Escape to the Movies: Star Trek: Into Darkness

[Dale Ware]

I'd say the movie was fine. Not best star trek ever, but it does well for what it has.

The full cast don't get used to good effect, but honestly, how many movies have 7 main characters who are influential for the entire movie? Thinking right now of Fellowship of the Ring, where Gandalf, Frodo & Aragorn play key parts, the rest of the fellowship may well have been other people. Scotty standing up for his beliefs meant more to me than anything the characters i didn't mention in fellowship did...

my biggest issues are as follows, wasn't Admiral Marcus black in the first movie (maybe different admiral, i thought it was the same guy...) & Spocks hair was annoyingly flappy (thought it was a wig) in the chase scene near the end

(not being racist above, or not trying to be, but I kept thinking that the admiral wasn't admiral Marcus...)

 

[Xavier323]

my biggest issues are as follows, wasn't Admiral Marcus black in the first movie (maybe different admiral, i thought it was the same guy...) & Spocks hair was annoyingly flappy (thought it was a wig) in the chase scene near the end

(not being racist above, or not trying to be, but I kept thinking that the admiral wasn't admiral Marcus...)

Nope, it was a different admiral. Tyler Perry played a character named Admiral Richard Barnett in the 2009 movie.

 

[SethMorne]

No character development? Is Bob just so Anti-JJ Abrams that he refuses to see whats in front of him?

Spoiler

the space cowboy Capt Kirk learns responsibility, Spock learns how with his duality how to deal with humans emotions without betraying his Vulcan side. Nyota Uhura learns that just because Spoke does not express how he feels does not mean he does not care, Scotty learns to say "Fuck the rules" and trust Kirk, And McCoy hes is slightly more tolerant of space travel.

There is more character development in this one film that all 3 seasons of TOS. Yeah it does not top the Character development the 2nd 3rd and 4th Star Trek Films had, but that is 3 movies telling a bigger story than each film's smaller adventure can hope to carry.

And Bob get off your High Horse.

Bob doesn't say that there's no character development. He says that the character arcs that are in the film are basically retreads of the first movie. And I'm prone to agree with him.

Spoiler

In the first movie, Kirk is learning to deal with reining in his impulsive nature and become a responsible commander. Spock deals with his emotional side and logical side. The only thing I actually agree with you on right now is Uhura. And even then it's not really an arc, it's just a few scenes. Setup, confrontation (the conversation in the ship on Kronos) punctuated by the predictable: sentimental moment is over, let's shake the camera because something actiony is happening!

I also posit that if people saw the EXACT same movie with Michael Bay's name attached to it instead of JJ Abrams(might as well, since two of the three writers involved also wrote Transformers and Revenge of the Fallen) people would feel very different about the movie.

 

[Farthing]

This movie was really cute. A bunch of amusing callbacks to original series stuff, nice action sequences, and Pine acting in the Shatner-style for 2 hours. Watching this with a bunch of Star Trek fans, they were quite happy and amused to be served, we all laughed through it. Success as a work of fanservice there I guess.

As a work of science fiction in the grander scheme of things, I agree with Bob's assessment.

 

[Thyunda]

Wait I forgot, how did we conclude that he didn't discern the motivations of the Admiral?

The part where he hid on Kronos. We've been over this.

If he understood that the Admiral wanted a war with the Klingons, then hiding out on Kronos is stupid.

If he didn't understand that the Admiral wanted a war with the Klingons, then Khan is stupid.

Since we can be fairly certain that Khan is not stupid, we must assume that the writers are stupid. As evidenced by the fact that the instant he's confronted with the situation, Khan has either worked it all out in advance, or he worked it out in ten seconds in the middle of a firefight.

It's a plot hole. Just accept it and move on with your life, it needn't interfere with your enjoyment of the film.

