Suprised not to see a thread for this yet. I saw this Friday at 5pm. I was one of only four people in the theater. Wtf? Makes me wonder how this will do. Certainly won't touch Iron Man 3's opening weekend numbers.

There's few characters like Downey Jr's Tony Stark and I saw IM3 last weekend. Star Trek Into Darkness is a better story in every way IMO. This was a fast paced film. Almost too fast if you believe that. They throw so many twists at you along the way, a few you will see coming, most you wont. I only say too fast because some of the best parts are some of the simple interactions between crew members.

I'm not a Trekkie, more of a Star Wars fan, but I don't ever remember a Star Trek so dark. The main reason is the true Villain in this. I'm gonna lay down one major spoiler...


MAJOR SPOILER

The villain goes by a different name and you won't find it in the previews, but it is Kahn. He's 300 years old, super human and of higher intelligence. Kirk is no match for him physically or mentally. Most importantly, Kahn's motives are totally believable and he is one savage motherfucker. INtelligently written. He makes the movie.

END SPOILER

Other than that, I'm not going to spoil anything. I highly recommend it. IT's not without questionable actions by our heroes to propel the story, but I certainly enjoyed the ride. I only saw it in 2D, but I wish I would've seen it in 3D now. Gotta be worth the extra dough.

James

When I first checked out the trailer - I wasn't really interesting in seeing this one, but I did.  Overall I thought it was good.  Some bravura action scenes, and some  decent comical moments.  I will admit, Pine looked more like a Starship Captain this time around.

I wouldn't call it a popcorn movie, but it was fun nevertheless.  Having said that... I thought the first one was better.

Ghost

A decent film, I was kind of disappointed in the choice of villian going in, but Cumberbatch did a great job--and afterword I said to myself, well, if Batman has a Joker, Holmes his Moriaty, it's only fair Kirk has Khan.

Effects are great, it was a better story than I thought it would be.... I liked it but didn't love it. However there is something in the film which happens too frequently and it's something I utterly dispise in movies. That's winking to the audience with all the "callbacks" to Wrath Of Khan and other Trek lore. Either you are having a clean slate or you aren't. It's a good film overall, but not "great".

I'm a born and bread Trek fan. the first movies I ever saw in the theater were Return of the Jedi and The Search for Spock back in '83 when i was just 3 years old. and i remember these experiences very well.

I grew up on William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy's Star Trek from the 60's thanks my dad. growing up we collected the Original Series episodes on VHS... i know the show by the back of hand... though im hardly your garden variety trekkie

i enjoyed this movie as much as the last one.... and find JJ's take on the show to be a very honorable reboot - which says a lot considering how much i have invested in the original crew.

given that JJ didn't even like Star Trek before taking on the project.... I personally cant wait to see what he does with Star Wars...to which he is a die hard fan of

The first big Summer movie worth watching in the theaters.

In fact, the bigger the theater the better. See this one in Imax 3D for sure. Looks spectacular and overall slick as f uck.

Better than the first one? Probably not. But just by a hair.

I actually liked the story. It was simple. And that's what JJ needs to do. Craft simple stories instead of playing "What's in the box?" Now I can't really comment on the twist (since I'm not a Star Trek fan) but it worked for me. The ending seemed a little too "bait and switch" for me, but whatever. I'm willing to overlook it.

My definition of a popcorn flick. Tons of action, Simon Pegg, and a dash of boobies (which the writers are getting a ton of flack for).

Just ignore the lens flare.

As a moviegoer, I thought the film was pretty awesome and entertaining. Once it started, it didn't really stop for two hours.

SPOILERS

As a Trekkie, I hated it. It confirmed my fears that JJ's not just trying to reconcile Star Trek with non-Trekkies, but he's not trying to make Star Trek at all. When I first heard the rumors about Khan as the villain, that's when the cringing began. Then, I got slightly more excited when JJ & Co. said he wasn't the villain. But they never said who it was and the rumor never completely went away. When I saw the movie, I learned why.

The first two acts were kinda interesting. They spun a new version of "Space Seed": Starfleet plans to use Khan to defeat the Klingons, but that plan backfires and Starfleet tries to fix/cover it up by leaving no witnesses. That's when it lost me. They got carried away with the call backs to Wrath of Khan and lost the meaning of the original film and their own. It just felt like lazy writing in a lot of ways.

For one, the way the writers turned the tables with Kirk and Spock says a lot about their mentality toward the franchise. There's two ways they botched it: the relationship between Kirk and Spock itself and the way Spock reacts to Kirk's death. The relationship they have in TWoK was forged over several decades. They also expressed their affection for each other in simpler ways. Instead of saving the other from an active volcano, they gave each other birthday presents that had meaning (and not just for the characters, but the movie as a whole). In ITD, the more dramatic expressions of friendship (the volcano rescue) don't really seem to translate into lighter, more tender moments between the characters because there's so much action taking place. By the end, when Kirk dies, Spock's emotional display of affection for his colleague seems a bit coerced.

This reaction, too, is problematic. The premise was great: what happens when a Vulcan loses his best friend? Had the answer involved Spock Prime, who nearly achieved kohlinahr (purging of all emotion) just a film prior to TWOK, we could've had an extremely good storyline. However, New Spock lost what little control of his emotions and what little grasp of logic he had and beat the tar out of the enemy. Ultimately, this was a more human reaction to loss, which we'd already seen with Kirk in the original TWOK. Since the writers are presenting a more palatable/emotional Spock following the loss of his homeworld, they shot themselves in the foot by not allowing themselves to explore their premise's full potential.

Don't get me started on Khan's blood! Worst deus ex machina EVER. The Search for Spock wasn't much better, but it put more effort into it and deserves more praise.

Overall, I'm disappointed with the state the franchise is in. Our culture seems to be embracing all things geeky/nerdy, but somehow Star Trek--the source of much of our geekiness/nerdiness--isn't allowed to be its geeky/nerdy self. It must conform to be a cash cow like Star Wars, rather than a less profitable franchise like BSG or Doctor Who. I don't mind that Star Trek has more action these days. I just wish it played by Gene Roddenberry's rules, not George Lucas's or JJ Abrams's.

Hey DB, I've already proclaimed that I'm not a Trekkie. I think what they did with this film was to allow it to grow up with its audience. We want darker, heavier stories as we grow older. This isn't the Star Trek I watched during Saturday morning breakfast.

I see you take issue with Spock's emotions. I thought that was one of the best parts and a character arc for him. He is half human, no? It's got to show through sometimes.

I thought this film was great and I hope JJ takes Star Wars down a similarly dark path. As I said, I'm no Trekkie but I respect the franchise. From an outside point of view I thought they did a fantastic job.

James

Quoted from jwent6688 Hey DB, I've already proclaimed that I'm not a Trekkie. I think what they did with this film was to allow it to grow up with its audience. We want darker, heavier stories as we grow older. This isn't the Star Trek I watched during Saturday morning breakfast.

Actually, I think JJ took a less mature approach. The 60s Star Trek was a bit lighter than his take on it, but it doesn't come as close to being as dark or heavy as Deep Space Nine. DS9 makes JJ's movie look as nonsensical as anything from Michael Bay or Rob Cohen. And most of it was by Battlestar's Ron D. Moore. If it weren't for DS9, BSG wouldn't be BSG. If you've seen BSG, surely you'd agree it's better than JJ's Trek.

Quoted Text I see you take issue with Spock's emotions. I thought that was one of the best parts and a character arc for him. He is half human, no? It's got to show through sometimes.

With New Spock, we're not getting a true half-Vulcan because he's so emotionally-compromised all the time. What's the point of having Spock act human when the rest of the crew is human? The character was originally designed as a contrast to the rest of the crew, as the only alien on board. This is totally lost on the Abrams writers, because they think it's sexier to portray the human angle, forgetting we already get that from the rest of the crew.

If you take the more logical, less emotional Spock Prime and kill his best friend, you've got a more interesting story on your hands. Will he or won't he snap? Chances are, he won't--which is more unusual, since most humans and most movies would. So if he doesn't snap, what does he do? He channels his powerful emotions into some supercharged logic and reasons his way toward a solution.

If they wanted to do Trek their way and not the way it's been done before, they should've created a new crew or totally broken from tradition. Either Spock's cold and logical and occasionally human or he's more human than the rest or most of the crew. What they're doing now doesn't work as Star Trek and it barely works as good storytelling. Too bad witty dialogue and fun action sequences are burying these issues.

Quoted Text I thought this film was great and I hope JJ takes Star Wars down a similarly dark path. As I said, I'm no Trekkie but I respect the franchise. From an outside point of view I thought they did a fantastic job.

Ironically, I wholly agree with this paragraph. I think JJ's approach is more at home with Star Wars. And ITD's great for outsiders, because they don't know what they're missing with the old stuff. That's also what's not-so-great.

Just as long as JJ leaves out the Lens flares in Star Wars,  Dan

Quoted Text Don't get me started on Khan's blood! Worst deus ex machina EVER. The Search for Spock wasn't much better, but it put more effort into it and deserves more praise.

I understood the context of the scene. It also ticked me off a little. I let it slide because it's something worth seeing in the next film post Mr. Lens Flare. But see, while it is fitting that after "creative thinking" on the Kobiashi test Kirk wants to 'cheat death'. In the new film he learns to accept it so long as he saves  the lives of his crew (and also Khans, to be technical) so whether he wanted to or not, he cheated death.

So what I would have done is this: the weakest link in the film is Alice Eve as Carol. WORTHLESS and only there to make sure Jim Kirk never sleeps with two tailed alien women again.  Or was it one? Who cares. In any case...if it is established that Admiral Marcus found Khan and used him for bio-engineering weapons and such...why not bring in his daughter to replicate Khan's blood for healing/longivity purposes?

New and improved Genesis project. Give Kirk a shot, cells reboot.
No tribble, no trouble. The character has something to do other than show what she got from Victorias Secret (by the way, why is Carol speaking in a British accent? They don't even try to hide it)

What I hope is that if the third film comes out three years from now, they have a great op to really start from scratch. Afdter all, TOS only lasted three seasons. That's three years out of a five year mission, right?

The problem with the reboot is that it didn't originate as a TV series, where we're familiar with these characters. This isn't a continuation of the TV series or a precursor to it. This is the same characters in a completely new universe (well, it's supposed to be new, no thanks to ITD). As a result, new introductions are in order and new bonds have to be formed between the audience and the characters and the characters amongst themselves. However, the writers are only doing this halfway. Some relationships are starting fresh, others have a new spin on them, and others are using the TV show as the basis--which is breaking the rules of the reboot.

Scott Collura at IGN said it best. ITD is like a meme of Star Trek, rather than being Star Trek.

Another slick-looking, remarkably boring pile of proof that J.J. Abrams will never top the brainless mediocrity of MI:III. I'd call him the new Michael Bay, except Bay has some original ideas -- about the closest you can accuse Abrams of getting to those is those dumbass retail scanners on the Enterprise bridge.

The movie's problem is bigger than the fact that it so blatantly wants to be a globe-trotting "kill-the-terrorist" flick...the movie that it wants to be sucks, anyway. And its juxtaposition with Star Trek elements makes it all the worse. The dedication to post-9/11 vets at the end of the film is a crock of shit, and the fact that Pine jock-jaws his way through some monologue about how revenge isn't the answer doesn't mean anything in a film that wants us to love the act of revenge. It's a "tricky issue" because we "understand Khan's motivations" but in the end, we're still rooting for the 'Mericans to hunt down 'em goddamn terrorists hiding in a land of faceless, base, brutal exotics with inferior technology (worst f***ing "Klingons" ever, by the way).

Why is Khan white? Did I miss that?

As much as I love television and the way Abrams shoots his features like a show (that's sarcasm), I really don't need to go to a theatre and watch a movie where the camera is two damn inches from the actors' faces at all times. I understand Abram's focus group's ideal viewer is hovering somewhere just above death by ADD, but I strongly believe pretty much anyone is actually capable of watching a conversation in a nicely-composed 2-shot without CUs to remind them how AWESOME everything is. Likewise the pacing. Likewise the characters...imagine if there had been someone/thing to care about in the movie!

Peter Weller was far and away the best part of the flick. Somehow he even managed to deliver Kurtzman/Orci/Lindelof's utterly uninteresting dialogue with a touch of class.

Why are there references to Star Trek in this movie? Are we supposed to LOL because we saw Nurse Chapel or a tribble in a meme once? Are we supposed to be shocked because in the process of bastardizing one of cinema's great moments, Into Darkness flipped which character died (in a way that displays an utter lack of comprehension of the source material)? Are we supposed to be excited by Carol Marcus, or annoyed because she's English, even though either way the character's a useless idiot like all the rest?

The first was a pretty tight little paint-by-numbers, probably better than average in the predictable-plot set, and this one's more or less the same. Given current standards, it's inoffensive, though deeply, deeply boring. It turns out the Inception BWAAAAAMM is kinda more exciting if it's accentuating a plot where someone does something interesting. Like most current blockbusters, there's a tinge of desperation in there somewhere -- please remain pacified by the booming bass and colourful imagery, please! I have nothing else to give!!

A testament to contradiction: childish but unimaginative, grand but uncaptivating, fast-paced but boring, current but irrelevant. An utter failure on the part of everyone this side of Weller and the cine and art teams.

And a special shout-out to my woman Zoe Saldana for bringing to life an Uhura who's about 20% less progressive than her 47-year-old source. Despite the fact that, y'know, the original Uhura debuted around the time James Meredith was getting shot for having the audacity to walk from Tennessee to Mississippi. "You brought me here to speak Klingon...let me speak Klingon!" Go f*** yourself.

Abrams is a friggin' hack. Just wanted to get that in one more time.

...so all in all, I didn't much enjoy it

I heard a working title was "Wrath of Bizarro Khan."

After hearing the hundreth fanny complaint over the casting of Cumberbatch as Khan this past week...I started to wonder if the ST folks used the wrong character after all. Cumberbatch actually, from a few angles,bares a passing resemblance not to Montalban, but Judson Scott, who played Khan's right hand man in Wrath Of Khan.

The more I think it over, the more I think it should have been Joachim. Wouldn't that have been nuts! AND he manipulates Marcus and McCoy into opening KHAN'S torpedo.

BTW, I been reading some behind the scenes stuff.  Reason for Cumberbatch not being the same ethic bg as the character was due to being PC.

Quoted from DarrenJamesSeeley The more I think it over, the more I think it should have been Joachim. Wouldn't that have been nuts! AND he manipulates Marcus and McCoy into opening KHAN'S torpedo. BTW, I been reading some behind the scenes stuff.  Reason for Cumberbatch not being the same ethic bg as the character was due to being PC.

That's a kickass idea! Woulda been neat.

Hah! Good ol' PC-ness. It's funny that it was determined that the most PC decision was to keep the name Singh and give the part to a Caucasian.

On a related trivia note, Khan was originally supposed to be Nordic...

This review REALLY lays out how Abrams subverts the original mythology...
Hitting Star Trek points like a laundry list for some meme.

http://collider.com/star-trek-into-darkness-review/

E.D.