Movie Night:Somebody Really Didn’t Like the New Star Trek Movie

So I did not rush out to see Star Trek: Into Darkness last weekend, because I was an OG Trekkie almost fifty years ago, and (to paraphrase the old joke about the young bull and the old bull) I figure I can saunter up the hill in a week or three and enjoy all the nasty reviews in the meantime.

For those of you who’ve already seen ST:ID, or who really don’t mind spoilers, I cannot highly enough recommend Rob Bricken’s “The Spoiler FAQ” at io9

And furthermore, using Khan just proves that nu-Trek is going to be nothing more than the greatest hits version of Star Trek, and not even the original hits — some new band covering the old hits. It means that Abrams doesn’t have any original ideas for Star Trek, and is content to rehash the shit people enjoyed the first time. Of all the classic Trek characters to bring back, of all the classic stories they could have brought to mass audiences for the first time, or even bad stories that they could have improved, they go with the one character everybody already fucking knows because they think all we want to see is the same old shit…

I think everybody had probably best assume that the comments in this one thread will contain spoilers, so — What’s your opinion of ST:ID? Any other reviews (positive or not) you’d recommend?

110 replies
  1. 1
    Incitatus for Senate says:

    Anyone else starting to dread Abrams’ new Star Wars movie? He tends to do whatever seems neat at the time, without any regard for how it fits into what has happened before and what will happen after. That’s fine for a one-off movie, but it’s terrible for a series.

  2. 2

    I thought that review was just Trek-trolling.

    The movie was OK. Good, in parts. There was decent character development of the main characters.

    Some scale issues with the Enterprise interiors, and a LUDICROUS amount of catwalks.

  3. 3

    @Incitatus for Senate:

    Can’t be worse than what Lucas did by himself.

  4. 4
    Cacti says:

    If they were going to cast Harold in nu-Trek, why couldn’t they have cast Kumar too?

  5. 5
    Yatsuno says:

    I had a chance to see a late night showing with an old friend, but I had a tough week and decided to bow out. I don’t think it would have looked good to fall asleep right as something was blowing up, plus IMAX tickets ain’t cheap.

  6. 6
    PurpleGirl says:

    As an original Star Trek fan (and attendee/gopher at the NYC ST conventions) I will welcome any reviews, snark and spoilers this thread gets.

  7. 7
    The Dangerman says:

    @David Koch:

    This is wooooooooooorst than WatergatE!

    I happened to scan through the channels a few times this evening, ending up on Fox News a couple times; at around 6:10 local, Hannity was pushing the IRS and AP scandal and, around 6:45, they were STILL pushing the IRS and AP scandal. I’m fairly sure I heard Ann Coulter on the last pass say “sure, the tornado is a big story, but the IRS and AP stories are BIGGER” (close as I can get to an actual quote). Earlier, at the 3pm hour (I believe a news hour, not an opinion hour) the lead story was the IRS.

    These fuckers are out of their minds.

  8. 8
    Cacti says:

    @Incitatus for Senate:

    Anyone else starting to dread Abrams’ new Star Wars movie? He tends to do whatever seems neat at the time, without any regard for how it fits into what has happened before and what will happen after.

    Not sure why Abrams gets so much love. He wrote the screenplay for Armageddon FFS.

  9. 9
    cathyx says:

    Didn’t see this one but saw the last one Star Trek, the 2009 movie and that one was fantastic. I was hoping this would be similarly good.

  10. 10
    geg6 says:

    Haven’t seen it yet, but definitely will. I don’t care what anyone in the media says, people who I trust on this issue have already told me I’d enjoy it. I’m as old a Star Trek fan as it gets, having watched the original in first run from the very first episode. I’ve watched every single iteration of the show and its attendant films and generally enjoyed even the bad ones. (Though I must say I never watched the entire run of Enterprise; it was too awful to record or have as an appointment tv show). I enjoyed the last one Abrams made and couldn’t have cared less how much the emo-comicon crowd hated it. It’s just a lot of fun and it’s in the spirit of Roddenberry, IMHO. The so-called keepers of his flame in geek world continually miss Roddenberry’s showmanship and sense of humor. I think he’d appreciate what Abrams has done to re-energize the franchise.

    ETA: And some people seem to forget, but the first Khan film was based on an old original episode. So I really don’t even understand bitching about re-using story elements. Really, why is that a problem?

  11. 11
    jibeaux says:

    Well, I thought it was good. It has Benedict Fucking Cumberbatch in it, is my review.

  12. 12
    Roger Moore says:

    I actually liked the extensive use of recycled stuff. The whole point of the JJ Abrams reboot is that you can re-use old characters and scenarios in new ways. The idea of taking the existing stuff and spinning a very different story around it- and one that is topical without beating you over the head with it until Kirk’s speech at the very end- is exactly what reboots should strive to do.

  13. 13
    MrSnrub says:

    @Cacti: Harold and Kumar go to Rigel IV

  14. 14
    Heliopause says:

    “What’s your opinion of ST:ID?”

    All I’ve seen are the TV commercials, and I mean those five second mini-commercials, yet I can say with confidence that Lindsey Lohan killed as Liz Taylor.

  15. 15
    Chris says:

    I think bringing back Khan was a lame idea, for exactly the reasons this person outlined, plus one more – apparently not realizing that 90% of what made the original Khan so memorable was Ricardo Montalban. I also think they got Section 31 wrong in this movie (that was who Admiral Marcus was supposed to be a part of, right?)

    All that said, I managed to enjoy the movie just the same. I think that’s because I’d read all the spoilers ahead of time, knew they were coming, and therefore wasn’t pissed when, for example, Khan turned out to be Khan – leaving only the fun parts for me to discover. I had a similar experience a few weeks before with Iron Man 3. Which is leading me to think that reading spoilers is actually a good thing.

  16. 16
    cathyx says:

    I think one has to be a serious Star Trek fan in order to be able to fairly assess a Star Trek movie.

  17. 17
    Roger Moore says:


    Harold and Kumar go to Rigel IV Ceti Alpha V


  18. 18
    Anne Laurie says:

    @cathyx: Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised by the last movie — Chris Pine actually made me believe people would follow Kirk, which Shatner (and his defenders) never managed.

    I still plan to see ST:ID, probably in IMAX if we can, but I’m a cynic — I’ll enjoy it more if I’m not expecting too much. The Spousal Unit hates spoilers, so part of our planning will involve getting him into the theatre before it’s been roont for him!

  19. 19
    Chris says:

    @Incitatus for Senate:

    Starting? I’ve been dreading it from the start and finding out that Abrams was in charge of it only multiplied that.

  20. 20
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:


  21. 21
    Roger Moore says:


    I think one has to be a serious Star Trek fan in order to be able to fairly assess a Star Trek movie.

    I think that as long as people have that attitude, non-fans are never going to enjoy the series. It ought to be possible to judge the movie without having to watch eleventy hours of TV shows and movies.

    Also, too, the reviews that bitch about excessive lens flare are spot on. It’s fucking annoying.

  22. 22
    Arclite says:

    Yeah, I’m tired of sequels feeling they have to top their previous in terms of outrageous set pieces. Just tell a good story. ST:ID was good, but would have been more interesting if it was a story about John Harrison the anarchist instead of who he really turned out to be. But there were just too many action scenes where I couldn’t suspend my disbelief. It wasn’t as bad as Iron Man 3, but still could have been toned down a bit, and a bit more “realistic.”

  23. 23
    Cacti says:


    Harold and Kumar go to Rigel IV

    “Mr. Kumar, what do the Starship Enterprise and toilet paper have in common?”

    “Mr. Harold, they both are known to circle round Uranus in search of Klingons.”

  24. 24
    NotMax says:

    Berman and Abrams*, between them, have eviscerated the entire franchise.

    The Great Bird of the Galaxy sheds tears of sorrow.

    *Abrams publicly voicing his total and longstanding dislike of Trek, plus his stated annoyance at not being able to gobble up a sizable slice of merchandising moolah, speaks volumes.

  25. 25
    jules says:

    @jibeaux: Mmmmmmmm Cumberbatch….

  26. 26
    Randy P says:

    I liked it a lot. It definitely had a lot of in-references to the original Star Trek. I go back to the original (discovered it in season 3) and I caught some of them, but I’m sure I missed a lot.

    A sampler of some of the references without giving up any spoilers:

    1. Khan we already know is in this. BTW, I hate Khan. I detest all plots involving Khan. I dunno why.

    2. There’s a scene with a character screaming “Khaaaaaan!”. I believe Kirk did that at some point in the show or one of the movies, but I don’t recall when.

    3. There’s a tribble.

    4. There’s a reference to Harvey Mudd.

    5. Dr. McCoy says “I’m a doctor, not a X”

    Can somebody remind me what happened in the previous movie that makes Old Spock accessible to Young Spock? I gather there was a time travel plot, but I’ve basically forgotten the entire plot of that movie.

    By the way, I absolutely love the casting and the characters in this movie (and its predecessor), especially Zoe Saldana and the expanded character of Uhura.

  27. 27
    Catsy says:

    I admit, I enjoyed it–and I enjoyed io9’s thrashing of it because it was pretty much on-target from start to finish. The movie was more full of holes than the Enterprise was by the end of it.

    But it was still fun.

    ETA: Old-school Trek fan.

  28. 28
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @Randy P:

    Cool, but did anyone say “Captain, she canna’ take much more!”

  29. 29
    jon says:

    I liked it. That enough for me.

    Loved io9’s other Star Trek story from this morning about the “nudity” being gratuitous. Stupid nerds! If you’re going to be offended, at least figure out that a woman in underwear isn’t nude. Getting hugged isn’t “having sex” either.

  30. 30
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    I thought it was a good movie. I actually think they could have used Cumberbatch more, though.

    As for rehashing stories, Shakespeare and every Greek playwright would like to have a word.

  31. 31
    Randy P says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate: I don’t think so, not exactly. However through a plot twist (minor spoiler) Chekov is revealed to be semi-qualified in Engineering and ends up taking over Scotty’s duties at one point. So I think he gets to say the equivalent with a Russian accent.

    Certainly he’s the one on duty when all hell is breaking loose down there. If you’re a “Galaxy Quest” fan it’s kind of like the scene when Tony Shalhoub calls up and gives a “just FYI, thought you’d want to know” report while his crew members are flying every which way in the background.

    Like Catsy said, it’s kind of full of holes but still a hell of lot of fun for some reason. Even though it has Khan who, as I said, I detest. Almost as much as I detested episodes with Q in ST:TNG.

  32. 32
    NotMax says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate

    Or “Me bairns; me poor bairns.”

  33. 33
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @Randy P: Kirk yells Khaaaaaan! in…wait for it…the Wrath of Khan.

    The first movie was old Spock and Eric Bana the Romulan traveling back in time and resetting the universe, in part by killing Kirk’s dad. Which is one of the reasons I think Chris Pine has been good as Kirk: Imagine the old Kirk’s confidence and hating to fail without his father to teach him how to control it.

  34. 34
    NotMax says:

    As uneven as the acting is, and as small as its budget is, prefer the Phase II project to any of the Hollywood versions, as it lovingly maintains the heart and the soul of the Roddenberry Trek and stubbornly refuses to stick more than a toe into the swamp of space opera.

  35. 35
    Yatsuno says:

    @Randy P:

    Almost as much as I detested episodes with Q in ST:TNG.

    I will give John DeLancie credit for making the whole concept of Q tolerable. He chewed that character up really well. They relied on that way too much though. I mean, starting and ending the series with him? Try harder please.

  36. 36
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @Yatsuno: I think those were the best parts. They should have left him out of the middle.

    I also liked John on Days of Our Lives.

  37. 37
    Yatsuno says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): Fun fact: he and Kate Mulgew (Captain Janeway) have been old friends for a very long time. She insisted he get cast in Voyager and they created a series of episodes just for him. And I’m sorry, but she was and still is my favourite Captain.

    (All apologies to the Emissary.)

  38. 38
    Suffern ACE says:

    I thought that it was the best Star Trek movie ever. Per the “recycling”, well, duh. That was the point of having someone named Kirk and someone else named McCoy, etc.

    There were weaknesses. I wish that they would haved killed off the old Spock at the end of the first film. Because now that we know that he will be providing advice, the question will be “why don’t they just ask Spock?” whenever they encounter something new.

    I also think starfleet needs to review its security procedures as soon as possible. Egad its easy to get on board their secret ships, break into their computers, and join their crews on secret missions.

    Unless they were watching the unwatched “Enterprise”, the audience for this film was barely born when any Star Trek programs were on TV first run. They are being introduced the the franchise for the first time. I don’t see the reason for dissing Khan and the Tribbles.

  39. 39
    Roger Moore says:

    I’m also glad that the bridge finally has fucking seatbelts. How many times did the Enterprise crew get thrown around like rag dolls in TOS with no attempt to add any kind of restraint?

  40. 40
    lamh35 says:

    Saw it. I actually liked it much better than Iron Man 3.

    Iron Man 3: RDJ Dials It In… (A Nellybellsplace Review)

  41. 41
    scav says:

    Sometimes a good evisceration of it is almost as fun as the movie especially if, damn it, those are our wobbly sets. But then, I don’t especially take my cultish adorations to sacral lengths. Curse of Fatal Death is canonical in my eyes (a loving sharp point in the viscera, so admittedly slightly different).

  42. 42



  43. 43


    Ronnie James Dio is in Iron Man 3?

  44. 44
    Suzanne says:

    @Yatsuno: oddly, I really liked Q. Remember when Corbin Berntsen showed up a a Q? BTW, Corbin is now HELLA FUCKIN’ OLD.

  45. 45
    RobertDSC-iMac G5 says:

    No interest in ST:IG, but am dreading the new Star Wars films. If Harrison Ford, Mark Hamil, and Carrie Fisher are in them, my dread will turn to disgust.

  46. 46
    Suzanne says:

    @Yatsuno: oddly, I really liked Q. Remember when Corbin Berntsen showed up a a Q? BTW, Corbin is now HELLA OLD.

  47. 47
    PaulW says:

    I liked ST:ID, but had some quibbles with it.

    The superhealing blood plot coupon carries with it a sh-tload of ethical issues and questionable biology.

    They should have spent a little more background into the Marcus (militant) vs. Pike (peacekeeper) philosophies in order to give Kirk a more involved internal debate about the wrongness of revenge (one gets a feeling from Marcus’ obsession with an oncoming war with the Klingons that something happened between ST: ENT and the 2009 reboot to make Marcus driven by that revenge).

    Having Spock shout “Khan” was more ridiculous than moving.

    I really do think if they follow the trends, the third Trek reboot movie will focus on the Klingons. I hope they use the trio of original series adversaries – Kor, Koloth and Kang.

  48. 48
    PaulW says:

    @zombie rotten mcdonald:

    Dio defeated the dragon that consumed him, yes.

  49. 49
    Narcissus says:

    So is it like an actual movie?

    Because from the previews it looks like a bunch of loosely-connected CGI extravaganza set pieces strung together.

    Or basically what the last one was.

  50. 50
    Mark S. says:

    @Randy P:

    Can somebody remind me what happened in the previous movie that makes Old Spock accessible to Young Spock? I gather there was a time travel plot, but I’ve basically forgotten the entire plot of that movie.

    As one of the few people who hated that movie, I think it had something to do with black holes and time travel.

    My favorite part of the first movie is the entire fucking planet of Vulcan is destroyed and it’s like “Oh well,” let’s slam another Red Bull and not really give a fuck.

  51. 51
    Roger Moore says:

    @RobertDSC-iMac G5:

    If Harrison Ford, Mark Hamil, and Carrie Fisher are in them, my dread will turn to disgust.

    It seems very likely that they’ll have nothing more than cameos. There was a strong implication that it would be fine if they didn’t want to be in the new movies, which seems unlikely if they’re going to have substantive roles.

  52. 52
    FDRLincoln says:

    I didn’t like it, and I’ve been a TOS fan for as long as I’ve been alive (45 years). I’ve even written a couple of Star Trek books.

    I thought the acting was fine and the special effects were spectacular, but the plot holes were egregious and would have pissed me off enough to ruin the movie even if it had nothing to do with ST.

    The worst thing for me was that the plot problems could have been fixed with about three hours of re-writing. But as with most Abrams-productions, he just didn’t care. All he cares about is flash. He has contempt for his audience.

  53. 53
    Emma says:

    Two reasons I left Trek fandom (I was hardcore): the purity trolls and the sex-is-squeaky nerds.

  54. 54
    Chris says:


    I’m guessing it’ll be the rebooted universe’s version of… that episode with the Organians. Federation and Klingon Empire nearly go to war, but it’s averted in the end, because this is Star Trek.

  55. 55
    Suffern ACE is a Basset Hound says:

    @Mark S.: well, to be honest, the Vulcans are ok and all. But they really don’t do a good job of emoting when they are hurting. If they don’t get excited about the end of their home world, why should the humans? The Vulcan equivalent of Wolf Blitzer will show up at the rubble, accurately report the casualties, give the number of the Red Cross then return you to your regularly scheduled program.

  56. 56
    DaveInOz says:

    I saw ST:ID the weekend before last. I really enjoyed the first film but this one didn’t hit the heights. It had some great action sequences but I didn’t think that Benedict Cumberpatch came across as menacing enough as the villain. The fight sequence at the end was unbelievable and unconvincing. However, loved the crashing starship sequence especially taking the top off Alcatraz (non-spoiler – it’s in the trailers, well it is here in Australia!)

    An enjoyable evening out but it left me feeling a bit disappointed.

  57. 57
    Mark S. says:

    @Suffern ACE is a Basset Hound:

    Did they evacuate the whole planet or something? I admit, I haven’t seen the movie in years.

  58. 58
    Johannes says:

    Well, I have to admit I quite liked it. A little bit hyperactive in places, but I enjoyed the subversion of Space Seed and Wrath of Khan, thought the performances were enjoyable, and, as a fan of TOS from childhood on thought they managed the difficult task of ho orang the spirit of the original while messing with expectations quite well. Not “Sherlock” level of good, but c’mon; for that you need the Moff.

  59. 59
    Suffern ACE is a Basset Hound says:

    @Mark S.: I think they got a few off. But spock’s mother did not escape. So we have a fatherless Kirk and a motherless Spock. Which may mean something.

  60. 60
    Redshift says:

    I enjoyed it a lot more than the 2009 one. It felt more “Star Trek-like” to me, right down to the heavy-handed commentary on current-day political and social issues. If there had been no annoying lens flares and no Indiana Jones opening sequence, I would have liked it even better.

    I also thought the io9 takedown was hilarious. I can’t disagree with their assessment of the plot holes, but for some reason most of them (except the submerged ship at the beginning) didn’t bother me at all while I was watching it.

  61. 61
    R. Johnston says:

    Not to nitpick or anything, but there’s a major typo in this post. I’ve been dreading this movie ever since t was announced that the title was Star Trek Into Darkness without the damned colon. TPTB wanted a title that was different than those for other Trek movies, so they went out of their way to antagonize fans with a ridiculous title that could have been saved by a colon. They didn’t even have the decency to choose a title that didn’t parse without the colon. No, the drunkards in charge had to have Star Trek Into Darkness, demanding the questions of what kind of trek are we on and where are we going on it.

  62. 62
    mclaren says:

    This isn’t Star Trek. It’s explosions and people getting blasted and more explosions and ships getting blasted apart and more explosions, and then…lots more explosions.

    This is a Joel Silver action movie with stuff exploding everywhere. That’s not Star Trek.

    Star Trek is some thoughtful takes on the human condition, some conflicts twixt memorable characters, some moral dilemmas, some striking science fictional ideas, some trenchant commentary on American society.

    This is just people running around blowing shit up.

    It’s a Schwarzenegger 80s film minus the one-liners.

  63. 63
    Chris says:


    It felt more “Star Trek-like” to me, right down to the heavy-handed commentary on current-day political and social issues.

    Agreed. I was pleasantly surprised how much they’ve brought war on terror commentary into the reboot. The destruction of Vulcan in the first movie was obviously meant to be Star Trek’s 9/11, but I didn’t expect them to pick up where they left off in the sequel by showing how some Federation big shots reacted to it the same way the U.S. did. Good move for J. J. or whoever was calling the shots.

  64. 64
    NotMax says:


    Have not seen either film, and have no plans to.

    However, that is not the Federation.

    The Federation has always been posited as an improvement to and a step (or several steps) better than our present system, not the same system and same mentality but with phasers and brightly colored clothing.

    That whole concept of a Federation shadow (or rogue) group brought into canon via new writers/producers has always been antithetical to the rationale of the Federation.

  65. 65
    Suffern ACE is a Basset Hound says:

    I wonder if the third movie is going to be the McCoy movie. The first movie was about Kirk preparing to take responsibility for a ship and crew. This movie was more about Spock dealing with the consequences of strict adherence to the rules. McCoy needs something. Right now he just doesn’t like flying.

  66. 66
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Randy P:

    I still say the best “Star Trek” movie was Galaxy Quest.

    ETA: And any purported Trekker who hasn’t seen it needs to rent it RIGHT NOW. It may even be streaming on Netflix.

  67. 67
    Mark S. says:


    Agreed, and that’s why the reboot has seemed completely off to me. In the TV series, Kirk is really by the book and can get away with breaking a rule once in a while because he doesn’t do it very often. He completely believes in the ideals of Starfleet.

    He’s not some shithead rebel without a cause on a motorcycle. Also, there’s an implication that Kirk earned his ship, not that he was made captain his second week at Starfleet.

  68. 68
    Ha says:


    Remember Section 31 in DS9?

  69. 69
    Chris says:


    Well, it’s definitely been done enough times to’ve entered the canon.

    And I don’t mind. The pressures created by national security scares and the opportunities for abuse they present have always been around, no matter what type of government people have. There’s nothing wrong with Star Trek using that, in the same way various episodes of TOS and TNG would show that, even though our present racial problems have been overcome, there are still forms of bigotry in the Federation.

  70. 70
    Suffern ACE is a Basset Hound says:

    @NotMax: I thought in the current film it was rather comical for the federation to claim that it is strictly scientific while dressing its cadets in uniforms that look kind of East German. That said, I would assume that bumping into Klingons after Vulcan is destroyed by future romulans would cause the federation to at least debate militarization. Without the vulcans, who is going to balance the humans and their sense that Threats need to be met in kind? But in this movie at least, the thrust of militarization is destroyed. So you will get the more advanced federation in the next movie.

  71. 71
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Mark S.:

    I think someone was saying yesterday that in TOS, Kirk is the youngest captain in Federation history because it only took him 14 years to earn a command.

  72. 72
    Suffern ACE is a Basset Hound says:

    @Mnemosyne: that’s the problem of starting the story at starfleet academy. Does anyone really want to see Kirk the ensign for five or six movies? Maybe, but that seems like more of a TV series than a movie. Kirk is probably promoted quickly in this movie series because he helped save the earth and Khan created a few openings.

  73. 73

    Liked it. Would highly recommend it. And for those who think it was the worst thing ever, I’d enter exhibit A into the record as Star Trek V.

  74. 74

    @NotMax: Well, to be fair, the Federation just lost a founding planet to a rogue villain along with 6 billion people, so yeah, I could easily see some folks in Starfleet feeling that maybe they ought to focus more on defense than being a hippie peacenik exploration force. :)

  75. 75
    Todd says:

    1. Liked the movie a lot. As one office acquaintance said, though, Abrams blew the ST canon all to hell (Okuda and Sternbach in particular) by making an Enterprise capable of underwater and atmospheric operations. The climactic fight scene between Spock and Khan seemed surplus to us, as well.

    2. Shatner once personally told me tha Trek V was his favorite among the movies. Dunno if he was full of shit or not, but the man said it.

  76. 76
    Cermet says:

    This latest star trek movie was far better than that first piece of utter shit called a movie with plot holes that made the original series look like high art; that said, the fact that a star ship can get the living shit blown out of it inside the orbit of the Earth’s Moon by a fellow star ship and NO ONE on Earth gives a shit/notices/intervenes or even calls them (and Kirk is sooo stupid he forgets to call them for help – guess cell phones don’t exist in this reboot since dumb ass kirk was close enough for one of our current phones to have worked!) is so stupid, it hurts. The fact that the ‘bad’ star fleet admiral decided to kill the entire crew of the enterprise because … well, just because he could; and worse, in full view of the Earth! This idea is so ludicrous that even a middle school student writing a bad star trek story would have been bothered by writing a plot device that lame and hard to believe – really, kill many hundreds of innocent fellow soldiers just because he needed to kill the very captain that he could have easily beamed over to his own ship and then killed quietly? Right. They paid a writer to write this pile of shit?

  77. 77
    Craig says:

    I love the fact that people can accept the Enterprise withstanding enormous accelerations, phaser blasts, and photon torpedoes – but some water? That’s just implausible.

    I liked it a lot. Funny, exciting, and surprisingly thoughtful, considering that the 2009 film was so much more shallow. My only quibbles are that the Little Bad’s motivations don’t make total sense as explained, and the final plot device is almost certainly going to cause holes in the next films.

  78. 78
    Citizen_X says:

    @Roger Moore:

    one that is topical without beating you over the head with it until Kirk’s speech at the very end

    Ah, now that’s like the original!

  79. 79
    Todd says:

    Another quibble – why continue the ridiculous “captain, first officer, ship’s doctor” first explorations of planetary surfaces? Why not send down robots, followed by survey teams so that the experienced decision makers can avoid being killed by an allergic reaction to mutant aspergillis spores?

  80. 80
    Rex Everything says:

    AL: In my opinion, Jacob Bacharach nails it — — and in the process, gets to the heart of why Star Trek, in all its incarnations, is so damn boring to many of us:

    You may, after all, think that the main storytelling conceit of Star Trek is faster-than-light travel, but really, the main conceit is that a spacefaring civilization resembles Britain, each planet an island, its Starfleet, literally, an Admiralty…. Despite its science fiction trappings, Star Trek is really a procedural drama. Starfleet is just its convenient institution.

    Yes, you heard it here first. The man who owes Gene Roddenberry the greatest debt is Dick Wolf. Star Trek is the weekly tale of people working within an institution. This, by the way, is also its principal connection to political liberalism—not its easily-dispensed-with humanism nor its integrated crew; rather, its commitment to a universe run, for the better, by enlightened bureaucrats. The prototypical Star Trek plot is a conundrum—cultural, technological, legal—that must be solved through the application of area expertise within the confines of organizational rules and the occasional call of a higher morality or duty. It’s Law and Order in space. Act 1: unexplained thing. Act 2: investigation and preliminary diagnosis. Act 3: unexpected difficulty, delay, or complication, sometimes compounded by institutional resistance. Act 4: renewed investigation, sometimes unorthodox, leading to unexpected solution. Act 5: resolution, explanation.

    Political liberalism is a good thing; enlightened institutionalism is a good thing; but god damn, for the life of me I can’t see how they’re the stuff of gripping sci-fi storytelling.

  81. 81
    Zifnab25 says:


    Shatner once personally told me tha Trek V was his favorite among the movies. Dunno if he was full of shit or not, but the man said it.

    Isn’t that the one where Captain Kirk punches God? I can see how that might appeal to Shatner’s ego, if nothing else.

  82. 82
    Craigo says:

    @Zifnab25: I think it’s more that V is the one where William Shatner directed William Shatner.

  83. 83
    Todd says:


    I think it’s more that V is the one where William Shatner directed William Shatner.

    He mentioned that in kind of an exasperated way when I snarkily asked “why?”

  84. 84
    Chris says:


    Yeah, it’s occurred to me a bunch of times that Star Trek would make more sense if the Enterprise was more space-shuttle-scale with the crew to match – IOW, if Scotty, McCoy, Uhura and all the others weren’t just chiefs of their respective sections but the only mechanic, doctor, etc on the ship. It would make a lot more sense then that the senior officers need to be in charge of every last thing.

  85. 85
    Chris says:

    @Rex Everything:

    Political liberalism is a good thing; enlightened institutionalism is a good thing; but god damn, for the life of me I can’t see how they’re the stuff of gripping sci-fi storytelling.

    One of the many things I love about Wrath Of Khan is how dull, boring, bureaucracy overcomes superhuman skill. Khan’s the acme of evolution, stronger and smarter than anyone on the Enterprise; except physical strength doesn’t matter when all the fighting happens by pushing buttons, and intelligence doesn’t matter when he’s jumping into something blind with zero training or background. Ergo, he loses to his “inferiors.” It’s a nice slap in the face to the entire superhero, “one man totally CAN take on the world and win if he’s badass enough!” genre.

    Your mileage is welcome to vary, of course.

  86. 86
    Booger says:

    @Yatsuno: I recommend against IMAX for ST:I2D. There’s like 40 minutes of extreme close-ups, and you’re looking at a lot of pores you could park a basketball in. Very distracting, and even relatively good-looking people become an assemblage of weird artifacts at that scale.

  87. 87
    ThresherK says:

    I am the most casual of moviegoers, and it worked for me. Any number of character moments landed in the theater we saw it in (no Spock ears or red tunics in the house) with hilarity, better than many comedies.

    Bonus: None of these jokes are in any of the trailers!

    Extra bonus for a certain segment of the population: Benedict Cumberbatch is considered hot, I hear.

  88. 88
    hartly says:

    @mclaren: Regarding “striking science fictional ideas”, I’ve come to the rather sad conclusion that their day on television is finished. We aren’t getting anymore Corbomite Maneuvers or Immunity Syndromes in Trek, just like we’re not getting anymore Warriors Gates or Carnival of Monsters in Who. This is the kind of TV that only appeals to a very small niche; the fact that it existed in the past was only due to a lack of choices for TV viewers in the pre-cable age.

    I saw the first film and while it was fun for what it was, the Trek characters didn’t seem to belong in it, though I saw it more as an Indiana Jones film than a Schwartenegger movie. I suppose while these franchises are profitable they’ll continue, but for simple decency’s sake I wish folks would stop “re-booting” Trek, Dr. Who, James Bond, etc., and just come up with a new damn idea already.

  89. 89
    Electricgrendel says:

    My thoughts are that it was basically just “meh.” I mean- I enjoyed it. The eye candy was very candiful, and there were some decent laughs. It had a lot of the “you know there’s a lot going on because the camera was shaking and you can’t quite figure out what is going on” type of scenes. Khan was really, really shortchanged. Benedict Cumberbatch is a pretty good actor, but was massively underutilized. I am hoping that he shows up as a villain in the next movie, otherwise this one is kind of a waste.

    On the whole it was an enjoyable summer action movie, and just like the first reboot, doesn’t add much to the universe of Star Trek. I gotta say that Chris Pine fills out the skin tight diving suit very very well, though. :D

  90. 90
    hartly says:

    @DaveInOz: Cumberbatch is a good actor, but Khan? Maybe they got him a personal trainer or something, but he strikes me as being a little scrawny for the role, so I won’t be surprised if he lacks menace when/if I watch the movie. Without seeing him in action I can only guess that he was hired for his voice and because he’s the latest skinny English guy flavor of the month.

  91. 91
    Chris says:


    Amen to your last sentence.

  92. 92
    kindness says:

    I saw it last weekend. I had fun. It was well done. A tad more melodrama than I like but good cinematography, special effects & plot. OK well, not the best plot of any Star Trek movie but good fun all around.

    No comparison to the pre-Star Wars movies that George Lucas climbed up on a cross and crucified his reputation on.

    I find it hilarious that so many here haven’t seen the movie but feel fine slamming it. You know that says something about you that isn’t really all that attractive don’t you.

  93. 93
    Susan says:

    Blah blah blah, Chris Pine. That is all.

  94. 94
    ThresherK says:

    @hartly: I’d be more inclined to agree with you on the casting as Khan, except that Montalban wore that muscle suit.

    After having seen Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes, I can see him being much more at home in the “netherworld” of playing hero or villain, which made much of this movie work for me.

    The opinion that he is hot is provided by my spouse, who has pretty good taste in that regard. When i told her that (before she was born), the first movie Khan swam alongside Esther Williams in a patented “MGM pool musical”, she was surprised how fit Montalban was in “The Wrath of Khan”…

  95. 95
    Todd says:


    Yeah, it’s occurred to me a bunch of times that Star Trek would make more sense if the Enterprise was more space-shuttle-scale with the crew to match – IOW, if Scotty, McCoy, Uhura and all the others weren’t just chiefs of their respective sections but the only mechanic, doctor, etc on the ship. It would make a lot more sense then that the senior officers need to be in charge of every last thing.

    Voyager was too lost to really make that work well, and had too many crewmembers (although things could probably get a little testy in the corridors and mess if you really didn’t like somebody – you would need to really shepherd your top officers. Something along the lines of Defiant would work well – but they already made that show.

    The name of it was Firefly.

  96. 96
    SFAW says:

    @zombie rotten mcdonald:

    Ronnie James Dio is in Iron Man 3?

    He’s dead, Jim.

    As any self-respecting zombie would know.

  97. 97
    Hunter says:

    I saw it, loved it, wrote a glowing review for (where for some reason the database has it listed as”?? Star Trek: Into Darkness”), joining all the other 5-star reviews there. Didn’t see Abrams’ last effort, but this one is a well-constructed movie, good character development, high-caliber performances (Cumberbatch is NOT Ricardo Montalban), the effects don’t take over (seen too many where that happens lately) — it’s an excellent job across the board.

    And please note: haven’t followed Star Trek for years, so I took Into Darkness as just itself. Worked fine.

  98. 98
    SFAW says:

    Cumberbatch as Khan doesn’t quite fit. It’s like having Jack Nicholson as McMurphy.

    That being said:

    For all you naysayers re: New-Kirk being made a Captain so young: if I recall, it was in part because he completed the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs. I believe only one other pilot/helmsman had done that.

  99. 99
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @scav: The Curse of Fatal Death is actually a parody of the revived Doctor Who that was somehow made before the new series existed. Since Steven Moffat wrote it, this is not entirely astonishing.

  100. 100
    kindness says:

    @Todd: You might not have like Voyager but 7-of-9. 7-of-9!

    The fact that she caused then Illinois Senator to lose his election to Barak Obama has be a positive. That and the uniforms they used to stuff her into on the set of Voyager. Yow!

  101. 101
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @ThresherK: I couldn’t remember what the name of that Esther Williams movie was, so I looked it up, and actually Ricardo Montalban was in at least two of them: “On An Island With You” and “Neptune’s Daughter”. In the first one he dances with Cyd Charisse.

  102. 102
    hartly says:

    @ThresherK: I didn’t know Montalban wore a muscle suit in Star Trek II. That’s somewhat disillusioning…But that was all Montalban in The Space Seed, right????!!!!!! Oh, who’m I kidding. I don’t care if those were Ricardo Montalban’s real pecs or not, he was fabulous as Khan. No way Cumberbatch could top his arrogance and, dare I say it, passion. Let’s see the Cumberbatch Khan wheel on Chekov and thunder “This is Sette Alpha V” anywhere near as well as Ricardo did it.

  103. 103
    kindness says:

    @hartly: Actually Khan is not the villain in the new Star Trek. Oh, he is but he isn’t the big villain. The big villian is the Star Fleet big wig who wants total war.

  104. 104
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @hartly: I don’t know how seriously to take it, but the people involved in making the movie all claim that Montalban’s pecs were real:

  105. 105
    AHH onna Droid says:

    @Catsy:Me too. It very closely aligned with my complaints. This movie is just dumb and an insult to movies. The script is weak? Overemote, overemote! The fight is boring? Go crazy with cgi in the background.

    I felt like Mr Plinket by the end of it. Fuck movies.

  106. 106
    AHH onna Droid says:

    @Chris: Agreed. Khan here was like Bar de m’s character in Skyfall. But Skyfall won me over with seductive cinematography that Abrams can’t pull off. It also pulled the scope in for the finale. Abrams widens it but doesn’t make it matter. He ought to watch Avengers and take notes on stakes/jeopardy and making the audience care.

  107. 107
    AHH onna Droid says:

    @Cermet: Yup, that killed me. I also don’t understand how an admiral commands his own clone army. This new Star Trek as Star Wars thing, I just cant keep up.
    You know what else is dumb? Introduce the admiral’s daughter but she never has divided loyalties. The hair said ‘Where No Man Has. Gone Before’ but the plot was all ‘and The Children Shall Lead’

  108. 108
    AHH onna Droid says:

    But they blew it by using avatar level subtlety. Then have the chutzpah to dedicate the movie to Af-Iraq vets. Assholes. @Chris:

  109. 109
    AHH onna Droid says:

    @Mark S.: Same thing happened in stid. I think Abrams likes to blow shit up, but people are paper cut outs in his movie. It’s very odd.

  110. 110

    @PaulW: and soared away on the wings of a demon.

Comments are closed.