Four things I wondered after watching Star Trek Into Darkness (spoilers)


I enjoyed this movie, but I didn’t love it. The plot was a jumble, the supporting characters were thin, the science was laughable, and the necessity to make most of the movie an exciting CGI fight scene left, as so much CGi does, the look of the world bathed in pristine sterility. Plus, everyone except the comics relief—McCoy and Scotty—was so humorless. Couldn’t Lobot or the bald navigator woman who didn’t do anything have had an expression just once?

Beyond this, these are the questions I was left with (please do not read this unless you have seen the movie.)

1) So no one dies now? Khan’s blood has “restorative” powers—that would seem to change life as we know it pretty substantially.

2) How did Admiral Marcus transport Carol Marcus to his ship when the shields were up? A few minutes later they said they couldn’t transport anyone with the shields up! I guess the shields must have been DOWN when Carol was transported, but shields up shields down…make up your mind.

3) Why, in a movie that was dedicated to the heroes of 9/11 (timely!) did they show most of a major city taken out by the crash of a dreadnought class starship. That was pretty fucked up, even in a “no one dies in collateral damage in movies” kind of way. Also, Harrison/Khan was a “terrorist”? He seemed to be involved in a caper to get his people back, but an actual crusade.

4) Most importantly, WHY, when he managed to survive said dreadnaught crash did Khan jump to the ground and take the time to steal a handsome leather trenchcoat that was just in his size that happened to be sitting on a back of a chair? Was it because it looked really cool while he was running and he wanted to look cool? Was it so the fight atop the flying…garbage truck or whatever it was, would resemble the fight in Matrix Reloaded atop a truck with the albino twins and Morpheus in a trenchcoat? We may never know the truth on this one.

As for Star Trek past vs reboot…it is interesting to see how this generation’s Star Trek has evolved from an often cheesy franchise that hit you over the head with its corny but heartfelt “messages” to a slick action film that tells us that terrorism is bad and being impetuous can get you killed. To be fair, the former is more suited to a weekly TV format, while successful films demand lots of action and spectacle.


  1. Bytowner says

    1. People can still die, and in multiple ugly ways. Being spaced, with or without an airlock, for example.

    2. Probably had a brief “window” there re: Carol.

    3. No one died in San Francisco that day? Doubtful.

    4. Temporary wardrobe disguise. He was improvising on the spur of the moment (and not doing very well at it). If Spock hadn’t beamed down right then, he might’ve improvised more effectively.

  2. says

    I honestly haven’t bothered with the second movie because all the revelations, blow by blows, and spoilers I have read – this included – has made it sound even stupider than the first. And that first movie was pretty stupid …

  3. Charles Ranier says

    It says something that you didn’t wonder about McCoy’s timing vis a vis hitting up a woman in the middle of defusing a bomb, because nothing adds to concentration in a critical moment than some guy trying to get into your undies.

    JJ (Jar Jar?) Abrams, the guy whose going to now take the reins of Star Wars.

    For anyone saying he can’t possibly f*ck it up more than Lucas already did, we’ll be waiting backstage with juice and cookies for you, and we’ll have grief counselors standing by…

  4. says

    I loved the movie, but reading your notes I can see how it doesn’t make for a great Star Trek.
    I wished Khan was better fleshed out, thought the acting was great with the limited character he had.
    Grabbing the coat, I thought it was some kind of “continuity” solution to help distinguish the characters of Spock Vs. Khan from a distance? So they didn’t want Khan to suddenly appear with a coat, so a quick look of him grabbing it. Not a good solution for a good filmaker. I wish they gave Khan some more dramatic design, or long hair or something.

