downright stupid character behavior. And Lost's disappointing resolution is also mostly his fault, no doubt about it.

However, out of the three writers he's the only one who's got actual talent and a distinct vision of his own. If only he could get rid of his obsession with the supernatural, like his rather juvenile reduction of complex issues to the simplistic dichotomy between faith and knowledge - and the incongruent, haphazard and pretentious way these themes oftentimes get explored. The confusion of unresolvedness with actual (meaningful) ambiguity, etc.

But while Lindelof's latest attempts at crafting a good script all have been pretty unsuccessful due to his strange fixations mentioned above, the main problem with Abrams' version of Star Trek is the duo of Alex Kurzmann and Robert Orci. They are responsible for the lion's share of these movies. Kurzmann and Orci are basically two fanboys who, ironically, neither understand nor care about what Star Trek is supposed to be about, who are more interested in a succession of "kewl" (to borrow that term) scenes without bothering to come up with a reasonable story or crafting real character drama. Two overpaid guys who never had a single original idea in their whole career, whose entire body of work is made up of other people's work arbitrarily slapped together and clumsily rearranged. It doesn't help that Orci is obviously a conspiracy theorist, which is what most likely lead to the stupid terrorist/paranoid admiral angle of the movie that not only feels artificially imposed - and doesn't work at all in terms of tone, Mise en scène and semiotics - but is in stark contrast to what is otherwise meant to be a fun romp inserted with a few serious moments (that don't work, neither emotionally nor thematically ... but, I digress).

So, if you are a fan of Roddenberry's creation (or of good movies in general) and have been granted one free wish: Wish that these two idiots will not be rehired to write the next Star Trek.


Anyways, I'm now going to rewatch "Galaxy Quest". Now, that's a genuinely great movie!

Sorry but lindelof is not a good writer. Just look at Lost which I would argue is the perfect example of excess storytelling that has come to define contemporary entertainment,,, nonlinear storytelling, an overabundance of flashback, massive roster of characters, dozens of mysteries, frenzied jumping from one scene to the next, and twists or omg moments exist to shock rather than being a launching point for a well developed storyline, and convoluted unwieldy mythologies. Lindelof was the one who suggested khan.

It. Is all about gimmicks. Oh how I pine for the days of modest ensembles, linear storytelling, good writing with internal logic, fresh ideas, interesting chracters and a modest pacing.

And say what you want but brannon actually had good ideas and could actually put them to good use I.e. adding a borg character to voyager, his Tng high concept stories and the xindi arc was infinitely more interesting than either abrams movie.

Oh and while some are praising the attempts at commentary about terrorism etc. Please it was so ham handed and tiresome. Only the most basic cursory glance was attempted. Besides after ten years of tv programs tackling that issue for me it is just well worn and tiresome. Enuff.

I could go into a very long review of the film, but given the plethora of reviews here, I'm sure most of my thoughts have been said already, so I'll try to be somewhat brief.

I agree with one of the first postings: A great popcorn film, and that's about it.

First off, saw it in 3D. Other than some ash sparks and things in the volcano and a native arrow shot just over the camera (that legitimately had my reflexively dodge), there was little need for the 3D. I hate film converted to 3D anyway. It seems artificial. It seems like flat 2D elements (people, sets) placed at different depths like a puppet show. The faces in the foreground are flat, not round, but the "3D" is used to place them closer to the viewer than the background or another character. No depth within the layers.

As for the film itself, It was pretty well-written from a dialogue point of view, but not from a plot point of view. Once again, I found Karl Urban's performance was my favourite. He perfectly embodied that gruffness that was McCoy. Other than Urban, only Quinto seems to embody "acting" elements of the original character. Pegg is very funny as scotty and obviously does a scottish accent, but I find him far more energetic and manic than the real scotty, and doesn't have the same "character" that Doohan did. Similarly, Saldana doesn't really ring any "uhura" bells in my mind, nor does Cho any "Sulu". I suppose Yelchin does have some Chekov in him, but his character is barely present in the film. Pine does a pretty good job too, although he's handicapped by having to play Shatner's character, and both Shatner and Kirk are legendary. Hard to do justice to a legend.

But the plot was just awful. Best part was the whole opening - Kirk breaks the rules to save Spock; Spock doesn't get it; isn't grateful; Kirk loses command, etc. I also really liked the setup; Guy trades his daughter's life for his own and blows up a starfleet installation (although somewhat clichéed thanks to shows like 24 that have done that kind of "mole" to save my family plot many many times.

But I was intrigued. I was also intrigued when Harrison shot up the Starfleet commander's meeting. The death of Pike was very emotional. As an aside, I would point out that Kirk's reasoning for deducing that Harrison would shoot up the meeting because a) Harrison blew up a useless data library and b) knew the meeting would be held so the bombing was a ruse to get the meeting to be held. Once Adm. Marcus reveals that the Data Library was really a secret research facility, and we find out that Harrison bombed it for a reason, Kirk's logic doesn't hold anymore. It's fortunate for the plot that Harrison decided to shoot up the meeting on top of the bombing anyway.

But that's where the wheels came off the train.

Scotty quits, so the next best engineer onboard is Chekov? What the hell? Who the hell else is working in engineering - you know, full time? On TNG and whatnot they had "assistant chief engineers" and whatnot. This was a terrible plot choice to give Chekov something to do (similarly, Sulu gets to take the bridge once or twice, so that he gets something to do in the film as well).

Harrison is Khan. Oh well, they couldn't come up with a unique idea. Whatever. I don't mind that he's white either. I think Cumberbatch turned in a wonderfully haunting and menacing performance. But the entire plot surrounding him is terrible.

Adm. Marcus reminds me of the Admiral from Insurrection, Adm. Dougherty. Both had inexplicably irrational motivatons. Marcus is prepared to kill every starfleet officer on the Enterprise and destroy the ship just to kill Khan. He also desperately wants to start a war with the Klingons. I am at a loss to understand on what basis he justifies this. It's completely anti-starfleet, and I can only wonder how he became an Admiral with that kind of attitude. It taints the whole film for me.

That said, I wanted to believe that the writers, while ripping off Star Trek 2 by giving us Khan, were actually going to flip it on us and make Khan an ally against the evil Admiral. At least then they'd be turning ST2 on its head. But no, as soon as the admiral is dealt with, we get Khan in charge of a starfleet ship and we effectively get a slight tweak of ST2 right down to the death scene. Unfortunately, that scene has far less power than ST2, because I think we all know there's no damn way they are killing off Pine in this film.

As soon as they had Khan in sickbay and Kirk (or Spock?) turns to McCoy for no reason and asks "hey, what are you up to, Doc?" "Oh, I'm just injecting Khan's blood into a dead Tribble, why?"

It was a completely pointless moment that jarringly interrupted the flow of the scene. Instantly anyone who's see a sci-fi (or perhaps anyone who's seen any recent fiction) should instantly recognize that Khan's blood or the tribble (or both) are going to come into play in a major way later. So as soon as you find that Kirk is "dead", you have to wonder "how are they going to unkill him? Oh right - Khan blood".

So now Spock, who's out for vengeance, has to be told not to kill Khan, cause we need his blood.

I'm not 100% sure why they needed to do that. I would have expected that maybe they'd have didn't keep any sample of his blood from what they took earlier, but didn't we just find out that they have 72 suspended super-humans in their cargo bay? I assumed Khan's followers were also super-humans... am I wrong? Why can't they use their blood? In any event, it's awfully convenient that in both timelines, the leader among 72 other popsicles, Khan, happens to be the one that gets thawed.

I enjoyed the conceit of the ship losing power and therefore succumbing to gravity and falling into the atmosphere. That said, I found it hard to believe that the ship under no power could have any hope of surviving entry into the atmosphere. One damaged tile on a space shuttle and the thing will blow up on reentry. How exactly does the Enterprise, not aerodynamically designed for reentry even at the proper angle and attitude, manage to "fall" into the atmosphere after having been severely damaged by Khan?

Similarly, (and this one is a common movie inaccuracy), I would expect Khan's ship to be heavily destroyed after hitting the first building, but like a car hitting a chainlink fence, or a fruit stand, the moving object is impervious to damage. In reality a car goes through a fruit stand and its front end gets smashed.

I ultimately thought it sad to kill of Pike for such a relatively poor reason. It was disappointing. I also thought the need to contact NimoySpock was just an excuse to put him in the movie. Is QuintoSpock going to call NimoySpock every film for advice now?

All in all, some nice nostalgia and callbacks to ST2, but the plot itself was so blah that it left me underwhelmed.

@TH "Best part was the whole opening - Kirk breaks the rules to save Spock; Spock doesn't get it; isn't grateful; Kirk loses command, etc. I also really liked the setup; Guy trades his daughter's life for his own and blows up a starfleet installation (...) I was also intrigued when Harrison shot up the Starfleet commander's meeting. The death of Pike was very emotional."

Yes. After first 20 minutes, I was actually pretty hopeful. The scenes with the bomber guy, Pike-Kirk, the whole what is the moral cost of breaking the rules vibe of the opening was quite good. A bit bombastic and overly logorrheic perhaps, but good.

Unfortunately, as soon as Kirk and crew ride off to chase the bad guys, the movie devolves into a giant mess of self-contained action set pieces that get progressively louder and crazier.

Also, I sincerely don't know what to make of the epilogue. After 2 hours of non-stop explosions and superhero stuff, we suddenly get a boldly going, explore new stuff speech in the very lasr seconds of the movie. It was such a jarring and inappropriate, not to mention insincere moment. What on Earth did this movie do to EARN such closing sentiment? Frankly, nothing.

And that's a recurring theme throughout much of the movie. It is packed to bursting with hommages, character points, emotions, and sentiments that it didn't earn.

I never *believed* this Kirk and this Spock were friends. I never believed this movie was about seeking out new life and new civilisations, or about drone extra-judicial killings and so on. It pays lip service to big ideas and pretends to wrestle with complicated moral dilemmas, but it's all a veneer slapped over a shallow pointless blockbuster. It is what it is.

TH: "...it's awfully convenient that in both timelines, the leader among 72 other popsicles, Khan, happens to be the one that gets thawed."

As I recall from "Space Seed," Khan's freezer was programmed to open first. That much they got right, if only accidentally.

"I enjoyed the conceit of the ship losing power and therefore succumbing to gravity and falling into the atmosphere."

That was a genuinely fun scene that, unlike the rest of the movie, entertained me enough that I didn't question the logic *during* the movie. But in the parking lot... They fell from halfway to lunar orbit in 20 minutes? If they were in freefall, why did anyone's feet stick to anything? Were they subject to Earth gravity? Then the deck is still down because, as the poster pic shows, the ship is right-side up. If they were in negative-G (slowing down as they hit the air) then they're thrown to the ceiling. They're definitely not running on the walls.

But it was new & different. And, apart from being anti-climactic because the main plot had already been resolved, perhaps the best justification for the "kewl" approach to filmmaking.

@ Grumpy,

I didn't like the freefall scene, but I did get the impression that the ship was swerving. So, if they were subject to Earth gravity, the running on the walls could be because the ship wasn't falling rightside up. In fact, given that the ship is probably not well balanced, I could easily imagine it falling saucer-side first. I'd have to rewatch the movie to actually see how it was depicted though

Jammer, when will you be reviewing this?

@ Dom

Thanks for commenting on my review.

I guess my point was it's not up to the movie to answer all the questions. It's not a documentary.

It's kind of like all the Prometheus critics saying the movie didn't provide any answers. It wasn't supposed to.

STID did bring up point for further thought and consideration. I don't think it's up to the movie to throw all the "right" answers in your face.

@ Yanks, thanks. I agree the movie doesn't need to provide all the answers. I know for Prometheus a lot of people were upset that we didn't get every single detail about the Xenomorph, but I don't think that was necessary.

But a movie does need to provide a logical plot that actually relates to the moral question if we want to take it seriously. For example, if the movie really wanted to raise questions about the ethics of drone strikes, it should have raised that at some point near the resolution of the movie. For example, they could have had a dialogue like this:

Spock: Captain, I must apologize. If I hadn't insisted on capturing Khan alive, you would not have died and the 10,000 people in San Diego would not have been killed when the Vengeance crashed.

Kirk: Spock, your respect for life is human. I only wish Starfleet HQ remembers to respect life.

Spock: But the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Would it not have been worth eliminating Khan at that point?

Kirk: Could you have lived with yourself if you had?

Spock: [raises eyebrow, ponders]

Or something like that. That doesn't necessarily give you THE ANSWER, but it does at least show you that the characters are exploring the ethical implications of their actions and that the choice had an impact. Instead, the movie ends pretty quickly with Spock punching Khan in a rage.

Likewise, with Prometheus, most people weren't upset with the fact that we didn't get all the answers, but the fact that the characters behave like idiots (the biologist petting the snake, etc).

Anyways, I predict that this movie will keep fans talking. It actually raises important questions about the franchise and the fate of Trek.

Here's what I'm wondering: other movie franchises are often based on novels or comic books. When they decided to make Lord of the Rings movies, they didn't take Tolkien's characters and then hire some people who read the books 30 years ago in high school to write up a new script. They adapted the books that were already there.

Star Trek has this huge library of expanded universe writing out there. Why not buy the rights to a particularly good one and adapt it to film? Why try to force out a new idea -- and end up having to load it with homages and cheats about "separate timelines" -- when you have a universe already loaded with stories?

Guys, let us not open the can of worms that is Prometheus, okay. Even attempting to approach that unwieldy behemoth of a movie is going to derail this discussion completely. I already lightly touched upon certain problems that plagued Scott's pretentious pseudo-Alien abomination when I was talking about Lindelof, but that was only scratching the surface.

Suffice to say that "unanswered questions" and "stupid behavior of supposedly smart people" are only the tip of the iceberg, tangible details if you will. Criticisms of effects that are the result of more complex problems, but not the actual cause. The reasons why Prometheus failed so grandiosely are manifold and deep-rooted.

One thing though - and Dom already addressed this to an extend - there's a huge difference between STID and movies that purposefully toy with ambiguity and/or thoroughly dissect complex moral issues without taking a clear stance and ultimately committing to one position, thus basically forcing the audience to contemplate and reflect on the events of the movie and then come to its own conclusion.

STID's wannabe commentary on the whole post 9/11-terrorist topic is superficial and lackadaisical at best. A tired rehash of old ideas that ...
a) are never supported by the movie in terms of of tone, visual language and contextualization, making them awkwardly stand out in an otherwise homogenous and (admittedly) effective execution.
b) don't get further explored in the remainder of the movie - despite certain theoretically significant implications - and are completely forgotten by the time everything goes boom.
c) probably only found their way into the movie because they needed some kind of motivation for the villain. Never mind that the reasons for Admiral Robocop's disregard for Starfleet's lofty ideals neither get a satisfactory explanation, nor are in any way, shape, or form represented by the actual world these characters inhabit (see point a).


Yeah, I guess we (meaning the fandom in general) are gonna keep discussing the movie's merits and shortcommings. But then again, currently there's nothing else Star Trek-related you could talk about. That's the sad truth.

J.J.Abrams has done nothing but damage Star Trek.

"I'm more of a Star Wars fan"

Yeah... it shows.... you idiot.

Hopefully he will get kicked out and they will bring a Director in, who actually knows what the hell Star Trek is about.

In his first movie he single-handedly wipes out 2 of the 3 most important planets in the entire Quadrant.

Thanks for that. Real helpful contribution.

In his second, he continues using the same 'artistic' style.

A lens flare fills the entire screen every few seconds, forcing you to cringe and look away

The movie is ridiculously over-saturated with special effects, explosions and "Space Jumps" - again.

...and again he's produced a Star Wars movie, that has absolutely nothing of a resemblance to a Star Trek movie.

Star Trek: Into Darkness - is not a good Star Trek movie.

It is though, an average action movie.

/

Sadly, it rapes Wrath of Khan.

Hopefully it will be forgotten soon, so The Wrath of Khan isn't forgotten behind this abomination.

And don't get me started on Alice Eve.

She is literally the worst actress i've seen.... EVER.

Clearly sexual favours landed her the part.

Every time she spoke, I wanted to slap her in the face.

Why do Americans always get British people to put on stupid pre-historic British accents?

We do not talk like that.

Maybe in 1950, but not now.

/

I hope the next film is the final one in this Reboot series.

..because you know - Star Trek fans want to see Star Trek - not fucking Star Wars.

Abrams... Run to your beloved shit pile.

And don't forget those Cranial Ridges

Klingons now have alien Vaginas on their foreheads, in J.J. Abrams Universe.

/

So he's destroyed Vulcan

..destroyed Romulus

..destroyed Klingons

...and destroyed Star Trek: The Reboot.

Thanks J.J. Now die.

@Digedag: "STID's wannabe commentary on the whole post 9/11-terrorist topic is superficial and lackadaisical at best. A tired rehash of old ideas that ...
(...)
c) probably only found their way into the movie because they needed some kind of motivation for the villain. Never mind that the reasons for Admiral Robocop's disregard for Starfleet's lofty ideals neither get a satisfactory explanation"

One only needs to compare STID's fumbling attempts at political controversy with how a very similar subject was tackled in another of the movie's sources of inspiration: Undiscovered Country. That was a good movie that truly explored what it means to live in a changing political landscape after the fall of Berli... ahem, after explosion of Praxis. Not only that, but ST VI weaved complex character questions in in the heart of its narrative--namely, do these old warriors, these relics of the past raised in another time, have a place in the "bold new world" opening up before their eyes. Some are stuck in the past, not willing to give up on beleifs they held their entire lives, while others adapted and grew, albeit reluctantly. At the end of the movie, Kirk and company knew their time was essentialy over, and they had the right sense not to overstay their welcome, paving the way for the next generation. That last Peter Pan reference is such a perfectly touching and appropriate closure to the heroes of the past.

Yeah, tldr, STID could learn a ton not only from Wrath of Khan, but from Undiscovered Country as well.

@Paul:

It's quite ironic, isn't it? For all the plundering of the lore, the ripping off plot points and referencing moments from previous Star Trek movies, the writers were unable or unwilling - and I don't know which of the two is worse - to adapt the things that make in particular Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country work so well.

After all, Khan isn't such an iconic villain because he was played by the late, great Ricardo Montalban (although his charismatic Shakespearean turn as what is at its core a variation of Melville's Ahab certainly helped a lot), but because his motivation and subsequent actions played beautifully into the subjects of aging, family, friendship, responsibility, mortality that especially Kirk has to face over the course of the movie. These topics aren't just superficially imposed upon the storyline but beautifully and organically interwoven with both the characterization and narrative.

The same with the action set pieces. The much-heralded final confrontation in the Mutara Nebula doesn't simply try to ape naval warfare by having two star vessels circling each other and every now and then blindly firing shots, every aspect of the execution - from set-design, lighting, sound design, camera angles and even the more militaristic designed uniforms - fully commits to this idea, creating an atmosphere that reflects the thematic approach in a tonally coherent way.

And yes, that is equally true for The Undiscovered Country which, not coincidentally, was also directed and co-written by Nicholas Meyer. And in regards to the "Bold New World": The whole idea of the Perestroika in space metaphor wouldn't work if it were just a lazy plot gimmick. It works because the concept is sufficiently explored from a narrative standpoint and directly tied into the portrayals of the protagonists - who nevertheless remain consistent with earlier depictions. That's the brilliance of the script. It never violates or changes the essential core of who these people are in order to introduce new elements into the story, but creates motivations and develops familiar personality traits that represent a believable character progression for our heroes.

Even the antagonists are much more fleshed out than any villain in Abram's Trek so far. The motives of Chang and his conspirators are reasonable in the context of story and setting. Their cause might be misguided, their mentality hopelessly outdated, but we - the audience - can at least related to them - even if we don't exactly feel sympathy - because their concerns are ultimately only too human.

And you're absolutely right with your assessment of the ending of The Undiscovered Country. It's such a poignant and poetic sendoff that works on all three levels. It concludes the story in an appropriately melancholic but satisfactory fashion, it provides an optimistic outlook and social commentary - true to Roddenberry's original vision - on the changing landscape of real world politics and, last but not least, it ushers in a new age of Star Trek.

The funny thing is, STID makes you appreciate these movies all the more.

@ Digedag,

"The funny thing is, STID makes you appreciate these movies all the more."

I'm actually surprised how true that is. I've watched II, VI, and VIII in the past few weeks just to see if my memories of them held up. I came away impressed that those movies still hold up so well.

I can understand how somebody might say Khan and Undiscovered Country might be a bit too "slow" for today's audiences, but I don't see why we couldn't have another First Contact type film. That movie seemed to have a strong blend of action, plot, effects, humor, and character. And surprisingly good acting for Trek. THAT to me seems like the best model for the future of Trek movies.

Finally saw it yesterday, and wasn't impressed in the least. I think I might have spent 45 minutes in total contemplating whether was going to walk out or not.

My biggest problem is that it took them only one film to start rehashing stories. They took Trek to this alternative timeline to do new and bold things without being bogged down with the endless backstory, and what do they do? They basically redo Wrath of Khan, with throwbacks and references that feel so forced, so eager to please, so hammy that one can hardly take it seriously.

If they are going to continue with this timeline (which I am sure they will), they need to stop trying to please everyone, and stop trying to prove that yes, this is still your old Star Trek, because it damn well is not.

This is not Star Trek, this is an summer action film with a blatant regard for any- and everything Trek ever meant. Instead, it's a soulless action flick for the masses with only a spray of Starfleet paint. Thoroughly disappointing.

Of course, that should have been disregard in that last paragraph; not regard.

I'm not Sure that this timeline will last too much longer given STID's Somewhat disappointing performance at the box office. But That will probably just confine new Trek to novels and fan creations. Thing is, After the 2009 film, I thought this reboot could be really great. Given That they had for years, it's unbelievable that the powers that be couldn't do better.

Come on, Jammer, we've all moved on to complaining about Man Of Steel now!

Okay, before we go on about a mass murdering Superman and how Snyder/Goyer/Nolan messed up the fundamental core of what the Man of Steel is supposed to be, here's an absolute must-read concerning the stupid, stupid science of STID, and how it undermines every aspect of what made Roddenberry's Star Trek so great.

Copernicus On The Science Of STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS: www.aintitcool.com/node/62867

Theres a harsh reality: Trek has changed forever. The franchise has been taken in a new and probably irreversible direction. And making it appeal more to the masses has come at the cost of the type of story telling and character development at the core of TNG, DS9 etc.

Theres a majority view from the posts here that the film had a lot of plot holes, poor character development and shouldnt have ripped off WOK. And I agree with much of it.

I enjoyed the film, for what it was. It was big screen entertainment, great SFX and enough of a story to make it work. But I didnt go back to see it again. And that says it all for me. There wasnt enough real character development to entice me back, and in the end it was just a summer blockbuster. Seen this way its a good film as it was entertaining but when compared to the quality within Trek canon, it was not.

But this is the future for Trek. I hope the next one develops an original Trek story, one that I'll want to see again and again. And I live for that day. If I have to put up with trek blockbusters in the meantime, well thats okay with me. I'd rather have some Trek than no Trek, and no one forces any of us to go and watch them. ;)

@ John, I actually think it might help to go a few years without any Trek again. I think we need to build up the public demand for Trek. Also, give some time for us all to get the JJ Trek out of our systems and reduce the likelihood that Paramount will simply dip back into the JJ Trek well.

What I would like is an announcement in 2016 about a new Trek TV series. I think there are more opportunities for smart Trek - and smart storytelling generally - on TV than in the movies.

I have been really dismayed by some of the responses to Star Trek into Darkness on this website. While you may not agree with everything that has happened there is no doubt that JJ Abrams has revitalised Star Trek. It seems that people have very quickly forgotten that Rick Berman and Brannon Braga ran the franchise into the ground.

I am delighted that a new audience has been introduced to Star Trek many of whom will now seek out TOS and TNG, etc., which we all love. The Star Trek you know is still there sitting on your shelf or on your computer. Abrams has not stolen that from you.

Star Trek fans tend to have a romanticised view of Gene Roddenberry. At the end of the day he was a TV producer and if you don’t produce stuff that sells you don’t have a job. Gene would have no problem with this Trek if it were popular.

I know Gene was upset by some of the things that were added to Star Trek V and VI but we have to remember that he was very ill at that stage and was probably thinking about his legacy. Fair enough.

I thoroughly enjoyed Star Trek into Darkness. I actually went to see it twice. It was great to see these fantastic characters that Gene created once again. I get really annoyed with people that complain about the change in the timeline that is not what Star Trek is about. Star Trek is entertainment and as long as people are demonstrating that are entertained by buying tickets at the box office I am happy, and I think, so would Gene.

Macca I agree with everything you said. Other trek sites such a trek movie and trek bbs have liked this movie much better then people here.I am in shock at all the negative comments because I enjoyed the movie. There were so many good parts in the movie such as when mcoy tells sulu to remind him not to get sulu angery or when kirk tells mcoy to shut up. Even the death scene was ok and the kahhn scream wasnt distracting like many people here have said. Lastly Macca is right were lucky to even have any more treck this soon after the movies and shows enterprise,voyager,nemessis,and insurrection

Prepare to be annoyed, Macca.

I don't have to defend the creative dearth of the latter-day Berman/Braga era in order to be properly offended by what Abrams has done with Trek. The last years of Voyager, and pretty much all of Enterprise, delivered trite, re-hashed, re-heated, and occasionally idiotic Trek. But it was still Trek, recognizable as such. Abrams' movies, as action movies, are engaging, exciting, over-the-top fun. But they're not Trek. They never will be, no matter what the characters' names are or what ship they fly around in.

Now, I have no objection to action movies. I'd hate to tell you how many times I've seen Die Hard and Lethal Weapon and Under Siege. But Trek isn't about action (except in service of the story); it's about exploration. It's not about blowing things up (though I admit that does happen from time to time); it's about examining the human condition and the human spirit. If I want to see gigantic empty spectacles, I have other options. That's not why I love Star Trek.

You talk about the new audience that will seek out the old Trek, now that they've had a taste. That's exactly why I was behind the concept of a reboot in the first place -- get rid of the restrictive canon that was holding people back from engaging, and make room for new stories. Give the audience a taste of that classic Trek feel, and maybe they'll be driven to the older stuff. But the first movie didn't feel like Trek, not totally. And ST:iD (I'm really having to fight hard to avoid shortening the acronym to STD) not only severed the link completely, it ironically managed to do so while aping one of the best pieces of entertainment the Star Trek franchise has ever produced -- re-hashed, again.

What is going to be interesting to this new audience about, say, "The Survivors" from TNG? Or "The Visitor" from DS9? Why would people who want action-Trek care about "Children of Time" or "Darmok"? Those episodes have moral dilemmas and mysteries at their heart. Problems don't get solved with massive explosions. Or, God help us, why would they ever want to watch "City on the Edge of Forever"? Cheesy special effects, no explosions -- the most violent thing that happens in the episode is a car crash. If they seek it out, most of them will either hate what they find, or just won't get it at all.

You want to like the movie? Like the movie. I watch and enjoy Robot Monster from time to time, which is objectively atrocious, so I'm in no position to sneer at anyone else's taste. And, as I said, if this had been a sci-fi/action movie not marketed as Trek, I probably would have enjoyed the hell out of it. But whatever you thought about the movie as a movie, let's not pretend that Abrams has revitalized Star Trek. For that to happen, he would have to bring Star Trek to the screen. He's made something that looks like Star Trek, but is populated with characters who talk and act like teenagers, and which exploits the emotional depth and resonance of real Trek to pretend toward some of its own. And I get really annoyed with people who claim to be Trek fans while not seeing that they're being suckered in with surface appearances ONLY.

HI Demosthenes
Thanks for contradicting yourself in your post. You’ve made this rebuttal much easier.

Of course people will be interested in perhaps the more demure episodes of Star Trek you mentioned. You said yourself that you enjoy action movies such as Die Hard. People can have more than one taste.

The Original Series was an action series. The producers would always make sure that had an action seen with Kirk involved in a punch up, leaping off rocks, and saving the girl. They quite often seemed to be inserted into the plot but hey, they were fun. I guarantee you that if Gene Roddenberry had $10 Million for each episode of Star Trek it would have had as many explosions as he could possibly have squeezed in.

If JJ Abrams hasn’t revitalised Trek no one has told the retailers. When I visit my local store the first thing I see is a huge stand of DVDs with all the original Star Trek Movies and all the TV series remastered on Blu-Ray.

Take care now.

Sorry Macca, I think you misunderstood Demosthenes. He was saying that Star Trek as a franchise has been about something more than action movies. Roddenberry wanted Trek to be about liberal humanism - optimism, exploration, professionalism. What Demosthenes was saying is that while Abrams' Trek is commercially successful (although STID actually didn't do all that well in the domestic box office), it's lost much of what made Trek unique. Abrams' Trek isn't following in the Roddenberry tradition. Yes, not all of the episodes or movies before did either, but one got the sense that they tried to paint an overall picture of a flawed but enlightened humanity.

That doesn't mean you have to like Trek or Roddenberry's vision. But I think to call something Trek when it abandons that philosophical vision is dishonest. The marketing team at Paramount even publicly said that STID is more action, less Trek!

Dom, I understand want Demosthenes is saying I just disagree with him.

You correctly point out that Star Trek tries to be about Liberal Humanism but doesn't hit the mark in all the episodes and movies.

What I'm saying is that Into Darkness should be accepted on the terms of what it is, a fun movie.

One doesn't need to be a Roddenberry purist to see that the new movies are Trek In Name Only. Heck, purists still argue about whether DS9 is a bastard child! But I agree with Demosthenes that feeling "lucky to even have any more Trek this soon," as Ryan put it, is no comfort if it's only superficially recognizable as Trek.

Good for you if you weren't distracted by, say, the misplaced Wrath of Khan homage. I was distracted. Severely. By my palm hitting my face. Insulted, even. Clearly different viewers bring different expectations.

Ryan: "There were so many good parts in the movie such as when mcoy tells sulu to remind him not to get sulu angery..."

For instance, I would've expected the scene to cut away before McCoy literally said the thing that the audience was already thinking thanks to the actors' performances. Instead, thanks to sloppy editing, the movie told me what to think. (This tendency was also present in the 2009 movie, as noted in the Harry Plinkett review.)

I have enjoyed the debate so far but I feel we are getting very close to the Elephant In The Room that is at the heart of all debates about Star Trek.

Who is going to be the first to say it?

Macca, sorry, it's clear that you misunderstand Roddenberry if you really think he would have filled his shows with a bunch of explosions if he'd had a bigger budget. I'm not saying Roddenberry was perfect, but I think it's pretty clear that he was opposed to militarism and in fact TOS had a lot of fight scenes in large part because the studios wanted a more action-oriented, less cerebral show (compare the original pilot "The Cage" with "Where No Man Has Gone"...)

"The Original Series was an action series. The producers would always make sure that had an action seen with Kirk involved in a punch up, leaping off rocks, and saving the girl."

Oh, yes. 1960's-style brawling is absolutely comparable to a CGI-constructed ship crashing into San Francisco. Because they're both "action." And Forbidden Planet is comparable to Star Wars, right? Because they're both "sci-fi." My point -- part of it, anyway -- is that people who are attracted to ST:iD because of its fast-paced action aesthetic and ultra-modern graphics are not the audience that will be most receptive to the quieter, slower-paced, less technically accomplished, more philosophical Trek as it has existed before.

And while I went to extremes to pick out several quieter episodes (note: you need to learn what "demure" means, so you don't misuse it again), I don't have to go that far. Compare the action sequences in the faux-Trek Abrams movies with the best that cinematic Trek has done, say the fight against the Borg cube in ST:FC or the final battle sequence in ST:Nem, and there is no comparison. Can people have more than one taste? Sure. That said, most members of the generation of moviegoers raised on such hyperkinetic stuff are going to find as little to appreciate in the old Star Trek as people raised in the Star Wars era found in black-and-white, Poverty Row sci-fi. That should be obvious.

"I guarantee you that if Gene Roddenberry had $10 Million for each episode of Star Trek it would have had as many explosions as he could possibly have squeezed in."

First off, you're in no position to guarantee how someone who has been dead for twenty years would have handled a larger budget for a fifty-year-old TV show. Second, even if you're right, it would have been at the behest of the network. Compare the original "Cage" pilot to the actual series, and you'll see what I mean.

"You correctly point out that Star Trek tries to be about Liberal Humanism but doesn't hit the mark in all the episodes and movies."

So what? It aims for a goal, and doesn't always hit it. Meanwhile, however, when did Star Trek aim to be an action franchise? Ever? Rewatch several episodes of the original series, and you'll find that it's not aiming for that at all. Those are just the things that get put in the previews to get people to tune in. "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" and "Journey to Babel" and "Mirror, Mirror" -- sure, they have fistfights. So, are we reclassifying "Singin' in the Rain" as an action movie because it has a lot of stuntwork?

"What I'm saying is that Into Darkness should be accepted on the terms of what it is, a fun movie."

But THAT IS THE PROBLEM. It's not asking me to accept it as "Into Darkness," the fun new action/sci-fi hybrid...which is a pity, because I might well have been able to accept it on that basis. It's asking me to accept it as "STAR TREK: Into Darkness," the latest installment in a franchise that turns 50 in three years. And by that standard, not only does it not come close to measuring up to even the mediocre Trek, but -- as Grumpy pointed out -- it actively insulted the viewers by daring to be a reinterpretation of one of the truly excellent Trek outings, and failing miserably with practically every reference. Did it mean to be so insulting? Probably not. Which doesn't change the fact that it was.

That you choose not to be insulted is your affair. But don't feed me off-brand Star Wars/Mission: Impossible Lite trumped up with a few Trek emblems and then tell me that's Star Trek I taste. I know the difference, even if you don't.

Macca: "Who is going to be the first to say it?"

Ooh! Let me!

Ahem. "Get a life! It's just a TV show!"

If you're talking about some other grand, universal elephant, I don't know what it is.

The important issue is not whether this is Trek or not, whatever that is. The important thing is whether this is any good. And it ain't.

Ironically, the thing that really brought it down was its attempt to try to be Trek. If it had genuinely done its own thing, try to tell its own story, it might not have been so bad. It was calamity of trying to be an old Trek tribute act that just killed it.

"Revitalized" Star Trek? Abrams hasn't revitalized anything. Into Darkness disappointed at the box office, even WITH Abrams' usual trailer-carrots and "who is the villain?" metateasing, much of which has turned out to be more interesting than the actual film. I don't know what he'd do without that stuff.

I am not ashamed to say that I'm perversely glad Into Darkness underwhelmed domestically, as it may spur Paramount to hurry Abrams along into his Star Wars gig and sign someone with a brain for Trek. I've always suspected that 2009's decent BO numbers were just curiosity, and Into Darkness's performance has done little to change my suspicion.

Nobody cares, JJ.

Ah, I see Red Letter Media has had their say. Please watch to appreciate how insultingly stupid the whole business is.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWLGH0VHUVs

Could someone please explain to me how over $413 mil worldwide on a $190 mil budget is a box office disappointment?? That's over 50% return on investment. Plus, STID is 4th domestically for 2013. I would hardly consider that to be disappointing. It still has another 3 months before it ends its theatrical run, and blu-ray/DVD/digital downloads will definitely make tons of dough for the studio.

Now After Earth on the other hand, that was a box office bomb.

The movie made money, but not as much as Paramount had hoped. (although $413 million is a lot higher than the previous projections, which is interesting). It's probably enough for Trek to get another movie, but it's also not quite stratospheric - yet.

Grumpy makes me smile. Chris has done his homework.

"Could someone please explain to me how over $413 mil worldwide on a $190 mil budget is a box office disappointment??"

Don't have to. io9 has done it for me:

io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable

Bottom line -- if you figure (a good enough rule of thumb) that a movie needs to take in roughly twice its cost just to make the production company their money back, then ST:iD's worldwide box office to date means that the whole production is somewhere around $50 million in the black, which is subpar for a big-name blockbuster that's been out for a whole month. And that's not even factoring in the advertising budget, which you have to figure is anywhere from $70-100 million for a movie of this size. Maybe more.

In other words, after four weeks in theaters, ST:iD probably still has not turned a profit. That's not a great performance by any means. And Paramount has had some experience with this before. They took a theatrical bath on the fourth Indiana Jones movie, despite its taking in over $780 million worldwide on a $185 million budget...because Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Harrison Ford were collectively entitled to over seventy percent of the distributor's share of the box office GROSS. That leaves Paramount with about an $80 million loss before you even factor in advertising. Hooray for Hollywood.

To be fair, ST:iD will still probably end up making more money than its predecessor. We're also not factoring in product placement, which can be a huge revenue source. And then --as you pointed out, Chris -- there's the all-important DVD market. It's not as powerful as it used to be, and it will be less powerful still in the years to come. But it can still push most films into the black in every way except on the official balance sheets (that way, the studios don't have to pay out any net profits). But yeah, for a big summer movie that had a fairly popular predecessor and a lot of hype behind it, this performance is a bit of a disappointment.

Sorry, must modify one thing I said. When I wrote "product placement," I should also have written "tie-in deals," which is where this movie will make most of its ancillary revenue. Not too many products you can easily place over 200 years in the future, though that didn't stop Nokia and Budweiser from doing so in the 2009 movie...

@Demosthenes

I thought the Indiana Jones films were personally financed by Lucas. The way I see it, aside from distribution costs, Paramount didn't spend a dime.

Demosthenes, great explanation. I was too lazy to provide a proper response.

I'll point out one other thing. Unlike the 2009 movie, STID also was selling in 3D showings, which has a higher ticket price. And don't forget inflation. So, taking those into account, it's not even clear if it will make more money than the 2009 movie in real terms.

Dom: Yeah, now that I think about it, you're right. I wish I had thought of that.

Eduardo: nope, the fourth film was bankrolled by Paramount. I was wrong about one thing, though. Spielberg, Ford, and Lucas together received 87.5% of the distributor's share of the gross, which makes my vague "over 70%" figure technically correct but very misleading (I had misremembered the figure at 72.5%).

That means that, in all probability, Paramount shelled out $185 million to make a movie that made $785 million at the box office...and lost somewhere in the neighborhood of $130 million on it. Granted, that's without factoring in ancillary revenue -- but again, that's also without factoring in advertising costs. Once you know that a studio can lose so much real money at the box office on a film that is such a big hit, you stop being surprised when people call a $400 million dollar film a disappointment.

Or, to put it another way, Prometheus, which we all love to bash, was made for around $70 million less than STID and made around the same amount (assuming STID doesn't suddenly take off at this point). STID is a success, but it's not as much as the studio had hoped for given its investment.

On the inflation point made earlier: using the US Inflation Calculator website, Star Trek (2009)'s box office gross comes out as being the equivalent of $418,571,291.20 in today's money, with a run lasting through to October 2009 in the US. ST:ID is currently on $414,788,052 with a run lasting a month or so. Given the differences in timescale, I don't believe Paramount executives will be losing sleep on a difference of c. $4m gross.

Anyway, brief summary of the film: enjoyable enough. Some fairly sizeable plot holes, and the supporting cast yet again had too little to do, but I didn't feel as violently opposed to it as some on here appear to have been. Not the best Trek film by any stretch, but hardly the worst either.

@ David, remember though two things. First, the 2009 movie cost over $45 million less to make that STID (of course, not including marketing). Second, 2009 didn't have 3D while STID did. Again, STID certainly is a success, but it's not the blockbuster Paramount seems to have hoped for. Some had been talking about STID potentially earning $1 billion, which was probably unrealistic, but I also don't think we're going to look back on 2013 and say STID was one of the bigger movie successes of the year.

Hey all. I just saw the film last weekend so I'm sorry to join in a little late here. As the shock of what I saw is starting to wear off and turn into anger I feel the need to express my frustration. As a favor to all I will try to keep my nerd rage to a minimum and just cover the things that bothered me the most.

I'd like to begin by saying that I actually like ST 2009. It's not perfect by any means and perhaps it's not even Trek. However, even though I have a few issues with said film, I find it to be a rather fun and engaging piece of entertainment. Perhaps I was just waxing nostalgic but I enjoyed seeing these characters again for the first time and thought that the actors, for the most part, did a good job.

But that's the trick of it now isn't it? It's a giant spectacle with a plethora of eye candy and scene after scene of high adrenaline, heart pounding action that tries desperately to cover up it's greatest weakness. Telling an interesting and intellectually stimulating story. That is the core of Star Trek. A great Trek episode/movie makes you think. It is deep, has many layers and speaks a universal truth that affects us profoundly.

Star Trek Into Darkness is perhaps the antithesis to this. It is the most cliched, basic and unoriginal story that one could possibly conceive of. Many people do not notice this though because they are "wowed" by the (admittedly impressive) special effects and action scenes that look like they belong in the latest superhero film. I was completely bored during the climatic and supposedly "epic" fight between Spock and Khan. Except when I was laughing.

Is this seriously what Star Trek has become? These writers are just a bunch of hacks who come up with some amusing ideas for particular scenes but have no idea how to weave them together into a coherent narrative. They have built their house upon an unstable foundation and it is sinking faster than the planet Vulcan imploded into itself via a black hole caused by "red matter'. Remember that one? They sure do know how to spin a good yarn don't they?

Oh, I'm rambling. Let's just get on with it then shall we?

1) Benedict Cumberbatch is a fine actor but he is not Khan. Let's not even get into the fact that it's strange to see a pasty white British guy in the role. If the character had been written with more than just the slightest resemblance of who Khan was then I could easily see past this. The fact of the matter is that this villain could have been anyone. Apparently they have revealed now that they shoehorned him into the script at the last minute. Well, it shows. This Khan does not quote Milton but he does cry while he paints himself as a victim who was forced to commit acts of terrorism to free his people. Khan would never show any sign of weakness in front of his enemies. He had a domineering personality and a very strong presence about him. It would seem that a strong presence is not needed when you are Superman. Yes, Khan was genetically enhanced and was stronger and smarter than the average man. In this movie though SuperKhan can be punched repeatedly in the face by Kirk and not feel a thing. In Space Seed Kirk knocks Khan out with some sort of club he pulls out of the engineering console. This Khan also has no conflict with Kirk. He seeks revenge on Admiral Whatever and simply uses Kirk as a means to achieve his goal. Khan's lust for vengeance is nowhere near as interesting when it's not aimed at Kirk. The whole idea of his revenge was based on their conflict in the first place. Khan tried to take over his ship and failed. He was then exiled and after catastrophe struck he blamed Kirk for all of his pain and suffering, including the death of his wife. In Into Darkness Kirk is pissed off because Khan killed Pike so they reverse the revenge angle. How clever. It's not the only clever reverse angle used in the movie though! Just wait until they really show off their writing skills! I'll give you a hint. SuperKhan has magic blood. I don't even know where to begin with that so I won't even bother. Lastly, I really missed the exclusion of the scene showing us the Botany Bay adrift in space. With all of the money put into CGI I think that they really could have created an impressive scene of beaming aboard Khan's ship and finding the creepy frozen people asleep in the tubes.

2)It was a huge mistake to recreate the death scene. Did they think that they were being ironic by switching who died? It was lost on me. It seemed rather forced as Kirk was extremely anxious to commit suicide. In the Wrath of Khan there was a theme about aging and death that was all tied in with the Kobayashi Maru scene at the beginning of the film that culminated with Spock's sacrifice as his solution to the no win scenario. This idea of Kirk sacrificing himself goes against the character's belief of not accepting a no win scenario. Especially young Kirk. He was the man who saved his crew from certain death time and time again, all the while patting himself on the back for it. Of course I buy into the idea that Kirk is committed to protecting his crew but he would have found another way. This was just not his style. It was much more befitting of Spock, who looked at things with the cold efficiency of a mathematical equation. Kirk and Spock were also much older in TWOK, with years of friendship and professional service between them. In STID Kirk and Spock have known each other for what, a year? How close were they in that time? There seemed to be a lot of bickering between them. This death scene was forced and had no meaning. There was no poetry in it. Then Spock yells KHAAAAAAAAAAAN and you realize that it's all a joke. This can't be taken seriously can it? Spock then goes on a mad, illogical rampage to catch Khan. By himself. Why? So we can have the obligatory big dumb action climax. They are jumping from extraordinary heights onto moving platforms or whatever they are. Yawn. Then the funniest part of the whole movie happens. Spock gives Khan the Vulcan neck pinch but Khan gets a mad face and starts yelling and effectively "screams it off". Wow. Then Uhura beams over and shoots him. Kirk is saved by the magic blood and all is well. Hey, let's start a five year mission. Khan is frozen and ready for a sequel. The End.

3)Random nitpicks. Didn't the black guy at the beginning of the movie seem overly eager to die as well? I understand that he made a deal but after his daughter's life was saved wouldn't he have had a strong instinct to preserve his life? Wouldn't he have at least tried to do something different? It's one thing to kill yourself but to set off a bomb and take all those innocent people with you... What will your daughter think of you now?
Having Carol Marcus in this movie was pointless. Why include her if she is not going to be romantically involved with Kirk?
Speaking of romance, Spock and Uhura have absolutely no chemistry with each other. It was kind of weird in the first one but here it just seems so forced. I'm tired of it at this point.
So 72 torpedoes can't destroy a starship? I hope the Federation can find the blueprints so they can build a fleet of these bad boys. I'm sure it will just be forgotten though.

I realize that I shouldn't have let it bother me so much. No one should get that upset over a movie. There are much bigger problems in life to deal with. I can't help but feel insulted though. Since TWOK is one of my all time favorite movies I understand that I'm going to be more critical of this than the average cinema goer. Isn't it sad though that so many people are watching Star Trek for the first time and think that this is all there is to it? I don't know. I'm finished.

Another good review of STID, this one focusing on why the War on Terror allegory doesn't really work:

www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/21/star_trek_into_dumbness?wp_login_redirect=0

@Pachazo: Listen, I can totally relate to your review.

In spite of all the logic inconsistencies I was "letting it all slide" and still enjoying the movie -- all the way up to the point where they started lifting whole scenes and dialog from TWoK. That just absolutely pissed me off -- as it would probably any fan of Classic Trek. And there was no reason to do that! They could very easily have pulled off a similar scenario without raping the most-beloved movie in the Franchise. And as you pointed out, that movie worked hard throughout to earn that scene. In this movie it was seemingly just thrown out there for the "clever" role reversal of the classic scene. I suppose they were going for a "homage" -- but they went so far over the top with it that it ended-up being a "slap in the face" to old-time fans.

I, personally, am so upset that I've just about decided that I don't even want to purchase the Blu!!

Wow, there is a lot of hate for this film in these comments and I can see their point of view even though I personally like it. My first reactions after leaving the cinema were very positive, in part because it was a great day overall and the fact that it got my Trek-hating girlfriend to reconsider her stance on the series! After the dust has settled and I can look at the movie with a more critical eye, I'd give it 2.5 stars (good but not quite great).

It shares many of Star Trek: Generations' flaws (narrative that favours spectacle over logic, not the best characterisation, could do with a more threatening villian, made a few bad moves like the treatment of Kirk, emotional pay-offs that should have been more effective, etc) BUT despite the drawbacks it's still far from the worst entry in the franchise and I'm more than happy with it. I've still got faith in these new Star Trek films yet.

Seeing the negative comments and reviews I wonder why people needed another Trek movie by JJ Abrams & Co. to realize what a fraud those people are - when only one (ST2009) was enough to see that. There was absoultely nothing original or praiseworthy in that 2009 abomination. It was highly overrated and unduly rewarded with box office success as is this latest installment by those hacks who turned Trek into what it is now. They say it's "alive" and "popular" again, but I find that hard to believe. It's alive alright, but its soul is dead. There's no true creative and visionary force behind it, it's merely a shameless milking of money out of an iconic 40+ year-old franchise. This remake is a rehash and almost a parody. It probably wouldn't worry me if that transformation/dumbification of Trek were only temporary and limited to the current remake (2009-?), but I'd be concerned if this dreadful remake would serve as a model for any future Trek, whether on big or small screen. That would indeed be worrisome.

@david,

who said: "Star trek was in better hands with brannon braga than orci, kurtzman, lindelof and abrams."

Oh, I agree.

I'd welcome if some Trek veteran(s) in the future worked on ST, and it would be great if they could tutor those who'd some day take over the creative oversight of the franchise, like Gene did with Berman.

@Paul M.,

who said: "I root for Abrams and Co. to succeed,if only to pave the way for a new incarnation of Trek."

Yes, but what kind of Trek would that be? Would we really want those same people creating that same kind of derivative and uncreative stuff on the small screen as they did on the big screen? I know I wouldn't. The sooner they're gone from Trek, the better. I root for Trek, but I don't root for Abrams-Kurtzman-Orci. I think the best thing would be to replace the director, current writers, and 80% of the cast of this remake, as well as 90%, if not more, of the people working on production design. The new Trek sets, ships, etc. look inferior and everything is just too star warsy.

@Digedad,

who said: "Two overpaid guys who never had a single original idea in their whole career, whose entire body of work is made up of other people's work arbitrarily slapped together and clumsily rearranged."

What a good and fitting description of Kurtzman and Orci.


Tim: "Star Trek fans want to see Star Trek - not fucking Star Wars."

True.

To put this all into perspective, Superman Man of Steel has already made about $400 million, almost as much as STID in much less time. Some guy in tight blue tights is doing better than Trek. That's not right!

@ Dom: Both fair points. However, as I said, comparing grosses from two films with completely different timescales is always going to be problematic. To demonstrate the point, STID's gross has increased by $2m in the time since I posted that. I agree that STID probably won't be ranked as one of 2013's most successful films, but given some of the films out this year that doesn't surprise me. The Iron Mans and Fast & Furiouses of this world are always going to be a bigger draw than Star Trek. Sad, but true. I guess I just don't feel this is such a travesty that it needs such a kicking.

@ David, true about comparing 2009 and STID, but that was my point in mentioning inflation and STID's higher budget. To say STID made more money than the 2009 film is kind of pointless when it actually might have made a smaller profit in real money terms. STID's performance isn't bad, but it's not stellar.

Your other point is valid though. I was being somewhat sarcastic in my last post. I guess my point really was that I think a lot of people are saying Star Trek needs more action/explosions/sex/dumbness so it can appeal to today's audiences, but while it's doing fine at the box office it still isn't pulling in the money like Superman (and a mediocre Superman from what I hear). I guess really what I'd call for is some more thought as to where the franchise should go. Should it try to keep up with the Superman movies of the world if it frankly doesn't seem like it can? Maybe the market for smart Star Trek is too small, but maybe it's a market that just needs to be reawakened.

I think the people at Paramount need to think long and hard as to why a 75-year-old intellectual property is kicking the box office ass of a near 50-year-old intellectual property.

Personally, I think that even though Superman Returns and Man of Steel are both rather somber films and aren't the best as movies goes, there's a fidelity to the the *spirit* of the source material. Star Trek (2009) was a success mainly because of "the novelty factor". Well, "the novelty factor" has worn off in just one movie.

Frankly, Trek need someone who is, if not a fan, than at least someone with the personal integrity to treat the source material with genuine respect (like Nicholas Meyer). Furthermore, Paramount needs to stop thinking of Trek as a cashcow only.

Some more face-palming from IMDB's trivia page: www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/trivia?ref_=ttgf_sa_1

The dilemma for the screenwriters was "whether to pit the crew against another villain, or to have an 'exploration sci-fi plot where the unknown and nature itself is somehow an adversary,' like in Star Trek." In other words, whether to make a Star Trek movie that is like Star Trek, or not.

In the same vein, Lindelof may have been "kidding on the square" when he suggested the title should've been: "Star Trek: Transformers 4."

The trivia page also mentions "The screenwriters studied sci-fi novels by Arthur C. Clarke and Larry Niven for inspiration." Why? For what?

Oh, and the reason Chekov was in engineering and therefore never interacted with Khan was apparently a nod to... wait, I'm laughing... continuity. Because Chekov never met Khan in "Space Seed," see.

Khan (resembling Ricardo Montelbon), many years later on Ceti Alpha Five:

"I don't know you....but you....I never forget a face...Mr.....ABRAMS. YOU made that lousy movie that turned me into a pasty British white guy!"

I think we've scared Jammer off.

Didn't we all do this when he let us comment on the Galactica finale before he'd reviewed it?

@ stargazer

Speaking as one of the people who looked on the 2009 movie positively (if a little uncomfortably), I can answer your question -- at least in regard to my own perspective. Remember, we had just had a writer's strike that had taken its toll on a lot of films. I remember reading that people had wanted to change scripted dialogue and plot points, but couldn't.

At the time, I was fully prepared to believe that a lot of what I considered ludicrous in that movie, like Kirk getting promoted from cadet to captain, had just been put in as a placeholder to show where the writers had wanted to go once they had time for subsequent drafts. When someone is stopped from finishing the job they were hired to do, I think you do owe them a little bit of slack when evaluating the results. And the central time-travel plot device was such a perfectly Trekkian way to do a reboot that, again, I thought the team might have the big picture down...they had just needed another three or four drafts to work out the kinks.

So yeah, I was forgiving of the 2009 movie because of the intrusive background circumstances that they couldn't change. In light of this piece of crap, though, you're right -- I may have to reevaluate my stance.

Thanks Daniel, for your very thorough analysis. I agree with almost everything you said. Except I would maybe argue that the very first Star Trek film (TMP) appealed primarily to the intellect (which is not to say it did not appeal on other levels).

As for STID, it definitely was an 'action picture'. I am not one to judge if that is what Star Trek "is" or "should be". It went in knowing what to expect, and I do not regret seeing it. But it was not the kind of Star Trek film that I most wanted to see.

@ Daniel L.

"Another point: While STID will probably not outgross its predecessor, it will, it appears, have a higher rate of return on its investment than most of the other Trek films have had"

Well, STID has outgrossed its predecessor. However, I think you've got the concept of higher rates of returns mixed up. Even with the current gross, STID appears set to maybe slightly more than double its budget in box office sales. By contrast, the best Trek films often took in 3-5 times their budget. TWOK made around 9 times what it cost to make. Even TMP made over thrice what it cost.

I personally don't know what a movie studio prefers - lots of smaller, cheap movies that have very high rates of returns and low risks, or one high-budget movie with a low rate of return but a higher gross return. My guess is the latter because it seems like movies need to be high-budget blockbusters in order to get people to the theaters. That makes me think the economics of the movie industry would preclude smaller Trek films like TWOK and even First Contact from being made today.

It's all about winning the box office, the headlines, and the buzz battle, Dom. So, yes, you're right. Studios prefer the big-name properties that are nearly guaranteed to win the opening weekend and do hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office, regardless of quality. If those films even manage twice their budget at the box office, DVDs have historically paid for the advertising and then put the whole production in the black. (Though with the DVD market losing 40%-50% of sales, it will be interesting to see how those calculations change going forward.)

My take: a smart studio would make a good family-oriented film for $30-35 million, market it for the same budget, watch it do $100-150 million at the box office, pocket the $10-40 million profit, and start producing their next modestly-budgeted family movie while waiting for the DVD revenues (pretty much pure profit at that point) to start rolling in. As long as the movie makes $60-70 million, you're pretty much guaranteed to break even at the box office...and every so often, you'd get a runaway $300 million grosser that would pay for your entire next year's slate of movies. But I guess that making a steady profit for decades by doing something that works isn't very glamorous...

Yes, just looking at the numbers, STID isn't the hit the studio wanted it to be. Almost $200 mil. budget, and the movie earned only twice that so far. That's not a stellar result. When you factor in percentage of that going to theaters, etc., I doubt the studio saw a particularly impressive return on their investment.

Compare to Iron Man 3 which with a similar budget earned 1,200,000,000 - that's well over one BILLION dollars. Fast and Furious 6: 160 mil., earned 650 mil. That's four times as much.

Point is, new Trek is alienating a good chunk of its core fans, at the same time failing to really establish itself as a massive blockbuster franchise, which it needs to in order to justify these abnormally high budgets.

And let's be honest, even those who enjoyed the movie for what it was. Ask yourselves: would Star Trek have endured for 50 years as one of the most recognisable SF franchises, a part of pop culture, had it been like this from the beginning? Trek's spirit and legacy, its very heart and soul, don't reside in explosions, action scenes, and witty banter (though it often had those as well), but in deep and thoughtful exploration of our ideals and morals. Star Trek is always at its best when it takes a good hard look into human soul.

No matter how much Abrams Trek makes at the box office, it won't have a future if it becomes just another in a long line of soulless summer flicks that you forget just as soon as another one of those comes in your theater.

I never knew how much I loved tripods until the movie biz threw them away about 10 years ago. All the shaky camera work and superfast cuts made the movie hard and a bit painful for me to watch. I only did so because it is Star Trek -- the rest of the movie biz will have to rediscover their tripods to regain me as a customer.

So. about a third of the time the screen was filled with colors and bright light that conveyed no meaning at all to me -- before I got oriented and figured out what I was looking at, the movie cut away to a different view -- which would then cut away before I figured out what I was looking at, again.

A disappointing movie. Such a waste of time putting up meaningless, pretty light shows on the screen. I missed a couple of plot points (where was old Spock? How'd he show up in the middle of that big battle?)

I did enjoy the young Chekhov, he's a hoot. Otherwise not much to recommend this movie.

"And let's be honest, even those who enjoyed the movie for what it was. Ask yourselves: would Star Trek have endured for 50 years as one of the most recognisable SF franchises, a part of pop culture, had it been like this from the beginning? Trek's spirit and legacy, its very heart and soul, don't reside in explosions, action scenes, and witty banter (though it often had those as well), but in deep and thoughtful exploration of our ideals and morals. Star Trek is always at its best when it takes a good hard look into human soul."

Beautiful. Well said.

More and more I'm convinced Into Darkness would have been the perfect Star Trek film, if the studio had had the guts to kill off Kirk permanently, instead of having to rely on a contrived Deus Ex-Machina to bring back.

Think about it, the stakes would have been WAY higher, and Spock could have filled the main role, which Quinto is more than capable of handling.

Even if they had to keep Kirk, at least wait until the next film, to keep the stakes high in the meantime.

I tweeted Roberto Orci that very idea. He gave a joke reply, telling I should paused the Blu-Ray at the death scene, and leave it at that.

In the many positive comments I've seen about this movie here and in other forums, the thing I keep reading over and over is something like, "I've never watched/liked Star Trek, but I really enjoyed this movie."

Somehow that doesn't seem like a good thing. I don't see these people going out and buying the DVDs of any of the series and sitting through their explosion-free talky scenes and long-term character development. They'd fall asleep during the DS9 pilot when Sisko spends several minutes trying to understand what "You exist here" means.

It seems to me that you could take the kind of budget this movie had and make any action movie and have similar success. They're not really trying to appeal to the older fan base, so they're not gaining that much by calling it Star Trek, and the franchise isn't going to gain new fans back from it, so what's the point?

This pretty much sums up my feelings about the movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M3lcHv4dI8

Jammer? .... where are you?

I just wanted to say that I have enjoyed the classic Trek of before, but I also enjoy this movie.

A movie tries to entertain (usually) - and STITD does just that. It had my attention the entire time (well except for Kirk's threesome) and while I needed to go the bathroom, I didn't until it was over because I didn't want to miss anything.

So many people say the Khan of this movie looked nothing like the original, but I don't think Khan's appearance was his important trait - his intelligence, resourcefulness, ruthlessness, passion (he passionately wanted Kirk dead) - these are the aspects of his character that matter.

Also, I think this is an important point too - people are partially shaped by their environment and their experiences, the Khan of the reboot universe had a different experiences than the Khan of TWOK, so perhaps it's not surprisingly they don't act exactly the same.

I thought changing the way Klingons looked was a poor choice - it was distracting from the main story, and added nothing useful or good, and even was a poor aesthetic choice. Possibly this was done for legal reasons, but still don't like it.

I did enjoy that there was a story and emotional moments in the movie, and it wasn't ONLY action.

Kirk seemed very immature in the beginning of the movie - seems strange for him to have been given command of a starship with that - could you imagine a US Carrier with a captain like that? I would bet none of the Carrier captains would be that immature.

The effects were good, and most of the actors seemed to be pulling their weight, when they actually got a chance to act.

The death scene by Kirk did NOT bother me, nor did it insult me. This was a different time-line, why couldn't things happen similarly? Also, Spock's life was saved when Kirk violated the prime directive, and it cost Kirk his command and his ship, things very dear to Kirk. Granted, they don't have the history of the prime universe,, but most people want people who save them who also claim to be their friends to keep living - thus I was not bothered either when Spock yelled Khan. Even in the prime universe, Spock was always emotional about Kirk (remember when Spock smiled when Kirk showed up in sickbay, but Spock thought he killed Kirk on Vulcan during Spock's Ponn Farr).

Corey, Corey, Corey

I'm very disappointed in you. If you had carefully read the previous posts you would realise that if you like this movie you don't really understand what Star Trek is all about.

Also, you failed to comment on how the Box Office takings for today relate to the takings of four years ago, and to the birth of cinema.

Please keep your posts relevant or leave the talking to the more demure amongst us.

On second thoughts - you're okay!

(Macca said...)
Corey, Corey, Corey

I'm very disappointed in you. If you had carefully read the previous posts you would realise that if you like this movie you don't really understand what Star Trek is all about.
(end quote)

@Macca - I did indeed carefully read the previous posts (all of them - took a while). I do know what Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek is about. But even though I would like to see more TNG type shows and characters, I am an adult - I know I don't always get what I want (hence STITD).

Nevertheless, on a personal level, I enjoyed STITD (most of it) - I also enjoyed Measure of Man and Ensigns of Command, that isn't hard to understand is it?

Does STITD have emotional resonance and power? No, so it can never be a 4 star outing, just entertaining, so somewhere between 2-3 on the Jammer scale. TWOK often is considered the best Star Trek movie, and with good reason, as it has emotional resonance.

A person, I'm easy to please so a person, or movie has to really mess up to get on my bad side (like Robocop II or Pet Cemetary II)

Just checking in because it's been so long.

1. I have started writing the review. I will finish it at some point hopefully not too far off in the future. I'm writing it in micro-bursts in between bouts of laziness. It's admittedly not a good process, but it will ultimately end with a finished review.

2. As promised, I have *not* been reading the comments on this thread. I learned my lesson on that in the past. I will have plenty to catch up on after I've finally posted my review.

Cheers, and thanks for participating in my absence.

I think Jammers lack of enthusiasm is already coming through and he hasnt even posted the review!

@Corey: I think you might have overlooked the sarcasm in Macca's reply, considering the tone of his other comments here...

OK, while we're waiting, let's have a prediction contest.

How many stars will Jammer given STID?

I predict 2 stars.

I predict 2-2.5 stars: the same realm as Generations, Insurrection, and Nemesis.

I agree with Patrick. I predict 2.5 stars as Into Darkness is around the same level as Generations and Insurrection in terms of basic pros and cons.

The only thing Into Darkness has over those TNG movies is state-of-the-art production, but the slightly thinner plot and some misguidedness renders that advantage moot.

I'd personally give it 2 stars, but Jammer does seem a bit more forgiving to Abrams Trek (at least where the first movie is concerned).

2.5 stars, I guess.

Coincidentally, Both generations and into darkness are frustrating in that they essentially render the Enterprise powerless (Come on, you don't have the firepower to Bring down the bird of prey's shields?). I am still disappointed that we haven't really seen a big fleet battle in any of the Trek films.

This review of the movie from Jammer should prove to be even more interesting than usual.

I, myself, would have given the movie an 8 out of 10 for the first two thirds of the movie and a 2 out of 10 for the last third. (The first two thirds of the movie at least felt like an original Star Trek movie to me. ) As soon as they started directly lifting dialog and scenes from TWoK they totally lost me. I certainly didn’t mind the character of Khan being utilized in this new universe, but they absolutely *had* to do something more original with him than simply using him to set up a role reversal to one of the most revered scenes in the franchise.

Ah, yes, Macca's still here. He still hasn't told us what the "elephant in the room" is...half a month after dropping the phrase...but he's still trying to get shots in at the people who have good taste.

I enjoyed both movies as good action adventure yarns. I am hoping that future movies will take advantage of the reboot and shake off all the baggage of previous shows. It would be nice if the 5 year mission into uncharted territory really explores uncharted territory (and story lines).

@RW

They're not going to explore new territory in sense of the term. They're just going to do inferior rehashes of stories and characters from decades ago. Their target audience are basically people who wouldn't normally be caught dead watching any of the Star Trek series--and they won't know the difference.

@RW Q established pretty well in the TNG finale that exploration isn't about new or old territory. Sometimes, it's about humanity itself.

Tim Lynch put it the best way, in his All Good Things review:

"exploration is *not* merely external, but can be internal as well, just as "good SF" is not synonymous with "hard science extrapolations that can lead to lots of gadgets going BING!""

Well said, Eduardo.

No, the third installment will most likely follow in the footsteps of the previous two (without JJ, thank God).

It will be: Kirk and Spock as once againa as "buddy cops in space" facing off with Klingons, Romulans and maybe a souped-up Doomsday Machine with be lots of winks at the audience as subtle as a bludgeon. Expect to see Leonard Nimoy explaining stuff to young Spock once again on how to beat the last boss of the game...er, I mean defeat the bad guy.

Fascinating that no one has made the commitment to boycott the next movie.

PS - not that I'm particularly fond of the idea of blindly re-making stuff from TOS, but it so happens that if they did remake something else, The Doomsday Machine would make a great movie.

@Macca, Digedag Did state that he will be skipping future projects if they are produced by the same team as Into Darkness. I don't know if I will out right Skip subsequent films, but I won't be so quick to run out to see them.

@Macca
I guess I am waiting for the official announcement of who is going to be writing the script. I still have faith, although my expectations will remain low, that in the right hands this could be done well. If it is indeed the same writers then I probably will skip it.

@Macca
"Boycott" might be too strong a term. How about "never waste my time or money on this garbage ever again"?

I posted quite a lot on the forum thread for Jammer's review of Trek 11, but I haven't bothered here because, after watching the trailer for STD, I knew exactly was I would be getting into and started my "Boycott" right away. Haven't seen it, never will. Everything I've read here confirms that I was right - including your posts, by the way.

AbramsTrek has killed the franchise dead. Dead dead dead.

Just my opinion, of course, but still the opinion of a lifelong Trekker.

At least up until 2009.

@ Macca

As others have said, it looks like Abrams is off with Star Wars and I doubt anybody else would hire Lindelof and Orci & Kurtzman, so I don't think we'll have the same team.

I'm certainly willing to give the next movie a try. I mean, I can afford 2 hours of my life and $10 movie tickets. No reason to boycott. But I also now know that if I do so it'll be to watch a popcorn flick, not true Star Trek.

Fascinating that no one has made the commitment to boycott the next movie.

Does boycotting this one count? "Boycott" is probably too strong a word for me, because I don't watch many movies in the theater, preferring to see how they hold up after the initial buzz wears off first. But I saw ST2009 in the theater, and that was enough to tell me I didn't need to bother with any more of this incarnation. I'm here because I enjoy Jammer's reviews in their own right, whether I've seen the movie or not. Unless this one starts getting high praise -- praise for its value as Star Trek -- I don't suppose I'll bother with it when it hits Netflix either.

If I want to watch a generic action flick with good effects, there are plenty of those around. If I want to see the Trek characters set in an alternate universe where the things we thought we knew about them may be thrown out the window to fit the writers' whims, I'll read fan-fiction. Never the twain should meet.

To the extent that a prequel was intriguing, it was because it was a chance to go back and see how our heroes got to where they were, how they became such a tight crew, and so on. But now these aren't our heroes; they're different people with different futures. Nothing they do or experience has any bearing on the TOS crew that we know. So that aspect of it is gone, and it doesn't leave much.

I posted this on the DS9 comments, figured it'd get more exposure here.

I really liked Into Darkness, especially in terms of living up to the dramatic potential of the Kirk/Spock relationship. Probably my 3rd or 4th favorite of the Trek films.

Having said that, tt's impressive how DS9's Duet aired exactly 20 years ago, was a very bottle-conscious effort, designed to save money, and it still pack a hell of a dramatic punch without making much effort.

Meanwhile, we have Star Trek into Darkness, while being a decent and entertaining movie, it has a 200 million dollar budget and doesn't even come close to matching this episode.

This is a case of the Trek movies are usually being pretty good, but some of the episodes of the shows still being miles ahead, no matter how good the films can be.

I liked it quite a bit. More so than the first one. Yes the homage to Wrath of Khan was maybe a bit too direct, but I couldn't help but enjoy it anyway. As the twists and turns worked on me too. And the surprise appearance of Leonard Nimoy got me too.

It did fail like te frost to be about anything serious, but it flirted with it early. The torpedoes as drone strike without trial analogy was a welcome one, I wish they ha gone further with it to solidify that message.

Re: boycotts, I decided STINO wasn't for me after seeing the 2009 one in the cinema. If and when I get round to watching Into Darkness, which isn't a priority, it'll be as a torrent. I'm not paying for this disposal, derivative hackneyed tripe. Same applies to the rest of the Hobbit trilogy, which, if I do ever watch it, will only be to roll my eyes and analyse how badly they wrecked it. I actually think films like the Abrams Treks and the Hobbit trilogy (and, in fact, Nemesis and Enterprise) should be studied in the context of hyperreal/hypercapitalist cinema, they and their ilk actually say a tremendous amount about contemporary culture. Very little originality, just a collection of tropes and archetypes re-enacting situations we've seen in countless previous works - a simulacrum of a simulacrum. Film-making by committee, or by people who've grown up knowing nothing different. (Of course the grandfather of the hyperreal patchwork epic is Star Wars, which Abrams loves.) Boycott is too strong a word but given my own tastes, there's no reason or motivation for me to seek out and watch films of this kind, especially when I could instead spend 2 hours watching something a far more original, artful and worthwhile film from, for instance, the Romanian New Wave or the Polish Film School.

I must confess, all snark aside, but I was not paying particular attention to the the semiotic properties and qualities of STID because I was too enraged that the movie did not follow the Aristorelian unities (a concept which I only found out about when I googled the phrase "are there any rulers for good drama?"). Aristotle's Poetics dictated that a successful drama must have the unities of place (take place in one location), time (must take place essentially over a year) and action (must have as close to zero subplots as possible).

Thankfully, modern folks understand that good drama (or, merely entertaining drama which is all that STID wants to be-and I believe it achieves at that modest goal) need not be limited by such artificial restraints. Likewise, people know that not every action in a film that is taken by a character must be directly motivated by a specific, on-screen exchange of dialog telling us why the character took the action, lest the action be criticized as a "plot hole."
To take an example: near the end of the movie, Spock states to Kirk something along the lines of ...."because you are my friend," to explain the motivation for a prior action. Some would argue that if, before this line of dialogue, there was no line of dialogue that directly established the friendship, the friendship did not exist and the utterance of the word "friend"by Spock is evidence of poor writing, poor character motivation, or constitutea a plot hole, etc.

I respectfully submit that the friendship could have been "properly" dramatically developed (and that it was) by other devices in the movie- devices that had the cumulatifwle effect of allowing us to imply or infer a friendship. Devices such ad ACTIONS taken that allowed the audience to realize there was a friendship. Whether this movie contained poor characterizations and plot holes is a matter of debate because just as there is no fixed definition of Star Trek, there is no fixed definition of the ingredients needed to create good "character motivation.". Unless, that is, if you subscribe to a specific theory like Aristotle's, in which case, please feel free to share with all commenters here the elements of that theory.

Also, there were certainly times when this movie was illogical and dumb. For an illogical, dumb action movie that contained a fair amount of trash, though, STID was pretty good. Find me an action movie that you think had no or few plot holes and I will tear it apart, just as you can tear apart one I would name (actually, I would not name one because it is a fool's exercis. Shakespeare himself was criticized for having the nerve to use the deux ex machina plot device).

As the late film critic Pauline Karl stated in her famous essay, "Trash, Art and the Movies," (Google it, it is an ezcellent read): "I've never trusted the instincts of people who claim they were born with such good taste in movies that they did not first have to wade their way through trash to get to "art," meaning that if one cannot or will not look for or appreciate simple entertainment value in a movie, why is that person bothering to go to the movies in the first place?


If you think that STID has no entertainmnent value, by all means, that is your right, and that is an argument you can make - with facts and reasoning and by evaluating what is actually there on the screen. I can/have/would/will do this, can't you?

BTW, Miss Karl praised TWOK and in the opening line of her review called out "wonderful, dumb fun.! That is exactly how I would describe movies 2 and 12 myself

@ Dom: although I do know what a rate of return is, you may be right in that more than a handful of previous star trek movies had a higher rate of return than this one did. I do not know what movies 1 through 8 made overseas and cannot find this info online... if you know of a site that would be great. I don't know what the studios want and don't know if THEY know what they want in terms of budget/quantity. I mnknow little to nothing about Hollywood accounting-the real, actual accounting. I do know that the industry can be quite good at deluding itself into thinking it is giving the public what it wants. More than one studio executive has stated that studio research shows that moviegoers "love" the jalf-hour's worth of commercials moviegoers must sit through. I would love to see that research.

variety.com/2013/film/reviews/star-trek-into-darkness-review-1200442461/#!1/review-startrek_benedict/

Well that's /\ what Hollywood's most celebrated critical publication has to say.

I remember Shatner saying in Star Trek Movie Memories (pp. 334-335) that the first few reviews of Star Trek V were great, until Variety bashed it to pieces. After that, almost every other review followed suit.

So, with tongue firmly in cheek, I'll quote Lucy Liu from Kill Bill Vol. 1:

"...If any of you sons of @&$&@ got anything else to say, NOW'S THE @&$&@ TIME!!!!!"

Um ... and now, for a change, a (sort of) review of someone who actually really understands the medium because, you know, he has studied film, is an actual screenwriter and also happens to be the incredible smart (Film Crit) Hulk:

THE AGE OF THE CONVOLUTED BLOCKBUSTER - badassdigest.com/2013/06/12/film-crit-hulk-smash-the-age-of-the-convoluted-blockbuster/

THE IMPORTANCE OF DRAMATIZING CHARACTER - badassdigest.com/2013/07/03/film-crit-hulk-man-of-steel/

The first one addresses STID and J.J. Abrams (in the context of Hollywood's approach to filmmaking these days), the latter is predominantly about Man of Steel, but much of the criticism applies to STID (and other blockbusters) in equal measure.

First link comes up broken. Just wanted to say that I tried to read it.

Listen, the point I'm making is that whatever anyone else says from this point on, a glowing review in Variety more or less cements this film's status as a successful picture.

It actually strikes me as somewhat bizarre that people are complaining about the story in this movie basically being closer to the television show's presentational style than any of the previous movies.

It's been said that a significant degree of the Trekkies are averse to the idea of having a sense of humor; i.e., they're what's called "stuffy," "stolid." All this whining over what's clearly going to be a gargantuan hit for the franchise only serves to reinforce that idea in my mind.

As James Tiberius himself once said:

"Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant."

For the last time, what you - and apparently a lot of other ardent defender of STID - don't seem to understand is that this is NOT about grumpy old Star Trek fans being narrow-minded, having an out-dated taste, wearing rose-tinted glasses or whatever ad hominem excuse one can come up with in order to undermine or invalidate the criticism of the movie. This is first and foremost about basics of storytelling, really fundamental and, above all, important stuff - and how STID gets it all wrong.

It's not so much about the story itself, it's about how it's told, if that makes sense.

And the only thing that cements a film's success are the box office numbers. Its status as a work of art, however, is not only absolutely detached from the earned revenue but, in the end, will be determined by future generations of movie fans. If there's one thing that film history has taught us it's that critics - no matter how popular, respected or influential they might have been at the time of a film's theatrical release - more often than not totally got it wrong, savaging films that later became widely accepted masterpieces or praising films of middling quality to the skies nobody cares or even knows today.

By the way, are you talking about the young minds that build the Excelsior, a ship advertised as a bold new technological leap in engineering that completely breaks down after Scotty removes a handful of screws. Interesting analogy. ;-)


PS: The link should work now: badassdigest.com/2013/06/12/film-crit-hulk-smash-the-age-of-the-convoluted-blockbuster/

If not, it can be easily found via Google. And please don't be put off by the All Caps. Film Crit Hulk is arguably the most intelligent, knowledgeable and articulate film critic out dare right now.

PPS. Of course I can't claim to speak for everyone who came away feeling hugely disappointed by STID, but I'm somewhat tired of the accusation that fans of "the old Star Trek" are dismissing Abrams new version out of principle. Sure, there are probably people for whom the whole reboot is one huge affront, but the majority, I'd argue, judges each movie individually. It's when a film deliberately and so heavily draws parallels to former installments (like STID does to Wrath of Khan) that comparisons become inevitable. But, again, this is not real issue here. If the movie would work on a storytelling level, people would have far less of a problem with those homages and references.

And as I mentioned before, I actually enjoyed the 2009 Star Trek, despite its numerous flaws.


Oops, and that should read "out there right now" in the previous post.

Digedag and I are on the same wavelength. STID didn't offend me as a Trek fogey as much as it offended me as a consumer of cinema. The same way Transformers offended me. The same way Quantum of Solace offended me, when I saw it last night. Thanks for that "Convoluted" link; that's exactly what I was thinking while watching QoS (not much of an excuse that QoS and Transformers 2 were crippled by the writers strike; they still spent money making them and sold a defective product). So the flaws in STID are not unique or a heresy against the Great Bird; they are yet another example of a trend of movies that mistake plot for story, that confuse being mysterious with actual mystery, as Hulk Smash says.

It occurs to me to ask, what kind of dramatic, theatrical idea has the series not tried at this point?

Isn't it (pardon me, can't resist) logical that when the franchise is so packed with history, there would be enormous difficulties in trying to cover any new ground? Granting such a difficulty, which borders on impossibility, doesn't it make sense to have to basically do something, anything to make the film attractive to us all, the Trekkies, many of whom (myself among them) have quite literally seen it all?

I love this film. I've seen Star Trek make me cry, make me laugh, make me sweat with suspense, cringe at the agony of the human condition...

And now I've seen Star Trek acknowledge all of it, kick back, relax, and have a good time.

Can't wait to see it again.

I enjoyed Into Darkness. Sortof. About as much as I enjoyed "The Expendables", which I went to see on a whim a few years back.

I didn't like Into Darkness, though. There were far too many roll-my-eyes moments for that. Things that were supposed to be subtle pointers to previous episodes or films of the Star Trek universe, but were so in your face it wasn't even funny.

When the 2009 film came out, I was looking forward to a fresh take on the whole Star Trek universe. A reboot was exactly what Star Trek needed; there was far too many baggage, far too much history, to continue making fresh stories. This is a different starfleet; it would make sense that they would interpret their rules somewhat differently.

A reboot could revisit some ethical questions from the past and reinterpret them differently, considering current (as opposed to 1960s or 1980s) ethics, morals, and events. That would've been interesting.

What do we get instead? Essentially, a remake of "Wrath of Khan". I mean, sure, WoK was a good movie, though it's been far too long since I last saw it. But any remake is going to be crap in comparison to the original.

I don't think I'll be going to a movie theater to see the next installment -- if there is going to be one, that is.

Another vote for Digedag. Movie plots should at least be logical enough for you to suspend disbelief. There were just too many stupid moments in STID to take it seriously. One of the worst parts was at the end, when the Vengeance crashes into London... and people walking on the streets seem oblivious. It just drove home the fact that it was fake CGI and that the movie didn't even try to make the audience sympathetic to or care about the citizens killed. That's just really basic storytelling. Instead, it seems clear JJ and company were more interested in destroying buildings because it was kewl rather than because it build emotional tension.

Imagine a movie about 9-11 in which people near the World Trade Center just went about their normal daily lives and seemed not to notice events a block away!

Look you're all absolutely right, it's just that because I've lived in the South for such a long time that I identify with Dr. McCoy more than I do with Spock! All I keep thinking is how G.D. LOGICAL you're all being!

"It's a SONG, you green blooded... Vulcan!! You sing it, the words aren't important, what's important is that you have a good time SINGING!"

@CadetNorris

Oh, I'm sorry. Are the above posters supposed to be having a good time?

Every time I type the antispam message, I think to myself:

"GET AWAY FROM THAT LAUNCHER!!"

...More to the point, there were numerous logical errors in The Wrath Of Khan. Chekov not being in Space Seed is just the tip of the iceberg.

For starters, what kind of incredibly MORONIC body of governance approves a research project that can wipe out all life on a planet instantaneously, without then sending the Enterprise, the Excelsior, and maybe a couple of Borg Cubes to freaking GUARD the damn thing?

Also, this is more of a filmmaking issue, but why are Chekov and Terrell still aboard the Reliant during the scene that starts "Course to intercept Enterprise ready, sir?" Later Terrell says Khan went straight from Regula One to attack Enterprise. Aren't they supposed to have been stuffed in a locker prior to Joachim's first speaking scene?

In addition, Mike Okuda has pointed out that a 5 digit code is surprisingly breakable even by 1982 standards.

Kirk and Spock's subterfuge with the phrase "By the book" is not only kind of easy to figure out, but also recall that Khan reviewed all Starfleet procedures when he was reading the library computer way back in Space Seed.

But freaking James Horner just sells the damn thing like no tommorrow.

:)

I am glad there is at least one other person who realises that Star Trek is entertainment and not a religion.

If you are not entertained by Star Trek then you just don't bother with it.

*sigh*

Basically all those "flaws" mentioned above fall in the category of technical plot holes. Every movie can be faulted for featuring myriads of aspects that don't make sense or are unbelievable when approached from a real world perspective. Sadly, there are people who pick apart movies on that level (like the guys that do the "Everything wrong with movie X in Y minutes or less") - and they are a perfect representation of what's wrong with today's movie-going audience.

However, that is NOT what our complains are leveled at. We're talking here mainly about storytelling shortcomings: incoherent narrative, inconsistent, contradictory or downright nonsensical characterization, far too many (and lazy) plot contrivances, underdeveloped themes, etc. - and how the accumulation of those issues renders every attempt at creating successful drama or emotional investment void. In short: We're not talking about plot holes, but about bad storytelling (even if former, occasionally, can be the result of the latter). Not about surface problems, but missing substance. Huge difference.

All this has already been discussed at length here. And Wrath of Khan, while surely not perfect, is so extremely superior to STID it's honestly laughable. Trying to knock down Wrath of Khan for perceived deficiencies won't make STID any less of a mess. Neither will it undo Wrath's excellent drama, thematic resonance and fantastic execution.

And since you're so fond of quoting from Star Trek's rich fundus of memorable dialogue, I finish with a line from Space Seed (doing my best impression of Ricardo Montalbán's charismatic, Latin-inflected speech pattern):

"This grows tiresome."

You will forgive me if, to the uninitiated ear, it sounds altogether like splitting hairs to me. I believe, in time more people will agree with me.

And just so no one tries this again with me, it's

"I find myself growing fatigued by this cross-examination."

Nope, different quote. Besides, I'd be careful with this constant quoting. People might assume you have no words or ideas of your own (like STID). ;-)

Oh, I let you off the hook. It's obvious that you lack the necessary theoretical knowledge of film and, in general, storytelling - your "tangible details" criticism of Wrath of Khan is kind of a giveaway - to have a more in-depth discussion here.

And just for the record: There's nothing wrong with that. I, for instance, don't know sh*t about musical theory (among other things) and could only insufficiently explain why I like or dislike certain songs (Um, melody? Rhythm? Lyrics!). My examination of a song's merits or shortcomings is therefore bound to only scratch the surface.

Perhaps you should accept that some people do possess a more comprehensive and detailed knowledge of the subject at hand. I'm not saying that you have to blindly believe everything that I or someone else is spouting off here, but in this instance ... well, you CAN believe that there is a vast, fundamental difference between the critical approaches mentioned above.

If you like STID, that's fine. But please understand that other people have legitimate reasons to dislike it - even if you disagree.

And I very much doubt that STID's reputation as a good piece of art/entertainment will grow in time. People will care less and less about it, because, apart from some insultingly dumb moments that may stay in people's mind temporarily (and fuel threads like this one), there's really nothing worthwhile or even unique to remember.

Gee, it's too bad you can't call security and have me removed from the ship and stranded on Delta Vega.

For my part, he could have turned his whole post into "shut up" and it would have had the same meaning.

I'm not feeling particularly welcome in this open to the whole Internet discussion anymore.

Live long and prosper.

Digedag has finally lost it.

"Theoretical knowledge of film" give me a break.

Why aren't people allowed to enjoy this film?

No doubt the other cinemas scholars will be back to support Digedag shortly.

Oh, give me a break, Macca. No one has said you aren't allowed to enjoy the film. As I said earlier, in my response to your very first post on this thread, "You want to like the movie? Like the movie." But by the same token, we are allowed to say that the film is bad, and that we didn't like it, and -- most crucially -- we are allowed to argue with you about which of us is right. Do you see Digedag saying "Why aren't people allowed to say this film is a load of dingo's kidneys?" No, of course you don't...because he doesn't have a persecution complex and he can handle being disagreed with.

Speaking of which, au revoir, CadetNorris.

Digedag clearly can't handle being disagreed with.

If he did, he would agree to disagree.

Instead, he says that unless you are an expert in film theory, if such a theory exists, you can't comment intelligently here.

I love how Demosthenes contradicts himself in his posts - this time in the one sentence. You can't on one hand say that I'm allowed to like the movie and then say that you are allowed to tell me why I'm wrong.

"Play nice."-- Jammer

Yes, please everyone, play nice.

Where is the review, you might ask? Not written, is the answer. Why? Because I had no enthusiasm for the movie? Because I had nothing to say?

Not telling, but certainly don't read into my silence.

It's simply because I haven't. It's the capper on a long tradition of Jammer's Delays. Within my daily routine of late I have simply not made the time to write it, and now that it's been two months, I might as well drag it out a little bit longer. Let's be honest here -- this review is not to tell anyone here whether to see the movie or not (although I suppose at this point it could tell you whether or not to buy the Blu-ray), because you've already made that decision long ago. This review is to tell you where my opinion aligns with yours, so we can compare notes. And I'm looking forward to reading your notes -- a few of which I have skimmed, but have not yet consumed in any depth.

Don't worry -- one of these days this summer I will get a hankering to get it pulled together and do just that. (Hopefully by then I will remember the movie in any detail.) Until then, please enjoy the party without your host.

Pretty much what Demosthenes said.

And, Macca, please read my post thoroughly and don't try to build a straw man. I agreed with CadetNorris after he acknowledged that he didn't understand the difference in the critical approach that I pointed out in my previous post. Now, while his remark might have been sarcastic snark, it nevertheless proved that he wasn't able to grasp the distinction between the two concepts. And the fact that he not only contested the existence of said distinction without providing any proof or explanation, but simultaneously dismissed everything I (and other participants here, I might add) had written in regards to, well, storytelling, led me to believe that he lacked the necessary knowledge of the subject matter and that therefore there was really nothing gained by delving deeper into the discussion if he wasn't able to see the finer points of what I was talking about. Now, I freely admit after rereading the paragraph in question that my choice of words might have left something to be desired, but I stand by the gist of what I wrote, especially since I took pains to point out that this had nothing to do with him being not intelligent enough.


Also, you seem to have overlooked the part where I said "If you like STID, that's fine".

And do you know what film theory (if that sounds less pompous to you) is good for, Macca? Providing a conceptual framework for understanding film and exploring the inherent possibilities of expression through the medium. That thing that enables filmmakers to craft "fun" movies in the first place. See, I - and obviously a lot of other people here - hadn't that much "fun" with STID precisely because it disregards so many basic rules of good drama. Not because it was silly or didn't have a message or because it was aimed squarely at audiences that not that long ago might have scoffed at the idea of paying to see a Star Trek movie, BUT because it didn't entertain us due to its subpar storytelling that pretty much killed any enjoyment we might have had.

See, every "fun" movie of the last couple of years that was almost universally greeted with acceptance by moviegoers - even if it's something as inherently dumb as Fast 5 (and, to a somewhat lesser degree, Furious 6) - works both structurally and dramatically. That is the very reason people enjoy them. Good Storytelling.

And good storytelling doesn't mean a plot has to be extremely complex (and most screenwriter these days seem to confuse complicated with complex anyway) with an intricately-drawn narratives that feature profound, multi-layered characters. Hell, take James Cameron's Avatar. It's the most generic, predictable story imaginable. But for all things you can fault the movie for - its lack of originality, its stock characters and aggregation of cliches - it works because Jim Cameron knows his sh#t when it comes to storytelling. All the creatively designed stuff in that movie wouldn't have resonated half as much with audiences if the drama, as basic as it is, wouldn't work.


Now, we - the people who disliked STID - could talk all day long about how silly it was that Spock yelled "KHAAAAAN", but then we would discuss the symptom, not the cause. That would make this debate perhaps less pretentious sounding (;-)), but it most definitely wouldn't lead to a better understanding of why STID was such a disappointment to so many people.


PS: I can handle being disagreed with. In fact, if you provide convincing counterarguments to my thesis I might even reconsider my standpoint. ;-)

Digedag,

I don't need to provide counterpoints to your arguments as I am happy to let them stand on their merits.

What I am asking is that you let others have their say without getting a diatribe in response from you and your like.

While "you lack the necessary theoretical knowledge of film" is a low blow, I think I see where Digedag is coming from. This is, from the start, a discussion thread. If we were to "agree to disagree," we would tally our opinions (Awesome vs. Lame) and go our separate ways. Mirab, his sails unfurled!

But for a discussion, we must defend our opinions. As these are aesthetic opinions, nobody can be objectively correct. In that spirit, my goal is not to persuade those who loved STID that they should be as annoyed as I was. Rather, I must persuade others that my opinion is justified. If my opinion were unjustifiable, then it would be disconnected from the art that stimulated the response. I could've saved my ticket money, stared at a blank wall for two hours, and pronounced my opinion -- with no good reason. Having a discussion presumes aesthetic judgments have some justification.

Macca: "If you are not entertained by Star Trek then you just don't bother with it."

That's just the problem: I bothered with it *before* I learned that STID would annoy me more than it would entertain me. As I can't get a refund for my time and money, all that's left is to either boycott the next picture, as some suggest, or to offer constructive criticism to improve the next picture. Not just the Trek franchise, but all entertainments. The makers of entertainments may not read Jammer's site (their loss), but the audience does. And if the audience learns to demand more from their entertainment, they shape how it's made. That's why we have these discussions.

Grumpy,

Mostly well said. Does jumping on people who have a different opinion, as many have done, count as justifying one's own point of view?

"I love how Demosthenes contradicts himself in his posts - this time in the one sentence. You can't on one hand say that I'm allowed to like the movie and then say that you are allowed to tell me why I'm wrong."

Point 1: You don't understand what a contradiction is. A contradiction would be "You are allowed to like ST:iD and you are not allowed to like ST:iD." See how that works? See how both halves of that sentence directly oppose each other? So where's the contradiction in what I said? That's easy -- there is none.

Point 2: Your first post on this thread was to say that you were "dismayed" by other people's reactions, and "annoyed" by people who said that the tone of the new movies wasn't in keeping with Trek. Both of those are your word choices, and they bracket a post where you lecture us on why we shouldn't believe what we do. Now you claim that all you want is for people like Dig and me to "let others have their say without getting a diatribe in response from you and your like."

So what I'm hearing is, YOU get to tell us why you're dismayed and annoyed by our opinions after you read our posts, but WE don't get to do the same to you. I'd really love to throw your accusation back at you -- but strictly speaking, that's not a contradiction. It's just a garden-variety double standard.

Point 3: I did actually misspeak, and I need to correct myself -- because I played right into your warped terminology. It's not a question of you being ALLOWED to like the movie. How could anyone possibly stop you from liking anything? NO ONE HAS ANY CONTROL OVER YOU. And by the same token, it's not a question of me being allowed to tell you why you're wrong. You don't control me, either. I can, and do, tell people that they're wrong all the time. And they do the same to me. Just last week I had occasion to tell a co-worker that "Adventure Time" is brain-drainingly dumb, and he shot back that "Buffy" is overrated girl-power garbage. That's just normal give-and-take between two people with different preferences and opinions. Get used to it, dude.

Point 4: I debated about whether to mention this, but what the heck. What you're claiming I said in one sentence, I actually said in two. Reading comprehension fail.

Nice diatribe.

That seems to be the only way you know how to respond to criticism -- with a brush-off. Sad.

Macca,

I would take a hard look at yourself. You have been the one who has repeatedly caught attention with ad hominem attacks. You, more than once, have left snarky and dismissive comments aimed at those of us who like to discuss this movie more in-depth: "You and your kind", "He can't handle", "cinemas scholars" etc. pp. - and that's just from the last couple of posts.

The thing is, apart from perhaps the last exchange with CadetNorris which contained what I already admitted was a poorly worded line, I haven't attacked anyone in person, nor have I insinuated disparaging things.

You talk about "jumping on people who have different opinions"/"Let others have their say" as if it were my modus operandi here, which is just not true. I've argued with people over certain aspects of the movie that we had contrary opinions about, and sometimes it got heated, but I don't insult them for having different viewpoints. Neither do a reply to every post. And I hadn't even addressed you prior to my last comment.

Now, perhaps some of my formulation leave room for misinterpretation, I've already pointed out that English is not my native tongue, and tone is notoriously difficult to convey in written form. However, you make it sound as if I had a vendetta against people who don't share my perspective.

This is a discussion, people argue. What is gained if everybody is in the mindset of "agree to disagree"? For me to actually agree or disagree with someone I need to here his or her reasoning, not just his initial impression, especially if can be reduced to "awesome" or "lame", as Grumpy put it. In fact, I tried to refrain from replying to comments that can be summarized as "it's fun", which as an impression is all fine and nice, as a review or contribution to an ongoing discussion has basically no value. Contrary to your accusation, I'm mostly interested in a stimulating exchange of thoughts that might expand my horizon, not enforcing some kind of conformity that is in line with what I think. But for this to happen you have to offer actual arguments.

To me it seems that YOU are the one who can't take being disagreed with, as if our complains (and the analysis of why we think STID fails to live up to expectations) would somehow invalidate your enjoyment of the movie. After all you have repeatedly written that you have been "really dismayed" or "annoyed" by people picking at this and that, stating absolutes "there can be no doubt that Abrams has revitalized Trek" as if it were some truth written in stone.

You act like some kind of moral authority that virtuously defends the poor souls that I and the evil likes of me verbally abuse for holding deviating opinions, which, as already pointed out, is just not true. So, perhaps you take a step back and perhaps consider the possibility that you are perhaps a bit thin-skinned or read to much into certain things.

The problem seems to lie in cultural barriers that exist between us. We're less conscious of it when we're all posting in the same language, typeface, and text color.

It's worth noting that the major impetus for learning manners is often some form of positive punishment, more typically verbal these days, though physical discipline isn't completely out of vogue, sad as it may be.

When the condition of a tangible punishment that we can easily understand and anticipate is removed, we human beings tend toward the most intensely charged defense of our viewpoint we feel we can get away with.

Granting all that, I will close by saying that I thought Star Trek Into Darkness was cute. The next one will either have to address the concerns of those who want there to be more of a focus on ideas, or risk creating an unneccessary schism in a fandom that has seen quite a few schisms formed and healed already.

If JJ makes another action-fest he's going to lose my attention.

Even so, I'll give it to him; Into Darkness entertained me.

Nice diatribe x2

Macca, get a dictionary and look up "diatribe," please.

Better yet, respond to the POINTS OF ARGUMENT that Digedag and Demosthenes (nice handle, btw - very appropriate for this forum) went to the trouble of articulating.

Speaking honestly about why you liked STID is one thing, losing yourself in rhetorical vitriol against those who didn't like it is quite another.

So let's conduct an experiment. As I said before, I haven't seen STID and don't plan to - this is the absolute truth. Pitch the movie to me - honestly tell me and your fellow forum readers why you personally liked it, and why you think we should see it. It's not enough to say it was fun - I want to know WHY it was fun. No need to quote box office returns or critical responses. I have access to Rotten Tomatoes and can look that stuff up for myself.

But here's the trick - you need to account for what Dig, Dem and others objected to WITHOUT picking apart their argumentative techniques. I personally find their arguments compelling - though they maybe could have worded them a little better (the bit about "necessary theoretical knowledge of film" was, as Dig admits, a pretty serious rhetorical boner) I nevertheless understand their basic gist. If you can show me that you understand that gist as well, and can THEN explain why you think they're wrong, if your argument is convincing enough, I'll go and see the movie. (Probably not right away - I want to see Before Midnight first - but I'll take it in. Why not?) Just don't insult our intelligence with another single-sentence quip. You'll never win the debate that way.

CadetNorris - thank you for continuing to post. This is turning into a pretty exciting little forum.

Genre-Buster,

Not sure why you would be posting about a movie you don't intend to see. Seems like a waste of time to me, but each to their own.

Anyway, the point I have been trying to make is that anyone who comments positively on STID immediately gets smashed for no apparent reason. If you like the movie your intelligence and sophistication is questioned which I think is unfair.

I'm not interested in debating Digedag or Demosthenes as their posts have become so hysterical that it really isn't worth it.

I would like to hear more from people who are actually going to talk about the movie rather than the bee buzzing around in their collective bonnet.

And just for the record I took out my trusty dictionary...

diatribe (noun)

An angry, bitterly critical speech or written article.

Sounds about right to me.

I liked the scene where Scotty and the green guy go to some nightclub after Scotty resigns. That was pretty cool. The green guy was wearing a turtleneck or something. I think some other stuff happened in the movie too.

Star Trek Into Darkness gives the Star Trek fan a glimpse into the possibilities of the Star Trek mythos.

In a universe where parallel dimensions are known to exist, can there still be such a thing as fate? Our our fates ultimately tied to our identities? Do the choices we make result only from the environment we live in, or is there some immutable quality to our consciousness that spans the breadth of all quantum realities?

Will two people who are destined to be lovers ultimately find each other no matter what is done to change the course of history? Conversely, will two people who are destined to be enemies ultimately find a way to get knives at each other's throats, regardless of what temporal discrepancies shred the fabric of history around them?

It's a look at the romance inherent, but up until now unacknowledged, in the story of the brave crew of the Starship Enterprise, no bloody A, B, C, or D.

"diatribe (noun)

An angry, bitterly critical speech or written article.

Sounds about right to me."

You're right on Macca.

Except for the angry or bitter part. If anything, most of the referenced posts seem pretty clinical and calm. Almost as though they were setting aside emotion in order to improve communication and understanding.

But they were clearly critical. There can be no doubt there.

It's almost as though our violent human emotions are encroaching on the proceedings very much against our will.

@ Macca

"Anyway, the point I have been trying to make is that anyone who comments positively on STID immediately gets smashed for no apparent reason. "

Actually, it seems like the opposite is true. On this site and others, it seems like fans of the JJ Trek are very defensive and quick to attack anybody who is even slightly critical. Look at the critical reviews on Amazon.com. They're immediately voted down and people (some of whom I suspect are paid) post negative comments. While I don't agree with everything Digedag and Demosthenes say, nothing they have said seems to approach diatribe levels. They're very critical of the film, but that's the nature of writing a review.

Are you sure it isn't time for a colorful metaphor?

Macca, try not to take this personally, but really and truly, nothing of what you said in your reply to my post serves to prove your point at all. Where is this "hysteria" you speak of? YOU were the one who went on the attack with the very first sentence of your very first post:

Macca: "I have been really dismayed by some of the responses to Star Trek into Darkness on this website."

This immediately puts those who don't like the film on the defensive. Based on how you yourself initiated this dialogue, I can only conclude that you invited this conflict yourself. Your responses to opposing viewpoints have consistently become more and more hostile as the thread grows; a bit of snarkiness was bound to follow.

And dude - think about this for a second - the one avoiding discussion of the movie itself is none other than YOU - not since your very first post have you tried to describe what you like about STID. Everything you've written since then has been utterly combative and completely off the subject of what the film itself contains. What else can I say?

Well, actually quite a lot more, but I'll just close with this. Another term you should look up is "ad hominem," a term which you used to describe Dem's and Dig's posts. Actually, let me look it up for you:

plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

The above link is to a thorough definition of the term with copious examples given by one Stephen Bond. I highly recommend it to anybody who posts (and wants to post) on forums of any kind. And Macca - if you don't see a mirror in at least some of the examples Bond gives, you might need to... well...

I'll stop there, lest the dread "ad hominem" bomb be dropped on me.

@CadetNorris: Your brief but pithy post about the "possibilities of the Star Trek mythos" is very intriguing. I'm almost tempted to see the film based on that post alone.

Good work.

Thanks for the research on ad hominem but I have never used this in any of my posts.

What a clown.

Funny, funny, funny

Genre-Buster has lost all credibility, I doubt we'll hear from him again.

STID has lots of dreadful moments but it was fun.

I agree with one of Macca's original points that a new audience could be introduced to the former incarnations of Trek. Ends justifies the means?

I get the point about why would someone who likes STID also like Who Watches the Watchers so no need to rehash that argument. Maybe they might be drawn to the Dominion War Arc or Scorpion?

Like the man said:

"I will not allow posturing and bigotry to destroy this meeting!"

It was said, by Genre-Buster:

"So let's conduct an experiment. As I said before, I haven't seen STID and don't plan to - this is the absolute truth. Pitch the movie to me - honestly tell me and your fellow forum readers why you personally liked it, and why you think we should see it. It's not enough to say it was fun - I want to know WHY it was fun. No need to quote box office returns or critical responses. I have access to Rotten Tomatoes and can look that stuff up for myself."

To which I replied:

"Star Trek Into Darkness gives the Star Trek fan a glimpse into the possibilities of the Star Trek mythos.

In a universe where parallel dimensions are known to exist, can there still be such a thing as fate? Our our fates ultimately tied to our identities? Do the choices we make result only from the environment we live in, or is there some immutable quality to our consciousness that spans the breadth of all quantum realities?

Will two people who are destined to be lovers ultimately find each other no matter what is done to change the course of history? Conversely, will two people who are destined to be enemies ultimately find a way to get knives at each other's throats, regardless of what temporal discrepancies shred the fabric of history around them?

It's a look at the romance inherent, but up until now unacknowledged, in the story of the brave crew of the Starship Enterprise, no bloody A, B, C, or D."

This doesn't constitute a loss of "face" for anyone, and if I may say so, we are not Feudal Lords, we're just Trek fans.

Now enough with the rancor, that belongs in another franchise anyhow. ;)

I could also say this.

Something we tend to forget in the fandom is that Spock doesn't have a whole lot of friends. His very nature as a Vulcan prohibits expressions of personal affection, and while he is half human, he went to school entirely with Vulcans.

Now add into that his entire race being reduced to ~10,000 people.

This is a guy with serious issues.

My apologies - the ad homonym remark came from Digegag, not Macca. How embarrassing - I should read a bit more carefully.

My credibility is happy to take the blow - "what a clown" indeed. Nevertheless, it should still be brought up in the context of how Macca in particular has framed his arguments. Digedag, while falling into the ad hominem trap himself with his aformentioned remark to CadetNorris, used the term with spot-on accuracy when he was rebutting Macca's "you and your kind" remark.

What you did with that remark, Macca, along with the accusation of hysteria, was to lower the bar of discussion here to mere pugilism.

...and you're STILL not talking about the film.

Macca, upon reflection, what are your impressions of the film?

I feel it necessary to point out that if you don't begin, follow through with, and end on a definite statement about the film, you really call into question, in my mind, the assertion that you have even seen the film in question. You saw it, right?

What did you think of the film? How does it compare to Star Trek: The Motion Picture?

CadetNorris-

You win. I'll go see the film.

Your point about the Spock reboot is something I'll fully admit I've resisted ever since 2009. The destruction of Vulcan happened under such brain-numbingly stupid plot contrivances that I was never fully willing to go along with this new timeline. Zach Quinto's work has to be contextualized first, and I don't suppose I gave him a fair shake. I'll try to do so this afternoon.

And just to warn you, I'm still probably not going to like it.

Found this:

"E2 - Thu, May 30, 2013 - 12:03pm (USA Central)
I saw "Star Trek Into Darkness". It was fun. I enjoyed it.

I can totally see why people who don't know or just don't like TOS or TNG, DS9, or the earlier films would like it.

Those older versions of trek were often slow and talky. They occasionally tried to act as though they were actual science fiction and acknowledge some of the laws of physics. They frequently tried to ram ideals or morals down our throats, or make us think about things from a different perspective. Once in a while they even portrayed complex issues in shades of gray, rather than absolutes. (Sometimes the assumed villain going in actually turned out to not even be bad!) They spent years building up relationships between characters. And on top of all that, they kept trying to sneak in this "if we work together, despite differences in gender, race, religion, even species, we CAN learn, and make things better" subtext- all that Roddenberry clap-trap.

It is safe to say that JJ has avoided all of those pitfalls, and crafted a action packed, highly entertaining film free from any of that old baggage. In fact, he's done it twice, now. Face it - we need "Blow stuff up" films for people who don't love overbuilt cars, giant transforming robots or super spies.

So, for those nay-sayers who suggest that what they loved about Star Trek, what made it stand apart from all those other fantasy adventures set in space, is absent- well, suck it up. If you really claim you want entertainment that requires you to think, you're barking up the wrong franchise. Go read a book."

I would agree except for the part about racial integration being clap-trap. Certainly, much of what Roddenberry had to say was in retrospect complete self-serving garbage, but racial integration is not, and I'll hear no dismissive viewpoints toward it.

But he is right: Star Trek is what it is: cheap entertainment. Wrath of Khan cost $11 million, and yet it's the crown jewel of the franchise.

And you should read books! "Songs of Distant Earth" for one.

But don't take my word for it.

(Musical Cue)

Books?

Books are great! I love to read books!

So did Picard, and for that matter so did Khan - at least in the Ricardo Montalban incarnation. Yes, those guys were out there quoting Shakespeare and Melville and countless others, repeatedly reminding us of mankind's cultural heritage, where we came from and perhaps even indicating how we got here - that is, into space exploration and leading the way with the United Federation of Planets. It may not have been high art, but at least it was consistent.

Those old Trek episodes E2 talks about so disparagingly were of course uneven in quality, but bad or good, there was an adherence to principal that not one of those old episodes, not even when the franchise started its Berman/Braga nosedive, ever violated. The Prime Directive, "Live Long and Prosper," these were more than just tropes - at least until Abrams came along.

And I have a serious problem with the "cheap entertainment" argument. A quarter-billion dollar film budget? Doesn't sound cheap to me. No - what's been cheapened is my role as a movie-goer: I'm suddenly being told to "face it," "suck it up," etc. I seriously fear whether or not the generation growing up today even knows the difference between the footage taken on 9-11 and contemporary blockbuster set pieces.

Film is a highly influential art form - it's great when it entertains, but if it deliberately discourages thought (which is what I believe Trek 11 did, and what I fear STID has done as well), then we have a serious problem, one that cannot be dismissed with a simple quip about how times have changed.

Too true, too true. As I said, this E2 feller is kinda out there.

I just thought it was a rather compelling argument that if they're going to spend money making a film (190 million+, if I'm not mistaken), the lion's share of the budget is naturally going to be devoted to the Spectacle aspect of it, or what you might call "showmanship."

Personally, I don't feel any of the story threads put forth in STID go against the established characters or framework of the setting. The technobabble is getting unbelievably ludicrous, but that's just never been a sticking point for me. The technological aspects of the story need to be wholly secondary to the characters and their ideas for the story to move at an acceptable pace.

Stephen King says in his book "On Writing" that if he tells you there's a cage on a table with a Rabbit that has the number 8 on its back, to tell you the dimensions of the table or the style of cage or its shape isn't storytelling, but an instruction manual.

And frankly, after watching "Threshold" (VOY), I gave up on trying to understand the technical aspects of the Star Trek universe, except as it relates to getting the story moving, and have, I feel, found much more enjoyment than I used to get out of it.

@Genre-Buster

but if it deliberately discourages thought ... then we have a serious problem, one that cannot be dismissed with a simple quip about how times have changed.

I agree with you here. But, (aside from the aforementioned books) there is some hope, mostly from the independent category-

Films like "Primer" and "Moon" are excellent, well thought out actual science fiction, that I found very entertaining. It's true, they don't offer much in the explosion or big budget CGI departments. What they do, is tell stories that draw you in with believable characters, that don't insult the audience.

As long as things of this caliber continue to pop up from time to time, I see hope for the medium. Even if it is only on the fringe of the industry. Even if I have to let go of one of my old favorites.

I think it was Nick Meyer himself who once said that "Art will always be a product of the times it was made in".

To me, this implies that Star Trek into Darkness is simply reflective of the times we live in, and it managed to hit the right notes with the current audiences.

Whether traditional Trek purists embrace them or not, the fact is these two films enabled the franchise to achieve a wider appeal beyond the standard fans.

Nemesis tanked in the box-office because it felt like it was being left behind by both the competition and the audience.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a lifelong fan of TNG, DS9, classic Trek, and their stories, but I don't see them returning to a slower-paced Trek anytime soon.

Also, the whole theoretical knowledge of film argument by Digedag is complete BS.

I studied film all my life. A movie has one goal: to tell a story. How you tell the story is subjective, as long as you can translate that to an audience on a visual and emotional level.

Into Darkness accomplishes that simple requirement. Most people can embrace Kirk's plight. The cocky young officer eager to rush into action, who suddenly finds himself to be an inadequate leader, and chooses a suicidal path.

In the end, what matters is getting the audience to respond to these characters.

Yup, there are many ways to tell a story. The problem is, the approach STID chose didn't work. The screenwriters didn't accomplish what they set out to - which, by the way, is as basic as it gets in terms of drama - thus resulting in an unengaging film with poorly realized character arcs and shoddy, put-on conflicts. And funnily enough there was a huge disconnect between the visual language and the emotional resonance the filmmakers were aiming for.

And while STID might have worked for a part of the audience, the fact that a lot of other people responded negatively to this movie should call into question this alleged successfulness.

"The problem is, the approach STID chose didn't work."

Didn't work for you. Worked just fine for me, and many others.

"The screenwriters didn't accomplish what they set out to - which, by the way, is as basic as it gets in terms of drama - thus resulting in an unengaging film with poorly realized character arcs and shoddy, put-on conflicts."

Hollow argument, at best. Hyperbole with little actual content to back it up. The audience was cheering during my screening, therefore I wouldn't call it 'unengaging'. Plenty of people responded to it.

They wanted to tell an adventurous story in which Kirk is struggling to find himself and his place in this ever-changing world, learning to deal with the pressures of responsibility and duty. And also the story about a developing friendship and camaraderie between this rash young human and this misplaced Vulcan.

"And funnily enough there was a huge disconnect between the visual language and the emotional resonance the filmmakers were aiming for."

If by that you mean it was a visual rollercoaster ride, then it definitely achieved what it was going for.

Also, and I have alluded to this before, the filmmaker who are able to craft unconventional drama that doesn't follow established storytelling rules are nevertheless people who have a firm grip on it and, in general, a pretty all-encompassing understanding of story function. Tarantino springs to mind.

But this hardly applies in this case since Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof stuck to the most basic rules. Unfortunately there weren't able or - more likely - willing to translate their vision properly, opting instead to rely on lazy shortcuts and hoping that the audience would take everything they were fed at face value.

"But this hardly applies in this case since Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof stuck to the most basic rules. Unfortunately there weren't able or - more likely - willing to translate their vision properly, opting instead to rely on lazy shortcuts and hoping that the audience would take everything they were fed at face value."

The only plot device I could even classify as a shortcut is Harrison's unprovoked attack on the Klingons.

Every other development is pretty organic and true to character.

Throughout the film, Kirk struggles with how to respond to the crisis at hand (Harrison's terrorism, and Pike's death). Throughout the second act, he tries to follow through on his mission, only to see it being thwarted by his own realization that he's not at all suited for command, and ends up with a high body count and a crippled ship.

His decision to sacrifice himself to restart the ship kicks off the film's resolution, and allows him to finally overcome his shortcomings and become the leader he was born to be, the leader Pike expected him to be, and in the process also live up to Spock Prime's expectations regarding the Kirk/Spock friendship.

Yeah, and there were people groaning and at two points unintentionally laughing at in my viewing. So, yeah, now we have established that people were pretty split on the movie, which hardly goes in line with the claim that the movie was successful in its goals.

My disconnect comment was aimed at the dramatic scenes and how the execution that screams "Drama! Conflict! Hard Decisions!" was at odds with the lack of emotional resonance that the movie was able to achieve.

I explained already why the character bits mostly didn't work for me in prior comments, somewhere in the middle of this thread (early June, I think). Please forgive me that I'm not going to reiterate this now, since I had actually planned to slowly withdraw myself from this discussion. I just responded because you kinda addressed me.

Jeez, another comment. I'm sorry, I can't think, translate and type that fast without making a clusterf*ck out of the post, both in terms of content and grammar.

I see your points, it just didn't work for me. I know it's lazy, but I have again point you to some of my earlier entries in this thread where I tried to explain why that was case.

I enjoyed Star Trek (2009) because it had great pacing, and was a fun action/adventure film. I never go into a Star Trek film expecting anything like any of the television series. It's just a different format.

But Into Darkness never quite stuck with me. I was bored. The action scenes dragged on and on. There was zero tension. There was zero drama. I had no investment in any of the characters. The pacing was awful, as was the dialogue (or what little existed of it). It reminded me of the Star Wars prequels at their worst.

My two cents, at least.

Alright - I saw it.

First observation I'd like to make: Before Midnight (which I saw just prior was much, much better.

And don't hit me with that old hackneyed excuse that these movies are different genres: Before Midnight is arthouse, STID's a summer blockbuster, blah blah blah. Doesn't change the simple fact that listening to Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy talk for two hours solid was about a million times more interesting, thought provoking, provocative, and envigorating than all of the explosions, chase sequences, badassedness, hot women and apocalyptic simulations found in STID combined.

Oh well, it wasn't bad, I don't guess. Cadet N's "fate" observation a few posts up not only got me to see the film, but saved me from hating it altogether. There's actually quite a lot more to say about this, but for now, let it be known that I thought the film was okay.

Nothing like rock-bottom expectations to enhance on's filmgoing experience.

Jammer, would it be too much to ask for a "go back and edit" function on this forum for posts that we boogered up?I hate it when I hit send with typos I missed. Makes me look like a discredited clown.

Someday they do need to make Star Trek II: Chekhov Screams Again.

@CadetNorris
I agree with you that in ST 2009 they did a good job of exploring this alternate universe angle but in Into Darkness I just got the feeling that they were ripping off TWOK. Yes, they put a "clever" twist on it by reversing who died but it felt forced as opposed to the fresh, new ideas that we saw in the previous movie.

You also said that... "Personally, I don't feel any of the story threads put forth in STID go against the established characters or framework of the setting." Ok, you made a good point about Spock being messed up in the head due to the destruction of Vulcan but don't you feel that this Spock is a little too emotional? It took Spock Prime years to come to grips with his emotions. He is extremely reserved. It doesn't make sense for him to completely lose control of himself when he has spent so many years fighting to hide his emotions.

I also think that they got the character of Khan completely wrong. The biggest sin was when they showed him crying in front of Kirk and Spock. Khan had a very aggressive and dominant personality. He would never show a sign of weakness in front of another Alpha male, in this case Kirk. I know that he was trying to manipulate him but this was not Khan's style.

I am curious to know your thoughts on this. Everyone else feel free to comment as well.

"I agree with you that in ST 2009 they did a good job of exploring this alternate universe angle but in Into Darkness I just got the feeling that they were ripping off TWOK."

I find it to be unnecessarily cynical how quickly and easily people accuse writers of plagiarism when their intent is often homage. This may or may not be the process occurring here and now, but you've got to admit, if they were going to make some kind of heavily referential picture, they pick the right things to refer to.

"You also said that... "Personally, I don't feel any of the story threads put forth in STID go against the established characters or framework of the setting." Ok, you made a good point about Spock being messed up in the head due to the destruction of Vulcan but don't you feel that this Spock is a little too emotional? It took Spock Prime years to come to grips with his emotions. He is extremely reserved. It doesn't make sense for him to completely lose control of himself when he has spent so many years fighting to hide his emotions."

There are many scenes in the movie devoted to showing Spock maintaining his cool Vulcan exterior. I'm afraid the fact is, and I'm sure Mr. Quintillion will agree, he's just not quite as cool as Leonard Nimoy. I really can't fault him for it, because frankly I don't know who is.

"I also think that they got the character of Khan completely wrong. The biggest sin was when they showed him crying in front of Kirk and Spock. Khan had a very aggressive and dominant personality. He would never show a sign of weakness in front of another Alpha male, in this case Kirk. I know that he was trying to manipulate him but this was not Khan's style."

Cumberbatch as Khan turns away from Kirk and Spock before the year falls, so technically you are correct, he would not do this *in front of them* per se. The scene ends before he moves a muscle, IIRC.

The biggest problem with Cumberbatch Khan is this business about his being some kind of ultimate bad-ass. I don't remember what Nimoy-Spock's line exactly was, but it was tantamount to "the most dangerous mutherf***er the universe has ever faced" or something to that effect. It would seem that hyperbole is among the symptoms of Nimoy-Spock's old-age dementia. Recall his comment in the original Trek 2:

"His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."

Doen't sound very threatening to me. This is really driven home when Shatner-Kirk says quite smugly to Khan:

"We tried it once your way, Khan, are you game for a rematch?"

...and then:

"Hey Khan, I'm laughing at your superior intellect."

From what I remember, Montalban-Khan was little more than a bungler with just a few impressive traits: Noble carriage and seductiveness in Space Seed, and tenacity and dumb luck in STWOK. What made him so memorable was, of course, Ricardo Montalban's highly dynamic, textured, and at times even comical performance.

Benedict Cumberbatch may be a good actor (I hear he actually is), but there's no way you could tell from watching this movie. While I suppose the overall effect was to make Khan appear "menacing," a kind of Hannibal Lecter with gym-shoes, his actual CHARACTER is completely wooden; he's a line-spitting, snarling mannequin, nothing more.

Nicholas Meyer said in the commentary to Wrath Of Khan that Montalban, even back in 67, suffered from a battle injury or something to one of his legs, and had a permanent limp that (according to Mr. Meyer) he worked very hard to conceal, and did so brilliantly. However, it's worth noting that a stunt double would have been required for any scenes of all-out combat.

WOK has only one such scene, and Khan is not the one Kirk beats up. There was a fight planned for Kirk and Khan, but this was never filmed as the budget would not allow it.

For these reasons, up until now, we have more or less had to depend largely on simple, singular shows of strength to understand what a dangerous person Khan is.

I find that the combat scenes in STID really drive home the point of how incredibly powerful and scary a genetically engineered super warrior would be.

You realize that selective breeding is a thing? I'm not certain, but I believe it is unlawful in some parts of the world, if not at least frowned upon?

Khan is the work of people who don't realize that humans have been given limitations because they need them in order to possess the incredibly vital character trait called compassion. If you construct a killing machine with the heart of a proud, greedy, selfish, emotional human being, you are unleashing a monster. It's not like they could selectively breed out emotions.

The point I'm making is, somebody on the crew said "I don't want them to laugh at the villain." That was a decision someone made, and I feel it adds a verisimilitude to the idea behind the character.

Ben Cumberbatch is attempting to fill a role that NOBODY is ever going to forget that Montalban played. The world knows Montalban as Khan, for as long as history gets recorded. There simply HAD to be a completely "from scratch" take on the character, or it wouldn't have been possible to do it.

I'll close now, by saying that I remember exactly what I was thinking when Spock Prime gave this film what are destined to be its Arc Words. I was thinking that Spock Prime's human side was thinking:

"I remember him. Sonofabitch killed me, for god's sake watch your back!!!"

@Genre-Buster

Your criticisms of Khan being a bungler is really not fair. Khan's from the late 20th century piloting a 23rd century space vehicle. If he were from the Kirk's time and using 2-D thinking, then the case of him being a dumbass would fit.

But, consider: with just a couple of Ceti Eels and some captured Starfleet officers, he was able to commandeer a starship (again) and get his hands on a potentially dangerous device, and possibly conquer the galaxy. Not too shabby in my book.

Your argument is like saying Hannibal Lechter was much of a villain because he got captured by Will Graham. Or Darth Vader really was lame because he saved his son at the end.

Wow, is Jammer even going to bother posting a review? Maybe he disliked the movie so much he thinks it doesn't deserve a spot on this page...

We can simultaneously consider his potential review good and bad, until presented with evidence that indicates either possibility.

"Schrodinger's Review" :)

I do understand why they gave this new Khan the more polished sheen, and ultimately it did work to the film's general purposes just fine. I just wanted to explain why Cumber-Khan is nowhere near my top-ten movie villains list, but Montal-Khan definitely is.

What really surprised me about this movie - and in a good way (for the time being, I'll have to let go of the the ass-pain that idiotic contrivance with Khan's blood being some kind of ambrosial elixir gave me - give me a f***ing break), what really surprised me was Kirk's transformation after dying and being resurrected, a transformation that I honestly did not see coming. Suddenly, there he was, a man upon whom the full weight of his responsibilities had at long last dawned. Carol Marcus shoots him a seductive glance, and lo and behold, he simply smiles, greets her as a respected colleague, and moves to the podium to give his speech. Pine's delivery of that speech was shockingly dignified and, I daresay, inspiring. Here he is - a man at last.

Which brings me to what CadetNorris said several posts up about fate. Here it is again:

"In a universe where parallel dimensions are known to exist, can there still be such a thing as fate? Our our fates ultimately tied to our identities? Do the choices we make result only from the environment we live in, or is there some immutable quality to our consciousness that spans the breadth of all quantum realities?"

That Kirk and Spock should be "destined" to confront Khan is not something I found particularly interesting at first, but that the FINAL result should wind in total harmony with what we understand about these characters from their previous incarnations, shoot, I was genuinely and pleasantly surprised.

I think Jammer is waiting for the DVD/Blu Ray release.

@ MadBaggins,

Maybe, but will anybody even care about this movie then? I actually canceled my pre-order because the more I think about STID the less I care

There's almost an accepted level of autism that seems to go hand in hand with star trek fandom. I must say, I have skimmed over the many comments in this blog and the majority of them seemed like whining. "Not enough plot", "too much action", "why was Spock mad after kirk died." Having grown up with the star trek series since the 90s, that is, multiple series, and eventually re-watching the originals, I must say I am anything but a star trek fan boy. I simply do not have the passion or sheer autism required to type several barely coherent paragraphs on why the film was not exactly made to my whiny standards. That being said, the JJ films while short on the philosophical dilated dialogues that most treks so desperate crave and hunger, offer plenty of entertainment value. Ultimately that is what movies are for.

I gave myself a promotion, because I'm about to return to active duty

I feel the consensus is that while a perfectly crafted "Trekbuster," STID will go down in history as a well intentioned but ultimately juuuust a bit corny film.

I think what Pauline Kael said about WoK applies to this movie as well:

"Wonderful, dumb fun."

MaxG: Having wished for a better plot, less sexism in a *2013* film, and pointing out that someone acted out of character is autistic? Gotcha.

If you like "Into Darkness", fine, but no need to take digs. Some fans of STID are just as defensive as they say people who didn't like it are whiny (or worse). The extremes on both sides are just as bad. The same as with anything, not just Star Trek.

"plenty of entertainment value." I think that's a better description of the 2009 film.

"Having grown up with the star trek series since the 90s, that is, multiple series, and eventually re-watching the originals, I must say I am anything but a star trek fan boy."

It sounds to me like you're trying to have your cake and it too. Don't take this the wrong way, but if you watched *all* the series, are reading Jammer's Reviews, and feel the need to post, then you're a fanboy too.

STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS

I'd like to move for a moratorium on addressing other posters directly.

All in favor?

Well, finally watched the movie...

...and sad to say I'm very disappointed.
I loved Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes, but unfortunately he is totally wasted in this movie.

It is sad, they had a wonderful cast, tons of money...and created Star Trek Transformers.

A disaster, indeed.

First of all, "autism" isn't a term to be throwing around lightly and it also doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. (Talking about an "accepted level of autism", "sheer autism" etc. is grossly offensive.)

Secondly, fanboy shouldn't be a dirty word. We're all fans here.

Thirdly, movies are not for entertainment. Cinema is an art form and as such can serve various purposes depending on the creators' intentions. Watch something like Przesluchanie and then tell me the purpose of cinema is entertainment.

Fourthly, all opinions are valid by their very nature. If you liked STID, fine. If you didn't, fine. The whole purpose of this thread is to debate the film respectfully - which means people have full licence to be as critical of it as they like or praise it as much as they like. Neither view invalidates the other. If someone doesn't like it, it doesn't mean they're being "too" critical (there's no such thing) or that they're wrong to dislike it (they're not). Similarly, if someone likes STID, it doesn't mean they're too naive or not being critical enough or are wrong to like it (they're not). Neither party should have to face these kinds of personal accusations - which are actually nothing to do with and detract from the debate at hand - from the other party. Innit. IDIC, mofos :)

Debating an issue isn't about attacking the other side personally or attacking the validity of the opinion - it's about debating the issue. Passionately but dispassionately, and with a subjectivity that's as objective as possible.

Well said, Niall!

Rob_Fleming- I'm sorry to hear you were disappointed.

I also like Cumberbatch, and felt he didn't get a chance to shine in this film, much like Eric Bana in the 2009 film. To be fair, it is difficult to establish the villain as a fully formed character in such a short format as a film; much harder when you also have to re-introduce Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, Scotty, and Pike as well!

TWOK benefited from being able to use Khan's previous appearance to fill in the gaps (at least for the serious fans in the audience.) But since that episode was broadcast over 45+ years ago, the new film couldn't expect to draw from it. (And also since the 2009 movie precludes the events of "Space Seed" and TWOK as well...)

I felt that Cumberbatch did as well as he could with what he'd been given. (Much like Zachary Quinto, who I think is also very good.)

Any re-imagining of Star Trek--whether official or unofficial, can be judged if by one factor and one factor only: how they portray Dr. Leonard McCoy.

If Dr. McCoy is portrayed as nothing more than a grouchy quip generator, then the people behind the re-imagining most likely never watched a single episode of TOS (at least not with a serious mindset).

But, if they treat the character with the full nuance that that the people behind TOS did (most notably DeForest Kelley), then most likely these people truly the magic of TOS.

[REDONE]
Any re-imagining of the The Original Star Trek, officially or unofficially, can be judged by one factor, and one factor alone: how they portray Dr. Leonard McCoy.

If Dr. McCoy is portrayed as nothing more than a grouchy quip generator then most likely the people in charge of the production have never watched TOS, or never watched it with a serious mindset.

But, if McCoy is played with the full nuance that DeForest Kelley imbued in the character and how he was written, most likely the people bend the production truly understood the magic of TOS. And that's an important place to start.

That being said: JJ and company really fumbled McCoy in these 2 movies. I don't blame Urban at all. I think he could have done a lot more had he'd been given a more dimensional McCoy to play. Here, he's just in constant "Dammit, Jim!" mode all the way through.

I thought the end of this review pretty nicely sums up STID.

"As much as I want to applaud the work of the cast who do a fantastic job impersonating characters that are part of the cinematic consciousness. As much as I want to stand up and cheer at the exciting and stirring action sequences. As much as I want to thank Cumberbatch for doing everything he can to infuse Khan with the kind of humanity Ricardo Montalban did in the original series and again in the film. I cannot do it. I gave the first film credit for being an exciting science fiction film that just happened to use Trek characters and otherwise hardly resembled the great franchise.

This time, I'm not going to celebrate more of the same. Sometimes, it takes real courage to take something in a new direction, but claiming that's what you're doing and not delivering it, but just redoing everything that's gone before only showcases your limitations as a filmmaker. Apart from his ability to bring together fantastic actors and pay for top-notch visual effects, Abrams is unable to do anything more than ape his predecessors. His work is no more impressive than the likes of Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich. The distinction here is that Abrams, and those critics who enable him, believe he's a magnificent director, yet generates mediocre work. At least Emmerich recognizes that his work isn't high art and he embraces that distinction, making his films distinctly more enjoyable, at least if you don't permit yourself to believe the hype.

Star Trek: Into Darkness may seem like great entertainment, but if you break the film down into its basic parts, you'll discover that there's not a single original idea or execution to be found. You can put a mink coat on a sow, but that doesn't make it anything more than a sow in a mink coat."


Thoughts?

The first paragraph. Is composed. Almost entirely. Of sentence fragments.

If Nimoy liked it enough to appear in the film, that's good enough for me.

Note that if it's not good enough for you, you must justify the statement, "I disagree with Leonard Nimoy regarding Star Trek."

Sorry, I'm back.

Yanks - something cant 'seem' to be entertaining. If the individual viewer was entertained, then for them, it was entertaining.

You can try and put forward arguments as to why someone shouldn't be entertained by STID but that's just a waste of time.

Macca,

Agree, but the author was referring to himself in his review. If you were entertained, then great! I was until the stupid Kirk death scene, then I just shut down. I even came to accept the "Khan" thing. Just read my review above to see my feelings.

I agree completely with his opinion on the lack of origionality. They made themselves a clean slate in a wonderful universe, did the best job of casting I can remember and copped out instead of being creative.

MidshipmanNorris,

If I was a betting man, Nimoy did his little part just to stick it to Shatner (again). And his role in STID was nothing like ST09. This little "cameo" was meaningless to the story.

"If I was a betting man, Nimoy did his little part just to stick it to Shatner (again). And his role in STID was nothing like ST09. This little "cameo" was meaningless to the story."

:D Entirely unsubstantiated.

Leonard Nimoy putting his image as a creative on the line for a childish prank? Even at the expense of Shatner, I don't buy that. I highly doubt he would ever consent to appear in a film unless he had read and approved of the script.

The operative word in that sentence, "doubt," does, in fact, make my statement ALSO unsubstantiated, but as Commander Kruge said:

"I trust my instincts."

MidshimanNorris, does this mean that Nimoy's involvement in the Transformers franchise suggest that *those* films are also beyond reproach?

Niall:

"...all opinions are valid by their very nature."

Wrong. Here's the proof:

1. It is your opinion that all opinions are valid.
2. It is my opinion that some opinions are not valid.
3. The statements "all opinions are valid" and "some opinions are not valid" cannot both be true.
4. Therefore, one of our opinions is wrong.
5. If yours is right, then by implication, so is mine.
6. But 5 can't be right, because it violates 3.
7. Therefore, your opinion that all opinions are valid is wrong.

E2:

"To be fair, it is difficult to establish the villain as a fully formed character in such a short format as a film; much harder when you also have to re-introduce Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, Scotty, and Pike as well! TWOK benefited from being able to use Khan's previous appearance to fill in the gaps (at least for the serious fans in the audience.) But since that episode was broadcast over 45+ years ago, the new film couldn't expect to draw from it."

I watched TWOK before I ever knew there was an episode of Star Trek with Khan in it. The old movie did a fine job of establishing him, while reintroducing every member of the crew. Whether it's difficult or not, it's yet another area in which newer is not better.

And in these days, 45 years of time difference isn't nearly as important as the roughly 15 years of difference between the original show and the movie -- not when "Space Seed," TWOK, and ST11 (the three "precursors" to ST:iD) are all readily available on DVD and via online pay-streaming services.

Macca:

"...something cant 'seem' to be entertaining. If the individual viewer was entertained, then for them, it was entertaining."

We've had some conflict between us on this thread, and I admit that my "Prepare to be annoyed" was the flashpoint of it. So allow me to extend the olive branch, and say that although I disagree with your comment here, I do understand where you're coming from.

However...well, let's change the subject from movies to food, and the operative descriptive from "entertaining" to "tasty." If Person A finds McDonald's tasty, then yes, I guess you could say it's tasty -- to him. Then you sit him down in front of a choice cut of prime rib, perfectly accented with bernaise and served with buttered and lightly peppered asparagus. He eats the meal with relish, and when you ask him how it was afterward, he says it was "tasty."

So what's the lesson we're to draw from this? Is it that all meals described as tasty are, in fact, tasty -- maybe equally tasty, since the same descriptive was used? Or is it perhaps that the person lacks a certain...well...taste?

Really?

If the previous post is an attempt at self parody then it was a stunning success.

If not, then it was as pretentious as it was embarrassing.

Ian:

"MidshimanNorris, does this mean that Nimoy's involvement in the Transformers franchise suggest that *those* films are also beyond reproach?"

Nimoy isn't an authority on Transformers. He is perhaps the greatest living authority on Star Trek. And I did not make any assertion of the film being "beyond reproach." My words were "good enough for me."

Macca, insulting people for the sake of insulting them is getting really old.

Macca! Welcome back! You've been missed!

I, Genre-Buster, mis-reader of posts and clown-deluxe, would like to personally extend my heartiest of happy sentiments at your long awaited return to this discussion.

Allow me, if I may, to ask you: have you seen the movie StarTrek: Into Darkness, and if so, what was your reaction? Did you like it, and why?

I personally thought the film was mediocre - better than the previous reboot, certainly, but overall, exploitative and kinda dumb.

But enough about me. What did you think?

Midshipman: Nimoy's appearance in STID doesn't really constitute an endorsement. He's been working at remounting his legendary one-man show: "Vincent," in NewYork (with another actor, of course; he's merely producing this time around), and no doubt is trying to to cull funds from wherever he can.

...and yes, I'm happy to help him promote it:

youtu.be/D8pTI4uW2NE

Well, I suppose that serves me right for attempting to resume a discussion with Macca on a more civil wavelength. I'll read through the rest of what I've missed later, and respond where appropriate.

"trying to to cull funds"

...

...

...bwwwwwwAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

From 'Star Trek Movie Memories,' pp.394-396 (emphasis mine):
________________
With Gene's death came the obligatory tributes: shallow TV news memorials, public accolades from his peers, mourning among the most hard-core Trekkers, and of course genuine sadness among our cast and crew. Gene, love him or not, was undeniably the creative spark behind Star Trek, and without him none of us would have been able to spend our lives in pursuit of such a joyful distraction. With that in mind, it was decided to dedicate Star Trek VI to his memory. However, even that didn't come off without a fight. Leonard Nimoy explains:

Very late in the game, I found out that Nick
Meyer and Brandon Tartikoff, who'd just
arrived at the studio, were meeting to decide
how the dedication should read. I thought to
myself, 'Where do these people get off?' I
think, maybe, Nick might have waved at Gene
Roddenberry one day. I don't think the two
ever had a real sit-down face-to-face meeting.
And Brandon Tartikoff? He had nothing at all to
do with the making of this picture. By the time
he'd arrived at the studio, we already had our
final cut in the can. So these were the people,
of all people, who were deciding what the
dedication to Gene Roddenberry should say.
Again, nobody told me anything.
So when I found out about that, I called up
John Goldwyn, who'd become our new studio
executive on the picture, replacing Teddy Zee,
and I vented on him. I said, "I think it's
absolutely disgusting that these two kids are
running around in a playpen they don't even own.
It's not even their territory. Why aren't you
people talking about this to someone who's
connected to the picture? Someone who's had a
relationship with Gene? Why not have this thing
put together by someone who knows exactly who
Gene was, and what he was? How dare you
arbitrarily slap something onto the top of the
film as if it were some box office decision?
How dare you guys?" At that point, he sort of
sighed into the phone and halfheartedly asked,
"Well, how would you like it to read, Leonard?"
After expressing myself on how badly I thought
the situation had been handled, I hung up on
him.
He rang me back for days, but I wouldn't take
his calls. What fun to get angry. I handled it
badly, but I'M TOO OLD AND TOO RICH. I'M AT THE
POINT IN MY LIFE WHERE I CAN AFFORD MYSELF THE
LUXURY OF SAYING "I DON'T GIVE A SHIT. IF IT
KILLS MY RELATIONSHIP WITH YOU AND THE STUDIO,
SO BE IT." That's the way it went down.
________________

"Cull funds."

No, Leonard Nimoy does not have to "cull funds" for anything.

And no, he didn't have to make a cameo in Star Trek Into Darkness if he thought the script was stupid, and yes, he would have read it first.

Come on, Genre-Buster.

Rich people have to cull funds even more than us poor people, I'm afraid. I'm not saying Nimoy didn't like the movie - he probably did. I did, you did, lots of people did - so why not Nimoy?

All I'm saying is that the mere fact of his appearance in these latest Treks does not prove anything about his actual opinion of their quality.

Thanks for the memoir quote, MSN: it's a wonderful example of the kind of stuff Nimoy no doubt has do deal with all the time. But I can promise you that if Nimoy, or anyone for that matter, used your all-caps quote as some kind of axiom for how to navigate life in every circumstance, he wouldn't stay rich for long. One has to choose one's battles, and Nimoy, quite rightly I think, decided to take on a couple of Paramount heavies when it came time to eulogize his friend.

But the pressure on someone like Nimoy to fund the arts, AND KEEP those funds flowing, is something none of us will likely ever grasp.

@ MidshipmanNorris - Fri, Aug 2, 2013 - 5:09pm (USA Central)
"If I was a betting man, Nimoy did his little part just to stick it to Shatner (again). And his role in STID was nothing like ST09. This little "cameo" was meaningless to the story."

:D Entirely unsubstantiated.

Leonard Nimoy putting his image as a creative on the line for a childish prank? Even at the expense of Shatner, I don't buy that. I highly doubt he would ever consent to appear in a film unless he had read and approved of the script.

The operative word in that sentence, "doubt," does, in fact, make my statement ALSO unsubstantiated, but as Commander Kruge said:

"I trust my instincts."
===============================================
:D Are you suggesting that Nimoy's part in STID was substantial?

As much as I love Nimoy, not sure how much credence I give to an 82 year olds mans approval of the script.

Not totally unsubstantiated. I attended a Con in which he did rub in his involvement in ST09... (at The Shat)

":D Are you suggesting that Nimoy's part in STID was substantial?"

No, you're misreading my comment. I'm saying that the statement that Nimoy doing a cameo was a dig at Shatner was unsubstantiated, and as I said, no more or less unsubstantiated than my claim of his endorsement. But for the sake of argument, I stand by my claim.

"As much as I love Nimoy, not sure how much credence I give to an 82 year olds mans approval of the script."

Agism!!

"Not totally unsubstantiated. I attended a Con in which he did rub in his involvement in ST09... (at The Shat)"

Conventions are one thing; the silver screen is another.

For what it's worth, I have nothing invested in changing your opinion at all.

I'll simply reiterate here that I feel Nimoy wouldn't have consented to appear in the film if he had any problems with the script or the writers or the director. He obviously liked it enough to say, "Yes, I will allow my face to be put on this thing."

I'll reiterate also that if you don't agree, you are technically placing yourself in the position of disagreeing with Leonard Nimoy about Star Trek.

You can try all you want, buy you will never invalidate Leonard Nimoy's opinion of what Star Trek is and should be.

To attempt to do so would be...illogical. 6_o

Well, I guess that settles it- I would never consider holding an opinion that differs from Leonard Nimoy's.

I suppose I'll have to go re-watch this, then, too:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ_duzQzS1I

(Yep, it's the Bilbo song...)

Now THAT was Leonard Nimoy trying to cull funds.

How much you wanna bet the STID paycheck was higher?

When you're a relatively unknown, but talented actor with next to no clout in the industry, you put your face on things and don't think twice (Ballad of Bilbo Baggins).

When you're an internationally famous actor, director, and the face of a franchise that has grown pants-shittingly huge, no amount of money will buy back your credibility if you screw up. So you read scripts and approve before so much as breathing the same air as the cinematographer (Star Trek Into Darkness).

I'll be interested to see you try to wriggle out of that. ;)

Genre-Buster...

Were you ever involved in a certain television series known as T.J. Hooker, by any chance?

:D

@ MidshipmanNorris, first of all that's not always true. Unless you're Leonard's accountant, do you know what his finances are like? But more importantly Nimoy isn't the type of person to go around bad-mouthing a project, even if he doesn't like it. He's still something of a gentleman.

MidshipmanNorris:

What are you implying about Shatner? He and Nimoy are friends with a joke running between them, nothing more.

And wriggle out of what? I love Nimoy, I've always loved Nimoy. He made gobs of money on STID; bully for him. And g**-***mit, for the last time, I LIKED THE MOVIE, which starred by the way Zachary Quinto, not Leonard Nimoy. It's already happened: people don't REALLY need to see Nimoy's face in order to think of Star Trek, the just the need pointy ears, the blue shirt, and the bangs. Put them on Quinto, shoot, put them on Chevy Chase - you get the same effect.

And just take a moment and think about this: Nimoy didn't didn't need to do nearly as much work on STID as he undoubtedly did on the Bilbo song - no choreography, no rehearsing, no singing, no feeling crushingly foolish while kids are dancing around you like imps - just put on the ears, read off of the teleprompter, and shove some more cash into your grandkids' trust-funds. Even if the film had been terrible - which it wasn't - no-one could possibly begrudge Nimoy for taking the money and running.

And before you hit me with the big legend about Nimoy refusing to do Generations because he thought the script was lame, just consider: what if his big battle with Paramount over Roddenberry's eulogy that you posted about cost him that job, and he simply found a way to spin the story to his favor?

I'm not being cynical, dude, I'm telling you how the business is. I'm not William Shatner, but I am a struggling professional actor myself, and there's nothing the studios like more than to pigeonhole people in order to marginalize their power.

Leonard Nimoy is unquestionably a man of great integrity, but Spock was his primary, and I might add, solitary meal-ticket. Yes, there was Three Men and a Baby, yes there was that Columbo episode, his brief stint on Mission Impossible, the Invasion of the Body Snatchers remake, Transformers 3, hell, the Bilbo song, for the matter. But none of those jobs would have even been offered to him had there been no Spock. Being Spock certainly has it's advantages, but there's a downside to it as well - it's called typecasting, and Nimoy is a glorious example on how to navigate that extremely tricky pitfall.

:(

God.

I didn't mean to piss anybody off.

I retract everything. Forget it.

...and I AM shitting my pants at the hugeness of the Trek franchise, by the way - as is Nimoy, as is Shatner, as is JJ Abrams.

Too big to fail, too important to take risks with, and property of Paramount Pictures lock stock and barrel - never to be the launching pad of true creativity ever again.

But boy o boy, are we rich! ;)

MSN, you didn't piss anyone off - not at all. I'm just giving my hit on the way things are as I see them.

I really have come to terms with what Trek has become. As you said, it's cheap entertainment. I just believe it can be much more than that. The latest film did show some signs of that - not enough for my taste, but enough to give me hope for the future.

Keep posting, MSN. What if Macca comes back? You soften the rhetoric, and we need that.

I'll post something later today, but I want to make it clear that I'm just having a good time. I might take a dig at people here or there if I consider the joke I've come up with especially clever, but it's not intended as inflammatory.

We're all Trekkers here...

Genre-Buster put it well. JJTrek is skillfully executed dumb fun. It's just that some of us don't want to settle for "dumb fun" with our Star Trek. There have been plenty of recent sci-fi exercises out there that have been both exciting and intellectually challenging.

I would say that Trek needs the Nolan treatment, except that Nolan is now generally known for rebooting things. Trek needs breathing room and should find a new century to inhabit.

I'm not going to respond to recent comments, as there's too much unsubstantiated speculation on both sides of the "Nimoy Endorsement" argument; I'll just start a new train of thought.

But before I go to impulse power, I'll fire up the aft thrusters: I'd like to make it clear that when I say "argument," I don't mean this:
________
Wife: How could you blow all our money on booze! You pathetic drunk!

Husband: I'll do what I want with the money I earn, and if you don't like it, there's the door, you water-retaining sea cow!!
________

What I mean by "argument" is in the classical, (sorry but it's necessary) LOGICAL sense.

I'm not trying to ruffle feathers or make anyone upset. I'm saying all this because think about it: we're arguing over text-only communication. There are no non-verbal cues to read the emotion behind what I'm saying.

To give you the general idea for all my posts, the way I feel about it is, this is a lot of fun! :D I'm enjoying debating with fellow Trekkers!

You see, I live in Tennessee. Star Trek, as well as all sci-fi, is seen as bizarre at best, and pseudo-socialist rhetoric at worst. I'm not accepted here, so I have to keep it sort of a secret.

Sorry for droning on.

What I wanted to say about the film is: as far as taking issue with the character development, I think it's important to note that we've never really had the chance to see what these people were like when they were young. Kirk was 34 by the time TOS began.

Additionally, ever since Nick Meyer's brilliant, brilliant Wrath of Khan, Star Trek has had this "dealing with old age" theme attached to it, for better or worse.

The fact that there's none of that here may be almost disturbing...it's like looking at a mutated life form. We're so used to Star Trek being about older people, that to suddenly have the youngest cast the series has ever had makes it, for better or worse, a completely different atmosphere, with totally different themes, that are going to be written to be relatable to a totally different age group.

I'm not sure if I'm really moving toward an exact thesis statement of any kind...

I'll just let you ponder what I've got, I guess.

Jeez - closet Trekking in Tennessee. I feel for you, man.

Brilliant observation about age, MSN. But of course you forget Roddenberry's lone experiment with a "younger" generation - which came well after TWOK. God, what a miserable failure that was.

I refer, of course, to little Wesley Crusher, the disowned Brady boy in the tight-fitting jumpsuit. If what we're doing here is comparing "coming of age stories," I think you may have me against the ropes on this one. There can be no question that Pine, Quinto and company are leagues more watchable than Will Wheaton could have ever dreamt of being. (Of course, Jake and Nog deserve a nod on that score as well, but rest assured, your point is taken.)

But now we're back to the issue of what genre Trek is supposed to be in the end, and my vote is still for "science fiction." It's not like genres can't mix. "Coming of age" doesn't all have to be straightforward Karate Kid/Stand by Me-style realism. What was the Luke Skywalker storyline if not "coming of age?" Or Harry Potter, for that matter? And good Sci-Fi generally SHOULD bleed over to other forms, and in fact is always best when it does.

But where's the Sci-Fi in STID? That stuff about the dangers of genetic engineering isn't really going to cut it - it feels badly overused and hackneyed in this film. The only thing that gives me hope here is the promise they make at the end about an upcoming five-year mission - you know, seeking out new life etc.?

I'm still waiting for it, but at least they said it was coming.

Hm...

I don't know if science fiction is really a genre...it seems more like a setting to me, in which stories of this or that genre are told. Since it depends on things that are in and of themselves difficult for people to relate to (science, the future, space, aliens), the storytelling meat has to come from the people and the ideas those people are espousing.

Now that's not to say that science fiction can't be a vehicle for storytelling. Quite the contrary; "Cause and Effect" (TNG) really doesn't have a lot of dramatic content beyond the Enterprise exploding over and over, and the trepidation of the crew as they begin to realize what's happening. The basic sci-fi idea (a time loop) takes center stage.

But you notice, it wouldn't be nearly as good an episode without those dramatic, character-driven moments. Crusher calling Riker's bluff. Worf's reaction to Data's surprisingly natural "Still no help for the Klingon," and of course, Doctor Crusher being unable to prevent herself from knocking her wine glass over.

Science fiction gives you a framework for a story, but it can't be the story itself. You couldn't make an episode out of examining the innerworkings of an EPS conduit. Nobody would watch it; they'd cry bullshit, and they'd be right.

An EPS conduit isn't a real thing; it might be based on real things, but it's not real.

And even if you used something real, say a steam engine, examining the innerworkings of a steam engine isn't storytelling; it's a documentary.

In order to tell a story that will stir people, there's got to be drama, spectacle, conflict. Even the most sci-fi of the Trek movies, The Motion Picture, does have a heavy; it's not a particularly clear or colorful heavy, but V'Ger is intent on neutralizing the "carbon units" on the third planet, after all.

And the rejected first pilot for the series, "The Cage," isn't purely about exploration or science fiction either...the Tallosians have imprisoned Captain Pike, and he spends the majority of the episode railing at them.

Conflict, drama, resolution. You've gotta have 'em, or people are gonna get confused, bored, and irritated, and they're gonna walk out of the theater or change the channel.

Brandon:

"Trek needs breathing room"

Earth, Hitler, 1938.

;)

@ MidshipmanNorris

I don't think anybody would disagree that sci-fi and Star Trek shouldn't have drama. Jammer has been quite clear on that point in his reviews. BUT, Trek has always been about more than that. You could have drama on a soap opera. Trek is about exploration and Big Ideas and morality plays.

For example, "The Cage" episode, which you mention, IS about the idea that even a gilded cage is still a cage. Captain Pike is railing at the Talosians because they think he'll be happy in an imagined fantasy but Pike wants freedom. You can argue if the show is effective or not, but there was something that the show was trying to convey.

Finally, the "Conflict, drama, resolution" need to be good. That's where STID fails. STID relied a lot of special effects and things blowing up. Compare that movie to TWOK, which STID emulated. TWOK has a lot of slower, character moments. I won't repeat myself as to where I think STID dropped the ball in building "Conflict, drama, resolution", but suffice it to say those elements need to be done well.

I'll just end with this - I might disagree with you, but I respect the fact that you're presenting reasons on behalf of your argument. I've seen a lot of people in forums basically attacking anybody who doesn't like STID and getting really nasty. I appreciate that you're taking people's arguments seriously and I hope you realize that I'm trying to respond in kind, not attacking you but throwing out what I see as counterarguments.

...Once again, whenever I type the antispam message, I think...

"GET AWAY FROM THAT LAUNCHER!!"

Now, I actually wasn't specifically addressing STID in my comments, but only attempting to examine the relationship between the identifying components of Science Fiction and the identifying components of storytelling.

I think it's a common tendency to jump straight to a qualitative judgement of the work, and I understand why, because 1. That is the point of this comments section, and 2. The point of comments sections in general is to express an opinion.

But I'm kind of wary of that thinking; I don't want to jump to condemn the film's "popcorn-ier" elements, even though I confess I had a similarly ambivalent reaction at first.

(This is tangential, but I do think JJ and Co. succeeded in giving us all something extremely controversial to discuss.)

Now, Dom, to address your comments specifically, you said:

"Trek is about exploration and Big Ideas and morality plays."

Most of the time, but not always. "The Trouble With Tribbles" has little in the way of big ideas or morality, beyond "Too much of anything, even love, isn't necessarily a good thing." Yet it's counted among the favorite episodes in TOS. And with good reason: it has a good story, is well-executed, and stands out as one of the funniest moments in Star Trek history. It makes you smile.

"Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations" may have been a Roddenberry marketing scheme, but as a philosophy of entertainment, it works surprisingly well. Star Trek doesn't have to be any one thing; there are certainly things it can't and shouldn't be (nihilistic, pornographic, et. al.), but the format isn't as rigid as I feel most people tend to think.

Now, that's not to say their personal preferences of what Star Trek should be are irrelevant. No, of course not. But when it's got so big, with so much history, it develops certain stratifications; you can have a sad episode, a funny episode, a battle epsiode, a mind-bender...many possibilities.

"The Cage"

I agree with you! All I said was that it doesn't depend solely on examining that idea: there's drama, conflict, spectacle, and resolution. There wasn't enough for the Desilu (or was it NBC?) suits, hence why they rejected it, but it is there.

You said:

"Finally, the Conflict, drama, resolution need to be good. That's where STID fails."

This is your opinion, and I can't cast it aside with that statement. This comments section is about examining each others' opinions. But I wonder how much of it might be based on what you've grown accustomed to after having watched Star Trek all these years. It's very different, but I found that it has it's own sort of "heart."
They seem to have been trying to appeal to the children of the generation that grew up with Star Trek (I'm one of those). Whether that appeal was successful, I suppose depends on the person.

It's like if your dad has been telling you stories about Captain Horatio Hornblower all your life, and then your dad dies, and when you go looking for someone to tell you those stories again, you naturally feel that it's "just not the same."

Thank you for your kind words. I think we (Trek fans) have a responsibility to make the attempt to include anyone who is following the rules of civilized conduct. That's what the social contract is all about.

Hm...

I'd never seen Spock engage, of his own volition, in a battle to the death with anyone before.

Then I saw Star Trek Into Darkness.

I'd never seen an Enterprise crew member go toe-to-toe with Kirk on a decision, and get canned for his trouble.

Then I saw Star Trek Into Darkness.

I'd never seen Kirk presented with a romance story that was ever hinted at becoming semi-permanent.

Then I saw Star Trek Into Darkness.

I'd never seen Uhura fire a phaser!

Then I saw Star Trek Into Darkness.

I'd never seen Sulu bluff.

Then I saw Star Trek Into Darkness.

I'd never seen a realistic depiction of a hull breach.

Then I saw Star Trek Into Darkness.

And once and for all...

I've never seen the moment that Kirk, Spock and McCoy all looked at each other and realized that they were probably going to be together for a very, very long time.

Then I saw Star Trek Into Darkness.

@ MidshipmanNorris, thanks. I feel like part of the gulf between fans of the JJ Trek and older Trek is generational, as you suggest. But there seem to be a lot of people who liked the 2009 movie but not this one.

For me at least, there's a lot I like about STID, but I thought the plot twists were clumsy. I actually blame the writers more than JJ Abrams. But I love the new cast and it's nice to get strong special effects. I'm actually VERY hopeful for Trek 3 now that they've gotten new writers and JJ Abrams seems to be out.

"I'm actually VERY hopeful for Trek 3 now that they've gotten new writers and JJ Abrams seems to be out."

Not to mention that they're rolling in gold pressed latinum.

"The first duty of every Starfleet Officer is to the truth!"

I had said:

"They seem to have been trying to appeal to the children of the generation that grew up with Star Trek (I'm one of those). Whether that appeal was successful, I suppose depends on the person."

I wanted to clarify. I'm one of the children of the generation that grew up with Star Trek.

"I've never seen the moment that Kirk, Spock and McCoy all looked at each other and realized that they were probably going to be together for a very, very long time.

Then I saw Star Trek Into Darkness."

Really?

You will die slowly...Durassss. 8D

@ MidshipmanNorris, I'm actually a bit worried that too much money might make the studio and director and scriptwriters lazy. Many of the best movies faced financial difficulties and were forced to be creative to tell their story. I worry money actually hurt Abrams' Trek by allowing him to give into temptation to just load the movie with special effects.

Dom, you said:

"I'm actually a bit worried that too much money might make the studio and director and scriptwriters lazy. Many of the best movies faced financial difficulties and were forced to be creative to tell their story."

An altogether valid concern. But certainly too much money is better than not enough money. Star Trek VI almost got cancelled for want of 3.5 mil. Then the suits played musical chairs, and one of Nick Meyer's friends ended up in a position to give the go-ahead.

"I worry money actually hurt Abrams' Trek by allowing him to give into temptation to just load the movie with special effects."

I don't think they're *overloaded* with special effects. Star Trek: The Motion Picture is overloaded with special effects.

But it is still an important concern, and I don't think it should be dismissed. But let's face it; the sword of Damicles has always hung over Star Trek, even at the pinnacle of its artistic validity. Nick Meyer fought tooth-and-nail to keep the shots of the Genesis Planet and Spock's Photon Tube out of Star Trek II. He thought it "attacked the integrity and the authenticity of the feelings generated by his death (Star Trek Movie Memories, p.249)."

Of course, it's worth saying that there was very little chance of Nick Meyer getting his way in that regard, but imagine what would have happened if he had raised a stink about it and gotten his way.

The point is, things are always going to be precarious, and the right people need to be there for it to really work. It's never going to be just perfect, smooth sailing. And I read a quote once, don't know where it's from, and don't feel like Googling it:

"Nothing is so good that someone, somewhere, will not hate it."