Noooo but I already countered that point! If the Admiral DIDN'T want war with the Klingons, he'd have simply warned the Klingons of Khan's presence on their planet, and diplomatically ended the situation. However, that would require co-operation, and the military would lose massive amounts of public support if they ordered a pre-emptive strike against the Klingons at any point after this co-operative gesture.

It could also be that he was well aware of Starfleet doctrine and knew that any ship the Admiral sent after him simply would not fire without attempting to take him alive first.

OH yes, that's the other thing. Starfleet wasn't even militarised by this point - Klingon defenders would have destroyed the Enterprise if it had fired on Kronos (which was half the plot), so the only way Khan would have ever been in any danger at all would have been if the Vengeance showed up, and that was still being fitted out. Khan was playing for time by hiding on Kronos, it wasn't a permanent plan at all.


See. Too quick to call plothole. That makes perfect sense.

 

[Raesvelg]

Noooo but I already countered that point! If the Admiral DIDN'T want war with the Klingons...

But he does. And Khan knows this, since that's why the Admiral found him and thawed him out.

It could also be that he was well aware of Starfleet doctrine and knew that any ship the Admiral sent after him simply would not fire without attempting to take him alive first.

Given that it was just by the barest thread that Kirk didn't just torpedo Khan from 20 light-years out, that seems like more of a gamble than you'd be willing to take with your life. For that matter, he had to know that if the Admiral really wanted him dead, he could have just done the job himself. Also from outside of Klingon space. Khan knows this, because he designed the weapons to do it.

The only reason Khan didn't die in a rain of exploding Augment-corpsesicle torpedoes is because the Admiral misjudged Kirk. He surrenders because he realizes that they have the torpedoes (which will allow him to prove his story, and provide emotional leverage), that Kirk has almost undoubtedly disobeyed orders to attempt his capture, and that as such he can manipulate Kirk into doing what he wants.

Which is the kind of thing that you'd expect from Khan, except for the part where he had to be an idiot to get himself into that situation to begin with.

OH yes, that's the other thing. Starfleet wasn't even militarised by this point - Klingon defenders would have destroyed the Enterprise if it had fired on Kronos (which was half the plot), so the only way Khan would have ever been in any danger at all would have been if the Vengeance showed up, and that was still being fitted out. Khan was playing for time by hiding on Kronos, it wasn't a permanent plan at all.

Except that the Enterprise wasn't going to show up in easy range of Kronos. The entire plan was to show up on the border of the Neutral Zone and nuke the site from there. Klingons wouldn't even know that the Enterprise was firing on the planet until the warheads hit, and wouldn't know who did it for certain unless they got very lucky.

Like, by having the Admiral sabotage the Enterprise's warp core so that it would be left crippled on the edge of the Neutral Zone with a notoriously hot-headed captain whose mentor had just been murdered in charge. And there's little doubt that once the Enterprise had gone boom, there'd have been no actual record of the orders sending Kirk out there to begin with, or that they'd fired on Kronos at all. It would just appear to be a random act of aggression by the Klingons, which the Admiral would have fortunately stumbled upon in his dreadnought just in time to kill said Klingons and avenge the Enterprise.

Khan's goal of using Kronos as a base of operations for his terrorist attacks only works if he assumes that the Admiral isn't willing to pursue him there, which only works if he thinks that the Admiral isn't willing to provoke a war with the Klingons. But he does know. That's the entire reason the Admiral had him making advanced weaponry.

I repeat: The problem with writing super-intelligent characters is that they're not written by super-intelligent authors.

 

[OverlordSteve]

Well this came off as very unprofessional. You're supposed to be a movie reviewer Bob, not a movie complainer. I want to see a review that tells me whether or not to see a film based on the coherence of the story, quality of the action / direction and the effort of the actors etc. I DON'T want to see a review that vilifies a film just because the director played loose with the source material. Look at how loose Iron Man 3 was, yet that warranted a review AND a Big Picture episode to tell us how you loved that twist.