  5. says

    1. The serum that Kirk was given was a synthetic of Khan’s and not the pure thing. The concern was what it would do to him mentally. This leaves the girl that got the pure thing, in the beginning of the film, a unresolved issue.
    2. This ship was designed by Khan and considered to be superior to all other ships in the fleet. An example is it’s ability to catch the Enterprise in warp.
    3. From my interpretation of the story, the mass killing was shown as a result of Marcus’ actions resulting in Khan’s reaction. To take from the Wrath of Khan and how he went out ” To the last, I will grapple with thee… from Hell’s heart, I stab at thee! For hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee!”
    4. No idea. Poor editing. A deleted scene we won’t see until the DVD?

  6. says

    What I want to know is how NuSpock can just call up Spock on the video screen? I thought we were meant to be moving forward.

  7. says

    I enjoyed it, but my big question was: After being attacked twice on their home turf, why does Starfleet Command — the galaxy’s peacekeeping organization — seem to have less security on its grounds than a small-sized airport?

  8. maija says

    “the science was laughable”– have you *seen* any of the rest of the Star Trek franchise? Transporters (no that experiment with moving the light beam across a table is not the same thing and is actually closer to the transporter in The Prestige), replicators, acceleration that doesn’t pancake everyone (explained by physically impossible “inertial dampers”, never mind “artificial gravity”), ship designs, photon torpedoes, time travel, stable wormholes, tachyons, EVERYTHING that takes place in the medical bay, creating a planet in a few minutes, compatible alien gonads, bipedal humanoids everywhere, etc, etc, etc.

    Maybe it’s not about the science.

    I enjoyed it, but I had zero expectations going in. I hadn’t even seen a trailer, which is how I like going to movies these days. After getting hyped for and then disappointed by a few films in the oughts (in large part because of buying into SDCC Hall ‘H’ nonsense) I’ve taken to avoiding movie hype altogether. I like a film to stand entirely on its own, even apart from any source material. It was fun. I enjoyed the banter quite a bit. It went over the top in the final act, to which my response was “That wasn’t the end? This thing is still going?” but it didn’t fill me with rage and crushing disappointment. It’s not going to be my favorite film of the year, but I liked it far better than a quite a few previous Trek films.

  9. Dan Coyle says

    Judging by what you wrote, it actually sounds like you didn’t like the film at all, and thought it was quite stupid, but even Heidi MacDonald is deathly afraid of being tarred as one of “Those” fans.

    Grow up.

  10. Taylor says

    So we now have (1) no need of starships (Khan was able to teleport to Klingon, for God’s sake) and (2) no more death (Khan’s blood is the elixir of life).

    Oh and Marcus’ top secret dreadnought? He had a model of it on his desk.

    This film defines stupidity downwards.

  11. The Beat says

    I did like the scene where the giant Dreadnaught chases the Enterprise straight out of Warp speed. That was very impressively staged.

    As for SF — oh of course the original was hooey as well, but it kind of PRETENDED to be SF, whereas STID (Kirk gets clap) was an action movie with magical blood and Harry Potter style apparition and cel phones that work across the galaxy.

    PS: I did love kick-ass Uhura and commanding Sulu.

  12. Torsten Adair says

    The new Trek is post-9/11, and cinematic, not phosphorescent. Movies have to have action, not lots of talking.

    So you get action in a Star Trek movie, and a two-part episode on television.

    The Federation lost many of their best ships in the first movie. The Klingon (and Romulans) will eventually notice. Given what happens in #2, expect the Klingons to appear in #3.

    I’m a bit surprised Section 31 hasn’t discovered Spock, and I wonder what happens when the Federation faces extinction. Will Spock start sharing his knowledge?

    Meanwhile, CBS and Paramount, corporate cousins, are arguing over who gets what in Star Trek. Abrams, meanwhile, is moving on, working for Disney. Expect a new director for #3.

  13. Nicholas Sinisi says

    The first thing I said to my wife after the movie ended was, “I don’t think Gene Roddenberry would have liked that.” Way too much style over substance. Plotholes you could fly a Dreadnought through. They couldn’t have come up with an ORIGINAL story in the last four years?
    It’s “Faux Trek” in my book. But very pretty to look at…

  14. says

    1) The original Trek movies shouldn’t have had the precedent!
    2) Missed that one. Could be a totally legit inconsistency.
    3) Yeah, a really bizarre shout out. I didn’t get it.
    4) I think a minority of viewers are pondering this!

