Why I Didn’t Like Star Trek Into Darkness

STIDI’m a Trekkie.

There, I said it.

I used to avoid the title because I thought other people were more into Star Trek than I was, and I didn’t want lay claim to a title I didn’t deserve. I can’t quote trivial details about each episode. I don’t frequently watch the movies/TV shows over and over. I didn’t even like all of them. And I don’t speak Klingon. Well, not fluently.

But since I recently dressed up as Lt. Riker to a showing of “Best of Both Worlds” at my local movie theater, I think I can lay claim to the title, at least causally. More to the point, this last movie bugged me so much that I must have some Trekkie blood in me to be so riled about it.

Don’t think of me a purist. I liked the first JJ Abrams film and, though it had it’s faults, I was really looking forward to this one. He’s great at making action films and working with ensemble casts. So I really wanted to enjoy it… but I just couldn’t. Here’s why. (SPOILER ALERT: This is full of them.)

Transporter problems. So Khan can teleport out of a falling ship into a different galaxy but they can’t beam Spock out of a volcano without line of sight? Lazy writing.

Transporter successes. Wait… Khan can teleport out of a falling ship into a different galaxy?!? Huh? Wha? GAAAH! This insanely stupid technology (used in the first movie in an equally lame plot device) means that space ships are mostly irrelevant. I mean, let’s just beam from planet to planet now, shall we?

Gravity problems. Okay, this bugged me so much it completely pulled me out of the movie. The gravity plates work or they don’t. If they work, people are walking normally. If they don’t, people are floating. Especially if they are falling to earth (this is how NASA currently simulates zero-gravity in aircrafts.) The whole turning at a 90 degree angle with bodies flying everywhere was just plain stupid. The “Science of Star Trek” is one of the things that gave Star Trek a unique brand and fan base, and it seems that gets thrown out of the window (or space hatch) entirely.

Engineering. While I’m on the subject of technology: I’m sure Paramount saved lots of money by using some local water filtration system plant instead of building a real set for the Enterprise’s engineering section, but seriouzly? Couldn’t they have made it look cooler, or did they blow their budget buying extra light bulbs for the bridge? While I’m on that…

Why does the Enterprise only have five rooms in it? There’s sick bay, the water filtration plant, the prison, the bridge, and a really long hallway that connects to the transporter bay (which apparently you don’t need since you can teleport to a different galaxy using a device the size of your leg… GAAAH!) How about a “Ready Room” where a Captain can make important decisions not surrounded by the rest of the crew? Do they even have private quarters? I guess they don’t because…

Dr. Carol Marcus in her underwear. Was there a reason she needed to change in the shuttlecraft? Why wasn’t Bones running right behind her in his skivvies? Kidding aside, this scene really bothered me. Kirk responded with less tact than a 13 year old would. And it was such an obvious, “Oh no! We’ve gone an hour without sex! Have the pretty young actress take her clothes off!” Degrading to women; insulting to the audience. I doubt we’d have seen that scene if she was an older woman, but those kind of people don’t exist in the future because…

Starfleet seems to be made up of mostly 20 year olds. Captain Kirk screws up and they want to send him back to… the Academy? Scotty resigns and they replace him with a Russian teenager? This was the same problem I had with the first film (Cadet Kirk goes from being suspended in Starfleet to being Captain of a starship in the matter of a few hours) and it continued bug me here. But the thing that bugged me the most is…

By having Benedict Cumberbunch play Kahn, they made it a reboot, not an alternate timeline. I love the actor—Sherlock is one of my favorite TV shows of all time. When I heard he was going to be in the new Star Trek film I was thrilled. But when I discovered he was Kahn… my stomach turned. That’s not because I’m a huge Ricardo Monteban fan. It’s because up to this point the filmmakers had gone out of their way to cast actors who have some kind of resemblance to the original series. But with Kahn, the greatest and most dynamic of all Star Trek villains, they said, “Ah, screw it.” He didn’t look like Kahn. He didn’t act like Kahn. He wasn’t Kahn.

Like many Star Trek fans, when we heard about the first movie being made we were excited but also nervous. None of us wanted a “re-boot.” What I thought was brilliant about the first one was that it was not a re-boot, but an alternate timeline. What would Kirk be like without his father’s influence? What would Spock be like with his mother dead and planet gone? What will Starfleet be like having faced such a technologically superior threat? But turning Kahn into a hyper-military English guy broke the whole thing.

I wish they had made him someone else. How about having him as part of Kahn’s crew with a frozen Kahn in a torpedo? And while I thought the flip of the Kirk/Spock dialogue was kind of clever, all it did was remind me that this movie just “looks” like Star Trek, but it really isn’t. Oh, and one more thing…

“We need Kahn’s blood!” No you don’t. You’ve got 72 other people who have the same stuff in their veins. BTW, I hope they didn’t just leave those people in cold storage. At the very least, their blood could cure every disease on earth, and even raise people who were “mostly” dead, right?

That kind of plot device works in Princess Bride, but not in Star Trek. Or at least, it shouldn’t. And that’s why I didn’t like the movie.

COMMENTS: Normally, I ask for a a civil conversation. But not today! Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam!

17 Comments on “Why I Didn’t Like Star Trek Into Darkness

  1. Nice review Bob. I honestly liked this movie more than the first movie and that says a lot, since Star Trek still ranks as one of my favorite sci-fi movies of the past decade or so.

    • Your comment was way too polite. Can you repost, throwing in some Klingon expletives?

  2. I think they’ve decided to exclude trekkies from their think tank. These movies are not aimed to please fans, but to bring a new generation into the series.
    That being said, I read that JJ Abrams’ Star Trek is not what he wanted it to be. Paramount got in a huge fight with CBS about the rights for the series and how the story was gonna play out . So I think a lot of the dumb writing came from the insecurities of the project. It was supposed to be more than that.
    If you step out of a Trek mind set, it’s an action packed movie with dumb dialogue, good acting and a surprisingly interesting villain. Nothing more than a not-good-enough-for-summer movie.

    P’s. The movie’s screenwriter apologized for the underwear scene. He tweeted that it was dumb and unnecessary. Lets hope they learn.

    • That’s a cool PS. But I doubt they’ll learn anything except, “The movie probably needed more sex to sell it better.”

  3. I agree with quite a bit of your comments except…”We need Kahn’s Blood” But Kahn was out of stasis, why wake up someone whose frozen with no guarantee they would even wake up or die in the process!

    I also disagree with the “Its a Reboot” comment. With the happenings in the first movie. I was under the impression that fate had changed for everyone forever. As if the movies prior to the JJ Abrams era never happened! Therefor everything that happens with this Kahn (same Kahn as in 82′) will have a different outcome even him not growing to be a Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome drop out. I do not take it is a reboot, but a new take because history was rewritten (except for old Spock because he left that time). I also thought it was cool to see the throw backs to the original film. “KAAAAAAAAAAHN” yelled by Kirk in 82′ but Spock in this movie, there was also a few more. I think your too harsh. I also totally agree with the teleporter point.

    Keep up the good work.

    • But this wasn’t as much a remake of “Star Trek 2” as it was the “Space Seed” episode of the original series, when they first encountered Kahn, who BTW was frozen before the Romulans disrupted the time continuum. But I did like the “KAAAAHN!” yell, too.

  4. You. Are. Wrong.

    It’s understandable. The debate on whether or not this movie is any good has orbited around but one planet: Planet Star Trek. Trek fans hate it because they know better. They’ve been watching it since they were kids and its a universe they take for granted. I think someone is given until high school to really love some “thing”. Whatever music, whatever music, whatever movies you loved before you started driving a car will always have a special place in your heart and you’ll judge how great something is based on those things. It’s why a band’s new album always sucks or a new sequel can’t touch the original.

    But let’s make it practical:

    Was the new Star Trek convenient with its callbacks to the established ST canon? Absolutely.

    Did it rob the Wrath of Khan of its pathos and emotional resonance by lifting its most dramatic moment and placing it before the 5 year mission? Arguably, but not really.

    Were there jumps in logic where the movie violated its own rules and therefore devalued the science at the expense of cheap plot devices? Maybe, but at what point is the already absurd science of the series accepted as a matter of fact? Isn’t it basically the same thing as the Force or the logic behind the One Ring? Isn’t in itself a plot device?

    The unimportance of these questions are extremely important because it is, after all, just a movie. Like the other hundred reboots/remakes out there it plays on the audience’s familiarity and attachment to the original and it exploits it. It’s how they sell tickets. UNLIKE those other movies, this movie is neither a reboot or a remake, it’s ABSOLUTELY in continuity

    I see what you were saying: by stealing moments from Mk1 (see how I did that?), it is de facto a reboot. But here’s where I think you’re wrong. It introduces a NEW CONCEPT into the universe: of fate, inevitability, of the fundamental connections that exist between all of us. Some people are destined to meet, some things are destined to happen, some moments are too important NOT to happen.

    So the moment between Kirk and Spock, the one that “should” happen much later after decades of friendship, happens before. Instead of being the culmination of a friendship, it becomes its bond. Kirk knows that they are best friends. Spock Prime told him as much. He feels it in his gut. He feels betrayed by Spock’s report of his violation of the Prime Directive. That’s not what friends are supposed to do. But Spock isn’t aware of the depth of that friendship. Not yet. But in that moment between the doors, he finally gets it. Their friendship is solidified. In that moment, they become what they “are”. And it’s cool.

    It’s what CS Lewis did with Aslan. The inevitability of Aslan’s end at the Stone Table doesn’t steal from Calvary but elucidates it. It moves differently, it looks differently, its consequences feel a little different, but it all feels so similar. It’s like recognizing a dream in the middle of the day as though it was a premonition. Somewhere, deep inside, the variables that make up a “moment” converge in a way that seems familiar, even if the dream was about something else entirely. It’s the raw material of deja vu.

    As far as the trans-warp tech, okay, I get it. But I think that the ash cloud created an interference that prevented them from getting a lock on Spock. Even using the trans-warp tech I would assume you still need a “lock” on the person and on their location. I can’t get a cell signal in a concrete building so I’m sure that interference is still a problem in fake-future. Otherwise, a “universal positioning system” would be strong enough to tear through planets or irradiate human beings to point of glowing.

    The gravity problem changed with the ship. If the ship was facing down, then they were in free fall. If the ship was right side up, they struggled to keep their footing. Don’t blame them, it’s the way the ship was falling. Blame gravity. Or CGI.

    Some more:
    Starfleet seems to be made up of mostly 20 year olds: Chris Pine is 32. The Shatner was about 35 or so when the original series came out. Doctors are in school for 8 years and keep training well past that. Starfleet command have to pilot ships in deep space. The look young because they’re younger than you. Shatner looks about 55 to me in the original series, much like 8th graders looked like 30 years old to me when I was 7. Whenever I look at old yearbooks, they still look like they are in their 30’s.

    By having Benedict Cumberbunch play Kahn, they made it a reboot, not an alternate timeline: We have no access to who Khan was in the years that he was prematurely awakened in the new movie. Maybe he was like the newly awakened Ricardo Montalban. Maybe he watched space reruns of 21st century Sherlock Holmes episodes and really liked Benedict Cumberbunch (they are “space reruns” because its the future, not because they were shown in outer space). Those were pivotal years for young Khan. Maybe if they woke up his friends they would’ve been all like “dude, what gives? You used to talk like a Mexican dignitary?”. Everyone has a right to try out a new style of clothing, to comb their hair in a different part, or to completely emulate someone else. Give alternate Khan a break.

    Engineering problems: would you prefer two guys standing behind the doors shouting “shhhhew” after a 3-count when they opened them at the same time?

    Why does the Enterprise only have five rooms in it?: Craigslist has a limit on number of pictures that they can post in an odd. Honestly, this one was nitpicking.

    “We need Kahn’s blood!”: Do we know for certain that they didn’t? Maybe they woke Khan up because he was their alpha male. Even if it didn’t matter, they had to catch him and they didn’t want to risk waking anyone else up. “Hi, we’re going to place you in a space coma [space coma because it’s the future, not because it’s happening in outer space], but maybe we’ll prick you with big needles to get your blood. You cool with that? Get your hands off my throat.” I’m sure there’s some weird Prime Directive logic in there someplace.

    Dr. Carol Marcus in her underwear: Look. We have to face facts that eventually these two are going to make a baby. It starts someplace. Hopefully it’s after they get married and they had been through a really good space-Pre-Cana program (you get the idea by now). We didn’t need to see it but they’ve got tickets to sell. I’m sure most people who saw it found it kinda weird. I’m pretty sure it’s Star Trek canon that Kirk is a total horn-dog.

    In conclusion:

    A lot of Trek fans don’t like it. It has nothing to do with space/science magic or writing or whatever. Truth be told, the original series is kinda boring and isn’t that great. It’s great for one reason: it entertained people at a certain time in their life and it sparked their imagination. It’s a fun world to play in and the writers have done a great job fleshing it out over the years. The movies are mostly boring except Star Trek IV because they go back to San Francisco in the 80’s and anytime middle aged directors try to reckon with youth culture, it’s funny. I like it for all the wrong reasons.

    No, Star Trek fans don’t like it because it’s messing with a good thing. J.J. Abrams pulled off a miracle with these last two movies: he made a Star Trek that normal girls can legitimately like. It’s the kind of Star Trek that the bully can enjoy WITH the bullied. It’s a social equalizer that fulfills the deeper desires of Gene Roddenberry. In that sense it is SACRAMENTAL because it effects what it signifies (in this case, intergalactic harmony on the relatively micro-level). It was by far the most entertaining movie I’ve seen in a theater in the last 5 years and a triumph in presentation and space-friendship.

    • Tom,

      Let’s begin with your conclusion. “The original series is kinda boring and isn’t that great.” I think you’re confusing Star Trek with Space 1999. You haven’t noticed a lot of Space 1999 spin-offs, have you? Space 1999 was popular at the time, as was Lost in Space, but neither show garnished the kind of devotion that Star Trek brought about. So I think “it isn’t that great” is an unfair statement and betrays your bias: you’re not a fan of the show, therefore any thing to make it better is fine by you. To which I say, why make it a Star Trek movie at all? They’re trying to have their cake and eat it too. I thought they did a better job with this in the first installment than the second.

      My issue wasn’t just that they “messed with a good thing” with Star Trek, though that is one major issue. I also thought there was lazy writing involved that pulled me out of the “suspension of disbelief” a movie must maintain with it’s audience. Perhaps you would enjoy reading Ben Child’s review of the movie at the Guardian. He overall enjoys the movie (as you and many others did) but even he admits, “Abrams nevertheless needs to get a grip on this predilection towards ramming countless exciting plot twists into his films at the cost of coherency.”

      I think Nicholas Meyer said it best in his book, “A View from the Bridge.” He was talking about movies in general, but ironically it can be applied to this one (he directed both Star Trek II and your beloved Star Trek IV.) “I am still absorbed by stories, which I thought would never go out of fashion… But lately narrative has been replaced by rides. Endless action sequences, unrelated to character to plot, are just a different kind of pornography, one in which standalone episodes of violence are substituted for standalone episodes of sex.”

      Yes, I just compared Star Trek Into Darkness with pornography. By contrast, you consider it “SACRAMENTAL.” Which one of us is right? I wonder if this be a good moment to revisit the Dr. Marcus in her underwear issue.

      I would point to a movie such as The Avengers as a balance of both good action and good story. Within the confines of the reality it creates, it doesn’t jar the viewer with “WHA?” moments or ask them to leave their critical thinking at the door. It’s fun and it works. Star Trek Into Darkness, in my opinion, is “fun” but doesn’t really work, and for me that makes it not as fun as it could have been, and even not that fun at all. To use Mayer’s more positive analogy, it felt more like a ride than a coherent story. Star Trek created the fanbase it did by telling good stories. I might expect a ride from “Fast and Furious 6.” But I don’t think it unwarranted to have a higher expectation for a Star Trek film.

      I grant you that some of my rants can be countered. Perhaps they really needed Kahn’s blood instead of someone else’s (though they already showed they had no concern for the Prime Directive.) Perhaps now that I’m old they all seem like teenagers (though my bigger issue was there was such a huge leap from Academy to Captain—shouldn’t he have just gone to jail for screwing up an entire planet’s history?) But I can also think of ways they could have made the story more coherent, if they cared to. But they didn’t. And in response, I don’t care that much for it.

      One more thought in conclusion. I’m not a fan of Gene Roddenberry. He was a secular humanist to the core and extremely anti-religous. But I appreciate what he was trying to do with Star Trek. In a society that felt like it was falling apart (USA in the 60s) he wanted to give people a hope for a peaceful future where mankind would overcome all the problems it currently faces and explore destinations unknown. But I hardly think a movie that people of all kinds find fun and enjoyable and not penetrate the deeper questions would fulfill his “deeper desires.” If anything, he’s turning in his grave.

      PS. I love you, bro!

      • I will give you $5 if you photoshop an “evil Bob Rice” beard over your real beard on your picture because this thread has made you snarky!

        Star Trek got a second wind via syndication and the animated series. 5 years after that finished there was the movie. Then after they made that they got around to making a GOOD movie. Then a bad one. Then an awesome one. Maybe you can watch those movies totally enrapt. Or maybe they had a time and place but you can’t sit through them as easily. It’s the “Return of the Jedi syndrome”. In theory, I still love Return of the Jedi. But if I turn it on, I get a little tired after they wrap things up on Tatooine even though I know Yoda is coming up. Some young Star Wars fans prefer the prequels, and power to them. It largely depends on whether or not you liked it as a kid….FACT!

        I also think that the “suspension of disbelief” designation is a little arbitrary in science fiction. Old Star Trek stacked close calls and disparate variables….FACT!

        I thought the story was told pretty well! The action set pieces were rides, but that’s because it’s as much an action movie as it is science fiction. If the action furthers the plot, than how is that bad storytelling? The action in this movie served exposition as much as the dialogue did!

        Maybe your precious Nicholas Meyer has a point….IF HE ACTUALLY DIRECTED STAR TREK IV. But a dedicated Trek fan like yourself wouldn’t let someone else remind him that LEONARD-FRICKIN-NIMOY DIRECTED STAR TREK IV!!!!! You’ve heard of him, right????

        Of course he wrote HALF of Star Trek IV, but I don’t need to tell you that either!!!!!

        Of course, who wouldn’t prefer less action in a Star Trek movie in 2013 when we could have more moments like this:

        Needless to say, I don’t share Gene Roddenberry’s worldview. I have no problem with intergalactic egalitarianism so long as it leaves room for the kind of deeper metaphysical questions that an overwrought confidence in man and his technology is usually hostile towards.Roddenberry just wasn’t that kind of guy.

        Lastly, I like the concept of Star Trek. I like the characters and it’s a cool world to play in. I remember reruns of the show and I watched the animated series. I usually thought it was a little boring but that’s because I didn’t totally get it. I still watched it if it was on. The first of the movies I saw was the Final Frontier when it came to home video and even though it’s considered one of the “bad” ones, I liked it just enough. Some of my favorite storytelling devices involve “getting the gang back together” or something else involving heroes getting back to being heroes after their prime (see “Dark Knight Returns” and “Rocky Balboa”). I didn’t really get into the Next Generation (outside of the Mad Magazine parody and the movies), but that was too much of a commitment and thankfully Netflix can give me that chance.

        In other words, I’m probably as much the intended audience as anyone else. I remember it enough to care, but not enough to worry about continuity or get irked if my childhood vision of the franchise is spoiled. And I dug it. A lot.

        P.S. LEONARD. NIMOY.

        P.P.S. N00B.

      • Tom,

        You. Are. Adorable.

        Okay, you got me on the Nicholas Meyers bit. He didn’t direct Star Trek IV, he co-wrote it. Though I think it’s interesting you stress that he wrote “HALF” of it. In my own experience of script writing collaboration, usually people write something together. Not, “I’ll write this half and you write the other half.”

        But my impression of Star Trek Into Darkness is that the scriptwriters were hoping someone else would write the other half of the script for them, namely, the audience. They hoped the audience would be more creative than they were by having to come up with absurd plot devices to justify the situations they wanted to put their characters in. This wasn’t a finished product—it was a connect the dots drawing that forced the audience to finish the image.

        Let’s just take the first ten minutes of the movie as an example. Why is the Enterprise underwater? That’s a great way to “hide” it from an unknowing population. I’m sure she went down without a splash, right? I’m sure there are those who could create a clever backstory as to why that happened, but aren’t we doing the scriptwriters job now?

        I already mentioned the whole “line of sight” issue. Your response was “I can’t get a cell signal in a concrete building.” But in the future, apparently you can talk on a hand communicators from a starship in the Klingon empire to an engineer at a bar on earth, with absolutely no lag. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

        Is Kirk just plain DUMB? He thought he was going to get the best mission in the fleet but is surprised to find he’s getting reprimanded for breaking the Prime Directive? And he’s angry that Spock had the gall to fill out an honest report? What, is the Captain and the first officer’s log the only thing Starfleet has to go on to keep them accountable? HOW COULD HE HAVE POSSIBLY THOUGHT HE COULD HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH THAT? Look, I thought it was cool he was willing to break the Prime Directive to save Spock, but then I assumed he’d man up and take the punishment. To be surprised he was caught and then whine to his “back-stabbing” friend about it… come on.

        Oh look, we’re back in the bar now and the Admiral is telling Kirk about the greatness he sees in him. That seems familiar. And now the Admiral is saying that it’s familiar. Well, that makes it okay, I guess, as long as you let us know that you know we’re getting the exact same character arc that we did in the first movie.

        Why didn’t the father do more to try to stop Kahn? Again, we can create a world where this guy wasn’t a total moron and Kahn had him in a “I have no other choice” scenario. But watching the film, it seems like the guy had the attitude of, “Oh well, he did save my daughter after all. Time to fulfill my part of the bargain—by killing hundreds of my friends and co-workers. But I’ll send an email to the Admiral before I do, just to give him an FYI.” Seriously, that makes “I want to save Padme so I’ll slaughter Jedi children” look reasonable in comparison. Perhaps he was surprised about the potency of the explosion caused by his “just add water” explosive ring. I know I was.

        “It’s a trap!” The most senior members of Starfleet meet to respond to a terrorist threat next to a bunch of windows in an apparently undefended building? Kahn tries to kill them in a small ship with lasers? Why not just throw one of his dehydrated explosive rings at them? Oh, and the Admiral he was really trying to kill survived by hiding behind a pillar. Too bad Kahn’s “superior intellect” didn’t see that one coming.

        And if you discover the coordinates where Kahn teleported himself to… then why not just beam there yourselves?

        I’ll stop there, hoping I’ve made my point. One might think it unfair that I would hold such a movie under the microscope like this, and principle I agree. Any action movie will leave some unanswered questions that the audience will have to fill in the blanks for, lest it be overburdened with exposition. But I would argue that this film has more issues such as these, a lot more than the average film, and the movie suffered significantly under the sheer weight of the constantly unexplainable plot devices that were thrown at the audience to justify the action.

        You asked, “if action furthers the plot, than how is that bad story telling?” It’s bad story telling when action is thrown in to make the audience not notice the plot holes.

        All that being said, there was a lot about this movie to like. It looked amazing. The cast was fantastic. The pace was breathtaking. The action sequences were thrilling. I just wish it had a script that lived up to the rest of the film, and I refuse to believe that the rest of the film would have suffered if they had a coherent script that showed the scriptwriters knew they were making a Star Trek film, not an episode of LOST.

        And its going to be $10 for the evil beard photoshop. I’m not that cheap.

  5. Everyone repeat after me:

  6. Wow.

    I really don’t agree with most of this (though totally with you on the Carol Marcus thing – but it was one of the posters, so you sadly knew it was coming.)

    I went to STID very excited. I had managed to get my paws on tickets to the sneak preview on Wednesday night in Imax /3D, and because of this I got a cool Enterprise lithograph. So they kinda ‘had me at hello.’

    I had no issue of with the disproportionate use of the transporter, as “Harisson” was working from section 31 and would have access to technology no one else would, much like Bond used to always get cool toys for his missions from Q. I thought the use of the Starfleet dark ops unit actually covered the cool transporter and the ship (the vengeance) quite well.

    Benedict Cumberbatch amazed me. I don’t know if there is any way you could have properly made Khan work in the spirit of Ricardo Montalban short of casting an Antonio Banderas actor in the role, and I actually like what they did in trying to shade it a bit. Not only was this Khan woken under different circumstances, he had managed to much more deeply infiltrate the federation before someone clued in to his true nature. Combine that with the fact that he awoke to a much different reality on earth than in Space Seed… and you can give a little leeway to the difference in character. I in fact saw enough in the way Cumberbatch brilliantly developed him that it left doubt as to his character and then as to his loyalty. But the swagger and over the top self confidence – not too mention the ruthless manipulation – I thought nailed the essence of the 1982 Khan. What’s funny is that the moment you liked of Spock screaming “Khan” was the one moment I found over the top in all the parallels they made to Star Trek 2.

    The other thing I really liked was the only ongoing development of Kirk. Taking the risks to save Spock, his interactions with with Captain Pike (especially a pretty moving death scene), and the glue cementing he and Spock as close friends was tremendously well written and even more clearly acted.

    … And finally, your comment about Chekov really seems to miss out on all the times (with the glaring exception of Star Trek 6,when the Excelsior flies in to save the day) that it was always the ensemble cast of the Enterprise – I am looking at you, Wesley Crusher – have to singlehandedly save the galaxy. There never seemed to be other qualified Starfleet personnel either on board the Enterprise or elsewhere who could do anything. So when Scotty resigns, of course it Has to be Chekov to take over. It wouldn’t be Star Trek otherwise.

    I’ll allow all your set comments, but I think we need to remember that these two movies mark the first time they’ve ever worked from scratch for films… They’ve always had sets, characters and models from TOS or TNG as a starting point (or, in the case of the final 3 TNG movies, they had other series’ sets they could modify or dress up. After Enterprise wrapped, there were no Star Trek sets on the paramount lot for the first time in decades.

    So my friend, while you make some good points, I disagree. I think Abrams made a pretty amazing movie which I hope we will be able to look on as a transition film much like The Voyage Home or Generations… Since a five year mission might just provide some great material for another movie or two in this series. (And hopefully those will make you less angry.)

    • Do I seem angry? Sorry 🙂 Tom’s a good friend and we’ve been trash talking over text messages (as long as we’re not near volcanos and lose the signal) since the movie came out. Just some fun geek rage/pride going on. After we post we text each other to say how fun the response was.

      If only Tom was as coherent as you were in his response (you reading this, Tom?!?) With you, I can agree to disagree because you make sensible points and didn’t include bizarre phrases such as “A triumph of space friendship.” (Feeling the heat, Tommy Boy? WHO’S BURNING NOW?)

      And I love your optimism for the future, which is a very Trekkie thing to have 🙂 I just hope next time they get scriptwriters who can write a more solid script and are more passionate about the Star Trek Universe… and that we don’t have to wait another agonizingly long four years to see it.

      I should try to get you together with Tom sometime, because you’d love him—he’s an awesome guy.


  7. To quote the famous last words of Captain Kirk (the old one, not the new one:) “It… was… fun.” (Geesh, I hope they give the new guy a better valediction.) Thanks to everyone for their comments, especially my psuedo-nemesis, Tom.

    Or is it, Tahm?

    (I look up with anger and scream,) “TAAAAAAAAHM!”

%d bloggers like this: