Five Reasons to Hate ‘Star Trek into Darkness’ – Plus a Poll

It’s okay. You’re allowed to enjoy ‘Star Trek into Darkness’. It’s well-paced, well-acted and, for the most part, well-directed. But let’s be clear, it’s not true ‘Star Trek’. At least not the ‘Star Trek’ most of us grew up loving. Yes, I realize that the 2009 film established a whole new universe where anything could happen going forward. However, that new universe still needs to play by the rules established up until the point that Spock and Nero time travelled into it. Sadly, ‘Star Trek into Darkness’ plays fast and loose with far too many of those rules. I’m talking to you, Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof! The following is just a short list of some of my problems with the new movie. (Major, major, MAJOR spoilers follow. You’ve been warned.)

The Hovitos Are Near

‘Into Darkness’ opens with Indiana Kirk being chased by the Hovitos. Okay, they’re not really the Hovitos, but the scene is a blatant rip-off of the opening of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Believe it or not, that’s not my problem with the scene. My problem is that we learn that the Enterprise has been hidden underwater for a couple of days so that Spock can plant a device into an active volcano, rendering it inactive and saving the planet’s inhabitants. There’s this whole huge discussion about not making the Enterprise visible because it would violate the Prime Directive (non-interference with the development of alien civilizations, and particularly, not revealing oneself to primitive civilizations).

However, the movie never addresses how the Enterprise got underwater in the first place without being noticed, nor how Spock’s rendering the volcano inactive doesn’t already violate the Prime Directive. Why didn’t the Enterprise just stay in orbit, activate the device and beam it into the volcano from space? (We’ll get into the hilarious beaming issues from this movie further down on this page.) Because that would negate this fun opening sequence, that’s why.

New Timeline = New Nationality?

I know, I know… You saw this one coming. I don’t know if there’s a person alive who didn’t guess Benedict Cumberbatch was playing Khan in this movie, but given that, the filmmakers never address why Khan has suddenly changed from a Sikh Indian into an uptight Brit.

There’s been some fan speculation online that when the Section 31 operatives found Khan (and the movie does explain why Khan was found earlier in this timeline – deep space probes were sent out when Vulcan was destroyed to find a new suitable planet), they altered his appearance. Even if the movie doesn’t say it, that’s a pretty good idea, but it certainly wouldn’t explain why Khan’s accent is British as well.

More bothersome is the character of Carol Marcus, who also seems to have gained a British accent with the timeline update. There seems to be no logical reason for it here, other than the fact that actress Eve Alice is also a Brit. But seriously, can’t Eve do an American accent? Does Carol have a different mother in this timeline? Again, the movie’s screenplay is too stupid to address these questions.

Warp Factor Five… Thousand!

The time it takes to go from Point A to Point B in ‘Into Darkness’ has nothing to do with established ‘Star Trek’ “science,” and everything to do with how fast or slow the script needs the characters to get there.

In the pilot of the television series ‘Enterprise‘, it took several days to make it to the Klingon homeworld of Qo’noS (phonetically spelled out as “Kronos” in this movie, lest audience members couldn’t figure out how to pronounce it). Granted, the starships in ‘Into Darkness’ should be a little faster than that by now, but even when there was a Klingon rendezvous in ‘Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country‘, it took over a day to get to Klingon space, and they weren’t even traveling all the way to the homeworld.

Here, it seems to take less than an hour to make it to Qo’noS (we’ll discuss Khan’s method of getting there in the next segment), and when the script calls for the characters to warp from Klingon space back to Earth, it’s a matter of mere minutes.

Beam Me Out of Here

One of my biggest gripes with ‘Into Darkness’ is the way that beaming is used in all kinds of inconsistent ways that only serve to advance the plot.

First and foremost is the ridiculous concept of “transwarp beaming,” which was first used in the 2009 film as a way of getting Kirk and Scotty back to the Enterprise even though the ship was in warp and light years away. ‘Into Darkness’ uses the technology again so that Khan can beam from Earth directly to Qo’noS. Why on Earth would Starfleet spend all the time and manpower building the Vengeance dreadnaught ship (or any starship for that matter) when they could just work on mass-producing the transwarp transporter and beam to the planets of their choice? It seems like a Klingon invasion would be a lot easier if you can just beam bombs into their homes instead of attacking from space, doesn’t it?

But even the regular transporters work by different rules in ‘Into Darkness’. When the Enterprise first encounters the Vengeance, Kirk raises the shields as a precaution. Yet Admiral Marcus has no problems transporting Carol over to his ship, even with the Enterprise’s shields raised. However, later in the movie when Khan is in command of the Vengeance, he has to get Spock to lower the shields to transport all the torpedoes over to his ship.

Your Friend Here Is Only Mostly Dead

I’ve got two words for you: “Magic blood.” Yes, that’s how ‘Into Darkness’ responds to a heartbreaking (and totally ripped-off) conclusion where Kirk dies saving the ship from crashing down to Earth. Although there was no precedent established for it in the Original Series, nor in ‘Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan‘, it appears that Khan’s blood has regenerative powers. Not just for the sick, but even for those already dead. Of course, the movie goes out of its way to let us know it wouldn’t have worked had Kirk’s brain function stopped, making sure that no one else that died up until this point in the film (primarily Captain Pike) could be saved.

By the way, why doesn’t McCoy just take the blood from one of Khan’s 70-plus frozen compatriots already aboard the Enterprise? Oh yes, that would mean we couldn’t have a big chase and fight scene between Spock and Khan to climax the movie.


The above are just some of the problems I had with ‘Into Darkness’. Feel free to comment on these or add your own issues for debate below. For purposes of fairness, I want to say that I didn’t hate the movie. It’s a fun popcorn film and a solid piece of summer entertainment. But wouldn’t it be nice to return to the style of the original films, which were entertaining and smart at the same time?

What Did You Think of 'Star Trek into Darkness'?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


  1. William Henley

    I chose “It’s Pretty Good”. As far as fun and action packed Star Trek, great performances given by actors, and wonderful directing and VFX, it was awesome. The total disregard for science and lazy sript-writting…. The only script worse was probably Final Frontier, and that is debatable – I think I can accept God needing a Starship more than I can accept Transwarp Beaming

    • William Henley

      Didn’t you know? Khan is part Vampire and part Shape-Shifter. He’s a descendant of Renesme and Jacob!

      Here is what I posted in the Review thread:

      Okay, so I saw this last night, and decided to let some processing sink in before writing.

      First, let me say that I did LOVE the movie. It was fun, high action, amazing visuals. Probably one of my favorite movies.

      However, the movie had substantial flaws.

      Pointing these out may have some spoilers, so avoid if you haven’t seen it yet.

      Pike was not the original commander of the Enterprise, Robert April was.

      In the shot of Kronos, the Klingon moon had already exploded. This didn’t happen until almost 30 years later, when Kirk was getting ready to retire (The Undiscovered Country).

      Where the HECK was Earth’s planetary defenses? NO ship should have been allowed to crash into the planet like that.

      How the heck did Scotty just happen to be able to break into a top-secret starship? Yeah, I get that he flew in with several other ships, but if the ship was that top-secret, they would have checked every single ship coming in.

      Isn’t the transporter supposed to have a confinement beam? There is an episode in season 3 of TNG where Troi starts begging a prisioner not to try to avoid the transport process or he could be killed in the attempt.

      A Federation ship fires on another Federation ship in close proximity to Earth and no one notices?

      A Federation ship sits on the edge of the Neutral Zone, and doesn’t attract any attention – enough that they are able to launch a shuttle through the Neutral Zone, through Klingon space, all the way to Kronos, and not be detected until they start skiming the planet? That’s a little far-fetched.

      Scotty’s communicator is not traced?

      If the five year mission had not started yet, and that was the first Deep Space mission, how was Khan and his crew discovered by Starfleet?

      Really? “Transwarp Transporter?” Who the heck came up with that name? And I don’t care if it was experimental or not, you beamed from Earth to Kronos? Really? Then what do we need starships for? And while I get that its experimental here, um, hello, this puts the entire TNG / DS9 / Voyager Universe to waste.

      What is up with these ship sizes? It’s like we are in the Tardis – why are these ships so much bigger on the inside than the out?

      We don’t have enough power to beam a person up, but we can beam multiple people down?

      “Change out of those redshirts – we don’t want to be affliated with Starfleet”. Yet they are on an Enterprise shuttlecraft.

      Tribbles hadn’t been introduced to the Federation yet in this time period.

      How the HECK did these people pass Starfleet personality exams? The only people who should have been allowed anywhere near a starship should have been Pike, Sulu and Scotty.

      So yeah, great movie, just full of issues.


      Also, apparently Earth and “Kronos” are only minutes apart at warp.

      I asked a similar question when Enterprise came out, because they sure make it from Earth to Kronos rather fast. Although this also has me thinking that in TNG, if you watch episodes in order, they are gone for months at a time, and can make it back to Earth in a few days? One episode they are at the edge of unexplored space, then suddenly can warp back to Vulcan, Betazed, Earth or Kronos? Makes you wonder why it is taking them so long to explore the galaxy.

      Yeah, engineering bothered me as well, but I could accept that.


      Sol is in K8, Kronos (Qu’nos)is at P12. Earth is closer to Feraginar, Romulous, Bajor and Cardassia than it is to Kronos.

      Although one of the thing that bothers me is everything is on a 2D plane – although I guess you could claim that it works as the galaxy is more flat and long, except around the galactic core, and we are on the outstretch of our galaxy.

      • Tom

        ““Change out of those redshirts – we don’t want to be affliated with Starfleet”. Yet they are on an Enterprise shuttlecraft.”

        They are not on an Enterprise shuttlecraft. There is a line of dialogue noting that they will be taking a shuttle still on board since “the Mudd incident.” This incident is explained in the prequel comic.

        “Tribbles hadn’t been introduced to the Federation yet in this time period.”

        You’re thinking of the original series version of this time period. In the Abrams alternate timeline, things like tribbles and the Gorn have been encountered sooner than in the TV series. (A tribble was even seen briefly in the 2009 film.)

        Now, I think it’s a little sloppy to casually rewrite every little detail of Trek history just because of Nero’s interference, but I guess they gave themselves that opportunity and they seem to be taking advantage of it. Any change from previous continuity will just be met with a shrug and a mention of the alternate timeline.

  2. I enjoyed the movie while I was watching it, but the more I think about it afterwards, the less I like it. I was planning to write my own post on the movie, but Shannon hit on a lot of my points already. Right now, I’m not sure whether to vote “Disappointing” or “It’s terrible.” I may need to think about that.

    If J.J. Abrams wants to reboot the Star Trek franchise, then he should have really rebooted the franchise and broken all ties with the original. As it is, he tries to have it both ways, and doesn’t even play by the rules that he himself established. He got away with it in the first movie, but he pushes things too far this time.

    If these are literally meant to be the same characters from the original series up to the point of the altered timeline, then it makes no sense at all that Khan bears absolutely no resemblance to the original incarnation and suddenly has magic blood (WTF is that about?!), or that Carol Marcus is now mysteriously British for some reason.

    Stuff like the “transwarp beaming” and the seemingly instantaneous travel to even far reaches of the galaxy are complete BS even by Trek pseudoscience standards. Don’t even get me started on the starship battle at warp speed. If the ships are traveling faster than the speed of light, how can you fire phasers from one to the other? And if one ship steers even slightly at warp speed, wouldn’t it be hundreds of thousands of miles away from the other in a mere second?

    Mostly, I’m disappointed that Abrams is so bereft of imagination that he had to recycle old characters and plots so soon into his reboot. Did Cumberbatch really need to be Khan? Will the next movie be about the Genesis Device, and the one after that about saving whales? I can’t wait until Abrams’ crew goes searching for god at Sha Ka Ree.

    Even within the story that Abrams chooses to tell, he blows a couple of major opportunities to really shake things up. If he wants to say that the altered timeline has really changed everyone’s destiny, then how about not making Khan a villain? What if, due to the new circumstances, he becomes a genuine ally and has no need to turn evil? The movie seems to go down this route for a little while, then shifts right back into Big Bad Villain mode.

    More importantly, what if Abrams had the balls to really kill Kirk and try to continue the franchise without this iconic character? Imagine the impact that would have on future movies. It could be incredible. But sadly, no, he brings Kirk back with Khan’s magic blood. Fuck that.

    Seriously, fuck that shit.

    This movie is a massive letdown.

    • William Henley

      Don’t even get me started on the starship battle at warp speed. If the ships are traveling faster than the speed of light, how can you fire phasers from one to the other? And if one ship steers even slightly at warp speed, wouldn’t it be hundreds of thousands of miles away from the other in a mere second?

      Yeah, I don’t think phasers would work at warp. MAYBE torpedos, but both ships would have to be going exactly the same speed (or the pursuit one slightly faster), and no turning during warp.

      Looks like they took a page from the Animated Series:
      “Klingon Battle cruiser 20,000 kilometers off the port bow”
      “Intercept course warp factor 5”

      Mostly, I’m disappointed that Abrams is so bereft of imagination that he had to recycle old characters and plots so soon into his reboot. Did Cumberbatch really need to be Khan? Will the next movie be about the Genesis Device, and the one after that about saving whales? I can’t wait until Abrams’ crew goes searching for god at Sha Ka Ree.

      No need for that – they just STARTED their 5 year mission. Too bad Pike died – they could have just taken him to The Cage. I was so ready for Pike to be in a chair beeping Yes and No. Although they could go to the Guardian, Go back 20-odd years, and stop Nero from destroying the Kelvin, and then Vulcan.

    • Dave Mueller

      That’s exactly how I felt. I really enjoyed it at the time, but there were those niggling doubts.

      For a movie I’d been waiting for for four years (I think that was grammatically correct amazingly)-and ALL that time making sure the script was great…THAT’S what they came up with? It just felt like it should have been more.

      At the end of the first one they launched their new franchise. They didn’t need to be tied to the canon universe anymore.

      And the logistical issues: has anyone even mentioned how a Starfleet Admiral managed to siphon what must have been billions of dollars into this secret project? C’mon, son! I mean, if a ship is twice as long as the Enterprise its probably going to have six or seven times its mass (just think of how much larger the primary hull would be). The scale of this thing is just ridiculous. The Enterprise was the flagship just a short time ago. Khan’s expertise or not: there’s no way they could have built that damn thing.

      You know how I felt about this one? The way I thought I was going to feel about the first one as a long time Trek fan (especially of TOS). I thought I’d really enjoy an action packed, sci-fi, popcorn flick, but would have to divorce it from my love of Star Trek to do so. This one is a lot like that.

      • Someone commented on another blog I was reading that Admiral Marcus enlisting Khan to develop his top secret high tech weapons is kind of like the U.S. government recruiting the smartest man from the 17th Century to work on our nuclear arsenal.

      • Eh, technically, the Enterprise was only a flagship once, and that was in an Episode of Next Gen. The meaning of Flagship is that it houses the commander of a group of vessels.

        However, the Wikipedia entry for Flagship says the word has also been used metephorically to mean a product of exceptional value or quality, so I am guessing that is what they are revering to in the Trek universe

        • *rephrase – I can only THINK of one episode. There are many episodes I haven’t seen in years. Did a fleet commander ever sit on board the Enterprise in other episodes?

  3. Phil G.

    I thought it was established in the first film that this was an alternate “universe” we were dealing with.

    • It’s an alternate universe only from the point where the timeline diverged when Nero appeared. Khan was born hundreds of years before that. The alternate timeline does not explain why he’s now British or has magic blood. Nor does it give Abrams free license to break the established rules of how scientific things like transporters and warp speed travel work in the Trek universe.

      • I know why, It’s a movie from 2013 with a huge budget and not a TV show from 1968.

        Can’t believe you people can forgive Iron Man 3 but your bashing this. The worlds all upside down.

        • Not to mention Ricardo Montalbán wasn’t exactly authentic indian in the sixties either but I didn’t hear anybody whining about that after ST TWOK.

          • established rules of how scientific things like transporters and warp speed travel work in the Trek universe.”

            Have you watched the original series and the movies? They did it all the time when they needed to. In Star Trek 4 they used a Bird of prey to go back into time, 20 minutes earlier Scotty was worried they couldn’t get it off the ground.

            At least they didn’t make Khan a british actor who was just playing a terrorist on TV!!!!

          • William Henley

            There is a big difference between thrusters being used to get a ship from the ground into orbit, and then the ship’s warp and impulse drives, hull plating and shields. Just saying.

          • Yeah but my point is that they would always sacrifice tech consistency for plot (or lack thereof) from TOS all the way through to today. It’s not new and people keep acting like the original was such hard science, it wasn’t. Star Trek was and IS fun pulp Sci Fi at it’s heart and only our love for the characters gave it more gravitas then it had.

          • William Henley

            Granted – a lot of the “Science” didn’t really get nailed down until the movies and The Next Gen. In TOS, for example, Stardates were just randomly thrown out. By the time we got to Next Gen, there was a formula for doing Stardates. Warp factors and distances were randomly thrown out in TOS, but this was nailed down later. There were a few inconsistancies in the later series (mainly in Voyager), but stuff really started to get nailed down in Enterprise (well, at least after the pilot episode blah blah blah Kronos).

            That being said, there is some stuff that is pretty well established. And if an episode breaks with established rules, people were yelling and screaming about it. To break with established rules in a movie, though, causes riots.

  4. Jonathan C

    Yes, much of the plot was contrived, but who didn’t have a geek-gasm when Spock screamed “Khan!”?

    • I thought that was really lame, personally. It reminded me of Anakin screaming “NOOOOOOOOO!!!” at the end of Revenge of the Sith.

      Again, Abrams just has no imagination here. Rather than develop his own new storyline, he merely hopes that the audience will think it’s clever when he references and replays scenes that people liked in earlier movies. He’s like that character Chris Farley used to play on SNL. “Hey, you remember that scene in Wrath of Khan when Kirk yells Khan’s name? Yeah, that was awesome.”

      A little bit of fan-wanking can be fun, but this movie has practically nothing else to justify its existence.

      • Hehe…It Seems you should have directed it instead of Abrams 😉 You have it all figured out I see….I enjoyed it alot, and I`m not even a huge Star Trek fan to begin with. The film was good. People in general seems to like it alot. Why can`t you? Why must every movie be analyzed to death and picked apart? The original series wasn`t made for people like us to sit back and get all the science and logic figured out.

        It was probably made for entertainment reasons..To make us forget about stress and everyday life and worries…The new film was great fun. It was action, fun and suspense…..and good acting. I can only imagine how insane hard it must be making a new star trek film, and to try to please all the fans….impossible if you ask me. Abrams DID a solid job on this one.

        • You ask why must every movie be analyzed to death. I would ask in return why must movies like this be so stupid? If the movie wasn’t so stupid, we wouldn’t have to pick it apart. There’s nothing preventing Hollywood from making movies that aren’t stupid. They just have to try. Writing a good script doesn’t cost any more money than writing a bad one. So, why do we get so many bad ones and so few good ones?

          I do not subscribe to the “Turn off your brain” defense. I like my brain and I like using it. Movies like this hurt my brain.

        • William Henley

          and I`m not even a huge Star Trek fan to begin with.

          I think you just answered your own question.

  5. NJScorpio

    So what does all this mean for Star Wars?

    I mean, I’m not much of a Trek fan, so the points above I might not have picked up on. But Star Wars has such a solid, well known universe, that ignoring any of the established rules or cannon (mainly from the original trilogy) could result in a lot of J.J. Abrahms hate.

    • William Henley

      Abrahms wasn’t the problem – it was a crappy script. The directing is wonderful.I blame Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof.

      • Make no mistake, Abrams had a strong hand in guiding development of the script, even if he doesn’t take a screenwriting credit. He’s not a for-hire director who shoots whatever script the studio hands him. He hired the writers. He told them what he wanted. He hashed out the plot with them. Eveything that happens in this movie is his fault as much as anyone’s.

        • The STAR WARS universe is fantasy, not science-fiction, so Abrams can get away with a lot more of his “bad science” there. STAR WARS has less of a history explaining how things work.

          Did INTO DARKNESS not have a science/tech advisor on it? Most of the original movies did, as did the TV series, which kept them out of trouble (for the most part).

        • Barsoom Bob

          Abrahms problem isn’t bad science, his movies are like slurpees and carvel ice cream, they are 85% air. He knows how to throw out a cool visual, or an action scene, but his films have no real emotional weight. Maybe that is why he edits at breakneck speed, so you don’t really realize how hollow his stuff is in reality.

          I’m with you folks in the “alright but kind of disappointing” camp. It was okay for the first movie to indulge the old tropes of the characters because he was rebooting the crew, but he continued too much of that in this movie and cribbing Kahn and the big sacrifice scene from WOK so disappointed me. Arbrams, Orci, Lindenlof and 4 years time and that was the best they could come up with?

          This movie would have been an epic fail to me if not for Cumberbach’s surprisingly kick ass performance. They actually undercut the best thing in the movie by deciding to having him be Kahn.

  6. Jon

    Regarding “how Spock’s rendering the volcano inactive doesn’t already violate the Prime Directive”:
    Pretty sure Pike brought that up specifically when he was reading Kirk the riot act.

    • Yes, I believe he did too, but it was almost an afterthought…we’re never given an explanation of why they were on the planet in the first place. Nor does that explain why Spock was insisting on Kirk not violating the Directive to save him, when they’d already violated it.

  7. Matt

    I agree with all the nitpicks. I really really do. But the thing that I think we life-time Trek fans have to remember is that the Trek we knew was past stale. It was getting very ripe. Enterprise had some great moments, especially near the end, but Star Trek needed saving.

    I’m not one of those people who believe that Trek has to be all about pontificating on social issues. (Most of Trek’s best episodes had nothing to do with this.)

    I can handle the stupid science (to a point) for the chance to make Trek relevant again. Though I will admit that I am so sick of Lindelof, Kurtzman, and Orci.

  8. Jon

    The rules regarding transporting have always been shady in Star Trek. Why bother using the pad at all when you can beam “directly to the bridge” or to and from elsewhere?
    Not defending the movie as much as pointing out that you can find these kinds of logic holes all over the place in Star Trek.

    • TOS established a rule that beaming from place to place within a starship is dangerous for some reason that I don’t recall off the top of my head. It’s only done on rare occasions, with the caveat that it’s risky. While this was certainly a convenient excuse to limit use of the transporter effect, it’s far easier to buy into that rule than Kirk beaming from a planet onto a starship in mid-warp millions of miles away (especially when he has no idea where that starship even is) or Khan beaming from Earth all the way to the other side of the galaxy.

      • William Henley

        It’s been a while since I have seen the episode, but there is an episode where Wesley in TNG was rigging up inner-ship transporting, and it was riskey. While there were points in TNG where Picard would have people transported directly to the bridge, brig or Crusher would have people transported directly to sickbay, those were rare – most of the time, they used the pads.

        When beaming between a shuttlecraft and a ship in the 2009 Star Trek, Scotty did end up materializing inside of the coolent system. He is lucky he did not end up materialized inside of a bulkhead or between floors – may be why they picked engineering in the first place to beam into.

        We were also talking about beaming this morning at work, and it was one of the things that bugged us about the first movie – once you are “locked” and the beaming begins, your pattern is in the buffer. Even if the planet had deteriorated under Spock’s mom – she was locked into the transport cycle.

        Actually surprised that Khan didn’t try to use the Enterprise’s override code to force them to lower the shields. Would have been another nod to Wrath of Khan.

  9. Jon

    If it’s risky, what sense does it make to beam somebody directly to sickbay/not have a transporter pad directly in sickbay? Why add even more risk to somebody’s life who’s already in jeopardy. Similarly, I’m sure I can think of many non-critical situations where people beam in and out of other parts of the ship.
    Just playing devil’s advocate, and pointing out that the transporter logic has always shady. I agree with your beef regarding the million mile transport.

  10. Spock

    I’m sorry, Spock’s outburt was incredibly LAME

    Did you actually think Kirk would die? That who scene was forced and stupid.

    I’m with Josh, after I saw it I liked it but the more I think about the movie the more of a disappointment it was.

  11. Nodar

    Sheesh, talk about nitpicky. Since when have all the movies lined up 100%, as well as the episodes?

  12. Jon

    I think it would have at least played better if they had taken the blood sample but never said “hey, I’m gonna inject this dead tribble with some Khan blood!” That pretty much was in the back of my mind during the entire death sequence.

  13. Daniel Rowen

    Actually, upon rewatching Space Seed (the TOS episode with Khan) they almost kill him waking him up from his frozen slumber, but, as Bones says, “his blood has a will to live” or something, so they didn’t make that ENTIRELY up, though has the movie canon just cured death now?

  14. yo mom

    Horrible review. This is just whiny nit picking. You mustve had a deadline so you had to spew something out.

  15. Jerry

    I have to concede all 5 points, but I still really enjoyed the movie.

    Why has no on mentioned the HIDEOUS dress uniforms? I can’t get them out of my head.

  16. Jon

    And I agree Nodar, despite the fact that so far, 73% of votes on here either loved the movie or thought its pretty good, we’re following “FIVE REASONS TO HATE STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS.” That’s the (internet) age we live in of extremes: it’s either the best thing ever OR find the flaws and rage.

    • William Henley

      I believe the consensus leading in the poll is:
      “It’s pretty good. Had a couple things I didn’t like but nothing serious” with 43% of the votes right now. So far, everyone who had nitpicked it has also said they really enjoyed it.

    • William Henley

      Shannon starts off saying:
      It’s okay. You’re allowed to enjoy ‘Star Trek into Darkness’. It’s well-paced, well-acted and, for the most part, well-directed

      Josh starts out saying:
      I enjoyed the movie while I was watching it, but the more I think about it afterwards, the less I like it. I was planning to write my own post on the movie, but Shannon hit on a lot of my points already. Right now, I’m not sure whether to vote “Disappointing” or “It’s terrible.” I may need to think about that.

      I start out by saying:
      I chose “It’s Pretty Good”. As far as fun and action packed Star Trek, great performances given by actors, and wonderful directing and VFX, it was awesome. The total disregard for science and lazy sript-writting…. The only script worse was probably Final Frontier, and that is debatable – I think I can accept God needing a Starship more than I can accept Transwarp Beaming

  17. Mark

    This movie rocked. I hated everything Star Trek until 2009. Ive always been a huge Star Wars fan but this reboot is Awesome. Just like in the 80s when Frank miller redefined Batman, there is nothing wrong with a different spin on Trek. Abrams is telling a story he wants to tell and i say hell yea. Everyone has their opinion and thats great. Dont buy it or watch it again if you dont like it but for my money and precious time this was a great Trek of a better color.

    • I grew up a Star Trek fan. My mother has said I would always watch TOS reruns when I was 3-4 years old before anything else. I liked Into Darkness quite a bit, but I do understand the complaints leveled against the film here by other fans of Star Trek.

      The new films are style over substance, and I can understand this route they took. Substance over style isn’t going to put asses into seats with today’s dumbed down audiences. It’s a shame really since I would’ve preferred more substance myself.

      • Mark

        I have to disagree with you Voss. I thought the developing relationship between Kirk and Spock was great in this movie. This did however have more style than substance but the older series had neither and very poor acting by an overrated Shatner.

        • Mark

          But then again Voss, i wasnt a fan of the older series so i dont fully appreciate why people are upset with some of the changes when i think the stale series needed a big change.

          • I have a soft spot for TOS, but I do view it differently now as a middle aged adult. I enjoy most of the movies and the other series (except Enterprise) more to be honest with you.

            I liked the relationship between Kirk and Spock in this movie as well although more Bones would have been nice.

            As a fan of most of the old, I agree that the Star Trek universe was getting stale and needed a change. When “Enterprise” came along, I had enough. I think that the complaints aired here by others are valid complaints. A little more attention to detail with the canon of TOS could’ve alleviated some of the major issues discussed here and still entertain the masses.

          • William Henley

            I don’t think people are upset with the “changes”, I am perfectly fine with about 95% of it. The movies are high action, visually impressive, awsome characters, and the fact that you have an alternative timeline means you can do anything….. ALMOST.

            As Josh pointed out, the timeline only changed AFTER Nero came through the blackhole, which started with the destruction of the Kelvin. NOTHING BEFORE that changed. Meaning you are still bound by the rules of an established universe.

            The new attitude for the characters and their backstories, the newly designed ships, etc are awesome, and I don’t think anyone is arguing that. Into Darkness should be nominated for awards. Sound mixing is awesome, visual effects are amazing, acting top notch.

            The problem was, after the first movie (which, BTW, is AWESOME and I really don’t have TOO many problems with – okay, the transporter effect and supernova-threatening-to-destroy-galaxy)they could have gone anywhere, and instead, they decided to rip off existing fan’s favorite villian, give him a completely new backstory (which doesn’t make sense even if it is an alternative timeline as he came from before where the timeline split), then completely crap on established pseudo-science – once again, from before the alternate universe.

            Now, if the timeline had of split say, mid 21st century, then they could have pulled off most of what they did in this movie.

            No, Into Darkness was just lazy writing. Just a couple of minor changes, and the inclusion of a few science experts to the writing team would have had little effect on the story as a whole or the action, but would have appeased Trekkies (for example, if Khan had maybe transported to a cloaked vessle in orbit and then made a run for Kronos, if it took ships a bit longer to reach their destination, if the transporter had of worked right – little things that would have hardly changed the story but would have kept Trekkeis from doing these “Oh, come on!” moments.

      • Mark

        I mean its no Bladerunner or even District 9 which i did like alot even though my friends hated it. I am 42 myself and much prefer substance over style but its good for what it is, a fun popcorn scifi movie.

  18. Mark

    But Shannon Nutt is right, this is not the Star Trek i grew up with and for that i’m VERY thankful.

  19. Louie

    Some good points, but I must say folks, Science-Fiction (NOT SCIENCE) it’s a movie, and I enjoyed it, I would have enjoyed it far-less if it was a bunch of people sitting in front of a computer screen and no action just because that is so-called accurate science, I’m pretty sure there are no pointy-eared aliens walking around here either, if you’re going to attack accuracy you can’t accept a Vulcan and pick and choose other points of make-believe to gripe when it is all make-believe.

  20. Mark

    Amen Louie. It is GREAT science fiction. Comic writers for example have their own spin on superheroes with even different universes. It may not be everyone’s cup of tea but it is fiction.

  21. Andy Gilleand

    These are stupid nitpicky complaints. Also, they couldn’t use the blood from Khan’s crew because they were just regular humans, unlike Khan.

    I also never guessed Cumberbatch would be Khan as I avoided all the trailers and news to remain spoiler free.

  22. It`s fun to read all the different reply`s here….I respect everyone`s opinion, I really really do, but isn`t it kind of “boring and silly” to hate so much of what your investing so much of your sparetime in??

    Take me for example…..I`m dedicated to movies and guitars/music. Fender guitars have a very distinct sound…..very different from Gibson. That doesn`t mean Fender sucks donkey balls because it sounds brighter and more punchy than Gibson. I even want a Squire guitar. They don`t sound very good, but again….they have a different quality to them that I also enjoy. Everything that`s not 200% perfect, isn`t CRAP! Now THIS is a crappy movie:

    If that was the movie we discussed here, I could understand the rants….But let`s face it folks….Star Trek wasn`t perfect but it isn`t all bad either. Enjoy it for what it is.

  23. I want to start by saying I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. While there are obviously some inconsistencies with previous iterations I’m just estatic to have more Trek in my life. I’ve been more of a fan of this franchise and universe than the Star Wars films. So I choose in my personal viewpoint to not nitpick some of these problems and just enjoy the fact it’s light years better than the Phantom Menace.
    One issue brought up is Kahn changing nationalities. Yes it goes against the history of Kahn’s character but I think Cumberbatch was able to bring an intensity and gravitas to the character that matched the incredible Ricardo Montalban. I would rather have an actor who I believe in rather than someone who was picked just for something like an accent. And let’s not forget that when Klingons first reappeared in Star Trek 3, they had previously only been seen without head ridges. This was MUCH later explained away but was it worth getting this irritated by or did we just accept it? Lets not forget that in Space Seed it’s said that the crew is “mixed types. Western, mid-European, Latin, Oriental.” Let’s not forget that his character is supposed to be from Northern India but speaks with a Latino accent.
    Scotty has long been established as knowing more about warp cores and engineering then most of the people who designed the things. In his later years he pretty much wrote the book on the engines of starfleet. In the first film he’s manning an inactive station and probably spends most of his time coming up with new ideas and improvements. (“Scotty’s technical knowledge and skill allow him to devise unconventional and effective last-minute solutions to dire problems.” The Star Trek Compendium) I cannot find any information that says his TOS timeline had the same past of sitting around thinking. But let’s, for arguments sake, say in the “original” timeline he didn’t transport the Beagle wherever and end up on Delta Vega. Who’s to say that it’s not possible he was able to improve the range of the transporter and make this feasible? Would any of us fans argue that if ANYONE was capable of this kind of advance it would be or wouldn’t be Montgomery Scott? If you can’t believe he could miraculously make it work, it undoes his reputation as a miracle worker.
    Thirdly, Kahn’s magical blood. Do we know that McCoy made as thorough evaluation of Kahn’s blood in Space Seed? He says “MCCOY: There’s something inside this man that refuses to accept death.” What’s inside him? Engineered blood. Wouldn’t a super soldier be more effective if it could not only repair itself but those of fallen comrads? The television show Dark Angel has a similarly engineered person who’s blood transfusion actually helps heal someone who’s been injured. Is this REALLY so hard to accept?
    I’m not going to argue all the points people have made. I’m just trying to introduce an alternate way of thinking that some people seem to be closed off to because of what they perceive as errors, founded or unfounded as they may be.
    At the end of the day they’ve made concessions to progress the movie, to get more people interested in Star Trek. A show that is mocked on most mainstream shows and characters who love Star Trek are mocked in their own shows like Big Bang Theory. I’d like it if some people didn’t immediately judge you a nerd because you uttered the words Star Trek. Star Wars was always the cooler of the the franchises. If they need to change a couple of things to bring the masses into the fold I’m happy. I’m happy just to be able to see the Enterprise in her newest form warping through the galaxy.

    • “And let’s not forget that when Klingons first reappeared in Star Trek 3, they had previously only been seen without head ridges.”

      Just a minor nitpick, Justin, but Klingons with head ridges first appeared in our time in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. 🙂

      • Ahhh!! Right you are good sir. My mistake. I honesty forgot they were in there. Also I’d like to just add how incredibly irritating it is that a site I enjoy and respect as much of this one, intrigues you with something like “what did you think?” and then whacks you with “five reasons to hate the movie”. It doesn’t sound like a respectful discussion of the movie will follow. I’ll be posting an article that says “what do you think of” but then links to an article “one reason to HATE Shannon Nutt”. (Kidding of course.) thank you though David for pointing out my error.

        • The official review by Bryan Kluger on this blog gave the movie 4.5 stars. Shannon seemed a bit disappointed by it, and Josh seems to have hated it. I’d say the movie ran the gamut of opinions here, and I think this is a healthy discussion.

        • William Henley

          Every big movie over the past several months has had a “Reasons to Hate….” post in the blog section. They normally get a ton of traffic, and attract people to the site when they do a google search for something like “Skyfall Sucks”. It seems like the number of people it attracts to the site outweighs the number of people it pisses off.

          I half think that it is really to engage discussion, and make people keep coming back. I have refreshed this page probably a dozen times over the past 24 hours.

        • I’m sorry WHAT!!!!

          Not right at all!!!. Go back and watch Star Trek TMP and watch the first 5 Minutes. Those are Klingons and from the first minute of the Expanded universe of the pictures they had the ridges. In fact they are more defined in that first movie than the sequels.

          Can’t believe I have to correct people on this site when they are nitpicking this movie so mercilessly.

      • Wish i had read your post more clearly didn’t see that you made the same point. Gee it would be nice if we could delete or edit our posts.

    • While you can invent explanations for some of the silliness in the movie if you try, the fact of the matter is that they are deus ex machina plot devices, which is an incredibly lame, lazy form of writing, and the movie piles one on top of the other over and over again.

      I imagine the following conversation must have taken place in the writer’s room:

      Lindelof: “Let’s kill Jim Kirk! That’ll be totally badass and nobody will see it coming!”

      Orci: “Yes, that’s awesome! And we’ll do it exactly like Spock died in Wrath of Khan! People will think we’re being clever by flipping the characters around, rather than just lazy by copying the script from an older movie.”

      Lindelof: “Yup, totally sweet.”

      Kurtzman: “Uh, hey guys, the focus group says you can’t kill Kirk or nobody will come back for the next sequel.”

      Orci: “No worries. We’ll kill him, but then we’ll bring him back. Just like they did Spock before.”

      Kurtzman: “OK, but we have to bring him back in this movie, or nobody will understand what’s going on. Remember, kids today are really, really stupid. Way stupider than they used to be. We have to really spell it out for them.”

      Orci: “Not a problem. But how do we bring him back after we kill him?”

      Lindelof: “Well, umm, let’s see. What if, maybe, Khan had… magic blood… that could resurrect the dead?”

      Orci: “Sure, why the hell not? I got nothing better. Magic blood it is!”

      Kurtzman: “Nice work, guys! Let’s all do coke and bang some hookers to celebrate!”

      • Josh’s humorous posts actually nails the fact that the “magic blood” idea almost certainly came from Lindelof, who came up with the black goo idea for PROMETHEUS.

        • William Henley

          Eh, but both could have been stolen from Stephanie Meyer.

          Inner monologue: Hmmm, I know, if Edward and Bella have a baby, let’s make her be like super-human! But wait, vampires are dead! Oh, but if Bella is still alive the first time they make love we can do this. But wait, Edward is dead, how does he produce sperm? Let’s not go into that.

          Okay, so we got super-human baby now. So what happens when this thing starts to kick? Oh, I know, lets do a vampire-skin-placenta! Then Bella’s insides won’t get torn up! Oh, but it can still snap her spine and stuff. And how are we going to get the baby out? I know, let’s have it claw its way out! But that would kill the host mom! I know, after the baby is born, let’s have Edward give Bella some of his magic venom! Then her body will go through the vamprie change process! Oh, but wait, it is the werewolves that have the regenerative powers, not the Vampires. I know, let’s add a backstory in the third book for Rose and introduce healing powers when they get changed into Vampries. Problem solved!

          Although Stephanie Meyer probably stole it from J.K. Rowling:

          Inner Monologue: Hmmm, Voldermort is almost dead. We got to have him come back to life. I know, UNICORN BLOOD!

          I could keep tracing this back futher, but I am getting board with this line of thought.

    • Pedram

      I thought the same about the Klingon head ridges. They didn’t have them in TOS, and this takes place before that, so why do they have them in the movie?

      That was my only real complaint. Other than that I could let everything else go (even the cheesy “Khaaaaaaan” moment), and I really enjoyed the movie.

  24. Steve

    I see a lot of valid points here. Most of them I honestly did not consider. Nor do they change my opinion. I loved this movie. I am an original ST TOS fan, went to the conventions back in the day (NYC) area, and have held a torch for the original characters all these years.

    I never cared much for any of the Star Trek series or films after the original crew retired. If I don’t care about the characters, then the rest is fairly pointless for me.

    I am glad there is passion and high stakes emotions in Star Trek again. I grew up with these characters and attribute a lot of my personal morality to the very high ideals, loyalty and honor I felt as a child.

    So through this lens I watch these characters.

    I think it says a lot that Paramount chose to reboot the franchise with TOS characters. Fortunately the casting is nearly flawless and the actors seem to get why Kirk and company were so popular for so long.

    I ultimately feel that the acting, characters and action rise above the weaknesses in the material. I like the risks that were taken, I don’t feel betrayed or cheated in the attempt.

    In terms of nothing original, well in some cases and I do agree that the writing and overall plot could have been handled better, but I found myself buying into it, sometimes like a blubbering idiot.

    I was the guy in HS that took a lot of shit for liking the show with Dr. Spock. It was not cool in the 70’s to be a Star Trek fan.

    I defended rubber monsters, made a wooden phaser in shop class when everyone else was building shelves, and loved every minute of Shatners Glorious overacting. Say what you will but he cared about everything that was important. His friends, Injustice, his ship and Risk. Risk is our business. A Henry the V speech in an otherwise mediocre episode.

    Ok you guys can rip me apart for being blindly subjective. I don’t care about the logistics of beaming, or how far away chronos is or how you spell it, Magic Blood ( Acid for blood ) Cordrazine or even Protomatter (remember that one) , Khan has an English accent, Saavik’s eyes are brown now!! C’mon!

    The Actors save the story and hold it together when the plot goes thin. Benedict Cumberbatch actually pulls off what should have been a complete disaster.

    I am not defending the writers or JJ Abrams. The next movie could use a new Director. By his own admission he did not get Star Trek, I suspect he still doesn’t. Fortunately the Actors do. Clearly the writers don’t. I am not so sure they even get basic antagonist/protagonist character development, story arching or that the word Son-of-a-bitch would probably be beneath the 23rd century. Just Sayin’.

    Can’t just put the Guardian of Forever, Organians, Kor and Talos IV in a blender and see what you get. Although,….

    • Well said Steve. I was also, at points, a “blubbering idiot”. I got lost in the spectacle and enjoyment of being around old friends in a way. I agree that Benedict had absolutely enormous shoes to fill, but was able to pull it off
      Don’t be discouraged if they start to defecate on your (our) enjoyment of film. If more people thought the way they did the votes would reflect it above.

      • Steve

        Thanks Justin, was starting to feel like the only kid in shop again.

        Honestly when they say that they enjoyed the movie, but hate it when they get home or its ok to like ST IT its well done but heres 5 reasons why it sucks is indicative of the Flamebait, Fanboy culture of Comic Book Hollywood and the pandering to the Comic Con Mentality.

        Josh I expected more from you.

        The guy that wrote this article says “Five Reasons to Hate ST IT” yet says ” I didn’t hate the movie” at the end. Really? I’m supposed to believe this is not true ST from this hypocrisy?

        This pattern indicates 2 dimensional thinking…..

          • William Henley

            Me too! It was one of my favorite films. I did have some serious nitpicks, and I am sure my comments say that I focused more on those than I did on enjoying the film. Yeah, the film had issues, and lousy writing, but I DID love this film.

    • The acting in the movie is good, but doesn’t Kirk come across as kind of a dick? I mean, honestly, does he make a single good decision in the entire movie? Everything he does is the wrong move from start to finish, and he doesn’t seem to have learned anything or grown by the end.

      Shatner’s Kirk was brash and impulsive, but he also had a genius tactical mind and knack for political manuevering. Abrams’ first movie captured that pretty well, but this one throws that away. Remember, Kirk defeated Khan the first time by outsmarting him. In this movie, Khan is only defeated when Spock goes ballistic and beats the crap out of him, then Uhura shows up to help by shooting him a bunch of times. That speaks pretty clearly to the dumbing-down of the series.

      One of the problems I had with the way this movie apes Wrath of Khan so blatantly, especially in the Kirk/Spock almost-death scene, is that these characters have simply not earned that moment. Spock’s death in WoK had profound resonance because these men were lifelong friends who’d been through hell and back together numerous times over, and we’d taken that journey with them. But here, the characters barely know each other and are only starting to become friends. There’s just no depth to any of the relationships in the movie. It’s all surface level shallowness. Yeah, the story needs to start somewhere, but Abrams has to recognize that limitation and not strive to imitate these grand, epic moments that worked in the other movies, because he can’t pull them off and frankly doesn’t deserve them.

      I just want to put out there that I think this is an interesting conversation, even if I don’t agree with you. 🙂

      • Steve

        Thanks Josh for bringing up some reasonable points here. I don’t think Kirk was a Dick at all in this movie. When?

        Since there is no history and he has not piloted the Ship yet can’t really do the tactical chess game/bAttle.
        Kirk was awful at political maneuvering,
        ” I’m a soldier, not a diplomat” Errand of Mercy. He was a dick to commissioner Farris. And pissed off just about every admiral in the fleet and was demoted how many times?

        I have always enjoyed reading your insight as a fellow ST Fan and David Lynch DUNE fan . (I have the Parker Bros game and original soundtrack on vinyl,)but defer to your popularity in the Lansraad. 🙂

        • The movie starts with Kirk violating the Prime Directive. When he gets called on that, he whines about his punishment, and his only defense is: “But I really, really wanted to do it!” Yes, the original Kirk also violated the Prime Directed when it suited his needs, but this version doesn’t even seem to understand what the point of the Directive is. It’s just an inconvenience that gets in the way of him having a fun adventure on an exotic planet. He has no respect for it.

          Kirk is demoted to First Officer, but then he’s promoted right back to Captain about three minutes later after Pike dies. What was the point of having him be demoted if he doesn’t learn anything from it? Why bother writing that scene into the movie if you’re not going to go anywhere with it? This version of Kirk is young and inexperienced, but if there are no consequences for his bad decisions, how will he learn how to become a good leader? In the original timeline, Kirk had to pay his dues and rise through the Starfleet ranks by serving under other leaders who could teach him things. This Kirk hasn’t done any of that. He was promoted too quickly.

          If the movie were smarter, it would play off that inexperience by having Kirk fail at crucial moments and suffer real consequences, requiring him to learn from his mistakes. Unfortunately, it doesn’t. No matter what stupid decisions Kirk makes (like racing off to Kronos for revenge and blindly accepting the suspicious torpedoes), he always comes out on top, largely through blind luck. He doesn’t learn anything, and that just makes him cocky because he thinks he’s infallible. This is not good character development.

          Meanwhile, Spock is supposed to be the calm, rational side that balances out Kirk’s impulsiveness. Their relationship like the Id and the Ego. But this movie never lets that happen. At the beginning, Spock is villainized for tattling on his friend. A good friend wouldn’t be a tattletale, we’re told. By the end, the message of the movie is that Spock needs to let go of all that logic and embrace his anger. Kirk was right, and he gets to revel in his smugness about it. Spock was wrong, and needs to be more like Kirk. There’s no Id, just Ego. And this is depicted as a good thing.

          • William Henley

            Actually, you pointed out something interesting. There is a reason Kirk accepted the torpedos – he was ordered to. After being demoted, then being given a second chance, doesn’t it reason that Kirk would blindly accept orders to cover his butt? It looks like he learned to respect authority, and the reason he was so hard on Scotty was because he didn’t want to go through punishment again. He was asking for Scotty to sign that the torpedos were delivered, not to inspect the torpedos. Sadly, that new-found respect for authority ended up blowing up in his face (litterally).

          • Pedram

            I think Kirk did learn from his mistakes at the end because he realized that his hot headedness was going to get his crew killed, and he took responsibility for it and even apologized to them.

            So at that moment he realized that he wasn’t infallible (and wouldn’t have as much reason to be cocky), and others were going to have to pay for it. That’s the character development that I saw.

      • That was part of the point from my perspective. These two guys that were just starting their relationship. We were given a scene in the previous movie that showed most other Vulcans had a disdain for Spock. So he most likely had few people he would call friend. Now we have his emotional state, already rocked by the loss of his mother (TOS) Spock was never showing having to deal with such a loss, especially before her time. Then his personal encounter and acceptance of his own death in the volcano, adds to the weight of death and understanding how it affects others. When Pike dies and Spock mind melds and actually experiences the fear and sorrow of death, again it isn’t something the previous Spock encountered. When Kirk dies he breaks. The potential for a lifelong friend taken from him. We have never experienced an out of control Spock, because the Spock we grew up with had never faced so much turmoil in such a short period of time. For this crew we don’t have the benefit of a weekly show to expand on their relationship. Hopefully by making the movies more exciting and infusing them with “grand epic” moments (whether or not they are earned) they will continue getting people into the theater to watch it. That is of course if potential ticket sales aren’t turned off by irresponsible and irrational tag lines to articles saying people will hate the movie. So continue doing your part to discourage folks from going to watch the movie because of your need to nitpick. Who knows, if you can get enough people to dislike the movie, and dissuade enough people from seeing the movie for a first or second time you might save yourselves for having to sit through another one. Just do some of us fans a favor and just avoid seeing the next one so we can enjoy it without having our excitement over a new Star Trek movie mocked and are made to feel stupid. Great job guys.

      • William Henley

        Eh, yeah. That is true, but that can be explained away.

        I know I am teetering both ways here. I appologize.

        Okay, So Kirk, Uhura and McCoy all went through Starfleet together. Uhura had already started, but Kirk did go through the academy in 3 years versus 4, so they all graduated together. Spock was an instructor. Now, there IS four years between movies (I am not sure if that is really shown IN the movie though). It does seem that Kirk and Spock have formed a bit of a close relationship here (not to the point it was in Wrath of Khan), it is just that Spock cannot seem to get at the begining of the movie that “the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many”.

        So yeah, it KINDA works. The emotion is not as deep for us, not because of the character’s connections to each other, but because we have not connected as much with these characters.

        Just playing Devil’s Advocate.

        • I totally agree that it was not as emotional for us because we’ve only had around 4 hours with these people as these characters. We do not have the benefit of watching them grow closer week after week. But how many movies do these actors have in them before the movies start being unsuccessful or they decide to move onto other projects? So they advanced their relationship a bit, it’s a stretch yes, but not difficult to see that it falls into context with the intent of the filmmakers. It’s necessary given the amount if indeterminate time we will have with these characters. Especially if sites like this one push people from going to see the movies.
          I’m a potential viewer of the movie. I’m browsing high def digest for their outstanding reviews. I come across a poll that simply asks what people think. My immediate reaction is “well if people from here say its good, it’s probably pretty good”. So I click my link and am confronted with “five reasons to hate Star Trek into darkness”. I can’t read the body of the article because its full of spoilers. So all I know is now I’m probably going to hate the movie. I guess I won’t go see it. I’ll wait until I can illegally download a torrent of it. It’s just irresponsible on the part of this site to take a stance like this. Nitpicking is okay. Saying hate is so much stronger. I understand its to get hits to the site and keep the page active. I have wanted to shut my browser and not return for hours now. Yet I keep coming back.

      • Bella

        Finally someone that had the same problem with the film as I did. I could cope with most of the other niggles in Into Darkness but the Kirk/Spock death scene was just too much. It unbelievably lazy of the writers to rip off Wrath of Khan, and insulting to viewers who were really getting only half a new film.

        The reinvented Kirk and Spock barely seem like friends in this film. Everything Spock says seems to irritate Kirk so the death scene completely lacks the poignancy of WoK. These reinvented characters don’t have the chemistry of the original Spock/Kirk so the ripped-off death scene was completely underwhelming.

  25. How many episodes from TOS on were the same? Naked Time and Naked Now from TOS and TNG were the same episodes with some identical plot points. How many transporter malfunction episodes did we get? How many stranded shuttle craft episodes did we get? How many “this person has been taken hostage by this group of people” episodes did we get? How about trapped in the holodeck episodes? Covering from TOS to Enterprise there were dozens of episodes that followed the same cookie cutter formula. There were recap episodes that literally did nothing new! This is a franchise that constantly rehashes old plot devices. Of course the episodes that stand out are the ones we remember the most fondly. I’m not saying its alright for them to do it, but calling out a movie for rehashing what boils down to one scene, is being petty.
    You can try to defend your assault on the movie with hilarious fictional conversations if you’d like. But calling this movie out for having a specific plot device that was used, what, ONCE 31 years ago? Oh how lazy and lame. I’m sorry we’re all so stupid for having enjoyed a movie. It’s funny you can invent conversations for people but can’t give a reasonable explanation for “silliness” any consideration. I’m sorry you can’t see beyond the fact they replicated one five to ten minute scene, changed it enough so it wasn’t a ridiculous re-enactment and placed that scene in a bigger context that allowed additional character growth for Spock. The Spock from the Original Series didn’t lose his mother like this one did, someone he obviously felt strong emotions for despite his Vulcan half. On top of that, when faced with losing the one person who he believes is his friend, he snaps. We see a side of him we’ve never experienced. How terrible for the creators to have tried to expand his humanity and range of emotions. What a bunch of talentless hacks to try something new with a character we’ve already known for approximately 80 episodes and 6 or so movies. I would think a professional film critic would appreciate a little extra character development.

    • Justin, you’re exactly right that he franchise is notorious for its cookie cutter formula and rehashing storylines over and over again. That’s why the franchise was so burned out and stale before Abrams came along. He was supposed to infuse new life and a breath of fresh air into the series. Instead, in just his second movie, he’s already reverted the franchise right back to where it was in the dark ages of the Voyager and Insurrection/Nemesis years. I feel like Brannon Braga could have written this script. That’s not something to be proud of.

      • But why harp on this movie for some elements previously seen? Does it really make sense to discredit a movie for repeating a couple of things, in a franchise know for repeating itself?
        I’ll take one scene being refreshed when its in the context of some genuinely exciting new material. And then the writers for this site take it upon themselves to bash recycled material and telling people to hate the new movie for its new elements like transwarp and “magic blood”. Of course you also don’t respond to legitimate explanations regarding “magic blood” because you think your so witty for having coined it that phrase and can’t run the risk of it being debunked. Maybe if they over explained it for the “stupid” members of the audience you’d have been more satisfied. But then call it to task for pandering to stupid people. Good to know that either way, you’d probably still complain.

        • Justin, even if you can invent an explanation for the magic blood, it’s still a deus ex machina. Do you understand what that phrase means? The writers painted themselves into a corner by killing Kirk (because Spock died in Wrath of Khan and they wanted to do the same thing here). But then they realized it would hurt the box office potential of the next sequel if Kirk was dead. So they invented a last-minute contrivance that miraculously undoes what they had done and sets everything right again.

          It’s a cop-out. It’s bad writing. It’s super-lame.

          • So when Kirk cheats the Kobayashi Maru do you consider that a dues ex machina? He is in an unsolvable situation. From wikipedia the description of deus ex machina is “a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved”. If you do then the series exists on pulling such contrivances out of nowhere. We’re the prefix codes for the shields in Wrath of Kahn the same thing? I don’t remember them previously having been mentioned. In the Original Series Spock all of a sudden had nictitating membranes to save him from being blind. Next Generation Data uses a flashing light that out of nowhere, releases the crew from the addictive effects of The Game. In Voyager some of the crew get trapped in a holodeck. Janeway creates new elements to get them out. Afterward she says “Who says deus ex machina is an outdated literary device?” Again, like the cookie cutter aspects its ingrained in Star Trek. To attack the movie for things the series has done all along doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

          • Just because the TV shows sometimes relied on lame cop-outs doesn’t make it less lame when this movie does the same thing. That’s just not a very good excuse. “Yeah, we know this is stupid, but we’ve done stupid stuff before and gotten away with it. So, here’s more of that. Whatever. We don’t care. The fans’ll swallow anything we feed them.”

            I’m curious how you feel about movies like STV, Insurrection or Nemesis. It kind of seems like, so long as it has the Trek name on it, you’ll defend anything.

          • I actually do not like Star Trek V or Insurrection. I’ll watch V if I’m doing a marathon because it’s part of the series. I’ll watch Insurrection for some of the humor. But they would be the last two movies I’d pull of the shelves to watch out of all the Trek movies. I actually enjoyed about 90% of Nemesis. I felt it was a fun action packed extended episode of the show. Although many of the shows actual episodes were far superior. Thus far this is this is the only movie I’ve been defending. In fact, unlike certain people, I’ve been using exact examples to support my claims. I could just go on my opinion. This sucks. That’s lazy and lame. But prefer to offer a more reasonable explaination. And yet again, you avoid answering questions when presented. You just keep saying “lame” or “dues ex machina”. Or you jump to conclusions that I’ll defend everything, where did you get that idead? I’ve given quotes and mentioned exact episodes, I don’t recall ever trying to defend Voyager (which I didn’t care for) or the movies you listed. Just because I’ve given examples of issues throughout the franchises doesn’t mean I’ve loved all of it. I’ve tried to give you backstory why someone who’s been a lifelong fan of the entire universe would be willing to accept the issues you’ve thrown out there. Yet just “lazy and lame” are your responses. I used to respect the articles you wrote. I’d even tried corresponding with you via email about different topics. But like a bully you want to keep hashing over and over that it’s unacceptable for the movie to do this or that, regardless of the FACT those exact problems are in it’s lineage. When you love something you accept it faults and all. You acknowledge the problems and you move on. Just keep beating the dead horse. At this point your answers are pretty cookie cutter. Hey maybe you can write a the next sequel and stupid people like me will love it!

          • Believe it or not, Justin, I actually think we’re making progress here.

            1) You’ve agreed that it’s possible for a Star Trek movie to be bad. Just being called Star Trek doesn’t automatically make it a good movie.
            2) You admit that you’re defending this movie as “a lifelong fan of the entire universe… willing to accept the issues.” Which means that you acknowledge that it does have issues.

            Perhaps you don’t find those issues as serious as I do. Nonetheless, the issues are there. This is a sloppy, lazy script. You’ve chosen to forgive that because you found the movie entertaining anyway. I can’t do that. With just slightly more attention given to the writing, this could have been a vastly better movie. Instead, Abrams and crew didn’t care enough to try.

            Listen, I get it. I have franchises that I can be a staunch apologist for. I love all of the James Bond movies, even the crappy ones (and there are a bunch of those). I’ll continue to watch Resident Evil movies as long as they make them, even though I know that objectively they’re all really stupid.

            I just want better for Star Trek, because I know that it can be so much better than this.

            Regardless, it’s a foregone conclusion that I’ll buy this on Blu-ray even though I didn’t like it very much. And I’ll watch it again, probably several times. It will go right on the shelf next to STV and Insurrection.

            But I’m not going to blind myself to the movie’s problems, and I won’t give Abrams a pass when I know that he can do better than this.

          • Elizabeth

            Josh, your whole theory on the “magic blood” is a bit ridiculous. Your theory is that the writers decided to kill Kirk but then later realized it would be bad for the franchise. It’s only the second movie in this new version, but what the hell let’s kill one of the primary characters! You think they’re that stupid? Really? That’s what you’re going with? It seems pretty clear it was already part of the plot from early on.

            As a lifelong fan I think Kirk’s death was brilliant. Some say it was ripping off WoK, but I say it was a clever play and showed growth from both Kirk and Spock. Kirk was finally not trying to cheat death and embraced the concept of, “the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few.” And Spock had come to realize that sometimes the exact opposite of it was true. It was brilliant when Spock was talking to Kirk about beaming the torpedoes to Khan’s ship and says, “it’s what you would have done.” Because as a fan, I know it was what Kirk would have done. And likewise going into the chamber to die is what Spock would have done. And yeah, I knew immediately Kirk was coming back via Khan’s blood. It had already been well hinted at.

        • William Henley

          Have you preordered it yet? Are you getting the Blu-Ray, the 3D, or the Phaser package? I think I am doing what I do with all other collectors sets – I go ahead and pick up the single-disc (or 3D in this case) and then I will wait for the collector’s edition to go under $45 on a lightning sale.

          Preordered the 3D for $24.99 yesterday morning as soon as I got the e-mail from Amazon

  26. Elizabeth

    These are some pretty lame reasons to hate the movie.

    1) The ship was stated to have been in the water for several days. Which means they could have come down out in the ocean depths and come close to shore underwater thus unseen. The movie clearly stated that either they stopped the volcano or the natives die. Which has been shown in other Star Trek series to be okay so long as the natives were unaware of the interference. Thus it was a big issue for them not to be seen and they were crunched for time thus no ability to surface unseen. If they couldn’t beam Spock out of the volcano without having to be able to see him, how do you think they could have beamed a device into the volcano?
    2) The actors’ nationalities? Really? That’s what you came up with to pad this list? Never mind that Sulu is now Korean.
    3) The Enterprise commanded by Archer was the first warp 5 capable Federation ship. Pretty sure they would be faster now. And I’m not sure what Star Trek VI has to do with anything. They werent’t in a hurry to reach Klingon space. With Kirk’s obvious dislike of the Klingons you could imagine he might have ordered them to go as slow as possible.
    4) Transwarp beaming was future tech that Scotty developed. The device Khan used was clearly stated as a prototype. And likewise, the Vengeance was equipped with other Section 31 prototype tech. You seem to have forgotten that both Kirk and Carol were shocked when Admiral Marcus beamed her out through the shield. It seems feasible that beaming a person might be safer than beaming torpedoes. And since Khan designed said torpedoes, he’d be the expert on whether that would be a bad idea or not.
    5) Okay, this might be your most valid point. I knew as soon as it became clear that Kirk was going to die that they’d use Khan’s blood to bring him back. Though I thought they’d use the Tribble blood. But Kirk’s death was a hugely moving scene, especially when coupled with Spock’s earlier admission to Uhuru. As for why Bones couldn’t take blood from one of the other meatcicles, maybe it was because he could only be certain that Khan’s blood had the healing factor. They were all genetically engineered but that doesn’t mean they were all engineered the same. Khan was clearly engineered to be a warrior, perhaps the others were engineered to be super geniuses (like DS9’s Dr. Bashir).

    • William Henley

      3) The NX-01 could do like Warp 4.9 for short burts, but they rarely cruised much above Warp 4. I am rewatching the original series, but even though it was a Warp 5 engine, off the top of my head, I don’t think they ever reached Warp 5.

      The NCC-1701 I think could safely reach warp 7 for short periods – they normally cruised around at warp 4 or 5. They could go above warp 7 – in fact, I think you had to break warp 10 to go into time warp (in the original series – its Transwarp in Voyager, despite the fact that Excelsior had transwarp), but the ships tended to start flying apart if you got that high.

      The NCC-1701D and Voyager had higher cruising speeds, but still warp 10 was the limit (or rather, warp 9.9 repeating)

      By the time of The Next Generation and DS9, it still took a while, even at high warp, to get from, say, Bajor to Carsassia, and like a week or so to get from Bajor to Qu’noS. Granted, Earth is like midway between the two. Still, it should take at least a couple of days in TOS time frame to get from Earth to Qu’noS.

      Yeah, warp engines did get faster, but you are talking that, with the warp 2 to warp 5 upgrade, we cut the time from a couple of years to about a week, more or less, then by the time of TOS, we cut it down to a few days, and we shortened that to roughly a couple of days by the time we get to TNG time frame.

      All your other points are interesting.

        • William Henley

          Okay, cool, now we can do some math.

          So Sol is toward the middle. Wolf 350 is roughly 7.5 lightyears from earth. Vulcan is a little more than 3 times the distance, so let’s say 25 lightyears away. So, according to Memory Alpha, it should take about 1 1/2 months to get from Earth to Vulcan at Warp 5. However, at Warp 8.4, we should be able to get to Vulcan in about an hour. (too lazy to do hard math but should be 25/990 = x/11.37 ….. Whoa, that’s not right either. Gotta convert hours to minutes

          25/990 = x/682.2 – so 99 light years in 68.2 minutes – 9.9 lightyears in 6.82 minutes, so 25 light years in – what, 15 minutes roughly?

          Okay, so now lets say we can estimate that a single side of this grid is 25-30 lightyears. Now we look at the distance from Sol to Qu’noS.

          Lets cut across
          a^2 + b^2 = c^2

          So if math is correct, it is about 35 lightyears diagonal across a square.

          35*3 squares = 105 +25 + oh lets do 25 again. Its all estimates anyways. So, we got 150 lightyears from Earth to Qu’noS.

          So, 9 months at Warp 5. At warp 8.4:
          150/990 = x/682.2

          I come up with 103 minutes. So, we can get from Earth to Kronos in an hour and an half to two hours at warp 8.4.

          Now, this brings up the question – by the time of TNG, why isn’t more of the universe explored?

          Anyways, just being geeky. I wanted to find a way to make this work.

          So do we know how fast the Enterprise warped from Earth to Vulcan in the first movie or how fast they were traveling from Earth to Kronos in the second? Based on established Trek, if they were going between warp 8 – warp 9, its feasable.

          • William, I hope you realize that no one who has ever written for Star Trek in the history of the franchise has ever actually done this math. They get places as fast as they need to get there based on whatever is convenient for the plot, and then they pick an arbitrary warp speed number to say that’s how fast they were going.

          • William Henley

            You are right. But still, it was fun to do the math, and pretty sure that I am not the only person who had tried doing the math before.

            I was just looking for a feesable way that they could warp around so fast.

            The teleporting 150ish lightyears, though, still sounds crazy, but if they sent the signal through subspace…. Just wondering what the time delay was – I don’t knwo if I would want my molecules disassembled for that long over that far of a distance being transmitted through subspace

  27. Jeffrey Morgan

    Why are so many people liking this movie? Have they not seen The Wrath of Kahn. The rip-off begins and end there again with nothing new or original in Hollywood to put on the screen.

    • Besides one scene please explain how it was a rehash of Wrath of Kahn.
      Was it the entire terrorist plot that reminded you of Kahn? Um probably not. Maybe the whole Klingon section…..oh there weren’t Klingons in Wrath of Kahn. Oh right Kirk and Kahn working together against a rogue Admiral. I forgot that was in Wrath of Kahn. Also the original fist fight with Kahn was way better than the one in this movie.
      One scene was similar to Wrath of Kahn. Saying it is a rip-off is grossly inaccurate.

      • William Henley

        Completely agree. The majority of the Khan story is original. The majority of this film is original.

      • Barsoom Bob

        What wasn’t borrowed from Kahn, for the most part, felt like Star Wars prequels.
        The red vegetation > War of the Worlds ( I know it’s not SW )
        The lava volcano pit > Revenge of the Sith
        The San Francisco cityscape > Coruscant (?)
        The night club > bar in Attack of the Clones
        The climatic chase > again Revenge of the Sith

        Really look a JJ’s filmography, he doesn’t really have an original idea and he definitely doesn’t know how to develope ian idea to a real, SATISFYING conclusion.
        Lost and Alias. Let me throw out all t hese cool ideas then I’ll just forget about them and make something else up. it is very plainly his modes operendi. And that is why his stuff really doesn’t have any weight.

        • I will disagree with you about Lost, but at the same time, I’ll point out that Abrams had very little to do with that show anyway. After the pilot episode, he walked away and left the series in the hands of Lindelof and Cuse, who ran it on their own. The credit or blame for Lost falls squarely with them.

          Your point about Star Wars is well taken, though. Most of the action scenes in this movie felt like Abrams’ audition reel for the Star Wars gig. He has openly admitted in the past that he grew up a Star Wars fanatic and never had much interest in Trek. That’s really apparent here, as he just doesn’t seem to give a damn about anything he’s doing in this movie at all.

          • If there’s anything that we learned this year that we didn’t already know, it became obvious that Carlton Cuse was the GOOD writer on LOST (just look at BATES MOTEL) and Lindelof was the BAD writer (see: INTO DARKNESS, PROMETHEUS, and – I’m guessing – the upcoming WORLD WAR Z)

          • Don’t forget Cowboys & Aliens.

            My theory is that they had a right brain/left brain thing going on. Cuse was the cold, rational (Spock-like) side, while Lindelof was the exhuberant, emotional side. They worked well as a pair that balanced one another out, but once separated, Cuse has had a lot more luck finding a new project that suits his talents than Lindelof has – probably because he gave it more thought, while Lindelof just jumps into anything that sounds cool to him.

        • Wait now we can’t have anything in other movies that even resembles other movies?

          Ok then listen up.

          Star Wars stole these

          Warp speed = Hyperspeed
          Tractor Beam

          Just pulled those three from the original Star Wars. I’m sure roddenberry stole from somewhere else but seriously lets not turn movies into iOs vs Android as Lucas did that nearly 40 years ago when Battlestar Galactica poached John Dykstra for the pilot movie.

          • William Henley

            Oh God, I really wish you hadn’t said that, now you are going to attract the Star Wars vs Star Trek fans, and start scientific debates over the differences between Warp and Hyperspace (which are VERY different technologies). As if we weren’t geeking out enough in this blog!

            I am really going to try to refrain from pointing out differences between hyperspace and warp drive – I will let someone else do that.

  28. I’m done. I walked out of the theater enthralled and thoroughly happy about getting a pretty darned good movie in a franchise I’ve loved my entire life. I waited almost 24 hours before posting my review on my site and found in retrospect I appreciated it even more. I’ve now spent the last 12 or so hours on the defensive trying to help explain away these five reasons, as have others. If this site wants to sensationalize headlines to get hits that’s fine and within their rights to do. I feel bad that they may end up turning people away from enjoying the movie in theaters and thus jeopardize the future of the series. Although in honesty I doubt that many people view this site to make such a huge impact. But for the love of movies and for the fans of the series I find it irresponsible journalism. Farewell.

    • Bryan posted a rave review of the movie here on Friday. Shannon had an opposing viewpoint on Monday. We cater to both opinions. We are under no obligation to only post things that will help the movie’s box office returns. We do not work for the studio. If we think the movie sucks, we’re going to say that it sucks. If you disagree, that’s what debate is for.

      Should no one have published negative reviews of Star Trek V back in the day, out of fear that they might hurt the chances of Star Trek VI being made?

      I think we’ve had some interesting conversation in this thread, even if I don’t agree with your opinion.

      • Josh is correct here, Justin. You may be overacting a tad in my humble opinion. This blog along with the main site is one of my favorite spots on the internet. I’m considering dusting off my old login at the forums here as well.

        I may not have added much to this discussion personally, but I’ve enjoyed this healthy debate. I’m probably going back to the theater to see it again soon, and I don’t double dip movies in theaters all that much anymore. I’ll do 2D this time though as I thought the 3D didn’t add anything.

        • I admit I may be defensively overreacting. But using hate is a pretty strong word to use. Your not just saying here’s our opinion when you write a piece that nitpicks the movie in an effort to destroy its enjoyment. I’ve enjoyed your round table discussions of a movie or topic in the past. It’s why I’ve been a long time reader. But in my opinion this is over the top. I cannot believe I came back to this page. Ugh.
          I would have rather had the option to read this article and have it stand alone instead of having it preface a poll as to whether or not I enjoyed the movie. I wanted to vote because I was happy and was faced with why I should have hated it. I don’t have a problem with opinion pieces just ones that are purposefully instigating.

          • Actually agree with Justin, having this article attached to a piece of this nature with such critical and childish bashing, Hovitos really?, is a little disingenuous. Next time I would rather have it separate from these types of articles.

      • I totally agree that all sides should be heard. But Star Trek is so different now you are going to get it no matter what side you are on.

        Nothing anybody says however is going to change how much i enjoyed this film. Time might, but I doubt i will feel like i do about the Star Wars Prequels.

    • Steve

      Justin, in case you check back I could not agree more.

      Instead of a Flamebait headline to put those of us who loved the film on the defensive, I much prefer the intelligent and friendly debate.

      We can certainly agree to disagree in a reasonable tone.

      Is there any other Star Trek IT conversation going on? If so I’m all Ears!