Yes. The plot makes no sense whatsoever. It goes from one scene to the next. He complained about plot contrivances and convenient coincidences in Nemesis, yet this movie does it much worse.
Here are 5 stupid things I've noticed about Star Trek Into Darkness. 1. So Kirk's an asshole with dubious command abilities and Spock's emotions are all over the place. Is this how Star Trek works now? 2. Khan's supposed to be the result of eugenics to make a superior human. Eugenics does NOT mean having life saving immortal blood. 3. Speaking of which, human blood and Tribble blood are compatible, according to this movie. 4. Admiral Marcus finds Khan, a political leader from two centuries past, and he thinks he can build him technologically superior weapons than, say, the best 23rd century scientists? 5. The last act: Spock goes "KHAAAAN!" and then has a fist fight on a moving platform before Bones works out that Khan's blood can revive Tribbles and conquer death itself. Take the ingredients of Star Trek 2, mix them up and then assemble them in the wrong order. The hard part was just picking 5.
It's the way of thinking and categories, not the knowledge. Look at our politics. It's a different insight. Actually giving Julius Caesar or Alexander command of modern armies, they would solve many problems for us.
If you're asking these questions, I think you've missed the point of Star Trek. Even at its most cerebral and self-serious, it gets TONS of scientific stuff wrong. It's always been a space adventure, not a serious, plausible piece of speculative fiction.
The thing about Abrams is he pumps so much action into his movies it leaves you breathless, and you don't have time to sit back and say to yourself, 'gee, this sucks'. There's barely any drama in his movies, it's just action, lasers, jetpacks, explosions. So when people review his movies, they don't realize until it's too late that they hate them. (This comes in handy for professional critics who publish their reviews the next day).
Yeah, you kinda hit it on the head. With most movies, it's best to sit on the observations for a few days, maybe even rewatch it, before giving it an honest review.
I am not a huge Star Trek fan, and couldn't care less about "canon". I enjoyed it while I was in the theatre, but it was just a big adventure movie. What were the IDEAS that Star Trek traditionally explores? Probably in the first draft of the script. The movie starts with disregarding the prime directive, but that's soon dropped. Kirk's "alliance" with BC's character, and exploring his point of view was potentially interesting, but that lasted about 10 minutes. They had to fit in (what felt like a) 30 minute fist fight. If you think space chases and catching the Big Bad are fresh, this is for you.
Spoiler Alert! I didn't really like the scene they took from the Wrath Of Khan, because I knew Kirk wasn't going to die. So I felt no emotional attachment during that scene. I think doing that scene was a mistake for JJ.
Agreed. It was the lowest point in both movies. They should have gone with something fresh, not tie it into the best of all the Star Trek movies. It will never compare.
I am totally shocked. I'm a big Star Trek fan but also a balanced one. Ive mostly agreed with and loved your takes on Trek characters and movies, and even its fans. I don't have the same Enterprise/Voyager/DS9 opinions as most people, but I respect our differences there. So based on all of that, I settled in to enjoy 15 minutes of smart snarky bashing of this turd sandwich Star Wars ripoff movie. I was shocked at how terrible it was, and was pleased that the third movie felt like a big heartfelt apology for making us pay to see the second one.
What I like about your videos Steve, is that it always feels like we're sitting around having this conversation over a beer. Your stuff is awesome and I will continue to watch. \m/
I liked this movie, I really did. But there were too many things wrong with it to make it a great movie, let alone the best star trek movie in twenty years. Too many plot points that irked me, broke my suspension of disbelief. Starting with the same ignorance of distances that was in the first movie, but on a much greater scale. Transporters work at limited range. Not to other star systems. It takes days at warp to get from the Klingon homeworld to earth, not the minutes in the movie. On top of the distance and time shenanigans, we have the flat out ridiculous notion that earth, the home world of a starfaring race, the center of a massive Federation of planets, is undefended. Two ships in orbit, pounding each other with weapons fire that could scorch cities...and no one even bothers to radio them and ask "Yo, WTF?' No fighters are scrambled. There are no defence satellite. Not a single star ship nearby. Nothing. And then, when the two ships are finished their (admittedly awesome) close range brawl, after several minutes of fireworks likely visible from the ground...there's not a single transporter on the entire planet, nor any stations or ships near by, that can start beaming people off before it crashes (in a universe where transporters are apparently of limitless range). Not a single tug ship close enough to try to stop the ship from falling out of orbit. Nothing. No reaction at all from the planet below. It's just too much to ignore.
Scottie's transporter technique was referred to as transwarp, and the theory was covered in the first movie. The battle was not just two ships, it was two earth ships, and one of them was commanded by the admiral that chaired the meeting at the beginning of the movie, and carried enough weight to undertake all the military projects uncontested. He was also jamming them on the pursuit, and it seems plausible for him to take other measures that wouldn't necessarily cease to be in effect after his head is crushed. They didn't go all the way to kronos, though the difference may be trivial to what you mention, assuming it did only take hours. I can't recall an exact figure put on the length, or if it indeed does take weeks...at any rate, this is respectful, friendly, and purely my opinion, but I don't see anything presented that could not be explained away within the vagaries of unclear details. I personally believe it isn't a plot hole or flaw if I can imagine an explanation, and it doesn't mess up the storytelling.
mistercroop. Not to mention flexible travel times and a lack of ships near earth are both well established tropes in the franchise, its almost like the op has not actually watched trek before🤔
Have you watched star trek before? In best of both worlds, earth is basically undefended. In the episode of DS9 where they go to earth, we dont see the dozens of ships in orbit youd expect to see. That's just star trek tradition.
Inventive? New? It copies( nearly word for word scenes) from Wrath of Khan. They kill Khan in a mindless fist fight! This movie is vacant. The previous movie finishes with right now we are heading out into space, only for this story to be largely based on Earth. Cumberbatch is outstanding though.
I agree with you on ST:ID. It's a frigging great movie :) And makes me impatiently expect the third romp. :) More klingons, they've badass as they haven't been since DS9 :)
Into Darkness was incredibly disappointing for me. It was too long, too simplistic and the acting has suddenly gone awful. I like J J Abbrams, but this movie just seemed like a big step backwards.
Speaking as a "Continuity Nazi", and someone who has loved Star Trek since 1970. I really don't appreciate the distain shown for the fans like me who kept Star Trek alive in the dark 1970's when all we had were re-runs, the animated series, and a couple of books to keep us (AND the spirit of Star Trek) going. 2009 and Into Darkness (I REFUSE to put the words "Star Trek" next to them) are pieces of SHIT!!! Steve, I agree with you on just about everything except these 2 movies. You keep using the phrase "Fresh Coat Of Paint". Well, The Mona Lisa does not need a fresh coat of paint, either. Abrams, Orci and CBS /Paramount are not getting a NICKEL from me if they keep putting out crap like these movies. (Having just seen the new trailer, I also have a bad feeling STAR WARS is going to get the same shitty treatment!!) If you want to see some REAL new Star Trek--check out the webisodes that "Star Trek Phase II" and especially "Star Trek Continues" are doing. They have a love for the series and respect for the fans that Abrams and CBS /Paramount (who only have love of the MONEY that they can squeeze out of people) lack. Other than that, I love your stuff, Steve.
I thought Kirk showed some cleverness in this. When he brought down the ship that was shooting up the conference room at Starfleet, for instance. Instead of just shooting at it until it blew up, he came up with an inventive solution, clogging the intake with that fire hose.
I know I'm a little late to the party here, but this is my main problem with STID. It's not Cumberbatch, though that character is an overly hammy retread of a classic character. It's not the gaping plot holes or out-of-character moments, although those committed the cardinal sin of pulling the viewer out of the movie. The fan service, the deus ex hemoglobin, the one-dimensional Marcus father and daughter, all bad, all not a big deal. No, what bugged me was that the antagonist was the Federation. I know you're a fan of DS9, and so you're familiar with the concept of an evil internal Federation group, doing the nasty stuff that Starfleet won't dirty its hands with. And, on DS9, that worked great. The difference here is that when DS9 started to show the darker elements of humanity, TNG had almost completed its seven-year run, the characters and ideals of the Federation were well-established, and we had a good idea of all of the ideals Section 31 had to discard, in order to protect them for everyone else. Abrams, on the other hand, has just delivered two action films in space. I really enjoyed the first film as an action film, and the goofy humor was well done. However, it didn't really set up what the Federation stood for, beyond having Starfleet protect its member planets. And, you know what? Fine. That movie was about introducing the crew to a new generation, and establishing their relationships as a family. Some backing off on the idealistic speeches was probably a good idea. But, then, STID shows up, and what do they show? Not the diplomatic relations, or the cultural exchange and mutual tolerance, or even seeking out new life and new civilizations. No, they show the blight in the Federation's heart, its secret shame. DS9 took almost 6 full seasons before they started having episodes like "In the Pale Moonlight" and "Inquisition." We had a pretty good feel, from DS9 and especially from TNG, of how the Federation conducted business. Those shows had *earned* the right to say, "sometimes we can't live up to our ideals." I'm sorry, but without first demonstrating those ideals, repeatedly and consistently? STID doesn't have any standing to preach that message, add far as I'm concerned. Not as a Star Trek film, and especially not as an example to a new generation of Star Trek is supposed to be.
I have to strongly disagree with you on this one. I agree with most of what you said in previous videos, but this movie was a bad remake of Wrath of Kahn. I put it near the bottom of the list (slightly better than Nemesis). I actually prefer Final Frontier to this one. At least that movie was so bad it is almost comically good. This movie was so bad it is actually bad. I got a headache from all the lens flares. It completely destroyed the Star Trek world - super blood that can revive the dead and transporters that can go from planet to planet. Now, no one can die and starships are not needed for transportation.
IF this is were Star TREK had to go to survive. Then, I wont be going to see any more in the theater. It is too generic. It's SPACE ADVENTURE IN THE FUTURE! I don't find it tactile. I find it plastic. Except the factory/engineering ... which is odd space. Moral choices? I didn't seem like anything had a cost.
I know it's a reboot, and in this new timeline everything is bigger, more militarized, darker, and everything has changed.....but Khan Noonien Singh wasn't supposed to be a circa-21st century Steve Rogers minus the spandex and vibranium shield. Yeah, he had a genetically enhanced brilliant intellect, and he had more strength than the love child of Jose Canseco & Mark McGwire.....but Khan was still ostensibly a human. Khan can't jump 30 feet straight up as easily as if he were playing hopscotch. In the original TOS episode "Space Seed," Khan was an extremely strong opponent, yet a non-roided Kirk still ultimately defeated Khan on his own, in one-on-one hand-to-hand combat, thanks to a cheap lightweight 1960's PVC pipe....errr, uhhh, I mean, a totally solid hard spaceship pipe (probably made of neutronium, or something)....and cracking him across the back with it. Seriously, go re-watch the nuSpock-CumberKhan battle scene in ST:ID (or not), and then re-watch the old Kirk-MontalKhan battle scene from "Space Seed" on TH-cam. That's the same guy Kirk fought and won against? I know we're trying to modernize some of the old special effects a bit, and yeah, some of those old TOS scenes could be quite cheesy at times.....but at least "Space Seed" looked much more like something even remotely based in something approximating reality.
I repeat, as a die hard TOS fan, I also loved Into Darkness. I reiterate (from my comment of your ST 2009 video), in a parallel universe (which was caused by Spock prime's changing things) some things will be similar. I watched it in Imax 3-d, and my jaw dropped from beginning to end. And, it was a good vehicle for Kirk to finally grow to be the compassionate selfless Kirk we have come to know and love. It was always in him but needed something dramatic like this to bring it out. I appreciated the underlying psychology of it. Very well done. So are your videos. Thanks.
The social commentary that Steve mentioned is what put this movie over the top for me. It made me so happy that JJ embraced the most important thing in Star Trek and did it so well. While it was happening I kept thinking "they won't do it, oh, they might! " This is Science Fiction at it's best. Showing society not just what can be, but what should be right now.
I agree with this review 100% It was a great movie and solid entertainment! It was like going on a very intense roller coaster ride. I loved the twist of Kirk taking the place of Spock in the death scene. A lot of people nit-pick about all these little details, but whatever! I have seen every Star Trek film and episode ever and I agree that this is the best. Familiar in a good way, but this is an alternate reality after all!! Benedict was one of the scariest villains ever, like cold, blue steel!
"Klingons feel dangerous"? (in Into Darkness) i actually got the opposite feeling, they felt like push overs, they're meant to be a warrior race, and they're meant to be considerable stronger then humans, stronger then Romulans (who already far stronger then humans) and that should have been portrayed better, but yes great movie :)
I honestly thought your opening statement was a joke... then I realised you were serious. You don't get star trek at all. This movie is terrible and lazy.
robert ball . I wonder when I see comments like this whether people saying it actually understand Star Trek. What’s more likely is that they built up their own head cannon of what Star Trek is and ignoring what actually came before.
You're entitled to your own opinion, of course...but to say this guy doesn't "get Trek" is ludicrous. Watch the rest of his channel. He gets Trek more than pretty much anyone else out there.
If you like this movie in personally dont like, you don't understand the franchise. Dear trek and wars fans , shut up . You are entitled to your opinion, but you're plain wrong if you say shit like that .
My father and I are long-time Trek fans, and we have NEVER understood the hate the Kelvin films have gotten. We embraced right away what the films were trying to do by telling a whole new story in an alternate timeline. The Kelvin-verse doesn't tread over Prime Trek at all, and it also manages to reinvigorate aspects of the franchise that had long felt stale. Great fun! Is it super intelligent and thought-provoking? No, but no Trek film really has been since The Motion Picture. The movies are big and bombastic, and the shows are sometimes that but also more intellectual. It's fine to like both.
So happy that you also enjoyed it so much. I am so tired of people complaining about it for incredible silly bitter reasons. And that cheesy moment, gets funnier every time I watch it :D I really love that they made Spock different and connecting him more with his emotions. We already had seen it the other way around - no need to rehash that.
I more or less liked your points for every film before this. I was on board with Insurrection being pretty decent. and then this. You're obviously just some crazy drunk with a camera. Get some sleep.
I've seen enough of your Star Trek videos to conclude that we're generally on the same wavelength when it comes to Star Trek Opinions™, but you seriously lost me here. Into Darkness was a poor, poor retelling of TWOK, centered around a shameless attempt to shoehorn Khan into the new timeline without any sort of well-earned backstory like in TOS. Khan Noonien Singh is actually a pasty-white Benny Batch? And they have to basically Google him (via Future Spock) to figure out why he's actually the Big Bad? And his Evil Ship is essentially just a bigger, blacker Enterprise? GTFO, that's just lazy and stupid and lame. Star Trek deserves better than this. EDIT: I feel I should clarify, by "lost me" I just mean I disagree with you in this case. Pointless internet drama is for kids and scrubs
I agree. Even in TNG and DS9, but especially in Voyager, entire scenes were written about incomprehensible explanations of how their imaginary machines worked. It was ridiculous.
It's always nice to see spoiler free reviews I haven't seen the movie but when I have seen the movie, I do enjoy spoiler type movie reviews to get in-sights on things I may have missed or to hear another perspective on aspects of the movie that I did catch. With as much as you're into Star Trek (Steve), I would enjoy hearing your in-sights in a spoiler review so I would know exactly what you're talking about.
Agreed- I absolutely love Into Darkness. I’m a huge fan of the original film series- especially The Wrath of Khan; but it feels like a dated film with an outdated television villain today. With Into Darkness- JJ beautifully incorporates familiar elements while giving them a twist that’s distinct and fresh alongside an action-driven tone that’s completely different from TWOK; it’s not a simple rehash of what we’ve seen before. 🤗
LERS!!!!!! the ending felt so rushed after a certain characters death. his revival only took about 10-15 minutes and although is death had an emotional impact, i never got the feeling that his death was going to last
When you state in your video that this is original material you're so right Steve! I've never heard of a plot like this before. Great review! J.J. Abrams is one of the best directors of his generation and Michael Jackson was normal.
In retrospect, I’d rather Kahn had escaped to Kronos and doesn’t get captured, and focused more on Admiral Markus’ story. It would avoid the villain directly attacking the federation, but instead it focuses on silencing Kirk. It could also create seeds of “darkness” in star fleet, which can always be shown in later films.
I am not a star trek fan but I thought this movie was excellent. The relations between characters were fun and not annoying as they can sometimes be in action films. The visuals were also incredible and in scope and in their execution. I liked having two villains in the film and the interplay between the different parties. Great stuff.
I haven't seen it yet so I now look forward to seeing it. What got me in to Star Trek and got me interested in science was the fact that the people on the Enterprise could be wrong. Sometimes the aliens were right and it was them who were wrong and they had to admit it. I found that very refreshing. I get concerned that these Star Trek films are getting very close to Star Wars with dodging laser guns and explosions but I will reserve that opinion until later.
Hey Steve. I agree with you. This is the BEST star trek film to be made so far. But to be fair, maybe because nowadays special effects are no longer hard to come by. But this film really did it for me. I feel like a young trekkie again. This is the type of trek film that I will watch every weekend as long it's i theaters.