We all know that Bob is a fanboy, but its gone beyond the point of being a little bit biased to just being:

"Don't go see this film! The asshole director changed a thing that I hold sacred! I don't care if you've never ever seen ANY Star Trek, it will ruin EVERYTHING for you!"

And letting that fanboyism into your reviews is like I said, very unprofessional. I'll be going elsewhere for my movie reviews from now on, although I expect this video will still get views if only from people want to listen to Bob jumping around the monkey cage.

Oh and just in case it wasn't clear, I enjoyed Into Darkness, rather a lot, particularly the radiation airlock sequence, very clever.

If you had actually paid attention to the video, you'd know that Bob disliked Into Darkness because it has references to the original Star Trek that serve no story purpose and actually undermine the quality of the story on top of a lackluster plot.

If you want to rationalize completely dismissing a dissenting opinion about something you liked by pretending it's just a fanboy opinion, do it in your head. Don't come on the forum and try to play the "unprofessional" card while completely misconstruing someone's point of view for your own purposes.

 

[Farther than stars]

Because if I am to discourage the existence of discriminatory language, I must then shun the people who use that language and thus perpetuate its existence and the associated stereotypes. Choice doesn't really come into it.
And I'm not saying the mob always knows more than the individual simply because it's a mob. But it does have more credibility in that absence of valid arguments on the side of the individual. Nothing about that comment was productive and its only possible result was alienation and division, both of which should be discouraged in order to maintain a stable society.

A stable society would not exist without alienation and division. That's how it encourages people not to stray outside its boundaries. So I don't see why making visible what is already there should be discouraged. Stability is also no concern of mine: I'm interested in making things better not preserving the status quo, and that goal isn't served by censorship.

Because if I am to discourage the existence of discriminatory language, I must then shun the people who use that language and thus perpetuate its existence and the associated stereotypes. Choice doesn't really come into it.
And I'm not saying the mob always knows more than the individual simply because it's a mob. But it does have more credibility in that absence of valid arguments on the side of the individual. Nothing about that comment was productive and its only possible result was alienation and division, both of which should be discouraged in order to maintain a stable society.

A stable society would not exist without alienation and division. That's how it encourages people not to stray outside its boundaries. So I don't see why making visible what is already there should be discouraged. Stability is also no concern of mine: I'm interested in making things better not preserving the status quo, and that goal isn't served by censorship.

Status quo and stability are two fundamentally different concepts. The status quo simply means that everything remains the way it is. "Stable" (in the sociological sense) means an absence of factors which would hamper human survival, such as war*, hunger and natural disasters. A degree of this kind of stability is a requirement for the advancement of society, because it creates the environment in which science can be done and in which technology can be developed.
But even disregarding your comment about stability, would you explain to me exactly how your comment was productive towards the betterment of society? I'm sure you don't wholeheartedly believe in the anti-censorship argument or otherwise you would be advocating child pornography as well.
And "making visible what is already there" doesn't apply here, because we've already established that the Jewish stereotype is a weak one. Therefor not only is it not true (the stereotype never 'was there' in the first place), it also misinforms people more than it informs them.

*Which is dependent on division and more likely because of alienation.

 

[Idlemessiah]

*le snip*

If you had actually paid attention to the video, you'd know that Bob disliked Into Darkness because it has references to the original Star Trek that serve no story purpose and actually undermine the quality of the story on top of a lackluster plot.

If you want to rationalize completely dismissing a dissenting opinion about something you liked by pretending it's just a fanboy opinion, do it in your head. Don't come on the forum and try to play the "unprofessional" card while completely misconstruing someone's point of view for your own purposes.

Reading through my previous post I seem to have missed out completely the fact that I have seen no other Star Trek content than the 2 re-boot films so all the series reference stuff went over my head (except the big internet meme ones like the Vulcan-hand and the big-bad guy's name).

As for Bob, he likes Star Trek, he doesn't like Abrams. Abrams changes something Bob likes but has no control over. Bob rages and uses his movie review series to warn people off seeing a decent early-summer blockbuster. To be fair, Bob has stopped me seeing movies in the past because his rants about them are so profound, and I probably would have avoided Star Trek if I had watched this video beforehand.

At the end of the day, Bob is a butthurt Trekkie and his rant has likely scared off a good number of people who would have otherwise enjoyed this film.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Because if I am to discourage the existence of discriminatory language, I must then shun the people who use that language and thus perpetuate its existence and the associated stereotypes. Choice doesn't really come into it.
And I'm not saying the mob always knows more than the individual simply because it's a mob. But it does have more credibility in that absence of valid arguments on the side of the individual. Nothing about that comment was productive and its only possible result was alienation and division, both of which should be discouraged in order to maintain a stable society.

A stable society would not exist without alienation and division. That's how it encourages people not to stray outside its boundaries. So I don't see why making visible what is already there should be discouraged. Stability is also no concern of mine: I'm interested in making things better not preserving the status quo, and that goal isn't served by censorship.

Because if I am to discourage the existence of discriminatory language, I must then shun the people who use that language and thus perpetuate its existence and the associated stereotypes. Choice doesn't really come into it.
And I'm not saying the mob always knows more than the individual simply because it's a mob. But it does have more credibility in that absence of valid arguments on the side of the individual. Nothing about that comment was productive and its only possible result was alienation and division, both of which should be discouraged in order to maintain a stable society.

A stable society would not exist without alienation and division. That's how it encourages people not to stray outside its boundaries. So I don't see why making visible what is already there should be discouraged. Stability is also no concern of mine: I'm interested in making things better not preserving the status quo, and that goal isn't served by censorship.

Status quo and stability are two fundamentally different concepts. The status quo simply means that everything remains the way it is. "Stable" (in the sociological sense) means an absence of factors which would hamper human survival, such as war*, hunger and natural disasters. A degree of this kind of stability is a requirement for the advancement of society, because it creates the environment in which science can be done and in which technology can be developed.
But even disregarding your comment about stability, would you explain to me exactly how your comment was productive towards the betterment of society? I'm sure you don't wholeheartedly believe in the anti-censorship argument or otherwise you would be advocating child pornography as well.
And "making visible what is already there" doesn't apply here, because we've already established that the Jewish stereotype is a weak one. Therefor not only is it not true (the stereotype never 'was there' in the first place), it also misinforms people more than it informs them.

*Which is dependent on division and more likely because of alienation.

You misunderstood me: what you called "Division and alienation" is already there in society (for example in property laws of which division is the very essence), not the jewish stereotype. So making comments of that nature does no harm. Or any nature, in my opinion. But child pornography is not a comment, is it? I don't see how taking pornographic pictures is any kind of speech or commentary, so "censoring" it isn't censorship but something else entirely which can easily be justified on a separate basis.

I don't accept the argument that anything that threatens a stable society should be shunned: that sounds like something that would have been argued by those against the French revolution and republicanism which followed. You sort of contradicted yourself by saying I was threatening the stability of society by making comments and then claiming stability is about human survival, which obviously cannot be threatened by comments.

 

[OverlordSteve]

*le snip*

If you had actually paid attention to the video, you'd know that Bob disliked Into Darkness because it has references to the original Star Trek that serve no story purpose and actually undermine the quality of the story on top of a lackluster plot.

If you want to rationalize completely dismissing a dissenting opinion about something you liked by pretending it's just a fanboy opinion, do it in your head. Don't come on the forum and try to play the "unprofessional" card while completely misconstruing someone's point of view for your own purposes.

Reading through my previous post I seem to have missed out completely the fact that I have seen no other Star Trek content than the 2 re-boot films so all the series reference stuff went over my head (except the big internet meme ones like the Vulcan-hand and the big-bad guy's name).

As for Bob, he likes Star Trek, he doesn't like Abrams. Abrams changes something Bob likes but has no control over. Bob rages and uses his movie review series to warn people off seeing a decent early-summer blockbuster. To be fair, Bob has stopped me seeing movies in the past because his rants about them are so profound, and I probably would have avoided Star Trek if I had watched this video beforehand.

At the end of the day, Bob is a butthurt Trekkie and his rant has likely scared off a good number of people who would have otherwise enjoyed this film.

Whether or not you or any given audience member knows who Kahn is doesn't change the fact that his reveal adds nothing to the movie in the context of its own universe.

You can make as many irrelevant assumptions about Bob's supposed Secret Agenda as you want, it doesn't change the fact that he's justified his dislike of Into Darkness with a well-explained and valid criticism of the movie.

And really? His "rant" has supposedly "scared off" potential fans? Bob's job is to express his opinion on the movies he's seen. We're free to listen or not listen to it as we please, and he can't "scare off" anyone who doesn't choose to be scared off in the first place. You might as well say they nobody should ever review movies, lest their opinions artificially influence people's viewing habits. It's ridiculous.

At the end of the day, Bob's feelings on Star Trek as a brand and J.J. Abrams as a director are irrelevant, because he's still presented a valid criticism of Into Darkness. And all you have to try and rebut said criticism are irrelevant facts and assumptions.

 

[TheBeatlesProject]

I enjoyed the movie and frankly I enjoyed the new take on Khan honestly. The action scenes were fun and action packed as well.

 

[Farther than stars]

You misunderstood me: what you called "Division and alienation" is already there in society (for example in property laws of which division is the very essence), not the jewish stereotype. So making comments of that nature does no harm. Or any nature, in my opinion. But child pornography is not a comment, is it? I don't see how taking pornographic pictures is any kind of speech or commentary, so "censoring" it isn't censorship but something else entirely which can easily be justified on a separate basis.

I don't accept the argument that anything that threatens a stable society should be shunned: that sounds like something that would have been argued by those against the French revolution and republicanism which followed. You sort of contradicted yourself by saying I was threatening the stability of society by making comments and then claiming stability is about human survival, which obviously cannot be threatened by comments.

I understood you perfectly well. I'm not saying there isn't any division within society. I'm saying that the less there is, the better. Even property laws are there for that reason. They're not instituted to create division, they're tolerated to ensure that greedy* people don't take too much, because that would create more division (and encourage wars; all wars are fought over property after all).
And I'm also not saying that we should censor discriminatory language. I'm saying that there should be a moral outrage about it, because it does harm people. Not only does it perpetuate the stereotype, but individual people can also be offended by it. Weighing up against no benefit for using that language, not using it must prevail.
And finally, I would argue that the French revolution actually helped to the benefit of creating a stable society in the long run by eradicating the monarchy. After all, you don't need to be genius to figure out that a society governed by a forum of rational discussion, run by the electorate, provides more stability than a society which is led by the whims of arbitrary genetic traits. But I'm not going to have the 'Just War debate' with you, because it's not applicable to this situation, i.e. nobody is going to raise a revolutionary army in order to either eradicate or promote discriminatory language (or any language for that matter).

*greed being another concept which in shunned

 

[Monsterfurby]

It's a decent, dumb action movie. Easy on the eyes in 2D (though the 3D is blurry as hell and overall horrible), and a fun way to spend 140 minutes.

However, somehow my biggest gripe with the new Star Trek films is that they seem to go to great lengths to make the setting seem much smaller and less grand than the old films managed to.

Example: There's a line in there about Khan knowing that Starfleet gathers "all captains and first officers" after an attack. Are those dozen people there "all captains"? Has Starfleet downsized to less ships than the Swiss navy? This might be an issue with the German translation, but I can't imagine what the original sentence would have been.

Another example: Kronos (Qo'nos) is apparently now visible/in shuttle range FROM THE NEUTRAL ZONE. The 'Verse in Firefly felt bigger, and that's just a single solar system!

Final exhibit: Freeing themselves from the TCS Vesuviu-- I mean the Federation battleship (seriously, they even have custom uniforms a la Black Lance. Did this remind no one of Wing Commander IV?), they jump back to Earth, with the battleship catching up to them. After what seems like a pretty brief flight (just long enough to hear about the other ship being faster-than-warp) they are already a couple of kilometers from Earth. So maybe Kronos IS on Mars, actually, and the Neutral Zone runs across the Solar system?

This takes a lot out of the fun about Star Trek for me, a series known for its expansiveness should not seem this small.

Also: The 3D was horrendous. Lens flares that flattened the screen, massive out-of-focus objects that obscured those in focus... I have no idea how anyone could consider the 3D here 'good'...

Still, it was a good action flick. Not Scifi, mind you, but simple action.

 

[Thyunda]

-snip-

Starfleet doctrine still insists that Khan was never in any real danger. Kirk was specially chosen because he had to prove himself capable of following orders to fulfill the potential his dead mentor told him he had. The only reason Khan could have possibly misjudged is because he'd never met Kirk.

The rest of what you said is good though - I only saw it once and my memory is awful.

 

[karamazovnew]

If you've never seen or liked the original Star Trek, then you might well enjoy this movie. Just go see it in 2D.
If you are an old Star Trek fan, you probably already know what to expect from the new movies. I'll have to say about this one the same I did about the first one: it's not bad. I've spent a lot more boring 120 minutes watching Oscar movies.
But if you were expecting the "big secret" and saw it as a chance for the movie to achieve the old Star Trek "greatness", well, you'll probably agree with Bob.

Now, honestly I don't care about the movies. The only reasons why I loved the older movies was because I already knew the characters from the much much longer TV series (plural) and the better image and set quality. How could we say that the new movies are "too action paced", when the older ones were just as action filled, barely reminding the politics already discussed in the series? My favorite of the bunch is Wrath of Khan, but only because of just how gorgeous the Enterprise and the uniforms look. "Generations" was my second favorite, because of Kirk. Otherwise, all Star Trek movies so far have been just decent SF flicks, for anyone not involved in the TV series. The new movies are not any different. Actually, they might just be better. They have a much better chance to catch the public and force the release of a new series. And we all know that's what we actually want. A Star Trek series in the post Battlestar Gallactica / Firefly era? I'm drooling...

Because, let's face it, no movie can top some of the great Star Trek episodes. In case you're not familiar to them, or find them boring, I guarantee you will fall in love with Star Trek upon seeing these.

Voyager: "Blink of an Eye", "Time and Again", "Year of Hell", "Deadlock", "Memorial", "Warhead", "Demon"/"Course: Oblivion", "Living Witness",

The Next Generation: "The Inner Light", "Clues", "Ship in a Bottle", "All Good Things..."

Original Series: "The Menagerie", "A Taste of Armageddon", "The Alternative Factor", "A Private Little War", "The Devil in the Dark". I was really amused when a friend thought he'd laugh at these episodes for just how old they were. He was in for a huge shock. These episodes are masterpieces of Sci-fi. Sure, the mechanics between the characters were awesome, but what JJ forgot about the original series was just how boldly it went where no series had gone before, in terms of story. Frankly, these episodes have yet to be mached by any Sci-fi series.

K, took enough of your time.

 

[Raesvelg]

Starfleet doctrine still insists that Khan was never in any real danger. Kirk was specially chosen because he had to prove himself capable of following orders to fulfill the potential his dead mentor told him he had. The only reason Khan could have possibly misjudged is because he'd never met Kirk.

Oh, Starfleet protocol would have forbidden anyone from going after him. Diplomacy would have ruled the day, etc etc. Kirk, on the other hand, wasn't chosen because he was good at following orders, but rather because he was notorious for breaking the rules based on his emotions. The Admiral was counting on him to fire the torpedoes, kill Khan and destroy any evidence that he or his people had ever even existed, and spark the war all at the same time.

Striking while the iron is hot, so to speak.

The only reason he used Kirk though was to generate a false flag incident, provide a justification for war. It would have been trivial for the Admiral to just warp the Vengeance over, fire the torpedoes himself, and haul ass out of there before the Klingons had the foggiest idea he was there. Khan dies, evidence destroyed, war... not immediately provoked, but probably accelerated by a good amount. Not as perfect a scenario as the one where Kirk fires torpedoes and gets destroyed by the Klingons, but acceptable if the Admiral had decided not to risk assuming Kirk was hotheaded enough to follow his orders.

Khan judged Kirk accurately, the Admiral is the one who screwed up. In fact, I think the only genuine misstep that Khan makes over the course of the film is assuming that Spock would be either unwilling to sacrifice the 72 people in the torpedoes, or not prescient enough to remove the people from the weapons.

The rest of what you said is good though - I only saw it once and my memory is awful.

Well, it's conceivably possible that Scotty's recovery of the transwarp beaming device from the wreckage of Khan's jumpship was a special miracle and Khan judged the risk of its discovery as vanishingly low. The problem there is that if that were the case, there's no reason to hide out on Kronos; he could have hidden almost anywhere, rather than a planet with a hostile environment where the indigenous species will kill him on sight.

Arguably, he might have actually been safer hiding out on a Federation world, since the Admiral would probably have been a bit more hesitant to bomb one of those indiscriminately.

Like I said, plot hole and lazy writing, but it didn't really affect my enjoyment of the film. I liked it, I thought it was a fairly good treatment of the sort of condensed character growth that would justify the Kirk and Spock of the first film becoming more like the Kirk and Spock of the TV series. Bones was underutilized, but he doesn't really need to change much; he's Kirk's conscience more than anything else, after all, and his character has never really seen any particular growth.

Hopefully they give him more prominence in the next movie, it seems a shame to waste Karl Urban's frighteningly good take on the character.

 

[AetherWolf]

I enjoyed the movie overall, my previous Star Trek experience only being TNG and the previous JJ Abrams film, however my only major gripe comes with the way the production handled John Harrison/Khan and the way they handled the script when it came to him.

The whole whitewashing issue could have been avoided had they stuck to their original plan. John Harrison was meant to be an original character at the start. JJ wrote him in as being Khan after filming had started, and in the process drove the story away from the Harrison/terrorism focus.

That said, Benedict Cumberbatch gave a phenominal performance in the role he was given, and he was easily the main appeal for me. I don't blame him for taking the role of a previously mexican-played character when he wasn't even aware of this fact while he was offered and auditioned the role.

I agree with Bob's major criticisms even though I personally found the movie good and certainly better than Iron Man 3.

 

[Ickabod]

I consider myself to be a Trek fan and I grew up watching Star Trek 2 dozens of times growing up. I thought this movie was pretty great actually.

While I'll grant that the redo scene from ST2 is just bad, the rest of the movie was a lot of fun. To me it seems like a lot of Bob's personal bias is wrapped up in this review. Everyone knew it was Kahn, that's not really a surprise, and I don't really think that JJ was actually spinning it too much that it was, other than not willingly giving away plot details before you actually go see the movie. But the Kahn revelation was hardly a twist.

The characters themselves were the characters that have existed in the TV show, and the 6 movies that already had them, there isn't much development needed IMO, they are the characters that we know, for the most part.

But the one thing that actually bothers me about this review is the comment that the Klingons are Orcs now. That is an unfair comment that isn't even true in the context of the movie. In the shot that Bob is using, they are wearing masks. When they take off said masks, they looked like Commander Worf to me (close enough anyway). Bob knew that, yet he makes the Orc comment for no other reason to support his opinion.

To not like the movie is one thing opinions are opinions sorry you didn't like the movie, but at least be honest with the facts of the movie. This review came off as more of a personal rant against Abrams and his annoying qualities more than anything.