Hera, Help Me, I Hated Star Trek Into Darkness


It pains me to have to write this but last night I saw Star Trek Into Darkness, the sequel to J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek reboot, and I hated it.

Before I go on I should mention two things: a love of Trek was instilled in me at a very young age, it has always been part of my life, and I liked (not loved) the rebooted Star Trek but was behind the effort to take the franchise in an new direction.

But guess what? They kind of threw that out the window with Star Trek Into Darkness. Why? Because they recycled an old story and thought it would make them look incredibly clever to viewers. At least that’s how I saw it.

The mystery surrounding Benedict Cumberbatch’s casting took over most of the press written about the film early on. Pretty much everyone’s first thought was that he’d be playing Khan and although he was “revealed” as John Harrison later in the game, we all still knew he’d turn out to be someone else when all was said and done. After seeing the film, I’m not quite sure why they wanted to keep this a secret. Could it be because it was a really terrible idea? Quite possibly.

I was with the film up to a point – I believe the point was when Cumberbatch said his name was Khan – and then it sped downhill like an Olympic gold medal bobsled team. I hoped we were all wrong, I hoped it wasn’t actually Khan, but at the very least if it was, I hoped they’d do something really unique with the character.

They didn’t.

The crew of the Enterprise haven’t evolved much since we last saw them. They’ve been going on missions but Kirk is still Kirk, and Spock is still Spock. And that’s pretty much it because this is the Kirk and Spock show. Seriously. I actually felt sorry for the rest of the cast because no one else had a chance to shine or even really act together as a crew. Uhura got to speak Klingon, Sulu got to sit in the captain’s chair and sound badass for about 10 seconds, Scotty shut down an enemy ship and opened an air lock, Bones got to say funny things, and Chekov…ran around a lot. What a waste of a tremendous group of actors. I won’t go into Dr. Carol Marcus all that much but suffice to say, her purpose in the film was minimal and they made her stand around in underwear for absolutely no reason. We didn’t even see an actual display of the intelligence she was touted to have.

And then we have Khan. Cumberbatch was phenomenal in the role, there’s no question about that. I really hope he gets nominated for tons of awards for it and that it leads to many more high-profile gigs for him. But the whole film was a poor use of the source material. The audience wasn’t given a compelling reason to believe in what Khan was doing or why it was really all that bad considering what happened to him. It would have served the story so much more had we actually seen Khan with his people and what they went through instead of just telling us about them.

I still could have been on board with using Khan had something interesting been done with him. For a while during the film, it seemed as if he would actually wind up being a good guy, someone who sides with Kirk and his crew to take down the actual evil in the film, Admiral Marcus, and help the Federation fight the Klingons in a possible third installment. That didn’t happen.

And then Kirk decided he was going to enter the Enterprise’s warp core.







I physically had to stop myself from shouting at the screen and walking out at this point. I envisioned the writers discussing what they were going to do with the film and saying, “It’ll be great! We’ll do the EXACT SAME THING as Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan but we’ll flip it on its head and NO ONE WILL SUSPECT! This is so clever!”

Except it absolutely is not. The whole point of the Star Trek reboot was to keep things vaguely familiar but alter history so they had free reign to do whatever they wanted with the franchise. So they could boldly go, as it were. And they decided to copy the franchise instead. It’s one thing to decide this is the direction you’re going in, it’s another to execute it in the worst way possible.


Like, shit, seriously? Kirk was dead for all of 15 minutes, making sure the plot point had no emotional impact whatsoever. And having Quinto scream Kirk’s otherwise trademark “KHAAAAAAAAN!” might take the new top spot for scenes that make me want to vomit. I understand they thought it was an emotional break for an otherwise emotion-lite character but it was cheesy as hell. For a longtime, hardcore fan of the franchise, it was annoying to expect exactly what was going to happen, realize how terrible it would be, and then see it played out just that way.

And don’t even get me started on Old Spock spilling the beans on Khan when he should have kept his mouth shut.

Star Trek Into Darkness was incredibly hollow for me. Not just as a Trek fan but as a moviegoer. I’m all for mindless action films now and then but that’s not what Star Trek is in our culture. At least, it didn’t used to be. When you think back on the legacy of the previous films, there was always a point or lesson to be had, even if it was kind of stupid (The Final Frontier, I’m looking at you.) This film had none of that. The only possible thing I could take away from it was a lesson in friendship but even that seems trite considering we don’t really get a chance to see the crew interact in such a way. They’re too busy dealing with explosions, you see?

Perhaps new Trek just isn’t for me. That makes me sad but I can come to terms with it. At the end of Star Trek Into Darkness, we see the crew departing on a five-year mission, a term that harkens back to the original series. We can only hope this is what makes them into what they should be – a team, explorers, and a family.

36 Responses to “Hera, Help Me, I Hated Star Trek Into Darkness

  1. actually, the reboot is entirely bad. hollow, as you said, nothing except chip drama and i think j.j was just trying to make star trek work as an action movie, for "everybody" and make more money. that "helicopter
    like terror attack scene. i mean, this could never happen on the older shows, why? because its the 23rd century, and nobody could pull off something like that. you can accpet that kind of a scene in am 80's stalone action movie, where it belongs, and where it came from, i belive.

  2. Unknown says:

    Hollywood was too busy looking at $$ and tried to push out a movie before they had a decent script. They had established a rebooted universe but no story to tell.

  3. regeya says:

    If you hate deus ex machina and you're watching Star Trek, you're going to have a bad time.

  4. regeya says:

    If you hate deus ex machina and you're watching Star Trek, you're going to have a bad time.

  5. Matt Youde says:

    Wow I agree, but my issues with the whole reboot is the mechanics. the turned phasers(beam) into the flashy pulse weapons. And the killing point for me was "they took the enterprise from you, their sendind you back to the academy." Okay what screwed up universe where people go from cadet to Captain back to cadet. I know the whole new timeline thing but hey that doesn't change our military history. I would like to know any of you service men heard of a Private(AF/Army/Marines) or Cadet(Navy) being promoted to Colonel or Captain in any instance? I could go on for ages on all the little messed up things but bottom line I hate Abrams and the new writing team for killing my childhood(Trek fan since I was 5).

  6. 1701earlgrey says:

    I hate Abram's reboot of "Star Trek". I hate it so much that I didn't even saw $tupid Trek 2013 and I never will.

    And you pretty much stated two main reasons why this reboot sucks. That they are mindless action movies and that there is no originality about them. And it's not just new movie that it's unoriginal, it's also 2009 reboot. C'mon, 2009 movie was clone of "Star Trek: Nemesis" – it was about crazy, bald, Romulan miner who have super duper spaceship and magical technology and who want to destroy Earth for some stupid reason! How oryginal! Of course "Nemesis" was just a clone "Wrath of Khan", so 2009 movie is just copy of a copy. That makes "$tupid Trek: Into stupidity" – copy of a copy of a copy. We have two "clones" of Khan before now we have rebooted Khan, and of course he have big super duper ship… Wake me up when they think up something new, not just this same tired old story of supervillain with uber ship who wants revenge

  7. J.J.Abrams.Word to all Trekkies.Lost,Alias.Do you people expect the guy who fracked those shows,will bring anything good to star trek?Do us all a favor-stop rushing out to see everything with the Star Trek put on it.Pretty soon,the movies stop being made.Second Star Trek was ment for tv-not the movies.They only started the movies,not for the fans,but to compete with other propertie-starting the word ''star'' as in ''star wars''

  8. n8h@wk says:

    I found you via watching Comic Book Heroes recently. I'm glad I did. I LOVE YOU. Your look on this movie, especially, made me so giddy. I felt the same way about it. I didn't like that Trek got rebooted, but the first movie was decent (except for the blowing up of Vulcan) and I figured well if this reboot can make my girlfriend, at the time, like something she outright said she hated then maybe it's not going to be so bad.

    Until THIS joke of a sequel came out. TWoK is my all-time favorite Trek movie and JJ & Crew literally raped it! Instead of killing Spock, let's kill Kirk. Instead of Kirk screaming Khan's name in a believable and pained way after he kills Kirk's son, let's have Spock scream it in an awkward and this doesn't sound right coming out of his mouth way after Kirk "dies". And let's bring Kirk back with magic tribble blood, everyone loves Tribbles right?

    I was just appalled at how they did that to TWoK instead of, as you said, doing something totally original. My brother liked it, but he only saw maybe one Trek movie and a few episodes here and there, so I had to explain to him why I was so irritated with this movie. Which, after I did, he understood.

    I just want to say thanks for this honest review and for reading comics, and having boobs. You have a new fan, although I don't have boobs myself; not unless you count man-boobs. LOL

  9. I'm with you completely, and being raised on the original series as well has left these films with much to be desired. It sucks when halfway through the movie you come up with a way to make it so much better, and you can't get it out of your head for the rest of the film.
    Kahn is an iconic character. Before Cumberbatch makes his announcement, I kept thinking how similar he looked to Kahn's 2nd in command in the original movie – actor Judson Scott, who dies speaking the line "Yours is the superior intellect" (brilliantly delivered, by the way – I was never sure if he was being sardonic or genuine). So I'm sitting there thinking 'Yeah, he should THAT character, his mission in this film to free his commander and idol Khan, and… set it up to have Khan appear in the third movie! And if Kirk has so much trouble dealing with one of Khan's underlings (who are also genetically enhanced), then how much more of a badass would Khan come across in the next film'.
    Well, that was it for me. After going down that path the rest of the film didn't have a chance.
    It also didn't help that the film confused me from the get-go. Knowing that Khan's ancestry is Indian/Middle-Eastern, and then showing us a father and child of that descent, I kept thinking we were being shown Khan's origin and the seeds of his motivation, but no. So that also got me thinking how interesting it would have been to have started the movie with that story – earth in chaos and Khan as a brilliant warlord – too brilliant and dangerous to be allowed to continue and so…you know the rest. The more I write this the more I wish I could've seen that on the big screen. Cumberbatch was indeed great in the role, but he just didn't look right for a character whose name is Khan Noonien-Singh. I hate to say I'm done with the reboot, but I'm done.

  10. Jacob Divett says:

    Spot on. You'd think Trek woud've left the sexism behind, but they very much have not. And the warp core thing and the tribble coming back to life… it was all too much.

  11. dlawyer says:

    C'mon Jill! Naw, I felt the same. I remember sitting there watching it, and picking out word-for-word dialogue and specific lines straight from Star Trek II Wrath of Kahn, and then about fell out of comfy theater seat when they essentially reversed the roles of Kirk and Spock, and had kirk say the lines that spock had said in Star Trek II….I remember whispering "really? they couldn't come up with anything original?" Oh well…. I still liked it although definitely not as much as its predecessor.

  12. Dean Hacker says:

    Thanks for the review. I largely agree with it, although hate is a bit strong. My reaction was more one of deepening disappointment.

    First, the previous film had done a lot of heavy lifting to enable a new series of films that borrowed the best of the old franchise while telling new stories, or at least new versions of old stories. It is amazing that given the chance to wrap "Space Seed" and "Wrath of Khan" into one story that this is the best they could do. The cold open was set-up for a better movie that essentially stopped 15 minutes in. Most of the problems flowed from there.

    Second, Dr. Carol Marcus was such a waste. The core USS Enterprise cast needs more estrogen. Adding Dr. Marcus as the new Science Officer was a good idea. Alice Eve was well cast in the part. She has a Star Trek look and can act. Her close up USS Vengeance was one of the highlights of the film.

    With that said, she was badly shoehorned into the main plot. Her defining scenes were defined by her subordinate relationships to various men (i.e. her father, assisting Dr. McCoy and acting as eye candy for Kirk). The last example has garnered the most criticism, since it is both obvious and wholly unearned. If you want to mix some female nudity into a Star Trek plot, there are literally dozens of ways to accomplish it. It is a franchise that accepts that element more easily than anything this side of Game of Thrones. Put Kirk and Marcus in a unisex airlock/decontamination chamber. Let them have a smart professional exchange about the plot while changing clothes. Ta-Da! You have nudity for the audience while making a mild point about gender equality in the 23rd century workplace.

    Finally (and most damningly), it failed as an action movie. It has been widely and correctly noted that Star Wars is an action-driven franchise and Star Trek is not. The reboot essentially recast Star Trek in the mode of Star Wars. Fine.

    Even accepting the above, Star Trek has different tools to make action set pieces than Star Wars. Star Wars borrowed heavily from westerns and samurai films. It works best with one-on-one fights scenes. Star Trek works at exactly the opposite end of the scale. The best Star Trek action scenes are large scale Naval battles in space. It is a totally different tradition. Narrowing down the fight scenes excludes the large (and largely wonderful) cast from too much of the action.

  13. Taranaich says:

    Ms Pantozzi, you've been a lot kinder on the film than I was. I, like many others, was suitably diverted by the film: it was reasonably well directed, had a LOT of love from the make-up/props/effects department, the actors all clearly had a ball, and it was a fun couple of hours.

    But Star Trek, it ain't.

    See, there's a misunderstanding that Trek purists don't want change: they don't want it to be bold or daring or make alterations. They just want Roddenberry, Coon, Jeffries, Theiss, and the original crew, maybe Meyer for the movie era. But for me, the precise reason this reboot franchise bothers me is because it isn't remotely daring enough.

    For all the much-touted attempts to make itself all hip and cool and different, this is still the story of the crew of the Starship Enterprise, with the same cast members, the same aliens (for the most part), the same visual and audio motifs. Despite this being an "alternate universe", everything is TOO familiar. If they wanted to be really bold, then why have Kirk as captain? Why have the crew at all? Why have the Enterprise?

    Because it's not "new" at all. It's the old with a splash of paint, infused with storylines from Campbell 101. Put the visuals, actors, sound aside: the story has NOTHING. It has none of the imagination, candour, courage or intellect which made the original Star Trek great. "Oh, but sometimes you just want to have fun at the theatre" – for Christ's sake, are you really going to argue there's a dearth of popcorn Sci-Fi flicks these days?

    Star Trek was different. Although it had spaceships and battles and whatnot, it also challenged you on some level. It had something to say about the human condition. This set out to be another dime-a-dozen popcorn movie with a sexy cast and lots of action, and it succeeded. But it's no more legitimate as Star Trek than a Saturday Night Live parody.

    Apaologies for the rant, but suffice to say, I appreciate the review.

  14. Jill says:

    You are truly adorable, Comrade Stalin. Everything is DIFFERENT in the 23rd century…except men still treat women like a piece of meat. Thanks for reading!

  15. "We never saw a display of her intelligence." (EVE)


    We CLEARLY see she is both capable as a leader under pressure and is a competent scientist when she SAVED not only her own life but that of Bones when she disarmed a torpedo that was about to explode.

    She also lent CRUCIAL information on the make and methodology of the 72 torpedoes, as well her act of secreting onto the FLAGSHIP of Starfleet is not a small task either.

    Kirk looked at her when she was naked because he has a penchant for acting without thinking, it is a recurring theme in the films franchise. There was plenty of nudity from both sides and just because there wasn't an elaborate tale about 'why she undressed' doesn't really matter.

    You FORGET that this is FAR into the future. In this future we don't have money or any monetary need, everything is different in a word.
    I find it funny you emulate your 21st century sensibilities onto a 23rd century setting.

    Your criticism is misplaced and honestly just sounds like vein whining from yet another misinformed neo-feminist.

  16. keyser soze says:

    As a hardcore trekkie (I have the insignia tatoo on my left chest to prove it), I was pleased with the film. Was it perfect, no, but the second movie in any franchise is alway a little weak. As for your complaint about alice eve in her underware, come on, star trek has always had attractive women scantily clad. After all it is sci-fi and scantily clad attractive women is a sci-fi staple. Not only that but kirk has to take a peak, HE IS KIRK after all. But she should so strength when she got annoyed at kirk and said "I said turn around." Plus they are setting the two of them up for a future romance, how else is Dr. Carol Marcus going to give birth to Kirk's son. It would have been sexist is she was parading around half nake just to try to get kirk's attention, which she didn't do. She is a strong enough character to throw a metaphorical well deserved punch to a "I'm going to sneak a peek" kirk. Which only makes him respect her (ya I said it) and want to win her over even more. Why you say, a strong personality like kirk can't help being attracted to member of the opposite sex who is just as hard headed and strong willed as he is. The whole under ware bit showed that she is possibly the only woman who can put kirk in place. Atleast that's how I viewed as a guy.
    Sorry for the long rant, and no jill this is not an attack on you review lol

  17. Jill says:

    I love the people who comment on negative reviews as if not liking a film they liked is a crime or that they must insult the person because they disagreed.

    Take a deep breathe, it will all be ok. Me not liking the film doesn't take away from your enjoyment of it. :)

  18. I loved it. Re working and mirroring was perfectly acceptable. To those who are new Trekkies, it worked as an exciting sci-fi adventure. To older Trekkies if you have a kind of pseudo-religious mania for "an authentic undiluted trekkie" experience that brooks no alternative vision you really should get over yourself and get out more.

    10/10 for me.

  19. Faux Gamer says:

    I haven't the new one yet. after the first one I've tried to adopt the same attitude that allowed me to enjoy the new BSG:

    Just because all the proper names are the same, it doesn't necessarily follow it's the same franchise.

    I've always been of the opinion that if your plan to remake/reboot/reimagine something results in major changes, it's better to simply start with a clean slate.

    Over the years I've determined Star Trek is not a movie franchise. Yes, it's sci-fi and yes as such it includes special effects. But that doesn't make it suitable to the role sci-fi it thrust into moviewise: Big effects, action packed blockbuster.

    Star Trek as a show was always closer to period piece movies than the role sci-fi has played on the big screen. And the TV implementations as a whole have been at their best when the stories were focused into the 1 episode time frame or given a long period story arc. This is at odds with Hollywood's pursuit of the $100 million weekend 1.5 to 2 hours at a time.

    I did like the 1st of the JJ Abrams movie. But whether or not I consider this version to meet my personal standard/expectation/opinion of Star Trek will wait until I see ST:ID.

    Even if it's a 'not Star Trek', I won't let that keep me from appreciating anything good it has to offer, just like with the Moore version of BSG.

    Kinda of got carried away, so I'll end with: \//_ Nerd out and geek.

  20. While I enjoyed the movie more than you did, I agree it has problems. Benedict Cumberbatch plays a villain well, but he has limited range and I never thought I was watching Khan. The mystery was pointless. To maintain mystery, they can't cast someone who can play the character? We can make a long list of the movie's problems, but for me, that's the biggest one.

  21. Jeffrey says:

    "Pandering to the old, while hopefully giving the new audience who has never watched the show or older films" was probably the pitch. Yes I could have lived without the warp core scene, the Khan cry, the needless death of Kirk. However, none of these however caused me to hate the film though.

    I did not like that Nicholas Meyer was never credited, since they nicked the elements from all three of his films he had worked on. I felt that some contrived and unoriginal. I felt like slipping in Mudds ship, The Tribble, and little Easter eggs where there to appease the Trekkies, but failing to understand that every plot device we has seen in Star Trek 2, 3 & 6.

    I think they were playing it safe, even though I believe what worked the first time was that the did the unthinkable. They wanted to try and please both new fans and us old ones. The sad thing is that it is us old fans that have been around for the best & the worst for at least for me over 35 years.

    All in all, was it regurgitated material? Yes, was it a safe film without a real threat that made you worry like the first? Yes. But did I like the film? Yes, I loved it. It was fun and even though I hated some of it, I liked most of it. The positive is: they make money, realize what they did wrong, rework and go back to what works for the next film.

  22. Totally agree, Jill. I can't just "shut up and enjoy it" when the sexism was so overt (which, even in the sixties, Kirk wasn't near as bad and the women were more professional), the science was terrible, and the story line a mess of rehashing stuff that casual fans would recognize and surrounding it with explosions. Abrams has said he wants to make Star Trek for "everyone else" but what he wants is to make Star Trek "dumb because people are dumb and my script is going to treat them that way."

  23. seminole51 says:

    I have read so many negative reviews of this movie that it actually has me wondering how, as a Trek fan, I very much enjoyed it. Were there scenes of EXTREME cheesiness and others that weren't very "Trek"? Absolutely. Uhura and Spock squabbling in the shuttle on Kronos immediately comes to mind. And of course as everyone seems to think, the "KHAAAANNNNN" line was completely unnecessary. BUT, I went into this movie to be entertained. Eat my popcorn and forget about real life for 2+ hours. And that is exactly what happened. For me it was non-stop action from beginning to end. I for one, loved the little homages thrown into some scenes (e.g. Sulu saying how he could get used to the Captain's chair), or entire plot lines (Adm. Marcus's agenda mirroring the plot from Undiscovered Country). Was it "lazy writing"? Maybe. Even though this is a reboot in an alternate universe, what law says some events cannot happen regardless?? As one of the other commenters pointed out, the movie ends with them leaving for the 5-year mission. Well, tribbles and Kahn werent discovered until after that point in TOS. So it happened a little different in this one… so what? I do wish some characters had some more screen time as yes, Kirk and Spock did dominate the screen. However, they ARE the two main characters. That would be like someone complaining that Luke and Vader dominate screen time in Star Wars. Some people will read this and think I have my head up my ass, but this is just one person's take on the movie. I liked it, Im a Trek fan, always will be. For those of you that didnt enjoy it, I hope you like the next one 3-4 years from now.

  24. Andrew says:

    I also had a lot of problems with the movie, but they were not the same problems you had, Jill. In fact, I actually really liked some of the things that you really hated. By far, the thing I agree on most is the "Kirk and Spock show" idea. The rest of the cast was highly underutilized.

    Here's a list of my top issues with the movie.

    #1 ***Where are the Andorians?!*** Or Tellarites? or even one or two other vulcans? (I realize the vulcans are mostly all dead) Or ANY other actual established federation species? Why couldn't Kirk have been in bed with two hot blue ladies with white hair and antenae? Honestly, as lame a use as that would have been, I would have taken it. As is, there wasn't a single established species represented in the entire movie.

    #2 Where the f*** did McCoy get a tribble?!

    #3 I'm not generally one to point this out, but this movie was preposterously sexist. I'm surprised you (Jill) didn't address this more deeply. The combined effect of (1) the long gaze upon Carol in her underwear for NO reason whatsoever, (2) the fact that all anyone could talk about when McCoy and Carol go to defuse the torpedo is how they want to flirt with her, (3) Uhura being taken from an unflappable, intellectual, and independant member of the bridge crew (Nichols) to basically Spock's unprofessionally distracted and weepily overly-emotional girlfriend (Saldana), (4) the fact that the women's unifroms are even skimpier (and sleeveless) than the original series, which takes a lot, AND (5) the continued lack of the only other female crew members: Christine Chapel (that quick mention doesn't cut it) and Yoeman Rand, made me sad and uncomfortable throughout the movie. I found Kirk's womanizing somewhat appropriate and humorous, but they definitely overplayed it. Overall, this just made me sad. The original series was so progressive and ground-breaking. This movie took one giant leap backwards.

    #4 Dare I get into the latent racism (and persepective sexism) necessary to re-cast a role requiring physical superiority and sex appeal that was originally portrayed by one of the most notable latino actors in American TV and film with a weird, skinny, wonky-eyed, white Englishman with messed up teeth? I mean, I like Cumberbatch a lot, but Khan? The perfect human specimen? Really?! I think not. speaking of racism, even though that awesome bald lady took the helm for HALF THE MOVIE, she was never even addressed by name. That made me a little sad.

    #5 Pine demonstrates, above and beyond, that he ain't no Shatner. I'm really surprised by how much I now appreciate Will Shatner's acting chops. Shatner played Kirk. Pine plays the character that Kirk wants to be, without any of the fun and bombast that Shatner brought to the role. Overall, kind of seemed like he was phoning it in.

    The more I think about the movie, the more it disappoints. I enjoyed it a lot while I was watching it, but I keep finding things about it that just make me sad.
    Sorry for the long comment.
    Clearly I had some venting to do.

  25. Oh, it wasn't that bad. I agree that the rest of the crew were kinda wasted, especially Sulu and Chekov, and the douchey internet let the cat out of the bag early about Benedict's character. But past that it was really entertaining.

    Next movie I need to see some actual trekking however. TOO MUCH EARTH!

  26. Jim says:

    Not liking a bad movie has nothing to do with being a "purist". Quit dismissing legitimate concerns with a holier-than-thou comment.

    I, like Jill, enjoyed the first movie, even if I had to turn my brain off. This movie was poorly (one even might say, lazily) written.

  27. Your review does not surprise me in the slightest. Has J.J.Abrams done ANYTHING original since Felicity?

  28. artofstu says:

    I loved it. I think this movie has way more going for it than it has detracting from it. It's a pity that some people can't simply enjoy it for what it is.

  29. Medeevil says:

    The movie was very good, the "purists" among you need to quit over thinking everything and just enjoy it…sheesh!

  30. Small Vox says:

    Reduce, Reuse, Recycle? No really, I enjoyed the film & once I realized what was coming when I saw the Tribble and the warp-core story lines develop – that we were getting more of "homage" to all things past I settled in and took it for that. Yes, I would have loved Khan the rebel fighter against Starfleet's blood lust for the Klingons, let's rebuild Starfleet possibilities, but hey the F/X were great, and though I do wish they'd dropped a little more info with Adm Markus / Khan's history with filming that, rather than do the WHOLE thing with exposition, (so. much. exposition.) I realize just how hard it is to do the adventure and the funny AND the homage… However, I do so hope that any films going forward spend some time exploring an updated and new version of ST lore.
    One other observation regarding the recycling – is it possible this was a whole "hey everyone, we know you're nervous about the reboot, and we MIGHT hand off to a new director the next time out – like Harry Potter did – so we'll keep things nice and "safe" these first two outings, and that'll be fun too. Yay for nostalgia!" ?

  31. Amy says:

    All of this!
    Also, why did Bones have a dead tribble with him?!

  32. Teek Vids says:

    I enjoyed the movie a lot more than the first, but I definitely see where you're coming from. Mirroring the whole warp coreKaaaaahn thing was cringe worthy but it didn't sink the movie for me. It was more of an "okay, so this is the kind of ride we're on" thing.

    Don't get me wrong, the movie was stupid as hell, but I was more annoyed with the bad science and pathetic script than any particular crimes against Trek history.

  33. snell says:

    It seems Abrams and company have adopted the Battlestar Galactica motto for their nuTrek: "All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again." I was actually enjoying the film for the first 3/4, but then the descent into plagiarism and creative bankruptcy completely lost me.

  34. Cyril says:

    I just got out of the theater, and while I initially enjoyed the film for what it was, the more I think about it, the more I realize how much I was left wanting after the credits rolled.

    Like you said, there was absolutely limitless places they could have taken this story seed (see what I did there) and used it as a vehicle to tell a new and interesting story about Kahn. I was holding out the hope that they were going to pull one over on us and actually have Cumberbatch as John Harrison, and have the coordinates he gave be the location of the Seed Ship where they might find Kahn and his crew. Instead we find a heavily armed dreadnaught that serves absolutely no function in the story other than to "be menacing."

    All that aside, I think one of the fundamental problems I'm having about the film isn't the story that was told, but rather how it was told. There's a tremendous amount of things that happen off screen that we just have to trust happens how it was supposed to happen. My wife made the point to me that it makes sense from the point that we're operating on the same level and amount of information as Kirk, but I'm not sure I buy it. I feel like this screenplay broke one of the cardinal rules of film making (and storytelling in general) in that I sincerely felt I was "told" more than I was "shown." There was definitely some material that they could have cut to work in a scene about Marcus and Kahn, but instead we're treated to Kirk rolling under the covers with two cat-girls and flirting with Starfleet cadets. The pacing also felt really jerky to me. There was a definite beginning, and there was maybe an end in sight, but everything else in the middle felt muddled and confused.

    I had high hopes for this one, and I hope they can salvage something out of this story for the third installment. Definitely not Abrams's finest outing.

  35. Unknown says:

    Maybe in this Trek universe the old axiom of "every even numbered Trek is a good Trek" is also turned on it's head and every even numbered Trek is crap?

  36. william says:

    I felt the same was about the Khan reveal and the Trek II rehashing. after thinking about it, I came to terms a little bit with it when I realized they're still the same characters, given a similar situation, they'd react more or less a similar way. But the blood set up was too obvious and Spock's Khan scream was unnecessary and misdirected. Admiral Marcus did the damage to the warp core, not Khan. I loved the 1st Trek, this one kinda hurt a little.