It was in orbit at the time, presumably with an orbital velocity insufficient to maintain altitude. The 260,000 KM given is well within the Moons orbit, and they were moving towards Earth when this distance was stated. If they had trouble maintaining orbital velocity, then once their lift thrusters went down... they were going down, and fast.
Finally got to see it, and you're spot on about pretty much everything Steve. Holy crap. Don't get me wrong, I had a few quibbles - the defence of the Federation's HQ for example, and the solution to Kirk's predicament at the end of the film felt a bit... Deus Ex-y, but overall... Fantastic. As for the people complaining about it being outside of canon... they should probably actually watch the two movies - this is a reboot with a slightly altered starting point. The movies make that clear.
I liked the movie. My biggest complaint in the transporter beaming from Earth to Kronos. Easy solution for that would have been for Kahn to transport to a ship in orbit around earth, and escape in that ship to Kronos. He could have even stolen an experimental ship he might have access to.
I think this was a average movie, They took elements of wrath of khan that was successful and reuse it here, Spock screaming "Khan" didn't fit, Very cringe worthy acting, Cheap superblood gimmick that can bring people black to life, Best trek movie in 20 years? I don't think so
The only thing I would've changed is to add a bit more explanation of who Cumberbatch was and where he came from and why. That seemed passed over a bit too quickly and made his motivations a bit muddy.
Alright, I am now looking forward to seeing it. I did not like the first Abrams Star Trek movie, but it was because it was just an action adventure movie set in the ST universe. But if they get back to the social commentary, and push the action in the background, I can live with his lens flares.
I completely agree with this review. And, to tie it into your previous review, I actually don't want them to create a star trek tv series based on this film. At least not yet. I feel like it would just be too much star trek too soon. I think a new star trek tv series requires more time before people will be ready for it. I say perhaps start a tv series after the movie series ends.
I don't understand all the hate this movie gets. I really liked it. I'm speaking as a fan of Star Trek who has watched every movie and almost all of 4 of the 5 series (I've only seen 10 or 12 episodes of TOS and I haven't watched enough of Discovery to have an opinion). I thought it was pretty brilliant as reboots go. Of course I would have loved them to find a way to continue the original timeline and see where it goes, but I don't think that would have flown well with mainstream audiences after so long. It was in my opinion better than the first reboot film by far.
One of the problems I had with ST 2009 (and I did enjoy that one), was that it was too character-based, with hardly any thematic exploration of the role of the federation and humanity in general. Which, of course, made sense given the new direction they were taking it in. But Star Trek Into Darkness totally blew my socks off, both as a movie-goer and a star trek fan. With this movie, it feels like the new universe can now stand on its own feet.
I agree with you totally. I actually didn't like the first movie though I would have to say most of the reason for that is the lens flares caused me literal physical pain. Don't listen to the haters man.
I mostly agree with this comment, however I would mention that this is a common thing in Star Trek. In The Motion Picture, the Enterprise was the ONLY ship in the area, while in orbit of Earth, that could intercept V'Ger, and at the time was in drydock after a major refit. Presumably prior to having a shakedown run. As you say here, where were planetary patrols? Why is the governmental seat of the Federation not patrolled by even one other vessel, if not more? This is certainly not unique here.
Yeah, I noticed that too, but given it dealt with the head of Star Fleet, and apparently the vast majority of their ships were not combat-oriented, it kinda works.
I absolutely loved this movie, it gets a perfect 10/10 score. My kids had never seen a Star Trek film before, and now they are hooked! They have even asked to watch the older movies, and we're up to The Undiscovered Country, (I did skip The Motion Picture, because it sucked!). A total success!
I think the next film should have been The Search For Kirk. To me, bringing Kirk back to life immediately felt very cheap, so I would've had Spock mind-meld Kirks consciousness into himself, sort of mirroring how TWOK ended. Then, in TSFK, we would see Spock stealing the Enterprise (I'm not sure if the JJxcelsior would've been around yet to give chase) to go get Kirks body. I think the end of the film should've seen Dr Carol Marcus, who went with Spock, give birth to Kirks son David (being set so much earlier than the Spock one) - where TSFS sees the death of David, The Search For Kirk sees the birth of David. I also would've liked one at some point after TSFK to see V'ger - who was already en route before the destruction of the Kelvin - arrive at Earth, which would've given us a nice demonstration of the differences between JJ's Kirk and the original by showing how the new one deals with the exact same situation that the old one had to, because up until now the situations the alternate Kirk has had to deal with have either been only slightly similar to the one original Kirk had to face or completely different entirely, where-as V'ger would be the exact same V'ger from TMP and it's only Kirk that's different, not the situation. Let's also not forget that the "whale probe" would already be en route too.
While I'll always be thankful to JJ for giving a tired, retired franchise a double shot of Espresso, this movie sucks. It's a bullshit rehash of ST2 with disjointed, nonsensical fanservice, weak and contradictory characters and twists that are just there to subvert expectations. I feel bad for Cumberbatch and Quinto for being given a script that doesn't provide them with coherent characters to play. I feel bad for fans that felt like they were being sold for stupid by lazy rehashes of "hey, remember that?" without any thought being put in it. And I feel bad for the uninitiated, who must have kept thinking: "Wait... did I miss something? Is this supposed to make sense?"
The only problem I really had with this movie was the scene that reverses roles on an iconic scene from a previous movie, which I found effective and affecting, but its significance is almost immediately deflated.
this was also one of my gripes. like how scotty flies into a black ops military outpost and sneaks aboard a top secret installation by getting in line with the other ships. they also neglected a lot of scientific canon like the enterprise actually landing in the atmosphere. they also made it seem like the Federation was just encountering the Klingons as well as kinda ham-fisted the 9/11 allegories into the plot.
Cumberbatch’s character should have been Joachim, Khan’s right hand guy. He looks like him and the character was established as a tech genius in WOK. It could have been a build-up to dealing with Khan in the following movie where he could actually hate Kirk for killing his best bud.
This review hits upon why I love these first 2 movies so much! I even felt that re-introducing a great Star Trek villain was, for all the potential pitfalls involved, a very interesting idea that the cast was able to roll with (the "reversal of fortune" for our 2 main protagonists was cool, too). Everyone shines here. As a lifelong ST fan, I've never understood the fan drubbing this one took.
I'm LMAO'ing my ass off at all the butt-hurt Star Trek nerds who won't even give the movie a chance. I love the re-boots. They are by FAR, by like miles, better than any Star Trek film before it, and I don't give a single fuck what anyone else thinks.
I accept it as canon, an alternate parallel universe. The TNG episode Parallels is another example of this concept. Worf switches between alternate universes.
That's the way all but one of my friends and I say we see these new films. We are a somewhat large group of friends too. Most of us are Trek geeks from TOS and a couple from TNG. To quote you: "It doesn't feel like a retread, it doesn't feel like a rehash, it feels fresh, it feels new, and original, and inventive, and imaginative". Like a custom remodeled 1966 Mustang. Familiar, and brand new. With a new version motor gears tires caps brakes AC CD player leather interior carpets chrome gas tank headlining and the rest. Familiar, and brand new.
That's a good question that addresses a highly valid qualm I had as well. Yes. Because plastic consoles, though they controls ships, cannot make the ship function. That and other functional reasons. No current astronomer nor astrophysicist can predict a supernova; they only see them long after the fact. But you'd think Spock Prime would be able to do better, amirite? Your questions begged for answers, so there's my two cents.
Yeah, it was superb. I suggest it now graduates Abrams to the title of. . . . . . . . "The Film Maker Michael Bay Always Wished He Could Be." I most admire the way Abrams winds cliche into the film unashamedly and left me feeling warmly included rather than disdainful and cringing. I thought the 2001 homage, in particular felt like an inside joke that was being shared just with me.
Well, I'm glad you liked it. There are a whole lot of issues that I had with this movie that arose the more time I had to digest it. First of all, there are several plot points that honestly could have been movies all on their own, but I felt like it was set aside too quickly just to get to the next plot beat, which leads to my biggest gripe about the movie: JJ Abrams knows how to get butts in seats. He is a fantastic marketer of movies. But as far as his storytelling skills go, they leave a lot to be desired, and his over-reliance on his "mystery box" does more harm than good. For those of you who haven't seen JJ's Ted Talk, his approach to making movies and TV shows is what he calls the "mystery box," which bottom-lines as "don't tell anyone anything about the story until it comes out, just give them misleading snippets." Remember Cloverfield? Remember how in the trailers, we only got the release date, not even the name of the movie, so people weren't sure if it was even called Cloverfield? That's how JJ Abrams rolls. Anyway, a lot of the reveals of "Into Darkness" felt like there wasn't much of a point of keeping it a secret other than for the sake of keeping it a secret. Also, the scene that was a shout-out that you mentioned, it had the potential to be a true homage, and a really touching scene... if not for when Spock yelled at the end. When my wife and I saw that in the theatre, she busted out laughing for at least a minute. Also, I couldn't buy Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain. I know fangirls love the hell out of him, but it felt like he was chewing it a bit too much, and not in a good way. It wasn't until I started seeing him in other projects that I liked him as an actor. Bottom line, I would not call this the best thing to come out of Star Trek.
The next one, Star Trek Into The Light, will feature a Klingon villain who's son was killed in the battle on Kronos in Star Trek Into Darkness. He holds Kirk personally responsible and kidnaps his and Carol's newborn son. The crew of the Enterprise must try to save Kirk's son while trying to prevent the escalation of an already intense war with the Klingons and their allies.
This series of reviews has convinced me to part with my hard earned money and go see the movie tomorrow. Thanks, it's been a while since I've been excited to see anything in theaters.
well, why is being a "canon nazi" a bad thing? I don't know maybe it's my literature degree background kicking in, but what's the point of creating a world - that literally has generations and layers of history if you ignore it when creating a story within that world? It's very understandable why people are protective (and anal) about the world that's developed - because it's that world that made them fall in love with the series (ANY series) to begin with. Games have rules to abide by, and any good story worth it's salt has them too. Canon - is just a set of rules, which shouldn't be ignored or dismissed ( Now. i don't think that Abrams Star Trek does that. this is Star Trek who can do whatever they want because it's a new timeline whatever. I don't think though that makes this movie good. (I did like 2009, and I like beyond for the most part. I don't even think they needed to have Khan. It was a cop-out and a rip off. They could have kept everything Marcus wanted to do - but just have it stand on its own without the Khan-ian factor. (sort of like how you would have "eliminated" the Nimoy Old Spock in 2009 (I agree) - I wouldn't have bothered with Khan for the exact same reasoning.
I'm surprised, shocked really. I kept waiting for the reveal of the joke... and it never came. I found your channel a few months back and have watched more than a few videos, and while I sometimes disagree with you I can always see where you're coming from, but this... I don't know. However, IDIC and all that jazz, you are obviously entitled to your opinion and I will continue to enjoy your content. Keep up the good work!
I have 95% agreed with your reviews of the Star Trek films until now. You made some good points about "Insurrection," "Generations" and "Final Frontier" that I hadn't thought about, impacting my over all opinion. Here, though, I just can't relate. I just plain could not get into this version of Kahn. Kahn's personality was established back in the 20th century and would not not be impacted by the timeline divergence, thus Ricardo Montalban's portrayal is Kahn's personality. BC's portrayal is wooden. In the end, I couldn't see it as an homage to TWOK, but just as a rip off. Sorry. Now, my daughter loves it. She sees Kahn's different behavior as dictated by the different circumstances. I just can't get past the fact that the very first thing Kahn did in "Space Seed" when he came too in sickbay was to put a knife to McCoy's throat. Then at the formal dinner he can't hide his true nature. He's just constitutionally incapable.
I'm hoping JJ Abrams threw us a huge curve ball by being completely aware that it's impossible for Cumberbatch to be Khan unless they really do have caucasian Sikhs in the future (it's possible I guess). Cumberbatch's character could just be one of Khan top lieutenants who takes his identity when he realizes the others haven't been awakened. Then that would open up a lot of possibilities for the 3rd movie.
By the way, did you know there was a scene with a Klingon filmed for the 2009 movie? You can find the scene online. The Klingon was masked like in Into Darkness. I forget whether it was Abrams, or one of the writers, but one of them said that they expect Klingons to play a big role in the next movie.
I'm so looking forward to seeing it. Cumberbatch plays a great Sherlock, so I'm looking forward to seeing him along with the other fine actors. I watched the 2009 movie again last night. Enjoyed your review. Now I'm really pumped. : D
None of it matters to me because it's an "alternate timeline". I know it's just my hang up and I'm in the minority. But I just can't get over it and care about it. It's like watching someone else play with your toys when you're a kid. Fun.
This, my friend is one of the best reviews I have ever seen. I could not have said it any better myself. Of course I love this movie. I really felt like I was 10 years old again. And you know what this movie did.....it made me happy.....it made me walk out of the theater with smile on my face. This is what a summer movie is supposed to be. And might I mention my favorite part of the film....The Vengence bearing down on the Enterprise in full warp speed. MY GOD MAN!!!..... Blew me away.
I have to say I loved practically every minute of this film. It was definitely up there as one of the best. That said... a few troubling things... The main 1, it's strange the most "supposed" fearsome war bred race they've encountered, although looking the part, had trouble hitting a stationary target on a platform, Super human or not, not a single hit? I would have had a much better sense of fierceness had they at least managed to disarm him, but got kicked in melee.
I liked it. I disagree on it's relative ranking. It was too predictable, and there were at least a couple spots they could have ended it earlier and not lost anything of any real value. That said, it was worth the ticket price. I did really like some of the shots. Enterprise breaking through the clouds for instance. Thematically, the idea of Kirk and Spock being two sides of the same coin was really cool.
Id actually agree here with the exception that I still think First Contact is better. But its by far the best of the JJ movies and better than all the other Trek movies except II, VI and VIII
When Harve Bennett was working on Wrath of Khan he did a very smart thing. Leonard Nimoy said this in Star Trek Memories, a TV special he did in the early 80's. It's on TH-cam. He went back and watched every episode of TOS. Then IMHO he made a bad decision to use Space Seed. I didn't care much for the episode (GASP) so I still don't care much for the movie. I like Into Darkness even less. The only movies I really liked were Voyage Home and First Contact.
I loved the look of the Klingons in this version, they looked awesome and terrifying, want to see more of them. Didn't like the rehash of Spocks death with Kirk in his place, and Spock screaming Khaaan was terrible. I liked how they brought back the security officer from the bar fight in epp1, but never saw what happened to after the fire fight on Kronos. Good entertaining and funny movie all up.
I would also like some insight to the social commentary. I may have missed it which is surprising. Mind you I just walked out of the theater so maybe some reflection couldn't hurt. Also no spoilers involved but this series is already locked in for a third movie yes?
Yeah, Kirk doesn't have that intellectual victory as an unfortunate consequence of the finale's WoK reversal (that and Spock's "yell"). But he does figure out the "archives bag" just in time and doesn't seem dumb, just brash. I'm okay w/ young Kirk being more balls than brains because it'll be even sweeter when he proves that he can achieve victory with mind bullets... or... sound strategy. Whichever.
I'm not sure if I prefer this one or ST2009 among JJ's run. The 1st had a more original albeit cliched plot, but Into Darkness was executed extremely well and its plot was still great. I was able to deduce lit. every turn after the torpedoes (the # was a dead giveaway), but it was a thing of fucking beauty to watch it unfold! It's nice to get clues from JJ instead of smoke monsters :) That lolcheese of which ye spake would've been better as a muttering growl, as Vulcans once were before Surak...
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA Finals D3 | Fall | รู้ผลทีมแชมป์ พร้อมตั๋วสู่ PMGC](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7NxsN0Ch6vk/mqdefault.jpg)
Idk, I'd say that First Contact is way better.
Agreed, especially after a few rematches. First Contact really holds up...Into Darkness does not.
I enjoyed Into Darkness but I agree First Contact is way better.
This movie sucked. I think Into Darkness is right there with Nemisis as being one of the worst
Personal opinion: agreed ...
Way better!
Not a rehash? Really?
I was very disappointed with it. It was basically an incoherent Wrath of Khan. Spock screaming Khaaan? BAD.
'Incoherent Wrath of Khan' is a really good summary of it.
Yes. The plot makes no sense whatsoever. It goes from one scene to the next. He complained about plot contrivances and convenient coincidences in Nemesis, yet this movie does it much worse.
Here are 5 stupid things I've noticed about Star Trek Into Darkness.
1. So Kirk's an asshole with dubious command abilities and Spock's emotions are all over the place. Is this how Star Trek works now?
2. Khan's supposed to be the result of eugenics to make a superior human. Eugenics does NOT mean having life saving immortal blood.
3. Speaking of which, human blood and Tribble blood are compatible, according to this movie.
4. Admiral Marcus finds Khan, a political leader from two centuries past, and he thinks he can build him technologically superior weapons than, say, the best 23rd century scientists?
5. The last act: Spock goes "KHAAAAN!" and then has a fist fight on a moving platform before Bones works out that Khan's blood can revive Tribbles and conquer death itself. Take the ingredients of Star Trek 2, mix them up and then assemble them in the wrong order.
The hard part was just picking 5.
It's the way of thinking and categories, not the knowledge. Look at our politics. It's a different insight. Actually giving Julius Caesar or Alexander command of modern armies, they would solve many problems for us.
If you're asking these questions, I think you've missed the point of Star Trek. Even at its most cerebral and self-serious, it gets TONS of scientific stuff wrong. It's always been a space adventure, not a serious, plausible piece of speculative fiction.
The thing about Abrams is he pumps so much action into his movies it leaves you breathless, and you don't have time to sit back and say to yourself, 'gee, this sucks'. There's barely any drama in his movies, it's just action, lasers, jetpacks, explosions. So when people review his movies, they don't realize until it's too late that they hate them. (This comes in handy for professional critics who publish their reviews the next day).
Thanks! You described what my problem is with more recent movies in general. Or at least, a lot of it.
Yeah, you kinda hit it on the head. With most movies, it's best to sit on the observations for a few days, maybe even rewatch it, before giving it an honest review.
I am not a huge Star Trek fan, and couldn't care less about "canon". I enjoyed it while I was in the theatre, but it was just a big adventure movie. What were the IDEAS that Star Trek traditionally explores? Probably in the first draft of the script. The movie starts with disregarding the prime directive, but that's soon dropped. Kirk's "alliance" with BC's character, and exploring his point of view was potentially interesting, but that lasted about 10 minutes. They had to fit in (what felt like a) 30 minute fist fight. If you think space chases and catching the Big Bad are fresh, this is for you.
Spoiler Alert! I didn't really like the scene they took from the Wrath Of Khan, because I knew Kirk wasn't going to die. So I felt no emotional attachment during that scene. I think doing that scene was a mistake for JJ.
The whole movie was a mistake for JJ
Agreed. It was the lowest point in both movies. They should have gone with something fresh, not tie it into the best of all the Star Trek movies. It will never compare.
I am totally shocked. I'm a big Star Trek fan but also a balanced one. Ive mostly agreed with and loved your takes on Trek characters and movies, and even its fans. I don't have the same Enterprise/Voyager/DS9 opinions as most people, but I respect our differences there. So based on all of that, I settled in to enjoy 15 minutes of smart snarky bashing of this turd sandwich Star Wars ripoff movie. I was shocked at how terrible it was, and was pleased that the third movie felt like a big heartfelt apology for making us pay to see the second one.
What I like about your videos Steve, is that it always feels like we're sitting around having this conversation over a beer. Your stuff is awesome and I will continue to watch. \m/
I liked this movie, I really did. But there were too many things wrong with it to make it a great movie, let alone the best star trek movie in twenty years. Too many plot points that irked me, broke my suspension of disbelief. Starting with the same ignorance of distances that was in the first movie, but on a much greater scale. Transporters work at limited range. Not to other star systems. It takes days at warp to get from the Klingon homeworld to earth, not the minutes in the movie.
On top of the distance and time shenanigans, we have the flat out ridiculous notion that earth, the home world of a starfaring race, the center of a massive Federation of planets, is undefended. Two ships in orbit, pounding each other with weapons fire that could scorch cities...and no one even bothers to radio them and ask "Yo, WTF?' No fighters are scrambled. There are no defence satellite. Not a single star ship nearby. Nothing.
And then, when the two ships are finished their (admittedly awesome) close range brawl, after several minutes of fireworks likely visible from the ground...there's not a single transporter on the entire planet, nor any stations or ships near by, that can start beaming people off before it crashes (in a universe where transporters are apparently of limitless range). Not a single tug ship close enough to try to stop the ship from falling out of orbit. Nothing. No reaction at all from the planet below.
It's just too much to ignore.
Scottie's transporter technique was referred to as transwarp, and the theory was covered in the first movie. The battle was not just two ships, it was two earth ships, and one of them was commanded by the admiral that chaired the meeting at the beginning of the movie, and carried enough weight to undertake all the military projects uncontested. He was also jamming them on the pursuit, and it seems plausible for him to take other measures that wouldn't necessarily cease to be in effect after his head is crushed. They didn't go all the way to kronos, though the difference may be trivial to what you mention, assuming it did only take hours.
I can't recall an exact figure put on the length, or if it indeed does take weeks...at any rate, this is respectful, friendly, and purely my opinion, but I don't see anything presented that could not be explained away within the vagaries of unclear details. I personally believe it isn't a plot hole or flaw if I can imagine an explanation, and it doesn't mess up the storytelling.
mistercroop. Not to mention flexible travel times and a lack of ships near earth are both well established tropes in the franchise, its almost like the op has not actually watched trek before🤔
Have you watched star trek before? In best of both worlds, earth is basically undefended. In the episode of DS9 where they go to earth, we dont see the dozens of ships in orbit youd expect to see. That's just star trek tradition.
Inventive? New? It copies( nearly word for word scenes) from Wrath of Khan. They kill Khan in a mindless fist fight! This movie is vacant. The previous movie finishes with right now we are heading out into space, only for this story to be largely based on Earth. Cumberbatch is outstanding though.
they don't kill Khan haha, he's merely knocked unconscious by Spock and then frozen in CryoStatsis
I agree with you on ST:ID. It's a frigging great movie :) And makes me impatiently expect the third romp. :) More klingons, they've badass as they haven't been since DS9 :)
Into Darkness was incredibly disappointing for me. It was too long, too simplistic and the acting has suddenly gone awful. I like J J Abbrams, but this movie just seemed like a big step backwards.
+James Carmichael Me too. I thought the reboot in 2009 was much better.
Agreed. I mean they're good enough films, but not good Star Trek films. 2009 felt a lot more like Star Wars.
Speaking as a "Continuity Nazi", and someone who has loved Star Trek since 1970. I really don't appreciate the distain shown for the fans like me who kept Star Trek alive in the dark 1970's when all we had were re-runs, the animated series, and a couple of books to keep us (AND the spirit of Star Trek) going. 2009 and Into Darkness (I REFUSE to put the words "Star Trek" next to them) are pieces of SHIT!!! Steve, I agree with you on just about everything except these 2 movies. You keep using the phrase "Fresh Coat Of Paint". Well, The Mona Lisa does not need a fresh coat of paint, either. Abrams, Orci and CBS /Paramount are not getting a NICKEL from me if they keep putting out crap like these movies. (Having just seen the new trailer, I also have a bad feeling STAR WARS is going to get the same shitty treatment!!) If you want to see some REAL new Star Trek--check out the webisodes that "Star Trek Phase II" and especially "Star Trek Continues" are doing. They have a love for the series and respect for the fans that Abrams and CBS /Paramount (who only have love of the MONEY that they can squeeze out of people) lack. Other than that, I love your stuff, Steve.
its no better than Nemesis
I thought Kirk showed some cleverness in this. When he brought down the ship that was shooting up the conference room at Starfleet, for instance. Instead of just shooting at it until it blew up, he came up with an inventive solution, clogging the intake with that fire hose.
I know I'm a little late to the party here, but this is my main problem with STID. It's not Cumberbatch, though that character is an overly hammy retread of a classic character. It's not the gaping plot holes or out-of-character moments, although those committed the cardinal sin of pulling the viewer out of the movie. The fan service, the deus ex hemoglobin, the one-dimensional Marcus father and daughter, all bad, all not a big deal.
No, what bugged me was that the antagonist was the Federation.
I know you're a fan of DS9, and so you're familiar with the concept of an evil internal Federation group, doing the nasty stuff that Starfleet won't dirty its hands with. And, on DS9, that worked great.
The difference here is that when DS9 started to show the darker elements of humanity, TNG had almost completed its seven-year run, the characters and ideals of the Federation were well-established, and we had a good idea of all of the ideals Section 31 had to discard, in order to protect them for everyone else.
Abrams, on the other hand, has just delivered two action films in space. I really enjoyed the first film as an action film, and the goofy humor was well done. However, it didn't really set up what the Federation stood for, beyond having Starfleet protect its member planets. And, you know what? Fine. That movie was about introducing the crew to a new generation, and establishing their relationships as a family. Some backing off on the idealistic speeches was probably a good idea.
But, then, STID shows up, and what do they show? Not the diplomatic relations, or the cultural exchange and mutual tolerance, or even seeking out new life and new civilizations. No, they show the blight in the Federation's heart, its secret shame.
DS9 took almost 6 full seasons before they started having episodes like "In the Pale Moonlight" and "Inquisition." We had a pretty good feel, from DS9 and especially from TNG, of how the Federation conducted business. Those shows had *earned* the right to say, "sometimes we can't live up to our ideals."
I'm sorry, but without first demonstrating those ideals, repeatedly and consistently? STID doesn't have any standing to preach that message, add far as I'm concerned. Not as a Star Trek film, and especially not as an example to a new generation of Star Trek is supposed to be.
I have to strongly disagree with you on this one. I agree with most of what you said in previous videos, but this movie was a bad remake of Wrath of Kahn. I put it near the bottom of the list (slightly better than Nemesis). I actually prefer Final Frontier to this one. At least that movie was so bad it is almost comically good. This movie was so bad it is actually bad. I got a headache from all the lens flares. It completely destroyed the Star Trek world - super blood that can revive the dead and transporters that can go from planet to planet. Now, no one can die and starships are not needed for transportation.
I have to disagree with the role reversal. It felt forced and lacked luster. Also, what about all that cheesy lens flare? Get away from it JJ
IF this is were Star TREK had to go to survive. Then, I wont be going to see any more in the theater. It is too generic. It's SPACE ADVENTURE IN THE FUTURE!
I don't find it tactile. I find it plastic.
Except the factory/engineering ... which is odd space.
Moral choices? I didn't seem like anything had a cost.
I agree, to quote real kirk... Let it die... better no more star trek then people just ruining it concept of a good future for man kind.
I know it's a reboot, and in this new timeline everything is bigger, more militarized, darker, and everything has changed.....but Khan Noonien Singh wasn't supposed to be a circa-21st century Steve Rogers minus the spandex and vibranium shield. Yeah, he had a genetically enhanced brilliant intellect, and he had more strength than the love child of Jose Canseco & Mark McGwire.....but Khan was still ostensibly a human. Khan can't jump 30 feet straight up as easily as if he were playing hopscotch. In the original TOS episode "Space Seed," Khan was an extremely strong opponent, yet a non-roided Kirk still ultimately defeated Khan on his own, in one-on-one hand-to-hand combat, thanks to a cheap lightweight 1960's PVC pipe....errr, uhhh, I mean, a totally solid hard spaceship pipe (probably made of neutronium, or something)....and cracking him across the back with it.
Seriously, go re-watch the nuSpock-CumberKhan battle scene in ST:ID (or not), and then re-watch the old Kirk-MontalKhan battle scene from "Space Seed" on TH-cam. That's the same guy Kirk fought and won against? I know we're trying to modernize some of the old special effects a bit, and yeah, some of those old TOS scenes could be quite cheesy at times.....but at least "Space Seed" looked much more like something even remotely based in something approximating reality.
I repeat, as a die hard TOS fan, I also loved Into Darkness. I reiterate (from my comment of your ST 2009 video), in a parallel universe (which was caused by Spock prime's changing things) some things will be similar. I watched it in Imax 3-d, and my jaw dropped from beginning to end. And, it was a good vehicle for Kirk to finally grow to be the compassionate selfless Kirk we have come to know and love. It was always in him but needed something dramatic like this to bring it out. I appreciated the underlying psychology of it. Very well done. So are your videos. Thanks.
The social commentary that Steve mentioned is what put this movie over the top for me. It made me so happy that JJ embraced the most important thing in Star Trek and did it so well. While it was happening I kept thinking "they won't do it, oh, they might! " This is Science Fiction at it's best. Showing society not just what can be, but what should be right now.
I agree with this review 100% It was a great movie and solid entertainment! It was like going on a very intense roller coaster ride. I loved the twist of Kirk taking the place of Spock in the death scene. A lot of people nit-pick about all these little details, but whatever! I have seen every Star Trek film and episode ever and I agree that this is the best. Familiar in a good way, but this is an alternate reality after all!! Benedict was one of the scariest villains ever, like cold, blue steel!
...and you've lost me. This film is affectionately known as 'Into Shitness' in my house.
Kelvin timeline now all but dead now of course.
"Klingons feel dangerous"? (in Into Darkness) i actually got the opposite feeling, they felt like push overs, they're meant to be a warrior race, and they're meant to be considerable stronger then humans, stronger then Romulans (who already far stronger then humans) and that should have been portrayed better, but yes great movie :)
Its been a few years since I've seen the movie. Basically forgot Klingons actually show up in this one. Maybe a rewatch is in order...
I honestly thought your opening statement was a joke... then I realised you were serious. You don't get star trek at all. This movie is terrible and lazy.
robert ball . I wonder when I see comments like this whether people saying it actually understand Star Trek. What’s more likely is that they built up their own head cannon of what Star Trek is and ignoring what actually came before.
You're entitled to your own opinion, of course...but to say this guy doesn't "get Trek" is ludicrous. Watch the rest of his channel. He gets Trek more than pretty much anyone else out there.
If you like this movie in personally dont like, you don't understand the franchise.
Dear trek and wars fans , shut up . You are entitled to your opinion, but you're plain wrong if you say shit like that .
My father and I are long-time Trek fans, and we have NEVER understood the hate the Kelvin films have gotten. We embraced right away what the films were trying to do by telling a whole new story in an alternate timeline. The Kelvin-verse doesn't tread over Prime Trek at all, and it also manages to reinvigorate aspects of the franchise that had long felt stale. Great fun! Is it super intelligent and thought-provoking? No, but no Trek film really has been since The Motion Picture. The movies are big and bombastic, and the shows are sometimes that but also more intellectual. It's fine to like both.
So happy that you also enjoyed it so much. I am so tired of people complaining about it for incredible silly bitter reasons. And that cheesy moment, gets funnier every time I watch it :D I really love that they made Spock different and connecting him more with his emotions. We already had seen it the other way around - no need to rehash that.
I more or less liked your points for every film before this. I was on board with Insurrection being pretty decent.
and then this. You're obviously just some crazy drunk with a camera. Get some sleep.
I've seen enough of your Star Trek videos to conclude that we're generally on the same wavelength when it comes to Star Trek Opinions™, but you seriously lost me here. Into Darkness was a poor, poor retelling of TWOK, centered around a shameless attempt to shoehorn Khan into the new timeline without any sort of well-earned backstory like in TOS. Khan Noonien Singh is actually a pasty-white Benny Batch? And they have to basically Google him (via Future Spock) to figure out why he's actually the Big Bad? And his Evil Ship is essentially just a bigger, blacker Enterprise? GTFO, that's just lazy and stupid and lame. Star Trek deserves better than this.
EDIT: I feel I should clarify, by "lost me" I just mean I disagree with you in this case. Pointless internet drama is for kids and scrubs
I agree. Even in TNG and DS9, but especially in Voyager, entire scenes were written about incomprehensible explanations of how their imaginary machines worked. It was ridiculous.
It's always nice to see spoiler free reviews I haven't seen the movie but when I have seen the movie, I do enjoy spoiler type movie reviews to get in-sights on things I may have missed or to hear another perspective on aspects of the movie that I did catch. With as much as you're into Star Trek (Steve), I would enjoy hearing your in-sights in a spoiler review so I would know exactly what you're talking about.
I don't know if it's better than Undiscovered Country, but it's definitely the best since.
Agreed- I absolutely love Into Darkness. I’m a huge fan of the original film series- especially The Wrath of Khan; but it feels like a dated film with an outdated television villain today. With Into Darkness- JJ beautifully incorporates familiar elements while giving them a twist that’s distinct and fresh alongside an action-driven tone that’s completely different from TWOK; it’s not a simple rehash of what we’ve seen before.
🤗
LERS!!!!!! the ending felt so rushed after a certain characters death. his revival only took about 10-15 minutes and although is death had an emotional impact, i never got the feeling that his death was going to last
It's the best Star Trek move in 20... seconds maybe?
When you state in your video that this is original material you're so right Steve! I've never heard of a plot like this before. Great review! J.J. Abrams is one of the best directors of his generation and Michael Jackson was normal.
In retrospect, I’d rather Kahn had escaped to Kronos and doesn’t get captured, and focused more on Admiral Markus’ story.
It would avoid the villain directly attacking the federation, but instead it focuses on silencing Kirk. It could also create seeds of “darkness” in star fleet, which can always be shown in later films.
I am not a star trek fan but I thought this movie was excellent. The relations between characters were fun and not annoying as they can sometimes be in action films. The visuals were also incredible and in scope and in their execution. I liked having two villains in the film and the interplay between the different parties. Great stuff.
I haven't seen it yet so I now look forward to seeing it. What got me in to Star Trek and got me interested in science was the fact that the people on the Enterprise could be wrong. Sometimes the aliens were right and it was them who were wrong and they had to admit it. I found that very refreshing. I get concerned that these Star Trek films are getting very close to Star Wars with dodging laser guns and explosions but I will reserve that opinion until later.
Hey Steve. I agree with you. This is the BEST star trek film to be made so far. But to be fair, maybe because nowadays special effects are no longer hard to come by. But this film really did it for me. I feel like a young trekkie again. This is the type of trek film that I will watch every weekend as long it's i theaters.
It was in orbit at the time, presumably with an orbital velocity insufficient to maintain altitude. The 260,000 KM given is well within the Moons orbit, and they were moving towards Earth when this distance was stated. If they had trouble maintaining orbital velocity, then once their lift thrusters went down... they were going down, and fast.
I didn't know tribbles had human blood
Finally got to see it, and you're spot on about pretty much everything Steve. Holy crap.
Don't get me wrong, I had a few quibbles - the defence of the Federation's HQ for example, and the solution to Kirk's predicament at the end of the film felt a bit... Deus Ex-y, but overall... Fantastic.
As for the people complaining about it being outside of canon... they should probably actually watch the two movies - this is a reboot with a slightly altered starting point. The movies make that clear.
I liked the movie. My biggest complaint in the transporter beaming from Earth to Kronos. Easy solution for that would have been for Kahn to transport to a ship in orbit around earth, and escape in that ship to Kronos. He could have even stolen an experimental ship he might have access to.
Well done, Steve, and I agree with you. It is the best Star Trek film we've seen in 20 years.
I think this was a average movie, They took elements of wrath of khan that was successful and reuse it here, Spock screaming "Khan" didn't fit, Very cringe worthy acting, Cheap superblood gimmick that can bring people black to life, Best trek movie in 20 years? I don't think so
The only thing I would've changed is to add a bit more explanation of who Cumberbatch was and where he came from and why. That seemed passed over a bit too quickly and made his motivations a bit muddy.
The lens flares are back. I didn't mind them.
Alright, I am now looking forward to seeing it. I did not like the first Abrams Star Trek movie, but it was because it was just an action adventure movie set in the ST universe. But if they get back to the social commentary, and push the action in the background, I can live with his lens flares.
I completely agree with this review. And, to tie it into your previous review, I actually don't want them to create a star trek tv series based on this film. At least not yet. I feel like it would just be too much star trek too soon. I think a new star trek tv series requires more time before people will be ready for it. I say perhaps start a tv series after the movie series ends.
I don't understand all the hate this movie gets. I really liked it. I'm speaking as a fan of Star Trek who has watched every movie and almost all of 4 of the 5 series (I've only seen 10 or 12 episodes of TOS and I haven't watched enough of Discovery to have an opinion). I thought it was pretty brilliant as reboots go. Of course I would have loved them to find a way to continue the original timeline and see where it goes, but I don't think that would have flown well with mainstream audiences after so long. It was in my opinion better than the first reboot film by far.
One of the problems I had with ST 2009 (and I did enjoy that one), was that it was too character-based, with hardly any thematic exploration of the role of the federation and humanity in general. Which, of course, made sense given the new direction they were taking it in. But Star Trek Into Darkness totally blew my socks off, both as a movie-goer and a star trek fan. With this movie, it feels like the new universe can now stand on its own feet.
It was a fun movie! Best Star Wars movie ever!
I agree with you totally. I actually didn't like the first movie though I would have to say most of the reason for that is the lens flares caused me literal physical pain. Don't listen to the haters man.
Considering I have pretty much agreed with your reviews of all Star Trek movies so far, I think I will like this one.
I mostly agree with this comment, however I would mention that this is a common thing in Star Trek. In The Motion Picture, the Enterprise was the ONLY ship in the area, while in orbit of Earth, that could intercept V'Ger, and at the time was in drydock after a major refit. Presumably prior to having a shakedown run. As you say here, where were planetary patrols? Why is the governmental seat of the Federation not patrolled by even one other vessel, if not more? This is certainly not unique here.
Yeah, I noticed that too, but given it dealt with the head of Star Fleet, and apparently the vast majority of their ships were not combat-oriented, it kinda works.
I absolutely loved this movie, it gets a perfect 10/10 score. My kids had never seen a Star Trek film before, and now they are hooked! They have even asked to watch the older movies, and we're up to The Undiscovered Country, (I did skip The Motion Picture, because it sucked!). A total success!
I think the next film should have been The Search For Kirk. To me, bringing Kirk back to life immediately felt very cheap, so I would've had Spock mind-meld Kirks consciousness into himself, sort of mirroring how TWOK ended. Then, in TSFK, we would see Spock stealing the Enterprise (I'm not sure if the JJxcelsior would've been around yet to give chase) to go get Kirks body. I think the end of the film should've seen Dr Carol Marcus, who went with Spock, give birth to Kirks son David (being set so much earlier than the Spock one) - where TSFS sees the death of David, The Search For Kirk sees the birth of David.
I also would've liked one at some point after TSFK to see V'ger - who was already en route before the destruction of the Kelvin - arrive at Earth, which would've given us a nice demonstration of the differences between JJ's Kirk and the original by showing how the new one deals with the exact same situation that the old one had to, because up until now the situations the alternate Kirk has had to deal with have either been only slightly similar to the one original Kirk had to face or completely different entirely, where-as V'ger would be the exact same V'ger from TMP and it's only Kirk that's different, not the situation. Let's also not forget that the "whale probe" would already be en route too.
While I'll always be thankful to JJ for giving a tired, retired franchise a double shot of Espresso, this movie sucks. It's a bullshit rehash of ST2 with disjointed, nonsensical fanservice, weak and contradictory characters and twists that are just there to subvert expectations.
I feel bad for Cumberbatch and Quinto for being given a script that doesn't provide them with coherent characters to play. I feel bad for fans that felt like they were being sold for stupid by lazy rehashes of "hey, remember that?" without any thought being put in it. And I feel bad for the uninitiated, who must have kept thinking: "Wait... did I miss something? Is this supposed to make sense?"
The only problem I really had with this movie was the scene that reverses roles on an iconic scene from a previous movie, which I found effective and affecting, but its significance is almost immediately deflated.
this was also one of my gripes. like how scotty flies into a black ops military outpost and sneaks aboard a top secret installation by getting in line with the other ships. they also neglected a lot of scientific canon like the enterprise actually landing in the atmosphere.
they also made it seem like the Federation was just encountering the Klingons as well as kinda ham-fisted the 9/11 allegories into the plot.
Cumberbatch’s character should have been Joachim, Khan’s right hand guy. He looks like him and the character was established as a tech genius in WOK. It could have been a build-up to dealing with Khan in the following movie where he could actually hate Kirk for killing his best bud.
A fellow Trekkie who actually likes Into Darkness? We are a rare species, sir. But I completely agree with you.
The villian reveal was totally out of KHAAAAANtext. That being said everything else was awesome 1 problem is still an A.
This review hits upon why I love these first 2 movies so much! I even felt that re-introducing a great Star Trek villain was, for all the potential pitfalls involved, a very interesting idea that the cast was able to roll with (the "reversal of fortune" for our 2 main protagonists was cool, too). Everyone shines here. As a lifelong ST fan, I've never understood the fan drubbing this one took.
I'm LMAO'ing my ass off at all the butt-hurt Star Trek nerds who won't even give the movie a chance. I love the re-boots. They are by FAR, by like miles, better than any Star Trek film before it, and I don't give a single fuck what anyone else thinks.
I accept it as canon, an alternate parallel universe. The TNG episode Parallels is another example of this concept. Worf switches between alternate universes.
That's the way all but one of my friends and I say we see these new films. We are a somewhat large group of friends too. Most of us are Trek geeks from TOS and a couple from TNG. To quote you: "It doesn't feel like a retread, it doesn't feel like a rehash, it feels fresh, it feels new, and original, and inventive, and imaginative". Like a custom remodeled 1966 Mustang. Familiar, and brand new. With a new version motor gears tires caps brakes AC CD player leather interior carpets chrome gas tank headlining and the rest. Familiar, and brand new.
That's a good question that addresses a highly valid qualm I had as well. Yes. Because plastic consoles, though they controls ships, cannot make the ship function. That and other functional reasons. No current astronomer nor astrophysicist can predict a supernova; they only see them long after the fact. But you'd think Spock Prime would be able to do better, amirite?
Your questions begged for answers, so there's my two cents.
Yeah, it was superb. I suggest it now graduates Abrams to the title of. . . . . . . .
"The Film Maker Michael Bay Always Wished He Could Be."
I most admire the way Abrams winds cliche into the film unashamedly and left me feeling warmly included rather than disdainful and cringing.
I thought the 2001 homage, in particular felt like an inside joke that was being shared just with me.
Oh yeah....I almost forgot....I totally agree about the portrayal of the Klingons... they really look like a force to be reckoned with...wow.
Well, I'm glad you liked it.
There are a whole lot of issues that I had with this movie that arose the more time I had to digest it. First of all, there are several plot points that honestly could have been movies all on their own, but I felt like it was set aside too quickly just to get to the next plot beat, which leads to my biggest gripe about the movie:
JJ Abrams knows how to get butts in seats. He is a fantastic marketer of movies. But as far as his storytelling skills go, they leave a lot to be desired, and his over-reliance on his "mystery box" does more harm than good. For those of you who haven't seen JJ's Ted Talk, his approach to making movies and TV shows is what he calls the "mystery box," which bottom-lines as "don't tell anyone anything about the story until it comes out, just give them misleading snippets." Remember Cloverfield? Remember how in the trailers, we only got the release date, not even the name of the movie, so people weren't sure if it was even called Cloverfield? That's how JJ Abrams rolls. Anyway, a lot of the reveals of "Into Darkness" felt like there wasn't much of a point of keeping it a secret other than for the sake of keeping it a secret.
Also, the scene that was a shout-out that you mentioned, it had the potential to be a true homage, and a really touching scene... if not for when Spock yelled at the end. When my wife and I saw that in the theatre, she busted out laughing for at least a minute.
Also, I couldn't buy Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain. I know fangirls love the hell out of him, but it felt like he was chewing it a bit too much, and not in a good way. It wasn't until I started seeing him in other projects that I liked him as an actor.
Bottom line, I would not call this the best thing to come out of Star Trek.
The next one, Star Trek Into The Light, will feature a Klingon villain who's son was killed in the battle on Kronos in Star Trek Into Darkness. He holds Kirk personally responsible and kidnaps his and Carol's newborn son. The crew of the Enterprise must try to save Kirk's son while trying to prevent the escalation of an already intense war with the Klingons and their allies.
This series of reviews has convinced me to part with my hard earned money and go see the movie tomorrow. Thanks, it's been a while since I've been excited to see anything in theaters.
well, why is being a "canon nazi" a bad thing? I don't know maybe it's my literature degree background kicking in, but what's the point of creating a world - that literally has generations and layers of history if you ignore it when creating a story within that world? It's very understandable why people are protective (and anal) about the world that's developed - because it's that world that made them fall in love with the series (ANY series) to begin with. Games have rules to abide by, and any good story worth it's salt has them too. Canon - is just a set of rules, which shouldn't be ignored or dismissed (
Now. i don't think that Abrams Star Trek does that. this is Star Trek who can do whatever they want because it's a new timeline whatever. I don't think though that makes this movie good. (I did like 2009, and I like beyond for the most part. I don't even think they needed to have Khan. It was a cop-out and a rip off. They could have kept everything Marcus wanted to do - but just have it stand on its own without the Khan-ian factor. (sort of like how you would have "eliminated" the Nimoy Old Spock in 2009 (I agree) - I wouldn't have bothered with Khan for the exact same reasoning.
I'm surprised, shocked really. I kept waiting for the reveal of the joke... and it never came. I found your channel a few months back and have watched more than a few videos, and while I sometimes disagree with you I can always see where you're coming from, but this... I don't know. However, IDIC and all that jazz, you are obviously entitled to your opinion and I will continue to enjoy your content. Keep up the good work!
I have 95% agreed with your reviews of the Star Trek films until now. You made some good points about "Insurrection," "Generations" and "Final Frontier" that I hadn't thought about, impacting my over all opinion. Here, though, I just can't relate. I just plain could not get into this version of Kahn. Kahn's personality was established back in the 20th century and would not not be impacted by the timeline divergence, thus Ricardo Montalban's portrayal is Kahn's personality. BC's portrayal is wooden. In the end, I couldn't see it as an homage to TWOK, but just as a rip off. Sorry. Now, my daughter loves it. She sees Kahn's different behavior as dictated by the different circumstances. I just can't get past the fact that the very first thing Kahn did in "Space Seed" when he came too in sickbay was to put a knife to McCoy's throat. Then at the formal dinner he can't hide his true nature. He's just constitutionally incapable.
I'm hoping JJ Abrams threw us a huge curve ball by being completely aware that it's impossible for Cumberbatch to be Khan unless they really do have caucasian Sikhs in the future (it's possible I guess). Cumberbatch's character could just be one of Khan top lieutenants who takes his identity when he realizes the others haven't been awakened. Then that would open up a lot of possibilities for the 3rd movie.
Abrams seems to like the armor. There was a scene filmed for the first movie with a Klingon and he has the armor. You can find the scene online..
By the way, did you know there was a scene with a Klingon filmed for the 2009 movie? You can find the scene online. The Klingon was masked like in Into Darkness. I forget whether it was Abrams, or one of the writers, but one of them said that they expect Klingons to play a big role in the next movie.
I'm so looking forward to seeing it.
Cumberbatch plays a great Sherlock, so I'm looking forward to seeing him along with the other fine actors.
I watched the 2009 movie again last night.
Enjoyed your review. Now I'm really pumped. : D
According to Wiki: Into Darkness' gross earnings of over $467 million worldwide made it the highest-grossing entry in the Star Trek franchise.
None of it matters to me because it's an "alternate timeline". I know it's just my hang up and I'm in the minority. But I just can't get over it and care about it. It's like watching someone else play with your toys when you're a kid. Fun.
This, my friend is one of the best reviews I have ever seen. I could not have said it any better myself. Of course I love this movie. I really felt like I was 10 years old again. And you know what this movie did.....it made me happy.....it made me walk out of the theater with smile on my face. This is what a summer movie is supposed to be. And might I mention my favorite part of the film....The Vengence bearing down on the Enterprise in full warp speed. MY GOD MAN!!!..... Blew me away.
So . . . just like that? It's over? Can't we talk about this?
I have to say I loved practically every minute of this film. It was definitely up there as one of the best.
That said... a few troubling things...
The main 1, it's strange the most "supposed" fearsome war bred race they've encountered, although looking the part, had trouble hitting a stationary target on a platform, Super human or not, not a single hit? I would have had a much better sense of fierceness had they at least managed to disarm him, but got kicked in melee.
I liked it. I disagree on it's relative ranking. It was too predictable, and there were at least a couple spots they could have ended it earlier and not lost anything of any real value.
That said, it was worth the ticket price. I did really like some of the shots. Enterprise breaking through the clouds for instance. Thematically, the idea of Kirk and Spock being two sides of the same coin was really cool.
Id actually agree here with the exception that I still think First Contact is better. But its by far the best of the JJ movies and better than all the other Trek movies except II, VI and VIII
When Harve Bennett was working on Wrath of Khan he did a very smart thing. Leonard Nimoy said this in Star Trek Memories, a TV special he did in the early 80's. It's on TH-cam. He went back and watched every episode of TOS. Then IMHO he made a bad decision to use Space Seed. I didn't care much for the episode (GASP) so I still don't care much for the movie. I like Into Darkness even less. The only movies I really liked were Voyage Home and First Contact.
I loved the look of the Klingons in this version, they looked awesome and terrifying, want to see more of them. Didn't like the rehash of Spocks death with Kirk in his place, and Spock screaming Khaaan was terrible. I liked how they brought back the security officer from the bar fight in epp1, but never saw what happened to after the fire fight on Kronos. Good entertaining and funny movie all up.
I would also like some insight to the social commentary. I may have missed it which is surprising. Mind you I just walked out of the theater so maybe some reflection couldn't hurt. Also no spoilers involved but this series is already locked in for a third movie yes?
I found Star Trek - A new hope better. Better Story, better use of music, better action.
I liked this one too. I like all the Star Trek movies and TV shows.
Yeah, Kirk doesn't have that intellectual victory as an unfortunate consequence of the finale's WoK reversal (that and Spock's "yell"). But he does figure out the "archives bag" just in time and doesn't seem dumb, just brash. I'm okay w/ young Kirk being more balls than brains because it'll be even sweeter when he proves that he can achieve victory with mind bullets... or... sound strategy. Whichever.
I don't really have anything specific. I just hope it's fun, and is shot primarily on actual locations and sets.
I'm not sure if I prefer this one or ST2009 among JJ's run. The 1st had a more original albeit cliched plot, but Into Darkness was executed extremely well and its plot was still great. I was able to deduce lit. every turn after the torpedoes (the # was a dead giveaway), but it was a thing of fucking beauty to watch it unfold! It's nice to get clues from JJ instead of smoke monsters :)
That lolcheese of which ye spake would've been better as a muttering growl, as Vulcans once were before Surak...