  15. maija says

    “Pretending” makes Newtonian-law-violating “science” not magic? Throughout the entire franchise they weren’t so much pretending as simply hoping no one noticed because scientific accuracy would bring the five year mission to a grinding halt before the Enterprise even left Earth orbit and blow the budget, same as now. The “magical blood” was no less magical than Vulcan DNA combining with human DNA, or an alien species having DNA at all for a building block, or, AGAIN, pretty much anything that Bones does. Blood from a genetically modified superhuman is “magical” and not remotely science-fiction-y gene therapy-ish at a stretch, but a mysterious, powerful device being waved around isn’t “Harry Potter” as long as it’s a tricorder and not a wand? “Magic” here seems to mean “not in the accepted canon of hooey”.

    Frankly I was relieved by the magical blood because I’m in no mood for “The Search for Kirk”.

  16. maija says

    I agree the 9/11 and massive collateral damage thing was odd. This comes from IMDb trivia: “The film is dedicated to post-9/11 veterans. This is due to director J.J. Abrams’ connection to The Mission Continues, a nonprofit organization that serves as a framework for United States military veterans to do community service work when they return home from overseas. The organization’s founder and CEO Eric Greitens makes a cameo appearance alongside other veterans at the end of the film as one of the flag folders. A section of the film’s official website is dedicated to The Mission Continues. ” Doesn’t make it much less odd.

  17. says

    Curing wounds with a device that shoots beams over you is still magic as far as current tech is concerne, but now they have and are developing new types of surgical sealant that are just amazing. Also, wireless internet is still fascinating to me, as is wireless recharging.

    so while some things in science fiction seem pretty crazy and unattainable, I never put it past science to come up with something at least close to a fictitious invention.

    As for Vulcan DNA, what says they couldn’t procreate with humans, or that any humanoid race in Trek couldn’t?

  18. jake says

    Pike dies and a lot of others when Khan attacked the meeting and Klingons were killed also.
    And Bones was just making nervous chatter while defusing the bomb

  19. says

    I love talking Star Trek.

    They didn’t really go into it, but there are a ton of political/social reasons not to just turn Khanblood® into some kind of space-pharacutical product.

    For one, Khan is a part of the Trek past. the Eugenics wars. What I believe to be a planet wide civil war over the use of genetically enhanced people. So using Khan’s blood freely like this would be a return to that time and place and cause the same social/political problems.

    McCoy probably broke a ton of space-laws using Khan’s blood like that, as did Admiral Marcus. But having stopped Khan Starfleet probably overlooked it. Or he kept it from them in his log.

  20. The Beat says

    Scott: I guess we can safely assume the equivalent of Ted Cruz and Darrell Issa do not exist in the time of Starfleet.

    See that is what I missed about this Star Trek — the sense of optimistic exploration and progress of the original. I think it’s telling that the modern audience is not interested in an optimistic message…just endless destruction as the many movies about the end of the world indicate.

  21. george says

    The Beat said: “As for Star Trek past vs reboot…it is interesting to see how this generation’s Star Trek has evolved from an often cheesy franchise that hit you over the head with its corny but heartfelt “messages” to a slick action film that tells us that terrorism is bad and being impetuous can get you killed.”

    In other words, Star Trek has turned into Star Wars. This has been happening for some times, but — as others have pointed out — Abrams completed the “Star Wars-ification” of Star Trek. These movies can be seen as warmups for the SW film Abrams will be directing soon.

  22. george says

    The Beat: “I think it’s telling that the modern audience is not interested in an optimistic message…just endless destruction as the many movies about the end of the world indicate.”

    I don’t think the modern audience is any more pessimistic than previous ones — see all those genre films from the late ’60s and early ’70s with downbeat endings (Planet of the Apes, Silent Running, Omega Man, Night of the Living Dead, etc).

    But the modern audience, by which I assume you mean the people under 40 who fill multiplexes on Friday and Saturday nights, do seem to want lots of loud explosions and scenes of destruction. (See: Iron Man 3.) To them, it’s all just action, and they might as well be watching a cartoon or a videogame.

  23. Pink Apocalypse says

    I can’t help but think that anyone who can scoff at the fictional science in original Star Trek must be profoundly ignorant on cutting edge technological science today, or even the views of many current scientists. I’ve lost track of the number of instances I’ve seen and read where the science of original Star Trek was given as the inspiration and impetus for both modern devices in use today, as well as personal careers achieved. That’s not even mentioning original Star Trek’s frequent philosophical commentary on the Human Condition. Serious questions asked, through narratives that compelled you to dwell on the answer long after the end of the story told.

    But J.J. sure can blow shit up reel gud, can’t he?

    Sorry,…I’ll make a more appropriate response now.

    Semantic arguments and such! Logical fallacies and so forth! False implications! Vague statements! The author disagrees with my opinion so they are immature! Other words!

  24. says

    I saw it twice and we still spent an hour of post-movie discussion trying to figure out what Khan’s backstory, motivations, and hangups were, and that’s after his torturous expository monologue.

    Then I re-watched “Space Seed” (the original Khan episode) and learned everything I could ever want to know about the man in 45 minutes.

  25. says

    I actually enjoyed the movie. The one part I found weird was how a phaser to Khan’s head KO’d him for a bit, but several to the chest did nothing.

  26. Al™ says

    I loved it, and saw it twice. Both times in 3D. Sure, we can pick it apart for its blurring of science laws.
    And okay, Khan had absolutely no charisma and couldn’t motivate a team to do anything, unlike the ‘old’ Khan; and in his big public speech, Kirk never mentions the civilians who lost their lives in the San Francisco spaceship crash.
    But it’s a solid movie. There is no stalling or puffery. It hits the right balance of cold techno and warm sentiment; talking, punching and flying.

  27. says

    As a long-time Star Trek fan (40 yr old), I was not disappointed because:
    A) I knew it was going to be action first/technicalities and improbabilities last
    B) The franchise has steroided up on the action because the long interplays/personal back stories have not been successful (Box office Mojo: check totals for all the Star Treks) and so, this is what you get now
    C) If you go to the movies specifically to dissect the technology flaws, well, I guess you have potential to be a screenwriter, so, get busy!
    D) Terrorism. His action against Starfleet was terrorism. Of course he has a cause. Terrorists, despite the media and logic, feel they are on the side of right. I mean, what manner, or idea did you expect? Plus, it’s a plot device – moves actions along – so let’s not get too hung up on it.
    E) Its a movie. Could it be better? Sure. I have yet to see the 2 hour movie that encapsulates all my hopes for cinematic perfection. Its escapism, not some fan quest to nitpick/spoil every moment to build up ones gravitas as a film critic/expert. Save that aspect for books and long form ideas, like series where there is a arc or projected design that can unfold over several hundred pages, or 100 episodes. It is what the NYTimes Book review was for: to applaud or condemn the authoring of whatever struck their fancy to critique.

    This last comment is meant to reflect that ALL watchers of film are really becoming rather boorish about their comments. They suspect they have it all figured out – they can do better job – yet, they don’t take any action to prove that. So, they clumsily try to rip apart all the spots they dislike. Fine. Your inalienable right. But let’s be clear: the Star Trek/Star Wars/Marvel/DC Universe is and has a myriad of flaws and suspension of disbelief moments. We complain if too much exposition is used; we complain if the tech does not jive up with our expectations; we complain if a plot device or parallels are not as we would have written. Again, go write the best movie ever. Those that can, do – those that can’t, critique.

    This comment is not meant to be personal slam, but a wake up call to act upon all your snarkiness that brims to the surface, but rarely finds a purpose to create a MORE fulfilling act – that of making artwork millions can enjoy via a book, movie, serial, or some other form. I can write critiques or blogs, have for a decade or more, yet I am not going to ever achieve much if that was all I did. So, to all the commentators, and THE BEAT, get busy!

    The movie works well enough to get another one made. How bout that. We got a 3rd installment of the Hangover that is more likely to be like nails on the chalkboard than a pleasant experience. So there’s that to critique. Write me if you feel I am in error. I take critiques too.

  28. says

    Yes, Maija, “the science was laughable”.

    Star Trek has never been “hard sci-fi”, but it had a set of rules, and it generally stuck to them. Also, the writers knew just enough to (usually) avoid getting real scientific things totally wrong. So they didn’t have supernovas unexpectedly vaporizing planets many lightyears away, or black holes made out of planets somehow swallowing them. They made up new stuff instead, or left the technobabble to qualified consultants, which at least didn’t leave the audience members with a decent public-school science education groaning at just how wrong it all was.

  29. george says

    Jason Powers said: “Its a movie. Could it be better? Sure. I have yet to see the 2 hour movie that encapsulates all my hopes for cinematic perfection. Its escapism, not some fan quest to nitpick/spoil every moment to build up ones gravitas as a film critic/expert. Save that aspect for books and long form ideas …”

    Well, some movies DO deserve a rigorous critique: foreign films by Fellini, Bergman, Godard, Bunuel and Kurosawa (to name a few), and American movies by artists such as Hitchcock, Welles, Scorsese, Coppola, Ford and many others. Those movies have as much ambition as any great novel or TV arc. They deserve a serious dissection.

    Of course, these directors usually didn’t make escapist popcorn movies intended to wow fanboys with action and things blowing up real good. But Hitchcock and Ford were not generally regarded as artists in their time, at least not by American critics. They were seen as mass entertainers. Which meant they were not taken seriously.

    Just because no movie is perfect doesn’t mean no movie should be criticized. What I see from a lot of fans is a kind of reverse snobbery, a faux populism that says if it’s escapist entertainment, how dare you criticize it! It’s SUPPOSED to be stupid! And that’s what we want! It’s a MOVIE!

  30. The Beat says

    Jason Powers:

    >>>B) The franchise has steroided up on the action because the long interplays/personal back stories have not been successful (Box office Mojo: check totals for all the Star Treks)

    Well, actually:

    The rule of thumb on Star Trek is that the even numbered movies are better. Khan, the whales, and Undiscovered country (2, 4, 6) generally do better from that era, with even 6 doing better than 5 (the one that Shatner directed.) . To be honest until I looked at this chart I forgot that there were Star Trek films called Nemesis and Insurrection even though I probably saw them.

    >>>D) Terrorism. His action against Starfleet was terrorism. Of course he has a cause. Terrorists, despite the media and logic, feel they are on the side of right. I mean, what manner, or idea did you expect? Plus, it’s a plot device – moves actions along – so let’s not get too hung up on it.

    In a movie that calls out 9/11 as an inspiration we are totally right to question its means and motives. Khan got the guy with the sick kid to blow up the archives so he could get all the Starfleet commanders in a vulnerable spot so he could…well, it kind of lost me there. All of his terrorist acts were to further some kind of plot that I think involved blowing open the hatch so that the Others could get in and play records.

    >>>This last comment is meant to reflect that ALL watchers of film are really becoming rather boorish about their comments. They suspect they have it all figured out – they can do better job – yet, they don’t take any action to prove that.

    You don’t have to make movies to know that GROWN UPS was a horrible, horrible movie. That’s common sense.

    There is good, sound criticism and there is bad pointless nit picking. The former is useful and entertaining in is own right. The latter is what the internet is made of.

    The comment “What does it matter it was a movie/comic/episode of Everybody Loves Raymond/fondue/sestina/tuba concerto” is totally useless. There are rules and methods for everything under the sun.

  31. says

    “Spock, it’s young alterna-Spock, can I ask you a question about Khan?”

    “I can’t tell you anything about Khan. Now let me tell you EVERYTHING about Khan.”

  32. Synsidar says

    The quality of the SF in Star Trek: TOS varied a lot, depending on who wrote the script. One episode that worked pretty well as SF was “The Doomsday Machine,” written by Norman Spinrad. Another episode that worked well as SF was “The City on the Edge of Forever,” written by Harlan Ellison. Spinrad’s episode was nominated for a Hugo; Ellison’s won a Hugo.

    Decades later, the SF in those episodes and others might seem dated, but the good episodes are still good. “Spock’s Brain” is an example of a bad episode that will always be bad.


  33. Zach says

    1) Who knows if Khan’s blood can even be replicated en mass? We’ve seen plenty of stuff that the replicators can’t replicate/can’t replicate precisely, no reason that augment blood couldn’t be one of those, ruling out the “end of death”
    2) I assumed, that since the Admiral’s ship was badass in every other way, that it had a badass transporter that could punch through the 1701’s shields. Doesn’t really seem that crazy.
    3) ::Sarcasm on:: Yeah, why would they show terrorism and the destruction of a major city in a movie dedicated to the heroes/survivors of terrorism? BOGGLES THE MIND. ::Sarcasm off::, yeah, Khan was a terrorist. He may’ve had what he perceived to be a justification for his terrorism, but heck, most terrorists have that.
    4) Like everyone else said, the trenchcoat was an attempt to cover himself up a bit. Dude’s wearing a Starfleet shirt and he’s trying to escape the site of a crashed Starfleet ship. The less easily someone is able to id him, the better.

    Jeez, if this movie was too confusing, I have some hooked on phonics you can borrow, my 4 year old cousin is almost done with them.

  34. Matt says

    AND… why were they running on the walls when the Enterprise was falling to earth? If the artificial gravity was working, they’d be on the floor (as usual); if not, they’d be weightless.

  35. Matt says

    AND… why had medical science been so much more advanced 300 years earlier? (No one able to produce Khan-blood-related medicines in the intervening three centuries.)

  36. says

    So I take it we’re not going to talk about how Khan, an Asian Indian character, was whitewashed in this movie? Yes, I know the role was originally played by a Hispanic actor, but I’m betting Rodenberry had to put a fight for that back in the day.
    Honestly, that was my only real nitpick with this film. Yes, I went in with very low expectations and came out pleasently suprised. Sure, New Trek has its issues, but when you conisder that most of the Next Gen movies were awful and the fact that the franchise was facing oblivion, I’m glad things seem to be working out for this series for the better.
    Now Star Wars, there’s a hot mess right there…

  37. Jeffrey Flowers says

    Donna: That’s like complaining that Nick Fury is black in Avengers. Who gives a damn, so long as the actor is good.

    (By the way, you must really be hating Johnny Depp as Tonto.)

  38. Zach says

    @ Matt – I took it to be that the artificial gravity was failing, not completely failed. After all, the ship was damaged, not destroyed. The artificial gravity, like many of the other systems on the ship, was malfunctioning. As for the medical science – it has indeed advanced. United Earth and most of the Federation worlds (though not all the colonies), have mostly eliminated disease and hunger. The blind are given medical technology (Geordi) that helps with their disabilities. The inability to have Khan-like healing is probably due to the ban on genetic engineering (see Bashir on DS9).

  39. eric w. says

    @Donna – I agree. Khan Noonian Singh is not a British white guy, certainly not 300 years earlier. And I hate Sam Jackson as Nick Fury. And Depp as Tonto. Faran Tahir would’ve been a great Khan if he wasn’t already the Capt. of the Kelvin.

  40. says

    Sam Jackson as Nick Fury had a precedent. Because it didn’t have a precedent in the main Marvel universe is your issue to contend with.

    A lot of events and origin stories in the Marvel Films are not the same as they happen in the comics, but it seems that readers have easily gotten over those.

    Donna, it did feel weird to hear his full name said in the film and then he’s embodied by Benedict Cumberbatch. He played a good villain, but not someone you’d think would be called Khan Noonien Singh.

  41. The Beat says

    Donna, I dunno if Roddenberry had “fight” on his hands with Montalban in the original…Star Trek TOS was all about diversity, reflecting the civil rights struggles of the time. By the time WoK came out Montalban was starring in Fantasy Island.

    I’ve avoided talking about the blanderization of the new Trek because it’s so dispiriting. Every Enterprise was known for having a diverse crew of aliens and weirdoes. Compare STID where the new cast member is a pert blonde English woman.

  42. says

    Are you REALLY gonna drag out that old chestnut? That is the WEAKEST possible argument you can make in a case like this. Why? Because if you apply that to Hollywood’s track record with regards to casting, race and ethnic identity then all you’re going to see is a backwards demonstration that apparently only white actors are good enough for roles that should go to people of colour. Seriously, why don’t you go take a browse around then come back and talk. And DO NOT even get me started about Depp’s Tonto, just DO NOT.
    Having said that, I’m not particularly upsept about Movie Nick Fury because it’s the movies are a mix of Marvel 616 and Ultimate Marvel leaning heavily towards the latter in which Fury was pretty explicitly shown to be modeled after Samuel L. Jackson.

  43. says

    I don’t know why Heidi knocks the film for lack of humor. If it didn’t make her laugh, that’s a fair statement, but there are a lot of lines intended to garner laughs, so the intent was there.

    The audience with which I saw the film laughed quite a bit at the required moments, FWTW.

  44. says

    Another point I haven’t seen anyone mention:

    Did no one notice that the Admiral’s plan depends on having the Federation’s soldiers act like “hit-men” in taking out a terrorist sans trial, and that Kirk– admittedly after being guilted into it by Spock– foils the Admiral’s plan because he chooses to take “Harrison” alive?

    Granted, there’s not a huge debate in the film on the ethics of the “war on terror.” Still, there’s more substance in that one plot-thread than in all the seasons of 24.

  45. george says

    Jason Shaw said: “Again, go write the best movie ever. Those that can, do – those that can’t, critique.”

    That’s like saying you shouldn’t complain about problems with your car unless you’re a professional auto designer or engineer.

  46. Eugene says

    “We see,but We never really see”. If more People remember what they watch in the first Movie, we would not be having this Talk! Recap; Old Spock came thru a Wormhole and change the Future of Old Star Trek! So, Kirk became a Trouble Youth. The Major Problem with The New Trek is how can anyone go thru StarFleet Acadamy, and become a Captain without getting his act together? P.S. The Dreadnought Class ship appeared in the Old Star Trek Books on the Fleet.

  47. Dresden Nicolisima says

    This movie sucked Klingon ball sacks. I mean it
    was like the Romulans took a shit on everyone in the movie theatre. JJ Abrams needs to go back to school and rediscover filmmaking because
    the movie was just BAD. Toooo damn long
    like a elephants schlong. That whole new Spock old Spock on the big screen was laughable. We need a Jew like Spielberg to direct the next one. I bet he will want Hollywood Psycho Tom Cruise in the film.

  48. LS says

    Isn’t anyone upset that the last half of the movie is taken directly from Diane Carey’s “Dreadnought!”, with no credit to the author?

  49. whoknows says

    The biggest question I have is weather or not they have ever made a ship “dreadnought” this advanced again.
    According to everything I’ve seen & read this is the biggest ship ever built with the exception of some “universe class” ship built in an alternative universe.
    Even picards ship which was supposed to be the best ship of all the star fleet as relates to features and combat ability could not compare?

    am i wrong?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *