Review Of Star Trek Into Darkness |
jump to navigation Review Of Star Trek Into Darkness May 3, 2013

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Review,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

After now seeing Star Trek Into Darkness twice (once in 2D and once in 3D) I am finally ready to give my opinion on JJ Abrams second entry for the franchise. Below is my review with a completely spoiler-free summary (really no plot details or even character names). The rest of the review contains some spoilers, but nothing not revealed in any trailer, commercial or clip.



Spoiler-free Summary

Any fan who embraced JJ Abrams 2009 Star Trek reboot is almost sure to be thrilled with Star Trek Into Darkness. Everything that first movie offered is back, but now bigger and bolder. Into Darkness is a well-crafted action-packed thrill ride set in the alternate Trek universe which began in the first movie. It is true that this entry was designed to be both a stand-alone summer popcorn movie and to welcome those unfamiliar with Trek, yet it is also a surprisingly fan-friendly film which both flows from and deals with the issues posed by the 2009 feature.

On the other hand, if you were one of those fans who couldn’t get behind the 2009 film, then it is likely this one will also leave you cold. Some of the complaints Abrams’ Star Trek generated have been addressed, yet Into Darkness still plays a bit fast and loose with Trek canon and continues the style of upping the action at the expense of exposition and some character development. While this film is not perfect, and there are things many fans (including ones who loved the 2009 movie) are not going to like, taken as a whole it is still a very entertaining Star Trek adventure.  

The new story is allegorical and deals with some of the issues of the day, which of course is a Star Trek tradition dating back to the beginning of the franchise in the 1960s. The film does indeed have darker themes, however it still rings true to the hope and optimism of Gene Roddenberry’s vision of the future – and there are still plenty of laughs along the way. Even though Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy has certainly influenced this (and the 2009) Trek film, the Abrams team also understand that Star Trek could never be that bleak.

Everyone involved from Abrams, to his cast, to the digital artists at ILM, to the costumers and set designers and beyond have upped their game for Into Darkness. This is not a film resting on its laurels, instead it is working overtime to make sure the first time wasn’t a fluke. New entrants Alice Eve and Peter Weller delivers solid performances, but Benedict Cumberbatch is in a class of his own. The British actor makes you truly believe that his villain is the one person in the universe who could defeat Kirk and Spock.

Bottom line: Once again JJ Abrams and team have delivered a fun, thoughtful, entertaining action movie that is also a worthy entrant in the Star Trek film franchise.


Minor Spoilers Beyond This Point
(nothing that hasn’t been seen in the trailers or clips)

For all the talk of JJ Abrams secrecy, the story of Star Trek Into Darkness is essentially as advertised. John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) is indeed an agent from within Starfleet who begins an all-out campaign of destruction against that organization. He leads Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise on a manhunt to capture him  and prevent him from provoking all out war with the Klingon Empire. Yes there are some twists and turns along the way, but the big surprise is that none of the big surprises are really that surprising.

For me the real surprise here is the arc of the characters. With a four-year gap between movies, the writing team of Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof could have moved the story of this crew along to a point well into the five-year mission – something like the Star Trek pilot  ("Where No Man Has Gone Before") – with a supremely confident Kirk and his crew settled into their destinies. However, the writers chose to continue building on the crew of their USS Enterprise, especially Kirk. Into Darkness finds the young captain still dealing with his overly-cocky attitude coming into conflict with Starfleet’s very short leash. This all seems to be the writers’ way of confronting the issue of Kirk’s rapid promotion in the 2009 movie head on.

And Chris Pine really delivers on this arc. I have joked about how he was able to pull off going from "jerk to Kirk" in the 2009 movie but this time he takes it to a whole new emotional level. This plays out especially well with Bruce Greenwood who returns as Admiral Christopher Pike. Their surrogate father/son relationship is one of the key emotional cores of Into Darkness. This hero’s journey goes into overdrive when Kirk’s bravado is put on trial in confrontations with John Harrison. Pine’s acting can barely keep up in comparison to Cumberbatch who delivers one of the best (and some may argue best) performances in franchise history.

The character of Spock gets explored as well, and again it is tied closely to the 2009 Star Trek movie. In this case Spock is dealing with the destruction of Vulcan (and death of his mother). Zachary Quinto and Zoe Saldana both deliver strong performances showing how this loss has changed him – and thrown a Lirpa into his relationship with Uhura.

The rest of the cast also seem to to be more confident in owning their takes on these iconic roles. Karl Urban is again perfect at McCoy, including very satisfying interplay with Pine and Quinto. Plus this time Bones gets to do some real doctoring. And even though Simon Pegg continues to carry a lot of the comic-relief load, in this movie his Scotty gets to go on his own side adventure. However, I did feel that the way they got Mr. Scott off the ship (which was needed for key plot points) didn’t ring true for his character. John Cho’s Sulu and Anton Yelchin’s Chekov are both given their own little hero moments but they end up getting the short end of the character development stick in Into Darkness.

The character that gets the rawest deal is the USS Enterprise. The ship has always been a member of the family who always comes through in the end, but in Into Darkness she takes a beating and doesn’t really dish it back. You get the sense that Abrams prefers to see his captain as a man of action running around and punching people instead of sitting in the chair and giving orders. While there are space battle scenes, for fans who relish good ol’ NCC-1701 ship-on-ship action, Into Darkness will leave you wanting. The consolation is we do get a nice bit of fun with new little Klingon ships.

The other surprise for Into Darkness is how deep the film goes into the lore of Star Trek. While the everyday summer movie fan sitting next to you may be enjoying the action and adventure there are times you will be watching a whole different movie with a layer of Trek references both subtle and profound. Laced throughout the movie are little mentions, iconic images, visual cues, homages and character moments that hearken to classic Trek, the 2009 movie and even some callbacks to the prequel comic book and new Star Trek video game.

Some of these moments are my favorite parts of Star Trek Into Darkness. I am especially impressed with how the writers, Abrams and the actors have really nailed the  interplay between Kirk, Spock and McCoy, including at least one great ‘troika’ scene. And while the film is full of delightful little Trek-isms, the story is (as promised) not a remake – although some of the themes come close to at least two previous Trek films (more on that in future spoilery discussions after the movie opens to the public). And there is one sequence where subtlety goes out the window and the film goes in your face with an almost beat-by-beat (and even word-for-word) recreation of a scene from one of the TOS era movies. It may have been envisioned as a nice homage but the way it turned out it feels like an unnecessary copy that may even upset some fans.

The plot–with a strong allegorical tie-in to modern day terrorism–is steeped in Star Trek lore and the complex politics both within the Federation and between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. The intricate storylines (mostly) hold together but could be overly-complicated for non-Trek fans (and possibly some Trekkies too).

One of the big improvements over the 2009 film is the villain. In 2009’s Star Trek, there really wasn’t much to Eric Bana’s Nero, and the best bits (his imprisonment on the Klingon homeworld) were cut out. For this time it truly is the character of John Harrison that takes Star Trek "Into Darkness." Only an actor of Benedict Cumberbatch’s caliber could have pulled off the combination of physical and psychological intimidation presented by Harrison. Cumberbatch has a good amount of screen time but he is so powerful he makes you only want more and even when he is not on screen the plot continues to weave around him. It is always very clear what Harrison is doing, but at times it may not be clear why he is doing what he is doing. A second viewing helps pick up all the pieces of his complicated back-story.

There is also the other edge of the sword that is the Trek layer of Into Darkness. For example some ‘Treknologies’ have severe limitations at one moment and then later in the film the same system will have almost magical properties – all done to move the plot forward. While the regular folk won’t pick up on this, Trek fans will find themselves saying, "but that isn’t how [insert Treknology] works." This could seem nitpicky, but it can take you out of the moment or change the way you see the stakes at hand in any given scene.

I could go on with the nitpicking and it would be easy for me to write up a top 10 list of things that I would change about Into Darkness (and I probably will after the movie comes out and spoilers can be discussed freely). But none of those things really take away from the totality of this thoroughly entertaining film. With the relentless pace, you are on to the next thing so fast you soon forget any quibbles.

One thing that few would argue with is that Into Darkness looks magnificent. There are new exotic locales, including a visit to the bad part of the Klingon home world. Costumer Michael Kaplan has outdone himself with a wide array of wardrobe for the movie, including a number of different outfits for our heroes – although I’m still not sold on those big hats for the new dress uniforms. And ILM continues their history of excellence with even more effects shots than we saw in the 2009 movie. Yes it is true that once again we have a black super-ship, but within the context of the movie the out-of-place design details make more sense.

I first became a fan of Star Trek because it was a great escape into a hopeful future full of fun and adventure. For me, Star Trek has always been about the characters more than anything and I find when watching this film that I care about these characters for who they are and not because they are versions of heroes from my past.

Back in 2009 my review concluded with a note that while I loved JJ Abrams Star Trek (again with various issues here and there), I still counted Wrath of Khan as the best of the franchise. The Abrams team weren’t able to knock Star Trek II off the top of my list with Into Darkness, but I still feel that have it in them to make that ultimate Star Trek movie. In the mean time Star Trek Into Darkness is a deeply satisfying escape into a hopeful future full of fun and adventure.


More thoughts:



More reviewing of Into Darkness to come

There is much more to discuss with Star Trek Into Darkness. In the weeks to come TrekMovie will take closer looks at different aspects of the film, including discussing the plot in detail after the film has opened in most of the world. We will also be keeping track of other reviews around the world and possibly bring in some guest views on Into Darkness.


Discussing Into Darkness – Please don’t spoil the movie

Please keep the comments below within the scope of spoilers discussed here. Not everyone has gone out of their way to find spoilers elsewhere on the web, so discussing them and linking to them only ruins it for your fellow TrekMovie community members.

There will be plenty of time in the coming weeks to go over every little detail, but discussion of that nature will have to wait until the film is open publicly.


1. Tanner "The Dude" Waterbury - May 3, 2013

So all the surprises we pretty much assumed would be non surprises ARE non surprises? Doesn’t surprise me.

2. Josh C. - May 3, 2013

So basically who most people thought Harrison is is who he is? Well f&%k

I’ll still go see it right away, but to me, you just don’t mess with that

3. Danpaine - May 3, 2013

Excellent, very enjoyable review. ‘Imperial Star Destroyer’ line made me laugh out loud. And since you’re about my age, Anthony, I very much dig your honesty about comparisons to WOK. Much appreciated. And I can’t wait for those subtle things only a true fan would get.

4. Joe - May 3, 2013

would be nice out of a ten scale to see what you thought of it.

5. The Great Bird Lives - May 3, 2013

Awesome, but somewhat disappointing review. Thanks for the viewpoint.

6. Trekluver - May 3, 2013

Great review! Now I’m even more pumped to see the movie; I Khan’t wait!

7. BH - May 3, 2013

No offense, but you need a re-read and fix some words and sentences:

“And while the film is full of little Trek-isms, the story is (as promised) not do a remake. ” – No “do”?

” But none of those things really take away from the totally of this thoroughly entertaining film. ” – totality?

“Karl Urban again perfect at McCoy” – missing an is?

I’ll stop there, but damn dude.

Feel free to delete this, but there you go.

8. RJ Macready - May 3, 2013

Just do a spoilered review. People can enter at their own risk.

9. The Great Bird Lives - May 3, 2013


The point was for Anthony to expedite the review so we fans could read it right away. He can worry about dotting I’s, and crossing T’s later. Jeez, what is it with some people?

10. Sunfell - May 3, 2013

Glad you said that JJ toned down the shaky-cam, because I was sincerely dreading that. I have fan-sneak tickets for the 17th, in IMAX 3D, so I was a bit worried.

Ten days and counting…

11. clark billy - May 3, 2013

Thus the wait is over …best review so far

12. basement dweller - May 3, 2013

Was the size/scale of the Enterprise definitely pinned down in the sequel? Some hardcores are still upset at the alleged length given by the FX people and the schematic on the home video.

13. windelkin - May 3, 2013

Thanks for the review. It sounds like it lives up to the trailers anyway, so that’s a success. I can’t wait to see it! It sure has been a long gap between films and I hope we don’t have to wait so long from now until the next episode.

14. MC1 Doug - May 3, 2013

And wouldn’t you just know it my Navy unit will have me out of the country when the film is released… aggghhh!!! I won’t be back home until 26 May.


None of you can give away any spoilers while I am in the Middle East.


15. Og - May 3, 2013

Thanks for the review, Anthony.

16. MC1 Doug - May 3, 2013

re: disappointing review?

Sure, there are a few grammatical issues, but here’s the great thing Anthony did, he gave a great write up without telling us the story did this, then this and then there was that…

He whetted our appetites leaving us wanting for more,,, but like a good reviewer, he is waiting for us to see it and then he can let loose…. along with the rest of you.

Thanks, Anthony!

17. ShinRa Actual - May 3, 2013

“(too bad there isn’t a licensee making vehicle toys)”

Mattell is. The big $20 die-cast boxed ships are supposed to be returning (why they aren’t in stores yet is a great question) with an unnamed “Star Trek XII ship” in the first case, and there will be an Enterprise hot wheel toy stuffed in with the big 72 car cases at some point.

Hasbro, as you reported last year, has a large liscense (including RP toys, figures, etc)….they’re just not doing anything with it except Kre-O and Fighter Pods….finding out why is something I’d like to see some news site look into. *cough*

18. Lad - May 3, 2013

Thank you for the review.
I would like to know about the Kirk/Spock/Bones interaction, because everything I’ve read so far sells Kirk/Spock as the bromance of bromances and Bones not really being part of the equation…

19. Ensign RedShirt - May 3, 2013

#7 –

Anthony has crossed three time zones over the last two days, thoroughly covered the UK premiere, seen the film twice, and posted various other stories in the interim. If he misspells something or has some sort of grammatical faux pas, I’d say he’s earned a pass.


20. AnonymousWasAWoman - May 3, 2013

@ Josh C. – Yep, agreed. I was really, really hoping they weren’t going to go there. But who am I kidding? I’ll be seeing it anyway, likely multiple times with multiple friends, not least because I truly adore this cast. I’m unlikely to agree with the reviewer that “Pine’s acting can barely keep up in comparison to Cumberbatch;” speaking from the perspective of somebody who acts and directs for a living, it’s an apples to oranges comparison. Cumberbatch is a truly gifted dramatic actor. Like Patrick Stewart, Chris Pine is a very good dramatic actor, but his real gift (and neither of them would want to hear it) is comedy. They’re both brilliant comic actors, with hairtrigger timing and the ability to sell it with astonishing subtlety. I don’t think Patrick Stewart will ever realize that that’s his real gift, and I suspect he’ll keep on with the dramatic roles, being very good, but never quite tapping the game-changing genius he would have if he’d gone the comic route. Chris Pine is young enough to maybe, please Jesus, come to the realization early, and appreciate it for what it is and explore it to the full. Comedy is harder than tragedy. Less of us have that gift. Any actor worth his salt will tell you that.

21. CanOpener1256 - May 3, 2013

Great review! I will be entering the hospital in a few days for 30 days of chemo and other fun, so I will miss the movie. This site has been a place of pure joy for this old space Trekker. Love all the clips!
So, I am actually looking forward to reading the novel by Alan Dean Foster. He has been one of my favorite sci-fi authors with his Commonwealth universe novels. I am interested in how he will expand or enhance the movie? Look forward to all the discussions and nitpicking galore!

22. Jack Aubrey - May 3, 2013

Thanks Anthony for all the hard work. I am excited to see this movie. Don’t sweat the small stuff folks…it’s a summer blockbuster movie. Enjoy the ride.

23. Anthony Pascale - May 3, 2013

I am always open to criticismon my criticism. I did an update and added a couple more ‘more thoughts’

24. BeyondtheTech - May 3, 2013

How was the post-conversion to 3D? Gimmick, meh, or worthy?

25. Phil - May 3, 2013

Maybe it’s me, but I’m starting to notice that Bad Robot is recycling sound effects – the Klingon flight sequence sounded a lot like a TIE fighter, and when the ship pulls up it was an identical sound to the alien ships in Cowboys and Aliens.

The boys might not want to make a habit out of this, though Trek has a long and glorious history of recycling it’s FX…

26. Phil - May 3, 2013

Grammar Nazis are irritating…

27. Legate Damar - May 3, 2013

Sounds a lot like Trek XI. Pretty good, but filled with things that will annoy most Trekkies. We can only hope that the Klingons are as awesome as they are in Undiscovered Country and the spin-offs.

28. The Sinfonian - May 3, 2013

Thanks Anthony for your barely spoiler review!

Do you sense any sort of story set up now for the threequel?

Glad to hear Alice Eve’s Carol Marcus survives and could factor into the threequel…. must be some consequences from her father??

Also, is an explanation given at all about “Wallace”? Can’t help but think of Janet Wallace.

29. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 3, 2013

Anthony – a thoughtful review, thank you for this and all your efforts. I hope you are getting some proper sleep soon…

30. Damian - May 3, 2013

Glad to hear he toned down some of the shakiness and lens flares. I seriously left Star Trek (2009) with a massive headache. I just watched it again 2 weeks ago and the lens flares really took me out of the film. So many scenes seemed beautifully photographed only to have glare ruin it. I’m not down with realism in movies (I know I’m in the minority today). I can watch the news for that.

31. Ran - May 3, 2013


How did you find the dialog? I really hope it is much better than the 2009 movie.


32. Sunfell - May 3, 2013

@30 I can only watch Star Trek 2009 on a small screen. Anything bigger makes it painful.

33. Captain Matteo - May 3, 2013

Great review. Perfect amount of information. Thanks for keeping it spoiler free. We’re “this” close to movie day — I don’t want to see any more spoilers anywhere!

34. Anthony Pascale - May 3, 2013

If there were one word to describe the dialog it would be ‘snappy’

RE: more details on this or that.
Other reviewers will differ but until the movie is out, I wont be talking about any more plot details. The review isn’t about detailing the movie’s plot, but about what it felt like to see it (twice)

35. Captain Matteo - May 3, 2013

Now I have 2 Gods: Anthony and JJ!!! Thanks Anthony for making this experience so much more fun.

36. Ameraka - May 3, 2013

I didn’t mind the lens flares. Contrary to taking me out of the movie, they pulled me in, adding a sort of texture and dimension to the film.

37. true trekkie - May 3, 2013

I was worried about this movie not being dramatic enough, you’ve comfirmed my worries, now I’ will definitely enjoy this movie, not as star trek, but as action rollercoaster ride with star trek carracters in it.

38. Tanner "The Dude" Waterbury - May 3, 2013

So when’s the USS Vengeance Hot Wheel coming out?

39. Will - May 3, 2013

Is it bad that now the only reason I wanna see this movie is for that word-for-word TOS era movie bit?

40. Jonboc - May 3, 2013

Great review! Thanks for the overall impression Anthony, without letting too many cats out of the bag. Can’t wait…tickets for a 3-16 showing in IMAX Dolby atmos 3D have been secured and I’m counting down the days!

41. Mr. Anonymous - May 3, 2013


Good luck on your chemo!

42. JohnRambo - May 3, 2013

“I still counted Wrath of Khan as the best of the franchise. The Abrams team weren’t able to knock Star Trek II of the top of my list with Into Darkness”

for me wrath of khan is one of the worst trek movies.
i don’t like the uniforms,i don’t like the music and i hate that they turned star trek into military.
Even Gene Roddenberry himself didn’t like the wrath of khan!

I’ve never understood how Star Trek fans can like this movie lol
TMP was way more Star Trek than Wrath of Khan
even the 09 movie was more star trek

can’t wait to go Into Darkness next wednesday!

43. StelArian - May 3, 2013

There is a reason you are the most famous Star Trek fan on Earth and you just prove it once again. Thank you Anthony.

44. AyanEva - May 3, 2013

I already said it on Twitter but great review! My one concern was that the story would be a re-tread so I’m really glad to see you specifically say that it’s not. I’m really looking forward to this film. I’d been checking back all evening for your review but this migraine is kicking my butt in major ways so I missed it until I managed to crack open an eye and check just now. Now I can happily pass out again. lol

I am SO excited to see this crew put through the wringer by one of my favorite actors (Benedict).

45. Damian - May 3, 2013

36–As I said, I’m probably in the minority of today’s audiences. I like steadicams and clean, crisp photography, with a minimum of lens flares. I remember in the special features on the DVD for Star Trek (2009) they showed an Enterprise flyball with and without lens flares. They were talking about how poor it looked without the flares, and I was thinking the exact opposite. I was thinking, now that’s how a movie should look. It was clean and crisp, and actually a beautiful scene of the Enterprise. The lens flares and grainy version that was the final cut looked like something that needed to be fixed to me.

But judging from what people are seeing today, many moviegoers enjoy shaky cameras, bright flashes, quick cuts. Now will it affect what I think of the story, no. But it obviously doesn’t help my overall experience if I leave with a migraine. I want to see it, so I’ll just have to deal with it.

46. HubcapDave - May 3, 2013

Excellent review. Anthony, any chance you could link to your review of the 2009 movie for comparison?

47. Danpaine - May 3, 2013

@21 – I echo that. In this place we speak of fantasy, I wish you the best in your real-life battle, CanOpener.

48. Damian - May 3, 2013

42–People laugh, but Star Trek: The Motion Picture was my favorite of all the Star Trek films. I loved TWOK too, but there was just something about TMP I loved. It probably was the “purest” of the films, it truly introduced us to a completely new life form born before our eyes. And it really did show the love for the Enterprise. And who doesn’t love Jerry Goldsmith’s score. I never get tired of watching it. I really do love all the 11 films up to now, even the much maligned Star Trek V and Insurrection. But TMP has been at the top of my list through it all.

49. BatlethInTheGroin - May 3, 2013

#48: TMP is a brilliant movie–I’ll never get the vitriol. Yes, it’s too slow-paced, but it’s a wonderful extension of TOS.

50. HubcapDave - May 3, 2013


Seriously? What Star Trek did you watch? TOS was as much military action as it was scientific exploration. And while piecing together the mystery of V’Ger aspect of TMP rang true to the latter, I am challenged to think of an episode where the crew spends half it’s time staring slack-jawed at the screen……..

51. Danpaine - May 3, 2013

….and I am bummed you say there is little good Enterprise-time. C’mon, guys. Wtf. The ship is as much a character as the rest of them.

52. KK - May 3, 2013

Thanks for the review. I think in spite of some predictable negative reviews, so far lots of critics’ reviews are quite close to Anthony’s, but I am expecting the American critics could be harsher than the UK critics, considering they were mostly growing up watching Star Trek.

#7 Is it really necessary to be so bitter to a movie review?

#20 Not disagreeing with what you said about acting, just want to provide with a bit of basic info about Cumberbatch as it seems that you are not so familiar with his work. If you have seen Starter for 10 or listened to his radio sitcom Cabin Pressure, you’d know that Cumberbatch is a fine comic actor as well; his perfect comic timing can even be seen in Sherlock. He started his career at about 24 years old; a bit of a late comer in the business, and he’s only 4 years on Pine, yet he does have an impressive back catalogue across the theatre, radio, TV, film, and even including making audio books and narrating documentaries; thanks to the British acting business tradition indeed. Anthony just tweeted the link of a trailer for The Graham Norton Show, which Pine and Cumberbatch recorded after the London premiere; watch it and then you’ll see what I mean.

53. Damian - May 3, 2013

49–A few months ago there was an article about TMP, and I was actually surprised to see quite a bit of love for TMP. It’s not as hated as I once thought.

Also there was an article about Nemesis late last year for the 10th anniversary, and I learned there were others that actually liked Nemesis too. I sometimes felt I was the only one, but surprisingly not (not to say there isn’t hate out there for Nemesis, but it’s not nearly as universal as I once thought).

I sometimes I felt like I was the only one that liked Nemesis and Star Trek (2009).

54. HubcapDave - May 3, 2013


I hold TMP in higher regard than most people as well. For all it’s faults, it still presented Trek in a much grander fashion than could ever have been attempted on the show.

55. AyanEva - May 3, 2013

#42- While I don’t think TWOK is one of the worst movies, I never cared for it much either. I’m pretty indifferent about it and I’m pretty sure I only ever watched it two or three times in all these years. (I didn’t really care for Space Seed either so there’s that…)

My point is that you’re not alone. :)

56. HubcapDave - May 3, 2013


If nothing else, Nemesis had a fantastic starship battle.

57. fwise3 - May 3, 2013

@36 I agree. Lens flares didn’t bother me at all in the first film. Some of the dialogue pulls me out of the movie – such as the mind-meld with old spock when he says “SHOOT it” just didn’t sound “Spock-like” to me. However, I LOVED the 2009 movie, and CANNOT wait to see this one on May 15th!!

58. Damian - May 3, 2013

50–Part of that was just the style of Robert Wise. He was similar to Kubrick in the sense that he liked long tracking shots (a la 2001). I know it gets criticism for it’s over emphasis on special effects, but the special effects were excellent for 1979, and at least to me, has stood the test of time. They still look pretty awesome today.

59. Anthony's Huge Ass! - May 3, 2013

What a useless review, fat fuk!

60. AnonymousWasAWoman - May 3, 2013

@ 52. KK

It may well be that Benedict Cumberbatch is one of those happy few who has an equal talent for both comedy and tragedy. (I’ll unfortunately need to wait a few hours on seeing the clip; I’m rushing out the door to catch IM3 along with everyone else on the East Coast.) Some of the best actors out there, though, their real gift is comedy, and I could really wish it was better appreciated. Kenneth Branagh fits into that category. Obviously a very fine dramatic actor, but I’ve shared a couple of roles with him, and the one that scared the unholy hell out of me to share wasn’t his Hamlet; it was his Benedick. That was a Benedick for the ages, there’s just no touching it. (Though I confess I’d kill a bunny to watch Chris Pine take a crack at it.)

61. Damian - May 3, 2013

56–True enough. I know of some fans that complained the space battles in Star Trek seemed to lack a wow factor. Even TWOK with it’s battle scenes, were short and quick. TUC was better, FC with the attack on the Borg cube better still. But in Nemesis you saw everything the Enterprise could throw. Phasers, torpedoes in multiple directions in multiple angles. And even haters would have to admit, John Eaves and co. did an excellent job designing the Scimitar (probably one of the reasons John Eaves was one of the only people retained from the former regime by Abrams–he knows how to design a great ship)

62. HubcapDave - May 3, 2013


I rewatched it recently, and I still think it’s a decent movie. Funny thing was I kept thinking to myself, “Shinzon is going to grow up to be Bane”!

63. Ensign RedShirt - May 3, 2013

I’ll also give TMP some love. It’s definitely flawed, but it’s also very under appreciated. It tried to discuss big ideas on a huge scale, and largely succeeded. Whether you like it or not, it’s what Gene wanted Trek to be, not the “villain of the week” thing.

64. Superman - May 3, 2013

I applaud you having the nerve to actually lodge some criticisms with this film, Anthony. After all, it’s success is your bread and butter. There are those at other sites (who shall remain nameless) who will not criticize a crappy film to keep from biting the hand that feeds them.

Not that STID is a crappy film. I wouldn’t know, as I’ve yet to see it. I did decide, after a lot of internal struggling, to read the spoilers. I’m not too happy…at ALL…about what I read, but I’m still anxious to see this film. I think the core concept of this reboot was one filled with tremendous potential, but as you mentioned, it seems there’s a strong reluctance to do something completely new. I want to see new villains with different motives than vengeance. I understand you need action, but look at “Balance of Terror.” Neither command seeks vengeance, but rather, the safety of their crews and their own “national” borders. Surely such a theme is still relevant today, if not even more so?

I await a new Trek film that truly goes where no Trek has gone before, or, at the very least, where not Trek film has yet to go.

65. michael Li - May 3, 2013


Pretty obvious what his typos are trying to say.

66. Dr. Cheis - May 3, 2013

I have a feeling I can deal with the “treknology” issues. Typically the only time things like that bother me is when they through poor writing create a “do anything device” (Transporters, Replicators, Communicators and Holodecks have all fallen into this trap in the past) that makes it ridiculous later on when they don’t just use those things to get out of future situations. Otherwise, I just accept that given the current conditions of the scene, the Trek-tech works as described.

I have a thought on why the lens flares and shaky cam might be lessened too. JJ said those effects were in the original to convey a sense of “more going on that you can grasp, more than can be contained by the frame of the movie.” As the crew is now more experienced, it makes sense that you would be able to see more of what’s going on.

67. ensign joe - May 3, 2013

I will not be seeing this movie.. Promise kept.

68. Basement Blogger - May 3, 2013

This film is a conversion of 2D to 3D. I don’t hate 3D; I love it when it’s well done. But the technology to convert is basically making a cinematic pop up book. If you want to see great 3D, see Hugo in 3D or Pina (2011) in 3D. The difference between a conversion and one shot in 3D is that in these films the directors, Scorsese and Wenders were aware of the medium at all times during the filming. The 3D camera catches the nooks and crannies and light and shadow of an objects.

I view 3D conversions as cash grabs. Conversions are inferior products to those films shot in 3D.

69. Vultan - May 3, 2013

I haven’t decided whether or not to see this one in the theater. Cumberbatch is always good, but the story doesn’t sound like much.

I just saw Iron Man 3, and I think I’ve had my fill of terrorist plots for the time being. See enough of that crap on the news.

Maybe a rental.

(By the way, thanks for the review, Anthony. Much appreciated.)

70. mrbjangles - May 4, 2013

Ive been waiting for this for 4 years. Haven’t seen it but really enjoyed ur review. And totally agreed with ur 2009 references. Booked the local in east london with anyone i could rope in for thurs eve, from life and work alike. thanks for keeping me up to date trekmovie LLAP

71. sean - May 4, 2013

Eh, the bending the rules with the Treknology doesn’t bother me because Trek has a long history of treating tech inconsistently. I mean, there are times when holographic tech was essentially magic. And TOS couldn’t keep the tech straight half the time, either.

72. Jack - May 4, 2013

Thanks for the review, Anthony. I wish folks hadn’t posted the very spoilery
AICN Mr. Beaks review on other (non-spoiler) threads here today. How do these folks not understand that this ain’t cool.

Vultan, you’re here constantly commenting about these movies and you expect us to believe you’re going to wait to rent it? These reviews (by everybody) without actually seeing it really piss me off. The story doesn’t “sound” like much?

73. Cant Wait Fer ST:ID - May 4, 2013

Great review, Anthony! I envy your position to be on the inside track of Trek. Thanks fer alleviating my concern tha Bones gets relegated to the background. Makes me wanna see the movie even more.

74. Terry - May 4, 2013

Interesting review. While still anxious to see the movie, I would have to say my anticipation level – on a scale of 1-10 – has dropped from a 10 to 9 based on Anthony’s discussion of the treatment of the Enterprise in this movie. With all of the admiration we have heard over the years from Messrs. Abrams, Orci, and Lindelof for “Wrath of Khan” and “The Undiscovered Country”, one would hope that they have grasped the satisfaction of seeing the Enterprise (as a major character in the Star Trek mythos) succeed over its adversary in those two movies. As much as I loved the 2009 film, the Enterprise’s destruction of the Narada essentially amounted to the hero pushing the defenseless villain over the cliff he was barely clinging to. As Anthony stated, perhaps the new development team prefers to have Kirk be the action hero instead of the starship combat tactician, but that is a major skill Kirk possesses as a starship captain as far back as at least “Balance of Terror” in his early captaincy. It would be nice to see Kirk exercise his starship tactical daring/brawn and three-dimensional thinking again on the big screen. In any event, I have not seen the movie and do not know of any spoilers beyond the previews/trailers, so I hope my concerns about the Enterprise possibly not being given its proper care as an important character in this movie are unfounded.

75. Jack - May 4, 2013

2. Josh C. – May 3, 2013
“So basically who most people thought Harrison is is who he is? Well f&%k. I’ll still go see it right away, but to me, you just don’t mess with that.”

Can we please stop talking about who Harrison is or isn’t in these threads — the cat’s long out of the bag for me, sadly — but maybe there are others who don’t want to be all that spoiled yet they want to keep reading stories on this site.

76. Punkspocker - May 4, 2013

Thank you for the review, I’ve been waiting for yours more than any other. It’s lovely that you care for these characters for who they are. I feel the same way. Thanks again.

77. Kirk's the Best Captain, then Archer, then Picard, then the rest - May 4, 2013

Worst ST movie moment ever: when Riker calls for manual control in Insurrection and up from the deck comes a gamer joystick on a pedestal. I almost did a Picard face-palm.

Haven’t seen all of DS9 yet, so can’t call this scene “worst ST moment”, but it probably will win that prize also.

78. Mikey1091 - May 4, 2013

Great review, Anthony! Still, can you at least tell us if they got rid of budgineering and replaced it with something more…engineering like? If not, thats OK, I can wait to see it myself :)

79. Vultan - May 4, 2013


Thanks to our friends in Australia, yes, the story really doesn’t sound like much. And yes, I can wait to see it on video—the way I see the majority of movies.

Don’t get mad, Jack.

80. endeavour crew - May 4, 2013


Anthony you are amazing.

You respect traditional Trek and yet have an open mind to new Trek- you see both sides of the same coin…..

Thanks bud……

81. Johnny - May 4, 2013

Great review. As one of the people who LOVED ST09 (actually, I think it’s tied with Wrath of Khan as the best film of the series), I’m glad to hear this movie ups the ante visually and thematically, and apparently delivers on the promise of a modern day allegory. Sure sounds like a slick political thriller, doesn’t it?

If there is one constant throughout all the reviews so far (even the negative ones), it’s that Cumberbatch delivers a performance for the ages. Which isn’t surprising… the man is simply one of the finest actors working today. With that in mind, does it even matter if he’s playing John Harrison, Khan, Gary Mitchell, or someone else? He’s either created a magnificent new villain — or he’s pulled a “Heath Ledger” and silenced all the naysayers. If he knocks it out of the park either way, what can we complain about? Am I right?

82. Anthony Pascale - May 4, 2013

RE: Budgineering

thanks for asking as that was in my notes but forget to put it in review. I added something on that in my ‘more thoughts’ thing at the end. Bottom line is that they made big improvements to Budgineering. I think they were listening.

And I dont want to give it away but parts of engineering were filmed at a different location that I think fans will like

83. Harry Ballz - May 4, 2013

Anthony’s review, along with a few others I’ve read, states that hopefully Alice Eve’s character might have more to do in the next film. This tells us that she survives at the end of Star Trek Into Darkness. A big spoiler in itself.

Until I read this, I figured we might see Cumberbatch’s character brutally kill Carol right in front of Kirk.

This is not a complaint, just sayin’…….

84. Theatre Historian - May 4, 2013

Anthony, any word on how they approached the voice of the computer, this time?

I know it might seem like a small detail to some, but would love it if they had found a way to utalize any of the what has to be countless hours of recorded dialouge majel did over the various movies.

85. Kev - May 4, 2013

hmm see what my other reviewers say and wait a week or so for the rush to see this film to go down, like I did with Skyfall.

aint about to risk my car getting dinged up in the mall parking lot, gas and pay 20 dollars for a film if it aint worth my time

Skyfall being the last film I saw 6 months ago and before that it had been damn near 2 years, I dont do summer movies usual.

one thing though any strong powerful scenes like the start of 09′ with Kirks birth and Spocks Mother getting killed in this one? as I honestly nearly teared up at that one and I dont normally do that.

86. Gornsky - May 4, 2013

Excellent, thoughtful, balanced review Anthony. I agree with (almost) everything you said. Despite the non-stop action, character growth and connection are definitely at the heart of this movie. And it has a big heart.

I did think that Bones was unfortunately relegated to more of a background character in this, but I’ve only seen it once, so maybe there were other moments that failed to stand out for me first time around. But the Kirk/Spock dynamic, albeit in its infancy, was terrific.

I read with interest your comments about the Enterprise as a character. This is so true, and something I hadn’t thought about. Abrams certainly paid her homage in the first movie. Early trailers were all about the Enterprise. She carried the “buzz” on her broad shoulders for quite a while. And there was the scene where a James T Kirk who has lost his way looks up at her in the dawn light, and finds a thread pulling him in a whole new direction. Chris Pine had just the right glint of adoration in his eyes and the camera caressed Her carcass lovingly.

It was very reminiscent of TMP (raises hand – another fan), where I lapped up every self-indulgent second of Kirk’s reunion with the Silver Lady. Perhaps she gets short shrift here, along with Bones, but she’s still a brave girl! I still loved this movie.

@21 Can Opener: Best wishes for your month of chemo, but you’ll have a book to read, fan ravings to enjoy when the movie finally hits, and something to look forward to when you are well enough. Take care!

87. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point (But, I love ST09!) - May 4, 2013

@53. Damian – I altered my username to make you feel slightly less alone. :-)

88. Cygnus-X1 - May 4, 2013

@Anthony Pascale

Anthony, since you mentioned that the Bud plant is again used for engineering…is there also a recurrence of Budweiser beer product-placement in the movie (as payment for the location use of the plant)?

89. Johnny - May 4, 2013

Hey Anthony — without going into spoilers, can you answer this?

Is Kirk’s (or anyone else)’s character arc more *satisfying* than James Bond’s in Skyfall? To me, that film didn’t quite live up to the hype, because they didn’t provide any *resolution* to Bond’s arc. They established him as an old, washed up, substance abuser who couldn’t pass his tests to be re-inserted into the field. But then they didn’t go anywhere with these issues. The movie just devolved into a standard action set piece in which despite his many flaws, Bond kills all the bad guys. End of story.

Basically what I’m asking is… do any of the character arcs actually get decent payoffs?

90. - May 4, 2013

Good stuff.

My guess is the beat for beat scene has to do with the hands on glass.

Anyway just a few days to go now. Drive safely everyone.

91. Gary 8.5 - May 4, 2013

Great review Anthony, Thanks for not Spoiling it !

92. RBanks - May 4, 2013

Thank you Anthony for the most detailed and frank review I’ve read so far.

The straightforward account of what you saw as the both the positive and negative aspects of the film is really appreciated.

The 17th cannot come soon enough…

93. Jack - May 4, 2013

Why do we say/write “I feel that” when we really mean “I think that” — one feels cold, angry, happy etc. Opinions aren’t feelings.

94. sean - May 4, 2013

RE: The Enterprise

It’s worth noting that one of the most popular Star Trek movies of all time doesn’t feature the Enterprise until the last 5 minutes.

95. John Whorfin - May 4, 2013


96. - May 4, 2013

“Opinions aren’t feelings”.

Sorry dude but people feel very strongly about their opinions.

97. Dr.Image - May 4, 2013

#48- Damian: I totally agree.
TMP also holds up better and seems far less dated than any of the other Trek films over time. TWOK, while being a commercial sucess, was to me a much more superficial film, with no where near the resonance of the first film- in a “Trek” sense.
TMP will continue to recieve vindication as time passes, imo.

98. Marja - May 4, 2013

MC1 Doug, Fair winds and no spoilers to you, Navy guy!

Can Opener, may your chemo go well with a good result. Enjoy the Foster novel and try to avoid spoilers – unless they’ll give you good “inner visuals”.

Best wishes to both of you.

Anthony, I’m very impressed that you could do a spoiler-free review with such thorough attention to Trekfan details, especially considering your travel schedule!

Thanks for all your work – it continues to be fun over here on TrekMovie, even with our sometimes, er, sharp debates ….

99. mateo - May 4, 2013

If you read between the lines, this review is basically exactly what I was worried about.

He is obviously seeing things that are bad in this movie, but he just can’t let himself NOT like the film so he is making excuse after excuse for all its issues. :( I can tell from the trailers & clips that I am going to be extremely disappointed.

The problem is that the writers aren’t good WRITERS. They are fanboys who write like teenage boys who write for other teenage boys. Star Trek is for adults and it always has been. Trek isn’t SUPPOSED to sound like Joe Six Pack at the garage; it’s lyrical and deliberate, not on-the-nose and too cool for school. (I mean, look at Transformers or Armageddon or the Mission Impossible movies….)

I can also already tell that they have just re-hashed several elements of the 2009 movie: Kirk space jumping again?? Kirk & Pike talking at a bar?? Kirk holding on with one hand from an inexplicably massive cliff??

Giacchino’s score — from what I can tell so far — sounds like Star Wars too.

I am pre-emptively disappointed as hell, but I’m still excited as hell to see the possible ADD train wreck!

100. boborci - May 4, 2013

cant wait for u all to see the movie

101. HubcapDave - May 4, 2013


Naysayers, nitpickers, and “true” fans aside, neither can we!

102. BH - May 4, 2013

@ # 9, 16, 19, 26 & 52

You people are sad. It’s not being a “grammar nazi” when I start with “no offense” & “please delete” and lay out maybe HALF of the grammatical errors in the review. If you think it’s alright to not get the English Language correct when you’re speaking in English, well then your teachers failed you.


@ # 23 thank you for being open minded enough to take constructive criticism. You should NOT be both writer and editor; it’s too much for one person – especially if you’re travelling through multiple time zones. I am trying to help.

But for those of you satisfied with mediocrity, go ahead and flame me. But learn your language and hold folks to a basic standard. There’s nothing wrong with that, unless you don’t care.

And that’s the point.

One hundred.

103. T2 - May 4, 2013

Nice write-up! I’m excited for this film and (mainly) for there being a buzz about Star Trek again. I’m sure what I didn’t like about XI will be back in STID, but there was more that I liked than I didn’t like…so I’ll take it.

All I ask/beg, is that regardless of STID’s level of success, please oh please make XIII for the fans. By the release of XIII, there will still be plenty of fans from the first 40+ years and a bunch of new fans from the last two films. I just don’t wanna hear that they’re making a third movie for general movie fans and people who haven’t seen Star Trek before. We’ll be coming up on the big 5-0. The fans deserve it! That being said, I’m also hoping that XIII doesn’t have to pick up right where STID leaves off, which I have a feeling it will have to. I would really like to see a movie where this cast of characters has been together for a good portion of the 5-year mission and they know their strengths and weaknessess (without needing the film to explore themselves).

Even after all that, I am still quite excited with the Trek buzz everywhere! The countdown is on!

104. BH - May 4, 2013

and two/three.

105. L4YERCAKE - May 4, 2013

More Klingons!!!!

106. smike - May 4, 2013

TMP is much closer to the Star Trek I want to see than TWOK or probably STID, but the latter two are still better movies dramatically…

TMP was all about sense of wonder, exploration, out-of-this-world exerperience they should finally re-embrace in modern-day Star Trek! That’s why I love it (and for the score of course!).
Dramatically TMP was a bit of a let-down, but why not combining both aspects…strange new worlds and action? It doesn’t have to be supervillains and megaships trying to blow things up… Make it natural disasters, universal threats, and on the journey to prevent those disasters EXPLORE… Hasn’t been done since 1986…

107. KirksLove - May 4, 2013

That’s it about Cumberbatch? ONE mention? Come on…

108. Jey - May 4, 2013

@102: Oh, shut up. It was a long review, you told Anthony like 3 mistakes- when they were ‘half of the grammar mistakes’ it makes a total of 6 mistakes…Wow, really awful :P (sorry for my bad English)

Anthony, that was a great review.
Thanks for making me wanna see this movie again, because you’ve been like the first one who actually says that Bones isn’t just the ironic guy for ‘metaphers in space’, but actually has something to do!

109. mateo - May 4, 2013

i really hope i’m wrong and that i’m jumping to conclusions, i should say.

But, if Spock yells “KHAAAAAAAAAN!” while Kirk dies behind the glass, I am going to have the Enterprise “send down” some torpedoes a la the Final Frontier and put us all out of our misery.

please please please don’t be a gorgeous piece of crap!! *fingers crossed*

110. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 4, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness now has its Australian classification – M (recommended for mature audiences).

M means not recommended for children under 15; may include moderate levels of violence, language or themes.

The classification was granted on 3 May and is the same as Star Trek (2009), so that was to be expected.

I cannot wait for 9 May…

111. Jey - May 4, 2013

@102: and you don’t always have a native speaker around to correct your writings….

112. smike - May 4, 2013

“But, if Spock yells “KHAAAAAAAAAN!” while Kirk dies behind the glass,…”

Haven’t seen it, but that is most likely going to happen…it’s all vice versa…It’s a freakin’ geekfest for what it’s worth, but the strangest thing about it is that geels are going to hate it for that… I dunno…

113. Unwanted - May 4, 2013

@boborci. Neither can I Bob!

114. NTH - May 4, 2013

Thank you Anthony for your very interesting review.I am realy looking forward to seeing STID.I have been watching and enjoying Star Trek ,in its various incarnations, since the 1960s as a kid who perhaps has never grown up.I remember the dissapointment of the original series cancellation and the joy of watching the animated series.Then there were the rumours of a motion picture being made in the 1970s and following this the spectacle of seeing the majesty of the Enterprise on the big screen and the enjoyment of being reunited with the crew members.The movies and TV series that followed added great depth to to Star Trek universe and there was a great sense of continuing on the voyage with the original crew. The manner of Kirks death was perhaps the greatest dissapointment in the series for me.Thankfully we have a new Trek event to look foward to now and I can’t wait !

115. Classy M - May 4, 2013

Great review, Anthony, thank you. It’s whetted my appetite – not that it needed whetting…

I’m another who loved TMP. After waiting so long for more Trek, to finally get one that showed such love for the Enterprise and her captain and crew was a joy. Sure, it’s flawed, but even if it did nothing else, it laid a foundation for so all the other movies to build on. I suppose my affection for it is sentimental rather than critical, but there’s way too much of the latter in the world already.

116. Jemini - May 4, 2013

excellent review, very balanced and not too spoilerish

” And there is one sequence where subtlety goes out the window and the film goes in your face with an almost beat-by-beat (and even word-for-word) recreation of a scene from one of the TOS era movies. It may have been envisioned as a nice homage but the way it turned out it feels like an unnecessary copy that may even upset some fans. “

if you’re talking about the scene I think you’re talking I completely agree. Totally unrealistic and hard to buy in context of this AU and this version of the characters.
I don’t think that in the whole trilogy you will get a more out of character Spock than in that scene. I’m not kidding xD Maybe the writers will surprise me but I simply cannot imagine what he could do in the future that will feel more OOC than.. that!. While I’m usually one of those that are way more open minded about his character than some trek fans and I strongly disagree with the opinion that some fans have about the vulcans as a race, LOL I’m now very curious to read how the ones that called him OOC in the first movie will react to that and If they will dare to justify it when they had WHINED so much for so much so much less

117. Markus - May 4, 2013

@77: Riker’s joystick is a classic! Fits perfectly well with the ironic touch of “Insurrection”. And in a way it makes sense to use such a thing for maneuvering a spaceship.

118. Jerry Modene - May 4, 2013

“Gorgeous piece of crap” may be one of the best lines I’ve ever read.

And shouldn’t there have been a disclaimer/full disclosure mention in the review vis-a-vis Trekmovie’s/Anthony’s relationship with the filmmakers? After all this, I’d have been very surprised if he had given the film a poor or even damning-with-faint-praise review.

119. Jim Nightshade - May 4, 2013

According to Anthony not a retread except for one sequence that stands out too much and sounds like almost TOO MANY references to trek and or the wrath of khan

Thanks for the great review Anthony Sir….loved it…

the 3d I saw from the 10 min preview before the hobbit looked real good especially for conversion….

Can you tell which sequences are in IMAX?? extra large extra clear?

So anthony said the story is original but also sounds like we all said its Khan and it is but is has a spin on the story somehow…..not quite our khan……is he bad and good also, saves the day when needed helps out enterprise crew…..

is the enterprise in one piece at the end or replacement/////or major rebuild….

Cant wait to find out answers…I missburger king Trek glasses this time and those little deform toys mine still work Im a doctor not a physisist heheh

120. KHAAAN the weasel - May 4, 2013

No surprise concerning John Harrison’s true identity, eh… Oh well, guess that’s just the way you make sure your (Trek) movie makes enough money these days… Take some elements which make up “Trek-lore” in the eyes of a broad audience and scramble them all together until you get “Space Action flick of the summer. Now with Star Trek elements”

121. Jim Nightshade - May 4, 2013

Also thanks to Bob Orci for coming here as usual..I will let you know if my Niece( who hated Trek but loved your 2009 movie so much she couldnt go to the bathroom cuz she didnt wanna miss anything)
Loves the new movie as much as the last one hahah…..

Also bob hope I Like stid as much as the Fringe Finale which I liked so much I got parts of my letter written to TV guide printed a couple weeks after their article on the fringe finale….

Guess Im a Bad Robot Fan…keep up the great work everybody involved…

Oh Anthony did you notice Chris Doohan also our pal here in any scene,,,, cuz i hope his scene didnt cut or anything…

122. Anthony Pascale - May 4, 2013

To the psychics who think they can read between the lines and read my mind.

What number am I thinking of now?

123. Anthony Pascale - May 4, 2013

Thank you all for kind words. I look forward to reading the reviews of the readers of There will be a new section for that like done in 2009.

And I dont mind grammar notes. It was like 3am when i put this up and i made some typos etc that I think i fixed. stuff happens. it is 2200 words which is longer than the usual. I didn’t tart it up with pictures or vids, as we do those all the time. I figured just words mattered this time

anyway i am off to do my junket interviews.

124. J - May 4, 2013

@Anthony, while you are here, can you maybe disclose
– what happened with Enterprise’s computer voice now that Majel passed away?
– is Chris Doohan in it?

125. Anthony Pascale - May 4, 2013

RE: Doohan

RE: Enterprise computer voice
i dont think it had one but i may have missed it. Vengeance had one but it was unknown male voice

126. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - May 4, 2013

Thank you Anthony for the review. In just 10 days I and the rest of us will be able to see it and post our own reviews. I already know about Cumberbatch’s charactor but still i have no doubt that I will really enjoy this.

127. CmdrR - May 4, 2013

There should get Nichelle to record a bunch of phrases for the computer. That would be a very nice touch.

I do think that Treknology gaps are a pain — but, certainly not new. Even TOS has more than its share of them. (The writers possibly didn’t know what was envisioned for the ship/toys.) Nemesis drives me nuts, with sensors that can pick up a positronic brain 438925 light years away, and count the hairs on the captains heads of every starship.

128. Josh B - May 4, 2013

Great review Anthony! Thank you!

129. Paul - May 4, 2013

Was the Enterprise damaged enough to justify a refit for the next movie? Judging from the teaser videos, it was quite a beating. I hope so, since I’m getting kind of bored of the design already, and it would be a nice opportunity to get rid of the budgineering altogether. :-)

130. Clinton - May 4, 2013

Thanks for the spoiler-free review, Anthony. Can’t wait for May 15th at IMAX Less than two weeks now. Woohoo!

131. Tombot3000 - May 4, 2013

When I saw the trailer for STID with Oblivion, my movie buddy said, ” That looks GOOD! ” I already had an inkling then SPOILERWISE where STID is going to go… so, I think most will be like my buddy; they’ll see it, enjoy it & forget it afterwards. Honestly, I will see it- but in 2D during the week at a budget matinee. I loved Oblivion btw… cept for the Tet interior which was a lil underwhelming. Here’s hoping that the Next Trek not only goes up the next level of eye candy- but brain candy as well.

132. Curious Cadet - May 4, 2013

@81 Johnny,
“does it even matter if he’s playing John Harrison, Khan, Gary Mitchell, or someone else? He’s either created a magnificent new villain — or he’s pulled a “Heath Ledger” and silenced all the naysayers. If he knocks it out of the park either way, what can we complain about? Am I right?”

Yes, I think you are right.

133. Elias Javalis - May 4, 2013

Thanks for the great review Anthony..July 11th couldnt come sooner…for us poor Greek trekkies!

134. Darmok - May 4, 2013

@Anthony Pascale

Is there any hint towards the plot of the third movie?

135. The Sinfonian - May 4, 2013

So, when can we start bitching about the threequel taking too long to get made? :)

136. Curious Cadet - May 4, 2013

@127. CmdrR,
“get Nichelle to record a bunch of phrases for the computer. That would be a very nice touch.”

Agree. That would be a good way to go.

One thing about the TOS computer though, it wasn’t as ubiquitous as the TNG era computer. I’m pretty sure there were many episodes where the computer was never heard at all, unlike TNG where at a minimum it chimed in with at least a warning or two on its own.

Based on the CAGE and WNMHGB, where the crew read printouts outloud, the computer voice seems to be an afterthought, a way to make the series seem even more futuristic. Today, now that people have Siri on their iPhones, I’m not sure such technology is necessary, or as impressive.

In TNG, the computer really seemed to take on too many functions, and cut out too many human interactions. While such moments have their place, how many times did we just watch the cast standing around listening to the computer? Not the most exciting visuals for a motion picture.

I was going to complain (LOL) that the computer voice was an integral part of TOS and how could they leave it out, but after thinking about it, it really isn’t. Arguably based on The Cage and WNMHGB, at this time in Starfleet history (in the Prime universe anyway) the computer wasn’t even talking yet. Bottom line, it wasn’t integral in every episode of TOS, and doesn’t need to be in every movie, especially if there’s no real need for it.

137. TwilightTrek - May 4, 2013

When I first read about the “word for word” copy of a another scene from a TOS movie I was angry and disappointed. I mean it’s not only a copy of a scene but a copy of THE major plot point / scene / emotional tug (except with a role reversal). By the way, from an early teaser you already know what the scene is. It felt cheap and still does BUT after having time to digest it I can sort of accept it in a philosophical way. Even though this is a new time line, thanks to Nero, there are still some things that fate would have happen no matter what. Sort of like how despite Kirk being born into space he still ends up back in Earth in a location where he meets all the people he did in the prime universe. Sure there are differences but fate plays out somewhat same. I read somewhere that there was supposed to be a line by Spock Prime in 2009 that explained that crew still ended up together because “the time continuum / fate was trying to heal / fix itself.” That line should have happened. After all, maybe some major events in life would happen no matter what. By the way, the copy but role reversal pretty much is how the original scene should have went down. It makes much more sense. There I said something without being too specific.

138. Curious Cadet - May 4, 2013

@134. The Sinfonian,
“So, when can we start bitching about the threequel taking too long to get made? :)”


Hadn’t Paramount already announced they were green lighting the 2nd movie script even before the first film had opened? Like a month before?

Talk about PR, nothing says its going to be a great movie like spending money on a sequel before the first one even opens.

139. Curious Cadet - May 4, 2013

@136. TwilightTrek,
“By the way, the copy but role reversal pretty much is how the original scene should have went down. It makes much more sense.”

We can’t really discuss this properly here yet, but I completely disagree. One makes a certain amount of sense with a degree of credibility. The reverse would seem like a gimmick. We shall see how this plays out in the new film and I’m sure debate it with great passion and vitriol for weeks to come on Trekmovie.

140. NCC-73515 - May 4, 2013

The comment on the Enterprise sound effects worry me… in the last one she farted or sounded like an old plane propeller (and the shuttle sounded like pan flutes)

141. Tony Dayoub - May 4, 2013

“… I’m still not sold on those big hats for the new dress uniforms.”

There is precedent for those hats. They look very similar to a hat you see sitting on a desk in Pike’s cabin in “The Cage.”

142. TwilightTrek - May 4, 2013

@ 138 I understand where you’re coming from and do agree it feels more gimmick than anything. The sad thing is if this was supposed to be the emotional climax for Into Darkness it falls flat exactly because we’ve already seen, felt, and dealt with it before.

You’re also right that we can’t really go into this yet so it’ll be the last I say on it in this thread. In the end I may be just trying to rationalize it so it doesn’t forever ruin the movie for me because after all it very well could for a Star Trek fan.

143. EM - May 4, 2013

It’s nice to read a review from a fan who isn’t chomping at the bit to spoilerize the movie for the rest of us! A nicely balanced approach to your readership Anthony!

144. Gary Makin - May 4, 2013

Troll alert @ #59.

145. LeoBerlin - May 4, 2013

Thank you, Antony, for this great review.

I just read a review on a site of a big German magazine were they easily reveal the secret what was kept for such a long time. I’m so angry about that…

146. Mel - May 4, 2013

The probably biggest German online new site “” has posted a long review about the movie, too.

And one of the big German TV channels will air the last Star Trek movie at prime time this evening. Good timing. :-)

147. Curious Cadet - May 4, 2013

@140 Tony Dayoub,
“There is precedent for those hats. They look very similar to a hat you see sitting on a desk in Pike’s cabin in “The Cage.”

It really doesn’t matter. Doesn’t mean Anthony has to like the way they look. You’ll note nobody actually wore them in The Cage either. Abrams rebooted the universe so he didn’t have to use anything we ever saw before, including the red, blue and gold uniforms. He chose to dress his actors in military style hats to achieve a specific look, just like he does with everything else in his movies that otherwise make no sense — not some obscure reference to some set dressing in a pilot most have never seen, or noticed including most likely Abrams. Though granted once he made the decision I’m sure the costume designers did their homework, just like Pike’s Admirals uniform is clearly inspired by TMP.

148. LeoBerlin - May 4, 2013

@Mel: Don’t read it. There is the biggest secret revealed. I wish I hadn’t seen this short sentence…

149. Curious Cadet - May 4, 2013

@141. TwilightTrek,
“The sad thing is if this was supposed to be the emotional climax for Into Darkness it falls flat exactly because we’ve already seen, felt, and dealt with it before.”

That may be true for the fans. Anthony certainly alludes to it in his review. But a majority of the eyes that see this film will not be TOS fans, so in that sense it will be brand new and resonate exactly as Abrams intends. And I have hopes that it will play much better than it sounds for the fans. But yes, something truly original is usually always preferred. We shall surely revisit in a week or two …

150. Admiral_Bumblebee - May 4, 2013

I have seen the movie at some press screening (a friend of mine took me with him).
I have to say that I didn’t like Star Trek 11. Imho they fiddled a bit too much with some some elements. Didn’t like them blowing up Vulcan aas well as some of the other changes…
First of all, I really liked Into Darkness except for two things (which I won’t really spoil). But those two things totally ruined the movie for me. First is a cameo of an established character. This cameo was so unnecessary and felt shoved in just to show this character. It really didn’t serve any purpose and if I ever hear Mr. Orci, Kurtzman or Abrams ever saying again that including William Shatner into a movie won’t happen because it would feel tacked on or something I will throw this lame cameo from Into Darkness into their faces! Another problem with this cameo ist that Star Trek now feels like a series of movies in which a crew of superheroes has to fight one supervillan after the other. It feels like a comic…
But I could have accepted this one scene as a bad scene in a really great movie so far. If not for a scene at the ending that was so cheesy that I felt ashamed to be a fan of Star Trek. This plot device must have been the lamest ever to have been put on film and I really felt embarrassed and irritated by it. Sorry Mr. Orci. Kurzman and Lindelof, but this was soooooo extremely bad that it killed the whole movie for me. Without this lame plot device the movie would have been really good.

151. Barney Fife - May 4, 2013

@149: I thought Shatner didn’t want to bother with a cameo appearance? If that’s the case, then I wouldn’t blame Abrams, Orci or Kurtzman for Kirk Prime not being in the 2009 picture.

152. Aurore - May 4, 2013

“…does it even matter if he’s playing John Harrison, Khan, Gary Mitchell, or someone else? He’s either created a magnificent new villain — or he’s pulled a “Heath Ledger” and silenced all the naysayers. If he knocks it out of the park either way, what can we complain about? Am I right?”


I don’t think you are.
But, it is a matter of opinion.

I am a Star Trek fan, but, I am a movie fan first.
And, “today”, as a movie fan, I have many expectations.
It is the kind of expectations I have for any movie. Not just Star Trek ones.

I never doubted that Mr. Cumberbatch would be brilliant ; it was not in the best interest of the powers that be to cast a mediocre actor…

But, I can’t applaud the efforts of (Trek) actors who rightfully, in my opinion, speak out against some Hollywood casting practices, with movies like Akira or The Last Airbender ,and, then give other movies a pass, as it were, because, some might consider such “complaints” inconvenient or/and even ridiculous.



Thank you for you review.

“….For me, Star Trek has always been about the characters more than anything…”

For me too.


153. JohhnX - May 4, 2013

Abrams may have toned down the lens flares but they are still irritating and make no sense in a visually stunning movie like STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS. In one scene the flares nearly hide the face of Alice Eve during a speech. Sorry, I can understand little flare effect here and there, but not in such an invasive way like Abrams does.
I wonder if he will use those annoying lens flares in Star Wars too …

154. jojo - May 4, 2013

This is one of the best reviews that I’ve read so far. I can appreciate that you mentioned every characters place in the story and some of what we can expect involving each characters story arcs. I really like all of these characters, so I’m hoping that the screen-time Sulu and Chekov were given is both meaningful and valuable. Quality vs quantity in their case.

Thank you for the great review.

155. Allenburch - May 4, 2013

Very nice job Anthony. I am more and more anxious to experience the emotions of the 1st viewing more and more.

156. Elias Javalis - May 4, 2013

Bob, from what I am hearing you and the other guys put a lot of care and love to the script! I am sure it ll be a great ride. Right now cant think trek without your team…Well done!!

157. Diego - May 4, 2013

so in conclusion: while the film is NOT perfect, is a another solid entry in the Star Trek movie franchise

158. New Horizon - May 4, 2013

Happy to see TMP getting some appreciation.

I really love that movie. I had hoped JJ and crew would have found a way to bring more of that awe inspiring sensibility and sense of adventure to his version of Trek. Twas not to be…but I still enjoyed his version of Trek for different reasons.

159. Curious Cadet - May 4, 2013

@152. Aurore,
“But, I can’t applaud the efforts of (Trek) actors who rightfully, in my opinion, speak out against some Hollywood casting practices, with movies like Akira or The Last Airbender ,and, then give other movies a pass, as it were, because, some might consider such “complaints” inconvenient or/and even ridiculous.”

I agree this is likely a missed opportunity on behalf of the filmmakers and for the franchise. However, I don’t believe it constitutes quite the breach of ethics you assert. But, you have a point and I must amend my earlier unqualified support to Johnny’s statement — while I don’t think we really have much to complain about in the movie should Cumberbatch hit it out of the park with this character per se, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t complain about the decisions of the filmmakers that got us here.

We will have ample time to debate it after the movie comes out and the plot is widely known.

160. Curious Cadet - May 4, 2013

@154 Jojo,
“I’m hoping that the screen-time Sulu and Chekov were given is both meaningful and valuable. Quality vs quantity in their case.”

I hope so too.

Though its sad they are relgated to the bottom tier of importance, emphasized by the forthcoming IDW comic, which unlike the other character’s feature issues which focused solely on them, Sulu and Chekov are supposed to be thrown in together. Speaking of which,


Any word on the release date of the IDW Sulu & Chekov double-issue of the Ongoing comic? The rumor was it was going to be out before the film, but we’re fast running out of time and they usually release at the end of the month …

161. Aurore - May 4, 2013

“…We will have ample time to debate it after the movie comes out and the plot is widely known.”


162. Captain Robert April, May, and June - May 4, 2013

@Mateo Grow up Dude.

Stop Whining. If you could do better, what didn’t they hire you. That universe and all those stories are still there. Orci and Kurtzman created another universe that is not bound to the old one. You want old trek go watch your DVDs.

Paramount is not interested in a cerebral film where humanity discovers its better nature through probes, whale songs, and half brothers who force you to relive your pain. Not interested in literary quotes or a Captain who moans about space exploration in the middle of a bloody war. The probe was okay. The whale song was cool, and the brother who forces you to remember your pain was a disaster. Or how about the planet full of white aliens in the briar patch or the bitter Picard clone who has Jean-Luc envy.

Star Trek has had some hits and misses. Star Trek needed and got what it lacked with the exception of DS9 (which a lot of Trek morons complained about), and thats edge. Paramount wanted a bona fide sci-fi franchise that is loud and not complicated by continuity. Star Trek under Berman became like the Republican Party and played to its base. Then films like LOTR came out and blew them away. Star Trek had become arrogant and forgot that it was a new century. Gene Roddenberry aint coming in the door. Get over it my friend.

163. Navy - May 4, 2013

@Bob Orci

You want us all to see it so bad, you going to pay for my ticket so I don’t feel robbed afterwards?

Good action movie or not, I’m not holding any hopes that this will feel like Star Trek.

164. Curious Cadet - May 4, 2013

@162 Navy,

Seriously? Even if I wasn’t a Star Trek fan I would see this movie. It looks awesome. Gladly pay for a film that looks this good.

While I’m sure as a fan, knowing what I know, that I am going to be disappointed about some things, I’m equally as certain I’m going to get my money’s worth.

If you don’t want to support the franchise with this series of films, you are free to vote with your wallet, just like the fans did with Nemesis — and we all saw how that worked out.

165. ados - May 4, 2013

Anthony thank you for the review….May the 4th be with you…

166. Chris doohan - May 4, 2013

100 Bob Orci

Can’t wait to see it. I hear it’s amazing!

167. sean - May 4, 2013

I love TMP because I’m a Trek nerd, but the notion that it has somehow aged better than the other films is hilarious. It is incredibly 70s, from the uniforms to the haircuts.

168. AyanEva - May 4, 2013

If anyone is going to the Franklin Institute here in Philly to see the film in IMAX dome (way cooler than regular IMAX, IMO, as I’ve raved about before), tickets are now on sale finally. Got an email yesterday evening from their customer service department. Kind of off topic but at least it’s movie-related.

169. ados - May 4, 2013

167…my kids love going to the Franklin Inst…..its a great place…and that IMAX is cool..

170. Disinvited - May 4, 2013

#166. sean – May 4, 2013

You must be young to not to know that fashions come and go returning that which is out back in and vice verse.

I’m not sure what I should be laughing at when you appear to be saying that it’s impossible for fashions from the 1970s to return into vogue in the future imagined?

171. AyanEva - May 4, 2013

#168 It’s such a great movie-watching experience and the educational exhibits, films, and presentations are very cool. For the last Trek film, they had a lot of Star Trek/science/sci-fi programming and exhibits to compliment the movie. One of my favorite places, for sure. I wanted to volunteer there but at the moment I’ve got too many other work/volunteer commitments to fit it in. :(

172. Anthony Pascale - May 4, 2013

Just got back from junket. I added a bit here on Benedict Cumberbatch’s John Harrison. Obviously I went out of my want to avoid spoilers for a future review but it was worth talking more about him and his character’s role in the story.

173. ados - May 4, 2013

170…I live in Texas now…is that please touch meusum still next to it?

174. Curious Cadet - May 4, 2013

@166 Sean,
“I love TMP because I’m a Trek nerd, but the notion that it has somehow aged better than the other films is hilarious. It is incredibly 70s, from the uniforms to the haircuts.”

I have to disagree. There’s nothing overtly 70s about it at all, the hairstyles are very much in keeping with the stylistic military cuts established in the series and which we even see in Abrams films. The uniforms and sets are very much in keeping with 2001 in that they suggest a forward-looking timelessness. If you want to see 70s, compare to Space 1999 which did a mostly timless job with the uniforms and sets, although the bell bottoms and platform shoes kind of give it away. But the hairstyles were definitively 70s.

175. AyanEva - May 4, 2013

#172- The Please Touch Museum moved to a larger facility that’s about 10 minutes away from the old location. The new facility is really nice.

176. FrancoMiranda - May 4, 2013

Very interested to see how all this is explained in the movie. Am holding out hope for a more measured third instalment, but I’m not complaining – I enjoyed the 2009 film and I’m sure I’ll enjoy this too. But I think there’s a time and a place for slower paced cinema – with a bit of gravitas – and the third film might be the place for that. Also looking forward to the further future, when we might get to see the TWOK introduced uniforms again! Always loved them.

Oh and hey Bob, hope you’re well. I’m the guy you took the ‘get well soon’ pic for. Still got it saved!

177. sean - May 4, 2013


“You must be young”

A)I’m not young, but thanks for the compliment!

“…you appear to be saying that it’s impossible for fashions from the 1970s to return into vogue in the future imagined?”

B)That’s not what I said. I said the movie is an obvious product of its time. I can’t predict what people will be wearing in the 2270s and if those fashions might resemble the 1970s (likely not, but I’m sure it’s possible). I was simply pointing out that most people would not have difficulty identifying the time period TMP was made in. It would be like saying you couldn’t determine when Pretty in Pink was made because 80s fashions are in vogue right now.

178. Allenburch - May 4, 2013

“The British actor makes you truly believe that his villain is the one person in the universe who could defeat Kirk and Spock.”

This is precisely the type of villain that I was hoping for after ST-2009. I can’t wait to watch it on the opening Saturday morning in the Corte Madera Theatre.

179. sean - May 4, 2013


Well, I’d also disagree that 2001 is timeless. Again, I love it, but it also screams the 1960s in many ways. And that’s fine. Movies are art and art is a reflection of a certain time and place. There’s nothing wrong with a movie being a product of its time.

180. Curious Cadet - May 4, 2013

@82 AP,
“I dont want to give it away but parts of engineering were filmed at a different location that I think fans will like”

Lawrence Livermore perhaps? There was an article about this on TM during production for which I can’t otherwise reconcile, though I suppose it could be used for the Vengeance as well.

It also appears from the trailers that there is a brand new multi-level engineering control center. And if the hands on the glass has anything to do with Engineering, that looks like a nice new high-tech set as well.

Here’s hoping!

181. Disinvited - May 4, 2013

#179. sean – May 4, 2013

Except you seem to find something laughable about being able to identify the period in which a work of art was created that still mystifies me? Or was that just a clumsy attempt to say how odd things not in vogue now appear when looking back at art created in other eras?

182. smike - May 4, 2013

I really hope engineering will involve into a somewhat more Trek-like environment over the next installments… I don’t have a problem with huge containers and pipelines around. We haven’t seen much of the presumably huge engineering sections in the other shows, only the central warp core. So those containers might have been around all the way. But they need to get the warp core right. It’s the heart of any Starship and those multiple thingies they ejected in ST09 are not it…

183. smike - May 4, 2013

Talking about timelessness… it’s really interesting how fashinable those old uniforms from the 60s and 70s are these days. It would have been cringeworthy to reintroduce uniforms like that in the 90s spin-offs. They went darker and darker from 1987 to 1996 and we finally ended up with present-day jumpsuits on the NX-01…

And now look at that: TOS-style primary color shirts and 70s retro TMP-style dress uniforms. You can get longsleeve V-necks these days that look exactly like that at retailers, just without the Starfleet sign… No wonder these old, new uniforms work so well… I’ve seen sportswear that look like rebooted NextGen uniforms…. These are the days of future past…:-)

184. ME!! - May 4, 2013

@9 Because some of us STILL have standards and prefer proper grammar to be used especially when posting something for all to see and in particular from a “professional” writer. There’s this little button in all word processor applications that’s called “spell checker”. It’s very easy to click it and get all your discrepancies corrected in one shot. I don’t know about yours or Anthony’s, but mine warns me if something isn’t right with colored, jagged underlines. Not hard to miss.

185. Hugh Hoyland - May 4, 2013

Sound like you enjoyed it a lot Anthony. I have a feeling I will as well but will see after I watch it in theater.

As far as the plot goes its what I expect from this team and IMO its the natural progression of this particular story line at this time. These guys have their own style of story telling and if you ever watched Lost, or Transformers or even read an IDF Star Trek comic book you should be able to “predict” what they would do with this movie. So that doesnt bother me.

And from what I’ve read we’re in for some great action along with pretty strong dramatic moments as well, things that make great movie experiences. Cant wait to see it. :]

186. Bart - May 4, 2013

I’m very much looking forward to enjoying this film. However, I’m now more convinced than ever that the Enterprise might actually really bite the dust, and that it’s not just a tease.

I felt in the first movie as well that Abrams, not being a long-time Trek fan, didn’t really get the importance of the Enterprise as a “character.” There were no real Enterprise moments to savor in that film, and I’m thinking, based on this review, there won’t be in this one either. That’s kind of a shame.

All in all though, I’m still stoked for the 17th.

187. Disinvited - May 4, 2013

#184. ME!! – May 4, 2013

Oh, pish posh, pushing a spell check button is one of the last things that leads to writing and spelling well. In the sentence “I have a read balloon.” the word “red” is still misspelled even though my checker is quite satisfied with it.

188. Michael Hall - May 4, 2013

Me. Pascale,

“On the other hand, if you were one of those fans who couldn’t get behind the 2009 film, then it is likely this one will also leave you cold.”

Well, it goes without saying that for me this is the worst possible news. Given that Abrams in interviews has acknowledged the 2009 film’s flaws, and given the stated intent of the Supreme Court to “go deeper” this time out, I had allowed myself the hope of something more substantive, not just better-photographed and with even more explosions and ILM eye candy. Still, considering how closely tied you’ve become to the producers of these (your term) summer popcorn movies, your honesty is very much appreciated.

189. HubcapDave - May 4, 2013


Can’t say I agree with that sentiment. I can think of 3 moments where the E stood out (spacedock, arriving at Vulcan, and rising from Titans atmosphere)

190. Red Dead Ryan - May 4, 2013

For all you nuts out there bitching about Anthony’s grammar, just stop it already. STOP IT!

If you think you can do better, start up your own site and let us check it out and scrutinize your spelling and sentence construction.

Oh wait, you folks wouldn’t like that now, would you? I bet most of you aren’t that good at spelling, either.


191. Keachick - May 4, 2013

I think that it is obvious that some people will not like the direction the writers and director may take this Star Trek. Anthony is just warning all of us that this film may not deliver what some of us may have been hoping for. Then again, for others, the film may be just what they have wanted. At the end of the day, it is subjective and the only way to know is to GO SEE THE MOVIE!

– Gosh, Paramount/Bad Robot – I am doing your PR for you. Do I get a caramel?…:)

192. Keachick - May 4, 2013

Most people do not seem to know how to review a film effectively. They virtually tell most of the story quite often, which is unfair, clumsy and lazy. Curiously enough, of the two most negative reviews I have read so far about STID, the reviewers have given away key elements. I suspect they are also the one most likely to call out the Bad Robot team for being lazy, clumsy, hack writers/producers.

Quite hilarious when you think about, in a sad kind of way…

I think that what would be best is that a person who saw the movie ahead of general release dates was only allowed to give it a rating out of 5 or 10.

193. Tom - May 4, 2013

150 Admiral Bumblebee

Just my opinion, I would not worry too much about the cameo. I agree that William Shatner could have been in the movie. Just using the wonderful scene tha Bob Orci had written. Anyway it did not happen. However I truly believe that the team will include both Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner (perhaps some other TOS actors) in some way in 2016 for the 50th anniversary.. They have had almost 10 years to figure out a way to get Shatner in and I think 2016 is the perfect time. Even if they reworked that scene in some way (in which they could have the crew together or at least Bill and Leonard) I am sure it would be wonderful. That scene Bob wrote works as a Star Trek scene on so many levels. I highly doubt they will miss on this last and appropo opportunity to finish off 50 years and this wonderful trilogy.

194. KirksLove - May 4, 2013

“One of the big improvements over the 2009 film is the villain. In 2009′s Star Trek, there really wasn’t much to Eric Bana’s Nero, and the best bits (his imprisonment on the Klingon homeworld) were cut out. For this time it truly is the character of John Harrison that takes Star Trek “Into Darkness.” Only an actor of Benedict Cumberbatch’s caliber could have pulled off the combination of physical and psychological intimidation presented by Harrison. Cumberbatch has a good amount of screen time but he is so powerful he makes you only want more and even when he is not on screen the plot continues to weave around him.”

Thanks Anthony for adding that bit about Cumberbatch. I just felt your first version of the review lacked Cumberbatch, but now it’s perfect. I’m so excited for him. I’ve read several dozens reviews now, and every single one had nothing but high praise for him…

195. Keachick - May 4, 2013

It is interesting that you feel that Chris Pine seems to have a hard time keeping up. I wonder if, given the powerful nature of the John Harrison character, that what we are being shown is that this young Kirk is having a hard time, and that the actor has convincingly conveyed this.

The John Harrison CHARACTER is powerful in every respect, making the Kirk CHARACTER appear weak by comparison. Is that not what the writers are trying to convey here? However, out of this weakness comes strength, especially when Kirk takes his place as part of and leader of a TEAM.

196. JeffreyNdallas - May 4, 2013

I am 47 years old. I have been a Star Trek fan since I can remember. My dad took me to see Leonard Nimoy speak was I was 8-9 years old…I have seen every movie opening day and watched all versions of the T.V. shows….I have attended conventions in costume and have met some of the original series actors..

.I will be there on opening day…actually I will be at the IMAX fan preview on Wed. May 15 at 8 p.m. hoping to get the poster they promised…Not all versions of Trek have been spectacular but they all have been about my beloved show in its infinite variety and I have enjoyed each for what they are. My religion if you will has been based on the philosophies of Star Trek…a better future, people being judged on their contributions and character, not race, creed, color, orientation, etc…

I am deeply saddened by what I read on here from some fans. The negativity and pre-judgement and statements of I’m not going to see it because it does not fit my narrow view of what I think Star Trek is makes me wonder how these folks could ever be a fan of what Star Trek represents…

Also, the critiques of Anthony is just downright ridiculous..he puts his heart and soul into this so that we all have a place to go and converse.

IDIC is a part of the universe and I choose to find the joy and beauty of this latest version of Star Trek in its newest form and raise a glass to its success! Thanks for the great review Anthony!

197. Dennis C - May 4, 2013


All the best with the chemo. There’s something to look forward to after 30 days (other than completing chemo, of course!).

198. sean - May 4, 2013


Here’s what I actually said:

“I love TMP because I’m a Trek nerd, but the notion that it has somehow aged better than the other films is hilarious. It is incredibly 70s, from the uniforms to the haircuts.”

I was responding to the idea that TMP has somehow aged better than other entries in the series. It has not. Any other meanings you seem to be gleaming from that are on you, not me.

199. sean - May 4, 2013


Sorry, that should read ‘gleaning’ not ‘gleaming’.

200. Exverlobter - May 4, 2013

The Spiegel, germanys biggest news-site spoiled what we all do not want to now without a any signs of a warning. Frak!
Days before the film is released. I am so angry.
But you know what? That’s also JJs Fault and his stupid policy of the mystery box. Without that mystery, the months long built anticipation would not have been ruined. In the days of the Internet, it is virtually impossible to avoid spoilersunless you move to a cave, so whats the point?
He is just messing with our psyche.

201. Curious Cadet - May 4, 2013

@195 Keachick,
“what we are being shown is that this young Kirk is having a hard time, and that the actor has convincingly conveyed this.”

I realize that in your eyes Chris Pine can do no wrong.

But there is a very big difference between an actor portraying a weak character, and a weak performance.

Pine is a good enough actor, but he’s no Cumberbatch. He’s at least on par with Shatner. But Shatner has significantly more dramatic training as a Shakespearean actor which is something shared with Patrick Stewart and Cumberbatch. Star Trek has a long history of hiring such actors, most likely because they are used to taking on bigger than life roles, MacBeth, Hamlet, Lear, Othello, etc. Pine doesn’t really have anything like this in his arsenal. At least in the one clip I have seen where he’s opposite Cumberbatch, this difference in training is evident. Pine simply doesn’t command the screen in the same way Cumberbatch does, there’s an insecurity in his performance, which has nothing to do with the character. Kirk is in full control in that clip with no idea yet how outmatched he is, the bad guy is in the brig, and he’s once again the hero of the Federation. But Pine is working with an actor who is impressive to say the least, and he seems to be acutely self-aware of that.

But we see what we want to see. I certainly didn’t go into that scene expecting any weak performances, but that’s what I came away with. AP seems to be confirming that for me as well. But I will give it a fair shake, and withhold judgement until I’ve seen the whole movie. And I’m sure you will come away as pleased as you always are with Mr. Pine. ;-)

202. Sherlockcious - May 4, 2013

Sorry, Anthony. The very last message was a mistake (repeating a small part of my previous post).

But the one before that last one post was not a mistake, and is completely about the subject of actoral skills, wish is part of this board discusion reviewing the film.

203. Keachick - May 4, 2013

So many people on the IMDb STID message board have told others who read what the film is about, stuff about John Harrison – spoilery stuff. It really sucks.
The worst to date was where an OP asked if anyone had seen this movie and if so, to use the PRIVATE messaging system that IMDb provides for its users to post spoilers etc about the movie. So someone actually posts onto the PUBLIC message board stuff without even using spoiler tags, which is what some posters are now using (took them long enough- sheesh)..Unbelievable. Even when someone tries to be considerate to others, there is always some moron who spoils things.

Once again, Anthony – keep up the good work!

204. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013

BC can’t be khan because khan isn’t British. That’d be like making Kirk Korean, sulu Tanzanian, uhura Canadian, Scotty Jamaican, Spock romulan, Chekhov French, etc…

205. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013

I mean I get montoban wasn’t actually Sikh but he was supposed to playing one. If BC is khan is he supposed to be playing a Sikh? The time line shifted after the eugenic wars.

206. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013

Oh whatever. If it is the case that BC is khan I’ll just chalk it up to lazy writing/casting.

207. Keachick - May 4, 2013

If I could get a buck for every time someone wrote of the Bad Robot team as being “lazy” whatever, I would be a very rich woman. Oh, and just because lots of people like to repeat what others have said does not necessarily make the description accurate/correct.

208. Classy M - May 4, 2013

@204, 205, 206 – I realise this is a pretty radical idea, but how about you watch the movie before you get your knickers in a twist?

209. Cinema Geekly - May 4, 2013

Complaining about BC’s look to me is no different than saying Zoe Saldana CAN’T play Uhura…she looks NOTHING like Uhura did in TOS. And the same goes for every case member outside of Quinto who has a passing resemblance to Nimoy. What they look like doesn’t matter, what the character is, does matter. At the core if they are the same people then the look doesn’t matter.

If BC is Khan then GREAT! I like it even better! That sends a better message about the future to me. Your name can be Khan but you don’t have to be brown, you don’t have to have an Indian accent, the races are not segregated by things like names, and place of birth.

To me it is all about the character can BC play that type of character true (with his own spin of course). That is what really matters.

If anything I thought Star Trek would have taught us the appearance means very little.

210. Robman007 - May 4, 2013

Technically, if you wanna complain and say BC can’t be Khan because he’s British, then the same would go for Patrick Stewart. He can’t be Picard because Picard is 100% French.

Just saying….

211. The Sinfonian - May 4, 2013

Sikh is a RELIGION, not an ethnicity. Most Sikhs are Punjabi, but not all are. There are converts. Google, or use Wikipedia people. Geesh.

212. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013

Well duh Sikh is a religion. I just wish they had made uhura Mexican. And Kirk really fat. That would have been good for domestic numbers. Just like casting a white washing an Indian will go over well in Europe… I’m fine with it. But they should of just called it into darkness and left the Star Trek title off of it and just implied it was Star Trek.

Yes Picard was British PLAYING a French man. Just like BC is British PLAYING an Indian… Right? He’s playing an Indian who ruled over Asia in the past right? Right?

213. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013

Or did the alternate universe some how change the past before the time shift and khan ruled over Europe? Jesus this is getting confusing…

214. Disappointed III - May 4, 2013

Anthony’s review speaks of a grand action adventure movie..we’ve heard this before, which is good. This will bode will for summer audiences and make the film a little more accessible for non-fans and the international market.

Unfortunately, as my fears have been since the promo campaign, this movie does not seem to make for good Star Trek. Just having a few character bits, homages, references to things past does not a good Star Trek make.

This being prediction is that this film will tank at $200M domestically and may barely eke out a little less in the international markets. Given the increased inflation costs, bigger budget and all, it will be a disappointment but certainly, not a bomb.

215. Cinema Geekly - May 4, 2013

Mcflycat……dude.. It’s a retcon. They are altering canon because it suits them.

All previous versions of Star Trek have done the same. I can’t can’t even count how many things from TOS that were just plain forgotten about as eariler as the TOS films to say nothing of other Trek shows.

216. Mirror Universe John Harrison - May 4, 2013

Scathing review over at (spoiler free)

4 out of 10

217. smike - May 4, 2013

@200: I’m glad the Spiegel has finally confirmed what had been guessing / known for months now. What bothers me more is the disrespectful tone of that review, but that was to be expected. German mainstream media seldom take genre movies seriously.

But you’re right…that mystery box approach is total bogus in the age of the internet. What sense does it make to bring back a key villain of the past, be it Gary Mitchell, V’Ger or that tomato juice-addicted Killer Tribble that was cut from the final draft of Star Trek V and NOT ADVERTISING HIM AS SUCH? It’s like disguising the Joker as the Riddler playing an all-new character, only to turn out to be the Joker after all… It just doesn’t serve any purpose…

Now JJ and crew has made a lot of people angry: those who didn’t want BC to play “the Joker” at all, those who wanted to see “the Joker” played by an Indian / Hispanic actor, those who had hoped the “joker” would be frankly advertised as such in order to profit from that popular ingreedient and finally those who wanted to avoid spoilers altogether but got caught up reading the wrong reviews.

I really hope Kathleen Kennedy spoke the truth about SW Ep. 7 not being a secretive project. I don’t want JJ and crew to play any mindgames on us as we already know the villain will be a younger clone of the Emperor (probably played by Cumberbatch ;))

218. Cinema Geekly - May 4, 2013

@16 this was my favorite quote:

“It all feels dangerously misogynistic and very, very far from Gene Roddenberry’s egalitarian future.”

You mean the future where women can’t be captains, Harry Mudd’s wife is a stereotypical nag, and most of if not all the female guest stars were hot, sexualized, and wore skimpy clothing…..then yes……

219. Cinema Geekly - May 4, 2013

My bad…@216

220. Mirror Universe John Harrison - May 4, 2013


Is there a Mirror Universe to the Alternate Universe or is it the same?

221. smike - May 4, 2013

@214: You’re so right… It’s probably just another popcorn flick with just another shoehorned super stardestroyer blowing things up… Scimitar, Narada…been there, seen that, got the t-shirt…

I shouldn’t have watched all 11 Trek movies in a row over the last couple of days. It made me realize how diverse and excellent the first six had actually been…Right, there was TWOK, but only TWOK, the original. TMP, TVH, TFF and TUC had been been completely different films, with completely different ideas and topics and TSFS was a nice direct sequel to TWOK…

After that they desperately tried to turn every movie into another TWOK, with the exception of FC, which actually turned out to be a decent movie. But the rest: okay, we need a super-psyched villain with some sort of super-weapon, who has got no clue why he’s actually doing what he’s doing…It worked so well for Khan, so let’s do it again and again and again and again…

Each attemt at recreating TWOK became more desperate, with NEM already being a lame photocopy of the original… But now, we can do even more than that… Kirk and Spock are back again… So let’s…

Well, you get the picture…

As for the Box Office…Not more than $150 million domestically and another $150 million internationally at max. This is NOT gonna be another ST09-like payday. Actually, it already suffers from overhyped expectations. A Star Trek film was never supposed to make that much money. ST09 was the exception to the rule. It’s success already hurts this one for it will not be able to repeat that miracle…

But then, on the other hand, who would have expected the Transformers to make billions?

222. smike - May 4, 2013

@216: That doesn’t sound too good. But actually there might be some truth to it. It compares STID to NEM and that is never a good sign. Could it be that they’ve crashed the new movie series after two installments only? Please not… as much as I’d like to see a REAL Star Trek film that isn’t desperately trying to xerox TWOK, this one has to be at least a moderate success, just to explore the full potential of the new timeline next time…

223. Cinema Geekly - May 4, 2013

@221 People whose job it is to track Box Office sales (and they rarely falter) are calling for 85 Million on the opening weekend and that is on the conservative end.

224. TrinaInUS - May 4, 2013

Thanks Anthony, for not being consumed by plot in this review. I’ve read some that were little more than plog recaps. There’s so much more to a movie than that!

#14 Take care out there. Sorry you’ll miss this in the theatres. Will you be able to get a DVD sent to you?

#21 I hope your treatment goes well, and that you’re home & able to see STID reasonably soon.

#81 Yes.

#196 I’m a bit older than you, and I’m another since-childhood Trek fan who’s enjoyed all the TV and film versions. I won’t be able to make it to the very first showing of STID, but I already have my ticket for one within the first 24 hours & am very excited for this movie!

225. Mirror Universe John Harrison - May 4, 2013

Let’s speculate

Prime Mirror Universe Kirk became Captain by assassinating Christopher Pike. Alternate Mirror nuKirk becomes Captain by throwing a temper tantrum on the iBridge, knocking down a light socket and thereby hitting the head of Pike and killing him?

Does Prime Mirror Spock go to Alternate Mirror universe by pursuing Prime Mirror Nero?

226. HubcapDave - May 4, 2013

Fore all those people complaining about grammatical errors is the review, your being to mean! Theirs no reason to bee so critical. Here’s a man whose nice enough to make this site for us to cum too, you shouldn’t be mean because sometimes he messes up plane English! You should all be a shamed of yourselves!

P.S.: Spell-check THAT!

227. smike - May 4, 2013

@223: Hope you’re right. Unfortunately, those predictions are quite often unreliable. In 2009, that was a good thing, turning ST09 into an overperformer. No one could have imagined that movie to make more than $180 million but it exceeded that goal. Now it’s vice versa. HUGE expectations with little base in reality. Predicting BO numbers is virtually impossible. Otherwise Avatar wouldn’t have become the highest grossing picture ever back then.

228. HubcapDave - May 4, 2013


Trying to follow your logic, but I just can’t……

229. smike - May 4, 2013

Also a $85 million opening weekend doesn’t guarantee for an overall success. It may decline by 60% or even more the second weekend. Without the positive buzz and word-of-mouth of ST09, STID could be crushed by TFF6 or After Earth.

230. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013

Alright I’m on board. BC is playing an Indian or khan is now white.. Whatever.

Maybe montoban was supposed to be playing a white British guy the whole time and it was screwed up from the beginning and now they’ve corrected it! Yeah that’s it! Khan was always white! Khan was always white… Khan was always white… I’m going to keep telling myself that so the movie is a little enjoyable.

Spoiler alert: Spock was a ferengi the whole time!

231. smike - May 4, 2013


It’s quite simple:

2009: They expected a moderate success around $150 million…got $250 million in return. HUGE success…

2013: Now they want even more than that…$300 million? At least the same $250 million from last time. Is it going to happen? I don’t think so…

If the first one hadn’t performed well above general expectations, the pressure for this one to succeed wouldn’t be so great…$200 million would have been considered success back in 2009, now they might be regarded as all-out failure…

232. Keachick - May 4, 2013

Isn’t that the point though? Life does go in circles. Terrorism, sabotage and those responsible have always been with us. Who was Guy Fawkes – a terrorist who nearly blew up the House of Parliament way back when? He also considered himself and was considered by others to be a freedom fighter – fighting for the oppressed Catholics. This is but one of a “million” of real world examples and unfortunately it seems that, even in a more advanced society, socially and technologically 200+ years from now, in a Star Trek universe, there will be issues allowing terrorists, war mongerers to gain an upper hand…

This is not about copying the Wrath of Khan story necessarily. It is about re-telling, reimagining fictional stories and a character or characters that highlight certain realities that humanity has faced since day one.

Hopefully, if BC is really Khan, no one will care that more than 30 years ago, another actor with a darker skin tone played this character in another movie pursuant to a different timeline. Everyone will be so immersed with who and what this character is doing in this alt. universe and timeline, now in 2013.

233. Disinvited - May 4, 2013

#199. sean – May 4, 2013

Thanks for clearing that up and also handily demonstrating it isn’t as always easy to glean as effectively as one thinks.

Allow me to amend: Except you seem to find something laughable about NOT being able to identify the period in which a work of art was created that still mystifies me?

234. Keachick - May 4, 2013

#226 – Spell checker is just that. It cannot discern context.

235. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013


Yeah, just like when the retell the story of roots now one will care that its an all white cast. Because you know… It’s been thirty years…

Also khans story is in more than TWOK and space seed. It’s rich tale told in many Star Trek books and fictional history. None of that stuffs important because khan was always white. I need to go edit my copy of the first 150 years with a red marker…

236. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013

I for one am glad Khan has been britified. Can’t wait for lines like “fancy a spot if space tea ol’ chap? Shall we begin… Chip chip Cheerio.”

237. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013

“I am better…”

At what?

“At everything… Like cricket, making fish and chips, flying the Union Jack, etc…”

238. Disinvited - May 4, 2013

#209. Cinema Geekly – May 4, 2013

Agreed. It is quite a shock to me that many in STAR TREK fandom have not yet abandoned the bigotry of how someone should look or sound on this of the millennium.

# 212. Mcflycat – May 4, 2013

” Well duh Sikh is a religion. I just wish they had made uhura Mexican.” – Mcflycat

Would Puerto Rican be close enough?

239. Keachick - May 4, 2013

Are you on something,Mcflycat?

You are not making sense.

240. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013

No, don’t be racist. Puerto Rican isn’t close enough… They’re totally different whole different countries and traditions… Unbelievable bigotry… Geez

241. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013

I’m on a natural high that Khan may be a white whitey white guy now instead if being the character he always was.

242. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013

Really since this is a reboot I think Spock should of been plate by a little person and Uhura played by an Indian albino. Lets mix it up a little bit you know! It is 2013!

243. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013

Oh oh oooh they should rename the enterprise something cool like… USS Terminator. I mean heck it’s a reboot! Who cares!?

244. Gornsky - May 4, 2013

@201. Curious Cadet

Are we to infer that you are basing your assessment of Pine’s entire character journey in the film based on a single scene? Is that really wise?

“At least in the one clip I have seen where he’s opposite Cumberbatch…there’s an insecurity in his performance, which has nothing to do with the character. Kirk is in full control in that clip with no idea yet how outmatched he is, the bad guy is in the brig, and he’s once again the hero of the Federation.”

You are actually COMPLETELY wrong there. I’ll be interested to see what you think of that scene and what Kirk thinks/knows about his situation once you’ve actually seen the movie.

245. HubcapDave - May 4, 2013


I know. I was trying to make a joke…..

246. NCC-73515 - May 4, 2013

“English! I thought I dreamed hearing it!” – A certain someone in a certain TOS episode

247. Bart - May 4, 2013


Ok, Rising out of Titan was a pretty awesome moment, I’ll grant you that one. I thought space dock was nice, but it felt rushed to me. I wasn’t expecting TMP length (well hoping, but not expecting), but I wanted to savor it a bit longer. Honestly, I don’t remember the coming up on Vulcan as being a great Enterprise moment, but now I’m going to go back and watch for it. Thanks.

248. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013

I guess it like in the dark knight when the joker had yellow face paint, a green smile and red hair and know one seemed to mind.

246. They speak a lot of English in India.

249. Gornsky - May 4, 2013

Actually, Curious Cadet, I see you did pick up on this:

“But Pine is working with an actor who is impressive to say the least, and he seems to be acutely self-aware of that.”

I would definitely agree with you, with one small difference. It was my impression that at this point in the movie it is Harrison who is so impressive and Kirk, who has sailed along on cocksure ego and luck, has suddenly become very “self-aware”. And that awareness is telling him that he’s in a lot of trouble, has no idea what is going on, and is being manipulated left right and centre. He’s angry and even a bit afraid, and trying to bluff his way through. He’s like a young lion posturing against the pride leader.

I thought Pine (and JJ) steered Kirk’s journey through this movie with a great deal of heart, humility, humour and strength. After the first 15 minutes of this film where Kirk is again cocky and immature, he really won me over.

250. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013

Or when they didn’t mention the venom drug in dark knight rises with bane. My god that was stupid.

251. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013

I can see the casting discussion now…

“Can anyone think of any good actors to play the indian khan?”


“Oh hey, I saw Sherlock and it was good! Maybe we should try BC?”

“But he’s white as a snowflake with a British accent”

“Doesn’t matter… Non-Trekkies won’t know and Trekkies will eat whatever we feed them and/or find a silly way to justify the white washing.”

“We’ve done it!”

252. Disinvited - May 4, 2013

#235. Mcflycat – May 4, 2013

Do you even understand that in science the sets you are trying to define as races have no meaning? Race has no taxonomic significance among us: all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.

But if you insist on returning to these unscientific designations from our thrilling days of yesteryear then I suggest that you must follow the unscientific law (were as in a tomato is declared a vegetable) back then that declared that if a person had as little as 1 Black ancestor 16 generations back then that person is Black. And remember the same rule applies for designating that ancestor Black as well. Do you have any idea under that rule how many people the world over with pale skin are Black? Here’s a clue: the first members of the species homo sapiens were living in Africa..

253. Keachick - May 4, 2013

Those scenes are not about the actor. They are about the character. Forget about the actor. The young Kirk in this alternate universe is the only person of relevance here…

254. Disinvited - May 4, 2013

#240. Mcflycat – May 4, 2013

Then the fact that Uhura is in fact portrayed by a Puerto Rican must be as extremely offensive to you as BC.

255. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013


Sweet! Now everyone can just select African American on their census paper work!

256. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013


Not really. She is just a Puerto Rican playing a Swahili. Just like BC is a british man playing an Indian.

257. nou - May 4, 2013

I was watching “The Cage” yesterday and was surprised to see there is a hat, “similar” to Star Trek 2013 caps, on Pike’s TV in his quarters. Some may argue that this is a baseball cap but after watching closely, the cap seems to have some pointy corners on the top. I’d say it’s halfway between a baseball cap and an old style police hat. So 2013 hats are kinda canon. ;)

258. Vultan - May 4, 2013


That made me laugh.
Thanks, Mcflycat.

259. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013

Delete delete delete

260. Mcflycat - May 4, 2013

Damn it, who am I kidding. I’ll be there opening day.


Since I haven’t read the spoilers yet and am just divining from what I read here I still hold out hope… I really wish if they went the eugenics route he would of been playing the eugenics war European ruler…

Ok I’m done.

261. Curious Cadet - May 4, 2013

@209. Cinema Geekly,
“That sends a better message about the future to me. Your name can be Khan but you don’t have to be brown, you don’t have to have an Indian accent, the races are not segregated by things like names, and place of birth.”

How about the present? Where the races are still segregated by what parts they can play in Hollywood motion pictures. What message does STID send when it has cast a total of at least 9 white males and one white woman in the top credited roles. And in the non-white category there’s all of one black woman, and one Asian man in the top credited roles. Wow. That’s a pretty diverse picture of the future, especially if the one character who’s name suggest a non-white character is also played by a white man. Well if Cumberbatch is Khan, good thing we’re sending the message that a white man can have an ethnically non-white name in the future. That’s so much better than employing an ethnically diverse cast in the present to represent the demographic makeup of the future.

262. NCC-73515 - May 4, 2013

Maybe it simply means that the British rule over India continued a bit longer in this universe… no Gandhi in Trek?

263. Justin Mathias - May 4, 2013

“The interior of the USS Vengeance appears to be the result of an unholy union between the USS Enterprise and an Imperial Star Destroyer”


Nice but seriously the only thing that worries me about this film is that the Enterprise gets destroyed. If she does I would like to qoute Miles “Smiley” O’Brien.

“I was just starting to like this ship.”

264. kmart - May 5, 2013

GR actually considered Michael Dunn (Loveless on THE WILD WILD WEST as a possible Spock. With that in mind, I kind of wish they’d hired THE STATION AGENT as Spock for the reboot (just kidding, he has a much better part on GAME OF THRONES.)

265. Disinvited - May 5, 2013

#261. Curious Cadet – May 4, 2013

You make a reasonable argument for Bad Robot hiring those who have been unjustly excluded in the past.

I’m not sure you make a good argument as to why a speculated character manufactured in a lab with an apparently homo sapien template that was augmented by sequences that do not occur in nature should look one way or the other. So far, your argument appears to be: a minority originated the role.

Actually, seeing the character in this light; I’m surprised any minority ever wanted to get anywhere near the role as it is definitely too close to the Nazi master race concept.

Assuming this character actually shows up in the sequel, I’ll reserve my right to decide whether they tried hard enough to cast it appropriately when I see the auditions – assuming they release them.

266. Anthony Pascale - May 5, 2013

warning for spamming and trolling.

Your thread derailment has been deleted

267. Harcourt Fenton Mudd (good for nothing, thing, ....thing,..... thing.) - May 5, 2013

204: That’s for the next ST movie when the crew encounters the Tower of Babel in space. :^)

268. Unwanted - May 5, 2013

@266. May I be permitted to politely ask why my posts were deleted?

269. Disinvited - May 5, 2013

#268. Unwanted – May 5, 2013

I saw them. You made sense. Leave at that. “thread derailment” covers a lot.

Let’s move on.

Paramount’s PAIN & GAIN is being reported as “over-performing” this is being attributed to the “a rising tide raises all boats” effect of IRON MAN 3. If Paramount planned this, it may bode well for STID.

270. Mcflycat - May 5, 2013

Yes, hopefully STID will ride that tide into a third Star Trek film. Or even BETTER, a television series that respects Star Trek lore.

271. Jack - May 5, 2013

” It may have been envisioned as a nice homage but the way it turned out it feels like an unnecessary copy that may even upset some fans.”

Hmmm. I haven’t seen the movie yet, so gave no opinion of this scene. I think part of why the best TOS movies worked was because they didn’t reference the series. Heck, even TWOK, while there was a couple of quick mentions of Space Seed, didn’t worry much about homages. Although maybe those movies were trying really hard not to be a ’60s TV show. Verisimilitude is tough to maintain when the nods are so obvious. And these characters seem to resonate the most when they seem like real people in real situations, and not figures on a storyboard…

272. Jack - May 5, 2013

261. “That’s so much better than employing an ethnically diverse cast in the present to represent the demographic makeup of the future.”

…yeah, this bugs me too. It’s funny how some 60s and 70s shows/movies actually seem more diverse than stuff now, especially Trek.

273. Anthony Thompson - May 5, 2013

Rottentomato score has slipped to 78%.

274. smike - May 5, 2013

Yeah, Rottentomato’s now 78%, Metacritic remains at 75/100. I guess this won’t be another Skyfall or TDK…

But then, who cares… These metacritic sites are overly strict anyway. You need 60% + to receive a fresh certificate at RT. Taking into account that 3/5 counts as rotten and none of the “rotten” reviews are devastating so far, the film may still be a neat little entry into the Starlog. But obviously it’s missing something: freshness, pioneer spirit, something out of the box… It seems to be too much of a retreat… I guess this’ll hurt at the Box Office…

275. CoffeeProf - May 5, 2013

To those not liking the fact that a white guy is possibly playing Khan: You must REALLY be pissed off at the fact that originally he was played by a Mexican. (Not referring to him as that because he’s Latino. He was actually born in Mexico City.) If you’re going to get pissed at something, please be consistent.

276. KirksLove - May 5, 2013

It’s getting really ridiculous here… “A Mexican playing an Indian is close enough”… I will leave this kindergarten now. Cumberbatch is a much too great actor and wonderful human being and does not deserve this kind of hate. Thank God that real movie lovers appreciate his wonderful performance and don’t give a shit about this hypocritical whitewashing nonsense. Bye, you bunch of unintelligent hater twats.

277. rogerachong - May 5, 2013

IM3 is also being criticized heavily by comic fans for the “villain twist”. It also has around the same score critically as STID. All that will not keep it from being a hit commercially.

I found IM3 slightly boring, 3D quality worse than Avengers, same general plotpoints as TDKR and just OK fun.

I have two sets of IMAX 3D tickets for STID on 15th & 18th May in-hand and I already know the 3D is off-the-chain, way more summer action/adventure (yes I also was watching TNG eps yesterday), better villain and more emotional connect as a fan. It is during the hard times that true fans stand tall and are not ashamed! Nice review Anthony, LLAP all.

278. Curious Cadet - May 5, 2013

@265 Disinvited,
“I’m not sure you make a good argument as to why …” etc.

That’s because I haven’t argued any of that here.

When the movie opens and all is revealed, I’m sure we will all have plenty to debate.

One note I found interesting about minority actors playing roles connected to Nazis … All of the Nazis on “Hogan’s Heros” were played by Jews.

279. Aurore - May 5, 2013

“To those not liking the fact that a white guy is possibly playing Khan: You must REALLY be pissed off at the fact that originally he was played by a Mexican. (Not referring to him as that because he’s Latino. He was actually born in Mexico City.) If you’re going to get pissed at something, please be consistent.”

I personally have been consistent, and…. nuanced I believe.

(Posts, 566, 571,583, but the whole discussion is worth a read, from my perspective.).

Besides, I can assure you that I do not need to be reminded of who
originated the role of Khan.

Unfortunately, I also suspect that “strategic trolling” might be in order now for some to try and discredit some inconvenient points of view ; on other threads, I personally asked some fellow “fans” to watch their tone when giving their opinion on certain topics.

If they were being p*ssed-off as you put it, and not “trolling”, I sincerely apologise to them. But, as I already pointed out elsewhere on the site, namecalling is not necessary to get one’s point across.

Lastly, I want to make it perfectly clear that completely ignoring my posts, refraining from interacting with me directly or indirectly are valid options to those who might disagree with me, or think I am a “hater” , “social justice warrior”, and so forth, and so on…


P.S. : I am p*ssed-off that a ** guy ** is possibly playing Khan.
Had he been an Indian guy, it would have been the same ; Khan never was to me what he seems to be for a majority of fans. But, at least, given what I had seen before, especially in Space Seeds, such a casting decision would have made more sense…to me.

Especially in 2013.

280. Mcflycat - May 5, 2013


I’ve been putting some thought into it and I think I’ve come to terms with a white actor playing Khan by creating my own original fan fiction in my head.

Eugenics facility. 1990.

Scientist bob- “ok, and our last subject is born from the egg and sperm if John and Mildred Harrison of London. What should we call it?”

Scientist bill- “name it after its genitic father? John Harrison?”

Scientist bob- ” bill, you idiot, we don’t want this thing thinking its human. It is our creation…. Not theirs.

Scientist bill- “okay okay. What about khan noonien singh?”

Scientist bob- “oooooooh that’s bad ass!”

281. Bassmaster22 - May 5, 2013

Gene Roddenberry is spinning in his grave so fast he could power a large city.

282. MIrror Universe John Harrison - May 5, 2013

Has it occurred to anyone that Section 31 might have altered John Harrison’s appearance? I mean, KNS was a famous dictator. If Section 31 “recruited” KNS in it’s employ, then wouldn’t it be logical they change his appearance?

283. Khan - May 5, 2013

If anyone in London want two premium seat tickets to the IMAX Star Trek screening at Waterloo next Thursday check out

284. Disinvited - May 5, 2013

# 278. Curious Cadet – May 5, 2013

“All of the Nazis on “Hogan’s Heros” were played by Jews.” – Curious Cadet

It would be wise to temper your recourse to uncalled for sweeping generalizations when your passions are aroused.

Many actors playing Nazis on HOGAN’S HEROES were not Jews. One of them was Dick Wilson who played Klink’s adjunct Captain Fritz Gruber.

285. Curious Cadet - May 5, 2013

@284 Disinvited,

Why do you constantly feel the need to call me on technicalities that are absolutely beside the point? Who the hell is Captain Fritz Gruber? I think he was in the original pilot, but I’m not going to Google it because it’s such a ridiculous observation for you to make considering my obvious point. the majority (if not all) of the principal cast playing Nazis were Jews (Klink, Burkhalter, Schultz). How’s that? Change the context of my point at all for you? I mean seriously, parsing the facts, syntax and other details of my statements are little more than a strawman when they have no impact on the relevance of the observation or point being made. Nevertheless — my apologies to any non-Jewish actors playing guest or supporting roles during the run of Hogan’s Heros for over generalizing to make my point.

286. Disinvited - May 5, 2013

#285. Curious Cadet – May 5, 2013

It’s not a technicality. As stated it was false (As false as a sweeping assumption that everyone the world over that read it “knows” what you meant.), i.e. ALL the actors that portrayed Nazis on HOGAN’S HEROES were NOT Jews, and left unchallenged would leave many unfamiliar with the show believing a falsehood, as you are credible in other areas. If you wanted to make a point about its main cast members then say so and you would do well to cease trying to prop up a contention’s import with unnecessary and easily proven false sweeping generalizations that actually weaken and muddy the clarity of your views.

287. Disinvited - May 5, 2013

#285. Curious Cadet – May 5, 2013

Perhaps this will open your eyes: if I paraphrase your statement in terms of STAR TREK:

One note I found interesting about minority actors playing roles connected to Captains … All of the Captains on 1960’s STAR TREK were played by Jews.

Do you feel in still retains your “obvious” meaning?

288. gingerly - May 5, 2013


Well said. :)

LOVE Cumberbatch, but the context of Hollywood’s casting practices and the year that we’re in, and also given the future-setting of the story and Roddenberry’s intent for diversity in that setting…

Yeah, if things go a specific way, there will be some well-deserved talkbacks about it.

289. Disinvited - May 5, 2013

#287. Disinvited – May 5, 2013

amend to: Do you feel it still retains your “obvious” meaning?

290. Curious Cadet - May 5, 2013

@285 Disinvited,
“and left unchallenged would leave many unfamiliar with the show believing a falsehood, as you are credible in other areas”

Well then I owe you thanks and an apology.

However, I would caution anyone reading the opinions of others on such a forum from taking statements made here as fact without researching them personally. I know I don’t.

Likewise, I encourage those posting from stating as facts those opinions stated on the internet which they have not bothered to check for themselves first.

291. Disinvited - May 5, 2013

#290. Curious Cadet – May 5, 2013

You are welcome and apology accepted.

Also concur with your advice

We should post that from time to time as the heat rises.

292. Buzz Cagney - May 5, 2013

Thanks, Anthony. The review has calmed some of my fears.

293. JohnRambo - May 5, 2013

“but the big surprise is that none of the big surprises are really that surprising”

i hope that they are surprises that will surprise me:-)

294. olly - May 5, 2013

#217 Benedict Cumberbatch would make a perfect disciple of the Emperor Palpatine

295. CoffeeProf - May 5, 2013


Stop trolling.

296. scotchyscotchscotch - May 5, 2013

Anthony – Thank you as always.

297. Toothless Grishnar Cat - May 6, 2013

That’s actually pretty impressive, considering Roddenberry was cremated.

298. Anthony Thompson - May 6, 2013

296. You’re welcome. ; )

297. And sent into space. : D

299. Goran'agar - May 6, 2013

Regarding Cumber playing an indian – here’s my take, or at least the way I reconcile the matter.

North Indians are considered historically and mythically to be descended from Aryans who migrated down to India many millennia ago. Khan is from the north of India and genetically enhanced in every way – BC’s depiction certainly fits the bill for the ultimate Aryan in SITD

300. TrinaInUS - May 6, 2013

Definitely, the Trek cast could use more diversity. I hope we’ll get a new tv show out of all this, and that we’ll see it again, there. (One thing I always loved about DS9 was the diversity, not only among humans but with the characters of other species. It took what TOS started to a whole new level)

But as others have pointed out, even going on the assumption that John Harrison is actually Khan, the fact that Cumberbatch is white and from England could be satisfactorily explained in at least two ways. And the fact is that he’s one of the best actors any of us is likely to see in our lifetimes. IMO, but I think I’m right. Given that, I can’t bring myself to fault them for casting him.

The thing is, we can’t go into the past (ironic) and put a Sikh actor into this film. So why not enjoy the villain we have? That’s what I’m going to do.

301. gingerly - May 6, 2013

@299 and 300

If Hollywood didn’t have a habit of making bad films like The Last Airbender all the worse for it’s whitewashing… in a time when we should know better…

…Instead of ending it back when it was understandable, severely tarnishing masterpieces of the times like Breakfast at Tiffany’s, then perhaps I could simply choose to enjoy it.

As it is, if this is the case, then I cannot give them a free pass, especially given the sad irony of this supposedly diverse future setting.

Also, do you know not see considering “the ultimate Aryan” as somehow an acceptable replacement for a talented Sikh actor, with the very same capabilities in a setting that is the very antithesis of 1940’s Nazi Germany, as a logical concession…is only demonstrating why this practice should be rightly frowned upon as antiquated??

The fact that people think this makes sense these days, is in part because Hollywood continues to enable it.

302. Klang - May 6, 2013

Thank you for your review.
Just got out of a surprise screening of INTO DARKNESS down here in OZ. The film was amazing and does stick with a simple breakneck pace as the first (Trek ’09) did. I will preface the rest of what I’m going to write by saying that I consider myself a long time Trek fan who has seen every episode and film many times over and read a lot of the books and played all the games (playing the current one now actually) and I can say that I really enjoyed this film and never thought that I’d see Star Trek on this scale. Yes it is more of an action film then the original films but boy does this film show more of the Star Trek I love. Yes there are several Trek stables that were missing from the ’09 film that appear in this one and I feel that this film is, pardon the pun, Best of Both Worlds in the sense that it had the action from the last film and had the themes of the original tv series. I went with my wife’s girlfriend who hadn’t seen any Trek before and now she wants to get into it because she thought it was amazing!!
I would say to everyone 3 simple things.
1. Don’t read the spoilers.
2. And remember that this is an alternative timeline and events you might remember from the original timeline could be changed at any moment. (for example: destruction of Vulcan in the ’09 film).
3. And this is a proper sequel and has throw backs to the ’09 film.
So that’s all I can say without spoiling anything.
But I guess some of you might think I’m making this up so I’ll tell you one small non-plot point to prove that I’m being truthful when you see the film.
NX-01 appears in the film.

303. rocketscientist - May 6, 2013

99. mateo – May 4, 2013

“The problem is that the writers aren’t good WRITERS. They are fanboys who write like teenage boys who write for other teenage boys. Star Trek is for adults and it always has been.”

I got into ST as a kid when I was in elementary school. I think it’s a big plus to have people like Bob Orci and Damon Lindelof writing these new ST films who love and understand the franchise. I think it certainly paid off wrt ST09. I was very skeptical when I heard they were recasting those iconic characters but I really thought ST09 generally worked out wonderfully. I think that’s a testament to the “Supreme Court’s” efforts.

And wrt Mr. Pascale’s review, I enjoyed. I got a sense on where he stood wrt the movie without major spoilers.

I’m certainly looking forward to seeing Star Trek into Darkness!

304. AnonymousWasAWoman - May 6, 2013

@ 302. Klang

I envy you madly for having seen it already. I have my own tickets in hand for the 15th, and I’m seriously looking forward to finally seeing it.

I’ll admit I’ve read the spoilers (I promise I won’t reveal them here), and I’m actually glad I read them. It gave me a few days to get over what I’ll admit was a reaction of disappointment re: the villain, shake it off and say to myself, ‘It’s Benedict Cumberbatch; I would listen to him read the phone book, so why would I not enjoy him in an iconic villain’s role?”

I’m fully expecting to. If we’re hearing about plot holes, well, they were there in 2009, too, and it didn’t stop me from enjoying that movie tremendously. The casting was top-notch, and it was gutsy, with a number of relative unknowns. From the reviews I’ve read so far, it sounds as if that cast is still universally marvelous (poor Alice Eve’s been taking a bit of a beating, but in fairness, it doesn’t sound like she’s been given much to do beyond screaming and stripping off). I’m looking forward to seeing the Kirk/Spock dynamic deepen, and props to the writers for getting the fact that that friendship is so absolutely bedrock fundamental to Trek. Pine and Quinto are both fantastic, and I’m looking forward to seeing how they tackle some of the moments I’ve been hearing about.

305. Yanks - May 6, 2013

Wow Anthony.

Thanks for a fantastic “spoiler free” review.

If I ever get the hankerin to do one, I’ll always use yours as an example.

More psyched than ever to see this!!!

“Lirpa” – nice.

Thank you.

306. Captain Ransom - May 6, 2013

“With the relentless pace, you are on to the next thing so fast you soon forget any quibbles.”

most of the original movies were never about ‘relentless pace’, especially trek 1,2, and 4. i am waiting to see what an epic failure abrams has created. i guess he needs relentless pace to overcome all the plot deficiencies and total nonsensical storyline, cringe-worthy dialogue, and awful characters that vaguely resemble the original crew while delivering nothing noteworthy.

307. Yanks - May 6, 2013

@ 302. Klang – May 6, 2013

“NX-01 appears in the film.”


I hope they find Portos too :-)

308. Yanks - May 6, 2013

@ 306. Captain Ransom – May 6, 2013
“With the relentless pace, you are on to the next thing so fast you soon forget any quibbles.”

most of the original movies were never about ‘relentless pace’, especially trek 1,2, and 4. i am waiting to see what an epic failure abrams has created. i guess he needs relentless pace to overcome all the plot deficiencies and total nonsensical storyline, cringe-worthy dialogue, and awful characters that vaguely resemble the original crew while delivering nothing noteworthy.

Boy, you’re a box of chocolates…

Why even go see it?

309. Yanks - May 6, 2013

@ 303. rocketscientist – May 6, 2013

I’m certainly looking forward to seeing Star Trek into Darkness!

I’m with you Rocket!!

Can’t wait!

310. Disinvited - May 6, 2013

#297. Toothless Grishnar Cat – May 6, 2013

And injected into Earth orbit. Depending on its decay, he may well be.

311. Captain Ransom - May 6, 2013

NX 01 appears in the film? pfff being hauled away AS garbage? maybe a little target practice for a klingon bird of prey?

312. Unwanted - May 6, 2013

@301. Insisting that someone must be a of certain ethnicity to play ANY role is just ethnicist trash, People are people, skin color is just that, a color, and no more important than the color of your carpet at home, or for those of you who consider your carpet color important, skin color is no more important than the color of your socks, and never will be, not ever.

I am, legally and culturally, a Native American, my grandmother was 100 percent Native American, and my skin is lighter than Cumberbatch’s. Nevertheless I am an enrolled member of my tribe, which means that I have a minimum percentage of Native DNA in my genetic make up (Native Americans are the only ethnic group in the US required to prove minimum percentage of DNA, not even “African Americans” have to).

No matter what any of you might think you cannot accurately judge ANYTHING about a person from the color of their skin and ANYONE who believes they can is just indulging in ethnic predjudice, and never understood ANY of the lessons of Star Trek.

Sihkism is a religion not an ethnicity, members can be from any ethnicity, and people whose DNA is constructed one chromosome at a time in a lab do not have an ethnicity, never will either.

I don’t care if you disagree, I have no respect for your ethnicist opinion, and I never will, in fact this will be the last time I ever respond to you.

313. Disinvited - May 6, 2013

#312. Unwanted – May 6, 2013

Once again, you make eminent sense.

I agree with you.

314. Disinvited - May 6, 2013

#301. gingerly – May 6, 2013

“I do consider myself Jewish, and I take my kids to services on holidays because that is something really important to me.” – JJ Abrams

As is Damon Lindelof.

“Also, do you know not see considering “the ultimate Aryan” as somehow an acceptable replacement for a talented Sikh actor, with the very same capabilities in a setting that is the very antithesis of 1940′s Nazi Germany, as a logical concession…is only demonstrating why this practice should be rightly frowned upon as antiquated?? ” – gingerly

Do you not now see the absurdity of what you are trying to contend and your approach?

315. Captain Ransom - May 6, 2013

#301: shut up. Whitewashing? Sorry they couldn’t find a non-white actor of Cumby’s caliber to play the villain. Even Montelban didn’t come from the part of the world he was supposed to play on screen. If he wasn’t white, you would still cry racist because he’s the bad guy. The original Aryans were Persians who came from the ‘sheik’ part of the world. So what you’re saying basically makes no sense.

I’ve got news for you buddy – the future is never going to be like it is in Star Trek. Ever. Sorry for the spoiler.

316. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 6, 2013

If someone comes from Northern India, he could just as easily be Buddhist as Sikh and still have the same skin colouring.

317. Johnnyb807 - May 6, 2013

@Anthony Pascale and @BobOrci – I’m curious to know how and/or if the “Countdown into Darkness” prequel series by IDW enhanced your viewing of STID. Keep in mind that I haven’t read the prequel comics yet (I was waiting for the TPB so that I could read if from cover to cover just prior to watching STID). With ST2009 I felt that reading the prequel comic for that movie, while not strictly required, would be highly recommended in that it provided more depth, more back story to the Spock/Nero characters and also wound up answering at least some of the questions that watching the movie stand alone raised. Thank you for any thoughts you could provide.

318. atexp80 - May 6, 2013

I too saw the “Surprise Screening” here at Event Cinemas in Australia last night.

Thoroughly enjoyed it as a long time Star Trek fan. I will echo what Anthony said – plenty of nods and references to other characters, events and places littered throughout Trek lore. A few moments where long time fans might raise their eyebrow in Spock-like fashion at the abilities or inabilities (or both at the same time) of the Treknology.

Cumberbatch was excellent and only furthers to cement his acting prowess. People concerned about characters getting enough screen time should be fairly well relieved. McCoy has plenty to do and Urban continues to nail the character (he’s been my favourite aspect of this part of the franchise), Sulu gets less screen time but the character has an opportunity to shine in the time given and Chekov has a few moments too, though ultimately the character gets the short end of the stick in more ways than one.

Pine and Quinto continue to do great work and their relationship is at the centre of the film. It works in all respects and their journey is what holds the film together.

As for critics saying there isn’t enough of what made Star Trek Star Trek in this iteration I think both films have dealt with themes which fit within Roddenberry’s vision. The first was set around the choice to aspire to be better than you are and have a positive influence on events and others around you. Kirk’s journey was set against Nero’s journey which was the exact opposite in which he allowed events to dictate the most basic of reactions and jettison all aspirations for anything other than revenge.

Star Trek Into Darkness (although a big action film) continues on the theme of making choices, but in this case rather than being about doing nothing vs. aspiring to be better it’s about making sure your choices are the right ones for the right reasons. It’s more of a morality play.

I think some long time Trek fans will see the big explosions etc and write it off as basic action fare but there is a message of aspiration and morality in both the films. That’s part and parcel of Roddenberry’s vision as far as I’m concerned.

Bob – I’d love to talk about the end of the film in more detail but obviously won’t for spoilerish reasons. Suffice to say, given where we find the characters at the end of this film I certainly hope that the series extends beyond three films!

319. Klang - May 6, 2013

Yeah the film was fantastic. The NX-01 cameo was there only for fans and is over pretty quickly. There are a LOT of other shout outs to other films/series but I don’t want to spoil them here. But after its out everywhere I can’t wait to talk to you all about them.

320. Mcflycat - May 6, 2013

I will literally laugh out loud in the theatre if I hear Sherlock Holmes say he is Khan Noonien Singh. I still hold out hope he isn’t… Looking forward to the movie any way.

On a related note: I would like to see Bond played by Denzel Washington in the next 007 film. I think he is a better actor than Daniel Craig.

321. BatlethInTheGroin - May 6, 2013

#317: Countdown to Darkness doesn’t enhance the movie, as it pretty much has nothing to do with it, unfortunately. It’s a complete red herring.

322. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine. Stand at ease. - May 6, 2013

Excellent review! Can’t wait to see the new Trek.

As a 49 yr old fan of the original, I have today it is fun to think I still get to look forward to another new Trek movie. It is doubly nice that it features my favorite “real” characters. Makes an old guy feel like the little kid he really is. I look forward to grinning to myself in the theater in 2 weeks. Of course I’ll nitpick, but it beats the alternative!

By the way, from the looks of the commercials I’ve seen, no one can make fun of the unitards from The Motion Picture anymore. Those new ones…whoa. I mean, they are a hoot.

323. BummedOut - May 7, 2013

Bummer. Sounds like a film I don’t want to spend a lot of money to see. I was worried that it would be a rehash and it certainly sounds like it. Guess I’ll wait for ppv.

324. JohnRambo - May 7, 2013

I don’t care if he is……. if he is…… then we will have the best version of him!
Cumberbatch is an incredible actor!

In 23 hours…..i will have my vengeance!:-)

325. Mcflycat - May 7, 2013

Don’t get me wrong. I love BC in Sherlock, and a bunch if British period peices I’ve seen him in. I’m curious to see how he pulls of playing an Indian from India, who’s an Indian. If the rumors are true…

326. 322. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine. Stand at ease. - May 7, 2013

I just had another thought, but I’m not reading through 300 posts to see if it has been addressed. If cumberbatch is as good as advertised, then it will be very disappointing if he is killed off in this movie. I’d channel a little moriarty and empire strikes back and leave him out there to come back for more mayhem. But I am sure the writers are way ahead of me.

327. Anthony Pascale - May 7, 2013


Posting the same thing over and over and over and over and over again is spamming. You were warned once, we get it. Move on

328. atexp80 - May 7, 2013

326. You’ll just have to wait and see. ;) Having said that, Lindelof has made some comments regarding that very subject. Naturally for obvious reasons they don’t shed much light:

“To answer that question would be to determine whether or not he actually survived the movie, but if he survives this movie, I think we would be incredibly stupid to not see him again.”

329. Aurore - May 8, 2013

“Insisting that someone must be a of certain ethnicity to play ANY role is just ethnicist trash, People are people…”

…And yet, for the powers that be, apparently, before they were amazed by Mr. Cumberbatch’s acting skills, it seems that Hispanic actors were favoured for the role of the villain. I personally believed that their insisting on trying to cast them had to have a purpose….

I wonder if, in hindsight, many now won’t ask themeselves whether or not this insistence on casting Hispanic actors for the role of Khan Noonien Singh (if Khan is the villain) was in itself, “ethnicist trash” so to speak, as well.

But, maybe it is not “ethnicist trash” when the powers that be “does” it….

On the article by John Tenuto I linked to earlier on this thread, I was told that many actors of Hispanic and/or Indian backgrounds were tested for the role, “whether it be Khan or not.” As I said then, I presumed that it meant male actors for the upcoming sequel.

I also conceded that it might have been true. But, since I had never heard about the other actors, only about the Hispanic ones who were considered, I always assumed that casting Hispanic actors was extremely important for the powers that be, for many a reason. None of these reasons, in my mind, had anything to do with Khan, as stated above, “people are people” ; and so, the word “Hispanic” (or “Latino”) does not necessarily mean “Khan”…for me.

Why should It ?

….Which reminds me of another interesting discussion….

“…In any case, to me, one thing is for certain; had ‘the power that be’ actively searched for an Indian actor, there would have been no room for speculation, as far as the identity of the villain would have been concerned. I think that, justly or not, most fans would have screamed “KHAAaaaaaan!” in unison. There would have been no suspense, so to speak.

What is interesting, with the casting of Hispanic actors, is that debates, theories etc… abound around the villain’s identity.” (post 147).

….The poster who wrote these lines wasn’t entirely right ; there were, indeed, many theories, but, a lot of them involved Khan.

As a matter of fact, if I remember correctly, before we even knew anything about Benicio Del Toro being considered for a possible role in the sequel, according to some online, actors such as Nestor Carbonell, Javier Bardem, Antonio Banderas, would have been perfect to portray Khan, too…

330. Jemini - May 8, 2013

Anthony, I’ve read that in the end of the movie there is a SIGNIFICANT time jump can you confirm or deny it?

331. Markus - May 8, 2013

Time jump? Not noticeable.

Saw the film this morning in Berlin. I do not know what I should think about it. Had tears in my eyes in half a dozen of scenes, but it is a double-edged sword.. Yet a great experience.

332. Jemini - May 8, 2013

331 Markus
“Time jump? Not noticeable.”

I’ve read a comment by someone who I guess was drunk that night then because they said that the ending scene happens one year after the end of the crisis.
I can see the last scene being some weeks later but a year? makes no sense to me.

333. Markus - May 8, 2013


At least it did not feel that way. Especially as in the end they hold some kind of a memorial service for someone. Why wait a year?

334. atexp80 - May 8, 2013

332. As it’s not really as spoiler as such I will simply say that yes: what you have read is correct. As for the reasons, there are a few but to talk about them gets into spoiler territory. Suffice to say there are reasons for such a gap.

335. Jemini - May 8, 2013

so they say on screen that it’s a year after?
months I could understand (for a spoilery reason) but a year seems silly to me.
Still not sure it makes sense and I can’t find a valid reason for such a huge gap especially knowing there will be a third movie AND the comics before it.
are we supposed to ignore what happens in a whole year?

336. Jemini - May 8, 2013

or in that case will the comics be about what happens in that year we don’t see or the events in the comics will happen a year after too?
It’s just so weird, also weird that no review seems to talk about this “detail” that, I think, should be eye catching!

337. Adam C - May 8, 2013

Having seen the movie. I can 100% say my IMAX 3d showing was unbearable, and I think it may hurt ticket sales for IMAX. The raw sound was too loud and well out of my comfort zone. The 3D was like watching a movie cross-eyed, that took away any spectacle.
The screen was too low, heads get in the way, if you’re high up.
It actually made me break out in a sweat. Almost enough to walk out. (but it was a free showing anyway lol)

Either watch it in 2D or wait for Blu-ray. I got the feeling there are going to be loads of angry people after watching this.

As for the movie well I cant spoil, but I will say I dont think I saw it as I was too distracted!

338. BobbyGravy - May 8, 2013

Cumberbatch as Khan-if true-does not represent a bold and innovative step on the part of the producers, but rank cowardice. They just don’t want someone with brown skin, on screen, blowing people up. As usual, the tiresome obsession with being ‘PC’ has leant itself to unintentional racism. Can you think of any other franchise on the small or big screens, where it would be considered acceptable to replace an ethnic minority actor with a white guy?

339. Michael Hall - May 8, 2013

@ 338–

Reach, much? ‘Cause, yeah, no ‘politically correct’ studio product in recent memory has ever dealt with brown people of Middle-Eastern origin with less than total liberal deference and respect. Not one.

Jesus. Do you people ever bother to listen to yourselves?

340. Disinvited - May 8, 2013

#332. Jemini – May 8, 2013

Going only from the first movie poster, I’d say they’d need at least a year to rebuild?

341. NiGhT_RaVeN13 - May 9, 2013

Love the fact that some of the hard core Trekkies want the movies to feature characters that are the exact same depiction of the original series….it’s not gonna happen, this is a new reimagining of the series with an alternative time line…i thought it was explained in the first movie. For the fact Khan isn’t Indian in this film…so what? It does not have to be the exact same of what you want it to be. I went to see it last night and found it thoroughly enjoyable! I also find that the fact that the movies are starting from the start helps people who weren’t into the series get into it….but yeah….the movie was pretty damn good!

342. Bobby Gravy - May 9, 2013

# 339

My point is that the depiction of minorities in many pictures these days, comes off has being fairly negative (though that may be entirely unintentional on the part of the producers).
Which is precisely why more liberal minded folk at Paramount, could have overreacted to the potential proposition of an ethnic minority character, wreaking havoc in 23rd century London. Yes, being a Sikh is a million miles away from being (one of a tiny minority of) fundamentalist Muslims. But-and you have to admit this-there are people out there who won’t make that distinction. Given this, it’s possible that Paramount may have decided that it would be safer to not go there at all-and hence, recast the part of Khan part as a Caucasian male (IF indeed, that it was that they have done-and there’s still hope that they haven’t!). Given that, in the world of science fiction anything is possible, it would be an convenient path for them to take.

But you may be right. Perhaps I’m way off base here, and the potential racial politics of casting were the furthest things from the minds of the Bad Robot/Paramount people when they made the decision. Perhaps they thought that a genetically altered Khan would make for a neat twist. It may have been as simple as that.
But whatever way you cut it, the decision to cast Cumberbatch as Khan (IF that is the case) a dreadful one. It’s an insult to Montalban’s stellar performances. It wastes the considerable talents of Benedict Cumberbatch (who should have been given the opportunity to create a memorable villain of his own rather than being tasked with trying to fill someone else’s shoes). And more than that, whether you want to admit it or not, it almost certainly will have negative ramifications with regards to perceptions of racial insensitivity. Montalban, was a role model at a time in Hollywood when very few Hispanic actors could catch those kinds of breaks. It is reasonable to assume that he still engenders great respect amongst the Hispanic movie-loving community. How the Hell do you think they’re going to feel if they find out that one of his best known parts, has been recast with a Caucasian Englishman? There’s no getting away from it. Trek producers magical sci-fi way of ‘explaining’ the character change just won’t cut it. Nor will any retort from them that ‘Montalban wasn’t a Sikh either!’.

343. Aurore - May 9, 2013

“… It is reasonable to assume that he still engenders great respect amongst the Hispanic movie-loving community. How the Hell do you think they’re going to feel if they find out that one of his best known parts, has been recast with a Caucasian Englishman? There’s no getting away from it. Trek producers magical sci-fi way of ‘explaining’ the character change just won’t cut it. Nor will any retort from them that ‘Montalban wasn’t a Sikh either!’.”


* IF * people complain, whether they be from the “Hispanic movie-loving community”…or not, it is probable that “they” will retort that they had established they were trying to cast Hispanic actors
way before Mr. Abrams was told about this incredible British actor starring in Sherlock*….

…And, soon, maybe we’ll even hear the names of Indian, South Asian actors who were cast too.

However, they might say that they did not want people to know about it before ; fans ( except maybe one French serial whiner ) would have known without a doubt that they were trying to surprise everyone with a Khan story…

*During a “Master Class” event which took place in France days ago ( available online ), and if I heard correctly, Mr. Abrams said Damon Lindelof was the one who told him about Mr. Cumberbatch ; ” Damon Lindelof said to me :’ You have to check out this guy…’ “(or something to that effect)…

344. Aurore - May 9, 2013


There is **much** to be said about what the fellow poster wrote @ 342.

But, since we can’t say more about John harrison, now…

I’ll wait a few more days to approach the question of the…. “liberal minded folk at Paramount, who could have overreacted to the potential proposition of an ethnic minority character, wreaking havoc in 23rd century London.”


345. Aurore - May 9, 2013

“…How the Hell do you think they’re going to feel if they find out that one of his best known parts, has been recast with a Caucasian Englishman?”

Of course, I will let people express how they feel if and when they have something to say about…..the issue.

But, Ricardo Montalbán, himself said that Khan could be any nationality.

I personally disagree, but, he did say so, thus, “they” could say it too….

They probably will if Khan is in the sequel.

346. Aurore - May 9, 2013

@ 345 by “‘they’ could say it too” and “They probably will if Khan is in the sequel”, I meant The powers that be.

Evidently, they could say it even if Ricardo Montalbán had never said so.

As one fan so aptly put it once : “They could invoke artistic license to excuse the fact that they simply WANTED Cumberbatch to play the part. Period. And everybody just get over it please.”

347. Aurore - May 9, 2013

Anthony, I am not “spamming” on purpose, I promise!


However, @ 343 “…the names of Indian, South Asian actors who were cast too.” should have read “… the names of Indian, South Asian actors who were tested/considered too.”

348. stefano - May 13, 2013

Questo è il blog giusto per tutti coloro che vogliono capire qualcosa su questo argomento. Trovo quasi difficile discutere con te (cosa che io in realtà vorrei… haha). Avete sicuramente dato nuova vita a un tema di cui si è parlato per anni. Grandi cose, semplicemente fantastico!

349. Paul Ditta - May 14, 2013

Okay, I liked the 2009 trek a LOT. Yes, it had massive plot issues, the antagonist’s motives were unclear and it suffered from trying to be a reboot without being a reboot….but, it was terrific fun, the characters were likeable and close enough to their classic counterparts and the franchise got a much needed shot of adrenaline.

Into Darkness? The frustrating thing about it is that there is so much that is good, but it’s counterbalanced by a bizarre decision to straddle the line between homage and rip off so hard it gets friction burns.

After making such a clear statement with Star Trek; that this isn’t the same Trek that went before it, to so shamelessly “reference” previous trek smacks of a loss of confidence.

I’m at a loss as to the story choices made…. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.