Star Trek Into Darkness Reviews Remain (Mostly) Positive – RT Rating 87% Fresh |
jump to navigation

Star Trek Into Darkness Reviews Remain (Mostly) Positive – RT Rating 87% Fresh May 8, 2013

by Geri Schear , Filed under: Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

More reviews for Star Trek Into Darkness are popping up. While the majority of US reviewers haven’t yet weighed in, there continues to be a positive pattern although there are also some dissenters. Once again TrekMovie takes a look at the buzz for the movie with a summary overview and some extracts (spoiler free).


Reviews for Into Darkness Remain Generally Positive

The review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes is tracking 37 Star Trek Into Darkness reviews with a 87% Fresh rating (and an average of 7.6 out of 10  rating). But it is still early, RT aggregated 296 reviews for the 2009 Star Trek film (at 95% Fresh/8.1 avg). The Metacritic aggregation site is tracking 8 reviews of Into Darkness for an average score of 74/out of 100 (the 2009 movie had an 83 based on 37 reviews).

Below is an overview of some of the main reviews .

Enjoyable Summer Movie For Fans and non-fans alike

As more reviews become available a pattern is emerging regarding the things that work and don’t work in the film. Drew McWeeny writing for Hitfix put his finger on the issues most concerning long-time Trek fans:

"I feel badly for the hardcore “Star Trek” fans who don’t like this new version, because I know what it’s been like for them in the years where there were no new “Trek” movies in the works, now that it’s finally become part of the Nerd World Order in this new age of the Geek, the most devoted of the “Trek” fans seem irritated by the whole thing."

As to his opinion of Star Trek into Darkness, McWeeny says,

"What lies ahead for “Star Trek” is unwritten and exciting, and this cast is primed to do amazing things if the material is there. I want more of these movies. I want more of these characters. “Star Trek Into Darkness” is a sober, aggressively-entertaining exploration of some of the richest characters in all of pop science-fiction, and it should cement this as one of the most potentially thrilling series running."


The characters have been largely extolled by critics. For instance, Craig Mathieson writing for The Sydney Morning Herald in his 4-star review says:

"Revered characters, especially in a film concerned with accepting your mortality, rarely get such enjoyable second lives. ‘I’m expressing multiple attitudes simultaneously,’ declares Mr Spock, and J. J. Abrams knows exactly what he means."

Sydney Morning Herald (review contains some spoilers)

The Hollywood News agrees, at least as far as the characters go. Reviewer Emma Thrower awards Into Darkness 4-stars and says,

"Though its strong ensemble work keeps it afloat until the concluding near perfect assault that will set audiences to stun, it is fun, but rarely thrilling. Cumberbatch may provide a villain for the ages, but we’ve not quite reached big summer blockbuster territory just yet."

HollywoodNews (mild spoilers)

Variety agrees, saying

"The film builds particularly well on the burgeoning Kirk-Spock friendship, with Pine showing reserves of vulnerability and doubt beneath his cocksure exterior, while Quinto adds gravitas to Spock’s eternal inner conflict — and his deepening romance with Lt. Uhura (Zoe Saldana). But make no mistake: The action, when it comes, is superbly executed, whether it’s giant vessels making mincemeat of one another, or the simpler excitements of old-fashioned hand-to-hand combat and foot chases through crowded promenades."


Reviewer Scott Foundass concludes: "J.J. Abrams sets his filmmaking to ‘stun’ with a sequel in every respect equal or even superior to its splendid 2009 predecessor."

Incidentally, Variety’s offers a poll asking viewers to vote what summer movie they most want to see. In a choice between Earth, Elysium, Pacific Rim and Star Trek into Darkness, the Trek film has currently won 81.54% of the votes.

In addition to the returning characters, the films villain has also won approval with Benedict Cumberbatch receiving almost universal praise. Most effusive is Scott Davis of Flickering Myth who (in his 4-stars review) proclaims…

"Benedict Cumberbatch arrives as John Harrison, ex-Starfleet member with a grudge, and the true baton-receiver of Heath Ledger’s mould-breaking Joker; as cunning, conniving and controlled as said King of the Clowns, but with the same combat brilliance as any of our super heroes. He’s a thunderbolt of both energy and malevolence, and like the film’s thunderous story, he is simply breathtaking. So breathtaking that it wouldn’t be too much of stretch to predict big things come awards season, as he is that astounding here. Ably supported by the superb double-act of Pine and Quinto and the comic brilliance of Simon Pegg (accent spot on this time), Star Trek Into Darkness is a blockbuster that has acting of the highest level."


Martin Hoscik of Seen It (4-stars) adds

" the script offers Cumberbatch the opportunity to transcend the one-dimensional bad guy role which blighted the later Trek films and offer audiences possibly the franchise’s most sympathetic and multi-layered villain to date. The returning cast remain utterly watchable, deploying familiar traits of the original characters without ever straying into caricature, with Chris Pine (Kirk) and Zachary Quinto (Spock) so assured in their roles that it’s almost possible to forget their legendary forerunners."


Michael Pell for MTV UK also awards the film 4/5 stars and says…

"From the volcanic opening to the devastating climax, Star Trek Into Darkness is as enjoyable and accessible for those new to the franchise as it delightful for die hard Trekkies."


FilmInk Australia has an unusual grading system: out of $20 how much is a film worth. In the case of "Star Trek into Darkness" they suggest $17 is fair. Writing for them, James Fletcher says…

"Star Trek Into Darkness is a big film, building on the foundations of its predecessor and holding true to the nature of the franchise. Combining humour, action and drama, Abrams once again delivers an original experience that feels nostalgic without any hint of being either stagnant nor stale. It’s an impressive feat, and one worth catching on the big screen."

FilmInk (some spoiler)

The film’s most enthusiastic response comes from Ireland’s Reviewer Paul Byrne gives the film its first 5-star review and says

"Star Trek into Darkness might just be one of the year’s finest films. J.J. Abrams once again sets his phaser to stun. And he does. Magnificently."

Siobhan Synnot for the Scotsman awarded the film 4 stars, and concludes…

"Star Trek Into Darkness remains great fun for non-fans, but especially the faithful, with nods to some of their favourite tropes, and a wholesale flip -revision of one particularly successful old storyline."

Scotsman (This review contains spoilers)

However Synot did also echo something from other reviewers in noting that the shot of Alice Eve in her underwear was "astonishingly gratuitous" adding "It occurs to you that maybe things haven’t moved that far from the anodyne dolly nurses in Sickbay 50 years ago."

Not as good as Star Trek 2009?

The film has some negative (or at least less than positive reviews) with a number of reviewers feeling that the Into Darkness didn’t live up to the promise of the 2009 feature. For example Scott Munro of What Culture gave the film 3.5 stars, noting…

"A perfectly functional sequel that nevertheless falls rather short of 2009’s water-tight reboot."


Todd McCarthy of Hollywood Reporter (in a non-rating review) goes further, writing…

"after impressing well enough in his previous big-screen directorial outings, Abrams works in a narrower, less imaginative mode here; there’s little sense of style, no grace notes or flights of imagination." ….

"professionally capable but creatively humdrum outing."

HollywoodReporter (spoilers)

Indiewire agrees and finds the film lacking in depth. Critic Oliver Lyttleton awards a C+, noting…

"For the first hour or so, it’s just as enjoyable as the original, but by the time the credits roll, there’s a sense that you’re undernourished and unsatisfied; you’ve been on a decent ride, but not one that really adds up to anything by the time you’re done. Star Trek Into Darkness is a long, long way from a disaster, but it’s hard not to feel that Abrams’ mystery box turned out to be a bit empty this time out."


Some just don’t like it

One of the most negative reviews comes from  Brad Brevit of Rope of Silicon. Giving the film a C- and finding virtually nothing in the film to like he says,

"Into Darkness is effective only as an amusement ride with truly awful 3D. I could have left 30 minutes in and returned for the final 15 and never missed a beat. Or I could have just watched a trailer and never shown up at all."


And the most scathing review of all came from Silas Lesnick of Coming Soon who awarded the film 4 out of 10, even comparing the film to one of Trek’s least admired films…

"Although the film is directed with the fervor and intensity of a tie-in theme park ride, the script, sadly, has precisely the same narrative aspirations. Offering a nonsensical mess of conspiracy theory, "Into Darkness" ends up becoming something stuck midway between a muddled Truther metaphor and a nearly beat-for-beat remake of the identically-plotted "Star Trek: Nemesis," widely regarded as the franchise’s worst entry."

Coming Soon

TrekMovie will continue to monitor reviews for Into Darkness. Look for another update next week once the majority of US reviews get posted.



1. Cinema Geekly - May 8, 2013

LOL! Silas Lesnick needs to be shipped a copy of STV pronto!

2. RenderedToast - May 8, 2013

Also, a copy of Nemesis and Into Darkness, because he clearly hasn’t see either!

3. Commodore Adams - May 8, 2013

For those of you who have seen it, is Silas Lesnick correct in any way. Its a pretty bad review, and it gets me wondering.

And Brad Bevit or Rope of Silicon “awful 3D” They have been hyping the 3D for this movie, but sometimes the hype is to make up for something that is lacking. Again, for those of you who have seen it, how is the 3D?

4. Commodore Adams - May 8, 2013

……Since I will not be able to see it till Saturday the 18th, I am going by the poll on Trekmovie, and so far its looking promising.

5. Sir Wallace - May 8, 2013

The 3D is fine, a little bit of blur here or there, but generally it is solid.

As for the movie…. it depends. If you watched the Trailer #3, and then started thinking, “hmm, all that looks familiar, I’m not sure about this now”, then expect the movie to fulfil that feeling.

6. Jamziz - May 8, 2013

Here we go, the Silas Lesnick bashing will begin despite the majority of people here not having seen the film for themselves..

7. njdss4 - May 8, 2013

“A perfectly functional sequel that nevertheless falls rather short of 2009′s water-tight reboot.”

Water-tight? Um, WHAT? There were plot holes as big as starships and plot conveniences as abundant as stars in the night sky in the last movie. I’m not saying I didn’t enjoy ST09, but it was anything but water-tight. That reviewer sounds like an idiot.

8. JohnRambo - May 8, 2013

“Into Darkness is effective only as an amusement ride with truly awful 3D.”

What the hell is wrong with this guy?

The 3D was the best i have seen so far(and i have seen a lot 3D Movies) And the Movie wasn’t even shot in 3D

9. Aix - May 8, 2013

I hope it ends up having at least 80% rating in RT.
And cross-fingers for $90M (or better) opening weekend!
And great world-wide box office! Any news on that, btw?

10. Phil - May 8, 2013

Have any of our foreign friends heard anything about how the box office is doing?

11. Anthony Pascale - May 8, 2013

there are no box office numbers yet. The film literally had its first midnight shows hours ago. TrekMovie will report box office numbers once they are available, probably by this weekend. But bear in mind the film is only open in a handful of countries.

12. ironhyde - May 8, 2013

I’m scared to hear the 3D is awful. That was my immediate impression based on the Hobbit’s 9min clip — and now I really wish I hadn’t bought tickets for the 3D…

13. Commodore Adams - May 8, 2013

@ 5. Sir Wallace
@ 8. JohnRambo

Thats all I want to hear with regards to the 3D, ill trust your opinions.

With regards to the trailers Sir Wallace, I have seen them all, all the snippets, video interviews etc, and everything I have seen just gets me more and more excited. I have not seen anything that looks disappointing…..So I should expect the movie to fulfill that feeling…balls to the wall excited?

14. NCC-73515 - May 8, 2013

3D is nice in the volcano, for enhanced goosebumps at the warp acceleration effect, or for depth in space. All the interior scenes don’t need 3D at all.

15. Leo R. - May 9, 2013


Thanks to you and your team for doing all that you’ve done; you guys have a tough job. Since I know the ending of this film already, I do hope you guys still go in a direction where you can create your own universe rather than trying to adhere to canon. I am a true hard core Trek fan, enough to create my own fan film and get it seen around the world, so for me to say, I want Star Trek but brand new stories that aren’t based on anything TOS is hard for me to say but I think it would be an incredible bold move and truly show an original story that could very well have Trek fans on the edge of their seats.

Again, just $0.02 and thanks again for Into Darkness.

16. Kev - May 9, 2013

Silas Lesnick of Coming Soon

“like Nemesis in structure”

I gotta admit with the trailers I can kinda see that being a valid point, hell could reddit to look like it really with the trailer.

should be interesting to see what Sfdebris says, see if theres any similarity with the others, along with brad jones.

17. OzK - May 9, 2013

Just saw it in 2d. Really really really enjoyed it. Beautiful music, some lovely character scenes, great action. You’ll either appreciate what’s been done with the storyline or you’ll hate it. I thought it worked really well. One quibble — a lot of the early dialogue in the teaser sequence is badly handled, insofar as you can’t tell what the guys are saying. That peeves me a lot, but the rest of the film is fine. Special shout out to Simon Pegg, who does some fabulous work. Bottom line? It’s not always subtle, there’s a bit of useful handwaving plotwise, but on balance? I’ll be going again asap.


18. Milan BAKARICH - May 9, 2013

Just saw the new film and its action upon action.
The story is great, the characters have a lot more interactions than the first film.
Yes spoiler alert khan is back with a vengeance blowing up everything.
Cameo role for the old Spock was a fine touch to the film.
The enterprise was as good as she gets with new sets and flying in all sorts of places.
The finale well I leave that because it was not too originally for my taste.
The five year mission begins.
A job well done and worth the wait.
I only ask JJ to get the next film within three years.
Thanks Milan Adelaide south Australia

19. Robman007 - May 9, 2013

I’m pretty sure it’s not as terrible as Nemesis. That was a franchise killer that NOBODY cared for. This film, as much as it might piss fans off, is far away from a franchise killer…..just saying.

20. Govna - May 9, 2013

For reference: kingdom of the crystal skull is 78% fresh. My point is that all the love from critics has set me up for disappointment before. I’m so afraid to get too excited for Into Darkness. And I’m also afraid that some of the elements of this film that the critics are friendly to will ultimately be major sticking points for me and other serious fans.

21. zinelady - May 9, 2013

I saw it today in 3D and will see it in 2D on Saturday. I’ve only seen one other 3D movie and that was the Hobbit. I thought both movies had cool 3 D effects. That said, I didn’t like Into Darkness as much as the first movie. I felt JJ was trying too hard to be a fanboy. He would have been better going with an original story idea than recycling an old idea and twisting it to suit his needs. There was a moment where it was supposed to be serious and I had to force myself not to laugh in embarrassment for the actor. The acting on the whole was very good. Benedict Cumberbatch did an excellent job and his character was wonderfully evil and sympathetic at the same time.

22. Phil - May 9, 2013

@11. Yeah, I understand. The folks over at Box Office Mojo do break it down by country, but they usually take 24 hours to process…

I suspect the folks at the studio are anxious to see if the work has paid off, too…..

23. Michael - May 9, 2013

in this Timeline the even numbered one’s suck.

24. Red Dead Ryan - May 9, 2013

Drew McWeeny (gotta love that name) pisses me off by suggesting that hardcore Trekkies aren’t going to like this movie. I going to bet that most hardcore Trekkies are going to love this movie. We may end up having some issues with certain parts (most movies do have some weak points) but overall, I suspect that fan reaction on this site will be at least on par with the last film.

The folks who are going to hate the sequel are the anti-JJ Talifans, those who worship TNG like its the New Testament or can’t stand seeing classic characters being played by new actors. Unfortunately, these zealots and nutjobs have given the rest of us Trekkies a bad name.

25. Son of Jello - May 9, 2013

I had my ticket all ready to go to see STITD but work called and I had to go in. (good thing i love my job)

26. Robman007 - May 9, 2013

@ RDR…agreed. I’m a hardcore trek fan, I’ve read about this film and I have no doubt ill love it. It would have to suck at such depths that it makes Insurrection look like an oscar winner for me to hate it…

For those who like old style Trek, this film will seal the deal on it coming back for the 3rd film. I read an article today on Yahoo in which a rep from Paramount stated that, when surveyed, most in the overseas market wanted “more action/adventure, less talking on the bridge and less Trekkie scenes and feel”….the overseas market rules nowadays. Sad but true

27. sean - May 9, 2013

Rope of Silicon? Seriously?

RT seems to have a pretty loose vetting system for bringing on ‘critics’.

28. Im just keepin it real - May 9, 2013

I’m just glad Rick Berman didn’t have anything to do with this successful turnaround. Plus Thank God there won’t be any bashing from Roger Ebert.

29. Please do the right thing Orci - May 9, 2013

Please find a way to get Shatner,Nimoy and the rest of survivong OC from this franchise plus Stewart,Brooks,Mulgrew and Backula. Just wishing a longsshot…

30. Red Dead Ryan - May 9, 2013


Uh, no….

31. AJ - May 9, 2013

RT’s aggregation system is somewhat over the top. Any nerd with a PC and a clever blog name can get in a review.

I stick to the big ones: NY Times, Rolling Stone, Variety (mentioned here), Washington Post, IGN, Chicago Tribune, Guardian, etc.

Too bad the venerable Roger Ebert is no longer with us. His reviews were always events in themselves. Reading a review by Mark Ellis of “Schmoes Know” (one of the entries on RT) just doesn’t carry any weight with me.

By the way, ‘STID’ is up to 88%.

32. FrancoMiranda - May 9, 2013


People like you are a joke! Honest to God. I hope you’re messing around.

33. chanels - May 9, 2013

I saw this last night in 3D and will go back to see it in 2D this weekend. I’m not a fan of 3D as it hurts my eyes and this was no different, but, OMG, it was worth it. Quinto was stunning, he and Pine make a great team and Cumberbatch was, as one of the reveiws said, so sympathetic that I almost wanted him to win. Stunning ending that pays hommage to the old movies (won’t say which, spoilers!) so that when one of the last scenes appear you’ll know how it’s gonna end but it still moves you to tears anyway. I don’t understand how quinto can pack so much emotion into such a staid face. I definitely recommend this 100%.

34. Jim Nightshade - May 9, 2013

i dunno….trek fans may like some fan service in a movie but sounds like this one may be a bit too much even with jj orci twists n turns….obviously we probably wont mind but remember non fans probably wont git much of it it may just be confusing extraneous to em….guess we will see…i liked iron man 3 but nothin bout it was impressive nuff to justify the 175 mill opening….hope trek does better but know it wont..we saw iron man 3 sunday….if i woulda know that was the last day spent with our dying cockatiel bird i woulda stayed home with him…sigh

35. Matthewbriggs - May 9, 2013

I feel a bit short changed by this film. It’s very nice to look at and the cast work together fantastically, but the story feels meh. Just don’t know why they had to go in this direction with such a vast universe to play with or something totally original. I might just have another little look later in the day.

36. flubber2kool - May 9, 2013

I would like to know of those who have disliked the movies A) the writers like sci-fi or Start Trek and B) like 3D.

I would rather listen to what people who have seen the movie have to say cause they are the best critics.

I often think that people put too much faith in critics. After all one of the most sucessful musicals Les Miserable would never have gone on to gain the sucess that it has if people had believed what the critics had said as the reviews were awful.

I am going to see it on Saturday and I am as excited as I was for the first.

@Roboman007 I resent that as I am not only one of those from the overseas market I am also a dedicated trekkie and I have lived through all the incarnations. Alot of the episodes that I have enjoyed are the action adventure ones. So I am loveing the thought I may be getting more of that. Not only that it is also aimed at the non-trekkie so too much of the Trekkie Scenes and feels would not nesscarily be understood!

37. Donald - May 9, 2013

the variety of the changes shown here was the perfect out come and right now we are true expecting the movie to be rather cleaver and surely it does too. what a fantastic events of action made and director was hoping to have a fine goodwill over it.

38. flubber2kool - May 9, 2013

@Roboman007 There was nothing wrong with Nemesis, That movie happened because thats what Brent Spiner wanted to happen to Data. It was a really good movie and I for one really loved it!

It seems to me that no matter what happens you could put out the most amazing story ever but if it didnt do exactly what the ‘fans’ wanted then it wouldn’t be a good movie.

If you dont think you want to see it then dont. Wait till you can see it on telly then if you are dissapointed you can turn it off!

39. Admiral Buzzkill - May 9, 2013

Saw it yesterday, the 3D effects were definitely much better than those in Iron Man 3. The audience (Stuttgart, Germany) enjoyed the movie and I heard some very positive comments from other cinema-goers.

40. Cygnus-X1 - May 9, 2013

It should be pointed out that the favorable reviews of Into Darkness can accurately be described as “mixed.” Many of the “Fresh” reviews are along the lines of these:

“A stop-gap tale that’s modest, fun and briefly amusing rather than one that breaks new ground or offers hugely memorable set pieces.” – Dave Calhoun, Time Out London.

“I’d say it ranks slightly below the 2009 reboot – it’s good, not great.” – Matthew Toomey, ABC Radio Brisbane.

Again, these are the GOOD reviews of the movie at

Of the 35 critics who gave the movie a “Fresh” review, not a single one of them said that this movie is better than Star Trek ’09. Most or all of the critics who gave a favorable review focused their comments on the movie’s action, production values and JJ’s craftsmanship for achieving them. Some of the favorable reviews mention that the relationships between the characters were compelling, but none of them said that the movie is touching, emotionally memorable, mind-blowing or had anything to say about the value of the movie’s theme.

Simon Miraudo of Quickflix, in his favorable review, had this to say:

“I had begun to wonder if any of these big budget monstrosities could deliver something special; something that didn’t feel like a facsimile of previous successes, totally devoid of heart and humanity. Star Trek Into Darkness is… almost that. “

41. Randall Flagg - May 9, 2013

Metacritic is actually a better representation of critics, as it’s a “weighted average”. They assign more importance, or weight, to some critics and publications than others.

Rotten tomatoes actually has a review from, so it’s technically a review of the costumes than the actually movie!

42. porthoses bitch - May 9, 2013

Alice Eve in her underwear……….

“That’s how I define unwarrented !”
Will Decker STTMP

God bless her little heart.

43. Exverlobter - May 9, 2013

I have to disagree with Drew McWeeny. I don’t get it where this myth came from, that Abrams-Trek is not for the fans. Well indeed you can misunderstand JJ , as he frequently stated, that his films are not just for the fans but for everyone.
However that does not mean, that fans will not feel comfortable because there is a mainstream-audience in the cinema as well.
I have seen Into Darkness yesterday. And i also don’t think that it’s a perfect film, i’d give it a B, but there is enough fan-service (almost too much, but more when Spoilers are allowed) that fans could embrace it.

44. Martin - May 9, 2013

@41. No. Unwarranted is Deckers junk displayed through his pjs

45. Disinvited - May 9, 2013

#41. porthoses bitch – May 9, 2013

Maybe, but that’s sure not the way I’d spell it. ;-)

46. Schiefy - May 9, 2013

Based upon STID’s 3D preview after The Hobbit I thought it was the best 3D usage I have seen (although unlike #8 I have not seen a lot of 3D movies).

As for the movie itself I am trying to keep my expectations low so as not to be too disappointed if it fails to deliver as a truly Trek-perience.

I am, however, truly looking forward to Cumberbatch’s performance which I think will elevate the film above any plot holes or other weaknesses that might be present. In fact, I thought the brig scene in one of the clips showed this to be true while Pine’s Kirk was shown to be more of a whinny kid in contrast. :)

47. Michael Hall - May 9, 2013

Plus Thank God there won’t be any bashing from Roger Ebert.

Really have your priorities in order, don’t you?

48. KevinArnold79 - May 9, 2013

I just saw it, and I tell ya what I have been waiting for the sequel to JJ’s Star Trek since I was wowed in 2009…..and it delivers. You know that sort of hollow feeling you got after Iron Man 3, well that ain’t here. Into Darkness is flat out excellent! Great twists and turns, the effects are amazing, especially the city shots of future San Fran (they were exceptionally well done for some reason) and a clever twist on a classic Trek story. Fantastic all round. Well done JJ, can’t wait for your next one…

Trust me…..Star Wars VII is in safe hands!

49. Exverlobter - May 9, 2013

“Plus Thank God there won’t be any bashing from Roger Ebert.”

That sounds almost inappropriate.

50. SoonerDave - May 9, 2013

I think the fact that the sequel is now tracking closer to 88% positive on RT is amazing. To expect it to match the 95% level of the last movie is nearly impossible. That kind of percentage is almost a statistical aberration. I’m avoiding most of the trailer and review sites for now until I see it next week, and I’m looking forward to it tremendously!

51. Jay - May 9, 2013

I’m going to see this in IMAX 3D on the 18th. Has anyone else seen this in IMAX 3D yet? I’m hopeful that the large format will make for amazing space scenes.

52. Questioner - May 9, 2013

Disappointing acting from DC cf Sherlock interactions. However CP had some surprisingly good scenes has grown up from th High School kid role he has been typecast in previously. Zachary Q was better in 2009 though still clueless as to Kirks emotional motivation. Zoe S however grew up. Scotty much better role for Peggy this time and CU should have had more lines but was great. Sulu and the captains chair you could almost hear Shatner versus Takei. However script could have found a realy good strategy. Shape shifting confusion and manipulation would have worked better and Q and P can’t do Justice to ther old concepts. Marcus was no where near nasty enough.

53. Capt. of the USS Anduril - May 9, 2013

Whoa whoa whoa WHOA. Did Coming Soon just say that NEMESIS was the WORST Trek film?! What the frak are they smoking over there?! Ask most Trekkies which film blew tribble chunks and most of the time the answer will be either “The Final Frontier” or “Insurrection”. GTFO Coming Soon.

54. BLFSisko - May 9, 2013

I´m fine wih a 4/5 rating. The movie isn´t on the level of “The Lord of the Rings”-Trilogy (which is maybe my all time favourite and hard to beat :-) but I can only say this: WATCH IT WATCH IT WATCH IT

55. The Sinfonian - May 9, 2013

@54 STV did not kill the franchise. It led to STVI. Nemesis killed TNG. End of story.

56. - May 9, 2013

The comparison to Nemesis is because Nemesis was a repeat of Wrath of Khan.

And though I disagree with the comparison in that I loved Into Darkness but hated Nemesis there is truth that we have had three Wrath of Khan knock offs in a row now.

I hope we can finally move on.

57. Yanks - May 9, 2013

Good reviews so far…

I predict they will improve.

Still can’t wait :-)

58. Captian of the USS Monte Carlo NCC-1986 - May 9, 2013

yeah, i know the end is a rehash mix up of ST 2 but so what, if it is a good movie and is ass kicking who cares. I’ve seen a lot of ‘remake’ movies, like Total Recall that sucked WAAAYYY worse than that premise they are doing in ST 12, and this IS an alternate universe. Fanboys love Gene’s vision as do i, but, according to what you read, Gene Roddenberry got blackballed a lot by the studio because his vision and theirs didnt line up. This was their vision of what they thought would make it great. So even if its not Nimoy and Shatner. so what i’ll still go see it with my two sons, 6 and 12, because maybe it will inspire them like it did me when i was their age. Go JJ.

59. Jeyl - May 9, 2013

Hey TrekMovie. How are the reviews for the new Star Trek: The Video Game? It was released a couple of weeks ago and I haven’t heard diddly squat from this site regarding it. Don’t tell me you’re sweeping it under the rug so you won’t have anything negative to say about JJ’s new Star Trek universe.

60. Jeyl - May 9, 2013

@60: “if it is a good movie and is ass kicking who cares”

People who think that Star Trek’s best material didn’t need a** kicking to be good.

61. Lurker - May 9, 2013

It should also be pointed out that some of the negative reviews can be called “mixed”, and have some positive statements about the film as well.

Some people thought the 3D was great, some said worst ever. One New Zealand critic said it was the most impressive looking sci-fi of our time. (Yeah, the same was said about Avatar, AND people ripped the plot. But I’m sure Cameron didn’t lose any sleep over it.) We can sit here forever and over analyze all the positive and negative statements that will be written about STID, and it won’t mean a damn thing.

Bottom line is this – if this film gets mostly positive reviews, has a healthy box office, then Paramount will be happy and we will be getting more of the same in the big screen format.

62. Old School Trekkie - May 9, 2013

@Red Dead Ryan
“The folks who are going to hate the sequel are the anti-JJ Talifans, those who worship TNG like its the New Testament or can’t stand seeing classic characters being played by new actors. Unfortunately, these zealots and nutjobs have given the rest of us Trekkies a bad name.”

So if you don’t like the movie, you’re a zealot and a nutjob?! What an intelligent and tolerant statement.

63. Mel - May 9, 2013

For everyone who speaks German, there are unfortunately also some really harsh reviews out there:

Especially the 2nd one is scathing. Ouch!

64. Val Jean - May 9, 2013

Just saw it….had fun and was loving it…until a certain point, and some of the scenes at the end had me as a fan (whos 24 and LOVED the 1st film) squeaming in my seat, due to JJ taking fanboy pleasing way too far!

How long until the american brethren (90% of this site probably) get to see it? seems like forever lol

65. Mel - May 9, 2013

61. Jeyl

I saw a few reviews about the game and they were really bad. Are there any positive out there?

66. Frank Jacobs - May 9, 2013

Watched to movie today, and just like Abrams first one, it was a superficial action movie, made by a self-proclaimed star trek hater. Regret having spent money on that trash.

One thing I’ve noticed is the large number of bandwagoners, who suddenly bash Next Generation and classic Star Trek in general. And several people who I know loved TNG now suddenly bash it for being “boring” and “nonsensical with all its techno babble”. Sad how easy-to-influence some people are.

67. Backyard Enterprise - May 9, 2013

Well, after patiently waiting 4 years I have finally seen it on opening night here in Australia.
What was it like – pretty full on, non-stop action pretty well and very satisfying.
It could have been a little longer I suppose so one could catch their breath, but the action and CGI was outstanding.
Its hard to say anymore without spoiling it but no one will be disappointed, its not as good as ST09, which rates as one of my favs of all time, but not far off.
By the way, the beginning will put some serious smiles on the dials of all you lovers of the Enterprise!!!

68. Mel - May 9, 2013

I read a rumour, that the Star Trek previews in Germany on Wednesday sold nearly as well as those from Iron Man 3. I assume most people going on Wednesday are huge Star Trek fans though, so that doesn’t say much about the box office in later days.

69. Ryan - May 9, 2013

” Sad how easy-to-influence some people are.”

But it’s okay to have a stubborn, ill-informed opinion? Okay.

70. Exverlobter - May 9, 2013

@70 Mel

Well yesterday i had to go alone to the cinema to see Into Darkness. Because my friends are more interested in Iron Man. We’ll see that one next Sunday.
Just this personal experience tells me, that it probably was not such a wise move from Paramount to compete against Iron Man.

71. Frank Jacobs - May 9, 2013

I how far is my opinion “ill-informed”?

It’s a fact that I see people jumping the Abrams bandwagon. People who used to love classic Star Trek now suddenly bash it. I guess because it’s now “cool” and “modern” to like the new Star Trek.

72. Matthias - May 9, 2013

Do not expect anything and you will find out, it´s great!

73. Mitchell - May 9, 2013

@61. Jeyl
@67. Mel

i doubt there will be anything good said about the game. i can provide a full review for anyone with questions but the game is a train wreck. it’s just bad. finished it over three days with my brother and was only entertained by the hilarious glitches, beyond awkward moments and laughably mind numbing story.

74. Robman007 - May 9, 2013

and the award for most over the top comic book guy reaction goes to…#68 for his JJ Abrams is a self proclaimed Star Trek hater…your award is an academy voter screening copy of Star Trek Insurrection, and a whine and cheese plate. Enjoy

I’ve only seen folks bash the Trek that needed to be bashed. The later films, portions of TNG, which, as much as I love Trek and even TNG, were boring as snot and relied too much on solving the episode with Technobabble BS while fronting a PC agenda. Voyager/Enterprise and the TNG films killed the franchise. No arguing about that.

75. Mitchell - May 9, 2013

*Sorry my Video Game comment was reply to: @59. Jeyl AND @64. Mel

76. Ryan - May 9, 2013

I don’t think JJ Abrams said he hated Star Trek, just that he wasn’t a fan growing up and was more into Star Wars.

As for the other things, I don’t think it’s fair to make that kind of generalization. I myself love TOS and TNG and could watch either over and over until my eyes bleed. It’s what I grew up on. That said I love the new movies too. It’s all Trek to me.

77. pg - May 9, 2013

I think many are over-thinking this whole thing.. It’s a new take on Trek, with classic elements fused in, in spades…. You’re never going to get 80’s Trek, or 90’s Trek on the big screen again. Deal with it.

As long as it’s a fun movie. This isn’t supposed to be Stanley Kubrick’esque stuff guys. Treat it as such. It’s funny see all the recent love for the Motion Picture lately. Guys my 66 year old dad couldn’t sit through that turd, and he’s from that generation and a very smart man. Leonard Nimoy NEVER has anything good to say about that movie either, why? Cause it stinks. You have one solid opening scene and then the movie slowly but surely fades from there.

I’m happy we get a higher octane Trek… Worry about the deep philosophical stories once it’ back on TV:)

78. Frank Jacobs - May 9, 2013

Abrams himself said that he never liked Star Trek.. So what do you think Abrams thinks about classic Star Trek? I’ll take a guess: He thinks it was boring, didnt have enough explosions, didn’t look stylish enough, etc.

That’s what we always wished for, huh? A guy like that taking over Star Trek.

79. Robman007 - May 9, 2013

@70…I don’t see anybody “jumping on a bandwagon”…I’ve not seen folks display an issue with “classic trek” which is TOS. TNG has always had it’s equal share of problems, as great of a show as it was. Voyager and Enterprise always, always had more detractors then fans. They were bashing or wagon jumping can cover that up as well as the final two TNG films killed any chance of seeing “classic trek” style movies…no lying with box office numbers and Trek fans not bothering to go see Nemesis on opening weekend.

80. - May 9, 2013

I loved the old trek but face facts, it was very b grade.

Abrams has not only brought trek into the A grade but he has done so while mostly managing to recapture all that trek was about in the beginning.

And though I know they had their place if you want to criticize any Star Trek that got away from what it was all about you only have to look at any of the other tv series outside of tos and next gen.

Even the next gen movies were out of character. (Galaxy Quest felt more like trek than those movies)

Wagon train to the stars. A great western in space.

81. Robman007 - May 9, 2013

No, he never once said he hated Trek. Never said it was boring and needed more explosions. Just said he watched TOS, liked it, but was more of a Star Wars guy.

Trek TV and Trek movie are two different things. On TV you can take time to make it the way Trek should be. Trek movies are a different beast. Gotta seperate the two and hope that these films do well enough so that Trek TV can come back….then you’ll see classic style stories, although you’ll never see it at the level it used to be. The studio suits won’t have it. Old Trek, as good as it was a large portion of the time, will never come back.

82. Mel - May 9, 2013

@ 69. Exverlobter

Oh, I am sure that overall Iron Man 3 will make more money in Germany than Star Trek. It is a huge competition. I think it probably would have been better for Star Trek to start a week or two later, when more people have already seen Iron Man 3.

83. Frank Jacobs - May 9, 2013

It’s interesting what people praising the movie say about it: “The action was great”, “CGI looked amazing”, “it was one action scene after the other”, “the colors looked so stylish”, etc.

You don’t hear people saying “the dialogue was so well-written”, “the characters were believable and deep”, “the movie explores the question of…”, “the movie was action-packed, yet intelligent”.

I wonder why? ;)

@Ryan: That’s ok. As far as I’m concerned, Abrams movies have nothing at all of what I loved about Star Trek. I maybe overgeneralized a little. Sorry.

84. Mel - May 9, 2013

TOS is still my favourite Star Trek series. I like the other Star Trek series, too, just not as much as TOS. So I was always inclined to like the new movies more than the TNG ones. It is just great to see Kirk, Spock and Co. again. :-)

I really enjoyed the movie. It was entertaining. I especially liked the beginning of it, maybe because it feels like the Enterprise was exploring something and the crew was doing something really positive. But like every movie, if you keep thinking deeper about it, you can find things that can be improved. So I wouldn’t say the movie was perfect. Maybe they can be more original in the 3rd movie. But I can still commend people to go watch it. :-)

85. baby - May 9, 2013

@82 Frank Jacobs

I sort of disagree, people are praising the characters as well..kirk and spock were spot on. the Bromance was epic and even the ladies uhura and carol marcus were great.

I loved when uhura took down khan and when carol slapped her dad. a lot of people said carol was was not a necessary character however I found her funny and enduring.

the smile she gives kirk at the end..I can see a future baby david .

scott was great, sulu was so cool as acting captain. Bones was Bones.

In all honesty The first film (star trek 09) was a better film but into darkness is a better star trek movie.

the only thing I found weird was how kirk status as a ladies man was so way over the top.

Kirk has even had sex with nurse chapel in this alternate timeline and there were the two cat ladies he was having a three with and o yeah the one he almost had sex with at the bar before captain pike steped in.

86. Goran'agar - May 9, 2013

Just saw it in the biggest IMAX on the planet in Sydney, Australia.Thanks so much to Bob Orci, JJ, and the rest of the crew and cast for crafting an absolutely AWESOME film.
Bob – you said it would “melt our faces” – it sure did. Most of the reviews are giving it 4/5, it seems the fringe reviewers are the ones that are poo pooing it. Whatever, the Guardian gave it 4 stars and that’s what matters…and the box office

87. Riker's Beard - May 9, 2013

I just saw the movie in 3D. It’s great, tons of action and humor, a few twists in the plot and it certainly packs an emotional punch. The dialogue is efficient – every line counts and there is clear character development in our main characters. I’m no movie reviewer but I can only say I enjoyed the heck out of it. Yes, I’d have done a couple of things differently, not keen on the casting of Alice Eve, the 3D is unnecessary and there’s a loose end they should have tied up at the end but overall it’s really really great. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did!

88. Jay - May 9, 2013

I don’t understand why people that bash JJ’s Trek always complain about the action. Star Trek was always about action. “Wagon traing to the stars” means a “western” set in space in the future. Westerns were always about action and adventure. Heros and villains. Love interests. Etc.

It’s amazing how JJ bashers keep acting like Kirk was never a womanizer in TOS…. never got in fights… never was impulsive. It’s almost comical the irony.

Anyway, back to my original question — Has anyone seen this in IMAX 3D yet? That’s my plan and I want to know if the IMAX experience with this movie is worth seeing it in that format.

89. NuFan - May 9, 2013

Happy to see that the critics love it and the canon police hate it. That’s the same response as the first one, which means I will love it as much as the first one!

90. Jeyl - May 9, 2013

@79: “I loved the old trek but face facts, it was very b grade.”

Define b grade.

@79: “Abrams has not only brought trek into the A grade”

Define A grade.

@79: “he has done so while mostly managing to recapture all that trek was about in the beginning.”

By spending most of it’s time on Earth? I’d hardly call that recapturing what Star Trek was about, especially when the High Court says that Earth will play a much bigger role in their movies. Did the original series crew ever visit their present day Earth and down a few Budweiser classics in the original series? No. The original Star Trek didn’t rely on Earth for the sake of audience relatability, and it certainly didn’t rely on it to tell all of it’s stories.

91. Jay - May 9, 2013

#85 Goran’agar…. great to hear. So do you think it was better in IMAX than regular 3D?

92. Exverlobter - May 9, 2013

@87. Jay

Well said, Sir!
And btw, all those people that are complaining about the lack of Exploration:The whole Intro about the Crew trying to save this indigenous tribe has this whole vibe be from a typical TOS-Episode.

93. Black Fire - May 9, 2013

@ 62 That’s the worst bullshit I’ve ever read about STID. But I understand how especially the second review came to be if actors saying lines exceed the reviewers intellectual capacity. In his estimate, obviously, character motivation is highly overrated.

94. Jeyl - May 9, 2013

“Star Trek was always about action. ”

Than how do you explain the popularity of “The Trouble with Tribbles”? That episode didn’t have any action. And what about Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan? I would hardly classify that movie as an action piece since it only had two space battles and no fast paced phaser or fist fights. The hero and the villain don’t even meet face to face.

Star Trek is all about action? No. Star Trek is about ideas, and ideas don’t need action in order to be meaningful or entertaining. Not saying that a Star Trek story that revolves around action can’t work, but a Star Trek story that doesn’t have any action can work just as well.

95. Exverlobter - May 9, 2013

@90. Jeyl

You have to watch the movie. It’s indeed a common misconception that it primarily is set on earth.
The whole middle-part of the film is set between Kronos/Space ship

96. Jay - May 9, 2013

#93 I didn’t say “all about action” and maybe “always” was a poor choice of words, but TOS largely had action throughout the series. Of course you can pick episodes that didn’t. That doesn’t change the fact that if a STID has action then it is not Star Trek.

My point is that those that bash JJ’s Trek criticize elements that were VERY prevalant in TOS – Kirk’s brashness, action, fights, Kirk’s womanizing. It was all there, in large supply. So don’t use those as reasons to criticize JJ’s Trek. It makes no sense.

97. Jay - May 9, 2013

I mean the myth that if JJ’s Trek has action then it is not Star Trek.

Wish we could edit.

98. Jay - May 9, 2013

#82 Actually most of the positive reviews say that the story, character development and acting were very good. I see alot of praise for the actors and their performances and the character development in the story. I see alot of praise for the plot twists throughout the film.

Seems you are only focusing on the things you alreayd decided you hate about JJ Abrams’ movies.

99. Jeyl - May 9, 2013

@95 Jay

The thing you must realize Jay is that when Star Trek was on TV, it had VARIETY. Some stories would be about action, romance, drama, tragedy, comedy, and even stories on the goofy side. Kirk can certainly be looked at as a brash character, but not all episodes depicted him as such. Spock sometimes have to deal with his human emotions, but he also let his Vulcan side take control and win the day. Bones didn’t always argue, Chekov wasn’t the boy genius, Kirk didn’t always bed every female character that came along and Scotty wasn’t always the comic relief. Some stories even managed to be about characters other than Kirk!

Unfortunately, these movies can’t be anything else outside of the “Action/Adventure story with Kirk/Spock” because they’re now being made as a summer blockbuster. And when you’re making a summer blockbuster where $ is the name of the game, you go for what the audiences expect. And if Star Trek will continue to be about fast paced action where our crew must fight a bad guy, Star Trek is officially STUCK. You may enjoy Star Trek being stuck as an action series, but I prefer a bit more variety.

100. Elias Javalis - May 9, 2013

Anthony, what about the international Box Office? Any Data so far?

101. Mitchell - May 9, 2013

@65. Frank Jacobs
@68. Ryan

i love the debate you guys started. Each with valid opinions. it will be interesting to see long term how Paramount’s gamble on abrams Trek pays off.
i myself am not confident at all in the “new” Trek fans staying for long. endlessly i hear people say they’re basically on board for the time being for the eye candy or for only as long as it “reminds them” of other franchises.
Christopher Reeve’s Superman movies come to mind: Knocked it out of the park with the 1st one, 2nd was enjoyed, but the third begin showing diminishing returns up against, you guessed it, Star Wars (ROTJ) and it took over 25 years to have a shot to return to it’s roots and soar at new heights despite numerous attempts and variations. I hope whoever is in charge of Star Trek now, understands just how critically important the 50th Anniversary is.
The Fan Base needs to be locked into something they can all get behind in movies, comics, books and television.

102. James Rye - May 9, 2013

Rotten tomatoes have it now at 89% based on 44 reviews.

All the reviewers that I respect have rated it highly, including:

SFX 4/5 stars
Den of Geek 4/5 stars
The Guardian 4/5 stars.

Hell, the BBC even have an article on how good it is!

103. Jay - May 9, 2013

#98 That makes no sense. This isn’t TV. You can’t have 20 different shows in one movie.

Again you seem to miss my point completely – either on purpose or just cluelessness. The point is that Star Trek ALWAYS had elements of action, adventure, love interests, womanizing, sex, etc. Maybe not EVERY episode or movie, but throughout the TOS series and movies it was there in ample supply.

So to criticize this movie and the 2009 movie, when they have those elements, as well as good acting and character stories, just makes no sense. It smacks of pure JJ bashing.

104. rama - May 9, 2013


Ive seen many prasing the acting, writing, and characters. Here’s Variety:

Scott Foundas
May 2, 2013
Markedly grander in scale, although never at the expense of its richly human (and half-human) characters, “Into Darkness” may not boldly go where no “Trek” adventure has gone before, but getting there is such a well-crafted, immensely pleasurable ride that it would be positively Vulcan to nitpick.

105. Jay - May 9, 2013

What it seems like is that some people cherry-pick certain episodes from TOS that didn’t have alot of action, womanizing or sex and they say that those are what Star Trek is about to them.

That’s fine, but you can’t ignore the other episodes that had those elements, and then bash this Star Trek because it has those elements as well and say that this isn’t Star Trek.

And from the reviews, this movie seems to have plenty of the other elements too, such as great acting, character development and good story and plot twists.

The problem is that you can’t make a movie that contains all of the elements and story exploration of a 3 years TV series. It’s impossible. Something has to be left out, and then you get a group of people that only liked that one thing and they rant and rave.

106. Red Dead Ryan - May 9, 2013


“The Trouble With Tribbles” featured a bar fight. So there was action.


Old School Trekkie,

If you can’t stand Abrams for not keeping in line with “Gene’s Vision”, or how the TOS Enterprise sets looked, then yes, you are a zealot and a nutjob Talifan. The majority of the criticisms directed at the new movies are about how some fans are offended by action, conflict, and new storytelling ideas, or the fact that new actors are playing classic characters and that the Enterprise doesn’t look exactly like it did in 1966. This forms the basis of “fundamentalism”, a puritanical view that gives the rest of fandom (made up of moderates) a bad name and makes us a punchline in the mainstream conciousness.

107. BatlethInTheGroin - May 9, 2013

I’ll just be glad when the hoopla has passed. I’m getting kind of sick of seeing certain writers warping their reporting of Star Trek news to be about themselves, who they know and so forth, rather than about the news itself.

108. Impending Doom - May 9, 2013

So far I’m most impressed by Anthony’s review. It has me feeling very optimistic about Into Darkness.

109. smegger56 - May 9, 2013

It was a better film overall than the 09 film. But, I have my gripes with it. Just bits with one MAJOR bit.

But no. It’s a cracking watch. Pine seems so much more assured in the role of Kirk (and physically, looks much more the part than he did in 09 – obviously he would lol).

110. Dennis C - May 9, 2013

Top Critic reviews are lacking so far but here’s the score:

FRESH: 66%


” ‘Into Darkness’ may not boldly go where no ‘Trek’ adventure has gone before, but getting there is such a well-crafted, immensely pleasurable ride that it would be positively Vulcan to nitpick.


“The production gives the impression of a massive machine cranked up for two hours of full output; it efficiently delivers what it’s built to do, but without style or personality.”

Time Out UK: Fresh

“A stop-gap tale that’s modest, fun and briefly amusing rather than one that breaks new ground or offers hugely memorable set pieces.”

111. Ralph Pinheiro - May 9, 2013

I do not care about the reviews. I care about the box office. I wish STID reach $ 600 milions. I would be very happy.

112. captain_neill - May 9, 2013

I really despise the digs at TNG here and basically saying that the fans who dont like the Abrams filsm are TNG fans.
I love both TOS and TNG and the rest of Trek. Its just I am not the biggest fans of the changes Abrams made. I look forward to it as a movie but I think I will have some gripes, I need to leave the hardcore fan at home and enjoy it as a film that happens to be called Star Trek

113. NuFan - May 9, 2013

Fresh now 89%!

114. SoonerDave - May 9, 2013

From the reviews I’ve read so far, and I’ve managed to stay away from any substantial spoilers at this point, the reviews are very good, but not *quite* as good as the ’09 reboot flick. As I mentioned earlier, that original movie garnering 95% Fresh on RT is almost a statistical imposibility to expect, and closing in on 90% is no small feat, either.

It does appear, however, that there is a bit more criticism in general this time around – varying from the depth of the story to the frequency of in-references to TOS and/or prior movies.

I would say, right now, that the reviews overall are very good, but compared to ’09, considerably more “tepid.” They still like the Abrams Trek, but they’re not quite as effusive in the praise as it seemed many were in ’09.

115. porthoses bitch - May 9, 2013

Y’know I picked up the blu of STV the other day…not as bad as I of it feel very forced. But, some really good ST TOS moments.

I remember back in ’91 after a 3 year wait is was kinda ” is that all there is?”….

116. captain_neill - May 9, 2013

The one spoiler I know is not a spoiler to me, its a case of “Oh really you did it after all”

I am going to see it in a few hours and I am looking forward to it. I expect some gripes with their creative decisons but expect a good movie. Hoping for a good Trek film.

117. I am not Herbert - May 9, 2013

“…the most devoted of the “Trek” fans seem irritated by the whole thing.”

” …Abrams’ mystery box turned out to be a bit empty this time out.”

“…effective only as an amusement ride…”

“…a nonsensical mess of conspiracy theory, … stuck midway between a muddled Truther metaphor and a nearly beat-for-beat remake of … the franchise’s worst entry.”

INDEED. glad SOME people get it… =(

I KNEW BobOrci would try to make some stupid NeoCon statement… =(

118. jr - May 9, 2013

Please… nobody say it… nobody say that he is really….
just don’t say it

119. porthoses bitch - May 9, 2013

This is an odd question. Is there a SW site akin to this ? I.e. good natured ( for the most part) bickering, fannish love, antecdotoes..??

ANTHONY Usually Trekmovie covers another genre movie while Trek is in pre pre production (Prometheus being the last). Any idea where we should start looking ? I think SW VII too daunting. And too much in conflict with Trek.

120. AdrianPatrick - May 9, 2013

Just seen it.

This time, not only did they strictly adhere to continuity, they exploited it in so many brilliant ways!

As a continuity freak, it was Christmas Day for me. Not just little references, but the entire movie’s plotlines are entrenched in five decades of Trek lore, yet if all unfolds very naturally. Nothing feels forced. Just celebrated. Cheers Bob Orci, and the gang.

My partner is less into Trek, so felt a little lost this time. There’s easily twice the action this time, and a lot more to take in plot wise. She prefers the 2009 film.

In my opinion, this is the best two hours of Star Trek I have ever seen, or could have imagined I would ever see.

121. flubber2kool - May 9, 2013

@105 Red Dead Ryan

Okay i think that you have gone a little bit far but i tend to agree with you.

All that I have felt is SAME CRAP DIFFERENT FORMAT!! I have lived through all the incarnations of Star Trek and since TOS every time a new series came out it was its not Star Trek because … and most of the comments were along the lines of it’s not right because it doesnt have this character in it or in the case of DS9 its not set on a spaceship. (I have to say that I hated Star Trek Voyager but only because I couldn’t stand Janeway and to me Tuvok had no redeeming features! and the show lacked any real characters I could get attached to! ) The first set of movies were no different!

So why would I expect anything different of the reboot. I believe that there is a core of fandom that believes that if its not done the way that they want then it cant be Trek.

Also why is eveyone saying that Bc’s character is a Kahn rip of. His name is John Harrision and his beef seems to be with the whole of Starfleet. If my memory serves me Kahn’s beef was with Kirk and trying to destroy him not the whole of Star Fleet

122. LOFC_Ed - May 9, 2013

Well I watched the movie today (first UK showing after our 00:05 showing, and I enjoyed it very much bar one scene.

123. I am not Herbert - May 9, 2013

Frank Jacobs: “…just like Abrams first one, it was a superficial action movie, made by a self-proclaimed star trek hater. ”

…pretty much hit the nail on the head… =(

124. Ralph Pinheiro - May 9, 2013

I went on twitter and had never seen trekkers so excited, and after watching the film. In Star Trek I have not seen much positive reviews.

125. Luis Macias - May 9, 2013

It’s now at 89%, and that’s still with most of the American reviewers outstanding, so seems that JJTrek is well and alive, and we’ll get a third movie!


126. BeyondtheTech - May 9, 2013

I still remember Daniel Craft, the director of the New York Asian Film Festival who got to see a sneak preview of the unfinished cut before succumbing to cancer. I’m glad he saw it, but curious to know if there was a lot that was changed up from the final cut. Also, I hope his name is in the credits, as Professor Pausch was in the previous film.

127. fwise3 - May 9, 2013

Now at 90%!!!

128. Disinvited - May 9, 2013

People who keep mentioning WAGON TRAIN as some kind of action DNA injected into Trek have no idea of the speed limitations of the things. I find it informative that in the entire Wikipedia entry for it:

the word “action” never appears.

#102. Jay – May 9, 2013

” This isn’t TV. You can’t have 20 different shows in one movie.” – Jay

There have been successful anthology movies. Your “can’t” is not self-evident.

129. Jay - May 9, 2013

Wagon train refers to westerns. It means he was trying to make a western in space.

If you know anything about pop culture then you know a western is a swash buckeling action adventure genre with love interests, heros and villains.

Again, the point is that this Star Trek is every bit as much Star Trek as the TOS series was. It has elements that appeared throughout the TOS series, so to criticize it for having those elements ….. well… is not logical.

130. Allenburch - May 9, 2013

I appreciate the vogue nature of critical reviews. My review of the reviews is four (4) letters: WOOT!

131. BatlethInTheGroin - May 9, 2013

#117: Seriously? Pretty much EVERYONE has been saying it since the premier weeks ago. It’s common knowledge, at this point.

132. Frank Jacobs - May 9, 2013

“What it seems like is that some people cherry-pick certain episodes from TOS that didn’t have alot of action, womanizing or sex and they say that those are what Star Trek is about to them.”

Star Trek is all of that. But it is also much more. If you reduce it to just action, “funny” one liners, and turn the characters into superhero-like action heroes, you take away what made Star Trek special and turn it into “just another action movie”. ST used to be intelligent entertainment, now it’s just shallow space action, with a lot of fighting, explosions, and pretty, pretty CGI effects. I might as well go watch a Vin Diesel movie.

133. Jay - May 9, 2013

#131 Seems to me it is still intelligent entertainment judging by the reviews (the vast majority) and the 2009 (which I’ve seen and haven’t seen STID yet).

Most of the reviews rave about the deep character development, the complex relationships, the great acting and the good story with the twists and turns in the plot.

Seems to me you are in the extreme minority. Sounds to me exactly like what Star Trek has always been. Just like the 2009 one.

134. Robman007 - May 9, 2013

I still think these films are doing an amazing job of not only bringing the franchise back, but also getting folks into Old Star Trek who never would have given it a shot in the past. I’ve had plenty of friends who would not try Trek out because it was boring, relied on technobabble and was too politically correct, yet loved the 2009 film, went out and tried TOS, TNG, DS9 and now can’t wait for Into Darkness.

Great portal film to get folks into the franchise. That’s not a bad thing.

On a side note…Star Trek is what YOU want it to be. That’s the lovely thing about it being FICTIONAL. Cannon can be whatever you want (me, I like to put the Shatner novels into cannon and some of the old FASA stuff as well)’s whatever you want. If you hate action, good for you. If you like fact that these films are action heavy AND have character development, good. Either way, it would healthier for all fans to realize that old style Trek is dead and gone, killed by such “hits” as Insurrection, Nemesis and Enterprise. It won’t come back. These films have shown that Star Trek in THIS form can make Paramount loads of cash unlike the previous TNG outings. That’s just how the world of Hollyweird works. Money money money, and these films make that money AND they are, for the most part, universally liked. Even if it does come back to TV it will be a Star Trek-lite type show….will never be the same.

135. Robman007 - May 9, 2013

“Most of the reviews rave about the deep character development, the complex relationships, the great acting and the good story with the twists and turns in the plot.”

I’ve heard that too…but that’s not enough for some folks. You gotta have the Enterprise travel to some backwater, redneck planet full of unisex aliens who are trying to save the rainforest from the evil Klingons (because unlike Khan, they have not been done to death and are completely original as a villain) all while Captain Kirk tries to show Mr Spock how to embrace his relationship with Uhura by reading to him Romeo and Juliet while Spock ponders the meaning of the play and McCoy stands around looking grumpy and throwing racial slurs at Spock. It also has to have the Enterprise run away from the evil bad Klingon scout ship so it can contact the Federation Council so they can start saving the rain forest…although the twist of the film will be that it was all just an illusion of the Talosians, which is original, no doubt.

136. Dennis Bailey - May 9, 2013

“Sounds to me exactly like what Star Trek has always been. Just like the 2009 one.”


137. I am not Herbert - May 9, 2013

“ST used to be intelligent entertainment, now it’s just shallow space action, with a lot of fighting, explosions, and pretty, pretty CGI effects. I might as well go watch a Vin Diesel movie.”

Frank Jacobs speaks the TRUTH!

138. STfanboy - May 9, 2013

@131 Then go see a Vin Diesel movie. BTW have you even seen the movie yet?

139. Disinvited - May 9, 2013

#128. Jay – May 9, 2013

When Gene was selling the concept he was specifically referring to the TV series WAGON TRAIN and not some vague categorization associated with westerns in general.

The La Times in 1988 quoted its then alive creator:

“a ‘Wagon Train’ to the stars.” – Gene Roddenberry

And repeats it in 2009:

Note that ‘Wagon Train’ in print journalism refers to a title as in the title of a then popular TV series to which Gene was comparing it, and not a substitute for the word western.

140. Anthony Pascale - May 9, 2013

Two things:

This thread is not for spoilers

Show respect for all fans, even those you disagree with. Namecalling is not allowed.

141. Anthony Pascale - May 9, 2013

RE: Gene Roddenberry

No one can speak for Mr. Roddenberry, or anyone else for that matter. Especially speak for those who have passed away. Your opinions are your own, don’t apply them to others.

142. Moputo Jones - May 9, 2013

#134: I think that’s the most important result of the JJVerse movies – getting people to watch the rest of Trek. How many people are going to go back and watch Space Seed and TWOK now because of this movie?

143. STfanboy - May 9, 2013

@142 & 134 I concur!

I have a few friends that have watched the 09 movie and never thought twice about watching anything Trek. Now they are watching TOS and TNG. TV and the movies.

144. Robman007 - May 9, 2013

@142/143…exactly. They do a great job of getting new fans involved in the show. Sure the new films are action heavy and “Trek-lite” but they have a good amount of character development and do am amazing job at recruiting new fans.

145. aligee - May 9, 2013

Im just back from the 6pm totally sold out showing at the IMAX in Glasgow – with my wife and 2 daughters – we all totally loved it. The film really lived up to my expectations – and had some amazing rug pulls that i didn’t see coming and great nods to the original series and movies.

…..Oh and we all got given the IMAX Enterprise poster – so now i have 4 copies of it!

Enjoy the film all of you – roll on 2016!

146. Phil - May 9, 2013

@117. A thought. Vegetables are good for you. Little kids hate vegetables. That’s not proof that vegetables are bad for you, just that some people don’t like them.

90% of the Rotten Tomatoes reviews have been positive, and I doubt that I’ll ever see a movie that has 100%. It’s a Wonderful Life is universally beloved, and the critics hated it. My point? Okay, you found a few snarky comments on the movie, congratulations, that doesn’t discredit all those who thought otherwise. If you don’t think you’ll like the movie, don’t go see it…and quit yer bitchin…. we get it, there’s no pleasing some people.

147. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 9, 2013

“Truly awful 3D”? This was the first movie that I have ever watched in 3D and I loved it. I am sold. Tickets are already booked for the IMAX 3D version for us to go see next week…

As for the blockbuster films like the Dark Knight and its sequel, I’ve not been able to watch either right through (on DVD) without falling asleep part way through – way too much noise and violence. It makes me switch off – seriously.

STID held my attention all the way through. Perhaps it is because I like the main characters and care about what happens to them. This is probably because of how they were presented in the original television series – beings with humour, intelligence, imagination, who got angry at times, passionate, hurt et al… They did not start out as cartoon characters in magazines aimed at the 8 – 12 year olds (not that there is anything wrong in that).

148. KirksLove - May 9, 2013

I’ve seen the movie today.
It’s brilliant. Not flawless but really great.
Top acting from everyone.
Won’t deny that I’m a Cumberbatch fan, but you can trust me: He’s INCREDIBLE.

149. TUP - May 9, 2013

Only thing that worries me is people saying 2009 was better.

I liked 2009. Friends who were not Trek fans liked 2009. But upon further viewing, its not a “great” movie. Its ok. Entertaining. Lots of plot holes.

I expect and need STID to be much better.

Also, people who whine about character development and a big budget action movie isnt Star Trek, TV is different. This isnt a two hour TV episode. If it was, there be no Star Trek so be happy.

In time we will get a slickly produced Trek TV show and then we can complain about character development.

150. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 9, 2013

Yes, I get sick of the Berman/TNG/VOY/ENT bashing. What have those iterations got to do with this JJ Abrams version? Not a lot, if anything.

These series are all variations on a theme, begun by Gene Roddenberry with his little 60’s TV series called Star Trek. It is a matter of personal opinion as to what is better or preferable. Each series or episode can be preferable to me, depending on how I am feeling at a particular time…

At this point, we have the Bad Robot movie iteration of the original 60’s Star Trek television series and so far I am very happy with it and I want to see more.

151. Charlie - May 9, 2013

Simon Pegg’s accent was all over the shop! ‘spot on’ my arse. Good performance otherwise.

152. STfanboy - May 9, 2013

@151 You got it about the bashing. I loved all of them. They were all different in their own ways. That’s why I love ST in general.

153. porthoses bitch - May 9, 2013

I always thought that the “Wagon Train” allusion was meant to mean that every week we’re in a different location, different people , different issues and at the end we move on. Wagon Train was a good show. AMC is currently running Rawhide a show very similar .

Years ago the Welcomittees monthly APOTA used to have a ” sightings “column…with notations of various Trek Gueststars turning up on different shows. Its fun to watch these old long unseen 60’s shows and see who turns up.

Had an interesting thought not long ago is that if Trek in 1966 had done it’s first season in Black and White (the first seasons of Lost in Space and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea are in B&W) fandom may very well have died out years ago. The popularity of color television in the 70’s caused
b&w shows to be treated like the plauge (the exceptions are I Love Lucy and The Andy Griffith Showand (to an extent) Twilight Zone.) Shows that had seasons in both b&w and color ran only their color seasons in syndication (Bonanza, My Three Sons)…. Trek would have only 50 episodes to strip (5 showings a week) hardly enough, in fact 79 was considered a stretch.

It wasn’t until Nick at Nite in the 80’s that some of these shows were re-aired.

154. porthoses bitch - May 9, 2013

@143 if I remember correctly Paramount released a special vhs edition of Space Seed about the same time Khan went to video. Khan was the first major release to vhs at an unheard of below $ 20.00 pricetag. Me ? I had an RCA video disc player.

155. Legend of Link - May 9, 2013

There’s this article on IGN about Edgar Wright directing one shot in the new movie. Is this a clue that maybe he’ll be directing the third? I say possibly. I think I’d be okay with it.

156. Phil - May 9, 2013

Continuing to check in to see if any box office numbers have been reported yet…anxious…

Good to see our Commonwealth friends have enjoyed the movie. Expected to be thoroughly spoiled by them (saw a UK review that spilled most of the details for the first 2/3’s of the show), but it should still be fun…

There seems to be a growing backlash on IM3, though. It will be interesting to see if the box office drop exceeds 50% or not…

157. Miko - May 9, 2013

This film just took me for a big ride… And i enjoyed every damn moment! The USS Vengeance is bad ass haha!! Loving the story, characters, homages, score and the glorious easter eggs throughout! Top acting by all, especially Mr Cumberbatch… “So, Shaaall we Be-gin”
Saw it in IMAX, wow wow wow! Im debating whether this is the best trek movie ever?? Certainly has left a lasting impression, and i shall be seeing this again soon! JJ and crew, I take my hat off too you.

158. porthoses bitch - May 9, 2013

Supposed to be at NYC premeire tonite…stomache flu thought otherwise ….damnit, damnit, damnit.

159. Jeyl - May 9, 2013

@106: “The Trouble With Tribbles” featured a bar fight. So there was action.”

But was that bar fight the whole point of the episode? No. I would even argue that the scenes before and after the bar fight are more integral to the story. The bar fight served as a transitional piece to the next scene and in the end compliments the story’s development. What we’re seeing here with the JJ’s new Star Trek movies are the exact opposite.

160. Critch - May 9, 2013

Now down to 88%. Review by a guy who hates it because it’s not real Star Trek. That’s literally the argument. It’s becoming obvious that the only people that don’t like the new Treks are people I wouldn’t want to know their opinion anyway.

161. HubcapDave - May 9, 2013


I just saw that review as well. Basically, it was “this is not Star Trek” and “if you like this movie, you’re stupid”

I’m not entirely sure why RT would pick a review like that. It hardly seems objective at all.

162. Dennis C - May 9, 2013

There are two camps:

– Those who blindly despise it because of its spin on TOS

– Those who blindly praise it because of it’s new spin on TOS

And then there’s the rest of us. As part of that group, I enjoyed 2009. It wasn’t perfect but accomplished what it set out to do. The new movie? As a movie on its own it’s a lot of fun. As a Star Trek fan? A bit of a disappointment. And, yes, that distinction can be made.

Why? After praising the 2009 film for taking the entire franchise back to its roots with the original characters, I was excited about the prospects of a sequel that presented something new. A new story with a new villain or challenge not yet faced by this young, untried crew. Instead we were presented with a reimagining of characters and situations originally presented decades ago. It seemed lazy and uninspired, a fanboys dream of putting a new spin on something that had already been done.

So, yes, a fun movie with cool stuff but, as a Star Trek fan, a bit of a disappointment when there were so many exciting new possibilities.

No more reimaginings, please.

163. NCC-73515 - May 9, 2013

“a relationship that may play well with the couples in the audience but has little to do with the characters from the TV show” – one that this guy apparently didn’t watch XD
And he didn’t listen to the very important comments that Scotty and Spock (in the beginning) and Kirk (later) make. They are the essence of classic Trek.

164. BH - May 9, 2013

To those saying TOS was all about action: list the episodes.

And if you resort to a bar fight in Tribbles as action you are proving yourself wrong.

There MIGHT be 10 action episodes in a 3 year run. Hint: Balance of Terror is NOT action. It’s suspense.

TOS was about great writing, were not getting it here.

165. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 9, 2013

TOS was about varied quality of writing.

166. Phil - May 10, 2013

@166. That putting it politely.

167. ensign joe - May 10, 2013

This review sums up my thoughts rather nicely..

Haven’t seen the movie.. Won’t see the movie.. Read the wiki page on it instead..

168. HubcapDave - May 10, 2013

Back up to 89%

169. Critch - May 10, 2013

#168 – That’s the exact review I was referring to. It’s not a review of the movie, it’s an example of someone like yourself that’s so burning up with hate that this isn’t what they think real Trek is that they can’t enjoy what real Trek actually is. It’s a great example of how RT needs to screen who they allow to review. A quick look shows that the reviewer pans everything he watches.

170. STfanboy - May 10, 2013

@171 Yeah a lot of hate in here. Oh well. I’ll be having fun next week at the IMAX while those people sit in the corner in the fetal position crying. Haters gonna hate.

Another thing. I have unfortunately found out most of the plot on some sites and I haven’t even seen it yet. Big whoops on my part but that isn’t going to stop me from seeing this movie next week. I still can’t wait.

171. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 10, 2013

I am not reading any other sites now because I don’t need to read silly, hateful comments about this movie. I am not prepared to remove my rose tinted glasses just yet…:)

172. Jack - May 10, 2013

A beat for beat remake of Nemesis? Nooooooooooooooooo-oooooooo

I thought the last one was a little Nemesis-y…

173. Adam C - May 10, 2013

i just angry its not a tv series as it would have been better

174. Michael Hall - May 10, 2013

“Sounds to me exactly like what Star Trek has always been. Just like the 2009 one.”


Nope. (Though I make no judgments about STID, a film I haven’t seen yet.)

175. Michael Hall - May 10, 2013

“And I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t remind the board from time to time of the other Gene. Coon. Star Trek as we know it would not exist without him.”

Yes, indeed. Thanks for the reminder of someone whose work not only benefitted our beloved franchise enormously, but whose career exemplified his dedication to the idea that writing television could be a genuine craft worth taking pride in, and that (per Roddenberry’s dictum) just because a story takes place in a fantasy context doesn’t exempt it from the regular rules of drama and logical plotting. In other words, he was a genuine grownup–something the current team, for all its talent, seems to be in sore need of.

176. HubcapDave - May 10, 2013


Read some of his other reviews. Even if he seems to like a movie, he still finds something to rag on about it.

177. Terry R - May 10, 2013

I’ve been into Star Trek since the 80s. I didn’t enjoy the Next Generation films that much, and I mostly ignored Voyager, but I found something to enjoy in Enterprise, and I loved the remake in 2009.

The first half of Into Darkness is good, and the 3D is spectacular.

Sadly, from the halfway point onwards, after leaving the Klingons, the film is a mess; instead of taking advantage of the unfettered freedom offered by the end of the 2009 film, the writers reheat some classic moments from better films, in the most appalling, half-assed way (that’s as much as I can say without spoilers).

The baddies’ scheme is as bad and shot-through with contrivances and holes as the baddy’s scheme in ‘Skyfall’. This is a film where you are supposed to switch off your brain and surf the action, and not think about anything that happens at all (if you ever ask yourself *why* characters do the things they do, you will see how flimsy it is).

I have serious disagreements with certain plot, script and casting decisions that were made (Benedict Cumberbatch should have been playing a different character, for a number of reasons).

The film takes two hours to take us back to where the characters were right at the start. The next one must do better than this! I’m not a hater by any means – but I am a fan who has certain demands from this franchise, and this film fails to meet them.

178. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 10, 2013

For everyone wondering where Karl Urban is – well he is here in Auckland, NZ live on TV One Seven Sharp programme. Apparently he has been hanging out with the wife and kids for the last week or so. It has been school holidays.

Karl – good on ya, mate!

179. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 10, 2013

#178 – Really?

“Benedict Cumberbatch should have been playing a different character, for a number of reasons.”

Why? Because he wasn’t an imitation of Ricardo Montalban’s Khan nor shares the same skin colouring.

Once again, people who tend to dislike a movie cannot do so without comparing it with something else. It seems that the reasons for dislike cannot stand on their own.

“The film takes two hours to take us back to where the characters were right at the start.”

What does that mean? Right at the start of which movie? Well, a couple of thing are not as they were at the beginning of either movie – Kirk’s mentor is no longer there for him by the end of STID and Carol Marcus is fatherless…because of one man…


180. Terry R - May 10, 2013

180: looks like my reply had to be deleted (spoilers), so I’ll summarise as vaguely as possible:

Benedict Cumberbatch’s talents would be better used with a new character; I do not believe he can pull off the charisma and strength of a megalomaniacal superhuman. I’d need someone with a more operatic (or ‘hammy’) approach to do that. That’s nothing to do with skin colour.

I dislike the latter part of the film for the plot holes and shameless plot contrivances (and unsubtle telegraphing of how certain situations will be resolved). I felt the writers were treating the audience like morons, and I find it difficult to respect them for that. This has nothing to do with comparing it to Star Trek II (although the writers invite these comparisons with certain unfortunate script choices).

I do not regard the deaths of two characters to be ‘growth’ for the others.

Just accept that people will have different opinions; even (shock, horror) disappointment with this film.

181. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 10, 2013

“I felt the writers were treating the audience like morons, and I find it difficult to respect them for that.”

Do you realize what you just wrote there?

None of us have any idea how the writers felt about or wanted to treat the audience. It is you who feels that you are being treated like a moron, whereas many other people who have seen this film appear not to have felt this way – anything but.

You did not say anything about “growth” in your post. Actually, experiencing the death of someone you love or who has made a big impression on you can induce a certain growth for the person dealing with such a loss. Kirk with Pike – a mentor and “father” and Carol with dealing with who her father had become and then with how he had died.

182. Terry R - May 10, 2013

I’d respond in more detail, but that would involve spoilers.

Yes, of course I realise what I wrote. The writers clearly didn’t think through the plot or character motivations particularly deeply, and I think the film suffers for it. I also think they were extremely unsubtle in setting up plot contrivances to resolve certain situations.
So when I say that I feel they were treating the audience like morons, I mean they were clearly hoping that the audience wouldn’t notice these contrivances, or flimsy character motivations, or plot holes, and would instead be satisfied with one set-piece action sequence after another.
I guess they were right, and I am clearly wrong to expect more from them.

Death of a loved one can change a character, sure. Next film, maybe we’ll see a change; but we’re not talking about potential changes to characters in the next film, we’re talking about Into Darkness, and the deaths in this film did not have any major impact on the characters as far as I could see – except for a desire for vengeance (except for Dr Marcus, whose character was too shallow to be affected).

I’ve said as much as I can without spoiling anything, and am unable to say more. I don’t think either of us will get any more out of further discussion at this stage.

You did say earlier that you didn’t want to remove your rose-tinted glasses, and you appear to have problems with criticism of the film, so I won’t trouble your worldview any longer.

*Vulcan hand gesture*
*beams away*

183. Linda - May 10, 2013

Just saw the movie. Liked it better than the first one. The “baddie” was more layered here, which I thought made the movie much better.
It’s definitely a beautiful movie to watch. The cinematography was excellent.
Worth seeing for that alone.
For long time Trekkie fans there are a few homages – I won’t say more in case I spoil it for you.
Worth watching in Vmax, the 3D version didn’t do much for me though.

184. SoonerDave - May 10, 2013

Noticing a strange trend in the STID reviews on RT: Some of them are genuinely enthusiastic, but no small number of even the “fresh” ones are in the vein of “damning with faint praise.” Even hovering around the 90% fresh level, plenty of the “fresh” ones have a theme of “yeah, this is really a good movie, except where it sucks.”

Guess the reviews don’t entirely matter, but the “schism” of negativity within even the positive reviews is a little odd.

185. Chris Hill - May 10, 2013

70 minutes of a really good movie. 50 minutes it lost it’s way.

That said, I really I really enjoyed it, and am hoping the 5 year mission offers more.

186. Picknett (too late) - May 10, 2013

That said, though. I find the referenced matter slightly jarring. The script writers, and director make Star Trek relevant, but sometimes I wonder at what cost.

187. Phil - May 10, 2013

@185. Herd mentality. If they date them, probably better to just stick with the ones written early on, I’d expect those to be a bit more impartial. Later reviewers have been primed for what to expect, and more often then not, their review will reflect that.

188. Michael Hall - May 10, 2013

@ 187–

That’s a question that needs to be asked a lot more in these parts.

189. Picknett - May 10, 2013

@188 – Still a good movie.

190. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine. Stand at ease. - May 10, 2013

From what I’ve read so far, the wild card will be the overseas box office, on whether or not ID will out pace 2009 ST. ’09 only did $127mm overseas, and the British Cumberbatch may or may not increase that take.

ID will open bigger than ST ’09, but it will be hard pressed to have long legs domestically. The tone seems to be more “it’s fun, go see it”, rather than “whoa, this is awesome”. And, as the spoilers go viral, the non-Trek masses may dismiss it as inside baseball rehash, as opposed to a crossover must see.

Hope I am wrong, but remember that sequels (technically #12, but essentially #2) almost always under earn their originals.

191. HubcapDave - May 10, 2013


That’s a trend that has reversed itself in the last ten years.

192. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine. Stand at ease. - May 10, 2013


Like I said, I hope I’m wrong.

However, you are right that some have bucked the trend.

Here’s a link:

While there are a few exceptions (Dark Knight, X Men, Toy Story, Pirates of Carib), the only way to look at this is to adjust for inflation in the upper right (select 2013).

You will find that the vast majority of franchises’ biggest money maker is the first entry. Even Trek ’09 only barely squeaked by TMP, when adjusted for inflation.

193. I am not Herbert - May 10, 2013

Ed Whitfield’s review “Square Pegs, Round Holes” is spot-on…

“… The trio of writers responsible for this shithouse are therefore compelled to riff on scenes from a superior movie to get a reaction from an anesthetised audience. The gambit fails. Not only do we resent all this … grave robbing, we mark the act of desecration and note how it cheapens the original material.”

“… The tragedy for those fans of Star Trek, attracted to it precisely because it had half a brain and the temerity to use it, without apology to those who found the philosophical and didactic content a turn off, is that they’ve now been sidelined in favour of an audience that couldn’t care less about Roddenberry’s starchild and will have forgotten this version of it by next week. This movie will make plenty of space bucks but its weightlessness makes it poorer than any featuring the cast of the original TV series.”


194. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 10, 2013

Using profanity and insulting a proportion of a population in itself makes for a review that is not even fit to be bum paper for guinea pigs. The review is rude and inaccurate.

195. Danpaine - May 10, 2013

…reading so many reactions/reviews which in effect say, “…just the special effects make the movie worth seeing.”

To me, that speaks volumes.

I’m glad I read all spoilers – my disappointment in the villain/story has been digested, and by the time I see it next week, I’ll be ready for the big generic non-stop action-fest it seems to be. Big on pretty, short on plot.

196. Ryan - May 10, 2013

195 – just curious, have you seen the movie or are you just cherry picking the bad reviews to hide the fact that you never gave it a chance?

197. Matias 47 - May 10, 2013

@154 —

Not totally accurate. Perry Mason has been in syndication non-stop since it’s cancellation in ’66 — they only did one episode in color. The original Outer Limits, like Star Trek, had only 3 seasons, and it, again like Star Trek, found it’s popularity after cancellation in syndication.

Gilligan’s Island did it’s first season in b/w and they were in syndication daily for years along with Star Trek. The Wild, Wild West did it’s first season in b/w and also did quite well in syndication.

There’s more, but I’ll stop there.

198. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 10, 2013

#197 – Who knows. You may be pleasantly surprised…or not.

199. Toby - May 10, 2013

^I saw the film yesterday, and yes it is Trek for the masses – but the flip side of that coin is that this movie is THE blockbuster of the summer – some of the action sequences in the film have to be seen to be believed, they are absolutely stunning. I haven’t walked out of a theatre feeling as pumped as I did since The Matrix.

When was the last time (or the first for that matter) anyone thought like that about a Trek movie?

I like to read starship specifications with the next man, but this flick is rip roaring entertainment – pure and simple

200. Buzz Cagney - May 10, 2013

#201 well certainly simple. I’m staggered at the positive reviews, I really am. Did I see a different movie or something because the one that I saw had me shifting in my seat at the inanity and groaning out loud at the clunky and clumsy dialogue. Its simply not worthy of being a Star Trek movie.

My local paper reviewed it today. It called it charmless and unengaging. Its very ordinary indeed. 5/10

I can’t argue with the review. Its one piss poor excuse for a Trek movie. If that took them 4 years think how poor ’16 will be with only 3 years to get it right.
Never mind Khan blood, the franchise needs new blood.

201. Of Bajor - May 10, 2013


Ed Whitfield is a shyster of the highest order, and pretty much reviews every film he says in the same destructive manner.

At the end of the day haters are gonna hate regardless.

Make no mistake, this movie *IS* Star Trek. Granted it’s not your grandaddy’s Star Trek (and I’m getting close to being one of those grandaddy’s….too close actually!) but haven’t they been upfront and honest about that all along? Haven’t they said that characters and events from the prime universe will still exist in this new universe but things will pan out differently? No great surprises that they are doing exactly what they said they would folks.

As for Khan being a white Sikh….Montalban was a Mexican Sikh, and I don’t recall everyone jumping up and down in outrage at that. Double standards people.

202. HubcapDave - May 10, 2013


He even rags on the movies he seems to like…….

203. Toby - May 10, 2013

I’d love to see Trek back where it belongs – on the small screen. But this is where it’s at at the moment, and if that means ‘out-blockbustering’ the competition to ensure the franchises survival, then so be it

204. HubcapDave - May 10, 2013


The “only ship in the quadrant” trope was used many times in Trek, and to a certain degree in 2009.

205. Of Bajor - May 10, 2013


I agree about TWOK. I think everyone states TWOK as being the best Trek movie because “its the thing to do” and not because it’s what they really think. Yes TWOK was ok (in its day), but by no means as good as The Undiscovered Country.

The people saying that TWOK was “far superior” to STID…Really? REALLY?

206. Toby Christian Nelson - May 10, 2013

@206 I couldn’t agree with you more on a lot of what you’ve said there on TWOK, you’re right – you tell me a hollywood blockbuster you CAN’T pick some kind of hole in. Doesn’t stop it still being the best Trek film though. I still maintain STID is hands down the biggest thrill ride on the big screen though. $185m buys you a lot of tinsel!

207. Of Bajor - May 10, 2013

Also, look at what the guys did with Mandarin in Iron Man 3. Always look on the bright side, things could be a lot worse.

By the way STID shits from a great height on IM3

208. Tim - May 10, 2013

Here’s a thought; Let’s be done with all the GD reboots, reimaginations and the like. Has Hollywood really run out of ideas. I was ok with Trek being done after Enterprise on TV. It’s become apparent that there are no new ideas and that I’ll have to suffer through at least two more incarnations of Star Trek, Spiderman, Batman, Superman and if you think someone isn’t going to touch Indiana Jones, E.T. and those classics then you are mistaken. We are now knee deep in rewrite, refilm, repeat.

209. Of Bajor - May 10, 2013


It’s all about milking the established cash cows, then renewing for each new generation

210. HubcapDave - May 10, 2013


Females are almost as old as movie making is. This weekend’s The Great Gatsby is the third time a movie’s been made of that book. Complain if you must, but it is not a recent phenomenon.

211. HubcapDave - May 10, 2013


TMP was greatly improved by Wise’s special edition.

Nemesis, if nothing else, had a bad-ass starship battle that rivals the Mutara Nebula battle in TWOK.

212. HubcapDave - May 10, 2013

D’oh! That should be “remakes”!

213. Unwanted - May 10, 2013

@212. Going by your comment I have to assume you don’t know this but all the superheroes you mention, and in fact all superheroes ever created, get periodically rebooted every few years, and have since their creation, so unless you were born in 1936 (before the first appearance of Superman) this has been happening longer than you have been alive.

Look up some stories like “The Crisis on Infinite Earths, Zero Hour Crisis in Time, Infinite Crisis, Final Crisis, Flashpoint/New 52, Brand New Day, Heroes Reborn, Secret Invasion. The list goes on.

214. HubcapDave - May 10, 2013

Aaaand, we’re back up to 90%! Nine more reviews since Ed Whitfield’s drek-ridden screed.

215. Future Borg Faction - May 11, 2013

“Slow pace” blah. I don’t need adhd on a screen.

216. Graeme - May 11, 2013

Hi. Huge fan of most incarnations of trek including the last movie. I’ve seen STID twice now (live in Ireland) and I very much regret having to come down on the negative side. I thought the 3D was fine and the acting was as good as before, but the amount of plot hole and plot contrivances this time out was almost disrespectful to the audience. It treated us like idiots. At no time did I feel any sense of real danger for these characters, even during an inverted but almost direct remake of a very famous scene from another Star Trek movie, during which the audience I sat with burst out laughing. I wanted to defend my beloved Star Trek but found that I was laughing too. I could pull this movie apart piece by piece but it would give away too much for those who have yet to see it. The holes in the plot are not errors for fanboys to jump on, they’re just basic fundamental script errors that would be dreadful in any film. I really wish I could say I loved this film, but it plays to fast and loose with common sense. Characters do things only because the writers wrote them that way and never are you given the illusion that the story is unfolding organically. It’s a pity. This is a technologically competent film with little brains that adds up to nothing more than disposable summer fair, which was probably the point. Sorry, for being negative, but I guess I am very disappointed. Thanks.

217. matthew - May 11, 2013

I saw the movie yesterday at sydney’s Imax (worlds biggest screen)an
JJ said he didn’t make this movie for the fans, and you didn’t have to see star trek 09. I disagree, he have seen the first movie, I won’t say why eg spoilers. Star Trek Into Darkness is a real star trek movie, and in my opinion you have to be a fan to get this movie. I rated this movie as a great star trek movie. I would rate the story as good, theres a few things I just don’t like, but theres alot good stuff. I would rate the production value and the effects as the best in have seen in any trek movie. The Imax exterior shots were great. The cast performance is way better then the first movie, you beleive they are real characters that you remember even scotty. walking out of the cinema I felt that the real trek is back, can’t wait for more.

218. Johnny - May 11, 2013

Just saw he movie… And what a load of rubbish. Star Trek had so much potential. They got great actors to play the great characters. But the writers and directors have let down Star Trek and real Star Trek fans completely and utterly. At least one thing was good and that was the wonderful way Karl urban played my favourite character dr McCoy

I can’t bear this bastardization anymore. Goodbye my Star Trek

219. Of Bajor - May 11, 2013


Enjoy your box sets buddy ;-)

220. Michael Hall - May 11, 2013


Yes, of course. Because it’s just impossible that someone could have disliked STID simply on its own merits, without the expectation that a modern blockbuster would slavishly imitate a low-budget TV series filmed almost a half-century ago. Whatever, fella. :-)

221. Ryan - May 11, 2013

I would argue that it is actually almost entirely possible to judge Star Trek movies on their own merit. There’s just too much history and source material to ignore especially for people who’ve grown up with much of it. That coupled with the fact that sci-fi/nerd/comic book type people (which I include myself amongst) generally have an unwarranted, reality-detached arrogance preventing them from being objective.

This movie is a great example. If there were no previous movie, it might be rated higher. But because of the last movie being so good, it lowers the rating on this because it failed to exceed expectations that were appropriately set.

222. Ryan - May 11, 2013

That should be impossible not possible. Doh.

223. Phil - May 11, 2013

@224. At any time now, please feel free to drop the premise of objectivity….

224. Jonboc - May 11, 2013

# 222. “I can’t bear this bastardization anymore. Goodbye my Star Trek”

My, so dramatic! lol. Don’t let the turbo lift door hit ya on the way out! :)

225. Michael Hall - May 11, 2013

@ 227–

I think what you meant to say was ‘pretense’. In any case, as per my previous post, while i make to claims as to perfect objectivity I do try to be as fair as I can.

226. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 11, 2013

This comments thread is a mess, because so many posts seem to have been deleted, so it is hard to know what these posts remaining here are replying to. Gosh, what is going on?

227. THX-1138 - May 11, 2013


That’s why you don’t just put comment numbers next to your responses. Put the person’s name that you are responding to along with the number of the post. Otherwise it’s hard to follow the back and forth.

As for me, I am going to see this movie at the first available opportunity. I have been completely spoiled plot-wise and will be watching the movie and basing my opinions on how well it was executed since I have pretty much made up my mind on the plot. I didn’t want Khan after the 2009 movie and I don’t want him now. I will wait and see if the story is engaging. But if not I am going to give it a lot of “I told you so’s”.

228. pauln6 - May 11, 2013

I enjoyed the characters immensely and especially the dressing down Kirk gets early in the movie. I think the problem these writers have is that they have ramped up the technology more than they needed to – precisely because the characters work really well – because they thought that awesome tech would be so like cool but they forgot about the implications and collateral damage of the changes while millions of nerds are going… errr… hang on a minute…

Very Minor Spoiler:
Chris Chapel gets a name check but it made me feel really sad. Yet again this franchise proved to be really sexist with exclusively male security guards and engineers and just a few decorative women here and there and the writers couldn’t bring themselves to do justice to one of the recurring characters yet again. And after Majel gave her blessing to the first movie too. It felt mean. Especially as there was one scene that was actually well-suited to her established skill set.

229. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 12, 2013

#227 THX1138 -Most of the time all I need to do is put the number of the post I am replying to, but not in this thread anymore.

Actually, in the past, when this happens I will use the poster’s name and even quote what that person has written, so there is no confusion. This is probably what had to be done here.

230. Matt4802 - May 12, 2013

Like many who have posted here, I really like my Star Trek. It has been a part of my life since I was a kid, watching the original Enterprise and crew in syndication on a black and white television, dressed in pyjamas, eating a toasted cheese sandwich on a Sunday night. It’s been a part of my life ever since and I have supported the franchise through 11 movies and six series incarnations. With all those movies and television series, one thing was evident – the ST universe was a broad tapestry of characters, stories, people and places. I even embraced the 2009 ‘reboot’ with it’s fresh take on much loved characters. And so it was that I headed off to see STID on opening day in Australia. I was spoiler free (thanks to sites like this that keep it that way, if you chose).

I really liked the movie – up to a point. I don’t say this to deride the work of JJ or the cast and crew, you can clearly see the effort and undertaking on the screen. For me, that point was when things started to seem familiar when a strong, defiant human appears as the primary villain, particularly after the Kronos encounter (Klingons looked great!). Turns out the villain was a VERY strong, defiant human. Hmmm, surely that’s not …. I continued to stick with the movie and when Harrison reveals his true identity with the words ‘KHAN’ – my heart sank a bit – mind you, only a little bit.

I’m probably showing my age, but I still remember seeing TWOK in 1982. It was a blast – the special effects, character development, uniforms, set pieces etc…. And when Spock died ….. it was such a moment of gravitas. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I saw TWOK and – still – hold it as not only one of the best ST movies in the series, but in my opinion it was the lynchpin that re-built the franchise, allowing it to travel through to 2013. The point is, I’ve seen and experienced it and can re-watch the DVD whenever I want.

As I said, the ST universe is so big and diverse, surely there was a new or lesser spoken of direction this movie could have gone. There are thousands of characters – both good and bad -, worlds and situations to explore. Why ‘Space Seed’/TWOK? And I’m not just talking about the main plot driven character of KHAN. In 2009 I went along with the ‘alternate timeline’ device to drive the further adventures of the Enterprise in a new direction. I didn’t expect that many of the old threads of the ‘original’ universe would be pulled … and rescripted. Now, instead of Spock dying in an irradiated environment to save his ship and crew, it’s Kirk (PS. does no one in the 23rd Century use radiation suits! ;-) As I said, the death of Spock in TWOK was such a moment of gravitas, I felt that switching the roles so that Kirk is behind the door cheats that iconic scene. Even when Kirk says to Spock, “It’s what you would have done” is almost a nod and a wink to TWOK. And having Spock emotionally scream ‘KHAAAAAN!’ by channelling Kirk? Was STID made for those who haven’t seen TWOK?

To finish up, I really liked how STID further develops the characters and their relationships, the special effects were spectacular, the script in places witty and charming, but overall it left me conflicted … if only a little bit. I’m still an avid fan (and we’ve had our ups and downs!), but I shall hold out hope for the future of the ST universe – I shall hold out for STXIII!

231. Matt4802 - May 12, 2013

CRAP!! Sorry to all who may be reading this thread – I’ve posted my comments on the wrong thread (the icons threw me!) and it contains a lot of spoilers. I’ve contacted the webmaster to have it removed, so I hope I haven’t ruined anyone’s STID experience. Again, I apologise.

232. Curious Cadet - May 12, 2013


Has the press embargo been lifted?

I just saw a review of STID on CBS Sunday Morning that clearly identified the villain.

I was frankly kind of shocked by how explicit and casual the review was with respect to spoilers.

233. Anthony Pascale - May 12, 2013

the press embargo was lifted last week but all press are asked to not spoil the movie. It is up to the reviewer to honor the request. Most do. Some dont. That is why we have been doing these articles with indications as to who is and isn’t and to give people a way to get a sense of the reviews without accidentally spoiling themselves.

234. Pizza Overlord - May 13, 2013

Loved the line up of model ships in either Marcus’ or Pike’s office and seeing the NX01 Enterprise! Was Cochrane’s ship there too? I can’t remember!

235. Kathleen - May 14, 2013

Finally got around to watch this movie in 2D. My thoughts as below:

This is a fast pacing summer popcorn movie, and supposedly such movies’ target audience, teenagers and young adults, would love it. It’s pretty much it and don’t expect too much. There’s no such thing as INTO DARKNESS in this one.

The camera work is a total mess.

All cast members deliver, great job. Pine and Quinto hold the story. Cumberbatch’s character is woefully underwritten and Cumberbatch is criminally underused, nevertheless he’s obviously in his own league and steal every scene he’s in, but funnily enough, he really isn’t in this movie that much; let’s just say that I expected his total screen time wouldn’t be more than 30 min., and that’s already a rather low expectation considering how heavily the villain has been hyped in the entire marketing campaign, but in fact it’s even lesser than that, and there’s only one brief scene during his petty screen time that allows him to stretch that character a little bit, and my does he stretch it fabulously. Not if Cumberbatch has the ability to make his every line, which is unfortunately poorly written, completely convincing and brings incredible dramatic weight psychologically and physically, his character would look and sound totally laughable.

The writers owe the audience a sequence that Cumberbatch’s character can really bring the Enterprise crew into darkness as promised in its marketing.

Not Quinto’s fault at all, but the Spock scene that heavily pays homage to one of the most emotional scenes in the franchise history really feels offbeat as based on the relationship development between Kirk and Spock in the new timeline, such a scene seems too early to be brought out and yes a bit OOC.

236. Jim Nightshade - May 14, 2013

just read a very spoiler full review on aicn….they dont like it much…..even to the point of calling the first one an incredibly good lightning in a bottle accident that wont happen again if this movie is an indication….they also said far too many fanboy nods to the far better other classic great trek movie that is significantly better and all these nods mean nothin to non fans…why does that sound kinda like singers superman reboot…..sigh…..
if these negative reviews are right i wonder why the rt ratings are so good so far…

237. J-gal - May 14, 2013

Yes I’m about to spoiler the hell out of this because people should know how bad this movie is and why. This movie proves that JJ Abrams is a lazy hack. With all the things he could have done with a rebooted timeline he simply cribs off of one of the most well regarded movies of the old series? Not to mention casting the whitest white guy to play one of the most notable ethnic villains of sci-fi. Khan was a villain of substance. Yes Montalban also was not of Indian descent but at the time casting a Hispanic guy to play an ethnic role was at least a step in the right direction and Abrams totally undoes all of that with this casting. Don’t get me wrong I love Cumberbach but this was a HORRIBLE casting for him. There’s plenty of quality Indian actors out there they could have gotten to play Khan. That’s only a fraction of what’s wrong with this poorly conceived film. The end sequence isn’t a tribute to Wrath of Khan, it’s more like Abrams took that script and used it for toilet paper.

No desire to see any of Abrams other Trek films which unfortunately will probably get made.

238. Ryan - May 14, 2013

@236 – you’re pathetic. No one needs to know your opinion. Just because you hate it does not mean everyone else has to.

239. Dawn - May 14, 2013

Honestly I am a hardcore fan and I love the new movies. I can’t wait!!! I don’t know where that idea came from but I am counting the seconds. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.